Wednesday, August 24, 2005

She Plays for the Other Side- A Comment

I received an ever so pleasant comment on the She Plays for the Other side post I did. I debated on providing this troll with more food and decided to mention he/she/it because there are people who really believe what the troll wrote.

But there are many reasons why this comment is inaccurate. And just to be clear I don't believe the Jews/Israel are above criticism, but there are legitimate ways in which to criticize. One of the key requirements is that the criticism be balanced.

For example if you claim to be Pro-Peace and you condemn the separation wall then you also need to be very clear in your condemnation of terrorism. Without balance you lose legitimacy.

That doesn't mean that there need to be an equal number of claims for each side, but you cannot fix all of the blame on one group only.

22 comments:

PsychoToddler said...

Nobody engages in self-criticism more than Jews. For all I know, that cretinous troll on the other post was a Jew too.

Only a Jew will look at a bloodthirsty murderer holding a knife up to his throat and think, hmm...maybe I deserve to die.

Jack's Shack said...

It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Rachel Ann said...

Psychotoddler, you have a good point. The question is, why do we do that to ourselves?+

callieischatty said...

psycho toddler you make an excellent point.

The IDF has moved past that idea of Jew as Permanant Victem and thats what bothers some people like Jaks school friend.

ML said...

I'll take my business to this post, since I'm the troll being discussed.

As for Jack's Shak's last comment in the discussion below. All I've seen from you, my friend and I use that term with no irony, is posturing, bluster, muttered accusations--basically no substance at all. You claim my views are misguided, aim your nose in the air, and offer nothing to support your claims.

As you know, I think your views, at least on the subject at hand, are crap, but after I've made this charge I've offered you a map of my logic to consider and challenge. So challenge it. There is some kind of sound reasoning behind YOUR beliefs isn't there? Or is it as I suspect, that the beliefs come first and the logic to support them is improvised for the occasion, and you don't want to risk exposing the sloppy thinking, myths, and outright lies propping up your fantasies?

It's telling, in my opinion, how you run and dive for the issue of terrorism. So you have nothing else. Let me educate you a little: terrorism is non combatants being targeted for the purpose of undermining the morale of the enemy as a whole. It's an extremely rare war where appalling terrorism doesn't occur. (During the Civil War, for instance, Frank & Jesse James happily murdered and mutilated Union loyalists, not soldiers but farmers quietly at work, and they had no qualms about doing it in front of their victims' children.)

Taking the above as the definition of terrorism, Israel is enormously, enormously guilty of it.

But when you asked what my view is of terrorism, you didn't mean the practice in general, you meant terrorism as the sole property and invention of radical Muslims. You meant terrorism as the Pavlovian buzz word it is in today's media. My view of this terrorism is it's a deliberate distraction from the issues that ought to get discussed. It's a vital political tool for Israel and for the US since 9/11, but in reality it's a non issue. Zealots, or just war-hardened soldiers, have waged guerrilla-style war, targeted civilians, and left wholesale destruction in their wakes since the beginning of warfare. You didn't know this? To pretend that Muslim acts are beyond the pale of "normal" war atrocities is to lie.

What I think of terrorism is I strongly disapprove. I also disapprove of having a word redefined for me in order for propagandists to direct my thoughts. Haven't you read Orwell?

That aside, the fact remains that the Muslims are fighting TO BE LEFT ALONE in their homelands. Their culture (whatever we may think of it) and homes are being trod upon. They are having armed foreigners invade their cities and neighborhoods, threaten their families, etc. So, strictly in terms of objectives, they hold the moral high ground.

Of course, on some level you know this, which is why you must focus on the brutal measures they take to achieve their objectives--as long as you can steer the discussion to the specter of terrorism, you won't have to wrestle with the ACTUAL rights and wrongs of the thing.

Jack's Shack said...

Anonymous,

You are still misguided and you do a fine job of spinning but the reality is not as you suggest it to be.

I am not obligated nor required to educate you about this. The reasoning is that any time we start to engage you pull out the term "propaganda" and claim it to be a tool that is used to support actions that you find reprehensible.

But the if you had any intellectual honest and a shred of moral relativism you would not make specious suggestions that because others have used terror it is a viable tool and moral tool because that is what you are saying.

The reality is that there has been a continuous Jewish presence, that much of the land that is disupted was purchased and that there is a real question about what is truly Muslim land and what is not.

Many are currently fighting for the restablishment of the caliphate, which as you know would include parts of Spain among other bits.

I could go on but I think that feeding you with more attention is probably unhealthy because you either haven't the ability or are unwilling to provide a balanced discussion.

And by balance I mean that you start by claiming that all of Israel is illegitimate.

That automatically ends the conversation because what is the point of dialogue if you are so misguided.

So call my posts blather, accuse me of arrogance or whatever else makes you comfortable. Your own posts sound good to you, but come off very poorly to others.

And terrorism is what this is all about. There are many who have suffered for longer who never used violence to try and achieve their goals.

I feel badly for you. Too bad you are so fixed upon propaganda and hate.

The good news is that there are many of us who will still fight for you and provide with shelter even when you are blind and without reason.
Have a nice day.

ML said...

Wow, you have nothing but an unwillingness to admit to your bad thinking. It's frightening. Did I steal your thunder by mentioning creative name calling (anti-Semite, etc.) before you could engage in it and then giving an ironclad explanation of terrorism as a propaganda device? (By the way, I never said terrorism was a "viable" or "moral" tool. Why lie to me about my own words? I said it has been redefined and blown out of all proportion in order to bypass reason and control the public through their emotional responses to it.)

Of course you repeatedly beg for a "balanced" discussion; by this you mean a discussion in which the most absurd babbling is given equal consideration. In order to defend a wrong thing you require a patient listener that you can immerse in perversions of truth and distortions of reality. But seriously, what could be more balanced than this? I get a few paragraphs, you get a few paragraphs. Anyone who feels compelled gets a few paragraphs. Nobody can shout anyone down or intimidate or look better or talk better. It's pure communication.

The fact is, if you had any real argument to support your views, you would have introduced it. And if my views were really so far off base you would have told me exactly how. Instead, you ramble, throw in a few intelligent sounding phrases such as "moral relativism" and say absolutely nothing. I guess that's how a person defends the indefensible.

