Uncategorized

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh announcing Global March to Jerusalem


See Hadar Sela’s reports (here, here and here) for more background on the other extremists and terror supporters organizing the upcoming (March 30th) Global March to Jerusalem.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

19 replies »

  1. We’ have to wait and see, but I suspect the biggest Million Man March will be from the Finchley Mosque to Trafalgar Square

  2. Sorry to be seen as possibly not on topic, but there are things inherent in what is happening that are not being addressed for the root causes they are. The propaganda of all would-be invaders are the same and have always been the same. The world belongs to Allah and, when we are ready to do so, Allah commands us to reclaim it. Czechoslovakia belongs to Germany. What do you mean it’s your toy? It’s mine, it’s mine, it’s mine.

    When parents don’t teach infants how to be social animals, the children remain infantile with their own children as well. If you can’t make parental figures realize the crime they commit when they do not help their children become mature adults, you must find out what you are doing wrong in allowing such parental figures to be as infantile as the surrogates they live out their fantasies through. It is not hasbara. It is not morality. If you do not force the issue and at least try to bring others to sense, you will have to live with the consequences of your failure. Stop playing games. Demand honesty. Don’t make excuses. Don’t let others make excuses. Words are what they say and acts are what they do and no amount of intellectual legerdemain makes them different, no matter what we are told by our leaders who allow things to happen, things that anyone in their right mind would stop. Intellectual constructs, philosophies, abstractions, religions, political ideologies are a means to disconnect human beings from the life they live, to force them to live a life that others tell them they must live or they shall be cast out from the group and dire things shall happen. Look at who profits from such constructs, power-seekers, egotists, people who exalt infantile regression into battle cries, the people who write history so that we are incapable of learning from it because it is written by the power seekers.

  3. “Intellectual constructs, philosophies, abstractions, religions, political ideologies are a means to disconnect human beings from the life they live, to force them to live a life that others tell them they must live or they shall be cast out from the group and dire things shall happen.” koala

    Sorry to disagree. 99,9% of what you wrote in your post is made of abstract intellectual constructs. And that´s natural: it´s the great human ability to think, to plan, to do a type of time travel instead of being chained to the present like the other animals.

    And, please, philosophy is one of the great inventions of humanity, thanks to the Greeks. Of course, there´s BAD philosophy, the ones that are disconnected to the real world, who praise irrationalism, mock truh and objectivity, that willfully ignore human natue and the accumulated scientific and/or historical knowledge; and that serve to justify totalitarian ideologies.

    Also, one just cannot live without some political ideology. Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Nazi-fascism, Islamism are all political ideologies. Again, the problem are the totalitarian ideologies.

  4. Observation is not an intellectual construct unless you define it as such and demand that it be taken as such.

    • There´s no such thing as totally pure observation. It will always will be taken together with some previous ideas, memories and experiences one has. Of course one can change ideias, perceptions, etc, based on what you learn from experience and reason.

      In any case, your text is just full of abstractions and intellectual constructs. It´s just inevitable.

  5. Intellectual constructs are searching for perfection. I am not. I might not be perfect, and I am human, so I am glad that I am not, but I prefer trying to be as objective as possible rather than demanding that an abstract construct be the panacea for each and every problem. I say confront a problem with honesty, not with glib responses from a checklist of predetermined positions. Please don’t confuse the making of generalizations with presenting abstractions. Generalizations recognize distinctions and can be seen to be based on too few observations or compensating too much from what is available. In that case, your generalization is wrong; you change it. Abstractions do not admit reality; they are perfect and the only imperfection involved with an abstraction is the people trying to apply it. People fail; abstractions never do. Sorry, if you cannot verify or falsify something, it is irrelevant in and of itself. It might be nice and interesting and absorbing and fun for a bit of a think think, but it does not reflect the reality of human life and having it control human life is disastrous. It is an intellectual game in search of a Chomsky to espouse it.

    • Well, I think you are confusing a lot of things. If you want to understand reality in an objective way, instead of creating fantasies and clinging to wishful thinking, then there´s no better way than proposing hypothesis and checking them against reality. There´s no better way. That´s the way of science and good philosophy. This includes careful observation, theorizing, checking, testing, rechecking, re-testing. It´s not perfect and never will, but can be improved and always will. And without honesty, this obviously wouldn´t work. And, again, if your theory fails agaisnt reality, then your theory goest to the trash can. Still you may learn something with mistakes too. And abstractions are there, inevitably, all the time,

      As for your talk about “human life” and “disastrous control” or “Chomsky”, I have no idea what you´re ranting about. Inf fact, these are abstractions too, including “Chomsky” (not the real Chomsky, of course).

  6. “If you want to understand reality in an objective way, instead of creating fantasies and clinging to wishful thinking, then there´s no better way than proposing hypothesis and checking them against reality. There´s no better way. That´s the way of science and good philosophy. This includes careful observation, theorizing, checking, testing, rechecking, re-testing. It´s not perfect and never will, but can be improved and always will. And without honesty, this obviously wouldn´t work. And, again, if your theory fails agaisnt reality, then your theory goest to the trash can. Still you may learn something with mistakes too. And abstractions are there, inevitably, all the time” Exactly. This is a working hypothesis. It is not an absolute abstraction. Too many people are afraid of working hypotheses: they want to be right immediately and create belief systems, ideologies, which explain all to their satisfaction. They deny what does not fit in their perfect model, or who. What you see around you, and what I was trying to observe, was that people who need to justify their egos claim they have a right to destroy you and, if you do not call them on it, others will let them do it and, unfortunately, you seem to be agreeing with their “right” because you do not fight back at the point of attack; you fight back on subsidiary issues and let the major problem slide. People who base their lives on ideologies recognize others who do so as well; the argument is not with the concept of ideology (which is the problem) but with the details — my details are true, yours aren’t. I was calling attention to the actual call to invade. Every call to invade involves the same object. And, if you only object to specifics, you accept the idea of invasion as legitimate; you would do it as well. The abstract idea is acceptable because it allows you to do it; the specific instance is not acceptable because you are not doing it. The abstraction is wrong, not just the detail which can be rejected because it isn’t your detail. If you don’t point this out, you lose the argument because, in essence, you agree that, at base, it really is a good idea. You don’t need to test it and someone who misapplies the idea is the problem, not the idea.

    • You are hopelessly confuse. You mix ideologies with knowledge gathering. Then you talk about observation, then about absolute abstraction. Without making distinctions one cannot understand reality.

      And, once again, all your text is suffused with abstractions and mental contructs.

  7. Will Haniyeh be marching to Jerusalem from Gaza,or like any other brave Hamas fighter will he be leading from the back,way way back……And let some other deluded schmos do the marching to Jerusalem……

    Have these Guardian warriors, Berchmans,Deboran Jane Orr,Ben White,the Rustbucket and his daughter,and the rest of the Guardian tossers signed up yet………

  8. Thanks TGIAF and benorr for bringing this discussion back to the realms of the vaguely comprehensible!

    I’m glad two/three people could understand SerJew and Koala’s posts well enough to recommend them!