User talk:Nableezy/Archive 2

WikiProject Palestine
We would love to have an extra pair of hands! God bless akhi! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Canucks
Nah, I was just speaking generally. Of course there are always one or two editors that I have in mind more than others. Actually I was pretty impressed when I saw you apologize and even say that you thought one comment might sound dickish. I don't think I've ever been that polite. At least not on WP.

Thanks for the link. Even though the Oilers are on of my hated rivals. =) I'm from Vancouver.  You know a Palestinian-Canadian rapper Belly from Ottawa did a song for the Senators last year that was pretty popular there.  I lived in Ottawa at one time.  Oh and congrats on your new President.  Since you mentioned it at the article talk.  Although you don't strike me as a McCain/Palin guy anyway.  --JGGardiner (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rough day, huh? Well, for what it's worth, I always thought you were more of a wannabe than an operative. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I was the first to notice it. But I didn't see what happened after my comment until later.  I was tempted to take it straight to ANI but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to turn the other cheek if you wanted.  But I guess he saved everyone the trouble and went to ANI himself.


 * Personally I don't care about Iran. But someone should really bring up the ties between Hamas and Derkaderkastan. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good. But we should probably say Israel was "stopping rocket attacks and targetting the infrastructure and members of Hamas, including Said Seyam and Nableezy who is digging a smuggling tunnel from Chicago to Gaza."  --JGGardiner (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it seems the precedent is that nuclear bombings shouldn't be weighed too heavily. See WWII where there's only one sentence on the nuclear bombs which were apparently used in that war.  There is a sub-article on it but it was probably just created as a POV fork by a Japanese Imperialist. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the problem with Americans is they don't understand how to push their interests. Wikipedia is supposed to work by having everyone pursue their own interests and have it all balance out.  But Americans are all disorganized: some are pro-Israel, some pro-Palestinian, some are Nepalese Maoists.  On WWII they probably just got lucky and maybe some Ethiopian editors cut down on the atomic bombings because they didn't want to distract from the Italian invasion.  Until they get their act together the Americans are going to get stomped on all over Wikipedia.  NPOV is supposed to be an equally matched tug-of-war and right now the Americans just aren't putting up much of a fight. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, typical American arrogance thinking their so-called "real world" is more important than Wikipedia. Bush should have just used the talk page over at Saddam Hussein (or sent Colin Powell) and told everyone Saddam was a bad guy and I'm sure they'd have taken care of it.  Just like how we've almost solved the problems of Zionism, Islamism, occupation and terrorism over at our article.  We just need a few more people to share their personal opinions.


 * Hmm... I'm wonding if all this is violating some policy I don't know about? Is there a WP:Stophavingfun or WP:Backtowork!?

--JGGardiner (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And don't get me started on Alaskans and their internets. You know British Columbians have to keep an eye on them just like how they watch the Russians for you. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, in Canada we're not so jumpy about things like that. In fact the government gave one guy some sort of big cash prize just cause they thought he might be an Islamic terrorist. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like xkcd too. I was actually thinking of "Internet Argument" the other day after scrolling down the article's talk page.  And I have thought that Wikipedia should read your comments back to you before you post them.]  --JGGardiner (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Eyes off the screen, ears pricked.
[http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2475533.htm Don't know if you're familiar with this talk show. It's quite intelligent and has an interesting debate on Hamas and the Arab World]. CheersNishidani (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

admiration????
Well, I'd rather other editors would just be that straightforward rather than manufacture all sorts of time-wasting disingenuous nonsense in an attempt to defend their indefensible motivations so that they can just be discounted or sent for hemiagnosia tests. The reality is I suppose that these guys are here for the long term and will wait for interest in the article to fade before commencing full scale cosmetic surgery and a botox injection-fest. Peace.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes
You're right of course. Actually I just noticed that someone asked whether I was advancing an antisemitic myth about US funding of Israel. That's pretty funny. Oh boy. It seems antisemitism is rife. I had no idea I had been suckered into an antisemitic myth. I suppose most Latin numerals are essentially Arabic so maybe the whole foundation of number theory is essentially antisemitic. How could I have been so foolish ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

good one

 * Do you want to put Sean's refusal to help you under anti-semitic incidents? Nableezy (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

you're killing me : ) Untwirl (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
In the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict you edited out a part I added. The reason you gave was "vandalism". How is it vandalism to note that Israel believes "that Hamas places there bases near civilians so Israel will have to choose between being destroyed or killing civilians." its true, thats what Israel believes.

