35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Ha, well not quite. I think its absolutely "nazi-ish" to endorse refusal to date/rent property to someone based on ethnicity. I like Israel less and less as time goes on.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/29/israel.letter.arabs/index.html
PS
Edit: TLDR for lazies
A group of prominent rabbi's wives issued a letter in Israel urging Jewish girls not to date Arab's, and for Jew's to refuse to work/rent in the same buildings as Arab's.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Is it some sort of record to Godwin a thread in the OP?
EDIT: In retrospect, I suppose ^^^ was incorrect. Ah well. 
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Why would it get locked? I mean if it does thats cool, but I don't see the issue here. Its a pertinent thread regarding current world events. <shrug>
Maybe its the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany?
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
I agree with Peter here, this is rather similar to a certain set of Nazi laws.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Saints preserve us.
I forgot that the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany were constantly calling for Germany's destruction and they had had to build a wall around Berlin to keep Judaic Fundamentalist suicide bombers away from the German civilians. These 30 Rabbis' wives opinions are somehow Israeli policy, too? This thread is bad... you know the rest.
It's exactly the same thing, you're right.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Or for those who don't want to be bothered to click the link...
Jerusalem (CNN) -- A letter from about 30 prominent rabbis' wives was causing a stir in Israel Wednesday because it urges Israeli girls not to date Arabs.
The open letter comes three weeks after the uproar caused by another letter, which was written by 50 state-appointed rabbis and told Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews.
The latest missive, which was published by some websites and news outlets, says Arab men act polite around Jewish girls and "act as if they really care about you," but it says that's a ruse. The men, it says, even change their Arab names to Hebrew forms like Yossi and Ami in order to get close to the girls.
"This behavior is temporary," the letter says. "As soon as you are in their hands, in their villages under their control, everything becomes different. You can ask dozens of girls who have been there. They will tell you it is all an act.
"As soon as you arrive at the village, your life will never be the same. The attention will be replaced with curses, beatings, and humiliations. Even if you want to leave the village it will be much harder. They won't let you, they will chase you, they won't let you come back."
It urges Jewish girls not to go out with non-Jews or work in places that employ non-Jews.
"Your grandmothers never dreamt that their descendants would do something that will take the next generations of her family out of the Jewish people," it says.
The letter was initiated by the head of Lehava, an extreme right-wing group that says it aims to prevent the "assimilation of the Jewish people" and works at "saving Jewish girls from Arab villages."
"It's known that girls who go out with Arabs are beaten, these girls are in danger. ... There is a violent social trend and everyone ignores it," said the head of the group, Anat Gopstein, in a radio interview Wednesday morning.
The head of Israel's Reform movement, Rabbi Gilad Kariv, harshly condemned the letter and said, "Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia," according to spokeswoman Yuli Goren.
More than 30 female rabbis from the Reform movement published a counter-letter harshly condemning the one released Wednesday, Goren said. Kariv also called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Yaacov Neeman to speak out against it.
Among the rabbis' wives who signed the letter is Nitzchia Yossef, the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the ultra-orthodox Shas political party. Esther Lior, the wife of extreme right-wing Rabbi Dov Lior, was another signatory.
Rabbi Yosef was one of the authors of the letter written earlier this month that urged Jews not to sell or rent property to non-Jews. It prompted widespread condemnation from politicians, human rights groups and leading rabbis in both Israel and the United States.
The letter, which was distributed to synagogues and published in some religious newspapers, had warned that those who defied the religious ruling should be ostracized. It said if one apartment is taken by a non-Jew, it devalues all the neighbors' apartments.
More than 800 rabbis from around the world signed a petition against the letter, saying "statements like these do great damage to our efforts to encourage people to love and support Israel."
The petition said "the attempt to root discriminatory policies based on religion or ethnicity in Torah is a painful distortion of our tradition. Am Yisrael (the Jewish people) knows the sting of discrimination, and we still bear the scars of hatred. When those who represent the official rabbinic leadership of the state of Israel express such positions, we are distressed by this ... desecration of God's name."
Nearly 1.5 million Arab residents live inside Israel, making up 23% of the population.
A poll published Tuesday by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem showed that 48% of Israelis oppose the call to avoid renting or selling property to Arabs.
The TL;DR version is that some Radical Rabbis wrote a letter encouraging Jewish girls not to date Arabic men, and encouraged Jews not to sell or rent property to non-Jews.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Monster Rain wrote:Saints preserve us.
I forgot that the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany were constantly calling for Germany's destruction and they had had to build a wall around Berlin to keep Judaic Fundamentalist suicide bombers away from the German civilians.
It's exactly the same thing, you're right.
It isn't exactly the same and not all arabs are constantly calling for the destruction of israel.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
corpsesarefun wrote:I agree with Peter here, this is rather similar to a certain set of Nazi laws.
Lolwat?
No it's not. They're not pulling people aside checking their noses, ears, eyes, or skulls to see if you're "pure Jew".
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:Saints preserve us.
I forgot that the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany were constantly calling for Germany's destruction and they had had to build a wall around Berlin to keep Judaic Fundamentalist suicide bombers away from the German civilians. These 30 Rabbis' wives opinions are somehow Israeli policy, too? This thread is bad... you know the rest.
It's exactly the same thing, you're right.
Dude...c'mon. You know that the Nazi regime started out with "racial purity" and "Aryan business" stuff. Krystal Nacht anyone? I see similarities...so I say it.
I love potato pancakes too, and jewish girls are hot. I just think that racism is racism regardless of the races involved. HATERS GONNA HATE!!!!
Only in the middle east, the haters blow you up.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Kanluwen wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:I agree with Peter here, this is rather similar to a certain set of Nazi laws.
Lolwat?
No it's not. They're not pulling people aside checking their noses, ears, eyes, or skulls to see if you're "pure Jew".
I didn't say they were, I said it is similar to a set of laws. If you want specifics section one of The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour in respect to the marriages and another law when it comes to employment.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Saints preserve us.
I forgot that the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany were constantly calling for Germany's destruction and they had had to build a wall around Berlin to keep Judaic Fundamentalist suicide bombers away from the German civilians. These 30 Rabbis' wives opinions are somehow Israeli policy, too? This thread is bad... you know the rest.
It's exactly the same thing, you're right.
Dude...c'mon. You know that the Nazi regime started out with "racial purity" and "Aryan business" stuff. Krystal Nacht anyone? I see similarities...so I say it.
No, you don't. There are no similarities in this case. This isn't the bloody government making this call. It's a group of 30 Rabbis.
Are they state-appointed? Yes. But that doesn't mean that they won't be sacked for this, nor that it's a publicly accepted opinion.
I love potato pancakes too, and jewish girls are hot. I just think that racism is racism regardless of the races involved. HATERS GONNA HATE!!!!
Only in the middle east, the haters blow you up.
Only in the West do people make ridiculous comments like this and actually think they're being clever. Go back to 4chan. Automatically Appended Next Post: corpsesarefun wrote:Kanluwen wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:I agree with Peter here, this is rather similar to a certain set of Nazi laws.
Lolwat?
No it's not. They're not pulling people aside checking their noses, ears, eyes, or skulls to see if you're "pure Jew".
I didn't say they were, I said it is similar to a set of laws. If you want specifics section one of The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour in respect to the marriages and another law when it comes to employment.
And you also have to go into the fact that these are not actually laws. Read the bloody statement before commenting next time.
This is more akin to the KKK publishing a letter saying "Blacks can't own property or marry white women!" in this day and age than it is the "Nazi regime".
These are not actually, on the book and enforced laws. These are things written and published by 30 Rabbis, claiming that "anyone who violates it will be ostracized by the community".
Do you see the difference now?
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Kanluwen wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Saints preserve us.
I forgot that the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany were constantly calling for Germany's destruction and they had had to build a wall around Berlin to keep Judaic Fundamentalist suicide bombers away from the German civilians. These 30 Rabbis' wives opinions are somehow Israeli policy, too? This thread is bad... you know the rest.
It's exactly the same thing, you're right.
Dude...c'mon. You know that the Nazi regime started out with "racial purity" and "Aryan business" stuff. Krystal Nacht anyone? I see similarities...so I say it.
No, you don't. There are no similarities in this case. This isn't the bloody government making this call. It's a group of 30 Rabbis.
Are they state-appointed? Yes. But that doesn't mean that they won't be sacked for this, nor that it's a publicly accepted opinion.
I love potato pancakes too, and jewish girls are hot. I just think that racism is racism regardless of the races involved. HATERS GONNA HATE!!!!
Only in the middle east, the haters blow you up.
Only in the West do people make ridiculous comments like this and actually think they're being clever. Go back to 4chan.
I never post there, thanks.
You are right, its not the SAME thing. However the sentiment is the same, the racism is the same, and the questions it raises are equally disturbing. Why is it that you seem far more offended by my manner of posting than you do by the implications of this kind of thing?
iz it bcuz you think if you typ lik dis you cn't not be smarted?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Jordanian Penal Code wrote: "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty."
Maybe the Rabbis' Wives have a point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
The source cited by Wiki is Al Jazeera.
If you're going to troll, at least be clever about it. Throwing around terms like Nazi after reading half of an article (or reading it fully and completely failing to understand it, I'm not sure which is worse) is just kind of sad.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Kanluwen wrote:
And you also have to go into the fact that these are not actually laws. Read the bloody statement before commenting next time.
This is more akin to the KKK publishing a letter saying "Blacks can't own property or marry white women!" in this day and age than it is the "Nazi regime".
These are not actually, on the book and enforced laws. These are things written and published by 30 Rabbis, claiming that "anyone who violates it will be ostracized by the community".
Do you see the difference now?
Anyone that actually READS the article knows this. Its the fact that there are so many folks in Israel that SUPPORT THIS SENTIMENT that scares me. You have public sentiment, then it is reflected in the laws that go on the books.
Do you see the similarity now?
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Kanluwen wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Saints preserve us.
I forgot that the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany were constantly calling for Germany's destruction and they had had to build a wall around Berlin to keep Judaic Fundamentalist suicide bombers away from the German civilians. These 30 Rabbis' wives opinions are somehow Israeli policy, too? This thread is bad... you know the rest.
It's exactly the same thing, you're right.
Dude...c'mon. You know that the Nazi regime started out with "racial purity" and "Aryan business" stuff. Krystal Nacht anyone? I see similarities...so I say it.
No, you don't. There are no similarities in this case. This isn't the bloody government making this call. It's a group of 30 Rabbis.
Are they state-appointed? Yes. But that doesn't mean that they won't be sacked for this, nor that it's a publicly accepted opinion.
I love potato pancakes too, and jewish girls are hot. I just think that racism is racism regardless of the races involved. HATERS GONNA HATE!!!!
Only in the middle east, the haters blow you up.
Only in the West do people make ridiculous comments like this and actually think they're being clever. Go back to 4chan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:Kanluwen wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:I agree with Peter here, this is rather similar to a certain set of Nazi laws.
Lolwat?
No it's not. They're not pulling people aside checking their noses, ears, eyes, or skulls to see if you're "pure Jew".
