It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fresh evidence of Israeli phosphorus use in Gaza emerges

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
while the pictures are scary looking, if you read the article it seems like they are just bad ass fireworks. what would Israel have to gain from killing civilians? doesn't make sense.




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 

Yes, I do know that you wouldn't fight. There would be some excuse. I've met many with your tone, your prejudice, your rhetoric, and they all have the same thing in common. You say you would fight when cornered? I doubt it, but hell, even a mouse will do that. Kind of says a lot for a man's character, doesn't it.

Therefore, I exclude you to take my measure in any manner. You are uniquely unqualified.

You just hate Jews. You hate Israel as it represents a Jewish nation. Get used to it. It's not going to get any better for you.

Normally, I'd suggest fighting for what you run your mouth over, and possibly go to Gaza and join Hamas, or to the West Bank, or even Lebanon to hook up with Hizballah, but that would require a certain amount of courage, which you indicate you lack.

Common enough among elitists. I never had much use for cowards.

I suppose I detest cowards, and always have. I hold cowards in utter contempt. Perpetual gasbags full of self-loating and self-contempt. Pathetic.

Any attack on me from a coward, I take as a compliment. A coward is like half a book. They only have half an understanding.

This conflict won't end until one side absolutely destroys the other.

That, my friend, is logic. Not debate.

No right. No wrong.

Pure logic.



[edit on 18-1-2009 by dooper]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Waiting for some debate... not holding my breath, though, just as well...


Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rich23
 

Yes, I do know that you wouldn't fight. There would be some excuse. I've met many with your tone, your prejudice, your rhetoric, and they all have the same thing in common.


It must be hell for you living among ordinary people. How do you get through a day without crushing someone's head with your bare hands?


You say you would fight when cornered? I doubt it, but hell, even a mouse will do that. Kind of says a lot for a man's character, doesn't it.


StILL waiting for that rational argument backed up with some facts. Kind of says a lot for a man's intellect, doesn't it? Fortunately - and no matter what you think, I do NOT have you or your ilk to thank for this - I live in a society where the ability to think joined-up thoughts counts for more than the ability to kill.

As for character, you're not in a position to judge.


Therefore, I exclude you to take my measure in any manner. You are uniquely unqualified.


Ditto. The only thing is, I'm looking for debate, not insults. Come on, marshal some arguments! Back 'em up with some facts! That's what counts in these parts.


You just hate Jews. You hate Israel as it represents a Jewish nation. Get used to it. It's not going to get any better for you.


Evidence for that please? That kind of tired jibe only works when you can point to something I've said and make it stick. As I said, I'm embroiled in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Point to anything I've posted anywhere that backs that up. I dare you.


Normally, I'd suggest fighting for what you run your mouth over, and possibly go to Gaza and join Hamas, or to the West Bank, or even Lebanon to hook up with Hizballah, but that would require a certain amount of courage, which you indicate you lack.


Naturally you'd suggest fighting. It's what you're good at. That thinking business, so dull and bothersome. Why not just kill people and get it done with?

Fighting is not always the solution.

Personally, I'd say that the Gaza ambulancemen, as mentioned in another thread, are far more courageous than you've ever been. They're putting themselves in danger to save someone's life, in the full knowledge that the IDF will likely fire on their ambulances under the excuse that they might be cover for Hamas. They're endangering themselves for someone they don't even know, and they're utterly defenceless. They don't have macho posturing to hide behind, and they're not doing anyone any harm. Far more admirable, not that you care, of course.

I doubt that this idea of courage is one you could get to grips with as it doesn't involve killing people, but it's one I find awe-inspiring.


Common enough among elitists. I never had much use for cowards.

I suppose I detest cowards, and always have. I hold cowards in utter contempt. Perpetual gasbags full of self-loating and self-contempt. Pathetic.


Not exactly moving the debate along here, are we?


Any attack on me from a coward, I take as a compliment. A coward is like half a book. They only have half an understanding.


If I wanted to be offensive, I'd say it's possible to substitute the word "moron" or "thug" for "coward" in that sentence and it would work for me. I'll just remind you of the repeated attempts I've made to move this onto the issues.


This conflict won't end until one side absolutely destroys the other.

That, my friend, is logic. Not debate.

No right. No wrong.

Pure logic.


Well, you're right when you say it's not debate, wrong when you say it's "pure logic".

You don't understand the difference between asserting something to be true, and logic. Here you're making a prediction about the future. Logic is a reasonably well-understood system of rules that determines what's permissible in an argument, or at least provides examples of what is impermissible, and why.

If enough people see the kind of vileness the Israeli regime perpetrates on the Palestinians, there's a small but distinct possibility that public opinion would turn against Israel. If that happened, it might be difficult for representatives answerable to an electorate to keep their jobs. They might even take the initiative and decide to stop the ludicrous funding given to a state that's prepared to stab its friends in the back. Yes, stab its friends in the back, or didn't you know about the USS Liberty?

(For anyone else other than Dooper, who won't look at the link... It's kind of interesting that the Wikipedia entry for this doesn't mention that the Liberty was a spy ship, calling it merely a research vessel. Those antennae are for eavesdropping. Still, moving on...)

So... if funding were stopped, and international pressure brought to bear, it's possible that the Israelis might be inclined to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and redraw the map to allow the Palestinians some kind of viable state.

