Good try David, even so I believe the last thing to trouble the greens is your take on their integrity!

And hardly in evidence when they'd do deal with the devil as dirty deals done in the dead of night to swap preferences with the very party they claim to be against and everything they stand for?

At the end of the day all these folk (unrepresentative swill) care about is winning as many seats as they can and the devil take integrity and democracy!?
Alan B.

You should know David that the anti Semitic Greens detest the fact that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel has brought His people home. They have a hatred of decency and any good thing. They would rather support terrorism than decency and run perverted programs in schools to sexualise and confuse kids.

The Greens have no integrity, political or otherwise.

Hi David, before I make comment in relation to your article, and the rationale behind it, would you please confirm whether you support Zionism, are a believer in Zionistic policy toward the Palestinian Arabs and whether you believe "The Two State Solution" should include ceding to the "so called Palestinians" lands currently occupied by non Arab people's (I.e. Jewish settlers etc)?

Cheers Geoff

Hi David,
I'm not familiar with the arguments in this article but I'd like to question whether purchasing land in a country gives an automatic right to raise a flag?
The Chinese have purchased heaps of property in Australia but they don't officially proclaim that land to be a part of China.

As I have previously stated with good authority of none other than a Coptic Bishop, they didn't buy land, they just took it over.

David

AC: The Chinese have purchased heaps of property in Australia but they don't officially proclaim that land to be a part of China.

Yet!

Moshe Dayan was never a man of integrity, hence he deserves to have his words misquoted.

Dayan was the architect and pusher of the 1967 war: while he gave all sorts of [good and bad] excuses for it, his real motive behind that war was so that he could plunder the occupied area to increase his private archaeological collection in his back-yard.

http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_27.htm

---

Dear Critic,

<<I'd like to question whether purchasing land in a country gives an automatic right to raise a flag?>>

Well, raising flags is a stupid thing to do - but yes, one should be able to do whatever they like on their own land, including stupid things, so long as they don't hurt/endanger their neighbours.

Caveat: the formal act of purchase does not always or automatically make a land yours, but some of the land that pre-Israel purchased was in fact paid for up to 4 times, which I think is sufficient for true ownership:

1) to the rich Effendis who were the land's formal owners.
2) to the farmers/surfs that actually lived on this land.
3) to the Ottoman authorities.
4) to Bedouin nomads who claimed the land to be their foraging ground.

In Australia, the equivalent would be to also purchase that land from the native-title holders, as well as purchasing from the state the rights for what's under the land. Once you did so, you should be able to raise any flags you like and even stick them in your bum to demonstrate your negative intelligence.

Runner and your Jewish mates.

If the Lord God who you are all so busy quoting was real and the Jews were the "Chosen ones", do you really think that he would have stood by during the second world war and watched as they were massacred so brutally in the concentration camps of Daschau and Belsen. Get real.

David

Well in that case Dave there's not a lot of difference between you and the greens,you both lie a lot

Hi Yuyutsu,
'...one should be able to do whatever they like on their own land, including stupid things, so long as they don't hurt/endanger their neighbours'.

I'd go along with that argument, but I didn't actually mean just the simple act of raising a flag, I meant claiming the land as the state of 'Armchair Critic' and superseding any other laws within the region where my purchased land exists, with my own laws and systems of governance.

I was however, thinking about it if it were a piece of land in Australia for example, and not necessarily the more complex situation in the M/E, and for this reason I'm not too sure how well my argument holds up.

The world is changing rapidly. Japan is having talks with Russia and China is resolving their differences ,Germany wants closer ties with Russia since they have 6000 business relationships and Russia is a key supplier of energy to Europe.

The world has had enough of British , USA ,Zionism that enslaves the planet via their debt money creation system.This system has been a blight on the planet for over 300 yrs.David Singer, your Globalist ideal of one world Govt run by bankers is fading fast.

Dear Critic,

<<I meant claiming the land as the state of 'Armchair Critic' and superseding any other laws within the region where my purchased land exists, with my own laws and systems of governance.>>

Yes, you should certainly be able to do this.