I didn't say they were, I said it is similar to a set of laws. If you want specifics section one of The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour in respect to the marriages and another law when it comes to employment.
And you also have to go into the fact that these are not actually laws. Read the bloody statement before commenting next time.
This is more akin to the KKK publishing a letter saying "Blacks can't own property or marry white women!" in this day and age than it is the "Nazi regime".
These are not actually, on the book and enforced laws. These are things written and published by 30 Rabbis, claiming that "anyone who violates it will be ostracized by the community".
Do you see the difference now?
I agree with this completely, i mean look at the radical right in america and tell me you dont see some crazy's
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Gibbsey wrote:I agree with this completely, i mean look at the radical right in america and tell me you dont see some crazy's
Or the Radical Left.
There aren't many decent people that are "radical" anything.
11254
Post by: veritechc
This just goes to show that extremist idiots exist everywhere. Obviously these people refuse to look at the history and remember what had been done to their forefathers. Thankfully extremists don't govern most countries. We should be every watchful of this kind of racism. It is what leads us to devistating wars...
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
I am aware that it is not the Israeli government doing this and to follow your example if the KKK started spouting things like this I would indeed compare them to Nazi's because as Peter also said the sentiment and intent is the same.
What happens if these rabbi's go political and pull an enabling act? sure its not the same now but if you have a group of people with people supporting the sentiment there is always a chance that the government may listen to them (its almost as if it was a democracy...).
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:Gibbsey wrote:I agree with this completely, i mean look at the radical right in america and tell me you dont see some crazy's
Or the Radical Left.
There aren't many decent people that are "radical" anything.
Radical that is still decent.
To keep it real, of course extremists are the problem. Its the fact that you seem to have a pretty large portion of younger folks in Israel that support this mentality that scares me. They are the ones that will dictate the future of the middle east peace process (provided it doesn't involve a glass landscape), and to see them take to the streets supporting racism, division, and hatred makes me die a bit on the inside.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Peter Wiggin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
And you also have to go into the fact that these are not actually laws. Read the bloody statement before commenting next time.
This is more akin to the KKK publishing a letter saying "Blacks can't own property or marry white women!" in this day and age than it is the "Nazi regime".
These are not actually, on the book and enforced laws. These are things written and published by 30 Rabbis, claiming that "anyone who violates it will be ostracized by the community".
Do you see the difference now?
Anyone that actually READS the article knows this. Its the fact that there are so many folks in Israel that SUPPORT THIS SENTIMENT that scares me. You have public sentiment, then it is reflected in the laws that go on the books.
Do you see the similarity now?
...What?
You do realize that there isn't actually any proof, whatsoever that this "sentiment is widely supported", yes?
And you've got that backwards. With the Nazi Regime, the laws were on the books first. That's what made the whole fact that people just went along with it, unquestioningly in some cases, that much more disgusting.
Here you've just got public sentiment, which can change at any given time.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Radical != Totally Radical!!!!!one1!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Kanluwen wrote:
Here you've just got public sentiment, which can change at any given time.
Does that make it any less disgusting to you?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Here you've just got public sentiment, which can change at any given time.
Does that make it any less disgusting to you?
Monster Rain wrote:Jordanian Penal Code wrote: "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty."
If you lived in a country adjacent to this you wouldn't be concerned for your daughters dating and marrying people that would take them there?
They aren't saying "Don't date Arabs because they are untermensch and a mongrel race that has no place among the pure Jewish race" they're saying if you marry one of these guys and move to his hometown you might not like what happens.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Peter Wiggin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Here you've just got public sentiment, which can change at any given time.
Does that make it any less disgusting to you?
What the feth does it matter what I think, personally, of it?
The fact remains:
This is not the same as Germany when the Nazi Party took over in any way, shape, or form. The German people were not having their children growing up in a society where their children are considered targets by "freedom fighters", like the Israelis are. The German people did not have to worry about the Jews walking into crowded public areas and detonating themselves, or launching rockets into those public areas.
Germany, for the most part, during the Nazi Party was a disgusting and despicable place that was warped by its leadership and willing to look away at the corruption festering the country and the atrocities committed due to the prosperity brought about by the Nazis.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Here you've just got public sentiment, which can change at any given time.
Does that make it any less disgusting to you?
Monster Rain wrote:Jordanian Penal Code wrote: "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty."
If you lived in a country adjacent to this you wouldn't be concerned for your daughters dating and marrying people that would take them there?
I would never in a million frigging years tell my daughter who she could or could not fall in love with, and frankly I find the fact that it seems to be "common sense" to be utterly revolting.
Thats identical to saying "If you bring home a [ see forum posting rules] you are getting disowned".
Some Muslim men treat women like crap, some don't. Same as ANY other religion.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:Thats identical to saying "If you bring home a [ see forum posting rules] you are getting disowned".
No its actually not like it at all. I guess if actually quoting Jordanian penal code isn't going to get through to why they might think the way they do, nothing is going to.
Also, given your propensity to mock Christianity I find your "outrage" to be a bit hypocritical.
Kanluwen wrote:This is not the same as Germany when the Nazi Party took over in any way, shape, or form. The German people were not having their children growing up in a society where their children are considered targets by "freedom fighters", like the Israelis are. The German people did not have to worry about the Jews walking into crowded public areas and detonating themselves, or launching rockets into those public areas.
Germany, for the most part, during the Nazi Party was a disgusting and despicable place that was warped by its leadership and willing to look away at the corruption festering the country and the atrocities committed due to the prosperity brought about by the Nazis.
QFT.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Here you've just got public sentiment, which can change at any given time.
Does that make it any less disgusting to you?
Monster Rain wrote:Jordanian Penal Code wrote: "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty."
If you lived in a country adjacent to this you wouldn't be concerned for your daughters dating and marrying people that would take them there?
I would never in a million frigging years tell my daughter who she could or could not fall in love with, and frankly I find the fact that it seems to be "common sense" to be utterly revolting.
Thats identical to saying "If you bring home a (  ) you are getting disowned".
Some Muslim men treat women like crap, some don't. Same as ANY other religion.
I beleive the point he was making was that if they do go to one of these countries then they have very limited rights and can be killed legaly
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Kanluwen wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Here you've just got public sentiment, which can change at any given time.
Does that make it any less disgusting to you?
What the feth does it matter what I think, personally, of it?
The fact remains:
This is not the same as Germany when the Nazi Party took over in any way, shape, or form. The German people were not having their children growing up in a society where their children are considered targets by "freedom fighters", like the Israelis are. The German people did not have to worry about the Jews walking into crowded public areas and detonating themselves, or launching rockets into those public areas.
Germany, for the most part, during the Nazi Party was a disgusting and despicable place that was warped by its leadership and willing to look away at the corruption festering the country and the atrocities committed due to the prosperity brought about by the Nazis.
TY for history lesson. You have now enlightened me in areas that I had no idea existed.
Wait, nope. I know all that....its the sentiment that is disgusting. Its the attitude of the people that base generalizations on religious or ethnic background that frightens me. Its the fact that this sort of thing is the essence of the violence in the middle east that makes me sad.
Please, get mad more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:
I beleive the point he was making was that if they do go to one of these countries then they have very limited rights and can be killed legaly
So how does that tie in with the call to refuse to rent or work with Arab's? Y'know....since everyone is sort of breezing past that little sticking point. I guess the Arab's are gonna come to work and seduce the women? Please explain to me.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I don't think anyone is mad.
Just saddened and slightly disappointed by your ignorance in this matter. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peter Wiggin wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
I beleive the point he was making was that if they do go to one of these countries then they have very limited rights and can be killed legaly
So how does that tie in with the call to refuse to rent or work with Arab's?
How does 30 people writing a letter about that subject tie in with Israel endorsing nazi policies?
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Peter Wiggin wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
I beleive the point he was making was that if they do go to one of these countries then they have very limited rights and can be killed legaly
So how does that tie in with the call to refuse to rent or work with Arab's?
It doesent, same way you bringing in a completely different topic does not tie in to my post 
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:I don't think anyone is mad.
Just saddened and slightly disappointed by your ignorance in this matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
I beleive the point he was making was that if they do go to one of these countries then they have very limited rights and can be killed legaly
So how does that tie in with the call to refuse to rent or work with Arab's?
How does 30 people writing a letter about that subject tie in with Israel endorsing nazi policies?
Hi, I know how to get people to look at a thread. Too bad none of them take the time to actually read the article and consider the implications.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Gibbsey wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
I beleive the point he was making was that if they do go to one of these countries then they have very limited rights and can be killed legaly
So how does that tie in with the call to refuse to rent or work with Arab's?
It doesent, same way you bringing in a completely different topic does not tie in to my post
Peter Wiggin wrote:Hi, I know how to get people to look at a thread. Too bad none of them take the time to actually read the article and consider the implications.
We did.
We just think your conclusions are ridiculous.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Gibbsey wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
I beleive the point he was making was that if they do go to one of these countries then they have very limited rights and can be killed legaly
So how does that tie in with the call to refuse to rent or work with Arab's?
It doesent, same way you bringing in a completely different topic does not tie in to my post
Its not a different topic. Read the damn article before you comment.
Its a call for jewish women not to DATE or MARRY Arab men, and also to refuse rental to Arab's, as well as refuse to work in the same building with them. That IS related because its the SAME letter issued by the SAME people.
6051
Post by: avantgarde
Well Israel does issue license plates based off ethnicity. Yellow for Israelis, white or blue plates for Palestinians.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:Its a call for jewish women not to DATE or MARRY Arab men, and also to refuse rental to Arab's, as well as refuse to work in the same building with them. That IS related because its the SAME letter issued by the SAME people.
Yeah, but that wasn't what we were discussing when you brought it up.
Red Herring ftl.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
he letter was initiated by the head of Lehava, an extreme right-wing group that says it aims to prevent the "assimilation of the Jewish people" and works at "saving Jewish girls from Arab villages."
Should sum it all up there....but if the popular sentiment is that these kinds of sentiments are fine if directed at Arab's by Jew's...then ok I'll bow out. Honestly, that IS what it seems like you guys are saying. Thats not a troll, thats honesty. If I'm wrong....enlighten me.
Would you be supporting a similar letter issued against Latino men by some Christian organization here in the US? Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Its a call for jewish women not to DATE or MARRY Arab men, and also to refuse rental to Arab's, as well as refuse to work in the same building with them. That IS related because its the SAME letter issued by the SAME people.
Yeah, but that wasn't what we were discussing when you brought it up.
Red Herring ftl.
Its in the exact same article about the exact same letter written by the exact same people. How is it NOT pertinent?
Methinks perhaps you didn't actually read the article. Interesting. Automatically Appended Next Post: avantgarde wrote:Well Israel does issue license plates based off ethnicity. Yellow for Israelis, white or blue plates for Palestinians.
Wow, seriously?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:he letter was initiated by the head of Lehava, an extreme right-wing group that says it aims to prevent the "assimilation of the Jewish people" and works at "saving Jewish girls from Arab villages."
Should sum it all up there....but if the popular sentiment is that these kinds of sentiments are fine if directed at Arab's by Jew's...then ok I'll bow out. Honestly, that IS what it seems like you guys are saying. Thats not a troll, thats honesty. If I'm wrong....enlighten me.
