Why Liberals are annoying...

[Skeptic]

This gem from "The Fool":

The basic problem is that "skeptic" believes all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew.

Well, no, what I DO believe is something else: that the palestinians want to destroy israel, which is quite a different thing. But consider the nefarious method I used to reach this conclusion:

He justifies this racist hatred from his past experiences of Arabs

I mean, imagine that--forming an opinion about a group of people based on your EXPERIENCE WITH THEM??? What could be more racist and biased than THAT?

Why, there is even a risk that, if your experience is not positive, your opinion will not agree in all details with the liberal "truth" about how wonderful every group of people (except white males and westerners in general) is!

Luckily for "the truth"(TM), "The Fool" comes to the rescue. Having no experience at all with any Palestinians or Arabs--and, in fact, not being able to speak a work of Arabic and never visiting the middle east, let alone israel (I mean, "occupied Palestine")--there isn't the slightest risk of him being tainted by "bias" caused by insignificant things like actually knowing any Arabs or Palestinians.

He is therefore in the perfect position to tell us the "objective, non-racist truth" about what the Palestinians and Arabs are REALLY like. After all, if there's one thing "The Fool" surely is totally innocent of, it's "using his past experience with Arabs as an excuse" for forming "racist" opinions. After all, he has no such experience to begin with, so there is no risk of any deviation from the liberal party line.

It is this which is the most annoying quality about liberals: the use of their utter ignorance of the subject matter as "evidence" FOR their view, by claiming that this makes the "objective"--unlike the poor suckers who actually have experience, which are naturally "biased", or "emotionally involved", or otherwise "incapacitated" from seeing the "objective truth" that total ignorance allows.

The israeli/Arab conflict is, of course, not the only arena where this strategy is used by liberals. Take, say, the "crusade against the Death Penalty". They all "know", of course, that the DP is "wrong", "cheapens human life", "racist" (of course), etc. Meet with the victim's families? Hear from those who witnessed the crimes? Who cares--they won't be "objective" anyway due to their "emotional involvement" and strange "need for revenge", you know, just because their family member was murdered brutally.

Or take socialism. They all "know", of course, that socialism is immensly superior to capitalism, that "heartless" and "evil' system, and that Marx was a genius. Talk to survivors from the gulags? Interview one of the hundreds of millions of those who, since the collpase of the "paradise of the workers", is trying to get to the evil, capitalistic west by any means possible? Who cares--they're just too "emotionally involved" to objectively compare the two economic theories, just because applying the "superior" socialist economy ruined their lives and their country. And we can't expect people like THAT to reach the "objective truth" about socialism's superiority, now can we?

As I said, annoying. And "The Fool" has no idea why I couldn't care less that he calls me a "racist". "Racist", in his dictionary, means "someone with experience that doesn't fit with the party line about what 'the truth' is".

That's not much of an insult, is it? In fact, if anything, it's a compliment--although "knowing more than 'The Fool' about a subject" is about as much as a compliment as "having better eyesight than Helen Keler", or perhaps "being in better shape than prof. Hawkins".

[Tony]

The fool isn’t liberal. He's as authoritarian as they come.

[Tricky]

Omigod! I just walked in here and there was straw everywhere! This looks like the works of the Scarecrow Killer.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
Omigod! I just walked in here and there was straw everywhere! This looks like the works of the Scarecrow Killer.

That's pretty damn racist.

[aerocontrols]

Do you know what annoys me?

People who try to tell me why others are annoying.

[Otther]

Meh... conservatives can be just as annoying as liberals.

Haphazard use of "the palistinians" is as bad as being overly picky about refering to parts of the palistinians.

No one is objective.

Fool's deffinition isn't mine, and it's hardly a deffinite deffinition. But after telling him that you disagree with his deffinition it should be a non-issue (or at the very least, a seperate issue) because you're still able to comprehend him.

Circulating the idea that Russian communism is Marxist communism is as bad as suggesting that Marxist communism has real world viability.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This gem from "The Fool":

The basic problem is that "skeptic" believes all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew.

Well, no, what I DO believe is something else: that the palestinians want to destroy israel, which is quite a different thing. But consider the nefarious method I used to reach this conclusion:

He justifies this racist hatred from his past experiences of Arabs

I mean, imagine that--forming an opinion about a group of people based on your EXPERIENCE WITH THEM??? What could be more racist and biased than THAT?

Why, there is even a risk that, if your experience is not positive, your opinion will not agree in all details with the liberal "truth" about how wonderful every group of people (except white males and westerners in general) is!

Luckily for "the truth"(TM), "The Fool" comes to the rescue. Having no experience at all with any Palestinians or Arabs--and, in fact, not being able to speak a work of Arabic and never visiting the middle east, let alone israel (I mean, "occupied Palestine")--there isn't the slightest risk of him being tainted by "bias" caused by insignificant things like actually knowing any Arabs or Palestinians.

He is therefore in the perfect position to tell us the "objective, non-racist truth" about what the Palestinians and Arabs are REALLY like. After all, if there's one thing "The Fool" surely is totally innocent of, it's "using his past experience with Arabs as an excuse" for forming "racist" opinions. After all, he has no such experience to begin with, so there is no risk of any deviation from the liberal party line.

