Finn Again's Wake

[FinnAgain]

It is a bit disseminating that immediately Elvis is doing his best to shit up FGOI’s thread with his characteristic “is he really that stupid or is he just fucking with us?” routine. I’m honestly left doubting that he really is as stupid as to believe that I was endorsing Hama as a desirable court of action, or that by pointing out he hadn’t refuted my points that I was improperly engaging with him. I think he just pretends to be stupid in order to shit up threads because, honestly, I do not believe that he really is that stupid. I’m sorry, I just don’'t.

[ivan_astikov]

@ Finn Again’s post #157 - You sure like to see your thoughts emblazoned on your shiny pc screen, don’t you!

Wassup? Unable to get printed in a proper publication? I wonder why that might be?
@Cisco, aka The King Of Retarded Misrepresentation - Show ONE post of mine that uses any of those tired Derbunker cliches, or risk being forever known as a lying shit.

[Malthus]

@Alessan

Finn can be somewhat avid and excitable, true, but those he argues against are equally avid and excitable, and significantly less-well-informed. I’m glad he acts the way he acts - if he didn’t, I’d have to.

Yup, Finn knows his history.

Perhaps that is part of what is annoying about Israel threads - so much of the argument tends to be based on the history, and so many of those arguing vehemently about it are not well-informed.

[elucidator]

Well, there’s informed, and then there’s informed. Knew a guy in college, worlds most solid anti-Communist,and very, very will informed when it came to Communist wrongdoing. Knew exactly how many armored divisions the Soviets sent into Hungary. Knew to a fine point how Fidel suppressed free speech in Cuba. Could give you chapter and verse on the perfidy of American Communists and their two-faced hypocrisy on the Stalin-Hitler pact.

Some time later, ran into him, and it was just the time when Archbishop Romero was murdered by right wing thugs. And he had never heard of him. Hadn’t the slightest idea what “liberation theology” was, or what it was about.

Just an example, not meant as an accusation. Just sayin’, is all, about “well informed”. That ol’ boy was well informed as all git out!

[ivan_astikov]

"Those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat their failures." someone said, but I’d prefer to go with what George Bernard Shaw said “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”

For an area with such an ancient history, they don’t seemed to have learned very much over there. They seem too intent on clinging to old hatreds and adopting a continuous adversarial position.

[Cisco]

@ivan_astikov

@Cisco, aka The King Of Retarded Misrepresentation - Show ONE post of mine that uses any of those tired Derbunker cliches, or risk being forever known as a lying shit.

I would be HONORED to be forever known as a lying shit by a guy with such a bass-ackwards interpretation of the word “truth.” In fact, put it in your sig. I give my blessing. To all mods: I won’t consider it a personal insult. It will be a compliment.

[ivan_astikov]

In other words, you can’t find one, can you?

[FinnAgain]

For those reading along, Cisco is not lying. Ivan is a Troofer. Of course, he’s a coward and goes about his Troofering the same way he goes about his Jew-hating; something like a cross between a rat and a roach when the lights are turned on.

Posters can check out the whole of this threadif they’d like. Readers will notice that he follows the well-worn Troofer technique of JAQing Off. Or they can see snippets such as:

[

1. The US Government planned the events of 9/11.
   If by “US Government” you mean members within it, I believe this is possible.

2. The US Government knew in advance of the events of 9/11.
   As above.

3. If either 1) or 2) is true, the motivation for action or inaction was to have an excuse to attack Afganistan.
   Nah, it’s not that simple.

4. One or more of the four aircraft supposed to have been hijacked was empty and flown by remote control.
   Unlikely, but possible.

5. The WTC towers were destroyed by pre-planted demolition charges, not by the impact of the hijacked aircraft.
   Well, apart from WTC7. The planes were a cover for the sabotage of 1 and 2, and the expected damage from their collapse was the cover for 7.

6. For whatever reason the investigation into the events of 9/11 was a sham and the conclusions deliberately falsified.
   Obvious. They didn’t even investigate the possibility of sabotage, from all I’ve read.

7. The US Government did not know in advance of the events of 9/11 and these happened as generally accepted but the US Government used them as an excuse to attack Afganistan.
   If someone within or working for the US Government hadn’t anticipated it, they were failing in their duty, at the very least, and need holding to account for that.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11233021&postcount=514)

[

Until you and Telemark give me your personal credentials to counter any suppositions I may make, you’ll have to wait.

I’ll tell you mine upfront.