Again, I've posted something from the Jordanian Penal code twice that makes it seem like there is at least a cause for concern. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peter Wiggin wrote:Would you be supporting a similar letter issued against Latino men by some Christian organization here in the US?
Do Latinos have a stated policy about it being acceptable to kill their wives?
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Peter Wiggin wrote:Gibbsey wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
I beleive the point he was making was that if they do go to one of these countries then they have very limited rights and can be killed legaly
So how does that tie in with the call to refuse to rent or work with Arab's?
It doesent, same way you bringing in a completely different topic does not tie in to my post
Its not a different topic. Read the damn article before you comment.
Its a call for jewish women not to DATE or MARRY Arab men, and also to refuse rental to Arab's, as well as refuse to work in the same building with them. That IS related because its the SAME letter issued by the SAME people.
My post was clarifying something someone else had said relating to women having no rights in some arab countries. My point was valid, you chose to ignore the point and bring up a completely different one. So basically i was refering to the letter in part and was just clarifying something someone else had posted
<Insert strawman picture here which every internet warrior seams to love even though it just comes across as being an arse> (I can say arse american tv told me so  )
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:Its in the exact same article about the exact same letter written by the exact same people. How is it NOT pertinent?
Because we were discussing a particular point, not the entire article.
Peter Wiggin wrote:Methinks perhaps you didn't actually read the article. Interesting.
False.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote:Would you be supporting a similar letter issued against Latino men by some Christian organization here in the US?
Do Latinos have a stated policy about it being acceptable to kill their wives?
Now now now sir, thats a fallacy and you know it. The subject at hand doesn't involve hypothetical stuff (although I did bring em up), it involves the concrete fact that this letter is aimed solely at spreading MORE hatred in a hate torn region.
The letter isn't JUST about "saving jewish girl" (oh god, save our women from those negros), its about 100% bigotry and discrimination based on ethnicity, not the individual.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Its in the exact same article about the exact same letter written by the exact same people. How is it NOT pertinent?
Because we were discussing a particular point, not the entire article.
Peter Wiggin wrote:Methinks perhaps you didn't actually read the article. Interesting.
False.
I think that in this case its not really appropriate to discuss specifics of the letter without looking at the implications or sentiment as a whole. You can disagree if you want, matters not to me.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:Now now now sir, thats a fallacy and you know it. The subject at hand doesn't involve hypothetical stuff (although I did bring em up)...
So why try to weasel out of it? You bring it up, I destroy it, and now its off the table? 
Peter Wiggin wrote:The letter isn't JUST about "saving jewish girl" (oh god, save our women from those negros), its about 100% bigotry and discrimination based on ethnicity, not the individual.
And those 30 people who wrote that letter may be wrong.
Your contention that the entire country of Israel is now the 4th Reich is still extremely silly. You also want very badly to equate this with racism in America against black people, but its quite a bit different. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peter Wiggin wrote:I think that in this case its not really appropriate to discuss specifics of the letter without looking at the implications or sentiment as a whole. You can disagree if you want, matters not to me.
I don't disagree with you. I'm telling you that you're completely wrong. 
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Now now now sir, thats a fallacy and you know it. The subject at hand doesn't involve hypothetical stuff (although I did bring em up)...
So why try to weasel out of it? You bring it up, I destroy it, and now its off the table?
Peter Wiggin wrote:The letter isn't JUST about "saving jewish girl" (oh god, save our women from those negros), its about 100% bigotry and discrimination based on ethnicity, not the individual.
And those 30 people who wrote that letter may be wrong.
Your contention that the entire country of Israel is now the 4th Reich is still extremely silly. You also want very badly to equate this with racism in America against black people, but its quite a bit different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote:I think that in this case its not really appropriate to discuss specifics of the letter without looking at the implications or sentiment as a whole. You can disagree if you want, matters not to me.
I don't disagree with you. I'm telling you that you're completely wrong.
Aight, no point in further discussion then. <shrug> Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote: You also want very badly to equate this with racism in America against black people, but its quite a bit different.
Actually, its not. Not in the least.
Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. There is literally no difference in my mind between this and folks calling for drinking from a seperate water fountian. I don't care that it isn't on the law books, I care that enough of a portion of the population supports this message that it got onto CNN's front page.
If you think thats wrong, fine. <shrug>
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Gibbsey wrote:<Insert strawman picture here which every internet warrior seams to love even though it just comes across as being an arse> (I can say arse american tv told me so )
Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote:Would you be supporting a similar letter issued against Latino men by some Christian organization here in the US?
Do Latinos have a stated policy about it being acceptable to kill their wives?
Now now now sir, thats a fallacy and you know it. The subject at hand doesn't involve hypothetical stuff (although I did bring em up), it involves the concrete fact that this letter is aimed solely at spreading MORE hatred in a hate torn region.
Seriously? like 2 posts later? 
Since when were valid comparisons fallacy's? Dont you think there would be warnings to american girls if they're rights would be severly limitted?
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Its in the exact same article about the exact same letter written by the exact same people. How is it NOT pertinent?
Because we were discussing a particular point, not the entire article.
Peter Wiggin wrote:Methinks perhaps you didn't actually read the article. Interesting.
False.
I think that in this case its not really appropriate to discuss specifics of the letter without looking at the implications or sentiment as a whole. You can disagree if you want, matters not to me.
Fine, just dont respond when we bring up parts of the article and dont refer to it as a whole
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. There is literally no difference in my mind between this and folks calling for drinking from a seperate water fountian. I don't care that it isn't on the law books, I care that enough of a portion of the population supports this message that it got onto CNN's front page.
If you think thats wrong, fine. <shrug>
Thinking you're wrong about condemning 8 million Israelis as Nazis because of 30 people and their letter isn't a tacit approval of racism, Peter.
Your refusal to engage the point that I've made about Jordanian law and why people might not want their daughters to move to that country is telling as well. The skin color or religion of the people enforcing those laws is quite irrelevant to me.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. There is literally no difference in my mind between this and folks calling for drinking from a seperate water fountian. I don't care that it isn't on the law books, I care that enough of a portion of the population supports this message that it got onto CNN's front page.
If you think thats wrong, fine. <shrug>
Thinking you're wrong about condemning 8 million people as Nazis because of 30 people and their letter isn't a tacit approval of racism, Peter.
You are so hung up on the title of the thread that you miss the point of my posts. Screw it, next time I won't make a title thats so violatile. Jesus H Christ.
yes imad. I take this stuff seriously, and I've managed to debunk my own thread with humor. I actually think most of you agree with me, you would just rather pick apart my logical fallacies than look at the content of the words. Ugh. Yes, it backfired on me. I admit it.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. There is literally no difference in my mind between this and folks calling for drinking from a seperate water fountian. I don't care that it isn't on the law books, I care that enough of a portion of the population supports this message that it got onto CNN's front page.
If you think thats wrong, fine. <shrug>
Thinking you're wrong about condemning 8 million people as Nazis because of 30 people and their letter isn't a tacit approval of racism, Peter.
You are so hung up on the title of the thread that you miss the point of my posts. Screw it, next time I won't make a title thats so violatile. Jesus H Christ.
yes imad. I take this stuff seriously, and I've managed to debunk my own thread with humor. I actually think most of you agree with me, you would just rather pick apart my logical fallacies than look at the content of the words. Ugh. Yes, it backfired on me. I admit it.
Man threads deciding the topic through their title? Who knew!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. There is literally no difference in my mind between this and folks calling for drinking from a seperate water fountian. I don't care that it isn't on the law books, I care that enough of a portion of the population supports this message that it got onto CNN's front page.
If you think thats wrong, fine. <shrug>
Thinking you're wrong about condemning 8 million people as Nazis because of 30 people and their letter isn't a tacit approval of racism, Peter.
You are so hung up on the title of the thread that you miss the point of my posts. Screw it, next time I won't make a title that's so violatile. Jesus H Christ.
yes imad. I take this stuff seriously, and I've managed to debunk my own thread with humor. I actually think most of you agree with me, you would just rather pick apart my logical fallacies than look at the content of the words. Ugh. Yes, it backfired on me. I admit it.
Because you're not trying to convince us with the "content of the words" or some kind of logical reasoning.
You posted an inflammatory title, didn't actually post the content of the article(just a link to the article) and seemingly hoped people just leap to your side.
11254
Post by: veritechc
avantgarde wrote:Well Israel does issue license plates based off ethnicity. Yellow for Israelis, white or blue plates for Palestinians.
Holy crap I did not know that.
I can see how this would come about as Israel is besieged on all sides but I can see how they are going to live with their neighbors long term with polices like that.
I also understand how a few incidents could generate this kind of response with regards to human rights for Israeli people. But once again this kind of thing does nothing to enhance the future of Israel in the region. I can't see how Israel can look at its neighbors from a gun site forever.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Kanluwen wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. There is literally no difference in my mind between this and folks calling for drinking from a seperate water fountian. I don't care that it isn't on the law books, I care that enough of a portion of the population supports this message that it got onto CNN's front page.
If you think thats wrong, fine. <shrug>
Thinking you're wrong about condemning 8 million people as Nazis because of 30 people and their letter isn't a tacit approval of racism, Peter.
You are so hung up on the title of the thread that you miss the point of my posts. Screw it, next time I won't make a title that's so violatile. Jesus H Christ.
yes imad. I take this stuff seriously, and I've managed to debunk my own thread with humor. I actually think most of you agree with me, you would just rather pick apart my logical fallacies than look at the content of the words. Ugh. Yes, it backfired on me. I admit it.
Because you're not trying to convince us with the "content of the words" or some kind of logical reasoning.
You posted an inflammatory title, didn't actually post the content of the article(just a link to the article) and seemingly hoped people just leap to your side.
No, I hoped people would take the time to read the article and think about it before they posted. Sue me. Automatically Appended Next Post: veritechc wrote:avantgarde wrote:Well Israel does issue license plates based off ethnicity. Yellow for Israelis, white or blue plates for Palestinians.
Holy crap I did not know that.
I can see how this would come about as Israel is besieged on all sides but I can see how they are going to live with their neighbors long term with polices like that.
I also understand how a few incidents could generate this kind of response with regards to human rights for Israeli people. But once again this kind of thing does nothing to enhance the future of Israel in the region. I can't see how Israel can look at its neighbors from a gun site forever.
This.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:No, I hoped people would take the time to read the article and think about it before they posted. Sue me.
I read it, thought about it, and decided that your behavior in this case was worse than that of the people in the article.
Hence our discussion.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:No, I hoped people would take the time to read the article and think about it before they posted. Sue me.
I read it, thought about it, and decided that your behavior in this case was worse than that of the people in the article.
Hence our discussion.
The internet is a twisted place.
11254
Post by: veritechc
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Racism is racism. Bigotry is bigotry. There is literally no difference in my mind between this and folks calling for drinking from a seperate water fountian. I don't care that it isn't on the law books, I care that enough of a portion of the population supports this message that it got onto CNN's front page.
If you think thats wrong, fine. <shrug>
Thinking you're wrong about condemning 8 million Israelis as Nazis because of 30 people and their letter isn't a tacit approval of racism, Peter.
Your refusal to engage the point that I've made about Jordanian law and why people might not want their daughters to move to that country is telling as well. The skin color or religion of the people enforcing those laws is quite irrelevant to me.
I can say without a doubt that the 30 people who wrote the letter are the worst form of bigots. Bigots who have forgotten what its like to have prejudice thrust on them. Its like black people in America being prejudice against the whites, how soon we all forget.
As a quick side note Monster Rain you best be black with that avatar or your whole argument is invalidated...
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
veritechc wrote:As a quick side note Monster Rain you best be black with that avatar or your whole argument is invalidated...
What?
Boxxy Brown is the greatest cartoon character of all time!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Boxy Brown is one of the greatest leaders in modern history.
Its refreshing to see that at least one person in here can grasp the fundamental premise of my post while not getting hung up on the title. I'll know better next time.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:No, I hoped people would take the time to read the article and think about it before they posted. Sue me.
I read it, thought about it, and decided that your behavior in this case was worse than that of the people in the article.
Hence our discussion.
The internet is a twisted place.
Agreed.
See, you may find it humorous to throw around the whole "Nazis and Jews" thing, but for me it just makes me think of millions of dead people so I don't find it the source of amusement that you do. Automatically Appended Next Post: veritechc wrote:I can say without a doubt that the 30 people who wrote the letter are the worst form of bigots. Bigots who have forgotten what its like to have prejudice thrust on them. Its like black people in America being prejudice against the whites, how soon we all forget.
If they had just made a public information campaign about the laws concerning womens' rights in neighboring countries they could have made the same point without looking quite so stupid.
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Peter Wiggin wrote:No, I hoped people would take the time to read the article and think about it before they posted. Sue me.
I read it, thought about it, and decided that your behavior in this case was worse than that of the people in the article.
Hence our discussion.
The internet is a twisted place.
Agreed.
See, you may find it humorous to throw around the whole "Nazis and Jews" thing, but for me it just makes me think of millions of dead people so I don't find it the source of amusement that you do.
Its not about humor, its about getting people to read the article. I do see disturbing similarities, and I do have grave concern for the future of folks in palestine and israel. Specifically the kids growing up on a steady diet of hate and violence.
I just assume people are capable of looking past a volatile title and actually look at historical comparissons. Don't assume I take it as comedy....my family left Europe due to the Nazi's. I take the entire concept of bigotry and hatred very very seriously.
11254
Post by: veritechc
Monster Rain wrote:veritechc wrote:As a quick side note Monster Rain you best be black with that avatar or your whole argument is invalidated...
What?
Boxxy Brown is the greatest cartoon character of all time!
Well now I can see how misunderstandings can happen. I never heard of Boxy Brown and frankly just from the look of the Avatar I could easily be offended. If you had showed me that in person without explanation I would have punched you.
Perhaps something like that is going on here. Perhaps it goes on every day in Israel.
Maybe we all just got a bit of insight?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
veritechc wrote:Monster Rain wrote:veritechc wrote:As a quick side note Monster Rain you best be black with that avatar or your whole argument is invalidated...
What?
Boxxy Brown is the greatest cartoon character of all time!
Well now I can see how misunderstandings can happen. I never heard of Boxy Brown and frankly just from the look of the Avatar I could easily be offended. If you had showed me that in person with explanation I would have punched you.
Boxy Brown is a character from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and he's the greatest. http://video.adultswim.com/aqua-teen-hunger-force/im-friends-with-a-toilet-paper-tube.html Here's a good one.
What's so bad about the picture, by the way?
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Kanluwen wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:I agree with Peter here, this is rather similar to a certain set of Nazi laws.
Lolwat?
No it's not. They're not pulling people aside checking their noses, ears, eyes, or skulls to see if you're "pure Jew".
No but they have been known to round up Palestinian men and boys to tattoo barcodes on their arms for identification. Sound familiar?
Jewish people = no beef from me. Israel, the state = bunch of bullying arseholes. Palestine, the state = rather too many dickheads just looking for a fight.
I'm pretty sure the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want to be left in peace as much as I do.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Mr Mystery wrote:Kanluwen wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:I agree with Peter here, this is rather similar to a certain set of Nazi laws.
Lolwat?
No it's not. They're not pulling people aside checking their noses, ears, eyes, or skulls to see if you're "pure Jew".
No but they have been known to round up Palestinian men and boys to tattoo barcodes on their arms for identification. Sound familiar?
Jewish people = no beef from me. Israel, the state = bunch of bullying arseholes. Palestine, the state = rather too many dickheads just looking for a fight.
I'm pretty sure the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want to be left in peace as much as I do.
"No but they have been known to round up Palestinian men and boys to tattoo barcodes on their arms for identification" 
I've never heard that before....
And pretty much this "Jewish people = no beef from me. Israel, the state = bunch of bullying arseholes. Palestine, the state = rather too many dickheads just looking for a fight."
I dont think everyone fully supports what Israel does
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Gibbsey wrote:I dont think everyone fully supports what Israel does
Does anyone fully support everything that any country does?
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Monster Rain wrote:Gibbsey wrote:I dont think everyone fully supports what Israel does
Does anyone fully support everything that any country does?
Nope which was kind of my point, but Israel has done some dickish things
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Oh sure they have.
That's a rather... turbulent part of the world.
9079
Post by: FITZZ
I do agree with Peter that the comments made by these 30 or so people do plant seeds for further strife amongst the two groups.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
The important question here is:
Do I care?
And no, no I dont.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Soladrin wrote:The important question here is:
Do I care?
And no, no I dont.
Then why are you here? Automatically Appended Next Post: FITZZ wrote: I do agree with Peter that the comments made by these 30 or so people do plant seeds for further strife amongst the two groups.
Same but "Endorsement of Nazi policy by Israel" isnt a very good title to invoke discussion, kinda flame bait.
5534
Post by: dogma
This thread is terrible even by the low standards of our normal threads that regard the Middle East.
The letter that was issued is clearly racist, as it requests that Jewish people consider race when breeding.
The title of this thread is clearly meant to be inflammatory, as many, many other groups have concerned themselves with racial purity. It is not merely a "Nazi thing".
The OP has continued his nominal course of misconstruing arguments, by either inability to understand or unwillingness to do so. No one has argued that they support the letter's meaning, but that is the strawman he is arguing against. He had admitted to trolling in the past, and I suspect he is doing the same here.
That being said, defending the conduct of Israeli citizens on the basis that other people do similar things elsewhere is not a good argument. Other people having committed genocide does not make the commission of genocide acceptable. If it did, then there would be no outcry over comments about "driving Israel into the sea".
In conclusion:
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
In b4 Fascist Commies!!
5534
Post by: dogma
veritechc wrote:avantgarde wrote:Well Israel does issue license plates based off ethnicity. Yellow for Israelis, white or blue plates for Palestinians.
Holy crap I did not know that.
Wait, you do know that, in this context, "Palestinian" means "citizen of the Occupied Territory", right?
Israel doesn't issue different colors of license plates to people based on the color of their skin, or the religion that they follow.
There are plenty of white Christians driving around with white Israeli plates.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I've noticed that in California they make obnoxious yuppies drive around with white plates with red lettering.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
dogma wrote:veritechc wrote:avantgarde wrote:Well Israel does issue license plates based off ethnicity. Yellow for Israelis, white or blue plates for Palestinians.
Holy crap I did not know that.
Wait, you do know that, in this context, "Palestinian" means "citizen of the Occupied Territory", right?
Israel doesn't issue different colors of license plates to people based on the color of their skin, or the religion that they follow.
There are plenty of white Christians driving around with white Israeli plates.
If its purely on ethnicity then its a problem, location is not a problem
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
TO be fair, Israeli is under siege from its neighbors. If the "No Arab" law is put into effect, thats concerning, but Israel is almost a military nation, so not allowing contact with what they see as "The Enemy" would make some sense.
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Happygrunt wrote:TO be fair, Israeli is under siege from its neighbors. If the "No Arab" law is put into effect, thats concerning, but Israel is almost a military nation, so not allowing contact with what they see as "The Enemy" would make some sense.
Yet they are part of a vicious circle. Palestinian militants lob rockets into Israel, Israel bulldozes whole towns. Israel steals land, and illegally occupies it (see West Bank) and the west does nowt.
5534
Post by: dogma
Happygrunt wrote:TO be fair, Israeli is under siege from its neighbors. If the "No Arab" law is put into effect, thats concerning, but Israel is almost a military nation, so not allowing contact with what they see as "The Enemy" would make some sense.
You know that there are Arab Israelis, right?
About 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, and far more are of Arab descent.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Thread title is dishonest and bad.
The letters (actually written by two different, but related, groups) are racist and bad.
5534
Post by: dogma
Monster Rain wrote:
Does anyone fully support everything that any country does?
Jingoists?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
dogma wrote:Monster Rain wrote:
Does anyone fully support everything that any country does?
Jingoists?
Does any rational person support everything that any country does?
5534
Post by: dogma
Fun fact:
The Correlates of War data set, basically the foundation of the modern study of international politics, assigns numeric codes to all the nation mentioned within it.
The code for Israel is 666.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
The end times are upon us!
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I agree with Dogma, ar! this thread be a pile o gak so it be!
241
Post by: Ahtman
dogma wrote:Fun fact:
The Correlates of War data set, basically the foundation of the modern study of international politics, assigns numeric codes to all the nation mentioned within it.
The code for Israel is 666.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Maybe instead of : "Endorsement of Nazi [edit: -esque] policy by Israel. [Edit: By group of Rabbi's wives]"
It should be: "Endorsement of Nazi [edit: -esque] policy by Israel [Edit: -i Rabbi's wives]."
5534
Post by: dogma
Why not simply this:
Letter urges Israeli girls to avoid dating Arabs
I mean, it worked well enough for CNN.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Or maybe it should just be "Controversial Stance Endorsed by Group of Radical Rabbi's Wives".
5534
Post by: dogma
I mean, the stance is clearly racist(well, racialist, but I'm one of maybe 10 people that knows the difference), so there is no point hiding that.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
dogma wrote:I mean, the stance is clearly racist(well, racialist, but I'm one of maybe 10 people that knows the difference), so there is no point hiding that.
Yeah, but at the same time, the title still makes it seem like it's encouraged by the state of Israel.
11254
Post by: veritechc
dogma wrote:veritechc wrote:avantgarde wrote:Well Israel does issue license plates based off ethnicity. Yellow for Israelis, white or blue plates for Palestinians.
Holy crap I did not know that.
Wait, you do know that, in this context, "Palestinian" means "citizen of the Occupied Territory", right?
Israel doesn't issue different colors of license plates to people based on the color of their skin, or the religion that they follow.
There are plenty of white Christians driving around with white Israeli plates.
If it is a regional designation that's fine. It makes much more sense.
34168
Post by: Amaya
It's a fact that Arabs in Arab countries (and even some who move to Western countries) perform honor killings. Not to mention that their tolerance of other religions (even other sects of Islam) is equivalent to that of Middle Ages Christianity. You know, back when their were open wars between Catholics and Protestants?
