|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 25, 2014 13:01:34 GMT -5
The premise of your thread is here
"As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine," the statement says."
and in the title of your thread
‘Holocaust families criticize Israel over Gaza 'Genocide'... ”
I reject the premise of your thread, that there is a genocide occurring and even that there is a massacre occurring. You ask “Is anyone here going to take the topic head on are you all going to attempt to divert it? ”
I’ve taken the topic on and rejected the premise on which it is formed. Unfortunately, your position precludes any argument that does not accept your false premise.
There are three parties involved in Gaza; Hamas, Israel and the folks who live there, which constitutes the majority. Most of that majority couldn’t care less if their neighborhood is Israel or any other nation, they simply want what most of us want; to be left alone, to take care of our kids and to be safe. Each of those three needs to accomodate the other's position to some degree or another, as each of the three bears responsibility for the environment today.
Trying to solve this problem by addressing only one of the parties is a fool's errand.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Aug 25, 2014 13:21:11 GMT -5
Agree, of course it isn't genocide. When Baldie was asked why it was genocide he ascribes the Nazi's motives to the Jews. Despicable and shows why it is a waste of time to try to engage him in reasonable discourse. The reason why it is not possible to have a reasonable discourse with you and people like you on the subject of Israel is because you will not accept any criticism of Israel. Your instant kneejerk reaction is to attack the messenger and close down the discussion and if possible the thread. What is despicable is the slaughter of more than 2100 Gazans by Israel and you not even acknowledging that fact. No one here has addressed the gross disproportionate response of Israel that continues, you all try to bury that... yeah, that's what's despicable. The term "disproportionate response" is totally irrelevant when you are in a fight for your life. Was the response of Britain, the U.S., the USSR and the other allies to Nazi Germany "disproportionate"? Of course it wasn't. And your constant reference to the "What if Hamas...?" question as a "trick" is just another way of dodging the truth. You know that if Hamas stopped trying to kill Israelis Israel would pull out of Gaza and never fire another shot in that direction, but admitting that doesn't fit with your "agenda". I figure somewhere along the line some Jew/Israeli pissed on your Yorkshire Pudding and you've been obsessed with Israel ever since.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 13:49:50 GMT -5
The premise of your thread is here "As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine," the statement says." and in the title of your thread ‘Holocaust families criticize Israel over Gaza 'Genocide'... ” I reject the premise of your thread, that there is a genocide occurring and even that there is a massacre occurring. You ask “Is anyone here going to take the topic head on are you all going to attempt to divert it? ” I’ve taken the topic on and rejected the premise on which it is formed. Unfortunately, your position precludes any argument that does not accept your false premise. There are three parties involved in Gaza; Hamas, Israel and the folks who live there, which constitutes the majority. Most of that majority couldn’t care less if their neighborhood is Israel or any other nation, they simply want what most of us want; to be left alone, to take care of our kids and to be safe. Each of those three needs to accomodate the other's position to some degree or another, as each of the three bears responsibility for the environment today. Trying to solve this problem by addressing only one of the parties is a fool's errand. No you haven't, you merely used it as a springboard to push your own agenda. What you think is smart debating is in fact dishonest debating,. You will only take in fools and those that want to accept your position with that kind of debating. Such are the methods of Hasbara shills. You probably do fool most of the people some of the time... don't give up your day job.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 25, 2014 13:53:12 GMT -5
The premise of your thread is here "As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine," the statement says." and in the title of your thread ‘Holocaust families criticize Israel over Gaza 'Genocide'... ” I reject the premise of your thread, that there is a genocide occurring and even that there is a massacre occurring. You ask “Is anyone here going to take the topic head on are you all going to attempt to divert it? ” I’ve taken the topic on and rejected the premise on which it is formed. Unfortunately, your position precludes any argument that does not accept your false premise. There are three parties involved in Gaza; Hamas, Israel and the folks who live there, which constitutes the majority. Most of that majority couldn’t care less if their neighborhood is Israel or any other nation, they simply want what most of us want; to be left alone, to take care of our kids and to be safe. Each of those three needs to accomodate the other's position to some degree or another, as each of the three bears responsibility for the environment today. Trying to solve this problem by addressing only one of the parties is a fool's errand. No you haven't, you merely used it as a springboard to push your own agenda. What you think is smart debating is in fact dishonest debating,. You will only take in fools and those that want to accept your position with that kind of debating. I'm amazed that choose to accuse someone of pushing thier own agenda when you refuse to debate the topic. You do understand the term "debate", right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 14:14:08 GMT -5
No you haven't, you merely used it as a springboard to push your own agenda. What you think is smart debating is in fact dishonest debating,. You will only take in fools and those that want to accept your position with that kind of debating. I'm amazed that choose to accuse someone of pushing thier own agenda when you refuse to debate the topic. You do understand the term "debate", right? Clearly better than you do.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 25, 2014 14:59:40 GMT -5
Then I can only assume you refuse to debate due to lack of subject knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Aug 25, 2014 15:25:20 GMT -5
Another tid bit from Britain, the most popular boy baby name in 2014 is Mohammad, or a close variant. They should wake up and smell the sharia coming. To be fair, that only applies to London, not all of the country (it comes in at number 15, for the whole country): LINK And it also appears that Mulims in the UK aren't the least bit creative when it comes to naming their boys. It must be incredibly confusing to be a boy in a Madrassa.... probably anywhere in the world. As it probably goes without saying, at least half of your classmates will also be called Mohammed or some variation on that theme. Still, it must be incredibly frustrating for Britons to live in a country that did so much to bring freedom of thought and conscience to the world to turn around and find it so full of people that oppose those concepts to the point where all their boy children have the same name. Not according to this link. link They say for all of Britain.
