KrustyKidd

Your humor is mean, silly and unrealistically childish. Try something more in tune with reality or, just be kinder next time. Is it humorous to say 'Why not simply move all Arabs to Canada? '

It was 20% Jewish at the time of the British mandate hence you argument is bullshit. Jews began buying land off the Palestinian people who were happy to sell. Post WWII when Jews immigrated en masse was when the major problems came. Hence, an idiot argument of Tibetans being suddenly 'beamed' in is out to lunch.

Certainly but there are so so so many morons that just jump on the bandwagon even though they believe nothing and just need a scapegoat for their hatred. That would be the left who cannot hate blacks, slavs, asians, aborigionals, arabs and such but need some group to focus blame on.

Really! Gandhi was a guy who saw a way to get something done and sent people to do it despite the certainty they would be harmed. It was a pure propaganda ploy in that if the British did nothing, he would have been standing there with nothing himself with nothing to show the world so, he counted ono violence occuring. Just like Hamas does by sending over rockets ini order to garner a response and then, being ready to reconrd any and all percieved and real (hello Dub, note that I said real) war crimes. In effect, they co,mmit war crimes so they can record war crimes for morons to hate Jews even more. So, was Gandhi was right to send people into a situation that he knew, at the time, when the British ruled India and insurrection and disobedience was against the law? It was a crime and a lot of people got hurt. The end justifies thge means to some I suppose.

So true but some feel it was a sin worth hating real or percieved people over..

Arabs never war against each other. If the Jews weren't there, peace and prosperity would prevail. No dictators, no kings, it would be Democratic, a utopia to tell the truth Wouldn't it?

Yes, being a Jew is a terrible crime. Can't have those sort of people buying land off you even if you did sell it and then inviting their families even when threatened with extermination. Wondering why it isn't the same with Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Slavs with the left. Only Jews.

If only the Palestinians didn't side with the Arab League in 1948 there would be peace in the Middle East. Oh well ....

It is hardly non violent civil disobedience when the violence that is sure to come is predictabel by those carrying out the disobedience. As for being the same, it is not however, to somebody that would consider non violent civil disobedience that is sure to become violent 'non violent' I suppose anything is possible. Given that Saddam was responsible for ten thousand deaths per month on average throughout his tenure it would have taken ten months give or take a few for his next lethal move to kill more of his own people either by state sponsored terrorism in administration, another invasion, more sanctions or, just simply in adherence to UN resolutions as he did.

So if it said "This is designed to give arguments that will help us push the Zionist beasts into the sea" then it would be perfectly alright? If the Palestinians wish to make a dictionary to better explain their position and open dialogue with other nations then heck! I'm all for it. Why do you begrudge the Israelis from having one?

Can you provide a quote that states that Dub?

So taking this step by step, you think that it was fine for Gandhi to send people out to get beat up for no reason whatsoever then?

Not until you can show how the entire nation and it's political will were specifically targeting them. As far as I can tell, Jews were the main focus; ANTI-JEWISH LEGISLATION IN PREWAR GERMANY So, once again, other than honorable mentions, the persecution of Jews represented a central tenet of Nazi ideology whereas the other groups did not.

Gandhi purposely set forth actions that he knew would result in violence. That you revere him either overlooks this violence (most probable as you don't seem to have a shmick of what is gong on) or, you accept the violence as the end justifies the means. Taking it a step further, as the liberation of twenty five million Iraqis was a good thing, then this same 'end justifies the means' rule would apply would it not? That is why, if you feel that the deaths of thousands and the displacement of millions is worth it in order to be free then you more than likely would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. Need me to explain again or should we find an interpreter?

I was responding to this post which referred to me and wished to clarify what I said; Dub Nowhere did I say that if you support Gandhi you support Bush. I did say that if you support concepts such as the end justifies the means then, you more than likely supported Bush's invasion of Iraq as it, while also violent, did achieve a great many good things.

It's rather idiotic of you to remotely make a connection between the tactics (one being passive resistance and the other an invasion with a half million men.) However, if it can be done I'm sure you could do it. You still didn't understand the point. Gandhi purposely set forth actions that he knew would result in violence. That you revere him either overlooks this violence (most probable as you don't seem to have a shmick of what is gong on) or, you accept the violence as the end justifies the means. Taking it a step further, as the liberation of twenty five million Iraqis was a good thing, then this same 'end justifies the means' rule would apply would it not? It doesn't matter how little you know of the subject matter, you still have lots to add.

