If it was flipped, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there would be massive outrage directed towards the Israeli rapist, who most everyone would be absolutely sure was guilty.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
If it was flipped, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there would be massive outrage directed towards the Israeli rapist, who most everyone would be absolutely sure was guilty.
if the thing was flipped and we had the same information that we have now i do not think that we would be thinking any differently..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Maybe you wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure Byrnzie would, as would Triumphant, and possibly a few others. You can't honestly tell me there aren't people on this board who troll the internet searching out every article they can find that paints Israel in a negative light so they can post it here. These people, I'm not afraid to say, are not objective on this issue (and yeah, nobody is ever totally objective, but I think the above named are so rigid in their thinking about Israel at this point, that you can pretty much predict with absolute certainty which way they will break in any Israel-Palestine discussion, regardless of the specific topic).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Maybe you wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure Byrnzie would, as would Triumphant, and possibly a few others. You can't honestly tell me there aren't people on this board who troll the internet searching out every article they can find that paints Israel in a negative light so they can post it here. These people, I'm not afraid to say, are not objective on this issue (and yeah, nobody is ever totally objective, but I think the above named are so rigid in their thinking about Israel at this point, that you can pretty much predict with absolute certainty which way they will break in any Israel-Palestine discussion, regardless of the specific topic).
they do not search random sites looking for info. they, like me, search sites like the guardian and post what we find. there is nothing wrong with criticizing the israeli government or it's policies. and as far as i can tell i do not see people attacking individual israelis on here unless they are the settlers breaking international law, which deserve criticism. triumphantangel and byrnzie are good people and passionate about their beliefs, just as you are passionate about yours. i think most of us on here can separate religion and ethnicity from facts in the case...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Maybe you wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure Byrnzie would, as would Triumphant, and possibly a few others. You can't honestly tell me there aren't people on this board who troll the internet searching out every article they can find that paints Israel in a negative light so they can post it here. These people, I'm not afraid to say, are not objective on this issue (and yeah, nobody is ever totally objective, but I think the above named are so rigid in their thinking about Israel at this point, that you can pretty much predict with absolute certainty which way they will break in any Israel-Palestine discussion, regardless of the specific topic).
let's clear something up shall we.
i defend Palestinian basic human rights and am critical of Israel's government. very. with good reason.
i would like nothing more than a just peace for the the people of Israel and Palestine. my motivation has always been and will always be for the wellbeing and want of a better life for the 500,000 Palestinian children who lead the shittiest life and the other innocent Palestinians and Israelis who are caught up in this conflict.
I don't think it would have to do with religion and ethnicity. It would have to do with nationality. If you haven't noticed there are constantly threads and posts about the actions of individual Israelis, which are then used to indict Israel as a whole. As for the objectiveness of some of the people here, again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I maintain that there are those here who are really quite knee-jerk when it comes to Israel, i.e. Israel, to their mind, is always the bad guy, and there are never any shades of grey. The very fact that Cincy would raise the question as to what the reaction would be were the identities of those involved in the case flipped, I think, testifies to the fact that I am not the only one here who has this perception.
Triumphant, I am not questioning your motivations. I'm sure you have the best intentions. I just think, based on our interaction here, that you have arrived at a point, I'm sure unintentionally and without being aware of it, where you no longer really approach topics related to Israel with an open mind. But again, that's just my read.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'm not ignoring anything. I still don't believe that judges do that, to the degree of which you claim. Just because the eventual plea deal is rape by deception, if in fact the true crime were to be violent rape, I highly doubt the judge would go so far as to say that he acknowledges that it was concensual sex and that she would have had no issue if he was in fact a jew.
It's preposterous.
And no, I'm not basing my opinion on just that, there are also several inconsistencies in the alleged victim's story.
Paul, the judge's comments, as I understand them, were made in the context of handing down a sentence for the charge to which the defendant pled guilty. His comments therefore addressed the facts of the case as established in the plea. In this case the plea was rape by deception, so the judge was simply addressing the "deception" described in the plea. To point to the judge's comments after the fact as proof of what actually happened ignores the entire chronology of events, i.e. that the original charge was forcible rape, and that the only reason "deception" became an issue was because the prosecution was looking for a lesser charge for a plea bargain to which the defendant might agree.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Ok, again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just thinking hanging your argument on the judge's comments is a thin argument.
what is the job of the judge? to hear the facts and make a decision, not to use his prejudices to influence the verdict or the severity of the sentence...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Triumphant, I am not questioning your motivations. I'm sure you have the best intentions. I just think, based on our interaction here, that you have arrived at a point, I'm sure unintentionally and without being aware of it, where you no longer really approach topics related to Israel with an open mind. But again, that's just my read.
oh i've arrived at a point alright.
a point to where i'm sick of the double standards. you are allowed to threaten violence, provoke, make sarcastic comments and bait people. all without penalty, at least when directed at me.
and what you just said up there is purely aimed at trying to discredit me and any information i post in relation to Israel - Palestine. you do that to try and discredit and silence anyone that has different views to yours.
well too bad. i post facts. you may not like them but just remember this message board does not revolve around you and your feelings of anger when anyone posts anything that doesn't paint Israel in a positive light.
