Ha, you really think you’ll easily get me to say that slaughtering a pregnant woman and her children is the work of Palestinian scum?
Ha! I’ve gone eight pages without even coming close to violating Godwin’s Law and I’ll…
starts to shimmer
Wait! What’s happening?! suddenly realizes what he’s said No! NO!
NOOOOOOO!!!
I’ll get you, gum! I’ll get even with you somedayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy…
disappears in a puff of red smoke, back to the Lenin dimension
hehehe
Thank you, Olentzero.
Because you’re niggling at every word in every post and arguing semantics? Let’s see who really don’t know their shit. The turkey poring over biased facts and figures to prove his miniscule point(the Palestinians attacked lots of people last year, but THIS YEAR, it’s down to 4 bombings), in the process condoning the attacks on civilians(I know, you’ll deny this, but everyone else seems to get this out of your posts), or the guy who posts one line of sarcasm and gets pointlessly needled about it because you have some ego problem.
Hell, you can’t even keep on-point anymore.
How many of those civilians were gunned down point blank in a blatant non-military civilian-targeted attacks my dear lying murderous marxist?
Olentzero says… “Of course it’s not going to happen, because neither the Turks nor the Brits tried to do what Israel is doing to the Palestinians now. Neither tried to build a 452-mile-long wall…”
Which again leads me to question his ‘logic’
Let’s go over his points, shall we?
Full out war on terrorists who attack you? Aggression
Limited war against terrorists who attack you? Aggression
Assassinations against military targets? Aggression
Building a wall so suicide bombers can’t get into your cities? Aggression
Laying down and dying, not responding with military force to terrorism? Good solution
Giving up the ENTIRE nation of Israel? Good solution
Hmmmmm… do y’all think he’s fair?
Mmmm hmmm… and, pray tell… just what in SPECIFIC were the Israelis doing to ‘shit’ on the Palestinians? Because… gee gosh willikers, I was sure I’ve provided you with serval cites talking about how the Al Aqsa Intifada was political in nature and not caused by ANYTHING Israel did…
(but please, ignore that point, let’s all sing the internationale!)
So… in other words… the British Bad Things
When the Brits do those things, nothing, no Holy War, no attempt to drive them into the sea… I wonder… it…
man, it couldn’t have anything to do with a centuries old Arab bigotry towards Jews… naw… that’s far out man,
PS. I take it you have CITES which will prove that the British DIRECTED the Hagana? (what am I thinking, of course you… oh… wait…)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! (You BELEIEVE THAT???)
Terrorist 1: Hey, wanna kill some British? They destroy our homes, invade our land, occupy our territory with soldiers…
Terrorist 2: Naw… call me when there are some more of them.
Terrorist 1: Say, wanna kill some Jews? They destroy our homes, invade our land, and occupy our territory with soldiers…
Terrorist 2: Well, say! I count a few more of them! Okay, now we can…
Activate The Fightback!
Jesus! You’re going to cause me to die laughing!
You obfuscate so well! (kinda)
In a response to the fact that the Palestinians have a special loathing for the Jews you respond that indeed, they did NOT target British civilians, but the British targeted them… a TOTAL NONSEQUITOR, and I bet you think it answered the question too…
Yeah, how about it? How come the poor, downtrodden Palestinians went to the extreme measure of organizing a general strike against the British? Why didn’t they just fight the good fightback and kill them all? At least strike British military targets? (Oh, there weren’t enough of those, either? How exactly did the Brits maintain their mandate here, anyway - from blimps high up in the air?)
No - when confronted with the British they put on a General Strike. When the Jews are the enemy - “kill them! Drive them into the sea! Allahu Akhbar!” Nope, absolutely no difference in tactics when the opposition is Jewish. So clearly not anti-semitic.
:rolleyes:
I won’t even get started on the massive amounts of drivel on the eight previous pages (although I’ve actually read every last word on them… talk about a LONG afternoon yesterday…)
P.S. Shayna, Finn, Sam thanks for providing the fightback thus far! 
(and drop me an e-mail if any of you does get around to visiting Israel someday)
Dani
Gum wrote that the Palestinians can rely on the UN to protect them from illegal activities by the Israelis.
This absurd argument precludes any further discussion with Gum and reflects on the position he takes.
Finn Again wrote
Firstly I have to regrettably observe that this sequence of statements is incoherent. It is a recurring problem with Finn Again.