The above is a genuine example of argument, so you know what it looks like. i outline a plausible scenario step-by-step. Hopefully you'll be able to follow it.

Now here's a little test for you, Dooper. There's an actual historical example that backs up this argument. Can you think of it? A real example of a situation that parallels this one in some important respects, and in which a peaceful solution was achieved without anyone being wiped out thanks to international pressure. And just like Israel, the country concerned was being supported by the US.

I wonder if you'll be able to think of it. You might want to ask a grown-up for help.

You may or may not have noticed that I've provided a rational argument against your gloomy prognosis about people wiping each other out. In other words, you lost that argument. It distresses me that I feel I have to point this out to you, but from what you've posted so far I don't feel I have a choice.

Now, see, I'm not just pouring contempt on you. I'm challenging you, nay, DARING you, to think. What's it going to be? Are you going to engage in rational debate - the purpose of this forum - or are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself in public?

Got a horrible feeling it's going to be the latter. Again.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 

You're argument is exactly . . . what?

You want facts? Like in 1948 Israel declared itself an independent country?

Like in 1948-49 this brand new country called Israel was attacked by the combined forces of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and militants with the stated goal of wiping Israel off the map?

Facts? Like in the process of defending against this attacking coalition while impossibly outnumbered, they kicked everyone's ass and ended up with a net gain of territory?

Facts, such as a lot of the so-called Palestinians up and left?

Like Israel was pushed around again in 1956?

Facts? Like in 1967 when Radio Cairo and Nassar for weeks were spouting off that Israel was going to be destroyed, and when Egypt, Jordan, and Syria lined up for the attack, they were in turn hit first?

Other facts, such as Israel gained a lot of land including the Golan Heights, regained the Gaza Strip (which they had given back once), the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Sinai?

You want facts, like Israel has been under steady attack since day one of their creation?

Your scholarship is sorely lacking to not recognize these facts of history, or you are disingenuous in your intent.

You certainly lack a sense of originality, and maybe your Alzheimer's is kicking in old man, because you keep repeating the same old time-worn, threadbare insults. Battle of wits? Against an unarmed man? How many times will you repeat this? May I suggest that you Google some new insults.

I'm armed. I'm always armed.

You would suggest that fighting is not always the solution.

Let me clue you in, old chap. Fighting is precisely the solution when you find yourself in a fight. (You may want to write that down.)

Those ambulance drivers are doing their job. Just like I was.

You apparently for all your bluster, don't seem to know the difference between logic, a prediction, and truth.

I clearly stated that this won't end until one side completely destroys the other. Can you give me any evidence to the contrary?

That's not a prediction of mine. That is truth. Pure logic based on all the evidence, present and past.

Your definition of logic is one that suggest rules. That's exactly why your form of rationale won't work here.

The Gazans are not driven by logic, by argument, past wrongs, nor reaction.

They are driven by a hatred of Jew/Israelis, as their prophet requires. No logic involved. If anyone were to examine all of Islam without any bias, they would laugh at the lies and falsehoods perpetuated by this religion.

You just can't bring yourself to admit the root of the problem. Your kind always wants to cloud the basic problem with many ancilary considerations which have nothing to do with the root of the problem, ancillary considerations which don't really mean squat.

You want logic?

One side or the other will have to be destroyed.

There can be no other answer.

Pure logic.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by dooper]

[edit on 18-1-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Good job i wasn't holding my breath waiting for you to engage in rational argument. Here we go...


Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by rich23
 

You're argument is exactly . . . what?


My argument is that there are other options to fighting. I outlined a plausible scenario in which Israel would be brought to the negotiating table. I also challenged you to come up with the historical example that demonstrates that this scenario has worked before. You still haven't named it, even though it's pretty obvious. South Africa. A racist state, like Israel, backed by the West, like Israel, with a terrorist opposition, like Israel.

A negotiated settlement brought about by international pressure.

]quote]You want facts? Like in 1948 Israel declared itself an independent country?

Facts are useful when they support an argument. That's why I mentioned South Africa. It's germane to the issue.

This pitiful thumbnail sketch - ignoring, for example, the not entirely irrelevant fact that Israel was created through a sustained terrorist campaign - is not exactly news. I think I might have heard some of these facts before. I was brought up on the myth of "plucky little Israel". The more I found out, the more difficult it became to sustain this belief.


Facts, such as a lot of the so-called Palestinians up and left?


So... they just left. They weren't driven out? They just thought, oh, we'll go and live somewhere else, maybe the weather's better.


You want facts, like Israel has been under steady attack since day one of their creation?


Now, see, there you go again, confusing facts with assertions. That's an assertion, and you've marshalled some facts to support it. Well done!


Your scholarship is sorely lacking to not recognize these facts of history, or you are disingenuous in your intent.


Again... if you are going to make accusations like this, you need to back it up with something. You called me a Jew-hater a while ago. I asked you to point to something I've posted anywhere on these boards, not just on this thread, to back that accusation up. You can't. You lose. Again.

Here you attack my scholarship and say I don't recognise these facts of history. Simply because I haven't mentioned them doesn't mean I don't recognise them. But then, facts are such slippery things...

Did Israel provoke the six day war?