Thanks but normally I go to the source rather than rely on Wikipedia l;ike you do. In any case, I cannot find a negative which is why I asked you for the proof. DUB, IF THE HOMOSEXUALS OF GERMANY WERE PERSECUTED, HAD AN ENTIRE APPARATUS DESIGNED TO EXTERMINATE THEM, AN ENTIRE POLITICAL MOVEMENT GEARED TOWARDS ERADICATING THEM THEN REGARDLESS OF NUMBERS, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME SYMPATHY AS THE JEWS DID. Now, before we move on, do you have the proof and the numbers? If you do, I agree, if not, I do not. That would be correct my fellow gentle poster Dub. However, first, we need to be shown how the gays were hunted down, dehumanized, an entire logistical extermination movement and execution system was set up specifically for them and then, some numbers (even if it were one) top prove it actually occurred. I do realize they were persecuted however, not even remotely to the extent as the Jews were on a continental level. (In case you didn't know about this, it is called the 'Holocaust.' You have not shown that homosexuals were the sole focus of an entire nation's hatred. Please do so now so that I can agree with you.

Attention all those who can read and understand English. I. being the resident poster referred to in Dub's mistaken thread would like to clarify my contention in the hopes that one of you who reads and understands the written English language may discover Dub's native language and re explain for him so that he too may join in on rational thougt in order to add to this issue. Recently, Dub said something about Gandhi being a man of peace and should be looked up to as an example. I made note of the fact that in his leadership tenure, Gandhi actually and deliberately sent his followers into harms way knowing that they would be beaten, maimed or even killed. In this way, he was responsible for thousands of deaths. As well, his followers went on rampages and in one instance killed twenty police officers. After he achieved his goal of independence, more deaths occurred with millions being homeless and displaced, As I pointed out to Dub, as a man of intelligence and peace, he certainly was a catalyst for violence. I then even requested that he bone up on this issue a bit and understand why Gandhi was never given the Nobel Peace Prize. I in no way wished, or even alluded to Bush being like Gandhi nor Gandhi being like Bush. my contention was as follows; 1. If you believe that it is perfectly fine, and even admirable for Gandhi to be responsible for the deliberate maiming and killing of thousands if it achieved independence, then you must feel that the end justifies the means. 2. If you believe also that a world without Saddam Hussein in power is good and that the end justifies the means then you would have to agree with Bush's actions in Iraq. So, if both ends justify the deaths of thousands fine, if not, what is the difference? Note for Dub: As I have stated earlier, both on this thread and others, I am not comparing Bush with Gandhi but rather the rational of 'the end justifies the means' would be equally applicable to both.

Yes. And your point is........?

I did. I do however what you continually fail to understand is that this is a tool to promote open dialogue, not an instruction and directive of government policy. In short, your thread is bullshit.

Your point is ........?

Simply because I am tired of explaining this criteria to him (four times now) and then have him march off chanting that I said the exact opposite. DOP Exactly.

Dub, I read this first point of yours and had to just stop. You are either totally illiterate or a complete moron as I have continually said; Now, produce this process and rhetoric from Nazi Germany that shows an entire nation and it's energy geared towards exterminating homosexuals in order to prove they were persecuted like the Jews and lets move on. DUB, IF THE HOMOSEXUALS OF GERMANY WERE PERSECUTED, HAD AN ENTIRE APPARATUS DESIGNED TO EXTERMINATE THEM, AN ENTIRE POLITICAL MOVEMENT GEARED TOWARDS ERRADICATING THEM THEN REGARDLESS OF NUMBERS, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME SYMPATHY AS THE JEWS DID. Now, before we move on, do you have the proof and the numbers? If you do, I agree, if you do not then you have no point in this case and we move on.

Read my post above Dub. Golly, sometimes I wonder. Did I not give the criteria where they should have as much sypathy? Do they fit gays? If so then my answer is yes. If not then no. And, it has nothing to do with numbers. Where have I denied it? Once again your reading impediment comes into question. I said it was not official policy. Dub, now you are just twisitng words. Nowhere did I say that Hamas pretended to be Israeli troops. Hamas has absolutely nothing to gain by sending rockets into israel yet they do it. Do you think they are stupid when they do it and then have the entire population of Gaza standing there with video cameras shooting at nothing? They send rockets in order to garner a reaction which will then be filmed to show the world how evil the Israelis are for attacking them. Dub, at times, certaiin factions of Palestinians have made peace treaties and overtures. While encouraging, the other factions who do not agree break them. As i have stated over and over again here, I specify that a unified Palestinian entity which has proven itself to be able to speak for the entire population must make this peace. Neither of the two examples above could or can do that.

Yes, while israel was tryijg to minimize death, Hamas was not only trying to maximize Israeli deaths but even deliberately took action that was sure to endanger their own people. Hamas is not only criminals to Israel but to their own people.