Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:57:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
549 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > You said it, not me.
>
> Sarcastically. (1)
No, you said "completely" closed minded, not me. I don't recall saying
"completely."
> > > Oh wait, you were talking about yourself there, and not me, weren't you,
> > > since you've never ever changed your mind about anything significant, and I
> > > have.
> >
> > How grand of you, we're truly blessed (sniff sniff)
>
> What does sniff sniff mean? Some sort of insult?
Sobs of utter appreciation, my friend, that the Great and Powerful Lar would
so generously grace us with his fair hand of understanding. I am beset with
tears of joy.
> I didn't say it as
> aggrandizement, merely to point out that your charge of rigidity applies to
> yourself more than to me.
Like I said, (again) what am I supposed to change my mind about?
> Oh, anything you might have been wrong about in the past. If perchance you
> believe you've always been 100% right in everything you say here, never mind.
Name something then! How can I respond when you're being so vague. The only
thing I get impression the YOU'D like me to change my view on is the
Israel-Palestine issue, probably soften my view of the Zionists. If that is
your beef than it's not very realistic or moral. Should I expect YOU to
shift to a favorable view of the Nazis, or Apartheid or George Wallace...do
you follow me?
> > > So by those lights, the words "Palestine", "Israel", "US Oppressors" and
> > > most especially "Racist Zionist" need never be uttered by you again here, as
> > > you've said all there is to say about that.
>
> > You jump, I jump.
>
> What does this mean?
You slam the PA, I slam Israel. And "US Oppressors" is a BS remark that I
don't use. I do say "Israeli oppressors" but not the other. Get your slander
straight, buddy.
> > Israel is NOT our friend and deserves the
> > harshest criticism.
>
> Harsher than every other country in the world?
Currently, yes, because it's a thorn in our side for supporting them.
> See the post by David Eaton scoring me and "that chump" on debating skills.
> I coined DebateCard because someone called the scores "collectible"...
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13749
How trivial.
> > What do you want me to change my mind about?
>
> Oh, anything you might have been wrong about in the past. If perchance you
> believe you've always been 100% right in everything you say here, never mind.
So talk! Tell me something I was specifically wrong about! Otherwise, quit
fanning the flames.
> But in this particular case I'm saying you're rigid and even when you
> misphrase something (never mind being wrong about something substantive) it
> takes a range war for you to recant. And I'm saying that I am betting you
> won't even admit THAT or try to produce a cite where you admitted you were
> wrong. And I'm saying that if you do produce such a site I will quickly
> admit I am wrong about you not admitting you're wrong.
Maybe you're referring to the incident with Tom Stangl in which, by his own
admission, he rudely jumped on one of my statements. I was trying to make a
friendly case for taking care of our planet and he misconstrued my statement
to say that I believed that humans would never get off this planet in the
next "billion years," which was not what I meant (and trivial at best to
worry about). So I DID clarify what I meant but then the argument shifted to
my gripes about Tom's rudeness and his gripes about me knocking America and
Israel. Is this what you're referring to?
> > > OK, is the Intifada morally justified? (first under your statement that only
> > > soldiers are targeted, and then under the reality of what actually happens)
> >
> > If targeting the Israeli military, YES, of course!
>
> But of course that's not what actually happens, is it. Civilians get
> targeted all the time. Targeted and killed.
I think you're mixing things up again. The basis of the Intifada is civil
resistance to Israeli occupation. These are the stone throwing mobs you see
on CNN. Intifada is not some sort of organization, it's a term that means
"the uprising." And the only civilians I'm aware of being targeted and
killed are the Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. If Israeli citizens are
killed by Palestinian civilians, that doesn't mean those crimes should be
lumped in with the uprising. Any reasonable person should conclude they are
seperate criminal acts, but are related to the Israeli occupation and
resultant Arab resentment.
There have been case after case of Palestinians taking "justice in their own
hands" and attacking Israeli civilians who came to live where the
Palestinian's homes once were. I don't agree with such killing, nor do I
agree that people should settle on other people's land.
> Well the circumstances are a bit different than the american revolution I
> think, but you do have a point there. We can dig into that a bit further if
> you like, in a different thread.
If we support freedom and independence, why do we support Israel? Why the
double standard?
> > > Are the actions of Hamas morally justified?
> >
> > Only if they targeted Israeli occupation forces and not civilians.
>
> So then you condemn Hamas and will support taking action against it for its
> attacks on civilians, then?
I condemn Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians for sure.
> What sort of action would you support to stop
> their civilian attacks?
Round up those responsible, gather evidence to confirm their guilt and
execute them as with any criminal. The same goes for the Israeli leaders
responsible for bulldozing homes or that order soldiers to fire on
Palestinian civilians.
> So then you condemn Hezbollah and will support taking action against it for
> its attacks on civilians, then? What sort of action would you support
> against Hezbollah to stop their civilian attacks?
See above.
> So then you condemn the PA for voicing support for Hamas and Hezbollah and
> their attacks on civilians, then? What sort of action would you support
> against the PA?
A big. big change of leadership and policy obviously. But the resistance
must continue until the Palestinians are free to return to their homes and
homeland. The effort should be to resist the occupation and take the fight
to the armed Israeli occupation forces, not Israeli civilians. The
Palestinians should not reduce themselves to the level of the Israelis by
targeting and terrorizing civilians.
