/ Palestinian's dancing in the streets because 4 Israelis killed

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Michael Hood - on 09 Jan 2017
It has been reported (not for the first time) that in Gaza, the Palestinians are celebrating by dancing in the streets that 4 Israeli soldiers were killed (and many more injured) by driving a truck over them.

They're also calling for more of the same.

I'd be interested to hear the views of the pro-Palestinians who frequently post on UKC about this behaviour.
42
Orange - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
Celebrating death is clearly very nasty, but I don't see how it's especially surprising or out of the ordinary, especially in a community that's been persecuted to the extent that Palestine has been. Compare and contrast to certain Northern Irish people during the Troubles.

What's your position on Palestinians being driven by force from farm land they've lived on for thousands of years, because they've the misfortune to live next to an exceedingly greedy, self entitled country backed by the USA with more tanks than they can shake a stick at? A similarly pointless inquiry imo.

What's your point?
13
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

Not sure what response you want really. 'Obviously they are all ignorant savages who deserve everything that's coming to them?'

'If only they could behave themselves a peaceful two state solution could be sorted in a jiffy.'

'Obviously they are different from 'us', there's no way we would do that.'

The Israeli PM has just tried to not just pardon but exonerate an Israeli medic for shooting a wounded Palestinian in the head, and I imagine there's a fair few Israelis agree with him. And your point is, caller?


5
SenzuBean - on 09 Jan 2017
Michael Hood - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to SenzuBean: Wasn't aware of that one - equally bad.

Observing to see what happens is one thing, but celebrating is pretty sick really.

1
Orange - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
Ref. Belgrano, "Gotcha!"

Rotten apples everywhere, would you believe it.
Post edited at 21:57
2
aln - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

What are your views on people dancing in streets celebrating people being killed?
1
JEF on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

There's to much dancing on telly these days, can't get away from it.
1
Michael Hood - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to aln: Firstly, nice that you ask rather than assuming my position - thank you.

It's pretty bad really, quite sick and should be condemned as such. Some responses above almost try and justify it as understandable because of the situation - funny how they don't condemn it out of hand as they do with wrongful behaviour on the Israeli side.

If something is wrong, then it's wrong. It may be possible to see where wrong behaviour comes from but it should always be condemned.

In response to REW about Netanyahu's call for a pardon etc. I really don't understand where he's coming from on this one - there's a line, the soldier went over it and this has been "proved" in a court of law. Any arguments about the soldier's state of mind at the time doesn't affect his guilt for the manslaughter charge but should be used when deciding on an appropriate sentence. But I suspect that Netanyahu can't call for leniency as this might be seen as subverting the judiciary.

1
Mr Lopez - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

Where did you see that report? Not arguing, just that i can't find any reports of celebrations or people dancing, all i could find is this rally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyNHmRmQuXY and a similar video in am Israeli newspaper
RomTheBear on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
> It has been reported (not for the first time) that in Gaza, the Palestinians are celebrating by dancing in the streets that 4 Israeli soldiers were killed (and many more injured) by driving a truck over them.

> They're also calling for more of the same.

> I'd be interested to hear the views of the pro-Palestinians who frequently post on UKC about this behaviour.

One of my closest friend is Palestinian and she said it was a fantastic news and was delighted, and it seems most Palestinians are, according to her.
Post edited at 05:26
3
jondo - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> One of my closest friend is Palestinian and she said it was a fantastic news and was delighted, and it seems most Palestinians are, according to her.

that's the point.. there are Israeli's who are extremists but I would claim it is a small minority who actually rejoice in death of Palestinians.
I say 'claim' since I have no statistics.
However there seems to be a culture of this rejoice among Palestinians.
of course, several posters here would blaim the Israeli government for it and the settlements.
While I would agree that treating people badly has an effect (hence the Israeli government has some responsibility), the constant incitement and dehumanization of Jews by Palestinian media has a huge effect on their perceptions and rejoice about death.
4
krikoman - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
Like this you mean?

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/israeli-settlers-wedding-palestinian/


I don't think celebrating the death of most people is appropriate, but it does happen on both sides and if there was a party on each side for everyone killed, the Israelis would never get any work done.

I'm pretty certain it's a small number of either side that will celebrate the death of someone else, but this is how the hatred continues and the people who thrive on the continued conflict stay in power.
Post edited at 08:24
2
Greasy Prusiks on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure being pro-Palestine doesn't mean you think every single Palestinian is a lovely person. Neither does it mean you should be able to explain the actions of every single Palestinian.
2
Michael Hood - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Equally bad and shocking, but note that the Israeli government condemned such terrible extremist behaviour whereas you'll not see any PA officials condemning dancing in the streets.
3
Michael Hood - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> the people who thrive on the continued conflict stay in power.

That unfortunately is so true and is possibly the biggest obstacle to any lasting peace.
krikoman - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> In response to REW about Netanyahu's call for a pardon etc. I really don't understand where he's coming from on this one - there's a line, the soldier went over it and this has been "proved" in a court of law. Any arguments about the soldier's state of mind at the time doesn't affect his guilt for the manslaughter charge but should be used when deciding on an appropriate sentence. But I suspect that Netanyahu can't call for leniency as this might be seen as subverting the judiciary.

But he's called for a pardon, and when Palestinians kill an Israeli, the whole family suffers or even whole communities. This may go some way to explain why people might celebrate an attack on the IDF.

Two thing it's the IDF who inflict this retribution on behalf of the state and it's never a proportional response. People with knives are almost always killed, when was the last time the police in Britain needed to kill someone armed with a knife?

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the speed with which the attacker was labelled, there's never any doubt, it's always a terrorist attack. The recent attack in Germany took three or four days to determine who he was and where he'd come from, and they had he's identity papers in the cab!

There was mention that this bloke was ISIS so would it been more acceptable if he wasn't Palestinian?

Not excusing any of what happened, but it's not hard to see there are massive differences between the two sides and their motivations.

8
krikoman - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Equally bad and shocking, but note that the Israeli government condemned such terrible extremist behaviour whereas you'll not see any PA officials condemning dancing in the streets.

They may condemn it, paying lip service to it, but their actions, in many cases, don't project the same condemnations of the acts themselves.

There's a massive disparity in the consequences of killing someone on the other side; on the Palestinians side you more than likely to end up dead and you family forfeit their home. While on the Israeli side it seems you get a reduced sentence and/or charges and be free as soon as possible.

Remember that throwing stones at army trucks makes you a terrorist in Israel, so kids of 10 and 11 years old are branded as terrorist from an early age.

3
Rigid Raider - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

I'll rise to the bait. I've been to Jordan many times and met many Palestinians, even got quite friendly with a Palestinian lady at one time. It's said that 70% of Palestinians have a university degree and Palestinian doctors are doing incredible work all over the world. They are on the whole a charming and hospitable people and a joy to have as friends. However when you hear their stories of their treatment at the hands of the Israelis you can understand why they feel deeply embittered and a small minority are prepared to celebrate the death of an oppressor.

I've been to Israel once, very many years ago and my only lingering memory is of the unbridled aggressiveness of the Israelis I met in defending their position.

4
jkarran - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> I'd be interested to hear the views of the pro-Palestinians who frequently post on UKC about this behaviour.

It's deplorable and understandable and far from unique to Palastine.

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/frontpage/gotcha.html
jk
2
baron - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Did you read the bit about the headline being withdrawn when it was realised how much loss of life there was (or was thought to have occurred and so most people never saw it?
Hardly dancing in the streets!
1
jondo - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> I'll rise to the bait. I've been to Jordan many times and met many Palestinians, even got quite friendly with a Palestinian lady at one time. It's said that 70% of Palestinians have a university degree and Palestinian doctors are doing incredible work all over the world. They are on the whole a charming and hospitable people and a joy to have as friends. However when you hear their stories of their treatment at the hands of the Israelis you can understand why they feel deeply embittered and a small minority are prepared to celebrate the death of an oppressor.

> I've been to Israel once, very many years ago and my only lingering memory is of the unbridled aggressiveness of the Israelis I met in defending their position.

well done. you've been once more than Krikoman.
7
jkarran - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to baron:

Whatever divides us we are, like it or not as animals all rather similar.
jk
Post edited at 10:09
krikoman - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

> well done. you've been once more than Krikoman.

And you know how many times I've been anywhere, how exactly?

You keep showing yourself up as some ludicrous troll, at best!!

Making assumptions and stating falsities, it's little wonder people ignore what you post.
8
Indy - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

>Palestinians are celebrating by dancing in the streets that 4 Israeli soldiers were killed

Who can blame them.
11
jondo - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> And you know how many times I've been anywhere, how exactly?

> You keep showing yourself up as some ludicrous troll, at best!!

> Making assumptions and stating falsities, it's little wonder people ignore what you post.

ah, so you have been ?
well share your experiences... I would like an objective account, or you know what just give your opinions based on your experiences.
when and where did you visit ? how was it ?
and try not to call me any type of genitalia if you reply, I know it's hard for you.

p.s. i'm actually a bit tired of replying, so 'ignoring what you post' applies largely to yourself , i imagine out of a loss for words when confronted with your own disgusting lies about Israelis (emphasis on the people rather than current government....)
Post edited at 10:54
6
Michael Hood - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to jkarran: War and war-like conflict is a terrible thing that brings out the worst in some people. It also tends to promote those kind of people to positions of power. Hardly a recipe for peace.

