It's all the israelis fault... [Archive]

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 08:29 AM

Egypt's Foreign Minister has collapsed after being surrounded by an angry Palestinian mob in Jerusalem.

Ahmed Maher was visiting the al Aqsa mosque when he was jostled by protesters.

TV footage showed the minister's bodyguards attempting to usher him out of the mosque's grounds through a large throng of journalists, police and Palestinian protesters.

He loses consciousness several minutes later and is reported to have shouted "I'm choking, I'm choking".

"The Israeli foreign ministry is looking into the incident in which the Egyptian minister was assaulted by a huge crowd of Muslim worshippers on the mosque's esplanade this afternoon," a foreign ministry spokesman said.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1116628,00.html

Luke T.

22nd December 2003, 08:31 AM

Somewhere, Anwar Sadat is shaking his head sadly...

Tmy

22nd December 2003, 08:58 AM

I think we all know what happend. The Israelis poisoned him causing the collapse. Then they could then blame his death on the Pali protestors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Monketey Ghost

22nd December 2003, 09:11 AM

Yes. The "people" of "Palestine" deserve nothing but prison camps and death.

Crossbow

22nd December 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, Egyptian Foreign Minister Maher--a Muslim, of course, and not exactly the greatest zionist in the world--is visiting israel and went to pray on the temple mount.

The result? He was attacked by palestinians there as a "traitor" for "talking to the jews", was beaten, and is now hospitalized in an israeli hospital for treatment.

(See: www.jpost.com "latest news", www.debka.org )

But I'm sure this is all israel's fault, somehow. If it will just give in and give these people everything, peace will suddenly arrive, right?

Well sir, if that is the case, then I suggest that you jet to Israel and explain to the Palestinians that they will just have to deal with their current situation for many, many years into the future since you have decided that you like the Israelis so much more than the Palestinians.

I am sure that the response you get will be even more demonstrative than the one that was recieved by the Egyptian Foreign Minister you are so concerned about.

Cleopatra

22nd December 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Well sir, if that is the case, then I suggest that you jet to Israel and explain to the Palestinians that they will just have to deal with their current situation for many, many years into the future since you have decided that you like the Israelis so much more than the Palestinians.

I am sure that the response you get will be even more demonstrative than the one that was recieved by the Egyptian Foreign Minister you are so concerned about.

The problem Crossbow is that the Palestinians ask those question to the wrong direction.

First of all, they have to ask Yasser Arafat why he keep them in those refugee camps although he has received millions in financial aid to dismantle the camps.

They have to ask Arafat why he left Camp David.

They have to ask Arafat why Amnesty International started investigating the actions of the Palestenian Authority.

The truth is that we can't expect reasonable reaction from the population. Palestinians are angry and Israelis are very scared. The combination of anger and fear doesn't leave much room to optimism. I won't stop to repeat that the matter can be resolved within 10 days.

The problem is that those who suppose to be able to help cannot get over their prejudices.

aerocontrols

22nd December 2003, 10:32 AM

The BBC's Jill McGivering, in Jerusalem, says the incident is sure to cause some embarrassment for the Israelis.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3341435.stm)

Boy, is egg ever on Israeli faces today.

Cleopatra

22nd December 2003, 10:35 AM

How Hal puts it?

Damn if you do, damn if you don't or something like that.

Skeptic

22nd December 2003, 11:37 AM

Yes, indeed, the BBC insightfully commented the attack of a palestinian mob on an Egyptian minister will "cause embarrasment to the israelis". I can see it now:

BBC: "Shame on you! Why did you let the palestinian mob attack him?"

israelies (shrugging): "Well, when we try to stop those sort of things, you call us baby-killers and the 'supressors of palestinian rights'. So why should we? Let them 'express their rights' and lynch him--they do that all the time anyway."

BBC: (explaining in a paternalistic tone): "You don't understand. We only say that when you try to stop the palestinians from hurting JEWS.
It's your responsibility to make sure ONLY jews are hurt, not human beings, or we'll write a nasty editorial about how 'israeli hard-line position threathens to export the conflict to Europe'!

Please remember: when they kill YOU, they're "militants" or "opposition forces". When they kill US, they're "terrorists". Have you no consideration for us?"

Tmy

22nd December 2003, 11:57 AM

Mayeb they should fense off the temple mount into different sections. That way this sort of thing wouldnt happen.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, indeed, the BBC insightfully commented the attack of a palestinian mob on an Egyptian minister will "cause embarrasment to the israelis". I can see it now:

BBC: "Shame on you! Why did you let the palestinian mob attack him?"

israelies (shrugging): "Well, when we try to stop those sort of things, you call us baby-killers and the 'supressors of palestinian rights'. So why should we? Let them 'express their rights' and lynch him--they do that all the time anyway."

BBC: (explaining in a paternalistic tone): "You don't understand. We only say that when you try to stop the palestinians from hurting JEWS.
It's your responsibility to make sure ONLY jews are hurt, not human beings, or we'll write a nasty editorial about how 'israeli hard-line position threathens to export the conflict to Europe'!

Please remember: when they kill YOU, they're "militants" or "opposition forces". When they kill US, they're "terrorists". Have you no consideration for us?"

Do you have fun writing these little plays? Maybe you could perform them at the mall... Speaking of Malls, I'm just off down to my local mall to explain to the owners that god has given me the mall. The current occupants will have to nick off, I'm sure they won't mind.

Tony

22nd December 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

The result? He was attacked by palestinians there as a "traitor" for "talking to the jews", was beaten, and is now hospitalized in an israeli hospital for treatment.

Didnt you know that Islam is a relgion of peace and the palestinians are just an oppressed group of people? You need to go to re-education camp.

Skeptic

22nd December 2003, 01:01 PM

Well, so far the response of Tmy, the Fool, and others to this event has been to:

1). shift the discussion to the "awful opression of the palestinians".

2). claim that the security fence should be moved closer to israel's border because the palestinians were acting like thugs. (Wow, what a great incentive to stop violence).

3). imply that the "real source" of the whole problem is evil zionism "land stealing".

Not a word, though, about the fact that maybe--juuuuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe--this violence and barabrity from the palestinians might have SOMETHING to do with the dismal situation, or with why they don't have a state yet.

See what I mean about "it's all israel's fault"?

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, so far the response of Tmy, the Fool, and others to this event has been to:

1). shift the discussion to the "awful opression of the palestinians".

2). claim that the security fence should be moved closer to israel's border because the palestinians were acting like thugs. (Wow, what a great incentive to stop violence).

3). imply that the "real source" of the whole problem is evil zionism "land stealing".

Not a word, though, about the fact that maybe--juuuuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe--this violence and barabrity from the palestinians might have SOMETHING to do with the dismal situation, or with why they don't have a state yet.

See what I mean about "it's all israel's fault"?

And you blame palestinians for everything.... Personally I see a lot of fault on both sides, resonding to your ignorant bigotry tends to see me posting more stuff pointing out how the Palestinians are being shafted....

No problems "skeptic" god is on your side, you can't be wrong.

a_unique_person

22nd December 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

BBC says this will embarrass the Israelis

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BBC's Jill McGivering, in Jerusalem, says the incident is sure to cause some embarrassment for the Israelis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

source

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3341435.stm)

Boy, is egg ever on Israeli faces today.

I expect better from you Matt. This would have to win the prize for "Best Piece of Selective Quoting for 2003".

The actual quote reads

But the BBC's Jill McGivering, in Jerusalem, says the incident is likely to prove embarrassing for the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, as well as Egypt.

a_unique_person

22nd December 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Didnt you know that Islam is a relgion of peace and the palestinians are just an oppressed group of people? You need to go to re-education camp.

Have you ever read the Old Testament, the moral source of the Zionist extremists? It is full of bloodshed and murder, much of it by the Israelites.

a_unique_person

22nd December 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, indeed, the BBC insightfully commented the attack of a palestinian mob on an Egyptian minister will "cause embarrasment to the israelis". I can see it now:

BBC: "Shame on you! Why did you let the palestinian mob attack him?"

israelies (shrugging): "Well, when we try to stop those sort of things, you call us baby-killers and the 'supressors of palestinian rights'. So why should we? Let them 'express their rights' and lynch him--they do that all the time anyway."

BBC: (explaining in a paternalistic tone): "You don't understand. We only say that when you try to stop the palestinians from hurting JEWS.
It's your responsibility to make sure ONLY jews are hurt, not human beings, or we'll write a nasty editorial about how 'israeli hard-line position threathens to export the conflict to Europe'!

Please remember: when they kill YOU, they're "militants" or "opposition forces". When they kill US, they're "terrorists". Have you no consideration for us?"

Skeptic takes off on another flight of fantasy. Let us know when you land back on planet earth.

DanishDynamite

22nd December 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Skeptic takes off on another flight of fantasy. Let us know when you land back on planet earth. It'll never happen. In Skeptic's paranoid world of black-and-white "those people" (aka any and all Palestinians) are bloodthirsty baby-killers, to a man. A good Arab is a dead Arab. No need to get into details concerning splinter groups (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/22/mideast/index.html) such as a small extremist Islamic group called the Liberation Party. These are irrelevant distractions from the Eternal Truth that "those people" are scum and that the rightuous heroes in Israel are beyond reproach.

I'm sure he would love to live in a world where being braindead wouldn't be a handicap.

renata

22nd December 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I expect better from you Matt. This would have to win the prize for "Best Piece of Selective Quoting for 2003".

The actual quote reads

I can confirm that at the time of Matt's post, the BBC article read as posted. The sentence was changed to add the other parties later. I noted it as particularly ironic, as the article also stated that Ahmed Maher declined Israeli escort and went only with his staff. I see mention of that is now excised from the article.

Skeptic

22nd December 2003, 05:34 PM

It'll never happen. In Skeptic's paranoid world of black-and-white "those people" (aka any and all Palestinians) are bloodthirsty baby-killers, to a man.

Well, not true, but even if it WAS the case, I'd say it would have been undestandable: when an offer of a State of their own was rebuffed with a terrorist war of annihilation, that pretty much made it clear what the REAL palestinian goal is.

Troll

22nd December 2003, 05:47 PM

DanishDynamite

22nd December 2003, 05:55 PM

Skeptic: Well, not true,... Care to point out which part isn't true?
but even if it WAS the case, I'd say it would have been undestandable....What would have been understandable? The entire paragraph?
: when an offer of a State of their own was rebuffed with a terrorist war of annihilation, that pretty much made it clear what the REAL palestinian goal is. Indeed. When the offer of reasonable taxes was made to the British colonialists they should likewise have accepted. What on Earth was the Boston Tea Party all about?

Tony

22nd December 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Have you ever read the Old Testament, the moral source of the Zionist extremists? It is full of bloodshed and murder, much of it by the Israelites.

Have you ever read the Koran, the moral source for muslims? It's full of violence, murder and rape, most of it by muslims.

Troll

22nd December 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Skeptic:Care to point out which part isn't true?
What would have been understandable? The entire paragraph?
Indeed. When the offer of reasonable taxes was made to the British colonialists they should likewise have accepted. What on Earth was the Boston Tea Party all about?

You're comparing getting a state of their own to taxation that led people to a country of their own? Maybe if the British had said, "Here you go, it's your's to rule" you could ask what the whole thing was about if we had fought anyhow. But when you offer what their leader claims to want, land and peace, and he renigs everytime and responds with additonal violence, that's a different story.

I don't harbor ill will towards the Palestinian people, I think they get enough of that from Arafat and groups that claim to represent them, like Hamas. But in 30 years several US presidents, several Israeli prime ministers and several leaders from other nations have all tried to figure out a way for peace. All those people have one thing in common and that was dealing with Arafat. I think it's time to place blame where it belongs

Skeptic

22nd December 2003, 06:08 PM

To repeat: tons of responses--all of them claiming either the whole thing is israel's fault (for existing), or blaiming israel for something else, or claiming I'm paranoid, and racist, and whatnot.

Not ONE response--ONE--about the issue itself: the attempted lynching of a foreign minister by a palestinian mob.

Tony

22nd December 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Not ONE response--ONE--about the issue itself: the attempted lynching of a foreign minister by a palestinian mob.

Because it's easier to call you a "bigot" and a "racist" than think for oneself or deal with reality.

DanishDynamite

22nd December 2003, 06:14 PM

Troll:You're comparing getting a state of their own to taxation that led people to a country of their own? I'm comparing what is reasonable when a people wish to form their own state. Maybe if the British had said, "Here you go, it's your's to rule" you could ask what the whole thing was about if we had fought anyhow. What is meant by "it's"? What land does it cover? What is meant by "rule"?
But when you offer what their leader claims to want, land and peace, and he renigs everytime and responds with additonal violence, that's a different story.So which part didn't Arafat accept? And why didn't he?
I don't harbor ill will towards the Palestinian people, I think they get enough of that from Arafat and groups that claim to represent them, like Hamas.To some degree, I could agree.
But in 30 years several US presidents, several Israeli prime ministers and several leaders from other nations have all tried to figure out a way for peace. All those people have one thing in common and that was dealing with Arafat. I think it's time to place blame where it belongs.Get real. While Arafat isn't my cup of tea, could you please describe the "peace" deals offered.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
To repeat: tons of responses--all of them claiming either the whole thing is israel's fault (for existing), or blaiming israel for something else, or claiming I'm paranoid, and racist, and whatnot.

Not ONE response--ONE--about the issue itself: the attempted lynching of a foreign minister by a palestinian mob.

You set the topic, and the tone...... doofus......Its no good whining when you get no support.

Just Like all your other threads, its about you and your bigotry. This now guarantees that few if any people have the slightest interest in what you rant about, its all the same tired old racism and bigotry....

DanishDynamite

22nd December 2003, 06:18 PM

Skeptic:To repeat: tons of responses--all of them claiming either the whole thing is israel's fault (for existing), or blaiming israel for something else, or claiming I'm paranoid, and racist, and whatnot. You are paranoid. This is a fact, admitted by yourself. You are also a bigot. Although this obvious property you haven't admitted yet.
Not ONE response--ONE--about the issue itself: the attempted lynching of a foreign minister by a palestinian mob. There have been several, including mine. Perhaps the blinders are getting in the way, Skeptic?

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Because it's easier to call you a "bigot" and a "racist" than think for oneself or deal with reality.

Tony, dude.......I have not seen you around for a while, parents turn off your pc?

Troll

22nd December 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Troll:I'm comparing what is reasonable when a people wish to form their own state.What is meant by "it's"? What land does it cover? What is meant by "rule"?
So part didn't Arafat accept? And why didn't he?
To some degree, I could agree.
Get real. While Arafat isn't my cup of tea, could you please describe the "peace" deals offered.

Take english lessons from Bill Clinton, did ya?:p

If the Brits had said, "Here ya go the colonies and all the land they are on is yours and yours to rule without any interference from us Brits"

Rule, own, make sovereign, create your own nation and governing authority.

As for which deals, well there's been several brokered by US presidents in the past from Carter to Clinton and now this Bush. Unfortuately they always seem to get the same name until now which has been Camp David Accords and the like. Arafat starts off warm and friendly to the whole thing, makes assurances and then at the last minute either breaks off talks or doesn't live up to his end of the bargain.

The only thing he has ever really been required to do is exercise control and stop people from violent attacks, arrest them if need be. His failure to do so, for whatever reason so his failure as a leader.

aerocontrols

22nd December 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I expect better from you Matt. This would have to win the prize for "Best Piece of Selective Quoting for 2003".

