Oh no, I have [provided evidence that Tim is a liar] . It's painfully obvious, too. You've just ignored it all.
To anyone else reading this thread, is it ‘painfully obvious’ to you that I am a liar? Or is this just Outlaw employing his usual aggressive rhetoric to avoid providing the evidence I have asked for?
No, he said a 'considerable amount' was bought. Obviously, this does not mean all of it, and if you take a look at your history, you'd know the amount of 'bought' land was only a small percentage. I thought you were so skilled at linguistics?
Actually I never claimed to be ‘skilled in linguistics’ but I do know that all the land that Jews possessed prior to the war in 1948 was either held for centuries by ancient Jewish communities there, or was legally bought from Arabs and absentee Turkish landlords by the Jewish pioneers. Of course they did not buy ALL the land of Israel, that’s why Dayan said ‘a considerable amount’. The point is that the quote was referring to these legal acquisitions of land from the Arabs, not those territories won in the war of 1948. Hence your quote was both doctored and irrelevant to your point about ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians.
Ben-Gurion's quote, as I put it, has been documented in several biographies about him. If all those authors are incorrect, then fine, it's possible seeing as how so many people can inaccurately document what Ahmadinejad said about Israel (funny how it works both ways, huh). Either way, saying my 'credibility is lost' is laughable seeing as how throughout this entire post (and all others) you've ignored most of the main issues raised.
I see that you do not have the humility to admit your mistake without trying to turn it into an attack. I am afraid that your use of doctored quotes, and your unwillingness to retract DOES damage your credibility, furthermore, your suggestion that my credibility is damaged by the fact that I have not responded to all of your points is the weakest counter-attack I have heard in while. Everyone else seems to agree that your posts are far to long. Your tactic seems to be to post masses of text and then accuse me of dishonesty if I fail to address every point you have raised. I think it is time that you dropped this tactic, it clearly hasn’t paid off for you.
this [Tim’s request that Outlaw respond to his allegation of doctoring quotes] is completely irrelevant. in fact, your entire post ignored pretty much everything I wrote, or anything I was trying to prove. I was nice enough to address points raised in this post, but the rest of it is just pointless. come back when you want to discuss (and, in your case, defend apartheid) the actual issue.
I hope that this is the last time you will employ this transparent, and rather petty tactic. I am more than willing to discuss any points that you raise about Israel/Palestine as long as you stick to 2 or 3 per post. I note that your latest post was much shorter so maybe you have listened to what people are saying. Because you have done this I have quoted and responded to every point in your post. If this continues perhaps we can now have a genuine debate in which we can both learn something from each other, and in which others can contribute.
Virtually all of my posts have been answering your many allegations against Israel, not raising my own issues. I have answered as many as time permits me to answer. I am not asking you to stick to 2 or 3 sentences, just 2 or 3 main issues and posts that are a reasonable size. I have shown that I am interested in debating this issue with you. If you are choosing to end it here thats fine, but I think everyone else can see who is interested in debate and who is not.
Israel does not want peace. Anyone that can't see this, does not posses the facts to have a legitimate discussion about it.
They keep evicting people in order to expand their racist Jew only settlements then they build massive walls around them, and kill anyone or anything non Jew that comes near them. The govt, the military, and police all completely condone and support it at every turn.
Picture that scenario for any other country and realize how severely racist and completely fucked up reality that is.
What if the US started doing that tomorrow in Mexico? White only settlements?
People would freak. But Israel does the exact same thing and you find soo many vehement apologists for it.
Fucking crazy...
it's demented.
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.
Virtually all of my posts have been answering your many allegations against Israel, not raising my own issues. I have answered as many as time permits me to answer. I am not asking you to stick to 2 or 3 sentences, just 2 or 3 main issues and posts that are a reasonable size. I have shown that I am interested in debating this issue with you. If you are choosing to end it here thats fine, but I think everyone else can see who is interested in debate and who is not.
Peace.
I don't have allegations against Israel - it is all fact.
You are asking me to change the way I debate this subject, to only address a couple issues to suit you. If you would like to go ahead and bring up these '2 or 3 main issues' then go ahead, and I'll be happy to respond to you. however, I won't go out of my way to select only '2 or 3 main issues' for you.
and you seem obsessed with what 'everyone' here thinks. An interesting thought though: cincybearcat and spyguy aren't 'everyone'.