Islam has more violent radicals than any other religion/culture. Their are lots of radicals in other religions/cultures, but they don't go around killing people. Muslims (primarily those in the Middle East) can be dangerous. Are they all violent, murderous nut jobs? No. No one is saying that. All people are saying is be careful around them.
Yes, Israel is bigoted. That sort of happens when your nation is surrounded by people who would love to drive you out of what they perceive as their land. Israel doesn't like Arabs, Arabs don't like Israel. This isn't news and no one should be surprised when one of the sides has some extremist Rabbi/Imam spout off about how much they hate the other side.
Saying it is anything like Nazi Germany is asinine and completely ignores what the Nazis actually did.
Of course calling people "Nazis" is one of the hip things to do now.
28942
Post by: Stormrider
Pete, you would do well not to use the "moral equivalence" argument with this story. A letter is not the equivalent of the methodical and barbaric way that the Nazi's went about the elimination of 6 million Jews and roughly 6 million other religious/ethnic minorities. It's not even in the same sphere.
No one lives in a vaccuum, the Israelis have had more than enough invasions and attacks happen to them to be more than apprehensive about their neighbors. Not saying it's right, but it's far too easy to sit in judgement when you don't have rockets and bombs assailing your country everyday.
5534
Post by: dogma
Amaya wrote: It's a fact that Arabs in Arab countries (and even some who move to Western countries) perform honor killings.
It's also a fact that Americans living in America murder people.
Amaya wrote:
Their are lots of radicals in other religions/cultures, but they don't go around killing people.
This is incredibly ignorant. Look into the Tamil Tigers, the Buddhist separatists living in Tibet, or the Catalan separatists living in Spain.
Amaya wrote:
Israel doesn't like Arabs, Arabs don't like Israel.
What about the Israeli Arabs?
Are you capable of understanding that the two categories are not mutually exclusive?
Amaya wrote:
Saying it is anything like Nazi Germany is asinine and completely ignores what the Nazis actually did.
The Nazis put people into concentration camps, so did the Israelis, and so did the United States. Pretending that similar things are not at all related is just as much a disservice to the dead as making false comparisons. Automatically Appended Next Post: Stormrider wrote:
No one lives in a vaccuum, the Israelis have had more than enough invasions and attacks happen to them to be more than apprehensive about their neighbors. Not saying it's right, but it's far too easy to sit in judgement when you don't have rockets and bombs assailing your country everyday.
This is also true of Nazi Germany, should we not judge them either?
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
dogma wrote:Stormrider wrote:
No one lives in a vaccuum, the Israelis have had more than enough invasions and attacks happen to them to be more than apprehensive about their neighbors. Not saying it's right, but it's far too easy to sit in judgement when you don't have rockets and bombs assailing your country everyday.
This is also true of Nazi Germany, should we not judge them either?
I agree with much of what you're saying dogma, but I take issue with this. Nazi Germany was not completely surrounded by hostile countries (at least until the end point of the war). Although France can be accused of inflaming the situation by occupying parts of Germany at points, but Nazi Germany was not at a constant threat of attacks from insurgents. This did change with the Allied bombing Campaign, but I don't think you can honestly claim that the situation of Israel now is equivalent to Nazi Germany then (barring the end days of the war, and Israel is not at war).
5534
Post by: dogma
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I agree with much of what you're saying dogma, but I take issue with this. Nazi Germany was not completely surrounded by hostile countries (at least until the end point of the war). Although France can be accused of inflaming the situation by occupying parts of Germany at points, but Nazi Germany was not at a constant threat of attacks from insurgents. This did change with the Allied bombing Campaign, but I don't think you can honestly claim that the situation of Israel now is equivalent to Nazi Germany then (barring the end days of the war, and Israel is not at war).
Does WWI not count when determining enemies?
And, beyond that, the realism that was so popular in those days (and is becoming more popular now) basically dictated that all states are always surrounded by enemies; zero-sum power and all that.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
dogma wrote:Does WWI not count when determining enemies?
You did say Nazi Germany, but even by World War 1 Germany is not very similar to the current state of Israel. In fact I don't see what similarities you are attempting to draw here in this case.
And, beyond that, the realism that was so popular in those days (and is becoming more popular now) basically dictated that all states are always surrounded by enemies; zero-sum power and all that.
I don't see evidence to support this, unless you mean that this is the mentality that people in Israel are increasingly taking, rather than it being a growing worldwide point of view.
5534
Post by: dogma
Emperors Faithful wrote:
You did say Nazi Germany, but even by World War 1 Germany is not very similar to the current state of Israel. In fact I don't see what similarities you are attempting to draw here in this case.
Nazi Germany is still Germany. The people did not magically become Nazis over night.
In any case, Germany lost WWI while fighting enemies, those enemies persisted and imposed Versailles. The reason that we don't think on this is nothing more than the Western obsession with intermittence..
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I don't see evidence to support this, unless you mean that this is the mentality that people in Israel are increasingly taking, rather than it being a growing worldwide point of view.
I mean the former.
11029
Post by: Ketara
dogma wrote:This thread is terrible even by the low standards of our normal threads that regard the Middle East.
The letter that was issued is clearly racist, as it requests that Jewish people consider race when breeding.
The title of this thread is clearly meant to be inflammatory, as many, many other groups have concerned themselves with racial purity. It is not merely a "Nazi thing".
The OP has continued his nominal course of misconstruing arguments, by either inability to understand or unwillingness to do so. No one has argued that they support the letter's meaning, but that is the strawman he is arguing against. He had admitted to trolling in the past, and I suspect he is doing the same here.
That being said, defending the conduct of Israeli citizens on the basis that other people do similar things elsewhere is not a good argument. Other people having committed genocide does not make the commission of genocide acceptable. If it did, then there would be no outcry over comments about "driving Israel into the sea".
In conclusion:
I think that pretty much sums up this thread.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Yeah Dogma its basically common knowledge that WW1 caused WW2, but its clearly not really the same situation. I'm somewhat perplexed where you were going with that one as well.
I entirely understand the Israeli mentality. It's not a winning mentality, because hearts and minds is the only way to win these days, but I understand it.
5534
Post by: dogma
mattyrm wrote:Yeah Dogma its basically common knowledge that WW1 caused WW2, but its clearly not really the same situation. I'm somewhat perplexed where you were going with that one as well.
The point wasn't that they're the same, but rather that they are similar.
The larger issue is that many people will reach to say that they understand Israel's choices based on their position, but no one (or at least very few people) will repeat such a sentiment with respect to Nazi Germany.
I will say that I understand both, but endorse neither. If that's the sense of "understand" that has been in use here, then the above argument has no weight.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dogma wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:
You did say Nazi Germany, but even by World War 1 Germany is not very similar to the current state of Israel. In fact I don't see what similarities you are attempting to draw here in this case.
Nazi Germany is still Germany. The people did not magically become Nazis over night.
That's right they didn't. The Nazi Party come to power. Hence Nazi germany.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
That's right they didn't. The Nazi Party come to power. Hence Nazi germany.
So, all those people involved in the Nazi Party and its ascent to power weren't also German? And the Nazi Party didn't ascend to power in Germany by popular election?
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dogma wrote:whatwhat wrote:
That's right they didn't. The Nazi Party come to power. Hence Nazi germany.
So, all those people involved in the Nazi Party and its ascent to power weren't also German? And the Nazi Party didn't ascend to power in Germany by popular election?
Erm, you do understand that when people usually say "Nazi Germany" they are talking about germany under Nazi Rule. The Nazi Party didn't even exist untill after world war one.
But then this is just you trying to redifine the term nazi germany in order to uphold your wanning integrity. Nice try but sory you fail.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
Erm, you do understand that when people usually say "Nazi Germany" they are talking about germany under Nazi Rule.
Yes, but again you're focusing on the "Nazi" and ignoring the "Germany". Nazi Germany didn't cease being Germany, it was a different state but not a different country.
whatwhat wrote:
The Nazi Party didn't even exist untill after world war one.
That has nothing to do with my argument. Again, its not like the Nazi Party somehow appeared from nowhere. It was largely composed of German citizens, and affected by German perspective.
whatwhat wrote:
But then this is just you trying to redifine the term nazi germany in order to uphold your wanning integrity. Nice try but sory you fail.
No, I'm basically just explaining that the Nazi Party didn't descend from a spaceship piloted by Adolf Hitler. It was the manifestation of a general discontent with respect to state of Germany following World War I in which the nation had lost what was once its pride; the whole "November Traitors" thing and all that.
241
Post by: Ahtman
The Nazi Party proper may not have existed but it's antecedents did. It didn't just magically appear whole one day, it had it's roots in other movements. He isn't refining redefining it as much as being historically accurate as opposed to going by communal history. The Treaty just gave these groups a bigger voice.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Erm lets just take a step backward here. You were talking about Nazi Germany and used world war one to back up one your points. Then when brought up on it you've come up with the genius logic that the politics of any country can be defined by the government in power twenty years in the future. Nice one Mr. Genius. Well on your way to your nobel prize I see.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:You were talking about Nazi Germany and used world war one to back up one your points.
Yes, my point was that World War I defined the set that might be called "The enemies of Germany".
This was a large part of the zeitgeist that brought the Nazis to power.
Things that occur before a given event often have an effect on that event. That's the essence of causality.
whatwhat wrote:
Then when brought up on it you've come up with the genius logic that the politics of any country can be defined by the government in power twenty years in the future.
That isn't what I said at all. I understand that you have difficulty communicating, but please make at least a base attempt to understand what has been written.
241
Post by: Ahtman
World War I and World War II, are in essence, the same war. One cannot exist without the other. They are two acts of the same play.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
I understand exactly what you have written don't squirm out of this one with that drivel.
Just because things occring before an event have an effect on it doesn't mean those things are defined by said event. That's dumb. It could quite have easily been another radical party which took the Nazis place in history because of the effects of world war one. With differing politics.
Germany was a country looking out for a party which spoke to them, it just so happens it was the Nazis who assumed that position. They werent a nation of fascists crying out for an expansionist government to give them world domination.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:I understand exactly what you have written don't squirm out of this one with that drivel.
You clearly don't.
I said, obliquely, that World War I defined the enemies of Nazi Germany. You can dispute that if you want to, but what you're doing here is attempting to claim that I said Nazi Germany defined World War I.
Perhaps that's not what you intended, but its clearly what yo wrote just 2 posts ago.
whatwhat wrote:
Just because things occring before an event have an effect on it doesn't mean those things are defined by said event. That's dumb.
Again, that's not what I said. I'm not making an argument from necessity. I'm making the argument that World War I influenced Nazi Germany, and Germany in general, by determining what states it considered to be its enemies.
Things that occur before other things frequently have no significant bearing on the later things. However, I'm arguing that the thing in question (WWI) did have a significant bearing on the second thing in question (Nazi Germany). As such, it doesn't make much sense to argue against that by stating that it might have been the case. Its basically just stating that we cannot be certain, which is always true of the consideration of history.
whatwhat wrote:
It could quite have easily been another radical party which took the Nazis place in history because of the effects of world war one. With differing politics.
