You obviously are a member of his Parrot club. Try to be objective, and scroll through all his various rants where he threatens to ban people at every turn, calls their opinions horseshit, or tells them to fuck off if they dont agree with his line of crap. So spare me the unprovoked garbage. Every one of his posts is a provocation and frankly if someone needs to be banned to clean up the neighborhood then maybe the Mods should try taking him down and see if the place settles down.
I don't really consider posting news reports about Israel's illegal actions to be provocation, or anti-semitic, or anything else you want to label them. How about you try to be objective, and stop considering the slightest question about Israel's actions to be some sort of racist agenda.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I don't really consider posting news reports about Israel's illegal actions to be provocation, or anti-semitic, or anything else you want to label them. How about you try to be objective, and stop considering the slightest question about Israel's actions to be some sort of racist agenda.
How about hundreds and hundreds of posts, threads, and spams. Not just a couple news reports. This person clearly has an obsession and doesn't mind making offensive analogies between Nazi Germany and Israel. If you don't see how that might be a tad bit offensive then you obviously have had one too many Kilkennys.
How about hundreds and hundreds of posts, threads, and spams. Not just a couple news reports. This person clearly has an obsession and doesn't mind making offensive analogies between Nazi Germany and Israel. If you don't see how that might be a tad bit offensive then you obviously have had one too many Kilkennys.
And calling the mods anti-semitic is just you exercising free speech, right?:rolleyes:
And for the record, Byrnzie's comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany was pretty much spot-on: a country feels slighted, and starts claiming land that doesn't belong to them as their own. And once more, the world goes for appeasement. Gonna call me anti-semitic now?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
With a little keen marketing t could be a hard to stock sauce....
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You obviously are a member of his Parrot club. Try to be objective, and scroll through all his various rants where he threatens to ban people at every turn, calls their opinions horseshit, or tells them to fuck off if they dont agree with his line of crap. So spare me the unprovoked garbage. Every one of his posts is a provocation and frankly if someone needs to be banned to clean up the neighborhood then maybe the Mods should try taking him down and see if the place settles down.
I didn't tell you to fuck off because you don't agree with me. I told you to fuck off because you've done nothing but insult people since you began posting about two weeks ago. You've brought nothing constructive or intelligent to the message pit, but are just a troll.
How about hundreds and hundreds of posts, threads, and spams. Not just a couple news reports. This person clearly has an obsession and doesn't mind making offensive analogies between Nazi Germany and Israel. If you don't see how that might be a tad bit offensive then you obviously have had one too many Kilkennys.
Have a chip on your shoulder do ya?
Sounds like you have an obsession with me.
Anyway, in response to the other thread on this exact same subject that you pointlessly created, I'll again offer you the chance to read and comment upon this article which you obviously ignored before...
'As soon as certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.
No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment – even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is – at best – utterly nonsensical.
First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years – and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?
For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?
If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?
Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask – let alone to answer – difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.
Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists – that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.
A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.
And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict – and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.
This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland – a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.
In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology – a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine – The Times is taking sides.
If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell.'
How about hundreds and hundreds of posts, threads, and spams. Not just a couple news reports. This person clearly has an obsession and doesn't mind making offensive analogies between Nazi Germany and Israel. If you don't see how that might be a tad bit offensive then you obviously have had one too many Kilkennys.
I, personally, have learned a lot from Byrnzie's Israeli/Palestian posts and appreciate him tackling this very touchy subject that many will shy away from(myself included at times) because some people would rather shout down those who happen to see the matter differently and get insulting instead of debating it with a level head.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I, personally, have learned a lot from Byrnzie's Israeli/Palestian posts and appreciate him tackling this very touchy subject that many will shy away from(myself included at times) because some people would rather shout down those who happen to see the matter differently and get insulting instead of debating it with a level head.
Cuz this shit is getting old and this thread now needs to die.
Have a chip on your shoulder do ya?
Sounds like you have an obsession with me.
Anyway, in response to the other thread on this exact same subject that you pointlessly created, I'll again offer you the chance to read and comment upon this article which you obviously ignored before...
'As soon as certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.
No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment – even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is – at best – utterly nonsensical.
First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years – and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?
For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?
If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?
Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask – let alone to answer – difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.
Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists – that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.
A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.
And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict – and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.
This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland – a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.
In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology – a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine – The Times is taking sides.
If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell.'
Instead of banning people maybe the board should ban people who can only communicate their thoughts with a cut and paste....Original thinkers only! Goodbye thread.
Instead of banning people maybe the board should ban people who can only communicate their thoughts with a cut and paste....Original thinkers only! Goodbye thread.
