Y'all GOT to check this out..

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:12 pm

doormat wrote:The UN placed the Isreal-palestine border. It is a matter of considerable import to their joint and several dignities. They talk about it a lot because they feel it is their problem to solve.


So they are more worried about a border than mass killings, raping, and starvation in africa? So much for practicality.

It is clearly within their mandate: The occupation of one nation by another (and don't go on about palastine not having been a nation: It is if Isreal is, because it's borders were defined in the same treaty.) Most other conflicts are either internal (in which case the UN has no mandate) or sucessional (in which case the mandate is not clear).


So the massive killing of innocents is right as long as it happens within the borders of a country which is recognized by the UN as a country? lol. Again there goes usefulness out the window.


How about: the Isreali's have West Jerusalem, and the Arabs have East Jeurusalem, thus retaining control of their respective religions more important sites and finding common cause by living together in peace: You know, like the UN intended.


Define west and east. You mean a split in the center?

And of cource the UN only wants nice things. Dont we all? But for some reason they just keep comming up with the most unrealistic ideas of achiving those nice things all the time.


The Isreali administration restricts access to the city, and refuses permition to perform Christian or Muslim religous rites in mutual holy sites, on the grounds of "security".


Err? restrict christians? What the hell are you talking about?

Muslims are restricted because of well known security reasons, that have a very stable basis. Unless you are gonna deny terror acts (which is what I think you're gonna do next).


The Catholic, Russian & Greek Orthadox and Anglican Communities in the area all support Palistinian control of the Old City.


That's rather illogical. Have you ever been to jerusalem? Erh, what am I talking about, you probably cant even point the middle east out on the globe.

Proof for what you wrote above please.


How about: Within it's borders? Shocking concept, I know... There is no longer any need for "buffer zones" (If indeed there ever was).


The new borders have been set by reality a long time ago. Returning to the 'old' borders (which where violated because palestinian attacks ffs) means that even I will have to move out of move home and be relocated.

Just think about all the logistical problems inolved in this transfer. It is bound to drain israel's money completely, and the palestinians... Well they never actually lived on their own earned money anyways...

The palestinians wont be able to provide running water and electricity and other basic stuff to all of their 'new' homes if israel will move back to the 1948 borders. They cant live on their own, they need israel to survive. If you want israel to move back to 1948 borders, you are calling for a complete disconnection, one which the palestinians wont be able to stand.

Unless of cource you wanna say that israel should still provide the palestinian authority with most of its basic needs even though israel will withdraw to the old borders. In that case I will just laugh and rest my case, since the large majority people can see what's wrong with that plan.

But I'm sure you'll just disregard logic and reason and most importantly what I said above and continue with supporting the moving back to 1948 borders.


Yeah. About the same time I decide that the best option for a stable europe would have been to let Germany win in 1945. Sure, all the jews would have been murdered, and there would have been cirtain... democratic compromises... But it would have been nice and stable, and the trains would have run on time. :roll:


That comparison was childish. Unless you are convinced that thousands of palestinians are being burned in giant incinerators every day, since the ultimate goal of the israeli goverment is to eliminate all the muslims from the face of the planet.

I actually belive you do think that.

Oh btw, did you notice how you avoided from replying to my question? You're slowly getting better and better at running in circles around the point. You could make a fine UN representative :D
meow
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:27 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:No one said settlements were the sole obstruction to peace. And settlements were the issue of that resolution. There is no way they can address ever single obstruction to peace.


The way they don't even try is disturbing.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Settlements were singled out because they are a major issue for the Palestinians


Terror is a major issue for Israel...

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:They are also blatantly illegal, so they are one of the few things that can garner more or less worldwide condemnation.


As oppose to Palestinian terror which, while blatantly illegal has a rather hard time garnering worldwide condemnation...

Stewsburntmonkey wrote: Iraq was given back to the Iraqis after the First Gulf War, etc.