Nontheless to address it point by point.
“And yet”
Problem 1: This suggests there is some contradiction in my argument, which there isn’t.
“If the Israelis thought…”
Problem 2: It’s being granted that for the purposes of this discussion that it’s not a question of “thought” in the case of the illegal settlers. It’s a given. I’m wondering why I have to keep repeating this? It suggests lack of honestly by Finn Again.
“Grievances”
Problem 3: It is not a matter of general grievances. The question is defence of property only.
“Deliberate Murder”
Problem 4: This assumes the issue. If it is lawful defence of property, then it cannot be murder.
“at risk”
Problem 5: It is not a question of property “at risk”, but property actively being taken unlawfully. Again this is already granted for this discussion.
“for the defense of their property, to purposefully murder Palestinian women and children”
Problem 6: “Purposely murder” already dealt with. “Women and children”: the discussion has never referred to these generally, only those specifically and personally involved in the actual theft.
“why are you bigoted”
Problem 7: This question doesn’t follow rationally from the preceding statement.
Overall: Finn Again has made a poor analogy that misrepresents my argument. Further I’ve already fully answered the question I believe s/he is attempting to form.
Finally I recall that my part of the discussion was always Morally Ambiguous vs Black and White, not as Finn Again represents Right vs Wrong
…speaking of answering questions:
I asked Finn Again or anyone, if there is actual evidence of Arafat repudiating his recognition of the State of Israel.
No replies so far, other than “they haven’t changed the charter”, as if that matters.
First Sevastapol, you’ll pardon me for not digging up a cite to immediately confirm what’s been news for the last, oh… five years or so? (in a nutshell that Arafat says one thing in English and another in Arabic)
In any case, here are a few cites.
look at the links to two of Arafat’s resumes
Again, same deal, one story in English, one in Arabic
(I really did think this was common knowledge… it’s been on pretty much every major news network for half a decade now…)
Yah… it is absurd that the UN, which consitently comes down on the PA’s side would come down on the PA’s side, I see why you’d call it absurd.
Funny… everybody seemed to find it quite coherent. Pr’aps the problem lies with your reading comprehension? Either that or everybody else in this thread is having a group hallucination…
(or maybe you just know you’ve had your ass kicked up and down this thread and now you’re trying to suggest I don’t make any sense?)
And again, I will put this question to the readers of the thread (who also don’t find me incoherent… strange… that…)
You claim that nationality doesn’t enter into it, AND YET, you have yet to tell me just WHY it wouldn’t be valid for, say, America to ROUND UP AND MURDER ALL MEXICAN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
But you claim it is right for Palestinians to murder Israeli illegal immigrants…
No, it suggests a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
I have now, in some detail, explained the logical construct I made in order to facilitate debate.
It isn’t a given. I’ve already explained that, please go back and read my posts.
And, even if it were, I’m asking you, if the Israelis thought they had proof, would they be justified in taking the same actions? (but this points out dishonesty on my part, right?)
So… the only grievance that a nation is allowed to summarily execute foreign nationals over is taking property?
(And please, ignore the fact that the grievances I listed were attacks on life and property)
Um… sure it can.
In the good ol’ U.S of A it’s known as replying with unequal force.
If I try to steal your wallet and you shoot me in the head, you go to jail, sorry.
In any case, even if it was a ‘lawful’ defense of property, shooting a mother and her children would still be the act of scum
Are you taking lessons from Olentzero? Because… you’re now arguing something as fact that is obviously a lie. I’ve already answered your spurious charge that I was agreeing as anything more than a ‘given’ for argument’s sake. Try reading my posts, eh?
And, no. It is not a question of property at risk for Israelis…
Blowing up busses, killing people, etc… that’s property damage right there, nothing theoretical about a Sbaros blown to bits.
Yes, you already dealt with (read: evaded) the question of murder and moral guilt by claming it was somehow legal to blow away a pregnant woman and her children without trial, judge, or jury…
And yes, the OP does indeed refer to them specifically, and you’ve specifically justified their MURDER. Thus I asked if the Israelis could do the same. (just because you’re not smart enough to follow it doesn’t mean it’s incoherent, it’s actually quite tight)
Um… sure it follows.