You clearly don't watch enough Law & Order. A plea bargain, by definition, means the case never reached a verdict. The defendant agreed to plead guilty. As for the sentencing judge allowing prejudice to affect his decision, you are making entirely speculative statements, but even if the sentence given is a severe one, I think it's much more likely that the judge was influenced by his knowledge of the case (i.e. he may have believed that the defendant had committed a violent rape) than that he was influenced by racial prejudice.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Triumphant, I really don't mean to offend you. I have nothing against you personally, despite our many disagreements. I wish that you wouldn't address me with quite so much venom, and that you would give me the same benefit of the doubt regarding my own good intentions that I grant to you.
I have no interest in silencing anyone. I voice my disagreements. That is hardly an attempt to silence others. As for discrediting you, I'm sorry, but I just don't feel that you bring an objective voice to these arguments any longer. That doesn't mean that everything you have to say is invalid. In fact, leaving aside the angry tone you adopt, I agree with a lot of what you write (at least in general). If anything I'm saddened that you are now so hostile towards me. There was a time not so long ago when we had some very interesting discussions, and exchanged a few very civil, even friendly PM's furthering those talks. It seems to me that you've changed since then, that you've become much more hostile towards those that disagree with you (or at least towards me), and that you're much less willing to listen to and consider the arguments of those with whom you have disagreements (or again, at least to my arguments). Others will make up their own minds. That's just my opinion.
I'm sorry if you feel that I have threatened you, provoked you, or baited you. Again, it was not my intention to offend you. As for my sarcasm, I suppose it's a bad habit, but it's deeply ingrained. Again, I do not mean for it to personally offend.
As for the facts you post, you also post a great deal of commentary and opinion, much of which I disagree with, as is my right. You may feel that your opinions are "fact," but I do not, and I will continue to voice my disagreements without apology. I do not feel that this board revolves around me. If anything, I am a very small player here. As for anger, I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Ok, again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just thinking hanging your argument on the judge's comments is a thin argument.
I did. You think my understanding is preposterous, and that there are, furthermore, inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. I just don't agree with you.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
If it was flipped, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there would be massive outrage directed towards the Israeli rapist, who most everyone would be absolutely sure was guilty.
if the thing was flipped and we had the same information that we have now i do not think that we would be thinking any differently..
Ok, again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just thinking hanging your argument on the judge's comments is a thin argument.
I did. You think my understanding is preposterous, and that there are, furthermore, inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. I just don't agree with you.
Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
yosi: is it possible the charge was lessened from rape to rape by deception not because the prosecution couldn't prove the former, but because upon further investigation after the initial charge, that the latter was actually a more accurate representation of the actual "crime" in question?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I haven't read anything that suggests that (and everything I have read suggests otherwise), but on a purely speculative basis, and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, yeah, I suppose that anything is possible.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
secondly, if a man violently rapes you - why on earth would he call you back 2 days later to meet again?
................................
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
except the judge in the case said it was consensual and not forced.....
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
You're right, because violent rape is an activity engaged in by people who are totally all there. :roll:
c'mon now ... you know very well this is a legitimate concern ... and if you want to talk about "all there" ... we already know the victim isn't "all there" but you are more than happy to give her every ounce of doubt ... like i said - you have your opinion but nothing is conclusive and your continual mockery of those who disagree isn't necessary ...
except the judge in the case said it was consensual and not forced.....
Jesus fucking christ! Is it too much to ask that people take the time to read the thread before they start commenting?! We've been over this, more than once.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I am aware of that Paul. For me, the circumstances in which the police found this women tip the scale. If it was simply a case of he-said-she-said I would give more weight to the woman's history.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I am aware of that Paul. For me, the circumstances in which the police found this women tip the scale. If it was simply a case of he-said-she-said I would give more weight to the woman's history.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
except the judge in the case said it was consensual and not forced.....
Jesus fucking christ! Is it too much to ask that people take the time to read the thread before they start commenting?! We've been over this, more than once.
perhaps you should take the time to read
According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left......
In his verdict, Judge Zvi Segal conceded that it was not "a classical rape by force". He added: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls."....