You were right to expect better of me. As Renata confirms, my quote was an exact cut/paste. It was a lone paragraph, unchanged from the article and unremoved from any context.

The BBC corrects their web pieces without indication of a change all the time.

example (http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_biased-bbc_archive.html#106639190056278294)

another (http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_biased-bbc_archive.html#106611204168304117)

Both of these are what they appear to be. I saw each both before and after the BBC changed them without noting the correction.

Originally posted by renata

I can confirm..

Thanks :)

MattJ

Ralph

22nd December 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

You set the topic, and the tone...... doofus......Its no good whining when you get no support.

Just Like all your other threads, its about you and your bigotry. This now guarantees that few if any people have the slightest interest in what you rant about, its all the same tired old racism and bigotry....

On the subject of "the same old tired racism & bigotry".................................I'd say the continuing accusations that Skeptic is racist & bigotted is getting pretty tiring.

Objecting to someone who feels you don't have the right to exist
as a nation or just simply wants to kill you is not racism. It's human nature...................

a_unique_person

22nd December 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Take english lessons from Bill Clinton, did ya?:p

If the Brits had said, "Here ya go the colonies and all the land they are on is yours and yours to rule without any interference from us Brits"

Rule, own, make sovereign, create your own nation and governing authority.

As for which deals, well there's been several brokered by US presidents in the past from Carter to Clinton and now this Bush. Unfortuately they always seem to get the same name until now which has been Camp David Accords and the like. Arafat starts off warm and friendly to the whole thing, makes assurances and then at the last minute either breaks off talks or doesn't live up to his end of the bargain.

The only thing he has ever really been required to do is exercise control and stop people from violent attacks, arrest them if need be. His failure to do so, for whatever reason so his failure as a leader.

You are assuming that all the Palestinians have to do is role over and play dead, which is what Sharon and friends want them to do. Make no mistake, the hard core extremists want the whole of the West Bank, and have been working on it relentlessly, through all peace talks and deals. Even while the roadmap is supposed to be on the table, more settlements are being planned.

Arafat as a leader has been a total failure. However, that does not mean that he alone is responsible for the debacle. Sharon and his cohorts have also been a constant in the whole process. Sharon, well before he was PM, was a driving force in the settlement movement.

a_unique_person

22nd December 2003, 07:14 PM

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

On the subject of "the same old tired racism & bigotry".................................I'd say the continuing accusations that Skeptic is racist & bigotted is getting pretty tiring.

Objecting to someone who feels you don't have the right to exist
as a nation or just simply wants to kill you is not racism. It's human nature...................
You are quite right Ralph, If that was what "Skeptic" did...... I can only assume you have not read any of "skeptics" rants about Arabs and Muslims.... The "all arabs are bloodthirsty killers" stuff.... and his rats about what "all muslims think, believe or want" As I have pointed out time and time again. Skeptic has every right to an opinion, if that opinion is racist and bigoted I have every right to point it out and will continue to do so.

Nobody gets a free ride to peddle racist hate.

renata

22nd December 2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

You were right to expect better of me. As Renata confirms, my quote was an exact cut/paste. It was a lone paragraph, unchanged from the article and unremoved from any context.

The BBC corrects their web pieces without indication of a change all the time.

example (http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_biased-bbc_archive.html#106639190056278294)

another (http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_biased-bbc_archive.html#106611204168304117)

Both of these are what they appear to be. I saw each both before and after the BBC changed them without noting the correction.

Thanks :)

MattJ

No problem :D

I am not surprised- it is not just BBC what changes their stories, CNN, and other internet news services do it all the time, as stories develop, or for other reasons, while keeping the link the same. In one instance FoxNews published an adversary's home number in a story, and edited it a few hours later, without acknowledging it. There was a thread about it http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27660 In other words, it is common to change- to put in new details, to correct an error, to stop embarassment.

In this case, one has to wonder what caused the correction :)

I anticipate AUP will offer a prompt apology to you soon enough for choosing to accuse you of selective quoting rather than investigating other options.

Troll

22nd December 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You are assuming that all the Palestinians have to do is role over and play dead, which is what Sharon and friends want them to do. Make no mistake, the hard core extremists want the whole of the West Bank, and have been working on it relentlessly, through all peace talks and deals. Even while the roadmap is supposed to be on the table, more settlements are being planned.

Arafat as a leader has been a total failure. However, that does not mean that he alone is responsible for the debacle. Sharon and his cohorts have also been a constant in the whole process. Sharon, well before he was PM, was a driving force in the settlement movement.

Play dead? Are you that daft? Seriously. All they need to do is stop the suicide bombings and attacks on civilians. How soon have you and your kind forgotten. Does no one recall several months ago when there was a suicide bomb and no retaliation from Israel while they waited to see if Arafat would round up those responsible? Or the bomb that happened after that with no retaliation while they waited on Arafat? It took a third bombing before this recent round began after the announcement of the "roadmap to peace". I'm sorry, but it shows that Israel is capable of restraint, just like they were in the gulf and had scuds coming in, but that Arafat doesn't give a damn about peace.

Ralph

22nd December 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

You are quite right Ralph, If that was what "Skeptic" did...... I can only assume you have not read any of "skeptics" rants about Arabs and Muslims.... The "all arabs are bloodthirsty killers" stuff.... and his rats about what "all muslims think, believe or want" As I have pointed out time and time again. Skeptic has every right to an opinion, if that opinion is racist and bigoted I have every right to point it out and will continue to do so.

Nobody gets a free ride to peddle racist hate.

I've read quite a few of Skeptics posts. I don't recall him saying ALL Arabs are bloodthirsty killers. Only some of them, which certainly is a true statement.

As far as I can see--he only objects to the ones that are tying to kill Israelis.

Perhaps if you lived in a country where childern on schoolbuses get blown to pieces....you might find yourselves objecting to these people too.

Troll

22nd December 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by renata

I anticipate AUP will offer a prompt apology to you soon enough for choosing to accuse you of selective quoting rather than investigating other options.

:dl:

Jocko

22nd December 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I've read quite a few of Skeptics posts. I don't recall him saying ALL Arabs are bloodthirsty killers. Only some of them, which certainly is a true statement.

As far as I can see--he only objects to the ones that are tying to kill Israelis.

Perhaps if you lived in a country where childern on schoolbuses get blown to pieces....you might find yourselves objecting to these people too.

I second this assessment. While Skeptic can get too emotional in his posts sometimes, on the whole I find that his criticisms of arab leadership are valid and solid. He's an intelligent poster who presents well-developed arguments, and presents them well.

He also doesn't have the luxury of forming his opinion in the ivory towers that some posters seem to occupy.

Ralph

22nd December 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

You set the topic, and the tone...... doofus......Its no good whining when you get no support.

Just Like all your other threads, its about you and your bigotry. This now guarantees that few if any people have the slightest interest in what you rant about, its all the same tired old racism and bigotry....

There was a recent thread here where one of your fellow Aussies occused Skeptic of enjoying the bulldozing of women & children.....

He seemed to be suggesting that ALL IDF members enjoy bulldozing women & children.

Don't you think that's a bit prejudiced????

a_unique_person

22nd December 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Play dead? Are you that daft? Seriously. All they need to do is stop the suicide bombings and attacks on civilians. How soon have you and your kind forgotten. Does no one recall several months ago when there was a suicide bomb and no retaliation from Israel while they waited to see if Arafat would round up those responsible? Or the bomb that happened after that with no retaliation while they waited on Arafat? It took a third bombing before this recent round began after the announcement of the "roadmap to peace". I'm sorry, but it shows that Israel is capable of restraint, just like they were in the gulf and had scuds coming in, but that Arafat doesn't give a damn about peace.

No retaliation? What do you call all the 'targetted' killings?

The fact is, if they just rolled over, there would be no Palestine any more, just Samaria and Judea, which is what the extremists have been steadily working on this past 30 years. Now, if you want to see what the settlers do when they don't get their way, I can't really spot the difference. They regularly shoot at and kill people who have the temerity to live on the land the bible has promised them.

a_unique_person

22nd December 2003, 07:32 PM

Troll

22nd December 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

No retaliation? What do you call all the 'targetted' killings?

The fact is, if they just rolled over, there would be no Palestine any more, just Samaria and Judea, which is what the extremists have been steadily working on this past 30 years. Now, if you want to see what the settlers do when they don't get their way, I can't really spot the difference. They regularly shoot at and kill people who have the temerity to live on the land the bible has promised them.

I call them what the Israelis did after the third bombing and nothing was done on the part of Arafat to bring those responsible in

And let's not forget, oh ye with the blind eye, that rolling over and playing dead is what the Israelis neighbors would have loved for them to do. But since that didn't happen, they decided to use extremists to try to eliminate them. It's not rolling over for pity's sake, it's waking up and smelling the freaking coffee.

Israel is there to stay. Stop trying to eliminate them, and you can have your own damned state. Keep trying and you'll just send more people to their deaths for a goal you can never achieve.

And now you have to go and find credible sources that show that the Israeli settlers regularly shoot Palestinians and that it's not IDF shooting back at gunmen, since you made the claim.

Jocko

22nd December 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Naturally, he won't give us any details of what he might have done with that bulldozer, or what he knows is done with them.

And naturally, you've never let a lack of data prevent you from making generalizations and personal attacks like this one. Perhaps you could find some backup for your theories in one of those tabloids you call hard news?

Troll

22nd December 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have a thread on the many members of the IDF who are coming forward and saying they want to take no further part in the oppression of the Palestinians. Skeptic was kind enough to inform us once about how hard it is to drive one of those bulldozers, when we were discussing the death of Rachel Corrie. Naturally, he won't give us any details of what he might have done with that bulldozer, or what he knows is done with them.

She stood in front of the damned thing. Sit in one with the blade up just a little and you ain't gonna see some 5 foot something girl in front of it. Do you try to stop cars backing out of garages by laying down behind them?

aerocontrols

22nd December 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by renata
I am not surprised- it is not just BBC what changes their stories, CNN, and other internet news services do it all the time, as stories develop, or for other reasons, while keeping the link the same. In one instance FoxNews published an adversary's home number in a story, and edited it a few hours later, without acknowledging it. There was a thread about it http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27660 In other words, it is common to change- to put in new details, to correct an error, to stop embarassment.

Yeah, I know. I suspect that, fairly soon, one of the news services will begin offering links at the bottom of the story that track the changes as they happen. It would definitely increase their credibility. They need to let the reader know the story was changed, every time it was changed, and only hide the previous content if it was libelous or for some other reason illegal. They ought not hide 'commentary inserted as fact' because the commentary was biased or simply embarrassing.

Originally posted by renata
In this case, one has to wonder what caused the correction :)

I anticipate AUP will offer a prompt apology to you soon enough for choosing to accuse you of selective quoting rather than investigating other options.

I think he's too busy participating in the rabid portion of this thread to act responsibly in the civil portion. Perhaps I will receive an apology, though 'prompt' seems to have passed us by some time ago.

MattJ

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

There was a recent thread here where one of your fellow Aussies occused Skeptic of enjoying the bulldozing of women & children.....

He seemed to be suggesting that ALL IDF members enjoy bulldozing women & children.

Don't you think that's a bit prejudiced????

There are more than one Racist and bigots on this board. I'm not sure if you want to quote a list of examples and have me tell you if I think they are racist or bigoted statements? Obviously all IDF members do not enjoy bulldozing women & children. I would hope none of them do.

On your specific point I don't remember anyone ever telling "Skeptic" that he enjoyed killing people? Maybe you could point it out to me..... If It was another Australian I am still allowed to disagree with them, we are not the borg.

So anyway, back to you...If I said all Arabs were bloodthirsty would I be demonstrating bigotry? If I said all Palestinians want to see the genocide of the jews would I be rational? Or would I just be a bigot who is just as much a part of the problem as those I rant about?

Skeptic

22nd December 2003, 08:02 PM

He also doesn't have the luxury of forming his opinion in the ivory towers that some posters seem to occupy.

What's astonishing is that AUP&co. REALLY BELIEVE that they, in their infinite wisdom, have discerned--by looking at a few web sites and/or headlines--what "the truth" is about the most complicated conflict in modern history. Without ever having been a thousand miles from the place, or, for that matter, without speaking a word of Arabic or Hebrew, of course.

Ah well. An israeli satirist used to say he has the hardest job in the world, since he deals with the two subjects everybody on the face of the planet considers himself an expert: humor... and political analysis of the middle east.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I've read quite a few of Skeptics posts. I don't recall him saying ALL Arabs are bloodthirsty killers. Only some of them, which certainly is a true statement.

As far as I can see--he only objects to the ones that are tying to kill Israelis.

Perhaps if you lived in a country where childern on schoolbuses get blown to pieces....you might find yourselves objecting to these people too.
well, this quote took me exacly 15 seconds to find.....Its not a difficult task ,Its like picking grapes....

That might have something to do with being 600,000 among 150,000,000 bloodthirsty Arabs who want you dead. If you don't start an arm race under these conditions, you don't live long.

so......where is the "only some of them" bit, I agree that he only objects to the ones he thinks are trying to kill Israelis...does 150 million leave many out?????

And I find it offensive that you would suggest I do not object to people murdering children on schoolbuses.

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Have you ever read the Old Testament, the moral source of the Zionist extremists? It is full of bloodshed and murder, much of it by the Israelites.

Good job. Slander their religion.

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 08:18 PM

Skeptic

22nd December 2003, 08:20 PM

Skeptic was kind enough to inform us once about how hard it is to drive one of those bulldozers, when we were discussing the death of Rachel Corrie. Naturally, he won't give us any details of what he might have done with that bulldozer, or what he knows is done with them.

As the reader of the original thread could easily verify, all I said was that it is very difficult to see from such a Bulldozer what is going on since you have very limited vision and large "dead" areas (think about not being able to see a person who is lying right in front of a big SUV because he is hidden from the driver by the front of the car).

The point was, of course, (read the original thread) to note that the bulldozer driver who ran over the protestor--who apparently refused to leave despite repeated warnings--did not do so on purpose, but simply didn't see her; as the original thread also makes clear, the moment he DID notice it--due to frantic signaling from those outside, who ALSO obviously only saw the protestor too late--the driver stopped, and the army called medical help.

AUP, in his usual slippery manner, chooses to "misuderstand" me (oops!) as if I meant to that I ever drove these machines myself, let alone over protestors, or "know but refuse to tell" about people who did. Wrong on both counts--and AUP knows this, of course--but insinuating darkly about what "awful crimes" I must know of (or committed), due to a deliberate "misunderstanding" of what I said, is AUP's stock in trade.

To illustrate how disgusting AUP's latest "insinuation" is, consider the following analogy, with the exact same logical structure:

AUP: "A man just ran over a woman in the street ON PURPOSE!"

Skeptic: "Er, it looks she jumped in front of his car without a notice; it's a tall car, and he had limited sideways vision. It looks like an accident to me."

AUP: "Skeptic replied to my post about a man running over a woman on purpose by noting how hard it is to drive such cars. He refuses to discuss his experience with such 'trouble' in seeing pedestrians, or who else he knows who had 'trouble' seeing them as well. Why is he defending the driver? What is he HIDING???"

