Manchu wrote: This has nothing to do with blasphemy.
This sign calls the people of the nations that oppose Israel "savages." It seems pretty clear to me that this is just hateful language.
Right... the MTA initially turned that down because it was "demeaning"...
But, then the group (funding the ads) took them to federal court and the court told MTA they could NOT refuse it... which to me is kinda weird in that if MTA was a private company, then they could reasonably deny this ad.
So once the ads went up, various pro-Islam (or, more likely, anti-Semitic) actors began defacing the ads and calling for their removal. So the MTA decided they could limit speech that it "reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace."
Hence my "anti-blasphemy" angle here...
*note: I really don't believe MTA are doing that... they're just doing this to "keep the peace" more than anything. But, isn't it a slippery slope?
Manchu wrote: This has nothing to do with blasphemy.
This sign calls the people of the nations that oppose Israel "savages." It seems pretty clear to me that this is just hateful language.
Respectfully.....NO.
The connection to be made is that JIHAD is uncivilized and therefore should be defeated. It does not however say that opponents of Israel are uncivilized.
GG
p.s. I am not a supporter of the sign....or it's message. Because not all JIHAD is violent.
Also, I would call for these signs to be removed myself. Whether or not one can characterize entire nations as "savage" in some sense that is not merely hateful aside, this seems like a stupid idea not just because it might possibly lead to some actual violence but mostly because it is tantamount to moral pollution. For me, free speech is not some kind of simple absolute position. If everyone is free to yell offensive hate speech at the top of their longs, for example, then many will not be free to have serious, calm, and constructive discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: The connection to be made is that JIHAD is uncivilized and therefore should be defeated. It does not however say that opponents of Israel are uncivilized.
It explicitly juxtaposes "civilized men" against "savages" not "violent ideas."
Manchu wrote: You're still not really getting to blasphemy.
True... but in light of recent events (The Innocence of Muslims trailer)... I think folks are getting hyper-aware of this issue.
Also, I would call for these signs to be removed myself.
You're free to ask...
Whether or not one can characterize entire nations as "savage" in some sense that is not merely hateful aside, this seems like a stupid idea not just because it might possibly lead to some actual violence but mostly because it is tantamount to moral pollution.
??? It's not equating savages to other nations, but to those who practice jihad. Heck, there are moderate muslims who consider that practice barbaric/savage.
For me, free speech is not some kind of simple absolute position.
In a way... it has to.
If everyone is free to yell offensive hate speech at the top of their longs, for example, then many will not be free to have serious, calm, and constructive discussion.
True, as a society (you and me, not Uncle Sam) can counter it, ostracize the group or just ignore it.
Yeah, that's kind of my point but I'm afraid I don't understand yours.
whembly wrote:
For me, free speech is not some kind of simple absolute position.
In a way... it has to.
I disagree. As I mentioned, I think this absolutist view of "hypothetical" free speech is actually harmful to the ability to exercise actual free speech.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".
"Jihad" is not a person. "Jihad" cannot in English be called "the Savage." You're bending over backwards to fail at reading the message on this sign.
“Have the courage of your convictions,” she said, “even if the judge imposed it.”
Love this quote.
Is it blasphemey? No. Could it be construed as offensive? Yes. Should it be taken down? Is it a private company or public one? If it's public than no, if it's private it should be up to them.
Anyone claiming this is a free speech issue is an idiot. You have a right to say whatever you want*, but you do NOT have the right to be granted a platform to publish your speech. Nobody is restricting freedom of speech here, they're simply declining to assist in publishing something they disagree with. The people with those posters are entirely free to print as many of them as they like (if they can find someone willing to do business with them) and post them anywhere that the property owner chooses to allow.
*Subject to certain very narrow restrictions, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Ouze wrote: I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".
I don't see a blasphemy angle though.
The blasphemy angle has nothing to do with the ad really... it's the idea that MTA now can refuse an ad based on potential outrage.
Why is it that I think that this will only apply to something that criticizes Islam? Oh, that's right, because it's only Muslims who burst into flames when their religion is "mocked." This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, and the American Freedom Defense Initiative (who sponsored the ads) will probably take the MTA back to court. They are attempting to impart to a graphical ad the same power to cause imminent harm as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.
So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.
Now, if the MTA were at all smart, they would document the vandalism rates, and argue that they are choosing to remove the ads to prevent destruction of public property, not because of the content of the ad.
Ouze wrote: Surely we're familiar with the "war on terrorism", yes? How is this different?
The phrase "war on terrorism" is extremely problematic for similar reasons especially when that collection of conflicts is mistaken for supporting Israel or vice versa.
Polonius wrote: The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.
So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.
Now, if the MTA were at all smart, they would document the vandalism rates, and argue that they are choosing to remove the ads to prevent destruction of public property, not because of the content of the ad.
Ouze wrote: I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".
"Jihad" is not a person. "Jihad" cannot in English be called "the Savage." You're bending over backwards to fail at reading the message on this sign.
It's a concept. Surely we're familiar with the "war on terrorism", yes? How is this different?
I don't doubt that this is good old fashioned Islamophobia, but there is a narrower issue here. Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, has the destruction of Israel as part of it's charter. There is an attempt at Jihad (the retaking of all of Palestine), which I'm guessing is the root of the issue.
Yeah, that's kind of my point but I'm afraid I don't understand yours.
whembly wrote:
For me, free speech is not some kind of simple absolute position.
In a way... it has to.
I disagree. As I mentioned, I think this absolutist view of "hypothetical" free speech is actually harmful to the ability to exercise actual free speech.
Would you consider someone burning the American Flag an "absoute expression of free speech"? (I do...)
Ouze wrote: I'm with General Grog's interpretation. The only enemy/"savages" that are called out in the ad is "Jihad".
"Jihad" is not a person. "Jihad" cannot in English be called "the Savage." You're bending over backwards to fail at reading the message on this sign.
It's a concept. Surely we're familiar with the "war on terrorism", yes? How is this different?
I don't doubt that this is good old fashioned Islamophobia, but there is a narrower issue here. Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, has the destruction of Israel as part of it's charter. There is an attempt at Jihad (the retaking of all of Palestine), which I'm guessing is the root of the issue.
It's the "Right of Return" thing... which would destroy Israel... hence it's a non-starter issue with Isreal in any peace negotiations.
Grey Templar wrote: Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.
The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the fundamentalist parties?
Polonius wrote: The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.
So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.
Except that's not what they're doing. They're not preventing anyone from standing there holding a sign with that message, or speaking about it, or whatever. They're simply declining to conduct business with a group that they feel is more trouble than it's worth.
Grey Templar wrote: Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.
The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the ultrazionist parties?
Grey Templar wrote: Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.
The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the ultrazionist parties?
Wait... wut?
o.O
They have parties?
As a functioning democracy, yes. Israel has a lot of political parties. I didn't mean ultrazionist though, I'm failing to recall the broader name of the fundamentalist jewish movement in Israel (and abroad). They're also the party continually pushing for the removal of women from the Israeli military.
Grey Templar wrote: Given the behavior of Israel's neighbors, Savage is a understatement.
The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the ultrazionist parties?
Wait... wut?
o.O
They have parties?
As a functioning democracy, yes. Israel has a lot of political parties. I didn't mean ultrazionist though, I'm failing to recall the broader name of the fundamentalist jewish movement in Israel (and abroad). They're also the party continually pushing for the removal of women from the Israeli military.
Well, I hope I didn't come off as agreeing with the sign, in my posts.
For one, it presumes Israel is the civilized party. There has been an awful lot of disproportion in their use of force that makes that kinda hard to swallow. And, of course, ir presumes all Jihad is violent, and/or undesirable, when there are ample examples of both peaceful Jihad, and desirable Jihad.
Polonius wrote: The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.
So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.
Except that's not what they're doing. They're not preventing anyone from standing there holding a sign with that message, or speaking about it, or whatever. They're simply declining to conduct business with a group that they feel is more trouble than it's worth.
Doesn't matter. The Heckler's Veto and all that. There are times a public enterprise is like a business, and there are times it's like the State. This is one of them.
Is the MTA even allowed to express foreign nationalist political views that are attempting to sway presidential and state elections in America? It seems like that would be treason in some form or another.
For one, it presumes Israel is the civilized party. There has been an awful lot of disproportion in their use of force that makes that kinda hard to swallow. And, of course, ir presumes all Jihad is violent, and/or undesirable, when there are ample examples of both peaceful Jihad, and desirable Jihad.
Neither of which are really used by Jihadis against Israel.
The ones the U.N. recognize, or the one that Israel keeps in it's basement to rape, pulp fiction style, whenever it wants to appease the fundamentalist parties?
Both I would presume, and woah dude woah. Even the Palestinian I know doesn't about Israel in that kind of way.
And by the way which groups would those be, the ones who are murdering their citizens or the ones who call for their erasure from the earth?
Polonius wrote: Doesn't matter. The Heckler's Veto and all that. There are times a public enterprise is like a business, and there are times it's like the State. This is one of them.
Except the heckler's veto involves the government restricting free speech. No such restriction is happening here. You have a right to free speech, not a right to have the government assist you in speaking, and that right is not being limited at all.
Neither of which are really used by Jihadis against Israel.
Y'know, except the regular mass protests they have every week or so. But lets not let reality get in the way a defense of Israel, that always spoils it.
Both I would presume, and woah dude woah. Even the Palestinian I know doesn't about Israel in that kind of way.
Does the Palestinian you know live in Palestine?
And by the way which groups would those be, the ones who are murdering their citizens or the ones who call for their erasure from the earth?
Polonius wrote: Doesn't matter. The Heckler's Veto and all that. There are times a public enterprise is like a business, and there are times it's like the State. This is one of them.
Except the heckler's veto involves the government restricting free speech. No such restriction is happening here. You have a right to free speech, not a right to have the government assist you in speaking, and that right is not being limited at all.
Unless the government is offering a forum. In this case, advertising space to the highest bidder. Which it is.
Also, keep in mind that political speech of any sort is the most protected speech possible.
It is in the same way you have to rent to whomever gives you the best price, the fact that the advertising space is for sale and that the supporters of the ad are willing to pay the fee for it to be put up means that to not do so for reasons of viewpoint is a limitation of their speech.
Ratbarf wrote: It is in the same way you have to rent to whomever gives you the best price, the fact that the advertising space is for sale and that the supporters of the ad are willing to pay the fee for it to be put up means that to not do so for reasons of viewpoint is a limitation of their speech.
Well, a private actor can sell to who they want (within limits, you can't not rent a house based on race or something). But ABC could choose not to run those ads.
MTA is a state actor, and it's allowing speech in the form of advertising. Once it does that, it has to be careful about what speech is disallows. Because, no matter what else is going on, you have government saying "nope, you cant' say that here."
Born there, lived there for several years before moving to Baghdad, when the Americans invaded his house got hit by a bomb or missile of some sort and they used the reparation money to move to Canada.
Y'know, except the regular mass protests they have every week or so. But lets not let reality get in the way a defense of Israel, that always spoils it.
