People like us

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Subz compared him/her self to Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and those who fought against Nazism for his/her bold willingness to condemn Israel. The implication, too, is that Subz is being persecuted just as those others were, but despite the attrocity of being called a name, (s)he will stand firm, and (s)he will prevail as a noble warrior poet fighting the good fight against name calling.

That is a bald faced lie. If I've incorrectly assumed you can read English at any sort of competent level then you must be mistaken in your interpretation. Where the hell did I compare myself to Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King? I said the people who stood up with them, not the men themselves. Agent provocateur #2?


Originally posted by junglejake
As to all of your quotes, Subz, Israel's a parliamentary republic. One person's quote means very little, be they in charge or not, if it is not in line with the government's stance. We see it all the time in America, when anyone from a representative to the president says they'd like something done but the rest of government says, "no".

What the hell? The quotes arent from backwater, back benchers from the far flung fringes, they are of Israeli Prime Ministers and one Israeli Defence Minister. Gloss over that so easily? I think not.


Originally posted by junglejake
The two points that actually do address Israeli law instead of individuals' opinions (which I stated before were easy to find), appear to be twisted and hyped. It would be like me saying all companies that want to sell Kosher food have to pay a tax to Israel. Yes, you have to pay Israeli companies for the trademark right to put their symbol on your packaging, but that symbol being on your packaging means Rabbis have inspected your facilities to ensure you are following Kosher rules and that it is, in fact, Kosher food. Companies pay for the service, and Jews who keep Kosher know the companies' symbols and their tradition for following Orthodox Kosher law (in some cases). If you can read Hebrew, please find the laws here, straight from the source, instead of from an article explaining how racist Jews are. If you can't speak Hebrew, try to find a free Hebrew to English translation tool online that will translate a website -- I haven't been able to find one yet.

What the hell? What is there to misinterpret? The laws segregate based on race and religion. The UN ruled them human rights violations. Are we to assume that no one in the UN can read hebrew so is in no position to condemn these racist Israeli laws? Mind boggling...

[edit on 7/8/06 by subz]




posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
If you criticise Iran/Syria/Hezbollah, you can be fairly safe in the knowledge no-one will pull you up and call you an Anti-Muslim, but do the reverse and call Israel on what it does, and before you know it, your've been labelled as a Neo-Nazi Islamo-Facist with a swastika printed on your forhead....

Not true. People here are constantly being reminded that the actions of a few Islamo-fascists do not speak for the majority of Muslims. And, they are labeled anti-muslim. Even though they made no such claim to begin with.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
The thing is jake, there is only a small minority on this board who do call people who condem Israel's actions, anti-semetic. Most people on here just argue the points at hand, so when a small group of people *cough* prince of peace*cough* *cough* jewish_hammer *cough* call me a anti-semite it flys right off my back, as i know they have a biased view on the situation. So just because a few new members are calling other racist, doesnt make it true how much they say it.


Also to Nydgan, im pretty disgusted in your post, dont try to act moderate and then put down this thread. To say that people who surport Israel think they are holier than though is a ignorant comment. Its the same vice versa, look at the thread Salute Israel for their tactics should i go in there and simply state, anyone who surports Israel is morally higher than anyone else? I wouldnt because i understand that there are different view points on the situation at hand, and people have different opinions. You as a moderater should have your own opinion but respect and not try to down play anothers opinion, especialy when you ahve no proof to back up your claims other than you opninion.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And that's the point that you are missing. No balance. And you'll never see him post anything solely critical about Hezbollah, either.

Another bald faced lie, I even have criticism of Hezbollah in my signature. You are a liar.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Bull. Mouthing that lame platitude plus having a "Everybody, please play nice!" signature doesn't excuse the fact that there is no solely anti-Hezbollah rant in his vocabulary. To him, everything bad can somehow be attributed to Israel.

Ok Mr. Balance, where is your criticism of Israel huh? You are a zionist apologist and not worth the bytes you're taking up in my cache.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I find it amusing that the OP feels he is in the "Minority". I wonder if he or the others "like him" have taken a look at the world. If they have, then they'll notice that most of the world is infact against Israel. So they aren't the minority, they're the majority. People like me, who stand for Israel, are the minority everywhere save the US. Though I hardly think minority and majority matter; I don't know about you, Subz, but I don't base my opinions on what the majority does or does not believe. I base my opinions on what I believe, regardless of whether I'm alone or not.

