Canada wrongly supports a "two-state" solution for Israel

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Mako said:

Some scholars think: “the epistles of Paul contain creedal summaries of early Christian beliefs which possibly date as early as 35-40 C.E.”

Website: https://carm.org/evidence-and-answers/an-analysis-of-the-pre-pauline-creed-in-1-corinthians-151-11/

Wow you are completely wrong, so many have been killed in the name of atheism!

Atheists sometimes feel religious folk are inferior or backward and must be liquidated in the interest of progress. Many Communists have felt this way, the genocidal Young Turks felt this way, more recent atheists like C. Hitchens and S. Harris have felt this way too.

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/

https://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59595952

https://www.history.com/news/joseph-stalin-religion-atheism-ussr

You really should admit your error.

 

Your first link is just some protestant claiming his particular brand of Christianity was the original Christianity but of course that’s what they all say  I once date a girl whose mom went to one of those crazy Pentecostal churches where a band plays loud Christian music and everyone starts speaking and yelling in “tongues” (aka yelling gibberish and making strange sounds which they believe is a conversation between you and your personal angel in a private divine language that only you two understand) …they swore THAT was the original Christianity and what Jesus and his disciples did too  

 

The Young Turks were not atheists, and Hitchens and Harris never killed anyone. 
 

As I’ve said several times now, the closest thing you can come to anything remotely resembling “killing In the name of atheism” is communism but really not even that since they were really killing in the name of communism, atheism was just one feature of their ideology that communists kinda went easy on. 
 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Mako said:

You have shown us you are a liar. You refuse to answer my questions.

I answered many of your questions. Then you became dishonest.

Sorry - everyone can see you're the liar here.

Even the quotes you provided now reluctantly after dodging my questions and ignoring the facts only say these investigators from ONE group in ONE conflict that's KNOWN to be friendly to the palestinians didn't find evidece FOR it - but didn't find proof they didn't either,

Meanwhile:

https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-report-outlines-how-hamas-used-kids-as-human-shields/

https://munrkazmir.medium.com/yes-hamas-uses-the-palestinian-people-as-human-shields-6bb8decb7b25

https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/07/conclusive-proof-that-hamas-uses-palestinians-as-human-shields/

 

So how about you start answering a few of my questions now.

Why did you feel the need to lie about hamas using people as human shields?

Do you think it's ok that they do so?

Why is hamas initiating violence when they know the retaliation will involve civillian casualties because of where they're firing from?

Do you think hamas does this to gain international 'points' in its favor and create a false sense of pity?

If palistine would like to see peace, why do they still maintain their "pay for slay" system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund

 

I have no doubt there's faults on both sides but it's pretty clear that isreal would be open to peaceful settlements whereas palestinians will not rest until isreal is dead and gone. That would make them the problem here.

[Americana Antifa]

8 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Palestinians are free to travel within their respective areas, the west bank, and Gaza, Israel has every right to restrict travel with Israel to anyone it wishes...and until Palestinians keep on with their terrorist attacks then there is going to be consequences. That's what they call sovereignty. Something you have missed in your hardened opinion..

You denied there is a blockade, but now what you're describing is a blockade. Israel is restricting Palestinians' travel in order to keep them in an open air prison.

[Mako]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

73.6% of Israelis are Jewish.

Religion in Israel - Wikipedia

You didn't say whether you are Catholic or what religious affiliation or background.

This is likely pure bias or anti-Semitism.  Just throwing out extreme claims does not make it a fact.  

There is also no proof that there is systematic brutality.  There may be isolated cases as happens occasionally even in western countries.  If you want to see brutality in history, check into the Roman church in Europe and what they did.

Self defence is not brutality.  Israel has had to defend itself all through history.

You obviously have an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel streak which is very common in the world.  This is very common because of the herd mentality in the world.  That's why it is important to study the Bible and believe it and don't automatically take some denomination's word for the interpretation.  That's the only way I know of to avoid falling into the trap which swallowed most of Europe for a couple thousand years.

The non-Muslim population of Israel is one of the least religious groups on the planet.

