Zionism is Cancer

GostHacked · January 2, 2015

So, for those Israel supporters, what is the purpose of the settlements? Are they for Israel's security or are they for something else? Even the staunchest Israel supporter Rue recognizes the settlements are a huge problem, but I don't see a solution from them regarding this matter.

I will also say that it would not be ethnic cleansing to remove the Jewish settlements. As it seems it was not ethnic cleansing to put up the settlements and displace others who already were living there.

sharkman · January 2, 2015

I think that Hudson Jones, Marcus, and a few others on this forum hold extremist views regarding Israel, its people and faith. These views are in line with extremist muslims and terrorists, which makes it a possibility that they could well be extremist muslims themselves, hiding their identities(HJ has changed his/her handle a few times). Don't get me wrong here, true followers of Islam are like any other faith in that they are just trying to follow their faith, and I have nothing against them.

But muslim extremists who celebrate whenever a terrorist attack kills Israelis or want sharia law's abuse of women, criminalization of gays and such are sick people and should not be allowed to participate on forums such as this.

Bob Macadoo · January 2, 2015

I think that Hudson Jones, Marcus, and a few others on this forum hold extremist views regarding Israel, its people and faith. ... which makes it a possibility that they could well be extremist muslims themselves, hiding their identities(HJ has changed his/her handle a few times).

Well then I'm glad you cleared that up.....for a second there I was ready to join the jihad without your clairvoyent opinion. Really? That's your contribution? What is your proposal after such a forensic dissection? Report & Ignore? Oh wait that's what is supposed to be done for those who address posters with personalized attack. I would expect prompt resolution by our ever vigilant and egalitarian moderator.......yet I see this thread is still active. Quelle surprise!

sharkman · January 2, 2015

Well then I'm glad you cleared that up.....for a second there I was ready to join the jihad without your clairvoyent opinion. Really? That's your contribution? What is your proposal after such a forensic dissection? Report & Ignore? Oh wait that's what is supposed to be done for those who address posters with personalized attack. I would expect prompt resolution by our ever vigilant and egalitarian moderator.......yet I see this thread is still active. Quelle surprise!

So what exactly is your point, spit it out man. Sometimes it's better to ponder for a bit instead of happy-typing whatever pops into your head.

Yes, I hold the view that we have some anti-semitic posters in out midst. Surely you can't disagree with that. I speculated as to the motivation of their views, if you don't like speculation, perhaps you should stay away from this forum.

GostHacked · January 2, 2015

In the air of letting it all out, tell us how you really feel, Sharkman?

Bob Macadoo · January 2, 2015

So what exactly is your point, spit it out man.

This thread is one big violation of forum rules.....yet it still exists which tells me all I need to know about those who further it and those who set decorum....or who are supposedly tasked with it.

Hudson Jones · January 2, 2015

Hudson Jones it is my I impression you question the right of Israel to exist.

Then I will report you for not providing a quote to back up your comment or for not changing the text. Because you said: "where he questioned Israel's right to exist". You didn't say "my impression of his comment was.." You attribute what is in your head with what people say or think. You have a lot of things in your head.

There is no point in debating with you when you continuously misrepresent people.

Rue · January 3, 2015

Hudson enough. You question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Saying you recognize it, but not as a Jewish state, is what I have challenged. I have gone out of my way to clarify what it is I have challenged.

Saying you recognize Israel but not as it is, of course questions its existence. It exists as a JEWISH state. It was created and exists as a JEWISH state and therefore questioning its Jewish nature necessarily questions its here and now existence.

That is all I am debating.

I am debating that Zionism is not cancerous, that the concept of Jews believing the state should be defined as Jewish is not cancerous and your belief that you only recognize Israel without its Jewish identity necessarily means you only recognize it by questioning its actual existence and altering it to suit your own non Jewish state opinion of how it SHOULD be.

As for Bob M. I have a right to debate the Zionism is a cancer comment. This is a political discussion thread. Its been stated many times in other threads and had nothing to do with the subject of those threads and I felt it important to debate that comment which I have done with great care not to insult anyone and to try be as focused as possible on the topic.

I find it unfortunate you think you can unilaterally and arbitrarily decide what subjects can be debated on this forum.

Its real simple, instead of trying to censor my right to debate this topic, don't read it.

Or you can go complain to the moderator like Hudson Jones.

My intent is to cherish the gift of this board to be able to debate topics rather than censor them.

jbg · January 3, 2015

But muslim extremists who celebrate whenever a terrorist attack kills Israelis or want sharia law's abuse of women, criminalization of gays and such are sick people and should not be allowed to participate on forums such as this.

Democracy is not for people who are afraid to debate either. I don't mind debating people who are "out there."

sharkman · January 3, 2015

Then I will report you for not providing a quote to back up your comment or for not changing the text. Because you said: "where he questioned Israel's right to exist". You didn't say "my impression of his comment was.." You attribute what is in your head with what people say or think. You have a lot of things in your head.

There is no point in debating with you when you continuously misrepresent people.

