International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   (Ed) General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306886)

quixotecoyote 15th May 2016 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11279336)
They're doing industrialized murder in the form of a spectator sport. How would you not take a side against that?

From your link:
Quote:

An atmosphere of anticipatory excitement grows as dusk falls, in the expectation that Hamas militants will increase rocket fire after breaking their Ramadan fast, and the Israeli military will respond with force.
So yeah. Trying to co-opt the terminology of the holocaust to frame retaliations against rocket-fire.

Ziggurat 16th May 2016 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11279519)
It must be sad when all you have to cheer for is some people hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, rather than such a nice spectacle Israel regularly provides its citizens.

Always the Jews or the Americans are responsible, both for their own actions and even for the actions against them.

Quote:

Evidence?
Your posts. Including this one.

Roofgardener 16th May 2016 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11279221)
.....

There's a growing alliance between Zionists and anti-Muslims in Europe:......

Hardly suprising: they have one thing in common.

Neither group likes being blown up by madmen screaming "Alluah Ahkbar".
(My God Is Greater).

caveman1917 16th May 2016 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote (Post 11279600)
So yeah. Trying to co-opt the terminology of the holocaust to frame retaliations against rocket-fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11279914)
Always the Jews or the Americans are responsible, both for their own actions and even for the actions against them.

You fascists really are too transparent.

Ziggurat 16th May 2016 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11280929)
You fascists really are too transparent.

Because if there is one thing that Islamic terrorists are known for, it's tolerance and individual freedom. And you are on their side.

caveman1917 16th May 2016 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11281371)
individual freedom

Your freedom to cheer as you sit with a beer and watch those damn Palestinians get blown to bits? Does that make your national identity feel more real to you? What exact pleasures would you say you derive from such activity, that you immediately defend it so vehemently and fallaciously?

Quote:

And you are on their side.
Blah blah blah

tyr_13 16th May 2016 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11281404)
Your freedom to cheer as you sit with a beer and watch those damn Palestinians get blown to bits?

He didn't say that, nor suggest that.

Quote:

Does that make your national identity feel more real to you?
What? How does that even follow? It isn't national identity that's the primary benefit of individual freedoms.

Quote:

What exact pleasures would you say you derive from such activity, that you immediately defend it so vehemently and fallaciously?

Again, what? You're the one justifying the murder of innocent people because some people in their country like watching the attacks against those groups attacking them. It's not only a silly line of reasoning, it's also supremely hypocritical. The very group you're defending have done that and far worse in that vein.



Quote:

Blah blah blah


If you have no argument, make no argument. This is both lazy and weakens your other arguments.

Craig B 17th May 2016 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCat (Post 11277829)
Why does Germany need Holocaust denial laws? Laws against Nazi literature and symbols? Why does the UK need laws against "inciting racial hatred"?

I think you're having us on. You don't believe Europe is going to go all Nazi genocidal at all.

Your real target is the existence of laws repressing racist speech and action. You don't like such laws.

Ziggurat 17th May 2016 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11281404)
Your freedom to cheer as you sit with a beer and watch those damn Palestinians get blown to bits? Does that make your national identity feel more real to you? What exact pleasures would you say you derive from such activity, that you immediately defend it so vehemently and fallaciously?

First off, what national identity do you imagine I have? Second, why are you trying to impose upon me a standard you apparently reject for yourself? I didn't actually defend cheering Israeli bombings, but you actually defended cheering 9/11. What does that say about you?

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove moderated content

Roofgardener 17th May 2016 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11279093)
....... Assimilation is the quiet merging of two populations which have lost sufficient distinction to keep them separated.

Ummm... No ?

Assimilation is the dissipation or abandonment of one culture in favour of another "dominant" culture. It is NOT a meeting of equals. The assimilated culture is destroyed. (or - more accurately - discarded).

Roofgardener 17th May 2016 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11279144)
.....
I'm always for the victims, and the Palestinians are the victims of the Zionists. ......

I'd rather suggest that the "Palestinians" where actually the victim of the Arabs, not the Israelis.

It was the invading Arabs who encouraged (or frightened) the "Palestinians" into leaving their homes in order to make it easier for them to destroy Israel, and kill all of the Jews, as they had promised to do.

And when that didn't work, they retreated, washed their hands of the "Palestinians", shrugged their shoulders, and abandoned them.

They didn't even allow them to enter their own countries, but forced them into refugee camps, where they remain until today.

(Mind you, after what the "Palestinians" did in Jordan and Lebanon, one can hardly blame them).

Jules Galen 17th May 2016 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roofgardener (Post 11281937)
I'd rather suggest that the "Palestinians" where actually the victim of the Arabs, not the Israelis.

It was the invading Arabs who encouraged (or frightened) the "Palestinians" into leaving their homes in order to make it easier for them to destroy Israel, and kill all of the Jews, as they had promised to do.

