Aspiration, not Desperation [Archive]

Skeptic

1st February 2004, 01:52 PM

What if you see the Israelis as being your potential executioners?

What if you see the jews as being your potential well-poisoners? What if you see blacks as being your potential rapists? What if you see atheists as potential willing tools of Satan? (Damn, I getting good at this...). Does this work in reverse, too? Can israelies simply kill any Palestinian they want as long as they see them as "their potential executioners"? God knows there is often good reason for that... or does this "they're potential X" situation is only a reasonable excuse for butchery when the victims are jews?

You get the point: the difference between killing people who are about to execute you and those who "you see" as "potential executors" is a rather big one. The former is an act of heroism; the latter, in practice, means "I have the right to kill everybody from group X I feel like--they are all, after all, POTENTIAL Ys".

But since this is true, of course, by default, for every group of people X and for every trait Y whatsoever (all israelies are POTENTIAL executioners, just like all jews are POTENTIAL well-poisoners and all blacks are POTENTIAL rapists, etc.), what it really means is "I have the right to kill everybody from group X I feel like", period.

And, at any rate, as you notice if you read the article, the Palestinian suicide bombers do NOT consider the israelies their "potential executors", but their potential (and real) victims, an instrument for a sure ticket to paradise. It doesn't matter if the dead is a "potential executioner" (every male israeli adult, I suppose) or a two-year-old baby or a 80-year-old grandmother. What matters is that you kill jews.

Interesting, though: not ONE response in this thread from the usual gaggle of "liberal human rights advocates" expressed the least disgust or even acknowledged the details of the article--the total disregard to human life by the Palestinians. Instead, they spent their replies either killing the messenger (e.g., insulting me or the article's authors) or trying to find some excuse why the Palestinian culture of death isn't THAT bad, or at least, that it's "just like" the israeli culture, or that it is otherwise understandable.

Figures, doesn't it?

The Fool

1st February 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
Hmmm. Four replies and not one thoughtful comment on the topic. For a skeptics board, you would think that one person would be willing to examine with a skeptical eye the issue of motivation of suicide bombers.
Lol... Mycroft, there may one day be a chance of a "skeptic" thread generating discussion of issues, as this is not "skeptics" aim for his threads It is probably not very likely.... Have a glance at the latest rash of threads this guy has created...Can you find any that are not either a straight out racist rant of simply trolling with inflammatory comments.

What on earth do you expect when all his posts are laced with childish japes? Serious discussion?

Monketey Ghost

1st February 2004, 08:13 PM

Fool, you're wrong. From Skeptic's threads I've learned that the Palestinians are dirty filth who deserve whatever punishment they receive.

Mycroft

1st February 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Can you find any that are not either a straight out racist rant of simply trolling with inflammatory comments.

I think we've already determined in other threads that you and I see that differently. BTW, are you done with that conversation?

Originally posted by The Fool What on earth do you expect when all his posts are laced with childish japes? Serious discussion?

How does your opinion of the messenger and the delivery of the message prevent you from engaging in serious discussion?Whatever your opinion of Skeptic, the issue itself is worth looking at.

Zero

1st February 2004, 10:20 PM

This could still be plain old desperation, you know...the same way that impovershed people will claim that there is glory in poverty, because of what the Bible says. How bad must your life be, to make you aspire to death?

Mycroft

1st February 2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Zero
This could still be plain old desperation, you know...the same way that impovershed people will claim that there is glory in poverty, because of what the Bible says. How bad must your life be, to make you aspire to death?

That's an interesting theory. Can you support it?

Can you find statistics on how many suicide-murderers are impoverished as opposed to well educated? In other conflicts that involve suicide-murder, is the issue poverty and oppression or is it religion?

It’s easy to make up a theory to support any hypothesis, less easy to prove it.

Zero

1st February 2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

That's an interesting theory. Can you support it?

Can you find statistics on how many suicide-murderers are impoverished as opposed to well educated? In other conflicts that involve suicide-murder, is the issue poverty and oppression or is it religion?

It’s easy to make up a theory to support any hypothesis, less easy to prove it. I'll admit, I'm just making stuff up here...I think all religions are slightly psychotic, BTW.:D

Mr Manifesto

1st February 2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
When colonizing heathen lands sometimes savages get in the way, I'm sure you will take care of them "skeptic"...

Not nearly as good as you would be, judging from Australia's history. White Australians from the British Isles calling others "colonialists"... I wouldn't go there, if I were you. People who live in glass houses, and all that.

We don't wall up Aborigines in our country. And some of us are actually quite disgusted with how Aborgines are being treated here. Some of us would like to see them have their own nation, or a treaty at the very least (a la New Zealand).

The Fool

1st February 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

How does your opinion of the messenger and the delivery of the message prevent you from engaging in serious discussion?Whatever your opinion of Skeptic, the issue itself is worth looking at.
And how long would a discussion between us last I I were to take a leaf out of "skeptics" book? (with each sentence ending in a bracketed derogatory statement). I understand you are a supporter of Israel(Zionist murdering extremist) and you are keen to support the rights of people to express thier views( whiney apologist for racists). But your patience (stupidity) with "skeptic" is not going to change his behavior here.

Sso, did my bracketed additions help the discussion? I doubt it..... This sort of pig ignorant behavior is "skeptics" standard approach... He is not interested in dealing rationaly with those he regards as subhuman or anyone who attempts to get in the way of his racist denunciation of those he regards as subhuman...

Mycroft

1st February 2004, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
And how long would a discussion between us last I I were to take a leaf out of "skeptics" book?

I suspect it would last as long as you had something to say, but why would you feel compelled to copy his style?

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I suspect it would last as long as you had something to say, but why would you feel compelled to copy his style?
If you have no problems with his behavior on this forum thats your business.. Many people do have a problem with it.

demon

2nd February 2004, 12:52 AM

"We don't wall up Aborigines in our country. And some of us are actually quite disgusted with how Aborgines are being treated here. Some of us would like to see them have their own nation, or a treaty at the very least (a la New Zealand)."

Oh my, Mr Manifesto! You sound like one of those "self hating Australians", the very embodiment of an anti-Austramite.

RPG Advocate

2nd February 2004, 01:11 AM

The way I see it, the average Palestinian is under the influence of a thought reform program, much like the citizens of North Korea. The suicide bombs will not stop until the Palestinians WAKE UP! When you live an breathe the culture that the PA has created, with the Holy Grail being to "sacrifice your life for Allah" by blowing yourself up and taking as many people out as you can, is it really surprising that these "aspirations" exist?

One thing is clear. Rational appeals to the Palestinians at large will be ineffective. Victims of thought reform programs won't see reason.

Now, this creates a quandry. Israel is under attack, and it must be allowed to defend itself. The problem is that said defense feeds the thought reform program since Palestinian media loves to float foolishness like blood libel.

The PA must be deposed as soon as possible, but as a proponent of noninterventionism, I maintain that in order for the effect to be truly lasting, the Palestinians will have to do it themselves. Otherwise, another radical terrorist will just rise to take Arafat's place. Failing that, young men and women will continue to waste their lives commiting vile crimes against humanity.

Ziggurat

2nd February 2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

If you have no problems with his behavior on this forum thats your business.. Many people do have a problem with it.

I don't have any problem at all with Skeptic's behavior. I think he contributes usefully. More usefully than you, in fact, and not by a small margin. You're handy with the put-downs, which I used to find extremely amusing against the likes of JK and Nie Trink. But you've got very little to add to discussions.

In regard to the contents of Skeptic's posts, and your reply to them, your central accusation seems to be not that Skeptic is wrong, but that he's racist. That has somehow become your yard stick: not truth, but acceptability. Because you don't argue that he's wrong, that his facts are incorrect or his conclusions do not follow logically, you generally just argue that he's offensive. From where I'm sitting, you're holding the weak hand in this argument, not Skeptic.

Pyrrho

2nd February 2004, 07:46 AM

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#660066 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#660066><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Pyrrho:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>
The rules of this forum prohibit posting of entire copyrighted articles. If the site where the article resides requires registration, that's just too bad. Provide the link, quote only the most relevant portion of the article, and do not post entire articles.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

American

2nd February 2004, 07:56 AM

Liberals love suicide bombers. They think they're the same as teenagers who kill themselves in their bedroom. Plus they like using the situation to claim oil is the culprit, as they drive 30 mph in the fast lane listening to NPR.

But it's perfectly safe- they drive a Volvo!

tamiO

2nd February 2004, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by American
Liberals love suicide bombers. They think they're the same as teenagers who kill themselves in their bedroom. Plus they like using the situation to claim oil is the culprit, as they drive 30 mph in the fast lane listening to NPR.

But it's perfectly safe- they drive a Volvo!

Please keep up with the times. They are now known as "homicide bombers." It has been determined that calling them "suicide" bombers makes people feel sympathetic.

Tony

2nd February 2004, 08:08 AM

Yet more evidence of the inferiority of the Palestinian culture. It’s amazing Israel hasn’t wiped this ***** stain off the face of the earth, a testament to the superiority, restrain, and good nature of the Israelis.

tamiO

2nd February 2004, 08:16 AM

Help me out here.

I understand that men will get to live like Kings in heaven for killing themselves like this and get to kiss the full lips of 72(?) virgins...

What do women get when they do this?

American

2nd February 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by tamiO

Please keep up with the times. They are now known as "homicide bombers." It has been determined that calling them "suicide" bombers makes people feel sympathetic.

My fish died. It looked a little like this, except without the white belly.
http://www.animationpitstop.com/images/cookiecutter/goldfish.jpg

Luckily it died of old age, not from a left-loving homicide bomber. I'm gonna try and replace it with a chick (the good-looking kind). This is the year, I can feel it........

Mycroft

2nd February 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
If you have no problems with his behavior on this forum thats your business.. Many people do have a problem with it.
He posts an article, and no matter what its content, you call it racist. Am I racist for posting the following article?

<table cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#660066 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#660066><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Pyrrho:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>Pursuant to Forum prohibiting the reposting of copyrighted materials, the copyrighted content of this post has been removed. Only relevant portions of copyrighted works may be posted, with a link to the complete article.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

Skeptic

2nd February 2004, 09:35 AM

If you have no problems with his behavior on this forum thats your business.. Many people do have a problem with it.

Why don't you start a campaign to have me banned from the forum, "The Fool", if so many people "have a problem" with my views? I mean, surely you don't want my "racist drivel" to distrub fighters for freedom of speech and expression on this forum?

Normally, you'd put me on ignore, but that doesn't address the problem that other people migh still see my posts, and you really don't have the time to post your customary "Beware!!! A RACIST!!!!" post after every reply I make. This poses a great danger: without your protection, some young souls might even agree with me, and thus be tainted with racism for life. I mean, won't somebody think of the children!

Perhaps I should change my avatar to a big red "R" (for "racist"). You know, as a warning to the innocents not yet aware of my perfidity to ignore everything I say. Or maybe you'd settle for having me change my .sig file to add a link to a web site of your devising, where you explain to everybody what an awful person I am?

rikzilla

2nd February 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

We don't wall up Aborigines in our country. And some of us are actually quite disgusted with how Aborgines are being treated here. Some of us would like to see them have their own nation, or a treaty at the very least (a la New Zealand).

Bet you would if they were getting busy blowing up buses. The Israeli's are in a difficult position. I see wall building as a more humane strategy than mass-deportations or genocide. Of course being genocided for Allah is perhaps the highest aspiration of the community??

BTW, for people wondering about the Fool vs Skeptic aspect, let's review Skeptic's opening comment:
Recently in this forum, we've heard the usual "but it's just out of desperation" excuse for suicide bombers. Here is a bit of a refutation.

...and this prompted The Fool to post this:
When colonizing heathen lands sometimes savages get in the way, I'm sure you will take care of them "skeptic"... Your God is much tougher than thier god, you are bound to win...... Make sure you allow enough to survive to do the menial jobs ok?

Skeptic made a very good point with this article, Fool cannot even pull together an articulate rebuttal. Even DD seems unable to find the point. The point is that the Palestinians that the left loves so much are enamoured of human sacrifice. Their culture is both backward and brutal to a very large extent.

Before the lefties puff out their chests to object, I'll quickly agree that not all Palestinians do this kind of stuff. However, it's becoming ever more clear that a majority of their people are worshipful of their "martyrs".

I imagine that if we started promoting cigarette smoking among our youth, and then worshiped them if they succeeded in getting cancer, that we'd end up with alot of preventable cancer deaths and the rest of the world wondering why we're so backward and stupid. Would the leftists then find a way to defend our death culture too??

They could say that not all Americans smoke. They could say that our culture can't be judged by the standards of another culture. They could say we only smoke because we exist in desperate poverty......ad nauseum.

These have all been tried by the left. The fact is they don't really want to talk about the PA's penchant for murder-suicide. The Islamic death-cult sickens and embarrasses even the leftists. They'd rather belittle the messenger than comment on a message they know they can't win on....it's the liberal's own WMD issue.

They'd rather not talk about it.

-z

hammegk

2nd February 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by tamiO
Help me out here.

What do women get when they do this?

Option 1. Reincarnation as an islamofascist man, so they get it right the next time.

Option 2. Reincarnation as a jewish woman so she can join a successful, tiny, minority that has prospered over several thousand years against the strongest odds, with nothing to protect themselves but moral courage and culture.

Skeptic

2nd February 2004, 12:42 PM

Bet you would if they were getting busy blowing up buses.

Of course, another reason why Australians don't "fence in" the aboriginies is that they made sure, ca. 100 years ago, to exterminate the vast majority of them, so that only a powerless tiny minority remains today, eliminating any real threat of an aboriginal uprising against the majority culture. Hence, no need for a fence.

The Fool boasting that the Australians don't fence in the aboriginies is like a German boasting that, due to the fact that virtually no jews are left in Germany due to certain unfortunate past incidents ca. 1933-1945, antisemitism in Germany went into a steep decline lately.

Once more, the Fool's "shame on you, israel! WE treat the descendants of the 0.5% of the Aboriginies we left alive by mistake NICELY today!" argument really says, "damn, you stupid jews--why didn't you genocide them all when you had the chance, like we did?".

Hmmmmm. Perhaps I should start a web page for freeing the ancient aboriginal land from the hated white settlers. Think that'll go over well in Australia?

Cleon

2nd February 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Bet you would if they were getting busy blowing up buses.

Of course, another reason why Australians don't "fence in" the aboriginies is that they made sure, ca. 100 years ago, to exterminate the vast majority of them, so that only a powerless tiny minority remains today, eliminating any real threat of an aboriginal uprising against the majority culture. Hence, no need for a fence.

Ye flipping gods...You don't think that's a good thing, do you? You don't really think the Israelis should wipe out the Palestinians, do you?

I honestly can't believe even you think that's a legitimate solution. In fact, I don't believe it, I think you're just needling The Fool.

That said, I am glad you realize there's a fairly good analogy between the colonial occupation of Australia and the extermination of the Aborigines and the creation of Israel and the relationship between the colonial occupiers and the indigenous peoples.

Mycroft

2nd February 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Cleon

Ye flipping gods...You don't think that's a good thing, do you? You don't really think the Israelis should wipe out the Palestinians, do you?

I honestly can't believe even you think that's a legitimate solution. In fact, I don't believe it, I think you're just needling The Fool.

Cleon, you’re smarter than this.

He’s not saying this is a good solution, he’s saying this was the solution that was implemented by Australians (English settlers) 100 years ago.

It’s also worth noting that when you evaluate the morality of any given action that you have to also consider its alternatives. The security fence, for example, seems a bit drastic in and of itself, but looks pretty good when you realize that the alternatives all involve killing people.

Skeptic

2nd February 2004, 03:29 PM

Ye flipping gods...You don't think that's a good thing, do you? You don't really think the Israelis should wipe out the Palestinians, do you?

No, what I am saying is that it is the height of hypocracy for an Australian of all people to call other people "colonialists" or complain that they "mistreat the natives" in a country that "isn't theirs", when he is a descendant of uber-colonialists who made sure Australia is "his" by the simple expedient of massacring the natives almost to the last man.

I am not even going to start with the reasons as to why jews have quite as much claim to israel as the palestinians, and why they aren't colonialists. That's a different discussion. I am simply pointing out that "The Fool" is using the usual double standard of criticism of israel EVEN BY HIS OWN LIGHTS.

Even if we DO accept, for the sake of the argument, "The Fool"'s claim that the jews have no right to israel and are usurpers, his claim would STILL be nothing more than "it is all right for ME to steal the land from the natives and butcher them all, it's just wrong for YOU to do so."

He cannot even claim the (relative) moral high ground by saying that he, unlike israel, isn't "fencing the aboriginies in", because the sole reason he doesn't need to commit that evil is that his people committed a far greater one--massacring virtually all of the aboriginies--which made the lesser one unnecessary. One might as well say, "unlike YOUR racist city, we do NOT have seperate seating for whites and blacks! We don't need to, because we lynched all of OUR *******!"

If "The Fool" was REALLY concerned about "colonlialism" and "stealing land", like he dishonestly claims to be, he would have given his home to the aboriginies and emigrated back to England. Charity begins at home and all that. But he doesn't have the slightest intent of doing so. For this reason, I claim that quite apart from being critical of israel due to its "immoral land theft", the "immoral land theft" is just an excuse for an already-present hatered of israel.

Cleon

2nd February 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

No, what I am saying is that it is the height of hypocracy for an Australian of all people to call other people "colonialists" or complain that they "mistreat the natives" in a country that "isn't theirs", when he is a descendant of uber-colonialists who made sure Australia is "his" by the simple expedient of massacring the natives almost to the last man.

Obviously, I don't particularly disagree on the nature of Australia. But I think your logic's a little messed up, and I certainly think it's a little beyond the pale to call it "hypocracy."

