David Horrowitz encounters genocidal Muslim student.

[Ziggurat]

And when it comes to the support vs condemn thing, it is quite silly. It makes such a broad generalization that borders on laughable. Everything has good and bad in it, and I would hope any intellectual worth his or her salt would shy away from such things.

I guess I'm just not intellectual enough to figure it out, so perhaps you can help me. Where is the good in having all the Jews in the world gather in Israel so that Hamas doesn't have to hunt them down in order to kill them all?

 

[quixotecoyote]

I guess I'm just not intellectual enough to figure it out, so perhaps you can help me. Where is the good in having all the Jews in the world gather in Israel so that Hamas doesn't have to hunt them down in order to kill them all?

less hunting -> less travel -> less auto/plane emissions -> less greenhouse gasses -> less climate change

 

[Virus]

She did, and that was for both Hezbollah and Hamas.

Trying to understand her statement about the 'Hitler youth' bit, or is that just her failed attempt at trolling?

Sounded to me like humor fail. Guess it's double fail when you joke about being a Nazi while agreeing with them.

 

[lionking]

less hunting -> less travel -> less auto/plane emissions -> less greenhouse gasses -> less climate change

Bloody hell! I never realised Hamas were greenies. Puts them in a new light altogether.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The girl was asked if she was for or against having all the Jews rounded up in Israel so the Hezbollah wouldn't have to, quote, hunt them down. She leans forward towards the microphone and says with conviction, "for".

It doesn't get much clearer than that, Thunder.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Sounded to me like humor fail. Guess it's double fail when you joke about being a Nazi while agreeing with them.

Clarify this. No idea what you're going at here....

 

[Virus]

She tried to be sarcastic and said the MSA was running a Hitler youth event. It turns out she supports Hitler-esque ideologies.

 

[Virus]

Just came across this. That woman from the video posted this on a message board;

Lurker God
Jan 28, 2009
ASK ME ABOUT GETTING OWNED BY DAVID HOROWITZ (AND BEING FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWISH RACE LOL)sieg heil ronald mcdonald;;


So earlier on Monday this week David Horowitz came out to speak at University of California San Diego for Israel Apartheid Week. The event was hosted by Young Americans for Freedom, which are your basic, Reagan fellating college republicans. Anyways, it was the usual imperialist, apologetic ******** that Horowitz spits out in defense of the state of Israel. Later on though he took questions, and just today I found out that someone recorded mine and put it up on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE

I asked him about some statements he had made about how the MSA had financial connections to "jihadist terrorists". Of course he couldn't back his ******** up, so he just squirmed around and accused me of being a terrorist, lol.

So I figure we could use this thread to discuss how pathetic David and others of his Ilk are for trying to defend one of most oppressive states in modern history. Also, good strategies on how to confront these cowards and show them for the worms they are. Death to Israel.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/m...jewish-genocide-now-says-death-to-israel.html

Could be a troll job, but here's the thread where she posted it:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3303930

Most people are ripping on her for getting owned.

 

[WildCat]

And when it comes to the support vs condemn thing, it is quite silly. It makes such a broad generalization that borders on laughable. Everything has good and bad in it, and I would hope any intellectual worth his or her salt would shy away from such things. Generalizations and emotion-laden words add nothing to an argument.

True. The Nazis invented the modern limited-acess highway, yet all you hear is some drivel about how they started a war that killed tens of millions of people and their attempted genocide of the Jews.

Why can't people look past those 2 little things and focus on the good the Nazis did?

 

[bigjelmapro]

She tried to be sarcastic and said the MSA was running a Hitler youth event. It turns out she supports Hitler-esque ideologies.

Ah, ok. Well, not a stretch still Yassin, one of the founders of Hamas, who then headed the Muslim Brotherhood division in Gaza, where the latter supported Hitler's fascist movement. All this with Mein Kampf being the best seller in Cairo and Gaza city. Gotta love those close family ties

 

[tyr_13]

Just goes to show how blinkered the left are. They'll get up-in-arms over the slightest hint of sexism or racism from a westerner but gloss over the fascist pronouncements of the Muslim far-right. The west are oppressors, the Muslims are victims. That's all they can see. (even when those Muslims grow up in middle America and go to university.)

As a member of 'the left', I think you're giving in to confirmation bias there. At any rate, I agree that many left leaners do hold that specific double standard. You'll see in this very thread however that the vast majority of posters, left, right, and center, condemn this woman's position.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Just goes to show how blinkered the left are. They'll get up-in-arms over the slightest hint of sexism or racism from a westerner but gloss over the fascist pronouncements of the Muslim far-right.