Former Dutch UN observer, Colonel (ret.) Jan Mühren, said last Monday on the Dutch current affairs program Nova that in the run up to the the Six-Day War Israel provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land. Jan Mühren, who was stationed interchangeably at the Golan Heights and the West Bank in 1966 and 1967, says Israel was not under siege by Arab countries. Mühren said neither Jordan nor Syria had any intention to start a war with Israel.


So maybe it's not so clear-cut. As you said, Israel did pretty well out of it. If they did provoke it, they're not going to admit it: and this Dutch Colonel was there at the time says they did. Given the current level of deception that the Israeli government will stoop to, it's not much of a stretch.

As for lacking originality - you've called me a coward more times than I can be bothered to count; you've used an argument that I was careful to pre-empt no fewer than three times; and you've yet to answer any of the points I've put to you with anything other than bluster.


I'm armed. I'm always armed.


Just not with anything terribly relevant, amusing, or interesting to say.


You would suggest that fighting is not always the solution.


I don't know if you noticed but I did better than that. I demonstrated, using a historical example supporting a plausible scenario, that there is another solution in this case. And there may come a day when I want to write down something you've clued me in on, but at present it seems vanishingly unlikely.

As for the crack about Alzheimer's, you're the one who keeps forgetting to answer the points I make. If I could be bothered I'd go back and count the points but I'm content with being comfortably ahead.


Those ambulance drivers are doing their job. Just like I was.


No. They can't defend themselves, or decide when to attack, or use superior force. They're far more courageous than you.


You apparently for all your bluster, don't seem to know the difference between logic, a prediction, and truth.

I clearly stated that this won't end until one side completely destroys the other. Can you give me any evidence to the contrary?


You accuse me of unoriginality and then you make a ham-fisted attempt to use my own arguments against me. Nice one, Einstein.


That's not a prediction of mine. That is truth. Pure logic based on all the evidence, present and past.


Having trouble with tenses are we? Still confused about assertions, predictions, and truth? Big clue: the word "won't" un your post above refers to stuff in the future, you know, the stuff that hasn't happened yet. Now unless you have a fail-safe crystal ball or a time machine, that's a prediction, and as such, can neither be true nor false until the events specified have actually happened.

That last paragraph was logic, by the way. But if you're still hazy on truth, assertion and prediction (and demonstrably you are), you can't really be expected to recognise that.


Your definition of logic is one that suggest rules. That's exactly why your form of rationale won't work here.


Actually, it's working very nicely. I've disposed of your argument, but you can't see it. You just keep repeating yourself. it's interesting that you seized upon my over-use of the unarmed man thing when you repeat yourself far more than I do.

But here we go... real racism in action.


The Gazans are not driven by logic, by argument, past wrongs, nor reaction.

They are driven by a hatred of Jew/Israelis, as their prophet requires.


This displays a truly staggering level of ignorance of the lot of the average Palestinian seasoned with a large sprinkling of racism and Islamophobia. You say Gazans, but actually you mean Palestinians, otherwise it makes no sense. It would mean that only the Gazans, out of all the occupied territories, are driven by a hatred of Jew/Israelis, or possibly Israeli Jews.

So ALL Gazans (by which you mean Palestinians) simply hate all Jews because the prophet told them to. Can you not see how ludicrous that statement is?

There is a short-ish but nonetheless noble tradition of Jews and Palestinians working together to create peace. One day they might even pull it off. You can't rule it out. Not, as I say, without an infallible crystal ball or a time machine. I'm repeating myself for the hard of thinking - the future's the stuff you don't know about because it hasn't happened yet.

No logic involved.

Not on your part, anyway.


If anyone were to examine all of Islam without any bias, they would laugh at the lies and falsehoods perpetuated by this religion.


I could and would say exactly the same thing about Christianity, and Judaism as well as Islam. Personally, I prefer either the church of the SubGenius or The Flying Spaghetti Monster.


You just can't bring yourself to admit the root of the problem. Your kind always wants to cloud the basic problem with many ancilary considerations which have nothing to do with the root of the problem, ancillary considerations which don't really mean squat.


Sorry... is it all getting a little too complicated? You want to keep it nice and simple? Then go back to killing people and don't try to debate with the grown-ups. Life IS complicated and no-one gets off lightly. Not Hamas, not the Israelis, no-one.

And there's even a name for "your kind": right wing authoritarians.

We'll take a quick look at the common character traits in the next post as there isn't quite room here.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
So... following on... the RWA personality has problems with arguing logically. The source here is referenced in the previous post.


In North America these traits are seen more readily in those with conservative political leanings. To break this down even further, one can examine the following symptoms that reveal the authoritarian personality organized into four distinct catagories.

1: Faulty Reasoning — Right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) are more likely to:

  • Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
  • Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking, as illustrated by Orwellian doublethink.
  • Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
  • Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
  • Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
  • Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.


2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:

  • Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as a Bill of Rights
  • Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
  • Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
  • Be prejudiced against and hostile towards racial, ethnic, national, sexual, and linguistic minorities.
  • Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
  • Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.


3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to:

  • Be dogmatic.
  • Be zealots.
  • Be hypocrites.
  • Be absolutists
  • Be bullies when they have power over others.
  • Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
  • Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.


4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:

  • Believe they have no personal failings.
  • Avoid learning about their personal failings.
  • Be highly self-righteous.
  • Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.



