The arrogance of Israel

[Shusha]

While we're at it, lets see if any of them will step up and condemn this latest example of Zionist chutzpah:

Assuming the "voluntary" is truly voluntary, why is this something to be condemned? Don't you think that the people of Gaza should be able to choose for themselves?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Assuming the "voluntary" is truly voluntary, why is this something to be condemned? Don't you think that the people of Gaza should be able to choose for themselves?

I just knew you'd struggle with that one.

 

[BothWings]

There is plenty of arrogance to go around there. Israel is surrounded by enemies. It's not a good place to be.

Arrogance makes enemies. Fact.

 

[BothWings]

They have no right to defend themselves any more than the Third Reich had a right to defend itself after murdering millions. It's a ridiculous argument, utterly foolish, why is it that the Trump MAGA cult members are so often the least equipped to discuss these matters.

That's hilarious. I support Trump and I do NOT support how Isarael is doing what its doing at all, You should stop categorizing people based on anti-Trump MSM cookiecutter stereotypes. That makes you a cult tool yourself. But, we agree on Israel....so whatever.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's hilarious. I support Trump and I do NOT support how Isarael is doing what its doing at all, You should stop categorizing people based on anti-Trump MSM cookiecutter stereotypes. That makes you a cult tool yourself. But, we agree on Israel....so whatever.

I can't take you seriously.

If you support Trump (as in, you want to see him elected president) then how can you reconcile that with the fact that Trump will enable Israel to continue its campaigns, to a far greater degree than the Democrats?

 

[Shusha]

I just knew you'd struggle with that one.

Convince me that there is something to be condemned in giving the people of Gaza choices about their future.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Convince me that there is something to be condemned in giving the people of Gaza choices about their future.

I cannot convince you of anything that you do not want to be convinced of.

 

[Shusha]

I cannot convince you of anything that you do not want to be convinced of.

Make your best argument, then.

 

[rosends]

Very well, I'll rephrase the original posting here for you:

I'd answer that as "not Jewish".

Right but no Jews were forcibly displaced by Israel were they? only non-Jews so it was a tribally discriminatory undertaking which should be beyond obvious to you.

So a Jew is a member of the tribe and a non-Jew is not a member of the tribe. I'm confident that even you can now understand.

Except Judaism isn't a tribe. Try again.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Except Judaism isn't a tribe. Try again.

That's true but why bring that up?

 

[rosends]

That's true but why bring that up?

Try to keep up. You insisted that the fact that non-Jews were not acted against makes the behavior "racially discriminatory". I asked you what race and you indicated that Judaism is a race and "non-Jew" is also a race. I told you that Judaism is not a race. So you decided to call it a tribe. While this is no less incorrect, it also undercuts your initial assertion of "racially discriminatory" behavior. So I'm bringing up that your claim is false and you just proved it by changing the wording to a term that is completely irrelevant to the argument you made. Let me know if you need another set of Cliffs Notes to recall what you wrote.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Try to keep up. You insisted that the fact that non-Jews were not acted against makes the behavior "racially discriminatory". I asked you what race and you indicated that Judaism is a race and "non-Jew" is also a race. I told you that Judaism is not a race. So you decided to call it a tribe. While this is no less incorrect, it also undercuts your initial assertion of "racially discriminatory" behavior. So I'm bringing up that your claim is false and you just proved it by changing the wording to a term that is completely irrelevant to the argument you made. Let me know if you need another set of Cliffs Notes to recall what you wrote.

Very well we can simply use the term "discriminatory" if you'd prefer.

Right but no Jews were forcibly displaced by Israel were they? only non-Jews so it was a discriminatory undertaking which should be beyond obvious to you.

 

[rosends]

Very well we can simply use the term "discriminatory" if you'd prefer.

Right but no Jews were forcibly displaced by Israel were they? only non-Jews so it was a discriminatory undertaking which should be beyond obvious to you.

so if I can show you one non-Jew who was not forcibly displaced (or one Jew who was) then your thesis fails, right?

