Shin bet to (Ex) pres. Jimmy Carter "Drop Dead!"

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
Moderator’s Warning: FoieGrasIsEvil, please refrain from posting things in Great Debates that a.) appear to be personal attacks on other posters and b.) don’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense in any event.
Moderator’s Note: That said, spoke-, there is no really no need to drag the “Report this post to the moderators” business into the middle of the debate; that’s what the “Report post” button is for. Or there’s always the Pit; at any event, none of that belongs here.
[/QUOTE]

Ouch. Apologies.

162

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
That’s an interesting take, thanks. I never really thought of Israel as a place non-Israeli Jews would view as a “just in case” place to go if they felt threatened in their “host” country.
[/QUOTE]

Hence Operation Solomon, among others.

163

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I find your selective parsing pretty amusing
[/quote]

Thank you for providing an example of what I was talking about, though.
The tu quoque fallacy is just icing.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

you would be well advised to leave me out of this discussion if I am not actually participating in it
[/QUOTE]

My apologies, you have participated in the discussion that I was having with Argent in other threads in GD. Having seen it done all the time, including as the meat of GD OP’s where posts from another thread are the subject, I wasn’t aware that referencing posts in other GD threads was verboten or would provoke such a response. Although without a mod hat on… I guess it was a personal request? No problem, didn’t intend to cause you grief on a personal level, either. I’ll happily not mention posts’ authorship by name when discussing posts that are relevant to any tangents.

In any case, glad you said something, didn’t realize it would upset you so much. Won’t happen again.

164

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
The tu quoque fallacy is just icing.
[/QUOTE]
Tu quoque is only a fallacy when it fails to address a point. You explicitly made a claim that I twisted the meanings of “clear” sentences to avoid a conclusion when you spent two long posts indulging in exactly that behavior, in this thread. If you insist on accusing others of your foibles, you need to be prepared to have your foibles exhibited.
Now, if you need to continue this discussion, take it to the Pit.

165

Wow.
But okay, the no-backsies rule is in effect.
As I was discussing GD posts in a GD context, I’ve no need to take it to the pit… and I don’t see a mod hat so I suppose you’re only posting as a poster. But no matter, I’ll be happy to stop responding to you if you if it makes you this upset.

166

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Wow.
But okay, the no-backsies rule is in effect.
As I was discussing GD posts in a GD context, I’ve no need to take it to the pit… and I don’t see a mod hat so I suppose you’re only posting as a poster. But no matter, I’ll be happy to stop responding to you if you if it makes you this upset.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not upset (except to the extent that it is mildly irritating to see you dragging me into a discussion and then accusing me of engaging in your preferered behavior). It is simply a hijack of this thread and does not need to continue, here.

ETA: I have actually used my Mod status to order other posters to refrain from dragging uninvolved posters into discussions in the past. In this case i simply made a personal request that you now wish to wrangle over.

167

For someone who wants to end a hijack, you sure post a hell of a lot on it.

It’s more than a little unfair for you to keep, for three posts in a row now, inaccurately attacking my posting style while telling me that I’m not allowed to respond. I am, again, not going to debate your spurious attacks on my posting style, especially since there’s already a mod decision in this thread that I shouldn’t discuss other posters posting styles.

I’ve already said that I’d be happy to stop responding to you and apologized since I didn’t know you’d get quite so emotional about it. I’m certainly not wrangling, as I’ve now agreed, three times now, that I’m happy to drop this tangent. Please stop bringing it back up and accusing me of other baseless charges, and then telling me I can’t defend myself. Thanks.

168

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
as I’ve now agreed, three times now, that I’m happy to drop this angent.
[/QUOTE]
If you really wanted it to end, you would have stopped posting. I have responded three times to your accusations, so now you get to accuse me of keeping it going. :smiley:

169

So… seen any good movies recently?

170

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I’m sure we could come up with a dozen other scenarios, but what I’m getting at is that, even on this issue where you disagree with someone of the hardline anti-Israel dopers’ sentiments (or other partisan anti-Israel views) … what logical counter would you use?
[/QUOTE]
Could you also come up with a dozen cites to back up that such a thing exists today? Or even a couple of examples?