I don't have allegations against Israel - it is all fact.
I think this just about sums you up outlaw. No room for debate since your pronouncements are simply 'facts', no possibility that you could be wrong, even when I have just proven to everyone that two of your 'facts' were, in fact, LIES. If you want debate, make your allegations against Israel and I will rebuff them if they are false and confirm them if they are true. However, I you just want to preach your facts, maybe you should find another outlet cos this forum is about debate.
I think this just about sums you up outlaw. No room for debate since your pronouncements are simply 'facts', no possibility that you could be wrong, even when I have just proven to everyone that two of your 'facts' were, in fact, LIES. If you want debate, make your allegations against Israel and I will rebuff them if they are false and confirm them if they are true. However, I you just want to preach your facts, maybe you should find another outlet cos this forum is about debate.
Peace
First of all, you argued one quote - the Moshe Dayan quote was not a lie seeing as how he phrased it as 'considerable amount'. secondly, those quotes I posted were not allegations on Israel, if you want to go into technicalities, it they were allegations against the people who said them.
However, everything I've posted on Israel - from the violence, the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, etc, were pretty much facts. You have yet to prove your case.
you also ignored my point of you bringing up your own '2 or 3 main issues' and that I'll respond to whatever you deem important enough to single out, although I can't say I'm surprised.
I know I'm going to get a lot of shit for this post, but I could care less.
so apparently it's ok to deny a massacre took place in Deir Yassin, as timsinclair just showed us, but it's not ok to deny the Holocaust took place?
before people go crazy, I know that MANY more people died in the Holocaust, but think about it this way: the massacres of villages such as Deir Yassin, Qibyq, etc were terrible times for the Palestinians, so while it's scale isn't as great as the Holocaust, why are people allowed to debate that, but not the Holocaust? why is holocaust denier such a grave term but someone who denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians can be taken as legitimate?
if I were to deny that the Jews were slaughtered in a certain area or village during World War II, just like timsinclair denied a slaughter took place in Deir Yassin, would that be ok?
I think this just about sums you up outlaw. No room for debate since your pronouncements are simply 'facts', no possibility that you could be wrong, even when I have just proven to everyone that two of your 'facts' were, in fact, LIES. If you want debate, make your allegations against Israel and I will rebuff them if they are false and confirm them if they are true. However, I you just want to preach your facts, maybe you should find another outlet cos this forum is about debate.
Peace
exactly. tim, its been a pleasure reading your posts. but doing this, in the this thread with oulaw, is pointless.
so apparently it's ok to deny a massacre took place in Deir Yassin, as timsinclair just showed us, but it's not ok to deny the Holocaust took place?
before people go crazy, I know that MANY more people died in the Holocaust, but think about it this way: the massacres of villages such as Deir Yassin, Qibyq, etc were terrible times for the Palestinians, so while it's scale isn't as great as the Holocaust, why are people allowed to debate that, but not the Holocaust? why is holocaust denier such a grave term but someone who denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians can be taken as legitimate?
if I were to deny that the Jews were slaughtered in a certain area or village during World War II, just like timsinclair denied a slaughter took place in Deir Yassin, would that be ok?
Its a nice move you are making here, trying to lump me in the category of holocaust denier, it is worthy of a response.
Regarding Dier Yassin, I have provided evidence by quoting the leading historian Benny Morris, that there was a battle at Dier Yassin, this is shown by the fact that five Jews were killed and more than thirty were wounded. I have also shown that the village of Dier Yassin was a legitimate target since it was used to attack many convoys on the road to Tel Aviv. However, I have also affirmed Benny Morris’ reports of the horrors of the battle, and the many innocent civilians who were killed by Jewish forces. For example Morris reports that:
‘whole families were riddled with bullets and grenade fragments and buried when whole houses were blown up on top of them; men women, and children were mowed down as they emerged from houses.’
I also affirmed that eyewitness accounts speak of a group of prisoners being shot in a quarry after the battle had ended. Let me state categorically that if this did take place it was wrong and can be legitimately called a massacre, although one that was separate from the actual battle of Dier Yassin. Whether this killing of prisoners took place or not, such actions were NOT ordered, encouraged, or endorsed by the Zionist leadership. I am happy to concede that this massacre did take place if the evidence demands it, however I have doubts for reasons I may explain in a later post.