It is this which is the most annoying quality about liberals: the use of their utter ignorance of the subject matter as "evidence" FOR their view, by claiming that this makes the "objective"--unlike the poor suckers who actually have experience, which are naturally "biased", or "emotionally involved", or otherwise "incapacitated" from seeing the "objective truth" that total ignorance allows.

The israeli/Arab conflict is, of course, not the only arena where this strategy is used by liberals. Take, say, the "crusade against the Death Penalty". They all "know", of course, that the DP is "wrong", "cheapens human life", "racist" (of course), etc. Meet with the victim's families? Hear from those who witnessed the crimes? Who cares--they won't be "objective" anyway due to their "emotional involvement" and strange "need for revenge", you know, just because their family member was murdered brutally.

Or take socialism. They all "know", of course, that socialism is immensly superior to capitalism, that "heartless" and "evil' system, and that Marx was a genius. Talk to survivors from the gulags? Interview one of the hundreds of millions of those who, since the collpase of the "paradise of the workers", is trying to get to the evil, capitalistic west by any means possible? Who cares--they're just too "emotionally involved" to objectively compare the two economic theories, just because applying the "superior" socialist economy ruined their lives and their country. And we can't expect people like THAT to reach the "objective truth" about socialism's superiority, now can we?

As I said, annoying. And "The Fool" has no idea why I couldn't care less that he calls me a "racist". "Racist", in his dictionary, means "someone with experience that doesn't fit with the party line about what 'the truth' is".

That's not much of an insult, is it? In fact, if anything, it's a compliment--although "knowing more than 'The Fool' about a subject" is about as much as a compliment as "having better eyesight than Helen Keler", or perhaps "being in better shape than prof. Hawkins".

:nope:

:i:

:id:


You have the username "Skeptic" yet you resort to Strawman Fallacy.

Pathetic!

[Otther]

You have the username "Skeptic" yet you resort to Strawman Fallacy.

That's another thing that iritates me on this board! The endless use of pointless insults! If you're not going to attempt to show the person how they're wrong, why post at all? It's not like some snappy smart*** comment will be any more productive.

[American]

They always represent the "but brigade", for one thing (that's b-u-t-t, if you care to be cute). "Yeah, OBL killed 3000 Americans, BUT... we shouldn't react that way."

There is no right and wrong with liberals; instead it's constant rationalizing, pointless reflection that amounts to melodrama at best or cowardly irresponsible inaction at worst. The very concept of doing something seems offensive to them, especially when acting without a drawn-out apology however right and good your actions really are.

They are downright scared of a life without government structure, not realizing that government structure consists of and is designed by those who are largely rejected by the private sector for their own short-comings of talent and character. Government jobs exist because the law says they must. Those same jobs and contracts would be discontinued, fired, and downsized for the sheer waste and mismanagement of their very existence, let alone the underperforming attributes of the losers who fill those positions at tax payer's expense.

The best time to get a parking space at a state workplace- friday after 12 noon. Wow, watch them clear out of there! Rounding off 35 hours to 40... same thing, right?

Seriously, some local news channel should send a reporter to the UMass campus and film our state workers running out early for the weekend. Ambush them with a camera as they're getting into their cars..... Not a bad idea, think I'll send out a hotline tip! :p

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Well, no, what I DO believe is something else: that the palestinians want to destroy israel, which is quite a different thing. But consider the nefarious method I used to reach this conclusion:

Not all Palistinians want to destroy Israel. Hamas wants to destroy Israel, sure. A lot of Palistinians hate Israel, sure. But not all of them want it destroyed. Even the ones who hate Israel.

I mean, imagine that--forming an opinion about a group of people based on your EXPERIENCE WITH THEM??? What could be more racist and biased than THAT?

Actually, many a racist bases their opinion on their experience with the group they hate. "I was mugged by a black."

I think it is more objective to base an opinion of a group by the leadership they choose, and then the actions taken by that leadership. Even then, we must be ever mindful there is always a group within the group who do not like the leadership or the direction it is taking them.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Otther


That's another thing that iritates me on this board! The endless use of pointless insults! If you're not going to attempt to show the person how they're wrong, why post at all? It's not like some snappy smart*** comment will be any more productive.

I believe he did indeed show the person how they were wrong: "You have the username "Skeptic" yet you resort to Strawman Fallacy

Bolded so you can't miss it...

[Otther]

I believe he did indeed show the person how they were wrong: "You have the username "Skeptic" yet you resort to Strawman Fallacy
Saying something doesn't automatically make it true And given the deffensive nature of many people merely saying their arguement is based on a fallacy isn't going to show anything.

If I simply said your post was attacking a strawman (besides showing my stupidity) my post would produce nothing. If an insult is valid, fine, use it. But follow through with examples.

If you don't believe that giving those examples will produce anything, surely you can't believe that your insult will either. And then you're just wasting everyone's time.

[The Fool]

"skeptic"

youre losing it son...calm down, leave the caps lock alone and listen...


ok...calmer now?

take a good look at this garbage...

Imagine a nation of REAL LIFE wannabe "terminators", and you get an idea what palestinian culture is like.

the entire palestinian people, are full of genocidal hate for the jews.

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



This is but a small sample of the garbage you rant, why do you find it surprisig when people spank you for it? Its the big bad liberal conspiracy picking on you? Lol....not only do you appear to claim that you can mindread palestinians but you are also now claiming to know my political views, who my friends are and where I have travelled in the world....Do you use tarot cards or a crystal ball?