And when that didn't work, they retreated, washed their hands of the "Palestinians", shrugged their shoulders, and abandoned them.

They didn't even allow them to enter their own countries, but forced them into refugee camps, where they remain until today.

(Mind you, after what the "Palestinians" did in Jordan and Lebanon, one can hardly blame them).

Actually, I read that it was the Israelis who were murdering Arabs that were responsible for the flight. Then...after the war, Israel just stole the land instead of letting the Arabs return.

Roofgardener 17th May 2016 07:00 AM

There where a handful of specific, documented cases of that happening Jules Galen. However, the bulk of the exodus was to get out of the way of the invading Arab armies, not because of fear of the Israelis.

You said that "Actually, I read that it was.... "
Do you recall WHERE you read it ?

Roofgardener 17th May 2016 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11276789)
I'm sorry, what Jews were the British trying to buy the loyalty of? Surely not British Jews, who were loyal citizens without question. And not the loyalty of most Palestinian Jews, who were anti-zionist. The Zionist Jews in Palestine could contribute nothing to the British cause, and had they tried would have been crushed by the Turks. As it was, Russian Jews were under suspicion and observation for being Russian.
......

Oh REALLY ?
How about the Zion Mule Corps ? (I'm not kidding), or the Jewish Legion ? (see Wikipedia article) They included a LOT of Russian Jews in their ranks.

the Jewish Legion fought against the Turks at Gallipoli, and also served in Jordan.

In WW2 the Jewish Battalion was involved in the recapture of Italy.

"contribute nothing to the British cause.. " ? Well, they contributed WAY more than the beloved "Palestinians", who's leader was trying to create a Waffen SS Battalion, for Pete's sake.

TubbaBlubba 17th May 2016 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roofgardener (Post 11280532)
..."Alluah Ahkbar".
(My God Is Greater).

Not quite what it means, it literally means "God is Greater [than]". It's a very general expression not unlike "inshallah". It can be used to express amazement at the size of something, as a reminder that there is something of greater meaning than the worldly, or to warn someone from expressive pride, for example.

In the context of suicide bombing I would take the meaning to be "God is greater [than my personal struggle and sacrifice]".

Roofgardener 17th May 2016 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba (Post 11282059)
Not quite what it means, it literally means "God is Greater [than]". It's a very general expression not unlike "inshallah". It can be used to express amazement at the size of something, as a reminder that there is something of greater meaning than the worldly, or to warn someone from expressive pride, for example.

In the context of suicide bombing I would take the meaning to be "God is greater [than my personal struggle and sacrifice]".

In the context of Jihadist violence, I would suggest that its meaning is "take THAT ! ".

Ziggurat 17th May 2016 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba (Post 11282059)
In the context of suicide bombing I would take the meaning to be "God is greater [than my personal struggle and sacrifice]".

I would take it to mean "God is greater [than these kafir I'm killing]".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roofgardener (Post 11282070)
In the context of Jihadist violence, I would suggest that its meaning is "take THAT ! ".

That works too.

Roofgardener 17th May 2016 07:48 AM

So we are in agreement then ?

Excellent..... this means the Israel/Palestine thread is now complete and can be closed, and the entire problem has been solved.

NEXT !

Mycroft 17th May 2016 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 11281449)
Again, what? You're the one justifying the murder of innocent people because some people in their country like watching the attacks against those groups attacking them. It's not only a silly line of reasoning, it's also supremely hypocritical. The very group you're defending have done that and far worse in that vein.

Israelis are not allowed to be human.

They've been at war for 70 years with a relentless and uncompromising enemy that's passed up numerous opportunities for peace, but the only emotion they're allowed to feel towards this enemy is brotherly love that places their needs and well being above their own.

I can't think of another conflict in all of history where those kinds of standards have been applied.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

A'isha 17th May 2016 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roofgardener (Post 11282040)
"contribute nothing to the British cause.. " ? Well, they contributed WAY more than the beloved "Palestinians", who's leader was trying to create a Waffen SS Battalion, for Pete's sake.

To be fair, he wasn't the leader until the British put him there (and kept him there even after the Arab Revolt - the British exiled him, but didn't replace him). He was only removed from the position in 1948, after the Israeli War of Independence, by King Abdullah of Jordan.

Belz... 17th May 2016 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes (Post 11277489)
Uh-huh, yeah, sure, right.

Well, Zionism _did_ predate the Holocaust, didn't it?

Quote:

That will be quite enough from you: collective guilt justifying mass murder of innocents.
Now wait a second. That's not what Capel said. He said it was convenient to Zionism. Where do you get the collective guilt? He sounds more like an anti-Zionist than an anti-semite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11279914)
Your posts. Including this one.