You're scum, AUP, pure and simple. Not only do you accuse me of murder or accessory to it, but you don't even have the guts to do it straight out, and instead use cowardly insinuation based on deliberate misunderstanding. Congratualtions: just went I thought you couldn't possibly sink any lower, you top yourself.

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Nobody gets a free ride to peddle racist hate.

Unless it's directed against Israel.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Unless it's directed against Israel.
got any examples? I'd love to discuss the racist and bigoted statements about Israelis that have gone unchallanged on this board.

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Jocko
I second this assessment. While Skeptic can get too emotional in his posts sometimes, on the whole I find that his criticisms of arab leadership are valid and solid. He's an intelligent poster who presents well-developed arguments, and presents them well.

And whenever he does, Fool, Danish Dynamite and some others pop in to accuse him of racist bigoted paranoia, completely shutting down any possible discussion of the issues he raises.

Skeptic

22nd December 2003, 08:31 PM

By the way, for once, I reported AUP's post to a moderator.

Whatever y'all think of me, you at least know that I never reported a post to a moderator before--I prefer to hit back myself, if so inclined (figuratively, that is).

But hotly debating politics is one thing, accusing me of being an accessory to war crimes quite another.

To repeat, AUP, you are total scum. See above post for the reasons, you cowardly, insinuating, "who, me????????"-fake-innocence-eye-rolling piece of excrement.

To the rest of you, sorry for the rant.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

And whenever he does, Fool, Danish Dynamite and some others pop in to accuse him of racist bigoted paranoia, completely shutting down any possible discussion of the issues he raises.
would you prefer that people ignore the racist bigoted paranoia?

Mr Manifesto

22nd December 2003, 08:34 PM

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The fact is, if they just rolled over, there would be no Palestine any more, just Samaria and Judea, which is what the extremists have been steadily working on this past 30 years...

How do suicide bombings stop any of that?

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
would you prefer that people ignore the racist bigoted paranoia?

I'd prefer that pay more attention to the message rather than work so hard to slander the messenger.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
By the way, for once, I reported AUP's post to a moderator.

Whatever y'all think of me, you at least know that I never reported a post to a moderator before--I prefer to hit back myself, if so inclined (figuratively, that is).

But hotly debating politics is one thing, accusing me of being an accessory to war crimes quite another.

To repeat, AUP, you are total scum. See above post for the reasons, you cowardly, insinuating, "who, me????????"-fake-innocence-eye-rolling piece of excrement.

To the rest of you, sorry for the rant.
I find it amazing that you would get all precious after you have made an art of accusing entire races and religions of mass murder.

Well anyway, that should take up some of hals time in typing "I see no breach of the rules" and "Skeptic" can go back to bashing muslims and arabs and A_U_P can go back to bashing "skeptic" and it all starts again tomorrow........

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I'd prefer that pay more attention to the message rather than work so hard to slander the messenger.

So do you think bigotry and racism should be ignored or not? How long do you want to dance around this simple question?

still waiting on examples of your claim about anti-semitic statements going unchallanged on this forum.....

Skeptic

22nd December 2003, 08:47 PM

Well anyway, that should take up some of hals time in typing "I see no breach of the rules"

I can't decide for Hal, of course, but it seems to me that insinuating I am a war criminal is quite against the rules, being rather obviously libel.

Mr Manifesto

22nd December 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

I can't decide for Hal, of course, but it seems to me that insinuating I am a war criminal is quite against the rules, being rather obviously libel.

Where does he insinuate that you're a war criminal? I'm not taking the p!$$, I honestly can't see where he insinuates you're a war criminal. Any help appreciated.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well anyway, that should take up some of hals time in typing "I see no breach of the rules"

I can't decide for Hal, of course, but it seems to me that insinuating I am a war criminal is quite against the rules, being rather obviously libel.
Yet any Arab posters would have to accept being described by you as bloodthirsty killers? Lol...... maybe you should report yourself for 150,000,000 offences of accusing someone of warcrimes....Hypocrite

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
So do you think bigotry and racism should be ignored or not? How long do you want to dance around this simple question?

Good job! Build a straw-man and deflect the issue! It's not that you're constantly trying to slander the messenger so you can ignore the message, now the topic is if I approve of racism or not. Accuse me of dancing around that issue while you dance around the first issue.

Originally posted by The Fool
still waiting on examples of your claim about anti-semitic statements going unchallanged on this forum.....

Okay, not looking any farther than this thread I find:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Have you ever read the Old Testament, the moral source of the Zionist extremists? It is full of bloodshed and murder, much of it by the Israelites.

Yes, never mind that these books also happen to be holy to Muslims and Christians, they have violence, the "Zionist extremists" read them, so the Jooz must be bad.

And then this little gem, suggesting that first the Germans and then the Jews as a people suffer from “battered child syndrome”:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

IIRC, it has been shown that many child abusers were themselves abused as children. The notion of a 'package' of violence moving from one group of people to another is a good one. What is important is people realising what is happening to them, and stop it. This article appears to show that this is indeed the case. One can only hope the sentiment moves on to those in policy making areas.

renata

22nd December 2003, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Yeah, I know. I suspect that, fairly soon, one of the news services will begin offering links at the bottom of the story that track the changes as they happen. It would definitely increase their credibility. They need to let the reader know the story was changed, every time it was changed, and only hide the previous content if it was libelous or for some other reason illegal. They ought not hide 'commentary inserted as fact' because the commentary was biased or simply embarrassing.

I would not be surprised if they got quite a few complaints about their original phrasing- given that the Minister refused Israeli protection and was assaulted by a Palestinian mob, it was hard to justify the statement. I agree the changes should be tracked. It is too easy now to simply erase the glaring offensive statements.

I think he's too busy participating in the rabid portion of this thread to act responsibly in the civil portion. Perhaps I will receive an apology, though 'prompt' seems to have passed us by some time ago.

MattJ

One can always hope for an apology for a hasty, unsubstantiated and incorrect allegation-especially when he was so clearly in the wrong. :)

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by renata
I would not be surprised if they got quite a few complaints about their original phrasing- given that the Minister refused Israeli protection and was assaulted by a Palestinian mob, it was hard to justify the statement. I agree the changes should be tracked. It is too easy now to simply erase the glaring offensive statements.

And yet even the corrected version still claims that the incident should still be embarassing to the Israelis. How?

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Good job! Build a straw-man and deflect the issue! It's not that you're constantly trying to slander the messenger so you can ignore the message, now the topic is if I approve of racism or not. Accuse me of dancing around that issue while you dance around the first issue.

you say I am preoccupied with the bigotry and racism and can't see past it to comment on the "message".... In order to not be diverted by the bigotry and racism I am assuming I would have to ignore it.... The topic is has never been about your approval or non approval of racism (talk about strawman) it is a simple clarification of if you think I should ignore racism and bigotry.....so I'll ask you again, should I ignore it?

"Zionist extremists" read them, so the Jooz must be bad.

Can you tell the difference between "zionist extremists" and "the jooz" A_U_P seems to be able to.....

And then this little gem, suggesting that first the Germans and then the Jews as a people suffer from “battered child syndrome”:

well I couldn't find anything anti-semitic in the words you quoted but then again I couldn't find the post it was contained in to get it into context or see the article it refered to..... Anyway, you won't have to go far to find an A_U_P quote that is rabidly anti zionist or rabidly anti Sharon... If thats the point you are trying to make, I'm in agreement.... The point I am trying to make is that there is so much blatant bigotry and racism on this board directed towards arabs and muslims that it is an embarassment.

If I see anti-Semitism I point it out too. But Critisizm of Zionist extremists or Sharon is no more anti-semitism than criticism of hammas and arafat is bigotry and racism... Skeptic can rant about Hammas and arafat until he's blue in the face for all I care but do you honestly think people should just ignore the "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" garbage that "skeptic" continually rants about?

[/B]

renata

22nd December 2003, 09:54 PM

I know why AUP has not apologized...Cleopatra finally got him :D

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/australia.croc.attack/index.html

Australian police are searching for a saltwater crocodile which killed one man and kept two other men trapped up a tree for 22 hours until they could be rescued by helicopter.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by renata
I know why AUP has not apologized...Cleopatra finally got him :D

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/australia.croc.attack/index.html

It was my fault, the tree was too weak so I had to throw A_U_P out......

Jocko

22nd December 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

It was my fault, the tree was too weak so I had to throw A_U_P out......

What a perfectly awful thing to do! Where's your compassion, man? What did that poor crocodile ever do to you?

Troll

22nd December 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
well I couldn't find anything anti-semitic in the words you quoted but then again I couldn't find the post it was contained in to get it into context or see the article it refered to..... Anyway, you won't have to go far to find an A_U_P quote that is rabidly anti zionist or rabidly anti Sharon... If thats the point you are trying to make, I'm in agreement.... The point I am trying to make is that there is so much blatant bigotry and racism on this board directed towards arabs and muslims that it is an embarassment.

If I see anti-Semitism I point it out too. But Critisizm of Zionist extremists or Sharon is no more anti-semitism than criticism of hammas and arafat is bigotry and racism... Skeptic can rant about Hammas and arafat until he's blue in the face for all I care but do you honestly think people should just ignore the "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" garbage that "skeptic" continually rants about?

So you haven't noticed that when AUP speaks of jews the words he uses tends to almost always be "Zionist" or "Zionist Extremist"? He's used the term in almost every post about Israel. Now surely you'd defend him and say he's not talking about all Jews or all Israelis. But you won't apply the same thinking to Skeptic.

What is it that makes you not see the festering hate and racism in AUP for posts that are not that different from the posts of Skeptic?

Is it "turning a blind eye"?
Liberal PC extremism?
A personal vendetta against people that prove you wrong?

The other day we agreed that some make claims that all people of a particular race or religion are lumped together and that would be incorrect. The only thing I see here is an embelishment of numbers, I'd hardly call it racist. Do you deny that the countries of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and others have either stated a goal of or tried to remove the Israelis. Doesn't mean each and every citizen agreed with it, and you know that as well as I do. But I see you saying "The US this and the US that", are you going to call yourself Anti-american because you lump us all into the category you hate, or would you now excuse yourself for using all encompassing words and accept that that is the only error Skeptic may have made?

Troll

22nd December 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

What a perfectly awful thing to do! Where's your compassion, man? What did that poor crocodile ever do to you?

I think The Fool may be crocophobic and tried to poison it with AUP

Mycroft

22nd December 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
you say I am preoccupied with the bigotry and racism and can't see past it to comment on the "message".... In order to not be diverted by the bigotry and racism I am assuming I would have to ignore it....

No, I said you use the charges of bigotry, racism and paranoia to slander Skeptic and derail any possibility of discussing any issues he may raise. Can you see that there is a difference between that and saying you are preoccupied with bigotry and racism? There are many who use this board who feel that the standard of discourse here is higher than on other boards, it’s described as a “skeptic’s board” yet time and time again I see misrepresentations of my views thrown back at me. Tell me, do you consider that to be an acceptable tactic or is the problem with reading comprehension?

Originally posted by The Fool
Can you tell the difference between "zionist extremists" and "the jooz" A_U_P seems to be able to.....

Do you think that slandering an entire religion is racist? How do you respond when someone posts inflammatory portions of the Koran to suggest that Muslims are violent?

Originally posted by The Fool
well I couldn't find anything anti-semitic in the words you quoted but then again I couldn't find the post it was contained in to get it into context or see the article it refered to.....

Do you think that making an argument that suggests that an entire nationality (Germans) and then an entire ethnic group (Jews) suffer from a mental illness is not racist?

Jocko

22nd December 2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Troll

I think The Fool may be crocophobic and tried to poison it with AUP

Perhaps he just wanted to see someone who could actually swallow AUP's conspiracy theories.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Troll

So you haven't noticed that when AUP speaks of jews the words he uses tends to almost always be "Zionist" or "Zionist Extremist"? He's used the term in almost every post about Israel. Now surely you'd defend him and say he's not talking about all Jews or all Israelis. But you won't apply the same thinking to Skeptic.

When A_U_P says "zionist extremists" I tend to assume he is refering to zionist extremists" when "skeptic" talks about "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" what should I assume he is refering to? Hammas terrorists? all 150 million of them??

What is it that makes you not see the festering hate and racism in AUP for posts that are not that different from the posts of Skeptic?
Is it "turning a blind eye"?
Liberal PC extremism?
A personal vendetta against people that prove you wrong?

When either A_U_P starts making sweeping statements about all Jews or "skeptic" stops making sweeping statements about "all Arabs" and "All Muslims" then I may start seeing more similarities in thier posts.

The other day we agreed that some make claims that all people of a particular race or religion are lumped together and that would be incorrect. The only thing I see here is an embelishment of numbers, I'd hardly call it racist. Do you deny that the countries of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and others have either stated a goal of or tried to remove the Israelis.

I completely agree, all these Governments, some of them are the worst timpot extremists on the planet, Have obvious hatred and desire to eliminate Israel.

Doesn't mean each and every citizen agreed with it, and you know that as well as I do. But I see you saying "The US this and the US that", are you going to call yourself Anti-american because you lump us all into the category you hate, or would you now excuse yourself for using all encompassing words and accept that that is the only error Skeptic may have made?

You make a valid point, I try my best but if I have been guilty of "anti-americanism" it is unintentional and if people see me do it they should carve me up on the spot. I'm honestly not trying to deny I have never said "americans" when I was refering to a particular American governments foreign policy... Let me know when I do it and I'll be more careful....... Now don't hold your breath waiting for a similar undertaking from "skeptic" and his "wack a Muslim" club.

The Fool

22nd December 2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

No, I said you use the charges of bigotry, racism and paranoia to slander Skeptic and derail any possibility of discussing any issues he may raise. Can you see that there is a difference between that and saying you are preoccupied with bigotry and racism? There are many who use this board who feel that the standard of discourse here is higher than on other boards, it’s described as a “skeptic’s board” yet time and time again I see misrepresentations of my views thrown back at me. Tell me, do you consider that to be an acceptable tactic or is the problem with reading comprehension?

misrepresentations thrown back at you? join the club, its not uncommon. If "Skeptic" wants to start rational discussions why does he embelish his threads with his usual inflammatory rants? Virtually all his threads are trolling for reaction. when he gets it he whines.....boo hoo.

Do you think that slandering an entire religion is racist? How do you respond when someone posts inflammatory portions of the Koran to suggest that Muslims are violent?

I tend to counter with inflamitory portions of Christian texts.... The point being that this sort of "kill the unbeliever" stuff is in all the varieties of middle eastern monotheism... Our resident "wack a muslim" club love the "kill the unbeliever" bits of the Koran yet find the same stuff in Hebrew and Christian texts irrelevant.

Do you think that making an argument that suggests that an entire nationality (Germans) and then an entire ethnic group (Jews) suffer from a mental illness is not racist?

Ok, once again you are talking about this "battered child" reference...once again I would need to see a link to this quote as the bit you quoted did not mention either Germans Jews or mental illness. If your summary of its intent is accurate I would agree with you but I would need to see it in full, in context and also see the article it sited....fair enough?

Mycroft

23rd December 2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
misrepresentations thrown back at you? join the club, its not uncommon. If "Skeptic" wants to start rational discussions why does he embelish his threads with his usual inflammatory rants? Virtually all his threads are trolling for reaction. when he gets it he whines.....boo hoo.

How come when I talk about you you turn it around to a comment about Skeptic?