Australia is a multicultural society, I meet and interact with many cultures. have yet to find one that is inherrantly bloodthirsty...you obviously feel you have, that is sad. I don't hate racists they just make me feel slightly ill.

You really need to work on a consistant position

I said...

"The basic problem is that "skeptic" believes all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew."

you deny this...

yet you constantly make statements like this

That might have something to do with being 600,000 among 150,000,000 bloodthirsty Arabs who want you dead.


do you ever look back on racist statement like this and deep down wish you had not written it? Is there a rational person in there trying to fight thier way from under a mountain of bad experiences?

If you believe the answer to the middle east problems even slightly resembles the racist and irrational rant that you display in this thread then I can only feel sad....With people like Hammas and people like you I cannot see it ever improving.

[Dorian Gray]

Saying something doesn't automatically make it true Wouldn't that include everything Skeptic says and everything you say?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by American
They always represent the "but brigade", for one thing (that's b-u-t-t, if you care to be cute). "Yeah, OBL killed 3000 Americans, BUT... we shouldn't react that way."

There is no right and wrong with liberals; instead it's constant rationalizing, pointless reflection that amounts to melodrama at best or cowardly irresponsible inaction at worst. The very concept of doing something seems offensive to them, especially when acting without a drawn-out apology however right and good your actions really are.

They are downright scared of a life without government structure, not realizing that government structure consists of and is designed by those who are largely rejected by the private sector for their own short-comings of talent and character. Government jobs exist because the law says they must. Those same jobs and contracts would be discontinued, fired, and downsized for the sheer waste and mismanagement of their very existence, let alone the underperforming attributes of the losers who fill those positions at tax payer's expense.

The best time to get a parking space at a state workplace- friday after 12 noon. Wow, watch them clear out of there! Rounding off 35 hours to 40... same thing, right?

Seriously, some local news channel should send a reporter to the UMass campus and film our state workers running out early for the weekend. Ambush them with a camera as they're getting into their cars..... Not a bad idea, think I'll send out a hotline tip! :p

American, I'm going to ignore the generalization you present here and merely answer for myself.

I am considered by many people to be a liberal. For the most part, I will agree with the statement because, in terms of social attitudes, I'm about as liberal as you can get.

In my case, I don't understand the concept put forth by the conservatives I have met or heard in the media (far less liberal than some conservatives would have you think, instead, I find it to be more "anti-establishment", since they took a pretty nasty stance with CLinton, as I recall.) that liberals want big government. I'm actually quite the opposite. I would prefer a smaller governmental role in terms of controling the populace, but I do think that the government's role is to assist the population in bettering itself. Because of that, I think the go9vernment needs to be held more accountable for its actions.

You mention OBL killing so many people. You say liberals don't want us to react the way we are to it. I will actually agree that we are not acting correctly, but don't confuse that with not wanting to respond with force. I think OBL and his associates should be hunted down and dealt with in whatever manner becomes possible or available. The issue I have with how the US is dealing with it is that W seems to have gone for an "easy victory" for PR purposes in going to Iraq to take out an incidental target. Since the publicity of the memo showing him to have been planning before Sept. 11, and since I have seen nothing to disprove that memo, I feel he used Sept 11 as a convenient excuse to engage in his vendetta. I think it would serve justice better if he had stayed on task and gone after those responsible for the attacks. The "war on terror" that W has described is an impossible war to win, since terrorists will replenish themselves with new recruits after attacks made on them. Diplomacy with governments to get them to assist in routing out the terrorists needs to be implimented in addition to the violence if this is ever going to succede, and I have not seen much of that.

As for the parking situation at UMASS, having lived in Massachusetts for nearly 20 years, myself, I saw exactly what you mean. I find this to be an argument for my viewpoint, since, as I said, I want the government to be held more accountable for its actions. This would included letting people round out their time-cards during the week.

[Mr Manifesto]

Tower to Skeptic... Tower to Skeptic... You're losing altitude... Your wing is on fire... Is there a problem? Come in, Skeptic...

Now, on to idiot no 2:

They are downright scared of a life without government structure, not realizing that government structure consists of and is designed by those who are largely rejected by the private sector for their own short-comings of talent and character. Government jobs exist because the law says they must. Those same jobs and contracts would be discontinued, fired, and downsized for the sheer waste and mismanagement of their very existence, let alone the underperforming attributes of the losers who fill those positions at tax payer's expense.

Because there's no mismanagement in the private sector, noooOOOooo...

[Cain]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This gem from "The Fool":

The basic problem is that "skeptic" believes all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew.

Well, no, what I DO believe is something else: that the palestinians want to destroy israel, which is quite a different thing. But consider the nefarious method I used to reach this conclusion:

He justifies this racist hatred from his past experiences of Arabs

I mean, imagine that--forming an opinion about a group of people based on your EXPERIENCE WITH THEM??? What could be more racist and biased than THAT?

Why, there is even a risk that, if your experience is not positive, your opinion will not agree in all details with the liberal "truth" about how wonderful every group of people (except white males and westerners in general) is!

Luckily for "the truth"(TM), "The Fool" comes to the rescue. Having no experience at all with any Palestinians or Arabs--and, in fact, not being able to speak a work of Arabic and never visiting the middle east, let alone israel (I mean, "occupied Palestine")--there isn't the slightest risk of him being tainted by "bias" caused by insignificant things like actually knowing any Arabs or Palestinians.

