DC Tom Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 12 minutes ago, joesixpack said: The purpose of zionism is the creation of a Jewish state for the express purpose of survival of the Jewish people. No it's not. Where do you get these ridiculous ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: So, then, would you classify Fatah, Hizbollah and Hamas as anti-zionist? ... It is possible to be anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, Joe. You can be both at the same time. You can also be either-or, or neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No it's not. Where do you get these ridiculous ideas? OK, then, what *is* the purpose of Zionism? 10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: ... It is possible to be anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, Joe. You can be both at the same time. You can also be either-or, or neither. i wish I could draw a venn diagram of this. if you're anti-zionist, you tend to side against israel. you typically support the right of return for arabs. you probably want to, at a minimum, see any settlers forcibly removed from the west bank. Guess who else believes/wants those things? Yeah, the people that you classify as anti-zionist AND anti-semitic. So, if you believe in any of those things above, you're likely to advocate for policies that would THRILL the people that you classify as "anti-zionist AND anti-semitic." A good example of this would be the BDS movement. Those people are calling for boycotts of Jewish businesses. How's that any different than, say, 1938? See where I'm going with this? You may not actively be hating Jews. But you'd be advocating for policies that would likely cause the destruction of the Jewish state, and the death of many of them. Edited May 17, 2018 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, joesixpack said: OK, then, what *is* the purpose of Zionism? i wish I could draw a venn diagram of this. if you're anti-zionist, you tend to side against israel. you typically support the right of return for arabs. you probably want to, at a minimum, see any settlers forcibly removed from the west bank. Guess who else believes/wants those things? Yeah, the people that you classify as anti-zionist AND anti-semitic. So, if you believe in any of those things above, you're likely to advocate for policies that would THRILL the people that you classify as "anti-zionist AND anti-semitic." See where I'm going with this? Yes. You're going in the direction of a logical fallacy. What do you do, in your model, with anti-Semites who are Zionists? They exist, much in the same way Abraham Lincoln sought to send all blacks in America to Liberia. What do you do with Jews who stand in opposition to Israel? Or are they simply your version of an "uncle Tom"? What do you do with non-interventionists, Nationalists, and libertarians who simply oppose entangling the nation in the affairs of foreign governments? Again, Joe, this is lazy thinking. If you wanted to make the case that anti-Semites have a strong overlap with anti-Zionists, and vice versa, that might be a more reasonable, if unsubstantiated, claim; but at least you're leaving room for reality in that model. The one you're currently using doesn't. Edited May 17, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Yes. You're going in the direction of a logical fallacy. What do you do, in your model, with anti-Semites who are Zionists? They exist, much in the same way Abraham Lincoln sought to send all blacks in America to Liberia. What do you do with Jews who stand in opposition to Israel? Or are they simply your version of an "uncle Tom"? What do you do with non-interventionists, Nationalists, and libertarians who simply oppose entangling the nation in the affairs of foreign governments? Again, Joe, this is lazy thinking. If you wanted to make the case that anti-Semites have a strong overlap with anti-Zionists, and vice versa, that might be a more reasonable, if unsubstantiated, claim; but at least you're leaving room for reality in that model. The one you're currently using doesn't. Well, the people you classify as anti-semites who are zionists are typically zionists by convenience only. Take, for example, Hitler. Do you think he would have allowed a Jewish state to continue to exist had he won the war against Britain in Egypt? I doubt it. They'd have all gone to the ovens. In fact, there's a good bit of historical evidence that Hitler gave a whole lot of aid to Arab nationalists, and those same nationalists were the forefathers of the modern Arab terrorist groups. So, the model works there. And yes, Jews who stand in opposition to Israel are a disturbed bunch. Most are American Jews. Some are probably European. They all share the idea that they're somehow safe where they are. In time, I believe they'll be disavowed of that notion and will come to love the idea of Israel. I have no problem with non-interventionists, nationalists and libertarians who don't want to actively assist Israel. I'm one of them. But at the same time, I don't pretend to say we should have ANY say in how they deal with the Arabs. In fact, we should get out of their way in those matters. Any peace deals we've brokered for them have been abject disasters. I'm a firm believer that nations should be able to resolve their issues by ANY means necessary. Edited May 17, 2018 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: You know who was a Zionist, but anti-Semitic? Hitler! That's pretty close to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, joesixpack said: OK, then, what *is* the purpose of Zionism? The re-establishment of the Jewish state for the express purpose of reversing the diaspora. 23 minutes ago, GG said: That's pretty close to the truth. Hitler actually had an unofficial agreement with the British in the mid-30s where a certain number of German Jews - if they could "pay the emigration fee" (i.e. were wealthy enough to make it worthwhile for the NSDAP to steal their wealth), they could emigrate to British Palestine. Kind-of fell apart with the Anschluss and Sudeten crisis. It's odd to think that the Nazis didn't default to killing Jews - they wanted rid of them, but were perfectly happy to exile them from occupied Europe (whether they lived or died in exile, they didn't care). They only turned to industrialized mass murder when they ran out of places to exile them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The re-establishment of the Jewish state for the express purpose of reversing the diaspora. Hitler actually had an unofficial agreement with the British in the mid-30s where a certain number of German Jews - if they could "pay the emigration fee" (i.e. were wealthy enough to make it worthwhile for the NSDAP to steal their wealth), they could emigrate to British Palestine. Kind-of fell apart with the Anschluss and Sudeten crisis. It's odd to think that the Nazis didn't default to killing Jews - they wanted rid of them, but were perfectly happy to exile them from occupied Europe (whether they lived or died in