jbg Posted September 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 The Israeli people need to be aware that their aggression against the people of Gaza is not viewed sympathetically by the rest of the world, because only they can change their government.Maybe it's Israel's existence as a Jewish State that is the real problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 Like what, for example? Hogging water, for one! It's true that Israel developed all those desalinization plants, both with the brain work and the money needed. So in a strict capitalist way they have a right to deny it to surrounding Arab countries and Palestinian communities. However, I think this is very short sighted. They should supply as much as possible, at as cheap a cost as possible, especially for agriculture! If your enemy depends on you for drinking and growing his food he's more likely to mellow out somewhat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Maybe it's Israel's existence as a Jewish State that is the real problem. I don't know. That's an issue for the Israeli people to decide. Aggression against the people of Gaza is the problem, as I see it. I do understand that there are issues on both sides, but I think the bombing of Gaza was aggression of an intensity that shocked the world. Clearly the fallout is still reverberating. One can only hope that current negotiations will improve the situation for all concerned. Edited September 7, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 These ones do. Punishing/disrupting an event simply based on the national origin of some of its performers/participants is a sure sign of bigotry. Or do you not consider discrimination based on national origin to be a form of bigotry? As you said, these musicians have no specific complicity in any alleged wrongdoing, no more than general citizens of any country do for the actions of their government. Therefore, targeting them in a protest means targeting someone merely because they are Israeli. Hence the very apt description, anti-Israeli bigotry. Same goes for academic boycotts of Israel by the way. As protest strategies go, though, it's a lot more desirable than bombing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 I think all the protestors should have been arrested and held until they paid a collective fine which reimbursed the audience for the cost of their tickets. The cheque is in the mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 Protests against Israel do not automatically connote "bigotry." You're confusing protest with destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 You're confusing protest with destruction. I always feel that there is something of interest intended by your pithy one line posts ... but I never quite get what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 I always feel that there is something of interest intended by your pithy one line posts ... but I never quite get what you mean. I mean you're confusing protest with destruction. Example, destruction at Canadian University (in Quebec) by Moslem "students" to prevent Netanyahu speaking is not a demonstration. It's baboon like response to our freedom of speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 I mean you're confusing protest with destruction. Example, destruction at Canadian University (in Quebec) by Moslem "students" to prevent Netanyahu speaking is not a demonstration. It's baboon like response to our freedom of speech. And by "destruction" you mean disruption of the event? Protest is itself an exercise of freedom of speech. We all have that freedom, not just those paid to speak at a microphone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 I really don't understand these "protesters". Even if they had a legitimate grievance, don't they have better things to do? Don't they have a life at all? Trolling classical music symphonies? Seriously? I condemn human rights abuses, in, say, Syria, but will you see me wasting time yelling and making a nuisance at some event where a Syrian is performing? Nope, never, not a chance, I got better things to do. I don't know whether it's a good or bad reflection on our societies that people have so much spare time and money that they'd waste it on things like this. What's not to understand? This is typical (and expected) from the typical anti-Israel/anti-Semitic left-wing "pro-Palestinian" rats. Anything Jewish/Israeli is to be condemned. They pull these stunts all the time, shouting down all manner of speakers and political figures (from Netanyahu to Michael Oren), illegally trespassing, harassing, and vandalizing businesses like Ahava and Motorola, intimidating and assaulting Jewish/Israeli students on campuses, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 I think all the protestors should have been arrested and held until they paid a collective fine which reimbursed the audience for the cost of their tickets. This is a good point, Argus! These protesters seem to take their right to disrupt to be absolute. If an audience has paid for their tickets, do they not have a right to the performance? In effect, the protesters are just taking a cheap way to hijack the drawing power of SOMEONE ELSE, since by themselves few would pay the price of a coffee to listen to their protest views. So why should audiences put up with it? Why just sit there? Why not march up and give THE PROTESTERS a hard time? These protesters have been used to a free ride. They take it for granted that the authorities are bound by the rules and can't do them any serious harm. Where is it written that we in an audience have to do the same? I guess we Canadians are just too damn "whipped" to give these protesters back some of their own. Like the old joke of how do you get 50 Canadians to leave your swimming pool? Just say nicely "Canadians! Would you please leave the pool?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 ....I do understand that there are issues on both sides, but I think the bombing of Gaza was aggression of an intensity that shocked the world. Was the aggression on September 11, 2001 shocking to the world? Apparently not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 Was the aggression on September 11, 2001 shocking to the world? Apparently not. Are you implying that 9/11 somehow justifies Israel's actions against Gaza? How so? (And I would remind you that there were no children in the twin towers.