Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:39:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2438 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I propose this resolution in the hopes that other debates will occur without
> > > > > the overriding Israel/Palestine debate war which often takes over this
> > > > > channel when it appears.
> > > >
> > > > Why is that a bad thing given the amount of disinformation that surrounds this
> > > > issue?
> > > >
> > > > Scott A
> > >
> > > If the sides of an issue get so polarized (there, I got to use it!) that all
> > > there is left is "I'm right, you're wrong!" "No, I'm right and you're
> > > wrong!", there is nothing left but to end the thread.
> >
> > I don't agree with that overview.
>
> Well, here we are, sitting at 171 posts in this thread. I'll be the first
> to note that not all 171 posts directly relate to the P/I issue, but 171
> posts...
>
> How would you sum up the current state of the P/I debate here in OT-D, where
> the sides are concerned? Where do the sides stand? Who's right--who's
> wrong? It's like the actual issue itself--it doesn't matter--when it's this
> old, both sides *should* just stop it all together--we're both wrong.
Many people have polarised views on this issue. They see it in rather
simplistic “Bushian” terms; good versus evil or even jews versus muslims. The
most commonly asserted views here are that Israel or [very much less commonly]
the Palestinians are fighting a defensive battle. I reject both those
notions. ie:
1. The issue is not a simple “good versus evil”.
2. Israel or the Palestinians are not fighting a wholly defensive battle.
Where I stand is that I reserve the right to question anyone who states those
views. I’ll do that without throwing mud. I try to back my argument with facts
or quotes; others can counter that how they wish. Look at this:
==+==
John:
> "Belligerent nation"? What tripe! Their
> violence as a nation can be directly linked to her defending herself against
> Arab aggressors.
Scott A:
What was Israel’s claim to the Straits
of Tiran? I won’t even mention Ben-Gurion’s “fantastic plan”.
Below is how Moshe Dayan described border clashes with Syria in the prelude
to the ’67 war (when he was minister of defence):
”I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion,
more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We
would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do
anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians
would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to
advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's
how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Rabin's predecessor as chief of
staff] did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person
who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elazar, OC Northern Command,
1964-69].”
One could hardly accuse Moshe Dayan as being part of the international
anti-Israeli conspiracy?
[later]
Question : Do you agree that these are examples of Israeli belligerence? If
not, why?
==+==
You can see the whole message here:
http://news.lugnet.com/news/post/?lugnet.off-topic.debate,18605
>
> >
> > >
> > > I think it's a far better solution to end the debate on the issue than
> > > ignoring an individual across all debates. This allows other debates to
> > > take place unfettered.
> > >
> > > For me, it doesn't matter about your perceived 'disinformation'--you made
> > > your points, others negated those points in their mind, just as you negated
> > > their points to your satisfaction, but no theirs. Rehashing the points over
> > > and over again after that doesn't do a wee bit of good for *anyone* concerned.
> > >
> > > In the final analysis, in the end, cut to the bottom of the page, where are
> > > we left after that? Proposing to ignore an individual carte blanc because
> > > we don't like him or her dwelling on this one topic? Well, it's a solution,
> > > but, imho, a better solution is to step beyond the conversation.
> > >
> > > Not to bring my Christian values into play (not that this value is
> > > specifically a Christian one, but there you are), but avoid the sin, not the
> > > sinner.
> > >
> > > All in my personal judgement.
> > >
> > > You may feel that you have a point to make
> > > You may feel that the 'other side' doesn't get it
> > > You may feel that if you post 'just one more time' that you will get thru to
> > > them
> > > But when we're at the point of selectively banning people via 'ignore', then
> > > mayhaps you may wish to rethink posting--not your opinion, your point, or
> > > your values--just your posting of said stuff to the debate group.
> >
> >
> > David,
> > I have no problem with people ignoring me, or even users urging others to
> > ignore me. However, I suggest you think wider than the Israel thing. Take a
> > closer look at what is causing the "fuss" here.
> >
> > Perhaps I’m being paranoid, but I get the feeling that some people want to
> > attack me when they think thay sense weakness and then “ignore” me when they
> > don’t. Am I being paranoid?
> >
> > BTW: I made the JC post yesterday fully expecting *not* to get a reply. I blame
> > this mess on you ;)
> >
> > Scott A
>
> I blame me as well.
>
> Paranoia is not something I subscribe to about anything--there is no 'they'
> and 'they' aren't out to get me.
But what about the black helicopters? ;)
> I sleep quite well at night thankyouverymuch.
With great respect, you appear to have avoided my question. Can you explain
this:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18598
>
> What are your views about the "fuss"? Perception is the truth we have to
> work with here in a newsgroup--how do you perceive what's going on? You
> think that others are ignoring you because you believe your point is strong,
> and only attack when your point is weak?
I would never be so presumptuous.
>
> Mayhaps these 'others' believe it's 'oh no, here he goes again down that
> same old well-trodden road--he's saying nothing new--we didn't believe him
> the first time, why would we change our POV now?' and it really has nothing
> to do with weakness or strength in the actual arguement--it's just, as many
> folks have posted 'asked and answered' to their satisfaction.
I think you are still focussing too much on the "Israel thing". Remember people
are being asked to ignore all my posts on any issue – I understand that
harassment via e-mail may also be taking place. This is being done whilst what
is termed “long-distance unstated twitting” is condoned – but I am harangued
for daring to answer.
What are people so afraid of? Afaterall, I'm just a
great-big-fluffy-pussycat. ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) I've read (most of) the thread. And again, without actually debating what's going on in I/P, the point of this little tangent on the debate is to get to a point where we're not banning (...) (22 years ago, 13-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) Well, here we are, sitting at 171 posts in this thread. I'll be the first to note that not all 171 posts directly relate to the P/I issue, but 171 posts... How would you sum up the current state of the P/I debate here in OT-D, where the sides (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