For example--does a Spaniard have the right to decry the actions of, say, Saddam Hussein? After all, the actions of the English in Australia pale in comparison to the wholesale slaughter, looting, pillage, burning, and raping the Spanish conducted along a huge chunk of the Americas.

While I understand the point--"who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that--the reality is nothing about the history of Australia delegitimizes Fool's comments, and by your logic nobody has the right to criticize anything because somebody in our family history probably did something equally as heinous. It just doesn't make any sense.

TillEulenspiegel

2nd February 2004, 04:37 PM

Hehehe, Ya know I was almost tempted to try to post a rebuttal of this typical excrement from these same lemming folks (some more clever then others ) , but realized that not was it only pointless, but all who read this thread will ( hopefully ) recognize what twisted ,disjointed and specious content exists and see it for what it is.

The best dis-infectent for lies is the bright light of exposure.

hammegk

2nd February 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Hehehe, Ya know I was almost tempted to try to post a rebuttal of this typical excrement from these same lemming folks (some more clever then others ) , but realized that not was it only pointless, but all who read this thread will ( hopefully ) recognize what twisted ,disjointed and specious content exists and see it for what it is.

The best dis-infectent for lies is the bright light of exposure.

Go ahead. Tell us what you really think. Or would that just be another anti-semitic rant?

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Bet you would if they were getting busy blowing up buses. The Israeli's are in a difficult position. I see wall building as a more humane strategy than mass-deportations or genocide. Of course being genocided for Allah is perhaps the highest aspiration of the community??

BTW, for people wondering about the Fool vs Skeptic aspect, let's review Skeptic's opening comment:

...and this prompted The Fool to post this:

Skeptic made a very good point with this article, Fool cannot even pull together an articulate rebuttal. Even DD seems unable to find the point. The point is that the Palestinians that the left loves so much are enamoured of human sacrifice. Their culture is both backward and brutal to a very large extent.

Before the lefties puff out their chests to object, I'll quickly agree that not all Palestinians do this kind of stuff. However, it's becoming ever more clear that a majority of their people are worshipful of their "martyrs".

I imagine that if we started promoting cigarette smoking among our youth, and then worshiped them if they succeeded in getting cancer, that we'd end up with alot of preventable cancer deaths and the rest of the world wondering why we're so backward and stupid. Would the leftists then find a way to defend our death culture too??

They could say that not all Americans smoke. They could say that our culture can't be judged by the standards of another culture. They could say we only smoke because we exist in desperate poverty......ad nauseum.

These have all been tried by the left. The fact is they don't really want to talk about the PA's penchant for murder-suicide. The Islamic death-cult sickens and embarrasses even the leftists. They'd rather belittle the messenger than comment on a message they know they can't win on....it's the liberal's own WMD issue.

They'd rather not talk about it.

-z
Lol.... "skeptics" loyal henchmen flock to his rescue......

Some more people to declare the victims of ethnic cleansing backward and brutal.... Tell me rik, do you still hold all germans responsible for Nazi crimes? Or have you got over that..... Try chanting this little mantra every night before bed...

Terrorists baddies, palestinians goodies, terrorists baddies, palestinians goodies. I may help you spot the difference...

Palestinians are backward and brutal are they rik? yeeeha, thats critical thought for you eh? You are a model of rational thought rik..

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Cleon, you’re smarter than this.

He’s not saying this is a good solution, he’s saying this was the solution that was implemented by Australians (English settlers) 100 years ago.

It’s also worth noting that when you evaluate the morality of any given action that you have to also consider its alternatives. The security fence, for example, seems a bit drastic in and of itself, but looks pretty good when you realize that the alternatives all involve killing people.

The only alternatives mycroft? If the world wont tolerate ethnic cleansing then how about a big concentration camp? I'll tell you this much for free....8 million palestinians are not going to just go away. If israelis let facist governments drag them into a middle east version of apartheid south africa..... then the most definitley will need thier god to help them.

Simple facts.... Minorities cannot control a democracy. Jews cannot avoid becoming a minority in israel unless they stop grabbing land that is full of Arabs. The world will not look the other way if Israel attempts another round of ethnic cleansing.

So whats it to be? Abandon all pretence of democracy and establish minority rule by force and apartheid? Or attempt the South African solution of reconciliation and ignore the facist line that Jews will be massacred if democracy rules, This line was run by the facists in SA and the White population was not massacred.....

I still holdout hope for Israel.... I Just don't believe Israelis are stupid enough to walk hand in hand with Sharon into disaster, even if "skeptic" and his followers can't think of a better idea....

Ziggurat

2nd February 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Palestinians are backward and brutal are they rik? yeeeha, thats critical thought for you eh? You are a model of rational thought rik..

Yeah, as a matter of fact, most of palestinian culture is backwards and brutal. Evidence of this has been presented. You do not counter it with evidence, or any reasoning, but only unsupported assertion. All you seem to be able to do is decry this idea as racist. The worst thing one can say about a statement is not that it is racist, but that it is false. You have demonstrated yourself unable to argue this position. You, fool, are intellectually impotent. And your repeated accusations of racism against your opponents do not hide your irrelevance.

Mike B.

2nd February 2004, 05:23 PM

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Mike B.

Well, what about Zimbabwe?

I think the white population there is having serious problems.

I don't think it is doing all that well in South Africa as well with the murders and the rapes.

(No this is not an endorsement of apartied, just that I wonder if things didn't go as cleanly as they were supposed to.)
what about Zimbabwe? I was talking about the old "we'll be massacred if we don't rule" line.... I don't think any massacres are happening in Zimbabwe... I don't pretend that there are magic wand answers to areas that have suffered generations of oppression but with Mugabe at least the racist oppressor is accepted as such by the free world...Thats a necessary start point in doing something about him.

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Yeah, as a matter of fact, most of palestinian culture is backwards and brutal. Evidence of this has been presented. You do not counter it with evidence, or any reasoning, but only unsupported assertion. All you seem to be able to do is decry this idea as racist. The worst thing one can say about a statement is not that it is racist, but that it is false. You have demonstrated yourself unable to argue this position. You, fool, are intellectually impotent. And your repeated accusations of racism against your opponents do not hide your irrelevance.

Cry me a river.....

"most of palestinian culture is backward and brutal"...your racist statement not mine, good luck in proving it.... Maybe I can show you some photo's of the KKK or some statements from some grand dragon to "prove" americans are all like that eh?....Idiot.

Mr Manifesto

2nd February 2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Yeah, as a matter of fact, most of palestinian culture is backwards and brutal. Evidence of this has been presented. You do not counter it with evidence, or any reasoning, but only unsupported assertion. All you seem to be able to do is decry this idea as racist. The worst thing one can say about a statement is not that it is racist, but that it is false. You have demonstrated yourself unable to argue this position. You, fool, are intellectually impotent. And your repeated accusations of racism against your opponents do not hide your irrelevance.

Value judgements are evidence?

I think American culture is backwards because it favours isolating, self-gratifying entertainment like TV and video games over observing ancient tradition and establishing family values like the Muslim culture.

Easy to play the value judgement game, isn't it?

Ziggurat

2nd February 2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
So whats it to be? Abandon all pretence of democracy and establish minority rule by force and apartheid? Or attempt the South African solution of reconciliation and ignore the facist line that Jews will be massacred if democracy rules, This line was run by the facists in SA and the White population was not massacred.....

One thing to keep in mind, Fool, is that your hoped-for solution is not possible, because despite your optimism, the Jews do not believe that they can survive as a minority in a palestinian state. Right or wrong, most believe this, and therefore they will NEVER agree to it. Hoping otherwise is futile.

So what is it to be? Well, quite frankly, another solution is starting to unravel even as we write this. The Israelis are unilaterally disengaging from the Palestinians, by means of their security wall. This will allow them to withdraw from most Palestinian teritory. Arafat is panicking, because he's in major trouble if they succeed. Without a common enemy they can constantly battle, he may be facing civil war. But that's his own bloody fault.

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

One thing to keep in mind, Fool, is that your hoped-for solution is not possible, because despite your optimism, the Jews do not believe that they can survive as a minority in a palestinian state. Right or wrong, most believe this, and therefore they will NEVER agree to it. Hoping otherwise is futile.

bye bye pretenses of democracy...

So what is it to be? Well, quite frankly, another solution is starting to unravel even as we write this. The Israelis are unilaterally disengaging from the Palestinians, by means of their security wall. This will allow them to withdraw from most Palestinian teritory. Arafat is panicking, because he's in major trouble if they succeed. Without a common enemy they can constantly battle, he may be facing civil war. But that's his own bloody fault.
Well, I hope parts of this are correct... The wall is designed to prevent a viable Palestinian homeland by breaking them up into separate enclaves...I can't see that changing anyones attitude towards the colonial rulers. The overthrowing of Arafat would see me mourn for ....hmmmmm, maybe 5 seconds? Personally I think loading Sharon, Arafat and all thier cronies into the first rocket to mars would be a great thing for Israelis and palestinians.

Gem

2nd February 2004, 05:58 PM

Can everyone say: questionable source?

Is it possible to find the facts presented in the article (like the percentages of children who beleive in shada or whatever)?

I'll get back once it is answered.

Gem

P.S.: A question for rik, mycroft and skeptic about the wall. Why is it in Palestenian Lands? Maybe you answered this before, but do so again for the purpose of discussion.

Skeptic

2nd February 2004, 08:18 PM

Hehehe, Ya know I was almost tempted to try to post a rebuttal of this typical excrement from these same lemming folks (some more clever then others ) , but...

...you won't do it, so we will just have to take your word for how crushing and incontrovertial your arguments would have been, how conclusively they would have shown the arguments by the article I posted are wrong...

...had you chosen to make them.

Ah, well. Yet another victory to the "enlightened left" in its battle with obvious facts. Apparently, actually making an argument in rebuttal is unncessary: it's enough to shout "RACIST!!!" (like "The Fool") or declare that you COULD have made a crushing counterargument if you had chose to reply to such STUPID claims (like "Till"), and those who disagree with you are supposed to slink away, ashamed of ever having doubted your enlightened, incontrovertial views.

Or, to translate it into children's language--for the appropriate mental level--the left's arguments with the facts I posted seems to consist wholly of those two irrefutable claims, "NO FAIR!" ("Fool") and "IS TOO!" ("Till").

Who can argue with that?

Skeptic

2nd February 2004, 08:28 PM

"most of palestinian culture is backward and brutal"...your racist statement not mine, good luck in proving it....

For starters, you can look at what the article at the beginning of this thread, which I posted, showed about the PA's eucation system and its cult of death. Did you even discuss one point that article raised? No, you were too busy calling me a "racist" for posting it.

You first dismiss all evidence about the brutality of palestinian society by claiming that it can be ignored because posting it is proof of "racism"... and then you whine that people reach the "racist conclusion" that it is a brutal society "without evidence".

You are a political version of the creationist who dismisses all presented evidence for evolution as a conspiracy and then complains that no evidence exist for evolution. Just like him, you won't let the facts ruin your favorite dogma of the "peace-loving Palestinians". You'll just explain them away as "propaganda" by the "evilutionists"--I mean, by the "racists".

Of course it's impossible to prove TO YOU that the Palestinian goal is israel's destruction, but that's not proof this isn't the case any more than the fact that it's impossible to prove to (say) Duane Gish or "Dr. Dino" that evolution is true is evidence for creationism.

Mycroft

2nd February 2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
Obviously, I don't particularly disagree on the nature of Australia. But I think your logic's a little messed up, and I certainly think it's a little beyond the pale to call it "hypocracy."

For example--does a Spaniard have the right to decry the actions of, say, Saddam Hussein? After all, the actions of the English in Australia pale in comparison to the wholesale slaughter, looting, pillage, burning, and raping the Spanish conducted along a huge chunk of the Americas.

While I understand the point--"who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that--the reality is nothing about the history of Australia delegitimizes Fool's comments, and by your logic nobody has the right to criticize anything because somebody in our family history probably did something equally as heinous. It just doesn't make any sense.

I agree. It wouldn’t make any sense to bring up Spanish conquests in the Americas to a Spaniard who bashes Saddam any more than it makes sense to bring up Dresden or Hiroshima to an Englishman or American who criticizes Palestinian-Arab suicide-terror. One doesn’t need to defend every action of his country throughout recorded history to criticize something that is happening today in another country.

But in this conversation, Mr. Manifesto made a direct comparison between Australian treatment of aboriginals and Israeli treatment of Palestinian-Arabs. In that context, it’s appropriate to point out that Australians slaughtered the natives instead. It’s nonsensical to say, “We didn’t do that” when they did something worse.

Mycroft

2nd February 2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Some more people to declare the victims of ethnic cleansing backward and brutal.... Tell me rik, do you still hold all germans responsible for Nazi crimes? Or have you got over that..... Try chanting this little mantra every night before bed...

Terrorists baddies, palestinians goodies, terrorists baddies, palestinians goodies. I may help you spot the difference...

Unbelievable.

It explains a lot. It really does.

Mycroft

2nd February 2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
The only alternatives mycroft? If the world wont tolerate ethnic cleansing then how about a big concentration camp? I'll tell you this much for free....8 million palestinians are not going to just go away. If israelis let facist governments drag them into a middle east version of apartheid south africa..... then the most definitley will need thier god to help them.

Traditionally, there are two ways to end an armed conflict:

1) Negotiated peace.

2) One side beats the crap out of the other until they don’t want or are unable to fight anymore.

The first option hasn’t worked. So far efforts to negotiate peace have only led to more violence. Now Palestinian-Arab apologists will find all sorts of way to blame this on Israel, but the fact remains that Arafat and those jokers at Hamas have been working to sabotage every effort at peace and there is no end in sight.

The second option is viable. It’s also terrible, but one can make an argument that in the long run it would be more merciful to end the fight quickly that to see more generations raised in an environment of low-grade war.

The Israelis have come up with an ingenious third option. If you can’t negotiate peace and you don’t want to slaughter the enemy, just build a wall and disengage. It’s an imperfect solution, but it’s an imperfect world we live in. You can slam it all you want, but at the end of the day, it’s a solution that doesn’t require that anybody die.

Originally posted by The Fool
Simple facts.... Minorities cannot control a democracy. Jews cannot avoid becoming a minority in israel unless they stop grabbing land that is full of Arabs. The world will not look the other way if Israel attempts another round of ethnic cleansing.

See? You can say something smart if you get your mind off racism. I agree. It’s impractical of Israel to think it can claim territory without also claiming the people living in that territory.

Originally posted by The Fool
So whats it to be? Abandon all pretence of democracy and establish minority rule by force and apartheid? Or attempt the South African solution of reconciliation and ignore the facist line that Jews will be massacred if democracy rules, This line was run by the facists in SA and the White population was not massacred.....

And yet, thinking of regions such as Croatia or Rwanda, I can’t help thinking how easy it is for some armchair-diplomat in Australia to take this chance with the lives of millions of people who live far away. Personally, I’m not willing to throw dice and trust the odds when the stakes are so high. Looking that the Palestinian-Arab record for peace in Jordan and Lebanon with governments that were welcoming and friendly, such a cavalier attitude towards human life is nothing short of madness.

Originally posted by The Fool
I still holdout hope for Israel.... I Just don't believe Israelis are stupid enough to walk hand in hand with Sharon into disaster, even if "skeptic" and his followers can't think of a better idea....

I can think of lots of ideas that are better. They’ve been tried, they didn’t work.

Skeptic

2nd February 2004, 09:29 PM

what about Zimbabwe? I was talking about the old "we'll be massacred if we don't rule" line.... I don't think any massacres are happening in Zimbabwe...

Nah, all that's happening there--so far--is that the white farmers' land had been forcibly taken away by the majority government's armed thugs, every white who can fled the country, and the chaos ensuing made the country, once the breadbasket of Africa, into a destroyed nation on the brink of mass starvation.

Oh, and of course, the blacks of Zimbabwe got absolutely no freedom, since the replacement for the "racist" minority government was the usual African one-party kelptocratic thug-o-cracy.

See how to kill a country (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/power_kill_country_am_1203.htm) and life in Mugabe-ville (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-12-03.htm) .

But EXCEPT for THAT, the "abolition of racism in Zimbabwe" was a great success. Wait, let me guess: the author of these articles is "racist", right?

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

For starters, you can look at what the article at the beginning of this thread, which I posted, showed about the PA's eucation system and its cult of death. Did you even discuss one point that article raised? No, you were too busy calling me a "racist" for posting it.

I don't call you a Racist for reposting garbage, I call you a racist for the racist statements you type here with your own little fingers...

You first dismiss all evidence about the brutality of palestinian society by claiming that it can be ignored because posting it is proof of "racism"... and then you whine that people reach the "racist conclusion" that it is a brutal society "without evidence".

The only evidence you ever produce is to repost longwinded rants by people who happen to agree with your racist rejudices...along with a "public opinion polls" showing palestinians don't like people who try to eradicate them from where they live....yippee, what a revelation.

You are a political version of the creationist who dismisses all presented evidence for evolution as a conspiracy and then complains that no evidence exist for evolution. Just like him, you won't let the facts ruin your favorite dogma of the "peace-loving Palestinians". You'll just explain them away as "propaganda" by the "evilutionists"--I mean, by the "racists".

wtf are you ranting about. evolution? been drinking paint thinners again?

Of course it's impossible to prove TO YOU that the Palestinian goal is israel's destruction, but that's not proof this isn't the case any more than the fact that it's impossible to prove to (say) Duane Gish or "Dr. Dino" that evolution is true is evidence for creationism.
and Israels goal is???????

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
what about Zimbabwe? I was talking about the old "we'll be massacred if we don't rule" line.... I don't think any massacres are happening in Zimbabwe...

Nah, all that's happening there--so far--is that the white farmers' land had been forcibly taken away by the majority government's armed thugs, every white who can fled the country, and the chaos ensuing made the country, once the breadbasket of Africa, into a destroyed nation on the brink of mass starvation.

