Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Coyote]

Apparently. I've been chewed out for only saying bad things about Israel (that didn't bother you?).

I believe you've been called out for internal inconsistency in claiming to be balanced in your approach, when you actually tend to post about Israel in a negative light.

I believe you are wrong in this. I've been called out for "always" demonizing Israel (not by you I might add).

Like Tinmore - it tends to be very one sided (but that only bothers you when Tinmore does it?).

I have no problem with anyone being one-sided. Kinda the nature of a discussion board on a contentious topic such as this one. The problem I have with Tinmore is not his one-sidedness. Its his vile views about the Jewish people -- you know, like claiming that it is morally and legally permissible to target and murder Jewish children.

[/quote]

I get frustrated by it at times. My issue with Holly is not just her constant negative portrayal of Palestinians but that she makes it about Islam in entirety implying Muslims are a pedo religion etc. When you imply or claim vile things about an entire group as a group, it's well - vile.

I have my right to disagree with her just as YOU have a right to disagree with Tinmore.

Of course. So disagree with her. What you don't have the right to do, in my humble opinion, is try to silence her or shame her into posting a more "balanced" point of view. Its an odd reversal on the "Jews are uniquely and irredeemably evil" trope -- the idea that Jews have to prove that they are actually "good" by posting "good" things.

Ok. That is a valid point, but why don't you apply that when I am accused of always demonizing Israel? It does get rather old seems to be one sided imo.

 

[Coyote]

I'm curious Hollie. Do you ever have anything good to say about Palestinians? Are they all without redemption evil in your eyes?

I suppose it’s that, overwhelmingly, the good Pal’istanians, wherever they are, are cowed by their pious (what many mistakenly call “extremist”), brethren both theologically and physically. They will not rise against those among them who, in the simplest reading of Islamist scriptures, are the ones practicing authentic Islam. They wouldn't do so even if the balance of weaponry and willingness to fight were the reverse of what it is today.

Yours truly,

The Dirty Kuffar.

No.

Not at all.

Just wondered if you ever posted anything other than demonizing Palestinians.

Thanks for clarifying

You don’t seem to understand what “demonizing” actually means.

I do. Very much. I just don't apply a one sided definition of it.

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

 

[Coyote]

I think some of the problem Shusha is you don't go out of IP and see what others post elsewhere on the boards and I do, so that informs my opinions on some of the "Pro-Israel" side.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

As time has passed, Nakba Day (lit. “Day of Catastrophe”) has become the most actively performed ritual of the Palestinian myth, a myth that has assured for itself the most essential support of the West, a ritual that provokes the hatred that has been aroused throughout the Muslim world.

Each year it revives a flurry of literature, or to put it more crudely, a lie.

Hidden behind the exodus of the Arab population of Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 war, which this ritual commemorates every year, is the effective war of extermination launched by many Arab countries against the Jews in the young state of Israel. The Palestinians were the allies of these countries, and a large number of them left to watch from afar, in safety, as the proclaimed massacre of the Jews was efficiently carried out by the Arab armies. They then expected to enjoy the chance to seize the spoils after the victory that their side anticipated.

The defeat of their armies and their political failure in opposing the partition of Mandatory Palestine are thus rewritten, with the Nakba, as a shocking, congenital injustice of which they are the victims. This injustice is affixed to the very existence of Israel, which, in order to exist, purportedly dispossessed an innocent people of their land so that it could take their place. The Palestinian aggressors became the victims. The extermination of others became self-pity and compassion.

This simplistic image, in purest ideological terms, has become the decisive framework for anti-Zionism, through which some justify the notion of “Israel’s original sin,” a quasi-theological term. This prevailing justification, objectively and morally, has contributed to turning “anti-Zionism” into a new form of anti-Semitism. The depiction of the assumed nature of the Jewish state is similar to that of Jew Süss, the film that Nazi propaganda produced to enhance the hatred of Jews and provide moral and emotional justification for the Nazis’ treatment of them.

(full article online)

Deconstructing the Three Stages of the Nakba Myth

Israel's version of history by an Israeli organization.

And a good example of denying a people's history. Deconstruct it.

The Zionist's stated goal was to transfer the Palestinians out and create an exclusive Jewish state. The Palestinians knew this. About 300,000 Palestinians were expelled before any Arab army entered Palestine.