You'll fight for me and give me shelter? What kind of melodramatic crap is this? You and your juvenile hatreds, sick lies and corrupt wars have nothing to do with me. Let's face it, you're a moral child, you're concerned with your "side" as you put it, and this concern supersedes any ability you might have to think objectively or humanely. And I might add, this will to ignorance and belligerence is a disgrace to Jewish ideals.

Jack's Shack said...

Mr. Troll,

You are a funny lad. You say

In order to defend a wrong thing you require a patient listener that you can immerse in perversions of truth and distortions of reality.

I can say the same thing about you.

You also said (By the way, I never said terrorism was a "viable" or "moral" tool. Why lie to me about my own words? I said it has been redefined and blown out of all proportion in order to bypass reason and control the public through their emotional responses to it.)

See, you took roughly 30 words in which you didn't condemn it, just tried to pass it off as not being all that serious and that demonstrates questionable morality.

It is reasonable to have emotional responsese to terror. It is reasonable to be angry, scared and upset about people who think nothing of shooting pregnant woman in the head and stomach as well as her four daughters.

It is also reasonable to set aside your emotions to devise a reasonable response to such actions. But let's not play moral relativity games. You claim that the Israel is an illegitimate state which is really why this conversation is pointless, but let's move on for a moment.

Your claim that Israel is illegitimat is how you justify terror. I haven't used your words against you, I used you lack of words. If you had a stronger moral compass you would condemn it and you have not. That is shameful.

You can couch your views in sunshine and roses. You can clothe them in academic sounding bric-a-brac and it doesn't change the reality that you lack of condemnation of murder speaks volumes.

The fact is, if you had any real argument to support your views, you would have introduced it.

This is blather you throw out as a smokescreen. The root of the problem is that you have already decided that Israel's existence is wrong and in doing so you refuse to condemn terror.

It is stupid and foolish to engage in such a discussion. I don't need to justify Israel's existence. It is a legitimate state, just as the US or Canada or Britain. If you want to make the case that it is not than you are welcome to do so, but I am not going to given any credence to your propaganda because if you really had anything than you would have shared it.

You'll fight for me and give me shelter? What kind of melodramatic crap is this? That means that even though you act like a moron I would help you. that means that there are people in the world that will cut your throat just for being Jewish and that I am willing to help even if you views are different. And if you think that is melodramatic I can introduce you to people who never believed that Germany could have acted as it did or how about speaking with Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg's families.

You and your juvenile hatreds, sick lies and corrupt wars have nothing to do with me.

I know I am a bad man because I said that murder is wrong and pointed out that you refuse to.

Sounds to me like someone really hurt you. Maybe a good hug and some love would help put a smile back on that face.

Let's face it, you're a moral child, you're concerned with your "side" as you put it, and this concern supersedes any ability you might have to think objectively or humanely.

Of course I am interested in making sure that my people are taken care of and that we are not hurt. It is called compassion and caring and I suggest you invest in some.

You can try and marginalize my position, but you'll notice that I have stated that Palestinians are people and that it is fair to criticize Israel as long as you do so with some balance and objectivity.

You exhibit neither so it is easier for you to try and say nothing and blame me for the lack of dialogue.

And I might add, this will to ignorance and belligerence is a disgrace to Jewish ideals.

If you knew something about Jewish ideals you would have shared that already. You are a very angry fellow and I hope that you get the help you need because that anger will eat you up inside.

Have a good day. :)

ML said...

Mr. SHack,

Believe it or not, I'm enjoying this. Honestly, I'm not angry, I'm just right.

Okay, say we have to accept Israel's existence (acknowledging, however, that it ought not exist from the getgo)and move forward from there. How do you justify the long list of human rights abuses, violations of UN resolutions, things such as home demolitions, revenge killings, forced mass relocations, denial of medical care etc. ect. etc. etc? And all this misery drawn out over decades? Pretty much every group concerned with human rights has condemned Israel. Several Jewish organizations rabidly condemn Israel and consider it a curse on the Jewish people. Nelson Mandela has said it practices a worse apartheid than S.A. ever did.

These are facts, do they mean anything to you?

The bottom line is the Israelis believe the Palestinians are lesser beings and generally treat them as such. The contrast between the two groups is stark. Israel has simply astounding political clout, a state of the art, largely US-bought military, the ability to direct (western) public opinion through innumerable ties and ownership of the media. Israel can and does proceed exactly as it desires.

Palestinians have basically no military, no voice in the media, no power to resist an organized, powerful, wealthy, and hateful foreign invader at their doorstep every day of their lives. This is the situation as it stands before anyone says the word terrorism.

All you have in order to dismiss Irael's reprehensible behavior is this word. I reject the WORD as too loaded, overused, and misused to be conducive to reasonable thought on this subject. I've explained this to you but you desperately re-introduce it, over and over and over, because it is your only tool.

And even when I've carefully explained the misuse of the word to you, you try to twist my words and claim I "justify terrorism". Do you even know you're lying or is this just a reflex with you? Understand, I despise terrorism. Which is why I despise Israel treating an entire population as if they're debris. Because ISrael ruins lives and murders systematically, with expensive weapons and uniforms, is the end result any different? For the record, I also despise suicide bombers and any destruction of non-military targets. It's sick. I was also aghast reading about Civil War "bushwackers" who were arguably more violent and psychopathic than any modern Arabs.

But a few relatively powerless, desperate characters cannot create human misery on the scale that a powerful state with violent, utterly inhumane policies can. Religious zealots are asses, that's agreed. Governments and militaries run by religious or other zealots, however, are nightmares. Go back and crack your history books, friend.

And no, there is noone where I live, or anywhere I've ever gone who will slit my throat because I'm Jewish. On the contrary, Jews wield considerable social, financial, and political power all over the civilized world. The only place in the world where your statement may be true is in the Middle East where Jews have disgraced themselves. And you've also managed to introduce the Holocaust. Jesus, you're a cliche. You NEED to be a victim.

Which is key to the double standard you live by. You want to cry foul and moan endlessly if your Jewish foot is stepped on, but you want a free pass to cut off others' feet, and if someone objects you cry foul in the form of "anti-Semite" or "TERRORISTS! TERRORISTS!"

Come on, man. Grow a backbone.

Jack's Shack said...

Dude,

All I have done is provide you with a forum with which you can spew out tired canards such as this one:

the ability to direct (western) public opinion through innumerable ties and ownership of the media.