171

[QUOTE=DMC]
Could you also come up with a dozen cites to back up that such a thing exists today? Or even a couple of examples?
[/QUOTE]

?

What, exactly, are you asking for a cite of?

172

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
So… seen any good movies recently?
[/QUOTE]

I have!

173

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
What, exactly, are you asking for a cite of?
[/QUOTE]
The bolded part. I’m curious as to who these “hardline anti-Israel dopers” are.

174

[QUOTE=DMC]
The bolded part. I’m curious as to who these “hardline anti-Israel dopers” are.
[/QUOTE]
Read anything by Sevastopol, lately? :stuck_out_tongue:

175

[QUOTE=DMC]
The bolded part. I’m curious as to who these “hardline anti-Israel dopers” are.
[/QUOTE]

Well, tom gave you one example.
As it is, in the statement you quoted, I specifically referenced both Dopers’ “or other partisan anti-Israel views”. Of course, as I’ve already been told by a mod to not discuss other posters’ posting styles, or to mention posts that aren’t in the thread, or to be too “personal” (what with all my foibles and all), I’m afraid I can’t answer your question in this thread.

I may shoot you a PM later, possibly. It’s a nice day and I’m finally ready to take a walk to the lake with my sweetheart, a picnic basket, and a bottle of wine. Catch you later.

176

Back to the OP (this thread has an OP?):

The folks Carter is trying to empower… just launched at least one, and possibly a second , foiled, combined arms attack to get into Israel from Gaza. Although a spokesman claimed it was to ‘end the blockade’… ending the presence of IDF troops on the Israel side of the border would only allow Hamas to get into Israel. Why, do you think, they’d want to do that?

Keep in mind, non-Jews, today is Pessach.
This is not coincidental.

177

It ain’t slander if it’s true.

Yes, it’s a canard when used as a blanket characterization of American Jews, but is it really a “canard” in your particular case? I don’t see how anyone could read your posts and doubt your loyalty to Israel, come hell or high water.

178

I don’t think we should continue the massive amounts of military aid to Israel, as they are also guilty of atrocities that keep this hotbed of violence escalating and it is clear that Israel has a powerful lobby within Washington circles.

I keep waffling on this issue though.

I often wonder how many pols within our government really view Israel as that “shining example of democracy in the ME” as opposed to “being a military buffer against those towelheads”.

I support Israel’s right to exist and defend herself, and Arab nations have certainly been really nasty to Israel.

But Israel isn’t completely innocent in this either, but as far as I can tell, by and large, they brutally respond when provoked, as any nation in their circumstance would do. Their escalation seems to be of the “fuck me? No, FUCK YOU” sort, the logic being (again, a supposition on my part) that if they punish their attackers more heavily than the actual attack that initiated the response, then they will stop attacking, which breeds the cycle of violence all over again.

But it won’t stop, ever. As long as “Da Jooz” are portrayed as “Arab Baby Blood Drinkers” by Arab peoples and governments, then Israel will continue to suffer attacks, calls for elimination, attempts to debunk the Holocaust, etc, et al.

So what should Israel do?

I agree that they need to stop settling Arab areas as that is a major cause of discontent. They should also maybe proffer the olive branch to hostile factions/neighbors.

The Palestinains NEED a place to live. They NEED access to areas within Israel that are religiously important to them.

BUT, that is a HUGE security issue for Israel, as suicide bombers disguised as religious pilgrims is all too often a grim consequence.

I really have about zero hope that this violent stalemate will ever end. I wish it weren’t so.

179

Of course, in order to make your glib little jab, you have to ignore that when W&M used the phrase “Israel Lobby”, they were specifically going far beyond AIPAC to talk about a shadowy cabal of even ideological opponents including, for instance, the WSJ and NYT.

So in other words, it is slander, as it’s absolutely untrue.
And you can only make your case by acting as if what aint, is.

Good try though.

180

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
…I really have about zero hope that this violent stalemate will ever end. I wish it weren’t so.
[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase Amos Oz, real tragedy is when both antagonists have legitimate grievances.