After Oslo I really thought that a peaceful solution to the Arab/Israel/Palestinian conflict might be found. Now, I doubt I'll see proper peace in that region in my lifetime.

deepsoup - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
I'm always very sceptical about these kinds of stories, because they're so often abused.
There are always a couple of dickheads, of course. But it invariably seems to turn out that "they were celebrating this" or "why don't they protest against that" stories are propaganda, grossly exaggerated or even just outright bare-faced lies.

Topical at the moment of course, because the short-fingered ludicrously thin-skinned crybaby that is the US president-elect says Meryl Streep is overrated.

Because she used her 'Golden Globe' acceptance speech to criticise his limp-wristed impression of Serge Kovaleski (a classy piece of political rhetoric I hadn't personally seen previously since "Durrr! Spakker!" in the primary school playgrounds of the early 70s).

Because Kovaleski pointed out that the short newspaper article of his printed on 18th Sept 2001 does not, in fact, support Trump's ridiculous claim that he personally saw thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets of New York in celebration of the attack on the World Trade Centre.
1
Michael Hood - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to deepsoup:
Hmmm, news reporting.

With newspapers, you always have to remember that their primary trade is selling newspapers and that telling you the news is secondary, and telling it without bias or distortion is way down the line.

I suppose the online equivalent is that the primary trade is getting you to visit their website.

With its independent funding, the BBC should be impartial and unbiased, but it's not.

Also, it's very rare that with (any) controversial issues, sufficient context and background are included to allow us the readers to come to a proper view.
Post edited at 11:57
deepsoup - on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
> Hmmm, news reporting.

Indeed. Though perhaps more to the point with Trump, a political figure lying quite blatently (and perhaps quite spontaneously - making it up as he goes along) during a campaign speech for his own purposes.
Then scrabbling around after the event in search of something, anything, to support his position.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-t...
1
damhan-allaidh on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
There are now third, fourth and fifth generations growing up in a society of persecution and surrounded on all sides by violence and fear. Steeped in violence and hate as a way of life. Imagine that for a moment. Imagine remainers and leavers living the kinds of lives Israelis and Palestinians live on a daily basis. Imagine one side dominates the legal and political system, and even has the power to remove you from your house and give it to someone else. Imagine being on the side that feels powerless because it has no power.

For balance, I've met ex-IDF soldiers in my travels who rejoice in the "elimination" of Palestinians. I've also met ex-IDF soldiers who deplore the policies which have perpetuated the conflict, and I've met conscientious objectors. And I also know Palestinians who would never advocate violence as a solution or celebrate the loss of life. Everyone is a loser in this one. It's complicated.

I reckon very few people on UKC know enough or could know enough in 20 years to be able to comment usefully or insightfully - unless they'd lived in this part of the world and were actually involved in the situations we are discussing. And even then, true understanding will only come by being the person with the gun pointed at you as you are told to abandon your home for a settler or the person living in fear of a suicide bomber when you're working at a checkpoint.

Your right - wrong should be wrong - but in some societies, especially where the social contract has been destroyed, is non-existent or only applies to one part of the population, or where the social behaviour spectrum is skewed so that violence, oppression and retribution are 'normal' facets of existence, it becomes very difficult to say who is wrong, when they are wrong and why they are wrong. The benchmarks we use in our (for now) safe and secure British society don't apply other places. Tragically.
Post edited at 12:16
2
planetmarshall on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> I'd be interested to hear the views of the pro-Palestinians who frequently post on UKC about this behaviour.

Why? What a bizarre thing to post. Just because someone has views one way or the other about the Palestinian Question doesn't mean they're required to defend all behaviour under all circumstances. There is such a thing as nuance.

I'm no fan of Thatcher but I didn't go around singing 'ding dong the witch is dead' upon her death, neither did I gloat over the images of a dead Osama Bin Laden despite the number of innocent deaths for which he had been responsible.

1
RomTheBear on 10 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:
> that's the point.. there are Israeli's who are extremists but I would claim it is a small minority who actually rejoice in death of Palestinians.

> I say 'claim' since I have no statistics.

> However there seems to be a culture of this rejoice among Palestinians.

> of course, several posters here would blaim the Israeli government for it and the settlements.

> While I would agree that treating people badly has an effect (hence the Israeli government has some responsibility), the constant incitement and dehumanization of Jews by Palestinian media has a huge effect on their perceptions and rejoice about death.

Total utter bollocks.
I speak about these issues quite often with Palestinian friends, their perceptions on deaths and terrorism don't seem much different from anybody else's, but what you have to understand is that they see this attack not as a terror act but as a perfectly legitimate act of resistance against a a brutal occupier.

May I point out my Palestinian friend is not very religious or extremist at all, she doesn't wear a veil, she drinks alcohol and smokes. She also a very intelligent a fair minded person with a PhD in computing, she's not the kind who's going to be influenced by biased media.

If your town was occupied by a foreign military, and your friends, family, and neighbours were persecuted and abused by them on a daily basis, , how would you feel about 4 of those military being taken out ? Let's be honnest for a second with ourselves, you'd be happy about it.

I'll add that I personally don't rejoice about these type of attacks, and it is my opinion that they are completely pointless waste of lives and just make the situation worse for Palestinians.
But I completely understand why Palestinians rejoice about them, and I bet that the vast majority of people would feel exactly the same way in their situation.
Post edited at 12:43
5
jondo - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Total utter bollocks.


> May I point out my Palestinian friend is not very religious or extremist at all, she doesn't wear a veil, she drinks alcohol and smokes. She also a very intelligent a fair minded person with a PhD in computing, she's not the kind who's going to be influenced by biased media.

that really depends on what kind of media a person consumes.

> If your town was occupied by a foreign military, and your friends, family, and neighbours were persecuted and abused by them on a daily basis, , how would you feel about 4 of those military being taken out ? Let's be honnest for a second with ourselves, you'd be happy about it.

I hope that's figurative speech, because you do not know me...

> I'll add that I personally don't rejoice about these type of attacks, and it is my opinion that they are completely pointless waste of lives and just make the situation worse for Palestinians.

that's reassuring that you don't 'rejoice' at murder.

> But I completely understand why Palestinians rejoice about them, and I bet that the vast majority of people would feel exactly the same way in their situation.

I don't know what your basing this 'bet' on.

look, the point i made that there is a culture of glorifying death in Arab and Islamic conflicts.
whether theoretically that would happen in other cultures in other circumstances I do not know.
we are all human beings then perhaps.
but it has happened in a big scale in those cultures, with the explosion of social media it has grown exponentially. the PA actively encourages these attacks by offering stipends to families of attackers, naming streets after them ,etc...
I also have Arab friends and acquaintances that do not rejoice in violence, i was not talking about individuals but about a certain tendency and the behavior of the PA.
Post edited at 10:27
1
jondo - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to damhan-allaidh:


> For balance, I've met ex-IDF soldiers in my travels who rejoice in the "elimination" of Palestinians. I've also met ex-IDF soldiers who deplore the policies which have perpetuated the conflict, and I've met conscientious objectors. And I also know Palestinians who would never advocate violence as a solution or celebrate the loss of life. Everyone is a loser in this one. It's complicated.

exactly. a few people here could benefit from that perspective.

> I reckon very few people on UKC know enough or could know enough in 20 years to be able to comment usefully or insightfully - unless they'd lived in this part of the world and were actually involved in the situations we are discussing. And even then, true understanding will only come by being the person with the gun pointed at you as you are told to abandon your home for a settler or the person living in fear of a suicide bomber when you're working at a checkpoint.

very true.

Jon Stewart - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Fantastic post, well said.

I object to the tone of the OP. But as someone who believes Israel's policies on Palestine are inhumane (rather than being "pro-Palestinian" as such, since they don't have much leadership or policy that one could support - least of all in Gaza) here's my views:

It looks like the people of Gaza really hate the IDF. Well I f*cking never.
1
Jon Stewart - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Equally bad and shocking, but note that the Israeli government condemned such terrible extremist behaviour whereas you'll not see any PA officials condemning dancing in the streets.

You appear to be trying really really hard to present what you think is evidence that Israelis in general are morally superior to Palestinians. It's a load of a shit.

The situations of the people and their leaders are so completely different that if you think human morality will transcend and result in equivalent behaviour, you just have no idea about how human beings work. When you've got Hamas on one side and Israel on the other, this desparate scramble to find the moral high ground seems rather pathetic.
2
jondo - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You appear to be trying really really hard to present what you think is evidence that Israelis in general are morally superior to Palestinians. It's a load of a shit.

Can't see how he is trying to say that.
But you and others constantly said Israel is a 'immoral pariah barbaric medieval country' on another thread. It definitely sounds that Israel in your view and many here is a country as worse as the Assad regime, worse than Russia , Saudi Arabia and China combined.


> The situations of the people and their leaders are so completely different that if you think human morality will transcend and result in equivalent behaviour, you just have no idea about how human beings work. When you've got Hamas on one side and Israel on the other, this desparate scramble to find the moral high ground seems rather pathetic.

yes, but you hold Israel to a different standard than Hamas or even the PA.

1
Lord_ash2000 - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

Sounds to me like they just need to have it out and end this once and for all. I don't support Israel, I think its foundation was a mistake and it has only continued to exist because of US backing.

