M.Dancer Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Yup! Everyone that doesnt cheer on every single Israeli action is a terrorist supporter! We all know that Morris Thanx for comin out! No I do not cheer every action. I have been very critical of Israel. When Isreal withdrew from lebanon I was one of the first who said they should keep fighting...when they pulled out of Gaza I said they should reoccupy the place... As for this naval action, I condemn Israel for not going in fully armed and lobbing tear gas canisters from the get go. 11 Israelis are wounded because of it. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
myata Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Ummmm. If you aren't interested in what I posted, then apparently you are only listening to one side. No, I only noticed that your post was based entirely on information from one side. While duly noting that fact, I also read it that makes your statement absurd and untrue. Your "different note" is totally off topic, not to mention completely generic. What would the scenario be? Let's say, a convoy of humanitarian aid that has cleared customs of a NATO country. Where would the US vessel be headed and under what circumstances? Let's say to a country that's in the middle of an armed conflict. Like e.g..... Georgia? And "obviously" hostile? Where are you getting that from? Oh, you mean those armed guys that boarded the ships were just Santa Clauses? And their shooting was only Cristmas crackers? Again, another post in response to mine without one word pertaining to what I posted/said. It does indeed. We need to understand how do you apply criteria justifying use of deadly military force against civilians. If you're about to excuse military boarding humanitarian ships and killing several civilians in the process only on their word, would you be applying the same approach in all cases? Or only when this particular military is concerned? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
DogOnPorch Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Actually you already threw the racisism thing at me last week. Your suggestion that I support Hamas is just equally silly and childish. But go ahead... call me whatever you want. Youre have literally zero credibility or relevence. Nothing more than a cheer leading sports fan. Since you are incapable of finding this apparent call to racism I made...I'll have to assume you're a liar as well as a terrorist supporter. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Since you are incapable of finding this apparent call to racism I made...I'll have to assume you're a liar as well as a terrorist supporter. I really could care less what you assume. Youre not a person of any consequence what-so-ever... Nothing more than a cheerleader without any knowledge at all about what hes cheering on. Just carry on... youre good for a few laughs at least. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 I really could care less what you assume. Youre not a person of any consequence what-so-ever... Nothing more than a cheerleader without any knowledge at all about what hes cheering on. Just carry on... youre good for a few laughs at least. Yawn...you're a liar. Better bookmark this one...cause I am calling you a liar. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Yawn...you're a liar. Better bookmark this one...cause I am calling you a liar. Why bookmark THIS one? Thats about your fiftieth false accusation this week... nobody cares what you think, people are used to your temper tantrums and youre never ending stream of insults, strawmen, logical fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, faked quotes and fan-boyism. Youre some little kid with fuzzy pom-poms chillin in his moms basement. What you think and what names you call me is completely unimportant. *** pats head *** poor, poor DOP. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
naomiglover Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 No I do not cheer every action. I have been very critical of Israel. When Isreal withdrew from lebanon I was one of the first who said they should keep fighting...when they pulled out of Gaza I said they should reoccupy the place... As for this naval action, I condemn Israel for not going in fully armed and lobbing tear gas canisters from the get go. 11 Israelis are wounded because of it. You are Gold. The forum champion in ethics, morality and international law. BushCheney will just have to try a little harder now. Quote Jewish Voice for Peace Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
bloodyminded Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 You are Gold. The forum champion in ethics, morality and international law. BushCheney will just have to try a little harder now. It's interesting to watch people actually embracing their inner moral degenerate. I suppose they mistake ugly confession for cleverness. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 It's interesting to watch people actually embracing their inner moral degenerate. I suppose they mistake ugly confession for cleverness. It's even more interesting to watch people twist in the wind with such selective morality. I suppose they mistake smug superiority as the absence of complicity. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) It's even more interesting to watch people twist in the wind with such selective morality. I suppose they mistake smug superiority as the absence of complicity. Why "selective morality?" You have said you don't cotton much to such foolish idealisms as morality. (Unless, of course, you feel the Holy Troops have been impugned.) Edited June 1, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
