UKRuss wrote:Wow, what a thread.
On the point about being familiar with your political inclinations and feigning for incendiary reasons and not being able to state what I stated.
I can and I did.
brilliant.
I think you're patently shite-hawking by doing so. You don't agree. Ok fair enough.
UKRuss wrote:
Despite knowing your political feelings on the palestine issue there is a world of difference between starting a debate removed from your personal emotions and posting something that you hope will lead to a thread building up hatred towards Israel for the actions. Shame, anger, and pity do not lead to strong debate but arguments and, in internet terms, flame wars. I believe you originally posted innocently enough but angry about the attacks, the style with which you did it left no doubt that you wanted the board to rise up in condemnation of israel and its actions but knowing full well there are israeli citizens on the board who may be shamed or feel set upon. To claim you didn't know that is silly since you are clearly an intelligent person.
oh for christ's sake.
and when you said 'can we blow up some RAGHEADS now?' in my previous Gaza related thread (your only contribution, btw) what the fuck were you thinking ? Oh ya... "the in-crowd will find this amusing" ?
First and foremost this is a real event, extremely important, and every other mundane/political topic on this board has been discussed to death. And I've taken part in many of those discussions. That you are reducing this to intentional forum drama for the sake of 3dot (again, keeping in mind you claim to be aware of my genuine political inclinations) is crass. and i think you're an asshole for doing so. but i suppose it's not debatable, it's what you THINK but it's in no way the FACT of the matter. So, your opinion has been duly noted. moving on.
UKRuss wrote:
You have also suggested that you are involved with Irish activist anarchic group Workers Solidarity Movement. (Say hello to Deirdre Horgan for me)
It's not a stretch to imagine the true aim of an anarchist activist would be exactly this type of thread where real debate is, ironically, veiled in a smoke screen of flame wars and side swiping and of course it is easy to conclude that the true aim of the anarchist is not to have a full debate but to encourage revolution. In this case by doing your bit to incite hatred against Israel and the US.
heh, now I'm an anarchist ? jesus wept. Not worthy of response. Major conjecture peddling going on here. Reducing my 'aim' as you have is certainly a stretch if it's based on the idea I'm an anarchist.
The guy from the united kingdom, who says things like 'can we blow up some ragheads now?' and makes posts so offensive to african-americans they declare they're leaving the forum for a while is lecturing ME on inciting hatred. You said earlier I was peddling 'anti-israeli propaganda' ... I asked you to highlight this, and you have failed to do so. I presume because you were talking out of your ass when you said that. That's why. I'm amazed that someone who claims to be intelligent, from the united kingdom where the UK terrorism act is in place and SPECIFICALLY covers inciting hatred is actually so far off the mark. There's nothing I've said on this topic that would contravene the uk terrorism act regarding inciting hatred (I'm not saying anything that hasn't been printed in british newspapers, or said on british television - radio) but I ASSURE YOU, saying 'can we blow up some ragheads now?' the way you did - in the UK - is an offence. So check yourself.
Yes folks, reporting the news is inciting hatred
You'll need to fluff your post with more substance to illustrate if that is indeed the case. Otherwise it's just like your claims of 'anti-israeli propaganda' ...unfounded, and as yet totally unsubstantiated.
UKRuss wrote:
I agree references should be provided where required and wiki rarely provides that, however in itself it is arguable that wiki is a well edited source of information and reasonably reliable in that regard. I am happy to concede that isn't the case, it's not somethign I use much or check at all so no need to post copious examples of wiki fail for me.
This is totally academic. The link posted by 3dot has no sources. no citations. no references. NONE.
'well edited' my ass. and again, I'm supposed to be the one spreading 'propaganda' ??? Jesus wept. again.
UKRuss wrote:
The point I wanted to try and get across is that a good reference is one that supports your point of view but the reliability of the sources of that information are only acceptable to the side which uses them. If i claim I heard this on the BBC you will refute the vailidity of the UK media. If I quote an author it is easy for you to research that author and pick holes in their argument and thereby claim they are also an invalid reference. There is no definitive unbiased work on the Israel/palestine conflict to reference!
what you're saying is ''if I provide a reference, you will scrutinise it'' ... yes that's true. it works both ways. That's how it should work, no ? You've said I've been peddling 'anti-israeli propaganda' and you are incapable of highlighting where... and now you're trying to justify not citing sources because...what ? it stifles debate ? ...I can't wrap my head around this BS.
UKRuss wrote:
I do see your point about my logic only being applicable to Israel in this respect and it opens up an interesting debate about the origins of terrorist organisations. For example, do Hamas only exist because of the conflict with israel or would they exxist anyway as an islamic terrorist cell? In reference to the irish trouble, yes I get the point also but again if you go for enough back in history it is ALL about Catholics against Protestants. of course political things occured that ignote the hatred but the reason that Irish were treated the way they were by the British? Religion. Catholics against protestants. You only have to look at British history to understan that one. hundreds of thousands of catholics and protestants (depending on who was king/queen at the time) all burnt at the stake because of their beliefs, nothing else. Guy Fawkes, the original terrorist. catholic plot to kill the protestant king.
If you say so 'united kingdom russ'
...you even slipped and referred to it as an irish/british conflict. It's clear as day. So I guess the british EMPIRE tried to colonise the world purely out of religious reasons ?
If you want to go that far back in history, organised religion was simply a power structure - it was practically political. Though the rhetoric was just as much a smokescreen now as it was then. to keep the populace complicit with, or even supportive of conflict. but by no means the real reason. and it was never as simple as irish v british. It was british v anyone they thought they could dominate. and irish v occupying forces
UKRuss wrote:
It's all there, it may become a political matter later on as we become 'civilised' but originally? These hatreds stem from religious belief.
nope.
UKRuss wrote:
Your rapist analogy doesn't work for me either because, the rapist would have to recognise his victim as being just that. Regardless of the truth, the israeli state does not see the palestinians as their victims. Therefore the analogy, like you suggest my religious logic, can only be applied to one side.
the rapist analogy doesn't work for you because you don't want it to. A victim does not have to be acknowledged as a victim by the aggressor to be a victim. How many rapists actually think they did no wrong ? More than i would care to think about. Whether israel admits it or not, it is clear as day that palestine is the victim. That they perceive their victim as a 'threat', and not a victim is occupation 101.
UKRuss wrote:
Desperate people do despreate things. I agree. One of the most desperate things they do is believe in gods and their conviction in that regard can lead them to carry out atrocities they otherwise would not.
this is going no where. You don't agree with me, and it's as simple as that. but all this text your typing is just a long-winded way of saying so. It's not a good argument to support your opinion.
UKRuss wrote:
Finally, yes, of course the US has everything to gain by ensuring a strategic stronghold in the Middle East and they must pay Israel to do that. But what is it that israel have to gain, I can accept it is probably just about the US money as they have no real natural resources to covet, maybe Jaffa oranges...
I've conceded now a dozen times already that zionism does indeed hijack religious rhetoric to further their own ends. That is not enough to make the conflict 'jews vs muslims. nothing more'
Why does any empire seize land ? power & influence and subsequently wealth, I suppose.
UKRuss wrote:
But my opinion is it is more than the money, it is about jerusalem, it is about the holy land, it is about ensuring that the holy land is preserved for judaism and judaism alone to flourish and in order to acheive that they must rid the land of other beliefs.
that's certainly the rhetoric employed, and you want to take it at face value. Good for you united kingdom russ. But the palestinians are resisting because it's absolutely justified to do so no matter what their faith, or their aggressor's faith.
After reading your post, it's plain to see you're just using as much text as you can to say the same thing you've been saying from start to finish, but without really furthering your argument with meaningful substance. So, I understand your angle. I find it laughable and poorly supported, but I understand it. So you can stop posting now if you feel like it. Ultimately it seems to me that you're reasoning for being an atheist stems from everything you've been saying. Not because you simply don't believe in god, but because you think religion is the root cause of all human troubles. So be it, but I think your contributions to this discussion would be better placed in a ''faith VS atheism'' discussion. and even at that, given your ability for supporting your arguments, I don't think you'd fair out too well.
