Four Israelis shot dead in West Bank in unprovoked terrorist attack

[bloodyminded]

I'm not making any incorrect assumptions about you and I most definitely never accused you of calling me a bigot. In fact, you're one of the main reasons I say "most people here can't argue their point without cries of bigot;" I don't say "no one" here can do it. I recognize that you've never called me that, and again, have never said otherwise. But seriously, you are about the only one who hasn't, so I stand by my claim that people can't say anything bad about Islam without facing uncalled for cries of bigot. When I get pages and pages of it, that's what I base the reality of the situation on, not the fact that one (or two) posters are responding to what I actually say as the rest of the pack behaves exactly the way I've said they do.

I'm not saying that you agree with their calling people a bigot, I'm saying you ultimately agree with their views on the issue. So they give you a pass.

I just did. See above.

I've never once accused you of thinking anything you don't. It appears you misunderstood what I was saying. Hope this clarifies things for you.

It does, and I appreciate it.

But surely you can see how easily "ultimately you're in agreement with the 'you're a bigot' crowd" can be misconstrued.

At any rate, my main point still stands: when people complain that "you're not allowed to criticize Islam," this is not only factually incorrect (again, by definition); but the notion that people who agree with me on several other issues "give me a pass" is not relevant. They aren't the arbiters of what "can't" or what can be said.

They might take people up on the issues, disagreeing with them in a civil way, or unfortunately throwing insults or invective.

But there's no "can't" about it. There's no censure, aside from self-censorship.

Political correctness can be stultifying to discussion...but in the end, minus some sort of objective censure (as opposed to anonymous rhetoric on an internet forum), no one here is stopped from voicing their opinions.

At all.

Hell, I come up against political correctness--from people who don't agree with me politically-- all the time. They like to team up, as you have seen yoruself. And while I find it intensely irritating, I would never suggest that "I'm not allowed" to say what I want.

Edited September 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

It does, and I appreciate it.

But surely you can see how easily "ultimately you're in agreement with the 'you're a bigot' crowd" can be misconstrued.

In retrospect I can see that; but as I was writing it, knowing my meaning, I didn't see it at the time -- so I'm glad I was able to clear it up.

At any rate, my main point still stands: when people complain that "you're not allowed to criticize Islam," this is not only factually incorrect (again, by definition); but the notion that people who agree with me on several other issues "give me a pass" is not relevant. They aren't the arbiters of what "can't" or what can be said.

You're taking it too literally. When I say "no one can say anything bad about Islam," I am saying that no one can say anything bad about Islam without being bombarded with the wrath of the "you're a bigot!" crowd; unless you ultimately agree with their views regarding the issue. So I'm not speaking of the "arbitrators" who ultimately decide, I'm referring to the climate of the board, so to speak. (And to the world at large, too often.) And in that respect, I stand by what I said. No one can say anything bad about Islam. Surely we can criticize Jews and Christians and Americans, and what have you, without the same backlash. But criticize Islam, and suddenly one is bombarded with cries of bigot. I'm not referring to one or two posters, I'm referring to "pack mentality."

They might take people up on the issues, disagreeing with them ina civl way, or throwing insults or invective.

But there's no "can't" about it. There's no censure, aside from self-censorship.

Again, I'm not referring to censorship; I'm referring to the climate of the board. And unless one wants to be literally bombarded with 'you're a bigot!' and total misrepresentation of one's views, and off-the-wall accusations by the 'you're a bigot' crowd, (and again, that's "crowd," not one or two posters) one "cannot say anything bad about Islam." And again, say anything negative about any other religion, any other nationality, and there's silence from the very people who claim anything negative about Islam is evidence/proof of bigotry. It's a pack mentality that does exist here, and it's very selective.

Political correctness can be stultifying to discussion...but in the end, minus some sort of objective censure (as opposed to anonymous rhetoric on an internet forum), no one is stopped from voicing their opinions.

At all.

