This is exactly what happens when you read/see or hear the same thing over and over and over as happens in all these Israel/Palestine threads. I believe it is called “Goebbels’ Law,” which, as you well know, is a subset of “Godwin’s Law” – which in turn such have been invoked long ago in this thread.
But yeah, I’m convinced as well. From now on, I’ll be sure to preface that Palestinians are only really a sub-set of the Arab-Nazis. Well, some of them anyway. And therefore it only follows from there that little girls should actually be encouraged to write hateful messages on rockets. Or is it missiles?
Ahhhh yes. Israelis aren’t just demonized for wanting self defense, but expressing that desire is actually hateful if an Israeli does it. The rest of humanity can wish that someone would stop their attempted murder and it’s fine, but if an Israeli does it, my God, how hateful! What, those uppity Israelis expect that there’s a single standard? Of course not, we’ve got a separate one for them. A better one. One that denies even a little girl the right to symbolic expression of her desire for protection. It’s a good thing too that they’re not judged by everybody else’s standard. Who knows what might happen then? Its just a risk we can’t take.
Well, because it’s on a bomb. If it was in a diary, it’d be totally cool. But if it’s on a bomb, whoa boy! That’s just hideous. Bad girl, bad! Go back to your bomb shelter and cower. There you can be terrorized and wish for someone to stop the people trying to kill you, but don’t you dare write about it on a weapon, you hateful bitch.
And of course, nobody has been able to ratioanlly explain why an unarmed bomb is a worse place to write the exact same sentiment.
Which shows that it isn’t about the bomb at all, but the uppity hateful bitch who’d dare ask for protection.
You know what ? Forget it. I refuse to speak with you anymore. I’ll let every who cares judge who’s the disingenuous distorting dishonest debater here.
Or is it a communist plot that the Strategic Rocket Forces has never been called the Strategic Missile Forces anywhere in the English speaking world? So it’s not as cut and dry as you think. You’ll sometimes see Russian built ‘missiles’ referred to as ‘rockets’ in English, even in America, even by military professionals. It doesn’t require speaking Russian.
Yes, I’m sure if I claimed that a political leader of region for almost a quarter century wasn’t a prominent leader, or invented things about what someone else had said that could be easily disproved by simply showing what that person had actually said, or any of your other tactics, and then was caught at it repeatedly and had to justify it with further distortions, building a great big bullshit castle?
I’d be wasting my time to continue, too.
Good thing I stick to the facts and remember my own posts.
Dodged a bullet there.
I claimed I knew the difference between a missile and a rocket. I did. I do. I didn’t claim any knowledge I do not hold.
Thank you for rebutting your own point.
I’d also point out, yet again, that it was a distinction which evinced a significant difference. Missiles are guided, rockets are not. That’s not exactly an insignificant factor, especially in a discussion about what is useful for breaking missile guidance but not useful for stopping unguided rockets.
Your argument is equivalent to arguing that if another culture only used one word for all spheroid objects, that insisting on the distinction between throwing a bowling ball and a beach ball at someone’s head was poor form.
Or if you’d decided to paint your living room green and paid for it, and found it was blue, but were informed by the painter that a small tribe in the Amazon only had one word for both green and blue, and your insisting that there was a difference was just a pretension to a degree of savvy you didn’t possess, and it was making you look quite foolish. And you should enjoy your blue living room.
There is a pragmatic, practical distinction between the action of a rocket and a missile. Even if, in another language, they’re all classified as rockets.
That’s because it’s a proper noun. We also refer to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.
It isn’t false to use something’s proper name if you’re not in a discussion of its effect.
It would be silly to argue that NK is really democratic because that’s its name. Or that a Russian anti-tank “rocket” should be treated exactly the same as an unguided projectile and a tank crew shoudn’t bother to pop smoke. When the distinction denotes a real difference, there is no point to ignore it.
Seriously, do you really believe what you’re writing? Do you actually believe that people who have an issue with children writing on bombs are just pretending, while in reality they think Israeli girls are “uppity hateful bitches” and they hate them for “daring ask for protection”?
