Four Israelis shot dead in West Bank in unprovoked terrorist attack

[dre]

Yes. There you go. Let's pretend the Palestinian cause isn't rooted in fascism and National Socialism.

[DogOnPorch]

So are you denying the Palestinian cause's roots?

[DogOnPorch]

So are you denying the Palestinian cause's roots?

Time passes...dre ignores the question.

[dre]

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah...denying history is funny.

[bloodyminded]

It might not be worth it in terms of the lack of effect on naomi's flawed position, but such discussion can nevertheless shed light on the situation and affect the opinions of other readers. In the example of this forum, I think fewer people than ever are on board with naomi's view of the Arab-Israeli conflict, largely as a result of the many threads that naomi started on the topic and the rational rebuttals presented by many posters.

I doubt anyone's views have changed as a result of the posters rebutting Naomi, just as I see little that is "rational" in most of these rebuttals.

[bloodyminded]

I have to agree with you. In fact, I've said as much myself regarding where I am coming from. If someone starts 60+ one-sided threads about any topic, I question their 'impartiality' regarding the topic and call them on it. Naomiglover is in a class all her own, though, since no one here has started anywhere near the number of threads about Palestine she has started about Israel; and in refuting her "babble" (to use her favorite word), I have, as previously stated, re-examined my views; and if this type of mentality is what Israel is up against, then I'm inclined to question the mentality of Israel's "critics," re-examine the issue, and see the criticism/condemnation as unjustified as a whole.

This is an astonishingly absurd argument. You start with "if this is the type of mentality....[that] Israel is up against" (without evidence, and even as you imply a contradiction earlier: ie Naomi being "in a class all her own") then, by promiscuous "logic," you are to question the "mentality" of Israel's "critics" (the scare quotes implying...what, exactly? you don't elaborate).

So, critics--excuse me, "critics"--of Israel may have something seriously wrong with their mentality.

And all criticism/condemnation is therefore unjustified.

Awesome.

Beuatifully convenient, and utterly tautological.

Edited September 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

This is an astonishingly absurd argument. You start with "if this is the type of mentality....[that] Israel is up against" (without evidence, and even as you imply a contradiction earlier: ie Naomi being "in a class all her own") then, by promiscuous "logic," you are to question the "mentality" of Israel's "critics" (the scare quotes implying...what, exactly? you don't elaborate).

Ummm. I clearly said that I "re-examined my views," which would imply, I would think, that there was "evidence" involved.

As for naomiglover "being in a class of her own," I was referring only to this board, not the world at large. So in "re-examining my views," too much of what I've come up against has convinced me that Israel IS dealing with 'naomiglover-type critics' all too often; that too many do have her mentality.

So there is no contradiction, and you'll have to forgive me for not posting all the "evidence" I've encountered during the process of "re-examining" my views. My intent with that post was only to state what I did to Bonam, in response to his post to me, and I'm guessing he understood exactly what I was saying.

So, critics--excuse me, "critics"--of Israel may have something seriously wrong with their mentality.

Those with 'naomiglover mentality,' yes. I didn't say all did, which is why I put "critics" in quotes; fact is, I don't consider her mentality to even be "critical." I feel she has an agenda, and cannot even refute what others say. Anyone who simply comes back with 'you're a bigot' over and over again, and misrepresents others views, and makes accusations that have no truth to them what-so-ever, falls into that category, and there are way too many people like that out there. It's easy not to have to defend one's principles and simply name call, and I think Israel is subjected to that mentality way too often.

And all criticism/condemnation is therefore unjustified.

Yes, by specifically referring to naomiglover and others of her mentality, I was saying that "all" criticism/condemnation is unjustified.

Awesome.

Awesome, indeed.

Beuatifully convenient, and utterly tautological.

Sums up your ludicrous interpretation of what I was saying quite nicely.....

[bloodyminded]

Ummm. I clearly said that I "re-examined my views," which would imply, I would think, that there was "evidence" involved.

No. It might imply that you think so.

