Why Settlers ? [W:60]

oneworld2 · Nov 20, 2016

Ganesh said:
Well fellows, here we are again, another Israel thread, and another storm of spin, distortion, deflection, denial, and world class bias. Freud would probably suggest this is defensiveness, an overcompensation due to known and sensitive shortcomings. Joseph Goebbels would probably just say it's propaganda, tell a lie enough times and people will believe it.

Among the Israel at any cost crowd, I'd say personally CJ was the only one to utter at least a couple of honest lines. Screw them, he said, Israel has found its desired secure spot, after much tribulation, and they are going to hang on to it, and everybody else can be collateral damage, if that is what it takes. After centuries of discrimination and scapegoating, the largest brutalization of all happened, the Holocaust. After that, the academic yearning for a homeland crystallized, and someone was going to have to lose out. Germany would have seemed the logical choice, but it was not to be, so a lessor target was needed. It was not quite the end of the imperial age, so a few Arabs in Palestine seemed a no-brainer.

Timing here was unfortunate though, because imperialism was going out of style, pretty fast at that point. So the takeover was never really accepted, and today still festers. And it will for a long time yet, until Israel steps up to the plate, and replaces spin for substance.

The observations you make in the first paragraph are always to be expected because the military war against the Arabs is well won , what remains is the PR war to con the world about Israeli expansionist designs.

The OP in this thread ,imo , has not had a answer worthy of the name by the Israeli lobby group here.

Obviously illegally putting your civilians in the middle of the mass Palestinian people inhabiting the WB and claiming it is to protect them from Palestinian attacks fools nobody . They are a part of an annexation process that has been going on since the Israeli state was created , it's just that simple.

Just a couple of things to add

hardly any of the pre Israeli state leaders were religious Jews................... they were atheists who saw the political capital in the religious aspect. In fact when you read Ben Gurions comments on the Palestinian reaction to Zionism it is a lot less hostile than any of the , allegedly , pro Israeli posters here

Palestine was not the only place considered for the Jewish homeland. So if things had of worked out differently we could be witnessing the pro Israeli lobby here today denouncing the antesemitic/terrorist Maasai

Apocalypse · Nov 20, 2016

oneworld2 said:
Well , you can frame it how you like , but he whole world disagrees with the Israeli defence of their barbaric treatment of the Palestinians. The World Court has gone against it , virtually every country in the world concurred , the ICRC , all the HR groups even Jewish professors of international law based in Jerusalem have gone against the defence you have repeated from the wiki page

Once again I ask the same question , is the whole world antisemitic or are the Israeli leaderships wrong about their actions ?

I'm firmly behind the rest of the worlds view that the Israeli occupation ( plus the gross HR violations going on there ) and settlement programme are illegal

It seems like just like Ganesh you were unable to deal with the actual facts that were thrown at you so you had to make an illogical general comment so to avoid it entirely.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

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

Please do feel free however to try and answer the well based facts in CJ's post.

oneworld2 · Nov 20, 2016

Toggle Almendro said:
Terrorism involves targeting civilians. If cluster bombs and white phosphorus (both lawful weapons) are not aimed at civilians, then their use is not terrorism.

There's no universally accepted definition of terrorism, so get over yourself

The Israeli State terrorism that I refer to is its use of highly destructive indiscriminate high tech weaponry against densely populated civilian areas and a people who are , in comparison , practically defenceless against it.

Sharon was not responsible for massacres carried out by other people.

The massacre of civilians at Qibya was committed by troops under his command, so yes he was responsible. With regards to the Sabra and Shatila massacre of civilians he was complicit in allowing the Christians in to slaughter the people there.

So stop trying to whitewash the massacres of civilians

The thing is, those rockets ARE being fired at Israeli population centers in the hopes of striking innocent civilians.

It is not a sleight of hand for Israel to correctly state that they are not targeting civilians.

And imo the constant bombardments of Gaza , that guarantee mass slaughtering of Palestinian civilians every time , are a deliberate employment of terror in order to bring about a political change there. That's terrorism too

There are plenty of examples of the IDF/security forces deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians

oneworld2 · Nov 20, 2016

Apocalypse said:
It seems like just like Ganesh you were unable to deal with the actual facts that were thrown at you so you had to make an illogical general comment so to avoid it entirely.

He went to the same page I did and the arguments for and against are there for all to see. I see little point in lifting information for the anti Israeli case and presenting it only to see the counter argument lifted from the same page as a response , that's all.

And the argument is not illogical and both sides present facts

So please be aware that this is just more of your usual nonsense that claims that only your own side present facts , it's as pathetic as it is false

You couldn't even bring yourself to comment on the subject matter contained in the OP and have just tried to derail the thread at every opportunity. So look at your own contribution for a change instead of critisizing others all of the time

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

Please do feel free however to try and answer the well based facts in CJ's post.

See above

And feel free yourself to actually make a comment concerning what this thread was actually about. Your silence on it is deafening

oneworld2 · Nov 22, 2016

Toggle Almendro said:
But I defy you to point out any facts that were wrong in my posts.

Off the top of my head here are a couple of inaccurate comments

reply 24

TA said:
There are no Palestinians living in Area C.

Incorrect , even if you discount those living in East Jerusalem.

reply 121

TA said:
Sharon was not responsible for massacres carried out by other people.

Wrong. It was troops under Sharon that committed the massacre of civilians in the village of Qibya in 1953. So, yes he was responsible for it

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

Apocalypse · Nov 22, 2016

oneworld2 said:
There's no universally accepted definition of terrorism, so get over yourself

In your definition of terrorism the act labeled as such does not require actually targeting anyone for it to be terrorism, it makes no sense and hence your definition is quite irrelevant.
You might as well claim that terrorism is basically buying three pairs of shoes when you only need two and it'd make just as much sense.

The Israeli State terrorism that I refer to is its use of highly destructive indiscriminate high tech weaponry against densely populated civilian areas and a people who are , in comparison , practically defenceless against it.

There is no Israeli state terrorism, Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.

The massacre of civilians at Qibya was committed by troops under his command, so yes he was responsible. With regards to the Sabra and Shatila massacre of civilians he was complicit in allowing the Christians in to slaughter the people there.

He was clearly referring to Sabra and Shatila, and yes he was in fault for not taking an act to stop it from happening but it's quite strange you actually accuse him of being at fault "of slaughtering" the civilians instead of those actually committing the massacre, it is as if you only care about those human beings as long as Israelis can be blamed and that's madness. Qibya was no example of a deliberate attacking of civilians and there's no indication that had actually happened, what did happen in 1953 is that the troops were at fault for not checking for civilians before bombing the place and believing they'd all be gone even though the report had found they were not able to leave due to the massive exchange of fire, that's awful enough but it's not at the slightest the same thing as actually targeting civilians.

So stop trying to whitewash the massacres of civilians

He did no such thing, you on the other hand did. As it remains his position is that innocents should not be murdered while yours is that the murder of civilians is a form of "self-defense" as already documented here. As such he clearly holds the moral high ground unless you're willing to take back your claims regarding Palestinian acts of terrorism.

And imo the constant bombardments of Gaza , that guarantee mass slaughtering of Palestinian civilians every time , are a deliberate employment of terror in order to bring about a political change there. That's terrorism too

No, targeting terrorists and defending civilians from their attempts to murder them is not terrorism.

There are plenty of examples of the IDF/security forces deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians

There isn't a single example in the entire history of the state of Israel of the military actually ordering the soldiers to go and target civilians, that is clearly another lie.

Apocalypse · Nov 22, 2016

oneworld2 said:
He went to the same page I did and the arguments for and against are there for all to see. I see little point in lifting information for the anti Israeli case and presenting it only to see the counter argument lifted from the same page as a response , that's all.

And the argument is not illogical and both sides present facts

So please be aware that this is just more of your usual nonsense that claims that only your own side present facts , it's as pathetic as it is false

It is a matter of fact actually and one only needs to read such threads.
So far anyone who engaged with you in a discussion from "my own side" had given facts that are based or were based, while you choose time after time to make empty claims without backing them up such as;

A) International law sees the very existence of the occupation as illegal.
B) Settlers came to live in the homes of Palestinians and settlements were made on the ruins of Palestinian houses that were destroyed.
C) Palestinian terrorism is a form of self-defense.
D) Targeting terrorists by Israel are acts of terrorism themselves.

And many more baseless assertions such as these.

You couldn't even bring yourself to comment on the subject matter contained in the OP and have just tried to derail the thread at every opportunity. So look at your own contribution for a change instead of critisizing others all of the time

I comment at whatever it is that catches my eye or is made in reply to my own comment, if you will ask me whatever it is that you want to ask (and you're hardly being clear on that) then I will, as always, answer it.

oneworld2 · Nov 22, 2016

Apocalypse said:
In your definition of terrorism the act labeled as such does not require actually targeting anyone for it to be terrorism, it makes no sense and hence your definition is quite irrelevant.

In the case of Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians it is an attack against the entire population , so they are the targets.

There is no Israeli state terrorism, Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.

If you refer to a right to self defence under the law , I agree they do. It's just that I extend the laws to the Palestinian people too

He was clearly referring to Sabra and Shatila, and yes he was in fault for not taking an act to stop it from happening but it's quite strange you actually accuse him of being at fault "of slaughtering" the civilians instead of those actually committing the massacre,

Ill stop you there because you are starting with your deceits again ( see B )

A. Your comment above only endorses what I said , that he bears some responsibility for the massacres

B. I stated that it was the Christian Phalangists that actually carried them out

So the personal attack that followed was only based on your misrepresentation of what I had written , a common occurrence in this thread that you appear to be able to carry out with impunity

it is as if you only care about those human beings as long as Israelis can be blamed and that's madness.

See above and understand it's your error

Qibya was no example of a deliberate attacking of civilians and there's no indication that had actually happened, what did happen in 1953 is that the troops were at fault for not checking for civilians before bombing the place and believing they'd all be gone even though the report had found they were not able to leave due to the massive exchange of fire, that's awful enough but it's not at the slightest the same thing as actually targeting civilians.

Why did they have to blow up all of the houses ?

Anything to do with Sharon telling his men to achieve " maximal killing and damage to property" ?

Why did they indiscriminately mortar a neighbouring village ?

etc etc

I don't buy the " we made a mistake " junk but I fully expect you to believe it

He did no such thing, you on the other hand did. As it remains his position is that innocents should not be murdered while yours is that the murder of civilians is a form of "self-defense" as already documented here. As such he clearly holds the moral high ground unless you're willing to take back your claims regarding Palestinian acts of terrorism.

I don't have to take anything back. That you twist and misrepresent what I have said , with yet another example of this above , the claims you make are risible anyway. I refuse to spend much of my time defending myself from the constant personal attacks from the likes of yourself , you don't listen when people clarify their statements anyhow , so there's no point .

No, targeting terrorists and defending civilians from their attempts to murder them is not terrorism.

Shooting dead civilians taking part in civil disobedience is targeting civilians. Unless of course you think all Palestinians are terrorists.

Whether the resistance stays within the legal framework or descends into terrorism the Israeli response is always the same , disproportionate violence that can and does escalate into full blown state terrorism

There isn't a single example in the entire history of the state of Israel of the military actually ordering the soldiers to go and target civilians, that is clearly another lie.

It's clearly a lie on your behalf because I never mentioned anything about " orders "

See once again you resort to deceit in order to conduct a personal attack

Apocalypse · Nov 23, 2016

oneworld2 said:
In the case of Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians it is an attack against the entire population , so they are the targets.

There is no Israeli state terrorism, that is something you have made up.
And again, there needs to be an actual targeting of civilians for it to be terrorism, Israel targets terrorists, manipulating words into saying that the entire population are "targets" when they aren't being targeted is ridiculous and goes to show how desperate you're getting here so to attempt and justify your use of the word terrorism where it cannot be used.

If you refer to a right to self defence under the law , I agree they do. It's just that I extend the laws to the Palestinian people too

You don't seem to agree as you label Israel's attacks on terrorists targeting Israeli civilians as terrorism and oppose it. Palestinian have a right to self defense just like any individual, they do not however have the right to commit murders.

Ill stop you there because you are starting with your deceits again ( see B )

A. Your comment above only endorses what I said , that he bears some responsibility for the massacres

B. I stated that it was the Christian Phalangists that actually carried them out

So the personal attack that followed was only based on your misrepresentation of what I had written , a common occurrence in this thread that you appear to be able to carry out with impunity

A) That is the official Israeli position as well. B) You recognized it was carried by others yet claimed the blood is on his hands. Those who have blood on their hands are those who actually commit the murders or order them, someone who kills another human being without intending on it for example has no blood on his hands.

Why did they have to blow up all of the houses ?

Anything to do with Sharon telling his men to achieve " maximal killing and damage to property" ?

Why did they indiscriminately mortar a neighbouring village ?

etc etc

I don't buy the " we made a mistake " junk but I fully expect you to believe it

Yes maximal killing but where is it made in reference to civilians? There were soldiers there, there was a massive exchange of fire after all, the nearby villages had soldiers in them as well that were stopped from taking part in the battles.
I seriously don't expect you to "buy" anything, you clearly demonstrated time after time that with your bias you're willing to jump through hoops to portray Israel as the worst possible, it's not that you argue for the truth here you simply argue against Israel.

I don't have to take anything back. That you twist and misrepresent what I have said , with yet another example of this above , the claims you make are risible anyway. I refuse to spend much of my time defending myself from the constant personal attacks from the likes of yourself , you don't listen when people clarify their statements anyhow , so there's no point .

Where did you "clarify" that statement, exactly? You said on Palestinian acts of terrorism in reply to me talking about them that they're acts of "self-defense", that's well documented.

Shooting dead civilians taking part in civil disobedience is targeting civilians. Unless of course you think all Palestinians are terrorists.

No but I think Palestinian terrorists are indeed all terrorists and that's the difference. Those who take an attempt at murder are shot down, I see no problem with that.

It's clearly a lie on your behalf because I never mentioned anything about " orders "

You just said that there were many cases of the IDF deliberately targeting civilians, for this statement to be true there needs to be an actual order, an American soldier deliberately attacking civilians in Afghanistan after all does not make it true that the US military is deliberately targeting civilians there. Either take that back or support your stated position.

oneworld2 · Nov 23, 2016

Apocalypse said:
A) That is the official Israeli position as well. B) You recognized it was carried by others yet claimed the blood is on his hands. Those who have blood on their hands are those who actually commit the murders or order them, someone who kills another human being without intending on it for example has no blood on his hands.

So now that you were caught out lying about me not mentioning the Christian Phalangists you are forced to lie again with " you claimed he had blood on his hands " so..........

Ive just singled this part out because , it caught my eye , and because it just shows that your own view is the extremist view that obviously denies the facts. Two things you are constantly accusing me of and that's why you can't be taken seriously imo

The official Israeli position on Sharons actions with regards to the Sabra and Shatila massacres , as stated by the Kahan Commission , was that he did indeed bear responsibility for the massacres.

You were forced to concede this point precisely because of the above

That is also my position and that's what I stated. So my view is the exact same view as the Israeli commission set up to investigate the massacres.

But it's evidently not your view judging by the following

so i'll quote it again

Apocalypse said:
Those who have blood on their hands are those who actually commit the murders or order them, someone who kills another human being without intending on it for example has no blood on his hands.

I never claimed he had " blood on his hands " ,that's just your latest attempt to deceive the reader. I claimed he had a responsibility for the massacres and the Israeli commission came to the same conclusion

Your view obviously thinks that because he never actually carried out the massacres ( see above ) that he doesn't bear any responsibility

The Kahan Commission had all of the evidence. More evidence that was allowed into the public arena due to national security considerations and yet you decide to make a last ditch effort to exonerate Sharon in the above

Ergo it is you that is denying the facts and it is your view that is the extremists view

Consider yourself rumbled and understand why you won't be taken seriously by this poster

Apocalypse · Nov 23, 2016

oneworld2 said:
So now that you were caught out lying about me not mentioning the Christian Phalangists you are forced to lie again with " you claimed he had blood on his hands " so..........

A seperate comment for this one since it's a clear demonstration of yet another ridiculous strawman argument.
I said on your words the following:

Apocalypse said:
but it's quite strange you actually accuse him of being at fault "of slaughtering" the civilians instead of those actually committing the massacre

As to your claim I was lying over you saying "blood on his hands" the following was said by you:

oneworld2 said:
Sharon had the blood of the Qibya , Sabra and Shatila slaughters on his hands even if the latter were carried out by Phalangists

Your strawman argument is thus clear in both cases, it is very unfortuante that you constantly have to engage in lies, deception and strawman arguments.

oneworld2 · Nov 24, 2016

Apocalypse said:
A seperate comment for this one since it's a clear demonstration of yet another ridiculous strawman argument.
I said on your words the following:

As to your claim I was lying over you saying "blood on his hands" the following was said by you:

Your strawman argument is thus clear in both cases, it is very unfortuante that you constantly have to engage in lies, deception and strawman arguments.

Looks like I was mistaken and that I did make the claim

Which is okay too because I actually do agree with the claim that Sharon had the blood of the innocents at Shatila and Sabra on his hands. I also disagree with you that you have to physically take part in an event to have blood on your hands

IMO The Kahan Commission was the reaction to the anger of the extremely commendable minority of Israelis that have managed to keep their humanity in amongst the sea of racism that engulfs the state of Israel and many more on the Palestinian side.

That's the good news. The bad news is I consider it to be a bit of a whitewash. But no matter as there will be a thread about this massacre in the not too distant and you can sing his praises there whilst I provide evidence of his complicity

Apocalypse · Nov 24, 2016

oneworld2 said:
Looks like I was mistaken and that I did make the claim

An apology would be too much to ask? You did just accuse me of lying.

Which is okay too because I actually do agree with the claim that Sharon had the blood of the innocents at Shatila and Sabra on his hands. I also disagree with you that you have to physically take part in an event to have blood on your hands

I didn't say physically. You have to take an active part however, either ordering it or taking part in executing it.

IMO The Kahan Commission was the reaction to the anger of the extremely commendable minority of Israelis that have managed to keep their humanity in amongst the sea of racism that engulfs the state of Israel and many more on the Palestinian side.

Nonsense, Israel upholds its own moral values as a state, but I can see why you wouldn't want to admit it.

That's the good news. The bad news is I consider it to be a bit of a whitewash. But no matter as there will be a thread about this massacre in the not too distant and you can sing his praises there whilst I provide evidence of his complicity

Great.

oneworld2 · Nov 24, 2016

Apocalypse said:
An apology would be too much to ask? You did just accuse me of lying.

Nope , no apology I'm afraid Apocalypse. Me falsely accusing you of lying pails in comparison to what you falsely accuse me of on a daily basis

Kudos for the audacity though

I didn't say physically. You have to take an active part however, either ordering it or taking part in executing it.

Like lighting the place up with flares so the civilians can't hide ? Anyway , for another time perhaps

Apocalypse · Nov 24, 2016

oneworld2 said:
Nope , no apology I'm afraid Apocalypse. Me falsely accusing you of lying pails in comparison to what you falsely accuse me of on a daily basis

Yes only that I never actually do that, it's just that you claim so, I mean otherwise you would have been able to show it like I did above.
Anyway you missed an opportunity here, shame.

Why Settlers ? [W:60]

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!