No, that's not true at all. That theory requires that radical political parties descend from spaceships. The sentiment that defined the Nazi Party had been around for about 75 years before Hitler came to power.
I know that its difficult to accept for many people, but Nazism was not an unheard of political ideology. Its simply that it didn't really take off in the sense of achieving overt, contiguous political power until just before WWII. Automatically Appended Next Post: whatwhat wrote:
Germany was a country looking out for a party which spoke to them, it just so happens it was the Nazis who assumed that position. They werent a nation of fascists crying out for an expansionist government to give them world domination.
So you're claiming that the Fluffy Bunny Party would have been equally as successful?
Or, for that matter, that there was no reason for the Social Democrats to lose majority?
Sorry, I prefer to think that people put more into their political choices than casting votes by closing their eyes and playing eeny, meeny, miny, moe.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Maybe you should read back what you said yourself. Someone made the point that Israel is surrounded by hostile nations then you compared that to Nazi Germany and when brought up on it's falacy referenced wrold war one to uphold your integrity. And now this all hangs on some thread your clutching on to that Nazi Germany = Pre Nazi Germany because of causality.
Alltogether it's fairly dumb.
Most people, not you, who know a thing or two about World War 2 know most of Nazi Germanies enemies were made after the Nazi Party came to power, in their consequent actions in becoming a totalitarian expansionist regime: The Third Reich.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:Maybe you should read back what you said yourself. Someone made the point that Israel is surrounded by hostile nations then you compared that to Nazi Germany and when brought up on it's falacy referenced wrold war one to uphold your integrity.
The only real point of contention that could arise from that is the bit about having rockets lobbed into one's nation. I'll admit that my phrase might have been better honed in the initial comment, but the basic point that we are comparing fundamentally similar (though not identical) events remains. I already clarified this point an earlier response to you, so it seems odd that I should have to do it again.
whatwhat wrote:
And now this all hangs on some thread your clutching on to that Nazi Germany = Pre Nazi Germany because of causality.
No, that's wrong as well. The point about causality was made only because you misunderstood the order of impact that I was claiming.
In essence, you thought that I was claiming that Nazi Germany defined WWI, when I really made the opposite claim.
What my argument hangs on hasn't actually been brought up here, in part because I'm not in an essay writing mood, but also because its fairly common knowledge that WWI significantly impacted the rise of the Nazi Party; so it shouldn't be a huge stretch to say that it also largely determined what the average German citizen saw as an enemy of Germany.
whatwhat wrote:
Alltogether it's fairly dumb.
It seems perfectly sensible to me.
Perhaps it only appears unintelligible because you have an axe to grind?
9401
Post by: whatwhat
My Axe is already ground up. It's the consistency of sawdust. This is about you making dumb statements. I guess this is what happens when you are "not in an essay writing mood"
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
Most people, not you, who know a thing or two about World War 2 know Nazi Germanies enemies were made after the Nazi Party came to power, in their consequent actions in becoming a totalitarian expansionist regime: The Third Reich.
I'm not arguing about the perceptions of foreign nations. I'm arguing about the perceptions of German citizens, the people that tended to regard the Treaty of Versailles as a significant imposition on their sovereignty.
Additionally, argumentum ad populum is fallacious.
Automatically Appended Next Post: whatwhat wrote:This is about you making dumb statements.
That's not a very good argument.
You haven't actually explained why my statement was "dumb", you've really only said that you find it so.
You're free to do so of course, but if you want to carry on a productive conversation its best not to turn yourself on that idea.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dogma wrote:whatwhat wrote:
Most people, not you, who know a thing or two about World War 2 know Nazi Germanies enemies were made after the Nazi Party came to power, in their consequent actions in becoming a totalitarian expansionist regime: The Third Reich.
I'm not arguing about the perceptions of foreign nations. I'm arguing about the perceptions of German citizens, the people that tended to regard the Treaty of Versailles as a significant imposition on their sovereignty.
No that's a completely different thing. You were stating Nazi Germany was a paralel to israel because it was sorounded by hostile nations. That really doesn't have any weight when your considering Nazi Germany's and the german populations preception of them as aposed to the other way around.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
No that's a completely different thing. You were stating Nazi Germany was a paralel to israel because it was sorounded by hostile nations. That really doesn't have any weight when your considering Nazi Germany's and the german populations preception of them as aposed to the other way around.
No, that's not what was said.
The initial poster made a claim about Israel having a legitimate reason to be apprehensive about their neighbors.
I then said that Nazi Germany existed in similar conditions.
The perception of the people of a given nation are far more relevant to their conduct than whatever the actual state of affairs may be. People act in accordance with what they perceive to be true, not with what is actually true. My argument is that said perception (that is, the perception of German citizens) with respect to what nations are hostile to Germany was deeply affected by World War I; primarily through the Treaty of Versailles.
This isn't a difficult argument. Why are you continually misrepresenting it?
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Well that's convient. You were talking about something completely different to what the people you were responding to were, EF's post in particular.
dogma wrote:The argument that would actually lack any force is the one that you're making, in which the perceptions of German people are not relevant at all to what the German people actually do.
This isn't a difficult argument. Why are you continually misrepresenting it?
I'm not making any such argument.
Oh but look you edited that one out, so I guess you know that to. Your just trying to make any ground you possibly can right now aren't you?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I don't think the point Dogma was trying to make is particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:Well that's convient. You were talking about something completely different to what the people you were responding to were, EF's post in particular.
Perhaps there was a breakdown in communication, though I doubt it given that EF clearly referenced the French occupation of Germany prior to the outbreak of WWII.
whatwhat wrote:
dogma wrote:The argument that would actually lack any force is the one that you're making, in which the perceptions of German people are not relevant at all to what the German people actually do.
This isn't a difficult argument. Why are you continually misrepresenting it?
I'm not making any such argument.
Oh but look you edited that one out, so I guess you know that to. Your just trying to make any ground you possibly can right now aren't you?
No, I edited it out because, after hitting "submit" I realized that you hadn't said any such thing.
Though, in my defense, it is often difficult to work out what you're saying through all the misspellings and poor punctuation.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. Not particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.
Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germany's perceptions.
dogma wrote:Though, in my defense, it is often difficult to work out what you're saying through all the misspellings and poor punctuation.
Grammar Nazi in a thread about Nazis. Excellent. It's fairly clear what I was saying, you'll use anything and everything in order to make yourself look right though. Saying you can't understand me is a prime example.
241
Post by: Ahtman
whatwhat wrote:Your just trying to make any ground you possibly can right now aren't you?
Your: showing possesion
You're: contraction for 'you are'
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Ahtman wrote:whatwhat wrote:Your just trying to make any ground you possibly can right now aren't you?
Your: showing possesion
You're: contraction for 'you are'
I do know. I just don't care.
241
Post by: Ahtman
whatwhat wrote:I do know. I just don't care.
If you can't be arsed to care about something as simple as language, why would any one care about your ideas about the intricacies of history? If someone can't care about something simple, they probably won't care about something complicated.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germanie's perceptions.
Here is the initial comment:
dogma wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
No one lives in a vaccuum, the Israelis have had more than enough invasions and attacks happen to them to be more than apprehensive about their neighbors. Not saying it's right, but it's far too easy to sit in judgement when you don't have rockets and bombs assailing your country everyday.
This is also true of Nazi Germany, should we not judge them either?
I've placed the relevant sections in bold.
As I've already said that I should have said that I wasn't referring to the incidence of terrorism. But the rest should be plain as day.
At this point its clear to me that you are either unwilling, or unable, to understand my point.
whatwhat wrote:
Grammar Nazi in a thread about Nazis. Excellent.
No, that's a misuse of the term. A Grammar Nazi is one who complains about poor grammar without cause. Your poor grammar directly impedes my ability to understand what you're talking about, so I have cause to reference it.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
whatwhat wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. Not particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.
Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germany's perceptions.
I'm not clear what you mean by "original comparison". Dogma said that there were parallels between Nazi Germany's and Israel's positions. Emperor's Faithful said he disagreed, in part because Nazi Germany was not surrounded by hostile countries (until the end of WWII, anyway). Dogma contradicted this, pointing out that in the perceptions of Germans, they were in fact surrounded by hostile countries, with "hostile" in their perceptions being largely defined by the outcome of WWI.,
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dogma wrote:whatwhat wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germanie's perceptions.
Here is the initial comment:
dogma wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
No one lives in a vaccuum, the Israelis have had more than enough invasions and attacks happen to them to be more than apprehensive about their neighbors. Not saying it's right, but it's far too easy to sit in judgement when you don't have rockets and bombs assailing your country everyday.
This is also true of Nazi Germany, should we not judge them either?
I've placed the relevant sections in bold.
As I've already said that I should have said that I wasn't referring to the incidence of terrorism. But the rest should be plain as day.
At this point its clear to me that you are either unwilling, or unable, to understand my point.
whatwhat wrote:
Grammar Nazi in a thread about Nazis. Excellent.
No, that's a misuse of the term. A Grammar Nazi is one who complains about poor grammar without cause. Your poor grammar directly impedes my ability to understand what you're talking about, so I have cause to reference it.
Actually the orginal comment which you responded to by referencing World War One is what I'm talking about, the response which I took issue with.
Quite frankly if you can't get what I'm talking about because I mispell you're then your allways going to have that probelm. I've made sense in everything I have said. You're only bring this up because you've lost every other part of this argument.
Mannahnin wrote:whatwhat wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. Not particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.
Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germany's perceptions.
I'm not clear what you mean by "original comparison". Dogma said that there were parallels between Nazi Germany's and Israel's positions. Emperor's Faithful said he disagreed, in part because Nazi Germany was not surrounded by hostile countries (until the end of WWII, anyway). Dogma contradicted this, pointing out that in the perceptions of Germans, they were in fact surrounded by hostile countries, with "hostile" in their perceptions being largely defined by the outcome of WWI.,
Which is a dumb argument because EF was not talking about the perceptions of germans he was talking about hostile countries around Israel and Germany.
The fact you had to include "hostile" in quotes should say someting to you.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
Actually the orginal comment which you responded to by referencing World War One is what I'm talking about, the response which I took issue with.
Yes, and I have explained exactly why I did that several times now. Two other posters have also made attempts to explain it to you.
You clearly don't consider it to be a legitimate reference, but you haven't provided a good reason as to why.
whatwhat wrote:
Quite frankly if you can't get what I'm talking about because I mispell you're then your allways going to have that probelm. I've made sense in everything I have said. You're only bring this up because you've lost every other part of this argument.
A few misspelling are inevitable, as are incidences of strained grammar, but you often do both with great frequency and that makes your posts difficult to read at times. Whether or not it will always be problem that certain people doesn't change the fact that its present.
But at any rate, I'm bringing it up in order to give a partial explanation as to why I misread one of your posts. Its constructive criticism, not an insult.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dogma wrote:whatwhat wrote:
Actually the orginal comment which you responded to by referencing World War One is what I'm talking about, the response which I took issue with.