Yet Israel still denies that it was the aggressor.

Links?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I suppose it’s that, overwhelmingly, the good Pal’istanians, wherever they are, are cowed by their pious (what many mistakenly call “extremist”), brethren both theologically and physically. They will not rise against those among them who, in the simplest reading of Islamist scriptures, are the ones practicing authentic Islam. They wouldn't do so even if the balance of weaponry and willingness to fight were the reverse of what it is today.

Yours truly,

The Dirty Kuffar.

No.

Not at all.

Just wondered if you ever posted anything other than demonizing Palestinians.

Thanks for clarifying

You don’t seem to understand what “demonizing” actually means.

I do. Very much. I just don't apply a one sided definition of it.

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

 

[Coyote]

No.

Not at all.

Just wondered if you ever posted anything other than demonizing Palestinians.

Thanks for clarifying

You don’t seem to understand what “demonizing” actually means.

I do. Very much. I just don't apply a one sided definition of it.

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

How can it be?

There are multiple sides involved. And none of them have been angels. It's far from one sided.

And it is made worse when ever some one tries to justify the targeting and killing of civilians...

 

[P F Tinmore]

You don’t seem to understand what “demonizing” actually means.

I do. Very much. I just don't apply a one sided definition of it.

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

How can it be?

There are multiple sides involved. And none of them have been angels. It's far from one sided.

And it is made worse when ever some one tries to justify the targeting and killing of civilians...

Do you mean like when Israel kills Palestinians by the thousands but whines about one or two by the Palestinians.?

 

[Shusha]

When you imply or claim vile things about an entire group as a group, it's well - vile.

But this is where I think it is important to be a little more discerning. There is a difference between claiming vile things about the entirety of another group and recognizing the culture of a group or of a nation, and sometimes, the sources of that culture.

For example, there are significant cultural differences between Americans and Canadians. Acknowledging those differences -- say the stark difference in ideology around gun availability or the ideology behind health care, or the ideology leading to laws about re-implanting ectopic pregnancies -- is not demonizing and it is not claiming vile things about an entire group (even if I DO think that the gun culture and the health care culture and anti-abortion culture of Americans is vile). It's not saying Americans are vile. Or ALL Americans are vile. It's simply acknowledging the existence of these deeply held and strongly motivated cultural belief systems.

Acknowledging (and calling out) Arab Palestinian culture around something like martyrdom is the same. It's establishing an aspect of culture which informs and drives the behavior of Arab Palestinians. Does that mean all Arab Palestinians are suicide bombers? Of course not. Just as not all Americans are rampage shooters. But it does mean that these things are largely taught, encouraged and supported within the culture.

And, as part of discussions, I think it's useful to point out these cultural ideologies and their sources.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

No.

Not at all.

Just wondered if you ever posted anything other than demonizing Palestinians.

Thanks for clarifying

You don’t seem to understand what “demonizing” actually means.

I do. Very much. I just don't apply a one sided definition of it.

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

It is not. There are 2 sides to every coin. My relatives immigrated to Israel after WW2, when they had no place else to go to.

 

[Coyote]

I do. Very much. I just don't apply a one sided definition of it.

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

How can it be?

There are multiple sides involved. And none of them have been angels. It's far from one sided.

And it is made worse when ever some one tries to justify the targeting and killing of civilians...

Do you mean like when Israel kills Palestinians by the thousands but whines about one or two by the Palestinians.?

More like when someone creeps into a family home in the middle of the night and slits the throats of every member, including children and right down to a newborn baby. Or when someone firebombs a houseful of sleeping people burning alive an entire family including a toddler.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I do. Very much. I just don't apply a one sided definition of it.

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

How can it be?

There are multiple sides involved. And none of them have been angels. It's far from one sided.

And it is made worse when ever some one tries to justify the targeting and killing of civilians...

Do you mean like when Israel kills Palestinians by the thousands but whines about one or two by the Palestinians.?

Your statements are both inaccurate and childish.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You don’t seem to understand what “demonizing” actually means.

I do. Very much. I just don't apply a one sided definition of it.

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

It is not. There are 2 sides to every coin. My relatives immigrated to Israel after WW2, when they had no place else to go to.