Oh, but you see, criticising Muslims hurt their feelings!

Could be a troll job, but here's the thread where she posted it:

I call troll. The "lol"s give it away.

I can't access her post history as I'm not a SA member, but I'd say a lot hinges on that. If that thread was her first, he/she's a troll. If he or she has been spewing anti-Semitism for a while, she might just be real.

 

[Virus]

Oh, but you see, criticising Muslims hurt their feelings!

True. Mix that with a dose of "criticizing muslims is racist." Or "criticising muslim anti-semitism is racist."

 

[bigjelmapro]

As a member of 'the left', I think you're giving in to confirmation bias there. At any rate, I agree that many left leaners do hold that specific double standard. You'll see in this very thread however that the vast majority of posters, left, right, and center, condemn this woman's position.

I agree with you here. I'm getting a bit tired of this farce of pitting the left against the right and visa versa.

 

[DC]

So here we have DC excusing this stupid woman because the USA nuked Japan (or something) and Thunder excusing her because he doesn't like Horrowitz. Denial doesn't get much better than this.

NO i did not excuse her, holy crap..............

 

[Skeptic]

Could be a troll job, but here's the thread where she posted it:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3303930

Most people are ripping on her for getting owned.

I like the avatars of the posters on that forum.

One of them has a "you can't hug your kids with nuclear arms" sign -- and below that, an "Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade" graphic of a kalashnikov.

"We're for peace and Jew-killing!".

 

[Skeptic]

As a member of 'the left', I think you're giving in to confirmation bias there. At any rate, I agree that many left leaners do hold that specific double standard. You'll see in this very thread however that the vast majority of posters, left, right, and center, condemn this woman's position.

This is, again, one of the reasons this forum is worth visiting. For the most part those who disagree, whether on the left or the right, on various issues would all agree on core values and decency.

The problem is that the other 5% make all the noise and get all the attention.

 

[Lallante]

Serious question: if it could be safely assumed that nuking Israel would save the lives of 10s of thousands of Palestinians over the course of the next Century, would Palestine be justified in doing so?

Why does this differ from nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (also, why nuke 2 cities when 1 would prove the same point, in fact why not nuke some isolated, unihabited place first then THREATEN to nuke the city unless Japan surrendered?)


That said, I am completely against what this woman stands for (destruction of Israel, violence etc), I am just interested in examining the way we draw such moral distinctions.

IMO the only cognitive non-dissonent response is that both the nuclear attacks would be morally wrong and unjustified. Force response must, imo, be the minimum neccessary to achieve the ideal outcome. I guess given the assumption that the USA beating Japan is morally good, then one must accept that ending the war rapidly (and preventing much further loss of life) is morally good. The question then becomes what level of loss of life is acceptable to ensure that quick end. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaaki were unacceptable targets of first resort - the first nuke should have been on an isolated military base as a demonstration, and only following the failure of surrender negotiations following that attack should the target have been escalated in scale.

 

[lionking]

Why does this differ from nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (also, why nuke 2 cities when 1 would prove the same point, in fact why not nuke some isolated, unihabited place first then THREATEN to nuke the city unless Japan surrendered?)

This has been done to death in other threads. "Search" is your friend. And you may actually learn something.

 

[DC]

Serious question: if it could be safely assumed that nuking Israel would save the lives of 10s of thousands of Palestinians over the course of the next Century, would Palestine be justified in doing so?

Why does this differ from nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (also, why nuke 2 cities when 1 would prove the same point, in fact why not nuke some isolated, unihabited place first then THREATEN to nuke the city unless Japan surrendered?)


That said, I am completely against what this woman stands for (destruction of Israel, violence etc), I am just interested in examining the way we draw such moral distinctions.

IMO the only cognitive non-dissonent response is that both the nuclear attacks would be morally wrong and unjustified. Force response must, imo, be the minimum neccessary to achieve the ideal outcome. I guess given the assumption that the USA beating Japan is morally good, then one must accept that ending the war rapidly (and preventing much further loss of life) is morally good. The question then becomes what level of loss of life is acceptable to ensure that quick end. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaaki were unacceptable targets of first resort - the first nuke should have been on an isolated military base as a demonstration, and only following the failure of surrender negotiations following that attack should the target have been escalated in scale.

When we do it, its a good thing, do others the same, its a bad bad thing to do.