And do you really believe that you’re demonstrating it by writing pages after pages about all sort of stuff, ranging from the difference between rockets and missiles to the pro-nazi feelings of a religious figure in 1948? You even wrote a lengthy paragraph in one of your last posts whose only point, as far as I could tell, was to show that Hitler was already a murderous antisemite in the 30s, as if a demonstration was necessary. All that to defend the right of Israeli children to write on bombs, apparently.
Because if you do believe those two things, hmmm…I’m not sure how to put it here, but there’s a problem.
The alternative being that you’re a shameless propagandist arguing in bad faith, there’s really no point in discussing with you, in either case. You’re wasting everybody’s time, including your own.
Gee, you mean, nobody said that it was hate that motivated the girls to support the military effort destined to protect them? Oh, yeah, that was the guy who I just responded to just a few posts up.
Meanwhile, your denial rings hollow. Especially with your myopic partisan obsession with blaming the war and all of its consequences solely on Israel.
Prove that it isn’t about you hating Israeli self defense Clair. I don’t buy it. The Arab league started a war of extermination and your answer was that because people fled due to the war, it was Israel’s fault. Now, when a girl was in a bomb shelter for days straight with no air conditioning, in the summer, and expressed her desire for someone to stop the people trying to kill her… yet again, bad bad Isrealis.
Point out the objective difference that makes it worse to write “To Nashrallah, with love” on a tank shell than it is to write “I hope Nashrallah dies” in a diary or say “I hope someone kills Nashrallah.”
Straight Man was honest enough to argue from a point of view that made it clear that the issue was pretty much an emotional kneejerk response at the loss of ‘innocence’ but you’ve offered up no such reason. I’m sure quite a few people have that strange, irrational emotional response to an image without recognizing its context.
However, I do not afford that benefit of the doubt you. Precisely because I have seen the partisan myopia of your argument in general, I have no reason to believe that it has become rational, nuanced, and intellectually honest in this one specific.
You, specifically, said that it was the bomb that somehow made it bad (of course, you also said that merely envisioning armed defense made it bad, but then you tried to backpedal and claimed that a specific answer to a specific question was really a general answer to the ‘topic of the post’, so who knows. If you won’t even be straight with me when discussing your own views, it’s very hard for me to tell.)
So if it isn’t the sentiment itself then it’s that it was written on an weapon that was going to be used in self defense, a perfectly natural, healthy response for a child of that age in response to someone trying to kill her, then what makes it so horrible?
Explain rationally how a girl wanting to stop the person that’s trying to kill her is okay, but if an Israeli girl expresses that desire on the very object designed to carry that out, she’s done something horrible.
I doubt you can. I doubt you’ll even address it other than the standard song and dance of “if you don’t understand I just can’t talk about it”.
But you might surprise me.
Mere “feelings”, or a “religious figure”?
What euphemistic, deceptive bullshit. Par for the course.
We’re at least semi-close to getting you to admit to the truth, though.
Maybe half a dozen more posts until you’d admit that he was not just a religious figure, but a Palestinian political leader with massive influence and impact.
Maybe a dozen posts after that until you admit that it wasn’t just “pro Nazi feelings” that he had, but he actually negotiated with the Nazis to carry out a genocide of the Jews, helped the Nazis recruit soldiers, helped instigate the Final Solution, etc…
Maybe at some point your argument will drop deceptive euphemisms for accurate discussion.
And maybe lemurs will build space ships.
A rather disingenuous bit of argumentation Clair, considering that paragraph was in response to someone claiming that Zionists trying to get Jews away from Hitler’s grasp in the 30’s couldn’t have been doing it to help save them from Hitler because Hitler’s campaign of genocide didn’t really ramp up until the 40’s.
Speaking of which:
Tell me again, Clair, about the “religious leader” who merely and rather innocuously “lauded”, or simply had positive “feelings” for the Nazis.
Or about how the Arab League announced a war of extermination, but the fact that people fled the conflict of their own free will means that Israel, and only Israel, is responsible.
Or how if Israel didn’t allow them to return to land that they didn’t own it owes them money immediately because of the absolute non sequitor that they had a right to stay.
Or how how it really was their land, but you don’t mean it was their land. But it was their land, but only like how my home town is my home town and yet in English when we talk about someone’s land, it always means that we’re talking about ownership.
Or how you claim that they were expelled, but you don’t mean they were expelled. But Israel must compensate them because they were expelled.
Or how there were numerous solutions to Palestinians living in refugee camps, including the nations they were from allowing them back in, or the nations they were located in allowing them to leave the camps and become citizens, or the PA itself adhering to peace deals and/or not murdering people who supported resettlement… but it is all only Israel’s fault because the only solution you would accept is them being allowed to return to land which was never theirs in the first place.
Someone is certainly a shameless propagandist arguing in bad faith.
Which is, to be frank, as much of an understatement as talking about a simple “religious leader” who merely “lauded” and had “feelings” of support for the Nazis.
Much like we’d call agenda-driven-bullshit on someone who claimed that the Vichy regime were merely “French citizens” who simply “had pro-Nazi feelings.”
Something tells me that you’d have two standards there, though, and you’d quickly object to someone minimizing the Vichy regime’s actions by suggesting that all they did was have pro-Nazi “feelings” instead of an active agenda and behavior of collaboration.
I guess that’s why having two standards is so useful, when it comes to a group you don’t particularly like, you can just switch to the second set of standards.
Do you have any sympathy for the Israelis? Do you understand the place to which they have been forced.
Rather than make this sort of personal insinuation–which is all too common among all these threads, let’s just stick to arguing over who has the best facts.
No, there is only a difference between them in modern western military nomenclature, not in their everyday usage, and as I have pointed out calling Russian built ‘missiles’ rockets isn’t wrong and is something that is done even within western military nomenclature. The dictionary definition of missile in the English language is
Should any reference to javelins or arrows as missiles be discontinued because they’re not guided projectiles? Even though they’ve been called missiles by militaries since the Romans?
Again, point is you’re trying to stand on a high horse because someone knows less than you about military terminology when in point of fact, you don’t understand it yourself. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with calling a Russian ATGM a rocket, that’s what the Russian call them, and what people who know the difference between a missile and a rocket in western military nomenclature call them sometimes.
Kinda like how Raketa is a proper noun that translates as rocket. Which is what the Russians give designation to their ICBMs with.
The fact is ,the Israelis have been treating Palestinians like 2nd class citizens for a long time. They are endlessly subjected to checking lines. They can not travel about their country. Israelis are putting settlements into their territory over and over. They have great difficulty working or going to school ,because the checking lines are unpredictable and you never know how long it will take ,or even if you can get there.
What are they supposed to do, sheepishly accept the oppression? What would you do? But in any population , there will be people less willing to accept the crappy treatment. They will respond. I sympathize with their plight.
The personal insinuation you mention does not exist. it was a fair question ,to see if he understands or sees the other side.
Are you talking about Palestinian’s living in Israel, Palestinian’s living in Jordan, Palestinian’s living in Gaza or…other?
A cite would give some context to your statement. Not all of the groups listed above are subject to the same constraints. So…why don’t you give a cite showing exactly who you are talking about? Might be helpful in translating your rather, um, terse assertions.
Who can’t travel where exactly? Who exactly are we talking about here and where exactly can’t they travel too? What is ‘their country’ exactly? I’m not disputing that the Israeli’s have put in roadblocks and fences and such (and for some pretty good reasons too), but it depends on who you are talking about here. ‘Palestinian’s’ is a pretty broad term.
It’s certainly one of the major points of contention. Of course, a critical thinker might try and find out WHY they are doing so, and put some context into the discussion. Still, it’s definitely one of the major points of contention, no doubt.
Did you know, on the other side of the fence, that the Israeli’s have forced out the people in some of their settlements (this has been pretty unpopular among Israeli citizens). In fact, in Gaza (the place we are discussing in this thread) they did this unilaterally and then turned it over to the Palestinian Authority. How has that turned out so far? Just as a potential model as a basis for future such initiatives by the Israeli’s? Think it’s going over well and making them eager to push forward more of this kind of thingy?
They might try a less, um, violent approach. They COULD have peacefully accepted the original division and they they would have half a loaf today (including Jerusalem). Instead they CHOOSE to flee their homes toward the waiting arms of their brother Arab conquerors…who have actually treated them worse than the Israeli’s have. They COULD have chosen at any point in the last 60(!!) years to accept the fact that they will never have the whole thing and instead pursued peace. Instead…they have not. And so, they are distrusted and feared and to a certain degree (depending on which ‘Palestinian’s’ we are talking about) been oppressed…or perhaps a better term would be suppressed.