That wasn't the Palestinian's fault. Why should they get bounced for that?

 

[Hollie]

Apparently. I've been chewed out for only saying bad things about Israel (that didn't bother you?).

I believe you've been called out for internal inconsistency in claiming to be balanced in your approach, when you actually tend to post about Israel in a negative light.

I believe you are wrong in this. I've been called out for "always" demonizing Israel (not by you I might add).

Like Tinmore - it tends to be very one sided (but that only bothers you when Tinmore does it?).

I have no problem with anyone being one-sided. Kinda the nature of a discussion board on a contentious topic such as this one. The problem I have with Tinmore is not his one-sidedness. Its his vile views about the Jewish people -- you know, like claiming that it is morally and legally permissible to target and murder Jewish children.

I get frustrated by it at times. My issue with Holly is not just her constant negative portrayal of Palestinians but that she makes it about Islam in entirety implying Muslims are a pedo religion etc. When you imply or claim vile things about an entire group as a group, it's well - vile.

I have my right to disagree with her just as YOU have a right to disagree with Tinmore.

Of course. So disagree with her. What you don't have the right to do, in my humble opinion, is try to silence her or shame her into posting a more "balanced" point of view. Its an odd reversal on the "Jews are uniquely and irredeemably evil" trope -- the idea that Jews have to prove that they are actually "good" by posting "good" things.

Ok. That is a valid point, but why don't you apply that when I am accused of always demonizing Israel? It does get rather old seems to be one sided imo.[/QUOTE]


My commentary seems to cause you real angst. However, I would point out that my commentary is in specific reference to the words and actions of Hamas, Fatah, PIJ, etc.

These are the Peaceful Inner Strugglers who have permanently dropped anchor in the seventh century and who are looking toward ways to expand the fascistic infliction of suffering and mass murder / suicide into the illusion of a pious man being granted a noble martyr's death: Hey, it's your delusion—have at it. The reality is, however, that Islamic killers live and thrive off of the suffering of everyday, decent humans. They find a religious duty in causing bloodshed. They see God's design in destruction and suffering. They feed on inculcating hatred and causing the agony of others. You may think that worldview is holy, but I happen to know that it's vile.

So, the dynamics at play in the actions of Islamic terrorists in a disgusting drama where children are used as war material are as follows: The terrorist thugs in the PA / Hamas know that Israelis cherish life, especially that of a child. They know that for Israelis, the first instinct is to trust kids, therefore increasing the chances of a kid being able to smuggle bombs and weapons (sometimes with instructions to use them) through Israeli checkpoints. They exploit the warped innocence of these young people, who are raised to hold up death and murder as lofty ideals. And for these vile people, the prospects of possibly murdering Israelis outweighs putting a kid's life in danger by placing him or her in close proximity to high explosives.

This sort of murderous hatred is a matter of course in Islam's gee-had. There simply isn't any other movement in the world today, religious or secular, whose adherents willfully and regularly exploit children as a means to murder unarmed civilians en masse. It comes from Islam, and when I see the dreadful cradle-to-grave program of indoctrination used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths, I get frustrated that people still won't acknowledge where this poisonous hatred and glorification of death comes from.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, I don't think you do.

See, when Tinmore posts a photo with no source, no caption, no news article, no link, and often no comment, or if with a comment, a soundbyte painting Jews/Israelis (but he means Jews) as evil -- that's demonizing.

When Hollie (or Sixties) posts a news article with factual information about actual events, and then comments on the religious or cultural ideology, funding, government, international commentary, or terrorist groups which support and even drive those events -- that is not demonizing.

The one is simply assumes and illuminates the position that Jews are obviously evil. The other attempts to understand and demonstrate the causes of the events posted. You may disagree with Hollie's points that, say, UNWRA and financial aide to the Palestinians motivates them to ensure the continuation of "welfare dollars" or that there is a fundamental ideology within Islam which feeds certain aspects of the conflict, but if so make your case.

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

How can it be?

There are multiple sides involved. And none of them have been angels. It's far from one sided.

And it is made worse when ever some one tries to justify the targeting and killing of civilians...

Do you mean like when Israel kills Palestinians by the thousands but whines about one or two by the Palestinians.?

Your statements are both inaccurate and childish.

