Did that deal include removing 97% of the Israeli settlers from the West Bank?
So you’re pretty much just going to merrily sail past the fact that the vast majority of land that the Palestinians claim was never theirs in the first place but you will focus on irrelevancies even though 97% of the land that the Palestinians did want would’ve been given to them.
Roger.
From Why do The Nations hate Israel?
Would you like to pass comment on this little snippet Finn Again, while you are on a roll defending all things Jewish, or at least, Israeli?
Is it really the case that a lot of Jews have got so used to defending a load of bollocks, that it has now become second nature to them?
What the hell … ? 
I’m sure he’ll find something to scoff at, then wax lyrical about.
Got one o’ dem cite thingies that says Palestinians don’t care about their children?
Dunno about anyone else, but I fall firmly in the “scoffing” camp.
I am, generally speaking, a supporter of Israel. However, this Dubai debacle does have me a bit pissed off at Tel Aviv.
I hold both US and Irish passports. When I travel, the only time I use the US one is when I’m returning home for a visit. Otherwise, I use the Irish one exclusively. To be honest, that’s largely because I can get through EU airports quicker with it than without. However, there is also a tiny bit of anxiety behind my reasoning, in that - in a worst-case scenario - I would much rather proffer an Irish passport than a US one to the nice gentleman waving an AK-47 around the passenger cabin.
Now, allegedly due to the actions of the Israeli government, that Irish passport has become a bit less valuable as a quasi-talisman against harm. Whether the end was just (I agree that it was), the means are not, at least to me.
One of the nice things about Ireland is that we’re a (now) peaceful backwater - one of those countries that just doesn’t show up anyone’s radar (excepting UK, of course). Unlike the Americans, or the British, or the French, we have no enemies. The only people who hate the Irish are the Irish.
So, for dragging Ireland even partially into the spotlight of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I have to give a big old “Fuck you” to the Mossad.
Oooh, edgy. Guess you can’t decide if I’m an evil Jew or an evil Zionst. Ah well.
Why don’t you go burglarize a house about it?
No, I did not. I said *nothing *of the sort. One cry of “a fucking kindergarten” directed at the Apartheid regime had bugger-all to do with what Israel may or may not have done. It was a rhetorical aside. The meat of my argument was in the whole list of victims I linked to. But of course I should have expected you to ignore that and go for the cheap comparison I didn’t even make.
But anyway - as to killing kids to get at one “guilty” person : Israel has done *exactly *this - not once, but many times. Of course, this is always passed off as “collateral damage” or some other self-serving oxymoron.
That’s not what I said . What I said was that the Apartheid regime then, used the same tactics as the Israeli government does today. With as much moral justification, IMO. *Nothing *in this thread has countered that.
The Apartheid government went into foreign countries to assassinate people it viewed as an active threat to its regime. Israel does *exactly *the same. Same situation. Same tactics. Prove me wrong.
There are always excuses for why your side shoots an 8 year old girl in the head with a sniper bullet. Some of us just don’t buy them. “I’m sure she was a soldier”. “Someone was hiding behind her” “Wrong place at the wrong time”. So much bullshit.
Childkillers and murderers however you slice it.
See, now this? *This *is an ad hominem attack.
Mother of mercy, how fucking stupid are you Dibble?
Stop using words you don’t understand just because you think they sound neat.
An ad hominem fallacy is telling someone they’re wrong* because of their personal traits* while you ignore the actual argument (i.e. only arrogant nations do that, please don’t address whether or not it’s more moral than war or sanctions!). I’m under no obligation to respond to some sort of wacko end times theology, let alone when it’s prefaced with the oh-so-popular, and idiotic claim that I defend everything Israeli (or the slightly more filthy calumny) that I just argue because I just have to defend everything “Jewish”. So I told him to get bent.
It was not an ad hominem fallacy, because I did not tell him he was wrong because he’s a burglar.
That’s just an insult. Idiot.
So, you weren’t belittling his argument by referencing something completely unrelated to the topic at hand? Because that’s what it looked like to me.
What “argument” was he making?
That **Finn **will defend anything that Israel does, no matter how beyond the pale. I didn’t say it was a cohereent argument, and fuck knows what ivn’s quote has to do with anything sane. But the non-ad hom approach to that argument is to show it is specious, like by giving examples of times **Finn **has spoken out against Israel’s actions, or by showing that **ivn **is wrong in some manner. *Not *by referencing some completely unrelated past character trait of ivn’s as though it has any bearing on the matter at hand. ivn’s either wrong or he isn’t (I’m *certain *he is wrong, BTW), but either don’t reply to him at all (I mean, that was such a non sequitur of a post, no-one would blink) or else attack him directly.