Stop killing and murdering Israeli’s, stop pissing off their military and scaring their civilians, look pathetic and helpless and appeal to the UN. Right now I’d be sitting on a beach making 20% with the moral high ground and lots of world wide sympathy, and if the Israeli’s kept fucking with me THEY would be the ones who looked like the bad guys. Well, they would look like the bad guys to more than the delusional, the uninformed and those with a hard on against Israel. They would look bad to just about EVERYONE…it would be South Africa all over again and I am pretty sure that world pressure (as well as internal pressure from Israeli civilians who don’t want to be the bad guys) would force Israel to modify it’s policies and make real concessions.
The funny thing is…I sympathize with their plight too. They get fucked by all sides in this…not the least by their own Arab brothers who just use them (and abuse them) for their own ends. By and large the majority of Palestinian’s are just people trying to live, to raise their families and to get by. It’s unfortunate that the rabid dogs among them bring such sorrow and ruin on the rest and give the entire people such a bad name. I wish that those common people could be made to understand that a rabid dog needs to be put down, hard. And that only when the Palestinian people are willing to police their own, to whack the rabid dogs amongst them and to give (prolonged, serious) peace a chance will anything improve with them.
I think the point was that it’s pretty obviously that YOU don’t see the other side gonzo. I’d be surprised bordering on shocked if Finn doesn’t see and understand both sides of this. And if there wasn’t a barrage of stupid and baseless assertions that he feels compelled to respond too you might actually get him to discuss the other side. You’d probably be surprised to learn that he knows quite a bit about it, and that he’s not so rabidly pro-Israeli as you and others seem to assume he is.
XT that was terrible. If you do not know that there are endless stopping of the Palestinians from traveling about the country ,you are not qualified to discuss it. Even 60 minutes did a show last week showing how in a 30 mile trip you could be stopped a dozen times foe indeterminate time periods. Sometimes the guards are given instructions not to allow males of a particular age through that day. often they wait for hours with no recourse.
They even have nice new roads for the Israelis to drive on while the crappy roads are all the Arabs are allowed to use. http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR26/FMR2626.pdf Life for a Palestinian. Would you like to live like that?
Because you can’t read and comprehend what I wrote doesn’t make me unqualified to answer the question. It simply means you can’t read or understand what I’m asking you. I can’t help that part unfortunately.
Let me see if I can guess what the hell you are getting at (though why I’m bothering is a mystery), since it’s clear you don’t know and since I can’t open what is probably a wonderful cite on your part due to the fact that it’s a PDF (thanks for the warning there btw). What you mean is that travel is constrained for Palestinian’s who live in the West Bank region of the PA and who are trying to enter Israel due for work or some other reason…right? Or travel in the PA is constricted between the interleaved settlements, which are fenced off.
So, when you say Palestinian’s are not allowed to travel freely in ‘their own country’ you really mean they aren’t free to travel between Palestinian Authority territory in the West Bank and Israel.
Assuming that this is actually what you meant (and assuming you understand the distinction…some pretty broad assumptions there), there is a very good reason why the Israeli’s constrain Palestinian traffic in and out of their own territory (as well as through or around their West Bank settlements)…that reason being the Israeli’s don’t enjoy having their citizens blown into tiny pieces by Palestinian fanatics who seem to enjoy strapping bombs to themselves so they can stroll into malls and cafes. Is that really so hard to understand?
I freely acknowledge that this has got to be a major pain for the average Palestinian to endure, especially travel through the West Bank in the patch work of PA territory and Israeli settlements. The long lines and hostile attitude from the Israeli troops has got to be a major source of frustration for them, and the fact that those Israeli settlements are there a constant source of discontent and pain.
However, those settlements are there due in large part to the actions of the Palestinian’s and their neighbors, and those check points, fences and hassle are directly linked to past Palestinian action. If they want them to go away then a good place to start is to get rid of all the fanatics in their midst and go for all that peaceful coexistence stuff.
Hopefully haven’t messed this post up too much trying to post from my iPod touch. Have to run to a meeting or I’m sure I’d give your weighty post the attention it deserves.