Again. You're taking it way to literally. But I'll tell you this, that pack mentality can sure ruin a good thread and make it difficult, if not next to impossible, to have a decent, honest, intelligent discussion/exchange of ideas. And again, that's what we are referring to.

Hell, I come up agaisnt political correctness--from people who don't agree with me politically-- all the time. And while I find it intensely irritating, I would never suggest that "I'm not allowed" to say what I want.

No one said we "aren't allowed," at least not in the sense that you're interpreting it. But in the sense that we ARE saying it, it's very true.

I've always been subjected to the same type of reaction you are referring to, but nothing has compared to the pack mentality I've been subjected to by these intolerant ignoramuses. Nothing has prepared me for that onslaught of accusations, lies, and total misrepresentation of my views; by the "PC" holier-than-thou crowd who actually believe they are tolerant.

It's been a real eye-opener, especially since I generally do agree with these people on the issues. I am a Democrat. A liberal. I'm just not a lemming, following whatever views I think 'the left' should be agreeing with, and now I see these people not as having convictions, but having nothing more than 'pack mentality,' as they can't even argue their position without falsely defining others' positions. It's the epitome of intolerance, and ironically, they don't see that. I mention that because it's true, but also because this is the crowd that claims to be so tolerant. Those throwing the accusations you are referring to make no such claims. They aren't part of the PC holier-than-thou crowd/mentality.

Edited September 5, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

In retrospect I can see that; but as I was writing it, knowing my meaning, I didn't see it at the time -- so I'm glad I was able to clear it up.

Oh, I get it, we've all been there.

You're taking it too literally. When I say "no one can say anything bad about Islam," I am saying that no one can say anything bad about Islam without being bombarded with the wrath of the "you're a bigot!" crowd; unless you ultimately agree with their views regarding the issue. So I'm not speaking of the "arbitrators" who ultimately decide, I'm referring to the climate of the board, so to speak. (And to the world at large, too often.) And in that respect, I stand by what I said. No one can say anything bad about Islam. Surely we can criticize Jews and Christians and Americans, and what have you, without the same backlash. But criticize Islam, and suddenly one is bombarded with cries of bigot. I'm not referring to one or two posters, I'm referring to "pack mentality."

I understand--I agree with the basic premise--but I take issue with your comparisons.

i have been tertmed an anti-semite--on multipler occassions--soley and 100% because of my criticism of Israel (which is not a topic I touch on that much anyway). I have been ganged up upon by the moral cowards who are afraid to debate the issue of Israel without throwing around the "anti-semite" card.

Hell, Shady implied it just a few days after I defended him from charges of racism. (No good deed, as they say).

And in fact, using "anti-semite" is such a common bit of the arsenal that it has had a genuinely chilling effect on debates about Israel.

As is the intent of the charge generally. And as you say on the other topic, this goes on a lot further than this board, and is part of the general climate of political debate.

Again, I'm not referring to censorship; I'm referring to the climate of the board. And unless one wants to be literally bombarded with 'you're a bigot!' and total misrepresentation of one's views, and off-the-wall accusations by the 'you're a bigot' crowd, (and again, that's "crowd," not one or two posters) one "cannot say anything bad about Islam." And again, say anything negative about any other religion, any other nationality, and there's silence from the very people who claim anything negative about Islam is evidence/proof of bigotry. It's a pack mentality that does exist here, and it's very selective.

It's not selective overall, it's selective depending on whom is throwing out the accusations. for criticizing Western policy, I get called terrorist-supporter (or, more bizarrely, "anti-American," even if America remains unspecified, an equal part of the Western pack, so to speak. Israel...well, I've talked about that, and its staggering how insulting and race-baiting people get on that subject.

Religion, I agree.

Again. You're taking it way to literally. But I'll tell you this, that pack mentality can sure ruin a good thread and make it difficult, if not next to impossible, to have a decent, honest, intelligent discussion/exchange of ideas. And again, that's what we are referring to.

like i said, i agree with you. I'm just not seeing it as so uni-directional...how could I, when I have been the target of so many politically correct cowards? ("Political correctness", too, is not exclusive to leftist notions, not by a long shot.)

