rowan wrote: Israeli settlers will take a view they have a spine
You mean those colonizing Palestinian territory by way of massacres, terrorism and general ethnic cleansing. Oooooooookay...
Secure as they are in their morale absolutism they have no issue with their actions, which is why to me it's odd you'd defend them.
I see, you're using the impersonal you, I take it. Since I'm clearly condemning them personally, as anyone with a spine should.
You have completely missed his point.
Tell you what chief, if you cannot accommodate the contribution of others to a dialogue, perhaps you would be happier elsewhere. I don't think I am in the minority when I say that your patronising approach to everything has really reached the end of it's shelf life on these boards.
Digby wrote:
Secure as they are in their morale absolutism they have no issue with their actions, which is why to me it's odd you'd defend them.
I see, you're using the impersonal you, I take it. Since I'm clearly condemning them personally, as anyone with a spine should.
People who have a spine don't only exist on one side of a dispute, so for as long as there are enough people willing to act on the basis of a spine and some certainty of their actions then large areas of the world will remain a shithouse. So you may dislike the settlers, but you're in support of their model of deciding on actions.
Or we could accept on the stage of global relations the situations faced are too complex for absolute moralism.
So you've reduced this to an old South African Apartheid era ad hominem approach whereby anyone who criticized them was immediately challenged to prove that their viewpoint was the correct one. I gave you a bit more credit than that, which was my mistake - evidently. So here is a little lesson for you:
Colonization - wrong
Racism - wrong
Dehumanization - wrong
Land theft - wrong
Massacres - wrong
State terrorism - wrong
Mass incarceration of children - wrong
Mass incarceration without trial - wrong
Ethnic cleansing - wrong
Apartheid - wrong
Hope that's not to complex or ambiguous for you. Let me know when you're ready for your next lesson . . .
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:
I see, you're using the impersonal you, I take it. Since I'm clearly condemning them personally, as anyone with a spine should.
People who have a spine don't only exist on one side of a dispute, so for as long as there are enough people willing to act on the basis of a spine and some certainty of their actions then large areas of the world will remain a shithouse. So you may dislike the settlers, but you're in support of their model of deciding on actions.
Or we could accept on the stage of global relations the situations faced are too complex for absolute moralism.
So you've reduced this to an old South African Apartheid era ad hominem approach whereby anyone who criticized them was immediately challenged to prove that their viewpoint was the correct one. I gave you a bit more credit than that, which was my mistake - evidently. So here is a little lesson for you:
Colonization - wrong
Racism - wrong
Dehumanization - wrong
Land theft - wrong
Massacres - wrong
State terrorism - wrong
Mass incarceration of children - wrong
Mass incarceration without trial - wrong
Ethnic cleansing - wrong
Apartheid - wrong
Hope that's not to complex or ambiguous for you. Let me know when you're ready for your next lesson . . .
Ah, the ad hominem approach. The rest of it seems inspired by the musings of a fat orange gibbon, wrong, wrong, wrong....
rowan wrote:Israel refusing to co operate with a UN investigation into the Nakba Day massacre of over 60 unarmed protesters, describing it as anti-Israel.
rowan wrote:Israel refusing to co operate with a UN investigation into the Nakba Day massacre of over 60 unarmed protesters, describing it as anti-Israel.