GostHacked Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Attacked with the dreaded paintball gun!!! around the 1:00 mark, an IDF soldier points the dreaded paintball gun... It also looks like a night video as well, (inverted infrared I think) .. do we know what time the boarding took place? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Why "selective morality?" You have said you don't cotton much to such foolish idealisms as morality. (Unless, of course, you feel the Holy Troops have been impugned.) Beats me...they turn it on and off depending on place and context. I suppose that is the weighty burden of a navel gazing do-gooder...always something that needs moral analysis and judgement...and so little time. Who shall they save next (if not themselves)? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Beats me...they turn it on and off depending on place and context. I suppose that is the weighty burden of a navel gazing do-gooder...always something that needs moral analysis and judgement...and so little time. Who shall they save next (if not themselves)? Oh sure...as if the frantic, tantrum-throwing, sanctimonious little pantywaists--commonly referred to as "the political Right"--are not breathtakingly relativistic in their morality. I've just had another poster openly supporting terrorism...so long as he could summon the big, scary Soviet Union meaninglessly into the discussion. Hy-larious. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Oh sure...as if the frantic, tantrum-throwing, sanctimonious little pantywaists--commonly referred to as "the political Right"--are not breathtakingly relativistic in their morality. I've just had another poster openly supporting terrorism...so long as he could summon the big, scary Soviet Union meaninglessly into the discussion. We all openly support terrorism depending on the defintion and context. I prefer to cut to the chase and just distill it down to power and objectives (competing interests). The rest of the bullshit is for historians to debate later (what/how vs. who/why/when). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 We all openly support terrorism depending on the defintion and context. I prefer to cut to the chase and just distill it down to power and objectives (competing interests). The rest of the bullshit is for historians to debate later (what/how vs. who/why/when). It's one way to go, sure. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
naomiglover Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 We all openly support terrorism depending on the defintion and context. I prefer to cut to the chase and just distill it down to power and objectives (competing interests). The rest of the bullshit is for historians to debate later (what/how vs. who/why/when). Who is 'all'? I don't support terrorism. Quote Jewish Voice for Peace Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Who is 'all'? I don't support terrorism. Why should you get a break? If you live in Canada (or the USA), you sure as hell do support "terrorism". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 OK, Argus: one more time. Read carefully: By "objectively worse" I was referring only and specifically to the amount of murders that were taking place; to the amount of terror sowed, in other words. Then perhaps you should have said "objectively more numerous". In any event, the only difference there is Hamas has not been able to sow as much terror as it would desperately like to. Given the ability I'm sure they' easily outdor Suharto. However, almost all the terror was in fact carried out with Western weapons, beginning with Ford and Kissinger openly giving Suharto the green light for invasion and mass terrorism in December 1975 (with Kissinger's proviso that Suharto wait till he and Ford were back in the United States, for PR purpsoes). The Indonesians were able to convince them that the East Timorese were involved with Marxists and were flirting with the Soviets. Right or wrong, that is what caused the Americans to give them the okay to take over East Timor. Now I highly doubt Suharto said "I'm going to go in and slaughter people by the tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands" and I doubt the Americans thought he would either. There is a progression to such things so that by the time you realize where you are its too late to go back. And to repeat, it didn't matter a damned if he had western weapons. The Soviets or Chinese would have been delighted to supply him with whatever he needed. Indonesia's strategic location at the time absolutely guaranteed that he would be able to get a supporter, one way or another. I'm not excusing terrorism, Argus. Your responses in their entirety on this subject is your excusing terrorism. Maybe I just prefer to blame the guy who wields the gun instead of the guy who sold it to him. You're blaming the Americans, even bleeding heart Carter, for what Suharto did, oblivious to the reality that if there had been any alternative people like Carter would have taken it. They couldn't have continued without the continual flow of arms and ammunition; the training of their military thugs was crucial Nonsense. As I said earlier, even if they hadn't been able to turn to the Soviets or Chinese, you don't need a continual influx of weapons to combat a low level insurgency, not in a country the size of Indonesia. You think they can't make their own bullets? It's a country of two hundred million people! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bloodyminded Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) Then perhaps you should have said "objectively more numerous". In any event, the only difference there is Hamas has not been able to sow as much terror as it would desperately like to. Given the ability I'm sure they' easily outdor Suharto. Sheer speculation, and totally irrelevant. Maybe if Stalin hadn't killed so many people, somebody worse would have come along instead. So what? The Indonesians were able to convince them that the East Timorese were involved with Marxists and were flirting with the Soviets. Right or wrong, that is what caused the Americans to give them the okay to take over East Timor. Where do you get this? Any citations? Surely you must have some reputable sources. Now I highly doubt Suharto said "I'm going to go in and slaughter people by the tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands" and I doubt the Americans thought he would either. I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. But in fact they (and others) ended up supporting it. There is a progression to such things so that by the time you realize where you are its too late to go back. Why too late to go back? The slaughters stopped thanks to international intervention...non-violent intervention at that. And to repeat, it didn't matter a damned if he had western weapons. The Soviets or Chinese would have been delighted to supply him with whatever he needed. Indonesia's strategic location at the time absolutely guaranteed that he would be able to get a supporter, one way or another. ??? Even if this were