Oh, and of course, the blacks of Zimbabwe got absolutely no freedom, since the replacement for the "racist" minority government was the usual African one-party kelptocratic thug-o-cracy.

See how to kill a country (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/power_kill_country_am_1203.htm) and life in Mugabe-ville (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-12-03.htm) .

But EXCEPT for THAT, the "abolition of racism in Zimbabwe" was a great success. Wait, let me guess: the author of these articles is "racist", right?

You have racism on the brain dude.... But at least with Mugabe you are able to recognise it... so doofus....the only point i was making about Zimbabwe was that there has been no massacre of whites...Something your long and carefull research has no doubt confirmed..... your addiction to strawman falacies will have me singing mugabes praises in no time at all.....

you can go back to sleep now...

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Unbelievable.

It explains a lot. It really does.
It explains my total disgust with people who hold a nations population responsible for the actions of extremist fringes....got a problem with that? Does that explain a lot?

The Fool

2nd February 2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Traditionally, there are two ways to end an armed conflict:

1) Negotiated peace.

2) One side beats the crap out of the other until they don’t want or are unable to fight anymore.

The first option hasn’t worked. So far efforts to negotiate peace have only led to more violence. Now Palestinian-Arab apologists will find all sorts of way to blame this on Israel, but the fact remains that Arafat and those jokers at Hamas have been working to sabotage every effort at peace and there is no end in sight.

Just likeSharon and those jokers in Likud

The second option is viable. It’s also terrible, but one can make an argument that in the long run it would be more merciful to end the fight quickly that to see more generations raised in an environment of low-grade war.

Not possible Mycroft, I have seen this first hand in SE Asia. No amount of military pounding short of complete genocide or complete ethnic cleansing will eliminate anyones will to fight.

The Israelis have come up with an ingenious third option. If you can’t negotiate peace and you don’t want to slaughter the enemy, just build a wall and disengage. It’s an imperfect solution, but it’s an imperfect world we live in. You can slam it all you want, but at the end of the day, it’s a solution that doesn’t require that anybody die.

you are being sold a rusty car.... The only aim of this fence is to formalise the existence of the settlements. Its not an end...its a step in the plan of weakening and expelling Arabs from the entire area of the original mandate. Sharon is a Zionist, he will accept nothing less that the zionist vision of "greater Israel" from the Jordan to the sea, from egypt up to Lebanon/syria (including large chunks of both) Including the ethnic cleansing of this area to solve the "arab problem".

See? You can say something smart if you get your mind off racism. I agree. It’s impractical of Israel to think it can claim territory without also claiming the people living in that territory.

Get my mind off racism??? How can I participate in discussions and "get my mind off racism" when certain posters have no other way of expressing themselves...Once again, its easy, If racists don't want to get spanked they should either shut up or have a good look at themselves before they pass the poison on down the family line...

And yet, thinking of regions such as Croatia or Rwanda, I can’t help thinking how easy it is for some armchair-diplomat in Australia to take this chance with the lives of millions of people who live far away. Personally, I’m not willing to throw dice and trust the odds when the stakes are so high. Looking that the Palestinian-Arab record for peace in Jordan and Lebanon with governments that were welcoming and friendly, such a cavalier attitude towards human life is nothing short of madness.

Democracy is too risky? One man one vote is nothing short of madness? Then Israel should do everyone a bit fat favor and stop trying to impersonate a democracy. Arab countries in that region don't bother...why does israel have to?

Skeptic

3rd February 2004, 06:18 AM

You have racism on the brain dude.... But at least with Mugabe you are able to recognise it...

I am also able to recognize it in the Palestinians' demand for the eradication of israel and the expulsion or massacre of the jews.

so doofus....the only point i was making about Zimbabwe was that there has been no massacre of whites...

No, only their expulsion, stealing all their land, the replacement of their government by a one-party kleptocracy, and the occassional lynching.

Really, nothing serious.

a_unique_person

3rd February 2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Yes, I do.

Guess what it is, DD.

To play a game of 20 questions? Let's see, is it bigger than a breadbasket?

Cleon

3rd February 2004, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
You have racism on the brain dude.... But at least with Mugabe you are able to recognise it...

I am also able to recognize it in the Palestinians' demand for the eradication of israel and the expulsion or massacre of the jews.

Of course, the Palestinians demand no such thing. Not even Hamas calls for such a thing. But there ARE those Israelis, such as the Moledet Party, who not only call for the complete expulsion of the Palestinians, but have political power as well.

But then, you're the same person who accuses anyone and everyone who realizes the Palestinians have the short end of the stick of "wanting to wipe out the Jews," so I'm not particularly surprised.

Ziggurat

3rd February 2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

Of course, the Palestinians demand no such thing. Not even Hamas calls for such a thing.

Wow. This is the dumbest thing I've seen on this thread so far. Hamas does in fact call for this, rather explicitly. Let's read their charter, shall we?

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion..."

Palestine means ALL of Israel to Hamas.

And a Fatwa council member had this to say:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2504
"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them – and those who stand by them – they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims – because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it to be the outpost of their civilization – and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and of the Crusaders, hanging over the necks of the monotheists, the Muslims in these lands. They wanted the Jews to be their spearhead… Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them, O Lord of the worlds…"

And yet you try to claim that Hamas and the PA aren't calling for the eradication of Israel? This is way beyond whether or not somebody is racist: it's about whether or not you can even face the truth. And you manifestly cannot.

Cleon

3rd February 2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Wow. This is the dumbest thing I've seen on this thread so far. Hamas does in fact call for this, rather explicitly. Let's read their charter, shall we?

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion..."

Palestine means ALL of Israel to Hamas.

No doubt. But they do not call for massacre or expulsion of the Jews.

And yet you try to claim that Hamas and the PA aren't calling for the eradication of Israel? This is way beyond whether or not somebody is racist: it's about whether or not you can even face the truth. And you manifestly cannot.

"Eradication of Israel" is a loaded term. Calling for a one-man-one-vote democratic state, that represents Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike, in "Skeptic's" view, is calling for the "eradication of Israel." "Skeptic's" claim is that "the Palestinians" demand the "eradication of Israel and the expulsion or massacre of the Jews."

The reality is, the Palestinians have not called for the expulsion or massacre of the Jews. Not even their most extreme elements have.

Skeptic

3rd February 2004, 08:19 AM

And yet you try to claim that Hamas and the PA aren't calling for the eradication of Israel? This is way beyond whether or not somebody is racist: it's about whether or not you can even face the truth. And you manifestly cannot.

Forget it, Ziggurat, they're in denial.

When you show them the Hamas and PLO charter which explicitly call for israel's destruction, they say it's just "the constitution of some terrorist organization" and doesn't represent all Palestinians.

When you show them the Palestinian school curriculum, their summer camps named after suicide bombers, how "Seasame Street" tells five-year-olds to become such bombers, religious declarations, and so on, they claim it's just "private individuals".

When you show them the declaration of the PA and Hamas leaders, they claim it's just the leaders, and they don't reperesent the people.

When you show them the public opinion polls in favor of eradicating israel, they claim it's just the masses, and they don't represent the leaders.

If there's anything less than perfect about the Palestinians' attitude toward the jews, they a). don't want to hear about it, and b). it's all the jews' fault anyway.

Oh, but of course, I'm a racist for saying all this (just thought I'd save "The Fool" the trouble of posting yet another of his non-replies.)

rikzilla

3rd February 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Palestinians are backward and brutal are they rik? yeeeha, thats critical thought for you eh? You are a model of rational thought rik..

Why thank you Fool, although I think I may detect a hint of sarcasm in your question? ;) I'll answer it anyway. Yes, I believe the predominant Palestinian culture is both brutal and backward. These are inference words, so I shall elaborate.

PA Paper: How to Attack Jews

(DFJ-Nov/Dec '01) The Palestinian Authority's official newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadida, published an article on October 6th, 2001 about a Fatah ceremony in Gaza where participants were given a demonstration of how to ambush and kill Israeli civilians. Palestinian Media Watch <>, which monitors the Palestinian Authority media daily, distributed a copy of the article.

A photograph accompanying the article shows two Arabs with weapons standing aside a man lying face down on the ground with his shirt half-filled with blood, with many other Arabs looking on.

Poll: Majority of Palestinians support homicide/suicide bombings and wish for the destruction of the State of Israel
Yahoo news (www.yahoo.com) reports that a majority (66%) of Palestinians support the murder of unarmed Israeli civilians, including kids, through homicide/suicide bombings.

A large number also wish for the destruction of the State of Israel (51%) and do not wish only for a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish State, but instead of her.

So, a clear majority of people within the Arab culture of Palestine support terrorism as a tool to reach their goals. A clear indication of cultural brutality.

An interview with a suicide bomber's Dad:The Hotary badge of courage
"You ask me if I am worried that my older son, who still lives in the West Bank, will one day blow himself up too. All I can answer is that whatever God wants to happen will. Yes, my son Saeed died as a martyr. But every Palestinian who dies as a martyr is our son. All the people's children are our children and we are all responsible for one another. Everyone is important to us and every martyr who dies is as important to us as our son. If you ask my youngest son what he wants to be when he grows up, he will tell you that he wants to be a suicide bomber.

"I am not asking for something that is not mine. I am asking for my rights as a Palestinian and as a person who was forced into the Diaspora. One thing that is of prime importance is that we do not fear death. Muslims are not afraid to die for what they believe in.

"Jihad for sabeel Allah is a fard (obligation) for us in Islam. Our souls are an amanah (trust) from God. We die when He wants us to. Our lives, like our money, are a trust from God and God takes either or both away from us whenever He chooses.

"The best way to die is to die as a shaheed."
Another Interview with a bomber's motherQ: "Did you have a role in the planting of this spirit in Muhammad?"

Umm Nidal: "Allah be praised, I am a Muslim and I believe in Jihad.
Jihad is one of the elements of the faith and this is what encouraged me
to sacrifice Muhammad in Jihad for the sake of Allah. My son was not
destroyed, he is not dead; he is living a happier life than I. Had my
thoughts been limited to this world, I would not sacrifice Muhammad."

"I am a compassionate mother to my children, and they are compassionate
towards me and take care of me. Because I love my son, I encouraged him
to die a martyr's death for the sake of Allah... Jihad is a religious
obligation incumbent upon us, and we must carry it out. I sacrificed
Muhammad as part of my obligation."

"This is an easy thing. There is no disagreement [among scholars] on
such matters. The happiness in this world is an incomplete happiness;
eternal happiness is life in the world to come, through martyrdom. Allah
be praised, my son has attained this happiness."

"When the operation was over, the media broadcast the news. Then
Muhammad's brother came to me and informed me of his martyrdom. I began to
cry, 'Allah is the greatest,' and prayed and thanked Allah for the
success of the operation. I began to utter cries of joy and we declared
that we were happy. The young people began to fire into the air out of joy
over the success of the operation, as this is what we had hoped for
him."

Sounds alot like a death-cult to me. They've deified the murderer of people who's only real crime was being on the wrong bus. Primative people usually deified their human sacrifices too. This example is both brutal and backward.

Homicide Bomber-Mom Kills Four at Gaza BorderSmiling at times in a videotape that showed her cradling a rifle, Al-Reyashi said she had dreamed since she was 13 of "becoming a martyr" and dying for her people.

"It was always my wish to turn my body into deadly shrapnel against the Zionists and to knock on the doors of heaven with the skulls of Zionists," said Reyashi, wearing combat fatigues with a Hamas sash across her chest.

Okay, these people all sound as if they're reading from the same warped script.....and guess what? They are.

The Palestinian Authority School Textbooks For The Year 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Encouraging Militarism and Violence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islamic education teaches the religious obligation to defend every "stolen centimeter" of Islamic land including "Palestine". Though not mentioning Israel by name the religious obligation to fight for "Palestine" stolen by Israel is very clear.

Poetry promotes the yearning to die fighting as a Martyr:

" I will take my soul in my hand and toss it into the abyss of death.
And then either life that will gladden friends or death that will anger the enemy.
The honorable soul has two objectives: Achieving death and honor."

Wajdi, a 14 year old:
“When I become a Shahid [Martyr],
give out cake"
Palestinian Children Yearning Martyrdom, Encouraged by ParentsFrom the PA media and education the apparent answer is that the children are pushed by their parents, teachers, friends and the education they receive in the Palestinian Authority schools glorifying death as Martyrs [“Shahid” – death for Allah] – as a supreme virtue. As the number of those killed rises, the Palestinian media extols and exalts not only those killed, but also their willingness to die as Martyrs for Allah, emphasizing that dying a Martyr’s death was the realization of their hopes. By examining closely what the children and their parents are saying it is likely that there are young children who are going directly to areas of conflict with the clear goal of endangering their lives, in order to their please their parents, friends, and teachers.

The following are a number of stories among many that were prominently reported in the Palestinian media. In particular, note the positive attitude of parents toward their children’s death, and the statements of injured children that they seek a higher goal, death and Martyrdom.

The Link (http://www.pmw.org.il/new/specrep-32.html)

From an early age children are indoctrinated by their own schools with the support and encouragement of the official government, and (most of all) clergy. This is a sick, sick society.

Now Fool, before you start typing the "R" word repeatedly, why don't you look at what evidence I've presented. I did not come to the "Brutal and backward" conclusion in a vacuum.

You asked the question, I've answered it in a very limited way. If I were to post all the examples I've found this post would be excruciatingly long. Yes, Palestinians are living within a death-cult of a culture. Of course ALL Palestinians are not subscribers to this madness, but a demonstrably large percentage of them are. To recognise this is not racism,...it's realism.

-z

Skeptic

3rd February 2004, 09:08 AM

Cleon wrote:

Of course, the Palestinians demand no such thing [the destrcution of israel--Sk.]

Here are a few choice quotes, reported by the jerusalem post, of the "World Socialist Forum" anti-globalization meeting in Bombay, India, which--as usual with such forums--turned into an orgy of anti-israel hatered, to the chargin of the israeli anti-globalization activists who went there. (Apparently they were naive enough to think such a forum will actually deal with globalization.)

"Israeli Michael Warschawski called Geneva "a huge diversion from the real struggle against the wall." But Warschawski was derided as "a so-called Israeli."

"Palestinian doctor told Warschawski that "the struggle against Israel is not for a Palestinian state but for the defeat of the Zionist project. Israel is illegitimate, not since 1967, but since 1948. We would resist it even if it were on the other side of the Mediterranean."

"An Israeli backpacker added: "I am a good Israeli. I accept the Palestinian right to violent resistance." He was crushed by the response of Faisal from Tullkarm: "I know better Israelis; they are dead."

"Warschawski remarked that the various "WSF solidarity movements have raised the bar to a new level of international support where people were willing to go to Iraq and Palestine to physically lend support to end the occupation. But dissenting voices reminded him: "You and Israel are illegitimate. The injustice must be solved with the end of the so-called Israel" (huge applause)."

Note, in particular, the third quote.

There is an old story about an (American) indian who told general Sherman, "me good indian!", and Sherman replied, "the only good indian is a dead indian". This story--probably apocryphical--is usually repeated today with scorn, seeing Sherman's reply as the height of racism and intolerance.

Yet this proverbial story is repeated here, live, in real life, exposing the palestinian attitude--"a good israeli is a dead israeli"--if any more proof of that was even needed. Of course, THAT is not racism; it's merely "brave resistance to the occupation" (or whatever). Palestinian antisemitism? Naahhhh.....

These, mind you, are just a FEW quotes, from ONE forum, LAST WEEK, by the palestinians. Mutiply this by, say, a factor of a million or so and you'll get an idea about the number of times the palestinians called for the destruction of israel and the butchery of the jews.

Cleon

3rd February 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, the Palestinians demand no such thing (the destrcution of israel--Sk.)

Whoa-hoa! Now you're changing your claim. Originally, your claim was this:

I am also able to recognize it in the Palestinians' demand for the eradication of israel and the expulsion or massacre of the jews.

Now it's just the "destruction of israel." Of course, as I said above, to you anybody calling for a democratic, secular state is ALSO calling for the "destruction of israel," so you load the dice from the get-go.

But my point, is, and remains--the Palestinians do NOT call for the expulsion or massacre of the Jews, not even their most radical elements call for this. And your repitition that they "demand" such a thing is a lie.

Skeptic

3rd February 2004, 09:18 AM

Now it's just the "destruction of israel."

...by genocide.

As the quotes above show clearly, Cleon, this IS precisely what the "protestors" in the "socialist forum" were demading, with their claim that "a good israeli is a dead israeli" and the destrcution of israel.

Cleon

3rd February 2004, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Now it's just the "destruction of israel."

...by genocide.

As the quotes above show clearly, Cleon, this IS precisely what the "protestors" in the "socialist forum" were demading, with their claim that "a good israeli is a dead israeli" and the destrcution of israel.

Actually, that too is a lie. Only one quote can be shown to support murder of all Israelis. Only one. The rest talk about the "end of Israel," not necessarily by genocide.

And I must point out that it's rather unlikely that the Post was actually present; I take them with the same grain of salt that I take Newsmax. I have to point out that the Post is conservative even by Israeli standards, and would immediately jump on any statement even remotely anti-semitic. Hell, if David Irving showed up and was beaten to a bloody pulp, the Post would report that "Irving, a keynote speaker, held the attention of the audience like no other."

Skeptic

4th February 2004, 12:59 PM

Actually, that too is a lie. Only one quote can be shown to support murder of all Israelis. Only one. The rest talk about the "end of Israel," not necessarily by genocide.

That's like saying: "only a few quotes from the nazis which you posted as proof of their intentions actually said 'we are killing all the jews'. The rest of them, who talk of the 'final solution of the jewish question', might mean something different, not necessarily genocide."

