8/20/2003: Palestinian militant - Page 4

xoxoxoBruce · 08-21-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Senor Oso
[B I get the feeling that you really do think that anybody who disagrees with you on this is stupid and simplistic. [/b]

Being as I'm generally sarcastic I'd like to respond, at least for myself.
No, I don't think that people that disagree are stupid or simplistic.
I do however think they're wrong, misinformed, misguided, bias or whatever.
I don't think most people would take a position, they thought was wrong except to rattle cages.
If you feel my position is wrong, convince me.

Degrees · 08-21-2003, 02:11 PM

Everyone agrees that the problem of violence against their neighbors in Israel+Palestine is a big problem, and needs to stop.

On the one hand, I heard a great summary of the problem as a spin on a slogan from the first Bill Clinton election campaign:

"It's the Occupation, stupid."

On the other hand, I know people who support Israel for no other reason than this:

"Israel is the only governement by democracy in the Middle East."

People in the USA know that democracies are a good thing. And you see in Israel a real democracy - elections are held, and leaders are replaced (peaceably) as the electorate decides someone with a different view better represents what they want from their government.

Problem with Israel's democracy is that it is exclusive - Palestinians need not apply. Which brings us back to "It's the Occupation, stupid."

The suicide bombings will not stop until Israel chooses to treat its neighbors with respect.

The suicide bombings garner zero respect within Isreal for its neighbors.

"Be nice."
"O.k. - you go first."

Its a hard problem.

In the end, I think the message from the suicide bombers is supposed to be "Fear us." I think that message, as interpreted by Israel is "Exterminate us (bombers)."

goethean · 08-21-2003, 02:12 PM

Quote:

But from reading the rest of the posts on this thread, I get the feeling that you really do think that anybody who disagrees with you on this is stupid and simplistic. It's a common attitude among people... well, let's see if I can make your sort of thinking work for me... among people who think that Israel is pure, unadulterated evil.

I actually don't think that Israel is evil at all, and that's what irks me the most about Undertoad's attitude toward Palestinians--that it pisses me off and makes me more partisan.

Normally my take on the crisis is that Israel is surprisingly tolerant compared to how other countries would act in a similar situation (China, Russia, the US...). (I now know that Turkey at least has dealt with their insurgents in a bettter way.)

But look at the <a href="http://cellar.org/iotdarch.php">archives</a>. There have been more posts about Palestinians (12 or so) than about anything else. Most of them accompanied by negative captions. That's not right. It's especially troubling to me considering my country supports the administration that has destroyed, and continues to destroy these people's way of life.

I do believe that the <a href="http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php">Little Green Football</a> interpretation of the conflict is "stupid and simplistic". You can add bigoted, small-minded, and reprehensible to that as well. LGF is basically a hate site. The extent to which your own approach resembles theirs can tell you what I think of your method.

I personally would be mortified to quote and use the research of a site like LGF. Apparently that's not true of you folks.

Undertoad:

Quote:

The AP says Dozens of Hamas supporters at the scene dunked their fists in blood and soot, raised them in the air and threatened revenge, chanting "God is great."

It appears to have become some sort of blood ritual.

I think you forgot to say: quote via <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7898_Palestinian_Blood_Ritual">Little Green Footballs</a>.

juju · 08-21-2003, 02:44 PM

It's an AP story. LGF just linked to it and quoted from it.

Quote:

But look at the archives. There have been more posts about Palestinians (12 or so) than about anything else. Most of them accompanied by negative captions. That's not right.

In what way is free speech not right?

08-21-2003, 02:52 PM

To continue with juju's comment... if we had 12 posts about Charles Manson and what a shitbag he was for orchestrating the murders of Sharon Tate and her guests, all of them accompanied by negative captions, would that also be wrong?

See, I don't think anyone here condones the killing of innocent people. That goes for both sides. It's just that, for the most part, you don't have Israeli suicide attackers. You don't hear about Israelis getting on Palestinian buses and detonating themselves and 20 victims. There have been a few attacks here and there, but you could probably count them on one mangled hand.

What Israel does do is target militants. It might not be <b>right</b> (depending on the meaning of your word), but most people have a much easier time stomaching this than they do thinking about Gal Eisenmann, the five year old that got blown up a year ago. (One of the many, I might add.)

What Undertoad is saying, and what I agree with, is that Palestinian militants that support and/or carry out attacks on innocent Israeli citizens are shitbags. The Israelis that bombed a Palestinian school a year or two ago (causing no casualties, thankfully) are shitbags as well. The bulldozer driver that ran over Rachel Corrie is, in my opinion, a shitbag. You show me an Israeli that has intentionally killed an innocent Palestinian and I'll show you - surprise - a shitbag. It's just that they're a lot harder to come across than Palestinian extremists.

