Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debunking the Palestine Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by fastpitch17 View Post
    Yeah, no balls at all. Wonder who voted for this guy?

    Well, to be fair, it was even worse a few years ago. Then we had a President with (wooden) balls and barely any consciousness, let alone moral conscience. Oh, and a hand up his backside, making his lips move.


    Howdy Doody, operated by Darth Vader.
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Warden: "What we got here ... is failure to communicate."

    The Dude: "Oh yeah? Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."[/FONT]

    Comment


    • While I don't agree with what Israel is doing, don't lose sight that the Hamas and other terrorists are attacking Israel from the Palestinian side. Please note that I didn't say Palestinian people because I truly believe it isn't about Palestine vs Israel. The terrorists have been attacking Israel for decades. It's unfortunate that Israeli's current military response is warlike, with collateral damage to the innocents.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
        1,712 - 67

        "Israel, right or wrong"....

        "Wrong side of history", anyone?
        Point of information for those not so US-centric

        From Slate:

        In a recent column, the conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg wrote that the Obama administration "has used the 'wrong side of history' phrase more than any I can remember. They particularly like to use it in foreign policy." Goldberg claimed that for Obama this is "a sign of weakness. … Whenever things haven't gone his way on the international scene—i.e., on days that end with a 'y—he or his spokespeople have wagged their fingers from the right side of history." (Goldberg didn't mention it, but Republicans have invoked WSOH as well. During Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearings as secretary of defense in January 2013, Sen. John McCain berated Hagel for his opposition, as a senator, to the Iraq "surge": "I think history has already made the judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it.")


        Goldberg argues that Obama's use of the "right side of history" formulation, by contrast, is a "sign of strength. … On social issues like, say, gay marriage, it amounts to a kind of impatient bullying that you can afford when time is on your side; 'Your defeat is inevitable, so let's hurry it up.'" Gay marriage is indeed the apposite example. Attorney General Mark Herring of Virginia announced, in reference to his decision to oppose in court the state's same-sex marriage ban, "I'm proud to say today the Commonwealth of Virginia stood on the right side of the law and the right side of history."

        To which Mike Huckabee replied, in essence, "History shmistory." He recently said, regarding his opposition to same-sex marriage, "You've got to understand, this for me is not about the right side or the wrong side of history, this is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it's not my book to change."

        Comment


        • Rabbit, I have never denied that Hamas and other groups have been attacking Israel throughout this "episode" and before. It's quite obvious that they have been and are doing so. I have never voiced a single word of support for Hamas, on this thread or anywhere else.

          In war, there are established "rules of engagement" and accepted / non-accepted practices that are generally agreed on, established by international accords and so on. The Israeli government and armed forces are clearly and grossly in breach of such guidelines for "moral conduct of war: and have in fact, committed war crimes and moral atrocities . This is my opinion, and one which is currently shared by quite large numbers of people around the world, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike (even many Jews and some Israelis).

          Yes, it's extremely "unfortunate", I agree. There was no need for all out war here. Israel perceives and has always perceived political and militant elements among the Palestinians as "serious threats" to its sovereignty and security, that is true, and they have some valid reason for this. But it is clear to me that they were jsut waiting for a reason / excuse / "rationale" for going into Gaza and doing exactly what they are doing now.

          There is absolutely no "moral justification" for whet the Israeli military has been doing in Gaza for the past four weeks. None. Israel has lost its moral compass, and it has become a "war criminal" state. I say this as someone who does not hate Jews, does not hate or wish the destruction of the state of Israel, and recognizes the right of a state called Israel to exist (though not necessarily on the land it now occupies). Israel is simply in the wrong here, and there is no way it can possibly find its way back into the right while murdering innocent people as "collateral damage". And my (our?) own country's government , in supporting and funding this mass murder, is equally culpable and its stance is also morally reprehensible and intolerable to me.
          [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Warden: "What we got here ... is failure to communicate."

          The Dude: "Oh yeah? Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."[/FONT]

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
            ....