He is therefore in the perfect position to tell us the "objective, non-racist truth" about what the Palestinians and Arabs are REALLY like. After all, if there's one thing "The Fool" surely is totally innocent of, it's "using his past experience with Arabs as an excuse" for forming "racist" opinions. After all, he has no such experience to begin with, so there is no risk of any deviation from the liberal party line.

It is this which is the most annoying quality about liberals: the use of their utter ignorance of the subject matter as "evidence" FOR their view, by claiming that this makes the "objective"--unlike the poor suckers who actually have experience, which are naturally "biased", or "emotionally involved", or otherwise "incapacitated" from seeing the "objective truth" that total ignorance allows.

The israeli/Arab conflict is, of course, not the only arena where this strategy is used by liberals. Take, say, the "crusade against the Death Penalty". They all "know", of course, that the DP is "wrong", "cheapens human life", "racist" (of course), etc. Meet with the victim's families? Hear from those who witnessed the crimes? Who cares--they won't be "objective" anyway due to their "emotional involvement" and strange "need for revenge", you know, just because their family member was murdered brutally.

Or take socialism. They all "know", of course, that socialism is immensly superior to capitalism, that "heartless" and "evil' system, and that Marx was a genius. Talk to survivors from the gulags? Interview one of the hundreds of millions of those who, since the collpase of the "paradise of the workers", is trying to get to the evil, capitalistic west by any means possible? Who cares--they're just too "emotionally involved" to objectively compare the two economic theories, just because applying the "superior" socialist economy ruined their lives and their country. And we can't expect people like THAT to reach the "objective truth" about socialism's superiority, now can we?

As I said, annoying. And "The Fool" has no idea why I couldn't care less that he calls me a "racist". "Racist", in his dictionary, means "someone with experience that doesn't fit with the party line about what 'the truth' is".

That's not much of an insult, is it? In fact, if anything, it's a compliment--although "knowing more than 'The Fool' about a subject" is about as much as a compliment as "having better eyesight than Helen Keler", or perhaps "being in better shape than prof. Hawkins".

http://www.micruscorp.com/images/headache.jpg

[Otther]

Wouldn't that include everything Skeptic says and everything you say? ...Yup.

[a_unique_person]

I read an interview with a Palestinian father in the paper just a few days ago, (not online, unfortunately), and he was against suicide bombers, and he believed many agreed with him but were wary of speaking out against the extremists. Kind of like the situation many Jews and Israelis find themselves in.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I read an interview with a Palestinian father in the paper just a few days ago, (not online, unfortunately), and he was against suicide bombers, and he believed many agreed with him but were wary of speaking out against the extremists. Kind of like the situation many Jews and Israelis find themselves in.
I think these murderers are the number one problem for palestinians. They achieve nothing but justifiable outrage. Unfortunately it is difficult to talk sense to terrorists and Zionist extremists. There are too many people on both sides with a vested interest in maintaining the conflict.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Do you know what annoys me?

People who try to tell me why others are annoying.
Across the yawning ideological divide, a consensus is reached. Stop a moment, people, and consider this, for it is a rare, fragile and beautiful thing. As cynical and archly ironic as I am, I feel the need to shed a tear here, as my lips tremble with these words...

I agree.

[Tmy]

Liberal is a relative term. Being liberal in the JREF board means you only have ONE Klan outfit! :p

[LFTKBS]

What are you if you think that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have demonstrated foolishness on a heretofore unknown scale, and you think that both Judaism and Islam are untrue, and that both groups are nominally led by utter lunatics?

[c0rbin]

I'll buy that for a dollar (stupid religious freaks always ruining it for everybody).

[Darat]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
What are you if you think that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have demonstrated foolishness on a heretofore unknown scale, and you think that both Judaism and Islam are untrue, and that both groups are nominally led by utter lunatics?

Reasonable?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
What are you if you think that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have demonstrated foolishness on a heretofore unknown scale, and you think that both Judaism and Islam are untrue, and that both groups are nominally led by utter lunatics?

Well, when I see Israeli suicide bombers on Palestinian buses I will agree. While it is true that not all Palestinians are supporters of suicide bombing, only Palestinians ARE suicide bombers. (in that region of course)

Skeptic is perhaps too close to the issue. Israel is his home. If it were also your home perhaps your opinions would be different?

Israelis live in a representative democracy. They have free speech rights and use them. The Israeli minority protests frequently...their leaders are NOT afraid to speak out. That is a real difference. The Palestinians have no such rights. When they are courageous enough to speak out they are harrassed and even murdered by mobs as "collaborators".

Therefore, if Skeptic sees Palestinians as "barbaric murderers who want to kill Jews" then I can easily see how he could make such a mistake. If the Palestinian moderates are shouted down and harrassed, yet the Israeli moderates are free to speak, it certainly gives the impression that on one side we have a civilized representative democracy, and on the other side we have a vengeful mob.

Luke T. said:
I think it is more objective to base an opinion of a group by the leadership they choose, and then the actions taken by that leadership. Even then, we must be ever mindful there is always a group within the group who do not like the leadership or the direction it is taking them.

I agree. The Palestinians are led by a master of international terrorism who rules by decree. The Israelis are ruled by the people through their elected officials. Their Prime Minister is an ex-General. A hard line soldier.