And yes, saying “Why don’t you burglarize a house about it” is telling him he is wrong, but in an indirect fashion. Finn’s saying he’s wrong, or should be dismissed, because he is of low moral character. That’s as may be, but not relevant. And that makes it ad hominem.
Contrast this with my referring to the CIA as murdering warmongers (which are statements of fact - they have murdered and started wars, it’s well documented) - this is not an ad hominem because the issue under argument by me was why I don’t trust them to report honestly on matters related to the espionage business.
I could as easily have said, in a more positive statement, I’d rather trust a more independent agent like the UN or Amnesty or Red Cross over the bias of the CIA, who have a vested interest in maintaining the fear of outside agencies so they may maintain their status and funding. This would get my point across without personal insult to the CIA.
But then I wouldn’t get to call them names, which I rather like to do, the murderous scumfuckers. However. Namecalling =/= ad hominem when the names are matters of fact related to the issue at hand. Unlike, say, if they were goat fellators and scat fetishists. I have no doubt most CIA employees are sexual perverts, voyeurs and moral deviants who would sodomise the corpse of their own grandfather if it came wrapped in the Stars and Stripes, but I wouldn’t bring it up in this argument except for my own amusement, because it’d be a total non sequitur.
Except that I am saying what you are doing is BOTH unpopular and against the rule of law.
And I saw on the news this morning how the EU has now come out and complained about the way that Israel has behaved.
Now, serious question for a moment…is this guy really such a threat to the very existence of Israel that he must be killed at all costs?
Is Israel really in such a perilous position that one person can bring it down?
Following on from that, to Malthus, Finn and Alessan - given what has happened, and what has come out, do you think this operation was “worth it”?
Dibble, I don’t think you’re for real on this topic. Someone slimes me with a pure ad hominem, with nonsensical bullshit connecting Christian Eschatology to some racist tripe about how Jews have a history of defending bullshit so it’s just habit to us to continue, then connecting that to the idiocy that I defend all things Jews and/or Israeli.
And rather than saying “fuck off, asshole”, I’m supposed to refute that? And if I tell him to fuck off, that become an “ad hominem fallacy”? Honestly, I don’t think you’re that stupid, I think you’re just being difficult for some reason or another. You’re not even applying your own standards to yourself. Even if I was some sort of reflexive defender of all things Jewish, what effect would that have on my argument? That’s right, none, it’s an ad hominem fallacy. (Have you finally figured out what the phrase means?)
And just like if I said “Dibble is well known for his habits of raping and murdering little children”, so don’t listen to him, you wouldn’t be obligated to defend yourself from that charge, with cites, I’m not obligated to respond to some babbling idiot spouting racist nonsense about how embracing bullshit is somehow nherent in Judaism or slimy ad hom absurdities about how I can’t think for myself and I’m only a mouthpiece of the Tribe.
If you don’t understand why that noise doesn’t deserve any rebuttal more substantive than a raised middle finger, you’re either playing dumb for lulz or really far gone. I prefer to think that you’re just being an asshole.
Oh, yes, I’m sure you’re being honest about that. You really don’t understand that you can have valid targets of war whose elimination will make a difference without saying that if they survive, your entire nation is doomed. Nope, you really do believe it must be one or the other and you’re not trying to score cheap rhetorical points.
I am trying to learn something here, I am trying to ask a genuine question, and if you could respond it would be really appreciated - it may not change my mind, but it may help me to understand a little better (or get a little angrier)
But in anycase, I will ask the substantive question again.
GIVEN THE FALLOUT, AND WHAT HAS NOW HAPPENED, DO YOU FEEL THIS “OPERATION” WAS WORTH IT?
I don’t know - I don’t have sufficient information.
I do know that the man was a terrorist leader and organizer and that he was responsible for smuggling weapons into Gaza, and that killing him most likely saved more than a few Israeli lives. Now, do I think that saving even a single Israeli outweighes insulting a bunch of Europeans? Absolutely.
I am also with you there - I think any life is worth more than “a bunch of insults” as you succinctly put it.
But then, to me I always try to take the attitude with insults that I am like a duck. They just slide off my back.
Now again, I am not a diplomat, so I am just trying to feel my way here - but do you think that the “insults” may have lasting consequences? That this has lowered Israel’s reputation in "Europe?
Do you think having done this, it might make it harder to get co-operation, or sympathy for your cause “next time”? Do you think that some of those that were sitting on the fence, are now going to fall on the side of “don’t like Israel” and some of those that were / are active supporters are now going to be a little bit marginalised?
I think it does - but I must admit to being somewhat niaeve and having a bit of a pollyanna complex, so I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.