Interesting way of portraying it. As I recall, Iraq was given back to a murderous dictator fond of killing his own people...
But hey, you can call that the 'Iraqis' if you want'...
I think you say 'Iraqis' to neatly avoid the fact that returning areas is sometimes a very stupid idea, as it was after the First Gulf War... Nice trick, shame you got called on it.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:What are you talking about. Israel is in breach of international law and the UN simply calls it on that. That is about a reasonable as it gets.


Not if the law it calls it on is unreasonably applied.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:No I am not. You said these demands are unreasonable, that was the statement. The reason given was because they act against Israel. Therefore you linking "acting against Israel" with being unreasonable. Maybe that is not what you meant, but that is certainly what you said.


You don't half talk deliberately confusing twaddle when caught out...
I said 'these demands' and you claimed I said 'any demands'. That's a fact. Your confusing twaddle does a nice job of hiding it though.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:There wasn't anything active about those resolutions. Also what may be a short term security risk,


There wasn't anything active...sometime a security risk...

Seems to be an acknowledgement of a security risk being posed. I say that acts against the interests of Israel...

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:I also have not lied yet in this thread, if I have I would ask that you point it out to me.


I count deliberate misrepresentation as lying. Because after all it's just cunning lying. But then again all your tactics regard on low-ness cunningly disguised.


Curiosity wrote:"They lack reason". Not "They lack A reason". There's a difference.


Stewsburntmonkey wrote:There is no difference.

The definition of reason:

"The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence."

Having a reasons such as I point to above implies analytic thought. . .

You may disagree with the reasoning, but it does not make it unreasonable.


Unleash the twaddle-cannon... There is such thing as a 'bad reason'. There is such thing as a reason that lacks all analytic thought... "Why did you shoot him?" "I was jealous."
that is a reason that lacks analytical thought. People can give absolutely anything as a reason for something, that does not mean it is reasonable.


Stewsburntmonkey wrote:The dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is an international conflict and the UN is trying help solve that. In doing so it neccessarily needs to condemn acts it sees as contributing to that conflict.


...

Because we all know that constant condemnation of one side, rather than reasoned give-and-take and attempts at a deal and agreemnt, is an effective way of solving problems!

Well, that's what you appear to know. The rest of us are still a bit hazy on it...

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:As for the rest I can see you have yet again regressed to simple insults instead of debating facts.


Well, it's mainly your deplorable actions that cause it. And once again I note throughout that you ignore points, refuse to acknowledge when something you have said or done has been discredited and claim ridiculous things with a seeming fanatical devotion to the word of the UN being the ultimate truth... :(
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:46 pm

ToRmEnToR wrote:
So they are more worried about a border than mass killings, raping, and starvation in africa? So much for practicality.


No, but like doormat said, the UN has little to no mandate to interfer in a nations internal matters.

So the massive killing of innocents is right as long as it happens within the borders of a country which is recognized by the UN as a country? lol. Again there goes usefulness out the window.


No, it's not a question of right and wrong. It's a question of jurisdiction and practicality. Sort of like the prime directive from Star Trek, the UN is not generally authorised to interfer in a nation's internal affairs. Some weak exeptions exist for human rights abuses, but they are still pretty shakey.


Define west and east. You mean a split in the center?


East Jerusalem is the area that was occupied by Jordan and West Jerusalem is the area that was occupied by Israel.

However the UN officially declared Jerusalem an international city, Israel and Jordan however occupied it in 1948.


The Catholic, Russian & Greek Orthadox and Anglican Communities in the area all support Palistinian control of the Old City.


That's rather illogical. Have you ever been to jerusalem? Erh, what am I talking about, you probably cant even point the middle east out on the globe.

Proof for what you wrote above please.[/quote]

Well the Catholic Church does not recognise Israel's authority in East Jerusalem. To be honest most Christians in the area don't particularly like either Israel or the PA, but instead favor the UN's idea of an International city.


The new borders have been set by reality a long time ago. Returning to the 'old' borders (which where violated because palestinian attacks ffs) means that even I will have to move out of move home and be relocated.


So? You make Palestinians move from their homes on a regular basis.


Unless of cource you wanna say that israel should still provide the palestinian authority with most of its basic needs even though israel will withdraw to the old borders. In that case I will just laugh and rest my case, since the large majority people can see what's wrong with that plan.