Originally posted by The Fool
I tend to counter with inflamitory portions of Christian texts.... The point being that this sort of "kill the unbeliever" stuff is in all the varieties of middle eastern monotheism... Our resident "wack a muslim" club love the "kill the unbeliever" bits of the Koran yet find the same stuff in Hebrew and Christian texts irrelevant.

Fair enough. I lifted that quote from earlier in this thread, what do you make of it? Do you think he was countering something inflamitory?

Originally posted by The Fool
Ok, once again you are talking about this "battered child" reference...once again I would need to see a link to this quote as the bit you quoted did not mention either Germans Jews or mental illness. If your summary of its intent is accurate I would agree with you but I would need to see it in full, in context and also see the article it sited....fair enough?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30889

Originally posted by The Fool When A_U_P says "zionist extremists" I tend to assume he is refering to zionist extremists" when "skeptic" talks about "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" what should I assume he is refering to? Hammas terrorists? all 150 million of them??

From what I saw of the context, it seemed he was talking about the Israeli war of Independence. Do you think he literally meant 150 million Arabs? Each and every Arab in the world? Or do you think he just said 150 million to mean "an overwhelming number" of Arabs?

Two of those interpretations do not mean every single Arab, and the one that does doesn't seem to me to be the most likely.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Yeah, I know. I suspect that, fairly soon, one of the news services will begin offering links at the bottom of the story that track the changes as they happen. It would definitely increase their credibility. They need to let the reader know the story was changed, every time it was changed, and only hide the previous content if it was libelous or for some other reason illegal. They ought not hide 'commentary inserted as fact' because the commentary was biased or simply embarrassing.

I think he's too busy participating in the rabid portion of this thread to act responsibly in the civil portion. Perhaps I will receive an apology, though 'prompt' seems to have passed us by some time ago.

MattJ

I have been out catching up with late xmas shopping. I do apologize for the mistake, although I think it has been adequately covered as to how it happened. Like I said at the time, it is not the kind of thing I would normally associate with you.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

I second this assessment. While Skeptic can get too emotional in his posts sometimes, on the whole I find that his criticisms of arab leadership are valid and solid. He's an intelligent poster who presents well-developed arguments, and presents them well.

He also doesn't have the luxury of forming his opinion in the ivory towers that some posters seem to occupy.

He is the king of strawmen, what are you talking about. Either that or "its all the jews". He gets a little repetitious and tedious after a while.

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

How come when I talk about you you turn it around to a comment about Skeptic?

if you look at what I was replying to you will see that you mentioned you felt you were being misrepresented and also a view that I was slandering skeptic.... Isn't it reasonable that skeptic should appear in my reply?

Fair enough. I lifted that quote from earlier in this thread, what do you make of it? Do you think he was countering something inflamitory?

well he was replying to tony, one of our star muslim bashers so .....I would say yes....

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30889

I think I agree with the author of the analogy, which was not A_U_P...that it is a crap analogy. Can a nation with a history of being persecuted take it out on others??? well, It could be argued that they may be more likely to persecute the original persecutors, if they got the chance, but I'm damned if I can see a link to palestinians.

From what I saw of the context, it seemed he was talking about the Israeli war of Independence. Do you think he literally meant 150 million Arabs? Each and every Arab in the world? Or do you think he just said 150 million to mean "an overwhelming number" of Arabs?

Two of those interpretations do not mean every single Arab, and the one that does doesn't seem to me to be the most likely.

His famous "600,000 among 150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs' line comes from a thread about the middle east arms race. Nuclear biological and chemical..... Skeptics statement was rationalising Israels need to develop such capabilities.....Nothing to do with wars of independence. He see's Israels current position as being surrounded by 150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs. do the arithmetic, I think 150,000,000 is just about all of them? But I would encourage you to ask him yourself, he doesn't seem unwilling to tell people his views on arabs or muslims.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by renata

One can always hope for an apology for a hasty, unsubstantiated and incorrect allegation-especially when he was so clearly in the wrong. :)

Hang on, I checked the article he linked to. It was quite clearly different to his quote, and the meaning he attributed to the article as at the time he posted it, and the article at the time I read it, were very different. I was not hasty, I saw something completely different to what he quoted. As you noted, they will change stories without indicating that they have been changed. I also noted it was not what I expected from him normally. It was substantiated, as far as I could see. I was not clearly in the wrong, for me to be clearly in the wrong, I would have deduced that the story had been changed, and still gone ahead and posted.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Troll

So you haven't noticed that when AUP speaks of jews the words he uses tends to almost always be "Zionist" or "Zionist Extremist"? He's used the term in almost every post about Israel. Now surely you'd defend him and say he's not talking about all Jews or all Israelis. But you won't apply the same thinking to Skeptic.

B*** SH***. Have you looked on the thread, Israeli Army has Doubts? No? I didn't think so.

What is it that makes you not see the festering hate and racism in AUP for posts that are not that different from the posts of Skeptic?

Maybe because it's not there?

Is it "turning a blind eye"?
Liberal PC extremism?
A personal vendetta against people that prove you wrong?

How about the fourth option "None of the above".

The other day we agreed that some make claims that all people of a particular race or religion are lumped together and that would be incorrect. The only thing I see here is an embelishment of numbers, I'd hardly call it racist. Do you deny that the countries of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and others have either stated a goal of or tried to remove the Israelis.

Absolutely. At first they resisted an invasion, which every ethnic group in the world would do, naturally. The Saudis have offered a deal that would recognise the state of Israel. It was hurriedly buried, as it would have involved such things that Palestinians have wanted from day one, such as right of return. As has been pointed out before, the Israelis will never allow this as it would mean that in a democratic country, they would suddenly find themselves in the minority.

Doesn't mean each and every citizen agreed with it, and you know that as well as I do. But I see you saying "The US this and the US that", are you going to call yourself Anti-american because you lump us all into the category you hate, or would you now excuse yourself for using all encompassing words and accept that that is the only error Skeptic may have made?

Skeptic has paraded so many strawmen I am surprised that there isn't a broom shortage in the world.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 04:37 AM

Mycroft

23rd December 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
well he was replying to tony, one of our star muslim bashers so .....I would say yes....

So Tony was bashing Islam when he said that?

Originally posted by The Fool
I think I agree with the author of the analogy, which was not A_U_P...that it is a crap analogy. Can a nation with a history of being persecuted take it out on others??? well, It could be argued that they may be more likely to persecute the original persecutors, if they got the chance, but I'm damned if I can see a link to palestinians.

Yes, Mr Manifesto said it was a crap analogy, but AUP embraced it fast enough.

Tony

23rd December 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

So Tony was bashing Islam when he said that?

No, I was not bashing Islam. I was mocking our resident PC Nazis. Even if I was, so what? I see Christian (sorry I forgot to include the only acceptable slur "Xian", from now on, Im going to start referring to muslims as towel heads) bashing daily on this forum. I guess its ok to bash one type bullsh!t but not the other?

Jocko

23rd December 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Hang on, I checked the article he linked to. It was quite clearly different to his quote, and the meaning he attributed to the article as at the time he posted it, and the article at the time I read it, were very different. I was not hasty, I saw something completely different to what he quoted. As you noted, they will change stories without indicating that they have been changed. I also noted it was not what I expected from him normally. It was substantiated, as far as I could see. I was not clearly in the wrong, for me to be clearly in the wrong, I would have deduced that the story had been changed, and still gone ahead and posted.

That's the sh*ttiest apology I've ever seen. But it does have the merit of being the longest.

Troll

23rd December 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

That's the sh*ttiest apology I've ever seen. But it does have the merit of being the longest.

What? You never saw this apology (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Clinton_in_crisis/Story/0,2763,210052,00.html)?

Cleon

23rd December 2003, 10:08 AM

Tony

23rd December 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

Honest question: how is "Xian" a slur?

How is any word a slur? I guess it depends on how people take it.

Jocko

23rd December 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

Honest question: how is "Xian" a slur?

I think that any uninvited contraction or mutilation of another's name could be easily taken as a slur, as it trivializes the concept behind it.

I don't personally take offense, but I can see where some would. I guess I'm just not a very good Xian.

Cleon

23rd December 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Jocko

I think that any uninvited contraction or mutilation of another's name could be easily taken as a slur, as it trivializes the concept behind it.

I don't personally take offense, but I can see where some would. I guess I'm just not a very good Xian.

It's weird...I've honestly never heard of a Xian/Christian/Jesus dude being offended by the abbreviation. I'd always assumed it was just a way to cut down on keystrokes--up there with lol, rofl, wtf, btw, and rtfm.

Of course, I'm assuming that by indicating he'd use it to justify using real slurs like "towel head," Tony was joking.

aerocontrols

23rd December 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

It's weird...I've honestly never heard of a Xian/Christian/Jesus dude being offended by the abbreviation. I'd always assumed it was just a way to cut down on keystrokes--up there with lol, rofl, wtf, btw, and rtfm.

Of course, I'm assuming that by indicating he'd use it to justify using real slurs like "towel head," Tony was joking.

My mother is offended by X-mas. She likens it to 'crossing out the name of Christ'.

That having been said, I always thought that the Greek capital letter Chi was an ancient symbol of the Cross, and therefore Christ.

If I am right about that, then while many Christians probably would be offended by 'Xian', they probably shoudn't be.

MattJ

Jocko

23rd December 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

It's weird...I've honestly never heard of a Xian/Christian/Jesus dude being offended by the abbreviation. I'd always assumed it was just a way to cut down on keystrokes--up there with lol, rofl, wtf, btw, and rtfm.

Of course, I'm assuming that by indicating he'd use it to justify using real slurs like "towel head," Tony was joking.

Yes, that's how I see it too (though I'm not sure it's used enough to warrant abbreviation)... within the confines of the board, it makes sense. But put it in front of someone who isn't familiar with these conventions and you may get some heat. You know, those people who object to Xmas being used in place of Christmas and such (which I presmue is where the abbreviation came from).

Jocko

23rd December 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

My mother is offended by X-mas. She likens it to 'crossing out the name of Christ'.

That having been said, I always thought that the Greek capital letter Chi was an ancient symbol of the Cross, and therefore Christ.

If I am right about that, then while many Christians probably would be offended by 'Xian', they probably shoudn't be.

MattJ

Does that make tomorrow Crossmas Eve?

Tony

23rd December 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

It's weird...I've honestly never heard of a Xian/Christian/Jesus dude being offended by the abbreviation.

Does it matter? I've never met a black person who was offended by the word "ni**a" or "ni**er".

edited to add asterisks -- Pyrrho

Cleon

23rd December 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Does it matter? I've never met a black person who was offended by the word "ni**a" or "ni**er".

Well, I only take that to mean you've never met any black people, Tony.

edited to add asterisks -- Pyrrho

Tony

23rd December 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Cleon

Well, I only take that to mean you've never met any black people, Tony.

That's a racist and prejudiced thing to say, do you always start with the assumption that people are irrational PC mongers, or just black people?

Mycroft

23rd December 2003, 12:24 PM

Mycroft

23rd December 2003, 12:27 PM

Ralph

23rd December 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

well, this quote took me exacly 15 seconds to find.....Its not a difficult task ,Its like picking grapes....

That might have something to do with being 600,000 among 150,000,000 bloodthirsty Arabs who want you dead. If you don't start an arm race under these conditions, you don't live long.

so......where is the "only some of them" bit, I agree that he only objects to the ones he thinks are trying to kill Israelis...does 150 million leave many out?????

And I find it offensive that you would suggest I do not object to people murdering children on schoolbuses.

I wasn't trying to suggest you approved of murdering children.

I think you'd be horrified by something like that.

Neither of us live in countries where we have to worry about our children getting blown to pieces on their way to school.

I think if you did--it might effect your outlook on things. Skeptics posts are always about specific examples of violent behavior......the diplomat attacked by a Palestinian mob.....civilians murdered by suicide bombers. These are the people he objects to.....along with those who defend such murderous acts.

Every time he posts an example of these he gets greeted with "bigot" and "racist".

What if Australien aborigines decided they were fed up with being 2nd class citizens and they wanted to take back their country which was stolen from them?

What if they decided to do so by violent means?....Machine gunning civilians at a shopping mall----putting bombs on school buses.

Would you object to that?

It's not Swedes,American tourists, or Cameroonians that are doing the killing. It's only aborigines.

Have a family member killed or maybe work as a medic and start seeing some of their "handiwork" first hand......and I'll bet you're going to find yourself not liking aborigines. Not all of them. Just the ones who are murdering children.

Thats not being a racist.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Good job. Slander their religion.

I was responding to Tony's accusation against Islam, idiot, and you knew it. Take my remarks out of context, and attack me on that basis.

Many religions have a violent past, including Islam and the Jewish religion. To single out Islam is bigotry.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
He also doesn't have the luxury of forming his opinion in the ivory towers that some posters seem to occupy.

What's astonishing is that AUP&co. REALLY BELIEVE that they, in their infinite wisdom, have discerned--by looking at a few web sites and/or headlines--what "the truth" is about the most complicated conflict in modern history. Without ever having been a thousand miles from the place, or, for that matter, without speaking a word of Arabic or Hebrew, of course.

Ah well. An israeli satirist used to say he has the hardest job in the world, since he deals with the two subjects everybody on the face of the planet considers himself an expert: humor... and political analysis of the middle east.

A military occupation is a pretty simple concept.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:15 PM

Incidentally, I checked out the reports. What we have here is the first "peace protestor" killed by the israelies in two and a half years of fighting, who completely ignored all IDF official, repeated, and consistent warnings to stay away from bulldozers at work for obvious reasons, who was run over by mistake since the bulldozer driver couldn't hear her shouting over the din of the motor (believe me, I KNOW these bulldozers--you can't hear s**t from the driver's seat), who, the moment it was discovered that she was run over, was taken to a hospital in an attempt to save her life.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=382394&highlight=bulldozer#post382394

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

You misunderstand. The Fool was justifying AUPs slam on Judaism by interpreting it as a response to a slam on Islam. In this thread, it was the other way around.

B*ll *****. Tony was the first one.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:22 PM

Grammatron

23rd December 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=382394&highlight=bulldozer#post382394

What is the point of this post, if you don't mind me asking?

Jocko

23rd December 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=382394&highlight=bulldozer#post382394

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Knowing something about bulldozers is proof positive that Skeptic has deliberately murdered protesters. How could anyone have ever doubted your conclusion?

Oh, I have an in-law who works in construction and could probably say the same thing about the hazards of driving heavy equipment. Does that make him a xenophobic, genocidal maniac or is that only true if he's Jewish?

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I wasn't trying to suggest you approved of murdering children.

I think you'd be horrified by something like that.

Neither of us live in countries where we have to worry about our children getting blown to pieces on their way to school.

I think if you did--it might effect your outlook on things. Skeptics posts are always about specific examples of violent behavior......the diplomat attacked by a Palestinian mob.....civilians murdered by suicide bombers. These are the people he objects to.....along with those who defend such murderous acts.

Every time he posts an example of these he gets greeted with "bigot" and "racist".

Not true....Skeptic gets called a bigot and a racist when he makes bigoted and racist statements.

What if Australien aborigines decided they were fed up with being 2nd class citizens and they wanted to take back their country which was stolen from them?

A lot have already decided this...

What if they decided to do so by violent means?....Machine gunning civilians at a shopping mall----putting bombs on school buses.