Yes, and I have explained exactly why I did that several times now. Two other posters have also made attempts to explain it to you.
You clearly don't consider it to be a legitimate reference, but you haven't provided a good reason as to why.
whatwhat wrote:
Quite frankly if you can't get what I'm talking about because I mispell you're then your allways going to have that probelm. I've made sense in everything I have said. You're only bring this up because you've lost every other part of this argument.
A few misspelling are inevitable, as are incidences of strained grammar, but you often do both with great frequency and that makes your posts difficult to read at times. Whether or not it will always be problem that certain people doesn't change the fact that its present.
But at any rate, I'm bringing it up in order to give a partial explanation as to why I misread one of your posts. Its constructive criticism, not an insult.
I didn't take it as an insult. I took it as you clutching at straws. Which is what it was. I can't really see how with a thousand more grammer and spelling mistakes you can misread me as making the point you accused me of making.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
Which is a dumb argument because EF was not talking about the perceptions of germans he was talking about hostile countries around Israel and Germany.
Yes, and there was a fairly clear misunderstanding that took two additional posts to clarify.
Recall that EF was responding to my point with his initial comment.
35498
Post by: Connor McKane
Monster Rain wrote:Saints preserve us.
I forgot that the Jews in pre-Holocaust Germany were constantly calling for Germany's destruction and they had had to build a wall around Berlin to keep Judaic Fundamentalist suicide bombers away from the German civilians. These 30 Rabbis' wives opinions are somehow Israeli policy, too? This thread is bad... you know the rest.
It's exactly the same thing, you're right.
QFT ...
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
I didn't take it as an insult. I took it as you clutching at straws. Which is what it was. I can't really see how with a thousand more grammer and spelling mistakes you can misread me as making the point you accused me of making.
That's your prerogative of course, I'm merely telling you what occurred. You can believe that or not, its not my concern.
I do, however, find it interesting that, instead of actually mounting an argument, you feel the need to reiterate for us all the degree to which you feel that you're correct.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dogma wrote:whatwhat wrote:
Which is a dumb argument because EF was not talking about the perceptions of germans he was talking about hostile countries around Israel and Germany.
Yes, and there was a fairly clear misunderstanding that took two additional posts to clarify.
Recall that EF was responding to my point with his initial comment.
No because you had aknowledged his misunderstanding of your point and were responding on that level.
dogma wrote:whatwhat wrote:
I didn't take it as an insult. I took it as you clutching at straws. Which is what it was. I can't really see how with a thousand more grammer and spelling mistakes you can misread me as making the point you accused me of making.
That's your prerogative of course, I'm merely telling you what occurred. You can believe that or not, its not my concern.
I do, however, find it interesting that, instead of actually mounting an argument, you feel the need to reiterate for us all the degree to which you feel that you're correct.
I'm responding to your comments on my grammar which you feel the need to make instead of mounting an argument.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
No because you had aknowledged his misunderstanding of your point and were responding on that level.
Are you agreeing with me, or did you meant to say "not" instead of "no"?
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dogma wrote:whatwhat wrote:
No because you had aknowledged his misunderstanding of your point and were responding on that level.
Are you agreeing with me, or did you meant to say "not" instead of "no"?
Fialry clear really. Maybe it's implicit but then I'd hope you can figure it out. Is this really the kind of things you are having trouble with dogma?
If that's the kind of thing you're talking about and you can misread me as saying perceptions of German people are not relevant at all to what the German people actually do on the basis of spelling and grammar mistakes. Then perhaps the problem is your reading.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
whatwhat wrote: I've made sense in everything I have said. You're only bring this up because you've lost every other part of this argument.
With respect, I have to disagree with all three of these opinions.
whatwhat wrote: Mannahnin wrote:whatwhat wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. Not particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.
Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germany's perceptions.
I'm not clear what you mean by "original comparison". Dogma said that there were parallels between Nazi Germany's and Israel's positions. Emperor's Faithful said he disagreed, in part because Nazi Germany was not surrounded by hostile countries (until the end of WWII, anyway). Dogma contradicted this, pointing out that in the perceptions of Germans, they were in fact surrounded by hostile countries, with "hostile" in their perceptions being largely defined by the outcome of WWI.,
Which is a dumb argument because EF was not talking about the perceptions of germans he was talking about hostile countries around Israel and Germany.
The fact you had to include "hostile" in quotes should say someting to you.
It's not a dumb argument at all. As Dogma stated explicitly later, a person's (or people's) behavior is dependent on what they perceive to be true, not on what necessarily is true. In terms of making sense out of why some/many Israelis nowadays might think/behave like some/many Germans did prior to WW2, you naturally want to look at their situation and their perception of that situation. Them both seeing themselves as surrounded by hostile nations is a totally legitimate comparison.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
I'm responding to your comments on my grammar which you feel the need to make instead of mounting an argument.
I have made an argument, though at this point its more a matter of explanation.
The grammar comment was a little side issue that I noticed in the course of reading your words.
whatwhat wrote:
Fialry clear really. Maybe it's implicit but then I'd hope you can figure it out. Is this really the kind of things you are having trouble with dogma?
It really isn't. I may seem that way because they're your words, and you know your intention, but I don't.
All I can do is read what you wrote, and using "no" instead of "not" completely changes the meaning of that sentence. After all, its quite possible that you have come to agree with me, I can't see or hear you, so I have no way of knowing; assuming that I could would be poor form, as people often change their demeanor quite quickly.
Of course, you could simply correct your mistake, and explain what you meant, but I'm fairly certain that you aren't really objecting to the argument, so much as the arguer.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Your'e seperating his argument from what he is responding to, again.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
The Israelis are nothing like the Nazis.
For example, they haven't built secret bases under the polar ice caps.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
whatwhat wrote:Your'e seperating his argument from what he is responding to, again.
Now I'm really confused. I found Dogma's arguments pretty easy to follow, then found most of your arguments reasonably easy to follow (though I disagreed with them), but at this point you've lost me completely.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
dogma wrote:whatwhat wrote:
I'm responding to your comments on my grammar which you feel the need to make instead of mounting an argument.
I have made an argument, though at this point its more a matter of explanation.
The grammar comment was a little side issue that I noticed in the course of reading your words.
whatwhat wrote:
Fialry clear really. Maybe it's implicit but then I'd hope you can figure it out. Is this really the kind of things you are having trouble with dogma?
It really isn't. I may seem that way because they're your words, and you know your intention, but I don't.
All I can do is read what you wrote, and using "no" instead of "not" completely changes the meaning of that sentence. After all, its quite possible that you have come to agree with me, I can't see or hear you, so I have no way of knowing; assuming that I could would be poor form, as people often change their demeanor quite quickly.
Of course, you could simply correct your mistake, and explain what you meant, but I'm fairly certain that you aren't really objecting to the argument, so much as the arguer.
There was no mistake. Read it dummy.
NO because you had aknowledged Emperors Faithfulls msiundersatnding of your original point point and were responding (the response to his post) on that level. I.e. You knew what he meant when you responded to him.
Mannahnin wrote:whatwhat wrote:Your'e seperating his argument from what he is responding to, again.
Now I'm really confused. I found Dogma's arguments pretty easy to follow, then found most of your arguments reasonably easy to follow (though I disagreed with them), but at this point you've lost me completely.
Then you have lost us all because even dogma aknowledges a misunderstanding.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Monster Rain wrote:The Israelis are nothing like the Nazis.
For example, they haven't built secret bases under the polar ice caps.
Of course not. We built them and sold them to Israel. Automatically Appended Next Post: whatwhat wrote:There was no mistiake. Read it dummy.
What do you think the outcome is likely to be of you flaming another poster, when you know there's a Moderator looking at the thread right now?
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Mannahnin wrote:What do you think the outcome is likely to be of you flaming another poster, when you know there's a Moderator looking at the thread right now?
Actually I didn't know that.(only just notcied you were a mod) But then I don't really care. If I'm honest.
5534
Post by: dogma
whatwhat wrote:
If that's the kind of thing you're talking about and you can misread me as saying perceptions of German people are not relevant at all to what the German people actually do on the basis of spelling and grammar mistakes. Then perhaps the problem is your reading.
Perhaps, but I am apparently competent enough to realize that you didn't say the above. Rather, you said this:
No that's a completely different thing. You were stating Nazi Germany was a paralel to israel because it was sorounded by hostile nations. That really doesn't have any weight when your considering Nazi Germany's and the german populations preception of them as aposed to the other way around.
Those may mean the same thing, but are still different turns of phrase, so it makes no sense to claim my reading skills are poor on the basis of a rephrased form of the same idea; its dishonest to do so.
In any case, you first misstated my argument (the bold portion), and then made a marginally intelligible comment (the italicized portion) regarding perception that I mistook to be a dismissal of perception due the bit about the lack of weight. I struggled with this because you didn't properly explain what lacks weight, as the actual presence of hostile nations around a given nation would most certainly impact the perception of foreign hostility within the nation in question. Automatically Appended Next Post: whatwhat wrote:
There was no mistake. Read it dummy.
NO because you had aknowledged Emperors Faithfulls msiundersatnding of your original point point and were responding (the response to his post) on that level. I.e. You knew what he meant when you responded to him.
I did read it, and its difficult to understand because of the poor grammar.
Even your explanation is difficult to follow, because if I acknowledged EFs misunderstanding, and then responded on a level consistent with his misunderstanding, then you're just agreeing with me; which is evidently not what you intended given that it would be quite easy to simply say otherwise, and you haven't done so.
whatwhat wrote:
Then you have lost us all because even dogma aknowledges a misunderstanding.
I generally understand the argument you're trying to make, it's the specific points of contention that I'm struggling with because they rely on more precise writing than you have employed.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
You two are real pals eh?
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
whatwhat calm down, dogma stop being a grammar nazi
can we please get back to the main topic of this thread? which is how stupid the title is... i mean document by radical rabbi's wives
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Yeah! Wait, what? ...And why is this my fault?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
All I've gathered from this thread is that the Nazis have sabotaged whatwhat's grammar, and that Israel was surrounded by hostile enemies after WWI.
Did I miss anything?
34168
Post by: Amaya
I'm confused. Who was invading and launching missiles into Nazi Germany?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Palestinians, IIRC.
Or was it 30 Rabbis' wives?
34168
Post by: Amaya
It was Palistinians controlled by the Jewish New World Order which in turn is controlled by their angry wives with large noses.
Right?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I have it on good authority that she is involved.
This thing stinks to the top.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Already our enlightened followers are speading the truth.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Hmm, well having opinionated jewish family probably VASTLY biases my opinion....But good for them JK
Israel is taking steps towards either an arab free country, or it's death. They seem to forget that everyone is the freaking world wants them dead. They really need to play their moves cooler, and stop upsetting so many people with these sort of things. It seems like every week you hear something about the israelis pissing off someone.... They are indeed a powerful country. They've made a nice niche for themselves in the world economy The jewish population finally has somewhere to go, after 1800 years of pilgrimage and suffering. But that could all go down the toilet if they don't stop pissing off the ragheads (isn't that a clever slang term? It's like kraut, or jap. Very descriptive.) and stealing little pieces of crappy land from them....