I know, Jews run the media and because of this we get away with everything blah, blah, blah. Good to know that Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch do exactly as we ask. Your comment is patently false and foolish.

You hate the facts and consistently try to twist them by accusing me of not responding.
How do you justify the long list of human rights abuses, violations of UN resolutions, things such as home demolitions, revenge killings, forced mass relocations, denial of medical care etc. ect. etc. etc?
The UN is a joke and has been for years. The oil cartel wields tremendous power and uses it to influence resolutions left right and center. The UN Human Rights commission memberships is composed of some of the worst violators of human rights. UN workers watched as Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah, taped the episode and refused to hand over the tapes. That is a United Nations for you.

Several Jewish organizations rabidly condemn Israel and consider it a curse on the Jewish people. How about specifics. How about some details. You offer none and lob accusations as if this was some kind of star chamber. But let's go from this point. I am proud that there are Jewish groups who are committed to making the world a better place, who issue criticism of the gov't and can do without fear of being arrested and tried for sedition. It is the sign of democracy.

As for home demolitions and the like there are some legitimate concerns regarding those, but at the same time many have been legitimate. Some have camoflauged tunnels that were used to smuggle in weapons and other contraband. There is no clear line that can be drawn on this, in spite of your desire to do so.

Palestinians have basically no military, no voice in the media, no power to resist an organized, powerful, wealthy, and hateful foreign invader at their doorstep every day of their lives. This is the situation as it stands before anyone says the word terrorism.

Blah, blah, blah. This sounds good and it makes you feel better because you can justify and rationalize horrible actions, but it doesn't mean that it is true nor accurate. If Israel could act with impunity and did not care as you suggest there would be no question of withdrawal,no talk of anything because there wouldn't need to be.

Pretty much every group concerned with human rights has condemned Israel. Blanket statements are great, but they lack substance as does your comment. They have issued reports in which Israel has been taken to task for various practices, but they have also lauded an Israeli judicial system which provides an opportunity for grievances to be filed and tried within a court of law.
And even when I've carefully explained the misuse of the word to you, you try to twist my words and claim I "justify terrorism". Do you even know you're lying or is this just a reflex with you? Understand, I despise terrorism. Which is why I despise Israel treating an entire population as if they're debris. Because ISrael ruins lives and murders systematically, with expensive weapons and uniforms, is the end result any different?

Moral relativity is a problem for you. You do not understand nuance and you apply unreasonable and unbalaced expectations. There is a reason that the IDF frequently conducts house to house searches. It is a safer and more humane way of dealing with people. They could use the same tactics that the Russians use in Chechnya and they do not.

When the Palestinians attacked King Hussein he simply lined them up and shot them. Hafez Al-Assad wiped out entire villages for engaging in dissent.

Israel does not employ any of these methods, but of course in a bout of intellectual dishonesty you refuse to acknowledge that. I have to berate you repeatedly before you even said that terrorism was wrong and even then you serve as an apologist.

I was also aghast reading about Civil War "bushwackers" who were arguably more violent and psychopathic than any modern Arabs.
It is sickening that you are still trying to justify the actions of terrorists and still very telling the way you try to marginalize it.

Or how about this ditty:

I reject the WORD as too loaded, overused, and misused to be conducive to reasonable thought on this subject. Sometimes you cannot sugarcoat words. You have to accept and acknowledge that some things are wrong. If the terrorists only attacked military installations it would be one thing, but they do not. They murder indiscriminately, women, children, the elderly and these actions include Jew and Arab, Palestinian and Israeli. Until you can acknowledge this you will continue to be branded as a terrorist apologist.

How about playing with some other facts just for kicks. Jordan was carved of land. It was simply created a relatively short time before Israel. But you don't say anything about that. You don't comment on the fact that from 1948-67 Gaza was occupied by Egypt and Jordan occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. There is no condemnation from you of those governments for not offering land to the Palestinians.

Or how about the fact that following WWII there were millions of refugees, a population sizeably larger than the Palestinians and yet within a few years of the war that refugee problem was gone. How about acknowledging the role of 22 Arab nations in refusing to help the Palestinians.

How about dealing with Arab incitement in which they refer to Jews as a cancer upon the world and invoke cries of the blood libel. How about dealing with the poisoning of minds so that they can try to justify their own two bit dictatorships and keep their people angry at someone other then the dictators that run those countries.

See you never mention any of those things. You don't really compare Israel to any other country. You don't offer any balance to this discussion. There is no apple to apples comparison, no way for you to make a reasoned and logical assessment of this and that is part of why you are considered to be a troll. And I am guilty of feeding the troll.

And no, there is noone where I live, or anywhere I've ever gone who will slit my throat because I'm Jewish. I know, if it doesn't impact you than it doesn't count. If it is not in your face than you do not care. How sad.

I introduced the Holocaust because it was relevant to the topic. You dismiss it because you are afraid to really dig in. You are afraid that your straw man argument will blow away in the wind. You say that the only place in the world where you might have to be afraid because you are Jewish is the Middle East. Do you understand how twisted that is. That you apologize for acts of violence against yourself and others because of a shared religion. If you went to Kuwait/Syria/Lebanon wherever and were murdered you would excuse it and apologize for it because you say that in the Middle East where Jews have disgraced themselves.

Digusting and morally bankrupt.

The bottom line is that unlike you I can view the world without rose colored glasses. I can look at Israel and offer criticism. I can view the gov't and acknowledge that there are actions that I take issue with as I can do with any gov't because they are run by people and people are fallible.

I am not so filled with self-loathing that I cannot use logic and reason. I am not so blinded by lack of moral character that I have to resort with simple rhetoric. On the other hand I am not so sure about you.

My recommendation is to really start reading and educating yourself. I don't expect that you are going to wake up and become a rabid Zionist or that you'll even be any sort of supporter of Israel, but with a little education and intellectual honesty you might have a leg to stand on.

ML said...

Dude! I like the response! So your basic premise is, If I wholly disapprove of Israel, I have a problem. If I cite evidence that you've heard before and armored yourself against, that evidence is "canards"...