No one said we "aren't allowed," at least not in the sense that you're interpreting it. But in the sense that we ARE saying it, it's very true.

Who are you including in your "we"? If it's yourself, fine. But these fellows are the same ones accusing me of anti-semitism because I thought the war on Gaza was horrible; and accusing me of having a sexual fetish for terrorists beards; and moaning deliriously about my supposed "hatred of America," which is out of left (or rather, right) field.

I've always been subjected to the same type of reaction you are referring to, but nothing has compared to the pack mentality I've been subjected to by these intolerant ignoramuses. Nothing has prepared me for that onslaught of accusations, lies, and total misrepresentation of my views; by the "PC" holier-than-thou crowd who actually believe they are tolerant.

again, I'm in the same position frequently. I daresay many others are, too, and they'e not all people who think 51 a bad idea. Not by a long shot.

Those throwing the accusations you are referring to make no such claims. They aren't part of the PC holier-than-thou crowd/mentality.

Ohm they're most certainly, unquestionably, holier-than-thou. I can't imagine why you wouldn't think so.

You can cut their sanctimony with a knife. Except they'd shriek about their victimhood at the hands of the Grand Leftist Conspiracy.

Edited September 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

To clarify further, I have had disagreements with the people you mention, and I've managed to have interesting/civil discussions with them, DogOnPorch, in particular. He listens to what I say and responds to what I say. That hasn't happened at all with the crowd I am referring to. Shady and I have definitely had run-ins. I've called him on his multiple threads about Obama/his 'agenda.' Yet we also manage to have civil discussions. As for bush_cheney, we've had several run ins. He'll confirm that. But I "get him" now; he's not pretending to be something he's not.

Edited September 5, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

To clarify further, I have had disagreements with the people you mention, and I've managed to have interesting/civil discussions with them, DogOnPorch, in particular. He listens to what I say and responds to what I say. That hasn't happened at all with the crowd I am referring to. As for bush_cheney, we've had several run ins. He'll confirm that. But I "get him" now; he's not pretending to be something he's not.

Yes, but these are perfect examples, and quite enlightening. DogonPorch vocally considers me his "enemy," and his usual chickenshit responses (when I foolishly have tried to engage in a debate with him) are that I'm a "terrorist-supporter," that I love their beards, and other bits of meaninglessness designed to provoke. He's just a dink...to me.

Bush_Cheney, I consider to be a whoppingly disingenuous poster, a troll-bully. While he makes a pretence to "payback" when posting his innumerable insults and mockeries of Canada, he actually does this when America isn't even mentioned; he's done it to me when I was praising American movies! So, that's not "payback," or "giving back what he gets." At all. He's lying.

Now, no doubt some of the posters who simply will not have a reasonable discussion with you, are people I get along with just fine. But if you wonder at my general agreement with them on so many points, you need only look at your above remarks on the two posters i consider the board's biggest and least insightful trolls.

Edited September 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

Now, no doubt some of the posters who simply will not have a reasonable discussion with you, are people I get along with just fine. But if you wonder at my general agreement with them on so many points, you need only look at your above remarks on the two posters i consider the board's biggest and least insightful trolls.

My point is, I used to "get along just fine with them," too. When I was generally agreeing with their positions. Gosthacked even made the comment that *I* changed. He's the one throwing bigot around, defining *my* views, and he thinks the problem lies with me because I refuse to accept that. I suddenly have the gall to question one thing that Muslims are doing, and I'm a bigot. I refuse to have my views dictated by them, and I'm a victim. And then there's the constant claim that I'm just too cowardly to admit what I don't believe.