Would you object to that?

Absolutely

It's not Swedes,American tourists, or Cameroonians that are doing the killing. It's only aborigines.

so this would justify calling all Aboriginal Australians bloodthirsty killers?

Have a family member killed or maybe work as a medic and start seeing some of their "handiwork" first hand......and I'll bet you're going to find yourself not liking aborigines. Not all of them. Just the ones who are murdering children.

Thats not being a racist.

Once again, and for the last time....that is all very true but that is not what is happening... If anyone wants to slag murderous organisations they are going to get no problems from me but 150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs? Do you read "skeptics" stuff????? You can hardly expect rational people to just turn a blind eye in the face of blatant bigotry and racism.

If anyone critisizes radical zionists the crowd roars that they are actually refering to all Jews....But when "skeptic" slags all arabs and/or all muslims suddenly the crowd roars that he is really only referring to terrorists???? Talk about selective interpretation.

Tolerance of bigotry and racism, on this board, is just not going to happen, If "skeptic" wants to discuss 150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs there are plenty of websites where he will feel right at home....

[/B]

Troll

23rd December 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

One of the things that surprises me is that they haven't resorted to violence, given the incredibly violent treatment they themselves suffered as a race, including the genocide of all pure blood aboriginals from the island of Tasmania.

Well it's good that they haven't. But if they do we all know you'll pack your bags and leave the land for the original owners, right? I mean you wouldn't wanna oppress anyone, now would ya?

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Tony

No, I was not bashing Islam. I was mocking our resident PC Nazis. Even if I was, so what? I see Christian (sorry I forgot to include the only acceptable slur "Xian", from now on, Im going to start referring to muslims as towel heads) bashing daily on this forum. I guess its ok to bash one type bullsh!t but not the other?

As an ex catholic who was brought up with the absurdities of Irish Catholicism, I feel I have every right to bash the faith and criticise it for what it is. There is a very popular book out there, "Why I am not a Muslim", by an Arab.

I have said this before, but I will say it again. Virtually all religions, if taken literally, are completely absurd. However, most civilised societies have managed to rationalise away the most absurd parts of religion, and live with the humane aspects of it, to a certain degree.

It is when people try to take their religion literally that extremism and problems appear. Just look at the role of religion in troubles all around the world. I don't care what religion it is, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hindu, etc, when extremists use the literal teachings to justify or motivate violent actions, human misery is the result. To single out any faith is ridiculous. To ignore any faith, equally so.

Ralph

23rd December 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I think you tend to twist the meaning of what he says to fit your own agenda.

You keep harping about his choice of words in one comment.

I do read most of what Skeptic posts-----When I add it all up I just don't see someone who sincerely wishes death on ALL Arabs..............only those who would do him or others harm...............

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Well it's good that they haven't. But if they do we all know you'll pack your bags and leave the land for the original owners, right? I mean you wouldn't wanna oppress anyone, now would ya?
sorry troll, I'm not sure if you are trying to draw an analogy with Israel....are you suggesting the Palestinians are the original owners of the land and this is why it is similar to the situation of native Australians?

I always thought the Israelis either believed they were the original inhabitants and were given this land by god, is that not the case??

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Do you think that making an argument that suggests that an entire nationality (Germans) and then an entire ethnic group (Jews) suffer from a mental illness is not racist?

You don't call WWII and Nazism a form of collective mental illness?

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

sorry troll, I'm not sure if you are trying to draw an analogy with Israel....are you suggesting the Palestinians are the original owners of the land and this is why it is similar to the situation of native Australians?

I always thought the Israelis either believed they were the original inhabitants and were given this land by god, is that not the case??

Not quite the case. IIRC, the majority of Israelis are secular. They are quite content to live in Israel without trying to expand it's borders to those that existed at the time of David and Solomon. (If those borders ever existed at all). The minority of religious extremists are trying to push the border of Israel to include the West Bank and Gaza.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
To repeat: tons of responses--all of them claiming either the whole thing is israel's fault (for existing), or blaiming israel for something else, or claiming I'm paranoid, and racist, and whatnot.

Not ONE response--ONE--about the issue itself: the attempted lynching of a foreign minister by a palestinian mob.

In fact, it is a big rebuttal of your usual sloppy logic. You had to add your usual strawman to the end of the first post.

But I'm sure this is all israel's fault, somehow. If it will just give in and give these people everything, peace will suddenly arrive, right?

Maybe if you could try to make a point and stick to it, without adding in the usual barb somewhere, we could have a more sensible debate.

Troll

23rd December 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

sorry troll, I'm not sure if you are trying to draw an analogy with Israel....are you suggesting the Palestinians are the original owners of the land and this is why it is similar to the situation of native Australians?

I always thought the Israelis either believed they were the original inhabitants and were given this land by god, is that not the case??

Pardon me. Not "original owners" as I stated, but "those that were there before you".

Now that we have that cleared up you and AUP can answer the question. And a direct answer would be a welcome change.:p

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I think you tend to twist the meaning of what he says to fit your own agenda.

You keep harping about his choice of words in one comment.

I do read most of what Skeptic posts-----When I add it all up I just don't see someone who sincerely wishes death on ALL Arabs..............only those who would do him or others harm...............
one comment? would you like some more examples..... I don't really have that much spare time at the moment but if you would like to tell be how many examples you would like I'll search them up for you, its not a difficult search...Here's a couple to go on with...

The israelies want their children to grow up. The palestinians want their children to suicide while killing jews. That's the problem in a nutshell, really: civilization against savagery

Palestinians are savages....nope, no racism there...

Here are some things that (apparently) Palestinians believe.

Of course, according to the Palestinians, it is also true that the jews are the spawn of Satan (literally), that the "Protocols of the Elders of zion" are history, and 9/11 was a conspiracy the mossad.

No racism there either...just an accurate summary of what all palestinians believe?

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 03:22 PM

Grammatron

23rd December 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

one comment? would you like some more examples..... I don't really have that much spare time at the moment but if you would like to tell be how many examples you would like I'll search them up for you, its not a difficult search...Here's a couple to go on with...

The israelies want their children to grow up. The palestinians want their children to suicide while killing jews. That's the problem in a nutshell, really: civilization against savagery

Palestinians are savages....nope, no racism there...

Here are some things that (apparently) Palestinians believe.

Of course, according to the Palestinians, it is also true that the jews are the spawn of Satan (literally), that the "Protocols of the Elders of zion" are history, and 9/11 was a conspiracy the mossad.

No racism there either...just an accurate summary of what all palestinians believe?

I disagree with your analyses of those quotes. Firstly, there's no "Palestinian" races just like there's no "Israeli" race thus one can't claim those comments are racist. Secondly Palestinian state television encourages children to sacrifice their life by killing Israelis and since there's no majority opposition to such broadcasts why can safely make a generalization that Palestinian want their children to kill Israelis by suicide if they have to. And since the said channels also broadcast "historical" program of such BS as Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical programs -- again this is state TV channel -- one can again make such a generalization. Now, if I am to add to all that "this does not apply to 100% Palestinians" does that make you in agreement with what is said?

Ralph

23rd December 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

one comment? would you like some more examples..... I don't really have that much spare time at the moment but if you would like to tell be how many examples you would like I'll search them up for you, its not a difficult search...Here's a couple to go on with...

The israelies want their children to grow up. The palestinians want their children to suicide while killing jews. That's the problem in a nutshell, really: civilization against savagery

Palestinians are savages....nope, no racism there...

Here are some things that (apparently) Palestinians believe.

Of course, according to the Palestinians, it is also true that the jews are the spawn of Satan (literally), that the "Protocols of the Elders of zion" are history, and 9/11 was a conspiracy the mossad.

No racism there either...just an accurate summary of what all palestinians believe?

This is what I mean by you twisting things. He said "Palestinians want their children to committ suicide by killing jews".

I'm sure even you would agree----this does happen. It's not a false statement. He's suggesting that a parent who would actually encourage their children to commit suicide to kill others is a savage.

Do you disagree with this?.......Is this somehow justified in your mind??

Now you make this startling leap that because he calls people who encourage their own children to murder & suicide savages......he's calling ALL Palestinians savages.

You're the one who's showing prejudice & bigotry----not Skeptic.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

This is what I mean by you twisting things. He said "Palestinians want their children to committ suicide by killing jews".

I'm sure even you would agree----this does happen. It's not a false statement. He's suggesting that a parent who would actually encourage their children to commit suicide to kill others is a savage.

Do you disagree with this?.......Is this somehow justified in your mind??

Now you make this startling leap that because he calls people who encourage their own children to murder & suicide savages......he's calling ALL Palestinians savages.

You're the one who's showing prejudice & bigotry----not Skeptic.

Selective quoting, he said. "The Palestinians want their children to committ suicide by killing jews".

Troll

23rd December 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

The israelies want their children to grow up. The palestinians want their children to suicide while killing jews. That's the problem in a nutshell, really: civilization against savagery

Palestinians are savages....nope, no racism there...

Here are some things that (apparently) Palestinians believe.

Of course, according to the Palestinians, it is also true that the jews are the spawn of Satan (literally), that the "Protocols of the Elders of zion" are history, and 9/11 was a conspiracy the mossad.

No racism there either...just an accurate summary of what all palestinians believe?

No there isn't any racism there. I don't see anything that makes a claim about all of them. The only fault in there is the lack of the word "some" on his part, or your failure to find a post of his that uses "all". I've already seen time and time again you and others claim that when you say "Americans" you don't mean all of them and that it doesn't make you anti-American. So why is this not the way you view things when dealing with people whose views differ from your own?

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Troll

No there isn't any racism there. I don't see anything that makes a claim about all of them. The only fault in there is the lack of the word "some" on his part, or your failure to find a post of his that uses "all". I've already seen time and time again you and others claim that when you say "Americans" you don't mean all of them and that it doesn't make you anti-American. So why is this not the way you view things when dealing with people whose views differ from your own?

Read this carefully.

"The Palestinians want their children to committ suicide by killing jews".

Jocko

23rd December 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Selective quoting, he said. "The Palestinians want their children to committ suicide by killing jews".

So your problem is not the message, but the implication that it applies to each and every Palestinian, correct?

Palestinian children are raised to aspire to martyrdom via the suicide attacks on Israeli civilians. This is a demonstrable fact. Your problem is that you mentally insert "all" in front of every demonstrable fact in an effort to turn it into an unjust generalization.

The only problem is, you're the one generalizing. Skeptic is not. What you're saying is tantamount to putting words in his mouth and it's as intellectually dishonset as you can get.

Now, as for my part, if the Palestinian culture (i.e., schools, mass media, parental values) generally steer children toward savage behavior, then I for one have no problem at all in condemning the culture as savage. Whether each individual Palestinian turns out to be a savage or not is up to him/her.

So, did you have a real point, or are we just going to dissect this one sentence all night?

Troll

23rd December 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Read this carefully.

Yes, as was heavilly reported on all cable news channels Palestinian children get taught some pretty messed up stuff about how to view the Jews.

Now did I say they all do? Nope. Do you mean every single American or conservative when you use those terms? And I'm not gonna answer that one for ya as I've got my doubts

The thing is, you wanna see racism or some other anti-social behavior in others.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

So your problem is not the message, but the implication that it applies to each and every Palestinian, correct?

Palestinian children are raised to aspire to martyrdom via the suicide attacks on Israeli civilians. This is a demonstrable fact. Your problem is that you mentally insert "all" in front of every demonstrable fact in an effort to turn it into an unjust generalization.

The only problem is, you're the one generalizing. Skeptic is not. What you're saying is tantamount to putting words in his mouth and it's as intellectually dishonset as you can get.

Now, as for my part, if the Palestinian culture (i.e., schools, mass media, parental values) generally steer children toward savage behavior, then I for one have no problem at all in condemning the culture as savage. Whether each individual Palestinian turns out to be a savage or not is up to him/her.

So, did you have a real point, or are we just going to dissect this one sentence all night?

I have seen evidence that some do, and have also seen evidence that Jewish children are brought up to kick the Palestinians out of the West Bank.

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Israel-Palestine/110202_olive_orchards_and_armed_zealots.htm

Some peace loving Israeli settlers at work.

Grammatron

23rd December 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have seen evidence that some do, and have also seen evidence that Jewish children are brought up to kick the Palestinians out of the West Bank.

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Israel-Palestine/110202_olive_orchards_and_armed_zealots.htm

Some peace loving Israeli settlers at work.

So you counter an established fact with anecdotal evidence. That is simply amazing.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

So you counter an established fact with anecdotal evidence. That is simply amazing.

Violence by Israeli settlers is an established fact. That was just one instance.

Grammatron

23rd December 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Violence by Israeli settlers is an established fact. That was just one instance.

Aside from the fact that you are not responding to claims but diverting the blame on Israel, you also ignoring how in Palestine it's encouraged for children to fight and die yet you chose to criticize Israel. What possible logic is there to any of your posts?

P.S. And no I don't mean 100% of Palestinians, so don't even go there.

Ralph

23rd December 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Violence by Israeli settlers is an established fact. That was just one instance.

Is that "all".....or "some" Israeli settlers are violent???

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Aside from the fact that you are not responding to claims but diverting the blame on Israel, you also ignoring how in Palestine it's encouraged for children to fight and die yet you chose to criticize Israel. What possible logic is there to any of your posts?

P.S. And no I don't mean 100% of Palestinians, so don't even go there.

All I am trying to say is that there is a culture of violence on both sides. To single out the Palestinians is racism.

The Palestinians have been under military occupation for over 30 years, maybe they are getting sick of it by now. Even when the terrorism by them dropped after Oslo, the settlement process, and the accompanying IDF required to protect it, never left.

If you read the stories of the suicide bombers, many of them were never brought up to be one, and did not tell their families they were going to do so.

Grammatron

23rd December 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

All I am trying to say is that there is a culture of violence on both sides. To single out the Palestinians is racism.

The Palestinians have been under military occupation for over 30 years, maybe they are getting sick of it by now. Even when the terrorism by them dropped after Oslo, the settlement process, and the accompanying IDF required to protect it, never left.

If you read the stories of the suicide bombers, many of them were never brought up to be one, and did not tell their families they were going to do so.

I just explained it's not racism nor could it be, at best it's a stereotype.

Palestinian culture encourages violence far worse than Israeli does. If tomorrow Palestine would stop all terrorist organization and the police started arresting all armed gunman I guarantee that Israel would be at a negotiating table in a split second and most likely would pull out of some West Bank cities. On the other hand, if Israel start to pull out and leave the cities violence just moves closer into Israel.

This is not an equal situation as much as you wish it to be, while Israel is in the wrong in certain situations IMO, Palestine is left with a burden of showing they want peace because of the history violence originating from there.

Mycroft

23rd December 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Jocko
Oh, I have an in-law who works in construction and could probably say the same thing about the hazards of driving heavy equipment. Does that make him a xenophobic, genocidal maniac or is that only true if he's Jewish?

I've never driven a bulldozer, but I've worked around them enough to have made that statement. I guess that makes me a xenophobic genocidal maniac too.

a_unique_person

23rd December 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

I just explained it's not racism nor could it be, at best it's a stereotype.

Palestinian culture encourages violence far worse than Israeli does. If tomorrow Palestine would stop all terrorist organization and the police started arresting all armed gunman I guarantee that Israel would be at a negotiating table in a split second and most likely would pull out of some West Bank cities. On the other hand, if Israel start to pull out and leave the cities violence just moves closer into Israel.

