Ah shit, I’m starting to feel bad about being so mean to december because of the pile-on.
December, the reason for my earlier nastiness is not you as a person, but rather with your incendiary style. Threads like Palestinian and Arab hatred is the problem, but what’s the answer?, backed up in the OP by a commentator (and some personal anecdote). Surely nobody in their right mind (apart from Charles Krauthammer) believes that the hatred of one side is the entire reason for the problems in the Middle East. But this is how you appear to have presented it.
Anyway, ‘let him who is without sin’ and all that; I’ll shut up now. Nothing personal, eh old chap?
No, I do not need to find any similar cases. As Fenris pointed out so eloquently, it is my judgment that this TSBOLE was happening. YMMV. The cited example was not meant to demonstrate. It was meat to illustrate TSBOLE, in case some posters might be unfamiliar with the concept.
Similarly, you may feel that my posts are bullshit. :eek: However, you’re not required to cite an article from the Journal of Bullshitology[sup]TM[/sup] confirming your judgment.
Sua, I’m beginning to understand that you and I have different tastes in humor. I took your comment as an excuse for that link, because I found it funny. In pompous editorial after pompous editorial, the Times sternly lectured Arafat on what he absolutely must do. But the consequence of noncompliance was – another editorial. Like, This time we really mean it. :mad:
You didn’t find that series of editorials funny? OK. We simply have different senses of humor.
The point of the link was not meant to prove anything at all about Arafat; but to hold those editorials up to ridicule. That’s what I meant by “inanity defense.” (another bit of humor that seems not to be your cup of tea.)
Soft bigotry of lowered expectations–December, are you honestly that stupid? Do you not read and register what people write you, or do you do this sort of thing because it gives you pleasure?
My explanation in the original post was clear, certainly clear enough for others to understand. This is not a question of lowered expectations, as you keep claiming, but of cultural points of view. The comment was even explained (by me, twice) and defended (by someone else) in the original thread, never mind here. I would have thought that even someone as deliberately misguiding as you would have had to understand that, but if you want to continue insisting your idiotic point go ahead–it will say more about you than me.
That is not the problem, you are simply complaining about the fact that, generally, few are prepared to accept the conservative efforts (mostly of opinion) that December is so fond of linking to. Evident bias will do a lot against an argument, and if an argument is silly to begin with and biased, well there’s not much left for December to hang on because most posters will not want to bother with something of so little substance (this is a pattern I am describing). That has nothing to do with, as I suspect you mean, hating conservatism; it’s just that some conservatives, starting with December, espouse views that are not merely unsupported but also asinine, as demonstrated time and again. That doesn’t mean conservatives are necessarily morons. However, just as you (and I) would probably not waste too much time on the views of a “tree-hugging bleeding heart knee-jerk liberal” before dismissing them, the majority of people will not waste too much time on certain sources, particularly the opinions December floods us with on a regular basis. It may not be correct, strictly speaking, but it’s what December brought on himself with years of idiot posts (although he certainly is capable of making sense every now and then, too bad he doesn’t do so more often).
This is not about conservatives, moderates, or liberals. If you wish to make it about conservatives then the exercise is hardly better than December’s attempts to discredit me or my arguments by calling me bigoted without reason.
This is a moot point. Mine was not a case of soft bigotry, any more than my Thai insult example could be considered one. It is a question of particular sensibilities peculiar to a culture or group that are deliberately irritated. It is not a question of lowered expectations, but different expectations.
Good grief! Let me point out that I was the one being called a bigot and accused of prejudice by a conservative who had no reason to do so, and December therefore fits your description of what, according to you, liberals engage in. But, to counter your silly comment, conservatives are tedious because they go on waffling and mumbling about arguments and positions that are inane and long past their expiry date. There, are you happy with my generalization?
No, as already explained a number of times. Besides, December fired his insults first, whereas mine were used to say “you have to draw the line somewhere”, specifically at calling me bigoted for a claim that is clearly explained and supported (did we mention that deliberate misinterpretation is another of December’s traits?). But, if calling me bigoted for no reason other than to discredit an unrelated point you can’t argue against is not an insult, perhaps terms such as “jew lover,” “stinking nigger,” “greasy wop”, or “sand nigger,” etc. are acceptable to you in a debate? I could provide cites! If I am accused of bigotry then I ought to make the accusation worth it at the very least…
Not that I engage in that sort of nonsense. I think my posting history speaks for itself on the topic of bigotry.