I'm sorry, I don't really move in circles that talk about arab protests in which someone isn't either killed or a flag is burned.
Huh?
I was wondering which group Israel keeps in their basement and rapes Pulp Fiction style for the entertainment of their citizens.
MTA is a state actor, and it's allowing speech in the form of advertising. Once it does that, it has to be careful about what speech is disallows. Because, no matter what else is going on, you have government saying "nope, you cant' say that here."
That's pretty much what I meant, thank you for saying it more clearly.
Polonius wrote: Unless the government is offering a forum. In this case, advertising space to the highest bidder. Which it is.
Except that they have every right to put conditions on that auction. For example, should hardcore porn be allowed? Should an "ad" that consists of nothing but profanity directed at the passengers be allowed? Should a poster from the KKK be allowed? Declining to publish this "ad" is no different.
And yes, there would be an issue if they were, say, allowing campaign ads for democrats but not republicans, but that's not the case here. The government is not abusing its power to favor one position over another, it's simply declining to assist in publishing speech that would cause more trouble than it's worth.
Also, keep in mind that political speech of any sort is the most protected speech possible.
Sure, which is why it would be wrong for them to arrest someone for holding a sign with that message, or for standing on the corner yelling it to anyone who will listen, or whatever. But that's not the case here. You don't have a right to have the government help you publish your message, so no rights are being restricted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: MTA is a state actor, and it's allowing speech in the form of advertising. Once it does that, it has to be careful about what speech is disallows. Because, no matter what else is going on, you have government saying "nope, you cant' say that here."
Except nobody is saying that. There is no restriction on saying that message in that area, they simply aren't going to help you to do it.
Polonius wrote: Unless the government is offering a forum. In this case, advertising space to the highest bidder. Which it is.
Except that they have every right to put conditions on that auction. For example, should hardcore porn be allowed? Should an "ad" that consists of nothing but profanity directed at the passengers be allowed? Should a poster from the KKK be allowed? Declining to publish this "ad" is no different.
And yes, there would be an issue if they were, say, allowing campaign ads for democrats but not republicans, but that's not the case here. The government is not abusing its power to favor one position over another, it's simply declining to assist in publishing speech that would cause more trouble than it's worth.
Well, they can argue that they have a compelling interest in not accepting the ads. It's not that you can't ever regulate content, it's just that it's a high burden.
As for pornography and profanity, neither are considered (fully) protected speech. Also, they no doubt have an internal regulation on the nature of an ad. Meaning, they can say "anybody can run an ad, just no swears." That's fine, it's an even approach.
Also, keep in mind that political speech of any sort is the most protected speech possible.
Sure, which is why it would be wrong for them to arrest someone for holding a sign with that message, or for standing on the corner yelling it to anyone who will listen, or whatever. But that's not the case here. You don't have a right to have the government help you publish your message, so no rights are being restricted.
Lol, I'd like to see you argue that in front of a Federal Judge. There is no assistance here. The government isn't helping anybody publish the message. It is offering to publish messages. By picking and choosing what messages it will allow, it is stifling speech.
By your argument, allowing the Dems to hold a parade, but not the GOP, would be perfectly fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: MTA is a state actor, and it's allowing speech in the form of advertising. Once it does that, it has to be careful about what speech is disallows. Because, no matter what else is going on, you have government saying "nope, you cant' say that here."
Except nobody is saying that. There is no restriction on saying that message in that area, they simply aren't going to help you to do it.
cute, but by "here" i meant, "this place where you want to put an ad."
Polonius wrote: As for pornography and profanity, neither are considered (fully) protected speech. Also, they no doubt have an internal regulation on the nature of an ad. Meaning, they can say "anybody can run an ad, just no swears." That's fine, it's an even approach.
And any sensible internal regulation would exclude this ad. It's obviously controversial, and the language is offensive.
Lol, I'd like to see you argue that in front of a Federal Judge. There is no assistance here. The government isn't helping anybody publish the message. It is offering to publish messages. By picking and choosing what messages it will allow, it is stifling speech.
Sure it is. How exactly is providing a space for ads to go NOT helping publish it?
By your argument, allowing the Dems to hold a parade, but not the GOP, would be perfectly fine.
Except:
1) Holding a parade isn't a case of the government helping you. You have a right to hold a parade (as a form of speech), but you don't have a right to, say, have the government pay for the decorations for your parade.
and
2) This isn't a good analogy because it's a clear case of the government picking sides, while the ad is a case of the government declining to assist in publishing a controversial and offensive message.
cute, but by "here" i meant, "this place where you want to put an ad."
What exactly is special about that particular spot compared to the spot a few feet away where you could hold a sign and yell at people?
I guess before I go any further, you do realize I'm basing my arguments on actual First Amendment jurisprudence. I'm not arguing this out of idle theory, there's actual case law on this stuff.
I think the key here is that when the MTA first refused the ad, a Federal Judge struck that decision down. and nobody tried to appeal.
What exactly is special about that particular spot compared to the spot a few feet away where you could hold a sign and yell at people?
I'm not sure, I"m not the one that made the open offer to rent it for speech. It's special because it's the spot the MTA specifically set aside for messages.
Born there, lived there for several years before moving to Baghdad, when the Americans invaded his house got hit by a bomb or missile of some sort and they used the reparation money to move to Canada.
So... Vague childhood memories?
I'm sorry, I don't really move in circles that talk about arab protests in which someone isn't either killed or a flag is burned.
It's ok, not everyone watches the bbc, cnn, msnbc, fox, or reads blogs and or twitter posts.
I'm sorry, I don't really move in circles that talk about arab protests in which someone isn't either killed or a flag is burned.
Primarily the ones whose houses are bulldozed and who now have a giant wall between them and their crops. To a lesser extent the 700 children Israel killed in it's last conflict in Palestine.
Polonius wrote: I guess before I go any further, you do realize I'm basing my arguments on actual First Amendment jurisprudence. I'm not arguing this out of idle theory, there's actual case law on this stuff.
Sure, but legalism is a bad ethical system. The mere existence of case law on a subject doesn't mean that the law is correct.
I think the key here is that when the MTA first refused the ad, a Federal Judge struck that decision down. and nobody tried to appeal.
Sure, most likely explanation being that the MTA didn't have a solid policy in place that would exclude the ad. You'll notice that their response was to change their policy and continue to exclude the ad, and there hasn't been a ruling on the new policy yet. That doesn't mean that they were wrong to exclude it in the first place, it just means that they didn't do a good enough job of writing the initial policy.
I'm not sure, I"m not the one that made the open offer to rent it for speech. It's special because it's the spot the MTA specifically set aside for messages.
IOW, there's no difference. Legalism aside, the people behind the ad are not being denied the right to speak their message since they could stand right next to the space holding a sign and communicate the message just as effectively (if not more effectively). When someone gets arrested for doing that I'll have sympathy for them, but not until then.
Polonius wrote: Ah, so this is another episode of "The Way Things Ought To Be," with our host Peregrine.
The entire thread, right from the beginning, is a question of "the way things ought to be". Nobody gives a about whether or not "case law" on the subject justifies the decision, what they're arguing about is whether it was the right decision to make.
I'd hardly call this ad subtle. It's a pretty blatantly bigoted nonsense. Seriously does a sign have come out and say "Down with all the dirty sand-eating eating towel heads" before people can recognize it as a bit off? Seriously, you must "Defeat Jihad" to challenge "Savages" jeez lousie, they may as well just draw a little cartoon Koran with googly eyes, arms & legs shooting an AK47 into the air.
Polonius wrote: The problem is that the MTA is a government entity, not a private actor.
So you have a state actor choosing what messages can be spread via the public medium. That's, you know, censorship.
Now, if the MTA were at all smart, they would document the vandalism rates, and argue that they are choosing to remove the ads to prevent destruction of public property, not because of the content of the ad.
Chongara wrote: I'd hardly call this ad subtle. It's a pretty blatantly bigoted nonsense. Seriously does a sign have come out and say "Down with all the dirty sand-eating eating towel heads" before people can recognize it as a bit off? Seriously, you must "Defeat Jihad" to challenge "Savages" jeez lousie, they may as well just draw a little cartoon Koran with googly eyes, arms & legs shooting an AK47 into the air.
Then again, a little warning, the n word features heavily in this poem that was written by a black activist:
How is this lauded as great poetry while the bus sign is called ignorance and bigotry? Just to be clear, I find both detestable and ignorant, but it seems that there is a very one sided view here, and not just on the forum. I remember reading about this poem being read at a Harvard grabduation years ago, and it seems like it's still considered great. What about music that celebrates various forms of human degradation being blasted at top volume in public areas?
I think we all know that censorship is a real slippery slope. I think the best thing we can do is to arm ourselves and our children mentaly against this kind of hate and just act like respectful humans to each other as best we can in this world.
How is this lauded as great poetry while the bus sign is called ignorance and bigotry?
Its the difference between the locutory content and illocutory effect. A word in itself is just a marker for a neutral signification. The context, the person using it, the person it's aimed at, that's what decides the actual pragmatic (i.e. moral) side of the statement. ''Savage'' can be used without being inappropriate, like when I say to a chick, ''I want to savagely rip your fishnets off'', or it can be used, like in this context, as one of the most offensive word possible.
Hopefully someday you'll evolve enough to feel ashamed by this statement.
Uh huh, keep up those ad hominems. Does it say Muslims or Arabs there? No, it does not. It says Jihadists. Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you need this to fit your own narrative. I wasn't aware it was evil and racist to insult Jihadists.
But Israel isn't just opposed to Jihadists. Israel is also opposed to the Palestinians; a population which includes some Jihadists, but which also includes a lot of innocent people, including children, who suffer on a daily basis under a policy not too dissimilar to Apartheid.
Chongara wrote: I'd hardly call this ad subtle. It's a pretty blatantly bigoted nonsense. Seriously does a sign have come out and say "Down with all the dirty sand-eating eating towel heads" before people can recognize it as a bit off? Seriously, you must "Defeat Jihad" to challenge "Savages" jeez lousie, they may as well just draw a little cartoon Koran with googly eyes, arms & legs shooting an AK47 into the air.
How is this lauded as great poetry while the bus sign is called ignorance and bigotry? Just to be clear, I find both detestable and ignorant, but it seems that there is a very one sided view here, and not just on the forum. I remember reading about this poem being read at a Harvard grabduation years ago, and it seems like it's still considered great. What about music that celebrates various forms of human degradation being blasted at top volume in public areas?
Okay, this is really off topic, but I'll bite.
Giovanni wrote that poem in the 60s, didn't she? In the context of the 60s, with black people still being murdered in the streets and young black men being sent to Vietnam in the draft, to kill on behalf of a society which still disenfranchised and often despised them, the anger in that poem makes perfect sense. It's emotionally evocative and meaningful. The poem speaks to the need for black men to be smarter and better than to be manipulated into violence. To be Black Men, not [see forum posting rules]. Have you ever seen the Chris Rock routine where he talks about the difference between black people and [see forum posting rules]? Same thing. The poem confronts the black man with the decision of whether to act like a proud and intelligent man, or be goaded by anger and desperation into being something less than a man.