The International community could provide aid to the Palestinians. . .


That comparison was childish. Unless you are convinced that thousands of palestinians are being burned in giant incinerators every day, since the ultimate goal of the israeli goverment is to eliminate all the muslims from the face of the planet.


What is it with people and analogies. They just totally miss the point (or more accurately don't want to see the point so they simply dismiss them). It is a rather sad thing to be sure.

I actually belive you do think that.

Oh btw, did you notice how you avoided from replying to my question? You're slowly getting better and better at running in circles around the point. You could make a fine UN representative :D


You do the same, so please don't be hypocritical.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:04 pm

Curiosity wrote:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:No one said settlements were the sole obstruction to peace. And settlements were the issue of that resolution. There is no way they can address ever single obstruction to peace.


The way they don't even try is disturbing.


You can't give such context. If you say this Israeli action was done in response to some Palestinian action, then you have to say why that Palestinian action was done, and then why those actions were done. You would have to cite pretty much every event back to the beginning of time to give proper context. That is just not realistic. Also context doesn't particularly matter in these resolutions. All they state is that international laws have been violated. Why they have been violated doesn't change that fact that they were violated.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Settlements were singled out because they are a major issue for the Palestinians


Terror is a major issue for Israel...


Yes, I would imagine so. . . There have been some resolutions regarding terrorism, but the problem is that the UN can only pass resolutions regarding goverments. Terrorist networks are not goverments, so the UN doesn't have much power there. That is why there are not resolutions against Al'Quaeda.


Stewsburntmonkey wrote: Iraq was given back to the Iraqis after the First Gulf War, etc.


Interesting way of portraying it. As I recall, Iraq was given back to a murderous dictator fond of killing his own people...
But hey, you can call that the 'Iraqis' if you want'...
I think you say 'Iraqis' to neatly avoid the fact that returning areas is sometimes a very stupid idea, as it was after the First Gulf War... Nice trick, shame you got called on it.


No, I said the Iraqis because it simply matched the other parts of my post. Yes, Saddam stayed in power. I am not saying that we should not have deposed Saddam at that point, I'm saying whatever we did we gave the country back to the people (just as is currently happening in Iraq today).


Stewsburntmonkey wrote:What are you talking about. Israel is in breach of international law and the UN simply calls it on that. That is about a reasonable as it gets.


Not if the law it calls it on is unreasonably applied.


I thought you didn't like relativism? Law is only just if it is applied equally and uniformly. That is what is happening.


Stewsburntmonkey wrote:You don't half talk deliberately confusing twaddle when caught out...
I said 'these demands' and you claimed I said 'any demands'. That's a fact. Your confusing twaddle does a nice job of hiding it though.


Aparently English isn't your strong point. "These" modified "demands" it did not affect the justification that they were wrong because they acted against Israel. Again if you feel that that language does not properly describe your opinions fine. You cannot however act like I am misrepresenting what you said, because according the English grammar I parsed your statement properly.


Stewsburntmonkey wrote:There wasn't anything active about those resolutions. Also what may be a short term security risk,


There wasn't anything active...sometime a security risk...

Seems to be an acknowledgement of a security risk being posed. I say that acts against the interests of Israel...


But only in the sort term. The interests of Israel are more than short term I would hope.


Stewsburntmonkey wrote:I also have not lied yet in this thread, if I have I would ask that you point it out to me.


I count deliberate misrepresentation as lying. Because after all it's just cunning lying. But then again all your tactics regard on low-ness cunningly disguised.


I was not deliberatly misrepresenting you. I have given you ample opportunity to clarify your statement, but all you can do is insult me.


From this point on your regress still further to insults so I will not address those points. If you are going to continue to behave in this manner I will start ignoring you again. I keep trying to give you second chances, but you always seem to come back to insults anytime your views are challenged. I don't feel any need to deal with that kind of thing.
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:28 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:No, but like doormat said, the UN has little to no mandate to interfer in a nations internal matters.


The problem is, that the UN is the one which declares which piece of land is a nation and which isnt. So the UN can actually control their mandate.