I’m very well-read, not easily blagged at all, have bags of common sense, have a healthy distrust of ‘authority figures’ and am extremely open to convincing persuasion, as opposed to being bludgeoned by ‘facts’. Oh, I also have a very devious mind, but reckon there are those much more devious than myself, who also have the resources and the power to do something more than think about things.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11240264&postcount=546)

[

Third plane, manages to sneak by all the Pentagon’s security cameras, when one, which must have faced out onto the heliport in front of the crash site, must have picked something clearer up than what has been shown.

Fourth plane, possibly heading for the White House, fortunately gets brought down by brave passengers. Phew! Lucky government!

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11240279&postcount=548)

[

Regardless, they both stayed up for over a hour, and ‘weakened by heat’ steel is meant to have lost it’s integrity simultaneously, but it couldn’t possibly have been assisted by an extra heat source? Where’s the best place to hide arson(ie. thermite or similar sabotage)? In a fire!

Btw, has there been an explanation for that molten metal pouring from one of the tower’s corners, yet?

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11240987&postcount=564)

He’s a coward, a racist, a liar and a Troofer.
Cisco is correct, Ivan is lying about Cisco’s claims.
~shrugs~

[Malthus]

@elucidator

Well, there’s informed, and then there’s informed. Knew a guy in college, worlds most solid anti-Communist,and very, very will informed when it came to Communist wrongdoing. Knew exactly how many armored divisions the Soviets sent into Hungary. Knew to a fine point how Fidel suppressed free speech in Cuba. Could give you chapter and verse on the perfidy of American Communists and their two-faced hypocrisy on the Stalin-Hitler pact.

Some time later, ran into him, and it was just the time when Archbishop Romero was murdered by right wing thugs. And he had never heard of him. Hadn’t the slightest idea what “liberation theology” was, or what it was about.

Just an example, not meant as an accusation. Just sayin’, is all, about “well informed”. That ol’ boy was well informed as all git out!

Finn is not willfully blind to Israeli faults, or at least, not that I have seen. If you have an example of such willful blindness you wish to produce, feel free to do so.

[Jackmannii]

ivan says he has “bags of common sense”?

That explains a lot. Keeping one’s common sense in airtight bags leads to regrettable consequences.

[FinnAgain]

I do have to say, I’m baffled by the types of denial Ivan engages in. He posts anti-semitic rubbish, then claims he’s not an anti-semite. He parrots Troofer rhetoric, right down to claims about thermite or whatever, and then claims that someone calling him out is a liar.

Why the game?
I honestly don’t get it.

[Captain_Amazing]

Because being a truther or an anti-semite is a BAD thing. He just asks the tough questions and wants to keep in mind the possibility that Jews are evil and that the government caused 9/11.

[elucidator]

@Malthus

Finn is not willfully blind to Israeli faults, or at least, not that I have seen. If you have an example of such willful blindness you wish to produce, feel free to do so.

You wish me to search all of Finn’s postings and bring you an example of something he didn’t say?

[CarnalK]

@elucidator

You wish me to search all of Finn’s postings and bring you an example of something he didn’t say?

Well, do you think this exchange is willful blindness?

@foiegrasisevil

I guess I have to assume the answer is “no”, which is disappointing, because Israel is a nation not a God, and certainly makes mistakes.

@FinnAgain

That’s a rather silly thing for you to think though, isn’t it? Because I disagree with folks on one topic, or twelve topics, or whatever that I think the nation under discussion is Divine and can do not wrong? That’s not a logical conclusion.
<snip>
Yes, settlements expansion is needlessly provocative. No, not all land in the West Bank is Palestinian by ownership rights. Yes, demolishing houses of relatives of terrorists is collective punishment under the 4th GC. No, interning people for security/military necessity is not apartheid and is specifically authorized under the 4th GC. Yes, targeting civilian areas with cluster munitions is wrong. No, targeting valid military targets that are using human shields is not a war crime and is specifically authorized by the 4th GC. Yes targeted killings are much, much more moral than full scale war. No, white phosphorous is not banned by international treaty. Yes… No… Yes… No…

[elucidator]

All of those things are wrong, and every civilized person knows it. Whether or not the wording of the Geneva Convention can be tortured to confess differently is another matter, semantics is the most abused human study, save perhaps for law and theology.

If admitting that half of what is thunderingly obvious is a generous display of open-mindedness…well, I leave that to you. In truth, Finns personal antagonism and bitter invective have alienated me to such a degree, I doubt I can offer a fair assessment of a personality I find so odious.

[CarnalK]

Well, I wasn’t actually defending him. I wondered if you thought that those ,as you note, weak and obvious admissions of Israel’s mistakes might fit Malthus’ request for willful blindness. I also honestly wonder if he has ever actually condemned the settlement expansions if he feels they are needlessly provocative.