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 Are you implying that 9/11 somehow justifies Israel's actions against Gaza? How so? (And I would remind you that there were no children in the twin towers.) I don't know that there were no children there and many lost their parents. Also you are very selective in your opposition to violence. If it's a civilized country seeking to survive,it's bad. If it's animals looking for red meat, good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 Was the aggression on September 11, 2001 shocking to the world? Apparently not. lol. nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 Also you are very selective in your opposition to violence. If it's a civilized country seeking to survive,it's bad. If it's animals looking for red meat, good. Now that's just bizzarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) Are you implying that 9/11 somehow justifies Israel's actions against Gaza? How so? (And I would remind you that there were no children in the twin towers.) Do you think that there were no children on the planes either? Edited September 8, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) Are you implying that 9/11 somehow justifies Israel's actions against Gaza? How so? (And I would remind you that there were no children in the twin towers.) Actually, it shows the character of the people that commit such violence. As I've said before, to me its very simple. I don't give a damn about someone's politics if he deliberately targets innocents with his attacks! To me, that removes an individual's humanity. At that point, he's a rabid animal. You can't negotiate with rabid animals. You can only kill them! I watched and heard an Imam from Toronto define ANY Israeli over 18 as a legitimate target! He went on to include children under 18 in some circumstances, which were a lot looser than just child soldiers. It was on Michael Coren's show. Coren was obviously shocked and having trouble believing the Imam had actually said those words! This doesn't mean that all Muslims are rabid animals. That would be as ridiculous as branding all Irish for the actions of the IRA. However, for me my definition still stands as far as Hamas and other terrorist groups. My attention stops as soon as they deliberately target a civilian. I couldn't care less whatever cockamamie justification they have. And don't bother giving me any reports of Israel killing civilians. As I've also said many times, there is a vast moral difference between targeting a rocket launcher site (likely one that has deliberately put itself in a school or whatever to use its own civilians as shields) and harming some civilians as collateral damage and DELIBERATELY MAKING CIVILIANS YOUR TARGET! You're entitled to your opinion, just am I, but if you want to change my opinion in this area I wouldn't bother. I don't see any way you can change my mind about civilian targeting. If one of my own daughters was a victim of a Palestinian terrorist attack I would NOT forgive them because they have a beef against Israel! If they killed one of my family then I would feel perfectly justified in attempting revenge, in whatever manner I could. In such a situation I might become a suicide bomber myself and give them back some of their own. Edited September 8, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 It's ridiculous to argue about which human tragedy is 'worse' and I'm sorry I took jbg's bait and got into it. /thread drift Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 It's ridiculous to argue about which human tragedy is 'worse' and I'm sorry I took jbg's bait and got into it. /thread drift It's ridiculous to say there were no children in the World Trade Center - when there was a daycare center in it. It's also ridiculous to say there were no children in the World Trade Center as if it makes a difference. So I can see why you would choose not to continue along that line of discussion now. And fyi, jbg simply made a comment in direct response to yours. So perhaps he was "baited" by you, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 These ones do. Punishing/disrupting an event simply based on the national origin of some of its performers/participants is a sure sign of bigotry. Or do you not consider discrimination based on national origin to be a form of bigotry? As you said, these musicians have no specific complicity in any alleged wrongdoing, no more than general citizens of any country do for the actions of their government. Therefore, targeting them in a protest means targeting someone merely because they are Israeli. Hence the very apt description, anti-Israeli bigotry. Same goes for academic boycotts of Israel by the way. So if there were an academic boycott of Iran, stated as action against the policies of the government, that would be "discrimination based on national origin," and would constitute "bigotry" against the Iranian people? Then we disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 So if there were an academic boycott of Iran, stated as action against the policies of the government, that would be "discrimination based on national origin," and would constitute "bigotry" against the Iranian people? Then we disagree. An academic boycott is different from a disruption of an ongoing event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 An academic boycott is different from a disruption of an ongoing event. Certainly. Bonam brought it up, not me; I just responded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 So if there were an academic boycott of Iran, stated as action against the policies of the government, that would be "discrimination based on national origin," and would constitute "bigotry" against the Iranian people? Then we disagree. Because Iran can be compared to Israel, right? Get real. Israel does not belong to the category of countries that Iran bongs to: oppressive and closed societies. If you had mentioned North Korea, you'd have a point. But Israel being categorized in that manner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) Do you think that there were no children on the planes either? God, jacee is such a disgusting poster. As you've mentioned, as if children are somehow more valuable than adults. And more importantly, and illustrative of jacee's massive, shall we say, simple-mindedness, is his assertion that there were no children at the WTC. The sad thing is that jacee is actually VERY typical of early-twenties liberal arts students in Canada. You have no idea how many people like him/her I met in university. Shockingly ignorant and VERY ideological (anti-West, anti-wealth, false perceptions of "oppressed peoples", illusions of environmental crises, etc). He/she is a symptom of our diseased educational system. Edited September 8, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.