But like it or not it exists and its vastly more powerful than Palestine, it's taken over most of its lands leaving just a few slithers then it's been put on hold. This means the suffering and the tit for tat killings will go on indefinitely, the only way to end it is for Israel to give them an ultimatum and say, surrender and live under Israeli rule (with certain guarantee's about persecution etc) or we'll invade, kill any force which opposes us and rule you anyway.

It might be a hard bullet to bite for the Palestinians but the fact is Israels' military is vastly superior and in a full scale conflict Israel would annihilate them within days, resulting in deaths of everyone who didn't surrender and many, many civilians on top. Given that or surrender and have their land come under Israels governance with protections against persecution overseen by the UN or whoever it seems like a pretty easy choice to me, after all its only religion they (on both sides) need to get over it and live together.
1
Timmd on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
> after all its only religion they (on both sides) need to get over it and live together.

'Only religion' ?

If you think God is on your side you can keep going for ever and use an afterlife as a solace when people die.

As an ex Catholic, the comfort of a religion can be really profound. Once I entered my teens I moved away from

religion but not everybody does. Religion doesn't help in Ireland, too.
Post edited at 13:25
Lord_ash2000 - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> 'Only religion' ?

Yes, you realised the error or your ways, others will too.

> If you think God is on your side you can keep going for ever and use an afterlife as a solace when people die.

For those who don't, they condemn themselves to total annihilation, if the the general public in Palestine would reject what in normal terms would be a perfectly reasonable option of peaceful surrender against an unstoppable foe with overwhelming force at their disposable and instead chose to fight it and die in the process on the grounds of religion then so be it.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

> Can't see how he is trying to say that.

> But you and others constantly said Israel is a 'immoral pariah barbaric medieval country' on another thread. It definitely sounds that Israel in your view and many here is a country as worse as the Assad regime, worse than Russia , Saudi Arabia and China combined.

no we didn't, Jondo. But if you think that's what we said, it certainly goes some way to account for the degeneration of your posts on other threads into personal abuse.

> yes, but you hold Israel to a different standard than Hamas or even the PA.

yes. i tend to expect better of a state actor than a terrorist organisation. and i'd hold the UK government to exactly the same standard as the Israeli one.

2
Michael Hood - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000: I'm sure that there are some right wing Israeli's that would agree with you but the majority would not.

The majority of Israeli's are not happy with the current conflict situation but they tolerate it because they can't see any way to make it better. So they just let the government get on with it and try and live their lives as best they can.

RomTheBear on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:
> that really depends on what kind of media a person consumes.

> I hope that's figurative speech, because you do not know me...

You can lie to yourself all you want, but if your child or mum or neighbour was taken out by a foreign force occupying your town, yes, chances are, you'd be probably happy if someone took them them out, unless you are a purely rational being with no emotions.


> that's reassuring that you don't 'rejoice' at murder.

> I don't know what your basing this 'bet' on.

> look, the point i made that there is a culture of glorifying death in Arab and Islamic conflicts.

Sorry but I don't see any evidence that this is siecufuc to Arab and Islamic conflicts.

> whether theoretically that would happen in other cultures in other circumstances I do not know.

> we are all human beings then perhaps.

Well yes and they are the same everywhere.
When German soldiers were taken out by French resistant in the 1940s, those who had been persecuted by them were obviously happy, and the people who committed these acts later on got medals and streets named after them.
When bin laden was killed thousands of Americans took to the streets in widespread mass celebration.

> but it has happened in a big scale in those cultures, with the explosion of social media it has grown exponentially. the PA actively encourages these attacks by offering stipends to families of attackers, naming streets after them ,etc...

> I also have Arab friends and acquaintances that do not rejoice in violence, i was not talking about individuals but about a certain tendency and the behavior of the PA.

Nothing to do with "Arab friends" I'm taking to you about people who have suffered directly from Israeli occupation and who have families and friends suffering on a daily basis.
Sorry to say but it's pretty natural that they'd be happy about such acts.
It doesn't mean they are justified or useful, bit your racist argument that somehow arabs and Muslim are more prone to celebrate death than others is utter bollocks.
Post edited at 13:57
3
Michael Hood - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Fantastic post, well said.
I too think that damhan-allaidh's post was very good.

> I object to the tone of the OP. But as someone who believes Israel's policies on Palestine are inhumane (rather than being "pro-Palestinian" as such, since they don't have much leadership or policy that one could support - least of all in Gaza) here's my views:
There are many people who post on UKC who instantly decry Israel as soon as it does something wrong. My intention in the OP was merely to see if these people (pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, whatever) would equally decry something bad on the other side - basically to see how even handed or biased they were. I think the responses answer that question. If you read the OP carefully you'll see that it does not explicitly express any opinion, although I'm sure loads of people will read an opinion into it. If you object to me doing that in the OP, then fine, that's your prerogative.

> It looks like the people of Gaza really hate the IDF. Well I f*cking never.
I share your lack of surprise.
Michael Hood - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> You appear to be trying really really hard to present what you think is evidence that Israelis in general are morally superior to Palestinians. It's a load of a shit.
I've had a think about that, I think it's more to do with cultural differences; Israel's is mainly western world, whereas the culture/ethos of the Palestinians is in large parts alien to those of us who have a comparatively cosy UK existence. For instance, it's hard for us in a safe western environment to find celebrating death of people on the other side as anything other than repugnant.

I do feel that as a state, Israel should always be aiming to act as morally as possible, and even when they aren't able to act to that level, they should be at least trying to show how they aim to do better in future.

Unfortunately, the whole situation at the moment seems to be locked into a sort of static stalemate that (the leaders of) both sides seem to tolerate because they can't see a way out.
Post edited at 14:09
Michael Hood - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> It doesn't mean they are justified or useful, bit your racist argument that somehow arabs and Muslim are more prone to celebrate death than others is utter bollocks.

But Islam (or at least some interpretations of it) does promote violent jihad and martyrdom, and the Palestinian leadership encourages this.
Timmd on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Yes, you realised the error or your ways, others will too.

I wouldn't bet on it, for some it's the central pillar of their life and what gives life meaning, without which there'd be a void.

> For those who don't, they condemn themselves to total annihilation, if the the general public in Palestine would reject what in normal terms would be a perfectly reasonable option of peaceful surrender against an unstoppable foe with overwhelming force at their disposable and instead chose to fight it and die in the process on the grounds of religion then so be it.

That's easy for you to say...
1
damhan-allaidh on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thanks for the compliments on the post, and jondo and michael hood and very likers.

I've always been curious about the identity politics and dynamics around the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from people who are far, far, far removed from it.

In about 1994 I was working as a fish cutter on the Boston fish pier listening to my Boston Irish co-workers offer lots of opinions on the First Intifada and the ongoing aftermath, including that there is no such thing as a Palestinian (a la Gold Meir 1969 - but contra David Ben Gurion 1920, 1937). Mainly I just kept my mouth shut, however, I couldn't resist after that one. I asked if he was religious (yes), read the Bible (yes), new about the Philistines (yes)-funny thing I said, the Arabic word for Palestinian is 'Filistini' - Philistine - what do you make of that? Well, the Palestinians made that up, of course, to give the false impression that they were legitimate and had any claim to land in what had always been Israel.

This conflict grabs people wholly unconnected to it and in pulls them in the way the conflicts in the Balkans, Colombia, Cambodia-you name it- just don't/didn't. It divides people (again far removed from the conflict and with zero stake in it either way, really) ideologically, intellectually and morally like no other conflict that I can think of. Is it the religious dimension? What is it that makes people so passionate about it? Considering the psychological distance from the tragedy, science and human nature kind of tell us we should be a bit 'meh' about the whole thing.

Hmm...

1
jonnie3430 - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

But then we'd be back to talking about climbing again. Can you judge the grade of three pebble slab if you haven't climbed it?
damhan-allaidh on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jonnie3430:
I never talk about climbing when I'm not doing it. Couldn't judge the grade of a 3 pebble slab, but could make a good stab at any given winter route.
Post edited at 15:57
jonnie3430 - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Did you just do what I think you did? You'd make a stab at guessing the winter grade of three pebble slab?

Wow.
Post edited at 15:48
damhan-allaidh on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jonnie3430:

Dude, bring it on.
jondo - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> no we didn't, Jondo. But if you think that's what we said, it certainly goes some way to account for the degeneration of your posts on other threads into personal abuse.

no personal abuse.. I replied to constant incitement towards Israelis of the guy who in fact verbally abused me several times. i did not call him anything like that.
so who personally abused who ?
(he does that by calling them indoctrinated racists, baby killers , and black people abusers by nitpicking specific incidents he finds on the web and says 'oh, it happens all the time over there...' )
in fact , most people here may be very nice in real life and good belayers, even the guy who enjoys comparing people to female genitalia.
1
jondo - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:



> Sorry but I don't see any evidence that this is siecufuc to Arab and Islamic conflicts.

> Well yes and they are the same everywhere.

> When German soldiers were taken out by French resistant in the 1940s, those who had been persecuted by them were obviously happy, and the people who committed these acts later on got medals and streets named after them.

> When bin laden was killed thousands of Americans took to the streets in widespread mass celebration.

that's not the same at all. here we have families who display open happiness when their children 'sacrifice' themselves not only by attacking soldiers but also ramming cars or stabbing or blowing themselves up on random civilians. been going on for a long time.
of course in war people celebrate the death of their enemies, human nature, as unpleasant as it is.... (btw, this also strengthens my claim that it is a war contrary to posters claims that it is a 'policing' situation).


> It doesn't mean they are justified or useful, bit your racist argument that somehow arabs and Muslim are more prone to celebrate death than others is utter bollocks.

there was nothing 'racist' about my argument.
as I said Islam has cultivated a culture of celebrating death not only of enemies but also of their own.
I specifically said it may develop in other places.
so your claim of 'racism' is completely unfounded.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

no the other thread- where you called me a complete fascist, bizarre and disgusting, a hypocrite, etc

i suspect that, if you think i am one of the people holding the views you suggest, that explains the hostility.

but i really don't think Israel is a worse than syria etc; not at all. i do expect it to abide by the same rules that i expect the UK, and all progressive, liberal democracies to respect; and i'd react to the UK engaging in collective punishment etc the same way i'd react to Israel. thats a measure of the basic respect i hold for israel; i don't expect anything other than shameful criminality from dictators or terrorists.
MikeTS - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
Dancing to rejoice in the deaths of people is terrible, whatever the context.
Post edited at 18:23
jondo - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> no the other thread- where you called me a complete fascist, bizarre and disgusting, a hypocrite, etc

i don't know you , so anything I called you relates to some things you said... so if I called you a hypocrite it was because I thought your post was hypocritical not because I think your personality is or you are such in daily life.
same with 'fascist', you seemed to unable to accept other views to your own, and anything different was 'racist and medieval ' even if the view was 'i find it hard to morally judge a situation...'. (fascism = the political ideology of sameness.. that's what i meant)

> i suspect that, if you think i am one of the people holding the views you suggest, that explains the hostility.

> but i really don't think Israel is a worse than syria etc; not at all. i do expect it to abide by the same rules that i expect the UK, and all progressive, liberal democracies to respect; and i'd react to the UK engaging in collective punishment etc the same way i'd react to Israel. thats a measure of the basic respect i hold for israel; i don't expect anything other than shameful criminality from dictators or terrorists.

regardless if that is what you think, judging by the rhetoric towards Israel in general on UKC as a short search reveals, it is regarded on average as the most barbaric country on the planet..
Michael Hood - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> This conflict grabs people wholly unconnected to it and in pulls them in the way the conflicts in the Balkans, Colombia, Cambodia-you name it- just don't/didn't. It divides people (again far removed from the conflict and with zero stake in it either way, really) ideologically, intellectually and morally like no other conflict that I can think of. Is it the religious dimension? What is it that makes people so passionate about it? Considering the psychological distance from the tragedy, science and human nature kind of tell us we should be a bit 'meh' about the whole thing.

You're dead right about that, this conflict is small beer in terms of the amount of human tragedy compared with lots of others (e.g. what's going on in Syria) yet it seems to produce far more divided opinions and intractable positions without knowing all the facts. Similarly, the number of UN resolutions about it is far out of proportion to other worse situations.

To all - please note that I am not at all suggesting that because other conflicts are larger, that this conflict should be ignored, and I'm using a very basic measure of the size of a conflict - namely total loss of life.

Michael Hood - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo: See my post and damhan-allaidh's post above - this conflict is the one that everyone goes on about. We could discuss why for ages but that wouldn't change anything.

RomTheBear on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:
> that's not the same at all. here we have families who display open happiness when their children 'sacrifice' themselves not only by attacking soldiers but also ramming cars or stabbing or blowing themselves up on random civilians. been going on for a long time.

> of course in war people celebrate the death of their enemies, human nature, as unpleasant as it is.... (btw, this also strengthens my claim that it is a war contrary to posters claims that it is a 'policing' situation).

> there was nothing 'racist' about my argument.

> as I said Islam has cultivated a culture of celebrating death not only of enemies but also of their own.

Frankly, that is bollocks, I grew up in a Muslim neighbourhood, my family still lives there, I have many Muslim friends who lived in predominantly Muslim countries, including from palestine. During all that time I have NEVER met any of them who visibly had a culture of "celebrating death".

Sure Islam is full of crap but believe it or not the vast majority of Muslims do not know their own religion at all and couldn't give a single flying f*ck about whatever crap is in the Quran. BTW it is exactly the same for Christians.

> I specifically said it may develop in other places.

So you agree with me then, people who tend to be persecuted also tend to be happy when their persecutors are being killed. Hate is human, believe or not, it is certainly not specific to any religion or race or people.
Sure it's deplorable but stop fooling yourself, non-muslims are exactly the same.
Post edited at 19:20
1
Hugh Janus - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

> as I said Islam has cultivated a culture of celebrating death not only of enemies but also of their own.

It is not Islam that has cultivated this celebration, but rather Jihadist leaders who have twisted Islam in the minds of the young, imptessionable and disenfranchised Muslims to further their cause by the sickest of means.
jondo - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Frankly, that is bollocks, I grew up in a Muslim neighbourhood, my family still lives there, I have many Muslim friends who lived in predominantly Muslim countries, including from palestine. During all that time I have NEVER met any of them who visibly had a culture of "celebrating death".

> Sure Islam is full of crap but believe it or not the vast majority of Muslims do not know their own religion at all and couldn't give a single flying f*ck about whatever crap is in the Quran. BTW it is exactly the same for Christians.

you grew up in a muslim neighborhood in the UK...
not a muslim neighborhood in east Afghanistan or Pakistan or the ME or parts of Africa where this subculture of Martyrdom has a stronger hold in places .

> So you agree with me then, people who tend to be persecuted also tend to be happy when their persecutors are being killed. Hate is human, believe or not, it is certainly not specific to any religion or race or people.

> Sure it's deplorable but stop fooling yourself, non-muslims are exactly the same.

Hate is human i agree, but I disagree its all the same, Islam is in a different place in history than other religions.
while Christianity is also expansionist and many Muslims are not part of this martyrdom culture, extreme Islam has risen due a unique set of circumstances .. pointing out to friends you have is not a reliable statistic.
you didn't have suicide bombers during the troubles for instance, something posters here really like comparing to.
jondo - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
> It is not Islam that has cultivated this celebration, but rather Jihadist leaders who have twisted Islam in the minds of the young, imptessionable and disenfranchised Muslims to further their cause by the sickest of means.

yes, that is the point that it has risen in parts of those societies. saying it does not represent Islam doesn't change the facts that this subculture of glorifying death exists and is attractive to some Muslims , even some affluent and educated ones.
i am not trying to say anything negative about Islam other than it's an organized religion..(something Im not keen about), and certainly not anything against Muslims or Arabs in general.

Post edited at 20:04
Hugh Janus - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:
I agree with you that Jihadist celebrate the culture of death and there appears to be nothing that Jihadist are doing that goes against the Quran, it is just their literal interpreatation. But then, have you read Deuteronomy or Leviticus? I would not want to live in a Judeo-Christain nation following those words literally, thankfully we have come to realise those doctrines have no place in our society and haven't done for centuries. I tend to agree with your outlook that a large part of the Islamic world is somewhat medieval, but given the right opportunities, I think Islam and Muslims will reform relatively quickly in our global society to become more in line with our humanist philosophies.

However, I think it is important, especially the way our society has become, to get terms right. There are as follows, as far as I'm think:

Jihadist = Terrorist intent on iradicating all opposition to Islam.
Islamist = Intent on converting the world's population to Islam.
Conservative Muslim = Intent on the his nation/community following Sharia law.
Muslim = Just like me or you. (Except I don't believe in God).

I think that we cannot defeat Jihadism by fighting fire with fire, but rather we should stand by (and defend to the death if necessary) our own humanist philosophies as being right and convince the Islamic world they are right.
Post edited at 20:37
1
RomTheBear on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

> you grew up in a muslim neighborhood in the UK...

No, not in the UK.

> not a muslim neighborhood in east Afghanistan or Pakistan or the ME or parts of Africa where this subculture of Martyrdom has a stronger hold in places .

Evidence ?

> Hate is human i agree, but I disagree its all the same, Islam is in a different place in history than other religions.

> while Christianity is also expansionist and many Muslims are not part of this martyrdom culture, extreme Islam has risen due a unique set of circumstances .. pointing out to friends you have is not a reliable statistic.

What you call "extreme islam" is not shared by the vast majority of Muslims across the world, and certainly not in Palestine. Just talk to them, really.

I disagree with many of my Muslim friends, and fell out with a few, in particular males who have a tendency to treat women like shit. But as far as I can tell tell they don't know shit about their own religion, they don't even follow it at all, and this has just nothing do with their faith, it's just comes from the retarded conservative patriarchal culture they grew up in.

But yes in many Muslim countries people end up supporting fanatics simply because they go kill the people who kill them. Why do you think ISIS has some degree of support in the population in part of Syria ?
3
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:
> i don't know you , so anything I called you relates to some things you said... so if I called you a hypocrite it was because I thought your post was hypocritical not because I think your personality is or you are such in daily life.

> same with 'fascist', you seemed to unable to accept other views to your own, and anything different was 'racist and medieval ' even if the view was 'i find it hard to morally judge a situation...'. (fascism = the political ideology of sameness.. that's what i meant)

your paraphrasing substantially changes what i actually said though. we were talking specifically about collective punishment of palestinians by destroying the property of family members. now, there are certain things aren't actually hard to morally judge: murder is wrong; and punishing innocent people for what their relatives have done is wrong. this is not a fringe view, or even a matter for debate; its the basis of the legal system of every developed nation, and i challenge you to find any other such nation that engages in the practice. Its also proscribed by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 5, and in this specific practice, also articles 12 and 17.

Now you may find it 'hard to morally judge the situation', but i'd suggest the evidence is you're very much on the wrong side of the evidence on this point, and that this does not reflect well on you. I would consider that the practice of destroying the property of relatives of a criminal is indeed medieval, and certainly does not reflect the settled jurisprudence of the modern world. If you choose to associate yourself with practices that have been against the Declaration of Human Rights since 1951, then that's your call.

But i did not make any general claim that people disageeing with me were medieval; that's just creating a straw man, again. I'm happy to take on other peoples points if they are well made- MikeTS made some potentially persuasive ones in the OP on the other thread, for example. If i don't accept your views, then your arguments may not be as compelling as you'd like to believe...

and: that's not what fascism means. not at all.

to be honest, i posted as something of an olive branch, offering the chance for us to accept that the differences were ones of misunderstanding of our positions, even though in our previous exchange the direct personal abuse was only in one direction. I thought you might take the opportunity to distance yourself from your previous personal insults, like 'complete fascist'. its a pity you didn't take the chance.
Post edited at 20:47
1
Michael Hood - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> But then, have you read Deuteronomy or Leviticus? I would not want to live in a Judeo-Christain nation following those words literally, thankfully we have come to realise those doctrines have no place in our society and haven't done for centuries.

Exactly which nations do you think took these words literally? I don't know about any Christian nations but the ancient kingdoms of Israel - from the time of Saul until Roman conquest did not - according to Judaism the written books of Moses are only part of the rulebook, the rest (which includes details about how to actually perform some of the commandments - i.e. rules) are in what is called the Oral law (i.e. transmitted orally) which was codified after the Roman conquest.

I'd also be interested to know which doctrines you're referring to.
Hugh Janus - on 11 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

Hmmm . . . . Probably the ones to do with stoning people to death.

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Stoning

Like I said, thankfully we haven't done that for centuries. Though it is not that long ago that we were burning heretics and witches.
1
thomasadixon - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
Except the New Testament takes precedence in Christianity, so that's overruled. It's an odd claim that Christianity is anything like Islam - one has a prophet who was a conquering warrior, in the other the Son of God turns the other cheek and lets himself be beaten and killed (as do hundreds of his followers).

Not a Christian, but as someone brought up as one who knows the parables its a bizarre claim.
Post edited at 00:32
thomasadixon - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
> Muslim = Just like me or you. (Except I don't believe in God).

Not like me, and I suspect not like you either. Believing in a deity and so accepting that acting based on that belief is a okay is big deal - it justifies ISIS.

Edit - on topic, is it really surprising, or bad, that people who think of themselves as being under siege by a conquering enemy are happy when an action against that enemy (soldiers, right?) succeeds?
Post edited at 00:43
Hugh Janus - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

So are you saying that the 500 years of The Inquisition or the tyranny of The Holy Crusades was of no consequence? I suspect you know as well as I do that Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of "Son of God". The manual was put together by tyrannical men who didn't live at the same time as Christ, who wanted control over a population and who knew little of love. Much like Mohammed.

I don't agree with you on your point of view about the average Muslim either. They will have very much the same core desires and morals as you. Things like love, children, safety, happiness and peace, whilst the majority are decent, hard working and law abiding people. Does it also mean that we are not in anyway like Jews or Christians or Buddhists or Hindus or Sikhs or Germans or Brazilians or Kenyans?

It is the Jihadist and Islamist we need to fear and fight, as does the average Muslim.
1
jondo - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> your paraphrasing substantially changes what i actually said though. we were talking specifically about collective punishment of palestinians by destroying the property of family members. now, there are certain things aren't actually hard to morally judge: murder is wrong; and punishing innocent people for what their relatives have done is wrong. this is not a fringe view, or even a matter for debate; its the basis of the legal system of every developed nation, and i challenge you to find any other such nation that engages in the practice. Its also proscribed by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 5, and in this specific practice, also articles 12 and 17.

not hard morally to judge ?
ASSUMING that destroying homes of terrorists has a deterrent effect, then it is hard to judge... unless you value Israelis lives less than houses.

> Now you may find it 'hard to morally judge the situation', but i'd suggest the evidence is you're very much on the wrong side of the evidence on this point, and that this does not reflect well on you. I would consider that the practice of destroying the property of relatives of a criminal is indeed medieval, and certainly does not reflect the settled jurisprudence of the modern world. If you choose to associate yourself with practices that have been against the Declaration of Human Rights since 1951, then that's your call.

you can suggest all you want, you have no evidence that it is not a deterrent. the destruction of homes of terrorists which committed murder has been extensively challenged in Israeli courts, they have seen the evidence and considered the problem from a moral viewpoint.. you contradict yourself if you say Israel is a developed country which 'you hold to high standards'.

> But i did not make any general claim that people disageeing with me were medieval; that's just creating a straw man, again. I'm happy to take on other peoples points if they are well made- MikeTS made some potentially persuasive ones in the OP on the other thread, for example. If i don't accept your views, then your arguments may not be as compelling as you'd like to believe...

your last sentence is nonsense. you can have a compelling argument yet the other side may never accept your views for many reasons.

> and: that's not what fascism means. not at all.

fascism does not allow diversity.

> to be honest, i posted as something of an olive branch, offering the chance for us to accept that the differences were ones of misunderstanding of our positions, even though in our previous exchange the direct personal abuse was only in one direction. I thought you might take the opportunity to distance yourself from your previous personal insults, like 'complete fascist'. its a pity you didn't take the chance.

well, I don't think we are here to become friends... are we ?
2
jondo - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, not in the UK.

> Evidence ?

thousands of suicide attacks across the world including in EU countries which have not been involved in 'invasions' or killing Muslims, in fact some of those countries have been condemning foreign intervention in Muslim regions.

> What you call "extreme islam" is not shared by the vast majority of Muslims across the world, and certainly not in Palestine. Just talk to them, really.

I agree, hence I said a subculture which some Muslims find attractive.

> I disagree with many of my Muslim friends, and fell out with a few, in particular males who have a tendency to treat women like shit. But as far as I can tell tell they don't know shit about their own religion, they don't even follow it at all, and this has just nothing do with their faith, it's just comes from the retarded conservative patriarchal culture they grew up in.

you do not need to know anything about the religion to become a suicide bomber. Culture is something that is transmitted like an epidemic, any culture.

> But yes in many Muslim countries people end up supporting fanatics simply because they go kill the people who kill them. Why do you think ISIS has some degree of support in the population in part of Syria ?

I was not talking about regular warfare , I was referring to the subculture of glorifying death with vast promises regarding the afterlife which takes a priority over this life.. just poverty or being a bit depressed by life events doesn't account for the spread of this culture.
1
RomTheBear on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:


> I was not talking about regular warfare , I was referring to the subculture of glorifying death with vast promises regarding the afterlife which takes a priority over this life.. just poverty or being a bit depressed by life events doesn't account for the spread of this culture.

Your little theory that there is a "culture" of suicide bombing is frankly ridiculous. Suicide bombing and terrorism in gneral is a political weapon, not something people do as part of their "culture".
3
thomasadixon - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
> So are you saying that the 500 years of The Inquisition or the tyranny of The Holy Crusades was of no consequence? I suspect you know as well as I do that Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of "Son of God". The manual was put together by tyrannical men who didn't live at the same time as Christ, who wanted control over a population and who knew little of love. Much like Mohammed.

TheCrusades was people being people, the bible says turn the other cheek, realistically if all Christians did that there likely wouldn't be any. Murderers carry crosses and profess belief in Christianity too, it's quite clear they're going against scripture. Also worth bearing in mind that this was before Luther, and before the printing press, so your average Christian just had to believe what he was told.

> I don't agree with you on your point of view about the average Muslim either. They will have very much the same core desires and morals as you. Things like love, children, safety, happiness and peace, whilst the majority are decent, hard working and law abiding people. Does it also mean that we are not in anyway like Jews or Christians or Buddhists or Hindus or Sikhs or Germans or Brazilians or Kenyans?

Brazilians or Kenyans? Do they universally follow some made up rules because God tells them so? You're being silly. I didn't say they were bad people either, just a bit crazy. I'm not like believing Christians either - I don't refute evolution on the basis that the bible says so, for example.

> It is the Jihadist and Islamist we need to fear and fight, as does the average Muslim.

Nah, it's religion (and also any people who think territorial expansion by force is ok).
Post edited at 08:19
thomasadixon - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

Also - morals are not universally shared. There's a reason that in Saudi the law is the way it is, and is very different from here. I'm sure they're largely nice people who care about their families and friends, but from my (and I reckon your) perspective their moral compass is well off.
summo on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Your little theory that there is a "culture" of suicide bombing is frankly ridiculous. Suicide bombing and terrorism in gneral is a political weapon, not something people do as part of their "culture".

religious fundamentalists or idealism? Is taking the word of various religious documents literally and ignoring modern ideas like laws, civil society or science cultural? It isn't political, is their religion just coincidence?

Some of the worst killings in Europe have been in countries that have been most willing and accepting to take people from their homelands in as refugees, not those that have had any military boots on the ground fighting.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

> not hard morally to judge ?

> ASSUMING that destroying homes of terrorists has a deterrent effect, then it is hard to judge... unless you value Israelis lives less than houses.

