Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled: You must have missed the terrorism in India in the last few years, and of course both countries getting nukes.


Dogma: Wait, the terrorism in India was sponsored by the Pakistani government? That would be big news if true, I'm sure many people would pay handsomely for that evidence.

What planet do you live on, Dogma. Jebus - try to pay *minimal* attention!

Why does no government sponsor dancing? It would be far friendlier than the terrorism thing...

I agree. "My rumba is better than yours - give me Algeria!"

Brings a new meaning to Dance Dance Revolution...

VoidAngel wrote:Dogma,

You display your lack of sophistication on the subject in no clearer possible way than when you misinterpret my use of the word 'Haj' as a racial slur.

'Haj' refers to a holy leader - one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, and therefore speaks for his people (tribe) and can *negotiate* on their behalf and for their welfare.

No, that word is Hajji, as in one who has made the Hajj. Hajji are not given automatic authority to speak for their tribe, in fact they very well may not have a tribe, though often those who speak for their tribe are Hajji.

The way that you used haj is a slur for stolen goods, and brown people.

VoidAngel wrote:
In this context, one of those who sold the now contested lands.

To whom, when, and how much of it?

Please pronounce 'Haj' and 'Hajj' for me - and make there be qualitative difference. Oh, wait - you can't. Spot me a 'j' and try to hold up your end of a conversation without resorting to semantics to score points.

VoidAngel wrote:
What planet do you live on, Dogma. Jebus - try to pay *minimal* attention!

I'm still waiting for evidence.

VoidAngel wrote:Please pronounce 'Haj' and 'Hajj' for me - and make there be qualitative difference. Oh, wait - you can't. Spot me a 'j' and try to hold up your end of a conversation without resorting to semantics to score points.

My entire claim, that you used a racial slur, is based on semantics; semantics being matters of the meaning and usage of words.

When you say that the Hajji did X, and you aren't talking about the entire set of people who completed the Hajj, then you are clearly just using a slur against at least Muslims people. Its like someone saying that the Rabbis did X when talking about Israel, and not just Rabbis.

No, you are attempting to make it look that way - and you are failing. Go by the definition I offered. "A one who has completed the pilgrimage" and not your imaginary racial slur (which would be "Haji" - by the way).

VoidAngel wrote:No, you are attempting to make it look that way - and you are failing. Go by the definition I offered. "A one who has completed the pilgrimage" and not your imaginary racial slur (which would be "Haji" - by the way).

Actually, Haji, Hajji, and Hadji are all considered acceptable transliterations; though I'm just going by what you wrote. Though I should also say that I wouldn't transliterate the word with only one J, as that would necessitate a sharp A as in "had", which is an incorrect pronunciation.

In any case, your claim is that all the people who completed the Hajj sold all the presently contested territory to Israel?

purplefood wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.

You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right?
i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.

She has one or two...
They are hidden under those bearskin hats the Royal Guard wear...

No those are the aformentioned Haggis grenades, in case of Martian attack. The Martians made it to London in their tripods before the discovery of Haggis Bombs. The Queen, Black Watch, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the Silver Beatles have been on guard ever since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.

You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right?
i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.

Finally, someone figured it out. Now I am freed !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:I agree. "My rumba is better than yours - give me Algeria!"

Thailand would be a regional power, but again Brazil would dominate and uber pwon alles. Jeez its a cultural obsession to them, and win for everyone else. They've planned for this contingency for decades.

And now to seize on the excuse to again bring you...Samba!!!

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the Japanese teach you anything? Its all about the aircraft baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Air_Force

Theirs appear to be second-hand French aircraft. Ours are state of the art. Irrelevant really, as they have zero in the way of force projection.

A sight more than you have baby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the Japanese teach you anything?

That tentacles are... wait, I shouldn't continue that sentence.

Gott im Himmel!

I must admit I like how this thread has meandered almost from continent to continent. Somehow we have to get Antarctica involved...

I sense an Anglophobe!

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the Japanese teach you anything? Its all about the aircraft baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Air_Force

Theirs appear to be second-hand French aircraft. Ours are state of the art. Irrelevant really, as they have zero in the way of force projection.

A sight more than you have baby.

Care to explain how? Or shall we just assume that you're talking out of your arse? Again.

Seriously, explain to me how a military with (as far as I can tell) no strategic bombing capability, one second-hand French carrier, no bases of any kind within several thousand miles of europe, and aircraft that were designed in the '70s, plans to strike the UK, or anywhere held by the UK for that matter?