You claim that the Palestinians can ‘legally’ murder women and children (don’t kid yourself bud, that was murder, not an act of legality). Then don’t say that the Israelis can legally murder Palestinian civilians who are on land THEY claim. Thus, you’re a bigot, and from your responses to me, and idiot to boot.
Actually, it’s a very good analogy. And as you pointed out in your very first post, you made a point that was full of holes in order to suggest moral ambiguity. I destroyed your point and you went right along pretending that your CLAIM of moral ambiguity somehow translated into proof of it. Bad doper! Bad!
So, I put my question to you once more in the hopes that you’ll be able to read it and understand… in fact if you really need I’ll act like I’m talking to a child and explain everything.
The chain of logic still stands.
Let me put it in a form simple enough that you’ll find it ‘coherent’ (where are my alphabet blocks when I really need ‘em…)
(Anybody else think this chain of events is somehow unclear?)
P.S. I know you have problems with reading comprehension Sevastapol… But, FUCK! You’ve somehow forgotten what I said in the post you respond to! Read post 337 AGAIN and tell me if you STILL can’t understand that I wasn’t really saying Israelis eat babies as a ‘given’. :wally
Gah!
Okay, I will re-post, just because like a good lil’ Doper ignorance drives me batty (especially when folks cling to their ignorance)
Now, let’s take a look at what Sevastapol is claiming I’m dishonest about… where, exactly, did I say that the Palestinians were right and the Israelis were to blame… why, of course…
Just curious… anybody besides Sevastapol dumb enough to think I’m ACTUALLY saying the Israelis eat babies and are pirates of the high seas? Was this not, oh-so-fucking-obviously a given simply to further debate?
Further, does anybody think that me saying what I did means, logically, that I am granting beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt that the Palestinians claims are 100 percent accurate? I just can’t find anything that’d give, say, a higher primate those impressions…
And… am I the only one who has noticed that Sevastapol contradicts himself left and right? (while calling ME a liar [because he can’t be bothered to read/remember my posts] )
(see also post 322)
So which of us is contradictory and dishonest?
I’m not invited to Israël? Even though I got Olentzero to admit [more or less] that Palestinian SCUM killed the pregnant mom and her kids? 
[nah, just joking]
sevastopol, The UN has always been biased towards the Palestinians. You know it. If Kofi Annan lives long enough - is not murdered by another piece of scum, for a kilo gold - he’ll play straight in the hands of the Palestinians again. Even though they’re scum.
;j Jew-tang clan only ;j
What if I start learning Hebrew and the Talmud?
Just a small nitpick -
Olentzero, Israel does not use Abrams tanks. In fact, the U.S. hasn’t delivered a single MBT to Israel since the early seventies. Those things you see on the news are either upgraded M-60s or Israeli-made Merkavas.
Hmmmm… maybe we can trade.
For the next week you can be a Jew
And I will live in Amsterdam.
Then again… when last I was in Amsterdam I was a walking corpse after five days… a week might just kill me.
Whee!
(speaking of which, how’s that for a peace plan? Space cake and hash for everybody in the middle east. Let’s see how much fighting there is when everybody’s too lazy to get up except to get donuts)
Terrorist 1: Hey, would you like to go kill some Jewish women and children?
Terrorist 2: Well, I mean, maybe, but… hey, what were we talking about?
Terrorist 1: Hunh?
Terrorist 2: Man, I’m hungry.
First lets get the OP out of the way.
I regard people who target innocent civilians as murdering scum. Since the suicide bombers are Palestinian, they are by definition “Palestinian scum.”
However, the phrase “Palestinian scum”, or indeed “British scum” or “Jewish scum” is commonly interpreted to imply that all Palestians, British or Jews are scum. It isn’t helpful or constructive. The OP and the mentality behind it contributes to the larger problem. It escalates the hostility and demonises a group.
The Palestinians live in refugee camps in deep poverty, with minimal infrastructure. They are subject to oppressive security measures on a day-to-day basis. They have virtually no mechanisms for improving their situation economically, little hope, little dignity and no future. The Israelis live in a state of paranoia-inducing tension and fear, where civilians carry Uzis as a matter of course and anyone can become a victim of terrorist violence at any time.
It is not right that either group should have to live like that, and you cannot JUSTIFY either situation by appealing to history. You can UNDERSTAND it, but you cannot JUSTIFY it. I can understand that 2000-odd years of anti-Semitic persecution has given the Israelis a very hard-nosed attitude towards hanging on to what they’ve got, and who can fucking blame them? They have finally carved themselves a homeland in a hostile world and won wars against the odds to keep it.