[FinnAgain]

@Malthus

Finn is not willfully blind to Israeli faults, or at least, not that I have seen. If you have an example of such willful blindness you wish to produce, feel free to do so.

Of course he doesn’t have such an example, and he knew that before he wrote his oh-so-witty little example. It’s just how Lucy operates. I argue facts, he generally ignores facts that conflict with his politics and/or shits in threads with oh-so-funny jokes (oh snap, Wilde?), like his bullshit in the linked thread denying that there was an alliance between the Nazis and Arab nationalists, even though I’d already provided copious cites for it. Lucy doesn’t deal with facts that contradict his partisan politics, and he doesn’t acknowledge his mistakes when he’s shown to be yukking it up over his simple refusal to learn.

Once, for instance, he denied the validity of a cite I was using, babbling about how nobody could trust it when they didn’t know where it was from and, literally, on each and every other page in all cap it said “THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT”. His response to factual claims I was making in a thread about Iran was not to ask whether or not they were correct, but to state that acknowleding such facts was neocon behavior, or whatever. Or when I once linked to one of my own posts where I’d offered dozens of cites rather than re-linking/quoting/citing them all, and Lucy claimed that I was pretending that my post was my cite. And so on and so on. Lucy’s clown schtick is part of why he finds my desire to argue facts to be so ‘odious’. He doens’t give a flying fuck if they get in the way of his partisan politics and his hippydippy view of the world. Backed into a corner, he’ll unleash a mean and utterly convincing bandwagon fallacy.
He works by insinuation and threadshitting, not honest discussion. That’s why he’ll try to suggest that, sure, I’m constantly pointing out that he’s full of shit and ignorant on the basic facts of an issue he’s yukking it up about, but I’m probably totally ignorant about this or the other thing… not that he can provide proof of that, mind you, but man he can joke about it! It’s just the same old, same old. I find Lucy’s habit of shitting in a thread and willful ignorance to be frustrating in an honest discussion, and, to be fair, he finds my tendency to show how he’s full of shit to be absolutely odious.

He’d awfully like to show that my reliance on facts and logic is somehow wrong, but he can’t. So all you’ll get are jokes and anecdotes about this friend he once had who didn’t know something, even though he knew a bunch of facts! Lucy is the mirror image of the obnoxious pundits Colbert satirizes. Lucy doesn’t have any truck with them thar factistas, he just uses his gut to tell him what’s right and what’s not.

Lucy is a clown, and not much more.

[FinnAgain]

Oh, and since I mentioned the 4th GC and didn’t cite/quote it, I figure I might as well. Not that it’ll do any good for some as I go through these steps in many threads where the facts are disputed, but maybe someone reading along hasn’t yet read the document.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Art. 23. Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.

The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons
for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.

Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Art. 41. Should the Power, in whose hands protected persons may be, consider the measures of control mentioned in the present Convention to be inadequate, it may not have recourse to any other measure of control more severe than that of assigned residence or internment, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 42 and 43.

In applying the provisions of Article 39, second paragraph, to the cases of persons required to leave their usual places of residence by virtue of a decision placing them in assigned residence elsewhere, the Detaining Power shall be guided as closely as possible by the standards of welfare set forth in Part III, Section IV of this Convention.

Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.

Art. 78. If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.

Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the parties concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible delay. In the event of the decision being upheld, it shall be subject to periodical review, if possible every six months, by a competent body set up by the said Power.

Protected persons made subject to assigned residence and thus required to leave their homes shall enjoy the full benefit of Article 39 of the present Convention.

Tortured.
Yep.

[elucidator]

Gotta wonder about that, this habit you have of bringing up stuff out of your personal history with individual Dopers. I mean, some of this shit is months old! What, do you keep files on people? Like your own database? What’s that, an Excel spitesheet?

Scooter, you got issues.

[Cisco]

@elucidator

Gotta wonder about that, this habit you have of bringing up stuff out of your personal history with individual Dopers. I mean, some of this shit is months old! What, do you keep files on people? Like your own database? What’s that, an Excel spitesheet?

Scooter, you got issues.

Hold on there, cowboy. I have NO dog in this fight; I don’t even know where I stand on the whole Israel/Palestine thing, and I don’t know either one of you from Adam, but you can’t do exactly what he just accused you of doing and then tell him he’s got issues. Not in the same breath that you proved him right with. That’s just not cool.

Say something funny, or defend yourself, or a million other things, fine, but don’t tell him he has issues, at least not for that reason. He’s obviously got a point or he wouldn’t have been able to predict how you’d respond.

[Referee jersey off]

Game on.