Your idea of war seems to boil down to 'hurrr they has more mans!!' So what? It doesn't count for gak if they spend a third of the amount we do on defence, and have nowhere near the same capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.

So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.

Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly.

What you mean we don't run the world anymore? Well observed. At least we managed 200+ years! You guys managed to make a hash of it within 60 years... Also, for future reference: don't become dangerously in debt to your main rivals.

Son, Britain am disappoint.

Careful. Don't make us seize your country and sell the mortgage! France put in a bid last night...

The USA hasn't seized a country with any degree of effectiveness since... I want to say Japan, as Germany was partitioned. I'll rest easy, I think.

Why should the US want to seize any countries? They learned not to do that with the Philippines... sorry, but economic dependence and control along with American corporations in ownership of an entire hemisphere is generally the way to go with neo-colonialism; we just need to catch up... Whilst Brits were dying in the Boer wars, good ol' Teddy Roosevelt was giggling.

dogma wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:No, you are attempting to make it look that way - and you are failing. Go by the definition I offered. "A one who has completed the pilgrimage" and not your imaginary racial slur (which would be "Haji" - by the way).

Actually, Haji, Hajji, and Hadji are all considered acceptable transliterations; though I'm just going by what you wrote. Though I should also say that I wouldn't transliterate the word with only one J, as that would necessitate a sharp A as in "had", which is an incorrect pronunciation.

In any case, your claim is that all the people who completed the Hajj sold all the presently contested territory to Israel?

No, Twisty McTwisterson - most of the original territory was purchased from tribal leaders. Some of the current territory was siezed from murdering scum as a security measure. When it's given back, murdering scum show up and use it to murder some more. For this reason, it should be kept. Now, if the muslims could police their own like every other culture...then there'd be no problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4SxXVMYSww&feature=related

'Twisty McTwisterson'

VoidAngel wrote:
No, Twisty McTwisterson - most of the original territory was purchased from tribal leaders.

Yes, by the British, the British then developed the partition, which the Israelis ignored out of legitimate fear for their own safety creating what is now called the Occupied Territory; which itself makes up the majority of the seriously contested land.

VoidAngel wrote:
Some of the current territory was siezed from murdering scum as a security measure.

I see. So when Palestinians kill Israelis they are "murdering scum" but when Israelis kill Palestinians they are not? Considering how the conflict is rather messy, and a legitimate conflict between groups of people is not usually said to feature murder (Do US soldiers murder Iraqis because we invaded Iraq?) this seems an awful like a personal bias against Palestinians. We have certain word for that, and it isn't flattering.

VoidAngel wrote:
When it's given back, murdering scum show up and use it to murder some more. For this reason, it should be kept. Now, if the muslims could police their own like every other culture...then there'd be no problem.

Wait, the Muslims? So you blame Muslims, as a whole, for the Palestinians? Does this include Israeli Muslims? Indonesian Muslims? Are you sure you don't mean to blame the Palestinians? Perhaps you meant to blame Arabs?

Perhaps you're engaging in that unflattering word I mentioned earlier.

When you strap on a bomb and blow up a cafe full of civilians, that's murder - not war.

When you put a bomb in your kid's backpack and put him on a bus full of Jewish kids, that's murder too.

When you do this because you hate people who believe something different than you, it's still murder.

When you do it because your holy book says to do it, and that it's a good thing - it's still murder.

Are you not paying attention, or just denying reality and saying islam plays no part?

How does telling the truth make me a bigot?

Melissia wrote:Saying oxygen isn't flammable is misleading. Oxygen is the main reason that things catch on fire in the first place, as without it, the overwhelming majority of combustion reactions-- IE, fire-- wouldn't work.

Oxygen isn't a fuel source like oil, paper, wood, gas, etc those are flammable materials not oxygen. Although without oxygen and heat a fire doesn't start.

I support the United States of America going back into the fold of the British Empire.

Consdering the Empire no longer exists that might be a touch hard...
You could always join the Commonwealth?

VoidAngel wrote:When you strap on a bomb and blow up a cafe full of civilians, that's murder - not war.

When you put a bomb in your kid's backpack and put him on a bus full of Jewish kids, that's murder too.

When you do this because you hate people who believe something different than you, it's still murder.

When you do it because your holy book says to do it, and that it's a good thing - it's still murder.

And when you hit a school with a missile?

What about blowing up a home with a tank?

VoidAngel wrote:When you strap on a bomb and blow up a cafe full of civilians, that's murder - not war.

When you put a bomb in your kid's backpack and put him on a bus full of Jewish kids, that's murder too.