> you can suggest all you want, you have no evidence that it is not a deterrent. the destruction of homes of terrorists which committed murder has been extensively challenged in Israeli courts, they have seen the evidence and considered the problem from a moral viewpoint.. you contradict yourself if you say Israel is a developed country which 'you hold to high standards'.

you are just repeating the same points you made on the last thread, Jondo; but they are your personal viewpoint and do not reflect the principles and practice of the legal systems of the developed world. Yes, the workings of the criminal justice systems of western democracies would likely be made easier if the state disregarded the UN Universal declaration of human rights: intrusive surveillance, reduced standards of evidence, bypassing of procedure, 'enhanced interrogation techniques', all of these would i'm sure be supported from a utilitarian perspective, which is the one you appear to be promoting.

but we don't operate our legal systems on that premise; we have established accepted principles which states are required to adhere to even if it is inconvenient. you may wish to disregard these, but lets be entirely clear about what it is you are promoting: the abuse of the basic human rights of people who have done nothing wrong, and who are all from one section of society. I salute your bravery in standing by your beliefs; but understand that they put you outside the accepted rules of behaviour in developed democracies, and be prepared to be criticised as many will find your views objectionable.

and, more: like a stuck record you keep saying i can't prove its not a deterrent. This is yet another logical fallacy, the latest of many you fall into. Its you that is making the case for a derogation from the basic principles of universal human rights; its therefore up to you to show compelling evidence that it *does* act as a deterrent.

which you can't, because there isn't any. This is a recurring theme of your contributions- you are repeatedly invited to produce evidence to support your assertions, but never do. You'd only need to find one other western democracy that does enshrine the principle of collective punishment in its legal system to prove me wrong; but you never do, instead just repeating the same slurs against me.

So, we're waiting: i'm quite prepared to be proved wrong, show me another country where collective punishment of the families of offenders happens, or show me proof that it is a deterrent.

> your last sentence is nonsense. you can have a compelling argument yet the other side may never accept your views for many reasons.

oh indeed; but i've set out the sorts of things that would persuade me. Its up to you to find them. If you can't, then that's not a problem with me.

> fascism does not allow diversity.

that's one of the least important characteristics of fascism. Here, i'll give you a hand:

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

from

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

that's what you are accusing me of supporting. since i've spend the two threads arguing in support of liberal democracy, the upholding of the rule of law even when its inconvenient for the state, and against violence, then your accusation that i'm a 'complete fascist' is patently absurd. Let's see it as what it is: plain old name calling.



> well, I don't think we are here to become friends... are we ?

well, why not? I used to have pretty heated debates on here with Bruce Hooker, but i ended up with a great deal of respect for him, even though we profoundly disagreed on many points. I see no need to bear people any enmity just because i've had a debate with them on the internet and they didn't agree with me. I think that its possible to show a bit of class, behave respectfully, and still have a frank exchange of views. Maybe you disagree; that's up to you.

2
jondo - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Your little theory that there is a "culture" of suicide bombing is frankly ridiculous. Suicide bombing and terrorism in gneral is a political weapon, not something people do as part of their "culture".

you seem to be a bit angry at 'my' 'little' theory.
i didn't make it up and it's not 'mine'.
i think you have your own definition of culture....
glorification of death , 72 virgins , etc... that's not a part of some perverted subculture as well ... ok.
thousands of EU nationals who joined ISIS and would gladly blow themselves up beg to differ.
1
jondo - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> you are just repeating the same points you made on the last thread, Jondo; but they are your personal viewpoint and do not reflect the principles and practice of the legal systems of the developed world. Yes, the workings of the criminal justice systems of western democracies would likely be made easier if the state disregarded the UN Universal declaration of human rights: intrusive surveillance, reduced standards of evidence, bypassing of procedure, 'enhanced interrogation techniques', all of these would i'm sure be supported from a utilitarian perspective, which is the one you appear to be promoting.

i'm promoting ? again you put words in my mouth with all kind of articulations ?
'hard to judge a situation...' = im a medieval fanatic who wants nothing more than to torture people and destroy lives... nice one...
NATO in Afghanistan destroyed many complexes where Taliban where suspected to be, and yes , civilians lived also in those places. Ive seen that in Docos ... not collective punishment ? isn't that a 'policing situation' according to your strange definitions?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/08/afghanistan-no-justice-thousands-civilians-killed-usn...

USA in Vietnam and Iraq ... well the whole thing was a collective punishment (uncountable homes destroyed not selected few, whole NVA supporting villages wiped of the map by B52's). so your 'western standards' which you really love to talk about here and point that Israel is the only one who violates them are not kept by the 'west' at all .

> but we don't operate our legal systems on that premise; we have established accepted principles which states are required to adhere to even if it is inconvenient. you may wish to disregard these, but lets be entirely clear about what it is you are promoting: the abuse of the basic human rights of people who have done nothing wrong, and who are all from one section of society. I salute your bravery in standing by your beliefs; but understand that they put you outside the accepted rules of behaviour in developed democracies, and be prepared to be criticised as many will find your views objectionable.

see first response.

> and, more: like a stuck record you keep saying i can't prove its not a deterrent. This is yet another logical fallacy, the latest of many you fall into. Its you that is making the case for a derogation from the basic principles of universal human rights; its therefore up to you to show compelling evidence that it *does* act as a deterrent.

Israeli courts have debated that for at least 10 years, they have decided that in some cases there is apparent evidence of deterrence. whether you believe that or not , up to you.
here is one :
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israeli-home-demolitions-deter-Palestinian-terrorism-stud...

as I said I am not promoting destroying homes contrary to what you accuse me of in some bizarre way, I simply see the complexity of it which you appear not to .

one more thing, inside Israel the state cannot destroy homes I think even if some Israeli Arabs committed terrorism as happened (even last week).

> which you can't, because there isn't any. This is a recurring theme of your contributions- you are repeatedly invited to produce evidence to support your assertions, but never do. You'd only need to find one other western democracy that does enshrine the principle of collective punishment in its legal system to prove me wrong; but you never do, instead just repeating the same slurs against me.

no slurs, evidence as pointed in first response.
Israel hasn't 'enshrined collective punishment in it's legal system' . That's rubbish.
the constant debate in courts and media around these issues in Israel proves that.



> that's one of the least important characteristics of fascism. Here, i'll give you a hand:

> Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

> from


> that's what you are accusing me of supporting. since i've spend the two threads arguing in support of liberal democracy, the upholding of the rule of law even when its inconvenient for the state, and against violence, then your accusation that i'm a 'complete fascist' is patently absurd. Let's see it as what it is: plain old name calling.

i said 'you sound like a complete fascist' , yes that's what you sounded like in the context of thinking only your opinion is 'the right one'... and if someone has doubts he is 'medieval' in some way.
least important according to your view. lack of diversity is very important in Fascism according to my view.
so i'm 'medieval' again ?
Post edited at 15:14
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:


> 'hard to judge a situation...' = im a medieval fanatic who wants nothing more than to torture people and destroy lives... nice one...

of course, i didn't say that. you appear to have an irresistible urge to invent a new straw man with every post you make.

> NATO in Afghanistan destroyed many complexes where Taliban where suspected to be, and yes , civilians lived also in those places. Ive seen that in Docos ... not collective punishment ? isn't that a 'policing situation' according to your strange definitions?


> USA in Vietnam and Iraq ... well the whole thing was a collective punishment (uncountable homes destroyed not selected few, whole NVA supporting villages wiped of the map by B52's). so your 'western standards' which you really love to talk about here and point that Israel is the only one who violates them are not kept by the 'west' at all .


and when they are not, i criticise the west. i've said that repeatedly. you seem to think i'm a supporter of the wars in Iraq and vietnam, even when i've explicitly said i'm not. its strange, like you don't actually read what i post...

and: i would draw a distinction between military operations in populated areas where the intent is to target enemy combatants, but civilians get harmed; and the use of destruction of property where the explicit intent is to cause harm to family members' lives as a means of dissuading future criminal acts by 3rd parties. that's why i've made no comment on these threads on the bombardment of Gaza, for example; i can fully see that this is a more complex area, and the discussion is around whether sufficient steps are taken to minimize harm to bystanders, rather than whether it always wrong in principle. so the analogies to NATO behaviour are not relevant; the situations are different, the intent of the actions are different, and i'm happy to cricitise these acts, and indeed have done so in the past on here, with regard to Iraq.

But: there is no such grey area with the bulldozing of houses; its immaterial whether it achieves its goal, its goal is morally wrong and yes, the product of a medieval approach to ethics. so- thank you for posting the link to the study- i've tracked down the source paper, and will have a look at it; but it remains the case that the practice clearly violates the UN declaration on human rights, and isn't practiced by any other country that i'd look to for moral comparison, so i don't accept the findings change anything. for illustration, if you found an article in a journal providing evidence that information obtained from torture was a useful additional tool in combating terrorism, that would be interesting but ultimately irrelevant, as torture is clearly wrong.


> as I said I am not promoting destroying homes contrary to what you accuse me of in some bizarre way, I simply see the complexity of it which you appear not to .

> one more thing, inside Israel the state cannot destroy homes I think even if some Israeli Arabs committed terrorism as happened (even last week).

as i've shown above, its not complex. Military action against Hamas in Gaza- i accept that's complex. Punishment demolitions- not so. Did you read the UN Universal declaration of human rights? Here it is:

http://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf

have a look at articles 5, 12, and 17. Punishment demolition is clearly a breach of these. Look, you might be comfortable with that; but lets all acknowledge it for what it is, the selective and deliberate violation of human rights of a defined population.