Well, it might, logically speaking. But you remind me of the two characters of the BBC series "The Vicar of Dibly", when, after the vicar makes the mistake of befriending tabloid journalists, causes them all to end up with smear pieces about them:

CHARACTER A (Holding up a picture of himself in the paper, next to the headline "Rich as Croesus, dumb as sh-t"): "I don't think they meant to be rude."

CHARACTER B: "Though you cannot deny it's a distinct possiblity!"

Some "argument" you've got there: "How DARE you say the arabs want genoicde when only ONE of them in the article you posted said all israelies should be killed, you liar!". That's a bit like saying: "How DARE you call me a murderer when I only killed ONE guy!".

In any case, Ziggurat posted many other such claims by the Arabs, and you ignored them. Which part of "I shall knock on the doors of paradise with the skulls of the zionists" didn't you understand, Cleon? Which part of "The fall of one jew, whether civilian or soldier, is a great accomplishment" (see here (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP64904))? Which part of this report (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP64904)--on how islamic clerics, including many palestinians, permit and even encourage mass murder of jews? What part of the the following sermons (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2403) by palestinian clerics, claiming that "palestine will be the graveyard of the invaders" and that the jews "must be butchered and killed" is unclear?

What do the words "skulls of the zionists", "the killing of even one jew is a blessing", "graveyard", "butchered", and "holy war against the jews" is hard for you to understand, Cleon? Which one of these imply anything less than genocide, exactly?

Want more examples? I've got plenty...

Mycroft

4th February 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
Actually, that too is a lie. Only one quote can be shown to support murder of all Israelis. Only one. The rest talk about the "end of Israel," not necessarily by genocide.

Do you have any idea how that makes you sound?

It might not be genocide, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and see what they do. Only a few of them say they want to kill everyone. The rest only want to obliterate the country and then…do what?

What measures that include the destruction of Israel but fall short of genocide are acceptable to you?

Skeptic

4th February 2004, 01:32 PM

Do you have any idea how that makes you sound?

Like a liberal with belief in the basic goodness of human nature:

"Sure, they say they want genocide, but only SOME of them do. Surely, they cannot really mean it--they would mean they are bad people, and that is impossible. Everybody is, surely, really good deep down inside. Besides, I don't want to look like a racist by believing bad things about them without conclusive evidence."

Unfortunately, history shows that the only conclusive evidence that will convince people like Cleon to believe the "exagerrated libel" about the palestinian wanting genocide would BE such a genocide. Only Pol Pot's massacre of millions eventually convinced them Marxism is not so hot; only North Vietnam's breaking of all its agreements and occupying South Vietnam while killing millions eventually convinced them the USA might have been fighting for something more than "imperialism"; only Stalin's gulags that he might not be the great hope of world socialism, and so on.

Before this undeniable proof was shoved in their faced repeatedly--and, often, even after--people like Cleon simply refused to believe these murderers meant what they said; they dismissed it as "capitalist propaganda", "imperialist war-mongering", etc. In other words, as long as something could be done to prevent the genocide, they were against doing it, since the mere suggesting that those people want genocide was some sort of nasty imperialist libeling of the honest fighters for freedom.

Same with Cleon. It doesn't matter how many quotes about palestinians advocating genocide we'll show him--it's surely some sort of "zionist propaganda". He wants some REAL PROOF--you know, an actual genoicde--before he agrees to believe bad things against them. Of course that would cost the lives of a few million jews (like it cost the lives of millions of Russians, Vietnamese, Cambodians, etc., etc. etc.), but they're expendable; the important thing is not to believe nasty things prematurely.

Cleon

4th February 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Actually, that too is a lie. Only one quote can be shown to support murder of all Israelis. Only one. The rest talk about the "end of Israel," not necessarily by genocide.

That's like saying: "only a few quotes from the nazis which you posted as proof of their intentions actually said 'we are killing all the jews'. The rest of them, who talk of the 'final solution of the jewish question', might mean something different, not necessarily genocide."

This is called "circular logic." It's also insipid--Palestinians are not Nazis. That's just stupid.

Your claim is that Palestinians demand "the destruction of the Israeli state and the massacre or expulsion of Jews." When I point out that nobody, not even Hamas, has called for the expulsion or massacre of Jews, you present me with a number of quotes (with zero context) from the World Social Forum, quoted by a right-wing Israeli newspaper. When I point out that only one of those quotes mentions violence, you reply as though the other ones *obviously* do as well--even though proving that "the end of Zionism" or the Israeli state signifies expulsion or massacre of the Jews is exactly the claim I'm calling BS on.

Now you're presenting me with quotes from MEMRI. MEMRI's basic mission in life is to make the Arab world look as backward and repugnant as humanly possible. What they translate is very, very selective, and rather irrelevant now that Al-Jazeera, Al-Ahram, and other papers do their own translations to English. They do not quote entire articles, or even entire interviews; they filter through, pick out the parts that establish just how evil the Arabs are, and translate that part. Using MEMRI's methods I can "prove" that the US is composed almost entirely of Holocaust deniers and Jehovah's Witnesses, simply by picking and choosing damning segments of various articles. This is not a serious research institute; it's a propaganda mill.

And yet you continue to ignore the fact that people who DO openly advocate ethnic cleansing DO have high positions in the Israeli government.

Cleon

4th February 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Do you have any idea how that makes you sound?

It might not be genocide, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and see what they do. Only a few of them say they want to kill everyone. The rest only want to obliterate the country and then…do what?

What measures that include the destruction of Israel but fall short of genocide are acceptable to you?

A lie repeated often enough, contrary to the old saying, does not make the truth.

You know full well that when people talk about the end of the Israeli state, end of Zionism, etc., they're not talking about physical obliteration. You know that, you're just being dishonest.

Anti-Zionists want the end of Israel as a "Jewish state." They want, and stop me if this sounds too anti-Semitic for you, a country that represents the people who live there and don't hold one ethnicity/religion in higher regard than others. They want a society where people are treated equally.

Imagine that! Those bastards, how DARE they!

E.J.Armstrong

4th February 2004, 01:44 PM

originally posted by SkepticIf you don't see the difference between a comdenmend man trying to take some of his executioners with him, and an 18-year-old blowing himself up so he could kill as many babies as possible, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Perhaps you could enlighten me? The two Israelis had been found guilty of terrorist acts in a court of law were they not?

Skeptic

4th February 2004, 02:08 PM

This is called "circular logic." It's also insipid--Palestinians are not Nazis.

Yes, they are, as far as the goal--genoiciding the jews--is. This isn't stupid, it's a fact, which I have amply supported with documents showing their own, repeated, enthusiastic claims on just this subject.

The circular logic is on your part:

1). The palestinians do not support genocide;

2). Therefore, sources that give evidence that they do must be "biased";

3). Since they are biased, they claims are "unreliable";

4). Therefore, all claims that the palestinians support genoicde are "unreliable";

5). Therefore, no "reliable evidence" exist that they plan genocide;

6). Therefore, the palestinians do not support genocide, Q.E.D.

Your claim is that Palestinians demand "the destruction of the Israeli state and the massacre or expulsion of Jews." When I point out that nobody, not even Hamas, has called for the expulsion or massacre of Jews,

...then "Ziggurat" posts a lenghty post showing the exact opposite, but you, of course, ignore it.

you present me with a number of quotes (with zero context) from the World Social Forum, quoted by a right-wing Israeli newspaper.

Indeed so, and we all know that we cannot trust "right wing" papers when they say that the palestinians advocate genoicde, can they? But wait, but how do you know it is "right wing" in the first place? Well, it posted claims that the palestinians advocate genocide, didn't it?

Now you're presenting me with quotes from MEMRI. MEMRI's basic mission in life is to make the Arab world look as backward and repugnant as humanly possible.

...and how do you know that's MEMRI's goal? Well, because it posts information about Arab antisemitism and genocidal thoughts. Once more, circular logic: if MEMRI posts genocidal quotes by Arabs, that means it's biased and "wants to make the Arabs look as bad as possible", which means one can ignore the quotes in the first place.

Obviously, you would only accept evidence for Arabs are genocidal from an "unbiased" source... but to be "unbiased", the source must not post such evidence in the first place. No wonder you find "no unbiased evidence" for arab genocidal goals.

You have a "true believer" attitude: sure, you would accept "unbiased evidence" that contradicts THE TRUTH(tm); it's just that, unfortunately, all such evidence is "biased"--it contradicts THE TRUTH(tm), does it not?

Cleon

4th February 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
This is called "circular logic." It's also insipid--Palestinians are not Nazis.

Yes, they are, as far as the goal--genoiciding the jews--is. This isn't stupid, it's a fact, which I have amply supported with documents showing their own, repeated, enthusiastic claims on just this subject.

You lie again. You've supplied no such thing.

The circular logic is on your part:

1). The palestinians do not support genocide;

2). Therefore, sources that give evidence that they do must be "biased";

On the contrary. I never said that MEMRI and the Post were biased because they give "evidence" that they do.

The Post is historically right-wing; I can't imagine anyone doubting that.

As for MEMRI, I gave rather detailed reasoning why they're unreliable; their selection methods are designed to make a particular point, and--I didn't mention this before, but it *is* worth noting--they rarely, if ever, give links to the original document or provide it in the original language.

you present me with a number of quotes (with zero context) from the World Social Forum, quoted by a right-wing Israeli newspaper.

Indeed so, and we all know that we cannot trust "right wing" papers when they say that the palestinians advocate genoicde, can they? But wait, but how do you know it is "right wing" in the first place? Well, it posted claims that the palestinians advocate genocide, didn't it?

Seriously, this if the first time I've ever heard someone question the idea that the Post was seriously right-wing. I honestly have no idea how to respond to that.

But I notice you ignore my other point, that the quotes are given with no context, and no way to verify them.

...and how do you know that's MEMRI's goal? Well, because it posts information about Arab antisemitism and genocidal thoughts. Once more, circular logic: if MEMRI posts genocidal quotes by Arabs, that means it's biased and "wants to make the Arabs look as bad as possible", which means one can ignore the quotes in the first place.

This must be the first time you've heard the phrase "circular logic." You like how it sounds, so now you're using it as often as possible, either misrepresenting what I've said or outright fabricating it, as above.

MEMRI's goal, to make the Arab world look as backward and ignorant as possible, is not because it posts "information about Arab antisemitism and genocidal thoughts." It's because that's ALL they post, with A) the context completely removed, B) no indication of whether there was any reaction to the statements made, C) no link to the original material to allow for substantiation, and D) not a single mention of any articles or statements that don't fit in with said goal.

You have a "true believer" attitude: sure, you would accept "unbiased evidence" that contradicts THE TRUTH(tm); it's just that, unfortunately, all such evidence is "biased"--it contradicts THE TRUTH(tm), does it not?

Tell you what, since I happen to read some Arabic. You post me a link directly to a major Arab or Middle Eastern paper (and I mean *major*, not something from a group like the Revolutionary League of Muslims for the Purification of the Holy Lands) indicating widespread desire on the part of Palestinians to purge the land of Jews. Not something from MEMRI, not something from the Jerusalem Post, not something from Daniel Pipes.

Can you do that?

E.J.Armstrong

4th February 2004, 02:37 PM

originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, they are, as far as the goal--genoiciding the jews--is.

Just a small question. Please show me where all Palestinians have demanded the genocide of all the Jews.

As elsewhere, just one place would do.

The Fool

4th February 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Of course ALL Palestinians are not subscribers to this madness, but a demonstrably large percentage of them are. To recognise this is not racism,...it's realism.

-z
Lol.....
you say "of course ALL Palestinians are not......."
then say "palestinians are....."
then say "of course ALL Palestinians are not"
then say "palestinians are...."

whats next rik, some of your best friends are palestinians?

Congratulations if you feel you have proven that certain races are backward, try not to pass this attitude on down the family line eh?

Mycroft

4th February 2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
Seriously, this if the first time I've ever heard someone question the idea that the Post was seriously right-wing. I honestly have no idea how to respond to that.

The Post is more conservative than other papers, but the issue here is what you make of it. Many news sources have an editorial slant that effects how they report the news, but that in itself is not reason to question the actual facts of the story.

Cleon

4th February 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

The Post is more conservative than other papers, but the issue here is what you make of it. Many news sources have an editorial slant that effects how they report the news, but that in itself is not reason to question the actual facts of the story.

No, but when the "facts of the story" unashamedly represent a single point of view,are simply unverifiable, and have no context, you have to take it with a sizeable grain of salt. I know for a fact that there were people there who want a two-state solution; yet the Post didn't report their comments. (I don't think even "Skeptic" would claim would claim that two-staters want to "expel" or "massacre" the Jews.) There's no way to verify whether those comments were actually made or not. Most papers, when they get a quote from someone, will confirm at least the name and a little bit of identifying data, like occupation, or country of origin, something. For example, when Bush made his little photo-op trip to MLK's grave a while back, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution got some quotes from Rev. Tim McDonald. Very few people in Atlanta don't know who Rev. McDonald is, but the AJC still pointed out that he is the president of Concerned Black Clergy and the pastor of First Iconium Baptist Church. So there's some identifying data, if you need to verify the story you can.

Mycroft

4th February 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
A lie repeated often enough, contrary to the old saying, does not make the truth.

But maybe the truth repeated often enough will be believed. I’m an optimist, what can I say.

Originally posted by Cleon
You know full well that when people talk about the end of the Israeli state, end of Zionism, etc., they're not talking about physical obliteration. You know that, you're just being dishonest.

You really live in a different world, don’t you?

No I don’t know that. I don’t know that because all the reading I do convinces me otherwise. When I read about Palestinian-Arabs saying they only want to get rid of “Zionist” Jews, and then hear them define “Zionists” as any Jew that moved to Israel since 1918, I know that what they mean is “all Jews”. From there, it isn’t hard to figure out that talk of “getting rid of” in terms of “expulsion” is just like talk of the Madagascar plan 60 years ago. Just talk designed to let people pretend they’re not really planning murder.

Originally posted by Cleon
Anti-Zionists want the end of Israel as a "Jewish state." They want, and stop me if this sounds too anti-Semitic for you, a country that represents the people who live there and don't hold one ethnicity/religion in higher regard than others. They want a society where people are treated equally.

Is that what they want? Then answer this:

If Palestinian-Arab anti-Zionists want a country where people are treated equally regardless of ethnicity/religion, why then should Jewish settlement of the disputed territories be seen as a problem? Why couldn’t these Jewish settlers become equal citizens of a future Palestinian state?

The Fool

4th February 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Want more examples? I've got plenty...
cool "skeptic" how about "the battle of the quotes" here's some you may wish to read about what all zionists think.....Nay! According to your logic, this must be what all Israelis believe....That Arab must be subjected to ethnic cleansing...

All Quotes obtained from this site...
http://www.palestineremembered.com

"We do not seek an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs in order to secure the peace. Of course we regard peace as an essential thing. It is impossible to build up the country in a state of permanent warfare. But peace for us is a means, and not an end. The end is the fulfillment of Zionism in its maximum scope. Only for this reason do we need peace, and do we need an agreement." David Ben-Gurion

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary." David Ben-Gurion

"I devote my life to the rebirth of the Jewish State, with a Jewish majority, on both sides of the Jordan." David Ben-Gurion

“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country.” Theodore Herzl

"Palestine thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews." Hahman Syrkin

"Let us not be familiar with the Arab fellahin [peasants] lest our children adopt their ways and learn from their ugly deeds. Let all those who are loyal to the Torah avoid ugliness and that which resembles it and keep their distance from the fellahin and their base attributes." Moshe Smilansky

"The urge to grab has seized everyone, Individuals, groups and communities, men, women and children, all fell on the spoils. Doors, windows, lintels, bricks, roof-tiles, floor-tiles, junk and machine parts. ..." He could have also added to the list toilet bowls, sinks, faucets and light bulbs. Moshe Smilansky

". . . Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.
We should demand his blood not from the [Palestinian] Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred the accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs who sit all around us and wait the moment when their hand will be able to reach our blood." Moshe Dayan

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." Israel Zangwill

"...the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim--to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the [Palestinian] Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants." Yosef Weitz

"it must be clear that there is no room in the country for both [Arab and Jewish] peoples . . . If the [Palestinian] Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us . . . The only solution [after the end of WW II] is a Land of Israel, at least a western land of Israel [i.e. Palestine since Transjordan is the eastern portion], without [Palestinian] Arabs. There is no room here for compromises . . . There is no way but to transfer the [Palestinian] Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of them, save perhaps for [the Palestinian Arabs of] Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one [Bedouin] tribe. The transfer must be directed at Iraq, Syria, and even Transjordan [eastern portion of Eretz Yisrael]. For this goal funds will be found . . . An only after this transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will cease to exist. There is no other solution." Yosef Weitz

"I am increasingly consumed by despair. The Zionist idea is the answer to the Jewish question in the Land of Israel; only in the land of Israel, but not that the [Palestinian] Arabs should remain a majority. The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer." Yosef weitz

The Fool

4th February 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Is that what they want? Then answer this:

If Palestinian-Arab anti-Zionists want a country where people are treated equally regardless of ethnicity/religion, why then should Jewish settlement of the disputed territories be seen as a problem? Why couldn’t these Jewish settlers become equal citizens of a future Palestinian state?
Why do you refer to it as "disputed territories" If I steal your property does it become "disputed property"? If you want to chant mantras to deny reality I can't do anything about that, its your choice....but please, lets not try and ignore the blatantly obvious....This is simply European colonialism. Do you "dispute" the existence of the original inhabitants?

Mycroft

4th February 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Why do you refer to it as "disputed territories" If I steal your property does it become "disputed property"? If you want to chant mantras to deny reality I can't do anything about that, its your choice....but please, lets not try and ignore the blatantly obvious....This is simply European colonialism. Do you "dispute" the existence of the original inhabitants?

Israel captured these lands from Jordan and Egypt. Neither of these nations claim these territories any more.