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/11-countries-with-highest-atheist-population-376433/?singlepage=1

And remember that includes Muslim Palestinians living in Israel, most of whom are religious.

So you are defending non-religious individuals committing atrocities. 

For psychological reasons you can’t accept the evidence for Israeli brutality.

I suggest you look at the facts.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses

https://theintercept.com/2022/08/10/israel-gaza-bombing-death-images/

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mako

[Mako]

8 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Your first link is just some protestant claiming his particular brand of Christianity was the original Christianity but of course that’s what they all say  I once date a girl whose mom went to one of those crazy Pentecostal churches where a band plays loud Christian music and everyone starts speaking and yelling in “tongues” (aka yelling gibberish and making strange sounds which they believe is a conversation between you and your personal angel in a private divine language that only you two understand) …they swore THAT was the original Christianity and what Jesus and his disciples did too  

 

The Young Turks were not atheists, and Hitchens and Harris never killed anyone. 
 

As I’ve said several times now, the closest thing you can come to anything remotely resembling “killing In the name of atheism” is communism but really not even that since they were really killing in the name of communism, atheism was just one feature of their ideology that communists kinda went easy on. 
 

 

Wow you did not understand the first link I posted at all.

The genocidal Young Turks were strongly influenced by the prominent atheist thinker Comte. They hated religious folk.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/abs/positivist-universalism-and-republicanism-of-the-young-turks/35DC3948EEA899AE046DBA3EB9BD9923

Hitchens was too busy enjoying second or third helpings to personally kill Muslims, but he was a powerful voice advocating war.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christopher-hitchens-dead-iraq-war_n_1154152

Communists kill in the name of the largest atheist sect. Hatred of religious folks is central to Marxism.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Storming_the_Heavens.html?id=nC2LSv5QNYkC

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mako

[Mako]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I answered many of your questions. Then you became dishonest.

Sorry - everyone can see you're the liar here.

Even the quotes you provided now reluctantly after dodging my questions and ignoring the facts only say these investigators from ONE group in ONE conflict that's KNOWN to be friendly to the palestinians didn't find evidece FOR it - but didn't find proof they didn't either,

Meanwhile:

https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-report-outlines-how-hamas-used-kids-as-human-shields/

https://munrkazmir.medium.com/yes-hamas-uses-the-palestinian-people-as-human-shields-6bb8decb7b25

https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/07/conclusive-proof-that-hamas-uses-palestinians-as-human-shields/

 

So how about you start answering a few of my questions now.

Why did you feel the need to lie about hamas using people as human shields?

Do you think it's ok that they do so?

Why is hamas initiating violence when they know the retaliation will involve civillian casualties because of where they're firing from?

Do you think hamas does this to gain international 'points' in its favor and create a false sense of pity?

If palistine would like to see peace, why do they still maintain their "pay for slay" system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund

 

I have no doubt there's faults on both sides but it's pretty clear that isreal would be open to peaceful settlements whereas palestinians will not rest until isreal is dead and gone. That would make them the problem here.

Why do you say the Palestinians initiate the violence?

The Palestinians make feeble attacks on Israel which kill few Israelis, but these attacks can be thought of as retaliation against earlier Israeli attacks.

https://ifamericansknew.org/stat/rockets.html

Do you think the Algemeiner is anything close to a neutral source?

Should we trust all non-neutral sources?

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/6/18/the-fallacy-of-israels-human-shields-claims-in-gaza/

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/busting-the-myth-of-palestinian-human-shields-in-gaza-46645

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mako

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Mako said:

For psychological reasons you can’t accept the evidence for Israeli brutality.

I suggest you look at the facts.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses

Hah!   You don't do your research.  Just find something and post it without looking at all the facts.

Human Rights Watch has been accused of bias against Israel in reporting in the middle east.

quote

HRW has been accused of evidence-gathering bias because it is said to be "credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan" but "skeptical of anyone in a uniform."[1] Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of poor research methods and relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."[2] In October 2009, Bernstein said that the organization had lost critical perspective on events in the Middle East:[2] "[T]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."