Think of it this way:

What on earth, above or below, allows the people who call themselves "state" or "Australia" to impose their laws and system of governance over lands (and seas, in fact even the moon) that are not theirs? Why should they be allowed to do so but you may not even do the same over lands that ARE yours?

If you were to quote the silly idea of "social contract", then there was never actually such a contract - the real inhabitants of this continent were never asked whether they agree to be ruled by neither the British nor the Australian state and no alternatives were ever allowed. Even if they were asked in older generations, which they were not, certainly the people who live here today were never asked.

Alternately, if you were to quote the might of arms as in "might is right", such as the guns of the British navy in the 18th century, then you would score squarely for the Israeli occupation of 1967.

As a final resort one could appeal to the rogue body called "United-Nations" for certification. I suppose that kings too used to claim a divine right from God Almighty Himself to tyrannise "their" lands. I won't say more about these options because I am quite sure that you subscribe to neither.

To be born into a set of laws that you never consented to and without a way to escape them, is equivalent to slavery. Slavery was already abolished and this kind of behaviour should be abolished too. I do believe that it will indeed be abolished within the next few centuries.

Yutsie: What on earth, above or below, allows the people who call themselves "state" or "Australia" to impose their laws and system of governance over lands (and seas, in fact even the moon) that are not theirs?

Well, just whose land is it. You could say the Aboriginal Peoples owned the land. But did they? Were they just using it. In that respect anyone could come along & just say, "This bits mine." But then again if someone comes along & camps on the ground you have claimed & declares it's theirs. What's going to happen.

Yutsie: Why should they be allowed to do so but you may not even do the same over lands that ARE yours?

In one place you are saying no one owns the land then you claim some lands that ARE yours.

Very confusing.

Dear Jay,

Yes, it is not always easy and clear cut in terms of natural justice to tell who owns what.

But there are cases that are very clear, either way:

If for example your family has been living, cultivating the land and built a house on some hill with nobody else claiming it for 100 years, then you can safely state that this house is yours (or your family's).

If you sew a shirt and wear it, then it is quite safe to say that it is yours.

To pull out some binoculars on top of a ship, sighting land and claiming that it's all yours (or your king's); or two generals sitting over a map and drawing arbitrary straight 1000-Kilometer long dividing lines, over lands they never even visited and whose inhabitants they didn't even meet - that's an abuse of ownership, that's injustice.

Yes, there are grey areas, which is why the Jews who came to pre-Israel often paid up to four times to four different parties, for the same piece of land in order to make it clear beyond any doubt that they be the true owners.

I was therefore referring Armchair Critic to clear and obvious cases, not to the grey areas: you paid the previous owner in full, you paid the state for rights to the minerals below and you paid the aboriginals for their native title - that should make it quite clear who the owner is.

---

Dear Arjay,

Both bankers and Chinese/Russians would like, if could, to install microchips in our bodies, yet the bankers would only use them to tax us and control our spending whereas the Chinese would use them to ensure that we always work physically as hard as possible, just below the point where our hearts would collapse because they are no longer able to pump enough blood to sustain our work: they will use those chips to ensure that we never get a rest. Among these, I still prefer the former. If indeed the Chinese are winning, then I cannot understand that smile on your face.

Thanks to those who expressed the opinion that the Greens lack integrity. The evidence I presented in my article certainly reinforces that claim.

There has been no response from the Greens to my article so far. Guess they are too embarrassed to reply.

Quite frankly - the rest of you raising red herring issues that have nothing to do with my article will not receive any response from me.

They only serve to signal that you cannot find anything in my article that you disagree with.

Instead of wasting your time and energy on this road to nowhere - I would have appreciated your trying to retrieve the tape referred to in my article.

Now that would be something really constructive for you to do.

I am even prepared to offer a reward - but in all your cases it could not be paid because. you all choose to remain anonymous.

So please try anyway.