Those with 'naomiglover mentality,' yes. I didn't say all did, which is why I put "critics" in quotes;

But you did say you have decided that the criticism is unjustified "as a whole"; this might allow for an occasional apt criticism, in your view, but certainly the overwhelming majority is "unjustified." Well, that's fine; the majority isn't always correct. But your links between the mentally deranged Naomi (a point with which I disagree, though that's incidental here) and "criticism/condemnation as a whole" is clear enough.

fact is, I don't consider her mentality to even be "critical." I feel she has an agenda, and cannot even refute what others say. Anyone who simply comes back with 'you're a bigot' over and over again, and misrepresents others views, and makes accusations that have no truth to them what-so-ever, falls into that category, and there are way too many people like that out there.

Yes. For an apropos example, I have been declared an "anti-semite" by bc_2004, by DogonPorch, and by a few other "pro-Israeli" [sic] knuckledraggers here...and there is not the faintest whiff of anti-semitism to anything I've ever said. Of course, those two are thunderously cowardly debaters, so I suppose it's to be expected....

The point being, if the insults and accusations of bigotry are indications of an "agenda" and the lack of "critical" thinking, then (by your standards) there has yet been a clean "side" in this debate here on MLW.

It's easy not to have to defend one's principles and simply name call, and I think Israel is subjected to that mentality way too often.

Well, I have been duly informed that the Palestinians are "savages" and a "disease" (direct quotes); and also, numerous times on this board, that they should "just leave"--an unbearable form of benighted bogotry when an identical sentiment is aimed at Israelis. Well, both are preposterously stupid ideas, frankly. But not just one, while the other is ok.

All these points: the accusations of anti-semitism aimed at me and others; the racist attributions and the declaration that Palestinian Arabs should "leave"...these are all spewed by members of this board, members who are ostensibly (though questionably) "pro-Israeli."

Why shouldn't these bother you in equal measure?

More to the point for this discussion, why, if used by one "side," are they indicators of unserious thought and agenda-exposure...but not when used by the other?

Yes, by specifically referring to naomiglover and others of her mentality, I was saying that "all" criticism/condemnation is unjustified.

Because you used "as a whole." I didn't say it for you.

Edited September 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

No. It might imply that you think so.

I "think so" because it's true.

But you did say you have decided that the criticism is unjustified "as a whole"; this might allow for an occasional apt criticism, in your view, but certainly the overwhelming majority is "unjustified." Well, that's fine; the majority isn't always correct. But your links between the mentally deranged Naomi (a point with which I disagree, though that's incidental here) and "criticism/condemnation as a whole" is clear enough.

First of all, I don't care if you agree with my assessment of naomiglover and the 60+ threads she's started about Israel or not, so it's not only "incidental," it's meaningless to me. Furthermore, I never said she was "mentally deranged;" what I DID say is that I don't consider her mentality to be "critical," that I don't think someone who simply repeatedly calls someone a bigot, misrepresents their views, and makes accusations that have no truth to them what-so-ever is my idea of "critical thought." YOU, however, are the one who associated "mentally deranged" with her regarding what I said. I said no such thing.

Yes. For an apropos example, I have been declared an "anti-semite" by bc_2004, by DogonPorch, and by a few other "pro-Israeli" [sic] knuckledraggers here...and there is not the faintest whiff of anti-semitism to anything I've ever said. Of course, those two are thunderously cowardly debaters, so I suppose it's to be expected....

The point being, if the insults and accusations of bigotry are indications of an "agenda" and the lack of "critical" thinking, then (by your standards) there has yet been a clean "side" in this debate here on MLW.

It's her mentality PLUS the 60+ threads she's started against Israel. I pointed out that she's in a class of her own because of it; because no one else has done that in regards to Palestine. I made that very clear.

That you can't see the "agenda" behind that, that you see nothing wrong with it, is fine and dandy, but I do see it as having an agenda and spamming the board with the same topic over and over again.

Well, I have been duly informed that the Palestinians are "savages" and a "disease" (direct quotes); and also, numerous times on this board, that they should "just leave"--an unbearable form of benighted bogotry when an identical sentiment is aimed at Israelis. Well, both are preposterously stupid ideas, frankly. But not just one, while the other is ok.