Criticizing Israel does not make you an anti-semite, depending on how you do it. However I do find it disturbing when people sympathize with suicide bombers who carry out attacks on civilians. It makes me uneasy to see people support militant groups that preach the destruction of a nation and its people. People like you, Subz, caused WWII in the first place. You wouldn't have stood against Hitler, you'd have appeased him.

In your defense, if the world was filled with pacifists it might be a better place. ...but it isn't. It only takes one violent killer to distrupt the peace and bring misery on everyone. That will never change.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by nextguyinline
The point of his post was to address the labeling of outspoken critics against b]Israel.
:
There is no animosity towards Hezbollah in the post because Hezbollah was not the subject.

And that's the point that you are missing. No balance. And you'll never see him post anything solely critical about Hezbollah, either.


I also don't see any attempt at member division or an attempt to claim anything morally. Did you miss this part of his post?...

"People like us pay no attention to who is commiting the injustices, we just see the injustices and say it is not acceptable. "

Bull. Mouthing that lame platitude plus having a "Everybody, please play nice!" signature doesn't excuse the fact that there is no solely anti-Hezbollah rant in his vocabulary. To him, everything bad can somehow be attributed to Israel.


Since when do posts have to have a balanced viewpoint? Escpecially when Hezbollah has absolutely NOTHING to do with his post.

I don't have a signature so I dont know if that was directed to me.

So what if everything bad to him is attributed to Israel. It has no bearing on this post!

You have done nothing but strengthen and qualify my earlier assessments of where
most of the posters here are coming from. Pre-formed judgemental conclusions.

Why do we live an atmosphere where alot if not most IMO of Israeli criticism results in the branding of anti-semite? Are there folks who won't voice their concerns because of such branding?



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
The topic, since i started this thread, is that people who criticise Israel and its practices are not Nazis or anti-semites. People who stand up against something even though it is not in their best interests are frequent in history.

I wouldn't say they are frequent - quite the opposite.

But just because you take an unpopular stand doesn't make you correct. OJ Simpson had his supporters, too.

And I still don't get the point of saying that it was "people like you" that marched alongside MLK. The obvious response is, "So what?" So did people like me. Does that make you feel superior? I think it does.

Edit: Fix BB code

[edit on 7-8-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And by implication, your post accused Israeli supporters as being against the likes of King and Mandela.

No by implication the people who held their tongues regarding Israel for fear of crossing the mainstream and being on the outer are like the people who did the samething during King's and Mandela's time.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not true. People here are constantly being reminded that the actions of a few Islamo-fascists do not speak for the majority of Muslims. And, they are labeled anti-muslim. Even though they made no such claim to begin with.


Yeah people keep reminded others of this, but again it doesnt get through to people, how are a few ATS members surpose to tackle major media corps. like FOX. Here is a some evidence that reminded people that only a few islamo-facists are responsible for terroism isnt working, this was created the other day.Can a Muslim be a good American? if you look through the war on terroism section on ATS im sure u will gind many more older anti-muslim threads.

Do we see threads similar to this like, Can Jews be good Americans? Of course not. Because most people who are agaisnt Israel's action are not racist, i cant help a Skin head comming on here and siding agaisnt Israel because of his racial beliefs, i would condem him as much as i condem anyone who back Israel blindly.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Another bald faced lie, I even have criticism of Hezbollah in my signature. You are a liar.

Yeah, right there along with criticism of Hamas and Israel. I said that you never solely criticize Hezbollah. And you still haven't proved me wrong.


Ok Mr. Balance, where is your criticism of Israel huh? You are a zionist apologist and not worth the bytes you're taking up in my cache.

Tsk, tsk, Subz. Resorting to name calling now, are we? You've just lost another few feathers from your holier-than-thou wings. Better watch it, or you will plummet to earth.

Nice try at the distraction, tho. Remember who started this thread.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
For those of us that are criticizing Nygdan because of his posts, let me say that I used to get peeved when a mod would do that, esp. when their opinion went against mine.

