RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:

Digby wrote:

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:

rowan wrote:

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 . . .

rowan wrote:

Digby wrote:

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....

Israel refusing to co operate with a UN investigation into the Nakba Day massacre of over 60 unarmed protesters, describing it as anti-Israel.

At least they didn't call it anti-Semitic . . .

http://theantimedia.com/israel-wont-coo ... -killings/

Only the US & Australia voted against the investigation:

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.

At least they didn't call it anti-Semitic . . .

http://theantimedia.com/israel-wont-coo ... -killings/

Wow

"Israeli officials argued that the number of deaths were themselves of no consequence, likening it to killing Nazis"

Zhivago wrote:

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.

At least they didn't call it anti-Semitic . . .

http://theantimedia.com/israel-wont-coo ... -killings/

Wow

"Israeli officials argued that the number of deaths were themselves of no consequence, likening it to killing Nazis"

Unbelievable. If Iran behaved like this we'd never hear the end of it. In fact, they'd have been bombed many times over...

Razan al-Najjar, a 21-year-old paramedic, was just killed In the #greatreturnmarch. About 100 were injured.

At least 121 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire.
No Israelis have been killed.

Stones of granite wrote:Here’s a top tip you supercilious cunt,

Quality .....literature in a line.
The feint to alliteration and the fade to irony. A brutal truth.

Argentina just called off their scheduled football friendly with Israel due to the mass slaughter of unarmed protesters, press and medical staff.