I agree. If you and I fight, and I end up with something that was in your posession and later on you say you don't want it anymore, it is not "disputed". However, I will continue to use the term in the future because it is a lot shorter that saying "Gaza Strip and the West Bank" or "Gaza Strip, Judea and Sameria" and because the final disposition of these territories has not been determined, it's not correct to simply call them "Israel."

Of course there were origional inhabitants. It's who they were, where they came from, what they were doing there, and if they have any more rights to the land by virtue of being Arab than other people do that is subject to discussion.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

The Fool

4th February 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Of course there were origional inhabitants. It's who they were, where they came from, what they were doing there, and if they have any more rights to the land by virtue of being Arab than other people do that is subject to discussion.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

What I was talking about was thier right to continue to inhabit a place that they are the original inhabitants of..... what has being Arab or where you came from got to do with it? Evicting people because of a belief that your god gave you the land is not acceptable.

Skeptic

4th February 2004, 06:05 PM

Just a small question. Please show me where all Palestinians have demanded the genocide of all the Jews.

Just a small question. Show me where all nazi party members demanded the genocide of all jews. They didn't! (In fact, some nazi party members--Oscar Schindler, for one--saved jews). So I guess that means the nazis didn't want to genocide the jews, right? Auschwitz was, um, an accident, I suppose.

For the zillionth time: when I say "the palestinians want to genocide the jews" I do NOT mean each and every one of them, I mean the palestinians AS A GROUP. But that's all such claims ever mean. "The nazis genocided the jews" doesn't mean every single nazi party member; it means the nazis as a group. "The Americans fought a war with the Germans" doesn't mean every single American was a soldier or supported the war; it means Americans as a group did. "Pro Football players are tough guys" doesn't mean every single football player; it means football players as a whole.

The palestinians are acting, as a whole, in precisely the same way the nazis acted, as a whole, in the 1930s: vicious propaganda and conspiracy theories demonizing jews; open support of terror against all jews, with the claim that it is "legitimate resistance" to the jews' unfathomable evils; promises of a coming "day of reckoning" against the jews; the establishment of jew-killing as a religious duty (or, in the case of nazi Germany, "the Fuhrer's will"); teaching hatered of jews in schools; absolute denial that the jews have any rights; and so on and so forth. You just need to compare a few modern cartoons about the jews from palestinian papers to DER STURMER to see the obvious similarities. You can also look at the links that Ziggurat, Micfort, and I have posted--or do your own research.

It was these actions of nazi Germany as a whole, which made it clear that it supported (and in fact executed) genocide against the jews, not a census where every single nazi party member checked a box saying "Yes, I want to kill all the jews". Similarly, it is these actions of the palestinians as a whole which make it clear that they support (and would execute if possible) a genocide against the jews, NOT the fact that all of them are personally for it--which is a). not true, b). not what I ever claimed, c). not relevant to the truth of the statement "the palestinians want to genocide the jews".

Tell me, though, Mr. Armstrong: if I had said "football players are tough guys", you wouldn't reply "Just a small question. Please show me where all football players have claimed they are tough guys", would you? You'd understand what was meant. I suspect you did understand very well what I meant by "the palestinians want to genocide the jews", too. Why, then, did you deliberately twist the meaning of what I said into the absurd caricature? I suspect the reason: it's too uncomfortable to realize the truth of my statement, so you pretend I said something absurd instead.

Mycroft

4th February 2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
What I was talking about was thier right to continue to inhabit a place that they are the original inhabitants of..... what has being Arab or where you came from got to do with it? Evicting people because of a belief that your god gave you the land is not acceptable.

Let me throw a couple hypotheticals at you:

Suppose the year were 1945 and I’m an Arab living in Baghdad. I move to Palestine to get a job. A few years later, it looks like a war coming up, I move back to Baghdad to avoid the fighting.

After the war, should I have a right to go back? Should my children three or four generations later have this right? Why or why not?

Another hypothetical: I’m a Jew living in Baghdad in the year 1945. I move to Palestine. A few years later, war breaks out and I stay and fight. After the war, I no longer have the right to move back to Baghdad because the Iraqi government won’t let me.

Do I have a right to stay? Why or why not?

Third hypothetical: The year is 2004, my family is living on a farm in the Gaza Strip and has been for three generations. Ariel Sharon says I and my family have to leave our home of many generations because our living there is an obstacle to peace and it is for the greater good. Without identifying my ethnicity or religion, can you say if this is fair? Why or why not?

Gem

4th February 2004, 08:59 PM

can you say if this is fair? Why or why not?

That's one of the reasons peace is so damn slow. You're right, why should they leave? But then, why can't other palestenians, who lived in Palestine and held land, cannot come back. Or why can't they come back at all, even if they just lived there and had a job?

That is why peace talks go on and on about the same key issues: Right of Return and the Settlements. Coming up with something that can please both sides, is, in my opinion impossible.

Gem

The Fool

5th February 2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Let me throw a couple hypotheticals at you:

Suppose the year were 1945 and I’m an Arab living in Baghdad. I move to Palestine to get a job. A few years later, it looks like a war coming up, I move back to Baghdad to avoid the fighting.

After the war, should I have a right to go back? Should my children three or four generations later have this right? Why or why not?

You have to right to go back and live if the law of that land allows you to. You have no right to confiscate someones land. You have the same rights/obligations and legal requirements to go back as you had to go there in the first place.

Another hypothetical: I’m a Jew living in Baghdad in the year 1945. I move to Palestine. A few years later, war breaks out and I stay and fight. After the war, I no longer have the right to move back to Baghdad because the Iraqi government won’t let me.
Do I have a right to stay? Why or why not?

I would allow you to stay. I would not allow you to confiscate anyone elses land.

Third hypothetical: The year is 2004, my family is living on a farm in the Gaza Strip and has been for three generations. Ariel Sharon says I and my family have to leave our home of many generations because our living there is an obstacle to peace and it is for the greater good. Without identifying my ethnicity or religion, can you say if this is fair? Why or why not?

After three generations I would say anyone elses claims on your land would be extinguished under any reasonable system. I don't particularly care If Sharon forces his own citizens to do naked backflips down the main street...Its what he attempts to force the occupants of land under military occupation to do that worries me. I would advise Mr and Mrs Hypothetical to throw Sharon out...

The Fool

5th February 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

it looks like a war coming up, I move back to Baghdad to avoid the fighting.

I sincerely hope, to maintain the context of my previous post, that you are not attempting to use this description to cover those palestinians driven out by the IDF... It is one of the stock myths of Zionists that the palestinian refugees of the 1948 war all up and left voluntarily, Apparently choosing to leave all thier possesions behind for the looters.

Mycroft

5th February 2004, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
I sincerely hope, to maintain the context of my previous post, that you are not attempting to use this description to cover those palestinians driven out by the IDF... It is one of the stock myths of Zionists that the palestinian refugees of the 1948 war all up and left voluntarily, Apparently choosing to leave all thier possesions behind for the looters.

It was a time of chaos. There were many people in many different circumstances. People on all sides are prone to simplistic explanations.

Originally posted by The Fool
You have to right to go back and live if the law of that land allows you to. You have no right to confiscate someones land. You have the same rights/obligations and legal requirements to go back as you had to go there in the first place.

I wonder if you read the question correctly. On one hand you say he has a right to go back if the law of that land allows and then you say he should have the same right as he did before. Suppose the law of the land had changed?

Also, an Arab fleeing Palestine for Baghdad would not be in a position to confiscate anyone’s land.

Do you wish to clarify?

Originally posted by The Fool
I would allow you to stay. I would not allow you to confiscate anyone elses land.

Okay, so the Jew who fled Baghdad should be allowed to stay, but not confiscate anyone’s land. Should he be allowed to buy land?

Originally posted by The Fool
After three generations I would say anyone elses claims on your land would be extinguished under any reasonable system. I don't particularly care If Sharon forces his own citizens to do naked backflips down the main street...Its what he attempts to force the occupants of land under military occupation to do that worries me. I would advise Mr and Mrs Hypothetical to throw Sharon out...

So you believe that a reasonable system imposes a “statute of limitation” on ancestral claims to territory. What’s reasonable? Suppose this mans family had only lived on the land for two generations?

The Fool

5th February 2004, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

It was a time of chaos. There were many people in many different circumstances. People on all sides are prone to simplistic explanations.

agreed....when people flee in front of an army what is your guess?

I wonder if you read the question correctly. On one hand you say he has a right to go back if the law of that land allows and then you say he should have the same right as he did before. Suppose the law of the land had changed?

Thats the problem with hypotheticals isn't it....land ownership is most often a case by case issue. If i was to voluntarily leave Australia then return 20 years later what I come back to is highly variable....Is my house still in existence, is there any evidence available that indicates i am the owner? If australia has been invaded in the interim....are there any legal systems I can appeal to?
If I and many others were driven out of Australia by a foreign army then there would be much to support my right to get my land back...once again the difficulty is convincing the occupying power and identifying who originaly owned what....

Okay, so the Jew who fled Baghdad should be allowed to stay, but not confiscate anyone’s land. Should he be allowed to buy land?

off the legitimate owner? I don't see why not.....off someone who drove the original inhabitants off? that is simply being a reciever of stolen goods IMHO.

So you believe that a reasonable system imposes a “statute of limitation” on ancestral claims to territory. What’s reasonable? Suppose this mans family had only lived on the land for two generations?
Passage of time always has legitimised land possesion. Retention of land stolen 100 years ago is easier to justify than retention of land stolen last year... What is "reasonable", ask any of the lawyers on this forum and they will probably tell you that "reasonable" is whatever is reasonable.... Accepted community standards of Justice? Acceptable world standards of justice and human rights? Whatever the person with the biggest gun says??? I'll be honest, its not a question I have an answer for. If you come to me and say "give me my land back" It does matter if it was your father or your long forgotten ancient ancestor who as driven off the land... I don't think an arbitrary line can be drawn.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 05:08 AM

originally posted by Skeptic
Just a small question. Show me where all nazi party members demanded the genocide of all jews. They didn't!

Thank you for that answer. Why not simply insert the word 'some' into your claims for the sake of factual accuracy?

(In fact, some nazi party members--Oscar Schindler, for one--saved jews). So I guess that means the nazis didn't want to genocide the jews, right? Auschwitz was, um, an accident, I suppose
I am unclear as to what this means. Are you seriously trying to suggest that those who point out that your comments implied all (as opposed to some) Palestinins did something, feel that Auschwitz was an accident?For the zillionth time: when I say "the palestinians want to genocide the jews" I do NOT mean each and every one of them, I mean the palestinians AS A GROUP. For your information, it is not necessary for anyone to read all your posts before taking issue with your stated claims. Why not actually insert the word 'some' into your posts? By not doing so you are giving the wrong impression. If you have been accused of this a zillion times, isn't it time to do something about it?

You have still failed to provide evidence of the other part of your claim. To justify the factual accuracy of your claim, can you please post any where the officially recognised body, currently representing all Palestinians as a group, has officially stated that its current aim is the genocide of all jews? The palestinians are acting, as a whole, in precisely the same way the nazis acted, as a whole, in the 1930s: vicious propaganda and conspiracy theories demonizing jews; open support of terror against all jews, with the claim that it is "legitimate resistance" to the jews' unfathomable evils; promises of a coming "day of reckoning" against the jews; the establishment of jew-killing as a religious duty (or, in the case of nazi Germany, "the Fuhrer's will"); teaching hatered of jews in schools; absolute denial that the jews have any rights; and so on and so forth. You just need to compare a few modern cartoons about the jews from palestinian papers to DER STURMER to see the obvious similarities. You can also look at the links that Ziggurat, Micfort, and I have posted--or do your own research. Please provide evidence that the Palestinians 'as a whole' are doing everything you suggest.

Has any vicious propaganda been directed at the Palestinians? Have they been demonised such as by assertionsthat they 'as a whole' want to execute the genocde of all jews?

As it is you who raised the comparison with the Nazis, can I ask how many villages the Palestinians 'as a whole' razed to the ground as the Nazis did in Lidice, Czechzlovakia? Who razed the homes in Jenin to the ground?

Can I ask where Palestinians 'as a whole' have built ghettos for jews? Who is bulding a ghetto wall around the Palestinians.

Where are the Palestinians 'as a whole' running medical experiments on jews? Have Palestinian mothers seen their new born children die because they were prevented from getting to hospital?

Where are the Palestinians 'as a whole' invading and stealing the land of jews? Have they had to live with illegal settlements on their land?

Where are the Palestinians 'as a whole' using jews, Russians, Catholics and the mentally retarded etc as labourers unfed or unattended medically until they died from exhaustion, malnutrition, and murder?

Can you supply a link to any site where any body currently representing Palestinians 'as a whole' has absolutely denied rights to jews.

If it is cartoons you are concerned about New York, NY, October 31, 2000 … The editorial pages of the nation’s major newspapers have featured three times as many cartoons bluntly criticizing Yasir Arafat and the Palestinians for the recent violence in the Middle East compared with editorial cartoons blaming Israel, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found in a random survey of large circulation papers and syndicates from http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/3701_62.asp

Does all this mean that anyone has the intention to genocide the Palestinians 'as a whole'?.It was these actions of nazi Germany as a whole, which made it clear that it supported (and in fact executed) genocide against the jews, not a census where every single nazi party member checked a box saying "Yes, I want to kill all the jews". So, given your own admission that not even every Nazi party member supported the Nazi party, how many of the wider German people supported the Nazi party. More or less?Similarly, it is these actions of the palestinians as a whole which make it clear that they support (and would execute if possible) a genocide against the jews, NOT the fact that all of them are personally for it--which is a). not true, b). not what I ever claimed, c). not relevant to the truth of the statement "the palestinians want to genocide the jews This is demonstrable balderdash and if it wasn't so vitriolic would be laughable.

1/ You have failed to justify your assertions about the comparison between the Palestinian people 'as a whole' and the Nazi party.
2/ You have failed to justify your claim other than by mere assertion that the Palestinians 'as a whole' would execute the genocide of all the jews, if possible. Where is this stated by a body currently representing the Palestinian people 'as a whole' other than in your imagination?
3/ You have failed to support your claims by referring to any official link to any body which currently represents the majority of the Palestinian people. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

In short, when you claim to talk on behalf of any group 'as a whole' you need to provide evidence that they 'as a whole' support your analysis. Your assertion that it is true is not evidence. Sorry. Tell me, though, Mr. Armstrong: if I had said "football players are tough guys", you wouldn't reply "Just a small question. Please show me where all football players have claimed they are tough guys", would you? I well might if your all inclusive claim was relevant to the argument you were trying to make, Mr 'whoever you are'. You however did not make the claim that 'football players are tough guys'. Your claim suggested that alll Palestinians wanted the genocide of all Jews. That is in an entirely different league. When you want to demonise an entire group like that you need to be able to justify it fully. You have so far failed to justify your smear. I suspect you did understand very well what I meant by "the palestinians want to genocide the jews", too If your own assertion defines the correctness of an argument then no doubt you will be a happy man/woman.Why, then, did you deliberately twist the meaning of what I said into the absurd caricature? I did no such thing. Let us just look at this, your latest claim, a bit more closely. In answer to the statementPalestinians are not Nazis. you claimed
Yes, they are, as far as the goal--genoiciding the jews--is. In other words, the orginal statement referred clearly to all Palestinians, not just to some of them. Do you understand that? Good. In your reply you did not modify the reference to numbers, therefore your response can only be understood to refer to all Palestinians. Do you understand? Good.

I then asked you a simple question based on what you hadf specifically claimed. Now, you claim that I had twisted the meaning of what you said into absurd caricature. Your latest claim is therefore completely contradicted by your own words. Sorry.
I suspect the reason: it's too uncomfortable to realize the truth of my statement, so you pretend I said something absurd instead. Once agin you make another false claim. I did not pretend anything and once again your suspicions are simply factually incorrect.

As I have already demonstrated conclusively, using your own words, I asked a valid and relevant question. It seems that you do not like being questioned about your actual claims. Can I suggest that is your problem - not mine.

Ziggurat

6th February 2004, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I am unclear as to what this means.

No surprise at all. The meaning is quite clear, though you refuse to see what is in front of your face. A society can have beliefs and goals that are not universally shared by its members. But if those in control continues to act upon those beliefs and towards those goals, it quite frankly doesn't matter what the dissenters want or believe. So it is with the Palestinians: it continues to act as though it wants to destroy Israel and kill Jews in large numbers. And those within the Palestinian community who oppose this simply aren't having any effect on their course of action. You've been given plenty of evidence of this already.

What YOU have not provided is any evidence that the Palestinians are truly interested in peace with Israel: they'll mouth the words for the benefit of their European supporters, but they won't put forward any concrete action to back that up. Where is ANY evidence that they have tried to stop suicide bombers?

As it is you who raised the comparison with the Nazis, can I ask how many villages the Palestinians 'as a whole' razed to the ground as the Nazis did in Lidice, Czechzlovakia? Who razed the homes in Jenin to the ground?

The rest of these comparisons are meaningless: yes, the Palestinians are not close to killing Jews by the thousands, but the primary reason is that they CAN'T, not because they don't want to. And why AREN'T the Jews killing Palestinians by the thousands, despite being attacked repeatedly? Because they DON'T want to.

The Palestinians are not unique in their hatred, or the underlying causes for it. And the underlying causes are NOT poverty or oppression, but the failure of their own societies. Their societies cannot compete in the modern world, while we succeed by violating all their values, particularly their religious values. This is intolerable to them, and the only solution they see is to make us fail too. They simply cannot accept that the root cause of their failure is not us, but their own cultural values (oppression of women, restrictions on the flow of information, little value on education, little value in work and career, family and tribal connections as primary, intolerant religious beliefs). Bin Laden is not poor or opressed, he doesn't care about poverty, and suicide bombers (both 9/11 and Palestinian suicide bombers) are not from the lowest classes. There can be no peace with the Palestinians until they concede defeat, and they will not concede defeat until it is universally acknowleged that their cause (the destruction of Israel) is a failure. Until that happens, they will continue trying to kill Israelis. And there has never been any indication that anything short of that can ever bring peace.

rikzilla

6th February 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol.....
you say "of course ALL Palestinians are not......."
then say "palestinians are....."
then say "of course ALL Palestinians are not"
then say "palestinians are...."

whats next rik, some of your best friends are palestinians?