But now, I think they should have a flip card with Moderator on one side and Member on the other.

Remember why they are mods to begin with. Because they possess skills that are required for the job, and, more importantly, they are willing to dedicate the time and effort required to carry oit the duties of being a mod. (Plus they earn exorbitant salaries and dozens of perq's).


Nowhere does it say that they have to stop having or expressing an opinion, or to stop being a human being.

When they do mod stuff, they are the boss. But when they voice their opinion, they are equal to any other member of this board. And it's pretty easy to tell when they are doing which job. So cut them some slack.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yeah, right there along with criticism of Hamas and Israel. I said that you never solely criticize Hezbollah. And you still haven't proved me wrong.

I love your rationale jsobecky. So, according to you, I should be ignored because I cannot criticise Hezbollah by itself. I am only capable of criticising Hezbollah together with Israel.

So does that, by comparison, mean that you should be ignored even more because not only do you not criticise Israel alone you never criticise Israel along with any other entity?


Originally posted by jsobecky
Tsk, tsk, Subz. Resorting to name calling now, are we? You've just lost another few feathers from your holier-than-thou wings. Better watch it, or you will plummet to earth.

Nice try at the distraction, tho. Remember who started this thread.

Oh the irony.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Ok Mr. Balance, where is your criticism of Israel huh? You are a zionist apologist and not worth the bytes you're taking up in my cache.


That was hilarious! Gotta love irony.

wang, I agree completely, and that was the point I was trying to make. Just because someone calls you something doesn't mean it's true, but it doesn't mean it's not true. It's one person's opinion, and, especially in the case of new members, it typically doesn't come from knowing the person's intentions, thoughts or beliefs fully. It's assumptions that cause the insults. You know, statements where you show that you know someone's motivations, thoughts, and innermost feelings as to why they are or are not doing something. Something like saying,


No by implication the people who held their tongues regarding Israel for fear of crossing the mainstream and being on the outer are like the people who did the samething during King's and Mandela's time.


These self proclaimed psychics are those that explain people's motivations for their stances, such as calling folks anti-semites, rather than address their points.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Lets just get to the issue.

When a person voices their disapproval over Israeli action and policy, those who want to defend the prestige of Israel (for whatever reason) will counter this dissenter. Now if the defender is informed and has thought out his position, there will be a intellectual debate between the two positions.

If the defender is quick to judge a conversation, and does not plan out their side of the debate, they will attack the dissenter on the merits of the wording, not the issue itself. This is where the whole "Your no MLK!" thing arises.

This is acceptable in the mind of the defender because he is convinced he is right, and because of that, he can use any means to win the argument. Be it personal attacks or redirecting the issue.

If the person truly wanted to defend his position he would speak to the issue on its merits, not on the vague poetic terms used by the dissenter. Even if the defender wanted to comment on the questionable usage of said poetic speak, It should not account for the majority of his defense.

Now we come to the topic. When a person wants to defend Israel, and has no plan of attack, as it were conversationally, they will call the dissenter a Nazi. The reason for this is that the term immediately destroys the credibility of the dissenter, or at least paints him in an ugly fashion and calls into question everything he has said or is about to say.

Now I hear what Subz is saying, he has set forth an issue for us to discuss. Only now everyone is concentrated on this...


Originally posted by subz
It was people like us who stood up with Martin Luther King and questioned the morality of segregation and the inequalities of civil rights within the United States.

It was people like us who stood up with Nelson Mandela and questioned apartheid and the endemic racism in South Africa.

It was people like us who fought against Nazism and all that it stood for. Including delusions of racial superiority, ethnic cleansing, devine right and mass murder which all present themselves in Israel's behaviour.
[edit on 7/8/06 by subz]


I think he only meant to say that people who disagree with Israel are not, in fact, Nazis. They are people who stand up and speak out when they see oppression, no matter what the mainstream (hence the historical comparisons). I do not believe he was saying that if you support Israel, you support this injustice. I do not think he was trying to convey the sense that he was on the moral high ground, only because he does not support Israel.