When was the last time the Palestinians killed 2400 Israelis?

Besides never.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Apparently. I've been chewed out for only saying bad things about Israel (that didn't bother you?).

I believe you've been called out for internal inconsistency in claiming to be balanced in your approach, when you actually tend to post about Israel in a negative light.

I believe you are wrong in this. I've been called out for "always" demonizing Israel (not by you I might add).

Like Tinmore - it tends to be very one sided (but that only bothers you when Tinmore does it?).

I have no problem with anyone being one-sided. Kinda the nature of a discussion board on a contentious topic such as this one. The problem I have with Tinmore is not his one-sidedness. Its his vile views about the Jewish people -- you know, like claiming that it is morally and legally permissible to target and murder Jewish children.

I get frustrated by it at times. My issue with Holly is not just her constant negative portrayal of Palestinians but that she makes it about Islam in entirety implying Muslims are a pedo religion etc. When you imply or claim vile things about an entire group as a group, it's well - vile.

I have my right to disagree with her just as YOU have a right to disagree with Tinmore.

Of course. So disagree with her. What you don't have the right to do, in my humble opinion, is try to silence her or shame her into posting a more "balanced" point of view. Its an odd reversal on the "Jews are uniquely and irredeemably evil" trope -- the idea that Jews have to prove that they are actually "good" by posting "good" things.

Ok. That is a valid point, but why don't you apply that when I am accused of always demonizing Israel? It does get rather old seems to be one sided imo.

My commentary seems to cause you real angst. However, I would point out that my commentary is in specific reference to the words and actions of Hamas, Fatah, PIJ, etc.

These are the Peaceful Inner Strugglers who have permanently dropped anchor in the seventh century and who are looking toward ways to expand the fascistic infliction of suffering and mass murder / suicide into the illusion of a pious man being granted a noble martyr's death: Hey, it's your delusion—have at it. The reality is, however, that Islamic killers live and thrive off of the suffering of everyday, decent humans. They find a religious duty in causing bloodshed. They see God's design in destruction and suffering. They feed on inculcating hatred and causing the agony of others. You may think that worldview is holy, but I happen to know that it's vile.

So, the dynamics at play in the actions of Islamic terrorists in a disgusting drama where children are used as war material are as follows: The terrorist thugs in the PA / Hamas know that Israelis cherish life, especially that of a child. They know that for Israelis, the first instinct is to trust kids, therefore increasing the chances of a kid being able to smuggle bombs and weapons (sometimes with instructions to use them) through Israeli checkpoints. They exploit the warped innocence of these young people, who are raised to hold up death and murder as lofty ideals. And for these vile people, the prospects of possibly murdering Israelis outweighs putting a kid's life in danger by placing him or her in close proximity to high explosives.

This sort of murderous hatred is a matter of course in Islam's gee-had. There simply isn't any other movement in the world today, religious or secular, whose adherents willfully and regularly exploit children as a means to murder unarmed civilians en masse. It comes from Islam, and when I see the dreadful cradle-to-grave program of indoctrination used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths, I get frustrated that people still won't acknowledge where this poisonous hatred and glorification of death comes from.

Don't use a broad brush. There are a few bad apples in everybody's barrel.

 

[Hollie]

Apparently. I've been chewed out for only saying bad things about Israel (that didn't bother you?).

I believe you've been called out for internal inconsistency in claiming to be balanced in your approach, when you actually tend to post about Israel in a negative light.

I believe you are wrong in this. I've been called out for "always" demonizing Israel (not by you I might add).

Like Tinmore - it tends to be very one sided (but that only bothers you when Tinmore does it?).

I have no problem with anyone being one-sided. Kinda the nature of a discussion board on a contentious topic such as this one. The problem I have with Tinmore is not his one-sidedness. Its his vile views about the Jewish people -- you know, like claiming that it is morally and legally permissible to target and murder Jewish children.

I get frustrated by it at times. My issue with Holly is not just her constant negative portrayal of Palestinians but that she makes it about Islam in entirety implying Muslims are a pedo religion etc. When you imply or claim vile things about an entire group as a group, it's well - vile.

I have my right to disagree with her just as YOU have a right to disagree with Tinmore.

