• 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.
The facebook page has been pulled down

I'm glad that they did it, not because of the content but because of that the threat that if they did, then ALL Muslims will boycott facebook.

I don't hold facebook responsible for the content posted on their pages I like the freedom of speech idea to much. I do, however hold group leaders responsible for the content because that content is a direct reflection on the group itself. I see "Kill the Jews" on a fb page ( I linked to it upthread ) and I have no choice but to assume the group leaders support those sentiments, even if, on the surface, they're calling for intifada by peaceful means.

Eventually, facebook may become liable for content posted on their site. There's a lawsuit going on right now between a tour operator ( a booking agent, really ) and an internet forum ( scubaboard ) where both the site and the individual posters are being sued for posting their opinions on the details of an accident leading to death.

Wikipedia used to have a page on it, but it's been pulled down, all I can find is this
 
Do you really want folks who throw rocks at soldiers, to have their citizenship revoked???
Click to expand...

It says that terrorism will result in a revoked citizenship, not "throwing rocks at soldiers". Nor does the ADL say throwing rocks at soldiers is necessarily terrorism. That is your own addition.

In any case, whether "throwing rocks at soldiers" is terrorism or not depends on the situation. Certainly in some cases it is.
 
Last edited:
Of course it's not photo shopped, a quick Google search turns up several examples of the cap with the image not centered. In red even....
 
Thunder said:
is this a strawman or just a misunderstanding of my point?
Click to expand...

Wait! You are arguing that the ADL are opposed to calls for an intifada because they will lead to terrorism. You say that an intifada will lead to stone-throwing and that therefore the ADL are calling stone-throwing terrorism. It doesn't matter at all that the ADL have never said what you say they have and that no one else is saying what you say the ADL are saying.

It is almost as if you are replacing the actual argument of the ADL with a much flimsier argument of your own making and having lots of fun attacking that.

Hmmm...what do we call it when someone puts up a conveniently weak and flimsy argument in place of the much more sensible argument?

Thunder said:
oh look..what's this I see? could it be....a strawman?

yes...it is a strawman!!! hello strawman. :)
Click to expand...

Hello Mr Strawman indeed. I can see you two are well acquainted. In fact, no wonder you are so childishly and exuberantly happy to see Mr Strawman as you never enter a debate without him.
 
Skeptic said:
It says that terrorism will result in a revoked citizenship, not "throwing rocks at soldiers".
Click to expand...

no, it says that engaging in terrorism and supporting terrorist groups, will result in revocation of citizenship.

and if chucking a rock at a soldier is terrorism, that means that hundreds if not thousands of Israeli Arabs are eligable to have their citizenship revoked, if this law is retroactive.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You are claiming that an intifada is not terrorism and using rock throwing as an example of what an intifada is.
Click to expand...

an Intifada in itself is not terrorism. an Intifada can indeed include acts of terrorism, but terrorism and an Intifada are not mutually inclusive.
 
Thunder said:
no, it says that engaging in terrorism and supporting terrorist groups, will result in revocation of citizenship.

and if chucking a rock at a soldier is terrorism, that means that hundreds if not thousands of Israeli Arabs are eligable to have their citizenship revoked, if this law is retroactive.
Click to expand...

When has the ADL said that throwing rocks is terrorism?

Why do some people throw rocks at Israeli soldiers anyway? :rolleyes:
 
mortimer said:
:confused:

What homework are you suggesting? You deny that what other people call "Zionazis", people here call "Neo-Zionists"?
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, but I never use the term "ZioNazi".

Furthermore, for the most part "ZioNazi" is used to refer to ALL Israelis and ALL Zionists. And sometimes even all Jews.

on the contrary, Neo-Zionism is a real phenomenom and political philosophy, as proven by the many links I provided.

ZioNazi is just a stupid pejorative, while Neo-Zionist refers to right-wing, nationalist and extremist Zionists and Israelis...in contrast to more moderate and liberal Zionists, who believe in equal rights, freedom, and democracy for all Israelis.
 
Thunder said:
I can only speak for myself, but I never use the term "ZioNazi".

Furthermore, for the most part "ZioNazi" is used to refer to ALL Israelis and ALL Zionists. And sometimes even all Jews.

on the contrary, Neo-Zionism is a real phenomenom and political philosophy, as proven by the many links I provided.

ZioNazi is just a stupid pejorative, while Neo-Zionist refers to right-wing, nationalist and extremist Zionists and Israelis...in contrast to more moderate and liberal Zionists, who believe in equal rights, freedom, and democracy for all Israelis.
Click to expand...

i have never seen anyone on this forum use the term zionazi.
however, comparing muslims to nazis is a common practice here.
 
Thunder said:
Furthermore, for the most part "ZioNazi" is used to refer to ALL Israelis and ALL Zionists. And sometimes even all Jews.

on the contrary, Neo-Zionism is a real phenomenom and political philosophy, as proven by the many links I provided.

ZioNazi is just a stupid pejorative, while Neo-Zionist refers to right-wing, nationalist and extremist Zionists and Israelis...in contrast to more moderate and liberal Zionists, who believe in equal rights, freedom, and democracy for all Israelis.
Click to expand...
Except that the common usage around here is to call anyone who supports something Israel is doing/has done that you disagree with a Neo-Zionist. Much like others are called Zionazis elsewhere.
 
mortimer said:
Except that the common usage around here is to call anyone who supports something Israel is doing/has done that you disagree with a Neo-Zionist. Much like others are called Zionazis elsewhere.
Click to expand...

you are aware that this is an absolute and blatant lie.

the only folks I call Neo-Zionist, are ones who defend and stand up for right-wing Zionist agendas and goals.

for example: someone who supports the expansion of Israeli settlements or someone who supports discriminatory Israeli policies.

I would never call a liberal or even a moderate Zionist, a "Neo-Zionist". that would be like calling all Germans Nazis, or all Americans Tea-Baggers.
 
Thunder said:
you are aware that this is an absolute and blatant lie.

the only folks I call Neo-Zionist, are ones who defend and stand up for right-wing Zionist agendas and goals.

for example: someone who supports the expansion of Israeli settlements or someone who supports discriminatory Israeli policies.

I would never call a liberal or even a moderate Zionist, a "Neo-Zionist". that would be like calling all Germans Nazis, or all Americans Tea-Baggers.
Click to expand...

You throw the word around like confetti Parky. You called Palestinian Media Watch "Neo-Zionists". You think it's mud guaranteed to stick.
 
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