When you do this because you hate people who believe something different than you, it's still murder.

When you do it because your holy book says to do it, and that it's a good thing - it's still murder.

Are you not paying attention, or just denying reality and saying islam plays no part?

How does telling the truth make me a bigot?

And are you saying that ALL Muslims do that? or just the Palestinians?

by your standards, are all Americans like Tim McVey?

VoidAngel wrote:When you strap on a bomb and blow up a cafe full of civilians, that's murder - not war.

Really? What about when you drop fire bombs on many buildings of differing purpose full of civilians, as the Allies did during WWII and the US did during Vietnam. Is that not murder because we used planes? Or is it possible that the context of the action, a sustained and easily observable conflict between two bodies of people, changes the nature of the action in question?

VoidAngel wrote:
When you put a bomb in your kid's backpack and put him on a bus full of Jewish kids, that's murder too.

Why is the Jewishness of the kids relevant? Attacks by the various militant groups of Palestinian origin have killed plenty of Muslim Israelis, was that not murder?

VoidAngel wrote:
When you do this because you hate people who believe something different than you, it's still murder.

You must have a really, really dim view of the the world's armed forces then. The Vietnam conflict, in particular is probably a sore spot.

VoidAngel wrote:
Are you not paying attention, or just denying reality and saying islam plays no part?

No, I'm explaining to why what you're saying is stupid, and bigoted in equal measure. You're calling an entire group of people murderers, while absolving their opposition of a similar standard of criticism and further arguing that because there are other groups of Muslims in the world they can further be regarded as responsible for the actions of this particular groups of Muslims.

Islam plays a role in the conflict, of course, just as Judaism does, but saying that all Muslims, or all Jews, must act to control the actions of all Muslims, and all Jews is just blatantly ridiculous; especially when you're only talking about Muslims, and not Jews, Christians, Hindus, and any other group of faith holding people.

VoidAngel wrote:
How does telling the truth make me a bigot?

Because you very clearly called the Palestinian people "A bunch of murdering scum" a phrase that, if the word "Palestinian people" were replaced with the phrase "black people" a lot of people would be quite shocked.

VoidAngel wrote:Dogma,

You display your lack of sophistication on the subject in no clearer possible way than when you misinterpret my use of the word 'Haj' as a racial slur.

'Haj' refers to a holy leader - one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, and therefore speaks for his people (tribe) and can *negotiate* on their behalf and for their welfare.

In this context, one of those who sold the now contested lands.

That's not true.

A hajji is someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca.

This entitles the person to respect but it is in no way a promotion to a position of religious or social leadership.

A religious leader is an imam or ayatollah.

Religious leadership =/= social leadership in muslim society.

A sheikh, emir, sultan or caliph is a social leader.

Therefore you are doubly wrong.

Dogma and you few others that don't seem to be reading me right:

"Because you very clearly called the Palestinian people "A bunch of murdering scum" a phrase that, if the word "Palestinian people" were replaced with the phrase "black people" a lot of people would be quite shocked."

No, I clearly did not. I said there were murdering scum amongst the palestinians, not that the palestinians are all murdering scum. Ditto 'muslims'.

Read what I wrote, not what you want me to have said. Your tactics are obvious and fooling no-one but others like yourself, who already agree with no matter what facts are presented to them. You can't paint me the way you are trying to - but you HAVE painted a very clear picture of yourself.

@Killcrazy,
"'Haj' refers to a holy leader - one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, and therefore speaks for his people (tribe) and can *negotiate* on their behalf and for their welfare.

In this context, one of those who sold the now contested lands.


(Killkrazy) That's not true.

A hajji is someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca."

Both are true. In the context of the events I was speaking of, the tribal leaders who sold the land had also made the pilgrimage. If they are better referred to by a different honorific - fine, this is not relevant to the point of the conversation: that those lands were fairly purchased.

VoidAngel wrote:
No, I clearly did not. I said there were murdering scum amongst the palestinians, not that the palestinians are all murdering scum. Ditto 'muslims'.

You wrote this:

VoidAngel wrote:
Some of the current territory was siezed from murdering scum as a security measure.

The territory that was seized was, until large parts of it were recently given back, the entirety of the OT. This statement implies that all the inhabitants of the OT, the vast majority Palestinians in the world (excepting only expats), are murdering scum.

VoidAngel wrote:
Read what I wrote, not what you want me to have said.

I did.

VoidAngel wrote:
Your tactics are obvious and fooling no-one but others like yourself, who already agree with no matter what facts are presented to them. You can't paint me the way you are trying to - but you HAVE painted a very clear picture of yourself.