Look, Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. However, We're on to you. It is my beleif You are part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation by editing articles to reflect your anti-Semitic views. In my opion, Your people are in charge of Wikipedia and i will probably be banned from editing anything, like so many others. However, it because of people like YOU and the Wikipedia Bureaucracy that i am thinking of boycotting The site. I will not stand for this blatant anti-Semitism any more.

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.123.161 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aight peace. I dont respond to retarded comments like that beyond saying bye. Nableezy (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And this and this and this is blatant unsourced and not true bullshit, thus I say vandalism to avoid offending anybody. Nableezy (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Factually speaking, it is true. Israel has consistently stated and proven how Hamas builds it's militant bases near civilian areas intentionally (like Hezbollah).  In addition, they train their militants in mosques, build their rockets in their university, smuggle weapons and militants through civilian dwellings and elementary schools.  They're a terrorist organization, what do you expect?  If you truly are unbiased, you are obligated to include this in the article if there is an appropriate section for such addition.  I don't feel like editing considering my arbitration and promise not to edit, but I hope you will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He presented it as fact, not an Israeli allegation and without a source, if you can provide sources and find an appropriate spot I would include it, but where he put it without sources was nonsense. I hope you can see that. Nableezy (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And honestly you would want to include this line: "Israel will have to choose between being destroyed or killing civilians." or the one about the school which says it is believed to have had a rocket launcher there when Israel themselves have said that is not true, or "Hamas placed there personnel there on purpose so Israel would have no choice but to kill civilians." or citing Israeli allegations as pure fact that many schools have bombs hidden in them? Cmon, you know that aint right. Nableezy (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not that particularly wording, but it would be dishonest to not mention it in the event that there is an appropriate place to insert such facts. If you're debating whether or not this is true, than you are going to lose.  Sorry lol. If phrasing is your concern, I'm sure you guys can manage a "neutral" POV, but totally excluding the info simply because you think it isn't true is beyond bias, it's false.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Israel has accused Hamas of using the civilian population to shield themselves from Israeli retaliation should be included (in fact that is already in there) but saying that Israel had to choose between its destruction and killing civilians, or trying to say that Hamas placed there equipment in a certain place so that Israel would have no choice but to kill civilians is just retarded, and I would think blatant vandalism. But what would you want to include beyond that? Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation, it's a widely accepted claim and explains the immense number of casualties. Hamas hasn't denied it either.  This isn't a struggle between the IDF and Hamas, it's war between two groups of people who have two different agendas.  As I said, Hamas is a terrorist organization.  If Israel was being governed by a terrorist organization, I sincerely doubt the whole world would give them a free pass and turn a blind eye to all their blatant flaws.  Hamas, like Hezbollah, doesn't differentiate between militant and civilian. They merge the two and don't care for civilians or even militants, why do you think they condone suicide bombings?  Why do you think they act in the interests of Hamas and not the Palestinian people as a whole?  You think an intelligent government would actually threaten a sovereign nuclear-capable nation?  Yet we continue to support them by enabling their cause, through wikipedia, BBC, EU, UN, etc...  Point is, Hamas USED civilians not only as shields, but as weapons.  Israel warned Hamas of a war 6 months ago, and even told the government through radio broadcasts that bombings were imminent hours before.  Civilian casualties are unfortunate, but they are the realities of war.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You and I have widely divergent views on certain things. Since you seem to just want to make your point consider it made, though it fell on deaf ears. I dont want to get into this with you other then to say if you think wikipedia, BBC, EU, UN, etc... is supporting and enabling a terrorist organization I no longer give a fuck that you think I am an antisemite. Your bar is so incredibly low that I dont even care if you think I have passed it. I have answers to your questions and assertions but I do not want to get into it with you. If you have something you want to say about the actual article feel free, but I am not getting into a debate over the internet with somebody about these topics. Nableezy (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm simply giving you my version. My opinions of Israel are strongly supported by facts, and no I didn't say that wikipedia, BBC, EU, UN, etc...are supporting terrorists.  