People like us

Originally posted by Rockpuck
First off, this thread was intended to say that people who support Israel are in fact moral inferior. Subz would agree to that, though he cries about being mocked.

You expect me to condemn Israel just because civilians die, that in my opinion is not good enough reason, and being a westerner I will tend to pick the side of a western nation. Israel creates it's own problems, just like the Arabs, but why who I support should determine my moral character?
Subz attacked anyone who disagreed with him. That is why there is such an outrage over his comments, he didn't say that supporting an anti-war stance is a good cause, he didn't say that more people should support peace, he did not even give reasons (until later with the quotes) on WHY we should opt for his view on things. He said through his little speach on who sits with who, which he apparently sits with JFK, King and Ghandi and apparently because people like me and many other on this board support Israel, we are then on a lower level of morality. Deny it all you want Subz, it is what you said.

You come close to expressing my sentiments, Rockpuck.

You have voted Rockpuck for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

As I have stated, Subz will never solely condemn Hezbollah. You will never hear him cry out that those who defend Israel are not warmongers, anti-muslim, apologists, zionist apologist, or any other derogatory term. It's only when he tries to make a mountain out of someone who equated condemnation of Israel with being anti-Semitic (who did that, btw, Subz? Who maligned you?) that it becomes an important issue.

Now, the fact that he will never solely condemn Hezbollah, or that he never says anything good about Israel, doesn't make him an anti-Semite. But it sure smells fishy.

He then drops names like MLK to bolster his "argument". By doing that, he sets one side against another. After all, if he is an ally of MLK, then defenders of Israel cannot be. He has claimed MLK as his own, and all the virtues that go along with it. Forget the fact that we, too marched with MLK.

And the question remains, why is it necessary to brng up this topic? It's not as if everyone that does not defend Israel is being called an anti-Semite. Just as every person that defends Israel is not being called a warmongerer. It happens on both sides. So, why make it an issue? To divide. To place one's own self on higher moral ground.

Even the title is divisive. "People like us" really means "Not people like you".

Originally posted by ceci2006
However, obviously jsobecky does not want to be a part of "people like us". He continues to protest any situation that warrants a sense of compassion, caring or empathy. He continues to attack those who care for others. He criticizes any attempt to bring about a recognization of the complexities afforded to the suffering of the least of us. In fact, his posts mock them.

This, from someone who calls white men "Cracker-crats"?

Who would want to be "people like you"?

Hypocrite.

Relax. Keep your repressed demeanor in tact.

Of course I said "cracker-crat". So did Greg Palast. So did other people on the board. And I apologized for it. What's your problem? Did the tar baby bite you too hard?

Nevertheless, it's not a popularity contest. You'll still have your coterie of clucking biddies against social justice in the morning.

I know you're not a hypocrite. Social justice is the last thing on your mind. And you've gone to the mat to prove it again and again relentlessly with your complaining.

Just FYI: you fired the first shot in this thread. So don't go whining into the good night about how you're a victim, especially when it comes to serious conversation.


subz, sorry for the derailment of your thread. I will not deviate from the conversation held here any more because your topic is important and needs to be discussed.

Btw, the term "people like us" does not sponsor divisiveness. There are people in society who will fight for those vunerable to the system. They are representative of those who truly want to see things change for the better throughout all sectors of society. They cannot stand by and watch how a given government represses and turns back the clock to satisfy the needs of the few opposed to the liberties of the many.

The people who don't are the collaborators and the enablers to keep the system in tact. They fight for the needs for the few and will do anything to keep those restrictive practices in place. It is always the collaborators that cause the system to fall in the end because their rhetoric sponsoring a repressive, restrictive social system and regime will only take them so far. Once the the scales turn toward social justice, the collaborators have no one but themselves--save the scorn from people who watched the collaborators do nothing to help their fellow men.

Collaborators are nothing but yes-men in the end. They have no other purpose except to cause strife in society. They cry "divisiveness" because they cannot restrain the efforts of others to balance the scales socially for the least of us.