Wait. Can you explain that? Or do you mean that you must be on one side or the other?

Ziggurat 17th May 2016 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11282272)
Wait. Can you explain that? Or do you mean that you must be on one side or the other?

That's the standard Caveman asserted: you're either on one side or the other.

And he has picked the side of those who cheered 9/11.

Belz... 17th May 2016 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11282277)
That's the standard Caveman asserted: you're either on one side or the other.

And he has picked the side of those who cheered 9/11.

That is a very uncharitable reading of his post, Zig. He talked about taking a side against cheering for death, not taking a side for the terrorists who commited 9/11. It takes quite a large amount of mental gymnastics and over-simplification to get from his post to yours.

tyr_13 17th May 2016 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes (Post 11277489)
Here you trash any foundation for your objections about the same being done elsewhere. Your rant is, then, all about taking a side against Israel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11279336)
They're doing industrialized murder in the form of a spectator sport. How would you not take a side against that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11279375)
The Palestinians cheered when 9/11 happened. You have taken sides with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11279519)
It must be sad when all you have to cheer for is some people hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, rather than such a nice spectacle Israel regularly provides its citizens.



Evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11282432)
That is a very uncharitable reading of his post, Zig. He talked about taking a side against cheering for death, not taking a side for the terrorists who commited 9/11. It takes quite a large amount of mental gymnastics and over-simplification to get from his post to yours.

Actually he was talking about siding against Israel, not siding against just cheering for death. He in fact defends the Palestinian cheering for death as better than Israel's, because Israel's is a 'spectator sport' somehow.

So while it's a bit of a leap to say he took a side for the 9/11 terrorists, saying he takes the side of cheering for the 9/11 terrorists is exactly right.

Perhaps he just worded things poorly, but as written that's what he said. If he meant something different and is willing to condemn the Palestinian's actions (the same actions he condemns Israel for), that would clear up the matter. One could suppose he denies supporting the cheering for 9/11 with his request for 'evidence', but that is satisfied with quoting him. It's now incumbent on him to correct his statement if he meant something other than what he said.

Ziggurat 17th May 2016 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11282432)
That is a very uncharitable reading of his post, Zig. He talked about taking a side against cheering for death, not taking a side for the terrorists who commited 9/11. It takes quite a large amount of mental gymnastics and over-simplification to get from his post to yours.

The whole cheering thing was just the latest of his rationalizations for why he opposed Israel. And he most definitely wasn't taking a side against cheering for death, because he turned around and defended the Palestinians for doing it.

trustbutverify 17th May 2016 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11282272)
Now wait a second. That's not what Capel said. He said it was convenient to Zionism. Where do you get the collective guilt? He sounds more like an anti-Zionist than an anti-semite.

He sounds like both to me.

Belz... 17th May 2016 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 11282481)
He sounds like both to me.

Would you mind explaining why? I follow the thread from time to time so I may have missed a good chunk of evidence in favour of your interpretation.

However, many people seem to conflate the two: if you criticise Israel, you are anti-semitic. Never mind that a lot of Jews criticise Israel, and that a lot of people criticise both sides and more.

I myself would say that no one is looking particularily good when it comes to the middle-east.

Belz... 17th May 2016 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11282466)
The whole cheering thing was just the latest of his rationalizations for why he opposed Israel. And he most definitely wasn't taking a side against cheering for death, because he turned around and defended the Palestinians for doing it.

Would you mind quoting him defending the Palestinians cheering for 9/11?

Ziggurat 17th May 2016 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11282534)
Would you mind quoting him defending the Palestinians cheering for 9/11?

Here you go:
Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11279519)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11279375)
The Palestinians cheered when 9/11 happened.

It must be sad when all you have to cheer for is some people hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, rather than such a nice spectacle Israel regularly provides its citizens.


Belz... 17th May 2016 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11282572)
Here you go:

I had a feeling you'd quote that one, but it doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that he defended those cheering on 9/11. Instead, the post you quote has him saying that the cheering on 9/11 is a one-time thing vs a regular one in Israel, presumably meaning that the latter is even worse.

I disagree with him on that, but it doesn't make him support the 9/11 cheerers. Unless you have more, I'd think that he believes both to be despicable, just one more than the other.

GlennB 17th May 2016 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11282582)
Lets face the truth, awful though it is to Zionists : most people don't give a toss about Jews and Jewishness. There, I've said it.

And I'll agree. Whoever bulldozes the olive and citrus groves in the West Bank in order to intimidate the occupants into leaving is a ****, whether it's Jew or Arab. If it's done to ease and promote Israeli settlement on non-Israeli land then that's Zionism in action, not "Jewishness".

Ziggurat 17th May 2016 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11282608)
I had a feeling you'd quote that one, but it doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that he defended those cheering on 9/11. Instead, the post you quote has him saying that the cheering on 9/11 is a one-time thing vs a regular one in Israel, presumably meaning that the latter is even worse.