So far, in category one, you've clearly exhibited four of the six traits. Category four suggests you won't be able to see this for yourself, but trust me, people who read this correspondence, and are not RWA themselves (about 75-80% of the population) will see it.

In category two, you've already said that you were able to severely punish people for real, not in a role-playing situation, and that you enjoyed it. You've also demonstrated hostility and prejudice against the Palestinians, an out-group if ever there was one. And I think anyone reading your posts will recognise an unmistakable meanness of spirit, even if you can't.

In category three, we have hypocrisy, which I've already commented on - the difference between your sig and your obvious love of violence. As for zealotry, dogmatism and absolutism, they are the warp and woof of your thinking. Your utter inability to get to grips with, let alone argue against, any of my points - coupled with a startling lack of understanding that I've disposed of yours rather neatly - wraps that up rather nicely. As for seeking dominance over others when the situation demands co-operation, your insistence that one side wipe the other out, despite clear evidence that alternatives are possible, exposes this trait for all save yourself to see.

As for category four, you score highly on all counts.

Anyway... I'm done for the moment. I apologise to the mods for the length of this post, but I wanted to engage on the issues and poor old Dooper's not really up to it. And I've shown why.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I used it myself in combat in vietnam
Willy Peter breaks ambushes quick.
it also keep the enemy from following us through the jungle.

In the case in Gaza i BET the Hamas snipers stayed off roof tops.

In Gaza Israel did not use napalm but Hamas did in the form of Molotov cocktails.

By the way all a napalm is is a bomb filled with gasoline with a thickener.

All a Molotov cocktail is is a bottle/bomb filled with gasoline.

That would be a violation too there is nothing in the international law that said anything about size.
So when Hamas started using napalm Isreal retaliated with smoke in the form of phosphorus.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


i served 5 years in the British Army medical corps as a nurse in a field hospital and know very well what the Geneva conventions on attacking a hospital is - and you are a self confessed war criminal by your own words and conviction

i don`t care if you want to pretend to be a `big man with big words` on the internet - you attack a hosptial, you are scum and worse than the nazi`s.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 

Harle, that claim is completely false. In order for a hospital to be protected under any Geneva Conventions, it must be marked as such.

Structures used as hospitals but not marked as hospitals, are technically, not hospitals.

When you are dealing with an underground complex, you don't go in and take inventory to decide whether or not to cook it. We didn't know this contained a hospital until the following day.

Besides, there was no rush. Everyone inside was dead, thanks to a bit of propane and WHITE PHOSPHOROUS.

No IDENTIFICATION as a hospital, NO WAR CRIME.

Your "expertise" on the subject of what constitutes war crimes is very lacking.

Your calling me a war criminal is best done here on this forum.

Because man or woman, if they called me a war criminal to my face, that face would be the last thing they would ever see.

You were wrong, and you owe me an apology.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 

So, your argument here is that there are other options rather than fighting.

What if the fighting has already started? What do you do then? Just tote your ass-whipping? What if it's already started, and it's to the death?

You want to hesitate when action is required. You sound just like a fellow countryman of yours:

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of pesonal contact with the dictators."

Neville Chamberlain

Yeah. Peace with honor. Some peace. Some honor.

By hesitating, in 1938, and early 1939, when Hitler was outnumbered and outgunned on the continent, this could have easily been over with less than 100,000 casualties.

But no. Talkers. Cowards. Talkers wanted to talk, and hesitated. Talker cowards chose appeasement, and stooped so low as to give away a portion of another country, that they had no right to do. The similarities are stunning. Chamberlain was just a tired old man as welll.

His hesitation cost 52,000,000 lives.

No, you keep your fancy words, your intricate logic for the sake of argument, your desire for debate, your cowadice.

It is this very hesitation that is derived solely from cowardice that in the long run costs more total lives and more total suffering.

How humane.

My way, it's quick, it's over. And a couple generations can live in peace with respect for each other.

Your way, nothing is resolved, resulting in more total deaths, over a much longer time, with more total suffering.

Your philosophical sack doesn't hold water.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
rich23 would argue the table setting, and let the food be ignored.

Let the leaders of the enemies of Israel speak for themselves. You'll note that the destruction of Israel and the Jews in this area started even before there was an Israel.

"The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by logic. Nations must never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand, we lost Spain and Persian. It may be that we'll lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions." Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha, 16 September, 1947 [one year before an Israel]

All our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine." Transjordan King Abdullah, 26 April, 1948

"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." Jamal Husseini before UN Security Council, 16 April, 1948

"This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres, and the Crusades." Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, 15 May, 1948

"I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction throught Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking peace with Israel. There is not even the slightest place for negotiations." Egyptian President Nassar, 14 October, 1956

"Our forces are entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ... I as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, 20 May, 1967.

Think anything's changed?

"Didn't we throw mud in the face of Bill Clinton, who dared to propose a state with some adjustments? Were we honest about what we did? No, we were not. After two years of violence, we are now calling for what we rejected." Nabil Amr, ex-minister in the PA cabinet, International Herald Tribune, 20 June, 2001

"Our position is clear: all of Palestine. Every inch of Palestine belongs to Muslims." Mahmoud Zahar, senior leader of Hamas, 14 November, 2003 (did he say Muslims?)

Islam?

"There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world ... Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury [while] any [Islamic leader] who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world ... As the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] said, Israel must be wiped off the map." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Associated Press, 26 October, 2005.

The fight has already begun. There will be no negotiation, and this is what some simply can't get through their thick heads.

This will not stop until one side wipes the other out.

I haven't said anything that the Palestinians, the Arabs, and the Iranians haven't said.

This is not all-inclusive, and the material is there for anyone to acquire and read for themselves.

Then, there are those who have an agenda, who will not admit the truth when it's right there for the taking.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Ah, our friendly Right Wing Authoritarian, or, as I'm coming to think of him, "Hitler's little helper", is back to miss the point of more cogent arguments.


Originally posted by dooper
Besides, there was no rush. Everyone inside was dead, thanks to a bit of propane and WHITE PHOSPHOROUS.

No IDENTIFICATION as a hospital, NO WAR CRIME.


Yeah. Technically - on this point at least - you're not a war criminal. However, as I've demonstrated, you're exactly the personality type that would have followed Hitler if you'd been born into Nazi Germany. Mean-spirited, enjoys punishing outgroups. Now it's the Palestinians, then it would have been the Jews. Same fundamental attitude.

If you'd been born into Nazi Germany you'd have swallowed the propaganda about Jews just like you're swallowing it now about Palestinians. You'd have been herding them into the death camps with a smile on your face. That's what you're like, and we can all see it.


Because man or woman, if they called me a war criminal to my face, that face would be the last thing they would ever see.


I doubt very much that any rational human being speaks to you at all.

The post shows your mean-spirited, aggressive nature off perfectly. Well done!


You were wrong, and you owe me an apology.


No, because this is the first time you mentioned that you didn't know it was a hospital until afterwards. No-one owes you an apology if you boast about "cooking" a hospital. If you withheld that vital piece of information you deserve all the obloquy you get.

[edited to sort out quotes]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Technically correct? This is such a disappointment. I really, really expected much better than that!

Technically correct is --- correct. Technically correct is as correct as it gets!

Is technically correct not good enough for you? Take off the rose-colored glasses. You can see better.

You seem compelled to violate one of your own rules of discourse. You resort to the petty tactics you so vehemently criticized earlier. Resorting to name-calling? That's really rude, and so unbecoming a scholar such as yourself.

What's the matter old man? You wanted facts. I got you facts.

I have a mean-spirited, aggressive nature?

Yes, toward enemies. In fact, that's when it gets about as mean-spirited as it can get. It enables survival. You have a problem with a mean-spirited nature when engaged with enemies? I just use what works.


[edit on 19-1-2009 by dooper]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
So, your argument here is that there are other options rather than fighting.


It took long enough for you to catch on, but that's broadly it.


What if the fighting has already started? What do you do then? Just tote your ass-whipping? What if it's already started, and it's to the death?


See. here you very neatly display, under section 3 of RWA attributes, both absolutism and a willingness to help inflame inter-group conflict. You want the Palestinians wiped out. That's called genocide, don't know if you've come across that word.

And there was fighting in both South Africa and Northern Ireland, both of which achieved peaceful solutions through negotiated settlements. If it's started, the sensible people on both sides sit down and talk and restrain their psychopathic brethren. It happens. No thanks to RWAs like yourself, of course, who just want bloodshed, forever.

The fact is, in a bizarre karmic twist, the Israelis are acting just like Nazis, and the Palestinians have taken the place of the Jews as the underdog. Almost everyone can see this, it seems, but you... but then RWAs are not renowned for correct reasoning.

You've obviously started to learn to argue, though it's still a litlle shaky. An actual quotation, no less. My, you are working hard.

Oh, by all means bring up poor old Chamberlain. It's so easy to look back and blame him, but the fact is that no-one in Europe wanted war. Not even the German military. As they realised that Hitler was pushing their country into a disastrous war, they tried to get rid of him. Genuine psychopaths like Hitler are quite rare... of course, you do know who financed Hitler's rise to power, don't you? George Walker, Prescott Bush, and a few others sank lots of money into Nazi Germany, a significant amount of which was used to fund Hitler's rise to power.

Who was Time magazine's Man Of The Year for, I think, 1937?

Adolf Hitler.

Anyway, the correct parallel is between Nazi Germany and Zionist Israel. Just as the Germans wanted lebensraum, so the Zionist plan is to displace the Palestinians from their own land. Just as Prescott Bush was financing IG Farben, and IBM was putting together the first primitive business machines that enabled the Nazis to keep track of the Jews killed in the Holocaust, the US supplies Israel with arms for free in a multi-trillion dollar aid package. As the Germans had their out-group, so do the Zionists.

If you'd bothered to educate yourself with any of my links, you'd know that a lone voice in the US warning of the coming war - and someone who understood all too well the financial machinations motivating it - was Brigadier-General Smedley Butler. In War Is A Racket he expressly warned of the impending slaughter and exposed the reasons it was going on. You could choose to go back and read the link yourself, but it's unlikely. As a good, solid RWA archetype, you're far too self-righteous for that.


By hesitating, in 1938, and early 1939, when Hitler was outnumbered and outgunned on the continent, this could have easily been over with less than 100,000 casualties.


Where did you get this bilge from? A source, picked at random, available here,demonstrates conclusively that this assertion is rubbish. Thanks to investment from industrialists like Thyssen and the Krupps (with heavy investment from the US via our Bush dynasty antecedents), Hitler had been rearming for years, at first in secret, then openly.

Your grasp of history demonstrates wonderfully the RWA inability to grasp basic facts. And your rant about talkers and cowards ignores the fact that Europe was still recovering from a massive war. Most people actually don't want to fight. They don't want war. Why?

BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S STUPID AND SENSELESS.

That doesn't make them cowards, it makes them sensible.

But this bit's brilliant. Here's where you really shoot yourself in the foot...


Talker cowards chose appeasement, and stooped so low as to give away a portion of another country, that they had no right to do. The similarities are stunning.


Yes they are. The Balfour declaration gave away a country they had no right to do to appease Israeli terrorists. Perhaps we should have wiped them all out? That would have been your solution.


Chamberlain was just a tired old man as welll.


Very witty, Oscar. Continuing to display your mean-spirited, bullying nature. You might think people will read it and laugh, but the 75%-plus who aren't RWA themselves will see it for the ugly humourless insult it is.


His hesitation cost 52,000,000 lives.


I'd remind you that you're prone to...


Faulty Reasoning — Right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) are more likely to:

  • Make many incorrect inferences from evidence and...’
  • Uncritically accept [b)insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.



No, you keep your fancy words, your intricate logic for the sake of argument, your desire for debate, your cowadice.


See what I mean? Your kind (RWAs) wants a nice, simple, monochrome world in which you can indulge your penchant for violence without having to think to much, because that might be more difficult than "cooking" them.

If everyone were like you we'd still be living in caves and hitting each other with clubs.

And now a classic example of the RWA trait of holding mutually contradictory ideas in Orwellian doublethink:


My way, it's quick, it's over. And a couple generations can live in peace with respect for each other.


A couple of generations of whom, exactly? Who winds up living in peace with each other when one side has been wiped out, which is what you want, a fight to the death?

See, this is logic. You can't have it both ways. If it's to the death, one side gets wiped out and the other side lives in peace. There is no one to live in peace with.


Your way, nothing is resolved, resulting in more total deaths, over a much longer time, with more total suffering.


Again, a tragic inability to come to terms either with my argument or with basic facts. The paralles I chose - Northern Ireland, South Africa - people did wind up living in peace and bloodshed was averted. And goodness knows, each side had their share of psychopaths.

So: if you're going to choose a historical example, get your facts right (like the relative size of the German forces by 1939, the year of Munich) and choose your parallels more carefully. The parallels are on my side of the argument, not yours.

Do please come back for another lesson in argument. It's fish in a barrel, but I enjoy filleting your tragic attempts at logic.


[edit on 19-1-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Technically correct? This is such a disappointment. I really, really expected much better than that!

Technically correct is --- correct. Technically correct is as correct as it gets!


Never heard of criminals getting off on a technicality? Anyway, you've already admitted crossing a border in pursuit of someone you then tortured and killed. Torture IS a war crime. As ever, your self-righteousness blinds you to your faults. RWA section 4 as referenced above.


You seem compelled to violate one of your own rules of discourse. You resort to the petty tactics you so vehemently criticized earlier. Resorting to name-calling? That's really rude, and so unbecoming a scholar such as yourself.


You've been name-calling for a while. "Tired old man", "Alzheimers"... graceless insults indeed. So to berate me for it is hypocritical, but a typical RWA trait.

But of course, you're missing the point. Much of the time, I'm simply diagnosing you as an identifiable personality type with specific and deeply unpleasant traits, which I was kind enough to reference with a source. Every time you're kind enough to fulfil one of the criteria, I simply point this out.


What's the matter old man? You wanted facts. I got you facts.


So we have another jibe - you clearly don't mind a bit of name-calling, so why should I? - followed by... well... again, it's that not-too-bright RWA thing again.

Facts are one thing. Marshalling them into an argument is another. All you've done is give one inapposite historical parallel (which, as I've shown, suits my argument more than yours), expose your own illogic and hypocrisy, and then post a selection of quotes from Arab leaders...

The first one was, as you quite rightly say, before there even was an Israel.

I really don't think you'll get this, but I'm going to try, mainly for the benefit of anyone else who might come across this thread.

Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, the US goes down the tubes economically and China became more powerful. If China wanted to take your land and give it to Native Americans because it was theirs only a few hundred years ago, rather than a couple of thousand as it was with the Israelites, would you fight? I think you would. And your rhetoric would easily match that of any of the Arab politicos you quoted. How about if the Native Americans started persecuting anyone who wouldn't move out? How about if they started using WP on civilians? How about if they started using their own Holocaust as justification for atrocities?

Now try to bear in mind that that's what happened to the Palestinians.

The Arabs just didn't want their land taken away and given to someone else, particularly a traditional enemy. Of course they'd want to fight. Duh.

if I could be bothered, I could line up more, and nastier, quotes from Israeli or Jewish diaspora politicos. But there's no point. I actually won the argument some time ago by giving two recent historical instances where negotiated settlements have resulted in peace and have avoided bloodshed. If you have any idea of the level of enmity between the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, you'll know it's right up there with the Arabs and Jews. Nonetheless peace was attained by the simple method of pressuring the politicos to talk to each other and getting them to persuade the militants to lay aside their arms.