Now who's being naive.

Jocko

23rd December 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have seen evidence that some do, and have also seen evidence that Jewish children are brought up to kick the Palestinians out of the West Bank.

So you admit that no one is saying "all" palestinians? If so, I can't imagine what you're bitching about.

Also, would you mind keeping on topic for 10 bloody seconds without pointing at Israel and crying "yeah but they started it, they do it too!" Your bias is so nakedly observable I can't help but laugh.

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Israel-Palestine/110202_olive_orchards_and_armed_zealots.htm

Some peace loving Israeli settlers at work.

I'll take a page from your playbook. "Strawman! Strawman! Strawman!"

Jocko

23rd December 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I've never driven a bulldozer, but I've worked around them enough to have made that statement. I guess that makes me a xenophobic genocidal maniac too.

Ha! Caught you, you Zionist Extremist! I only referred to "heavy equipment" and it is you - yes, YOU, Mycroft, who was the first to mention BULLDOZERS! You are clearly guilty of the murders of the peace-loving Palestinian.... ahem....

Er, the Peace-loving.... the Peace...

:dl:

Sorry, I just can't keep a straight face when I say that. There are so many spades out there in desperate need of being called spades that I really can't be bothered with AUP and his sort any more. I'll take solace in the fact that he keeps checking under his bed every night for the ubiquitous "Jooz."

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

This is what I mean by you twisting things. He said "Palestinians want their children to committ suicide by killing jews".

I'm sure even you would agree----this does happen. It's not a false statement. He's suggesting that a parent who would actually encourage their children to commit suicide to kill others is a savage.

Do you disagree with this?.......Is this somehow justified in your mind??

Now you make this startling leap that because he calls people who encourage their own children to murder & suicide savages......he's calling ALL Palestinians savages.

You're the one who's showing prejudice & bigotry----not Skeptic.
look I'm getting tired of this...I can't debate with you when you selectivly manipulate quotes. He didn't say "palestinians" he said "the palestinians" please stop misrepresenting the quotes or discussion is pointless....
Anyway, if you don't have a problem with skeptics rants then so be it....Its your decision. Skeptic will be judged by those who read his threads and so will those that cheer for him.

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Pardon me. Not "original owners" as I stated, but "those that were there before you".

Now that we have that cleared up you and AUP can answer the question. And a direct answer would be a welcome change.:p
Pardon me for basing my reply on what you typed.... maybe you could think about your posts a bit rather than rewriting them after they get pulled to bits.

Ralph

23rd December 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

look I'm getting tired of this...I can't debate with you when you selectivly manipulate quotes. He didn't say "palestinians" he said "the palestinians" please stop misrepresenting the quotes or discussion is pointless....
Anyway, if you don't have a problem with skeptics rants then so be it....Its your decision. Skeptic will be judged by those who read his threads and so will those that cheer for him.

ok....Using the word "the" makes you a racist & a bigot.

That sounds reasonable.

Have you ever noticed --when you start screaming "BIGOT--RACIST---WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THAT HERE"...............you sound a little "disturbed".

You're coming across like some warped "peacenik" type that
screams "STOP WAR.................or I'll KILL YOU"............

....just my humble opinion of course...............

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Just give up fool. You can point it out a million times, but it will never sink in.

yep, Skeptic always has had a loyal cheer squad. Remember that apparently statements describing Israel as "600,000 bloodthirsty jews" cannot be regarded as anti-semitic as the term "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" when used to describe the Arab nations surrounding israel is not racist.

So a merry Xmas to you and yours...I'm out of here.

Troll

23rd December 2003, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Pardon me for basing my reply on what you typed.... maybe you could think about your posts a bit rather than rewriting them after they get pulled to bits.

Maybe you'll actually answer a question that's asked of you and not go on about other things.

Troll

23rd December 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

ok....Using the word "the" makes you a racist & a bigot.

That sounds reasonable.

Have you ever noticed --when you start screaming "BIGOT--RACIST---WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THAT HERE"...............you sound a little "disturbed".

You're coming across like some warped "peacenik" type that
screams "STOP WAR.................or I'll KILL YOU"............

....just my humble opinion of course...............

Dude, you can't expect them to say "Stop The War" because that would make them a racist.

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

ok....Using the word "the" makes you a racist & a bigot.

That sounds reasonable.

Nobody will ever convince you.... You can read blatant racist statements and see whatever you like... As I said, Skeptic will be Judged on what he writes and so will the people that cheer for him. So its up to you....clutch at straws to try and find a possible interpretation of these rants that precludes the possibility that Skeptic is a Bigot if you like, massage the quotes, leave words off....I really don't care....

Troll

23rd December 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Nobody will ever convince you.... You can read blatant racist statements and see whatever you like... As I said, Skeptic will be Judged on what he writes and so will the people that cheer for him. So its up to you....clutch at straws to try and find a possible interpretation of these rants that precludes the possibility that Skeptic is a Bigot if you like, massage the quotes, leave words off....I really don't care....

Yeah and you and AUP will be judged on your writings as well. Now if we took a vote from all the judges here, who wins?

And answer the question already, will ya? Or do you wish not to further incriminate yourself?

Grammatron

23rd December 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Now who's being naive.

I am being realistic. You are playing the blame game that no one can win because we live in a real world and not some fantasy land where everything happens because people feel good.

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Yeah and you and AUP will be judged on your writings as well. Now if we took a vote from all the judges here, who wins?

And answer the question already, will ya? Or do you wish not to further incriminate yourself?
well I've searched back to find questions from you and this is all I can come up with.

..I've already seen time and time again you and others claim that when you say "Americans" you don't mean all of them and that it doesn't make you anti-American. So why is this not the way you view things when dealing with people whose views differ from your own?

If thats the one you are getting all excited about all I can say is quote me some of the bigoted or racist statements I have made about Americans and we can discuss them.....

Grammatron

23rd December 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

well I've searched back to find questions from you and this is all I can come up with.

..I've already seen time and time again you and others claim that when you say "Americans" you don't mean all of them and that it doesn't make you anti-American. So why is this not the way you view things when dealing with people whose views differ from your own?

If thats the one you are getting all excited about all I can say is quote me some of the bigoted or racist statements I have made about Americans and we can discuss them.....

I believe his question was if the Aboriginal people were to start saying that everyone who is not them are on their land and should leave immidiatly, would you pack up and go?

The Fool

23rd December 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

I believe his question was if the Aboriginal people were to start saying that everyone who is not them are on their land and should leave immidiatly, would you pack up and go?

Aboriginal land rights is actually an issue fairly close to my heart... I'll leave you to figure out why.The laws concerning land rights in Australia are fairly complex... In order for indigenous people to qualify to gain ownership of land they have to satisfy a number of conditions.... A historic connection to the land in question is one. Current use of the land is another. If Indigenous people were currently using some land for traditional hunting and gathering or even just living on site they may claim title to that land as has happened in quite a few areas... The matter is judged case by case, application by application.

Funnily enough If they were to leave for a few hundred years then come back and claim thier god promised them they could have the land back they would not qualify...Thats the problem when you start using gods promises when you judge who has a right to occupy land.....Its damn hard to appeal the decisions of gods.

So the short answer to the question is no, I would not have to pack up and leave. It doesn't matter how many indigenous australians tell people to get off thier land, only the legal processes can award land rights. If terrorist activities were started they would be liable for thier criminal actions......I suppose I could finish by posing a question back. Would I then be justified in calling Indigenous australians bloodthirsty savages?

Mycroft

23rd December 2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

So the short answer to the question is no, I would not have to pack up and leave. It doesn't matter how many indigenous australians tell people to get off thier land, only the legal processes can award land rights. If terrorist activities were started they would be liable for thier criminal actions......I suppose I could finish by posing a question back. Would I then be justified in calling Indigenous australians bloodthirsty savages?

I think if they were trying to kill you, worrying about the words you use to describe them would be pretty far down on your list of priorities. What steps would you take to defend yourself from them?

Troll

23rd December 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

If terrorist activities were started they would be liable for thier criminal actions......I suppose I could finish by posing a question back. Would I then be justified in calling Indigenous australians bloodthirsty savages?

If terrorist activities were started they'd be liable? You mean you'd expect them to be arrested and if they shot at the cops the cops could shoot back?

Gee, you sure don't apply that to the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Mycroft sort of touched on this already, but I'll still add what I have to say. Would you be justified in calling them names if they started terrorist activities and were trying to kill you? Ever have anyone try to kill you before? Ever get a near hit by a car with a driver not paying attention? Ever give a vocal response that some would consider less than kind if you have been in any of those situations? When someone is trying to kill you, if all you're going to do is use words, I'd recommend using some pretty harsh ones and getting a chance for a great last oneliner in before your death. Because you're obviously going to care how peaceful a person you will be remebered as. Myself, I'd like to be remembered for being the one that lived and to hell with anyone that didn't like the way I managed to survive.

Yeah, if they start terrorist activities and are trying to kill you becasue you won't die out or move, I'd say a little name calling is acceptable. Or would you condemn black people for calling white guys in sheets trying to get them to move out of their neighborhoods by burning crosses on their lawns or firebombing their churches any range of severe and hurtful names racists?

I know you can find the humor in all this because there's absolutely no way you can possibly be taking yourself seriously

The Fool

24th December 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I think if they were trying to kill you, worrying about the words you use to describe them would be pretty far down on your list of priorities. What steps would you take to defend yourself from them?

Personally I don't see the point of the analogy, as I've said many times before what Israelis do inside Israel according to thier own laws is thier own business. Things change when its land under military occupation. As Australia is not occupying anywhere by military force I find it difficult to draw comparisons.
Australians died on 9/11 and also been attacked and killed by groups of terrorists in Bali who happen to be Muslims. To be honest I can't see how vilifying muslims would help. Especially when muslims are a large and valuable part of Australian society.

As for what I would do personally? I think about all I could do would be to ensure I elected a government who would find those responsible and bring them to justice under Australian law or the laws of the country they operate in...as in the current terrorists responsible for the Bali bombing. These people have been rapidly tracked down, arrested, tried and imprisoned by Indonesia...A muslim country. According to the "bash a muslim club" Indonesia should have been making them national heroes....gee I guess maybe Muslims are not all supporters of terrorism after all.

I certainly would not be considering taking it out on of everyone of the same nationality or religion as the terrorists.

Troll

24th December 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Personally I don't see the point of the analogy, as I've said many times before what Israelis do inside Israel according to thier own laws is thier own business. Things change when its land under military occupation. As Australia is not occupying anywhere by military force I find it difficult to draw comparisons.
Australians died on 9/11 and also been attacked and killed by groups of terrorists in Bali who happen to be Muslims. To be honest I can't see how vilifying muslims would help. Especially when muslims are a large and valuable part of Australian society.

As for what I would do personally? I think about all I could do would be to ensure I elected a government who would find those responsible and bring them to justice under Australian law or the laws of the country they operate in...as in the current terrorists responsible for the Bali bombing. These people have been rapidly tracked down, arrested, tried and imprisoned by Indonesia...A muslim country. According to the "bash a muslim club" Indonesia should have been making them national heroes....gee I guess maybe Muslims are not all supporters of terrorism after all.

I certainly would not be considering taking it out on of everyone of the same nationality or religion as the terrorists.

You miss a good amount of points for some reason. There's no villifying of "all" muslims, just the ones with bombs on their chests blowing up civilians.

We have been saying over and over again that "all" or any other "all" encompassing words have not been used so just admit your claims of racism are null and void.

I know we've never agreed on anything other than all encompassing factors and words, and I still managed to have respect for you. But you keep trying to be right when you aren't in this instance. Skeptic never said all, he just said Palestinians. You never said all, you just said Americans or America, and I refer to gun debate and crime and punishment threads.

Face it, you cried racist and were wrong.

The Fool

24th December 2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Troll

If terrorist activities were started they'd be liable? You mean you'd expect them to be arrested and if they shot at the cops the cops could shoot back?

Gee, you sure don't apply that to the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Absolute rubbish, please supply an example of me ever saying anything like that. I seem to remember regularly asking you to support the garbage you like to attribute to me, I also seem to remember you never can. So come on doofus, quote me where I say that Israeli forces under fire from people they are trying to arrest can not shoot back.....Your constant fabrications are becoming boring.

Mycroft sort of touched on this already

ummmm, no...Mycroft tends to put forward concise arguments and valid points..... The rest of your post is not particularly coherant so I'll give it a miss......

[/B]

The Fool

24th December 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Troll

You miss a good amount of points for some reason. There's no villifying of "all" muslims, just the ones with bombs on their chests blowing up civilians.

150,000,000 arabs all have bombs on thier chests? 150,000,000 arabs all blow up civilians..... woooohoooo, you are a true believer, I wish I was selling you cars.

I find that when I lose touch with reality soaking my head in very salty water helps...you may want to give it a try.

still waiting for you to show one of my bigoted and/or racist statements about americans...just one will do, also waiting on a statement of mine that says israeli soldiers cannot shoot back if fired on....just one will do. Dude, this is a skeptic board...you may have more luck on a "making stuff up is cool" board.

Crickets chirping.....

[/B]

Troll

24th December 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

150,000,000 arabs all have bombs on thier chests? 150,000,000 arabs all blow up civilians..... woooohoooo, you are a true believer, I wish I was selling you cars.

I find that when I lose touch with reality soaking my head in very salty water helps...you may want to give it a try.

still waiting for you to show one of my bigoted and/or racist statements about americans...just one will do, also waiting on a statement of mine that says israeli soldiers cannot shoot back if fired on....just one will do. Dude, this is a skeptic board...you may have more luck on a "making stuff up is cool" board.

Crickets chirping.....

Okay, seriously learn to post and edit the damned html for yourself, will ya? I hate replying to you because I gotta keep fixing things when you leave extra html tags in there.

who said "150,000,000 arabs all have bombs on thier chests? 150,000,000 arabs all blow up civilians..... " ? You did. why? Just guessing because I'm not the professional you should be seeing for this problem of yours. but it may be because you made a claim, it was wrong, many have proven that to you, you refuse to accept it, and are grasping at straws.

Again, and I do this only because I've been around retarded or challanged children before and have some patience, the only ones using any sort of all encompassing phrases are you and AUP. You want to see them and villify people for them, even though the people you are trying so hard to villify, never used any all encompassing words or phrases.

It took me 4 attempts and another person to ask you the same damned question to get an answer from you. You think you deserve one sooner?

The Fool

24th December 2003, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Okay, seriously learn to post and edit the damned html for yourself, will ya? I hate replying to you because I gotta keep fixing things when you leave extra html tags in there.

While your in there removing the leftover html tags you could save yourself some time and edit out all the fictitious claims you make about what my views are...or you could simply quote me where I have stated those views.....Its simple, when I claim somebody said something I quote them...you should try it.... Still waiting for examples of the bigoted and/or racist statements you say I have make about Americans. Still waiting for examples of where I have stated that Israeli troops should not fire back if fired on, but i'm patient....whenever you are ready.

who said "150,000,000 arabs all have bombs on thier chests? 150,000,000 arabs all blow up civilians..... " ? You did. why? Just guessing because I'm not the professional you should be seeing for this problem of yours. but it may be because you made a claim, it was wrong, many have proven that to you, you refuse to accept it, and are grasping at straws.

you claim "skeptic" only vilifies terrorists, yet you can't seem to understand that when he refers to "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" it leaves you flapping in the breeze. Because you cannot bring yourself to disagree with him you have to try to rationalise that statement...so what is it to be? You say he only vilifies arabs with bombs on thier chests or who blow up children so logically you must believe there are 150,000,000 million of them...sort of paints you into a corner doesn't it.