I myself think Israel has a right to exist, but that does not mean I support her overly-aggressive military actions which are harming civilians.

One last thing, lets try to keep it civil guys, and on topic wouldn't be bad either!



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Maybe you can stick to the thread topic?

I only see one post making reference to Nygdans post as a Mod. It was very miniscule.
If you try to rebute with my earlier post, make sure you reread it to understand.
Do you get snacks and sticks of butter for defending a mod?

My opinion on why we have this atmosphere is due partly to the attrocities of WWII,
and the enslavement of the Jews in biblical times. I'm sure most jewish folks hold some
sort of reservations to those facts. This fundamental reservation coupled with the extreme dichotomy of the human spirit all meshed with the 'with us or against us' mantra or dare I say dogma, of the first part of this century causes the more perfunctory
of us to choose sides. Unfortunately the conflict that we are berated with daily is semite vs. non-semite.

: changed 'less' to 'more'

[edit on 7-8-2006 by nextguyinline]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
These self proclaimed psychics are those that explain people's motivations for their stances, such as calling folks anti-semites, rather than address their points.

Heh, I was responding to the "by implication" post of jsobecky. But you'll ignore that salient point along with the evidence I gave you as requested.

I wouldnt so much care at being called an anti-semite if there werent new laws liable to have me jailed for such accusations. It's not as if I care at being ridiculed, it's the severity and gravity of the accusations that have me angered.

If you dont think criticism of Israel equates to anti-semitism then why are you being adversarial? You think no differently than I.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline

None of us here have any clue the motivations behind the Israelies nor Hezbollah nor any other entity. I would say even the Israelies and Hezbolites (if you will) don't even know their OWN motivations.



Au contrare, Nextguy. I beg to differ:

here

here

and most recently...

here

Please don't think for a minute that the Lebanese and Syrian people don't know that there are areas of their land being coveted. They ain't that stupid.

Follow the links and let me know what YOU think? I think they're out to control that whole coast either outright or by the use of force until the Lebanese and Syrians say uncle.

What Subz has going here is the high ground, a nobler effort towards justice that bombs or rockets, death and destruction can ever bring about. An effort towards peace involving understanding the whole issue versus taking what's not their's for their need to survive.

We all have a need to survive. Israel may hold the pity card, but their methods are highly questionable especially in view of the fact they've lived and died by the same.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by psyopswatcher]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Hi Psyop,

I was speaking from a more philosophical perspective.

Why do you think this atmosphere exists as you percieve it?

: and don't beg to differ. differ away


[edit on 7-8-2006 by nextguyinline]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Nihilist Fiend, you have a WATS from me. That was a great post, thank you


Nextguyinline, welcome to ATS
You've picked a fiery topic to get stuck into nice an early on in the piece.

Its very apprent, and rife in our times that the method at which anti-Israel rhetoric is contained is through a) accusations of anti-semitism, b) ridicule and c) silence. Since, in this thread I made the clear point that being anti-Israel is not akin to anti-semitism we've seen a full blown b) response to my character - and character alone. They will not debate the points of the thread as Nextguyinline pointed out.

Next we'll see a bit of c) I suppose.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
For those of us that are criticizing Nygdan because of his posts, let me say that I used to get peeved when a mod would do that, esp. when their opinion went against mine.

But now, I think they should have a flip card with Moderator on one side and Member on the other.

Remember why they are mods to begin with. Because they possess skills that are required for the job, and, more importantly, they are willing to dedicate the time and effort required to carry oit the duties of being a mod. (Plus they earn exorbitant salaries and dozens of perq's).


Nowhere does it say that they have to stop having or expressing an opinion, or to stop being a human being.

When they do mod stuff, they are the boss. But when they voice their opinion, they are equal to any other member of this board. And it's pretty easy to tell when they are doing which job. So cut them some slack.


I do believe it was only me that criticised and I did explicit say in that post that, yes, he has a right to an opinion...

However, playing Mod and asking for the thread to stay on topic and in the very same post attack the OP's credibility and mocking him is hardly being an impartial moderator, is it? If he wanted to state his opinion, he should have taken his Mod hat off, instead of hiding behind it to take a swipe at Subz.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join