> > What the hell is Zionish?
>
> A typo. No need to swear, foam, carry on, etc. Calm yourself.
My bad.
> > The Zionists ARE
> > racists,
>
> How so? I would like a little more clarity on this charge. What makes them
> racist?
Because they identify Jews as a race/ethnicity, not merely a religious
faith, and that one must be BORN a Jew, and they espouse that the Holy Land
is exclusively the land of the Jews. Thus, any race other than theirs does
not belong. Such exclusivity is parallel to whites-only, Arayans-only,
Afrikaaners only and so on.
> You are correct. I cannot tell wrong from right in this case.
Then that's YOUR problem, isn't it.
> I cannot tell who is the aggressor and who is the victim.
That's absurd, but the media has made it a point to build up that absurdity
so I can only blame you for being a sheep.
> Both sides are aggressors, both sides are victims.
I would say both sides HAVE victims, but Israel is the clear aggressor. They
are the ones who've transplanted themselves onto someone else's land.
> You accuse me of "supporting Israel". But all I do is point out the bad on
> one side to balance you.
Not really, because you come from the assumption that Israel is a "loyal
ally" and the "only Democracy in the region." Okay, but does that alter the
fact that they are occupying and oppressing another people? Doesn't that
throw their "democracy" out the window? You can't keep pussy footing around
this issue unless you also support things like segregation or colonialism.
> When your statements are balanced you will see that
> mine are too. But now, your eyes are shut tight against that idea, or any
> idea that doesn't have Israel=100% bad and PA (or whoever) = 100% good.
And that's 100% pure BS. I never painted that picture, nor do I think that way.
> Or so I perceive, because while you pay lip service to the idea you do nothing
> to show true balance.
The only lip service here is yours firmly planted on Israel's pucker.
> > For the record: Do you support the Israeli occupation--yes or no.
>
> For the record: I don't know. Not enough facts to decide.
What a lark!
> I'll tell you this, I consider it an open question: If a democracy is
> attacked in open warfare that it did not start, does that democracy get to
> exercise soverignity over territory it conquered from its enemies in the
> war? I honestly don't know.
Okay, so the nationalist-socialist Zionists established Israel as a
democracy? So the Palestinians were the enemy to be conquered? What are you
saying?
> The history I read is that Israel was attacked several times by states
> opposed to it and that Israel took control of territory from those states to
> reduce the intensity of further attacks.
That's the Zionist tripe and comes from the fraudulent view that they
somehow had the "right" to create a "Jewish state" in a foreign land with
people already living there. That's the Zionist tripe that says "there is no
Palestine" and that the Palestinians have no place there, nor the right to
resist or ask for help from neighboring states who could clearly see the
injustice. That's the Zionist tripe that denies the terrorist raids and
massacres of Palestinian villages leading to the hordes of frightened Arabs
abandoning their homes fleeing for their lives. That's the so-called
"history" that you must be referring to. Grotesque.
"Gee, lookie what I found, an empty town. Wonder where everyone went? Oh
well, finders keepers, let's build a new town since nobody lives here anymore."
> Another history...
And the truth...
> says that Israel is the usurper and the states around it are
> perfectly justified in trying to eradicate the state and return sovereignty
> to the land to themselves or to Palestinians.
The state of Israel should be liquidated but not by means of violence, but
by reason and justice. Furthermore, the Arabs should welcome their Jewish
brothers and sisters with the understanding of no one trying to control the
other.
> Don't know which of those is right either.
Perhaps you don't know because you've spent too much of your life accepting
the deliberate media misconception and siding with Israel to the point that
you think things out of habit rather than out of reason and logic?
<snipped>
> But this is a thread about Hiroshima. Tying it back, if you support
> organizations that consistently and deliberately target civilians in an
> undeclared war, I am wondering how you can condemn civilian loss of life in
> a declared war, and further, in one in which the entire civilian population
> attacked is working as hard as it can to stoke the war machine of an evil
> empire. Make no mistake, WW II *was* about good vs. evil. Unfortunately we
> had some of the evil on *our* side as long as we were allied with the USSR.
This is all hogwash and half-cleverly slanting my comments doesn't somehow
make your BS sound any more convincing.
> 1 - things not to use when debating Dan:
> - sarcasm without a sarcasm warning, as he takes the words as true
> - irony in any form, warned or not, as he doesn't get irony
> - stating something counterfactual without immediately saying NOT, even
> if a cite refuting the statement immediately follows, because he skips the
> cite and attacks the counterfactual
> - reductio ad absurdium, as he will attack the example without examing
> whether the premise it's based on is valid, thus missing the point of the
> reduction. (the example is SUPPOSED to be absurd, that's the crux of this
> rhetorical device, to show that absurd results come from the premise)
> - hypothetical examples without careful disclaimers
Boy, you're a funny little man, Larry! I tip my hat to your singular wit and
"train" of thought.
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Sarcastically. (1) That's distortive because you snipped the cite. At the same time you were composing your post accusing me of being closed minded, I was composing a post acknowledging a serious hole in the argument I advanced. That's not the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