I have no idea as to what you've "been informed." What I do know is that no one on this board has started anywhere NEAR 60+ threads on Palestine; 60+ threads to repeat those claims over and over again ... in every single 60+ thread. Do you really not get that??

All these points: the accusations of anti-semitism aimed at me and others; the racist attributions and the declaration that Palestinian Arabs should "leave"...these are all spewed by members of this board, members who are ostensibly (though questionably) "pro-Israeli."

So where are all the threads they've started about it??

Why shouldn't these bother you in equal measure?

Because they haven't started a bajillion threads about Palestine. They are posting in response to the bajillion threads slamming Israel. That's the difference. And it's a big difference.

More to the point for this discussion, why, if used by one "side," are they indicators of unserious thought and agenda-exposure...but not when used by the other?

I hope by now you've realized that it's because of the 60+ threads she's started.

Because you used "as a whole." I didn't say it for you.

"As a whole" doesn't mean "all;" not by a long shot. You yourself even said in this very post that it "might allow for an occasional apt criticism," which of course is totally minimizing it on your part, but it shows that you do realize "as a whole" does not mean "all;" which makes me wonder why you made the accusation that you did.

[bloodyminded]

First of all, I don't care if you agree with my assessment of naomiglover and the 60+ threads she's started about Israel or not, so it's not only "incidental," it's meaningless to me. Furthermore, I never said she was "mentally deranged;" what I DID say is that I don't consider her mentality to be "critical," that I don't think someone who simply repeatedly calls someone a bigot, misrepresents their views, and makes accusations that have no truth to them what-so-ever is my idea of "critical thought."

That's my point. By your own assessment, DogonPorch, bc_2004, Bob, and anyone else who is quick and easy with the "anti-semite" lable where it doesn't belong, is not giving us any example of "critical thought."

This is by your standard, AW.

So when I point this out, you repeat, over and over, that Naomi has started 60+ threads on the topic, where they haven't.

How does that change your assessment? If they're using the the sort of unfair and insulting epithets that make their critical thinking dubious...this disappears because they haven't started multiple threads on the topic?

Why?

Again--according to you--they aren't "critical," and they do have an "agenda."

It's her mentality PLUS the 60+ threads she's started against Israel. I pointed out that she's in a class of her own because of it; because no one else has done that in regards to Palestine. I made that very clear.

Yes. Even though criticism "on the whole" is unjustified. You made that very clear as well.

That you can't see the "agenda" behind that, that you see nothing wrong with it, is fine and dandy, but I do see it as having an agenda and spamming the board with the same topic over and over.

I have no idea as to what you've "been informed." What I do know is that no one on this board has started anywhere NEAR 60+ threads on Palestine; 60+ threads to repeat those claims over and over again ... in every single 60+ thread. Do you really not get that??

So where are all the threads they've started about it??

What the hell does this have to do with they're using the "anti-semite" card to try to shut down debate?

When these drooling little losers call me an anti-semite, you think this doesn't matter because they haven't started threads about my baleful anti-semitism?

So you're now defending those who on another thread have called you a "bigot." So long as they didn't start multiple threads on the topic.

And yet, strangely, you don't seem to enjoy the epithet, and you have made it clear that the insults say somehting about the people using them.

Until, of course, people with whom you agree on this particular issue start calling me an anti-semite--like the drooling little lying losers that they are--and then ALL your other points become irrelevant...because they haven't started 60+ threads on the topic, the only issue at stake, and the overriding concern.

Because they haven't started a bajillion threads about Palestine. They are posting in response to the bajillion threads slamming Israel. That's the difference. And it's a big difference.

Calling Palestinians "savages" or "a disease" is not a "response", made reasonable by the number of threads they are somehow forced to respond to. In fact, those two were not in resposne to Naomiglover at all...though I don't see how it would be a rational "response" even if they were.

And how is their calling me an "anti-semite" a response to anything?

"As a whole" doesn't mean "all;" not by a long shot.