Only those organizations enable Hamas and Israel (sometimeS) by ignoring facts, cherry-picking stories that fit their agenda, POV-pushing that is persisted by biased users, and flaws that are all known and exposed.  No, I don't believe wikipedia supports or sincerely enables terrorism.  But their cause is promoted by user indifference, bandwagoning, and fallacies.  Just take a look at the talk pages on various Israel-Palestinian articles, it's hard not to laugh.  To walk away in the belief that everything is hunky-dory and every user is wrong except you and your group, only adds to the hilarity.  All I wanted to do was correct your interpretation, clearly I failed.  I hope one day you come to terms with your bias and not force it on the article.  Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the exact opposite with pretty much everything you have written. Looking at how unbelievably biased nearly all the articles are towards Israel and trying to imaging that somebody actually thinks it is biased towards the Palestinians is mind numbing to me. The idea that Israel's view that Gaza is not occupied territory, or that east Jerusalem is both not occupied and part of Israel and part of the capital of Israel, or that the 'separation wall' is a legal method to 'control terror', or any other number of issues, all of which are rejected by the UN, HRW, AI, ICRC, Btselem and the majority of the world and that is given equal weight as the opinion of nearly every independent legal scholar. And then see people try to use the most incredibly biased sites on one side (NGO Monitor, CAMERA, AIPAC, ADL) and reject news sources such as Aljazeera, to see them use arguments from these incredibly biased sources to try to show that the UN, HRW, AI, the ICRC and almost the entire world is antisemitic because the expect Israel to respect international law, to see all this and still imagine that somebody think the 'truth', also known as propaganda that the Israeli government has spread to the world, is underrepresented is mind boggling. Yes, clearly you failed, and I too hope that one day you open your eyes and see that maybe the whole world isnt wrong, maybe it is that one country that everybody is so scared to criticize that is wrong. Maybe they have done some evil shit, just maybe. And as I customarily say, and indeed I say to you with full respect and sincerity, peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's been demonstrated that the bias is quite the opposite.  It is me who is defending, not offending.  But I've given up so it no longer matters.
 * You're making common fallacies that even an average-minded person such as myself can identify. First, Gaza isn't an occupied territory.  It was given back under the terms of the Oslo Accords, another attempt to facilitate a two-state solution and peace.  Secondary concerns such as East Jerusalem, which was legitimately captured during a war provoked by Arabs nations, Six Day War, were to be dealt with in phases as the PA came to deal with the realities of controlling a country.  Unfortunately, straining conflictions within the Palestinian community and the thriving of fundamentalist organizations led to the Second Intifada, and later the election of Hamas.  What separation wall are you referring to?  Arabs and Israelis were never segregated, in fact, the level of any perceived intolerance paled in comparison to the treatment of non-muslims in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and virtually every theocracy/centrist country excluding Turkey.  But that's besides the point.  Yes, security is a major concern, and the many attacks provoked by Palestinians and exacerbated by Israeli's have prompted the encouragement of more physical barriers.  But lest you forget, it's not like Israel was saying no to Palestinians.  More than 2% of the population, or 120,000 Palestinians, worked in Israel before the pull-out.  When the radicals took over, they lost a significant chunk of their economy.  In fact, Israel is currently the ONLY country in the Middle East that offers Palestinians citizenship, mostly Christians who are continually harassed and/or killed for their resentment of the Hamas regime.  They've consistently avoided every available opportunity to facilitate, such as the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.  The way you phrase "methods" is rather vague, as is your name-drop of organizations such as the UN, HRW, AI, ICRC, Btselem, all of which have had their controversies and flaws debated.  I'm not so educated on HRW and Btselem, but the few Arab people I know simply laugh at AI.  Have you looked at the criticism article? Also, saying "independent legal scholar" isn't very notable or helpful.


 * Uh, that was a mouthful. Ok, let's slow down a bit.  You say NGO, CAMERA, AIPAC, and ADL, are the "most incredibly" biased, while the sites you subscribe to, I'm assuming, like Aljazeera, are not?  Grouping UN, HRW, AI, and the ICRC together is rather silly because both have their ranges of bias, some more than others, but throwing in AI and HRW is kind of weird.  They are notorious for their anti-Israeli bias, but putting them with more respected organizations such as the UN doesn't help your cause.  I'm pretty knowledgeable on the subject of international law and how it applies to Israel and their annual wars, but for reference, I suggest you read this: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/02/oneeyed-in-gaza.html I found it to be quite informative and I feel it will answer your questions.