Its very interesting both that you acknowledge that the law would prevent this being done to israeli citizens who commit terror acts; and that you specifically cite 'Israeli arabs'. So the law would indeed prevent this being done to israelis; and the justification for doing this to palestinians is a legalistic one- they have less rights than israeli citizens would have, so its not illegal to treat them that way. Ok, maybe; but when you have to fall back on legal loopholes, then that's effectively a tacit acceptance that its morally wrong.

And- why just israeli arabs? what about other israeli ethnicities who commit terrorist atrocities? Surely if it works, then it should be applied to anyone who carries out serious crimes?



> Israel hasn't 'enshrined collective punishment in it's legal system' . That's rubbish.

> the constant debate in courts and media around these issues in Israel proves that.

Well, so says you, but again the facts speak otherwise. Its actions that people are judged on.


> i said 'you sound like a complete fascist' , yes that's what you sounded like in the context of thinking only your opinion is 'the right one'... and if someone has doubts he is 'medieval' in some way.

> least important according to your view. lack of diversity is very important in Fascism according to my view.

look, if you're going to play some sort of real life Humpty Dumpty and redefine widely accepted terms in idiosyncratic and obscure ways then its going to make discusssion really difficult. why not just admit that you were wrong, both in calling me a fascist, and in resorting to needless personal invective? it will prevent you tying yourself into ever more convoluted and ridiculous knots to try to justify your mistake, and will show a bit of class and character to boot.

1
jondo - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> of course, i didn't say that. you appear to have an irresistible urge to invent a new straw man with every post you make.

> and when they are not, i criticise the west. i've said that repeatedly. you seem to think i'm a supporter of the wars in Iraq and vietnam, even when i've explicitly said i'm not. its strange, like you don't actually read what i post...

i never said you were a supporter of Iraq or Vietnam , I said the 'west' does not live up to the ridiculous you standards you hold Israel to. I know the Bible talks about the 'chosen people'... seems you want them to act like it...



> But: there is no such grey area with the bulldozing of houses; its immaterial whether it achieves its goal, its goal is morally wrong and yes, the product of a medieval approach to ethics.

immaterial ? then you are saying Israeli lives are less valuable than houses. no other way to interpret your post.
you can keep saying 'medieval' a million more times, won't make it any more true.

> so- thank you for posting the link to the study- i've tracked down the source paper, and will have a look at it; but it remains the case that the practice clearly violates the UN declaration on human rights, and isn't practiced by any other country that i'd look to for moral comparison, so i don't accept the findings change anything. for illustration, if you found an article in a journal providing evidence that information obtained from torture was a useful additional tool in combating terrorism, that would be interesting but ultimately irrelevant, as torture is clearly wrong.

is torture wrong if there is one person that knows of an imminent attack , let's say the person behind it... ?
again you place the value of human lives below the problematic infliction of pain.
you seem YET AGAIN to define universal morals according to your own morals !
pretty amazing.

> as i've shown above, its not complex. Military action against Hamas in Gaza- i accept that's complex. Punishment demolitions- not so. Did you read the UN Universal declaration of human rights? Here it is:


> have a look at articles 5, 12, and 17. Punishment demolition is clearly a breach of these. Look, you might be comfortable with that; but lets all acknowledge it for what it is, the selective and deliberate violation of human rights of a defined population.

i never said i was comfortable with it. again you tell falsehoods, and i have had enough of it to be honest.
when its comfortable for you , you quote some 'universal morals' which you decide upon based on your own views, and now you are quoting human rights. well , what about the human right of not being attacked at random by knives , cars, and bombs ?

> Its very interesting both that you acknowledge that the law would prevent this being done to israeli citizens who commit terror acts; and that you specifically cite 'Israeli arabs'. So the law would indeed prevent this being done to israelis; and the justification for doing this to palestinians is a legalistic one- they have less rights than israeli citizens would have, so its not illegal to treat them that way. Ok, maybe; but when you have to fall back on legal loopholes, then that's effectively a tacit acceptance that its morally wrong.

they have different rights as the west bank is under military law - another reason it is not a policing situation as the police have less authority there than the army. I do acknowledge that placing soldiers in SOME of these situations is problematic for sure.

> And- why just israeli arabs? what about other israeli ethnicities who commit terrorist atrocities? Surely if it works, then it should be applied to anyone who carries out serious crimes?

of course, within a country the law should be applied equally to everyone, no dilemma there.

> look, if you're going to play some sort of real life Humpty Dumpty and redefine widely accepted terms in idiosyncratic and obscure ways then its going to make discusssion really difficult. why not just admit that you were wrong, both in calling me a fascist, and in resorting to needless personal invective? it will prevent you tying yourself into ever more convoluted and ridiculous knots to try to justify your mistake, and will show a bit of class and character to boot.

i called you a 'FASCIST' due to your inability to accept that people may think differently yet not be less moral than yourself, if it sounds better then 'self righteousness' may be a better term.
Post edited at 18:30
4
Mr Lopez - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to summo:

> Some of the worst killings in Europe have been in countries that have been most willing and accepting to take people from their homelands in as refugees, not those that have had any military boots on the ground fighting.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lockerbie-london-bombings-nine-worst-terrorist-attacks-europe-since-1970-15...

9 Attacks, 4 by Jihadists, 3 of these countries had military boots on the ground fighting and were major players in the conflict.

Back around
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:
i tell you what Jondo, i always look forward to your replies, but this one is a corker...


> i never said you were a supporter of Iraq or Vietnam , I said the 'west' does not live up to the ridiculous you standards you hold Israel to. I know the Bible talks about the 'chosen people'... seems you want them to act like it...

i know! i keep acknowledging that... i mean, israeli leaders never actually had to knowingly mislead their parliaments and people in order to drum up support for an invasion of a country on another continent... but let's just watch, bet you ignore this comment and keep on with that straw man implying that i hold israel to a different standard, presumably as part of one of those 'anti-Israel rampages' you comically claimed i had a thing for...

> immaterial ? then you are saying Israeli lives are less valuable than houses. no other way to interpret your post.

> you can keep saying 'medieval' a million more times, won't make it any more true.

> is torture wrong if there is one person that knows of an imminent attack , let's say the person behind it... ?

> again you place the value of human lives below the problematic infliction of pain.

> you seem YET AGAIN to define universal morals according to your own morals !

> pretty amazing.

it is characteristic of those with no useful arguments to deploy to distort or misrepresent the views of their opponents, or to attack them personally; or even to go the whole 'post truth' hog and just invent preposterous nonsense and try to brazenly pass it off as fact... and here we have a perfect example- i am said to define universal morals according to my own morals.

did i write the UN universal declaration of human rights, Jondo? or the European convention on human rights? i mean, you flatter me by implication, but it would have been a fine trick for me to pull, given that they were in the public domain well before i was born. because throughout this thread, and the last one, i've repeatedly cited the former document as evidence to support my view. my morals come from the universal, as set out in these texts, not the other way round. of course.

its beyond absurd what your suggesting, its full-on Trump-style alternative reality creation to avoid facing up to the fact you're wrong. you can't be seen to suggest that the Universal declaration of human rights is wrong, so you have put your fingers in your ears and go 'LA LA LA' whenever i mention it, so you can pretend it doesn't exist and my point of view is a personal one, rather than the globally accepted foundation for the conduct of states... is this what its come to for you, Jondo...?

and there's more- my claim is that punishment of family members' for their relative's crime is outside the legal code of all respectable countries; i mean, i'm sure North Korea, or Somalia, or whatever other gangster state you care to mention probably revels in it, but that's not the sort of company i'd aspire to keep. your claim is that i'm inflicting my obscure personal morality on the world. well; prove it- if you're right, it should be easy as pie to turn up lots of examples of British, or American, or French, or German, or Swedish, or Italian, or Canadian, or Australian legal cases where families of serious offenders were harmed to try to put off other potential offenders.

But two threads and multiple posts on after the first time i asked you for this... nothing...

its almost as if such examples don't exist, and israel is unique among liberal democracies in engaging in the practice.

> i never said i was comfortable with it. again you tell falsehoods, and i have had enough of it to be honest.

> when its comfortable for you , you quote some 'universal morals' which you decide upon based on your own views, and now you are quoting human rights. well , what about the human right of not being attacked at random by knives , cars, and bombs ?

indeed. you know, the government can always do more, and in ways that might actually be more effective in preventing crime. increased surveillance, email intercepts, extended detention on remand of suspects, internment, abolishing the right to jury trial, collusion with paramilitaries to enable killing of terrorist suspects... this isn't a theoretical list, all of the above are being done, or have been done by the british government in the fight against terrorism. i oppose most of them, and most would be regarded as unacceptable by most people in the country, and indeed by the government

does that mean i value data security, or privacy, or the rights of terrorist suspects, above the lives of british citizens? and for that matter, does theresa may? i mean, she isn't using the full range of available options. only if you approach the matter from the perspective of creating a ridiculous false dichotomy- there's another fallacy in the game of fallacy bingo that we can all play with your posts...

it of course come back to the whole concept of universal human rights; the basic, irreducible rights that every human has, and which all states have a requirement to observe. of course states find it convenient to ignore these, it makes many things easier, and they always cite noble reasons for doing so- Assad was fighting terrorists, after all, when he carpet bombed Aleppo and targetted his own citizens with poison gas. but they, by and large, try to adhere to them, thankfully- sometimes grudgingly, and under duress by from their courts, or public opinion.

and many people don't subscribe to the idea of human rights either, especially when they relate to people who are different to them in some way. It would be a shame if it turned out you were one of these people.


