Corrie vs. Caterpillar -- Redux.

[Ion]

...Do you think she was a peace activist?

Yes.

 

[gtc]

Yes.

Your opinion isn't relevant as we already know what you think about Jews.

Let me tell you a joke, inspired by the reality:

- why do neoconservatives have big noses?

- because the air is free.

 

[MaGZ]

Hitler killed himself. I think his latter-day followers could learn a lot from his example.

reported

 

[MaGZ]

webfusion, every time you rejoice at the thought of the deaths of innocents, simply because you disagree with them politically, you say more about yourself than you do about them.

For this reason I am glad webfusion is posting for the Israeli position.

 

[MaGZ]

Do you think she was a peace activist?

Yes

 

[Dr Adequate]

reported

Would you care to say why?

 

[Giz]

Not to mention the number of Palestinians killed by Israel.

I dont think that the number of deaths caused can be used to determine morality. After all, the USA suffered significantly lower casualties than it inflicted in WW2... didn't make 'em the bad guys.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why are you trying to ruin all the fun? This could be a great opportunity for a lawsuit against Northrop Grumman Ship Systems. (Sa'ar corvette battleship)

NO! A corvette is NOT a battleship, it is a warship.

The USS Missouri, a battleship.

A corvette is a warship. A destroyer is a warship. A cruiser is a warship. A battleship is a warship. A corvette is NOT a battleship.

Some of you landlubbers really don't get it.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I dont think that the number of deaths caused can be used to determine morality. After all, the USA suffered significantly lower casualties than it inflicted in WW2... didn't make 'em the bad guys.

There are, or were, some Russians who might not agree.

DR

 

[Cleon]

I dont think that the number of deaths caused can be used to determine morality. After all, the USA suffered significantly lower casualties than it inflicted in WW2... didn't make 'em the bad guys.

I don't disagree at all.

However, the point I was making is that it goes both ways. If you're going to list out the innocent Israelis that have died as evidence that the Palestinians are overly violent, as gtc was doing, one could just as easily list out the innocent Palestinians that have died as evidence that the Israelis are the violent ones. And by all accounts, the list of Palestinians would be much, much longer.

 

[gtc]

However, the point I was making is that it goes both ways. If you're going to list out the innocent Israelis that have died as evidence that the Palestinians are overly violent, as gtc was doing, one could just as easily list out the innocent Palestinians that have died as evidence that the Israelis are the violent ones. And by all accounts, the list of Palestinians would be much, much longer.

Ah, I see you have misinterpreted my post.

I wasn't trying to show that the Palestinians are overly violent.

Firstly, I don't claim to know that the Palestinians as a whole are overly anything, let alone overly violent. I am not sure what gave you that impression.

Secondly, I was pointing out what the so called 'Palestinian Resistance' had been up to in the six months prior to time Rachel Corrie's wrote her emails home. In those emails Rachel Corrie was defending what she called the 'Palestinian Resistance' and their 'somewhat violent means'.

Do you think that it was possible in 2003 to both defend the 'Palestinian Resistance' and their 'somewhat violent means' and to be a peace activist?

 

[Mycroft]

I don't disagree at all.

However, the point I was making is that it goes both ways. If you're going to list out the innocent Israelis that have died as evidence that the Palestinians are overly violent, as gtc was doing, one could just as easily list out the innocent Palestinians that have died as evidence that the Israelis are the violent ones. And by all accounts, the list of Palestinians would be much, much longer.

First of all that's not what he was saying. He wasn't saying Palestinians are overly violent, he was questioning if someone who supports the very violent Palestinian "Resistance" while also downplaying how violent they really are could really be a "peace activist".

Second, while someone could easily list out the "innocent Palestinians" that have died as evidence that the Israelis are the "violent ones", doing so would be to disregard the context of the violence in making such a determination.

 

[Cleon]

Ah, I see you have misinterpreted my post.

I wasn't trying to show that the Palestinians are overly violent.

Firstly, I don't claim to know that the Palestinians as a whole are overly anything, let alone overly violent. I am not sure what gave you that impression.

Secondly, I was pointing out what the so called 'Palestinian Resistance' had been up to in the six months prior to time Rachel Corrie's wrote her emails home. In those emails Rachel Corrie was defending what she called the 'Palestinian Resistance' and their 'somewhat violent means'.

Do you think that it was possible in 2003 to both defend the 'Palestinian Resistance' and their 'somewhat violent means' and to be a peace activist?

Ah, I see you are trying to pull a fast one on me.

You were trying to establish that Palestinians (excuse me: Palestinian resistance--I know you're always very careful about the distinction) are overly violent, or at least more than "somewhat violent." Your purpose in doing so was this bizarre diatribe about whether she qualifies as a "peace activist," not that you'd know one if they let you punch them in the nose. So my point was, and remains, perfectly valid.

In the end, you're still just cherry-picking her emails in order to, as Dr. A so eloquently put it, read the mind of a dead person. In this case, for no particular purpose other than trying to manufacture reasons to dismiss/condemn said dead person so you can feel comfortable about her death.