Uh, the media: the world's four largest conglomerates CEOd by Zionists. That's a fact. What's more, you ever hear anything negative or even "balanced" about Israel on the nightly news? You ever hear a discussion or mention of Zionism and what it means to us Americans? You ever hear a discussion of the pro-Israel lobby dictating U.S. policy? Or about the unreal amounts of money the U.S. sends over there? I never have. The proof is in the punch. Yes, Jews control the media. It's not really a secret, it's just commonly dismissed as a ludicrous idea; which it is, but it's true. Do some research.

What Jewish groups despise Israel? Do a search on "Jews against Zionism" or any similar term. There are many. What do you think, I made this up?

And I didn't say your version of anti-Semitism doesn't impact me, I said it doesn't exist. It's a melodramatic fantasy of yours. Jews have more advantages, by far, than any other group in today's world. Accept it, nobody's out to get you and if you're disliked, it's probably you personally.

And terrorism: in my first comment on it I said, "I strongly disapprove." Duh. What I've maintained, and what is evidently beyond you,is that I reject your simplistic, narrow, and dishonest definition of it. WHat about this?

"But a few relatively powerless, desperate characters cannot create human misery on the scale that a powerful state with violent, utterly inhumane policies can. Religious zealots are asses, that's agreed. Governments and militaries run by religious or other zealots, however, are nightmares."

No response to that, which was an attempt to illustrate the difference between Palestinian terrorist and Zionist terrorists.

I've got a date but I'll get into your numerous nitpicking details about Israel which you use to smother principle, next time.

callieischatty said...

Anon,

The Media is CEO'ed by Zionists! Hey, I am a Zionist how come they didn't print my uncles obitituary in the New York Times!?

My whole family was super bummeed out about it.

When you see the Zionists who run the media tell them my Uncle Moisher is very upset.

And by the way, I hope for the sake of whatever creature you have convinced to go someplace with you that you are not as slimy and revolting in person as you are on this blog.

One more thing, since you say Arabs only want to be left alone in thier homes, whose house were those girls who got blown up in Netaya shopping in?

Never mind, no one wants to hear your stupid answer anyhow.

Stacey said...

Anonymous: You spew nothing but propaganda. This is evident in your ramblings because you didn't address even one of the many historical facts about the region that Jack brought up.

You completely skirted the valid and pertinent points Jack made about the UN, the nature of the creation of Jordan, and the treatment of the Palestinians by the rest of the Middle East.

History is obviously not your strong suit.

Jack's Shack said...

Dude! I like the response! So your basic premise is, If I wholly disapprove of Israel, I have a problem.
No, as I have said many times you can criticize Israel. I do and so many others because it is a democracy and part of a democratic society is being open to dissent. The problem you have is that you lack balance. You only point your finger in one direction. That and your tone makes it seem like you have an irrational problem with Israel.

If I cite evidence that you've heard before and armored yourself against, that evidence is "canards"... When you use lies and propaganda to support your position what else I am to call it. A spade is a spade.

Uh, the media: the world's four largest conglomerates CEOd by Zionists. That's a fact.
If it is a fact than why don't you support it with evidence. Provide their names and prove that they are Zionists and then prove that they demonstrate bias. You will not and cannot do so. Shout a little louder about this and the facts will still prove that you are not familiar with them.

What's more, you ever hear anything negative or even "balanced" about Israel on the nightly news?
Sure, that is why there are organizations like Honest Reporting and Camera. I don't agree with all of their positions, but they do a good job of presenting inconsistencies. Again there are no specifics here, you just prattle on and that works with people who are uneducated about the topic.But because I called for specifics I'll refer you to this link where you will find an example of problems with the media.

You ever hear a discussion or mention of Zionism and what it means to us Americans? Many times. I have heard both sides and I would wager that I could do a better job of arguing your position than you do because I am in touch with facts and can cite chapter and verse. For example I could bring up the Arab riots of 1929 and 1936 where they murdered Jews. That was well before the 1948 declaration of the modern state of Israel. But you'll look at this and give me more of the crap about being a victim.

Or maybe we can discuss why the Mufti of Jerusalem was allied with the nazis.

You ever hear a discussion of the pro-Israel lobby dictating U.S. policy? I have read the ridiculous comments made by people like yourself in which the false allegation is made. Are you familiar with James Baker? I have a friend who was there when he said "fuck the Jews." That was in reference to comments made by Dubya senior to Shamir about freezing settlements.

The reality is that if there was any truth to this the policy coming out of the US would be far different and would have been for years.
Or about the unreal amounts of money the U.S. sends over there? I never have. What about the $2 billion we sent to Egypt or the vast amounts of aid sent to any numeber of other countries. See if you want to make an accusation you have to support it with facts. Where are yours?

The proof is in the punch. Yes, Jews control the media. It's not really a secret, it's just commonly dismissed as a ludicrous idea; which it is, but it's true. Do some research.

I don't have to do any research. If there was truth to this and it was that obvious you would have supplied it. You claim to be half-Jewish. Which half is it, the top or bottom.


What Jewish groups despise Israel? Do a search on "Jews against Zionism" or any similar term. There are many. What do you think, I made this up?
You exaggerated. You used a pejorative term to try and make a point. But the significance of the point is meaningless because you apply none. There are groups like the Neuterei Karta that have a problem with Israel for religious reasons. They are a very small group. There are other groups that disagree with policy and have created organizations. I have encountered antisemites who gleefully quote things like this to me, the problem is that if you look at the numbers they are so small as to be meaningless.

And I didn't say your version of anti-Semitism doesn't impact me, I said it doesn't exist. It's a melodramatic fantasy of yours.

Oh really. Why was Daniel Pearl murdered? Was it because they hate the Wall Street Journal. Were they upset because they hated his musical talent. Your problem with this is serious. You are in one of two groups. Those who say that the Earth is flat because they have never tried to sail around the world or those in denial.

Look antisemitism is not what it once was, but it still exists and it is still an issue. It is not my fault that you choose to bury your head in the sand.

Jews have more advantages, by far, than any other group in today's world. Accept it, nobody's out to get you and if you're disliked, it's probably you personally. Again, no facts. There is no substance. You remind me of a pouting child who stamps his foot and insists that his version of the truth is accurate because he said so.
Facts are important and you have none.

And terrorism: in my first comment on it I said, "I strongly disapprove." Duh. What I've maintained, and what is evidently beyond you,is that I reject your simplistic, narrow, and dishonest definition of it.
You may think that you said something like that but your words betray you. You tried to marginalize things by suggesting that Jesse James and company committed acts that were much worse. And by trying to marginalize it you neutralize your position. It is still morally bankrupt.