Of course. So disagree with her. What you don't have the right to do, in my humble opinion, is try to silence her or shame her into posting a more "balanced" point of view. Its an odd reversal on the "Jews are uniquely and irredeemably evil" trope -- the idea that Jews have to prove that they are actually "good" by posting "good" things.

Ok. That is a valid point, but why don't you apply that when I am accused of always demonizing Israel? It does get rather old seems to be one sided imo.

My commentary seems to cause you real angst. However, I would point out that my commentary is in specific reference to the words and actions of Hamas, Fatah, PIJ, etc.

These are the Peaceful Inner Strugglers who have permanently dropped anchor in the seventh century and who are looking toward ways to expand the fascistic infliction of suffering and mass murder / suicide into the illusion of a pious man being granted a noble martyr's death: Hey, it's your delusion—have at it. The reality is, however, that Islamic killers live and thrive off of the suffering of everyday, decent humans. They find a religious duty in causing bloodshed. They see God's design in destruction and suffering. They feed on inculcating hatred and causing the agony of others. You may think that worldview is holy, but I happen to know that it's vile.

So, the dynamics at play in the actions of Islamic terrorists in a disgusting drama where children are used as war material are as follows: The terrorist thugs in the PA / Hamas know that Israelis cherish life, especially that of a child. They know that for Israelis, the first instinct is to trust kids, therefore increasing the chances of a kid being able to smuggle bombs and weapons (sometimes with instructions to use them) through Israeli checkpoints. They exploit the warped innocence of these young people, who are raised to hold up death and murder as lofty ideals. And for these vile people, the prospects of possibly murdering Israelis outweighs putting a kid's life in danger by placing him or her in close proximity to high explosives.

This sort of murderous hatred is a matter of course in Islam's gee-had. There simply isn't any other movement in the world today, religious or secular, whose adherents willfully and regularly exploit children as a means to murder unarmed civilians en masse. It comes from Islam, and when I see the dreadful cradle-to-grave program of indoctrination used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths, I get frustrated that people still won't acknowledge where this poisonous hatred and glorification of death comes from.

Don't use a broad brush. There are a few bad apples in everybody's barrel.

Pointless.

 

[Hollie]

“Peaceful Protests”

 

[Shusha]

I disagree - when I read Hollie's personal commentary regarding the things she posts about the Palestinians and Muslims - it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes. It is constantly implying a unique evil to Islam and Islam alone. THAT is demonizing.

it's no different than the one sided attacks that Tinmore makes.

This is a one sided issue.

How can it be?

There are multiple sides involved. And none of them have been angels. It's far from one sided.

And it is made worse when ever some one tries to justify the targeting and killing of civilians...

Do you mean like when Israel kills Palestinians by the thousands but whines about one or two by the Palestinians.?

Your statements are both inaccurate and childish.

When was the last time the Palestinians killed 2400 Israelis?

Besides never.

Since 2015:

210 stabbings
161 stabbing attempts
239 shooting attacks
77 vehicular attacks
541 IEDs
9735 rock throwing attacks
2942 arson attacks (petrol bombs, grenades, arson kites)
2500 rockets

Its not for lack of trying to kill Israelis. Its just that Israelis are really quite good at protecting themselves.

 

[Shusha]

Don't use a broad brush. There are a few bad apples in everybody's barrel.

A "few bad apples"?!

80% of the people of Gaza support planting IEDS to kill innocent Israelis.

That is not a "few bad apples". That is a culture of violence and dehumanization and a lack of respect for the sanctity of life.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is a one sided issue.

How can it be?

There are multiple sides involved. And none of them have been angels. It's far from one sided.

And it is made worse when ever some one tries to justify the targeting and killing of civilians...

Do you mean like when Israel kills Palestinians by the thousands but whines about one or two by the Palestinians.?

Your statements are both inaccurate and childish.

When was the last time the Palestinians killed 2400 Israelis?

Besides never.

Since 2015:

210 stabbings
161 stabbing attempts
239 shooting attacks
77 vehicular attacks
541 IEDs
9735 rock throwing attacks
2942 arson attacks (petrol bombs, grenades, arson kites)
2500 rockets

Its not for lack of trying to kill Israelis. Its just that Israelis are really quite good at protecting themselves.

Where are the rest of the attacks? Why are you one sided?