I wonder, regarding those who support the different sides of the Middle East conflict, who are the collaborators and who shows a need for social justice?






[edit on 8-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Relax. Keep your repressed demeanor in tact.

Of course I said "cracker-crat". So did Greg Palast. So did other people on the board. And I apologized for it. What's your problem? Did the tar baby bite you too hard?

Ok, how I read that statement:

"Yes, I used a racial slur. Other people did too, so it's not that bad. On top of that, I said I'm sorry about using the racial slur other people were using too. What's the matter, did my racial slur hit a little close to home, are you, in fact, a cracker-crat?"

Anyone see anything wrong with that?

JJ, of course, there's something wrong with that. But there's a deeper explaination to this.

His comments and mine come from a long, complicated story from another thread. He is merely expressing his discontent over what was discussed about Mitt Romney using "tar baby". Read the thread for yourself. Especially the first page.

I did use it. And I am very sorry. I apologized on the other thread as well. But, he's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill as always.

It is not okay to use a racial slur. And I do not advocate it. But I did it and will be more respectful of other people in the future. But on the Mitt Romney thread, it was used to make a point. And his comment here on subz's thread is proof that it surely bothered him in the same way that myself and other African-Americans are bothered by the use of tar baby.

It's a shame that it came down to that, but he would not comprehend any other explanation or demonstration about how much the use of "tar baby" hurts African-Americans. He did not get it. Unfortunately, there are other posters on that thread that still don't get it. And then, there are other posters who felt that the term did not bother them at all.

Btw, he did use tar baby and cracker-crat and did not apologize, let alone express any compassion or empathy. So that is the difference between us.

Our spat started from the thread concerning Cynthia McKinney posting an article from Greg Palast's web site. Greg Palast (who is white) used the term in his article. As a result, people started to blame CK for what Greg Palast did. It then trickled down into the Mitt Romney thread. And now onto this one.

But I'm not a hypocrite. One thing does not deter a person from their principles concerning social justice. If it did, you'd practically have to be saint.

So I expect the flack I'm going to get on this thread as well. Talk about staying on topic.







[edit on 8-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Nevertheless, it's not a popularity contest. You'll still have your coterie of clucking biddies against social justice in the morning.

I'm sorry, ceci. I don't know what you mean by that.

Just who are my "coterie of clucking biddies against social justice"? Give me names, please. Which members are you referring to? Who do you mean by that?

Or else please stop stalking me around from thread to thread, bringing up the past. I believe that is against the T&C. Yes, it is. Right here in this thread

Above Top Secret Terms and Conditions

I don't wish to argue with you about this. I am going to stay on topic now and ignore any other personal attacks from you.

Hezbollah have no right to kill Israeli civilians, period. No excuses, nothing. I condemn without reservation the killing of Israeli civilians.

Oh no, what ever shall you find to obfuscate over now Jsobecky? I just criticised Hezbollah by itself! What ever will become of your tenuous contention?

Now where is your criticism of Israel? Or are you held to a different standard than myself? Do as I say, not as I do?

Originally posted by subz
Oh no, what ever shall you find to obfuscate over now Jsobecky? I just criticised Hezbollah by itself! What ever will become of your tenuous contention?

Is that really the best you've got? You can go back and find any of your old posts where you did this, you have to write a one liner saying Hezbullah's bad as your proof?

Sounds like Jsobecky' got a pretty solid point...

What on earth do you mean? I'm sorry, jsobecky, but you have it wrong. I'm not stalking you. Nor am I making personal attacks. I read subz thread and I liked the topic. Because I did, I decided to post.

Did you also forget that others criticized you harshly before I ever posted?

After all, you were the person who made a personal attack by calling subz, "holier than thou", did you not? You did it with such an angry tone and emoticon, too.

I merely posted my criticism of your attack on subz and then added my two cents. Nothing more.

After all, did it slip your mind that you were the one that first called me a name on this thread with such viciousness? And then, you derailed this serious conversation with your accusations against me. I had to take up time to address them. Of course, that does have to do with the T and C guidelines too, doesn't it?