> i called you a 'FASCIST' due to your inability to accept that people may think differently yet not be less moral than yourself, if it sounds better then 'self righteousness' may be a better term.

lol, progress! of sorts; but still another ad hominem

Bingo!

;-)

if you like, Jondo, if that's what you want to call consistently and robustly setting out my arguments... keep up the good work!
Post edited at 21:05
2
Hugh Janus - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Bingo!

Ooooo. You have a dislike! I suspect you'll be getting a very long reply shortly.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

Yes. .. I really should be filling in my tax return, but this is much more interesting!
1
sebastian dangerfield on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

Thoughts.

1. It's not nice
2. It's not as bad as what Israel does to Palestinians
3. If I was in a similar situation to the Palestinian's I've no idea how I'd feel but it could well be much the same (I hope it wouldn't though)
4. I expect 3. applies to you and pretty much everyone
5. You lack empathy, as do the street dancers, but you don't have the excuse of living under the control of another group's army
1
Michael Hood - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield: Sorry, I'm a bit confused - is this in response to my OP or one of my further down contributions.

1
sebastian dangerfield on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

your op
aln - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

I'm going to guess you're a new user with no profile, before I look at your profile.
1
aln - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to aln:

> I'm going to guess you're a new user with no profile, before I look at your profile.

I was correct.
1
Michael Hood - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

1. Yep
2. If you mean that it's worse than dancing in the streets then yes, but I suspect you mean what Israel does to Palestinians is worse than what Palestinians do to Israelis. That's a much more difficult question - I try not to compare, it's not a competition to see which side is worst - my view is that any behaviour/actions that do not help towards a long term peaceful solution should be criticised or condemned (as appropriate) and any actions that do help should be encouraged and applauded. The difficulty is of course knowing which is which and due to the complexity and longstanding nature of this conflict, very little is obvious.
3 & 4. Thank goodness we're not in that situation - as you say, we might know how we'd like to behave, but we wouldn't actually know until/unless it was us.
5. Damn, spotted - my wife's the one who's good at empathy.

I'm pretty sure that left alone, the average Palestinian man/woman in the street wants pretty much what we all do - being able to live in peace and earn a reasonable living for one's family. However over what is now several generations, they have been used by the Arab and Palestinian leadership as a political and physical weapon against Israel. What Israel does in response has unfortunately been like throwing petrol on a fire to put it out. The whole thing is ultimately a tragedy and I despair that it will ever be solved.
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
This is the best post on the thread.

I completely agree.

Probably a fitting note to finish on.
Post edited at 08:54
1
sebastian dangerfield on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

Hi there - sorry, I misjudged your OP. I take back point 5 and generally agree with you

Re 2 I meant both killing the soldiers and the dancing in the street. But you're right I do think what Israel does is worse, but agree it's a complicated and tragic situation all round.
1
krikoman - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


> its almost as if such examples don't exist, and israel is unique among liberal democracies in engaging in the practice.


THIS
1
Hugh Janus - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

I know Noam Chomsky is a serious opponent of US imperialism, but here are a few of his erudite views. The first clip is Chomsky giving a speech at the UN in 2014. I am not sure where the second clip is from, but he lays out his beliefs on the historic background to events in the region, laying the blame squarely at the feet of the USA and to a lesser extent the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQ_0MubbcM
(He starts speaking at 7:42, though the moderates introduction is worth listening to).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQ_0MubbcM
jondo - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to aln:
> I was correct.

what are you babbling on about ?
conspiracy theories ?

p.s. i uploaded a few photos and wrote my onsight and working grades... what else do you want , the length of my dick ?
Post edited at 17:36
jondo - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

you have turned it into something way too personal as your last reply seems like.
well , for me it is anything but personal.. you can continue to accuse me of anything from being medieval to supporting Trump like in your last post... you are just wasting your time... clearly i have angered you... try meditation.
bye bye now, good evening.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

Jondo, you're clearly as bad at recognising people's emotions from their posts as you are at constructing coherent arguments...

Far from being angry, I enjoy a spirited debate and the chance to let loose a bit of rhetoric in support of that- don't think I've had such a good exchange of posts since the heyday of my debates with Bruce about the Falklands. .. so thanks for that.

I can't resist pointing out that you really don't do irony though- given you've spent several days and posting directly abusive remarks about me- you know, 'complete fascist', 'hypocrit'-which I finally got you to accept was just baseless name calling- the notion that it's 'anything but personal' for you is as absurd as most of your post content. ...

Anyway, best wishes, Gregor
1
aln - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:

>what else do you want , the length of my dick ?

Nah, girth is more important.

1
Jim Fraser - on 14 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

Who thought that when you have an entire nation with PTSD bad sh1t wasn't going to happen?

Just because a piece of normal human behaviour is outside your experience does not mean it is not normal or not predictable.

2
Michael Hood - on 14 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J: Hi,

Not quite sure why you're replying to me for this bit - what was it I said

Anyway, both links are the same to the first 7:40 - would be interesting to see what he says after that.

USA & Russia have had a large influence in the ME in using it as an arena to "compete" during the cold war. Still going on to some extent but not as obviously as pre USSR breakup.

Michael Hood - on 14 Jan 2017
In reply to Jim Fraser: Not quite sure which of my posts you're replying to.

> Who thought that when you have an entire nation with PTSD bad sh1t wasn't going to happen?
Which nation are you talking about? Jews or Palestinians? If you mean Jews post-holocaust then it obviously has had an influence on the whole ME situation since then. One of these is that Israel grew up with a much more aggressive response to anything that might be seen as threatening to Jews or the Jewish nation. The last time this happened to any large extent was in revolts against the Romans before Jews were dispersed. In the intervening 2000 years, Jews have been much more passive when persecuted.

> Just because a piece of normal human behaviour is outside your experience does not mean it is not normal or not predictable.
Not sure what your point is, which behaviour did I say was not normal or predictable?

Hugh Janus - on 15 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
I replied to you as since you are the OP and if you click the "Reply to Topic" button it automatically is in reply to you because you are the OP.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out my mistake. This is the link to the speech he gave to the UN. He starts at 7:42, but as I said the comments of the moderator are worth listening to as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FboVW3bHid4
Post edited at 01:17
jondo - on 16 Jan 2017
In reply to aln:

> >what else do you want , the length of my dick ?

> Nah, girth is more important.

a bit off topic, but so ive heard.
jondo - on 16 Jan 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> Jondo, you're clearly as bad at recognising people's emotions from their posts as you are at constructing coherent arguments...

> Far from being angry, I enjoy a spirited debate and the chance to let loose a bit of rhetoric in support of that- don't think I've had such a good exchange of posts since the heyday of my debates with Bruce about the Falklands. .. so thanks for that.

'bad at constructing coherent argument' + 'don't think i've had such a good exchange of posts since...' = you enjoy debating dumb people (what i am to you it seems..)

> I can't resist pointing out that you really don't do irony though- given you've spent several days and posting directly abusive remarks about me- you know, 'complete fascist', 'hypocrit'-which I finally got you to accept was just baseless name calling- the notion that it's 'anything but personal' for you is as absurd as most of your post content. ...
why thank you, your pointing out has really opened my eyes at my shortcomings regarding irony.
it is impersonal... you did SOUND like a fascist and a hypocrite...(you can't tell the difference between saying something about what someone has written and saying something about that someone, a greater shortcoming than not knowing irony..)
doesn't mean I hate you or like you as I do not know you at all...
Post edited at 10:21
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 16 Jan 2017
In reply to jondo:
> 'bad at constructing coherent argument' + 'don't think i've had such a good exchange of posts since...' = you enjoy debating dumb people (what i am to you it seems..)

you're doing that straw man thing again, Jondo- you just don't seem to be able to stop yourself...

the line of debate you took upthread hinged on trying to argue that the ethical principles guiding my stance were highly unusual, when instead they came from the UN declaration on human rights. Now, you may well be a Mensa member for all i know; but just repeating your points in the teeth of evidence that they're wrong isn't going to win you any points for technique...

> why thank you, your pointing out has really opened my eyes at my shortcomings regarding irony.

glad to be of assistance

;-P

> it is impersonal... you did SOUND like a fascist and a hypocrite...(you can't tell the difference between saying something about what someone has written and saying something about that someone, a greater shortcoming than not knowing irony..)

only to someone who didn't understand what fascism or hypocrisy actually are... that's why i copied you the definition of fascism, and explained at greater length why my position re the actions of NATO members was entirely consistent. and not a word of thanks! its like you preferred being able to post ad homs to understanding what i was really saying...

> doesn't mean I hate you or like you as I do not know you at all...

good stuff. its just a discussion. its meant to be fun, else why do it...?
Post edited at 12:32
1
Gerry_Doncaster - on 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> After Oslo I really thought that a peaceful solution to the Arab/Israel/Palestinian conflict might be found. Now, I doubt I'll see proper peace in that region in my lifetime.

Yes but which side murdered their own leader for signing the Oslo peace accord?
1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.