Congratulations if you feel you have proven that certain races are backward, try not to pass this attitude on down the family line eh?

If you really feel I've done this then prove me wrong. For every reliable source you give me that shows that Palestinians are lovely warm hearted people wronged by the evil Zionists, I'll show you two such sources that contradict that assertion.

Now, in that same post I showed you exactly why I came to the conclusion that I did. I offered clips from the Constitutions and Charters of the Palestinian Authority. Why did you not merely address my information head on? Show how my evidence is wrong. Is it because you can't? I cited works which are official, and widely available from multiple sources, to support my assertions. Your rebuttal is completely devoid of fact, and instead you offer ad-homs.

I would hope that the great Australian defender of the gentle people of Palestine could do better than that.

-z

rikzilla

6th February 2004, 09:29 AM

originally posted by Skeptic:
Just a small question. Show me where all nazi party members demanded the genocide of all jews. They didn't!

Response posted by EJ Armstrong:
Thank you for that answer. Why not simply insert the word 'some' into your claims for the sake of factual accuracy?

The above is an object lesson in intellectual dishonesty. It's EJA's specialty, and the reason I never respond to his illogical rants. With the above obfuscation cloaked as a plea for "factual accuracy" he has made the attempt to, however slightly, distance "the Nazis" from the totality of their crimes against humanity known as "The Holocaust". This is a fairly old tactic of the IHR and other cranks who dispute the facts of the Holocaust. (See Micheal Shermer's "Denial of History")

What this obviously is, is NOT a plea for accuracy. It is a transparent attempt to confuse the issue. The exact opposite of it's stated purpose. The very picture of intellectual dishonesty.

The Nazi party in general, and it's leader Adolph Hitler in particular are indeed collectively responsible for the Holocaust. Without this group, or it's leader the Holocaust could not have ocurred. That some individual members of the Nazi party were sympathetic and merciful to individual Jews makes no difference to the aims of the party as a whole. It's irrelevant to the issue being discussed, and EJA knows it. Just as he know that the small mercies of the Palestinian minority make no real difference to the overall Palestinian desire to remove Israel AND it's people.

There is no point, Mycroft, Skeptic, in discussing anything with EJA. EJA is this forum's Don Quixote, he has no idea that he's in his own fantasy world. If you allow him, he'll try and draw you into his windmill studded world....attempting to draw him out of it is hopeless, I know I've tried.

-z

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 11:41 AM

originally posted by Ziggarut
No surprise at all. The meaning is quite clear, though you refuse to see what is in front of your face.
A false claim. Unless you are me, what you are doing is a mind reading act. When I am unclear about something I say so and ask a question to clarify it. You seem to have a problem with that. Do questions shake your world?

You are not addressing the question I asked however so I will wait for Skeptic to get around to that.

What YOU have not provided is any evidence that the Palestinians are truly interested in peace with Israel: they'll mouth the words for the benefit of their European supporters, but they won't put forward any concrete action to back that up. Where is ANY evidence that they have tried to stop suicide bombers?
When was I asked to do so on this thread?
492E-BB5C-A74060D5892A.htm where this can be found
' Speaking to parliament on Wednesday, Arafat stressed the need for dialogue to put an end to the cycle of violence in the Middle East.

See http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/345BED79-31E8-
"We do not deny the right of the Israeli people to live in security side-by-side with the Palestinian people living in their own independent state," Arafat told lawmakers convened in the West Bank city of Ram Allah.

"The time has come for us to get out of this spiral, this destructive war, that will not bring security to you or us," he pointed out to the deputies set to vote for the new cabinet.

Are you claiming that the Palestinian authority, as the elected representatives of the Palestinians people, is organising the suicide bombers? Israel has destroyed much of their capability to carry out administrative functions and assassinates suspects in the street in circumstances which guarantee innocent people will die.The rest of these comparisons are meaningless: yes, the Palestinians are not close to killing Jews by the thousands, but the primary reason is that they CAN'T, not because they don't want to. And why AREN'T the Jews killing Palestinians by the thousands, despite being attacked repeatedly? Because they DON'T want to. In your opinion, the comparisons are meaningless in mine they patently are not.
The underlying thesis you are espousing is that the Palestinians ( no modification to suggest just some Palestinians so I must presume that you mean every single Palestinian) want to murder thousands of Jews. If that was the case why haven't all the Palestinians who have worked in Israel for many years carried out that task?
You also appear to be making the fallacy of equating Jews with Israel. The two are not the same. Their societies cannot compete in the modern world, while we succeed by violating all their values, particularly their religious values. This is intolerable to them, and the only solution they see is to make us fail too. They simply cannot accept that the root cause of their failure is not us, but their own cultural values (oppression of women, restrictions on the flow of information, little value on education, little value in work and career, family and tribal connections as primary, intolerant religious beliefs). Bin Laden is not poor or opressed, he doesn't care about poverty, and suicide bombers (both 9/11 and Palestinian suicide bombers) are not from the lowest classes. There can be no peace with the Palestinians until they concede defeat, and they will not concede defeat until it is universally acknowleged that their cause (the destruction of Israel) is a failure. Until that happens, they will continue trying to kill Israelis. And there has never been any indication that anything short of that can ever bring peace. Many people hate. That you ascribe those feelings to all Palestinians is bizarre. That you believe their feelings relate to the failure of their society is a new one on me. Perhaps you have some evidence for this.

Are you saying that the assassinations of mere uspects has nothing to do with it? Are you saying that the theft of their land has nothing to do with it? Are you saying that the ghettoisation of the communities has nothing to do with it? Are you saying that the refusal to abide by UN resolutions and repatriate refugees has nothing to do with it? If so, I don't agree.

You claim that they have a cause. Where is that the official recognised cause of all the Palestinian people?

Skeptic

6th February 2004, 12:21 PM

This is a fairly old tactic of the IHR and other cranks who dispute the facts of the Holocaust. (See Micheal Shermer's "Denial of History")

Now that I think about it, there are rather disturbing parallels between the IHR's and some of the so-called "pro-palestinian" people's method of method of argument here.

In this thread, for instance, I was attacked three times for "libeling" the palestinians by claiming they want genocide. First it was claimed that I am absurd, since NO palestinian wants this; then that I was wrong because I only provided evidence that SOME palestinians want it; and finally, I was attacked for not proving that EVERY SINGLE palestinian wants this. This is quite equivalent to the IHR's method of claiming, first, that NO jews were killed in the holocaust, so it "doesn't count" because it's a lie; then that only SOME jews were killed in the holocaust, so it "doesn't count" because it was not systematic; and finally that since not ALL jews were killed in the holocaust, it "doesn't count" because it's not a "real" holocaust if there are any survivors at all.

Also, in this thread, many people expressed (fake) "ignorance" about the real meaning of obvious euphemisms like "the destruction of israel" (which is not much of a euphemism, come to think of it), "the repeal of the zionists invaders", etc., etc., etc., claiming that it COULD be that this is meant "peacefully". This is quite similar to the IHR's claims that all the talk about "the final solution of the jewish problem", "cleansing" countries of the "jewish virus", and so on COULD have meant doing so by "peaceful" means. Quite apart from the fact that in both cases the real intent--genoicde--is obvious from the context (if nothing else), this "argument" is disgusting for another reason, in both the case of its proponents here and in the case of the IHR. It supports, implicitly at least, the claim that if is "only" the destruction of israel by "peaceful" means--as if such a thing as destroying a country "peacefully" exists--or merely cleansing Europe of jews "peacefully", it wouldn't be THAT bad.

(As usual, the champions of "human rights" wave them aside as meaningless when it is the jews' human rights that are in question: if there is a discrimination against israeli Arabs, this is an awful crime, but if the Arabs "only" want to destroy israel and not all jews, if they are willing to be pacified by "merely" expelling all the jews and not killing them all, this is "moderation" and even priased as being "peaceful", as in the oxymoronic phrase "destroying israel by peaceful means", which makes as much sense as "killing all the ******* by democracy".)

When faced with incontrovertial evidence--from their own people, admitting and even bragging about their succesful or attenpted genoicde--simply deny that it means what it says, and claim "jewish propaganda". Memri published tons of quotes from Arab sources that prove the desire for genoicde? So what, it's surely just "biased", say Cleon and others here. The Nuremberg trials unearthed the horror of the "final solution"? So what, they all just lied due to torture to please their captives, says David Irving in a book highly praised by the IHR.

And, above all, nitpick and use ad hominem arguments. Claim that you are doing this in the name of "clarification" and "accuracy", but in reality, attempt to shift the discussion away from the main issue--the genoicde of the jews--to trivial issues or attacks on the messenger, hoping he'll get enraged, start defending himself against the attacks, and thus move the discussion to his potential faults as opposed to the nazis' or the palestinians' plans.

The IHR's method of doing this is to claim that since not ALL statements by survivors of the holocaust match EXACTLY (add long list of "contradictions" here), then the whole thing is a hoax, and they are all "liars" and "criminals" (add a list of crimes or bad things done by survivors later here).

The method of "The Fool" & co. in this thread is to simply ignore all the evidence posted, but note that since I didn't use the qualifier "some" or "extremists" EVERY time I mentioned the Palestinians or the Muslims, this is "proof" that I am a "racist", and a good excuse to move the "objective" discussion to my personal faults and "unreliablilty".

(This, I think, is why "The Fool" is so pissed off that I keep ignoring his accusations of being a "racist". Quite apart from the fact that I am not, I simply won't let the discussion degenerate into a "You're a racist!" "No I'm not!" flame war, and keep asking "The Fool" to provide evidence to show my CLAIMS about Palestinian genocidal intentions are false. He can't, of course.)

These are pretty disturbing similarities, if you ask me.

Originally, I believed that it is unfair to compare people like this to the IHR in particular, since--after all--similar methods of "arguments" are seen by creationists, flat-earthers, and other "true believers" who protect their myths at all costs (in this case, the modern political creationist myth of the "pure and innocent Palestinian victims"). But when I keep hearing claims like "but they only want to destroy israel PEACEFULLY" or "It's ONLY expulsion and destruction they're talking about, not genocide", you've got to wonder.

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 12:48 PM

originally posted by Rikzilla
The above is an object lesson in intellectual dishonesty
Ah. The Rikzilla moment. THese are often woth looking at for their characteristic style. Let's go through a few of the characteristics of this Rikzilla intervention.

Firstly, note the false and unsupported accusation. This, as we shall see is a common characteristic of this particular Rikzilla moment.
It's EJA's specialty, and the reason I never respond to his illogical rants. Two more false claim in one sentance.

Note the other signature characteristic reappears here. A lack of justification for the claims. Will he stand by his claims this time?With the above obfuscation cloaked as a plea for "factual accuracy" he has made the attempt to, however slightly, distance "the Nazis" from the totality of their crimes against humanity known as "The Holocaust" Dear me. Could it be that factual accuracy is not very important in Rikzilla's world? Note the further false claims presented, as usual, without any justification. He calls something obfuscation. Is asking for clarity and explanation obfuscation? I must be reading the wrong dictionary.

He claims that I have attempted to distance the Nazis from their crimes. That is totally false and have presented it. He did not. I ask - is this the actions of a reasonable person and suggest it is prima face evidence of his disregard for the truth?This is a fairly old tactic of the IHR and other cranks who dispute the facts of the Holocaust. Yet more unsubstantiated and false claims. I do not know what he means by the IHR but clearly he is trying to attempt to insinuate that I dispute the facts of the holocaust which is completely false. Not only did I not dispute the facts of the Holocaust (nor do I) but I took a number of the grossest abuses of the Nazis and highlighted them openly and fully. If his claim were true open and honest people would have thought they he would have had the decency to support this claim. He does not.

I formally challenge Rikzilla to show where and in any way whatsoever I have denied the facts of the Holocaust.

What this obviously is, is NOT a plea for accuracy. It is a transparent attempt to confuse the issue. The exact opposite of it's stated purpose. The very picture of intellectual dishonesty. Notice how once agin Rikzilla resorts to demonstrably false claims. Yet once again as we have come to know he will not justify his claims. He claims that questions and suggestions to ensure accuracy are attempts to confuse the issue. Which issue is he talking about? He then makes two further false claims which again he does not justify. The Nazi party in general, and it's leader Adolph Hitler in particular are indeed collectively responsible for the Holocaust. Who has said that they are not? Note that Rikzilla has posted not one of my words here. Without this group, or it's leader the Holocaust could not have ocurred. Who has said that it would? Note that once again Rikzilla has not posted a single one of my words here.That some individual members of the Nazi party were sympathetic and merciful to individual Jews makes no difference to the aims of the party as a whole. Who has said that it did? Note that yet again Rikzilla has posted not one word of mine.It's irrelevant to the issue being discussed, and EJA knows it. Now for the latest trick. Having issued many false and unverified claims he now erects a straw man. The issue of the Nazis was brought up, not by me but by Skeptic. Skeptic also brought up the fact that some members of the Nazi party were merciful to the Jews when he said (In fact, some nazi party members--Oscar Schindler, for one--saved jews). Given that it is Skeptic who raised the issue of the Nazis and the issue of some Nazi party members saving Jews I suggest that Rikzilla redirect his rant where it properly belongs - Skeptic. Just as he know that the small mercies of the Palestinian minority make no real difference to the overall Palestinian desire to remove Israel AND it's people. Ah. Perhaps we are now getting to the meat of the issue. Notice he now makes a claim about what I know without referring once to a single word I have said. Perhaps one day he will learn to justify his assertions with evidence. Perhaps he when he does he will quote an official document from a body representing the interests of all the Palestinians when he does so. He chooses once agin not to do so here. There is no point, Mycroft, Skeptic, in discussing anything with EJA. Now, having made many false claims, Rikzilla goes on to adopt his latest tactic, namely to suugest that those who ask questions and ask for claims to be justified, be ostracised. EJA is this forum's Don Quixote, he has no idea that he's in his own fantasy world. If you allow him, he'll try and draw you into his windmill studded world....attempting to draw him out of it is hopeless, I know I've tried. Here we have the latest facet of Rikzilla's modus operandi. Ad hominem attacks. You always know when Rikzilla has lost an argument, when he resorts to calling people names, you know he has nothing to contribute.

Rik - It seems that simple questions really do shake your world. when you are ready to debate facts and engage in rational arguments perhaps you will let me know? I have challenged you to show where I have ever denied the facts of the Holocaust. Will you be a man this time and stand by your own words?

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 01:52 PM

originally posted by SkepticNow that I think about it, there are rather disturbing parallels between the IHR's and some of the so-called "pro-palestinian" people's method of method of argument here.

What is the IHR?
Who are these people you are equating to the IHR.In this thread, for instance, I was attacked three times for "libeling" the palestinians by claiming they want genocide. First it was claimed that I am absurd, since NO palestinian wants this; then that I was wrong because I only provided evidence that SOME palestinians want it; and finally, I was attacked for not proving that EVERY SINGLE palestinian wants this.
Please post quotes to support your claim.This is quite equivalent to the IHR's method of claiming, first, that NO jews were killed in the holocaust, so it "doesn't count" because it's a lie; then that only SOME jews were killed in the holocaust, so it "doesn't count" because it was not systematic; and finally that since not ALL jews were killed in the holocaust, it "doesn't count" because it's not a "real" holocaust if there are any survivors at all. Given that you have provided no supporting quotes for your claim can I clarify exactly what it is you are saying here? Are you seriously suggesting that questioning your lack of clarity about the Palestinians is somehow equivalent to questioning the existance of the Holocaust?Also, in this thread, many people expressed (fake) "ignorance" about the real meaning of obvious euphemisms like "the destruction of israel" (which is not much of a euphemism, come to think of it), "the repeal of the zionists invaders", etc., etc., etc., claiming that it COULD be that this is meant "peacefully". You are making unsubstantaited claims here. Who are you talking about, and what ignorance was fake?This is quite similar to the IHR's claims that all the talk about "the final solution of the jewish problem", "cleansing" countries of the "jewish virus", and so on COULD have meant doing so by "peaceful" means. Having used Google I now assume that you mean the Institute for Historical Review when you say IHR.

You have not specified who used the words you mention but are you seriously suggesting either that these people (whoever you are talking about) are Holocaust deniers or are members of the IHR or support the IHR or want all Jews murdered? Please let us know so we can frankly and fully assess the nature of your claims.Quite apart from the fact that in both cases the real intent--genoicde--is obvious from the context (if nothing else), this "argument" is disgusting for another reason, in both the case of its proponents here and in the case of the IHR. Are you seriously suggesting that all Palestinians are intent on the genocide of the Jews? Are you claiming here that people on this site are proponents of the genocide of the Jews? If so please specify who on this site is a proponent of genocide of the Jews and you reasons for claiming that they are?It supports, implicitly at least, the claim that if is "only" the destruction of israel by "peaceful" means--as if such a thing as destroying a country "peacefully" exists--or merely cleansing Europe of jews "peacefully", it wouldn't be THAT bad. Who has made this claim? (As usual, the champions of "human rights" wave them aside as meaningless when it is the jews' human rights that are in question: if there is a discrimination against israeli Arabs, this is an awful crime, but if the Arabs "only" want to destroy israel and not all jews, if they are willing to be pacified by "merely" expelling all the jews and not killing them all, this is "moderation" and even priased as being "peaceful", as in the oxymoronic phrase "destroying israel by peaceful means", which makes as much sense as "killing all the ******* by democracy".) Who are these champions?
Who has made these claims?