East Jerusalem is the area that was occupied by Jordan and West Jerusalem is the area that was occupied by Israel.

However the UN officially declared Jerusalem an international city, Israel and Jordan however occupied it in 1948.


I asked doormat how he was planning to split jerusalem. I dont realy understand why you wrote what you wrote.


Well the Catholic Church does not recognise Israel's authority in East Jerusalem. To be honest most Christians in the area don't particularly like either Israel or the PA, but instead favor the UN's idea of an International city.


Hrm, that seems logical. But it again proves doormat wrong about this point.


So? You make Palestinians move from their homes on a regular basis.


Certain people get used to a certain lifestyle. You cant throw a multimillioner on the streets and tell him:

"Hey, bums survive on the street with nothing compared to what you had, so what's your problem?"

And again I'll have to point out that palestinian buildings get destroyed because of terror. Terrorists dont do good to anyone.

I remember a long while ago I mentioned the indians in the US. You said that the US is doing all it can to pay the indians back, but you never mentioned The US giving the indians all of their lands back. So do you support giving areas which belonged to the indians back to indian control and the evactuation of all US people from those areas?


The International community could provide aid to the Palestinians. . .


And the palestinians will than waste it all on weapons to revenge israel and be poor again.




tormentor wrote:Oh btw, did you notice how you avoided from replying to my question? You're slowly getting better and better at running in circles around the point. You could make a fine UN representative :D


Stewsburntmonkey wrote:You do the same, so please don't be hypocritical.


I usualy repeat things I've said in earlyer posts because they serve as a sutible reply to different things you and/or doormat say.

Image
meow
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:39 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:From this point on your regress still further to insults so I will not address those points. If you are going to continue to behave in this manner I will start ignoring you again.


You say that as a threat!
PLEASE DO!
I WOULD LOVE THAT!
I really don't want the attention of a lying, manipulating, dodging, insulting, smarmy, arrogant, 'i can never be wrong'-attituted,low little dweeb like you.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote: I keep trying to give you second chances,


:roll:

Oh how gracious of you, you annoying shit.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote: but you always seem to come back to insults anytime your views are challenged.


As opposed to you who either ignores it or challenges the intelligence of the person commenting while dodging round the issue in a trademark distraction and sidestep.


I insult you openly. You insult me in a smarmy underhand cowardly-little-shit kind of way. I prefer the straight-talking method you prefer to be the little instigator behind the scenes who after setting people up to insult with smarmy little jibes and implicit insults, then goes 'oh! now you're insulting me!'

This is why you are scum.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:27 pm

ToRmEnToR wrote:Proof for what you wrote above please


How's this?

I know, it talks about "relaxing" their pro-palestinan viewpoint, but it was the best I could find. For some reason, when you put it into Google you get 101 sites "addressing the myth" of isreali restrictions.

Most of which thin down to "we have no problem with christians. Look how nice we are to christians! Muslims might be terrorists and try to blow up their own most holy sites, so we can't let them in, but look! We're nice to christians!."

They cant live on their own, they need israel to survive. If you want israel to move back to 1948 borders, you are calling for a complete disconnection, one which the palestinians wont be able to stand


"The're such children. Isreal knows what's best for them. Self-govenment is not in their interests." And you wonder why some people consider you have a colonial attitude!

Unless you are convinced that thousands of palestinians are being burned in giant incinerators every day, since the ultimate goal of the israeli goverment is to eliminate all the muslims from the face of the planet.


I'll try to be sensitive here, since I understand that cirtain parts of this era of history are obviously more relevent to the Isreali view of the world: but Hitler did not attempt to conquer the planet just to kill Jews.
You must try to understand that many contempary comentators (who lived before the current era of peace in europe and had known only war in the region for hundreds of years) did say and believe that Hitlers occupation of europe was the best hope for "stabiltiy" and peace. The comparision was not mine. Some advocated union with Germany in the mid/late 1930's. (Mosley springs to mind.)