"As a whole" means overwhelming majority, certainly. Like I said.

You yourself even said in this very post that it "might allow for an occasional apt criticism," which of course is totally minimizing it on your part, but it shows that you do realize "as a whole" does not mean "all;" which makes me wonder why you made the accusation that you did.

how is it "totally minimizing it"? What do you think "as a whole" means? A few?

Well, that's not what it means.

First, you say it's about Naomi (because of the many threads she's started).

Then you say it's not only the threads, but also the insults which are a problem.

Then you say insults are not a problem at all--unless they're aimed at you, in which case they're terribly unfair. If they insult me, it's because they're in "response" to someone else...an insensible proposition on your part, as you try desperately to defend the unconscionable little bullies and race-baiters.

Then you say you were only talking about Naomi (oh...and "naomiglover-type critics")...and that they constitute critics of Israel "on the whole."

Except you're only referring to Naomi. And critics "on the whole."

???

Edited September 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

For the record...naiomi was called the anti-Semite. You the terrorist supporter.

[bloodyminded]

For the record...naiomi was called the anti-Semite. You the terrorist supporter.

No. You are the anti-semite who hilariously accused me of anti-semitism.

As to "terrorist-supporter"...I've already educated you on this point. I claim it is always bad, in every circumstance. You, on the other hand, have remained interestingly silent on matters of Western-backed terrorism.

[DogOnPorch]

No. You are the anti-semite who hilariously accused me of anti-semitism.

As to "terrorist-supporter"...I've already educated you on this point. I claim it is always bad, in every circumstance. You, on the other hand, have remained interestingly silent on matters of Western-backed terrorism.

Sure thing there, hombre.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16324&view=findpost&p=558290

Re: Canada being a terrorist state. I'll try not to lose sleep.

Mind you, there are plenty of terrorists who use Canada as a safe haven.

[bloodyminded]

Sure thing there, hombre.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16324&view=findpost&p=558290

Re: Canada being a terrorist state. I'll try not to lose sleep.

Interesting that you'll keep mocking the point (which is the logical conclusion of your view, by the way, not mine)...but you refuse to address the issues that were raised.

Chicken.

[DogOnPorch]

Interesting that you'll keep mocking the point (which is the logical conclusion of your view, by the way, not mine)...but you refuse to address the issues that were raised.

Chicken.

If anyone deserves a brush with real terrorism...t'is you.

Edited September 4, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

If anyone deserves a brush with real terrorism...t'is you.

"Bring it on," in the words of a Great Genius.

[DogOnPorch]

"Bring it on," in the words of a Great Genius.

Name a teddy bear Mohammed...then let 'radical Islam' know your location. You shouldn't have to wait long.

[bloodyminded]

Name a teddy bear Mohammed...then let 'radical Islam' know your location. You shouldn't have to wait long.

Ok. There is an old, traditional, natty stuffed brown teddy bear in a box in my basement. I name him Mohammad, and I name any other toys after his wives. The youngest, I'll call "Ayesha."

Next, I mock these superstitious fanatics, and tell them not only is Mohammad not a prophet, but that there are no prophets. Prophets are charlatans, megalomaniacs or wannabe cult-leaders.

Mohammad was a Businessman. Like many Businessmen, he had an inflated sense of his importance and self-worth.

...........

Come on, extremists...kill me. I dare you to kill me. If you don't kill me, you're chickenshit.

Strange....I don't seem to be terribly frightened.

[Bonam]

Ok. There is an old, traditional, natty stuffed brown teddy bear in a box in my basement. I name him Mohammad, and I name any other toys after his wives. The youngest, I'll call "Ayesha."

Next, I mock these superstitious fanatics, and tell them not only is Mohammad not a prophet, but that there are no prophets. Prophets are charlatans, megalomaniacs or wannabe cult-leaders.

Mohammad was a Businessman. Like many Businessmen, he had an inflated sense of his importance and self-worth.

...........

Come on, extremists...kill me. I dare you to kill me. If you don't kill me, you're chickenshit.

Strange....I don't seem to be terribly frightened.

Now take that post, add your name, photo, and address to it, and post it somewhere that has more than 30 or 40 regular readers.

[bloodyminded]

Now take that post, add your name, photo, and address to it, and post it somewhere that has more than 30 or 40 regular readers.

I think you missed the point, which was a rebuttal of DogonPorch's idiocy; and also a rebuttal to all those who have adopted a debating policy of selective convenience:

"Oh, people are so politically correct, that no one can say anything bad about Islam!"

Aside from this being patently, demonstrably, obviously false--and everyone who makes the claim knows they are full of shit, but make the claim anyway, because Mommy and Daddy never taught them that honesty is a virtue--they can't stand it when they're proven wrong. (which happens on a continual basis.)

So when I post something like the above--which I have done several times--I'm usually told that it "doesn't count"--you know, since I disagree with them politically, the only issue of moment, evidently, it therefore doesn't count.

So I can insult Islam to my heart's content...and I"m still informed that "no one is allowed" to insult Islam.

Which I have proven--proven, by definition--to be an incorrect assessment. This is very elementary logic, and indisputable.

Edited September 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

I think you missed the point, which was a rebuttal of DogonPorch's idiocy; and also a rebuttal to all those who have adopted a debating policy of selective convenience:

"Oh, people are so politically correct, that no one can say anything bad about Islam!"

......

Which I have proven--proven, by definition--to be an incorrect assessment. This is very elementary logic, and indisputable.

Let's see if I can clarify for you, since you don't seem to be getting it. When people say "it doesn't count," what they are really saying is that since you ultimately agree with the "you're a bigot!!!" crowd, when you say something negative, you get a free pass and aren't subjected to the same bullshit that those disagreeing with the main issue are. Hence, "it doesn't count." In other words, no one can say anything bad about Islam "unless you're one of [their] little sycophants, in which case you get a free pass."

So really, that's all you've proven.

[Guest American Woman]

Now take that post, add your name, photo, and address to it, and post it somewhere that has more than 30 or 40 regular readers.

I don't think we'll be seeing that happening. The fact that Muslims are increasing security for 9-11 for both their protection and to prevent acts of retaliation shows that they realize "retaliation" is a reality.

I doubt whether those who have received death threats for depicting Islam/Muhammad negatively, or have had attempts made on their lives because of it, think it's a joking matter, nor something to be taken lightly. The threat does exist. It's why so many media sources decided not to print cartoons of Muhammad, while South Park was censored, while no other religion has been given the same 'consideration.'

Edited September 5, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Let's see if I can clarify for you, since you don't seem to be getting it. When people say "it doesn't count," what they are really saying is that since you ultimately agree with the "you're a bigot!!!" crowd, when you say something negative, you get a free pass and aren't subjected to the same bullshit that those disagreeing with the main issue are. Hence, "it doesn't count." In other words, no one can say anything bad about Islam "unless you're one of [their] little sycophants, in which case you get a free pass."

So really, that's all you've proven.

No, you are the one who doesn't understand...thanks to the incorrect assumptions you're here making about me.

I have never called you a bigot; and I've told you elsewhere that I understand your objections to the term....having been the target of similar unfair accusations myself. We've gone over this more than once.

So why, in the name of sweet Godzilla on His Throne, do you say that I "ultimately agree with the 'you're a bigot' crowd"?

Spell it out.

You say people are saying things about your own opinions that simply aren't true, and that you don't care for it. I assumed (wrongly, it turns out) only the same consideration from you about my own opinions.

[Guest American Woman]

No, you are the one who doesn't understand...thanks to the incorrect assumptions you're here making about me.

I have never called you a bigot; and I've told you elsewhere that I understand your objections to the term....having been the target of similar unfair accusations myself. We've gone over this more than once.

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.

So why, in the name of sweet Godzilla on His Throne, do you say that I "ultimately agree with the 'you're a bigot' crowd"?

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.

Spell it out.

I just did. See above.

You say people are saying things about your own opinions that simply aren't true, and that you don't care for it. I assumed (wrongly, it turns out) only the same consideration from you about my own opinions.

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.