When faced with incontrovertial evidence--from their own people, admitting and even bragging about their succesful or attenpted genoicde--simply deny that it means what it says, and claim "jewish propaganda". What incontrovertible evidence? Whose people? Memri published tons of quotes from Arab sources that prove the desire for genoicde? So what, it's surely just "biased", say Cleon and others here. Which quotes?
Which others?The Nuremberg trials unearthed the horror of the "final solution"? The horror of the 'final solution' had already been discovered by British, Russian and American soldiers, amongst others, when they fought their way across Germany and Poland.So what, they all just lied due to torture to please their captives, says David Irving in a book highly praised by the IHR. From what I know of David Irving I wouldn't give him or his book shelf space. The holocaust clearly happened. What has that got to do with requests for you to use the word 'some' when you accuse Palestinians of genocide?The IHR's method of doing this is to claim that since not ALL statements by survivors of the holocaust match EXACTLY (add long list of "contradictions" here), then the whole thing is a hoax, and they are all "liars" and "criminals" (add a list of crimes or bad things done by survivors later here). If that is the IHR's methodology then that is clearly invalid. The Holocaust clearly happened and many different groups of people were butchered by the Nazis. What has that got to do with querying your implication that all Palestinians want the genocide of the Jews?The method of "The Fool" & co. in this thread is to simply ignore all the evidence posted, but note that since I didn't use the qualifier "some" or "extremists" EVERY time I mentioned the Palestinians or the Muslims, this is "proof" that I am a "racist", and a good excuse to move the "objective" discussion to my personal faults and "unreliablilty". Who do you mean by & Co?
Are you seriously saying that the Fool and unmentioned others have ignored every single piece of evidence posted?
What exactly is wrong with simply saying 'some' when you mean some? Is that a mjor problem for you? You do seem to be making an enormous meal out of being asked to be more accurate in your language. I may be wrong but isn't clarity of language a pre-requisite for full understanding? Perhaps you don't feel the need to be clear but I thought part of this post was your anger at euphemisms rather than clear language.

Depite you concern at euphemisms I note that you repeatedly failed to clarify everyone you were talking about. Shouldn't sauce for the goose also be suace for the gander?(This, I think, is why "The Fool" is so pissed off that I keep ignoring his accusations of being a "racist". Quite apart from the fact that I am not, I simply won't let the discussion degenerate into a "You're a racist!" "No I'm not!" flame war, and keep asking "The Fool" to provide evidence to show my CLAIMS about Palestinian genocidal intentions are false. He can't, of course.) If you are not a racist why do you have so much of a problem using the word 'some' when you mean 'some'. I mean, how much of a big deal can that be? What is wrong with being asked to substantiate your assertions? When you say I believe something to be true, so what. Some people believe in psychics. The difference is when you claim things are in fact true. Then you will probably be asked to justify them. That is why psychics have so much difficulty, because what they claim to do i.e. talk to the dead is impossible. These are pretty disturbing similarities, if you ask me. Apples are much the same size as some oranges. Would that be a pretty disturbing similarity to you? What actually are you claiming here? Why not let us all know instead of making nasty insinuations?Originally, I believed that it is unfair to compare people like this to the IHR in particular, since--after all--similar methods of "arguments" are seen by creationists, flat-earthers, and other "true believers" who protect their myths at all costs (in this case, the modern political creationist myth of the "pure and innocent Palestinian victims") So much cloak and dagger stuff.
Why not be completely clear?
Who exactly do you mean or are you just casting nasturtiums at all and sundry? Perhaps you mean to implicate everyone on this site including Mycroft and Rikzilla in some vast conspiracy.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no innocent Palestinians?
Are you also seriously trying to tell me that all the children killed by Israeli aircraft targetting suspects were not pure and innocent? What were they? Murderous fighters for Allah and that their toys were full of semtex?

Get a life.
But when I keep hearing claims like "but they only want to destroy israel PEACEFULLY" or "It's ONLY expulsion and destruction they're talking about, not genocide", you've got to wonder. Who made these claims? Where did they make them?

All Israelis and all innocent Palestinians are entitled to live in peace, free from terror.

The Fool

6th February 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Now, in that same post I showed you exactly why I came to the conclusion that I did. I offered clips from the Constitutions and Charters of the Palestinian Authority. Why did you not merely address my information head on? Show how my evidence is wrong. Is it because you can't? I cited works which are official, and widely available from multiple sources, to support my assertions. Your rebuttal is completely devoid of fact, and instead you offer ad-homs.

I would hope that the great Australian defender of the gentle people of Palestine could do better than that.

-z
I wonder if it is an ad-hom fallacy to call you an Idiot? That could be a subject of its own thread...

Congratulations on finding quotes from palestinians that support your conclusions....did you like the multitude of quotes from zionists I provided that show that they advocate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? What say you about those rik? Does that prove that Israelis are backward? uncivilised? savages?? No it doesn't ricky boy...No more that your prize quotes proves anything about palestinians. Or quotes from the KKK prove anything about americans. Or quotes from you prove anything about critical thinkers.

I'm not sure of the point of constantly correcting you on the same mistake...like the hopeless kid in class, maybe its best if you just sat up the back and faced the wall.

rikzilla

6th February 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I wonder if it is an ad-hom fallacy to call you an Idiot? That could be a subject of its own thread...

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

So the answer to your above query would be yes. :rolleyes:

Congratulations on finding quotes from palestinians that support your conclusions....did you like the multitude of quotes from zionists I provided that show that they advocate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? What say you about those rik? Does that prove that Israelis are backward? uncivilised? savages?? No it doesn't ricky boy...No more that your prize quotes proves anything about palestinians. Or quotes from the KKK prove anything about americans. Or quotes from you prove anything about critical thinkers.

More ad-hom? :D Okay, tell ya what Fool? Let's raise the ante just a tad. You show me where it says in the Israeli constitution that Israel must conquer and subjugate the Palestinian people on the way to a glorious Zionist future. Or perhaps you could show me such an article in ANY official constitution or charter of ANY civilised western government??

Would you try?? :D

How 'bout I try first then?
Here's the relevant text:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER:
Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

So it's not just that all Jews must be removed from the West Bank and Gaza, they don't say that. What they say is that Israel itself has no right to exist at all.

They do not ever officially say all Jews must be removed. They say this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So not all Jews, just most of them. They only want to remove ALL JEWS who are Israelis. A decidedly veiled threat that gives people like Fool the ability to deny the facts of what the Palestinians are really after. The deaths or deportation of nearly every Jew in the region.

Well, that takes care of the official PA position? Not really. There's also this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Palestinian National Covenant, Article 21:
"The Palestinian Arab people, in expressing itself through the armed Palestinian revolution, rejects every solution that is a substitute for a complete liberation of Palestine, and rejects all plans that aim at the settlement of the Palestine issue or its internationalization."

From the Palestinian National Covenant, Article 22:
"Zionism is a political movement organically related to world imperialism and hostile to all movements of liberation and progress in the world. It is a racist and fanatical movement in its formation."

Read between the lines Fool. They are officially calling for the destruction of Israel, and the removal from Arab lands of all Jews not defined by them as "Palestinian Jews". That's damned near "ALL" if you ask anyone reasonable to interpret the above official proclamations of the Palestinian Authority.

Let's look a little further though, and see what the "unofficial" Palestinian position is. Here's what HAMAS says about Jews and the Jewish state:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Covenant
of the
Islamic Resistance Movement
18 August 1988
In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah
"Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah. And if they who have received the scriptures had believed, it had surely been the better for them: there are believers among them, but the greater part of them are transgressors. They shall not hurt you, unless with a slight hurt; and if they fight against you, they shall turn their backs to you, and they shall not be helped. They are smitten with vileness wheresoever they are found; unless they obtain security by entering into a treaty with Allah, and a treaty with men; and they draw on themselves indignation from Allah, and they are afflicted with poverty. This they suffer, because they disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew the prophets unjustly; this, because they were rebellious, and transgressed." (Al-Imran - verses 109-111).

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's fairly explicit. No need to read between the lines there. Now we all know that HAMAS is not an official organ of the PA. But you can see how their message is in complete accord with the "official" message. There is no disagreement between the two.

But since Arafat is essentially the PA it's interesting to see what he thinks, via his own movement; Fateh:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fateh Constitution:
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There. No quotes from emotional loonies. These are the official proclamations of the lawful leaders and clergy of the Palestinian people, via their constitutions and charters.

So Fool, what do you say to this? Are you man enough to either 1.admit that this culture is backward and barbaric as I have asserted, or 2.put up evidence that shows my claim to be false,...or 3. yet the third option, post equivalent articles from constitutions and charters from other (non-Arab) nations that show that barbarism and backwardness are common in the west as well.

I await your response....in the meantime I stand by my fact based assertion that majority of the Palestinian people and culture are indeed both backward and barbaric.

-z

Skeptic

6th February 2004, 04:12 PM

I wonder if it is an ad-hom fallacy to call you an Idiot?

Yes, it would. It would be a nice change of pace from the "racist!" claims, though.

Congratulations on finding quotes from palestinians that support your conclusions....

Why, imagine that: I provided evidence for my claims!

Does that prove that Israelis are backward? uncivilised? savages?? No it doesn't ricky boy... No more that your prize quotes proves anything about palestinians. Or quotes from the KKK prove anything about americans.

It sure would, if a KKK member was the president of the United States, schoolchildren the KKK were good and just protectors of white womanhood from savage blacks, and popular movies were made supporting them.

Oh wait, that WAS the case... in 1916 America. Now, would you say 1916 America was racist against blacks? I sure would.

Of course, I guess I'm just being "racist" myself: nobody ever asked EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN in 1916 what he thinks about blacks, so it's "unfair" to generalize...

like the hopeless kid in class, maybe its best if you just sat up the back and faced the wall.

I have the feeling you'd do that to me if you could, Mr. "Freedom of Speech".

a_unique_person

6th February 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I wonder if it is an ad-hom fallacy to call you an Idiot?

Yes, it would. It would be a nice change of pace from the "racist!" claims, though.

I don't think it's a fallacy if it's true.

Gem

6th February 2004, 05:24 PM

Palestinian people and culture are indeed both backward and barbaric.

Ok, rik, I missed something from your logic.

How is an official charter/constitution from a group/nation show that the people and culture are barbaric?

To illustrate my point, would you consider Iraqis backward and barbaric because Saddam's government was anti american (whether implicit or explicit)?

Another example: China was communist in 1975. Were its people and culture both backward and barbaric because of official propaganda, charters and politicians said certain things?

Gem

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great post Rik, just one thing to add:

A Jew living in Palestine before the "Zionist invasion" would have to be about 120 years old today. I think we can safely say they mean every Jew.

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Gem
How is an official charter/constitution from a group/nation show that the people and culture are barbaric?

What makes a better indication of a cultures values than the charters and constitutions that they put forth as their guiding principles?

When I purchased my home, recorded in the title was a clause stipulating that we could not sell our home to a black person, nor allow a black person to live in the home even as a live-in servant. I purchased my home in the late 90's, when that clause had long since been made unenforcable, it was a relic from a half-century ago.

My point? My culture once supported racism. Not everyone in the United States fifty years ago was a racist, but enough were to say the culture itself was racist. This racism in my own culture sometimes manifested itself in ways that were barbaric.

Gem

6th February 2004, 08:05 PM

What makes a better indication of a cultures values than the charters and constitutions that they put forth as their guiding principles?

But the United States was a Democracy/Republic. Hence, people voted politicians who represented what people wanted for law.

Not so in Palestine. Did anyone actually vote for these guys? Therefore, the cultural values were not put in place by the people.

Consider Iraq. Depending on where you go, some favor a stronger role for religion in politics. Hence, when they get to vote, their lawmakers will relfect this want. Did this entire cultural trait suddenly emerge when saddam was deposed, or was it the government charter barring the role of religion in the government? (Btw, that does not mean Saddam didn't use religion for his ends, I'm just saying that the clergy in Iraq during Saddam wasn't as powerful as, say, those in Iran.)

And my earlier examples show that politics have influence, but do not represent culture.

Gem

Cleon

6th February 2004, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

More ad-hom? :D Okay, tell ya what Fool? Let's raise the ante just a tad. You show me where it says in the Israeli constitution that Israel must conquer and subjugate the Palestinian people on the way to a glorious Zionist future.

That's rather difficult, seeing as how there is no "Israeli constitution."

Skeptic

6th February 2004, 09:41 PM

That's rather difficult, seeing as how there is no "Israeli constitution."

Merely having a constitution means little: There is no British one, but there is (for instance) an Iranian one. Does this mean Iran is freer than Britian?

However, there IS the equivalent of a constitution in israel. It's what's known as "basic laws" or "fundamental laws" ("hok ye'sod"), which have a privildged status equivalent in many respects to the constitution: they need, for example, a privildege majority in order to amend them. These laws include, inter alia, laws establishing equality before the law, basic human rights, rights to freedom of speech, etc. (no trial by jury, though--the israeli system is based on the continental system of professional judges--but that doesn't exist for anybody, jew, Arab, or Turkish), and, basically, enshrine in the law, in a priviledge position, the human rights the western world has.

It goes without saying that nothing comparable exists in the Palestinian constitution, but precisely the opposite: while israel's "basic laws" include equality for all people before the law, the Palestinian constitution includes as its "basic law" the holy duty to kick the jews into the sea, as seen above.

This is the whole story, really, in a nutshell.

Cleon

6th February 2004, 10:06 PM

First, I want to note that I made no claims about whether Israel is "free" (tm) or not based on the fact that it has no constitution. I merely pointed out that Rikzilla's challenge to find something in the Israeli constitution is rather pointless, as Israel doesn't have one.

Originally posted by Skeptic
It goes without saying that nothing comparable exists in the Palestinian constitution, but precisely the opposite: while israel's "basic laws" include equality for all people before the law, the Palestinian constitution includes as its "basic law" the holy duty to kick the jews into the sea, as seen above.

This is the whole story, really, in a nutshell.

I'm constantly amused by the way you repeat this as if it's actually true. Of course, nothing in the PA charter says anything of the sort, as Rikzilla has demonstrated. I love how these conversations go--it's actually rather funny.

"The Palestinians want to kill all the Jews!"
"Why do you say that?"
"Because they SAY that!"
"Where do they say that?"
"Right here, in the PA charter: (quote)"
"It doesn't say anything of the sort."
"Well, no, but you have to READ BETWEEN THE LINES! It's right there!"

Whine all you want, "Skeptic," about how the Palestinians are really secretly Nazis who want to "push the Jews into the sea," but the fact of the matter is the PA charter says no such thing. You claim it's there because you think--yes, I said think--that's what the Palestinians really mean, but it's not what they say.

Contrast that to a political party like Moledet, which advertises its desire for a complete expulsion of the Palestinians as a key point in its program.

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
I'm constantly amused by the way you repeat this as if it's actually true. Of course, nothing in the PA charter says anything of the sort, as Rikzilla has demonstrated. I love how these conversations go--it's actually rather funny….

…"Well, no, but you have to READ BETWEEN THE LINES! It's right there!"

THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER:
Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

I don’t see how you need to read between the lines on this one. This clearly calls for the elimination of Israel. How can it be interpreted otherwise?

Cleon

6th February 2004, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
I don’t see how you need to read between the lines on this one. This clearly calls for the elimination of Israel. How can it be interpreted otherwise?

It's all in the language you use. They say "liberation," in the same way--whether you agree with them or not, this is their perspective--that South Africa was "liberated" from apartheid.

There is no question that the PLO--and Palestinians as a whole--aren't too thrilled with Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

What I am challenging is the idea that the Palestinian leadership, or Palestinians in general, want a massacre of the Jewish population.

The Fool

6th February 2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

I await your response....in the meantime I stand by my fact based assertion that majority of the Palestinian people and culture are indeed both backward and barbaric.

-z
glad to see you recognise your own faults....all I can say is try not to pass this failing onto your children.

I can understand this sort of garbage coming from "skeptic" but I honestly had you in mind as being a bit brighter... Who elso do you hate rick? Is it a long list or are palestinians enough to quench your needs for baddies?
I'm glad that the majority of people don't judge Americans based on you and your mob of parrots. It would be very unfair....

Anyway....not much point trying to discuss this sort of topic with people who believe in the superiority of one race over another.

Mycroft

6th February 2004, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
What I am challenging is the idea that the Palestinian leadership, or Palestinians in general, want a massacre of the Jewish population.

At the moment they're blowing up their women in an effort to kill Jews. With that in mind, are you really suggesting that such a "liberation" would be peaceful?

peptoabysmal

6th February 2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Cleon

That's rather difficult, seeing as how there is no "Israeli constitution."

OK, so they call it a Knesset, but it functions as their constitution and defines most of their basic laws.

Mycroft

7th February 2004, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Gem
But the United States was a Democracy/Republic. Hence, people voted politicians who represented what people wanted for law.

Not so in Palestine. Did anyone actually vote for these guys? Therefore, the cultural values were not put in place by the people.

Media, education and religion are all strong forces to guide and shape cultural values, and who has had control of these among the Palestinian-Arabs for the past 35 years? If it wasn’t the will of the people when it was written, it’s had plenty of time to sink in since.

Still, I would think this is a strong argument if you could also point to groups within that culture that are vocal in opposing the violence.

Originally posted by Gem
Consider Iraq. Depending on where you go, some favor a stronger role for religion in politics. Hence, when they get to vote, their lawmakers will relfect this want. Did this entire cultural trait suddenly emerge when saddam was deposed, or was it the government charter barring the role of religion in the government? (Btw, that does not mean Saddam didn't use religion for his ends, I'm just saying that the clergy in Iraq during Saddam wasn't as powerful as, say, those in Iran.)