Just as I thought. You have nothing to say. Just a waste of space.
Instead of banning people maybe the board should ban people who can only communicate their thoughts with a cut and paste....Original thinkers only! Goodbye thread.
So you're an original thinker now are you?
Seriously, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week.
Here's an idea. Since your all full of threats now let's just have a smackdown! Ill take Lazymoon and Spinbrett. You can have RolandC3P0 and Commy. Ill even give you Rhinosaurus Penis...except I think Rhino is a girl. So that's not fair. Oh and can we bring our alter-ego Jlew?
Here's an idea. Since your all full of threats now let's just have a smackdown! Ill take Lazymoon and Spinbrett. You can have RolandC3P0 and Commy. Ill even give you Rhinosaurus Penis...except I think Rhino is a girl. So that's not fair. Oh and can we bring our alter-ego Jlew?
So there'll be two of you, against four of us? Seems a little one-sided.
Here's an idea. Since your all full of threats now let's just have a smackdown! Ill take Lazymoon and Spinbrett. You can have RolandC3P0 and Commy. Ill even give you Rhinosaurus Penis...except I think Rhino is a girl. So that's not fair. Oh and can we bring our alter-ego Jlew?
Haha. Ha. Ah. Penis. There's a funny word. So when do you turn 12?
And Rhino's more man than you'll ever be. Possibly the equivalent of one.. two... four men!
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
There's that word again. With all your talk of free speech and obsessing over things, you'd think you'd find new and interesting ways of trying to insult me. But no, the tried and tested, 10-year-old-on-a-playground technique is good enough for Gaucho.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Here's an idea. Since your all full of threats now let's just have a smackdown!
I just can't help picturing you sitting at home watching WWF Smackdown muching on your bag of potato chips and fantasising about which character you're going to pretend to be this week.
A man of formidable intellectual prowess, and multiple identities.
There's that word again. With all your talk of free speech and obsessing over things, you'd think you'd find new and interesting ways of trying to insult me. But no, the tried and tested, 10-year-old-on-a-playground technique is good enough for Gaucho.
At least you had the good taste to spell my name correctly. For that I thank you.
I just can't help picturing you sitting at home watching WWF Smackdown muching on your bag of potato chips and fantasising about which character you're going to pretend to be this week.
A man of formidable intellectual prowess, and multiple identities.
Is it OCD? Paranoia? It's just one person comin at ya.
The idea of calling you Gaucho Penis didn't strike me as the height of comedy. Some of us are pretty mature like that.
Gaucho Penis isn't funny. I would gather most don't know what a Gaucho even is so how would that be funny in any way? Rhino and penis are a far funnier combination of words. Actually since you are (allegedly) a man then I would think being called Rhino Penis would, in fact, be an enormous, no pun intended, compliment. If you had not thought the word RhineOsoraus was not funny you would not have chosen it as a name......Listen Ireland, I got no beef with you. I am really only fucking around here mostly. I am not 12 or 10. Wish I were. I'd have alot more time to screw with Byrnzie. But, alas, I am an old fucker just here to play with the kiddies. I only tagged you because of your silly name.
Gaucho Penis isn't funny. I would gather most don't know what a Gaucho even is so how would that be funny in any way? Rhino and penis are a far funnier combination of words. Actually since you are (allegedly) a man then I would think being called Rhino Penis would, in fact, be an enormous, no pun intended, compliment. If you had not thought the word RhineOsoraus was not funny you would not have chosen it as a name......Listen Ireland, I got no beef with you. I am really only fucking around here mostly. I am not 12 or 10. Wish I were. I'd have alot more time to screw with Byrnzie. But, alas, I am an old fucker just here to play with the kiddies. I only tagged you because of your silly name.
Right. Gaucho Penis isn't funny, I agree. Then again, neither is Rhino Penis, or most anything you've said. And if your idea of playing with the kiddies is being condescending, offensive, and immature, then I don't think I'm the one who with the problem. Besides, you still haven't answered my question. I see a valid point in Byrnzie's comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. Does that make me an anti-semite? Or is that just Byrnzie and the mods?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Right. Gaucho Penis isn't funny, I agree. Then again, neither is Rhino Penis, or most anything you've said. And if your idea of playing with the kiddies is being condescending, offensive, and immature, then I don't think I'm the one who with the problem. Besides, you still haven't answered my question. I see a valid point in Byrnzie's comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. Does that make me an anti-semite? Or is that just Byrnzie and the mods?