"According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others."[1] The Times accused HRW of imbalance, alleging that it ignores human-rights abuses in certain regimes while covering other conflict zones (notably Israel) intensively. Although HRW issued five reports on Israel in one fourteen-month period, The Times first said in twenty years HRW issued only four reports on the conflict in Kashmir (despite 80,000 conflict-related deaths in Kashmir and "torture and extrajudicial murder ... on a vast scale")[1] and it first said no report on post-election violence and repression in Iran. In their correction issued on 4 April 2010, The Times said HRW had published nine articles about the conflict in Kashmir and one report about the post-election abuses in Iran in February that year.[5] A source told The Times, "Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let's face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel."[1]"

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia

That's enough proof right there you quote biased and anti-Semitic sources.

Edited April 12, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

"Warning that some posters are using biased and anti-Semitic sources to bolster their anti-Semitic arguments on here.

Allegations of ideological and selection bias[edit]

HRW has been accused of evidence-gathering bias because it is said to be "credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan" but "skeptical of anyone in a uniform."^[1] Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of poor research methods and relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."^[2] In October 2009, Bernstein said that the organization had lost critical perspective on events in the Middle East:^[2] "[T]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."^[2] HRW responded by saying that HRW "does not devote more time and energy to Israel than to other countries in the region, or in the world".^[3] Tom Porteus, director of the HRW's London branch, replied that the organization rejected Bernstein's "obvious double standard. Any credible human rights organization must apply the same human rights standards to all countries."^[4]

According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others."^[1] The Times accused HRW of imbalance, alleging that it ignores human-rights abuses in certain regimes while covering other conflict zones (notably Israel) intensively. Although HRW issued five reports on Israel in one fourteen-month period, The Times first said in twenty years HRW issued only four reports on the conflict in Kashmir (despite 80,000 conflict-related deaths in Kashmir and "torture and extrajudicial murder ... on a vast scale")^[1] and it first said no report on post-election violence and repression in Iran. In their correction issued on 4 April 2010, The Times said HRW had published nine articles about the conflict in Kashmir and one report about the post-election abuses in Iran in February that year.^[5] A source told The Times, "Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let's face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel."^[1] The newspaper quoted Noah Pollak, an HRW critic and conservative commentator, said HRW cares if Israel maltreats Palestinians but "is less concerned if perpetrators are fellow Arab". One example given was the 2007 Lebanon conflict in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp and it was said HRW issued one press release but not a report.^[1] In their correction, The Times said HRW had written three press releases and had reported abuses against Palestinians by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq.^[5]"

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia

 

[Mako]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Hah!   You don't do your research.  Just find something and post it without looking at all the facts.

Human Rights Watch has been accused of bias against Israel in reporting in the middle east.

quote

HRW has been accused of evidence-gathering bias because it is said to be "credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan" but "skeptical of anyone in a uniform."[1] Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of poor research methods and relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers."[2] In October 2009, Bernstein said that the organization had lost critical perspective on events in the Middle East:[2] "[T]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."

"According to The Times, HRW "does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others."[1] The Times accused HRW of imbalance, alleging that it ignores human-rights abuses in certain regimes while covering other conflict zones (notably Israel) intensively. Although HRW issued five reports on Israel in one fourteen-month period, The Times first said in twenty years HRW issued only four reports on the conflict in Kashmir (despite 80,000 conflict-related deaths in Kashmir and "torture and extrajudicial murder ... on a vast scale")[1] and it first said no report on post-election violence and repression in Iran. In their correction issued on 4 April 2010, The Times said HRW had published nine articles about the conflict in Kashmir and one report about the post-election abuses in Iran in February that year.[5] A source told The Times, "Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let's face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel."[1]"

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia

That's enough proof right there you quote biased and anti-Semitic sources.

HRW and Amnesty International are very important human rights organizations. Maybe HRW coverage of the conflict in Kashmir is insufficient and maybe HRW is occasionally skeptical of people in uniform but what source do you feel is less biased and more valuable?

Did you notice in the Wikipedia article HRW was also accused of rarely criticizing “human rights abuses by the United States and its allies”.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mako

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Mako said:

HRW and Amnesty International are very important human rights organizations. Maybe HRW coverage of the conflict in Kashmir is insufficient and maybe HRW is occasionally skeptical of people in uniform but what source do you feel is less biased and more valuable?

