Israel Plans to Restore Death Penalty for Everyone but Jews

[universalchiro]

@Saxi: I think your line of Q&A are fair to ask, and can be summed up with 'UC, do you support Israel at all cost, and at what point will you withdraw your support?' I support Israel, not any government that promotes sinful activity nor any human that supports sinful activity, even if they are Israeli. I equally support Iraq Iran Egypt etc the same way. However, when an entire people and entire country and entire ideology is kill Israel, kill Jews, then I withdraw my support of them.

[saxitoxin]

1. If Israel Government is paying for sin, I do not support their actions.

So you don't support Israel's documented military policy of exterminating Palestinian "little snakes" [children]?

2, I am pro Israel and Palestine to defend themselves. Will you provide information that Israel's policy is Palestinian genocide? I'm not seeing that link.

If you've read the last 10 pages of this thread and aren't "seeing that link" my recommendation for you is to either, (a) pull out your eye [And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.], or, (b) buy some SPF2000 sun block (cause it's gonna be warm where you're heading).

what moves me is science, physics

oh, okay

So I view Israel today as set apart by God and not as you say false Jews.

I appreciate that you think I wrote the Book of Revelations. I need to try get some of those royalty checks.

4. I support Israel, not sinful government nor sinful leaders even if they be Israeli.

Yup. You didn't directly answer any of my questions about the major historical errors in your original post, you just shotgunned out some evasives carefully attached to the escape clause that none of what you were saying actually means shit because "YOU SUPPORT ISRAEL!"

If I stand alone, so be it.

Sorry, nothing you're saying is original. This is all run-of-the-mill dispensational premillenialism stuff of the kind that was promoted to key evangelical preachers during luxury travel junkets and briefings organized by Israel's New York PR firm, Edelman, beginning in the 1970s, then trickled down from them to the rank and file like you. You're just a statistic in a predictive vote program running on a computer in the Israeli defense ministry. There's not a room in Quds full of bearded Jews wearing canvas robes crying to the heavens for help from your church. There's just a piece of software that translates a three-percent increase in Fundy votes in 2016 to 10 extra F-22s.

In other words, you're acting like a 16 year-old girl who thinks she has a really unique, rebellious style because she shops at Hot Topic, oblivious to the fact that all the designs she's wearing are getting approved for production by a 50 year-old MBA at a private equity firm headquartered in an office park in Pomona.

However, when an entire people and entire country and entire ideology is kill Israel, kill Jews, then I withdraw my support of them.

Paranoid delusions are too big of an issue to try to get into in this thread unless you can offer more specifics about what the voices are telling you.

[patches70]

3.
Regarding Rev 3:9 the Bible clearly States there is no middle ground, no neutral party, one is either a child of God or a child of Satan. I interpret the initial chapters of Rev as near term prophecy to authenticate the long term prophecy from chapters 4 on which are predominately future.

You can interpret Rev 3:8 however you like, but it is a bold metaphor used by Jesus. The metaphor is directed at unbelieving and hostile Jews exclusively. It's certainly fair that Israel is acting as hostile Jews.

It is also kind of ironic that Rev 3:7-13 is "to the church of Philadelphia" which in Greek means "brotherly love"- φιλεω (phileo) "to love" and αδελφος (adelphos) "brother".


So what say you, UC? Is Israel showing brotherly love right now? If you aren't sure, I suggest you ask the 1,000+ dead women, children and other civilians who's only crime was being born Palestinian and penned like animals in the prison camp known as Gaza.

How many innocent people is it acceptable to kill to get to those who are the real "bad guys"? That's a question I've asked in the US' own drone bombing attacks. How many innocent wedding party guests can we kill to try and get that one so called terrorist?

I'd like to have a firm number from someone regarding this, the acceptable amount of collateral damage that is morally allowed. Because for the life of me I can't answer that at all. I see a blown to pieces little kid that I know didn't ever harm anyone in his/her whole short life and I just can't see the value in it at all. If it were my kid I wouldn't accept "Oh, so sorry about that, we were trying to kill a terrorist and accidentally murdered your son."
That's the kind of attitude that actually creates sworn enemies, not deters them.

But hey, that's just my view on it.

You know, just admitting that Israel's actions aren't actually helping her situation but are in fact harming her, is not a betrayal to Israel nor is it racist. It's rational. Who here thinks that when this current cycle of violence ends, when Israel declares "victory", will Hamas and the Palestinians really be pacified?

[saxitoxin]

Israeli soldier testifies how he was told to gun down children caught vandalizing a fence, and how this is typical operational doctrine for the IDF -



Israeli soldier testifies how Israeli settlers - after they would kick a group of Palestinians off the Palestinians property and move onto it - would follow the now-homeless family about, taunting them and assaulting them -

[a6mzero]

Yes my posts are so full of outrageous claims such as 1) Hamas never honors agreements,Hamas places its rockets in civilian houses,shools,mosques 3) Hamas is a terrorist organization 4) Quasam rockets are highly inaccurate. Yep don't know where I come up with this shit. I will find some sources for these outlandish lies.

[saxitoxin]

Yes my posts are so full of outrageous claims such as 1) Hamas never honors agreements,Hamas places its rockets in civilian houses,shools,mosques 3) Hamas is a terrorist organization 4) Quasam rockets are highly inaccurate. Yep don't know where I come up with this shit. I will find some sources for these outlandish lies.

*Zero starts scanning the Book of Genesis.*

[BigBallinStalin]

@Saxi: Q&A
1. If Israel Government is paying for sin, I do not support their actions. Yet I would be pro Israel and then against current government. Just like I am pro America but against current regime, yet I still submit to the authority of my government though not for sinful policies. Just like I am pro Persian and pro all offspring of Ishmael, but against their hatred of Jews.
2, I am pro Israel and Palestine to defend themselves. Will you provide information that Israel's policy is Palestinian genocide? I'm not seeing that link.
3. Majority opinion doesn't move me, I'm accustomed to being a minority on multiple fronts, what moves me is science, physics, laws, truth. If I stand alone, so be it.
Regarding Rev 3:9 the Bible clearly States there is no middle ground, no neutral party, one is either a child of God or a child of Satan. I interpret the initial chapters of Rev as near term prophecy to authenticate the long term prophecy from chapters 4 on which are predominately future. That was a common policy of a prophet, to authenticate a distant prophecy 2,000 years in the future, prophecy something in the near term, so Rev chptrs 1-3 are mostly the near term for John's present day. For the seven churches in those days. Curious to note the throne of Satan was in Pergamum (Turkey) until German Kaiser moved it to Berlin just prior (1908) to WWI & WWII. So I view Israel today as set apart by God and not as you say false Jews. Are you 1 of the 144,000 Rev 7:4?
4. I support Israel, not sinful government nor sinful leaders even if they be Israeli.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"),[2] creating an implied tautology. It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements by adding "true" or "real" to the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Dukasaur]

http://www.ezralevant.com/stand-up-and-take-notice/

According to police estimates, there were 800 to 900 people who attended the Calgary For Israel rally last Thursday. Not bad for less than a week’s notice. Many people said it was the first public rally they had ever attended, which is surely true – severely normal Canadians don’t go to protests. That’s usually the preserve of professional activists on the left.

There were also about 10 pro-Hamas activists who showed up as counter-protesters that evening, across the street.

Those 10 protesters received almost as much coverage in the mainstream media as the 900 pro-Israel Calgarians. That’s fine – journalism loves conflict and controversy. But here’s a question: Why didn’t the media who covered those 10 protesters report what they were saying?

They were chanting “Heil Hitler.” In the streets of Calgary, in 2014. You can find the video of it on YouTube.

Isn’t that newsworthy? Or – was it too newsworthy?

Steve Sailer defines political correctness as the deliberate practice of not noticing things. Reporting that Arab protesters waved a Palestinian flag suits the official media narrative – these are just young men concerned about a noble struggle!

But noticing that they were praising the Jew-hating dictator of the Nazi Holocaust, well, that’s not quite as noble. It contradicts the official self-deception of the media and diplomatic class that Muslim terrorists simply oppose some Israeli policy or another – their violence has nothing to do with plain old Jew-hatred.

[saxitoxin]

http://www.ezralevant.com/stand-up-and-take-notice/

According to police estimates, there were 800 to 900 people who attended the Calgary For Israel rally last Thursday. Not bad for less than a week’s notice. Many people said it was the first public rally they had ever attended, which is surely true – severely normal Canadians don’t go to protests. That’s usually the preserve of professional activists on the left.

There were also about 10 pro-Hamas activists who showed up as counter-protesters that evening, across the street.

Those 10 protesters received almost as much coverage in the mainstream media as the 900 pro-Israel Calgarians. That’s fine – journalism loves conflict and controversy. But here’s a question: Why didn’t the media who covered those 10 protesters report what they were saying?

They were chanting “Heil Hitler.” In the streets of Calgary, in 2014. You can find the video of it on YouTube.

Isn’t that newsworthy? Or – was it too newsworthy?

Steve Sailer defines political correctness as the deliberate practice of not noticing things. Reporting that Arab protesters waved a Palestinian flag suits the official media narrative – these are just young men concerned about a noble struggle!

But noticing that they were praising the Jew-hating dictator of the Nazi Holocaust, well, that’s not quite as noble. It contradicts the official self-deception of the media and diplomatic class that Muslim terrorists simply oppose some Israeli policy or another – their violence has nothing to do with plain old Jew-hatred.

So, according to this random blog, 800 (wow) pro genocide supporters staged a hate rally in Calgary. In order to accept the various wild claims here as accurate, the blogger also asks you to subscribe to a conspiracy theory involving the MSM trying to keep it out of the news (though he, amusingly, elsewhere notes that one of the speakers was a columnist for Canada's largest newspaper chain) and a second conspiracy theory involving the police that he hints at. Anyway, looks like the pro genocide crowd had a cute little gathering, though the photos look like they may as easily have come from a diabetes seminar put on by the AARP.

[DaGip]

3.
Regarding Rev 3:9 the Bible clearly States there is no middle ground, no neutral party, one is either a child of God or a child of Satan. I interpret the initial chapters of Rev as near term prophecy to authenticate the long term prophecy from chapters 4 on which are predominately future.

You can interpret Rev 3:8 however you like, but it is a bold metaphor used by Jesus. The metaphor is directed at unbelieving and hostile Jews exclusively. It's certainly fair that Israel is acting as hostile Jews.

It is also kind of ironic that Rev 3:7-13 is "to the church of Philadelphia" which in Greek means "brotherly love"- φιλεω (phileo) "to love" and αδελφος (adelphos) "brother".


So what say you, UC? Is Israel showing brotherly love right now? If you aren't sure, I suggest you ask the 1,000+ dead women, children and other civilians who's only crime was being born Palestinian and penned like animals in the prison camp known as Gaza.

How many innocent people is it acceptable to kill to get to those who are the real "bad guys"? That's a question I've asked in the US' own drone bombing attacks. How many innocent wedding party guests can we kill to try and get that one so called terrorist?

I'd like to have a firm number from someone regarding this, the acceptable amount of collateral damage that is morally allowed. Because for the life of me I can't answer that at all. I see a blown to pieces little kid that I know didn't ever harm anyone in his/her whole short life and I just can't see the value in it at all. If it were my kid I wouldn't accept "Oh, so sorry about that, we were trying to kill a terrorist and accidentally murdered your son."
That's the kind of attitude that actually creates sworn enemies, not deters them.

But hey, that's just my view on it.

You know, just admitting that Israel's actions aren't actually helping her situation but are in fact harming her, is not a betrayal to Israel nor is it racist. It's rational. Who here thinks that when this current cycle of violence ends, when Israel declares "victory", will Hamas and the Palestinians really be pacified?

I've been talking a lot about Jesus lately. Not because I worship Him (notice I still will use the capital "H" out of respect...not towards Him, but towards my enemies the Christians), but because I do agree with a great amount of what He said in the New Testament and how He accomplished His (God's) world view.

As a leader, do we take our citizens and their children and try to kill our enemies out of existence? That is how it had been done for thousands of years; however, didn't Jesus teach us something more than killing? Did He not teach that this world belongs to Satan and any love for this world of things cannot be a love for God? To truly love your God and Father in Heaven, one must hate the world. Jesus knew His kingdom was not of this world. This drove the Pharisees crazy. Jesus was an untouchable...incorruptible. Meanwhile, because of His virtue, the corruption of the Pharisees shown like a blazing fire. To hide their sins in this world (of which they loved and wanted to save their own skins) they knew that Jesus had to die!

Jesus knew this too, and allowed it to happen. His world view was broader than anyone could have imagined at the time. If your best friend told you that Obama was going to take your cattle from your ranch, and you and your friends all shared an equal disdain for Obama. Would you gather up arms against him (Obama and his "soldiers"), or would you lay down your arms and go peaceably into arrest? Those that love the world would pick up arms against Obama and threaten with violence; however, those that hate the world but love GOD would lay down their arms and allow the "Pharisees" to do as God wills them to do so that His plan may come to fruition.

When Jesus was in Gethsemani, He had His ultimate opportunity to revolt against the Pharisees, seize control of Jerusalem (the seat of power) and lead an assault on the Roman occupation. He had the love and obedience of a large amount of people. They would have eagerly followed Him into battle and died. The loss of life would have been great. However, when Simon Peter brandished his sword and struck the arresting soldier's ear, Jesus commanded him to "sheathe" his sword. Then Jesus healed the soldier's ear and offered Himself up to be arrested.

His leadership method wasn't to "save his own skin" as our leaders are today, but to sacrifice Himself and to love his enemies as well as His neighbors. One of the last things He said on the cross before He died was "forgive them, for they know not what they do." He forgave them for their sin and their ignorance.

Why can't we be like that? Why can't our leaders be like that? It's time we start looking for leaders to be like that!

We need the leaders of both Israel and the United States to step up and sacrifice their own humility and admit when genocide and slaughter is wrong! There is no excuse for genocide, and if your point of view is to make excuses for wrong thinking...I would recommend you begin to rethink your position and begin your path to rescind your point of view.

Genocide is wrong, no matter what excuses you come up with.

Jesus died for your sins...what are you willing to do for the sins of the world? Whine about how the Palestinians are throwing stones at Israel and that gives Israel all the right in the world to kill thousands of women and children?

Don't make excuses for genocide, okay? What is wrong is wrong. We need the leadership of the world to be more like Jesus in their attitudes and compassion, not thinking about their own skins.

[patches70]

Umm, ok? Go smoke another one, Gip.

[Dukasaur]

So, according to this random blog,
(...)
(though he, amusingly, elsewhere notes that one of the speakers was a columnist for Canada's largest newspaper chain)

Just to clarify, t was himself that he was referring to. The "random blog" is written by one Ezra Levant, who is syndicated across the Sun Media chain in Canada, including the Toronto Sun, the Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, etc. Suns, the London Free Press, and various minor papers. Their claimed total circulation is over 15 million. http://www.canoe.ca/SunMedia/home.html It is unclear what percentage of those read Levant's column.

[universalchiro]

3.
Regarding Rev 3:9 the Bible clearly States there is no middle ground, no neutral party, one is either a child of God or a child of Satan. I interpret the initial chapters of Rev as near term prophecy to authenticate the long term prophecy from chapters 4 on which are predominately future.

You can interpret Rev 3:8 however you like, but it is a bold metaphor used by Jesus. The metaphor is directed at unbelieving and hostile Jews exclusively. It's certainly fair that Israel is acting as hostile Jews.

It is also kind of ironic that Rev 3:7-13 is "to the church of Philadelphia" which in Greek means "brotherly love"- φιλεω (phileo) "to love" and αδελφος (adelphos) "brother".


So what say you, UC? Is Israel showing brotherly love right now? If you aren't sure, I suggest you ask the 1,000+ dead women, children and other civilians who's only crime was being born Palestinian and penned like animals in the prison camp known as Gaza.

How many innocent people is it acceptable to kill to get to those who are the real "bad guys"? That's a question I've asked in the US' own drone bombing attacks. How many innocent wedding party guests can we kill to try and get that one so called terrorist?

I'd like to have a firm number from someone regarding this, the acceptable amount of collateral damage that is morally allowed. Because for the life of me I can't answer that at all. I see a blown to pieces little kid that I know didn't ever harm anyone in his/her whole short life and I just can't see the value in it at all. If it were my kid I wouldn't accept "Oh, so sorry about that, we were trying to kill a terrorist and accidentally murdered your son."
That's the kind of attitude that actually creates sworn enemies, not deters them.

But hey, that's just my view on it.

You know, just admitting that Israel's actions aren't actually helping her situation but are in fact harming her, is not a betrayal to Israel nor is it racist. It's rational. Who here thinks that when this current cycle of violence ends, when Israel declares "victory", will Hamas and the Palestinians really be pacified?

I feel ya. I cannot give you a number. Did the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki save lives? Were there not sweet beautiful humans residing there that had not fired a shot in any war? The task of being a leader and making these decisions don't go to the light of heart. Too often talking heads sit behind executive table deciding fates of others, each situation is dynamic and requires no one boiler plate answer.

At least Israel warns they will attack where rockets are launched, so either a) move away from Hamas or b) kick Hamas out to save yourselves.

[universalchiro]

1. If Israel Government is paying for sin, I do not support their actions.

So you don't support Israel's documented military policy of exterminating Palestinian "little snakes" [children]?

2, I am pro Israel and Palestine to defend themselves. Will you provide information that Israel's policy is Palestinian genocide? I'm not seeing that link.

If you've read the last 10 pages of this thread and aren't "seeing that link" my recommendation for you is to either, (a) pull out your eye [And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.], or, (b) buy some SPF2000 sun block (cause it's gonna be warm where you're heading).

what moves me is science, physics

oh, okay

So I view Israel today as set apart by God and not as you say false Jews.

I appreciate that you think I wrote the Book of Revelations. I need to try get some of those royalty checks.

4. I support Israel, not sinful government nor sinful leaders even if they be Israeli.

Yup. You didn't directly answer any of my questions about the major historical errors in your original post, you just shotgunned out some evasives carefully attached to the escape clause that none of what you were saying actually means shit because "YOU SUPPORT ISRAEL!"

If I stand alone, so be it.

Sorry, nothing you're saying is original. This is all run-of-the-mill dispensational premillenialism stuff of the kind that was promoted to key evangelical preachers during luxury travel junkets and briefings organized by Israel's New York PR firm, Edelman, beginning in the 1970s, then trickled down from them to the rank and file like you. You're just a statistic in a predictive vote program running on a computer in the Israeli defense ministry. There's not a room in Quds full of bearded Jews wearing canvas robes crying to the heavens for help from your church. There's just a piece of software that translates a three-percent increase in Fundy votes in 2016 to 10 extra F-22s.

In other words, you're acting like a 16 year-old girl who thinks she has a really unique, rebellious style because she shops at Hot Topic, oblivious to the fact that all the designs she's wearing are getting approved for production by a 50 year-old MBA at a private equity firm headquartered in an office park in Pomona.

However, when an entire people and entire country and entire ideology is kill Israel, kill Jews, then I withdraw my support of them.

Paranoid delusions are too big of an issue to try to get into in this thread unless you can offer more specifics about what the voices are telling you.

Okay, this post gave me a chuckle, I love reading your mind, you are clever and witty. I love the twist of how I disagreed with your interpretation of Rev an you spun it to I said you wrote Rev & where's your royalities. And then saying I'm like a 16 yr old girl was too funny:D
Now, on a serious note: your reference about Israel's military policy is not Israel's military policy, its a reporter hypothesis of a story and even at the end it says Israel's policy is to minimize civilian casualties. It is actually a pro Israel article.
Nice try.

[saxitoxin]

zzzzzzzzzz

[saxitoxin]

At least Israel warns they will attack where rockets are launched

Well that's simply not true as in the case of the seven (and counting) schools that have been bombed, the kids playing on the beach who were subject to naval bombardment, etc. etc.

so either a) move away

You and the other genocide supporters have said this like 7 times in this thread. Each time you are asked:

Move where and how? Israel has sealed the land border and put up a naval blockade.

And each time there is nothing but silence. That has been the case with many questions that are posed here to you people that you simply block out of your mind if the only answer you can arrive at is one that proves the unspeakable cruelty of the Zionist war machine which unleashes F-16s and 155mm artillery on a people defending themselves with nothing but small arms and crude, homemade rockets.

I love the twist of how I disagreed with your interpretation of Rev

It's not a twist, it's clear you are easily bamboozled by claims of hocus pocus. I'm sorry I don't know how else to put it. Your profile says you do chiropractic so it appears you've devoted your life to magic and defrauding people and it would be impossible to convince you of the error of your thinking - you have too much invested at this point.

You have subscribed to a fringe version of Christianity that upends thousands of years of established thinking by the greatest minds in theology. You accept what Revelations clearly identified as the Synagogue of Satan (State of Israel) is the prophesized Kingdom of Israel even though obeisant Jews themselves have said it is not (but you choose not to believe those Jews, but to believe the rainbow speedo wearing Grand Marshal of the Tel Aviv Pride Parade instead) and the the vast bulk of scripture indicates otherwise (Paul said "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ... in the spirit, and not in the letter"). You are so desperate to get a present - eternal salvation - right now that you have no conundrums willfully ignoring all signs of the hellish nature of the State of Israel to be their cheerleader. You spew lies from a tongue forked beyond recognition, propagating hate like "an entire people and entire country and entire ideology is kill Israel, kill Jews" (the Palestinian charter says "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians.") and respond to being called on your lies with more lies.

You will get a reward in the hereafter for helping slaughter children through word and thought but it will not be what you expected or wanted.

Just to clarify, t was himself that he was referring to.

don't care

[universalchiro]

Saxi, so many adjectives, your writing is full and entertaining, kudos to your wit. Question for you; which you have avoided,

Are you 1 of the 144,000 Jews sealed in Rev 7?

[saxitoxin]

Saxi, so many adjectives, your writing is full and entertaining, kudos to your wit. Question for you; which you have avoided,

Are you 1 of the 144,000 Jews sealed in Rev 7?

That question makes absolutely no sense, which is why I avoided it. The 144,000 number is literary, not literal. Don't you have a health insurance company to defraud?

And can you be more specific about to whom you were referring when you said "an entire people and entire country and entire ideology is kill Israel, kill Jews." If someone is trying to kill you, logic dictates you kill them first. As I read what you're saying, you think all Arabs should be killed as they are an "entire people" whose only purpose for existence - whose only notable cultural characteristic - is a desire to "kill Jews?" (disregard the fact you wouldn't have been able to type the number 144,000 if it weren't for Arabic mathematics).

[GabonX]

The terms allowed Israeli troops to remain in Gaza and continue dismantling tunnels, but not to advance past their current positions. There was no mention of withdrawal in the terms that Hamas agreed to for this 72 hour ceasefire. Hamas ambushed an Israeli position thereby violating the ceasefire...

nope

Firstly, the press office of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades sent a tweet positively timestamped at 0734 GMT (the ceasefire was supposed to begin at 0800 GMT) that said a Palestinian military patrol had engaged a bumbling IDF terrorist cell at 0700 in Rafah (where the supposed ceasefire violation occurred). This is consistent with subsequent statements Qassam has released. The IDF and White House, meanwhile, have released 4 different timelines of events (so far).

Secondly, if, indeed, the attack occurred after the ceasefire went into effect and the Qassam timestamp was forged it was a legal attack as the ceasefire terms do not - as you say - permit continued ground operations by the IDF.

I see Saxitoxin is still posting misinformation in virtually every post. I should apologize because I'm not working to defend Israel full time as Saxitoxin is to slander them. I think he enjoys the war much more than I do.

The fact of the matter is that this is the 5th such truce Hamas has violated to date.


It's truly remarkable how little of what he's saying is grounded in reality. Watch the videos he posted above on this page. If you watch them and read the captions you'll find that neither of his summaries accurately reflects they discuss in the videos. He could focus on what the people say and try to conduct a real conversation about alleged Israeli misconduct, but that's not extreme enough for him. It seems that in literally every instance he writes about Israelis he has to make up lies to make them sound evil, even if he contracts himself.

Consider how he portrays Israel to secular minded people as opposed to religious minded people. To the secularist he portrays Israel as a conservative religious movement, but on the last page when faced with a person who is religious he portrays Israel as a deviant orgy ridden, homosexual nation. The truth is Israel is tolerant of both secular and religious groups, as the government itself is basically secular.

The Israeli government does not fund sex orgies as a matter of policy, and a single blogger with an ax to grind is not proof to the contrary. The Israeli government does not promote homosexuality but it doesn't persecute homosexuals either. In my view it seems that most countries today are taking one of these extremes...

[GabonX]

When one is making startling claims, one needs to provide sources.

When one is dealing with commonly-known facts, one should not have to. I will never offer you a citation for the fact that the sky is blue, or that water is wet. A6m shouldn't have to, either.

I spend a negligible portion of my life following this event, so it's not like I'm constantly up to date. That's why I ask people to provide links; it helps me to easily ascertain the accuracy of their summaries. If they tend to present inaccurate summaries, then their interpretation becomes less credible. If they tend to make ridiculous claims while constantly posting ZERO sources (like a7mzero does throughout the fora), then duh I'll hardly take his alleged facts seriously, so I'll definitely ask for a source.

If I had a really strong confirmation bias, I'd be like you: jumping to a6's defense with very little thought.

You do have a confirmation bias. You apply scrutiny to every piece of information someone posts opposing Saxitoxin, but no scrutiny whatsoever to any of the posts he makes, even though virtually every one of them is inaccurate. What good is a source when someone has a serial habit of claiming they're sources say things they don't?

What's the fallacy called when a person alleges that because someone says something it must be true? What's it called when a person alleges that because someone says something it must be true, but the person cited didn't even say it?


You've claimed my sources are no good, and Saxitoxin claims I quoted IsraeliBiblePerspective.com or whatever it is when I never did, but you give him a pass for quoting electronicintifada.net/ and say nothing about his false attribution to me?


Give me a break dude. Sources don't mean anything when a person habitually falsely attributes information to them. If any of us did half of what he's doing, you'd be all over it.

[GabonX]

The terms allowed Israeli troops to remain in Gaza and continue dismantling tunnels, but not to advance past their current positions. There was no mention of withdrawal in the terms that Hamas agreed to for this 72 hour ceasefire. Hamas ambushed an Israeli position thereby violating the ceasefire...

nope

Firstly, the press office of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades sent a tweet positively timestamped at 0734 GMT (the ceasefire was supposed to begin at 0800 GMT) that said a Palestinian military patrol had engaged a bumbling IDF terrorist cell at 0700 in Rafah (where the supposed ceasefire violation occurred). This is consistent with subsequent statements Qassam has released. The IDF and White House, meanwhile, have released 4 different timelines of events (so far).

Secondly, if, indeed, the attack occurred after the ceasefire went into effect and the Qassam timestamp was forged it was a legal attack as the ceasefire terms do not - as you say - permit continued ground operations by the IDF.

I see Saxitoxin is still posting misinformation in virtually every post. I should apologize because I'm not working to defend Israel full time as Saxitoxin is to slander them. I think he enjoys the war much more than I do.

The fact of the matter is that this is the 5th such truce Hamas has violated to date.


It's truly remarkable how little of what he's saying is grounded in reality. Watch the videos he posted above on this page. If you watch them and read the captions you'll find that neither of his summaries accurately reflects they discuss in the videos. He could focus on what the people say and try to conduct a real conversation about alleged Israeli misconduct, but that's not extreme enough for him. It seems that in literally every instance he writes about Israelis he has to make up lies to make them sound evil, even if he contracts himself.

Consider how he portrays Israel to secular minded people as opposed to religious minded people. To the secularist he portrays Israel as a conservative religious movement, but on the last page when faced with a person who is religious he portrays Israel as a deviant orgy ridden, homosexual nation. The truth is Israel is tolerant of both secular and religious groups, as the government itself is basically secular.

The Israeli government does not fund sex orgies as a matter of policy, and a single blogger with an ax to grind is not proof to the contrary. The Israeli government does not promote homosexuality but it doesn't persecute homosexuals either. In my view it seems that most countries today are taking one of these extremes...

And yet you do nothing to refute it with a source. This is your M.O. When faced with an insurmountable truth you simply scream "you're lying!" and see how many people buy that. If you can sell it to even one person, you're one person better off than you were previously.

When one is making startling claims, one needs to provide sources.

When one is dealing with commonly-known facts, one should not have to. I will never offer you a citation for the fact that the sky is blue, or that water is wet. A6m shouldn't have to, either.

I spend a negligible portion of my life following this event, so it's not like I'm constantly up to date. That's why I ask people to provide links; it helps me to easily ascertain the accuracy of their summaries. If they tend to present inaccurate summaries, then their interpretation becomes less credible. If they tend to make ridiculous claims while constantly posting ZERO sources (like a7mzero does throughout the fora), then duh I'll hardly take his alleged facts seriously, so I'll definitely ask for a source.

If I had a really strong confirmation bias, I'd be like you: jumping to a6's defense with very little thought.

You do have a confirmation bias. You apply scrutiny to every piece of information someone posts opposing Saxitoxin, but no scrutiny whatsoever to any of the posts he makes, even though virtually every one of them is inaccurate. What good is a source when someone has a serial habit of claiming they're sources say things they don't?

What's the fallacy called when a person alleges that because someone says something it must be true? What's it called when a person alleges that because someone says something it must be true, but the person cited didn't even say it?


You've claimed my sources are no good, and Saxitoxin claims I quoted IsraeliBiblePerspective.com or whatever it is when I never did, but you give him a pass for quoting electronicintifada.net/ and say nothing about his false attribution to me?


Give me a break dude. Sources don't mean anything when a person habitually falsely attributes information to them. If any of us did half of what he's doing, you'd be all over it.

Your ridiculous attempt to evade the fact you can't defend Israel by simply screaming that anti-genocide supporters are falsely paraphrasing the content of sources was debunked here. You tried another avenue of approach, found yourself blocked, and now have come back to ol' faithful. You move in a predictable circle from fallacy, to hysteria, to slander, then repeat.

Nothing I said was debunked, and virtually every one of your posts contains misinformation. Using colored text, exclamation points, and ignoring the explicit details that show point by point how your information is false does not actually disprove anything. You only have to look 1 or 2 posts down to see that misinformation was cited on the page where you say I was debunked.

I did provide a source earlier which detailed how Hamas violated the ceasefire, which frankly shouldn't have even been necessary as the story was so widely publicized. Your tweet from the Al Qassam brigades hardly contradicts these widely reported events...

It is notable though that you use Hamas as the ultimate authority in terms of what's happening on the ground, but denounce the IDF as being unreliable.


Guys, I don't have time to correct everything Saxitoxin is saying. Again, you have to read his sources because he lies about what they say.

[Dukasaur]

Nothing I said was debunked, and virtually every one of your posts contains misinformation. Using colored text, exclamation points, and ignoring the explicit details that show point by point how your information is false does not actually disprove anything. You only have to look 1 or 2 posts down to see that misinformation was cited on the page where you say I was debunked.

I did provide a source earlier which detailed how Hamas violated the ceasefire, which frankly shouldn't have even been necessary as the story was so widely publicized. Your tweet from the Al Qassam brigades hardly contradicts these widely reported events...

It is notable though that you use Hamas as the ultimate authority in terms of what's happening on the ground, but denounce the IDF as being unreliable.


Guys, I don't have time to correct everything Saxitoxin is saying. Again, you have to read his sources because he lies about what they say.

It's pretty hard to compete with a full-time propagandist. You've done a damn good job.

Kudos!

[GabonX]

1948: Palestinians were offered by the League of Nations a statehood and Israel a statehood. Israel accepted, Palestine & Egypt rejected, war broke out from Muslim attacks, Israel won.

1.The unjust UN Partition Plan barely passed in the nascent General Assembly. The partition plan offered 67% of the population (Arab) 43% of the land (and the worst, most barren part of the land).

This is blatantly false. If you want to read more about population demographics and who was offered what the following is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... _Partition

Specifically:

The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine and consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one-third of the coastline. The highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine, which supplied water to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel Aviv. The Jewish State was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there. The Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley. The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert.The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish State would also be given sole access to the Red Sea.

Palestine got the water resources while Israel got several valuable farming areas, which frankly would have been useless without water. Israel was allotted more territory, but a huge proportion of that was uninhabitable desert in the south, much of which remains uninhabited to this day.

2. War did not break out from "Muslim attacks." An under-equipped coalition of Arab states - including Christian nations like Lebanon and Muslim nations like Egypt- immediately launched a military intervention after The Abomination started ethnic cleansing Palestinians following the UN vote. They were, unfortunately, defeated by the Czechoslovakian and Soviet-backed Israeli militia (the Warsaw Pact were early supporters of Israel due to Israel's historic and contemporary status as a socialist state, but eventually switched sides after the rise of Ba'athism in the Arab world appeared to offer better opportunities for political inroads).

The Arab forces were commanded by John Glubb, a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George and a confirmed member of the Anglican Church. The Israeli militia were commanded by Shimon Avidan, a member of the Communist Party rumored to have been a pedophile.

There's a fine line between Islamism and pan Arabism, both of which are fascist movements, with plenty of overlap between their various factions. Lebanon was intended to be a Christian nation, but the Islamists didn't allow that to happen. It was not and is not a christian nation. As for the notion that the British commander John Glubb, who commanded Muslim troops for a Muslim King, somehow negates the fact that Arab leaders widely sited religion (along with race) as justification to kill the Israelis... It's ridiculous

There's nothing historically inaccurate about stating the aggressors in the 48 war were primarily Muslim or that they used Islam to justify their actions. Your appeal to obscure facts is an attempt to muddy the waters.

1967: Israel living in peace, attacked by Muslims, Israel defends itself and captures Jerusalem. Israel won.

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched surprise air raids against all of its neighbors. This was the first military action in the 1967 war. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan responded with a defensive counter-attack.

Israel did not launch surprise air raids against all of it's neighbors. Lebanon did not participate in the 1967 war, and Jordan attacked Israel before Israel attacked Jordan but after conflict broke out between IsraeL, Egypt, and Syria. Israel requested that the King of Jordan not participate in the war but the King refused and invaded. In response Israel siezed Jerusalem along with Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank). Israel tried to return these territories to Jordanian rule in later peace negotiations, but at that point Jordan's King saw that many Palestinians in Jordan opposed him and refused to reinstate governance over the West Bank as he saw Palestinians as a threat to his sovereignty.

As for Egypt and Syria, Israel did make the first move, but only after Egypt and Syria massed thousands of troops at Israel's borders and openly announced to the world that their attack was imminent. It was announced on radio Cairo, and in speeches by the Egyptian and Syrian Presidents and many other places.

A list of historic quotes affirming the Egyptian and Syrian intent for war can be found below:
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/crucial_quotes.htm

Just a few highlights:

Feb 22nd 1967
“it is the duty of all of us now to move from defensive positions to offensive positions and enter the battle to liberate the usurped land…Everyone must face the test and enter the battle to the end.” - President Attassi of Syria

April 8th 1967
“(this battle will be)…followed by more severe battles until Palestine is liberated and the Zionist presence ended.” - Syria’s information minister Mahmoud Zubi

May 17th 1967
“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo Radio

May 26th 1967
"Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel” - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech to the General Council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions

So yes, Israel did surprise Egypt and Syria, and they did win in stunning fashion, and it's a good thing it happened because the Arabs were plotting an imminent invasion and made no secret of it. Despite all odds, Egypt and Syria got what was coming to them.