Again, and I do this only because I've been around retarded or challanged children before and have some patience, the only ones using any sort of all encompassing phrases are you and AUP. You want to see them and villify people for them, even though the people you are trying so hard to villify, never used any all encompassing words or phrases.

I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.... Close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, maybe "skeptics" statements will go away.

It took me 4 attempts and another person to ask you the same damned question to get an answer from you. You think you deserve one sooner?
sorry, It sometimes takes me a while to figure out what you are talking about...But as you say Its probably just my mental retardation...but as I said...I'm patient I can wait for you to come up with examples of my bigotry and racism towards americans and examples of where I state that Israeli troops should not return fire if fired on. You can do it can't you?...I don't want to pester you, if you can't do it just say so and I'll let it drop.

and here's a couple of HTML tags I had left over..

[/url]
[/b]
[/b]

Skeptic

24th December 2003, 07:21 AM

To go back to Maher's beating up, here's what it really means--as should be obvious--as today's "Jerusalem Post" puts it (I quote at lenght because the web page requires subscribing):

To sweep under the rug the hostility Maher encountered on Temple Mount is to distort the very reality which has so far frustrated all efforts to reach even minimal accommodation with the Palestinians not only to end their terror war against Israelis, but also to ease their own self-imposed hardships. It's a reality which defies self-interest and logic, but this makes it no less of a reality.

When Maher was violently accosted and branded a traitor, he came face to face with the frightening aspect of Palestinian intransigence and extremism.

Those who continue to murder Israelis even if they thereby damage their own cause, are also those who assaulted Maher. They are not a marginal minority. They embody the situation Israel is up against.

Israel is pressured to make concessions by no self-appointed mediator more than by Egypt. Yet these same brokers refuse to own up to the implacable hate which Israel endures and which is bound to undo any compromise under consideration.

Maher was attacked because of his "Israeli connection," because he dared conduct talks with the leaders of the reviled Jewish state. If this is how Palestinians treat ostensible mediators, what can the Jews themselves expect? And if this is how Palestinians manhandle their boosters and comrades, what would they do to their Israeli enemies? If this is what's meted out to their fellow Muslim faithful, what would happen to Jews who attempt to pray at the Western Wall if the Temple Mount were turned over to Palestinian Authority control, as the Arabs, Egypt included, routinely demand?

Ralph

24th December 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

yep, Skeptic always has had a loyal cheer squad. Remember that apparently statements describing Israel as "600,000 bloodthirsty jews" cannot be regarded as anti-semitic as the term "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" when used to describe the Arab nations surrounding israel is not racist.

So a merry Xmas to you and yours...I'm out of here.

About those 150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs..............

Refresh my memory Fool. Hasn't Israel been invaded by it's "peace-loving neighbors" not once......but several times over the last half-century????

Syria-----Egypy-----Iraq----and a few other peace-mongers came rolling in with the intent of killing a lot of Jews and driving the rest out of the country.

I'm not sure what the troop count was.....probably not 150,000,000 but I'm sure a large # of the citizens of the invading countries were pulling for for the home team to win.

I'll bet you can come up with 150,00,000 screaming for blood without too much difficulty.

How many times has Australia been invaded by foreign troops over the last 50 years?

How would you feel about the Japanese if they'd invaded your country 2-3 times with the express intent of killing you???

a_unique_person

24th December 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Ralph

About those 150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs..............

Refresh my memory Fool. Hasn't Israel been invaded by it's "peace-loving neighbors" not once......but several times over the last half-century????

Syria-----Egypy-----Iraq----and a few other peace-mongers came rolling in with the intent of killing a lot of Jews and driving the rest out of the country.

I'm not sure what the troop count was.....probably not 150,000,000 but I'm sure a large # of the citizens of the invading countries were pulling for for the home team to win.

I'll bet you can come up with 150,00,000 screaming for blood without too much difficulty.

How many times has Australia been invaded by foreign troops over the last 50 years?

How would you feel about the Japanese if they'd invaded your country 2-3 times with the express intent of killing you???

IIRC, it was the Zionists who invaded first.

Grammatron

24th December 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

IIRC, it was the Zionists who invaded first.

Yes, they invaded British territory.

More important than that, are you justifying any retaliation against Israelis?

Troll

24th December 2003, 02:31 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Fool

While your in there removing the leftover html tags you could save yourself some time and edit out all the fictitious claims you make about what my views are...or you could simply quote me where I have stated those views.....Its simple, when I claim somebody said something I quote them...you should try it.... Still waiting for examples of the bigoted and/or racist statements you say I have make about Americans. Still waiting for examples of where I have stated that Israeli troops should not fire back if fired on, but i'm patient....whenever you are ready.

Seriously, learn how to read. And then apply the actual words I said to your silly game here. I never said you called Americans or America racists or bigots. I said that the use of those words on your part were not all encompassing like you claim Skeptics to be. So you can wait until the end of time for me to find something for you that I never said you did.

As for the Israeli troops, while you have not said specifically that they cannot fire back, you have had a tendancy to place heavy blame upon them when they do. Now this one I'll admit was a slight error on my part as when I said you don't apply the same to the Israelis I actually copied and pasted the wrong thing from your post that I was commenting on. But since you've commented, editing it now would look rather suspicious on my part. So for that one I'll apologize and promise to preview my post next time.

you claim "skeptic" only vilifies terrorists, yet you can't seem to understand that when he refers to "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" it leaves you flapping in the breeze. Because you cannot bring yourself to disagree with him you have to try to rationalise that statement...so what is it to be? You say he only vilifies arabs with bombs on thier chests or who blow up children so logically you must believe there are 150,000,000 million of them...sort of paints you into a corner doesn't it.

Again with seeing what you want even when it's not there. I'm hardly in a corner nor flapping in the breeze. Are there 150,00,000 Arabs? I don't know. Has Skeptic said "All Arabs are bloodthirsty", as you would like us to beleive? No.

a_unique_person

24th December 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Yes, they invaded British territory.

More important than that, are you justifying any retaliation against Israelis?

Of course, I forgot that America is still an English Colony.

Mycroft

24th December 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

IIRC, it was the Zionists who invaded first.

If they ask permission first, can it be called an invasion?

Otther

24th December 2003, 03:57 PM

I think that would depend on what the people who own the land said in reply...

The Fool

24th December 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Troll
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Fool
[B]
Again with seeing what you want even when it's not there. I'm hardly in a corner nor flapping in the breeze. Are there 150,00,000 Arabs? I don't know. Has Skeptic said "All Arabs are bloodthirsty", as you would like us to beleive? No.

I often have a good chuckle when people are so painted into a corner that they would rather twist themselves into a pretzel shape rather than admitting the rank obvious. Thats some pretty impressive straw clutching. The statement "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" is a childish piece of racist garbage....yet due to your inability to disagree with anything "skeptic" says you would rather make yourself look truly silly.... whoever wishes to refer to Israel as 600,000 bloodthirsty Jews can now do so without fear of being called an anti-semite. 20,000,000 bloodthirsty australians....hmmmm, could be true. The Irish are alcoholics...thats ok to because I didn't say "all Irish". Texans are gay......hey this is fun, and not the slightest bit bigoted or racist.

Do you people realise how stupid you appear??

Troll

24th December 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I often have a good chuckle when people are so painted into a corner that they would rather twist themselves into a pretzel shape rather than admitting the rank obvious. Thats some pretty impressive straw clutching. The statement "150,000,000 bloodthirsty arabs" is a childish piece of racist garbage....yet due to your inability to disagree with anything "skeptic" says you would rather make yourself look truly silly.... whoever wishes to refer to Israel as 600,000 bloodthirsty Jews can now do so without fear of being called an anti-semite. 20,000,000 bloodthirsty australians....hmmmm, could be true. The Irish are alcoholics...thats ok to because I didn't say "all Irish". Texans are gay......hey this is fun, and not the slightest bit bigoted or racist.

Do you people realise how stupid you appear??

You ask me to find you evidence of something actually contrary to what I said about you and you think I look stupid? And I have criticized Skeptic's post in saying that he made the mistake of being a little too generalized in his wording.

I don't know what your bias isssue is that has you reading into peoples words rather than just reading the words, maybe you're and english teacher or something, but if you need clarification because for some reason you can't understand something, ask for clarification. Just like the racism you're on a witch hunt for, you're hunting for anything you think you may find hidden in the meanings of someone's posts. That's just sad and frankly disappointing

The Fool

24th December 2003, 07:21 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll

You ask me to find you evidence of something actually contrary to what I said about you and you think I look stupid?

I have asked you numerous times to provide quotes of the things you claim I have said, sadly all I get in reply are fog and mirrors.

And I have criticized Skeptic's post in saying that he made the mistake of being a little too generalized in his wording.

I bet he was devastated.

I don't know what your bias isssue is that has you reading into peoples words rather than just reading the words, maybe you're and english teacher or something, but if you need clarification because for some reason you can't understand something, ask for clarification. Just like the racism you're on a witch hunt for, you're hunting for anything you think you may find hidden in the meanings of someone's posts. That's just sad and frankly disappointing
given up on the blanket denial now that it has finally become way too silly to stick to? Now you have become the victim of a "witchhunt"....Lol...the bigots and thier cheersquad are being persecuted!

Troll

24th December 2003, 07:36 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Fool

I have asked you numerous times to provide quotes of the things you claim I have said, sadly all I get in reply are fog and mirrors.

No. You have tried to misquote me and believe I made claims about you which I have not. I did error once in a copy and paste and apologized for that. But everything else are your own distortions. And you're still trying them out. You show me where I said the things you said about America or Americans were or are racist. I've repeatedly said they were not. And you ask me to prove that I said they were? That's just bizarre.

And I have criticized Skeptic's post in saying that he made the mistake of being a little too generalized in his wording.

I bet he was devastated.

Would that have made you feel better about yourself if he had felt devastated? I disproved your claim and you aren't satisfied with that, are you?

given up on the blanket denial now that it has finally become way too silly to stick to? Now you have become the victim of a "witchhunt"....Lol...the bigots and thier cheersquad are being persecuted!

I'm sorry but that last portion makes no sense whatsoever. what blanket denial?

As for being the victim of a witch hunt, yeah I am but you're still the hunter looking for things that don't exist. What the hell was your point?

Troll

24th December 2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Lol...the bigots and thier cheersquad are being persecuted! [/B]

Now we can play your game.

Show me where I am a bigot? Where have I made bigotted remarks as you claim I have. Because no one cheers for anything they don't support, and since you call me part of a cheersquad for bigots you must mean that I am one.

Your game. You've played it enough so I know the rules to it now. Ball is in your court.

The Fool

24th December 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Now we can play your game.

Show me where I am a bigot? Where have I made bigotted remarks as you claim I have. Because no one cheers for anything they don't support, and since you call me part of a cheersquad for bigots you must mean that I am one.

Your game. You've played it enough so I know the rules to it now. Ball is in your court.
Listen up doofus as this is the last of my time you get to waste. You see blantant bigoted and racist statements and turn a blind eye. You are part of a large cheersquad on this board that support the racists and bigots.

Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish.

oops? did I say something bigoted?

Troll

24th December 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Listen up doofus as this is the last of my time you get to waste. You see blantant bigoted and racist statements and turn a blind eye. You are part of a large cheersquad on this board that support the racists and bigots.

Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish.

oops? did I say something bigoted?

Yeah, I'm a bigot because the bigot-hunter says so. So what's next? Gonna burn me at the stake or make more assinine posts? If I have a choice in the matter, please burn me, because I can't take too much more of your postings.

Now, have you found any posts I made that claimed you said America or Americans were racists or bigots? No? Well you said I did, so why can't you find the posts where I did? Because they don't exist. You went hunting for them and hoped beyond hope that you could find them, but you could only find them in your mind.

The Fool

24th December 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Yeah, I'm a bigot because the bigot-hunter says so. So what's next? Gonna burn me at the stake or make more assinine posts? If I have a choice in the matter, please burn me, because I can't take too much more of your postings.

Now, have you found any posts I made that claimed you said America or Americans were racists or bigots? No? Well you said I did, so why can't you find the posts where I did? Because they don't exist. You went hunting for them and hoped beyond hope that you could find them, but you could only find them in your mind.
Now I'm going to type this slowly as you probably don't read too fast. Its going to be the last time I explain it ok.... You said that I make the same sort of statements about America and Americans as Skeptic makes about Arabs... As Skeptics statements about Arabs are blatantly bigoted and racist you must believe my statements about America or Americans are equivalent. Now unfortunately you can't bring yourself to nominate any particular statements of mine about America or Americans so its not easy to continue discussing the point is it? Unless, of course, you master the search button and go and get some facts to backup the garbage.

Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish.

oops, did I say something bigoted, does the cheersquad have no problems with that statement??.....Is it anti-semitic???? Lol..... see what sort of corners you paint yourself into when you play silly games...

Troll

24th December 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Now I'm going to type this slowly as you probably don't read too fast. Its going to be the last time I explain it ok.... You said that I make the same sort of statements about America and Americans as Skeptic makes about Arabs... As Skeptics statements about Arabs are blatantly bigoted and racist you must believe my statements about America or Americans are equivalent. Now unfortunately you can't bring yourself to nominate any particular statements of mine about America or Americans so its not easy to continue discussing the point is it? Unless, of course, you master the search button and go and get some facts to backup the garbage.

Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish.

oops, did I say something bigoted, does the cheersquad have no problems with that statement??.....Is it anti-semitic???? Lol..... see what sort of corners you paint yourself into when you play silly games...

I never said such a thing. There ya go with reading into things to find what you're hunting for because in the real text it doesn't exist. And until you show me a post that I did as you claim, and does not involve you're adding to what I said so that it suits you, you're going to continue to have credibility issues.

Since you can only hunt for what you want to see I'll give ya a hand:

At one point I said:

"Doesn't mean each and every citizen agreed with it, and you know that as well as I do. But I see you saying "The US this and the US that", are you going to call yourself Anti-american because you lump us all into the category you hate, or would you now excuse yourself for using all encompassing words and accept that that is the only error Skeptic may have made?"

You replied with:

"You make a valid point, I try my best but if I have been guilty of "anti-americanism" it is unintentional and if people see me do it they should carve me up on the spot. I'm honestly not trying to deny I have never said "americans" when I was refering to a particular American governments foreign policy... Let me know when I do it and I'll be more careful....... Now don't hold your breath waiting for a similar undertaking from "skeptic" and his "wack a Muslim" club."

Later I said:

No there isn't any racism there. I don't see anything that makes a claim about all of them. The only fault in there is the lack of the word "some" on his part, or your failure to find a post of his that uses "all". I've already seen time and time again you and others claim that when you say "Americans" you don't mean all of them and that it doesn't make you anti-American. So why is this not the way you view things when dealing with people whose views differ from your own?

You blew that off and a question I asked later then came back to that post with quoting the above and:

"If thats the one you are getting all excited about all I can say is quote me some of the bigoted or racist statements I have made about Americans and we can discuss them....."