It's not my business to find sources of information for you.  You have been exposed.  All you want to do is post lying and false information.  

[Mako]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It's not my business to find sources of information for you.  You have been exposed.  All you want to do is post lying and false information.  

I am guilty of quoting widely acclaimed prominent human rights organizations that some Israeli apologists on Wikipedia don’t like.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Mako said:

Why do you say the Palestinians initiate the violence?

They Palestinians make feeble attacks on Israel which kill few Israelis, but these attacks can be thought of as retaliation against earlier Israeli attacks.

https://ifamericansknew.org/stat/rockets.html

Do you think the Algemeiner is anything close to a neutral source?

I’d say Aljazeera is about as neutral.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/6/18/the-fallacy-of-israels-human-shields-claims-in-gaza/

So you refuse to answer my questions.  Why when you claimed that refusing to answer makes a person a liar, Are you admitting you are a liar? You were pretty quick to say i was for not answering every question you put out there, you haven't answered ANY of mine.

Answer the questions.

[Mako]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you refuse to answer my questions.  Why when you claimed that refusing to answer makes a person a liar, Are you admitting you are a liar? You were pretty quick to say i was for not answering every question you put out there, you haven't answered ANY of mine.

Answer the questions.

I am pointing out the premises of your questions are wrong.

Questioning your sources (like the IDF) is not the same as lying about human shields.

Hamas is not initiating violence because the Israelis had earlier committed many violent acts.

Now will you answer my questions or will you run away again?

[Mako]

There’s no question the Israelis and their lobby pushed the U.S. into a war not in our interests.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

And yet fools still apologize for Israeli apartheid and Israeli bombings.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Mako said:

I am pointing out the premises of your questions are wrong.

 

So you admit you're dodging the facts and ignoring my questions because you can't answer them.

Why do you defend palestine when you admit you can't answer the questions?

If you have to lie and ignore facts to make your point, is your point even valid?

Are you driven to be dishonest about this because of a love of palestine? Or a hatred of the Jews?

Why do you support palestine using their own people as human shields to jack up the civillian casualties for international sympathy?

 You sure like asking questions - now start answering some.  Unless you're ready to admit you were a shill the whole time,

[Mako]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you admit you're dodging the facts and ignoring my questions because you can't answer them.

Why do you defend palestine when you admit you can't answer the questions?

If you have to lie and ignore facts to make your point, is your point even valid?

Are you driven to be dishonest about this because of a love of palestine? Or a hatred of the Jews?

Why do you support palestine using their own people as human shields to jack up the civillian casualties for international sympathy?

 You sure like asking questions - now start answering some.  Unless you're ready to admit you were a shill the whole time,

I’ll never understand why conservatives serve Israel so avidly even though Israel betrays the U.S.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-12-28-mn-13774-story.html

Are you guys dumb or are you traitors? Maybe just Israelis in disguise?

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mako

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Mako said:

I’ll never understand why conservatives serve Israel so avidly even though Israel betrays the U.S.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-12-28-mn-13774-story.html

Are you guys dumb or are you traitors? Maybe just Israelis in disguise?

So still won't answer any questions.

But - i thought you said refusing to answer any questions proved that someone is lying?

Nobody's talking about supporting the israelis - you're being asked why you support palestine and their use of their own people as shields.

But you can't answer that - you have to deflect and evade. Because you know you're wrong.

Maybe people support isreal because they see people like you lying to try to support palestine? Kinda makes it look like you know Isreal is in the right here and you're just anti-jewish. Other wise why can't you answer simple questions?

[Mako]

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So still won't answer any questions.

But - i thought you said refusing to answer any questions proved that someone is lying?

Nobody's talking about supporting the israelis - you're being asked why you support palestine and their use of their own people as shields.

But you can't answer that - you have to deflect and evade. Because you know you're wrong.

Maybe people support isreal because they see people like you lying to try to support palestine? Kinda makes it look like you know Isreal is in the right here and you're just anti-jewish. Other wise why can't you answer simple questions?