            There is absolutely no "moral justification" for whet the Israeli military has been doing in Gaza for the past four weeks. None. Israel has lost its moral compass, and it has become a "war criminal" state. I say this as someone who does not hate Jews, does not hate or wish the destruction of the state of Israel, and recognizes the right of a state called Israel to exist (though not necessarily on the land it now occupies). Israel is simply in the wrong here, and there is no way it can possibly find its way back into the right while murdering innocent people as "collateral damage". And my (our?) own country's government , in supporting and funding this mass murder, is equally culpable and its stance is also morally reprehensible and intolerable to me.
            And you won't be swayed.

            Comment


            • What do you think Israel need to do to stop this madness? This problem has been going on for years. Hamas and other extremist groups are hiding behind innocent Palestinians. Where are the Arab countries? Who is funding Hamas? I think the world need to put pressures in both sides. Israel govt n HAMAs. I am not in Israelis side, especially after the bombing of UN school and the only power plant in Gaza... But Hamas also needs to be held responsible for this.

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Mister Bule;411551]

                The Israeli government and armed forces are clearly and grossly in breach of such guidelines for "moral conduct of war: and have in fact, committed war crimes and moral atrocities . This is my opinion, and one which is currently shared by quite large numbers of people around the world, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike (even many Jews and some Israelis).

                /QUOTE]

                If anyone has not read my earlier reference here to Geoffrey Ronald Robertson QC, a human rights barrister, academic, author and broadcaster, you may see others do in fact agree with Mister Bule to a certain extent.
                Last edited by johntap; 03-08-14, 11:16.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Missnaughty View Post
                  Who is funding Hamas? I think the world need to put pressures in both sides. Israel govt n HAMAs.
                  And who is funding Israel. You might be on to something here. Cut the funds.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
                    I think this thread has been "extremely political" from the get-go, and Tihzho should have posted it here in the first place. (How could a thread with such a title "not" be political?).

                    In my personal opinion, one does not need to argue effectively with someone who supports the extrajudicial killings of civilians, including children. One does not need to argue with such a point of view at all, as it is (in my opinion) clearly one which has no moral substance or validity.

                    I am not sure this is the correct legal term in this case. The killing is bad of course.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
                      Rabbit, I have never denied that Hamas and other groups have been attacking Israel throughout this "episode" and before. It's quite obvious that they have been and are doing so. I have never voiced a single word of support for Hamas, on this thread or anywhere else.
                      Not addressing you specifically, nor your post. Just that too many people are focusing on Israel did this and that, while forgetting that they've been under attack as well

                      Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
                      In war, there are established "rules of engagement" and accepted / non-accepted practices that are generally agreed on, established by international accords and so on. The Israeli government and armed forces are clearly and grossly in breach of such guidelines for "moral conduct of war: and have in fact, committed war crimes and moral atrocities . This is my opinion, and one which is currently shared by quite large numbers of people around the world, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike (even many Jews and some Israelis).
                      Agreed

                      Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
                      Yes, it's extremely "unfortunate", I agree. There was no need for all out war here. Israel perceives and has always perceived political and militant elements among the Palestinians as "serious threats" to its sovereignty and security, that is true, and they have some valid reason for this. But it is clear to me that they were jsut waiting for a reason / excuse / "rationale" for going into Gaza and doing exactly what they are doing now.
                      I guess I have a little more faith and question that "they were just waiting for a reason ...". But you could be right, I don't want to be ignorant of that fact. Just that I wouldn't say it's clear to me.

                      Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
                      There is absolutely no "moral justification" for whet the Israeli military has been doing in Gaza for the past four weeks. None. Israel has lost its moral compass, and it has become a "war criminal" state. I say this as someone who does not hate Jews, does not hate or wish the destruction of the state of Israel, and recognizes the right of a state called Israel to exist (though not necessarily on the land it now occupies). Israel is simply in the wrong here, and there is no way it can possibly find its way back into the right while murdering innocent people as "collateral damage". And my (our?) own country's government , in supporting and funding this mass murder, is equally culpable and its stance is also morally reprehensible and intolerable to me.
                      Correct, no justification whatsoever, moral or otherwise. But I'd rather think of "Israeli leadership" rather than Israel/Israeli. I guess I still believe in that humans are good in general, and that individually, without the media/leadership stoking the fire, both Israeli people and Palestinians would rather live in peace and in harmony.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by johntap View Post
                        Point of information for those not so US-centric

