Finn has defended a racist/bigoted law as one that is legitimately trying to address security concerns of a nation at war.
Despite the fact that tehe supporters of teh law admit that it is it is aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and that “We have to maintain the state’s democratic nature, but also its Jewish nature.”
The law is not well designed toa ddress security concerns but it is well designed to slow the growth of the Palestinian population in Israel.
Damuri cannot (or will not) post honestly. But we’ve been overthis issue many times. What actually happened is that I corrected Damuri’s factual error. Evidently in his twisted little mind, that means I’ve defended something. Just like pointing out that a criminal profile that mentions that Islamic terrorists follow the religion of Islam isn’t a call to investigate all Muslims or a claim of Muslims-as-terrorists meant that I support… God only knows.
Damuri is both stupid and dishonest, and cannot cognitively handle a discussion in anything but the most absurd black and white gloss.
:rolleyes:
Damuri is quoting (without a cite, naturally)one single minister’s claim. long after the law was instituted. The fact is that the law was instituted due to security fears even while some argue that it is, in effect, discriminatory along ethnic lines or that it has a ‘secret’ racial component:
The situation is anything but simple, or cut and dry. A ranting idiot who can’t discuss it intelligently without simply shouting “You’re defending racism, you’re a racist!” is hardly an asset in a discussion on an issue as complicated as security in Israel. This is the same narrative-driven willful ignorance that seeks to handwave away a complex situation as “pseudocomplexity” and give one side white hats and the other black hats.
Of course it’s possible to oppose the law on its merits, but Damuri is so stupid that he believes pointing out the facts about it makes one a bigot.
I don’t care to discuss pragmatics or ethics with someone like Damuri who simply refuses to discuss anything honestly. Nuance simply doesn’t fit into Damuri’s ramblings. And as he’s admitted, every new piece of information is something he instinctively crams into an anti-Israel narrative, and takes no personality responsibility for that as he claims that it’s my fault and that I control his mind.
Nope. Not even once. You may want to look up the word “substantiate” you ignorant twit.
Nope. I’ve said flatly more than once that I do NOT advocate investigating all Muslims. That it would not be helpful. Even counter-productive. I have also said numerous times that acceptable substantiation needn’t be verbatim. Just something that goes directly to actually substantiating your bullshit. Oh, SURPRISE! It doesn’t exist.
You would lose them only after you applied other filters. That’s a fault with the subsequent filters. Your strategy suffers from the same deficiency. But the fact remains that the Fort Hood asshole would, indeed, have been contained in my first filter, as he is a Muslim. And the use of ANY filters, mine or yours, is a strategy you employ in the hopes of identifying the barbaric assholes. Simply ascribing to that strategy is no guarantee that you will catch everyone. If only it were that easy.
I explained this. You’re user named sounded Middle Eastern to me and I assumed—mistakenly—that you were Muslim. The error is mine. If you thought it an insult of any sort, I will even apologize. As it stands, I admit my error.
DA, here is one example of why I am not going to attempt to have a serious discussion with you.
You go from posting this on 3/30 at 5:22 PM:
to then claiming that your comments about America were exclusively
26 hours later. It’s not enough that you misrepresent what others post; you have to misrepresent your own posts as well.
You show no evidence of wanting to have an honest discussion, and I have no reason to believe that debating you in this venue has value for any “lurkers” who may be about.
You may not like or accept my substantiation but substantiation doesn’t mean proving it to your satisfaction.
[quote]
Nope. I’ve said flatly more than once that I do NOT advocate investigating all Muslims.
[quote]
Yes after you said things that would ineveitably lead to investigfation of all muslims. So you have chagned your position based on the results of your original position and thats great but taht doesn’t chagen the fact that your original position was effectively to investigate all muslims.
I don’t know why I let you divert the conversation into this picayune issue (its very Finnesque of you) because the point being made was Finn hypocrisy in condemning the questioning of Jews based on their Jewishness while not being particularly bothered by your attitude towards muslims presumably because you are on the same side of the Israel debate as him.
Are you whooshing me?
You want to filter for muslimness and then apply OTHER filters to the population of muslims to get the terrorists. I said, why not just apply those other filters to begin with, how does applying the muslim filter help you? You said that the other filters might not catch all the terrorists. SO…
How do you catch the muslim terrorists that the other filters do not catch without investigating all the muslims?
Once the Fort Hood terrorist (assuming you don’t filter him out for being a military doctor) is filtered in for being muslims, which filter would have caught him? He didn’t travel to suspect places, he didn’t have any obvious connections with terrorists or radicals. You would have had to investigate him to figure out he was a terrorist. How would you have picked him out for investigation? OR would you have had to investigate all Muslims before you figured out that a muslim military doctor was a terrorist?
Did you miss the cite to where I say that simply applying all those other filters without applying the muslim filter would catch virtually all the terrorsits and your response was ton highlight the words “virtually all” your methodology would catch ALL muslim terrosits. Well HOW would it catch ALL muslim terrorists without investigating ALL muslims?
Like I said, you may not have realized the effect of your suggestion that we filter all muslims FIRST and then apply other filters (like who had been to Pakistan or have had contact with knwon terrorists/radicals) you are doing two things, you are filtering out terrorists that you have not identified as muslims (like I said before, how do you knwo who the muslims are? Do they wear armbands with yellow crescents on them?) and you do not filter in anyone unless you intend to investigate ALL Muslims.