Israeli bigots in action: https://imeu.org/article/discrimination-against-palestinian-citizens-of-israel

Supporting Israel makes the U.S. look bad and what do we get in return?

Smart conservatives are wary of Israel.

Unfortunately there are some low IQ, thick skulled, low forehead, dense, simpleton, ignorant conservatives out there.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mako

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Mako said:

Israeli bigots in action: https://imeu.org/article/discrimination-against-palestinian-citizens-of-israel

Supporting Israel makes the U.S. look bad and what do we get in return?

Smart conservatives are wary of Israel.

Unfortunately there are some low IQ, thick skulled, low forehead, conservatives out there.

So you're claiming that the palestinians are in the wrong here and we should support isreal even tho they're not nice either?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58183968

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/rights-group-says-hamas-rockets-at-israel-a-clear-war-crime-1.5544606

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-hamas-rights-idUSKBN0OB2N420150527

Edited April 12, 2023 by CdnFox

[Mako]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you're claiming that the palestinians are in the wrong here and we should support isreal even tho they're not nice either?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58183968

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/rights-group-says-hamas-rockets-at-israel-a-clear-war-crime-1.5544606

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-hamas-rights-idUSKBN0OB2N420150527

From the sites you linked to:

“More than 4,360 unguided rockets and mortars were fired, Israel says, killing 13 people there. Some fell short, killing Palestinians in Gaza.

At least 260 people were killed in Gaza during the 11 days of fighting.”

“It based its conclusions on an investigation into Hamas rocket attacks that killed 12 civilians in Israel.”

“In all, some 254 people were killed in Gaza, including at least 67 children and 39 women, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.”

Even an intellectually challenged individual such as yourself can notice the difference.

The Israelis have most of the military power, thanks to the U.S. taxpayer, so most of the victims are Palestinians. The Israelis deserve most of the criticism.

Why do you waste your time serving as a lame apologist for Israeli child murderers?

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mako

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Mako said:

From the sites you linked to:

“More than 4,360 unguided rockets and mortars were fired, Israel says, killing 13 people there. Some fell short, killing Palestinians in Gaza.

At least 260 people were killed in Gaza during the 11 days of fighting.”

 

Of course - that's the whole point of hamas using human shields and putting rockets on hospitals.  When the irealies shoot back civvies get kileld.

SO - why are you refusing to answer why you support hamas doing this?  Why are you in favour of them deliberately getting their civilians killed?

Why won't you answer simple questions? What are you afraid of?

 

[Mako]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course - that's the whole point of hamas using human shields and putting rockets on hospitals.  When the irealies shoot back civvies get kileld.

SO - why are you refusing to answer why you support hamas doing this?  Why are you in favour of them deliberately getting their civilians killed?

Why won't you answer simple questions? What are you afraid of?

 

Does the IDF pay you to justify their atrocities? I think not. You try hard but you don’t have the necessary mental skills.

We’ve seen how you take the word of the IDF and other extremist Jewish sources who promise the atrocities are all the fault of the victims.

 

[Mako]

Zionist ethnic cleansing: https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/01/16/an-interview-with-benny-morris/

Ignorant apologists always ignore these facts.

[Mako]

The U.S. taxpayers have been forced to make enormous payments to Israel.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/01/16/an-interview-with-benny-morris/

What do the American people get in return?

Only dopes and traitors would support such welfare payments.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mako

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Mako said:

Does the IDF pay you to justify their atrocities? I think not. You try hard but you don’t have the necessary mental skills.

We’ve seen how you take the word of the IDF and other extremist Jewish sources who promise the atrocities are all the fault of the victims.

 

Nobody's defending the IDF - i haven't even really mentioned them.  We're talking about hamas and palestine - why are you afraid to answer simple questions about them?

Why do you defend palestine killing it's own people for international support?

Do you believe that such behavior is acceptable?

these aren't complex questions and you've been afraid to answer them all along. Why is that?

Are you ashamed of your position? Do you feel the isrealies are right, but you hate jews or something? What possible reason could you have?

You realize your refusal to address this just makes the isrealies look like the good guys here.