Relapse wrote: [I think we all know that censorship is a real slippery slope. I think the best thing we can do is to arm ourselves and our children mentaly against this kind of hate and just act like respectful humans to each other as best we can in this world.
Harriticus wrote: Uh huh, keep up those ad hominems. Does it say Muslims or Arabs there? No, it does not. It says Jihadists. Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you need this to fit your own narrative. I wasn't aware it was evil and racist to insult Jihadists.
No, it doesn't say it explicitly, it just implies that everyone opposing Israel is a "jihadist" and a "savage".
An Egyptian-American columnist, who rose to prominence on social media last year for her commentary during the revolution in Egypt, was arrested in the Times Square subway station on Tuesday for spraying pink paint on a pro-Israel poster that calls Islamist opponents of the Jewish state “savage.”
The poster was one of 10 placed in subway stations across the transit system this week, on the heels of violent and sometimes deadly protests across the Muslim world in response to an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority had initially rejected the ads, citing their “demeaning” language. The group behind the ads, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued, and in July won a federal court ruling on First Amendment grounds. The group’s executive director, Pamela Geller, also led the effort in 2010 to block construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack in Lower Manhattan.
The columnist, Mona Eltahawy, is a former Reuters correspondent now based in New York who became a dual citizen of Egypt and the United States last year. Her Twitter feed, which has more than 160,000 followers, became popular last year as a source of information on the Egyptian revolution.
Mona Eltahawy
✔
@monaeltahawy
@TheRobinMorgan tweeting 4 me:I'm charged w criminal mischief 4 pink-spraying anti-Muslim 'savages' poster.C judge AM.#ProudSavage #FreeMona
25 Sep 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
The full text of the ad, which refers to a statement by Ms. Geller’s intellectual hero Ayn Rand, reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” Then, between two Stars of David, the tag line appears: “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
Ms. Eltahawy’s arrest was recorded on video by an activist who supports the ad campaign, Pamela Hall, who placed herself in front of the poster. Ms. Hall’s video and photographs of the arrest were later published on Ms. Geller’s blog under the headline: “Mona Eltahawy Arrested for Assaulting Pro-Freedom Blogger While Defacing AFDI Pro-Freedom Ad.”
The standoff between the two women was also captured on video by The New York Post.
New York Post video of the confrontation on Tuesday.
Ms. Eltahawy was charged with criminal mischief, making graffiti and possessing a graffiti instrument, the police said on Wednesday, adding that no additional security measures had been put in place at any of the ads’ locations across the subway system. A spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office said on Wednesday morning that Ms. Eltahawy had not yet been arraigned.
Pamela Geller/The American Freedom Defense Initiative, via Associated Press
The anti-jihad ad that has been posted in the subways.
Ms. Geller said in an e-mail on Wednesday that at least five of the ads had been defaced. Philip Weiss, a New Yorker whose blog Mondoweiss aims to cover the Middle East “from a progressive Jewish perspective,” posted photographs Tuesday depicting some of the defaced ads.
Aaron Donovan, a spokesman for the transportation authority, said that staff members for the agency’s advertising partner, CBS Outdoor, inspect all ads each day and replace those that have been vandalized or defaced, drawing from a pool of “overage copies” provided by the advertiser.
Ms. Geller’s group provided 20 copies, Mr. Donovan said, but could send in more at its own cost if it chose to.
“I had more printed,” Ms. Geller said on Wednesday, “as I expected this.”
She called the defaced ads “a physical manifestation of the way the entire conversation, or lack thereof, always goes.”
“Anyone who speaks about jihad and Shariah is attacked, defamed, destroyed,” she said, “just like these ads.”
As The Lede blog reported last month, activists who see the posters as insulting to Muslims reworked or destroyed similar posters placed in the transit systems in San Francisco and the New York suburbs.
Ms. Eltahawy, initially known for her commentary on the Egyptian revolution from afar, became personally involved in the protest movement last November, when she used her Twitter feed to document her physical and sexual abuse by Egyptian police officers following a crackdown on a demonstration near Tahrir Square in Cairo.
In May, she earned the enmity of many Egyptians for writing a Foreign Policy cover story on women’s rights in the Middle East published with the headline “Why Do They Hate Us?”
News of Ms. Eltahawy’s arrest made headlines in Egypt and earned her praise from like-minded Internet activists. A Lebanese blogger, who was less impressed with the stunt, wrote a satirical blog post accusing Ms. Eltahawy of attention-seeking.
Ms. Eltahawy also has a history with Ms. Geller. When Ms. Geller rallied opponents of the mosque near ground zero in 2010, Ms. Eltahawy attended a counter-demonstration.
The group’s executive director, Pamela Geller, also led the effort in 2010 to block construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack in Lower Manhattan.
Yep, let's just keep pretending that this is only about protesting against a violent minority, not open racism...
Polonius wrote: Ragnar, are you suggesting that context matters? Typical liberal.
Weird, isn't it? The context we're in is one where people think, for some inexplicable reason, that censoring an arguably-racist billboard is somehow an "anti-blasphemy rule", which is so ridiculous I have a hard time imagining the thought process required to make that leap.
I think Relapse would like Giovanni's "Kidnap Poem" better. But the context we're in is that he probably hasn't read it. He's probably just read one angry poem she published in 1968, which some people took out of context forty years later as something for them to get angry about. On a more positive note:
Kidnap Poem
ever been kidnapped
by a poet
if i were a poet
i'd kidnap you
put you in my phrases and meter
you to jones beach
or maybe coney island
or maybe just to my house
lyric you in lilacs
dash you in the rain
blend into the beach
to complement my see
play the lyre for you
ode you with my love song
anything to win you
wrap you in the red Black green
show you off to mama
yeah if i were a poet i'd kid
nap you
Hopefully someday you'll evolve enough to feel ashamed by this statement.
Uh huh, keep up those ad hominems. Does it say Muslims or Arabs there? No, it does not. It says Jihadists. Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you need this to fit your own narrative. I wasn't aware it was evil and racist to insult Jihadists.
Jihad means "holy struggle" or "duty" and it's something mulsims are expected to go through in their lifetimes.
An accurate interpretation of the concept of Jihad is provided by the BBC about how Muslims describe three different types of struggles:[7]
A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible The struggle to build a good Muslim society Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-Muslims as "holy war".[8][9] Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous.[10] Muslim authors, in particular, tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[11][12]
I think that kicks off with "Lets Draw Mohammed Day" which I think is in may.
So... Vague childhood memories?
Well I didn't really want to bring this up as some people may indeed think of it as an outright fabrication, which it isn't it actually happened. But, we were discussing what we wanted to after High School/College and he espoused the desire to go to Palestine and build bombs with which to kill Israelis. Said Palestinian also bullied a Jewish kid in his science class until the kid dropped it. So I don't think he has a very kind view of Israel.
Primarily the ones whose houses are bulldozed and who now have a giant wall between them and their crops. To a lesser extent the 700 children Israel killed in it's last conflict in Palestine.
Though really, when you look at the numbers the biggest thing Israel rapes with it's rhetoric and military is the truth.
Well then, maybe they shouldn't set up mortars in schools? Use their own children as meat shields? Or launch thousands of rockets at Israel in an average week during that war? I mean just because they didn't hit crap doesn't mean they didn't try. Bombs are like gifts, it's the thought that counts.
Well then, maybe they shouldn't set up mortars in schools? Use their own children as meat shields? Or launch thousands of rockets at Israel in an average week during that war? I mean just because they didn't hit crap doesn't mean they didn't try. Bombs are like gifts, it's the thought that counts.
If the thought counts, why do people defend israel? They launch more. It's a puerile fallacy to pretend that mortars are being fired from schools or that the tactics utilized in defense of Israel are even close to proportional. Showing up 15 minutes after a mortar has been fired from a location and leveling the apartment block where it was fired is pure murderous spite. Bulldozing peoples homes, intentionally cutting up peoples farmland, and then building israeli apartments on the stolen soil would be acts of war to any other nation. Fortunately Israel has America in it's little pocket, no other place on earth views it's bs favorably.
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.
When discussing this issue let's keep in mind that blanket slurs on entire ethnic groups may be allowed on the MTA but they are not allowed on DakkaDakka.
Polonius wrote: Ragnar, are you suggesting that context matters? Typical liberal.
Weird, isn't it? The context we're in is one where people think, for some inexplicable reason, that censoring an arguably-racist billboard is somehow an "anti-blasphemy rule", which is so ridiculous I have a hard time imagining the thought process required to make that leap.
I think Relapse would like Giovanni's "Kidnap Poem" better. But the context we're in is that he probably hasn't read it. He's probably just read one angry poem she published in 1968, which some people took out of context forty years later as something for them to get angry about. On a more positive note:
Kidnap Poem
ever been kidnapped
by a poet
if i were a poet
i'd kidnap you
put you in my phrases and meter
you to jones beach
or maybe coney island
or maybe just to my house
lyric you in lilacs
dash you in the rain
blend into the beach
to complement my see
play the lyre for you
ode you with my love song
anything to win you
wrap you in the red Black green
show you off to mama
yeah if i were a poet i'd kid
nap you
A far better poem, to be sure.
Perhaps the anger in the bus signs could be interpreted to be the same kind of anger that led to the poem I linked to. Both attack people that are seen in the eyes of those that wrote them as oppressors or killers of loved ones.
It's all something I hate with a passion because of the division it causes, whether it's under the banner of poetry, art, or a crudely scrawled sign declaring that God/Allah/The Hometown Garden Society, etc., hates somebody because they don't think or live the way someone believes they should.
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
Its massivley disproportionate retaliation which then invites further aggression (which could just as easily be labelled retaliation). If Israel gave back all the land that they have stolen and genuinely tried to forge peaceful links with their neighbours they would eventually have peace. As it is though they never will.
Kilkrazy wrote: When discussing this issue let's keep in mind that blanket slurs on entire ethnic groups may be allowed on the MTA but they are not allowed on DakkaDakka.
I've not seen anything suggesting that blanket slurs on entire ethnic groups are allowed by the MTA. Is calling those who practice genocide savages making a blanket slur on, for example, Serbs?
Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.
Under the new policy, the authority will continue to allow so-called viewpoint ads, but each will be required to include a disclaimer noting that the ad does not imply the authority’s endorsement of its views.
So they are allowed with a disclaimer---or basically countering free speech with more free speech. Sounds like a ruling I can agree with.
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
Its massivley disproportionate retaliation which then invites further aggression (which could just as easily be labelled retaliation). If Israel gave back all the land that they have stolen and genuinely tried to forge peaceful links with their neighbours they would eventually have peace. As it is though they never will.
That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.
That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.
A defensive war that you win in six days and grab land from wasn't one that could very well have ended in your destruction.
The Palastinians were'n't doing so hot under Arab rule, either:
So that makes them sub humans for the israelis to murder at will?
You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.
All perfectly true. After all, wasn't it from the Palestinians that Dr. King learned the tactics of non-violent resistance?
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them[/i[ because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths [i]ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.
That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.
A defensive war that you win in six days and grab land from wasn't one that could very well have ended in your destruction.
Sooo much is wrong here.
Israel is aggressive because they have to be.
Every single country bordering them declared war on them within a week of Israel becoming independent of GB.
These so called "victims" of Israel's aggression regularly launch rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, indescriminately.
It is the Palastinians that decided they could not live in peace with their new Jewish neighbors and it is they that continue to decide they cannot.
The Jews couldn't really have cared less about living side by side with muslims. But decades of unending war, broken promises of peace, and general d-baggery by their muslim neighbors have forced Israel to wage a constant war just to stay alive.
The fact Israel won the 6 day war is a genuine miracle.
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them[/i[ because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths [i]ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.
That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.
A defensive war that you win in six days and grab land from wasn't one that could very well have ended in your destruction.
Sooo much is wrong here.
Israel is aggressive because they have to be.
Every single country bordering them declared war on them within a week of Israel becoming independent of GB.
These so called "victims" of Israel's aggression regularly launch rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, indescriminately.
It is the Palastinians that decided they could not live in peace with their new Jewish neighbors and it is they that continue to decide they cannot.
The Jews couldn't really have cared less about living side by side with muslims. But decades of unending war, broken promises of peace, and general d-baggery by their muslim neighbors have forced Israel to wage a constant war just to stay alive.
The fact Israel won the 6 day war is a genuine miracle.
I remember when the war started, everyone expected Israel to be wiped from the face of the map since they were facing the combined might of several Arab countries. It was against all odds that they did win, with any slip or miscalculation practically guaranteed to end in that country's obliteration. Given the size of Israel, combined with the history of attacks on it, there was no real surprise that a buffer zone was created from areas used to launch those attacks.
It is a tragedy for all concerned what is happening over there, and the Palistinians are a sad example of pawns caught in the middle. When Arab countries controlled the area they lived in, they were looked down upon and trodden over. The only use they have to the other Arab countries is to be used as a poster child against Israel.
How about the two-state solution? I don't see any reason why that can't be made to work, and that would certainly give the vast majority of Palestinians much less reason to hate Israel.
I don't think the outcome of the six-day war was miraculous. The Israeli forces had way better weapons, training, and morale than the attacking countries realized. I can understand them taking some territory for a better defensive position. Given that they were attacked, that's understandable and reasonable. I can't think that's a real justification for what they've done to the Palestinians. Nor is the fact that the Palestinians were also mistreated by the arab nations a justification. If Israel wants to be seen as the better nation, the more moral society, they shouldn't be resorting to the tactics they use against the Palestinians.
Mannahnin wrote: I think Relapse would like Giovanni's "Kidnap Poem" better. But the context we're in is that he probably hasn't read it. He's probably just read one angry poem she published in 1968, which some people took out of context forty years later as something for them to get angry about. On a more positive note:
Kidnap Poem
(snip)
A far better poem, to be sure.
Perhaps the anger in the bus signs could be interpreted to be the same kind of anger that led to the poem I linked to. Both attack people that are seen in the eyes of those that wrote them as oppressors or killers of loved ones.
It's all something I hate with a passion because of the division it causes, whether it's under the banner of poetry, art, or a crudely scrawled sign declaring that God/Allah/The Hometown Garden Society, etc., hates somebody because they don't think or live the way someone believes they should.
I don't know if I'd say it's a better poem. It's a lot lighter; it has no political message and IMO is less emotionally-resonant.
I don't think the angrier poem really attacks anyone, except black people who resort to racism themselves, and violence, over taking responsibility and taking action to be better than the inferior beings they as which they were regularly dismissed and denigrated. Again, the poem uses the word which is used against the author's own people. The MTA sign denigrates ANOTHER people, quoting the morally-bankrupt Ayn Rand to advance the idea that Israel is civilized, and everyone who opposes Israel are savages. I think that's kind of racist, and a blatantly slanted oversimplification. Israel does unconscionable things to the Palestinians. It hurts and kills them way more than would be necessary just to protect themselves.
Mannahnin wrote: How about the two-state solution? I don't see any reason why that can't be made to work, and that would certainly give the vast majority of Palestinians much less reason to hate Israel.
I don't think the outcome of the six-day war was miraculous. The Israeli forces had way better weapons, training, and morale than the attacking countries realized. I can understand them taking some territory for a better defensive position. Given that they were attacked, that's understandable and reasonable. I can't think that's a real justification for what they've done to the Palestinians. Nor is the fact that the Palestinians were also mistreated by the arab nations a justification. If Israel wants to be seen as the better nation, the more moral society, they shouldn't be resorting to the tactics they use against the Palestinians.
Mannahnin wrote: I think Relapse would like Giovanni's "Kidnap Poem" better. But the context we're in is that he probably hasn't read it. He's probably just read one angry poem she published in 1968, which some people took out of context forty years later as something for them to get angry about. On a more positive note:
Kidnap Poem
(snip)
A far better poem, to be sure.
Perhaps the anger in the bus signs could be interpreted to be the same kind of anger that led to the poem I linked to. Both attack people that are seen in the eyes of those that wrote them as oppressors or killers of loved ones.
It's all something I hate with a passion because of the division it causes, whether it's under the banner of poetry, art, or a crudely scrawled sign declaring that God/Allah/The Hometown Garden Society, etc., hates somebody because they don't think or live the way someone believes they should.
I don't know if I'd say it's a better poem. It's a lot lighter; it has no political message and IMO is less emotionally-resonant.
I don't think the angrier poem really attacks anyone, except black people who resort to racism themselves, and violence, over taking responsibility and taking action to be better than the inferior beings they as which they were regularly dismissed and denigrated. Again, the poem uses the word which is used against the author's own people. The MTA sign denigrates ANOTHER people, quoting the morally-bankrupt Ayn Rand to advance the idea that Israel is civilized, and everyone who opposes Israel are savages. I think that's kind of racist, and a blatantly slanted oversimplification. Israel does unconscionable things to the Palestinians. It hurts and kills them way more than would be necessary just to protect themselves.
I'm not saying there is any justification for mistreatment of the Palistinians, but pointing out that it seems they get no respect from any quarter and in this whole affair they are getting knocked around like a tennis ball.
In the case of the poem, the n word doesn't come across as an insult to me since I have hung out with enough black people that call each other that all the time as an affectIonate term. Among my friends in New Orleans, the real insult was to call someone "high yellow" if they were lighter colored or to compare them to a lump of coal if they were darker. All of this was a real education to me since I grew up in Northern Maine and didn't know anything about black people beyond what I saw in the news.
Absolutely agreed about the Palestinians, but I think there's a danger there of creating a false equivalence. Just because they've been mistreated by everyone, historically, doesn't justify the Israelis doing it too. In fact what's been done to them under Israel is the most damning argument AGAINST Israeli being the haven of democracy and civilization in the Middle East upon which our support of them is predicated.
As for the poem, it sounds to me like you're still taking it out of context. Remember, it's from 44 years ago. That word was different then. It was simultaneously more hateful and more commonly used. In most parts of America it was regularly used by white people in public. That was before it had been embraced by black pop culture as a way of defanging it.
New Orleans is another interesting case in racism and racial distinctions. Do you know about the quadroon balls?
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them[/i[ because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths [i]ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.
That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.
A defensive war that you win in six days and grab land from wasn't one that could very well have ended in your destruction.
Sooo much is wrong here.
Israel is aggressive because they have to be.
Every single country bordering them declared war on them within a week of Israel becoming independent of GB.
These so called "victims" of Israel's aggression regularly launch rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, indescriminately.
It is the Palastinians that decided they could not live in peace with their new Jewish neighbors and it is they that continue to decide they cannot.
The Jews couldn't really have cared less about living side by side with muslims. But decades of unending war, broken promises of peace, and general d-baggery by their muslim neighbors have forced Israel to wage a constant war just to stay alive.
The fact Israel won the 6 day war is a genuine miracle.
No, it was an artifact of their massively superior military and the shambling state of their neighbors. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history. Nothing I have stated is wrong. Israel doesn't want peace, they want palestine to be israeli. They have been taking action to make it such for decades and it has been becoming such. The "victims" of Israels aggression are dying at literally a 50 to 1 ratio to Israelis. Fifty Palestinians die for every Israeli. How you people can call that proportional or even pretend it's ok is beyond me. They are bulldozing peoples homes and expanding into palestine, this isn't up for debate. This is an aggressive territorial war under the cover of defense and you actually manage to believe it. That is insane. In the other thread we had people complaining about how the japanese rewrite history books to make America seem bad, you're doing that in real time to defend a militant theocratic state in perpetual aggressive war.
The hold israel has over north America is stunning. It's like they have a mind control machine.
Mannahnin wrote: Absolutely agreed about the Palestinians, but I think there's a danger there of creating a false equivalence. Just because they've been mistreated by everyone, historically, doesn't justify the Israelis doing it too. In fact what's been done to them under Israel is the most damning argument AGAINST Israeli being the haven of democracy and civilization in the Middle East upon which our support of them is predicated.
As for the poem, it sounds to me like you're still taking it out of context. Remember, it's from 44 years ago. That word was different then. It was simultaneously more hateful and more commonly used. In most parts of America it was regularly used by white people in public. That was before it had been embraced by black pop culture as a way of defanging it.
New Orleans is another interesting case in racism and racial distinctions. Do you know about the quadroon balls?
An interesting bit of history there I didn't know. It was a real case of immersion culture for me since I went from not knowing any black people to being the about the only white guy in my group of friends.
The thing I worry about with the Palistinians is that even if the Isralies were to turn the land back over to them tomorrow, the other Arabs in the region would move in and try treating them as before.
whembly wrote: Quadroon balls!!! First time I've heard of that...
O.o
Things I learn on Dakkadakka...
Yeah, because they don't like to talk about it on the 24 hours, it'd make them sound really liberal (which is what I mean by america being fethed in the head over this). Being a conservative I doubt you've got much idea at all what's going on over there, your circles don't like to stay very well informed when it's a muslim who is being oppressed. Just take a critical look at israel, what they're actively doing in another countries territory and the casualties on both sides. Look at their vast military supremacy in the region that has grown significanly stronger since the six day war while all of their neighbors have gotten much weaker. Look at how much money we give them for no reason and look at the fact that their blockade doesn't let things like chocolate and concrete into the gaza strip. Luxuries and basic building materials. They've been trying to cause the flight of the Palestinians into other countries for decades through starvation and aggression and it's working.
whembly wrote: Quadroon balls!!! First time I've heard of that...
O.o
Things I learn on Dakkadakka...