Oh btw, did you notice how you avoided from replying to my question? You're slowly getting better and better at running in circles around the point. You could make a fine UN representative


I consider that a compliment, but I don't entirely understand which question you mean.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:33 pm

ToRmEnToR wrote:
The problem is, that the UN is the one which declares which piece of land is a nation and which isnt. So the UN can actually control their mandate.


So you think the UN should suddenly start changing national borders to suit its needs? That seems like a horrible idea, but maybe that's just me.


I asked doormat how he was planning to split jerusalem. I dont realy understand why you wrote what you wrote.


You asked what East and West Jerusalem are and that's what they are.


So? You make Palestinians move from their homes on a regular basis.


Certain people get used to a certain lifestyle. You cant throw a multimillioner on the streets and tell him:

"Hey, bums survive on the street with nothing compared to what you had, so what's your problem?"


So Jews are better than Palestinians? That seems. . . racist.



And again I'll have to point out that palestinian buildings get destroyed because of terror. Terrorists dont do good to anyone.


No, Palestinian buildings get destroyed for all manner of reasons. And you could make an argument that moving back to the '67 or '48 borders would combat terrorism just as much as leveling the home of a Palestinian family so you can build a wall.


I remember a long while ago I mentioned the indians in the US. You said that the US is doing all it can to pay the indians back, but you never mentioned The US giving the indians all of their lands back. So do you support giving areas which belonged to the indians back to indian control and the evactuation of all US people from those areas?


The Indians never had land. They were always the first to admit that. No that this neccessarily excuses what we did to them, but it is there nonetheless. Also that was long ago, before international law forbid such things. You don't retroactively apply laws.


And the palestinians will than waste it all on weapons to revenge israel and be poor again.


That is nothing more than your opinion. . .
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:33 pm

doormat wrote:I know, it talks about "relaxing" their pro-palestinan viewpoint, but it was the best I could find. For some reason, when you put it into Google you get 101 sites "addressing the myth" of isreali restrictions.

Most of which thin down to "we have no problem with christians. Look how nice we are to christians! Muslims might be terrorists and try to blow up their own most holy sites, so we can't let them in, but look! We're nice to christians!."



You said that the christians are intrested in palestinian control over the old city. The link you gave doesnt prove that, and I can actually quote a few lines that supprt my side of this whole argument.


"The're such children. Isreal knows what's best for them. Self-govenment is not in their interests." And you wonder why some people consider you have a colonial attitude!


Yeah, the palestinians have realy proved how well they can handle themselves, and how they know what's good for them. What, can you realy calim they know what's good for them after having a good look at today's situation?


I'll try to be sensitive here, since I understand that cirtain parts of this era of history are obviously more relevent to the Isreali view of the world: but Hitler did not attempt to conquer the planet just to kill Jews.
You must try to understand that many contempary comentators (who lived before the current era of peace in europe and had known only war in the region for hundreds of years) did say and believe that Hitlers occupation of europe was the best hope for "stabiltiy" and peace. The comparision was not mine. Some advocated union with Germany in the mid/late 1930's. (Mosley springs to mind.)


You obviously havent been around when we had the other political debates on the forums.

I know hitler didnt attempt to conquer the planet just to kill jews. But hey, what ever his motives were, the jews would of all been killed anyways if he would of succeded.

And it doesnt matter if that comparison is yours or not, it's bad enough if you embrace it.

And here we are arguing about semantics insted of getting to a point.

I consider that a compliment, but I don't entirely understand which question you mean.


Look around I'm sure you'll see some specific questions and arguments on which I asked yu to reply.
meow
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:04 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
So? You make Palestinians move from their homes on a regular basis.


Certain people get used to a certain lifestyle. You cant throw a multimillioner on the streets and tell him:

"Hey, bums survive on the street with nothing compared to what you had, so what's your problem?"


So Jews are better than Palestinians? That seems. . . racist.


Did I miss some major link there?

Or did sbm really just say that Tormentor thought Jews were better than palestinians based on the above comment?

See this is why he's such an annoying twat. He makes these huge leaps and links that no-one else can find and he can only make them because he struggles to do so.
He goes in with such a warped and pre-determined view of what he thinks people will be saying that he then twists their words to fit the statement his warped mind thinks they should be making...
He looks for any way he can to put his words in to the mouths of those that oppose him to put them in a bad light.
He deliberately twists what people say to use it against them.
He does this all under the cover of 'extrapolating' or 'analogies' or any other number of tactics designed purely to cover his sole purpose of winning through underhand methods.

It's such a deplorable tactic it's mind-boggling and it's one that would never be allowed in any real forum of debate. Maybe it's why he informed me he never liked MUN. You simply can't get away with his shitty tactics in person.

And it's used as regularly as clockwork by the scum that is sbm.

From now on I'll be picking up on low tactics of this variety.
The phrase 'that is not what I meant' is never used as often as it is when someone is arguing by sbm. I wonder why that is. Maybe his superior powers to divine what everyone else means and thinks aren't so hot after all... No-one ever seems to agree with what he says they think or mean...
He may deliver some defence about people not being clear or some such bullshit, but this cannot disguise the fact that he always immediately leaps on anything people say, using the worst most twisted interpretation that he can concoct and not even trying to see what they might really mean.

And yes from now on, I wil be critiquing sbm's arguing style and showing his tactics. I said he resorted to low, scum tactics and now I will show it.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:42 pm

He said that the 1948 borders shouldn't be used because Jews shouldn't be moved from their homes. I asked why it was ok for Palestinians to be moved from their homes, but not Jews. His answer was that certain privelaged groups get used to privelage and shouldn't be asked to give that up. However since economic status is never an issue when Palestinians are forced to move, he implies some special status for Jews that Palestinians don't receive. Such privelaged status based on race is racism. You saw the same thing in Germany before WWII. I know you will take offense at that, but it is the truth nonetheless. Now I don't know if that is what ToRmEnToR meant by that, which is why I asked if that is what he meant (ie that's what the "?" there is for).
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:58 pm

You seem to think my summary is based on puely one example.

It is based on months of experience and repeated experience of the same tactics being used.

sbm wrote:Now I don't know if that is what ToRmEnToR meant by that, which is why I asked if that is what he meant (ie that's what the "?" there is for).


And pointing to a '?' is entirely insignificant when you have already associated a view you have unfairly prescribed to him as 'racist' meaning he now has to defend himself against a claim of 'racism' that is entirely inappropriate. You associated him with racist views.

If you had meant to inquire about what he meant, you could have left the 'racist' comment out of it. Then he could have told you what he meant. But no, you played the 'That seems racist' before he had even told you if it was what he meant. If it turns out not to be what he meant, that racist comment would be entirely without base, and yet you still placed it there, associating him with racist views.

Then again, if you were debating honestly you would never have used the claim of what he 'meant' at all.

And anyway, it's just the latest in a line of many many many examples.

And I'm still waiting on the apology for the baseless accusation made on irc against me. I believe that following a false allegation backed up by what was generally seen (ie. not just by me) as little evidence of any sort, an apology from the accuser to the accused is needed. Especially when the nature of the accusation was to assert something entirely unproven and baseless as if it were proven fact. Your blanket refusal to apologise, deliberate obtuseness, desperate 'well, it could have been this...' excuses and then rather amusing 'I never wanted to bring it to irc' claim do not do you any favours. Indeed, if a claim about someone, lacking evidence to that degree, were asserted as fact in a newspaper, a libel action would follow swiftly and an apology deemed necessary. Also, openly accusing someone of an action on irc and then claiming you didn't want to bring it there is awfully hypocritical.

I gave you the chance to apologise in private and you responded by refusing and then publicly trying to desperately back-up your scurrilous assertion with some sort of evidence (still seen as being rather pathetic), and still roundly failing to convince anyone. An apology, if you please.
Last edited by Curiosity on Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:54 am, edited 5 times in total.
TheSCConspiracy
level2
level2
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:56 am
Contact:

Postby TheSCConspiracy » Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:37 am

What? No! Imagine a world where us noble citizens can't shoot people through the lungs when they piss us off! Damn those United Nations, damn them to Hell!!


How about one where you couldnt fight off a home invasion?