What do I make of it? The Palestinians are ruled by a terrorist dictator. The Israelis, after trying leaders comitted to peace and diplomacy, finally elected someone they thought was tough enough to protect them.

Skeptic used the universal "Palestinians" incorrectly, I doubt however that this makes him a full blown "racist". I myself have been smeared as "fascist". :rolleyes: Makes me wonder what the liberals here would deign to call the denizens of "Stromfront.org"???

-z

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Makes me wonder what the liberals here would deign to call the denizens of "Stromfront.org"???


Supa-facists.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
What are you if you think that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have demonstrated foolishness on a heretofore unknown scale, and you think that both Judaism and Islam are untrue, and that both groups are nominally led by utter lunatics?

You, sir, are antisemitic. ;)

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well, when I see Israeli suicide bombers on Palestinian buses I will agree.The Israeli fighters are not presently forced into using these low-tech, low-cost methods.

The Israelis are well supplied with American developed F16s, attack helicopters etc. If the Palestinian fighters were equally well equipped and funded, I guess you'd see a reduction in suicide bombing.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by No Answers


You, sir, are antisemitic. ;)

I also think that Catholicism, Protestantism, Scientology, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Paganism are dumb. Plus any other theistic worldview.

I'm antieverything.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
What are you if you think that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have demonstrated foolishness on a heretofore unknown scale, and you think that both Judaism and Islam are untrue, and that both groups are nominally led by utter lunatics?

I don't know but when you come up with a good term for that kind of person, tell me because I am one too.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by ceptimus
The Israeli fighters are not presently forced into using these low-tech, low-cost methods.

The Israelis are well supplied with American developed F16s, attack helicopters etc. If the Palestinian fighters were equally well equipped and funded, I guess you'd see a reduction in suicide bombing.

You are describing a people who have not the sense to know when they've been defeated. They remind me a bit of the Welsh in the 13th century. Edward I had to murder the Prince of Wales and masquerade his own son into that role. He also had to build castles all over Wales and charter English towns where English law prevailed and the Welsh were not allowed to live or work. In the end the Welsh language was even outlawed.

Edward did this by brutally hunting down and killing anyone that resisted. Now Prince of Wales is merely an empty title bestowed upon the heir to the English throne.

The Palestinians seem to have no problem holding to the values of the brutal 13th century. Perhaps the Israelis are screwing up by attempting to coexist? Maybe they need to take a page from King Edward? Even the fanatical Japanese knew when they were beaten. For a populace to embrace the bombing of busses as if they were military targets is obscene and barbaric. Edward was a guy who dealt successfully with such a populace. It was a long time ago, but his solution had staying power. It's been 700 years, and not a peep out of those Welshmen. Even such a harsh solution would be preferable to hundreds of years of more of the same. Just my humble opinion.

-z

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by rikzilla


It's been 700 years, and not a peep out of those Welshmen. Even such a harsh solution would be preferable to hundreds of years of more of the same. Just my humble opinion.

-z

What about Tom Jones?

;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


He also had to build castles all over Wales and charter English towns where English law prevailed and the Welsh were not allowed to live or work. In the end the Welsh language was even outlawed.


So you are suggesting the Israeli government should consider building fortified areas in the west bank that palestinains can't live in....oops, I think they already beat you to that one. Maybe you could still pass on the banning Arabic stuff?

As for Stormfront people, I call them Nazis, what do you call them? The amusing thing is that even though they share a lot of extreme right wing Ideas with many Jref Posters thier rabid Ant-Semitism means they feel they must support Arab terrorist groups. Ever seen somene try to be pro George bush and pro Hammas at the same time?. Reading that site can make you quite ill. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be really really funny.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Fool

So you are suggesting the Israeli government should consider building fortified areas in the west bank that palestinains can't live in....oops, I think they already beat you to that one. Maybe you could still pass on the banning Arabic stuff?

I was a history major. I love looking at modern issues, and then finding the same issues in antiquity. It's an objective way of seeing what strategy works and what does not. Sadly, full on genocide works real well once everyone else is dead.

As for Stormfront people, I call them Nazis, what do you call them? The amusing thing is that even though they share a lot of extreme right wing Ideas with many Jref Posters thier rabid Ant-Semitism means they feel they must support Arab terrorist groups. Ever seen somene try to be pro George bush and pro Hammas at the same time?. Reading that site can make you quite ill. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be really really funny.

We agree! Amazing! Yeah, I call 'em Nazis too. You have also hit upon one of the ironies I saw long ago; that is that the farther right you go you get into a kind of shadow land where the far right and the far left are in accord. What they really have in common is extremism. I guess politics is a circle...that you could start out far right and end up left. It's mind-boggling, yet there are many people who's political journey proves out this theory.

Is that the first time you've seen Stromfront?? It was discussed in "Banter" long ago with JREFers making little forays into their cyber "Mordor". It's more than enough to make you ill....those people are actually violent and dangerous. Real Nazis...not the JREF version. (shudder)

-z

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I was a history major. I love looking at modern issues, and then finding the same issues in antiquity. It's an objective way of seeing what strategy works and what does not. Sadly, full on genocide works real well once everyone else is dead.




But where do you stand on West Bank settlement issues?

I could agree with most of what you say, and most of Isreal's reactions were it not for the policy of expanding West Bank settlement. But then I will fully admit I don't understand the intracacies and history of the issue that well either...

