israel sentences arab to 18months for consentual sex

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

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.

yosi

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

then I guess you didn't read my entire post, did you?

yosi wrote:

Ok, again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just thinking hanging your argument on the judge's comments is a thin argument.

yosi

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.

yosi

Paul David wrote:

then I guess you didn't read my entire post, did you?

yosi wrote:

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.

redrock

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yosi wrote:

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..

Agree.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

that's simplifying it a bit. but alright.

yosi wrote:

Paul David wrote:

then I guess you didn't read my entire post, did you?

yosi wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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?

yosi

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

yosi wrote:

I haven't read anything that suggests that (and everything I have read suggests otherwise).

that would have been sufficient.

Pepe Silvia

polaris_x wrote:

secondly, if a man violently rapes you - why on earth would he call you back 2 days later to meet again?

................................

yosi

You're right, because violent rape is an activity engaged in by people who are totally all there. :roll:

Pepe Silvia

except the judge in the case said it was consensual and not forced.....

polaris_x

yosi wrote:

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 ...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

yosi, I get the feeling you are blindly taking the side of the accuser. You do know that men get wrongly accused of rape, right?

yosi

Pepe Silvia wrote:

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.

yosi

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

unless you can provide it for me, I'm going to have to check into the timeline of events of when the sex took place and when the police found her.

yosi wrote:

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.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

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?

yosi

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.