Oh, but it wont happen to me, and if it does, that nice policeman accross town will help me. :roll:
A programme of a million lines begins with one [

This the sig version of Revelation, put me in your sig and help me destroy the internet.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:27 am

TheSCConspiracy wrote:
What? No! Imagine a world where us noble citizens can't shoot people through the lungs when they piss us off! Damn those United Nations, damn them to Hell!!


How about one where you couldnt fight off a home invasion?

Oh, but it wont happen to me, and if it does, that nice policeman accross town will help me. :roll:


Yeah, people invade your home all the time dont they? :roll:
Funny thing is that those most concerned about home invasions and what not, seems to be those least likely to get their homes invaded.. :?


As for this whole debate, Ive dropped it, and I encourage y'all you to do the same. Nobody is going to agree with the other anyways so it's just pointless to keep arguing.
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:03 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:So you think the UN should suddenly start changing national borders to suit its needs? That seems like a horrible idea, but maybe that's just me.


Erm that is a horrible idea. Still the UN just overreacts to things that it can change just because it can. What kind of global organization is that?

"oh no we cant stop starvation and massive killings. So what do we do?"

-"We got israel and palestine situation"

Bah, I withdraw from my previous arguments about this point, it's realy something which is hard to debate about beacause it deals with the usefulness of the UN in general, and it's almost irrelevant to the current argument.

You asked what East and West Jerusalem are and that's what they are.


No, I asked how doormat was planning to split east and west jerusalem. So I asked him to define his new east and west.


So Jews are better than Palestinians? That seems. . . racist.


He said that the 1948 borders shouldn't be used because Jews shouldn't be moved from their homes. I asked why it was ok for Palestinians to be moved from their homes, but not Jews. His answer was that certain privelaged groups get used to privelage and shouldn't be asked to give that up. However since economic status is never an issue when Palestinians are forced to move, he implies some special status for Jews that Palestinians don't receive. Such privelaged status based on race is racism.


Well I dont realy know how to reply to that, except from saying that I support moving people out of jewish settelements (even though they lived there for a generation). Does that make me a racist towards certain kind of jews?

The settlements were a major fuckup by the israeli goverment. The settlements never did grow any strong roots, especially echonomical ones. It was a waste of money, and a waste of dead soldiers who died while protecting those settlements.

Although it's not the nicest thing to do, the people that have lived in their homes must be evacuated, for the sake of the future. Racism doesnt dictate these moves, reality does.


No, Palestinian buildings get destroyed for all manner of reasons. And you could make an argument that moving back to the '67 or '48 borders would combat terrorism just as much as leveling the home of a Palestinian family so you can build a wall.


The wall was built because of terrorism. Israel doesnt get any profit from destroying homes nor from building huge walls. Unless of cource they signed a deal with satan which gives them a few bucks every time they level some building.


The Indians never had land. They were always the first to admit that. No that this neccessarily excuses what we did to them, but it is there nonetheless. Also that was long ago, before international law forbid such things. You don't retroactively apply laws.


Point taken.

To bad israel missed the big wave of land ownership shifting of WWII.
The UN were a bit nearsighted in the israeli situation though. If an enemy attacks a certain country, and that country move in their enemy's area in order to stop the attacks, would it realy be wise to force them to retreat back to their own land even though the enemy will continue attacking (attacks which will force that country to envade enemy terretory yet again).

The israeli-palestinian authority land split was set over a piriod of half a century. Wars shaped the borders, not the so called 'illegal occupation' that just happened for no apearent reason as some seem to suggest.

Note though, that lands which should be given back are given back slowly.

I just wonder what the palestinians will do if suddenly everything returns to 1948's borders. From your's and doormat's posts it seems that after they get back to their borders, all of their problems will magically dissapear. If you ask me, I think that not only will their problems dissapear, but they'll start asking for more land again, for no logical reason (something like, "oh they oppressed us for years so they should give us more land!").

It just looks like this argument has lost all touch from reality. The palestinians dont take advantage of even half of their land (crude assumption but I'm sure it has some kind of base). It would be like giving incredible ammount of food to a realy fat guy instead of sending him to experts that can make him healthier.
meow

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests