I just finished a monster historical model for Israel concerning your discussion about Palestinians, and the whole freaking thing is GONE! 90 minutes of typing and editing gone forever. For crying out loud my 1989 Apple IIC+ NEVER did this to me!
I am so pissed.
Anyway, the short of it is this. Israel WANTS new settlements because that allows for territorial and economic expansion. The PA is GIVING Israel what it wants by advocating terrorism, firing rockets, and generally being belligerent. The PA is hoping for help, militarily, from neighbors if they can ferment enough internal dissent. Problem is, regardless of religion, what every common person wants is a safe, stable domestic environment where they can create a good life for themselves and a better opportunity for their children. Israel has proven it can provide that. Hamas by its nature cannot. Israel is patient. Hamas cannot afford to be. See where this is going?
The solution to the Palestinian problem is this: Do exactly what you are doing now. Be consistent in your military responses. Make settlements consequences for inevitable acts of aggression from Hamas. Hamas will fade because it cannot do what all terrorist organizations need to do: survive. It will be voted out of office by a population it is destined to fail, or it will be abolished militarily when it launches one too many rocket attacks.
Israel knows this. The blockade is another example of what Israel has that Hamas does not: Patience. Hamas cannot win.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Oy, vey iz mir!
Come on. You do see the difference don't you? This was a not so veiled attempt to say, "see, how do you like it when someone makes wild assumptions about your position and attacks you just because you asked a question?"
Y-a-w-n ...
The obvious difference is I actually asked an honest question and did not apply over the top, tasteless hyperbole. I didn't suggest the other 97% were rubbing the common Jew's (or Westerner's) face in the dirt when posing my question, did I? And I did not follow that up with ghastly, sarcastic references that Muslims might conduct a genocide that history associates with happening to their own people, did I? It was those comments of yours which I seized upon, feeling they were declaring an opinion, and I went about vehemently disagreeing with that opinion (one I found misinformed and ignorant). I did not, as you suggest, jump on you for merely asking an "honest question." I asked a single question - one I honestly don't have the answer to (which is why I didn't really respond to your post stating that you did) - and followed it with a paragraph noting my opinion that answering this question and naming our enemy out loud is preferable to merely declaring war against their tactic (terror). Please reread my post, cut and paste where I claimed to have the question's answer; employed insulting hyperbole against the 97%, or Palestinians; and declared that Islam is by definition violent. I would love to see it. And since you have four days off I assume you now have time to conduct the necessary cutting and pasting you found much too laborious to prove me "wrong" last time. That left click, right click - utterly exhausting, I know. It's like drinks that say "shake well before consuming", I mean who has time for that? By the way, if I used those feminine little parenthesis/semi colon smiley faces, this is where I'd insert it.
And just for background, I came to this question because Brad Thor (a Clancy style author, with a new book out) said it was his opinion that Osama Bin Laden was the "[B]est practicing Muslim in the world." I found that a rather shocking statement, at which I first scoffed. Then upon thinking about it I realized I hadn't the familiarity or expertise (I suppose Thor believes he does) to state whether the terrorists are perverting Islam or the non terrorists are. I know which scenario scares me more, so I thought I'd ask you guys which would concern each of you more. Again, if you can find tasteless hyperbole referencing kicking dirt on people or a Muslim Holocaust, feel free to cut and paste it, and prove me wrong.
And noting that "no one else" has a problem with what you wrote is a bit of a misnomer, don't you think? There are only 3 of us which run this site, and only 2 whom primarily post, the very 2 in disagreement over the tastelessness of your comments. And as I haven't spoken to Jambo about it, nor has he posted, I honestly don't know if he thinks it "okay", in an effort to sarcastically characterize my post, to suggest that the Jews perpetrate a Muslim "final solution" by "firing up the ovens and gas chambers." I assume he does not find that in good taste, but I'll let him answer for himself.
Y-a-w-n ...
The obvious difference is I actually asked an honest question and did not apply over the top, tasteless hyperbole. I didn't suggest the other 97% were rubbing the common Jew's (or Westerner's) face in the dirt when posing my question, did I? And I did not follow that up with ghastly, sarcastic references that Muslims might conduct a genocide that history associates with happening to their own people, did I? It was those comments of yours which I seized upon, feeling they were declaring an opinion, and I went about vehemently disagreeing with that opinion (one I found misinformed and ignorant). I did not, as you suggest, jump on you for merely asking an "honest question." I asked a single question - one I honestly don't have the answer to (which is why I didn't really respond to your post stating that you did) - and followed it with a paragraph noting my opinion that answering this question and naming our enemy out loud is preferable to merely declaring war against their tactic (terror). Please reread my post, cut and paste where I claimed to have the question's answer; employed insulting hyperbole against the 97%, or Palestinians; and declared that Islam is by definition violent. I would love to see it. And since you have four days off I assume you now have time to conduct the necessary cutting and pasting you found much too laborious to prove me "wrong" last time. That left click, right click - utterly exhausting, I know. It's like drinks that say "shake well before consuming", I mean who has time for that? By the way, if I used those feminine little parenthesis/semi colon smiley faces, this is where I'd insert it.
And just for background, I came to this question because Brad Thor (a Clancy style author, with a new book out) said it was his opinion that Osama Bin Laden was the "[B]est practicing Muslim in the world." I found that a rather shocking statement, at which I first scoffed. Then upon thinking about it I realized I hadn't the familiarity or expertise (I suppose Thor believes he does) to state whether the terrorists are perverting Islam or the non terrorists are. I know which scenario scares me more, so I thought I'd ask you guys which would concern each of you more. Again, if you can find tasteless hyperbole referencing kicking dirt on people or a Muslim Holocaust, feel free to cut and paste it, and prove me wrong.
And noting that "no one else" has a problem with what you wrote is a bit of a misnomer, don't you think? There are only 3 of us which run this site, and only 2 whom primarily post, the very 2 in disagreement over the tastelessness of your comments. And as I haven't spoken to Jambo about it, nor has he posted, I honestly don't know if he thinks it "okay", in an effort to sarcastically characterize my post, to suggest that the Jews perpetrate a Muslim "final solution" by "firing up the ovens and gas chambers." I assume he does not find that in good taste, but I'll let him answer for himself.
And now for something completely different...
I'm not even at the joint a full month, and I have (get this)...
Friday, Saturday, Sunday (the Fourth of July!), and Monday OFF.
This is going to be a good job.
Friday, Saturday, Sunday (the Fourth of July!), and Monday OFF.
This is going to be a good job.
Now THIS is what I don't get...
In one post you berate me for making an association that violates your definition of "good taste", and in the next you make the blanket generalization that Islam is the root of all our current threats, foreign or domestic, and that only an "awakening" from within the faith can fix what is wrong.
How is that okay? Not to pick a fight (God forbid)... just wondering, that's all.
Why don't you just come out and admit that you think Islam is the problem? The threat to our society stems not from radicals within that faith, but from the faith itself, right? Palestinians can't be allowed to feel marginalized or persecuted... because Israel is "good" and Islam is "evil" right? Israel can't make a mistake in their national policy making, because they are the "chosen people" and the common folk of Palestine have chosen the brazen image of the evil "Hamas" as their standard, and thus removed themselves from the possibility of grace by embracing "evil".
I have, in the past, posited the thought that Islam IS the root of the problem... and you had no issue with the post (or simply didn't read it). However, in one post I make the slightest suggestion that perhaps Israel has options that the media and the West in general aren't looking at rationally, and I'm labeled "ignorant". Please note that I am not exaggerating here... Jambo has had no issue with what I wrote, has he? Only Ryan feels I have "moved beyond the pale" in this regard.
How is that okay? Not to pick a fight (God forbid)... just wondering, that's all.
Why don't you just come out and admit that you think Islam is the problem? The threat to our society stems not from radicals within that faith, but from the faith itself, right? Palestinians can't be allowed to feel marginalized or persecuted... because Israel is "good" and Islam is "evil" right? Israel can't make a mistake in their national policy making, because they are the "chosen people" and the common folk of Palestine have chosen the brazen image of the evil "Hamas" as their standard, and thus removed themselves from the possibility of grace by embracing "evil".
I have, in the past, posited the thought that Islam IS the root of the problem... and you had no issue with the post (or simply didn't read it). However, in one post I make the slightest suggestion that perhaps Israel has options that the media and the West in general aren't looking at rationally, and I'm labeled "ignorant". Please note that I am not exaggerating here... Jambo has had no issue with what I wrote, has he? Only Ryan feels I have "moved beyond the pale" in this regard.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
1.3 billion Muslims
That's how many there are in the world.
So which idea scares you more? That the 3% or so engaging in terrorism are practicing a perversion of their religion, or that the peaceful other 97% are?
I think it nearly impossible to defeat an enemy militarily that we can not even identify verbally. This is why I was (along with the rest of the Bund) never a fan of describing our current conflict as a "war on terror." That's as if in 41' we declared a war on Blitzkrieg.
And although it's considered a "sensitive" subject I think Western-friendly Muslim "leaders" need to establish a Renaissance within their faith and engage in a battle for the hearts and minds of their young people - ensuring that violence is seen as a violation of their beliefs, rather then a tenant.
So which idea scares you more? That the 3% or so engaging in terrorism are practicing a perversion of their religion, or that the peaceful other 97% are?
I think it nearly impossible to defeat an enemy militarily that we can not even identify verbally. This is why I was (along with the rest of the Bund) never a fan of describing our current conflict as a "war on terror." That's as if in 41' we declared a war on Blitzkrieg.
And although it's considered a "sensitive" subject I think Western-friendly Muslim "leaders" need to establish a Renaissance within their faith and engage in a battle for the hearts and minds of their young people - ensuring that violence is seen as a violation of their beliefs, rather then a tenant.
This thread is like arguing with my ex wife . .
. she too found being oblivious to the obvious necessary to bolster her arguments.
{sigh} I guess we suffer from the same definition of "done."
"I will not retract my "final solution" comments because I still think that the burden is on YOU to show that your "opinion" on the Palestinian question in specific and Islam in general does not lead you towards the tendency to make broad, generalized statements that support the "destruction" of all that isn't 100% in support of current Israeli policy."
You could have selected any number of euphemisms from a multitude of options in order to assail, satirize or otherwise sarcastically characterize my position. YOU chose to use phrases singularly associated with the genocide of 6 million+ Jews by Nazi Germany - "fire up the ovens and gas chambers", and final solution. Under any circumstance I would find this inappropriate, but given you were attempting to mock and slap down my suggested course of action for the state of Israel, I find it reprehensible.
So, why do I care? Much like your feelings towards my descriptions of your original post, "idiotic" and the like, I think, nay KNOW, you are better than this ghastly style of mockery. I didn't care one wit that you described me as "elitist and condescending" as anything you've read in 10 years. I'm fair game, that was fair play. Employing Holocaust references in order to condemn or question my position on what Israel should do, is not. And I think you should take the opportunity to retract, or at least express regret, for writing such a thing. My positions are not "holy ground", but using Holocaust references to describe what I'm suggesting Jews do to another race just to knock me back, is ... to me anyway.
And just for the record I plainly demonstrated, or explained, my position in my last (not that it was that unclear to begin with). I stated:
"Furthermore, I wrote that Hamas must be destroyed. I also said the Palestinian voter knew exactly who and what Hamas was when they elected them. I contend both positions can be held without it following that I want a Palestinian genocide."
More than once I conveyed the idea that Hamas needs to be defeated ("destroyed") militarily. I also communicated that Israel need not weigh the PR value of their strategy or policy with a peoples (the Palestinian population) that would willingly select Hamas for their governing body. How you combined the two to assume that I meant to wipe out all of Palestine is a mystery to me. They are separate points in two clearly distinguishable parts of the conversation. And given you can not locate and will not produce where I combined the two, I feel no "burden to show" I am not in favor of something I have never advocated.
Last point ... you wrote:
"When I say I was asking a question, I was trying to start a discussion on the viability of these other options (if they are indeed viable). It is painfully obvious that you resent and take serious objection to the manner in which I phrased my post... I simply do not understand why yet. Yes, I used hyperbole and invectives in my post... but it was a devil's advocate position, and I didn't feel it was out of line."
Look, the Bund at large knows full well that you are our resident contrarian. Either for sport, or pleasure or perhaps it's simply embedded in your DNA, if one person says "up", you say "down." You relish the role of devil's advocate, I get it. However you seem a bit, I don't know, "rusty." What I mean to say is you clearly are having trouble distinguishing the line which separates simply acting as devil's advocate to initiate discussion, and picking a fight. When you attempt to portray the "other side" and you engage phrases like "rubbing the common man's face in the dirt" you do more to shut down discussion then encourage it - at least regarding the Israeli/Hamas-Palestine issue. It's an immediate turn off - were it any other person I would have simply said "moron", and moved on. In other words I'm not going to debate Oberhman, he's going to employ over the top insulting hyperbole, I'm going to respond in kind, and the whole thing will turn into a name calling match - sound similar?
Now were we discussing health care (or a similar issue) and you remarked to an advocate of Obama's plan, "so you want grandma dead, huh?" We would all laugh, and a rationale discussion can still follow. However, in the case of the Israel/Hamas question, it's different. At least it is to me. Here we are discussing a matter of good versus evil, dark versus light. And the good side happens to be a tribe kicked around by history like no other. In addition, the same ideology, fascism and perversion of God's "word' that represents evil in this case is the very evil our own nation is at war with on 2+ fronts and killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In this discussion, where school buses of children are blown up, families eviscerated for the crime of standing in line at a kosher deli, I have no patience for rhetoric which describes the victims as "rubbing" the aggressors "face in the dirt." I hope this makes sense and hopes to clarify my original, visceral post.
Now, seeing as you made clear the rhetoric of your original post (the face in the dirt comment) was mere hyperbole (a mistake, a poor choice in my view, but hyperbole nonetheless) it would seem my personal attacks were unwarranted, thus I apologize. However, there is still no excuse for the ovens, gas chambers, and final solution comments - that is a separate matter entirely which occurred in subsequent posts and this apology is NOT referencing my attack on such a poor decision. You were grossly mistaken in writing such a thing.
At any rate, I would kindly suggest in future attempts at playing a mere devil's advocate that you do reread your posts before publishing and decide if your words will accomplish that goal, or simply start a fight.
{sigh} I guess we suffer from the same definition of "done."
"I will not retract my "final solution" comments because I still think that the burden is on YOU to show that your "opinion" on the Palestinian question in specific and Islam in general does not lead you towards the tendency to make broad, generalized statements that support the "destruction" of all that isn't 100% in support of current Israeli policy."
You could have selected any number of euphemisms from a multitude of options in order to assail, satirize or otherwise sarcastically characterize my position. YOU chose to use phrases singularly associated with the genocide of 6 million+ Jews by Nazi Germany - "fire up the ovens and gas chambers", and final solution. Under any circumstance I would find this inappropriate, but given you were attempting to mock and slap down my suggested course of action for the state of Israel, I find it reprehensible.
So, why do I care? Much like your feelings towards my descriptions of your original post, "idiotic" and the like, I think, nay KNOW, you are better than this ghastly style of mockery. I didn't care one wit that you described me as "elitist and condescending" as anything you've read in 10 years. I'm fair game, that was fair play. Employing Holocaust references in order to condemn or question my position on what Israel should do, is not. And I think you should take the opportunity to retract, or at least express regret, for writing such a thing. My positions are not "holy ground", but using Holocaust references to describe what I'm suggesting Jews do to another race just to knock me back, is ... to me anyway.
And just for the record I plainly demonstrated, or explained, my position in my last (not that it was that unclear to begin with). I stated:
"Furthermore, I wrote that Hamas must be destroyed. I also said the Palestinian voter knew exactly who and what Hamas was when they elected them. I contend both positions can be held without it following that I want a Palestinian genocide."
More than once I conveyed the idea that Hamas needs to be defeated ("destroyed") militarily. I also communicated that Israel need not weigh the PR value of their strategy or policy with a peoples (the Palestinian population) that would willingly select Hamas for their governing body. How you combined the two to assume that I meant to wipe out all of Palestine is a mystery to me. They are separate points in two clearly distinguishable parts of the conversation. And given you can not locate and will not produce where I combined the two, I feel no "burden to show" I am not in favor of something I have never advocated.
Last point ... you wrote:
"When I say I was asking a question, I was trying to start a discussion on the viability of these other options (if they are indeed viable). It is painfully obvious that you resent and take serious objection to the manner in which I phrased my post... I simply do not understand why yet. Yes, I used hyperbole and invectives in my post... but it was a devil's advocate position, and I didn't feel it was out of line."