If the quarry massacre did happen, this kind of thing has happened in countless episodes of history, especially when the soldiers are not part of a well ordered and disciplined army, as these fighters were. We should not forget that this was before the State of Israel existed so armed Jewish groups were not as organized or disciplined as the IDF quickly became after the State was established. We must see Dier Yassin in its context, a period when MANY Arab attacks were taking place against Jewish Civilians, such as the Hebron massacre, and the attack on a medical convoy bringing injured Jews to Haddasa hospital, in which the ambulance was ambushed and 78 Jewish doctors, nurses, and patients were gunned down at point blank range and their bodies mutilated.
Non of these things excuse a massacre after Dier Yassin, but the context shows us that what happened at Dier Yassin was altogether different to the event that Outlaw is trying to compare Dier Yassin to – the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews in purpose built extermination camps, the difference is not just one of numbers.
The Jews of Europe were not armed, they were not at war with Germany, they were not trying to destroy Germany. The Jews of Israel are armed but they have not hatched a plan to exterminate the Arab race, or constructed extermination camps, rather they have fought only for their survival against Arab neighbors who refuse to accept Israel’s existence and remain committed to Israel’s destruction.
Your post seems to hint at holocaust denial being legitimate, I am not surprised since this is a common view amongst those as fervently anti-Zionist as you are. Noam Chomsky, for example, has publicly endorsed the notorious holocaust denier Robert faurisson, who claims that the Jews orchestrated WW2 and that no Jews were gassed at the death camps. Chomsky claimed that there is "no hint of anti-semitic implications in Faurisson's work" and even wrote a foreword for one of his books. I sincerely hope that you are not following Chomsky down this path.
Comments
To anyone else reading this thread, is it ‘painfully obvious’ to you that I am a liar? Or is this just Outlaw employing his usual aggressive rhetoric to avoid providing the evidence I have asked for?
Actually I never claimed to be ‘skilled in linguistics’ but I do know that all the land that Jews possessed prior to the war in 1948 was either held for centuries by ancient Jewish communities there, or was legally bought from Arabs and absentee Turkish landlords by the Jewish pioneers. Of course they did not buy ALL the land of Israel, that’s why Dayan said ‘a considerable amount’. The point is that the quote was referring to these legal acquisitions of land from the Arabs, not those territories won in the war of 1948. Hence your quote was both doctored and irrelevant to your point about ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians.
I see that you do not have the humility to admit your mistake without trying to turn it into an attack. I am afraid that your use of doctored quotes, and your unwillingness to retract DOES damage your credibility, furthermore, your suggestion that my credibility is damaged by the fact that I have not responded to all of your points is the weakest counter-attack I have heard in while. Everyone else seems to agree that your posts are far to long. Your tactic seems to be to post masses of text and then accuse me of dishonesty if I fail to address every point you have raised. I think it is time that you dropped this tactic, it clearly hasn’t paid off for you.
I hope that this is the last time you will employ this transparent, and rather petty tactic. I am more than willing to discuss any points that you raise about Israel/Palestine as long as you stick to 2 or 3 per post. I note that your latest post was much shorter so maybe you have listened to what people are saying. Because you have done this I have quoted and responded to every point in your post. If this continues perhaps we can now have a genuine debate in which we can both learn something from each other, and in which others can contribute.
Peace.
you're clearly not interested in actual debate.
Peace.
They keep evicting people in order to expand their racist Jew only settlements then they build massive walls around them, and kill anyone or anything non Jew that comes near them. The govt, the military, and police all completely condone and support it at every turn.
Picture that scenario for any other country and realize how severely racist and completely fucked up reality that is.
What if the US started doing that tomorrow in Mexico? White only settlements?
People would freak. But Israel does the exact same thing and you find soo many vehement apologists for it.
Fucking crazy...
it's demented.
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)
(")_(")
You are asking me to change the way I debate this subject, to only address a couple issues to suit you. If you would like to go ahead and bring up these '2 or 3 main issues' then go ahead, and I'll be happy to respond to you. however, I won't go out of my way to select only '2 or 3 main issues' for you.
and you seem obsessed with what 'everyone' here thinks. An interesting thought though: cincybearcat and spyguy aren't 'everyone'.
We are the only ones that matter though.