Yeah, because they don't like to talk about it on the 24 hours, it'd make them sound really liberal (which is what I mean by america being fethed in the head over this). Being a conservative I doubt you've got much idea at all what's going on over there, your circles don't like to stay very well informed when it's a muslim who is being oppressed. Just take a critical look at israel, what they're actively doing in another countries territory and the casualties on both sides. Look at their vast military supremacy in the region that has grown significanly stronger since the six day war while all of their neighbors have gotten much weaker. Look at how much money we give them for no reason and look at the fact that their blockade doesn't let things like chocolate and concrete into the gaza strip. Luxuries and basic building materials. They've been trying to cause the flight of the Palestinians into other countries for decades through starvation and aggression and it's working.
whembly wrote: Quadroon balls!!! First time I've heard of that...
O.o
Things I learn on Dakkadakka...
Yeah, because they don't like to talk about it on the 24 hours, it'd make them sound really liberal (which is what I mean by america being fethed in the head over this). Being a conservative I doubt you've got much idea at all what's going on over there, your circles don't like to stay very well informed when it's a muslim who is being oppressed. Just take a critical look at israel, what they're actively doing in another countries territory and the casualties on both sides. Look at their vast military supremacy in the region that has grown significanly stronger since the six day war while all of their neighbors have gotten much weaker. Look at how much money we give them for no reason and look at the fact that their blockade doesn't let things like chocolate and concrete into the gaza strip. Luxuries and basic building materials. They've been trying to cause the flight of the Palestinians into other countries for decades through starvation and aggression and it's working.
Is that directed at me dude?
I don't even know. I think so, I figured you were being somewhat dismissal of my post. It's something I get a lot whenever this kind of thing comes up. If not I apologize.
whembly wrote: Quadroon balls!!! First time I've heard of that...
O.o
Things I learn on Dakkadakka...
Yeah, because they don't like to talk about it on the 24 hours, it'd make them sound really liberal (which is what I mean by america being fethed in the head over this). Being a conservative I doubt you've got much idea at all what's going on over there, your circles don't like to stay very well informed when it's a muslim who is being oppressed. Just take a critical look at israel, what they're actively doing in another countries territory and the casualties on both sides. Look at their vast military supremacy in the region that has grown significanly stronger since the six day war while all of their neighbors have gotten much weaker. Look at how much money we give them for no reason and look at the fact that their blockade doesn't let things like chocolate and concrete into the gaza strip. Luxuries and basic building materials. They've been trying to cause the flight of the Palestinians into other countries for decades through starvation and aggression and it's working.
Is that directed at me dude?
I don't even know. I think so, I figured you were being somewhat dismissal of my post. It's something I get a lot whenever this kind of thing comes up. If not I apologize.
No problemo... I'll try to respond with what I know... cool?
Yeah, because they don't like to talk about it on the 24 hours, it'd make them sound really liberal (which is what I mean by america being fethed in the head over this). Being a conservative I doubt you've got much idea at all what's going on over there, your circles don't like to stay very well informed when it's a muslim who is being oppressed.
That's true... I don't think any of us REALLY has any idea of what's going on there...
Just take a critical look at israel, what they're actively doing in another countries territory and the casualties on both sides. Look at their vast military supremacy in the region that has grown significanly stronger since the six day war while all of their neighbors have gotten much weaker.
Why is this a bad thing?
Look at how much money we give them for no reason
There is a reason...
and look at the fact that their blockade doesn't let things like chocolate and concrete into the gaza strip. Luxuries and basic building materials. They've been trying to cause the flight of the Palestinians into other countries for decades through starvation and aggression and it's working.
If that's true, then yeah, that's fethed up. I thought the blockade was only to prevent weapons and such...?? Got any source on this info? I'd like to read up on it...
The hold israel has over north America is stunning. It's like they have a mind control machine.
You don't need mind control when the other side is doing your PR for you. Palestine lost any chance of ever seriously getting the West when it decided that suicide bombings were the way to victory.
As to your numbers...I doubt them, for one, and would absolutely love to see citations, but for the sake of argument, for now, let's assume they're not hilarious. So? We killed, by some estimates, 52 Somalis for every American we lost in Mogadishu. That make us terrible, terrible monsters? I certainly don't think so.
I'll tell you this much, though: if I was fighting a battle for over half a century, and not only was I not winning, but I was making my situation worse with each passing year, well...an old saying springs to mind: "Winners never quit. Quitters never win. But those who never win and never quit are idiots."
=whembley]If that's true, then yeah, that's fethed up. I thought the blockade was only to prevent weapons and such...?? Got any source on this info? I'd like to read up on it...
Portland cement and lime (in bulk, bags or barrels) Natural and Quarry aggregates and all varieties of gravel Ready concrete Precast concrete elements and products Steel elements and/or construction products Iron for foundations and columns, at any diameter (including wielded steel nets) Steel cables of any width Forms for construction elements (plastics or galvanized iron) Industrialized forms for casting concrete Plastic or composite beams more than 4 mm thick Thermal isolation materials and products Blocs (at any width) - Concrete; Silicate; Ytong or its equivalent; or gypsum Materials and products for sealing structures Asphalt and its components (Bitumen, emulsion) in aggregate or packaged Steel elements or framing products for construction Cast concrete elements and products for drainage over 1 m in diameter Precast units and sea-borne containers Vehicles, excluding private cars and including 4X4 vehicles and other categories of motor vehicles liable to be used in terror activities Lumber beams and boards more than 2 cm thick, (liable to be used in "offensive" tunneling aimed at penetrating Israeli territory), unless incorporated in finished products Specific procedures, on a case by case basis, will be established so as to permit the transfer of such lumber for other purposes in Gaza.
Since 2006 Israel has limited the import of various goods to the Hamas-controlled territory to a “humanitarian minimum”, though there is no official list for traders to observe. Instead, Israel makes decisions on a case-by-case basis, which has resulted in an odd assortment of prohibited items, as detailed by Gisha, an Israeli human-rights organisation. Newspapers, tea, A4 paper and chocolate are among the items that have at one point been barred.
The hold israel has over north America is stunning. It's like they have a mind control machine.
You don't need mind control when the other side is doing your PR for you. Palestine lost any chance of ever seriously getting the West when it decided that suicide bombings were the way to victory.
As to your numbers...I doubt them, for one, and would absolutely love to see citations, but for the sake of argument, for now, let's assume they're not hilarious. So? We killed, by some estimates, 52 Somalis for every American we lost in Mogadishu. That make us terrible, terrible monsters? I certainly don't think so.
I'll tell you this much, though: if I was fighting a battle for over half a century, and not only was I not winning, but I was making my situation worse with each passing year, well...an old saying springs to mind: "Winners never quit. Quitters never win. But those who never win and never quit are idiots."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict It's a pretty well cited article. There is a historical trend of about fifteen to one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War During the gaza war a few years ago the total was roughly one hundred to one, with most of the thirteen israelis killed killed in friendly fire incidents while the majority of the between 1100 and 1500 palestinians killed were killed in aerial bombardments or shelling. Two thirds were civilian (israelis count police and civil workers as combatants, so they consider two thirds to be hostile), about one in nine was a child.
Sure, they could throw up their arms and quit, and they've tried repeatedly. There are extremist fringes on both sides, with Israel having plenty. The problem there is, while palestine can't really do anything about it's fringes, it also can't punish israel for it's own, while Israel can bomb an apartment block every time a mortar misses something. To act like the side that is losing is at fault wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence They're acting like thugs.
Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.
Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.
Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.
Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.
The best defence is a good offence.
That's pretty fethed up.
Yet very true as evidenced throughout history.
Just so we're clear, this does invalidate almost any morality based arguments either of you will make for a while. The notion that might makes right to the exclusion of basic human rights is pretty extreme.
Sure, if you want to win the war the best defense is to exterminate your enemy with a preemptive nuclear attack. However, the primary argument against Israel's actions is not that they are not a good way of winning a war*, but that they are ethically horrible. If it was any country besides Israel doing that we'd condemn them as monsters and probably start planning to invade and overthrow their government, but of course we couldn't possibly do that to a valued ally**.
*Though you could also argue that in the end Israel's actions cause them more harm than good by ensuring that their enemies have an endless supply of willing martyrs.
**Even if the only reason Israel is an ally is because they're needed for the final war that will bring on the apocalypse.
Sure, if you want to win the war the best defense is to exterminate your enemy with a preemptive nuclear attack. However, the primary argument against Israel's actions is not that they are not a good way of winning a war*, but that they are ethically horrible. If it was any country besides Israel doing that we'd condemn them as monsters and probably start planning to invade and overthrow their government, but of course we couldn't possibly do that to a valued ally**.
*Though you could also argue that in the end Israel's actions cause them more harm than good by ensuring that their enemies have an endless supply of willing martyrs.
**Even if the only reason Israel is an ally is because they're needed for the final war that will bring on the apocalypse.
I again stand on the actions of Israel's enemies.
From day 1 the Palastinians and other neighboring countries have made it clear they will stand for nothing less then the total annhilation of Israel.
Israel was perfectly fine with what they had and then their jerkish neighbors decided they didn't like them being there.
As a result, the party at fault must be the Palastinians and other Muslims in the region. Doesn't make either party "right" but it does say who is to blame for the situation.
From day 1 the Palastinians and other neighboring countries have made it clear they will stand for nothing less then the total annhilation of Israel.
.
While from day 1 the 'Jews' have also made it clear that they will not accept anything less than full control of Palestine. Neither side can gets it way here.
As you may or depending on the state of the public schools where you live, may not know the first Europeans to permanently settle in what is now called the United States were people fleeing religious persecution, people whose ways of worshiping God were different from those around them and suffered for it.
When they came to America the various churches massed in various colonies and based upon their own level of tolerance for other religions, enacted laws restricting the practice of other religions until finally with the adoption of the Bill of Rights in the New constitution (1787) the principle of freedom of religion was firmly established as a national policy.
We’ve had a few bumps as Catholics in Pennsylvania and Joseph Smith could tell you but by and large we’ve done an excellent job allowing people of any and all religions to practice as they please.
Islam has been around for quite a while, as a Roman Catholic I see several things good about it, particularly its devotion to regular prayer which is the basis of any devotion to God.
As an American: I freely welcome you to practice Islam in America. Worship God as you see fit.
As an American: I freely welcome you to make public your practice, hold festivals, have parades, share cultural events, let your culture be part of ours as so many other cultures have before you.
As an American: I freely welcome you to use all the freedoms promised to protect religious belief under the laws of the United States and of the individual states to make sure your right to worship is respected.
As an American: I freely welcome you to make your best case for Islam, explain your religion, proselytize, I invite you to make the finest argument you can that Islam is the best way to get closest to God and to live a better life that you can, both in public and in private.
As an American: I freely welcome you to make the case against my religion, any other religion or no religion at all. If you say Islam is truth explain why other religions are false or have it wrong in print, in media and on the net.
As an American: I freely welcome you to attempt to convert people even a Catholic like me. Convert the entire United States if you can
BUT
As an American and as a Catholic in America In return I Demand the following:
As an American: I say you MUST NOT prevent others from Worshiping God as they see fit
As an American: I say you MUST NOT restrict the public practice of other religions, festivals or any other celebration or expression of any other religion.
As an American: I say you MUST NOT violate the laws of the United States nor the individual States where you live in the practice of your religion.