exile, they didn't care). They only turned to industrialized mass murder when they ran out of places to exile them to. Yup. The enlightened Europe can hide behind the Holocaust's final solution, because nobody needs to talk about the original "solutions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Yes. You're going in the direction of a logical fallacy. What do you do, in your model, with anti-Semites who are Zionists? They exist, much in the same way Abraham Lincoln sought to send all blacks in America to Liberia. What do you do with Jews who stand in opposition to Israel? Or are they simply your version of an "uncle Tom"? What do you do with non-interventionists, Nationalists, and libertarians who simply oppose entangling the nation in the affairs of foreign governments? Again, Joe, this is lazy thinking. If you wanted to make the case that anti-Semites have a strong overlap with anti-Zionists, and vice versa, that might be a more reasonable, if unsubstantiated, claim; but at least you're leaving room for reality in that model. The one you're currently using doesn't. I knew we'd get to the talk down to the poster by acting like you're his superior and citing a fallacy fallacy. I do admit I thought it was heading toward the Bartles and James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 The United Nations, beyond parody Over the years, critics of the United Nations have been able to attack and ridicule that organization over the membership and leadership of various human rights organizations it sponsors. The best example is probably Iran’s membership on U.N. committees that oversee the protection of women’s rights and global human rights. Now, we have an even more egregious case. Syria has taken up the presidency of the United Nations-backed Conference on Disarmament. Robert Woods, the U.S. ambassador to the Conference, condemned the move, calling it “one of the darkest days” in the forum’s history. If there have been other days comparably dark, perhaps the Conference should disband. Woods declared that Syria “has neither the credibility nor moral authority to preside over the [Conference].” That’s an understatement. Syria has flagrantly and repeatedly violated what passes as the Conference’s signature achievement, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention banning the production, stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons. Even after agreeing to surrender its stocks of chemical agents used in the production of sarin gas and other chemical weapons, under a deal brokered by Russia, Syria continued to launch deadly chemical weapons attacks. That’s Syria idea of disarmament. The New York Times suggests that “a presidency [of the disarmament agency] occupied by a government that has used chemical weapons against civilians is. . .a blow to the group’s public image.” I guess. More at the link:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/the-united-nations-beyond-parody.php . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 Oh damn... This is (yet another) major blow against the Mullahs. Iran's next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 ************** Oh, and: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/389937-top-afghanistan-general-some-taliban-involved-in-secret-talks-to-end-war He's really going to end three wars, possibly four, in the first half of his first term from the looks of things. 1. Korean War / Denuclearization 2. Peaceful ouster of the Mullahs in Iran 3. End the Afghanistan War 4. ... Palestine/Israel next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ************** Oh, and: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/389937-top-afghanistan-general-some-taliban-involved-in-secret-talks-to-end-war He's really going to end three wars, possibly four, in the first half of his first term from the looks of things. 1. Korean War / Denuclearization 2. Peaceful ouster of the Mullahs in Iran 3. End the Afghanistan War 4. ... Palestine/Israel next? He didn't male that happen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ************** Oh, and: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/389937-top-afghanistan-general-some-taliban-involved-in-secret-talks-to-end-war He's really going to end three wars, possibly four, in the first half of his first term from the looks of things. 1. Korean War / Denuclearization 2. Peaceful ouster of the Mullahs in Iran 3. End the Afghanistan War 4. ... Palestine/Israel next? Stay on point, these are just distractions to the main story about Stormy Daniels. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorbait Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ************** Oh, and: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/389937-top-afghanistan-general-some-taliban-involved-in-secret-talks-to-end-war He's really going to end three wars, possibly four, in the first half of his first term from the looks of things. 1. Korean War / Denuclearization 2. Peaceful ouster of the Mullahs in Iran 3. End the Afghanistan War 4. ... Palestine/Israel next? We’re not there yet. If these things do happen though and we don’t start any new wars I hope there’s an extra seat left for me on the Trump Train! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 1 minute ago, gatorbait said: We’re not there yet. If these things do happen though and we don’t start any new wars I hope there’s an extra seat left for me on the Trump Train! We're not. For sure - especially with 3 and 4 on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: We're not. For sure - especially with 3 and 4 on that list. But we have a glimmer of hope in just the first 18 months. With Obama there was no hope. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: But we have a glimmer of hope in just the first 18 months. With Obama there was no hope. Correct. And I know I'm in the minority - and that's okay - but everything I've heard and am hearing from sources says 1 is a done deal and 2 is right on the cusp of being in the same category. It's amazing how much is being accomplished internationally despite the resistance and firestorms being waged domestically. It's almost like the domestic stuff is a distraction... nah, that can't be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 47 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ************** Oh, and: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/389937-top-afghanistan-general-some-taliban-involved-in-secret-talks-to-end-war He's really going to end three wars, possibly four, in the first half of his first term from the looks of things. 1. Korean War / Denuclearization 2. Peaceful ouster of the Mullahs in Iran 3. End the Afghanistan War 4. ... Palestine/Israel next? "Ending" isn't "winning." Not that we were ever going to "win" in Afghanistan anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: "Ending" isn't "winning." Not that we were ever going to "win" in Afghanistan anyway... The whole clip is relevant - but cued up to the best exchange: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts