|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 31, 2009 13:17:41 GMT
Every critic is dismissed as an anti-semite ir a self hating Jew.
How much longer are you going to allow your ears to be covered with the lies of the Nazi Zionists?
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 31, 2009 16:08:18 GMT
I would argue that Limelilly is one of the most viciously anti-Semitic idiots on this forum, since she consistently spouts venom against Jews who express a humanitarian view of events in Palestine.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Jan 31, 2009 18:26:36 GMT
Doesn't anti-semitic mean prejudiced or racist against Jews regardless of their views? If a person has a problem with views, they cannot really be said to be prejudiced or racist can they?
"How much longer are you going to allow your ears to be covered with the lies of the Nazi Zionists?" - More Tarrant mangling of the English language. 'Cover your ears with lies'? Someone take away that man's keyboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 31, 2009 18:30:49 GMT
Doesn't anti-semitic mean prejudiced or racist against Jews regardless of their views? You would think so. |
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Jan 31, 2009 18:33:06 GMT
So then, if Limelily has a problem with certain semites on account of their views, their semitism is irrelevant. Therefore she is clearly not anti-semitic, she only has a problem with their views.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 31, 2009 18:39:40 GMT
Possibly.
Who suggested Limelilly was an anti-semite?
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 31, 2009 18:47:04 GMT
Ascribing a set of views to a person on the basis of their ethnicity must surely be seen as a form of prejudice.
In that respect I think it is rather anti-semetic to hurl abuse at Jews/a Jewish person who holds a differing opinion to the opinion you think a Jew should hold.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 31, 2009 19:21:58 GMT
Definately.
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Jan 31, 2009 20:56:49 GMT
I would argue that Limelilly is one of the most viciously anti-Semitic idiots on this forum, since she consistently spouts venom against Jews who express a humanitarian view of events in Palestine. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 31, 2009 21:16:32 GMT
Unfortunately I cannot claim that distinction while you remain a poster on this forum. You have hurled abuse at the view that Israel is a criminal state, in Gaza specifically. You have called this 'Nazi'. Many Jews, notably, Richard Falk, professor of international law, have expressed this view. To call somebody Jewish, a Nazi, for expressing a view, based on international humanitarian law, is open to the charge of anti-Semitism. To hurl the same charge at a goy, is open to the charge of pro-Israel racism. |
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Jan 31, 2009 21:34:20 GMT
Unfortunately I cannot claim that distinction while you remain a poster on this forum. You have hurled abuse at the view that Israel is a criminal state, in Gaza specifically. You have called this 'Nazi'. Many Jews, notably, Richard Falk, professor of international law, have expressed this view. To call somebody Jewish, a Nazi, for expressing a view, based on international humanitarian law, is open to the charge of anti-Semitism. To hurl the same charge at a goy, is open to the charge of pro-Israel racism. Twist the facts any way you want Berty in your usual fashion. You emphasised Richard Falk was a Jew, not me. I criticised his blindness (and that of his UN colleagues) who failed to notice the thousands of rockets soaring from Gaza on their way to Israeli civilians. If you wouldn't mind, I'd be interested to know in which post I called him a Nazi?I also quoted the Laws of War which made it clear that using civilians as shields is a war crime, as is the taking of hostages, which UN observers, like Richard Falk and his colleagues also appear to be blind to. "Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area. By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war |
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Jan 31, 2009 21:39:33 GMT
Every critic is dismissed as an anti-semite ir a self hating Jew. How much longer are you going to allow your ears to be covered with the lies of the Nazi Zionists? Dr Wafa Sultan, a Syrian born psychiatrist born into a Muslim family, identifies the true terrorists - and liars for that matter - far better, and more eloquently, than I ever could. uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIYuk.youtube.com/watch?v=ciOGS6r97oE&feature=related |
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Jan 31, 2009 21:48:47 GMT
Doesn't anti-semitic mean prejudiced or racist against Jews regardless of their views? If a person has a problem with views, they cannot really be said to be prejudiced or racist can they? "How much longer are you going to allow your ears to be covered with the lies of the Nazi Zionists?" - More Tarrant mangling of the English language. 'Cover your ears with lies'? Someone take away that man's keyboard. I think it's obvious, Cobbs, that Tarrant's first language is not English, in which case his name calling, insults and hatred of Israel and Jews is pretty eloquent. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 31, 2009 23:05:07 GMT
You emphasised Richard Falk was a Jew, not me. I criticised his blindness (and that of his UN colleagues) who failed to notice the thousands of rockets soaring from Gaza on their way to Israeli civilians. If you wouldn't mind, I'd be interested to know in which post I called him a Nazi? The report in Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, made the point that Richard Falk is Jewish. You have to be a complete nutter to make the assertion that a professor of international law and UN representative 'doesn't notice' that rockets have been fired at Israel. You called the comparison of Israel's assault on Gaza with the Nazi suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising a 'neo-Nazi' view. Perhaps you wish to withdraw that and admit it is a perfectly reasonable comparison, specifically in that both involved the sealing off of an area, blocking any escape from it and pouring in lethal fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Jan 31, 2009 23:54:28 GMT
It's not a reasonable comparison, it's incredibly hyperbolic and only used by people who wish to whip up hysteria.
And as usual Bertrus, as you do with Richard Dawkins et al, you cite an 'eminent' person's opinion and seek to use their 'eminence' to prove the 'truth' of their view.
It just won't wash.
|
|
|
|
Post by kjetski on Feb 1, 2009 1:32:41 GMT
Can't help thinking if someone posted some images of Nazi Zionist behaviour in Lebanon and Palestine you would be screeming about propaganda. Can't help thinking your motive for posting this is to dare someone to say something. Exactly the same things are happening now, there is no lesson to be learnt. WW2 happened a long time ago. Lots of people suffered. Not just Jews. Get over it already! |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 1, 2009 11:59:49 GMT
you cite an 'eminent' person's opinion and seek to use their 'eminence' to prove the 'truth' of their view. When a professor of international law and UN special representative for human rights in Israeli-occupied Palestine states that Israel was not acting in self-defence within the terms of the UN Charter, this impartial, expert opinion carries more weight than the views of the culprits themselves and their ignorant and unbalanced supporters on this forum. However, the guilt or otherwise of Israelis who organized and carried out the onslaught on the Palestinians would be a matter for a court to decide, in the unlikely event that they will be brought to justice. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 1, 2009 15:14:05 GMT
Any Israelis brought to justice are going to need a very expensive legal team.
The data, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, as of January 22, are as follows: 1,285 dead, of whom 1,062 were non-combatants (895 civilians and 167 civilian police). Of these, 281 were children (21.8 percent) and 111 were women. There are 4,336 wounded, among them 1,133 children. The 6-year-old girl who we saw in the Zeytun neighborhood, who holds her hands up in the air in fear every time the photographer brings his camera near her, is not included in the list of the casualties. Haaretz (Israeli newspaper)
|
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 1, 2009 15:43:24 GMT
I see from the above post that the casualty figure is already dropping. It was 'at least 1300' before.
And Bertrus, dsepite your great learning, impartiality and scholarship (ho ho) I feel I should point something out to you about 'expert witnesses' in a legal context. There are always two sides to a story, especially when it comes to opinion evidence whether 'expert' or not. It would be a travesty of justice if during a trial only one witness was called and their opinion treated as fact. That in itself is very much NOT 'impartial'. Impartiality would require experts supporting each side to give evidence and explain their reasoning, the court would THEN go on to make a decision based on the reasoning. The 'fact' of being an expert does not mean one's opinion is impartial, experts are just as susceptible to political bias as anyone else.
You have a habit of doing this Bertrus, you produce some 'expert' - ie Richard Dawkins - and seem to think that their opinion is fact. This is a logical fallacy, it even has a name - 'appeal to authority'.
As for ignorant and unbalanced, that describes you to a tee. Go and do a law course if you want to talk with any authority on expert opinion, impartiality and the weight to be given to particular kinds of evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victor Meldrew on Feb 1, 2009 16:48:58 GMT
The data, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, as of January 22, are as follows: 1,285 dead, of whom 1,062 were non-combatants
So that leaves 223 coward combatants killed, fighting their war from behing their own civilian population. Leaving aside the policemen, women and children, some of whom may have been involved in the conflict, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, that leaves another 503 'civilian men'. As these Hamas lot wear no uniforms, how can anyone be certain they were all inncoent civilians and that some were not Hamas fighters? Potentailly, Israel's success rate could have been higher than the 223 mentioned.
Given the circumstances, I think the success of Israel's targetting was better than I initially thought.
|
|