It does not make you an anti-semite. Honestly. I think for you, living in Ireland, you don't have much exposure to people who are Jewish and would find that comparison extremely offensive. It is an insensitive comparison at the least for someone who does not know someone who is Jewish and may therefore be offended by such a comparison. By way of comparison it would be like comparing something the Irish government does today to English colonialism. That's as as close I can make it. Comparing English colonialsim to the perpetrators of the Holocaust is quite a strech, but it is as close as I can come for your purposes.
My point really is that one person who posts hundreds of statements about Israel on this board, and then makes a comparison to NAZI GERMANY, has got to be at least close to the line if not well over it. And that is not you.
It does not make you an anti-semite. Honestly. I think for you, living in Ireland, you don't have much exposure to people who are Jewish and would find that comparison extremely offensive. It is an insensitive comparison at the least for someone who does not know someone who is Jewish and may therefore be offended by such a comparison. By way of comparison it would be like comparing something the Irish government does today to English colonialism. That's as as close I can make it. Comparing English colonialsim to the perpetrators of the Holocaust is quite a strech, but it is as close as I can come for your purposes.
My point really is that one person who posts hundreds of statements about Israel on this board, and then makes a comparison to NAZI GERMANY, has got to be at least close to the line if not well over it. And that is not you.
Comparing brutal and inhumane acts of GOVERNMENTS has zero to do with being insensitive or against the jewish people.
If anything, I would think jewish people should be sensitive to and reject hideous acts against human rights in ANY form committed by ANY country seeing as how their people have lived that horror first hand.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It does not make you an anti-semite. Honestly. I think for you, living in Ireland, you don't have much exposure to people who are Jewish and would find that comparison extremely offensive. It is an insensitive comparison at the least for someone who does not know someone who is Jewish and may therefore be offended by such a comparison. By way of comparison it would be like comparing something the Irish government does today to English colonialism. That's as as close I can make it. Comparing English colonialsim to the perpetrators of the Holocaust is quite a strech, but it is as close as I can come for your purposes.
My point really is that one person who posts hundreds of statements about Israel on this board, and then makes a comparison to NAZI GERMANY, has got to be at least close to the line if not well over it. And that is not you.
Yeah... comparing Ireland to colonial England would be like that, if it was in any way a valid comparison. I gave you a clear example of the parallels between Nazi Germany and Israel - the Holocaust wasn't even mentioned in them. If it had been Communist Russia or Colonial England in place of Nazi Germany, I'd make that comparison, but fact is, the parallels exist. If the Israeli people find that parallel distasteful, they have a very achievable way of remedying the situation.
And how nice of you tell me that I don't know any Jewish people - that's like me saying, oh, you're American, you couldn't possibly know any Buddhists.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
It does not make you an anti-semite. Honestly. I think for you, living in Ireland, you don't have much exposure to people who are Jewish and would find that comparison extremely offensive. It is an insensitive comparison at the least for someone who does not know someone who is Jewish and may therefore be offended by such a comparison. By way of comparison it would be like comparing something the Irish government does today to English colonialism. That's as as close I can make it. Comparing English colonialsim to the perpetrators of the Holocaust is quite a strech, but it is as close as I can come for your purposes.
My point really is that one person who posts hundreds of statements about Israel on this board, and then makes a comparison to NAZI GERMANY, has got to be at least close to the line if not well over it. And that is not you.
Firstly, what does knowing, or not knowing, someone who is Jewish have to do with anything?
Secondly, how about commenting on my post directly and telling us what it is exactly that your pretending to be offended about? You've not once been able to refute anything I've said.
Your only argument - if that's what you can call it - is that I've posted a lot of threads concerning Americas double standards, and the illegal Israeli occupation.
Seriously, when you have something to say, let me know.
Comments
I don't really consider posting news reports about Israel's illegal actions to be provocation, or anti-semitic, or anything else you want to label them. How about you try to be objective, and stop considering the slightest question about Israel's actions to be some sort of racist agenda.
How about hundreds and hundreds of posts, threads, and spams. Not just a couple news reports. This person clearly has an obsession and doesn't mind making offensive analogies between Nazi Germany and Israel. If you don't see how that might be a tad bit offensive then you obviously have had one too many Kilkennys.
And calling the mods anti-semitic is just you exercising free speech, right?:rolleyes:
And for the record, Byrnzie's comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany was pretty much spot-on: a country feels slighted, and starts claiming land that doesn't belong to them as their own. And once more, the world goes for appeasement. Gonna call me anti-semitic now?
With a little keen marketing t could be a hard to stock sauce....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I didn't tell you to fuck off because you don't agree with me. I told you to fuck off because you've done nothing but insult people since you began posting about two weeks ago. You've brought nothing constructive or intelligent to the message pit, but are just a troll.
