• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
trustbutverify said:
Please... The point of the hypothetical is to test priorities. When yours are exposed you resort to insults and other insecure nonsense. Hypotheticals even, and especially, unlikely ones are accepted and effective tools used in all forms of debate- including law. Your answer doesn't mean you want to kill gays- stop whining son. It means your willing to accept that outcome if it maintains national soverenty. You want to defend that position through argument- fine. If not, reexamine your position. Just stop witching and moaning.

Son.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
It's possible to support the Palestinians without wanting the Jews dead. It's impossible to support Hamas without wanting the Jews dead -- because it is the central thing Hamas is for.

In the same way that it's quite possible to support, say, the Democratic party without being a communist, but not possible to support the Communist party without being a communist, or not possible to support the KKK without being a racist.

Also, while BK is correct that saying the KKK are "freedom fighters" is delusional, the point is that this is indeed supporting the KKK. Similarly, saying Hamas are "freedom fighters" is supporting Hamas.

(P.S. In fact I would say that saying Hamas are "freedom fighters" is significantly more delusional than saying the KKK is. At least the KKK will allow Blacks to somehow live once the USA is liberated from the evil rule of the mixed-raced commies, or something. Can't say the same about Hamas' plans for the Jews.)
 
trustbutverify said:
Please... The point of the hypothetical is to test priorities. When yours are exposed you resort to insults and other insecure nonsense. Hypotheticals even, and especially, unlikely ones are accepted and effective tools used in all forms of debate- including law. Your answer doesn't mean you want to kill gays- stop whining son. It means your willing to accept that outcome if it maintains national soverenty. You want to defend that position through argument- fine. If not, reexamine your position. Just stop witching and moaning, Son.
Click to expand...

He is witching and moaning not because he really thinks anybody is accusing him of wanting to "kill gays", but because his hypocrisy is exposed.

Apparently creating a theocratic Islamic dictatorship is wrong in all circumstances UNLESS that theocratic Islamic dictatorship is killing Jews, I mean, *cough* *cough*, "freedom fighting against evil Israeli occupation".

(Which magically continues to be an "occupation" despite the fact that Israel is no longer in Gaza -- another one of those magic words which mean one thing when anybody else in the world does it, and something completely different when Israel does it.)
 
The Fool said:
Thats a funny story :)
have you considered writing childrens books?

I'm going to tell you something reeeeely funny. As an Australian citizen I would prefer not to live under foreign occupation. Maybe you like the Idea....can I suggest China would be a good foreign power for you to be a minion of.
Click to expand...

Foreign occupation? You're making this about race when it's not.

All over the world there are people ruled by "foreign occupation" who don't seem to mind, while others rise up to protest or even overthrow their local governments. It's not about who runs the government, it's about what the government does.

"Self rule" doesn't mean squat if the rulers shoot people for stepping out of line, while "foreign occupation" doesn't seem so "foreign" if the locals rights are protected. That's why there is no serious independence movement among Native Hawaiians, but you do have Egyptians marching in the streets.

That's also why you have a huge difference in nationalistic ambitions from the Muslim-Arabs of the Levant and the Christian-Armenians in their relationship to the Ottoman Empire. One had the benefit of being part of the "in-group" Muslims, while the other did not.
 
Mycroft said:
Foreign occupation? You're making this about race when it's not.

All over the world there are people ruled by "foreign occupation" who don't seem to mind, while others rise up to protest or even overthrow their local governments. It's not about who runs the government, it's about what the government does.

"Self rule" doesn't mean squat if the rulers shoot people for stepping out of line, while "foreign occupation" doesn't seem so "foreign" if the locals rights are protected. That's why there is no serious independence movement among Native Hawaiians, but you do have Egyptians marching in the streets.

That's also why you have a huge difference in nationalistic ambitions from the Muslim-Arabs of the Levant and the Christian-Armenians in their relationship to the Ottoman Empire. One had the benefit of being part of the "in-group" Muslims, while the other did not.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amuse me how you need to rationalize anything and everything done by Israel, even to the ridiculous extent of posting essays on how local populations generally quite like being occupied......its such fun!
 
It's not ridiculous. As I said in the other thread, Independence is not always the best thing. Chalk it up to another thing the Marxists got completely wrong.
 
The Fool said:
It never ceases to amuse me how you need to rationalize anything and everything done by Israel, even to the ridiculous extent of posting essays on how local populations generally quite like being occupied......its such fun!
Click to expand...

Nice try, but the one doing the rationalization is you. You want to rationalize why it's okay for Palestinians to want Hamas to lead them, while simultaneously rationalizing why they shouldn't suffer the consequences of that choice. You also manufacture out of your imagination a nationalistic movement you can't find evidence for.

It's about what the government does, not where it is that matters. That's why Australia didn't declare independence until 1986, because being ruled by the British Empire is not such a terrible thing, but there are uprisings in Syria because being ruled by a local dictator isn't a good thing.
 
bikerdruid said:
wow.....cool and scary fantasy.
Click to expand...
Fantasy? Hear it from the horses mouth:



It's only a 50 second video. But if you still refuse to watch it it's Hamas MP Fathi Hammad talking about how they use the elderly, women, and children as human shields.

This is reality, not fantasy.
 
WildCat said:
Fantasy? Hear it from the horses mouth:



It's only a 50 second video. But if you still refuse to watch it it's Hamas MP Fathi Hammad talking about how they use the elderly, women, and children as human shields.

This is reality, not fantasy.
Click to expand...

Ah, now I see why Biker likes them so much. Hamas has a culture of death, and Bikerdruid is a fan of the voluntary human extinction project.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203932&page=8

It's all about their intrinsic loathing for life, freedom and progress.
 
Death is a part of their culture, how dare you criticize their way of life... I mean... way of death?
 
Mycroft said:
Foreign occupation? You're making this about race when it's not.

All over the world there are people ruled by "foreign occupation" who don't seem to mind, while others rise up to protest or even overthrow their local governments. It's not about who runs the government, it's about what the government does.

"Self rule" doesn't mean squat if the rulers shoot people for stepping out of line, while "foreign occupation" doesn't seem so "foreign" if the locals rights are protected. That's why there is no serious independence movement among Native Hawaiians, but you do have Egyptians marching in the streets.

That's also why you have a huge difference in nationalistic ambitions from the Muslim-Arabs of the Levant and the Christian-Armenians in their relationship to the Ottoman Empire. One had the benefit of being part of the "in-group" Muslims, while the other did not.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much how I see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom