Topic: Abby Gets Hot About Israeli War Crimes - page 3. (Read 3983 times)

I know the history bud and while true most do not consider Arabs to be semites when using the term as I did referring to Jews if you knew your history or had any common sense you would have known that usage.

I am not sure we can use the word anti-semitic in this case.   If you look into what a Semitic person is and how Arabs are Semitic, they would be hating on themselves.    Maybe anti-Zionic or anti-Iraelic would more closely follow your statement.  

Wiki Link about Semitic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

If you are so inclined, reading on the history of how Jewish people fit into post-Christ life during the centuries, many times they were used (willing or not, still reading many texts about this) to do certain services that put them in a higher place in society (money changers, pawners and lenders) by the princes and kings.  The problem is that they usually did this "at their pleasure" so if they did something they didn't like or just gain too much wealth, they would come in and hurt or kill them and create populist reasons to get public support while not revealing the nature of the original business relationship between the Jewish people and the monarchs.  

That and in order for the palestinians to claim first habitation it would be their ruins being built upon plus the supporters of theirs are mostly anti-semites looking to carry on the centuries old tradition of killing the Jews at every opportunity they can manufacture.

This main point I take from this is that this is not a conflict that just happened 50 years ago, Jerusalem has been contested land for many many centuries.  Very old beef.

Israeli: Your Temple is built on the ruins of mine we were here first.
Palestinians: We were here first the Imams, God and all the idiot commentators that would like the Jews dead tells us so.

The problem is simple (No particular order):

1. Palestinians or operators on their land need to stop firing rockets into Israel

2. Israel needs to stop blowing up anything they want when they get attacked.  


It is a vicious cycle of violence and retaliation.  That simple.


Solution: Now this is much more tricky.   First off, Israel at this point does not want Palestinians as full equal voting citizens in Israel.   I don't think a majority of Palestinians would accept those terms either.  The obvious solution is a two-state solution.  Concessions need to be made on both sides.  Both sides and especially the Palestinians need to police and stop these terrorists that are firing rockets so it doesn't give Israel the justified response to blow things up in Palestine.  

Water rights need to be divided and they need a trade agreement so Israel has access to labor and Palestine has access to commerce and the ports.   Jewish people needs a homeland, they have a strong enough identity that justifies it and they do have a legitimate claim to some area in the region surrounding Jerusalem.

One of the areas I am research and will be reading up on who was the actual aggressor of the Arab-Israeli war of 1976.   That would allow me to give an opinion on the Golan heights and "if" Israel should give proper and just compensation for that territory taken during that time of war.

If you are debating anything outside of what I have laid out, you most likely are taking sides and at that point your opinion is compromised regardless if history proves your correct.   Both sides have fault in this matter and do things to intentionally antagonize each other because of this disputed territory.  


I would like constructive comments (ie: name calling will get you no where except discredit your statements) from both sides IF, you have actually read history books on the events of pre-1917 (balfour declaration), 1946 (UN recognition) and 1976 (war).   I would like to know about life in the area leading up to these major events.   That would help me shape my opinion further or guide my research.  I want Books, official documents and academic paper references only.   No blogs or press, they in the most part have taken sides and that doesn't help me or the discussion.

Now lets see what happens in this thread.   Please surprise me, I am taking a leap of faith here.


-D

The short and sweet.


Israeli "My god is better! We are the chosen ones."

Palestinians "No! my god is better we are the chosen ones."

So much death over a belief. 

An imaginary idea that has so many unimaginable consequences.

That's part of the definition of "open-air prison" - throw 'em in, and let 'em wander. Just as long as they don't try to leave.

Yeah, well, it's a little different when the other side of that border used to be where you lived, and you've been kicked out. And those missiles go both ways.

Like I said, throw 'em in, and let 'em wander. They get a little too restive, use a little of the boot to calm them down.

Not saying the Palestinians are the good guys here. I don't think there is a "good guys" here, in fact. It's all just fucked.

Abby has an opinion show. If you don't like it, then go back to watching Fox News. ;-)
/end thread.

I've pointed out a few of the lies she's stated as facts. But lets just address one.

Calling Gaza is an open air prison.

o·pen air
Noun:      A free or unenclosed space outdoors.
Adjective:   Positioned or taking place out of doors.

pris·on/ˈprizən/
Noun:      A building to which people are legally committed as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial.

So the term open-air prison, is to imply a prison area where peoples freedom of movement and rights are restricted.

Which obviously doesn't apply to gaza. Nobodys freedom of movement is being restricted inside gaza... nobodys human rights are being violated or restricted by anyone inside gaza (except of course for muslim oppression of women).

Israel does not allow free movement from gaza into Israel. This is called a border all states have them, and enforce them to various degrees.
Israel has places a trade embargo on weapons and manufacturing that could make weapons because of gaza continually lobbing missles at civilian populations.
 
Israel does not - police gaza, abuse citizens of gaza or interact with them at all... except to secure the border --- and of course military action when the launching gets too steady and starts killing people.



As you can see the term 'open-air prison' is designed to garner sympathy for terrorist activities targeting israel. It's a false term on it's face, being a contradiction be definition and also fails to stand up to scrutiny in this particular case (gaza & israel).

There's no defamation going on here.

The woman is Liberal. She presents her opinions as facts. That is corruption.
Anyone willing to do a little research will see the bias in her 'reporting'.

Stating truth is not defamation.

It's obvious that you'd rather take what she's saying at face value than actually do any sort of independent thinking or research about this topic.

I don't claim to belong to any Master Race.  Others do.

Nono, on the contrary, what I call facts are facts (true statements about observable reality).  What you say are opinions.  And, of course, your dislike for her is logically irrelevant to whether she's right.

But don't let my intervention here get in the way of the good defamation you're absort and engaged in.

Marriage laws? LOL I think you're talking about islamic countries. And are you really saying that Israelis are Nazi? Because well that would certainly put you below a certain threshold.

You're missing the point as usual.

What you're calling facts are an opinion. I dislike her because she presents opinions as though they were facts.

As I said the determinate point is the question of if palestine is a state and if so, is gaza part of it. Either way, you can't call gaza an "open air prison" and stay credible. If it's a state then it obviously doesn't apply - if it isn't then the definition of prison gives it the lie.

Additionally the "private roads & checkpoints" are on the edge of gaza - to prevent access to israel, not inside gaza. Implying that inside gaza and restricting the movements of the people of gaza... is just wrong.

As I said, I'd encourage anyone taking this so called reporter seriously to consider her bias, and then do your own fact verification.

Exactly.  Truths are bad if they contradict one's belief system.  That is his mode of mental operation.

FUD above this line.

"corrupt liberal journalists"

Christ, is it possible for people to have a political argument in these days without it boiling down to "corrupt liberal" and of course the ever-popular opposite 'dumb conservative' statements?

I see your point.  It's not that Abby Martin's reporting lacks facts, you dislike her because she presents a political view you dislike.

Like Abby, I'm a Liberal because I advocate liberty, freedom, less government, natural rights, free markets, and self-ownership.

You on the other hand advocate State systems of control including Jewish-only settlements, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage laws, inequities in infrastructure, unequal legal rights, and State-controlled access to land and resources.  This makes you what is called a National Socialist.

Socialism is evil.  I encourage you to consider both the immorality of it, and the long-term impracticality of it.

The entire premise of apartheid and it being perpetrated by israel is false.

If palestine is a state, then it should be able to control it's population to an extent... at least enough to stop them from launching rockets into israel - if they can't then israel is legally allowed (under international law) to invade/bomb or otherwise use war to prevent further attacks.

In my personal opinion palestine isn't a nation, has never been a state and never had a government.

I guess what it comes down to is that corrupt liberal journalists like this woman... can't have it both ways. Either palestine is a nation (in which case it isn't aparteid)... or palestine isn't a nation in which case missles being launched isn't an act of war it's an act of terrorism.

Absolutely, as you would with BBC, NPR, CNN, FOXABCBS, et al.

So what did Abby say in this report that was not factual?