The woman was given a medical examination, presented in court, which showed, according to Kushour, no signs of force or injury.
so you can cite an article from haaretz, who published a fraudulent photo in regards to the flotilla raid, giving her account but that is meaningless because THREE Israeli judges heard her testimony and decided it was consentual.
and you never explained why if he was forcing himself on her and acting like a psychopath she would follow him into an elevator and upwards AFTER that???
so yeah, if you want to take the words from a disturbed former prostitute who claims to have been a virgin before this go right ahead :roll: but her account makes no sense and she contradicts her testimony....how can you be raped by your father and be a former prostitute AND still be a virgin????
what was it you said about assuming?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Pepe, I'm not even going to bother. Everything you've raised has already been covered in the thread. It would be nice if you could be a little less of a hostile prick, though.
Paul, if I remember the most recent article correctly the police arrived at the scene a few hours (maybe sooner) after the rape was alleged to have occurred.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
Perhaps you should pm about this?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i defend Palestinian basic human rights and am critical of Israel's government. very. with good reason.
i would like nothing more than a just peace for the the people of Israel and Palestine. my motivation has always been and will always be for the wellbeing and want of a better life for the 500,000 Palestinian children who lead the shittiest life and the other innocent Palestinians and Israelis who are caught up in this conflict.
but nice try at trying to bait me.
Triumphant, I am not questioning your motivations. I'm sure you have the best intentions. I just think, based on our interaction here, that you have arrived at a point, I'm sure unintentionally and without being aware of it, where you no longer really approach topics related to Israel with an open mind. But again, that's just my read.
It's preposterous.
And no, I'm not basing my opinion on just that, there are also several inconsistencies in the alleged victim's story.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
oh i've arrived at a point alright.
a point to where i'm sick of the double standards. you are allowed to threaten violence, provoke, make sarcastic comments and bait people. all without penalty, at least when directed at me.
and what you just said up there is purely aimed at trying to discredit me and any information i post in relation to Israel - Palestine. you do that to try and discredit and silence anyone that has different views to yours.
well too bad. i post facts. you may not like them but just remember this message board does not revolve around you and your feelings of anger when anyone posts anything that doesn't paint Israel in a positive light.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I have no interest in silencing anyone. I voice my disagreements. That is hardly an attempt to silence others. As for discrediting you, I'm sorry, but I just don't feel that you bring an objective voice to these arguments any longer. That doesn't mean that everything you have to say is invalid. In fact, leaving aside the angry tone you adopt, I agree with a lot of what you write (at least in general). If anything I'm saddened that you are now so hostile towards me. There was a time not so long ago when we had some very interesting discussions, and exchanged a few very civil, even friendly PM's furthering those talks. It seems to me that you've changed since then, that you've become much more hostile towards those that disagree with you (or at least towards me), and that you're much less willing to listen to and consider the arguments of those with whom you have disagreements (or again, at least to my arguments). Others will make up their own minds. That's just my opinion.
I'm sorry if you feel that I have threatened you, provoked you, or baited you. Again, it was not my intention to offend you. As for my sarcasm, I suppose it's a bad habit, but it's deeply ingrained. Again, I do not mean for it to personally offend.
As for the facts you post, you also post a great deal of commentary and opinion, much of which I disagree with, as is my right. You may feel that your opinions are "fact," but I do not, and I will continue to voice my disagreements without apology. I do not feel that this board revolves around me. If anything, I am a very small player here. As for anger, I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I did. You think my understanding is preposterous, and that there are, furthermore, inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. I just don't agree with you.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
that would have been sufficient.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
................................
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
c'mon now ... you know very well this is a legitimate concern ... and if you want to talk about "all there" ... we already know the victim isn't "all there" but you are more than happy to give her every ounce of doubt ... like i said - you have your opinion but nothing is conclusive and your continual mockery of those who disagree isn't necessary ...
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Jesus fucking christ! Is it too much to ask that people take the time to read the thread before they start commenting?! We've been over this, more than once.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
perhaps you should take the time to read
According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left......
In his verdict, Judge Zvi Segal conceded that it was not "a classical rape by force". He added: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls."....
The woman was given a medical examination, presented in court, which showed, according to Kushour, no signs of force or injury.
so you can cite an article from haaretz, who published a fraudulent photo in regards to the flotilla raid, giving her account but that is meaningless because THREE Israeli judges heard her testimony and decided it was consentual.
and you never explained why if he was forcing himself on her and acting like a psychopath she would follow him into an elevator and upwards AFTER that???
so yeah, if you want to take the words from a disturbed former prostitute who claims to have been a virgin before this go right ahead :roll: but her account makes no sense and she contradicts her testimony....how can you be raped by your father and be a former prostitute AND still be a virgin????
what was it you said about assuming?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Paul, if I remember the most recent article correctly the police arrived at the scene a few hours (maybe sooner) after the rape was alleged to have occurred.