If you have the time, could you provide me a lazy person's summary?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by The Fool

As for Stormfront people, I call them Nazis, what do you call them? The amusing thing is that even though they share a lot of extreme right wing Ideas with many Jref Posters thier rabid Ant-Semitism means they feel they must support Arab terrorist groups. Ever seen somene try to be pro George bush and pro Hammas at the same time?. Reading that site can make you quite ill. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be really really funny.

I have spent a lot of time posting on Stormfront. It might surprise you to learn that they support the existence of Israel. That is because they are separatists. They want all the Jews to go away to Israel, and for Israel to stop meddling in American politics.

They do not support the destruction of Israel.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by ceptimus
The Israeli fighters are not presently forced into using these low-tech, low-cost methods.

The Israelis are well supplied with American developed F16s, attack helicopters etc. If the Palestinian fighters were equally well equipped and funded, I guess you'd see a reduction in suicide bombing.

I have several problems with this logic.

First, if a war crime or atrocity can be excused for any reason, then the logical conclusion is that there are no standards at all that can be applied to wartime behavior. I think the consequences of this thinking (if it were adopted) would be far worse for the Palestinian-Arabs than the current situation.

Second, war is not fair. It is rarely fought on equal terms by adversaries with equal resources. When it is, the bloodshed is far worse.

Third, if you legitimize terrorism as a war tactic, citing their inability to do things more effective, then you also legitimize whatever military counter-measures would be required to put a stop to it. If you stop and think about it, you will realize that this means brutal measures above and beyond what are used now.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Luke T.

I have spent a lot of time posting on Stormfront. It might surprise you to learn that they support the existence of Israel. That is because they are separatists. They want all the Jews to go away to Israel, and for Israel to stop meddling in American politics.

They do not support the destruction of Israel.

It’s been a while since I’ve visited StormFront. Back in the day their line used to be, Send all the Jews to Israel, where the Arabs will greet them with open (and loaded) arms.

Those at Stormfront are aware of how their views are perceived by others. They know that seperationalism plays better than genocide. I think if you were to post something supporting sending the Jews to Israel then destroying Israel you would find a lot of support for that idea.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Andonyx


But where do you stand on West Bank settlement issues?

I could agree with most of what you say, and most of Isreal's reactions were it not for the policy of expanding West Bank settlement. But then I will fully admit I don't understand the intracacies and history of the issue that well either...

If you have the time, could you provide me a lazy person's summary?

Oh, I think the settlements are designed to be confrontational. Look at how they are situated on high ground, surrounded by concrete fences and razor wire. Can you see how they resemble the classic motte and bailey castle, but on a larger scale?

Again it's alot like Edward I's conquest of Wales in the 13th century. He got the idea from his campaigns in Gascony where he encountered bastides (http://www.castlewales.com/bastide.html)

In 1282, Wales, under the leadership of Llywelyn (ap Gruffydd), was partly independent of English control and a relatively formidable enemy with Dafyd (Llywelyn's brother) launching raids into the English Marches and entertaining ambitions of nationhood. Yet by the end of the thirteenth century, Wales was not only defeated and pacified (not without its difficulties) but fully incorporated into the systems of English local Government and law.
The link (http://www.castlewales.com/edward1.html)

Nevertheless, I found that the place of the castle fell into three principal categories: the socio-economic and administrative role, the military role, and the role they played as a propagandist symbol of Edward's regal and divine authority over Wales. The social role includes the employment of the castle as a royal palace and safe place for dignitaries to stay and also the significance of the castle to its town, which in most cases was built alongside (geographically and chronologically) its protector.

Perhaps this is what Sharon is thinking of in attempting to prop up the settlements? Personally I think the Edward I strategy would pacify Palestine successfully, just as it did the Welsh. But, it would require an extraordinary hard line and bloodthirsty application that a modern democracy would never be able to stomach. Edward I was a very powerful English king. His power was absolute. Even if Sharon wanted to be such a tyrant he'd never have the power to do so. But the strategy itself? Sure, it'd work just as it has in the past.

A lazy person's summary? There is nothing new under the sun.

The British isle was invaded by Saxons, then the Saxons were invaded by the Norman French. Each invader was in turn more brutal. The original British are now a tiny minority in their own land. The British were no slouches either, they were fierce and proud. (King Arthur himself was one of them)..if he existed that is. Even if he didn't the mythology was at least based on a Celtic British warrior king of that period. They were no less fierce than your modern Hamas fighter, and likely more so.

My conclusion? There can never be peace in the middle east until either the Israelis use their force and "ethnically cleanse" Palestine, or the Palestinians wise up and cut their best deal leaving their penchant for terrorism behind. As it is the violence level is being managed. If Hamas was successul in pulling a 9/11 on the Israelis there might be some change to the status quo. Absent that, I see this level of violence cruising on into forever. I honestly don't know what's worse, a bloodthirsty pacification, or a managed neverending level of violence. Either way, I'm not holding my breath.
-z