 * Well, at least I understand where you're coming from and know who I'm arguing with. All I want is for you to add in the info users have provided that fit the neutrality standards.  I know it's hard because you are so sincere about the topic, but if you like to pass yourself off as neutral and yadda yadda yadda, think of this as a lesson.  I thought coming to you individually would be more influential as off-topic discussions arise when it's me vs 9 people.


 * I divided your points individually for simplicity. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed your division so it doesnt look all fucked up, Id rather have it follow by time, hope I didnt miss anything. I have never claimed to be neutral in my views, I do not know where you get that impression. You have brought up my user page before, that alone shows I am not neutral on this topic. But, and this is the important thing, I dont let my partiality influence my edits. You cannot honestly point to a single edit of mine and say that I put something in that was not both verifiable and thoroughly well cited and non-OR, or that I removed material that met that criteria. But to answer your single points. It is illogical for Arab governments to give Palestinians citizenship, that could then possibly be used to prevent them from returning to their homes, as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country), though I do think the Arabs have been shameful in their treatment of the Palestinian refugees and every single one of them should be given the rights of full citizenship in any country of the Arab League. Next, regardless of what you or the state of Israel says regarding the ongoing occupation of Gazs, the UN, the EU, HRW, AI, ICRC, Btselem, ICJ (international commision of jurists), disagree, to name the ones that come of the top of my head. Even, and this indeed surprised me, the latest version of the CIA World Factbook says that Gaza is currently occupied. Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, Israel is, by the view of the whole world excepting Israel, currently occupying the Gaza Strip. That you think that your opinion is going to stand up against that of nearly the whole world and convince me of something you are mistaken. Next, Aljazeera is more reliable then any of those organizations. It is a RS by wikipedia standards, none of those organizations are. But I dont really read Aljazeera all that often, I generally stick with BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, IHT, The Times, and the major wire services like Reuters, AP, AFP. As far as all the arguments you are making about me personally, every single one of them seems like I wrote them about you. Every single thing you said applies to you. That you think of yourself as an average minded person that sees through my bias, and apparently the bias of the whole world, I ask you, what is the definition of average? Im not going to go with the joke about average intelligence as I assume you mean what is closely resembling the norm. If the whole world disagrees with you that means you are not the norm. You may be the norm from Philadelphia to LA, but not in the world. Like I said earlier, I dont really give a fuck what you think about me or what 'lesson' you want to teach me. Somebody who is as clearly biased as you trying to call me out on my bias is retarded. Especially when this person accused me of being an antisemite without being able to provide a single diff that demonstrates an anti-semitic remark. So enough of this bullshit. Im tired, I dont want to have to debate somebody who is so far gone that they actually think they are normal. At least I can see where I stand, that way I can try to keep my own feelings out of it. You apparently cannot do that. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhh...obviously this is becoming more of a vicious cycle than I'd imagined. Perhaps I was confused by your definition of occupation.  I thought you meant Israel is collectively responsible for every single bad thing that occurs within the territory, which seems to be a common argument by many.  I already gave you my rationale for the blockade, and further research on wikipedia and historical documents will provide the reasoning behind Israel's decision.  The illusion that Israel simply loves to watch Palestinians suffer is contrary to their past behaviors, and accommodations, even risking their own safety to appease the highly bureaucratic and overtly partisan United Nations.  The Arab League gives that excuse so it they don't have to bear the responsibility of a population that is largely infected with radicalism.  And, they provide the necessary scapegoat that leaves their atrocities largely unnoticed by the supposedly "neutral" and "pure" organizations you have mentioned.  Be that as it may, a process was already established to enable the Palestinians a "right to return", an idea which has decreased and expanded depending on the agenda of the day.  Israel gave up Gaza, West Bank (mostly), Sinai, and have allowed Palestinians to inhabit and gain citizenship in East Jerusalem, though that process has been strained after Hamas' elections and their refusal to negotiate or cease their unjustified attacks against civilians.  The Israeli's aren't fundamentalists, they don't want to spread Judaism to every corner of the Earth or impose intolerance/bigotry on rivaling ethnicities/religions.  