If you had presented facts in lieu of racist rants and deliberate ignorance of history, then I wouldn't be engaging with you in this manner. But, well, here we are.

VoidAngel wrote:
...that those lands were fairly purchased.

The land that Jewish immigrants purchased was primarily located along the coast, and in low lying areas, and was the basis on which the 1947 partition plan was drawn up. Jewish ownership of the West Bank and Gaza was minimal, and those lands were effectively held by whomever the British sold them to as they were preparing for the end of their colonial mandate.

Moreover, the majority of land which was purchased by Jewish immigrants was purchased from foreign land holders, about 50%, with only about 25% being purchased from Palestinians. So the claim that Palestinian leaders sold the disputed territory, even where "disputed territory" is taken to mean all land under Israeli control, is incorrect.

It is the height of arrogance and dishonesty when you will tell another person what they meant - just shore up your own indefensible position.

I've explain what I said AND what I meant - and you are arguing with me! That's hilarious.

Lastly, there WERE NO "PALESTINIANS" at the time of Israel's creation! HADN'T BEEN for millennia. The land was purchased from tribal leaders (mostly) - who SOLD it willingly. They only wanted it back when it had been turned into something. The 'palestinians' arrived afterward - a group of exile and criminals mostly from Syria. They refused entry or refugee status by the muslim countries precisely to cause the kind of conflict they have, and to present the problem that they do. This should earn them and their unfortunate progeny sympathy - but these people have a history of accepting an olive branch - and then using it as a bludgeon. Witness the lack of cooperation identifying the minority of troublemakers among them. Witness the election of heinous terrorist organization as their government. These things are factual and true - and your refusal to acknowledge them is both telling and suspicious.

VoidAngel wrote:It is the height of arrogance and dishonesty when you will tell another person what they meant - just shore up your own indefensible position.

I've explain what I said AND what I meant - and you are arguing with me! That's hilarious.

No, you're telling me what you intended to mean on the basis of what you said. I have no reason to believe that you're being honest. I don't know you from Adam. All I know is that you said something which is objectionable, and that you are attempting to clarify that statement. That's fine, and part of the process that is conversation, but nothing else you have said here makes me want to believe you when you say something tantamount to "I am not a bigot."

Additionally, you haven't explained, to paraphrase, "seized from murdering scum" in any fashion.

VoidAngel wrote:
Lastly, there WERE NO "PALESTINIANS" at the time of Israel's creation! HADN'T BEEN for millennia.

No one cares. The legitimacy of group identity is not predicated on historical precedent alone. This is obvious to anyone who has spent even a day studying history.

There were no Americans at the time of the creation of America either, so clearly we're all murderers who owe a debt to the British crown.

VoidAngel wrote:
The land was purchased from tribal leaders (mostly) - who SOLD it willingly.

No, not at all, all academic research on the topic contradicts what you're saying. Either you're a racist, or you're incompetent. There are no other options.

VoidAngel wrote:
They refused entry or refugee status by the muslim countries precisely to cause the kind of conflict they have, and to present the problem that they do.

No gak! Its because they want to live on the land they were removed from.

VoidAngel wrote:
These things are factual and true - and your refusal to acknowledge them is both telling and suspicious.

I haven't refused to acknowledge anything, if either of us is guilty of that its you. I have, repeatedly, pointed out where the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have been at fault. The difference is that I don't dispute their legitimacy as a result, because I have no emotional stake here, outside of a pretense to factual information and reason.

This is why I hate, and love, these arguments. The vast majority of people involved lose their head and become irrationally defensive as soon as either side is mentioned. Its like a damn sports match, but with death.

I have a long and glorious history of recognizing when I've wasted too much time on someone incapable and unworthy of further attempts at conversation. I've reached that point with you; and rather than throw around cheap insults like you have - I'll leave other readers to judge your honesty and character.

VoidAngel wrote:I have a long and glorious history of recognizing when I've wasted too much time on someone incapable and unworthy of further attempts at conversation.

I did not realize that calling a large group of people murderers was an invitation to civility. Perhaps I have been wrong all these years to begin with "hello."

VoidAngel wrote:
I've reached that point with you; and rather than throw around cheap insults like you have - I'll leave other readers to judge your honesty and character.

Oh no, they aren't cheap, if they were cheap I would have said "Racist!" at your first post. I didn't, I gave you a chance, and this is your self-acquittal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:They shall be welcomed back into the fold.

Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain, la de da de de, la de da de da.

Quoting Buddy Rich, classic; you are a cultured man.