Look, the Bund at large knows full well that you are our resident contrarian. Either for sport, or pleasure or perhaps it's simply embedded in your DNA, if one person says "up", you say "down." You relish the role of devil's advocate, I get it. However you seem a bit, I don't know, "rusty." What I mean to say is you clearly are having trouble distinguishing the line which separates simply acting as devil's advocate to initiate discussion, and picking a fight. When you attempt to portray the "other side" and you engage phrases like "rubbing the common man's face in the dirt" you do more to shut down discussion then encourage it - at least regarding the Israeli/Hamas-Palestine issue. It's an immediate turn off - were it any other person I would have simply said "moron", and moved on. In other words I'm not going to debate Oberhman, he's going to employ over the top insulting hyperbole, I'm going to respond in kind, and the whole thing will turn into a name calling match - sound similar?
Now were we discussing health care (or a similar issue) and you remarked to an advocate of Obama's plan, "so you want grandma dead, huh?" We would all laugh, and a rationale discussion can still follow. However, in the case of the Israel/Hamas question, it's different. At least it is to me. Here we are discussing a matter of good versus evil, dark versus light. And the good side happens to be a tribe kicked around by history like no other. In addition, the same ideology, fascism and perversion of God's "word' that represents evil in this case is the very evil our own nation is at war with on 2+ fronts and killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In this discussion, where school buses of children are blown up, families eviscerated for the crime of standing in line at a kosher deli, I have no patience for rhetoric which describes the victims as "rubbing" the aggressors "face in the dirt." I hope this makes sense and hopes to clarify my original, visceral post.
Now, seeing as you made clear the rhetoric of your original post (the face in the dirt comment) was mere hyperbole (a mistake, a poor choice in my view, but hyperbole nonetheless) it would seem my personal attacks were unwarranted, thus I apologize. However, there is still no excuse for the ovens, gas chambers, and final solution comments - that is a separate matter entirely which occurred in subsequent posts and this apology is NOT referencing my attack on such a poor decision. You were grossly mistaken in writing such a thing.
At any rate, I would kindly suggest in future attempts at playing a mere devil's advocate that you do reread your posts before publishing and decide if your words will accomplish that goal, or simply start a fight.
Unfortunate indeed...
I really don't understand why you see this disparity between my questioning whether or not there was an alternative option for Israeli response to ANY aspect of the Palestinian/Hamas issue (not simply the terrorism aspect) and my "opinions" on the topic.
Plainly put, I am convinced there are other options (this is still only my "opinion")... but I never said I was convinced that the options being followed by Israel weren't the BEST ones. When I say I was asking a question, I was trying to start a discussion on the viability of these other options (if they are indeed viable). It is painfully obvious that you resent and take serious objection to the manner in which I phrased my post... I simply do not understand why yet. Yes, I used hyperbole and invectives in my post... but it was a devil's advocate position, and I didn't feel it was out of line.
We've been down the "nice police" road before, and frankly I don't care what you call me or how you define my "opinion" or my "questions". If, however, you choose to label my stated position as ignorant, idiotic, disgusting or stupid, I would expect something more than simple assumptions on your part about where my position stems. Please leave your automatic association that anything I might say against Israeli policy is my final position on the matter... that is a non sequitur of the first order. It is no different than making the blanket assumption that because I do not support Obama, I must be anti-American... and we all know that is NOT the case for any of us.
Let me give you an example: You seem to have made the assumption that I am against the "embargo"... but I most certainly am NOT. I can say this freely and without hesitation because there is no embargo to be against. As you have said, I am fully aware that nothing coming into Gaza is being withheld EXCEPT weapons and explosives that could be used in attacks against Israeli and Palestinian peoples, which would be contraband material anyway and doesn't count as an embargoed item. What IS being withheld (by the Israelis, the US, the EU and Russia) is MONEY, which the PA needs to get water, power and basic services to the Gaza populations. This is the choke-hold that the West (and Israel) is putting on Hamas as the elected leadership of the Gazan people. If rockets, bombings or kidnappings happen in spite of the withholding of funds and aid, Israel responds like they would at any other time... they respond with military action, quick and deadly. NONE OF THIS IS ANYTHING I WOULD NOT SUPPORT 100% OF THE TIME!!!!!!!