Now nowhere in there did I make a claim of you making racist or biggoted comments, yet you keep telling me I did. And you call me a doofus? Was last night a good night for getting drunk for you?

The Fool

24th December 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Troll

I never said such a thing. There ya go with reading into things to find what you're hunting for because in the real text it doesn't exist. And until you show me a post that I did as you claim, and does not involve you're adding to what I said so that it suits you, you're going to continue to have credibility issues.

so you have not claimed I make bigoted statements about americans?????

you said....

But I see you saying "The US this and the US that", are you going to call yourself Anti-american because you lump us all into the category you hate,

Now pardon me but unless i'm from another planet lumping all americans into a category I hate is clearly bigotry..... Anyway, I am rapidly becoming tired of attempting to deal with the double standards of true believers. As you quoted in your last post I gave a long and detailed answer on this issue and invited you to point out specific examples for future discussion.......crickets are chirping on the examples.

[/B]

and at the risk of boring repetition

Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish.

does the cheersquad have a problem with that statement, does it contain anti-semitism?

I have no time for people who hide behind semantics in order to be apologists for bigots..... Texans are fags (not bigoted) All Texans are fags(bigoted) The texans are fags(not bigoted) Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously? Is it your view that unless a sentance starts with the word "all" it is not bigoted, it is not racism? Have a good look at yourself .....

Troll

24th December 2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

so you have not claimed I make bigoted statements about americans?????

you said....

"But I see you saying "The US this and the US that", are you going to call yourself Anti-american because you lump us all into the category you hate,"

Now pardon me but unless i'm from another planet lumping all americans into a category I hate is clearly bigotry..... Anyway, I am rapidly becoming tired of attempting to deal with the double standards of true believers. As you quoted in your last post I gave a long and detailed answer on this issue and invited you to point out specific examples for future discussion.......crickets are chirping on the examples.

and at the risk of boring repetition

Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish.

does the cheersquad have a problem with that statement, does it contain anti-semitism?

I have no time for people who hide behind semantics in order to be apologists for bigots..... Texans are fags (not bigoted) All Texans are fags(bigoted) The texans are fags(not bigoted) Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously? Is it your view that unless a sentance starts with the word "all" it is not bigoted, it is not racism? Have a good look at yourself .....

Yes I said that. You didn't seem to think I was making a claim of racism or bigotry at the time. It was only after I disagreed with you about Skeptic's comments that you changed your tune.

I said lumping into the category you hate because you were starting a tangent about semantics and the use of the word arabs by Skeptic as though the word encompasses all. Basically I was asking if you saw yourself that way since you say the US. I also stated that I don't think you mean to encompass all with the word and I didn't think it was right for you to assume Skeptic was doing anything different.

And again you are asking me for examples of something I never claimed? Not once did I say you were a racist so what examples could I be looking for? Do you always try to use diversionary tactics?

Now maybe you like to encompass all. I don't. I can say I like sex with women. According to you that means even the bad lays.

Now you ask me if I have a problem with your little anti-jewish comment. No I don't. Why? Because you're going for sensationalism to try to make a point and I don't buy into that as being who or what you are. I applied the same principle to Skeptic's post. So as such I don't see racism in either your's or his posts.

No it's not my stance that it needs to start with "all" to be bigotry or racism. If you said "kikes this and that" or "******* this and that", I don't need to ponder if it means all of them for it to be racist. There's been so many false cries of racism in the US that I tend to scrutinize a little more than most. So I have had a good look at myself. While doing so I discovered I could probably drop a few pounds. What are you discovering about yourself?

Sorry to disappoint you. Maybe you can use your attempts at racism and bigotry on someone else and see if they bite.

*edited to add the following*
Thanks for asking me if it was my view as opposed to assuming it was and going off on another tangent. It shows a marked improvement on your part. Keep up the good work.:D

NullPointerException

24th December 2003, 10:39 PM

How is someone bigoted for saying texans are fags, or all texans are fags? Or are you just reading into what people are saying. Palestinians support terrorism is not a statement.

Troll

24th December 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by NullPointerException
How is someone bigoted for saying texans are fags, or all texans are fags? Or are you just reading into what people are saying. Palestinians support terrorism is not a statement.

He's definitely been reading into things. But now your one of the "bigot cheerleaders". Hey, maybe we can swap pom poms sometime

Mike B.

25th December 2003, 08:07 AM

Look if someone says something racist, they should be called on it.

But a number of threads have been hi-jacked now because someone is worrying that someone MIGHT say something racist about Arabs.

Let's wait until it happens.

Mike B.

25th December 2003, 08:10 AM

BTW,
THe ugliest thing ever said about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was by "progressive" AUP.

He dismissed the death of an 11 month old Jewish baby by a suicide bomber as the death of an "extremist."

He then refused to even admit he made a poor choice of words.

Those who feel the need to defend Palestinians, should certainly do so. However, for consistency sake I would hope they would extend that hatred of bigotry to other parties in the conflict.

a_unique_person

25th December 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Mike B.
BTW,
THe ugliest thing ever said about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was by "progressive" AUP.

He dismissed the death of an 11 month old Jewish baby by a suicide bomber as the death of an "extremist."

He then refused to even admit he made a poor choice of words.

Those who feel the need to defend Palestinians, should certainly do so. However, for consistency sake I would hope they would extend that hatred of bigotry to other parties in the conflict.

You are twisting the meaning of my words. I did not say the baby was an extremist. The bus that was attacked was full of the Ultra Orthodox who are the biggest force behind the 'settler' movement.

a_unique_person

25th December 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Mike B.
Look if someone says something racist, they should be called on it.

But a number of threads have been hi-jacked now because someone is worrying that someone MIGHT say something racist about Arabs.

Let's wait until it happens.

Because people HAVE said something racist about Arabs.

Jocko

25th December 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You are twisting the meaning of my words. I did not say the baby was an extremist. The bus that was attacked was full of the Ultra Orthodox who are the biggest force behind the 'settler' movement.

So, because of their religion, it is fair and correct to assume the are some kind of criminal.

No, that's not a racist conclusion at all. They weren't just Jewish, they were Orthodox Jewish! Naturally they deserved to be blown to bits, baby included. Can you even hear what you're saying, AUP?

Jocko

25th December 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Because people HAVE said something racist about Arabs.

If that's true, I'd call it equal time. But I don't see anyone stating that a busload of muslims ought to be blown up because they're muslims.

Troll

25th December 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

If that's true, I'd call it equal time. But I don't see anyone stating that a busload of muslims ought to be blown up because they're muslims.

Well of course you don't see it. You're just reading the posts You have to read into the posts to really see it. But then you're just another "cheerleader for the bigots", like me and everyone not AUP or The Fool. They are the enlightened ones.

Jocko

25th December 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Well of course you don't see it. You're just reading the posts You have to read into the posts to really see it. But then you're just another "cheerleader for the bigots", like me and everyone not AUP or The Fool. They are the enlightened ones.

The kind of enlightenment that allows AUP to explain away a busload of murders on the grounds that the victims were Orthodox Jewish, and then - in the very next post - whine about how "something" racist has been said about arabs?

I could have that kind of enlightment if I wanted it. A swift blow to parietal lobe should do the trick.

The Fool

25th December 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

The kind of enlightenment that allows AUP to explain away a busload of murders on the grounds that the victims were Orthodox Jewish, and then - in the very next post - whine about how "something" racist has been said about arabs?

I could have that kind of enlightment if I wanted it. A swift blow to parietal lobe should do the trick.

It doesn't matter Jocko, apparently nothing said here is bigoted or racist... I could say Israelis are murdering swine and it would be ok. apparently... because I left the magic "all" word off the front of the statement.

Here are some examples of non bigoted and non racist statements.

The Blacks in America are lazy.
Arabs are bloodthirsty killers.
Women can't drive.
People who vote Democrat are child molesters.
The Israelis want to commit genocide.

Not a single one of these statements are bigoted or racist according to the cheersquad....Is it any wonder they are laughed at. Having to support such stupid positions.

Troll

25th December 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You are twisting the meaning of my words. I did not say the baby was an extremist. The bus that was attacked was full of the Ultra Orthodox who are the biggest force behind the 'settler' movement.

So the children on the bus were unfortunate collateral damage? As a former military man I can understand the that unfortunate things will occur. So I'll let you say the kids were collateral damage. Provided you can assure me that real innocent civilians are not targeted.

Oops. Doesn't look like that's the case:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072326000172

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/05/wmid05.xml

They actually target civilians that aren't Ultra Orthodox or military.

I'd say the chick in front of the bulldozer, who you like to bring up from time to time, was a moron that put herself in harms way. Now tell me how Judith Greenbaum eating at a pizza joint put herself in harms way? Two American women. One sitting down and eating and blown up, and the other standing in front of a bulldozer. One in harms way by choice, in front of a large piece of machinery that anyone that has ever been in one or operated could tell you doesn't have a perfect view of what is in froint of the massive blade on it, the other thinking she would just grab a bite to eat. You keep blaming that guy in the dozer but I've never seen you blame the people that kill all the ones minding their own business. In fact, you figured you could add to reasons to kill people by adding Ultra Orthodox like they're packing an uzi and were on patrol for any and all Palestinians.

The Fool

25th December 2003, 09:32 PM

Jocko

25th December 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Not a single one of these statements are bigoted or racist according to the cheersquad....Is it any wonder they are laughed at. Having to support such stupid positions.

Your problem, Fool, is that you seem to have found all these statements and more where they don't exist, and conveniently gloss over AUP's grotesque suggestion that Israeli civilians were legitimate targets because of their Orthodox religion.

I've said none of these hurtful things, not because I'm a nice, sensitive guy - and I'm not - but because they're untrue and driven by emotion, which has little place in this kind of forum. As I stated earlier, Skeptic sometimes surrenders reason to passion, but I have never heard him say anything comparable to what AUP has vomited forth 7 posts up.

The blindness is yours, Fool. Nothing personal, but dude you're choosing to ignore AUP's nonsense. What's even worse - in this context - is that he never backs up his inflammatory opinions. That, if nothing else, should give you pause.

Troll

25th December 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

It doesn't matter Jocko, apparently nothing said here is bigoted or racist... I could say Israelis are murdering swine and it would be ok. apparently... because I left the magic "all" word off the front of the statement.

Here are some examples of non bigoted and non racist statements.

The Blacks in America are lazy.
Arabs are bloodthirsty killers.
Women can't drive.
People who vote Democrat are child molesters.
The Israelis want to commit genocide.

Not a single one of these statements are bigoted or racist according to the cheersquad....Is it any wonder they are laughed at. Having to support such stupid positions.

Well you could if you think "all" is the only key. But apparently you failed to read where I personally don't think it is. Guess I left out a chance for you to read into what I was saying. I'm sorry. Can you ever forgive me?

Troll

25th December 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Cheersquad Dude, Cheersquad...you are not original enough to be regarded as a cheerleader.

English Dude, English.....one does not make a squad. So forgive me for speaking to a single entity and using applicable words while doing so. See it would take more than one to be a cheersquad and I wasn't speaking to more than one at the time.

No wonder you have a hard time with the concept of all encompassing terms.

The Fool

25th December 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Troll

English Dude, English.....one does not make a squad. So forgive me for speaking to a single entity and using applicable words while doing so. See it would take more than one to be a cheersquad and I wasn't speaking to more than one at the time.

No wonder you have a hard time with the concept of all encompassing terms.

You feel in some way that you are unique? No son, there are an awful lot just like you. You and the rest of the cheersquad can use semantics and stupidity and keep your heads firmly in the sand...Maybe one day you will be a victim of the very thing that you spend so much time and energy being an apologist for. That, I fear, will be the only thing that could wake you up.

Jocko

25th December 2003, 09:50 PM

The Fool

25th December 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Well you could if you think "all" is the only key. But apparently you failed to read where I personally don't think it is. Guess I left out a chance for you to read into what I was saying. I'm sorry. Can you ever forgive me?
anyway, further attempts to wake you up are patently pointless so I will abandon this thread leaving you to claim victory as is often the case with the type of poster who uses the "no its not, no its not, no its not, Can't logically explain why but no its not" method.

Troll

25th December 2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

You feel in some way that you are unique? No son, there are an awful lot just like you. You and the rest of the cheersquad can use semantics and stupidity and keep your heads firmly in the sand...Maybe one day you will be a victim of the very thing that you spend so much time and energy being an apologist for. That, I fear, will be the only thing that could wake you up.

Too bad you ain't me. Then you'd know I was a victim of what you wrongfully claim I am an apologist for. 1986, Watts, CA. Got spat on, called names and my ass thoroughly kicked for being a white guy in the wrong place at night. It was during my little bout of being homeless when I got out of the Marines the first time and had to stick around for transportation money after they cocked up my pay.

And I'm glad there are an awful lot like me and few of you and AUP. Oh crap!!!! That's it!!!! You just feel like you have to take on the case of any and all minorities and as you and AUP are apparently the only two that can't see the truth here, you must defend yourselves rabidly regardless of truth.

Troll

25th December 2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

anyway, further attempts to wake you up are patently pointless so I will abandon this thread leaving you to claim victory as is often the case with the type of poster who uses the "no its not, no its not, no its not, Can't logically explain why but no its not" method.

Actually myself and others have used a helluva lot more than the simple phrase you try to attribute to us. You just avoid half the posts while you try to find something you can read something non-existant in.

Frankly I'm surprised a sense of pride didn't send you packing earlier. But then I guess that may be a quality you find lacking in yourself. Since you see racism everywhere and anyone that disagrees with you is apparently one themselves.

a_unique_person

25th December 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

The kind of enlightenment that allows AUP to explain away a busload of murders on the grounds that the victims were Orthodox Jewish, and then - in the very next post - whine about how "something" racist has been said about arabs?

I could have that kind of enlightment if I wanted it. A swift blow to parietal lobe should do the trick.

I did not explain it away, I was pointing out there was probably a reason why they picked that target, it was not a 'senseless' bombing. Now, you will note that I do not go around killing babies and blowing up buses. Perhaps I do not need to 'explain away' anything. I do note, however, that there is a lot of 'explaining away' done when civilians are killed by US or Israeli forces.

However, in the case of Israel, many members of the IDF are not prepared to 'explain away' these actions any more.

Jocko

25th December 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I did not explain it away, I was pointing out there was probably a reason why they picked that target, it was not a 'senseless' bombing. Now, you will note that I do not go around killing babies and blowing up buses. Perhaps I do not need to 'explain away' anything. I do note, however, that there is a lot of 'explaining away' done when civilians are killed by US or Israeli forces.

Perhaps because those forces must answer to civilian authorities, act under rules of engagement, and not deliberately target civilians? Has it ever occured to you that explanations come when explanations are demanded? Hamas only explains when it claims responsibility and I've never heard of Arafat opening up an investigative panel to see what went wrong.

Regardless, your explanation - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to not call it an apology - painted the civilians as legitimate targets because of their religion and the naked insinuation that they were illegal settlers, and therefore deserved it. You don't know that any more than the bomber did. Like him, you CHOOSE to believe it.

However, in the case of Israel, many members of the IDF are not prepared to 'explain away' these actions any more.

Did i miss something? Or is this another hit-and-run swipe? Care to elaborate?

Mike B.

26th December 2003, 06:18 AM