Other than that, there isn't anything else you should protest about. Just go about your business and I will go about mine.

And believe me, the past is not that exciting to bring up. So that must be all in your head. Please try to be more humble. You're simply not that important. Really.

Now, I will stay on topic and not address or entertain your horrible attacks about my character anymore. I will not deal with your petty and hateful behavior towards me on this board and concentrate on addressing the issue.

They are uncalled for.

I apologize to subz for taking up the time trying to address your attacks against me, my posting and my character. This conversation will be serious and intellectual from now on.











[edit on 8-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by junglejake
Is that really the best you've got? You can go back and find any of your old posts where you did this, you have to write a one liner saying Hezbullah's bad as your proof?

Sounds like Jsobecky' got a pretty solid point...

What the hell are you talking about?

Ive constantly maintained that Hezbollah has no right to kill Israeli civilians. But Jsobecky's beef is that "I never condemn Hezbollah without criticising Israel too". So what am I meant to do? I've said it plenty of times.

What is your point?

Who gives a damn if I critize both sides together? Am I not allowed to maintain that neither side has a right to kill civilians?

Look: from two and half weeks ago

Originally posted by subz
I see nothing heroic in blowing up children, which is what both Hezbollah and Israel have done.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

What is your goddamn point? I criticise both sides whilst you guys only manage criticism of Muslims AND IM THE BAD GUY?

Originally posted by ceci2006
I apologize to subz for taking up the time trying to address your attacks against me, my posting and my character. This conversation will be serious and intellectual for now on.

Do what you have to do to keep the troll off your back Ceci, you wont hear me object

[edit on 8/8/06 by subz]

I appreciate your graciousness in letting me addressing this issue , subz. And again, I most humbly apologize for this interruption.

There shouldn't be any other problem to derail the thread anymore.

It's people like you that claim to stand for something, but do nothing.

Sometimes standing is all one can do. If one cannot do something, perhaps one's last
hope is that his/her standing inspires someone else to do something.

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by junglejake
I make no claims to see Israel and Hamas in the same light. I think Israel is justified in its actions against Hamas and Hezbullah, and I put the blame for the civilian deaths on those two terror groups' cowardly tactics.

Then you're nothing but an Israeli apologist and not worth serious debate. Thanks for clearing that up, you'll not get any more replies from me as you're closed minded.

You're no better than the people you clame to be standing up against, Subz. Because I don't agree with you, I must be an Israeli apologist, eh?

EDIT to add:

Originally posted by subz
No it does not continue as I clearly said i'm through replying to a close minded Israeli apologist such as Junglejake. No need to drag this out.

The insults keep coming

[edit on 8/8/06/08 by junglejake]

Originally posted by subz
Oh no, what ever shall you find to obfuscate over now Jsobecky? I just criticised Hezbollah by itself! What ever will become of your tenuous contention?

You didn't have to do it to placate me, subz. You should do it because you mean it. Is that feeling really there? Are you sincere?

Now where is your criticism of Israel? Or are you held to a different standard than myself? Do as I say, not as I do?

Don't hold your breath waiting. I'm not the one who started this thread. I have nothing to prove. You're the one that needs to show the world that you're not anti-semitic.

But, in your defense, I will say that acknowledging the problem is half the battle. Good for you for taking that first step.

Make that two people I'll refrain from wasting my time arguing with

Wow, I didn't realize that every forum on PTS was allowed to be such a slugfest with incessant personal attacks gone unpunished... No wonder it didn't get much traffic, relatively speaking to ATS. What I want to know is what all has changed? Majic?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Wow, I didn't realize that every forum on PTS was allowed to be such a slugfest with incessant personal attacks gone unpunished... No wonder it didn't get much traffic, relatively speaking to ATS. What I want to know is what all has changed? Majic?

Majic is far from condoning personal attacks, infact he's on a mission to stamp it out.

[edit on 8/8/06 by subz]