[CapelDodger]

from rikzilla:
They remind me a bit of the Welsh in the 13th century
There's actually a big difference. The Welsh had a prince called Llewellyn the Last - in his own lifetime. That's a practical people. They (in the main) gave up the nationalist fantasy early on and made the best of circumstances - those castles brought work, town development and protection from Irish pirates. The Scots were still beating themselves up in 1745, and people like Hamas will never give it up. But Hamas only commands a minority even in Gaza, and not much support at all in the West Bank. (Skeptic's use of "the Palestinians" compeltely ignores the lack of any unifying Palestinian factor apart from their involvement with Israel.) Most Palestinians - like most Israelis - want an end to a life in the middle of a war but have never been given the opportunity.
It's been 700 years, and not a peep out of those Welshmen
Not even Henry Twdr (aka Tudor)? I assume the castle-building of Edward is meant as an analogy for Sharon's "grab every hilltop" principle (that long predates Oslo) and, if so, it's a good one. The strategic principle remains as valid as ever. It also governed the establishment of zionist settlements since at least 1905, and proved its worth in 1948-49. But where you get the parallel between the Welsh and bus-bombers I don't know. A much better parallel is between the Welsh and the Bedouin - get inside the system and make the best you can of it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


Not even Henry Twdr (aka Tudor)? I assume the castle-building of Edward is meant as an analogy for Sharon's "grab every hilltop" principle (that long predates Oslo) and, if so, it's a good one. The strategic principle remains as valid as ever. It also governed the establishment of zionist settlements since at least 1905, and proved its worth in 1948-49. But where you get the parallel between the Welsh and bus-bombers I don't know. A much better parallel is between the Welsh and the Bedouin - get inside the system and make the best you can of it.


The Tudors were Welsh?..Interesting. :)

[CapelDodger]

from Tony:
The Tudors were Welsh?..Interesting.
Jasper Twdr was the Joe Kennedy of the clan.

[CapelDodger]

from Tony:
The Tudors were Welsh?..Interesting.
Jasper Twdr was the Joe Kennedy of the clan.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Is that the first time you've seen Stromfront??
-z
No I've had it bookmarked for quite a while. There is a small but energetic neo-Nazi group in Australia. I have had a couple of scuffles with them over the years when they have attended Aboriginal gatherings I was also attending. They were normally exercising thier rights of free expression by goose stepping up and down and giving nazi salutes. This generally produced an instant mobile punch on. My work was supposed to include councelling young men not to practice thier traditional weapon skills on these Idiots....sometimes I succeeded sometimes one of the Nazis got touched up with a Nulla Nulla....Heady days, I'm way to old for that sort of stuff now.

[CapelDodger]

from rikzilla:
... I was a history major ...
Beats being part of major history, I guess, but that news gives me the shivers.
Personally I think the Edward I strategy would pacify Palestine successfully, just as it did the Welsh
What form exactly do you see this post-pacification Palestine taking? All the Palestinians thoroughly cowed and penned up in their towns and villages, gathering at the exit-points each morning in the hope of a day's work? Surely not. But what is it exactly they are supposed to be beaten into accepting? Sharon was going to beat them into something-or-other before he became PM but he seems to have failed (unless the current situation is what he meant, which may be the case - an acceptable level of violence, meaning not none).

[Nikk]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The Palestinians seem to have no problem holding to the values of the brutal 13th century. Perhaps the Israelis are screwing up by attempting to coexist? Maybe they need to take a page from King Edward?

-z

The weakness in your example is that the Welsh were greatly outnumbered, had their backs to the sea and no allies nor hope of getting any. There were no religious differences between the Welsh and the English and both groups had fairly similar social structures

The Palestinians on the other hand have 200 million fellow arabs and one billion co-religionists many of whom are more than willing to encourage "their side" and give them a possibly illusory hope of some sort of victory. The religious and cultural divide is huge of course.

The Arabs don't seem to have the knack of winning wars these days but they don't seem to have learned the concept of losing either.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from rikzilla:

There's actually a big difference. The Welsh had a prince called Llewellyn the Last - in his own lifetime. That's a practical people. They (in the main) gave up the nationalist fantasy early on and made the best of circumstances - those castles brought work, town development and protection from Irish pirates. The Scots were still beating themselves up in 1745, and people like Hamas will never give it up. But Hamas only commands a minority even in Gaza, and not much support at all in the West Bank. (Skeptic's use of "the Palestinians" compeltely ignores the lack of any unifying Palestinian factor apart from their involvement with Israel.) Most Palestinians - like most Israelis - want an end to a life in the middle of a war but have never been given the opportunity.

Not even Henry Twdr (aka Tudor)? I assume the castle-building of Edward is meant as an analogy for Sharon's "grab every hilltop" principle (that long predates Oslo) and, if so, it's a good one. The strategic principle remains as valid as ever. It also governed the establishment of zionist settlements since at least 1905, and proved its worth in 1948-49. But where you get the parallel between the Welsh and bus-bombers I don't know. A much better parallel is between the Welsh and the Bedouin - get inside the system and make the best you can of it.

Well, of course there are huge differences between medieval Wales and modern Palestine, mountains and rain vs desert plains for one,...but there are alot of similarities too. Perhaps I concentrated too much to exclude the differences...my apologies for any role confirmation bias may have played.

All that said, Palestine still has a number of similarities in that a stronger (militarily, not numerically) "invader" population is juxtaposed with a far weaker indigenous population. To me it also appears that the projection of armed settlements into Palestinian lands is just a modern example of castle building dressed up as civilian townships.