                        From Slate:

                        In a recent column, the conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg wrote that the Obama administration "has used the 'wrong side of history' phrase more than any I can remember. They particularly like to use it in foreign policy." Goldberg claimed that for Obama this is "a sign of weakness. … Whenever things haven't gone his way on the international scene—i.e., on days that end with a 'y—he or his spokespeople have wagged their fingers from the right side of history."
                        The United States of America, as a state, has little credibility in speaking of the "wrong side of history".\


                        Westward expansion by warfare, conquest, deceit and genocide of original inhabitants, based on the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny"? USA = "wrong side".

                        Three hundred years of human slavery, followed by more than one hundred years of continued intolerance and oppression of one race, supposedly "equalized" under law, by another? USA = "Wrong side"

                        Despicable treatment of Chinese in America for decades, codified into racist law by the Congress? "Wrong side"

                        War crimes during America's "cowboy adventure" in Vietnam and Cambodia? "Wrong side"

                        Further cowboy crusades in Iraq, based on lies, manipulation and deceit? "Wrong side'

                        Detention without charge and torture of political prisoners? "Wrong side"

                        NSA and other governmental agencies intruding on the privacy and civil rights of its own citizens, as well as governments and individuals around the world? "Wrong side".

                        My President should check the position of his own feet more carefully before using those words with confidence.
                        [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Warden: "What we got here ... is failure to communicate."

                        The Dude: "Oh yeah? Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."[/FONT]

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
                          In my personal opinion, one does not need to argue effectively with someone who supports the extrajudicial killings of civilians, including children. One does not need to argue with such a point of view at all, as it is (in my opinion) clearly one which has no moral substance or validity.
                          Now this one, I'd like to address specifically to you. I agree wholeheartedly with your sentence there. But there are a lot of words that needs defining there. Often the argument isn't about the actual subject matter, but the definition of the argued points. In this case, perhaps one side sees it as extrajudicial killings, and the other doesn't. Obviously if the one side doesn't see it as extrajudicial killings, he/she/they still have moral values and their arguments still have moral substance. The argument should be about some of those definitions.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by johntap View Post
                            I am not sure this is the correct legal term in this case. The killing is bad of course.
                            Originally posted by rabbit_39 View Post
                            I agree wholeheartedly with your sentence there. But there are a lot of words that needs defining there. Often the argument isn't about the actual subject matter, but the definition of the argued points. In this case, perhaps one side sees it as extrajudicial killings, and the other doesn't. Obviously if the one side doesn't see it as extrajudicial killings, he/she/they still have moral values and their arguments still have moral substance. The argument should be about some of those definitions.

                            "An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and may be carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police."

                            Wikipedia definition, John. Please enlighten me as to how the term is inapplicable in this case...

                            "..often target leading ... figures ...", but sometimes not... sometimes they jsut target whoever may be in the way. Can you explain to me the legal proceeding or judicial process accorded to these civilians in Gaza, prior to their executions?
                            Last edited by Mister Bule; 03-08-14, 11:38.
                            [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Warden: "What we got here ... is failure to communicate."

                            The Dude: "Oh yeah? Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."[/FONT]

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post
                              It's looking more and more like this entire Israeli Adventure was a "set-up job" from the beginning.
                              Maybe, just maybe.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mister Bule View Post

                                Yes, it's extremely "unfortunate", I agree. There was no need for all out war here. Israel perceives and has always perceived political and militant elements among the Palestinians as "serious threats" to its sovereignty and security, that is true, and they have some valid reason for this. But it is clear to me that they were jsut waiting for a reason / excuse / "rationale" for going into Gaza and doing exactly what they are doing now.
                                I am also troubled by this sentence. Is this a war or not? what does an "all out" war look like? Does it give the fighting counties more "liberties"? This is related to my mis/understanding ofyour choice of extrajudicial as well - when a country is at war does every decision to kill have to go through the courts?

                                (I have to go now. I really enjoyed the last hour or two)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X