150,000 Arabs weren't moved from Israel in 1948. They chose to stay. Done.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

so if I can show you one non-Jew who was not forcibly displaced (or one Jew who was) then your thesis fails, right?

No, no more than the thesis "The Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews" is undermined by the fact that some non-Jews were also exterminated.

150,000 Arabs weren't moved from Israel in 1948. They chose to stay. Done.

Just as some Jews were not rounded up and placed in concentration camps.

This is desperate of you, rather than admit the truth you prefer to connive and twist and distort and do all in your power to lie.

Your entire approach to reasoning about this could have been taught to you by the Nazis, there really is a close ideological connection between Nazism and Zionism.

You have become the very thing you claim to hate.

 

[Deadstick]

They are defending themselves... Christians in Lebanon want Israel to not stop and they want the terrorists out.... why don't you want them out?...

If not for Hezbollah the Zionist thugs would be sat drinking beer on the Beirut sea front right now.

 

[rosends]

No, no more than the thesis "The Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews" is undermined by the fact that some non-Jews were also exterminated.

Just as some Jews were not rounded up and placed in concentration camps.

This is desperate of you, rather than admit the truth you prefer to connive and twist and distort and do all in your power to lie.

Your entire approach to reasoning about this could have been taught to you by the Nazis, there really is a close ideological connection between Nazism and Zionism.

You have become the very thing you claim to hate.

so you create 2 groups and insist that there was discrimination because of an absolute you innovate. When shown that your innovation is ainaccurate, you then try to back track instead of just admitting that your initial claim is provably false.

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong? You have already admitted that the language you used ("racially") was wrong. Now you can admit that the facts you presented are inaccurate.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

so you create 2 groups and insist that there was discrimination because of an absolute you innovate. When shown that your innovation is inaccurate, you then try to back track instead of just admitting that your initial claim is provably false.

My claim is no more provably false than the claim "the Jews were the target of an extermination policy by the Nazis" is provably false. How accurate that that claim anyway?

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong?

Because I wasn't

You have already admitted that the language you used ("racially") was wrong.

Not at all, I agreed to rephrase it so as to remove the obstacle you faced to agreeing with it, the question is why are you still disagreeing?

Now you can admit that the facts you presented are inaccurate.

I never made any statements about "accuracy" did I?

 

[rosends]

My claim is no more provably false than the claim "the Jews were the target of an extermination policy by the Nazis" is provably false. How accurate that that claim anyway?

But that's not what you said. Maybe you should say what you mean in the future.

Because I wasn't

sure you were.

Not at all, I agreed to rephrase it so as to remove the obstacle you faced to agreeing with it, the question is why are you still disagreeing?

you rephrased it because as phrased, it was wrong. Or do you insist it was right as phrased and "non-Jew" is a race?

I never made any statements about "accuracy" did I?

no, you just made claims that were inaccurate.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But that's not what you said. Maybe you should say what you mean in the future.

You don't know what I said it seems.

sure you were.

you rephrased it because as phrased, it was wrong. Or do you insist it was right as phrased and "non-Jew" is a race?

I rephrased it because "race" wasn't actually necessary to convey the fact that there was prejudice and yet you still complain.

no, you just made claims that were inaccurate.

That's a meaningless statement. Without a standard for accuracy one cannot decide if any claim is or is not accurate. Claims of accuracy require a means of measuring proximity to some standard and we never agreed to any such thing hence your complain is meaningless.

 

[rosends]

You don't know what I said it seems.

no, it seems, you don't.

I rephrased it because "race" wasn't actually necessary to convey the fact that there was prejudice and yet you still complain.

wasn't actually "necessary"? In fact, it was wrong. Are you saying that it wasn't wrong?

That's a meaningless statement. Without a standard for accuracy one cannot decide if any claim is or is not accurate. Claims of accuracy require a means of measuring proximity to some standard and we never agreed to any such thing hence your complain is meaningless.

then so is your initial claim. Thanks.