Oh, and let's not forget that one of the main sources of money for one set of terrorists in Northern Ireland - the IRA - was the US.

That's right. The US supported terrorism.

There are plenty of sensible Israelis and Palestinians. It's just a matter of getting the Israeli government to set aside a decent plot of land for people who were there in the first place. That's where international pressure comes in. Then the sensible people on both sides get the nutters to STFU.

But, as an identifiable pathological personality type, you can't see that. I'm not being insulting. It's just a diagnosis. You always want conflict and see it as the only and necessary solution, despite plentiful evidence of working alternatives. It's just... not very bright.


I have a mean-spirited, aggressive nature?

Yes, toward enemies.


I have yet to see anything other than mean-spirited aggression (with lashings of faulty logic as a yummy side dish) in your posts. But as I say, I'm simply pointing out every time you fulfil one of the RWA criteria. And as we know, RWAs just don't do the thinking thing very well. You're trying to do it, for which I give you some credit, but you're just making such a hash of it. Still, as one of the RWA traits is an inability to see your own faults, you can't tell that's what's happening. Others will, though.


You have a problem with a mean-spirited nature when engaged with enemies? I just use what works.


A mean spirited nature is what it is. It's a classic RWA attribute and as such I'm just going to keep pointing it out when it rears its ugly head, which is all the time, with you. As for enemies, I don't actually have any, as far as I know. I hang out with pleasant people, conflict is resolved without violence... normal stuff. You're the one who sees enemies everywhere. But that's just the RWA thing, it's not your fault.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 

I really don't give a damn what happens to the Palestinians, but if it's a fight to the death they seem to prefer, then for God's sake, get on with it!

South Africa and Northern Ireland don't even come close. In Northern Ireland, you had like kind, with many more similarities than differences. You know that!

South Africa - that's not over. The final chapters are yet to be written.

No, we're not going to let Chamberlain slip. Hitler could have been stopped by Britain and France had they the testicles to do so. In 1938-39, the German army had fewer of everything than even the French alone.

All the nuances don't matter. Break it down. The hesitation is what doomed the Europeans. Hesitation. They didn't want to fight. They hesitated. They got their fight anyway.

YOU DON"T ALWAYS GET TO CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTS!

How much better to fight with fewer casualties early, than hesitate and suffer millions of casualties spread over years? Which is more humane?

Hesitation is ruin. Euripides wrote, "The God of War hates those who hesitate." He sure did in this case. Funny, this was a known principle of conflict millennia ago.

52,000,000 dead! Because no one wanted to stand up and do what was necessary, when required. Jesus Christ! What fools!

Hesitation. I don't give a rat's ass for an entire list of reasons for the hesitation. Hell, you can justify cowardice any number of ways. Regardless of why, hesitation resulted in the war, and then it was fought at the massive levels it eventually reached.

You deride "my way." Today, you can't pry the German Army out of Germany for love or money. Today, you can't get the Japanese to even form a decent army.

Obviously, through ruthless destruction, the point was made!

You made my point. "If it's to the death, one side gets wiped out and the other side gets to live in peace. There's no one to live in peace with."

Thank you! You got it!

Once wiped out, they can't war against you either. And keep in mind, the neighbors are watching. Once they know for certain that exactly what you say - you mean, there will be little room for misakes in judgment on their part.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Torture is not a war crime. Whether it's a war crime or not depends on who you do it to, and their legal standing. You see, if you have a combatant, not in uniform, then that is a non-person. They have no legal standing, and therefore they don't exist under international law. They are subject to immediate execution. Every breath they take is at your convenience.

Even a private, if he is the ranking person of the moment, can deem this person guilty of being a non-uniformed combatant, and conduct a summary execution on the spot. All in milliseconds, all legal. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Whether you won the argument some time ago means nothing to me. Your kind places great emphasis on being politically correct, and bow at the alter of intellectual process.

I could give a $#!T.

To the contrary, my type does their thinking very succinctly, very prudently, very quickly, and very to the point. With my aberrant personality as you would have us believe, I do not care for the exercise of pointless discussion.

I just make things happen. I give results. I make problems disappear. Permanently.

End of discussion.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
I really don't give a damn what happens to the Palestinians, but if it's a fight to the death they seem to prefer, then for God's sake, get on with it!


Again, the RWA knee-jerk response. See section 3, "causing and inflaming inter-group conflict".


In Northern Ireland, you had like kind, with many more similarities than differences. You know that!


Actually (sigh), as usual, I know more about it than you. My folks were Irish. You have no idea. I'd paint a fuller picture, but you'd just whine about the complexities. Face it, you've lost the argument.


No, we're not going to let Chamberlain slip. Hitler could have been stopped by Britain and France had they the testicles to do so. In 1938-39, the German army had fewer of everything than even the French alone.


Again this refusal to acknowledge facts which I discovered really, really easily, or counter them with anything other than windy assertion. From the source I quoted:

4,500,000 SA troops in 1934. 98 divisions of the German army at 1,500,000 troops. 9 Panzer divisions with 328 tanks, 8 support batallions and 6 artillery batteries.

Britain, not surprisingly for a maritime empire, had a superior navy. Not much good for a land war. The Nazis had been arming for almost a decade.


All the nuances don't matter. Break it down. The hesitation is what doomed the Europeans. Hesitation. They didn't want to fight. They hesitated. They got their fight anyway.


Subtlety... inconvenient facts... may not matter to you, but then, you're not terribly good at thinking and unable to see your own faults. I'm kind of having fun pointing this out again and again but it's going to get boring soon.

The repitition is what dooms you. Repitition. You don't wnat to think. You're repetitive. You're losing the argument anyway. You're kind of like the Black Knight in Python and the Holy Grail... "I just cut your legs off!" "No you didn't! It's just a scratch!"


How much better to fight with fewer casualties early, than hesitate and suffer millions of casualties spread over years? Which is more humane?


Look, you've already demonstrated that you don't care about being humane. You think everything can be resolved through fighting, and thank goodness, most people don't agree. It's another example of contradictory thinking.

There are lots of ways WWII could have been stopped. But your example isn't one of them. The Versailles treaty could have been better enforced. Much, much earlier intervention would have been necessary. But by the time Chamberlain came along waving his piece of paper, it was too late by several years. Your facts are just wrong, and blaming one man for what a generation failed to foresee is exactly the kind of pitiful misconception one can expect from a classic RWA.


Hesitation. I don't give a rat's ass for an entire list of reasons for the hesitation. Hell, you can justify cowardice any number of ways. Regardless of why, hesitation resulted in the war, and then it was fought at the massive levels it eventually reached.


More repetition. Hint: saying something again and again doesn't make it any more true. It wasn't hesitation. It was an inability to recognise the rise to power of someone truly dangerous until it was too late.


You deride "my way." Today, you can't pry the German Army out of Germany for love or money. Today, you can't get the Japanese to even form a decent army.


And yet the US army has forces in over a hundred countries round the world and has a track record of destroying democracies, supporting death squads, and invading countries without any justification. And thanks to Operation Paperclip, all the most evil Nazis that weren't tried as war criminals were smuggled into South America to subvert governments and generally make sure Uncle Sam got his resources and cheap labour.

One tyranny swapped for another.


Obviously, through ruthless destruction, the point was made!


The point is that the victors behave how they like, rewrite history to suit their purposes, and will always be supported by RWAs who are traditionally absolutely supine to authority. Wave a flag in front of you guys and you'll believe anything, torture anyone, and clap yourselves on the back for doing it.


You made my point. "If it's to the death, one side gets wiped out and the other side gets to live in peace. There's no one to live in peace with."

Thank you! You got it!


Unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE. A truly stunning display of hypocrisy and illogic. I mean, I knew this going in, but, dude... you just can't think straight. It's truly mind-boggling, the extent to which you just cannot see that you're contradicting yourself.

I'd pick the logic apart, again, but I've done it once already. Re-read what I said and see if you can get my point. You might also want to look back over the thread and note that I've dealt with everything you've raised, while you've been unable to deal with roughly half of what I've written and missed the point of what you have tried to cope with. I've picked up some applause, by the way, so I know that some of the people - indeed, the mods, who look out for examples of rational argument - are getting my point, rather than yours.

I mean it's all there, in the link about RWAs and their blind spots, but your inability to see the contradictions in your own position is just staggering.

Anyway, I'm just not terribly interested in going round in circles anymore. I think I'll just leave you, like Arthur King walking away from the Black Knight, to yell "come back! I'll bite your knees off!"

You can't argue with someone who can't think. It's fun for a while, but it wears thin.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Yet more dreary, self-serving, posturing BS from My Little Fascist. I shouldn't bother, really.


Originally posted by dooper
Torture is not a war crime. Whether it's a war crime or not depends on who you do it to, and their legal standing. You see, if you have a combatant, not in uniform, then that is a non-person. They have no legal standing, and therefore they don't exist under international law. They are subject to immediate execution. Every breath they take is at your convenience.


God, you must really, really miss having that kind of power. No, you're right, there's a loophole there that you can squeeze through. One day it might be closed up and psychotic thugs like you will be open to prosecution. Speed the day.


Whether you won the argument some time ago means nothing to me.


Then what are you here for? Not to learn anything, and certainly not to dispense wisdom.


Your kind places great emphasis on being politically correct, and bow at the alter of intellectual process.


Actually, I value humaneness. I'm not PC. I just try to treat people decently. However, you may have noticed, you're in a debating forum, so cognizance of the relevant facts and an ability to put an argument together are what count, not psychotic posturing.


To the contrary, my type does their thinking very succinctly, very prudently, very quickly, and very to the point. With my aberrant personality as you would have us believe, I do not care for the exercise of pointless discussion.


Or rational thought. Again, if that's the case, what are you doing here flapping your lips when you could be out shooting people first and not asking questions later? This is a discussion board and your inability to keep up drags the rest of us down. I've already spent far too long trying to get you to think straight.


I just make things happen. I give results. I make problems disappear. Permanently.

End of discussion.


Exactly. As a good authoritarian, you bow before your leaders, salute the flag, and kill whom you're told to kill. Plus, who knows, a few more if you can get away with it. Did you get a hard-on while you were torturing people? I've heard that can happen. I never believed it possible until this discussion.

This is really no place for your chest-beating. Perhaps you should take your calloused knuckles off the keyboard and go and shoot some tin cans, or something.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Good luck. Do well.

The sidelines suit you.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join