|
|
|
Post by alienrace on Aug 25, 2014 15:30:57 GMT -5
I figure somewhere along the line some Jew/Israeli pissed on your Yorkshire Pudding and you've been obsessed with Israel ever since. That's what I gather too. I haven't seen this much anti-Israel sentiment from anyone without a dog in the fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 15:44:52 GMT -5
Then I can only assume you refuse to debate due to lack of subject knowledge. Assume what you like, you will be wrong again, as usual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 15:52:39 GMT -5
The reason why it is not possible to have a reasonable discourse with you and people like you on the subject of Israel is because you will not accept any criticism of Israel. Your instant kneejerk reaction is to attack the messenger and close down the discussion and if possible the thread. What is despicable is the slaughter of more than 2100 Gazans by Israel and you not even acknowledging that fact. No one here has addressed the gross disproportionate response of Israel that continues, you all try to bury that... yeah, that's what's despicable. The term "disproportionate response" is totally irrelevant when you are in a fight for your life. Was the response of Britain, the U.S., the USSR and the other allies to Nazi Germany "disproportionate"? Of course it wasn't. And your constant reference to the "What if Hamas...?" question as a "trick" is just another way of dodging the truth. You know that if Hamas stopped trying to kill Israelis Israel would pull out of Gaza and never fire another shot in that direction, but admitting that doesn't fit with your "agenda". I figure somewhere along the line some Jew/Israeli pissed on your Yorkshire Pudding and you've been obsessed with Israel ever since. An ignorant bigot might well think that a "Jew/israel pissed on my Yorkshire Pudding", that would be because he deliberately conflates Israel with Jews.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 15:55:03 GMT -5
I figure somewhere along the line some Jew/Israeli pissed on your Yorkshire Pudding and you've been obsessed with Israel ever since. That's what I gather too. I haven't seen this much anti-Israel sentiment from anyone without a dog in the fight. Tell me dude, who are the dogs in the fight, are you a Jew, or just another bulk standard ordinary dog?
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 25, 2014 15:55:46 GMT -5
Then I can only assume you refuse to debate due to lack of subject knowledge. Assume what you like, you will be wrong again, as usual. And yet you refuse to engage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 15:59:04 GMT -5
Assume what you like, you will be wrong again, as usual. And yet you refuse to engage. No I don't, you do. I refuse to let you control the debate with your hasbaric "what if..." claptrap.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 25, 2014 16:46:01 GMT -5
OK. Let me try it this way;
Your initial premise appears to be that Israel is committing massacres in Gaza that rise to the level of genocide. I reject that premise.
Now what?
|
|
|
Post by alienrace on Aug 25, 2014 16:57:41 GMT -5
That's what I gather too. I haven't seen this much anti-Israel sentiment from anyone without a dog in the fight. Tell me dude, who are the dogs in the fight, are you a Jew, or just another bulk standard ordinary dog? I never claimed to have much interest in any of it. I'd rather everyone stay out of the ME and let them fight amongst themselves. Jews and Arabs would be the ones with the dogs in the fight...IMO. Not sure why your interest is so keen...dude
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 17:10:13 GMT -5
Tell me dude, who are the dogs in the fight, are you a Jew, or just another bulk standard ordinary dog? I never claimed to have much interest in any of it. I'd rather everyone stay out of the ME and let them fight amongst themselves. Jews and Arabs would be the ones with the dogs in the fight...IMO. Not sure why your interest is so keen...dude You have enough interest to criticize my posts though. If it was just "Jews and Arabs" I would probably agree with you, but it is not. The level of financial and military support makes Israel the American junkyard dog in the ME, so yes, whether you like it or not, you do have a dog (by proxy) in the fight.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 25, 2014 17:31:28 GMT -5
To be fair, that only applies to London, not all of the country (it comes in at number 15, for the whole country): LINK And it also appears that Mulims in the UK aren't the least bit creative when it comes to naming their boys. It must be incredibly confusing to be a boy in a Madrassa.... probably anywhere in the world. As it probably goes without saying, at least half of your classmates will also be called Mohammed or some variation on that theme. Still, it must be incredibly frustrating for Britons to live in a country that did so much to bring freedom of thought and conscience to the world to turn around and find it so full of people that oppose those concepts to the point where all their boy children have the same name. Not according to this link. link They say for all of Britain. Well, I guess we have competing links. The thing is though, my point does sort of remain. Look at what's missing off those lists: any other male Muslim names. No "Hassan" or "Ali" or "Hussein". I'm sure if all the English parents named their son Oliver, the list would look a bit different. The sad thing though, for me, is the total single-mindedness of the Muslims. It seems there can be no independent thought with them, even down to what they name their children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 5:36:27 GMT -5