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Good to see you read the thread!
/sarcasm
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Emperors Faithful wrote:Good to see you read the thread!
/sarcasm
Mmhmm. I felt like getting an opinion out there on a thread that doesn't involve plastic space manz... Besides, no way I can read through all this back and forth nonsense
The policy thing, yeah. I was basically talking about this. It's not doing anything to help them, it's just pissing off arabs, yaddayadda
241
Post by: Ahtman
Samus_aran115 wrote:Israel is taking steps towards either an arab free country, or it's death.
That isn't quite true. A terror free country, but not some odd racial purge.
Samus_aran115 wrote:They seem to forget that everyone is the freaking world wants them dead.
No, not everyone in the world wants them dead. Some have that perception, which only makes the problem worse, not better.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Ahtman wrote:Samus_aran115 wrote:Israel is taking steps towards either an arab free country, or it's death.
That isn't quite true. A terror free country, but not some odd racial purge.
Samus_aran115 wrote:They seem to forget that everyone is the freaking world wants them dead.
No, not everyone in the world wants them dead. Some have that perception, which only makes the problem worse, not better.
Yeah, you're right. I keep forgetting people actually need them to make more guns so they can kill each other better
But I gotcha.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Samus_aran115 wrote:
Mmhmm. I felt like getting an opinion out there on a thread that doesn't involve plastic space manz... Besides, no way I can read through all this back and forth nonsense
Oh believe me, you haven't missed much.
The policy thing, yeah. I was basically talking about this. It's not doing anything to help them, it's just pissing off arabs, yaddayadda
Yeah, what?
34168
Post by: Amaya
Yes, because taking land controlled by Arabs for pretty much 1500 years didn't piss them off. I'm sure that Israel pissing on them repeatedly in wars didn't put the fire out either.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Amaya wrote:Yes, because taking land controlled by Arabs for pretty much 1500 years didn't piss them off. I'm sure that Israel pissing on them repeatedly in wars didn't put the fire out either.
Not the most accurate, well thought out statement I have read in the thread.
5534
Post by: dogma
It isn't so much that it was taken (though not from Arabs, but Muslims), as that it wasn't given back by the Europeans when everything else was.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Ottoman Turks are considered European? Technically, I suppose...
And yes, I know Israel wasn't formed until after WW2.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
I thought it was under British authority.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Emperors Faithful wrote:Amaya wrote:Yes, because taking land controlled by Arabs for pretty much 1500 years didn't piss them off. I'm sure that Israel pissing on them repeatedly in wars didn't put the fire out either.
Not the most accurate, well thought out statement I have read in the thread.
Yeah, usually it's my job to make those kinds of posts
They didn't 'take' anything away from them directly. It's not like the jews just said 'hey, give us this thing right here' and stole it. The UN and all that agreed on it. I believe the UN was considering a whole bunch of different places, one of them being alaska (which reminds me, there's a fascinating book about that theoretical possibility...Where all the jews go to alaska....Anyone know what it's called?)
241
Post by: Ahtman
Samus_aran115 wrote: there's a fascinating book about that theoretical possibility...Where all the jews go to alaska....Anyone know what it's called?)
I do not but now I wish I did.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought it was under British authority.
yeah...yeahhhhh....It's all their fault!!
GG
34168
Post by: Amaya
It was under British authority for about 30 years. The Brits had promised the land to the Arabs in return for their assistance against the Turks, but failed to do so.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
generalgrog wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:I thought it was under British authority.
yeah...yeahhhhh....It's all their fault!!
GG
Amaya wrote:It was under British authority for about 30 years. The Brits had promised the land to the Arabs in return for their assistance against the Turks, but failed to do so.
Im not going to lie, us English did really screw over alot of countries... but we're freinds with most of em (Still Irans #1 enemy )
11029
Post by: Ketara
Amaya wrote:It was under British authority for about 30 years. The Brits had promised the land to the Arabs in return for their assistance against the Turks, but failed to do so.
We were actually quite happy to do so, but the French, Russians, and US told us to give the land to all the displaced Jews instead.Britain was agains thte formation of Israel, even if the plan was initially drawn up by them forty years previously.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Samus_aran115 wrote:Yeah, usually it's my job to make those kinds of posts
Don't stop trying though.
They didn't 'take' anything away from them directly. It's not like the jews just said 'hey, give us this thing right here' and stole it. The UN and all that agreed on it. I believe the UN was considering a whole bunch of different places, one of them being alaska (which reminds me, there's a fascinating book about that theoretical possibility...Where all the jews go to alaska....Anyone know what it's called?)
Australia was also considered, would be funny to see how that turned out.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Emperors Faithful wrote:Samus_aran115 wrote:Yeah, usually it's my job to make those kinds of posts
Don't stop trying though.
They didn't 'take' anything away from them directly. It's not like the jews just said 'hey, give us this thing right here' and stole it. The UN and all that agreed on it. I believe the UN was considering a whole bunch of different places, one of them being alaska (which reminds me, there's a fascinating book about that theoretical possibility...Where all the jews go to alaska....Anyone know what it's called?)
Australia was also considered, would be funny to see how that turned out.
'Oy Vey G'day'?.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Ketara wrote:Amaya wrote:It was under British authority for about 30 years. The Brits had promised the land to the Arabs in return for their assistance against the Turks, but failed to do so.
We were actually quite happy to do so
If they were happy to do so they would have, but they didn't, and they had decades to do so. They liked having influence in the region even more.
Ketara wrote:but the French, Russians, and US told us to give the land to all the displaced Jews instead.
That is a bit of an oversimplification on the forces at work.
Ketara wrote:Britain was agains thte formation of Israel
Well of course, considering the Jewish sentiment toward Britain at the time it mean t a huge loss of influence in the region. They didn't bomb the King James Hotel becuase they liked the British government at the time.
Of course there were people in Britain who were sympathetic and vice versa. This is a complicated bit of history and everyone has their skin in it.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Ahtman wrote:Ketara wrote:Amaya wrote:It was under British authority for about 30 years. The Brits had promised the land to the Arabs in return for their assistance against the Turks, but failed to do so.
We were actually quite happy to do so
If they were happy to do so they would have, but they didn't, and they had decades to do so. They liked having influence in the region even more.
Ketara wrote:but the French, Russians, and US told us to give the land to all the displaced Jews instead.
That is a bit of an oversimplification on the forces at work.
Ketara wrote:Britain was agains thte formation of Israel
Well of course, considering the Jewish sentiment toward Britain at the time it mean t a huge loss of influence in the region. They didn't bomb the King James Hotel becuase they liked the British government at the time.
Of course there were people in Britain who were sympathetic and vice versa. This is a complicated bit of history and everyone has their skin in it.
Certainly I'm oversimplifying. But anyone who would take an serious interest in this thread probably already knows about it, so I won't waste my time giving a detailed response.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Ketara wrote:Certainly I'm oversimplifying. But anyone who would take an serious interest in this thread probably already knows about it, so I won't waste my time giving a detailed response.
Fair enough.
34168
Post by: Amaya
It doesn't change the fact that Arab land was taken from Arabs and given to a people who hadn't ruled it in over 2000 years.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Well, they're there now.
The reasons for it are purely academic.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Amaya wrote:It doesn't change the fact that Arab land was taken from Arabs and given to a people who hadn't ruled it in over 2000 years.
I'm not following your arguement here.
34168
Post by: Amaya
What?
Israel hasn't been ruled by Jews for well over 2000 years. It has been controlled by Arabs for the better part of 1500 years. Taking it away from Arabs and giving it Jews was bound to tick off the Arabs.
5534
Post by: dogma
Amaya wrote:It doesn't change the fact that Arab land was taken from Arabs and given to a people who hadn't ruled it in over 2000 years.
That's not really true. It is true that many Arabs lived in what is now Israel, but it hadn't been governed by Arabs in a fully independent sense for something like 400 years; having been first governed by the Ottomans, and then the British. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:Well, they're there now.
The reasons for it are purely academic.
Not purely. The debate over whether or not Jews have a right to Israel is a big part of the conflict; especially in the internal sense. Automatically Appended Next Post: Amaya wrote:Ottoman Turks are considered European? Technically, I suppose...
No, Ottoman Turks are considered Muslims, which is why I said that the land was taken from Muslims, but not from Arabs since Turks are not Arab. No one in their right mind would call the Ottomans European, and neither would I.
6265
Post by: IAmTheWalrus
dogma wrote:Amaya wrote:It doesn't change the fact that Arab land was taken from Arabs and given to a people who hadn't ruled it in over 2000 years.
That's not really true. It is true that many Arabs lived in what is now Israel, but it hadn't been governed by Arabs in a fully independent sense for something like 400 years; having been first governed by the Ottomans, and then the British.
Amaya wrote:Ottoman Turks are considered European? Technically, I suppose...
No, Ottoman Turks are considered Muslims, which is why I said that the land was taken from Muslims, but not from Arabs since Turks are not Arab. No one in their right mind would call the Ottomans European, and neither would I.
Thank you for clarifying these two points. The widespread ignorance of the cultural and religious distinctions in the region, many of which are at the heart of the turmoil, is depressing.
dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Well, they're there now.
The reasons for it are purely academic.
Not purely. The debate over whether or not Jews have a right to Israel is a big part of the conflict; especially in the internal sense.
I have to agree with Monster Rain on this one. I think in this case it is really does come down to the old adage, "Might makes Right." The Israelis have a firm grip on their land, and they're not going to let go, and anyone who is powerful enough to do anything about it doesn't care enough.
5534
Post by: dogma
IAmTheWalrus wrote:
I have to agree with Monster Rain on this one. I think in this case it is really does come down to the old adage, "Might makes Right." The Israelis have a firm grip on their land, and they're not going to let go, and anyone who is powerful enough to do anything about it doesn't care enough.
Not necessarily. For example, the main reason that West Bank settlements are such a difficult issue that a very vocal minority of Israeli citizens sees the land as theirs by what is essentially divine proclamation.
Its true that no one with the power to remove the Jews from Israel has any interest in doing so, but its also true that Israeli power is largely governed by the extent to which the Israeli public considers its right to the land as legitimate.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
It isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's claim, and they happen to live there.
5534
Post by: dogma
As far as West Bank settlement goes, its more that they want to live there, but other people already do.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Monster Rain wrote:It isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's claim, and they happen to live there.
Ah, but they have a dusty old book that says they're supposed to live there.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Hey emp you said something I agree with!
35843
Post by: Peter Wiggin
7 pages? My goodness....I suppose it was a decent enough thread. Edited title? Muckity muck mods. Well still.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Emperors Faithful wrote:Monster Rain wrote:It isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's claim, and they happen to live there.
Ah, but they have a dusty old book that says they're supposed to live there.
A dusty old book that talks about how awesome they are and how their god smashes other gods in the face.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Amaya wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:Monster Rain wrote:It isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's claim, and they happen to live there.
Ah, but they have a dusty old book that says they're supposed to live there.
A dusty old book that talks about how awesome they are and how their god smashes other gods in the face.
The World's earliest comic book.
34168
Post by: Amaya
David and Goliath
|
|