If you want to think so, but the day a claim like that sticks, Shodan, is the day I will join you in upholding Ashcroft as a wise and upright man, or campaigning for arctic reserve oil drilling, or the other things that American conservatives do for fun. The general rule of thumb, by the way, is that the most sensible person or the person with the least patience is the first to give up on a hopeless argument. My credibility was being attacked in the most idiotic and unfounded of ways; you saw that even when I provided a longer and simpler explanation of my comment for December’s benefit, he still insisted on his idiotic and utterly irrelevant tack. There is little difference between that and me calling December a Jew-lover in order to invalidate his arguments in that thread. When I run out of arguments I withdraw or yield; I don’t take it to the pit. The pit I reserve for criticizing the idiocy or bigotry of posters.
If you call me bigoted you had better have very good reason to support your claim (December had no reason, and that is why it was a baseless personal attack, Gaudere). It had no bearing on the argument and was simply a Decembrist attempt to discredit me, whether or not it was technically permissible by the rules of this board. I’ve called people bigoted before on these boards, but always with supporting evidence; I’ve certainly never called someone bigoted because he explained the culturally relativistic basis of finding offence in seemingly harmless comments, acts, gestures, body parts, etc. (indeed, that is the opposite of bigotry because it requires the suspension of cultural prejudices).
Can we all tell the difference between that and the soft bigotry of lowered expectations? Deliberately confusing these issues seems rather dangerous.
I should apologize to you Abe, because my comment wasn’t meant to be an attack on you personally. I was really responding to a particular way of thinking. You are quite right that I was interpreting your POV differently from how you intended. I was trying to undermine your argument and show that things could be looked at in surprisingly different ways. That’s a fair debating tactic.
The so-called “cultural explanation” is IMHO merely a way to excuse or condone bad behavior. Yet, which culture is it that’s so easily driven to violence? Arab culture? Muslim culture? Palestinian culture? Palestinians living in is Israeli settlements? All disadvantaged peoples?
And, where are the cites and explanations from real cultural experts? There are none, because the phrase “cultural explanation” is merely code, meaning that an excuse is available.
How about reasonableness tests to demonstrate that the cultural explanation is not bogus. E.g., the story is that they’re so sensitive to Sharon visiting their neighborhood that it drives them to murder. But, where was their sensitivity, when Arafat turned down an offer for a Palestinian State?
And, how about considering alternative explanaitons – like the hate training put out by the Arafat regime?
I’m not angry at you, Abe. I’m angry about the easy acceptance of this theory. It’s propaganda, not social science. And, I’m a bit frightened, since this is another in a long line of bogus theories that have been used to justify violence against Jews
Regarding TSBOLE, I do think that excusing violence in this way is ultimately unhelpful, even for the Palestinians. And, I’m irritated by the smugness of those who think it’s high-minded to condone bad actions by certain groups.
I don’t like phony excuses. That’s my nature. That’s why I’m opposed to the post-modern, “non-judgmental” way of thinking. However, I’m a lot more upset when this sort of thinking is used to condone the mass murder of Jewish people.
Abe claims he never descends to name-calling. Apart from asking december “are you really that stupid”, calling his positions “cretinous”, “moronic”, and my posts “silly”. Then he states:
No, of course you don’t.
If you can provide cites in which december or I have used any of these terms in debate with you, please do so. Or withdraw the accusation. Keep in mind that I have no interest in what anyone else say to you that was mean, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
And when I asked:
,you responded:
In other words, you don’t have to give any evidence or reasoning in support of your position. It is so simply because you say it is so. How is this different from december using a conservative publication to provide examples of what he was speaking about?
Simply repeating, over and over, “He started it! He called me a bigot!”, is not argument. (Not to mention that he said that your position “verged on prejudiced”. That’s when you lost it and began screaming.)
I think the problem is that some people find their own thinking to be so self-evidently obvious, that they cannot imagine any reasonable way to disagree with them. When repeatedly restating their position does not work, the inescapable conclusion is that your wisdom is being wasted on fools. Then things turn ugly.
I realize that this is the Pit. Insults and yelling in, rational debate out. Have at it if you like.
and Shodon quietly avoids the fact that I addressed the specifics of “did this cite support decembers point about Soft bigotry of Lowered Expectations” and the resounding answer is ‘it did not’. But, of course, it’s much more fun to ignore that point.
and december, tho’ I like **Fenris ** and respect him quite a bit, referring to him as an appeal to authority ("**Fenris ** sez I don’t haveto") doesn’t really answer my point at all.
You state that you believe that SBOLE exists. Fine and dandy. My son believed in the Easter BUnny when he was younger, too. Doesn’t make it real. YOu can choose to believe anything you want, however, when you make a claim that something exists, you really need to provide some evidence that it isn’t just in your head.
You listed, as support for your claim that link to the article. In it, it makes the claim that the two cases listed demonstrated the SBOLE, 'cause of course in one case the killer was male in the other female. I pointed out, extensively, that there were a ton of other, more relevant differences to the two cases, which much more adequately explain the differences perceived.
So, again - when you want to claim that SBOLE exists, you need to do more to demonstrate it than link to an article where some one makes a false claim.
For example. If I were to claim that "there are cases when a politician lies "and link to an article where someone falsely claimed that the politician lied, you would (correctly) say “But gee, that doesn’t support your thesis”, and if I were to continue to claim, well, maybe this one doesn’t but I believe it happens and it demonstrates that others believe that it happens, too. You’d (correctly again) say “um, no, try again. just 'cause some one else also believes it, doesn’t demonstrate substance”. So, even if the assumption is true, if the cite fails to support it, it was worthless.
“Similar application of this phrase” “illustrate” THe application of the phrase in the link that you gave was (ahem) wrong, the attempt was made that people were excusing violent behavior in certain groups that you wouldn’t in other groups, right? But, as I demonstrated, that wasn’t what happened IN the examples in the cite, the people were (correctly in MO) ascribed motivations, and ‘excuses’ based on fundementally different criteria than membership in gender groups (which was the claim).
The link was a pointless exercise. It did nothing to advance your position. And, actually probably lessened the support. Look at my example “gee I think politicians lie” and using as support a link where some one makes a false claim that a politician lied. YOur link did that. it used the same concept, but applied it wrongly. It was a bad example. Don’t use bad examples.
So, once again. You say that this happens. please support it with examples. Keep in mind that ascribing rationales to a group not only doesn’t support your thesis, but actually detracts from it.
For example, pretty much universally, people generally make ‘excuses’ as such for children - they don’t hold them legally accountable to the same degree as adults. Unless you wish to call this an example of SBOLE, then you’ll have difficulty demonstrating that it exists anywhere.
Is it really ‘bigotry’ to cede that certain conditions, situations may generally be used as some explanation for human behavior? “I was tired, that’s why I snapped at him” “I just found out my mother died” “I was just diagnosed with cancer” these are all ‘excuses’ to some level of degree, for less than perfect behavior.
We accept violence in human behavior (again generally) - we may deplore it’s individual application (‘he shouldn’t have hit her’ ) but totally forgive it in other situations (‘she had a right to defend herself’). All nations accept it as a condition of war, while there remains disagreement as to ‘when is a country really at war’ or ‘justified in declaring war’.
So, to that extent we all allow exceptions to human behavior. So your use of the term “soft bigotry” in this connection doesn’t seem to make sense to me, since you seem to be making the claim that the justifications for the Palestinian behavior lies in the fact that their Palestinians, vs. a description of what they (Palestinians in occupied terriorties) have gone through. Can you show an example where some group/set of writing is making the claim that the violence by Palestinians is justified by virtue of their status as Palestinians but not linked to the plight of the country the Palestinians historically?
as in, the article you cited made the claim that the difference in treatment of the two cases was because of the genders of the persons involved, whereas I made the claim that the gender had nothing to do with it, it was the particular histories and facts associated with each case.
OK. If you copy that phrase into google.com, lots of examples will come up.
I guess you’re arguing that TSBOLE doesn’t really exist. That’s worth discussing. If you’d like to start a thread on that topic, it could be illuminating.
These are individual examples. Even here, consider the analogy if a friend “defended” me in a Pit thread by posting, *“We should excuse him. What can you expect from a moron like december?” *
In my opinion, the original post was not really about the culture and psychology of the Palestinians. It was just repeating a convenient excuse for their violence.
What did Sharon do? He visited a Jewish religious site that happened to be near a Muslim holy site. BFD. Arafat and other leaders used Sharon’s visit as a way to stir up hatred. It’s one thng Palestinians to be aroused by their leaders. It’s another thing for the rest of us to take the claims seriously.
In a sense, I don’t think that post was bigoted, because the poster didn’t mean what he wrote. However, suppose a post seriously alleged that the (average member of Group X) was so hypersensitive and out of control that seeing a (Group X leader) visit his neighborhood would routinely drive this (member of Group X) to commit mass murder. Then I’d say the post indicated bigotry against Group X.
(Someone bigoted against **Group X **could be called an X-ist.
just use that as your mantra . (joking, really, really I am)
No, you were arguing that it does. I’m not convinced.
Apparently it was. I don’t really know that event all that well, but I suggest that for your position, you need to compare apples=apples. So, instead of stating (as you seem to be here) that 'gee, they shouldn’t have been miffed at him visiting the site, we wouldn’t have been miffed at him visiting near our site and deciding that it’s an equal situation. That’s when the cultural stuff gets in the way. I used to drive my mom nuts (I’m sure you can understand) 'cause, for one, I wore my hair long and straight (Still do, and I’m over 40). According to her generation and sensabilities, that was improper. My attitude was ‘gee mom, I won’t gripe if you wear your hair down’, but you see, while it seems to be the same, it isn’t. IN her eyes my hairstyle was ‘inappropriate to my station in life and age’, and instead of looking at that, I simply turned it around. Now, if she’d insisted on wearing her hair in pigtails at 55, I’d have thought it was inappropriate (hate admitting that), sorta Bette Davisish (in Whatever happened to Baby Jane ) I still disagree that my hairstyle was inappropriate, but at this point in my life, I can at least see her point of view.
and that’s what I think was the issue. It isn’t sufficient to say to yourself “gee, I wouldn’t have been bothered by that had the tables been turned” , you really need to actually look at the ‘equivalent’ situation, which is not always the same thing as the ‘identical’ one.
by whom? the poster or the ‘average member group X?’
it’s obviously been a while since I **x-**ercized my algebraic skills.
See, I’m not sure where I stand on this whole issue though - On the one hand, I like to see people accountable for their actions. On the other hand, I understand enough about human behavior and dynamics to see that in some cases, at some times, any one of us can do something uncharacteristic. And, I see differing levels of culpability as well (severe mental illness, youth, some cases of mental disability may lessen levels of ‘responsability’).
SO, for example, I saw Andrea Yates as a tragic figure, and Susan Smith was a self centered Bitch (MHO). Merely having a tragic past or adversity doesn’t generally excuse you or explain horrific actions. And, for the folks who were involved in 9/11 - while I can understand that they may have felt oppressed and threatened and at war etc, to me, it didn’t excuse 9/11. (I did and do still wish to understand their motivations and rationals more to see if there’s ways our actions may either exacerabate or decrease the possabilities of future attacks, but that’s a whole other can of worms too).
And I think there may in fact be some people who exhibit the trait of which you speak (those folks who wanted to ‘protect the little woman’ for example), but I don’t see a pervasive trend, nor do I really see it exhibited at national levels (by world leaders for example) or in the press. It may be, but I haven’t seen it. MOre often I see attempts to see things from all points of view.
And this, I think, may be where the issue comes up. From my perspective, I like to attempt to see things not just from my own POV, while I cannot literally be in some one else’s position, I can make some attempt to see what they’re talking about, and hopefully, by understanding come to a better relationship. And to that end, suggesting that the Palestinians cannot possibly be upset merely over Sharon visiting that cite, may not be accurate? eh? certainly, it’s not a productive stance, since they seem to exhibit all the signs of actually being upset about it. (not to say that I think the Palestinians are ‘innocent of any wrong doing’, ‘in the right’ etc. )
In my opinion, generalized world peace cannot happen unless we all come to the viewpoint that people are people, some individuals may be assholes, idiots, worthy of scorn, but generally, we’re all trying to survive and be happy. But then again, I’m a card carrying hippie [sup]tm[/sup] Rambled off enough, eh?
( and please note, I didn’t call you names, right? If nothing else, you’ve always been a polite debater, even in the pit, and this I appreciate)
december: *What did Sharon do? He visited a Jewish religious site that happened to be near a Muslim holy site. BFD. *
Actually, it appears that it was a BFD [in preview: what wring said]. In fact, even the Mitchell Report, which concluded that Sharon’s visit did not cause the uprising, “was critical of the visit’s timing, and said that it should have been expected that it would be seen as a provocation by the Palestinians.”
Hmm, maybe december’s insistence that Sharon’s visit was “no big deal” is simply an example of “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations” with respect to Israeli leaders. “Well gee, how were they supposed to know the visit would be seen as a provocation? You know what morons they are.” :rolleyes:
What really interests me here, though, is the way that “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations” seems to be applied to december himself. For quite a while now, in practically every thread he’s started and in response to his posts in other threads too, it is commonly noted—and never contradicted—that he tends to be irritatingly illogical, partisan, incapable of distinguishing correctly between opinion and fact, a sloppy thinker, and willing to distort statements and reasoning, sometimes to the point of downright dishonesty. Worst of all, since he starts a new thread every other day or thereabouts and posts zealously in many existing ones, the more competent debaters—conservative and liberal alike—have to spend an inordinate amount of time cleaning up his messy logic.
So should he still be posting in Great Debates? I realize that december violates few if any of the general “don’t-be-a-jerk” rules for these boards: he’s usually polite, seldom or never makes mean ad hominem attacks, doesn’t seem to have any axes of personal bigotry to grind, and is overall pretty good-humored and sweet-tempered. He also, as has been pointed out, often raises interesting questions. In all these respects, he’s reminiscent of the late Wildest Bill, before the latter went nuclear on the “raghead” issue or whatever it was that finally got him banned. Certainly december hasn’t done anything to deserve to be kicked off these boards entirely.
But he just can’t cut the mustard when it comes to sustaining a rational or factual argument, and consequently he’s a hell of a burden on Great Debates. Should we have to put up with this indefinitely? Does a poster go on getting a free pass to keep on pouring sand in the ignorance-fighting machinery even after he has repeatedly demonstrated over a long period of time that he just isn’t learning any better? Maybe we’d be better off having some sort of “soft banning” which would remove such incorrigible posters from a particular forum, or permit them to respond to existing threads but not to launch OPs, or something of the sort.
Heaven knows, this ain’t no elitist newbie-bashing. We’ve had plenty of people come through GD who were initially not sufficiently careful about the requirements of debate (including your humble servant), but after getting taken to task a few times, they tended either to drop into lurkerhood or tighten up their posting style. What do we do about someone like december who won’t improve but won’t shut up? I’ll go on grinning and bearing it if the mods don’t feel any other action is justified, but lordy, my grinning and bearing muscles are getting pretty tired.
I fully agree wring. My gripe is that human behavior and dynamics were cited, but they were bogus in this case. Why? Because the poster didn’t have any expertise or cites about Palestinian behavior and dynamics.
It was backwards reasoning: The Palestinians reacted violently, so they must have had the excuse in their psychology dynamics. Actuaully, one could make any number of guesses as to why they reacted so violently.
When somse expert in Arab psychology presents a validated theory of Palestinian behavior, then I’ll take that explanation seriously.
I agree. However, seeing things form some other POV requires real understanding of those people. The post I complained about simply made up the alleged Palestinian psychology.
Fair enough. They were upset. Two questions remain:
[ul][li]What’s the real reason they were upset? (We’re guessing or rationalizing)[/li][li]What’s the morality? Does their being upset reduce their guilt for the murders they committed? (I’d say no. YMMV My objection was that that post implicilty said yes.)[/ul][/li]
Thank you.
Regretably, I wasn’t so polite when I first started posting here.
It required learning and adaptation.
Kimstu, regarding the Sharon visit, please see my response to wring.
Interesting point. I have to think about it.
I accept that my posts are sometimes irratating and usually partisan. For the rest, my view of your posts is colored by the fact that my underlying political beliefs differ from yours, and vice versa.
You know, Kimstu, I was feeling guilty and regretful because of the snide response I made to your comment in the McKenney GD thread. That was before I found out that you had previously written here…
December, kudos to you for the apology, and don’t accuse me of bigotry again unless you actually have evidence for it (i.e. support your case with something more than bullshit). For the rest of the discussion, Kimstu and Wring said it very well (I particularly enjoyed Kimstu turning the tables), and I think more work needs to be done on the following:
Absolute bullshit, december, now it looks like you are just trying to cover your ass because you never questioned my authority, expertise, or cites as concerns Palestinian issues. You simply moaned that by holding them to a lower standard (I wasn’t) I was being bigoted (no). Backwards reasoning indeed, are you willing to act blissfully ignorant and opinionated as regards social dynamics, points of friction, history, reputations, etc?? Besides, everyone knows that to calculate the average intelligence of a mob you take the mob member with the highest IQ and divide that score by the number of people in the crowd. The Mitchell Report concluded:
Which is exactly what I have maintained since the beginning.
Ah, an attempt at sounding neutral and balanced while raising the bar in an attempt to block the opposition. Closer inspection, however, reveals a writhing mass of maggots for an argument.
This is not a question of documented psychology (because we already know enough about human psychology) but of what happened. The Israel-Palestinian situation was charged and tense, it was unnecessary for Sharon to make his visit and to publicize it. The Palestinians found Sharon’s visit terribly insulting, as stated by the insulted party and the Mitchell Report. Was Sharon’s visit the sole or main cause of the Intifada? Who knows for sure? For that there is confused data, although with the ulterior motives present on both sides of this mess I think there is no such thing as a single cause. And, just as it seems that Sharon’s visit was a calculated insult, I have little doubt that it was also probably used as an excuse by Palestinian fundamentalist entities who exacerbated the insult for their own foul purposes (but that does not mean it wasn’t an insult to begin with). Causality of the Intifada is the point you could certainly debate, and feel free to call on all the authorities you want. But please stop with the rest of the equivocation.
Perhaps, like another poster making assumptions, you thought that I was justifying the Intifada because Sharon provoked the Palestinians? But then the arguments you posted since that discussion would hardly touch that claim.
Shodan, your latest post is rather poor, particularly after my response to you highlighted obvious problems with the thinking you seem to be employing. You deliberately ignored most of my message and provided inane commentary to quotes you took out of context until you felt you had a suitably damning few paragraphs. One example is where I said “I do not engage in this sort of nonsense” --referring to bigotry-- and you claimed that I was referring to name-calling, which of course I have engaged in (never denied it). Was that an honest mistake, a case of selective reading, or a rhetorically suspect claim (being that I was contradicting myself in my dishonesty over personal attacks, when in fact I was talking about engaging in bigotry)?! Have a look at my words again with an added bold emphasis:
Name-calling I have engaged in (some situations call for the truth) but never bigoted terms such as the above. Bigotry I have never engaged in to my knowledge on these boards. The use of terms such as “Kike” or “sand nigger” is bigoted because it indicates or signals unreasonable prejudice and intolerance. Me calling poster X a fool is not bigotry. The issue here was the bigotry, not name-calling. You fool
The rest of your post, well I don’t think you really read my response to your concerns. It seems that you are unwilling to consider words or arguments that contradict your world-view.
There’s one item that is so silly that I have to address it:
This is astounding. Can you honestly not see that the soft bigotry of lowered expectations (assuming it even exists) is not the same issue as the beliefs, mores, customs, opinions, anger, etc. of a given cultural or ethnic group? I said December’s point was moot because December’s cite and argument were irrelevant to the discussion, which did NOT hinge on bigotry but on a culturally relativistic understanding of the issues. Mind you, I am not a fan of cultural relativism, I think it is frequently taken too far, but in this case it explains WHY Palestinians took offence at Sharon’s visit (something that was being contested).
It doesn’t excuse them or justify them or condone them. It explains that they were enraged and insulted, as I and others have patiently maintained in the face of unfounded objections. When people are enraged and insulted in large numbers nasty things happen, and you know how calm and logical mob mentality can be. Now, this very simple point was being used in the discussion because, as I and others maintained, Sharon’s infamous Temple visit was a provocation to Palestinians. If you want to argue that point (Sharon’s intentions), feel free to post on the original thread, but please don’t take up my time with whatever it is you were doing in your last post (which seems more like knee-jerk defence of conservatism than anything else).
To recap Sharon’s visit to the Temple. Insult: yes. Cause of Intifada: possibly. Sole or main cause of Intifada: unlikely. Justification for questionable Intifada acts: no way.
Now can we put this simple point to rest or must we continue?
)
(joking, really, really I am)