I think this just about sums you up outlaw. No room for debate since your pronouncements are simply 'facts', no possibility that you could be wrong, even when I have just proven to everyone that two of your 'facts' were, in fact, LIES. If you want debate, make your allegations against Israel and I will rebuff them if they are false and confirm them if they are true. However, I you just want to preach your facts, maybe you should find another outlet cos this forum is about debate.
Peace
However, everything I've posted on Israel - from the violence, the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, etc, were pretty much facts. You have yet to prove your case.
you also ignored my point of you bringing up your own '2 or 3 main issues' and that I'll respond to whatever you deem important enough to single out, although I can't say I'm surprised.
I, along with prominent historians and scholars, think otherwise though.
so apparently it's ok to deny a massacre took place in Deir Yassin, as timsinclair just showed us, but it's not ok to deny the Holocaust took place?
before people go crazy, I know that MANY more people died in the Holocaust, but think about it this way: the massacres of villages such as Deir Yassin, Qibyq, etc were terrible times for the Palestinians, so while it's scale isn't as great as the Holocaust, why are people allowed to debate that, but not the Holocaust? why is holocaust denier such a grave term but someone who denies the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians can be taken as legitimate?
if I were to deny that the Jews were slaughtered in a certain area or village during World War II, just like timsinclair denied a slaughter took place in Deir Yassin, would that be ok?
exactly. tim, its been a pleasure reading your posts. but doing this, in the this thread with oulaw, is pointless.
yup, outlaw and prominent historians and scholars are one in the same. how can we mere mortals compete with such greatness?
why I even bother to explain shit to you, I don't even know.
You really need to lighten up a bit...relax.
Its a nice move you are making here, trying to lump me in the category of holocaust denier, it is worthy of a response.
Regarding Dier Yassin, I have provided evidence by quoting the leading historian Benny Morris, that there was a battle at Dier Yassin, this is shown by the fact that five Jews were killed and more than thirty were wounded. I have also shown that the village of Dier Yassin was a legitimate target since it was used to attack many convoys on the road to Tel Aviv. However, I have also affirmed Benny Morris’ reports of the horrors of the battle, and the many innocent civilians who were killed by Jewish forces. For example Morris reports that:
‘whole families were riddled with bullets and grenade fragments and buried when whole houses were blown up on top of them; men women, and children were mowed down as they emerged from houses.’
I also affirmed that eyewitness accounts speak of a group of prisoners being shot in a quarry after the battle had ended. Let me state categorically that if this did take place it was wrong and can be legitimately called a massacre, although one that was separate from the actual battle of Dier Yassin. Whether this killing of prisoners took place or not, such actions were NOT ordered, encouraged, or endorsed by the Zionist leadership. I am happy to concede that this massacre did take place if the evidence demands it, however I have doubts for reasons I may explain in a later post.
If the quarry massacre did happen, this kind of thing has happened in countless episodes of history, especially when the soldiers are not part of a well ordered and disciplined army, as these fighters were. We should not forget that this was before the State of Israel existed so armed Jewish groups were not as organized or disciplined as the IDF quickly became after the State was established. We must see Dier Yassin in its context, a period when MANY Arab attacks were taking place against Jewish Civilians, such as the Hebron massacre, and the attack on a medical convoy bringing injured Jews to Haddasa hospital, in which the ambulance was ambushed and 78 Jewish doctors, nurses, and patients were gunned down at point blank range and their bodies mutilated.
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_atrocities_arab.php
Non of these things excuse a massacre after Dier Yassin, but the context shows us that what happened at Dier Yassin was altogether different to the event that Outlaw is trying to compare Dier Yassin to – the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews in purpose built extermination camps, the difference is not just one of numbers.
The Jews of Europe were not armed, they were not at war with Germany, they were not trying to destroy Germany. The Jews of Israel are armed but they have not hatched a plan to exterminate the Arab race, or constructed extermination camps, rather they have fought only for their survival against Arab neighbors who refuse to accept Israel’s existence and remain committed to Israel’s destruction.
Your post seems to hint at holocaust denial being legitimate, I am not surprised since this is a common view amongst those as fervently anti-Zionist as you are. Noam Chomsky, for example, has publicly endorsed the notorious holocaust denier Robert faurisson, who claims that the Jews orchestrated WW2 and that no Jews were gassed at the death camps. Chomsky claimed that there is "no hint of anti-semitic implications in Faurisson's work" and even wrote a foreword for one of his books. I sincerely hope that you are not following Chomsky down this path.
Peace