No. He did NOT excuse it on the basis of it being a one-time-only thing, he excused it on the basis that they're so terribly oppressed, they've been driven to cheering death. That's a defense of the indefensible.

And do you seriously think they wouldn't cheer again if we got hit like that again? Do you seriously think he thinks that? Of course they would. And of course he knows they would.

Quote:

Unless you have more, I'd think that he believes both to be despicable, just one more than the other.
I understand the impulse to be charitable in your interpretation, but it just isn't so. He thinks one is so bad that we must take sides against Israel because of it, and he thinks the other is excusable because the Palestinians are so oppressed.

caveman1917 17th May 2016 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules Galen (Post 11281902)
Blah...Blah...Blah.

More nonsense.

More than just the statement you highlighted even. Ziggurat is on record here multiple times explicitly expressing his approval of bombing Palestinians to little pieces. Wonder who would be on record explicitly expressing approval of flying planes into office towers, probably nobody.

Try to picture it like this: you go to one of those people cheering on the hill and say "I'm taking a side against this." Then this person immediately points towards the Palestinians who are getting bombed as a justification. When that doesn't work, the person just randomly starts shouting "Jews! Holocaust! Antisemitism!" That's pretty much how you can imagine conversing with Zig.

caveman1917 17th May 2016 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11282608)
Instead, the post you quote has him saying that the cheering on 9/11 is a one-time thing vs a regular one in Israel, presumably meaning that the latter is even worse.

The post says exactly what the post says, that it must be sad when all you have left to cheer for is some people flying a plane into an office tower. The post has no moral valuation in it.

You do realize we're not actually doing a comparison or anything here right? Just because the person on the hill points towards the people being bombed to justify his cheering doesn't mean you should also look at where he points. Because that's exactly how the tactic works, it's a weaker of form of a "tu quoque", more like a "somebody quoque."

caveman1917 17th May 2016 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 11281850)
As expected. I'm now officially the winner.

:rolleyes:

General 9/11 discussion thread is over there -->

Roofgardener 17th May 2016 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A'isha (Post 11282211)
To be fair, he wasn't the leader until the British put him there (and kept him there even after the Arab Revolt - the British exiled him, but didn't replace him). He was only removed from the position in 1948, after the Israeli War of Independence, by King Abdullah of Jordan.

Hmm... you're right. Thanks for the correction on that one A'isha.

The British didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over the Mandate, although I suspect it was probably an impossible mission to start with.

Mycroft 17th May 2016 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11282752)
The post says exactly what the post says, that it must be sad when all you have left to cheer for is some people flying a plane into an office tower. The post has no moral valuation in it.

You do realize we're not actually doing a comparison or anything here right? Just because the person on the hill points towards the people being bombed to justify his cheering doesn't mean you should also look at where he points. Because that's exactly how the tactic works, it's a weaker of form of a "tu quoque", more like a "somebody quoque."

I don't think there is a place in the world where if there were a war going on that could be watched from a distance in a position of safety, that there would not be people, particularly young people, who would watch it.

I think even if we accept the absolute most charitable interpretations of what you said, it's still a disgusting smear and a blatant double standard.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Ziggurat 17th May 2016 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11282762)
:rolleyes:

General 9/11 discussion thread is over there -->

Sorry, you already conceded defeat, you'll need to do a lot better than that if you want a rematch.

caveman1917 17th May 2016 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11282794)
I don't think there is a place in the world where if there were a war going on that could be watched from a distance in a position of safety, that there would not be people, particularly young people, who would watch it.

We've certainly learned, from the quote mined so as to bring up the holocaust, that Hamas rocket fire isn't terrifying but exciting. I did not know that yet.

I understand how exhilarating it must be to really feel the national identity flow through your veins, as you cheer and watch the enemy people being blown to bits. I do wonder, does it make it even better if you can hear them scream as well?

Quote:

I think even if we accept the absolute most charitable interpretations of what you said, it's still a disgusting smear and a blatant double standard.
Blah blah blah

Roofgardener 17th May 2016 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11279336)
They're doing industrialized murder in the form of a spectator sport. How would you not take a side against that?

Firstly, that is an extraordinary statement, Caveman. You are suggesting that the Gaza incursion was motivated from the desire to create a spectator sport ? Because that is what your sentence implies.

Secondly: Thanks for posting that link to the Guardian article. It is WELL worth reading. In particular, you will note that it implies that a significant number of Israeli's where gathering at this hilltop to watch the distant bombing. Perhaps even a crowd.

And yet, the photographs show just four people, and the SAME sofa (and two chairs), shot from different angles.

If this was a "spectator sport", would you not expect rather more than this ?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.