WHat about this?

"But a few relatively powerless, desperate characters cannot create human misery on the scale that a powerful state with violent, utterly inhumane policies can. Religious zealots are asses, that's agreed. Governments and militaries run by religious or other zealots, however, are nightmares."

No response to that, which was an attempt to illustrate the difference between Palestinian terrorist and Zionist terrorists.


See you went broad there. You took a paintbrush and flung it at the wall to see what sticks and there is not much that you can find. If I was you I would have spoken at the problem of collective punishment and debated whether that caused more problems. See that is called a fact, I just threw you a bone. But at the same time I can turn around and offer more.

What do you think would have happened if the Palestinians followed Gandian principles or Dr. Martin Luther King. What would have happened if they engaged in nonviolent protest. Do you have an answer.

Or how about addressing my earlier point about Jordan and Egypt relative to the land they occupied. You do know that the PLO didn't develop until around 1961 or so. I am drawing a blank on that. Prior to its entrance you had terrorism that was state sponsored and committed by Arabs of varying nations.

Or maybe you want to address my comments about Jordan, you know the place that was called Transjordan and was created by the British out of the Palestine Mandate. Why is there no outcry about that.

I've got a date but I'll get into your numerous nitpicking details about Israel which you use to smother principle, next time.

I operate on a simple principle which is based upon facts that I can support, not spurious allegations. Remember the ultimate defense against libel is truth. I strongly urge you to educate yourself and present factual support for the silly claims you make. I wonder if you are in college now because I swear that I heard these same remarks during my university days.

The bottom line for me is this. You do not provide facts. You do not present a balanced argument. You have a problem with moral relativism in that you qualify terrorist actions. I speak of the horror of shooting a pregnant woman and her children and you respond with comments in which you say What I've maintained, and what is evidently beyond you,is that I reject your simplistic, narrow, and dishonest definition of it.

Call me slow, but what else do you call murdering a pregnant woman and her children. Maybe an execution, but if that is not terror than nothing is.

I am growing tired of this nonsense. If you haven't any fact and insist on utilizing antisemitic tripe it is probably time to end this discussion because you haven't anything to offer.

Ezzie said...

Excellent post: Many have the misconceptions that you addressed, thinking either that they must balance everything by number or 'because my side is right, their wrongs do not count'. (Poor English, I'm well aware)
I also am very impressed with the way you respond: Essentially itemizing each portion and giving a well-thought out, logical response to each statement. This leaves no room for misconceptions or people taking statements out of context and trying to exploit them in a way you did not mean. Only those who choose to blind themselves or purposely miss the point are unable to respond properly to such an answer. This allows others to clearly see the strengths (and weaknesses) of your arguments vs. the person you are debating with. I've rarely seen others do this - kudos to you.

Jack's Shack said...

Hi Ezzie,

Thanks. I debated whether to engage here and opted for a brief discussion for the purpose of just poking a couple of holes in his remarks.

I don't expect him to change his mind, but there may be lurkers and you never know.

ML said...

Don’t worry, my Jews, I have answers.

What you guys see as an analytical, intelligent retort, I see as tedious, directionless nitpicking. I mean, I give you a summary of information I’ve absorbed, assuming that it’s a given that I’m not inventing it, that it’s my interpretation of facts, and that being the case that it’s simply a waste of time to enumerate names, places, specific reports, etc. Especially when you will dismiss them immediately as propaganda. Honestly, would you consider a long list of facts and change your mind? Of course not, you would browse over them only long enough to put together what you felt was a retort. So I assume we both have more or less the same evidence at our disposal and give you my conclusions. My mistake.

What you want, and your means for defending a corrupt state, is to mire a person in a drawn out discussion of petty details which have little bearing on the big picture. Often you introduce a single incident, such as the murder of a pregnant Jewish woman, and falsely ascribe a world of meaning to it. This is a deliberate attempt to undermine reason by eliciting an emotional response and to keep at bay the real issue of larger rights and wrongs. Likewise, you cry out that I’m not producing facts, not because you desire facts to consider, but because you want material with which you can muddy the waters.

But what the hell, I‘m comfortable with my thinking. Here’s my logic, first on the media thing:

Just imagine, if Zionist Jews really did have a stranglehold on our information outlets, could one say it without getting ridiculed and called an anti-Semite? Of course not. (BTW, thanks for finally calling me an anti-Semite, the suspense was hard on my nerves.)
But the evidence suggests it nonetheless. Uh, the CEOs of the four largest conglomerates, (at least as of 2002 when the information I have here was dated) are Gerald Levin, Michael Eisner, Summer Redstone, Edgar Bronfman sr. and jr., respectively of Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, and Vivendi Universal. (This is from a site called ZionismExplained.org, list it with your favorites.) I could also dig up a long, long list of names of Jews in lesser positions, throughout all of our major media, but I hope you‘ll just trust me on it, or watch the credits at the end of TV shows and movies. To anyone without their head inserted somewhere constrictive, I think it’s self-evident.

Also, I think it’s safe to assume the overwhelming majority of these people are Zionists, that is, pro Israel, using your own assertion that the Jews who oppose Israel are such a small number as to be irrelevant, not to mention, as I’ve said, the proof is in the punch, we just don’t get the straight dope on Israel so, circularly, this proves it.

So, just at a glance, with Jews comprising some small percentage of the population of the US, (I know you want a census report but lets just agree it’s a small percentage) it is surprising that they wield this massive influence over public opinion, isn’t it? Maybe they earned it, maybe as some suggest, it’s part of a deliberate plan, but the fact remains, if you ran the odds on it just happening, it would be unlikely. Can you possibly say this isn’t so?

Most of the assertions along these lines, at least that I’ve read, come from conscientious Jews:

Alfred Lilienthal:

"Zionism did not waste time or energy on proving its extreme
program to be morally and historically sound. All it had to do
was to equate it with man's compassion for the victims of
history's most cruel pogrom ... The capture of the American
press by Jewish nationalism was, in fact, incredibly complete.
Magazines as well as newspapers, news stories, as well as
editorial columns, gave primarily the Zionist view of events,
before, during, and after Partition [of Palestine, creating a
Jewish state]."

Rabbi Jonathin and Judith Pearl

"In a bit of serendipitous timing, the rebirth of the state of Israel and the
establishment of a nationwide network television in America took place
in the same year, 1948. Since then, these two phenomena have been
inextricably linked, as scores of television dramas, comedies, and
mini-series have turned to Israel and its stunning and turbulent history
for subject matter. Many of these images have continued to be in the
tradition of popular television, which has generally portrayed Jewish
themes in a positive light ... [PEARL/PEARL p. 173] ... A sense of
admiration for the Jewish state informs nearly all portrayals of
Israel on American popular television over the past fifty years ...
Confidence in Israel's ability to survive and thrive, and praise for
its doing so, permeates television's portrayal of Israel in a way
that has seen little, if any, wavering or hesitation from the earliest
years of network television until the present time. Almost invariably,
these depictions include the expressing of much admiration by
non-Jews for Israel's heroism, achievements, and pioneer spirit."

Those are a couple of examples I pasted pretty much at random from a site called JewishTribalReview.org. that contains the text of a book called When Victims Rule: A Critique of Jewish Pre-Eminence in America.

Of course, I could go on indefinitely either pasting , paraphrasing, or summarizing what I think is compelling evidence, but why bother? You could just as easily find it with a few clicks and educate yourself if you cared to. What I assumed you would understand was that the incredibly disproportionate Jewish (Zionist) presence in the US Media can be interpreted as the ability to control the public mind. This, in combination with the evidence that I’m faced with every day--the bland, misleading garbage we get from our news outlets, (on most subjects, not just Israel) leads me to the conclusion that the public mind IS being controlled. So I think all information or lack of information or even just attitudes that the general public gets regarding Israel, are suspect.

Seriously, how complicated is this? I’m sure you already had at least a passing familiarity with the information and lines of thought I just bothered to bore you with, but you played dumb, and why? Because you wanted material you could nitpick and pervert to suit your purposes.

I believe I’m thinking to the bottom of a thing and arriving at a conclusion based on where the evidence takes me. I believe you on the other hand begin with what you want to believe, and fight tooth and nail to make it so, regardless of evidence. Your premise has no integrity and you sustain it only with dishonest debating tactics (pretending not to be aware of facts which are more or less general knowledge, especially for a Jewish person on this subject).

What else do I need to draw you a map of? Oh yeah, Jews have more advantages than other groups. What’s the confusion on this one? The logic is, Jews are a wealthy bunch, can you deny this? Do you really need figures? A Jewish kid gets to go to college 99 times out of a hundred, or if he chooses he usually has family members in various businesses that can give him a leg up and a start in life. And importantly, he usually has had the benefit of worshipful, indulgent parents. These are all cultural things and they are all good things. I’m not begrudging anyone these advantages, but you, being a Jew, have to be a moron if you’re not aware of them. The context I brought them up in was hey, you’ve got it better than most, count yourself lucky and quit fucking WHINING. Seriously, you really had trouble getting the gist of what I was saying?

And Daniel Pearl a victim of anti-Semitism? What a joke, you bring up a guy that got taken hostage in order to be used as a bargaining chip by extremists, and lost out. If he had been a Swedish-American, the same thing would have happened. Unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that he was a dirty-dealing Israeli spy….

And what if Palestinians behaved like Gandhi you ask? What an idiotic, useless line of speculation. What if Zionists were not racist and arrogant, and moved into other people’s land based on BULLSHIT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? But to play your cheap game, yes, they would be more noble and likeable, but what would that get them, meaningless applause as they were run over by bulldozers?

Very pertinent to this, here’s a bit from the Zionism Explained site:

“On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon made a provocative visit to eh Haram Al-Sharif with 1,000 police guards. The next day Palestinians peacefully, demonstrating to be allowed to pray at the Muslim holy site were attacked by the Israeli army which killed 12 demonstrators in two days. (See picture)

Sharon's provocation started the 2nd Intifada. Using this as an excuse, Israel accelerated the destruction of Palestinian life at every level; after seven years of a peace process that had borne very little fruit, the Palestinians resumed resistance against the ongoing Israeli occupation.”

So maybe that’s an answer to your question. Anyway, I’ve always thought Dr. MLK was grossly overrated. Malcolm X was a far keener thinker and more result-oriented. But whatever tactic you endorse, lets remember both are responses to monstrous oppression, which is the real issue.

Now, your very specific, small evidence re Israel. You cite Arab riots wherein Jews were killed before Israel was an official state. Why is this relevant, it just illustrates they were clearly not wanted and Palestine was clearly an impractical choice for a homeland. Whose case are you making? And what else, some absurd particulars of disputes over this or that portion of land? Who cares? How does this effect the overall principle of whether the intentions of the Jews in Israel were or were not ethical?

What about these quotes from Israel‘s first prime minister from the era, roughly, of your riots? (yes, pasted from our Zionism Explained site…):

"No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can fill this guilt ... I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews. ..We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs." Later, during the Arab revolt of 1937 against this takeover, Ben-Gurion continued: "This is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews ... But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves."

I think an admission by Israel's then-leader of intent to be the aggressor, to be anything but peaceful, to instigate what he knows will be a long, bloody conflict in order to take over already-spoken-for land, is more telling than a list of random facts chosen because you think they support your case.

And honestly, you cite James Baker saying “fuck the Jews” as evidence of anything except that James Baker said “fuck the Jews”? So what? It ultimately has nothing to do with whether or not Zionists can exert influence over U.S. policy. Once again, your view of the big picture is blocked by a mole hill. Go (once again) to the Zionism Explained site and read the article called The Cost of Israel to the American People. Here is a compilation and interpretation of figures that you won’t agree with, but which uses facts to make the case that Israel controls Washington, and which I believe represents a sincere and honest effort by the author (in other words, not just anti-Semitic propaganda.)

I don’t know, I think your insistence on me producing facts is similar to when someone slowly repeats a question they don’t have an answer to in order to buy time as they concoct an answer. Without me giving you words you can (attempt to) turn against me, you still have nothing. Israel remains in the final telling a stupid idea, a state created--as I’ve said, forced into existence--out of arbitrary religious delusions. Because it is such a stupid idea it requires no end of crooked political dealing and brutality to keep it afloat. Either that, or there are just a bunch of self-hating Jews and (otherwise peaceful) anti-Semites running around looking for reasons to turn on the Jewish people. The world is out to get you.

Stupid answers to stupid questions or comments:

Yes, that's very funny, I do believe it is my bottom half that's Jewish. Just my legs. Because, in my mind (on the top half)I know it's wrong, but I still get the urge to kick bleeding Palestinians. Preferably children.

Yes, the girl I went out with was a gruesome specimen, hardly human in fact. Not really up my standards. So I dropped her off and came back later with my bulldozer and knocked her house down.

No, this is not valid thinking but the momentary passion of a dumb college student. My friends all tell me it's cool to be an anti-Semite so I'm working really super hard at it. Of course, all that will be out the window when I grow up and can hopefully be like you guys.

Jack's Shack said...

What you guys see as an analytical, intelligent retort, I see as tedious, directionless nitpicking.
I understand that you find reviewing factual evidence to be tedious. And I recognize why it must be frustrating to fight a battle you cannot win, because without facts you have nothing which leads into your next comment.

I mean, I give you a summary of information I’ve absorbed, assuming that it’s a given that I’m not inventing it, that it’s my interpretation of facts, and that being the case that it’s simply a waste of time to enumerate names, places, specific reports, etc. Especially when you will dismiss them immediately as propaganda.

That would be poor scholarship on my part and a waste of time for everyone. There are few things that I just accept in life and I do not expect any mature adult with a modicum of ability to engage in critical thought and logical analysis of fact to do so either. There are scientists who claimed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it who made the same suggestion that people should just accept their claims.

The fact that you tried to skirt around it is just one more indication that you do not have as strong a grasp upon the facts as you would like. This is why I keep hammering you on it. This is why I am going to remind you again that you never responded to my comments about Egypt and Jordan and their involvement.

Each response of yours begins to stink of more desperation and the remarks become more outlandish. You are running out of steam, but I'll address another couple of points of yours just for fun.

Uh, the CEOs of the four largest conglomerates, (at least as of 2002 when the information I have here was dated) are Gerald Levin, Michael Eisner, Summer Redstone, Edgar Bronfman sr. and jr., respectively of Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, and Vivendi Universal.

Do you want to know why this point is insignificant and meaningless? Because you claim that just because they are Jewish they must be Zionist. Yet many times you have mentioned Jews who are against Zionism as support for your specious claims, not to mention your own proclamation of being Jewish. So what we have here is you saying in one breath that there are many Jews who are antiZionist and in the next a claim that just being Jewish means that you are a Zionist. Clearly these claims are contradictory and they both cannot be true. So we have to acknowledge that this is a false claim, a red herring designed to elicit a response based upon emotion and not fact or logic.

But let me address something else that makes me wonder about you. Do you engage in any fact checking. Are you aware that Gerald Levin left Time Warner three years ago. Check out this link. So not only do you engage in poor logic but your fact checking is nonexistent. So returning to your initial comment there is no reason to accept any of your facts as being accurate and or truthful.

I believe you on the other hand begin with what you want to believe, and fight tooth and nail to make it so, regardless of evidence. Your premise has no integrity and you sustain it only with dishonest debating tactics (pretending not to be aware of facts which are more or less general knowledge, especially for a Jewish person on this subject).

You know I saw this exact sentence on another website, or something very close to it. Are you engaging in plagiarism? You know it is possible that my memory may fail me on this, but I already poked a half dozen holes in your argument so who knows.

And Daniel Pearl a victim of anti-Semitism? What a joke, you bring up a guy that got taken hostage in order to be used as a bargaining chip by extremists, and lost out.

What demands were made for him? And why did they force him to announce that he was Jewish on the snuff film that they made. You are missing the boat and drowning in misinformation.

Now, your very specific, small evidence re Israel. You cite Arab riots wherein Jews were killed before Israel was an official state. Why is this relevant, it just illustrates they were clearly not wanted and Palestine was clearly an impractical choice for a homeland. Whose case are you making? And what else, some absurd particulars of disputes over this or that portion of land? Who cares? How does this effect the overall principle of whether the intentions of the Jews in Israel were or were not ethical?

Earlier you tried to make the case that many of the problems in the US were due to the US foreign policy and support of Israel. This demonstrates that you are again wrong. These murders took place many years before the state was born.

And you ask how this affects the intentions of the Jews in Israel. Well let me turn that around on you and ask how you would feel if an unprovoked riot took place and your neighbors set fire to your home and murdered people indiscriminately. It just might impact how you responded to things and maybe it might make you more aggressive or maybe not.

Your Ben-Gurion quote is taken out of context so that you can try and fit it into a neat little box, a tactic you accuse me of using. But let's focus on that for a moment and then return to how you never addressed my questions about Jordan being carved out of the Palestine mandate. It was just created out of thin air. What is the difference between Jordan and Israel or can you not deal with facts.

And honestly, you cite James Baker saying “fuck the Jews” as evidence of anything except that James Baker said “fuck the Jews”? So what? It ultimately has nothing to do with whether or not Zionists can exert influence over U.S. policy.

Ok, it is clear that you not only a limited understanding of the facts but no understanding of the significance of a statement made by the Sec of State. But that is ok because you ignored the point I made and the facts surrounding it.

Let me sum this up again. You continue to rail against me because I support Israel. You are irritated because I use facts to support my claims and that I will not just accept your facts, even though we proved that they were incorrect and illogical.

Furthermore you are upset because I called you on your moral ambiguity. Game over. You lose. I am done. This is my final answer to you. You are not the first person to believe these things and you may not be the last, but in the end you guys always lose.

Good luck to you and I hope that college teaches you more than it has.

ML said...

Okay, I'll satisfy myself with a brief response and then be content to drop it, as it begins to get repetitive.

I'll say in advance, I thank you for the debate, such as it has been, and the use of your site. Lets also remember that any snide remarks are in the context of, and relate exclusively to, a heated discussion. No hard feelings. I certainly don't have any.

But onto my brief response. You've proven my point about you again. Who cares about Gerald Levin? The bottom line was that a preponderance of evidence suggests a certain thing and the only way you can get around it is to, once again, nitpick a particular detail. Sad. Furthermore, I supplied the information of when that piece of evidence was dated; it's not like I was trying to bluff that it was more or less than what it was. But no doubt you learning this information was from 2002 (which I freely admitted, you ass) impelled you to do a search and find out that, wow, Gerald Levin is no longer the CEO of Time Warner. Ground breaking discovery. The fact that you supply the link for this revelation points to this being the case. You were furiously checking my info in the hopes of finding something to screech about, and that was all you came up with. So you bring it up, trying to imply that I ought to know it, (as if I care about this miniscule, miniscule, mind-numbingly unimportant bit of hair-splitting) and get excited and jump up and down saying "I'm a fact checker! I'm a fact checker!" No, I'm pretty sure you're an ass.

Now, as if it isn't obvious to anyone who does not will themselves to painful stupidity,I said the evidence that these people are pro-Israel is replete throughout our media, the fact that we don't get good information on that topic, in combination with the fact that these people are Jewish, in combination with your own assertion that the overwhelming majority of Jews are pro-Israel, leaves room for no other conclusion in my opinion. I also supplied quotes from a couple of the numerous Jewish scholars who have arrived at precisely the same conclusion, and a site or two that painstakingly makes the same case. In other words, I'm appealing to your intelligence, your ability to weigh facts and evidence. Of course, what I got was your ability to confuse and distract issues and blind yourself, if not others.

More importantly in regards to your will to stupidity, if you wanted to, you could find the same information (I gave you the sites for starters) and apply yourself to coming to your own HONEST conclusions. There are mountains and mountains of facts and interpretations of facts to consider that are at least as stimulating as the career particulars of Gerald Levin.

I'm not trying to educate you, or even change your mind, I was just hoping for a balanced, honest discussion. What I got was denial and subversion.

Seriously, man, you are a weasel. Your being right rests strictly on your ability to nitpick. I say look it's an elephant. You say that's not an elephant, we're in North America where elephants don't live. I say yeah, but look, it's an elephant just the same. You say, prove it's an elephant, it could be anything. I say it's gray, enormous, it's got a trunk, come on, moron, it's an elephant. You say many animals have long noses, many animals are large, and its color is immaterial, it could have been dyed, you can't prove it's an elephant.

What do you do with someone like this? I guess I just leave you to live in your fantasy.

PS Although it may have worked in the third grade, saying "you lose" doesn't really make you the victor in a debate. Or make your points valid here in the real world. Nor is it honest to try to marginalize someone you don't know by characterizing them as some flighty college student. I'm 39 and self educated.

Go ahead and have your last word, as I'm sure you must, and good luck to you too.

Jack's Shack said...

More importantly in regards to your will to stupidity, if you wanted to, you could find the same information (I gave you the sites for starters) and apply yourself to coming to your own HONEST conclusions.

See, here is why I want to end this. You call it nitpicking when I point out factual errors. You accuse me of refusing to come to an honest conclusion because my own does not agree with yours. So what we really see is the degeneration of debate because you are unwilling to deal with fact.

And we see a sad attempt to spin it by claiming that you supplied it. But remember that I already pointed out that your facts are wrong. I proved that you supplied misinformation and that it would be poor scholarship to allow that to stand.

If you are familiar with cooking than you know that sometimes you can substitute margarine for butter and the recipe still works. But there are times in which substituting ingredients changes things and the final product will not taste good nor resemble the cake you hoped to bake and you my friend have a sour roll.

So if it makes you feel good to say that I nitpick and to accuse me of having to have the last word, ok. You are right, I am a bad guy for pointing out that you use misinformation and inaccurate, out of date evidence to support your comments. And I am a bad guy for pointing logical inconsistencies.

But the bottom line is that I didn't have to resort to ad hominem attacks and spin to win this debate. You lost the game when you stopped relying upon the truth and resorted to fantasy. Again good luck to you, I win. ;)

ML said...

Sorry, I'm weak. I couldn't help but point out your bad definition of ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is an underhanded attempt to avoid the discussion altogether, or dismiss an argument out of hand, by claiming the person making the argument is not a credible source.

So, my calling you an ass based only on your argument, while admittedly rude, does not qualify as an ad hominem attack. It's almost the opposite since I'm saying, in essence, because of your weak argument, by the way, you're an ass. See the difference? Mine was just name calling and bad form, but it didn't change my statements, and it wasn't intended to distract from the discussion. It was just a simple expression of my frustration at a person I felt was being an ass.

My calling you a weasel doesn't qualify either since that assertion related purely to your conduct in the debate. I didn't say 'because you're a weasel, you are incapable of making a valid point.' Once again, the opposite: I said, 'because you refuse to argue honestly, you are a weasel, just so you are aware of this.'

I hope you don't find that I'm nitpicking here.

I agree with your statement, however, that actual ad hominem attacks indicate a person has no confidence in their premise.

Attempting to characterize me as an intellectually half-baked college student was an ad hominem attack.

Characterizing me (and anyone who thinks like me) as an anti-Semite, is most definitely an ad hominem attack.

Same goes for the term "self-hating Jew."

The usage of terrorism in your argument is, in principle, an ad hominem attack. You are trying to assert that because these people use this sort of violence, that their entire side of the discussion should be discarded. The same reason ad hominem attacks are irrelivant and shameful, is why I repeatedly try to move the discussion beyond terrorism. This focus is poor and cowardly thinking.

Likewise, I might point out, your repeated declarations of victory and congratulating yourself on this or that miniscule detail, smacks of you protesting a little too much.

You never even approached any of my theses, such as that Isreal is a demented idea, and that those who are pro-Israel use underhanded tactics. What you did was attempt to discredit ME, and only me, by trying to turn utterly insignificant details against me; in fact, your entire side of the argument could be read as little more than an elaborate ad hominem attack. Which was why I pointed out that you are weasel, by the way.

So I can say comfortably that you won nothing. For myself, I am not so pathetically childish or insecure with my beliefs, that I need to convince myself, or anyone else, of such a petty thing.

Jack's Shack said...

Utterly insignificant details that include your misinformation, also known as using inaccurate and out of date material.

The simple fact is that you used lies and misinformation to try and make a point.

Every time you come back you do the same thing. There is no fact to support your allegations and no substance to your posts.

And your need to respond to try and disprove this proves that I won because you still do not use any facts.

You have ignored every question and focused on smoke screens. If you had anything to offer here there wouldn't be a need for diversionary tactics.

You lose, Ameriplan my ass.