As for the posters you consider the biggest and least insightful trolls, as I've pointed out, I've had run-ins with them, yet I've managed to have discussions on issues that we don't agree on; something that only happens with the 'you're a bigot crowd' when one's in agreement with them. And as for naomiglover, again, with her 60+ threads on Israel, and her involvement (outside of a handful of posts) only in threads about Israel, and her off-the-wall claims regarding those who don't agree with her, she is the forum's biggest spammer/troll. That you can't see that is difficult for me to understand, but so be it.

As I said, I put bush_cheney in a different category as his purpose for being here is quite clear. He's not pretending to be something he's not. He's not disillusioned like the 'you're a bigot' crowd or the 'I see both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict but you're a bad person' naomiglover. I get him. I'm not saying I agree with him, I'm saying I get him.

Again, the 'you're a bigot crowd' actually thinks they are the tolerant ones. And they come out as a pack, distorting the truth, outright lying, spamming the thread with moronic one-liners and stupid pictures that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic -- and everything to do with trying to ruin a thread because they, admittedly, "don't find it interesting." Then they post about how stupid the thread is. There are some posters who I don't even respond to any more, ever, yet one in particular can't seem to stop responding to me, name calling, insulting, and posting nonsense.

I have been subjected to what you are referring to, and there is a difference. Having not been exposed to both yourself, perhaps that's difficult for you to see.

But I am a Democrat. I am a liberal. And these are 'liberal minded folks' that I'm referring to. You have not had a major disagreement with them over a hot issue like I have. That's the difference.

Edited September 5, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

My point is, I used to "get along just fine with them," too. When I was generally agreeing with their positions. Gosthacked even made the comment that *I* changed. He's the one throwing bigot around, defining *my* views, and he thinks the problem lies with me because I refuse to accept that. I suddenly have the gall to question one thing that Muslims are doing, and I'm a bigot. I refuse to have my views dictated by them, and I'm a victim. And then there's the constant claim that I'm just too cowardly to admit what I don't believe.

As for the posters you consider the biggest and least insightful trolls, as I've pointed out, I've had run-ins with them, yet I've managed to have discussions on issues that we don't agree on; something that only happens with the 'you're a bigot crowd' when one's in agreement with them.

I just think that's simply not true. I've had lots of disagreements with them; similarly, I've had plenty of agreements with people usually on the opposite side, such as Bonam, Wild Bill, Pliny, and others.

As for your meaningful discussions with the posters mentioned; I don't see that as any more telling than the fact that they flatly refuse to have meaningful discussions with me. (Not that I'm wishing they would...I'm only pointing out that they would find it impossible, whereas I would not.)

Again, the 'you're a bigot crowd' actually thinks they are the tolerant ones. And they come out as a pack, distorting the truth, outright lying, spamming the thread with moronic one-liners and stupid pictures that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic -- and everything to do with trying to ruin a thread because they, admittedly, "don't find it interesting."

You have yet to delineate any difference betwen the posters I've mentioned and those you have.

I have been subjected to what you are referring to, and there is a difference. Having not been exposed to both yourself, perhaps that's difficult for you to see.

I have been exposed to both. I've been in plenty of battles with liberals and leftists, and at times the discussions have gotten exceedingly unpleasant.

I just don't see the difference you mean.

Perhaps if a bunch started calling you an anti-semite (somewhat worse than "anti-Muslim", as the latter is only a religion) you might understand.

But I am a Democrat. I am a liberal. And these are 'liberal minded folks' that I'm referring to. You have not had a major disagreement with them over a hot issue like I have. That's the difference.

Sure I have. A far, far bigger and more important issue: Indonesia's 25-year reign of terror over the East Timorese, and the direct and intentional Western complicity in the mass murders. Liberals tend (thankfully with a few exceptions) to believe the phrase "Cold War" justifies every terrible thing we've ever done. I happen to disagree.

But the point isn't that (strangely) contentious subject: my point is that I have, indeed, have several, sometimes ugly, fights with liberals.

In fact, now i mention it, the same has happened over the issue of Israel...the fights with the liberals.

Edited September 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

My point is, I used to "get along just fine with them," too. When I was generally agreeing with their positions. Gosthacked even made the comment that *I* changed. He's the one throwing bigot around, defining *my* views, and he thinks the problem lies with me because I refuse to accept that.

I have not called you 'bigot'. If you can quote me saying as such, I will apologize for it.

[bud]

Chapter 11 of the Goldstone Report

Deliberate Attacks against the Civilian Population

Link

are these idiots trying to justify this as well? of course they are.

[bud]

Israeli soldiers admit to deliberate killing of Gaza civilians

The soldiers’ testimonies include accounts of an unarmed old woman being shot at a distance of 100 yards, a woman and her two children being killed after Israeli soldiers ordered them from their house into the line of fire of a sniper and soldiers clearing houses by shooting anyone they encountered on sight.

...

“That’s the beauty of Gaza. You see a man walking, he doesn’t have to have a weapon, and you can shoot him,” one soldier told Danny Zamir, the head of the Rabin pre-military academy, who asked him why a company commander ordered an elderly woman to be shot.

...

"When we entered a house, we were supposed to bust down the door and start shooting inside and just go up storey by storey… I call that murder. Each storey, if we identify a person, we shoot them. I asked myself – how is this reasonable?"

Link

what about this? of course they'll try to justify this and pretend that the IDF has not took part in deliberate attacks on civilians and then got away with it.

typical for people like israeli woman and the rest of the hasbara bots.

[M.Dancer]

what about this? of course they'll try to justify this and pretend that the IDF has not took part in deliberate attacks on civilians and then got away with it.

typical for people like israeli woman and the rest of the hasbara bots.

The Israeli army has been forced to open an investigation into the conduct of its troops in Gaza after damning testimony from its own front line soldiers revealed the killing of civilians and rules of engagement so lax that one combatant said that they amounted on occasion to “cold-blooded murder”.

You and the other terrorist apologists are welcome to find an article where Hamas, Hezbollah etc etc are conducting an ivetigation over allegations of a similar nature.

...could take a very long time...

[naomiglover]

You and the other terrorist apologists are welcome to find an article where Hamas, Hezbollah etc etc are conducting an ivetigation over allegations of a similar nature.

...could take a very long time...

Yes. It could take a very long time until the soldiers are either found not guilty or they receive a slap on the wrist and then rewarded a few months later by receiving promotions.

Israeli army kangaroo courts don't count.

[naomiglover]

I am not surprised that American Woman gave no response to these deliberate killings by the Israeli soldiers.

It's a very hasbara-bot thing to do.

[M.Dancer]

Yes. It could take a very long time until the soldiers are either found not guilty or they receive a slap on the wrist and then rewarded a few months later by receiving promotions.

Israeli army kangaroo courts don't count.

So we are agreed then. Allegations of this nature are very serious. Why then do you not askl about Hamas and their investigations? Maybe being a part of the arab terrorist lobby, it is not on your agenda?

Nor is it on your agenda when citing old news to include the follow up....consider:

The soldiers’ testimonies include accounts of an unarmed old woman being shot at a distance of 100 yards, a woman and her two children being killed after Israeli soldiers ordered them from their house into the line of fire of a sniper and soldiers clearing houses by shooting anyone they encountered on sight.

And yes there was an investigation.

The army’s advocate general has opened an investigation and has not yet issued a report. But officers familiar with the investigation say that those who spoke of the killing of the mother and her children did not witness it and that it almost certainly did not occur. Warning shots were fired near the family but not at it, the officers said, and a rumor spread among the troops of an improper shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/middleeast/28israel.html?_r=2&hp

Repeating inuendo, rumours and fabrications are part of your agenda, you lie like a rug.

[Guest American Woman]

hasbara-bot: naomiglover's and bud's latest ad nauseum response to every issue being discussed.

[DogOnPorch]

hasbara-bot: naomiglover's and bud's latest ad nauseum response to every issue being discussed.

Anybody who sucks up to Hamas and Hezbollah (like some notable posters here) is no better than a National Socialist. Same wood tick...different scalp.

[naomiglover]

So we are agreed then. Allegations of this nature are very serious. Why then do you not askl about Hamas and their investigations? Maybe being a part of the arab terrorist lobby, it is not on your agenda?

Nor is it on your agenda when citing old news to include the follow up....consider:

It's a pattern that has been going on for

And yes there was an investigation.

What is the follow up? After mounting pressure, Israel usually opens an investigation and the ending is usually the same. Either nothing happens or the person receives a slap on the wrist, followed up by a promotion when all is forgotten.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/middleeast/28israel.html?_r=2&hp

Repeating inuendo, rumours and fabrications are part of your agenda, you lie like a rug.

I remember reading the article.

Got to love opinion pieces which quote only Israeli officials or mouth pieces for the army. Got to also love Bronner, whose son is in the IDF and his conflict with impartiality.

In the article, the following is quoted:

“When we entered houses, we actually cleaned up the place,” said Yishai Goldflam, 32, a religiously observant film student in Jerusalem

You gotta love Bronner.

[M.Dancer]

Got to love opinion pieces ...

That is not an opinion piece. Bronner is a NYT staffer.

Keep lying, it looks good on you.

[naomiglover]

That is not an opinion piece. Bronner is a NYT staffer.

Keep lying, it looks good on you.

Bronner has a child in the IDF and his coverage of the conflict has been questioned many times. Keep digging up those biased articles that feed your blatantly biased view of this conflict.

[M.Dancer]

Bronner has a child in the IDF and his coverage of the conflict has been questioned many times. Keep digging up those biased articles that feed your blatantly biased view of this conflict.

Questioned, but never proven. Unlike your fallicious claim that the article was an "opinion piece".

[naomiglover]

Questioned, but never proven. Unlike your fallicious claim that the article was an "opinion piece".

Proven what? His articles are proof. Bronner has repeatedly omitted vital information in his articles. Take a look at fair.org if you want to learn more about this.

Then there is the whole, son serving in the military and conflict that you are covering, thing. If you want to pretend this is not an issue, then you are, yet again, exposing your biased approach to this conflict.

Can a journalist neutrally cover a conflict that his child is fighting in? That's the question posed by the news that the son of New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner joined the Israeli Defense Forces.

The Times’ policies acknowledge that family members’ activities might require a journalist to “to withdraw from certain coverage”

fair.org

[M.Dancer]

Can a journalist neutrally cover a conflict that his child is fighting in? That's the question posed by the news that the son of New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner joined the Israeli Defense Forces.

The Times’ policies acknowledge that family members’ activities might require a journalist to “to withdraw from certain coverage”

fair.org

The answer of course is yes. Your premise is stupid as well as dishonest. Should someone disqualify themselves over their adult children's decisions? Of course not. Should a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist disqualify themselves because they are jewish....that is your real question.

[naomiglover]

The answer of course is yes. Your premise is stupid as well as dishonest. Should someone disqualify themselves over their adult children's decisions? Of course not.

Yes. Even the NYT policy says that a family member's activities could become a conflict. Obviously, having a son in the IDF is a conflict of interest.

Should a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist disqualify themselves because they are jewish....that is your real question.

You're an idiot for typing that.

[jbg]

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=186640

With direct peace talks coming up, the Palestinians are, once again, trying as hard as they can not to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

As always, sigh. Abba Eban was right.

[M.Dancer]

Yes. Even the NYT policy says that a family member's activities could become a conflict. Obviously, having a son in the IDF is a conflict of interest.

You're an idiot for typing that.

In fact, The NYT has not removed him from his position as Bureau Chief. Mainly because neither Bonner or his son can profit from his writing. I will grant though, had he been writing in a way that cast a negative spin on Israeli politics. you would not think he is in conflict. Nay, you would even hold him up as a model...a jew who disagrees with Israel.