It's not that there's some type of bias against innocent people. There's a bias against assholes that think they need to kill innocent civilians to get their way.

Undertoad · 08-21-2003, 03:12 PM

Well, Goat-boy, here are your choices at this point:

1. You could continue to hang out here, and once a month you have to deal with the expression of a bunch of ideas that you find foul and reprehensible. - OR -

2. You could find a website where everyone agrees with you and everything ever posted passes a presupposed test of acceptability. - OR -

3. You could start your own website, publish your own views, enjoy the counter-argument, and just learn to accept the occasional annoying asshole who wants to assume all sorts of crap about you and your thought process, and wants to freely post this to your site amongst the things you've written.

I recommend #1 or #3, because #2 stunts your growth.

goethean · 08-21-2003, 03:12 PM

Quote:

In what way is free speech not right?

Free speech, on a societal level, is an important right.

Within that there are many forms of free speech--that should be allowed by society--that are unethical.

Quote:

Niggers are lazy, crack-smoking, good for nothing monkeys

The above statement is both an example of free speech, and an unethical thing to say (additionally, it is wrong, but that's neither here nor there.)

08-21-2003, 03:16 PM

I was thinking, perhaps goethean should get a user-hosted forum and post his own images. That way, we'd have two IotD-like thingies.

I could do one too, 'cause I come across all sorts of stuff. But it's always things that make me smile and stuff 'cause I'm a sentimental retard when it comes to humanity.

Or, in keeping with a tragedy motif, we could do pictures of people who died in this but shouldn't have. Those are pretty easy to find.

goethean · 08-21-2003, 03:17 PM

Goat boy?

Type Goethe in Google if you're unfamiliar with the origin of my username.

Quote:

...Palestinian militants that support and/or carry out attacks on innocent Israeli citizens are shitbags. The Israelis that bombed a Palestinian school a year or two ago (causing no casualties, thankfully) are shitbags as well. The bulldozer driver that ran over Rachel Corrie is, in my opinion, a shitbag. You show me an Israeli that has intentionally killed an innocent Palestinian and I'll show you - surprise - a shitbag. It's just that they're a lot harder to come across than Palestinian extremists.

Odd, though, that the moderator of this site only appears to object to Palestinian violence.

goethean · 08-21-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

I recommend #1 or #3, because #2 stunts your growth.

And because #4, the moderator gaining some degree of balance, is out of the question?

juju · 08-21-2003, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goethean
<blockquote><i>Niggers are lazy, crack-smoking, good for nothing monkeys</blockquote></i>The above statement is both an example of free speech, and an unethical thing to say.

I don't agree that it is unethical to say that. The ideas behind them are unethical, but it is not immoral to speak your mind.

Most people, in response to the above comment, would attempt to reason with the person and attempt to present them with their own views. That's what you should be doing, not trying to silence the opposition.

At any rate, this isn't a news site. It's mainly a discussion site. So he's not supposed to have objectivity.

goethean · 08-21-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

To continue with juju's comment... if we had 12 posts about Charles Manson and what a shitbag he was for orchestrating the murders of Sharon Tate and her guests, all of them accompanied by negative captions, would that also be wrong?

Charles Manson was a particular person. The Palestinians are 3 million people. To generalize about an entire people based on the actions of a few is the essence of prejudice. UT's coverage of the Middle East conflict gives a profoundly wrong impression.

Reading UT's posts, one would assume that there have been many times as many Israeli deaths as Palestinian. Reality shows the opposite to be true.

dar512 · 08-21-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dave
Lots of stuff clipped...

It's not that there's some type of bias against innocent people. There's a bias against assholes that think they need to kill innocent civilians to get their way.

Dave, that was a succinct and well thought out post.

Undertoad · 08-21-2003, 03:47 PM

No, goat-boy: you don't get to change my opinion just by crying and saying that I should "just because".

You have to actually refute it by providing, you know, helpful counter arguments and statements of fact and whatnot.

It's not good enough to claim that my statements are "hateful" or "biased". In order to convince me to change my posting habits, you have to convince me that I'm actually WRONG.

That's the bad news. The good news is that I'm a reasonable guy. I do change my point of view on the basis of what I learn. I'm happy to participate in discussions in which we ask questions of each other and state our various points of view. I'll be as honest as I possibly can be.

In fact, I've kinda set this entire system up for that purpose, and I've gone out of my way to make sure everyone's posts have equivalent weight (outside of their personal reputation).

You don't like what I have to say: convince me I'm wrong.

goethean · 08-21-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

It's not good enough to claim that my statements are "hateful" or "biased". In order to convince me to change my posting habits, you have to convince me that I'm actually WRONG.

...and that's because there's lots of hateful and biased statements that are correct?

08-21-2003, 02:11 PM	#47
Degrees Resident Denizen Join Date: May 2001 Location: Visalia, CA Posts: 62	Its a hard problem. Everyone agrees that the problem of violence against their neighbors in Israel+Palestine is a big problem, and needs to stop. On the one hand, I heard a great summary of the problem as a spin on a slogan from the first Bill Clinton election campaign: "It's the Occupation, stupid." On the other hand, I know people who support Israel for no other reason than this: "Israel is the only governement by democracy in the Middle East." People in the USA know that democracies are a good thing. And you see in Israel a real democracy - elections are held, and leaders are replaced (peaceably) as the electorate decides someone with a different view better represents what they want from their government. Problem with Israel's democracy is that it is exclusive - Palestinians need not apply. Which brings us back to "It's the Occupation, stupid." The suicide bombings will not stop until Israel chooses to treat its neighbors with respect. The suicide bombings garner zero respect within Isreal for its neighbors. "Be nice." "O.k. - you go first." Its a hard problem. In the end, I think the message from the suicide bombers is supposed to be "Fear us." I think that message, as interpreted by Israel is "Exterminate us (bombers)."

08-21-2003, 02:52 PM	#50
dave Guest Posts: n/a	To continue with juju's comment... if we had 12 posts about Charles Manson and what a shitbag he was for orchestrating the murders of Sharon Tate and her guests, all of them accompanied by negative captions, would that also be wrong? See, I don't think anyone here condones the killing of innocent people. That goes for both sides. It's just that, for the most part, you don't have Israeli suicide attackers. You don't hear about Israelis getting on Palestinian buses and detonating themselves and 20 victims. There have been a few attacks here and there, but you could probably count them on one mangled hand. What Israel does do is target militants. It might not be <b>right</b> (depending on the meaning of your word), but most people have a much easier time stomaching this than they do thinking about Gal Eisenmann, the five year old that got blown up a year ago. (One of the many, I might add.) What Undertoad is saying, and what I agree with, is that Palestinian militants that support and/or carry out attacks on innocent Israeli citizens are shitbags. The Israelis that bombed a Palestinian school a year or two ago (causing no casualties, thankfully) are shitbags as well. The bulldozer driver that ran over Rachel Corrie is, in my opinion, a shitbag. You show me an Israeli that has intentionally killed an innocent Palestinian and I'll show you - surprise - a shitbag. It's just that they're a lot harder to come across than Palestinian extremists. It's not that there's some type of bias against innocent people. There's a bias against assholes that think they need to kill innocent civilians to get their way.

08-21-2003, 03:12 PM	#51
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Well, Goat-boy, here are your choices at this point: 1. You could continue to hang out here, and once a month you have to deal with the expression of a bunch of ideas that you find foul and reprehensible. - OR - 2. You could find a website where everyone agrees with you and everything ever posted passes a presupposed test of acceptability. - OR - 3. You could start your own website, publish your own views, enjoy the counter-argument, and just learn to accept the occasional annoying asshole who wants to assume all sorts of crap about you and your thought process, and wants to freely post this to your site amongst the things you've written. I recommend #1 or #3, because #2 stunts your growth.

08-21-2003, 03:16 PM	#53
dave Guest Posts: n/a	I was thinking, perhaps goethean should get a user-hosted forum and post his own images. That way, we'd have two IotD-like thingies. I could do one too, 'cause I come across all sorts of stuff. But it's always things that make me smile and stuff 'cause I'm a sentimental retard when it comes to humanity. Or, in keeping with a tragedy motif, we could do pictures of people who died in this but shouldn't have. Those are pretty easy to find.

08-21-2003, 03:47 PM	#59
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	No, goat-boy: you don't get to change my opinion just by crying and saying that I should "just because". You have to actually refute it by providing, you know, helpful counter arguments and statements of fact and whatnot. It's not good enough to claim that my statements are "hateful" or "biased". In order to convince me to change my posting habits, you have to convince me that I'm actually WRONG. That's the bad news. The good news is that I'm a reasonable guy. I do change my point of view on the basis of what I learn. I'm happy to participate in discussions in which we ask questions of each other and state our various points of view. I'll be as honest as I possibly can be. In fact, I've kinda set this entire system up for that purpose, and I've gone out of my way to make sure everyone's posts have equivalent weight (outside of their personal reputation). You don't like what I have to say: convince me I'm wrong.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)