Every time Muslims attack Israel, Israel gets more land and always wins.

This is true, but it should not be confused as Israeli intent to wage wars of aggression and seize territory. The truth is Israel has given more land to achieve peace, than it has taken...



Unlike Nitesche's map, this one is historically accurate.

[saxitoxin]

1948: Palestinians were offered by the League of Nations a statehood and Israel a statehood. Israel accepted, Palestine & Egypt rejected, war broke out from Muslim attacks, Israel won.

1.The unjust UN Partition Plan barely passed in the nascent General Assembly. The partition plan offered 67% of the population (Arab) 43% of the land (and the worst, most barren part of the land).

This is blatantly false. If you want to read more about population demographics and who was offered what the following is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... _Partition

Specifically:

The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine and consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one-third of the coastline. The highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine, which supplied water to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel Aviv. The Jewish State was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there. The Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley. The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert.The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish State would also be given sole access to the Red Sea.

Palestine got the water resources while Israel got several valuable farming areas, which frankly would have been useless without water. Israel was allotted more territory, but a huge proportion of that was uninhabitable desert in the south, much of which remains uninhabited to this day.

2. War did not break out from "Muslim attacks." An under-equipped coalition of Arab states - including Christian nations like Lebanon and Muslim nations like Egypt- immediately launched a military intervention after The Abomination started ethnic cleansing Palestinians following the UN vote. They were, unfortunately, defeated by the Czechoslovakian and Soviet-backed Israeli militia (the Warsaw Pact were early supporters of Israel due to Israel's historic and contemporary status as a socialist state, but eventually switched sides after the rise of Ba'athism in the Arab world appeared to offer better opportunities for political inroads).

The Arab forces were commanded by John Glubb, a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George and a confirmed member of the Anglican Church. The Israeli militia were commanded by Shimon Avidan, a member of the Communist Party rumored to have been a pedophile.

There's a fine line between Islamism and pan Arabism, both of which are fascist movements, with plenty of overlap between their various factions. Lebanon was intended to be a Christian nation, but the Islamists didn't allow that to happen. It was not and is not a christian nation. As for the notion that the British commander John Glubb, who commanded Muslim troops for a Muslim King, somehow negates the fact that Arab leaders widely sited religion (along with race) as justification to kill the Israelis... It's ridiculous

There's nothing historically inaccurate about stating the aggressors in the 48 war were primarily Muslim or that they used Islam to justify their actions. Your appeal to obscure facts is an attempt to muddy the waters.

1967: Israel living in peace, attacked by Muslims, Israel defends itself and captures Jerusalem. Israel won.

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched surprise air raids against all of its neighbors. This was the first military action in the 1967 war. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan responded with a defensive counter-attack.

Israel did not launch surprise air raids against all of it's neighbors. Lebanon did not participate in the 1967 war, and Jordan attacked Israel before Israel attacked Jordan but after conflict broke out between IsraeL, Egypt, and Syria. Israel requested that the King of Jordan not participate in the war but the King refused and invaded. In response Israel siezed Jerusalem along with Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank). Israel tried to return these territories to Jordanian rule in later peace negotiations, but at that point Jordan's King saw that many Palestinians in Jordan opposed him and refused to reinstate governance over the West Bank as he saw Palestinians as a threat to his sovereignty.

As for Egypt and Syria, Israel did make the first move, but only after Egypt and Syria massed thousands of troops at Israel's borders and openly announced to the world that their attack was imminent. It was announced on radio Cairo, and in speeches by the Egyptian and Syrian Presidents and many other places.

A list of historic quotes affirming the Egyptian and Syrian intent for war can be found below:
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/crucial_quotes.htm

Just a few highlights:

Feb 22nd 1967
“it is the duty of all of us now to move from defensive positions to offensive positions and enter the battle to liberate the usurped land…Everyone must face the test and enter the battle to the end.” - President Attassi of Syria

April 8th 1967
“(this battle will be)…followed by more severe battles until Palestine is liberated and the Zionist presence ended.” - Syria’s information minister Mahmoud Zubi

May 17th 1967
“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo Radio

May 26th 1967
"Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel” - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech to the General Council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions

So yes, Israel did surprise Egypt and Syria, and they did win in stunning fashion, and it's a good thing it happened because the Arabs were plotting an imminent invasion and made no secret of it. Despite all odds, Egypt and Syria got what was coming to them.

Every time Muslims attack Israel, Israel gets more land and always wins.

This is true, but it should not be confused as Israeli intent to wage wars of aggression and seize territory. The truth is Israel has given more land to achieve peace, than it has taken...



Unlike Nitesche's map, this one is historically accurate.

A fairly prototypical GabonX response. Thirty pages of wild, fringe history supported by one source ... something called sixdaywar.co.uk, written by a high school graduate with no journalistic credentials named Terry Mendoza who has launched a variety of conspiracy theories alleging a vast plot by the media to make Israel look bad. This sterling source is interspersed with various catcalls and McCarthyist howls about Muzzies and how the Muzzies are comin' to getchya! So GabonX has his two key demographics covered: (a) dupes, and, (b) racists.