true, it sounds pretty frail as justification for support of massive State terrorism. "If we don't support mass murder...our enemies will!" At any rate, it's not accurate. Indonesia was already a client state, with a very close relationship with the West, particularly with the US and Australia. Maybe I just prefer to blame the guy who wields the gun instead of the guy who sold it to him. Sold it to him with full knowledge of its purpose...and trained him along the way. You're blaming the Americans, even bleeding heart Carter, for what Suharto did, No...co-responsibility. oblivious to the reality that if there had been any alternative people like Carter would have taken it. You mean like the alternative that belatedly did occur, and solved the problem: stop helping the murderers? Nonsense. As I said earlier, even if they hadn't been able to turn to the Soviets or Chinese, you don't need a continual influx of weapons to combat a low level insurgency, not in a country the size of Indonesia. You think they can't make their own bullets? It's a country of two hundred million people! Even if they didn't need the arms, Western countries kept supplying them. Also, you're omitting the diplomatic support for the atrocities, as well as counterinsurgency training to fight the insurgency in a country they were invading, where they were slaughtering people. I can't believe you insist on justifying such horrors. It's moral relativism to an astonishing degree. You get exercised about the terrorist crimes of Hamas, which are trivial in comparison, but when we're involved...you just have to justify it. Even if you need to make things up out of whole cloth: There was no alternative; Suharto tricked us; etc. Edited June 1, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
JB Globe Posted June 1, 2010 Author Report Posted June 1, 2010 If it was about simoply bringing goods, they could have docked in EQgypt But then the aid would have never gotten through, because Egypt is going along with the blockade as well for two reasons - it doesn't like Hamas, and it doesn't want to loose the US economic aid it receives. You know as well as I do there was no way that aid was getting through on land - Israel or Egypt would not have allowed a land aid convoy organized by a human rights organization critical of the blockade to get to Gaza. After all, Israel accused the organizers of being affiliated with Al Qaeda (false) - you're telling me you honestly think that Israel would let them dock in Israel and deliver the aid by land? Either you're naive or you're being completely disingenuous. Quote
Argus Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 An analytical approach that no doubt includes a step "how can I shape this to conform with my preexisting beliefs and prejudices?" Well y'know there might be people who can bitch on this score, but you ain't one of them. Your every utterance is so predictable you don't even need to post. For example, your hilarious claim that the Israeli assault team was entitled to defend themselves, a right which you do not extend to those under attack by a group of heavily armed belligerents. Never made any such claim. I pointed out that they were clearly aiming to bust Israel's blockade, so your whining that the Jew-boys hadn't waited till they had actually crossed the demarcation line - a line you would insist was illegal anyway, as you insist the blockade is illegal anyway - seems pointless. If it makes you feel better, they had every right to defend themselves. But as I said, only really dumb people bring clubs and slingshots to a gun fight, and they - predictably - wound up dead. I rarely feel much sympathy for people that determined to throw away their lives in a pointless cause. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
JB Globe Posted June 1, 2010 Author Report Posted June 1, 2010 Pretty easy to say when it isn't their l'il bods being dropped via helicopter into a hostile situation. So you're saying Israelis don't have the right to criticize their own military on their conduct? wtf? Israel has mandatory service - almost all Israelis serve in the military - they have more of a right to criticize their strategy in this incident than you do to criticize them for speaking up. Honestly, the amount of blind allegiance you have to the neo-con/fundamentalist position in Israel eclipses that of the vast majority of Israelis. I mean, even neo-con Israelis aren't happy about this incident. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 But then the aid would have never gotten through, Aid gets through all the time. You even posted a link from the BBC that confirms this. The israelis offered to let it through provided they docked in Egypt or Israel first. And aid gets in via Egypt as well.... I won;t suggest you are being disingenous... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Argus Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Whenever people--and there are a few on this board--start whining about your being a Hamas-supporter, or a supporter of terrorism, every time you venture to criticize Israel...you know they have lost the debate. Because they are refusing to sanely debate, to offer arguments. Are you saying there are no Hamas supporters here? Are you saying that the predictability of certain people rushing onto this site to condemn Israel every time something happens - generally the same people - has nothing to do with their antipathy to Israel or, conversely, their support for the "other side"? By the way, given the subject of Israel attacking a flotilla, your own arguments, which seem to consist of "Hamas isn't that bad! We're actually much, much worse!" doesn't really call for a lot of learned discourse. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
JB Globe Posted June 1, 2010 Author Report Posted June 1, 2010 Most sympathizers tell us that it is a mistranslation or they were really celebrating a wedding...etc. Like this gem...respect others cultures...damnit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCRj4ZPnYdk I swear...they're all 18...lol. What does this have to do with the incident? This seems like pretty clear trolling to me. Should everyone ignore you for the remainder of this post? Are you incapable of staying on-topic? Or is your purpose here just to try and piss people off, rather than discuss the issue at hand? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.