Biggest joke of the day, you do nothing but misrepresent Israel. You bleat your one note repeatedly on this forum to the extent that you have belittled your rep to zero. The definition of a 'net extremist.

marcus · January 3, 2015

Biggest joke of the day, you do nothing but misrepresent Israel. You bleat your one note repeatedly on this forum to the extent that you have belittled your rep to zero. The definition of a 'net extremist.

Your comments mean as little as Rue's or anyone else's who continuously fail to back up their claims. Show proof that Hudson or anyone else has misrepresented something. Just because you say so, it doesn't make it so.

sharkman · January 3, 2015

This thread is one big violation of forum rules.....yet it still exists which tells me all I need to know about those who further it and those who set decorum....or who are supposedly tasked with it.

I can see your point, though I hold the view that Rue has a point too. Perhaps the mods are letting this one play its course a little, or perhaps they are on a holiday break.

BubberMiley · January 3, 2015

I can see your point, though I hold the view that Rue has a point too. Perhaps the mods are letting this one play its course a little, or perhaps they are on a holiday break.

You're really going to make accusations and then chicken out when asked to back them up again? Why do you keep doing that?

-TSS- · January 3, 2015

One can get some aspect why a peaceful solution in the Middle-East is impossible as people there live with the reality every day but the events over there seem to turn people living in far-away lands with nothing whatsoever to do with the Middle-East into crazed maniacs when the topic crops up in any conversation.

eyeball · January 3, 2015

I think the conversation in Canada only started going really sideways when the government currently in charge of Ottawa started investing political capital in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Why those crazed maniacs think sticking Canada's dingus in such a hornets nest is a good idea is anyone's guess.

drummindiver · January 3, 2015

I think the conversation in Canada only started going really sideways when the government currently in charge of Ottawa started investing political capital in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Why those crazed maniacs think sticking Canada's dingus in such a hornets nest is a good idea is anyone's guess.

This is one of the least informed statements I have read while on these forums.

Again, is calling our elected officials "crazed maniacs" allowed under forum rules?

Canada was involved before Israel became Israel. The conversation has always been sideways.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

.

Rue · January 3, 2015

This thread has allowed me to express a challenge to a comment that was not the subject of the thread it was brought up in. It really is that simple.

I expressed an opinion I thought crucial that was not discussed in any previous debate.

I have yet to see an explanation how someone who challenges Israel for being a JEWISH state is not challenging its existence.

It was created as a Jewish state. Calling that concept cancerous is what was debated.

Now as for Marcus saying I do not back up what I debate, I think this thread speaks for itself. I took the time to explain my position. I have yet to get an explanation why it is cancerous to believe Jews have the same right as any other people to create a state to protect themselves from harm.

That is precisely the point that was debated and challenged by me and is never responded to.

Its easy to call Zionism or Israel being a Jewish state a cancerous idea, its not easy however to make a cogent argument why.

That is the point.

The point is and remains both Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights. One exercised its right to create a state the other has chosen to remain in a state of terrorist chaos clinging to the hope that it celebrates each Al Quads day that Israel as a Jewish state will be dismantled.

Zionism is not a cancer. Its not a disease. its an ideology and its an ideology that came about to prevent the extinction of Jews, it in fact saved the lives by creating a political refuge for Jews. The subjective name calling that Jewish sufferage is cancerous is only that and we have to do better on this board than name call

To challenge people to debate is precisely what this board is about. If you can't debate why Jewish sufferage is cancerous then don't but to simply throw out the negative pronouncement, then refuse to explain why and then focus on a semantic argument as to who said what is pointless.

We all know what is being debated and if you can't provide a position to explain how Zionism is cancerous, it's not credible. Credibility rests on the context, structure and reasoning presented in a position, without that, there can be no basis for credibility and yes that should be challenged. We are a political debate forum, not forum that simply calls names. Let's debate the subject not avoid debating it by quoting alleged rules or focusing on personal attacks.

To date I have not read one position as to how Jews expessing their right to be a collective create anything cancerous.

its ironic. Cancer spreads. What we have seen spread across this world is not Zionism but Muslim totalitarian extremism and its manifestation through the expression of terror and violence. We have witnessed the spread of Muslim on Muslim blood shed, the continuous collapse of failed Muslim states unable to overcome their corrupt military dictatorships.

We have seen genocide against black Christians in Sudan in the name of Allah, massacres of Coptic Christians in the name of Allah in Egypt, the Boka Ratan engage in what it has in Nigeria, wide spread terror in Dahomey, Senegal, Libya, Niger, Chad all related to Muslim extremism, civil wars in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, a brutal dictatorship in Iran massacre its own students, and citizens calling them anti Muslim.

We have seen Hussein, Iran, Turkey all try wipe out Bebers and Kurds. We have seen civil war in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Muslim extremist terrorism in India, the Phillipinnes, East Timor, Bangladesh, Indonesia.