I can also understand why a 15 year-old kid growing up in Gaza, living in a shithole with no hope or future and being repeatedly treated like shit by armed men, might feel that becoming a suicide bomber was a good idea. (To clarify what I see as a common misinterpretation of Olentzero’s statements - it is LOGICAL that such kids will EXIST as a consequence of their environment and history - their ACTIONS themselves are NOT LOGICAL and Olentzero never said they were.)
This will not be finished, ever, by adding up shitlists and deciding who’s got the biggest slice of the blame pie. Anti-semites the world over, the British government, SOME of the early Israeli settlers, SOME of their local Arab neighbours (heaven forbid I call them “Palestinians”) and the neighbouring Arab states, can all take a well-deserved slice. That isn’t going to help future generations of Israelis or Palestinians, who have to pay for the mistakes of their grandparents.
The only way this will ever end is a two-state solution. Any Palestinian state has to be a viable functioning entity in itself, i.e. it has to have some scope for prosperity and security. Offering them poor land with minimal water and transport networks carved up by Israeli settlements, isn’t good enough. The hawks in the Israeli government and the Israeli settlers themselves are going to have to suck it up and abandon some land, their homes, which they’ve invested their lives in. It won’t be easy.
The Palestinians in turn are going to have to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist PROPERLY, and repeatedly, eventually including Hamas and Hezbollah and the rest. They are going to have to suck it up and drop their claim to their old farms and villages, some of which were abandoned to get out of the way of war, some of which they were driven away from. The schoolbooks in the Palestinian territories are going to have to have Israel on their maps, which apparently they don’t at the moment. The terrorist violence has to be condemned and criminalised, and the Palestinians will have to contain and punish their own terrorists. It won’t be easy.
Even if such a two-state statis is achieved, that is still just the beginning. The newly formed Palestinian state WILL contain elements that want to see Israel destroyed, and see a Palestinian state as an opportunity to work towards that. Arab states don’t have a good history with regards to government, and they will need a lot of support and incentive to keep such elements from having influence. At least at that point the Palestinians will have something to lose, which is a start.
Efforts will also have to be made to reduce the hatred between the states. That must involve contact, education, co-economic dependence, and probably holding an uneasy peace while a few generations die of old age. The worst thing I can imagine is a just settlement, followed by the whole sorry mess kicking off again in fifty years time.
There are peace movements among both the Palestinians and the Israelis, who don’t get nearly enough publicity or support. Some members of those peace movements have lost family members to the conflict. These people are the truly couragous ones, the truly strong, the compassionate, the enemies of hate and fear, and these people are the only real hope for an end to this shit. I doubt they spend much time calling each other names.
Cheers, matt.
As if you all hadn’t guessed by the Mr. Mxyztplk impression, I’m pretty much done with this thread - but I didn’t want to let this excellent defense of my ideas go unnoted. Admittedly, I disagree with you on the two-state solution, matt - but that’s for another thread and another time.
Again, thanks. I appreciate it.
If my neighbour is bent on killing me or my kin, I can JUSTIFY killing him and those who are aiding and abetting him.
If my neighbour oppresses me with loud music all night, vicious dogs barking loudly and shitting all over my lawn, forecloses on my property and then charging me a high rent, bad mouths me all over town, and builds a fence several feet into what was once my daddy’s property, I CANNOT JUSTIFY killing him.
Why did you stop at 2000 years ago. To ignore the fact that they once had a homeland for a millenium at least in a region that you say “they have finally carved themselves a homeland” ?
I can understand why a 15 year-old kid growing up in Gaza, repeated indoctrinated with hatred and a hateful version of Islam with the encouragement of divine favour and glory and a big chunk of cash for his family, might feel that becoming a suicide bomber was a good idea. Remember, those Japanese pilots? They weren’t treated like shit. But they did have religion.
Remember the Jews or Roma throughout European history. Weren’t they treated like shit? Can you recall any terrorism (suicidal or otherwise) on their part in Europe for the past 2000 years?
:smack: I knew I forgot someone!
Tell you what - if you come over sometime I’ll treat you to a beer. Of course the best beer they sell here is (I think) dutch, so I’m not sure what the point is, but anyway…
Dani
(At least I think this was aimed at me)