Have a chip on your shoulder do ya?
Sounds like you have an obsession with me.
Anyway, in response to the other thread on this exact same subject that you pointlessly created, I'll again offer you the chance to read and comment upon this article which you obviously ignored before...
Why does The Times recognize Israel's 'right to exist'?
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
Saree Makdisi
Los Angeles Times
March 11, 2007
'As soon as certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.
No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment – even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is – at best – utterly nonsensical.
First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years – and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?
For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?
If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?
Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask – let alone to answer – difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.
Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists – that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.
A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.
And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict – and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.
This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland – a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.
In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology – a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine – The Times is taking sides.
If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell.'
I, personally, have learned a lot from Byrnzie's Israeli/Palestian posts and appreciate him tackling this very touchy subject that many will shy away from(myself included at times) because some people would rather shout down those who happen to see the matter differently and get insulting instead of debating it with a level head.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Cuz this shit is getting old and this thread now needs to die.
Instead of banning people maybe the board should ban people who can only communicate their thoughts with a cut and paste....Original thinkers only! Goodbye thread.
Just as I thought. You have nothing to say. Just a waste of space.
So you're an original thinker now are you?
Seriously, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week.
So there'll be two of you, against four of us? Seems a little one-sided.
Haha. Ha. Ah. Penis. There's a funny word. So when do you turn 12?
And Rhino's more man than you'll ever be. Possibly the equivalent of one.. two... four men!
So be it. MR. Rhino Penis
There's that word again. With all your talk of free speech and obsessing over things, you'd think you'd find new and interesting ways of trying to insult me. But no, the tried and tested, 10-year-old-on-a-playground technique is good enough for Gaucho.
I just can't help picturing you sitting at home watching WWF Smackdown muching on your bag of potato chips and fantasising about which character you're going to pretend to be this week.
A man of formidable intellectual prowess, and multiple identities.
At least you had the good taste to spell my name correctly. For that I thank you.
Is it OCD? Paranoia? It's just one person comin at ya.
The idea of calling you Gaucho Penis didn't strike me as the height of comedy. Some of us are pretty mature like that.
Gaucho Penis isn't funny. I would gather most don't know what a Gaucho even is so how would that be funny in any way? Rhino and penis are a far funnier combination of words. Actually since you are (allegedly) a man then I would think being called Rhino Penis would, in fact, be an enormous, no pun intended, compliment. If you had not thought the word RhineOsoraus was not funny you would not have chosen it as a name......Listen Ireland, I got no beef with you. I am really only fucking around here mostly. I am not 12 or 10. Wish I were. I'd have alot more time to screw with Byrnzie. But, alas, I am an old fucker just here to play with the kiddies. I only tagged you because of your silly name.
Right. Gaucho Penis isn't funny, I agree. Then again, neither is Rhino Penis, or most anything you've said. And if your idea of playing with the kiddies is being condescending, offensive, and immature, then I don't think I'm the one who with the problem. Besides, you still haven't answered my question. I see a valid point in Byrnzie's comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. Does that make me an anti-semite? Or is that just Byrnzie and the mods?
It does not make you an anti-semite. Honestly. I think for you, living in Ireland, you don't have much exposure to people who are Jewish and would find that comparison extremely offensive. It is an insensitive comparison at the least for someone who does not know someone who is Jewish and may therefore be offended by such a comparison. By way of comparison it would be like comparing something the Irish government does today to English colonialism. That's as as close I can make it. Comparing English colonialsim to the perpetrators of the Holocaust is quite a strech, but it is as close as I can come for your purposes.
My point really is that one person who posts hundreds of statements about Israel on this board, and then makes a comparison to NAZI GERMANY, has got to be at least close to the line if not well over it. And that is not you.
Comparing brutal and inhumane acts of GOVERNMENTS has zero to do with being insensitive or against the jewish people.
If anything, I would think jewish people should be sensitive to and reject hideous acts against human rights in ANY form committed by ANY country seeing as how their people have lived that horror first hand.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yeah... comparing Ireland to colonial England would be like that, if it was in any way a valid comparison.
And how nice of you tell me that I don't know any Jewish people - that's like me saying, oh, you're American, you couldn't possibly know any Buddhists.
Firstly, what does knowing, or not knowing, someone who is Jewish have to do with anything?
Secondly, how about commenting on my post directly and telling us what it is exactly that your pretending to be offended about? You've not once been able to refute anything I've said.
Your only argument - if that's what you can call it - is that I've posted a lot of threads concerning Americas double standards, and the illegal Israeli occupation.
Seriously, when you have something to say, let me know.