The only parallel between the ancient Welsh and bus bombers is tenuous to say the least. First let me say I admire the Welsh people and their tragic history, and do not wish to paint their ancestors as terrorists. However the Wales of the 13th century was not populated by alot of reasonable people who thought they could work with and ultimately within the English system. They hated the English, and fought war after war using mainly guerilla tactics. This was because every English army outnumbered them 20 to one on the field of battle. They adapted by withdrawing into the mountains, fighting a guerilla war of attrition. It was all they could do, much like terrorism is all the Palestinians can do.

Llewellyn the last was mainly called that in his lifetime because he was the grandson of Llewellyn Fawr (the great)...not because the Welsh were defeatist. They most certainly were not. The only reason they gave up the nationalist fantasy was because they were so utterly defeated and subjugated by Edward. English towns were chartered in the shadow of Edward's castles. English towns. Not Welsh, the Welsh found no work there, they were infact prohibited from living there. The towns were governed under English, not Welsh law. The Welsh were first made to be aliens in their own land. Then their culture was attacked, their very language outlawed. Llewellyn was killed, Dafyd his brother and rightful heir was hung, dawn and quartered by Edward. His and Llewellyn's children were held in captivity the rest of their lives and Edward's son was made "Prince of Wales". The Welsh culture was not just attacked, it was usurped. This to me does not appear to be a populace "making the best of circumstances". They were bludgeoned into submission, because that was the only way they'd ever submit. It is in this noble refusal to submit, or to recognise defeat, that I see a similarity. The Palestinians have merely made the further mistake of twisting their nationalist pride into a support of terrorism in the name of that pride. In my opinion, the only way Israel will be able to co-exist in peace is that either the Palestinians give up on terrorism, or the Israelis bludgeon them into submission as the English did to Wales. (Of course the other option is a never-ending managed level of violence, but that's not what I call peace.)

This was the basis of my historical analogy. I know it's not perfect, but it does show how a populace loathe to accept military defeat can indeed be pacified.

-z

BTW; Henry VIII was a good example of Welsh reinvention in the English image...but we're talking of a period in Welsh history that predates Henry's reign by 127 years.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Tony:

Jasper Twdr was the Joe Kennedy of the clan.

So how were the Twdrs (tudors) able to rise to the English throne?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tony


So how were the Twdrs (tudors) able to rise to the English throne?

Go look up the war of the roses. If we get into that here it'll end up becoming a thread hijack.

-z

[CapelDodger]

Since I can't annoy Skeptic by being a liberal I'll have to annoy him by derailing the thread. Rikzilla, you have a seriously distorted view of Welsh history. Llewllyn ap Grufydd gave fealty to Henry III but failed to give it to Edward I, thus precipitating the war of 1275-77 which saw Llewellyn bend the knee. The Treaty signed left Marcher law in the Marches, Welsh customary law in Welsh areas and royal law on royal holdings. Disputes between princes and langolders was to be subject to Edward's supervision - which ultimately led to the revolt of 1282-83 which saw the death of Llewellyn in battle at Builth and the evisceration of his brother Dafydd. This revolt was not supported in most of the south, and Edward kept the allegiance of such powers as the Mortimers - and Gruffydd ap Tudor, as I recall. After that everything went quiet. The Statute of Wales of 1284 retained Welsh law in the main, but allowed the option of appealing to English common law - the option, not the obligation. Welsh law was not finally seen off until the Glendowyr revolt of 1400. The towns of Wales were not barred to the Welsh - I think you're confusing them with such towns as Chester, Hereford, Ludlow and Shrewsbury where there were restrictions on Welsh residency. With some reason. There's an old English nursery rhyme: "Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief, Taffy came to my house and stole a leg of beef" - or the whole herd on a good day.

The Welsh were spared the destruction of their country in the name of some hopeless nationalism - which hardly existed in Wales anyway. The only serious subsequent revolt was Glendowyr's, which started as a private quarrel with the Greys in which he was shafted by Henry IV. Only subsequently did he appeal to Welsh nationalism, and he still faced the opposition of most of the principality. His support was due more to Welsh regard for Richard II than it was to nationalism (that's certainly the case for his cousins Grufyyd and Owain Tudor, there's that name again ...). In fact from Edward's time Wales became a prime source of independant recruitment for the throne - a private, not a feudal, force. As a result the English kings kept the great magnates mostly out of Wales, so the Welsh were never reduced to the state of, say, the English of East Anglia. Welsh royalism has been pretty consistent since.

[a_unique_person]

Gee, that reads just like one of those trashy fantasy novels.

I am trying to think of what my most annoying habits are. Chronic flatulence would have to be the worst, I think.

[CapelDodger]

from Tony:
So how were the Twdrs (tudors) able to rise to the English throne?
It's like money - if you don't inherit it and you're not up to stealing it, marry it. Working for it is the absolutely last option. The Tudors married into the Beauforts - a bastard line from John of Ghent (aka Gaunt), Richard II's uncle - and then married into the Mortimers who inherited on the distaff side from Richard II himself, thus giving Henry Tudor two lines of descent from Edward III and trumping everybody who wasn't already dead.

from a_unique_person:
Gee, that reads just like one of those trashy fantasy novels.
Done properly it would be like The Sopranos with swords.

[Shane Costello]

It's said that there hasn't been a truly "English" monarch since Edward the Confessor. Since then the British sovereigns have been Normans, Welsh (Tudors), Scottish (Stuarts), Dutch and German.