But if x group poses a constant threat to their sovereignty, interests and safety, then they will do everything they can to protect themselves.  If hypocritical, double-standard, woefully ignorant "international" organizations don't like, I doubt they care.  In fact, I know they don't care.  The reason why I prefer the divisions was because arguments will often become condensed by responders and are prone to straw man arguing. It wasn't done to "look all ****ed up." Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt mean you did it on purpose to fuck it up, but whatever you did made it so my comments were on a single line without word wrap, so I undid. And they havent given up Gaza or the West Bank. And Israel has refused to negotiate with Hamas and makes the illogical argument that Hamas recognize Israel and refrain from any attacks on Israel but is not willing to do the same to the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. But like I said, I dont want to do this anymore. I understand what you are saying, I just think you are wrong. But can we please stop? Nableezy (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I never said that Israel loves to watch Palestinians suffer, but they have indeed caused them to suffer. Maybe this is why you think I am an antisemite, you seem to be expanding what I think to the views that have been 'a common argument by many'. Nableezy (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now you are obviously misinformed. Israel has refused to negotiate with Hamas because it won't honor cease-fires and truces.  In addition, Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization by both the EU and the United States. If you've been reduced to defending Hamas, I'd like to think my work here is done.  In terms of "democratically elected representatives", the democratic candidate Mustafa Barghoutireceived 19% of the vote, while Abbas won in a landslide.  Unfortunately, Hamas also won a ton of seats and eventually overthrew Abbas in a violent coup - which they are continually suppressing through "tolerant" and "peaceful" negotiations that have gone largely unnoticed by the "neutral" media you subscribe to: Hamas killing off those who disagree and evil Zonist collaborators.  This is what Israel is dealing with, an organization that not only uses violence against their neighbors, but against their own.  and imagine if Hamas had it's own state, what a pretty picture that would be.  So no, this isn't an illogical argument.  In fact, it's not even argument, because everything I have said are supported by facts, not half-truths, not fallacies, and not conspiracy theories. What further confuses me is the belief that if the Palestinians were given East Jerusalem and have been satisfied according to their "right of return" doctrine, would that magically reverse the polarized situation?  No, it would not..in my opinion at least.  I hope this concludes are discussion as I've answered every one of your questions cordially. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arguing with you is like arguing with somebody who is supporting apartheid in South Africa. You just cant see it. The arguments that would have been made then is Nelson Mandela is a terrorist or the African National Congress is a terrorist organization or whatever nonsense the SA government had managed to convince a few misguided people of. You are confused, please leave me alone now. Everything you said was not supported by fact (Fatah tried the coup, not Hamas; Hamas has offered a long-term truce if they return to the 67 borders; and the rest of your 'facts' are just propaganda) This is your problem, you think your position is based in reality when it is not, that it is supported by the facts when it is not. You read a couple of blogs and think you know what it is you are saying, sorry you are incorrect. Take a look at this by one of my favorite Israelis. Or read this for a another perspective on Israeli claims of self-defense. But like I said, I do not want to argue with somebody as far away from reality as you, so please leave me be. Save the hasbara bullshit for somebody else. Nableezy (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I answered your questions thoroughly and truthfully as I can without fallacies and "accusations", but inferring that I support the Apartheid is quite odd. Anyways, the sharp difference between Israeli Media and the Media in the Arab/Muslim/Theocratic world, is that Israel doesn't suppress or censor news.  The state has "officially" zero influence, everything is independently owned and operated.  Unfortunately, the countries who are basically the driving force behind the Palestinians manipulate media according to their agenda, more or less.  Examples: Peaceful cartoons. It's good to see self-criticism, as it combats the alleged tyranny and intolerance/bigotry/xenophobia Israel is painted to be.  The blog I posted provided sourcing and references for its statements, whilst your editorial was simply emotion and opinion.  There are far more persuasive anti-Israel arguments which I'd be happy to find for you, because it's sad to see someone so sincere argue with a relatively weak opinion.  Originally I thought this would be beneficial for you and fun for me, but clearly I was wrong.  Considering your final statement, I'll "leave you be", but I feel it would is rather irresponsible for me to allow someone to be so confused and hateful.  Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hateful? If you want me to get sources I can, I just didnt think it would be necessary because I everything I said is supported by so many sources, not just blogs but the official positions of the UN and various human right organizations. As far as filled with hate, you assume because somebody disagrees with you that they must be antisemitc, that seems pretty full of hate. I didnt say you support apartheid in South Africa, I said the argument you are making is one that somebody who did support apartheid in South Africa would have made. What Levy wrote is not just emotion and opinion, yes it is an opinion but it as an opinion shared by the major human rights organizations in the world. You keep saying Israeli, Arab; whatever, I prefer to see all of them as human beings and see all of them given equal rights as human beings. That is what my user page says and that is what I am saying now. I still havent seen you provide a single example of an antisemitic statement or stance that I have made, and despite what you said on your talk page that statement has not been retracted, it sits in its full glory on the talk page of the article. Why do you even want to converse with somebody who you think is antisemitic? I know I wouldnt want to converse with a racist. So thank you for letting me be, and unless you want to retract your assertion that I am an antisemite on the article talk (i dont really give a shit what you think but you made an accusation in a public forum without any evidence) I really do not want to have much more to do with you. Regardless of what you think of me, I am not filled with hate against Jews or Israelis. I do not hate somebody because they are Israeli or Jewish (yes I do distinguish between the two so please dont call me an antisemite again based on whatever views others have taken), I do not hate anybody because they are Catholic or white or anything else. If I do hate somebody or something it is because of the actions of that somebody or something, not because of who or what they are but because of what they have done. When we encounter each other on articles I promise to be fully respectful and courteous and I would appreciate it if you did the same. I will give you a reasonable opportunity to respond before I archive all this. But from here on out, unless what you want to say is about an article and specifically improving an article, dont bring it here. I do not want to have philosophical or moral debates with you, here or anywhere else. You are not going to convince me of anything because I think you are so clearly wrong that it is staggering that you present your arguments as if you actually believe them. I thank you for leaving me be, but perhaps you should look at yourself as regards all these arguments you are making about me and my views. Thats it, Im done. Nableezy (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I refuse to engage in your rhetoric. I've provided simple facts without emotion, opinion, or bias.  You seem to idolize the UN, AI, etc...like their ideas come straight from the Quran.  Some people seem incapable to accept facts that conflict with their pre-decided agenda, they say they are neutral and are willing to follow the rules of NPOV but it is clear they cannot.  They say they don't hate, or at least don't use hate to support opinion, but actions speak louder than words.  I'm not necessarily accusing them have of being hateful or "inciting hate" as the "tolerant" and "peaceful" islamic lobbyist are now prosecuting Geert Wilders for, but to deny there is a problem would be a lie. I've been more than open and have always accepted facts that conflict with strict Zionist teaching and Israeli opinion, but it's unfortunate many cannot do the same.  As I said, I couldn't care less either way, but the fact that people are allowed to pass themselves off as neutral and implement NPOV on articles when they do just the opposite, makes me wonder if wikipedia has the capacity to tolerate such gift-wrapped bias.  You want to know why I don't edit controversial articles unilaterally or without consent from those who might have different opinions?  Because I appreciate my bias and I refuse to influence articles with it.  I don't delude myself or give people the impression that I can do it, because I can't...and most people can't either.  So sorry if you don't respect my opinion, but fortunately this is wikipedia and I can't be sue me.  Maybe in the EU, maybe in the Middle East...but not on the internet.  Well, at least not in the US.  : ) Cheers! P.S:  Grouping me with supporters of the Apartheid is blatant violation of wikipedia rules.  But then again, I don't care.  It's all good. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You brought up my religion when it serves no relevance. Do not post here again. You have shown yourself to be an ignorant fool and I ask you now leave me be. I did not read anything past that so I dont really give a shit what follows. Leave me the fuck alone. Nableezy (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm an ignorant fool? Hmmm...seems someone is a little hypocritical considering my recent arrest over name-calling.  LOL.  And I had no idea you were a muslim, and I don't see how I insulted your religion.  I simply stated a fact, sorry if truth offends you.  I know it offends me.  Good luck and I hope to see you again in the editing room.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)