BBC? You mean from the same country where members of Parliment fly the "Palestinian" flag, and have allowed Shari'a law to supplant British law? That has arrested people for saying things that might offend Muslims? Another tid bit from Britain, the most popular boy baby name in 2014 is Mohammad, or a close variant. They should wake up and smell the sharia coming. This post wouldn't be on topic even if you were discussing babies names in Gaza or Israel.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Aug 26, 2014 6:12:52 GMT -5
There is no topic to this thread, at least not a topic the OP wishes to discuss. The thread is merely a pronouncement of one's views of a conflict in the Middle East and is not apparently, subject to discussion.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 26, 2014 8:15:17 GMT -5
You have just proved your own ignorance. Your original statement was that 'Sharia' Law had supplanted British Law. That is not the case. Sharia law is allowed in the UK only where it is acceptable in the UK, where it does not breach any current law and then has to be accepted by those under it. It can not be imposed on any British subject if they do not wish it to be so. This is exactly the same as 'Beth Din' (Jewish Law equivalent). It is getting tiresome having to constantly correct your misinformation and bigotry on this subject, take the bullshyte that you want to believe to the grave with you, your ignorance is no skin off of my nose. It has. In any instances where Shari'a is used instead of British law, it has supplanted British law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 8:20:49 GMT -5
You have just proved your own ignorance. Your original statement was that 'Sharia' Law had supplanted British Law. That is not the case. Sharia law is allowed in the UK only where it is acceptable in the UK, where it does not breach any current law, and then has to be accepted by those under it. It can not be imposed on any British subject if they do not wish it to be so. This is exactly the same as 'Beth Din' (Jewish Law equivalent). It is getting tiresome having to constantly correct your misinformation and bigotry on this subject, take the bullshyte that you want to believe to the grave with you, your ignorance is no skin off of my nose. It has. In any instances where Shari'a is used instead of British law, it has supplanted British law. It hasn't and can't. Sharia Law in the UK can only act within, not instead of, the establish system of British Law, and then only with the acceptance of those under it. Suggestion, look up 'supplant' in your dictionary before you hit the 'go' button again.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 26, 2014 8:44:31 GMT -5
It has. In any instances where Shari'a is used instead of British law, it has supplanted British law. It hasn't and can't. Sharia Law in the UK can only act within, not instead of, the establish system of British Law, and then only with the acceptance of those under it. Suggestion, look up 'supplant' in your dictionary before you hit the 'go' button again. Anytime it's used instead of British law, it has supplanted it. The idea that particular groups get to decide what laws they will accede to means that Britain has lost control of it's own system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 8:52:14 GMT -5
It hasn't and can't. Sharia Law in the UK can only act within, not instead of, the establish system of British Law, and then only with the acceptance of those under it. Suggestion, look up 'supplant' in your dictionary before you hit the 'go' button again. Anytime it's used instead of British law, it has supplanted it. The idea that particular groups get to decide what laws they will accede to means that Britain has lost control of it's own system. Bullshyte! You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in. Read a standard (recognized) dictionary, not the redleg dictionary. Tell me, has US Law been supplanted by Beth Din? According to your logic it has.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Aug 26, 2014 9:16:26 GMT -5
It has. In any instances where Shari'a is used instead of British law, it has supplanted British law. It hasn't and can't. Sharia Law in the UK can only act within, not instead of, the establish system of British Law, and then only with the acceptance of those under it. Suggestion, look up 'supplant' in your dictionary before you hit the 'go' button again. So Britain now has two sets of laws? Most democratic countries only have one, you are either breaking the law or you are not. So by even considering Sharia in any context in a court of law then the system is no longer rule by law, but rule by whatever law anyone feels like. Kind of like saying that if you are Muslim you get one set of laws, and if you aren't you get another.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Aug 26, 2014 9:21:36 GMT -5
Anytime it's used instead of British law, it has supplanted it. The idea that particular groups get to decide what laws they will accede to means that Britain has lost control of it's own system. Bullshyte! You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in. Read a standard (recognized) dictionary, not the redleg dictionary. Tell me, has US Law been supplanted by Beth Din? According to your logic it has. When Beth Din is brought into an American court (not a private Jewish one) then it would also be a violation of rule of law in the US. If sharia is limited to private rulings that do not violate the countries greater laws and is not brought into the court room then it too should be allowed, kind of like a private car club can have its own rules of conduct. What should never happen is to rule under the countries laws based on a subset of laws that are not legislated by public approval.
|
|