Excuse me for this little disturbance but I finally figured out **december’s ** source of power and am so excited that I had to share it with you all!
Bullets. Yes, his power in great debating stems from the deft use of bullets to make points. Go back, read all his posts, you will see the Truth too.
And I’ll take the second one Mtgman.
If december had paid attention, for awhile I have given him replies regarding his last point hinting him that he really did not knew how misleading those sources were, did not want to expand on them because
- I still consider them irrelevant to the out of place insulting line that brought us here
- It would make him look more stupid.
Lets look at the sources the blogster you quote is coming from:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0404-02.htm
That was called Anti-Israel by what diplomats again?
And what were the facts that your cite called to counteract that?
http://www.factsofisrael.com/load.php?p=http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000032.html
The only place were desecration is mentioned is this:
Not the Palestinians, and all the other trash that they left was considered by the Franciscans and orthodox to be par for the course when dealing with a mess of Palestinians asking asylum.
Not protesting that desecration?
I would say that it is truly a sad opinion to have when I remember that bullet holes and other damage was caused by the army and that, is considered by your sorry blogster and you, to be less of a desecration than Palestinians dirtying some places inside when the priests knew it was to be expected.
As president Bush would tell you on that same link:
I guess even Bush thought what the Pope did was not a hindrance to the peace process and ok.
And that brings us back to the original point: The Pope is asking for peace in Iraq and you only can reply with an insult and then here with misleading sources regarding Palestine.
You are a certifiable GD jerk and a cite molester.
Well, since Guin asked, I’ll lay out my reasoning. My whole presence in this thread has been one of trying to keep the discussion on track, and I’m gonna take this as if I had been handed the position in a debate, which works because it pretty much mirrors what I personally believe here, although I’m certainly not passionate about it like december.
First of all, we need to untangle a few things that have gotten tangled together and are just confusing the issue. Lets start with december’s original statement:
quote:
I would argue that this is demonstrateably true, as follows: By meeting with Tarik Aziz as a designated representative of the Iraqi government and further by calling upon the world to not attack that government, as noted by Desmostylus above:
quote:
The Pope is clearly recognizing the regime of SH as the lawful government of Iraq and furthermore by calling on the nations of the world not to attack Iraq but rather to allow Iraq to comply with U.N mandates and presumably by doing so continue to exist under it current structure. The Pope clearly supports the regime of SH, and as SH has murdered Jews in the past, the statement “The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews” is factually correct. It is also not that big a deal, all nations ally with or recognize governments that do things they themselves might not support, it doesn’t mean they support all of the actions of that government, just the government itself. This last point is key, because saying that The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews is most emphatically NOT the same as saying “The Pope supports the murder of Jews”, which brings us to the second point, one that has been entwined with the first and has confused this whole issue, to wit: The Pope is anti-Semitic.
THIS point, I would have to say, has definitely NOT been proven. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Catholic Church hasn’t been anti-Semitic in the past, to do so in the face of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Pope Pious’ questionable activities with Hitler, etc would be foolish. The fact that the Church didn’t recognize Israel until 1997 is troubling but not conclusive. To support such a serious charge, real evidence is needed, and none has been presented. This is going to have to reside in the realm of “unsubstantiated accusation” until proof is produced. As such, an individual can argue that in his or her opinion the church is anti-Semitic, but it’s all going to be just that, opinion, as there are no facts to substantiate the charge.
Which brings us to our third point, the one I was alluding to earlier, and one that I think bothers people who hold the same opinions on this issue as december a lot, and that is the nature of the Vatican. The Vatican is unique in the world in that it is the only government whose entire basis of existence and reason for being is wholly religious. It exists to run the Catholic Church, and as such it’s justification for existence is completely non-secular. It doesn’t exist at the consent of the governed, by the rule of force or the lineage of Kings. It is the self proclaimed representative of God on Earth, and as such it is firmly situated as a government based on morality and nothing else. This puts it in a unique position. Secular governments have to deal with other nations as equals, The Vatican doesn’t. It has the ability to vocally oppose regimes who practice the kinds of atrocities that SH does without worrying about trade agreements, diplomatic exchanges or even war. I think that a lot of people see The Vatican committing a sin of omission by not vehemently opposing regimes who routinely use torture as a valid prerogative of government. IMHO, the Pope should not have met with Tarik Aziz without demanding reform in Iraq. Mildly worded press releases condemning what’s going on are insignificant, everyone does that. The Vatican should be loudly calling for reform, it should be energetically offering it’s services as a mediator between opposing sides, it should be at the forefront of worldwide criticism of atrocities committed against innocent civilians. Instead, it seems to be passively taking a position no different from dozens of secular governments, and I think that’s a shame.
Unbelievable! So, our prime minister here in Sweden has met representatives for both the Palestinians and the Israelis! I guess that our country provides supports for the killing of both peoples. Huh, and all the time I thought that we were trying to talk to them to see if there was any hope for the situation down there… Guess we encouraging them to kill each other off so we can move in afterwards.
Oh oh oh oh, we had Bush Jr. here not so long ago so I guess we are giving support for the murdering of the Iraqis. Oh no! We are showing the Iraqis talking on the news all the tim these days. I’m so sorry I never realized that we were lending support for the murdering of Americans!
Damn come to think of it, our foreign minister was going down to Yugoslavia this week. Guess we lend support for the killing of the Muslims in Kosovo to!
I can’t go …on… the…just… shame…too…. great… Just bomb us now please, before it’s too late.
I don’t want to get into a hijack, but Sweden gives more than moral support to killing. The EU gives a lot of money to the Palestinian Authority. that money is controlled by Yasser Arafat. He is now worth between $300 million and $1.3 billion, according to estimates I’ve seen. When Israel took over his headquarters, they found documentary evidence that some of this money is funneled to terrorist groups. The EU has continued to turn a blind eye to this misuse of their donations. Of course, accounting has not been the EU’s strength.
And, ** S. Mussberger**, Sweden does give moral support to Arafat. They evidently consider him the proper ruler of the Palestinians. Compare the Swedish policy with Bush’s statements, that a Palestinian state is not possible until Arafat is replaced.
Europe is filled with anti-Israel prejudice as the ocean is filled with water IMHO. A fish doesn’t notice the water it swims in, because it’s always there. Similarly, it’s difficult for a European to notice anti-Israel prejudice. I think the Vatican has clearly demonstated an anti-Israel tilt.
One could argue that the Vatican is more anti-Israel than anti-Semitic. To the degree that these are separable, I think this is the case.
Weirddave, your argument leaks like a seive, as S. Mussberger points out.
On the one hand you advocate that the Vatican “should be energetically offering it’s [sic] services as a mediator between opposing sides”, but at the same time, you use the fact that they are already trying to mediate as proof that “The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews”. Guess the Pope is just damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
You also say that “The Vatican should be loudly calling for reform”. Others would say that the Vatican is in fact doing that. Apparently the Vatican just isn’t doing it loudly enough for your satisfaction, or else you are wilfully ignoring what the Vatican is in fact saying.
On the other hand, your style of argument does have a certain naive charm, because it can be used to prove anything at all.
Example:
Weirddave supports pedophilia.
a) I’ve never read anything written by Weirddave that opposes pedophilia.
b) Even if someone else points out something Weirddave said opposing pedophilia, it just wasn’t worded strongly enough for my liking.
c) Regardless of anything Weirddave says about pedophilia, he isn’t pro-active enough in opposing pedophilia, so therefore, Weirddave supports pedophilia.
I could generate any number of such bullshit “proofs” that Weirddave supports murder, drug abuse by children, bashing of elderly people, anything at all.
And what right should Weirddave have to complain? After all, I would have “proven” everything I had said.
OK, Weirddave, can you see why people might find that style of argument either outrageous, or at least really fucking annoying?
See? This is how nations should behave. Ask nicely for your bombing. Perhaps we will sweeten the post-conquest aid package for Sweden now. If Sweden was not so compliant we might install The Osbournes as the new Swedish royal family. We’re not above that.
Various European nations have voiced criticism of the Sharon administration. This is not the same as an anti-Israel bias. Unless of course the current European ciritcism of the US constitutes an “anti-American bias”, which I’m sure it does in your sad little world.
Do you remember Rabin, december? Or do you recall the time Perez was prime minister? Did they gather the same amount of criticism from European nations as does Sharon, or Bibi for that matter?
Hell. No.
The criticism is aimed towards politics, not nations or even ethnicities.
For a good debunking of that anti-Israel bias you perceive, I invite you to visit the Anne Frank House and accompanying Jewish Museum, in my fair city of Amsterdam.
Yeah, as a European, it’s hard for me to notice an anti-Israel bias alright. :rolleyes:
Shithead.
Cite? And Sweden doesn’t equal EU, so cite about Sweden’s contribution?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Relevence?
Cite?
We know what you think, and it ain’t worth jack-shit as far as proof goes.
This is very very true. All to true. Now, the money going to terrorism is an outright scandal if it is true. I’d love a cite on that!
This is changing as we speak. Many people consider Arafat to be a hasbeen. Old news.
But, we and many other countries do invite or welcome champions from both sides to talk to them to get oriented about the situation. Also a lot of countries are this way helping the sides in communication, as the two sides are no longer on speaking terms. This is true for a lot of conflicts around the world. YES, I equate this with the statement made by the Pope.
This does not mean that these governments are supporting the extinction of both sides? Hardly… Normally people understand this. Try making an analogy with a conflict outside your sphere of interest and it should be easier to see the point.
To me this is just utter BS and frankly, insulting to the population of Europe. Not a feat easily accomplished in a single sentence.
May I retort. You are just cholera bacteria submerged in a pile of rancid dog excrement. You can’t notice the shit because that’s just the surrounding you were brought up in and know little else.
You say potato I say whatever…
“EU money to Palestinian Authority”
Click, Enter
So, Desmostylus, are you just trying to wear poor december out? I’m not going to run for the next five since I’ve never felt the word “cite” was much of an argument, when everyone can do internet searches.
Oh sure, you think you notice it, but you don’t really. And that’s why december can safely disregard anything you and all other Europeans say. Which, of course, he does.
Actually, the Supreme Court are planning on putting Sweden in charge of the US.
I guess I was. I was getting pissed off at the “pope says nothing, therefore supports Saddam” argument which required other people to search for refutation, rather than december providing proper documentation to start with.
I did visit Anne Frank House many, many years ago. Although my memory is vague, I think the exhibit is not about Israel. Note that I accused Europe of anti-Israel bias, not anti-Semitism.
Coldfire, S. Mussberger, and other posters from EU member states: Are you upset that your tax money is being used to support anti-Israel terrorism? Are you concerned with how long this practice has been going on? Have you done anything to change the situation? Or, do you simply look the other way?
december, ack!
Desmostylus Gee, I can’t possibly imagine why you get upset with him.:dubious:
No, because it’s not. And guess what? I’ve even donated money to the Red Crescent.
So do I get a slap on the back for intending my funds to go to desperate Palestinian children, or a kick in the teeth because certain people believe that money goes towards making bombs?
(Just to add - I don’t actaully expect either. IMO charity should not expect recognition or reward, you give because you believe you should, not to be seen as a better person).
december, or any other posters from the United States: are you upset that your tax money was used to fund a dictator that -by ultimate decemberproof- kills Jews? Have you done anything to change the situation? Or did you just look the other way, because Iran seemed a bigger threat at the time?
Woohoo, this is fun! I think they should make Strawmanning an Olympic sport.
“Certain people”… like Human Rights Watch, a group not known for its pro-Israel bias.
istara, what is your source for believing the contrary? I know that the EU has denied this accusation. However, they cannot even get their own accounting straight, so they have little credibility as judges of the PA’s accounting.
coldfire, you didn’t answer my questions, but I’ll answer yours. I and many Americans are upset that the US supported Saddam against Iran. Many American posters have complained about it on this message board. OTOH I have not seen EU posters raise the corresponding point about Arafat.
Note also that the US support for Saddam was overt. OTOH Arafat is misusing money donated to him – money which is supposed to be used for the benefit of the Palestinian people.
Your question implies that you are uncertain if I do. You need ask? You dare to ask you moron?
OK, just for the slow. I have no tolerance for the use of terrorism. I can understand why it occurs but no matter what side is the culprit I find it despicable.
Your question implies that you are uncertain if I do. Insinuating things and them claiming that’s not what you wrote/said/farted/belched is just low. Again you managed to look even more of an arsehole from where I’m standing.
Again let me try it on you. So december and other hate filled members of the world. Does it bother you that little kittens are being tortured daily because some people in your country likes it? Does it trouble you that 2% of the fireworks sold in your town is used for this very purpose.
Nope, but I probably will further that link to a bunch of people.
….fucking moron…
gosh I seem to use that a lot these days
Osbornes instead of the Royal family? Bring it on I say!