IOW your desire to filter muslims to find terrorists is based purely on fear driven racism and Finn’s indifference or intentional ignorance of your racism is in direct contrast with his protests about racism from folks who wonder out loud about the divided loyalty of Jews to America.
I didn’t take offence, I just thought it was interesting that you would think that I was a muslim.
[quote]
As it stands, I admit my error.
[quote]
Well, you still need to admit that you were wrong about not advocating for the investigation of all muslims. Or that you are a racist driven by fear.
This thread had been off the front page for days now, and you had to resurrect it with that shit? As punishment, you are hereby sentenced to go be stupid in a corner somewhere. Although, as that’s a bit redundant, just go be in a corner.
You clipped my quote. I asked “wasn’t I talking about Jim Crow?” And now you are saying that I claimed that my comments about America were exclusively about Jim Crow. I the cotext of racism, I didn’t think that the George Bush comment was what you were talking about.
No that is YOU misprepresenting my quotes.
And how am I being dishonest? Or does it just make it easier to ignore uncomfortable truths by telling yourself that all your oppsition is dishonest?
Safe to say, if you’re posting anywhere, someone is indeed wrong on the internet. Your 5-day-late post to me concerns me. The stupid in you is growing. Yes, I know, I thought it not possible myself.
I could explain to you for the umpteenth time why so much of what you say about the issue and my positions are wrong, but you’d just protect yourself from reality with your mighty Shield of Stupidity. Here is just one piece of evidence as to why you are an immeasurably stupid and dishonest poster;
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Are you whooshing me?
You want to filter for muslimness and then apply OTHER filters to the population of muslims to get the terrorists.
[/QUOTE]
After all the posts, all the pages, you just now comprehend what I’ve been saying? And are surprised by my position? Unbelievable.
You and your shield win. Your stupidity cannot be penetrated. Your dishonesty will not will not take a back seat.
I’ve said everything that I am going to say on this. You’re a racist (just about anyone that has participated in debates with you think you are a racist, they’re just not allowed to call you taht in great debates), part of the evidence for this is that you want to investigate all muslims (or at least you did) and Finn seems oddly tolerant of your racism while getting very upset by racism from other quarter (read: people who don’t vocally support Israeli racism).
You are an idiot. Israel’s only official discriminatory policy (regarding limiting immigration of a specific subset of Palestinians) are based on national origin and a result of the de facto state of war between Israel and some portions of Palestine. Israel has no officially racist policies. While no one with eyes to see will argue that Arabs in Israel “enjoy” the same status as blacks in the United States (that is, discriminated against by some sections of the population and looked down upon by some of the more reactionary politicians), that’s not the same thing as what you’ve accused Israel of.
The fact that Magellan has a (in my view, criminally misguided, but that’s not this thread) idea that you can first-pass screen for Muslims as a useful tool for finding terrorists in the US aside, he STILL argues his views better than you do.
My prediction–you will keep bumping the thread so as to have the last word, even when it’s clear you’re both wrong and a clown.
No, you were shown to be a liar on that count and were ignoring that even before the cite you used which you claimed supported your statements, Magellan had explicitly said that he did not want to investigate all Muslims, but that he was simply including the fact that Islamic terrorists follow Islam as one datapoint in a full criminal profile.
You are a pathetically dishonest schmuck, and you are desperately flailing to create some sort of hypocrisy where none at all exists. Naturally, you’re lying, again.
Magellan is right, your dishonesty and utter stupidity form a shield of willful ignorance that simply cannot be pierced by facts or logic. Naturally, you are lying yet again, just like you went on a lying binge claiming that I’d ever called you an anti-Semite or implied you were an anti-Semite (after you’d been lying and claiming that I’d “shouted you down” with accusations and then later changed your lie to how I’d coyly suggested you were, instead).
Now you’re pretending that I’ve ever called anybody, at all, a racist for not supporting Israel. You are a lying piece of shit and that fact doesn’t trouble you, because you don’t have the integrity God gave pathological liars.
Now go to your corner and be stupid at a wall. Maybe you can come back and rant to us about how you know that the wall called you an anti-Semite, or at least it was totally going to if you hadn’t cowed it into submission with your devastating logical abilities.
That is at best grossly misleading. Israel’s immigration laws are certainly quite discriminatory. Beyond that, Israel doesn’t even pretend to give equal funding to the schools it’s Arab citizens go to as it does it’s Jewish citizens(for those not in the know Jewish and Arab citizens in Israel don’t go to the same schools). When it comes to the religious schools, the discrimination is even more blatant. Yeshivas get all sorts of benefits while Christian and Muslim ones get none.
And that is not even counting land laws or water rights much less the way Israel blatantly discriminates against it’s Arab citizens when it comes to joining the military. The Druze face no discrimination and the Bedouins face some, but not as much, but the rest of Israel’s Arab citizens are almost automatically rejected and then have the fact that they’re not veterans used to justify countless other instances of discrimination throughout their lives.
Theere is no doubt that non-Jews face various forms of discrimination, more or less overt - though the courts have teeth and do strike down actually discriminatory laws affecting citizens.
But I do not agree that army recruitment is an example. My understanding is that certain groups are not conscripted - and these include many Arabs (save Bedouin and Druze), but also many Jews - the ultra-Orthodox.
I did not know that they were rejected should they apply. According to Wikipedia (not the best source I know) some Arabs apply for “national service” which allows them the same benefits as conscription, and some apply for military service:
If this is incorrect, i’d be interested to hear it.