I'll leave you to it then. Toodles!

 

[gtc]

Ah, I see you are trying to pull a fast one on me.

No. I made my point very clear, several times. No one is trying to pull a fast one on you.

You were trying to establish that Palestinians
(excuse me: Palestinian resistance--I know you're always very careful about the distinction) are overly violent, or at least more than "somewhat violent."

Odd. I gave you no reason to assume that I was conflating Palestinian and terrorist and you appear to understand that I have 'always' been careful about the distinction (which seems obvious to me). Yet you have repeated that same allegation (albeit by attempting to portray your assertion as some kind of mistake).

Is there a word for this kind of rhetorical flourish?

Your purpose in doing so was this bizarre diatribe about whether she qualifies as a "peace activist," not that you'd know one if they let you punch them in the nose. So my point was, and remains, perfectly valid.

Bizarre diatribe is your opinion, but even if I conceded that point (which I don't) how does this render your point perfectly valid? I fail to see the connection.

In the end, you're still just cherry-picking her emails in order to, as Dr. A so eloquently put it, read the mind of a dead person.

It seems you have no difficulty claiming to be able to read my mind in this post and in your previous post. Odd.

By the way, is there some new rule of logic which says that people's words can not be used as evidence of their opinions?

In this case, for no particular purpose other than trying to manufacture reasons to dismiss/condemn said dead person so you can feel comfortable about her death.

Odder still is that despite claiming to be able to read my mind, you are unable to read my words. Where ever have I given you the idea that I wish to feel comfortable about her death?

The only thing about her death that makes me feel uncomfortable is that people can claim that she was a peace activist when her own words show her to be a supporter of the 'somewhat violent' 'Palestinian Resistance'.

The reason that her death doesn't make me feel uncomfortable (any more so than any death makes me feel uncomfortable) is that I am satisfied that her death was not intentional.

I note that you have still not answered the question:

Do you consider her to be a peace activist despite her support for the 'Palestinian Resistance' (her words not mine) and their 'somewhat violent means' (again her words not mine)?

Instead you have twice suggested that I consider all Palestinians to be overly violent, raised the idea of peace activists punching my nose and now suggested that I am trying to make myself feel comfortable with her death.

I'll leave you to it then. Toodles!

OK.

Come back when you can answer my question. Take your time.

 

[Ion]

Your opinion isn't relevant as we already know what you think about Jews.

I didn't know that Jews = neo-conservatives.

Within neoconservatives there are Jews (like Kristol and Wolfowitz) and there are non-Jews (like Bush, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft).

So:

.) why are neo-conservatives' noses big and crooked?

.) because the air is free.

 

[Ion]

...
Secondly, I was pointing out what the so called 'Palestinian Resistance' had been up to in the six months prior to time Rachel Corrie's wrote her emails home. In those emails Rachel Corrie was defending what she called the 'Palestinian Resistance' and their 'somewhat violent means'.

Do you think that it was possible in 2003 to both defend the 'Palestinian Resistance' and their 'somewhat violent means' and to be a peace activist?

Yes.

When Israeli civilians are in occupied territories, they are terrorists first things first.

Palestinan Resistance employing violent means against foreign occupation, that's understandable.

 

[webfusion]

When Israeli civilians are in occupied territories, they are terrorists first things first.
Palestinan Resistance employing violent means against foreign occupation, that's understandable.

Nothing in this post makes any sense.
But, that's understandable, considering the source.

 

[fuelair]

I disagree with this:

The San Diego Union Tribune of Saturday July 7, 2007 shows in brief news that Israel is beyond its borders.

That's dictatorship to the occupied populations.

That's what Rachel Corrie was fighting.

Interesting - though invalid - definition of dictatorship. The Israeli government is elected - and removable by its' constituents. By your definition, the government of the US is a dictatorship - because it has controlled without the consent of the government some countrie for varying periods of time. Legally, that is balderdash. By the by, I have nothing against Corries' beliefs (I believe that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want - including terrorists). And, as long as they do not act on those beliefs, I am unconcerned. When someone chooses to commit criminal acts based on their beliefs.............

 

[Ion]

Nothing in this post makes any sense.
But, that's understandable, considering the source.

What I said there doesn't make sense when you support terrorists who occupy foreign territories but don't want to be exposed.

As for me being the source of the statement that I made, you are reduced to personal attacks on me.

You don't justify Israel's expansion outside its borders.

 

[Ion]

Interesting - though invalid - definition of dictatorship. The Israeli government is elected - and removable by its' constituents. By your definition, the government of the US is a dictatorship - because it has controlled without the consent of the government some countrie for varying periods of time. Legally, that is balderdash. By the by, I have nothing against Corries' beliefs (I believe that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want - including terrorists). And, as long as they do not act on those beliefs, I am unconcerned. When someone chooses to commit criminal acts based on their beliefs.............

So were the Nazis elected in Germany.

Yet in the eyes of history they are dictators.