One avenue of discussion I had wanted to follow, had this thread not degenerated into name calling and temper tantrums, was the possibility that Israel was doing far too much reacting to Hamas attacks, and not enough proactive or preventative actions to stop Hamas from 1) being able to launch the rockets or kidnap the soldiers and 2) reduce Hamas' support amongst the Palestinian people by showing how antithetical Hamas policy is to a peaceful and production existence for the common man in Palestine. Am I wrong for wanting to follow THAT train of thought? Is it "morally" questionable to think that the IDF isn't doing ENOUGH?
Lastly, I will not retract my "final solution" comments because I still think that the burden is on YOU to show that your "opinion" on the Palestinian question in specific and Islam in general does not lead you towards the tendency to make broad, generalized statements that support the "destruction" of all that isn't 100% in support of current Israeli policy. How can that be any less "ignorant" or "one-sided" than a position that is automatically AGAINST everything and anything Israel does (like the things most liberals say all the time)?
Respond if and when you wish... I'm fine either way. We seem to be past the rhetorical fire-storm that was your first response, and at least we are "discussing" the topic more than we are labeling each other as an idiotic ignoramus.
Plainly put, I am convinced there are other options (this is still only my "opinion")... but I never said I was convinced that the options being followed by Israel weren't the BEST ones. When I say I was asking a question, I was trying to start a discussion on the viability of these other options (if they are indeed viable). It is painfully obvious that you resent and take serious objection to the manner in which I phrased my post... I simply do not understand why yet. Yes, I used hyperbole and invectives in my post... but it was a devil's advocate position, and I didn't feel it was out of line.
We've been down the "nice police" road before, and frankly I don't care what you call me or how you define my "opinion" or my "questions". If, however, you choose to label my stated position as ignorant, idiotic, disgusting or stupid, I would expect something more than simple assumptions on your part about where my position stems. Please leave your automatic association that anything I might say against Israeli policy is my final position on the matter... that is a non sequitur of the first order. It is no different than making the blanket assumption that because I do not support Obama, I must be anti-American... and we all know that is NOT the case for any of us.
Let me give you an example: You seem to have made the assumption that I am against the "embargo"... but I most certainly am NOT. I can say this freely and without hesitation because there is no embargo to be against. As you have said, I am fully aware that nothing coming into Gaza is being withheld EXCEPT weapons and explosives that could be used in attacks against Israeli and Palestinian peoples, which would be contraband material anyway and doesn't count as an embargoed item. What IS being withheld (by the Israelis, the US, the EU and Russia) is MONEY, which the PA needs to get water, power and basic services to the Gaza populations. This is the choke-hold that the West (and Israel) is putting on Hamas as the elected leadership of the Gazan people. If rockets, bombings or kidnappings happen in spite of the withholding of funds and aid, Israel responds like they would at any other time... they respond with military action, quick and deadly. NONE OF THIS IS ANYTHING I WOULD NOT SUPPORT 100% OF THE TIME!!!!!!!
One avenue of discussion I had wanted to follow, had this thread not degenerated into name calling and temper tantrums, was the possibility that Israel was doing far too much reacting to Hamas attacks, and not enough proactive or preventative actions to stop Hamas from 1) being able to launch the rockets or kidnap the soldiers and 2) reduce Hamas' support amongst the Palestinian people by showing how antithetical Hamas policy is to a peaceful and production existence for the common man in Palestine. Am I wrong for wanting to follow THAT train of thought? Is it "morally" questionable to think that the IDF isn't doing ENOUGH?
Lastly, I will not retract my "final solution" comments because I still think that the burden is on YOU to show that your "opinion" on the Palestinian question in specific and Islam in general does not lead you towards the tendency to make broad, generalized statements that support the "destruction" of all that isn't 100% in support of current Israeli policy. How can that be any less "ignorant" or "one-sided" than a position that is automatically AGAINST everything and anything Israel does (like the things most liberals say all the time)?
Respond if and when you wish... I'm fine either way. We seem to be past the rhetorical fire-storm that was your first response, and at least we are "discussing" the topic more than we are labeling each other as an idiotic ignoramus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