Until those individuals who have made it a point to use this board to launch anti Israel threads one after the other continuously on the Rest of the World section do more than simply name call, people like myself and others will challenge their words in debate.

Zionism is no more cancerous than the concept of Palestinians wanting a state or Muslims already having Sharia law states.

On the other hand, the track record of Muslim states and their human rights records and treatment of different sects of Muslims let alone non Muslims speaks for itself and can be compared to how Israeli treats its non Jewish citizens. That is in fact an objective comparison not a subjective one.

The standard of living Muslims have in Israel compared to what Jews face in Muslim countries speaks for itself and renders the contention Zionism is cancer an absurdity as absurd as the propaganda that claims Zionists wanted to conquer the world or as the Hamas constitution says, are involved with the illuminati and Masons to conquer the world.

What absurdity. the Hamas constitution accuses not just Israelis or Zionists but all Jews as being involved in a world conspiracy to conquer it and then in the next breath claim they intend to turn the world into one Muslim caliphate.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Rue

eyeball · January 3, 2015

Again, is calling our elected officials "crazed maniacs" allowed under forum rules?

Sensitive little thing aren't you? Compared to comparing people to Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalin etc, crazed maniacs seems pretty tame. Are you quite sure you're ready for this forum? You might find he content may be more offensive than you're allowing for.

drummindiver · January 3, 2015

Sensitive little thing aren't you? Compared to comparing people to Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalin etc, crazed maniacs seems pretty tame. Are you quite sure you're ready for this forum? You might find he content may be more offensive than you're allowing for.

lol. Nobody who knows me would cal me a "sensitive little thing", but thank you.

Not sure what the stalin/pol pot/nazi reference is about.

How about actually commenting on the point of my post, instead of the personal, um, nature, of your retort.

eyeball · January 4, 2015

You mean your point about creating the hornet's nest in the first place? Okay. Obviously that was a disaster, that went sideways to use your word. I think the best thing Canada could have done to rectify things when they did was to take a neutral position towards the conflict.

I don't disagree with you that things started off sideways which is why I referred to things (the discussion in Canada at any rate) going REALLY sideways when the crazy bastards in Ottawa abandoned Canada's neutrality.

Again, reading comprehension is your friend.

Edited January 4, 2015 by eyeball

Rue · January 4, 2015

Let's be very clear. Every Prime Minister in Canada since Israel's creation has recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish sovereign state.

Every Prime Minister has denounced terrorism as a method to express political opinion.

Every Prime Minister has recognized the right of Palestinians to obtain a second state on the West Bank as part of a peace solution.

To suggest Harper has abandon Canada's traditional position is inaccurate.

The only net result difference between Harper and other Prime Ministers is his stronger stance against TERRORISM.

His stance against terrorism is probably different than previous Prime Minister's but not his position on Israel and Palestine both having the same right to nations.

The anti Israel position taken on this board by some I would suggest taints their view of the actual position of our country in regards to Palestinians and Israelis.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Rue

Rue · January 4, 2015

Eyeball since its inception Canada has never been neutral in its support of Israel being a Jewish state.

It has always supported Israel's right to be a Jewish state and to defend itself against terrorism.

eyeball · January 4, 2015

Canada has also never been neutral about it's support for a state for Palestinians.

Canada was always neutral about Israel's conflict with Palestine, until Harper came along.

If Harper wants Canadians to pick sides too then I guess he got what he wanted.

Edited January 4, 2015 by eyeball

Big Guy · January 4, 2015

Previous Canadian governments tended to keep from taking sides in the Middle East. I believe that it was a conscious federal policy where it was considered to be in the best interests of Canada to remain neutral. Harper unilaterally changed that policy towards a support of Israel. I believe that to be a mistake and trust that the next Canadian government will rectify that policy and change to a policy that is best for Canada.

Every settlement that Israel builds, every attempt to persecute Palestinians, every snubbing of American directions and UN statutes further isolates Israel from the civilized nations. I do not think that Canada can afford to follow Israel into it's self created corner.

It is time to review our foreign policy and look to Iran as our next ally in the Middle East.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Big Guy

drummindiver · January 4, 2015

I think the conversation in Canada only started going really sideways when the government currently in charge of Ottawa started investing political capital in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Why those crazed maniacs think sticking Canada's dingus in such a hornets nest is a good idea is anyone's guess.

You mean your point about creating the hornet's nest in the first place? Okay. Obviously that was a disaster, that went sideways to use your word. I think the best thing Canada could have done to rectify things when they did was to take a neutral position towards the conflict.

I don't disagree with you that things started off sideways which is why I referred to things (the discussion in Canada at any rate) going REALLY sideways when the crazy bastards in Ottawa abandoned Canada's neutrality.

Again, reading comprehension is your friend.

lol...My word?

You're talking semantics. "Really sideways" when used in the context you did, to me and most literate ppl, means FUBAR.

The "crazy bastards in Ottawa" -either red, blue or orange-have not been neutral since day one. That's why they voted as they did.

If reading comprehension is your friend, you must be very lonely.