As an American: I say you MUST NOT prevent others from making the best case they can, in public or in private, for their religions or religious denominations, nor prevent others from making their case to follow no religion at all.
As an American: I say you MUST NOT prevent others from making the case against Islam, for explaining the flaws in your belief and declaring that you have it wrong in print, in media or on the net.
As an American: I say you MUST NOT prevent others from converting followers of Islam nor must you harm those who do. Islam must be able to stand on its own two feet
You will note that I do not request these things, I do not entreat of you these things as a courtesy, I do not say you SHOULD NOT do these things. I say you MUST NOT do these things.
This is part of the American compact, America is not just a place where free commerce can get you anywhere economically, it’s a place where everyone competes in the battlefield of ideas and competes freely.
If you do otherwise:
If you choose to practice and excuse things such as Honor Killing
If you attempt to pass laws to restrict critique of Islam.
If you attempt to silence the voices that would argue against you by physical action or vandalism
If you commit violence against those who would preach another creed even in towns where you are the majority,
If you attempt to slay those who would choose to leave Islam.
If actively and material support those who would overthrow this nation and it’s laws or target America & Americans for slaughter.
Then I say you have broken the compact of America, and I will fight you in word or deed to my dying breath.
The choice is entirely yours.
My own Church the Catholic church predates your religion by hundreds of years. In nearly two dozen centuries it has had ups and downs. It has had success and scandal and it has been loved or as we see lately in America despised, attacked and ridiculed by those in power and media.
This doesn’t worry me. The message of Christ and the Church is a true message, it has faced obstacles for centuries and still endures and flourish. It will continue to do so.
I submit that if you truly believe Islam is worth the paper it’s printed on or the Arabic script it’s written in, then it can stand on its own in the marketplace of ideas regardless of it is despised, attacked or ridiculed by those in power or those in media without the need of violence, threat or intimidation to back it up and if it can not, if you can not allow it do to so, that tells me you have neither faith in the truth of your own religion nor in “Allah” himself?
We can either be friendly rivals both honestly arguing for he best for ourselves, our families, our neighbors and our country, or we can be enemies.
Grey Templar wrote: From day 1 the Palastinians and other neighboring countries have made it clear they will stand for nothing less then the total annhilation of Israel.
Well, then if Israel can't exist without doing what it does now, too bad for Israel, it just lost its right to exist. I won't shed a single tear over their absence.
Israel was perfectly fine with what they had and then their jerkish neighbors decided they didn't like them being there.
And what does that have to do with what is happening now?
As a result, the party at fault must be the Palastinians and other Muslims in the region. Doesn't make either party "right" but it does say who is to blame for the situation.
Since when is "but they started it" an acceptable excuse for adults? Israel's neighbors started a war a long time ago, and now Israel continues the war. Their actions have gone WAY beyond self defense and into aggression of their own. Self defense stopped being an excuse a long time ago, and now Israel bears the largest share of guilt for the current situation.
From day 1 the Palastinians and other neighboring countries have made it clear they will stand for nothing less then the total annhilation of Israel.
.
While from day 1 the 'Jews' have also made it clear that they will not accept anything less than full control of Palestine. Neither side can gets it way here.
Given that the Palastinians havn't done a very good job of managing what they do have, it seems that it would be better for Israel to be managing the area.
The Palastinians would be far better off if they lived as residents of Israel then if they governed themselves. They simply don't have the resources to run a functioning political entity. Why not live as residents of one that does function and has a far better standard of living.
A Jewish state that allows Palastinians and Jews to live side by side is the compromise that would work, assuming the Palastinian extremists can actually tolerate the Jews.
whembly wrote: Peregrine... both sides are at fault here...
Both sides are at fault, but Israel has a much higher share of fault. They have done everything they can to keep the Palestinians in a constant state of poverty, and are guilty of horribly disproportionate violence as punishment, illegally occupying territory, etc. If anyone else did what they did we'd call it war crimes and call for sanctions/invasion/etc.
I've been trying to read up more on this, but the biggest sticking point seems to be the Palistinian "Right of Return".
Yeah, how dare they want to reclaim what Israel took from them...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The Palastinians would be far better off if they lived as residents of Israel then if they governed themselves. They simply don't have the resources to run a functioning political entity. Why not live as residents of one that does function and has a far better standard of living.
Or Israel could end their blockade and other policies intended to create a state of constant poverty and starve them into submission. It's a lot easier to get the resources to run a functioning political entity when you don't have someone standing in your way of doing so.
A Jewish state that allows Palastinians and Jews to live side by side is the compromise that would work, assuming the Palastinian extremists can actually tolerate the Jews.
Or how about a better compromise: Israel gets out of the land they took by force, and we cut off all military aid until they do it.
Israel took that land in a war with their neighbors, land that the British Commonwealth had given the state of Israel.
Israel clearly has ownership, but by right of conquest and by right of emancipation.
Israel is a political entity, so the people living on the land could easily have continued living there, just under new management. But No, they began a cycle of violence instead.
A Jewish state that allows Palastinians and Jews to live side by side is the compromise that would work, assuming the Palastinian extremists can actually tolerate the Jews.
Why does it have to be a Jewish state? There will never be a lasting peaceful settlement unless both sides make significant compromises and any future integrated state should be resolutely secular.
Israel is one of the main reasons why the Palestinians lack the rescources to suceed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Was there a "Palistinian State" during the time when Israel was created?
No, It was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of the great war and then Britain ruled Palestine until just after WWII.
The palastinians have land that is "theirs" currently. the west bank and Gaza strip.
Have they created a political entity and begun progress towards an improved civilization?
No, what they do is constantly aggrivate Israel with terrorist activites. Israel responds with military force to protect their people.
The Palastinians arn't even trying to make peace or get along. The negotiations are just methods of buying time so their fighters can build another round of rockets and bombs to attack Israel with.
If I was in charge of Israel, I would have finally decided enough was enough and forcibly taken back the land and clear it of anyone that opposed us. those who truly wanted coexistance would be allowed to remain with their homes, but any sort of resistance in the form of Terrorist activities would be met with harsh consequences. Remove all the weapons the Palastinians have access to, seal the borders so no weapons can come in, etc...
After a period of time the Palastinians would be absorbed into the state of Israel and we would be done with all this crap.
From day 1 the Palastinians and other neighboring countries have made it clear they will stand for nothing less then the total annhilation of Israel.
.
While from day 1 the 'Jews' have also made it clear that they will not accept anything less than full control of Palestine. Neither side can gets it way here.
Given that the Palastinians havn't done a very good job of managing what they do have, it seems that it would be better for Israel to be managing the area.
The Palastinians would be far better off if they lived as residents of Israel then if they governed themselves. They simply don't have the resources to run a functioning political entity. Why not live as residents of one that does function and has a far better standard of living.
A Jewish state that allows Palastinians and Jews to live side by side is the compromise that would work, assuming the Palastinian extremists can actually tolerate the Jews.
Or that the jews stop shooting the palestinians with attack helicopters and bulldozing their houses long enough for an agreement to be signed. That's not happening though.
From day 1 the Palastinians and other neighboring countries have made it clear they will stand for nothing less then the total annhilation of Israel.
.
While from day 1 the 'Jews' have also made it clear that they will not accept anything less than full control of Palestine. Neither side can gets it way here.
Given that the Palastinians havn't done a very good job of managing what they do have, it seems that it would be better for Israel to be managing the area.
The Palastinians would be far better off if they lived as residents of Israel then if they governed themselves. They simply don't have the resources to run a functioning political entity. Why not live as residents of one that does function and has a far better standard of living.
A Jewish state that allows Palastinians and Jews to live side by side is the compromise that would work, assuming the Palastinian extremists can actually tolerate the Jews.
Or that the jews stop shooting the palestinians with attack helicopters and bulldozing their houses long enough for an agreement to be signed. That's not happening though.
Those said palastinians were shooting at the Jews first with RPGs and Mortars.
By your logic the Jews should just sit around and take those incoming attacks lying down, waiting for the very people firing them to come and have an agreement.
The palastinians have land that is "theirs" currently. the west bank and Gaza strip.
Have they created a political entity and begun progress towards an improved civilization?
No, what they do is constantly aggrivate Israel with terrorist activites. Israel responds with military force to protect their people.
The Palastinians arn't even trying to make peace or get along. The negotiations are just methods of buying time so their fighters can build another round of rockets and bombs to attack Israel with.
If I was in charge of Israel, I would have finally decided enough was enough and forcibly taken back the land and clear it of anyone that opposed us. those who truly wanted coexistance would be allowed to remain with their homes, but any sort of resistance in the form of Terrorist activities would be met with harsh consequences. Remove all the weapons the Palastinians have access to, seal the borders so no weapons can come in, etc...
After a period of time the Palastinians would be absorbed into the state of Israel and we would be done with all this crap.
If I were America, the EU, or the Arab league you probably wouldn't be in power a week later. Hell, if you did that and the current EU, Arab league, or America was around you wouldn't be. Genocide is frowned upon.
Grey Templar wrote: Have they created a political entity and begun progress towards an improved civilization?
It's kind of hard to do that when Israel uses military force to keep them in a state of poverty. Seriously, even ignoring the massively disproportionate use of violence in retaliation just look at the list of things the Israeli blockade excludes.
The palastinians have land that is "theirs" currently. the west bank and Gaza strip.
Have they created a political entity and begun progress towards an improved civilization?
No, what they do is constantly aggrivate Israel with terrorist activites. Israel responds with military force to protect their people.
The Palastinians arn't even trying to make peace or get along. The negotiations are just methods of buying time so their fighters can build another round of rockets and bombs to attack Israel with.
If I was in charge of Israel, I would have finally decided enough was enough and forcibly taken back the land and clear it of anyone that opposed us. those who truly wanted coexistance would be allowed to remain with their homes, but any sort of resistance in the form of Terrorist activities would be met with harsh consequences. Remove all the weapons the Palastinians have access to, seal the borders so no weapons can come in, etc...
After a period of time the Palastinians would be absorbed into the state of Israel and we would be done with all this crap.
If I were America, the EU, or the Arab league you probably wouldn't be in power a week later. Hell, if you did that and the current EU, Arab league, or America was around you wouldn't be. Genocide is frowned upon.
Read my quote, I never advocated Genocide.
I advocated taking out a legitimate military threat. The civilians can remain, but if you make a move or look as if you are making a move towards or with a weapon I will shoot first and ask questions later.
From day 1 the Palastinians and other neighboring countries have made it clear they will stand for nothing less then the total annhilation of Israel. .
While from day 1 the 'Jews' have also made it clear that they will not accept anything less than full control of Palestine. Neither side can gets it way here.
Given that the Palastinians havn't done a very good job of managing what they do have, it seems that it would be better for Israel to be managing the area.
The Palastinians would be far better off if they lived as residents of Israel then if they governed themselves. They simply don't have the resources to run a functioning political entity. Why not live as residents of one that does function and has a far better standard of living.
A Jewish state that allows Palastinians and Jews to live side by side is the compromise that would work, assuming the Palastinian extremists can actually tolerate the Jews.
Or that the jews stop shooting the palestinians with attack helicopters and bulldozing their houses long enough for an agreement to be signed. That's not happening though.
Those said palastinians were shooting at the Jews first with RPGs and Mortars.
Those said Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes so that the jewish state could be created by the west as a place to stuff jews after WW2. The jewish state was created on top of other peoples land, they didn't agree to it. It's also the holy land and a foreign christian power gave it to the jews.
The palastinians have land that is "theirs" currently. the west bank and Gaza strip.
Have they created a political entity and begun progress towards an improved civilization?
No, what they do is constantly aggrivate Israel with terrorist activites. Israel responds with military force to protect their people.
The Palastinians arn't even trying to make peace or get along. The negotiations are just methods of buying time so their fighters can build another round of rockets and bombs to attack Israel with.
If I was in charge of Israel, I would have finally decided enough was enough and forcibly taken back the land and clear it of anyone that opposed us. those who truly wanted coexistance would be allowed to remain with their homes, but any sort of resistance in the form of Terrorist activities would be met with harsh consequences. Remove all the weapons the Palastinians have access to, seal the borders so no weapons can come in, etc...
After a period of time the Palastinians would be absorbed into the state of Israel and we would be done with all this crap.
If I were America, the EU, or the Arab league you probably wouldn't be in power a week later. Hell, if you did that and the current EU, Arab league, or America was around you wouldn't be. Genocide is frowned upon.
Read my quote, I never advocated Genocide.
I advocated taking out a legitimate military threat. The civilians can remain, but if you make a move or look as if you are making a move towards or with a weapon I will shoot first and ask questions later.
You just advocated invading every home in Palestine with military force and killing anyone who refused to give up their weapon. Instead of me reading your quote, how about you read it and think about it for more than five seconds. It's insane.
The Palastinians arn't even trying to make peace or get along. The negotiations are just methods of buying time so their fighters can build another round of rockets and bombs to attack Israel with.
That is true of both sides. As I keep saying there has to be deep compromises or the situation that will last for decades, if not centuries.
Its also quite hard to build, for example, a functional economy when you can't even import cement and your extremely friendly neighbour keep 'borrowing' your farmland.
Grey Templar wrote: Have they created a political entity and begun progress towards an improved civilization?
It's kind of hard to do that when Israel uses military force to keep them in a state of poverty. Seriously, even ignoring the massively disproportionate use of violence in retaliation just look at the list of things the Israeli blockade excludes.
You might not want to bother with this anymore, from previous experience this dude doesn't like reason. He likes action and ideology.
Grey Templar wrote: Well you clearly have your own Idiology too, one which says the Jews are 100% wrong and should leave.
But whatever, i'm done.
An ideology backed up by facts, history, objective morality, and plain old ethics with a bit of common sense. If they can't act like a civilized country and have to engage in the constant killing of civilians and theft of land to protect themselves then they don't deserve our or anyone elses protection.
Just so we're clear, this does invalidate almost any morality based arguments either of you will make for a while. The notion that might makes right to the exclusion of basic human rights is pretty extreme.
It doesn't in anyway. If you know a man has a gun and he is going to try and use it against you it is perfectly moral shoot him first. If he surrounds himself with his children and family you're still allowed to shoot him because he would also have no qualms about shooting your family, and would likely do so with extreme prejudice.
Saying that Israel must continually bomb, relocate, and bully the Palestinians or they will cease to exist strikes me as one of the big lies, and a way to perpetuate an almost eternal state of conflict.
Just so we're clear, this does invalidate almost any morality based arguments either of you will make for a while. The notion that might makes right to the exclusion of basic human rights is pretty extreme.
It doesn't in anyway. If you know a man has a gun and he is going to try and use it against you it is perfectly moral shoot him first. If he surrounds himself with his children and family you're still allowed to shoot him because he would also have no qualms about shooting your family, and would likely do so with extreme prejudice.
Ahh, so we're back to hysterical comparisons. So whose head was the gun to when Israel killed over 100 children and 500-800 civilians during the last gaza war? The one where israel lost something along the lines of five people to incidents that weren't friendly fire? The pro Israel side loves it's silly little allegorical comparisons, because without them it has no case. Flip that around and the Palestinians now have ever right to murder every Israeli they see because the Israelis have proven, time and time again, that they don't care about civilian collateral when they want a Palestinian dead. Sounds kinda silly when it's said from the other direction, doesn't it? The barest facts on the ground prove that the Israelis are in the wrong, the full facts show that they are guilty of almost every war crime we've got, from banned weapons use to civilian shields and attacking aid convoys. I'm not asking you to hate Israel or for their country to be disbanded, I just want reality injected into the conversation. Israel as a nation state doesn't act in accordance with the values of peace, civility, or human rights, and it actively manipulates U.S. foreign opinion to try and influence our elections and policies.
If it was any country besides Israel doing that we'd condemn them as monsters and probably start planning to invade and overthrow their government, but of course we couldn't possibly do that to a valued ally**
Lolwut? Chechnya, China, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, and half of Africa. Don't see the Americans gunning for them. Hell Chechnya isn't even on anyones radar really.
While from day 1 the 'Jews' have also made it clear that they will not accept anything less than full control of Palestine. Neither side can gets it way here.
Nope, they want it, but they weren't willing to fight for it, and prior to the creation of Israel they had obtained all of the land that was Jewish controlled through legal purchases. Seriously, the Palestinians were all happy to sell their land to the Jews, then the Jews reclaim said land from the worthless parcels that it was before and all of a sudden the Palestinians want it back, and the Arabs are going to back them up. Well they tried three times, and all three times the Jews kicked their asses, so by right of conquest alone they have control of the area that was outside the 67 borders, and by right of both occupation and defence do they hold their land. Neither of which is immoral as they paid for them, originally in cash, and later in blood.
Those said Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes so that the jewish state could be created by the west as a place to stuff jews after WW2. The jewish state was created on top of other peoples land, they didn't agree to it. It's also the holy land and a foreign christian power gave it to the jews.
Go and read the extensive history leading up to the formation of Israel, I suggest you start in the mid 1870s, you'll see what an utter fabrication that is. Those Palestinians were never removed from their homes, they left before the war in 48 in fear of Jewish reprisals and what would happen to them if they were there when the Arabs rolled through. The Arabs who stayed in Israel for the war and who did not take part in the hostilities were allowed to stay and given citizenship. All Jewish land prior to that had been legally obtained for cash. True they expropriated a good deal of property after the war in 48 but that's totally fair. There wasn't anyone living there, and the inhabitants had sided with the enemies of Israel. It's no different then expropriating the property of enemy combatants that is held in your country.
An ideology backed up by facts, history, objective morality, and plain old ethics with a bit of common sense. If they can't act like a civilized country and have to engage in the constant killing of civilians and theft of land to protect themselves then they don't deserve our or anyone elses protection.
An ideology that is backed up by a lot of ignorance of the facts, history, and almost no common sense. Objective morality is different, but in that case it would still side with Israel.
You just advocated invading every home in Palestine with military force and killing anyone who refused to give up their weapon. Instead of me reading your quote, how about you read it and think about it for more than five seconds. It's insane.
That isn't insane, that is a perfectly rational response to a large body of people who wish to do you and your countrymen harm and do not care about the cost to themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahh, so we're back to hysterical comparisons. So whose head was the gun to when Israel killed over 100 children and 500-800 civilians during the last gaza war? The one where israel lost something along the lines of five people to incidents that weren't friendly fire?
The same can be said of nearly any American engagement post Vietnam. Do you find them to be as morally distasteful?
The pro Israel side loves it's silly little allegorical comparisons, because without them it has no case. Flip that around and the Palestinians now have ever right to murder every Israeli they see because the Israelis have proven, time and time again, that they don't care about civilian collateral when they want a Palestinian dead. Sounds kinda silly when it's said from the other direction, doesn't it?
Nope, in fact I perfectly agree with it. Really, I wish they would just be allowed to go at it and then we would be done with this silly argument.
The barest facts on the ground prove that the Israelis are in the wrong, the full facts show that they are guilty of almost every war crime we've got, from banned weapons use to civilian shields and attacking aid convoys. I'm not asking you to hate Israel or for their country to be disbanded, I just want reality injected into the conversation.
I am aware of such actions, are you aware that the Palestinians do the exact same things? That they would take it farther if they had the power to do so? Just because Israel is much more effective and efficient at killing than the Palestinians doesn't meant that they and only they are to blame.
Israel as a nation state doesn't act in accordance with the values of peace, civility, or human rights, and it actively manipulates U.S. foreign opinion to try and influence our elections and policies.
Neither does the vast majority of the world, your own state included. The only states that do either Scandinavian or Swiss.
LoneLictor wrote: It's horribly, horribly racist. But they should be allowed to say it, just like we're allowed to call them out on it.
No. If we're not arguing stare decisis then we can argue on the merits.
The merits are that this is a public conveyance. I have the right to not be annoyed by some else's bs message on mass transit. Seriously what the feth is wrong with people now days.
I advocated taking out a legitimate military threat. The civilians can remain, but if you make a move or look as if you are making a move towards or with a weapon I will shoot first and ask questions later.
Not directly, but you are doing it unintentionally.
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.
The only effective and moral self defense is the self defense that stops the aggressor. If it takes eliminating every last vestige of your opponent then so be it. If your opponent starts it, you finish it, and finish it so strongly they never have the capacity to start it again.
Go and read the extensive history leading up to the formation of Israel, I suggest you start in the mid 1870s, you'll see what an utter fabrication that is. Those Palestinians were never removed from their homes, they left before the war in 48 in fear of Jewish reprisals and what would happen to them if they were there when the Arabs rolled through. The Arabs who stayed in Israel for the war and who did not take part in the hostilities were allowed to stay and given citizenship. All Jewish land prior to that had been legally obtained for cash. True they expropriated a good deal of property after the war in 48 but that's totally fair. There wasn't anyone living there, and the inhabitants had sided with the enemies of Israel. It's no different then expropriating the property of enemy combatants that is held in your country.
First of all, don't patronize me. I'm pretty damn well read by now on the formation of the Jewish state.The British conquered Palestine at the turn of the century and was awarded the the mandate of Palestine by the league of nations in 1922. At this time Arabs made up 90% of the population of the future sites that would be Palestinian. At the end of WW2 the jewish population in palestine was still only 33% of the total. After the British fled the mandate due to jewish and arab uprisings the U.N. general assembly drafted the plan to create the nation of Israel. The two year civil war that ended with the drafting (and refusal by the Israeli state) of that plan forced the majority of ethnic Arabs from their homes. This is nothing short of a war of conquest by the formative Jewish state. It can be considered nothing short of that because it was planned, prosecuted, and resulted in exactly that. In 1948 the Arab nations attacked the newly formed state of Israel and lost, badly.
An ideology that is backed up by a lot of ignorance of the facts, history, and almost no common sense. Objective morality is different, but in that case it would still side with Israel.
Says the guy totally unaware of the civil war of mandatory palestine and the refugee crisis of 1947-48. You really think everyone just up and left because they thought the arab countries were about to attack? No one with a clear understanding of the history of Israel is pro Israel. Anyone pretending to be such has formed their opinion on revisionist history, as is seen here.
That isn't insane, that is a perfectly rational response to a large body of people who wish to do you and your countrymen harm and do not care about the cost to themselves.
Now it's both insane and ignorant. You think the majority of Palestinians are extremist fighters? You think that they don't care about the cost to themselves and their families? Are you really going to sit there, with a straight face, and tell me that they should just accept the blockade of basic requirements for existence, the total denial of basic human rights, and the consistent and accelerating theft of their lands and economic base without trying to do something about it?
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.
The only effective and moral self defense is the self defense that stops the aggressor. If it takes eliminating every last vestige of your opponent then so be it. If your opponent starts it, you finish it, and finish it so strongly they never have the capacity to start it again.
Mannahnin wrote: How about the two-state solution? I don't see any reason why that can't be made to work, and that would certainly give the vast majority of Palestinians much less reason to hate Israel.
They left Gaza and as they were leaving Hamas started firing rockets. What if you form two states (Palestine and Israel) and rockets continue to fly from Palestine?
Inversely what if Israel says feth off its all ours and pushes everyone out of the occupied territories (which are really just Jordan and Egypt).
What does Israel do about Hezzbullah which continues to fire rockets into Israel from Lebanon, a completely separate country.
What if Israel retaliates against an attack and Iran says any attack on Palestine will result in a nuclear response?
All things to consider and why its best the US stay the heck out of the region. Too many ways for things to go boom.
Nope, they want it, but they weren't willing to fight for it, and prior to the creation of Israel they had obtained all of the land that was Jewish controlled through legal purchases. Seriously, the Palestinians were all happy to sell their land to the Jews, then the Jews reclaim said land from the worthless parcels that it was before and all of a sudden the Palestinians want it back, and the Arabs are going to back them up. Well they tried three times, and all three times the Jews kicked their asses, so by right of conquest alone they have control of the area that was outside the 67 borders, and by right of both occupation and defence do they hold their land. Neither of which is immoral as they paid for them, originally in cash, and later in blood.
Economic ownership and political ownership are very different things. The 'right' of conquest is meaningless in this day and age.
Ratbarf wrote: But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.
Says the guy totally unaware of the civil war of mandatory palestine and the refugee crisis of 1947-48.
Actually I am, that's why I mentioned it.
The two year civil war that ended with the drafting (and refusal by the Israeli state) of that plan forced the majority of ethnic Arabs from their homes.
Half of that is bs, what the heck have you been reading?
No one with a clear understanding of the history of Israel is pro Israel.
This one is obviously wrong, both in literal meaning, (people can know the history and still be cool with pretty much everything) and the intended meaning. I also have a clear understanding of Israels history, and I'm totally cool with it.
Now it's both insane and ignorant. You think the majority of Palestinians are extremist fighters? You think that they don't care about the cost to themselves and their families? Are you really going to sit there, with a straight face, and tell me that they should just accept the blockade of basic requirements for existence, the total denial of basic human rights, and the consistent and accelerating theft of their lands and economic base without trying to do something about it?
An insurgency is only possible with the tacit support of the local population. They are the ones who provide them with arms, funding, recruits, safe houses, and other things. The very fact that the extremists hide in within the population, and the population does nothing to combat them, means that they can be held responsible.
Mannahnin wrote: How about the two-state solution? I don't see any reason why that can't be made to work, and that would certainly give the vast majority of Palestinians much less reason to hate Israel.
They left Gaza and as they were leaving Hamas started firing rockets. What if you form two states (Palestine and Israel) and rockets continue to fly from Palestine?
Inversely what if Israel says feth off its all ours and pushes everyone out of the occupied territories (which are really just Jordan and Egypt).
What does Israel do about Hezzbullah which continues to fire rockets into Israel from Lebanon, a completely separate country.
What if Israel retaliates against an attack and Iran says any attack on Palestine will result in a nuclear response?
All things to consider and why its best the US stay the heck out of the region. Too many ways for things to go boom.
The two state solution has no realistic application, the Israelis don't want it and there are too many entrenched and fanatical militants in Palestine (and in Palestine but from other nations) for it to be a viable idea. The ultra-Orthodox jews also wouldn't stand for the cessation of settlement construction. The only real solutions are single state, either enforced by the jewish state effectively removing palestinians from palestine or via massive foreign intervention from the U.N. or from a country acting unilateraly (the only countries capable of doing this won't).
The only realistic way to solve the crisis through the two state solution is for world opinion of Israel to drop to the point where it's forced to play ball and make realistic concessions at the negotiating table. The ceasefire would then have to be arbitrated by a U.N. backed military force with agreement from the arab league. Given how good the Israeli propaganda machine is in the U.S. and how weak willed EU foreign policy is (and how capricious and self serving Chinese and Russian foreign policy is) I really don't think there's any hope at all. 100 years from now there just won't be a palestine and Israel will be bigger.
Ratbarf wrote: Seriously, the Palestinians were all happy to sell their land to the Jews, then the Jews reclaim said land from the worthless parcels that it was before and all of a sudden the Palestinians want it back, and the Arabs are going to back them up.
No, the people that held the deeds to the land were happy to sell it to the Jews. They were generally Arabs, but wouldn't be counted as Palestinians.
That isn't insane, that is a perfectly rational response to a large body of people who wish to do you and your countrymen harm and do not care about the cost to themselves.
True, that isn't insane. What is insane is maintaining a particular relationship with such a country for moral or traditional reasons. And further being susceptible to allegations of antisemitism if you are not so disposed.
An insurgency is only possible with the tacit support of the local population. They are the ones who provide them with arms, funding, recruits, safe houses, and other things. The very fact that the extremists hide in within the population, and the population does nothing to combat them, means that they can be held responsible.
Which implies a state of war. Which implies that Israel is subject to war crime laws. In which case Israel has a lot of war crimes trials to catch up on.
A Jewish state that allows Palastinians and Jews to live side by side is the compromise that would work, assuming the Palastinian extremists can actually tolerate the Jews.
Why does it have to be a Jewish state? There will never be a lasting peaceful settlement unless both sides make significant compromises and any future integrated state should be resolutely secular.
Israel is one of the main reasons why the Palestinians lack the rescources to suceed.
If only those Israelis weren't mucking things up everything would be paradise like in 1940. You're right, the only lasting final solution here is that they be relocated.
The 'right' of conquest is meaningless in this day and age.
Tell that to the Palestinians.
True, that isn't insane. What is insane is maintaining a particular relationship with such a country for moral or traditional reasons. And further being susceptible to allegations of antisemitism if you are not so disposed.
Considering they're the only nation involved in the conflict who doesn't want to see America drown in blood I would also have to say that it's pretty sane.
No, the people that held the deeds to the land were happy to sell it to the Jews. They were generally Arabs, but wouldn't be counted as Palestinians.
Then neither would Palestinians, they aren't an ethnicity, they're just the decendants of the inhabitants of an Ottoman Province.
What if it doesn't, in fact what happens if the act of aggressive self defense all but ensures that there will be attacks against you in the future?
Then by definition it wasn't a moral or effective defence.
Ahtman wrote: Saying that Israel must continually bomb, relocate, and bully the Palestinians or they will cease to exist strikes me as one of the big lies, and a way to perpetuate an almost eternal state of conflict.
They could just push all the Palestinians out of the occupied territories and claim them as part of Israel. Its time honored tradition. If its good enough for the Romans, Brits, the Aztecs, and the USA its good enough for israel.
What if it doesn't, in fact what happens if the act of aggressive self defense all but ensures that there will be attacks against you in the future?
Not if you kill everyone who could attack you. Again, historically thats time honored tradition. Kill the men, enslave the women and children. Raze the cities and salt the earth. Its Old School ROman style.
I don't have a dog in this hunt as an American, but there are definitely time honored methods of solving the conflict one way or another.
Considering they're the only nation involved in the conflict who doesn't want to see America drown in blood I would also have to say that it's pretty sane.
No, not really. Jordan is quite fond of the US, as is Saudi Arabia. Egypt is up in the air now, but was an ally.
Then neither would Palestinians, they aren't an ethnicity, they're just the decendants of the inhabitants of an Ottoman Province.
Ah, the Dennis Miller argument, what fun.
They're an ethnicity because they are treated as distinct by each other and all people who would alternatively regard them as members of their own ethnicity. The only people that don't regard "Palestinian" as an ethnicity are Westerners and Israelis; and in both cases its about rhetoric.
Then by definition it wasn't a moral or effective defence.
You have a very broad understanding of "moral" and "effective", and seem quite naive. One can do a moral thing that is not effective, and an effective thing that is not moral. One can also do a thing that is effective in being moral while not actually being effective in any other sense.
Ah, that would explain it. Wikipedia is really terrible when it comes to contentious political arguments.
Which implies a state of war. Which implies that Israel is subject to war crime laws. In which case Israel has a lot of war crimes trials to catch up on.
Actually it doesn't imply a state of war, because the other combatant is not a legal combatant, ergo no war by definition, it's just a policing action against a hostile population.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have a very broad understanding of "moral" and "effective", and seem quite naive. One can do a moral thing that is not effective, and an effective thing that is not moral. One can also do a thing that is effective in being moral while not actually being effective in any other sense.
Frazzled stated the terms in which a defencsive war is just and moral, you asked what is it when those terms are not met, ergo, it can't be a just and moral war if the terms aren't met. I wasn't refering to this case exactly, I was showing you a hole in your logic.
Actually it doesn't imply a state of war, because the other combatant is not a legal combatant, ergo no war by definition, it's just a policing action against a hostile population.
Not according to the Geneva Conventions, but thankfully words are a bit more fluid.
Frazzled stated the terms in which a defencsive war is just and moral, you asked what is it when those terms are not met, ergo, it can't be a just and moral war if the terms aren't met. I wasn't refering to this case exactly, I was showing you a hole in your logic.
I was questioning his premises. By his assumptions a very effective and moral form of self-defense would be murder or genocide.
Ah, that would explain it. Wikipedia is really terrible when it comes to contentious political arguments.
So is sputtering unsourced arguments that contradict each other. I'll take the wikipedia.
Actually it doesn't imply a state of war, because the other combatant is not a legal combatant, ergo no war by definition, it's just a policing action against a hostile population.
A policing action that involves the murder of thousands (it's not justifiable outside of the context of war!) In which case it's an act of war.
Ratbarf wrote: Then how come the Palestinian government has not declared war on them?
Because Israel has not recognized Hamas as a form of government and because Israel would kill another hundred children in a third gaza war. It's not really worth it. The international community wouldn't bring them up on warcrime anyway, the U.S. would veto any attempt.
misunderstood you...
about whether or not "case law" on the subject justifies the decision, what they're arguing about is whether it was the right decision to make.