Saddam may have bared religion from government, but the people of Iraq only recognized two authorities in their daily lives, the government and religion. With the government gone, it’s only natural for their people to look to the next power to fill that vacuum.

Then along come the Americans talking about “democracy” and they’re told they’re gonna get to vote on how they want to be governed, but what to vote for? They haven’t been raised being told how great it is to be able to say whatever you want, carry guns and hang out with undesirables if you want to, but most of them have attended the Mosque where they learned how great life would be if everyone abided by these rules laid down in the Koran. So when they get the vote, what would you expect them to vote for?

The purpose of a charter of constitution is to set down the ideas and principles people will live by. They will be a direct reflection of the values of that group, but that doesn’t mean they will reflect all the values of that group.

E.J.Armstrong

7th February 2004, 02:53 AM

Rikzilla
You made a number of false accusations.
I challenged you directly to support your claims.
Once again however you have run away.
Once again you will not stand by your own claims yet carry on posting.

Skeptic
Eh?

E.J.Armstrong

7th February 2004, 03:02 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
At the moment they're blowing up their women in an effort to kill Jews. With that in mind, are you really suggesting that such a "liberation" would be peaceful?
I notice you didn't address the actual challenge.

Unfortunately, at the moment, the Israeli government is assassinating mere suspects without trial, during which they show a disregard for the lives of innocent children. They are bulldozing the houses of innocent people, helping to maintain illegal settlements and ghettoising an entire population behind a wall.

With that in mind, are you really suggesting that their "liberation" wouldn't be peaceful?

Cleon

7th February 2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

OK, so they call it a Knesset, but it functions as their constitution and defines most of their basic laws.

No, the Knesset is the Israeli parliament, roughly their equivalent of Congress.

Cleon

7th February 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

At the moment they're blowing up their women in an effort to kill Jews. With that in mind, are you really suggesting that such a "liberation" would be peaceful?

Peaceful? Unlikely, seeing as how Israeli hardcore types and the US would fight tooth and nail to prevent dissolution of the "Jewish state."

But again, you're molding this into something it's not: I repeat, the Palestinians do not call for the expulsion or wholesale murder of the Jewish population. The only way to arrive at the conclusion that they do is if you decide that's what they really mean.

Ziggurat

7th February 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
I can understand this sort of garbage coming from "skeptic" but I honestly had you in mind as being a bit brighter... Who elso do you hate rick? Is it a long list or are palestinians enough to quench your needs for baddies?
I'm glad that the majority of people don't judge Americans based on you and your mob of parrots. It would be very unfair....

Anyway....not much point trying to discuss this sort of topic with people who believe in the superiority of one race over another.

This was NEVER about race, you idiot. It's about culture. Are you so warped by your ideology that you cannot even countenance the idea that one culture can be worse than another? You seem to take it as axiomatic that we cannot claim such a thing, no matter how barbaric the culture, but there is simply no reason to actually believe that to be the case. And in the case of Palestinian culture, and in fact most of what for lack of a better word I'll call Arab culture, it is indeed worse than our culture, by basically any reasonable measure. And not by a little bit.

The arab world is failing BECAUSE of its culture (repression of women, restrictions on flow of information, little value placed in work or education, intolerance of other religions, tribal nature of their society). And you seem as incapable of recognizing it as they are. You can only resort to accusations of racism (which is pathetic since we're talking culture not race), because yet again you are unable to provide any evidence that shows that their culture is not, in fact, backwards and brutal. Do you have ANY arguments to say that the list of factors I gave above does NOT apply to Palestinians?

Life for most Saudis might be just as bad as the Palestinians, even without any "outside" oppressor, were it not for the dumb "luck" of having oil. Their society has shown itself incapable of competing in the modern world or actually producing anything worthwhile - even their oil infrastructure had to be built by the west. The Palestinians, and all the other arabs, can blame the Israelis all they want, but blame never helps a society actually get anywhere. The societies that DO get anywhere are those that actually get off their asses, stop blaming others, and WORK to improve their condition. And blowing yourself up to kill your enemies isn't working for a better future.

Mycroft

7th February 2004, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Peaceful? Unlikely, seeing as how Israeli hardcore types and the US would fight tooth and nail to prevent dissolution of the "Jewish state."

I am really really puzzled that you would describe an Israeli who would fight tooth and nail to prevent the dissolution of Israel as “hardcore”. Would you describe the citizen of any other nation in the world as “hardcore” just because they wanted to preserve their country?

I am equally puzzled that when Hamas says,”There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” that you would place the full responsibility for the inherent violence in the “liberation” of Israel on the Israelis.

Originally posted by Cleon
But again, you're molding this into something it's not: I repeat, the Palestinians do not call for the expulsion or wholesale murder of the Jewish population. The only way to arrive at the conclusion that they do is if you decide that's what they really mean.

What do you think is meant by the part of the Fateh constitution that says, “Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”

You say I’m reading something into that that’s not there. Well, what do you see? What does it take to eradicate the economic, political, military and cultural existence of a people? What measures other than wholesale slaughter could accomplish that? What interpretation could there possible be in this that you see as good, or even just acceptable?

Cleon

7th February 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I am really really puzzled that you would describe an Israeli who would fight tooth and nail to prevent the dissolution of Israel as “hardcore”. Would you describe the citizen of any other nation in the world as “hardcore” just because they wanted to preserve their country?

I find it incredibly sad that you consider it "preserving their country."

I am equally puzzled that when Hamas says,”There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” that you would place the full responsibility for the inherent violence in the “liberation” of Israel on the Israelis.

If the Israelis were to lay down and say "ok, that's it, let's skip this 'Jewish state' BS and start over with everyone on equal terms," Hamas would cease to exist and armed struggle would hardly be necessary. Since that, as I said, is unlikely, Hamas and others will stick with armed struggle and terrorism.

What do you think is meant by the part of the Fateh constitution that says, “Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”

You say I’m reading something into that that’s not there. Well, what do you see? What does it take to eradicate the economic, political, military and cultural existence of a people? What measures other than wholesale slaughter could accomplish that? What interpretation could there possible be in this that you see as good, or even just acceptable?

Zionism is not a "people." Zionism is a political ideology. You keep making the assumption that "Zionists" and "Jews" are synonymous. They're not.

Gem

7th February 2004, 12:11 PM

Media, education and religion are all strong forces to guide and shape cultural values, and who has had control of these among the Palestinian-Arabs for the past 35 years? If it wasn’t the will of the people when it was written, it’s had plenty of time to sink in since.

That's a good point. Would the internet change this, though? (Like in China, for example)

Still, I would think this is a strong argument if you could also point to groups within that culture that are vocal in opposing the violence.

http://www.p4pd.org/peacemaker1.html

http://www.hanania.com/palestinianpeacenow.htm

Not exactly against violence, but interesting none the less:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/391663.html

Hundreds of Palestinian Fatah activists quit movement (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/391663.html)

In a letter addressed to Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah Chairman, Yasser Arafat, and to the movement's central committee, the activists protested against "the tragic situation Fatah has reached and which was not taken care of in spite of calls for reforms".

Saddam may have bared religion from government, but the people of Iraq only recognized two authorities in their daily lives, the government and religion. With the government gone, it’s only natural for their people to look to the next power to fill that vacuum.

Then along come the Americans talking about “democracy” and they’re told they’re gonna get to vote on how they want to be governed, but what to vote for? They haven’t been raised being told how great it is to be able to say whatever you want, carry guns and hang out with undesirables if you want to, but most of them have attended the Mosque where they learned how great life would be if everyone abided by these rules laid down in the Koran. So when they get the vote, what would you expect them to vote for?

The purpose of a charter of constitution is to set down the ideas and principles people will live by. They will be a direct reflection of the values of that group, but that doesn’t mean they will reflect all the values of that group.

True. But then how can we rely on these constitutions to get a good feeling of the values of that group? To refer to Iraq, there are three main ethnic groups: Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites. Saddam's constitution, if it reflected any values of the people, could only reflect the sunnis. Law in a dictatorship is made by the one who hold power, not people. And in Palestine, there is more than one power (Hamas, PA, and others are independent of each other, and don't agree on everything)

And the government of Iraq isn't gone, it's just temporarily switching from Dictatorship to Democracy. As for the role of the clergy, the gallup poll in Iraq showed that they are divided on the role of religion and the clergy in government:

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/political_poll.pdf

Iraqis in these seven cities divide on whether a democracy, an Islamic state or a mix of the two is best for Iraq’s future. But regardless of their preferences for a political system, large majorities emphasize the importance of free and fair elections, the rule of law, the right to criticize the government and inclusiveness in politics.

Gem

The Fool

7th February 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

This was NEVER about race, you idiot. It's about culture. Are you so warped by your ideology that you cannot even countenance the idea that one culture can be worse than another? You seem to take it as axiomatic that we cannot claim such a thing, no matter how barbaric the culture, but there is simply no reason to actually believe that to be the case. And in the case of Palestinian culture, and in fact most of what for lack of a better word I'll call Arab culture, it is indeed worse than our culture, by basically any reasonable measure. And not by a little bit.

The arab world is failing BECAUSE of its culture (repression of women, restrictions on flow of information, little value placed in work or education, intolerance of other religions, tribal nature of their society). And you seem as incapable of recognizing it as they are. You can only resort to accusations of racism (which is pathetic since we're talking culture not race), because yet again you are unable to provide any evidence that shows that their culture is not, in fact, backwards and brutal. Do you have ANY arguments to say that the list of factors I gave above does NOT apply to Palestinians?

Life for most Saudis might be just as bad as the Palestinians, even without any "outside" oppressor, were it not for the dumb "luck" of having oil. Their society has shown itself incapable of competing in the modern world or actually producing anything worthwhile - even their oil infrastructure had to be built by the west. The Palestinians, and all the other arabs, can blame the Israelis all they want, but blame never helps a society actually get anywhere. The societies that DO get anywhere are those that actually get off their asses, stop blaming others, and WORK to improve their condition. And blowing yourself up to kill your enemies isn't working for a better future.

Lol.... Ok Doofus, we all know you think arabs are stupid and smelly so lets do a bit of an elimination competition.

Who, out of Americans and Israelis are superior? Who are the superior people? As you are an expert at juding racial superiority, it should be an easy question for you....Who is the master race? What about the british? do they come third? or are they superior to Israelis or Americans and squeak into second?

Nikk

7th February 2004, 03:21 PM

Nikk

7th February 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Cleon

I find it incredibly sad that you consider it "preserving their country."

If the Israelis were to lay down and say "ok, that's it, let's skip this 'Jewish state' BS and start over with everyone on equal terms," Hamas would cease to exist and armed struggle would hardly be necessary. Since that, as I said, is unlikely, Hamas and others will stick with armed struggle and terrorism.

Zionism is not a "people." Zionism is a political ideology. You keep making the assumption that "Zionists" and "Jews" are synonymous. They're not.

If France can become friends and allies with Germany after 3 invasions in 70years and the Germans can be reconciled with the British and Americans after we bombed their cities flat there has to be hope for zionist jews and palestinians.

To be frank though I sometimes wonder if Zionism has a death wish. If I was surrounded by people prepared to face certain death in order to kill me I would not be inclined to spit in their face as many Israeli politicians appear to be.

Ziggurat

8th February 2004, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol.... Ok Doofus, we all know you think arabs are stupid and smelly so lets do a bit of an elimination competition.

Who, out of Americans and Israelis are superior? Who are the superior people? As you are an expert at juding racial superiority, it should be an easy question for you....Who is the master race? What about the british? do they come third? or are they superior to Israelis or Americans and squeak into second?

Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I state explicitly that it's culture, not race, and you jump right back to the racism charge without even an argument. Race is irrelevant. Culture is not. American culture is better than the culture of the arab world. This time, instead of shouting "racist", why don't you actually try to argue the issues? In fact, I contend that YOU are the racist, because your position only makes sense if what I'm talking about are race-based qualities and not cultural properties. If they are cultural, they can be changed, though we may have to do that for them (just as we destroyed the militaristic aspects of Japanese culture). If it is racial, then they have no hope of changing. And Israeli and British culture vs. American culture is rather irrelevant, they all have the basics of what I'm going to describe, again.

To make it easy for you, I'll lay out some of the issues which make American culture real simple-like. I did this before, and you couldn't argue the facts. Let's give you one more try.

1) American culture does not oppress women. Arab culture does. Discuss.

2) American culture ecourages the flow of information. Arab culture does not.

3) American culture places value on education, science, and technical knowlege. Arab culture does not.

4) American culture values work and competence, not just position and authority. Arab culture does not.

5) American culture is tolerant of other religions. Arab culture does not.

So let's see if you can actually argue any of these points in a substantive way. Arguing that there are restrictions on abortions so Americans really do oppress women is really quite irrelevant when Arab culture tolerates honor killings, so try to actually argue real issues, not just irrelevant anecdotes or fringe issues.

Skeptic

8th February 2004, 12:07 PM

Peaceful? Unlikely, seeing as how Israeli hardcore types and the US would fight tooth and nail to prevent dissolution of the "Jewish state."

Imagine that! Fighting tooth and nail to prevent the dissolution of your country! Disgusting, the kind of extremism those jews engage in sometimes...

demon

8th February 2004, 12:12 PM

Imagine that! Fighting tooth and nail to prevent the dissolution of your country! Disgusting, the kind of extremism those Palestinians engage in sometimes...

Lovely irony there skeptic!

Skeptic

8th February 2004, 12:14 PM

So let's see if you can actually argue any of these points in a substantive way.

Well, he can. He'll give careful consideration to whether to call your points "garbage", "propaganda", or just "nonsense", and whether to call you "nazi", "racist", or just "zionist" for posting them.

And that's just the first stage! "The Fool" then has to blending these elements with JUST the right amount of heavy-handed sarcasm and self-congratulatory belief in his infinite moral superiority.

You don't think that's EASY, do you?

The Fool

8th February 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

To make it easy for you, I'll lay out some of the issues which make American culture real simple-like. I did this before, and you couldn't argue the facts. Let's give you one more try.

1) American culture does not oppress women. Arab culture does. Discuss.

2) American culture ecourages the flow of information. Arab culture does not.

3) American culture places value on education, science, and technical knowlege. Arab culture does not.

4) American culture values work and competence, not just position and authority. Arab culture does not.

5) American culture is tolerant of other religions. Arab culture does not.

So let's see if you can actually argue any of these points in a substantive way. Arguing that there are restrictions on abortions so Americans really do oppress women is really quite irrelevant when Arab culture tolerates honor killings, so try to actually argue real issues, not just irrelevant anecdotes or fringe issues.
I have found it pointless to argue with people who believe that one people are superior to another... The only thing you can prove to me is that you truly believe it. I already accept that.
Actually, to be honest you make me laugh so hard I spat coffee on my keyboard, for that reason alone, I dislike you.

The Fool

8th February 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
So let's see if you can actually argue any of these points in a substantive way.

Well, he can. He'll give careful consideration to whether to call your points "garbage", "propaganda", or just "nonsense", and whether to call you "nazi", "racist", or just "zionist" for posting them.

And that's just the first stage! "The Fool" then has to blending these elements with JUST the right amount of heavy-handed sarcasm and self-congratulatory belief in his infinite moral superiority.

You don't think that's EASY, do you?
I really will have to stop spanking you "skeptic" you are starting to get a "fool fixation". I'm a bit dissapointed you have not voted in the Americans V Israelis battle of cultural superiority, with your nose for Evil I was sure you could clearly indicate who is superior and why.....

Ziggurat

9th February 2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

I have found it pointless to argue with people who believe that one people are superior to another...

No, you find it pointless to actually argue the facts. You haven't offered a single refutation of the points I made, because you can't.

The only thing you can prove to me is that you truly believe it.

None so blind...
Tell me, fool, do you believe that one culture cannot be inferior to another culture, that all cultures must be equal? Remember, I'm talking culture here, NOT race. Simple question, yes or no answer will do. Elaborate all you want, but please provide a yes or no.

rikzilla

9th February 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

glad to see you recognise your own faults....all I can say is try not to pass this failing onto your children.

Non-Sequitur.

I can understand this sort of garbage coming from "skeptic" but I honestly had you in mind as being a bit brighter... Who elso do you hate rick? Is it a long list or are palestinians enough to quench your needs for baddies?

What sort of "garbage"?? The Palestinian charter?? It's not a quote from some loony Fool, these are official guiding documents expressing the will and wishes of the Palestinian people through the political leadership and clergy. You said quotes from the great unwashed masses were meaningless,....well, what I posted earlier was not a random quote.

I'm glad that the majority of people don't judge Americans based on you and your mob of parrots. It would be very unfair....
Another non-sequitur.... :rolleyes:

Anyway....not much point trying to discuss this sort of topic with people who believe in the superiority of one race over another.

HUH!?? When have I ever said such a thing? The fact is that you are unwilling to take up the challenge.

Originally posted by rikzilla:
There. No quotes from emotional loonies. These are the official proclamations of the lawful leaders and clergy of the Palestinian people, via their constitutions and charters.

So Fool, what do you say to this? Are you man enough to either 1.admit that this culture is backward and barbaric as I have asserted, or 2.put up evidence that shows my claim to be false,...or 3. yet the third option, post equivalent articles from constitutions and charters from other (non-Arab) nations that show that barbarism and backwardness are common in the west as well.

I await your response....in the meantime I stand by my fact based assertion that majority of the Palestinian people and culture are indeed both backward and barbaric.

-z

Looks like you are thinking outside the box like your buddy Shemp, winner of the prestigious "Baghdad Bob" award. You've taken a fourth option; call rikzilla a bunch of names and ignore the challenge.

Since the cowardly Fool has deemed it beneath himself to respond in any meaningful way I'll lay it out there for the rest of you Palestineophiles....show me the official article of the Israeli charter, or other such document that says they must subjugate the Arab and take all of Palestine. Anyone?? (crickets churp)

-z