# Boycott Israel



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Boycott Israel!

Don't buy Israeli products or services! 

Don't discuss Israeli products or services! 

Do go to a synagogue, or a mosque or a church or a temple and pray!

Again do not mix Judaism with Zionism and Israeli policies.

Too many Americans, in my experience on forums and face to face are incapable of distinguishing between the Jewish faith worldwide and the state of Israel. So that anti-Israeli comment is often accused of being anti-Jewish (anti-semitic is and always has been a flawed term because, well...again, look it up...do your own homework...why should I have to spell everything out all the time) 

These are not interchangeable concepts. 

In exactly the same way that not all Irishmen are Catholic and not all Catholics are Irish. Simple really! 

Boycott Israel, Relieve Gaza, 

Boycott Israel, Relieve Gaza, 

Boycott Israel, Relieve Gaza, 

Boycott Israel, Relieve Gaza, 

Boycott Israel, Relieve Gaza,


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10202678.stm

"IHH raises some of its money from Islamic religious groups and has strong sympathy among Turkey's Islamist-rooted ruling party. IHH, founded in 1992, is now *active in 120 countries and has been present in recent disaster areas including Haiti*."

I quote that to give an idea of how warped the Israeli view is about various organisations becasue the IHH was banned by Israel in 2008 who think that the humanitarian IHH is a front for Hamas.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I guess I didn't need any more diamonds, ammunition or Preperation H anyway!!


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

I can understand the reasoning for calling for a boycott, but where does one draw the line? To be perfectly honest, there is little that shouldn't be boycotted. Should we boycott Apple, HP, and Dell for working conditions in the manufacturing facilities in China. Putin blew up 7 apartment buildings in his own country and blamed it on Chechnya, do we boycott Russia? Should we boycott BP (which just hurts the station owners) or all UK products for lack of disaster planning? Boycott Japanese products for price-fixing and hunting whales in a whale sanctuary? What about American-made goods, name the decade and you can find a reason. Coal-powered electric plants emit nearly 100 times the REMs produced by a nuclear plant... this is an infinite list, we could find fault with just about anything. 
While I support civil resistance, I am aware of its hypocracy as I write this from keyboard made in China (human rights violations/environmental destruction), a computer assembled in Brazil (torture and inhumane prisons) encased in a plastic tower made from Saudi Arabian (slave labor/womens rights) petrol as I wear a shirt made in Cambodia (no freedom of movement) and glasses made in Vietnam (restricted freedom of media and expression, treatment of HIV positives). Besides, what does Israel make that we'd need to boycott? The only boycott that would have any impact is would be that of the $3 billion the US has scheduled to give Israel per year until 2017.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

For you, I'll proudly boycott Israel. ( No more hummus, Falafels, or Dead sea salt Baths)


----------



## Pembers (May 3, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> For you, I'll proudly boycott Israel. ( No more hummus, Falafels, or Dead sea salt Baths)


Or intel chips.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Pembers said:


> Or intel chips.


NOOOOOO!!!! (weeping in a fetal position)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

dmbfrisb said:


> I can understand the reasoning for calling for a boycott, but where does one draw the line? To be perfectly honest, there is little that shouldn't be boycotted. Should we boycott Apple, HP, and Dell for working conditions in the manufacturing facilities in China. Putin blew up 7 apartment buildings in his own country and blamed it on Chechnya, do we boycott Russia? Should we boycott BP (which just hurts the station owners) or all UK products for lack of disaster planning? Boycott Japanese products for price-fixing and hunting whales in a whale sanctuary? What about American-made goods, name the decade and you can find a reason. Coal-powered electric plants emit nearly 100 times the REMs produced by a nuclear plant... this is an infinite list, we could find fault with just about anything.
> While I support civil resistance, I am aware of its hypocracy as I write this from keyboard made in China (human rights violations/environmental destruction), a computer assembled in Brazil (torture and inhumane prisons) encased in a plastic tower made from Saudi Arabian (slave labor/womens rights) petrol as I wear a shirt made in Cambodia (no freedom of movement) and glasses made in Vietnam (restricted freedom of media and expression, treatment of HIV positives). Besides, what does Israel make that we'd need to boycott? The only boycott that would have any impact is would be that of the $3 billion the US has scheduled to give Israel per year until 2017.


Indeed, shouldn't US products be boycotted in the US as well? Afterall it was an American Drilling company, chartered by BP, whose shoddy operational ethos actually caused the disaster. The "*Deepwater Horizon" *although registered in the Marshall Islands, was US crewed, owned and operated.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

dmbfrisb said:


> I can understand the reasoning for calling for a boycott, but where does one draw the line? To be perfectly honest, there is little that shouldn't be boycotted. Should we boycott Apple, HP, and Dell for working conditions in the manufacturing facilities in China. Putin blew up 7 apartment buildings in his own country and blamed it on Chechnya, do we boycott Russia? Should we boycott BP (which just hurts the station owners) or all UK products for lack of disaster planning? Boycott Japanese products for price-fixing and hunting whales in a whale sanctuary? What about American-made goods, name the decade and you can find a reason. Coal-powered electric plants emit nearly 100 times the REMs produced by a nuclear plant... this is an infinite list, we could find fault with just about anything.
> While I support civil resistance, I am aware of its hypocracy as I write this from keyboard made in China (human rights violations/environmental destruction), a computer assembled in Brazil (torture and inhumane prisons) encased in a plastic tower made from Saudi Arabian (slave labor/womens rights) petrol as I wear a shirt made in Cambodia (no freedom of movement) and glasses made in Vietnam (restricted freedom of media and expression, treatment of HIV positives). Besides, what does Israel make that we'd need to boycott? The only boycott that would have any impact is would be that of the $3 billion the US has scheduled to give Israel per year until 2017.


Good points. However, isn't it a mark of world opinion that we continue to use lots of Chinese made products and that almost everything is made in China nowadays anyway, so that a boycott would be impossible without collapsing critical infrastructure...maybe that was their plan all along.

Whereas Israel in its isolationist state would be easy to boycott. And of course, as we all know that was the whole point of the Tripartite agreement way back when, between Israel, Taiwan and South Africa to keep goods flowing at least between some naitons friendly to each other. Taiwan suffering under a Chinese blockade, and no trade from countires that were pally with China; SA from the rest of the world; and Israel from all its neighbours and many Islamic African and Asian countries.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ZachGranstrom said:


> For you, I'll proudly boycott Israel. ( No more hummus, Falafels, or Dead sea salt Baths)


OH!! Now you've ruined it for me!!

My boycott is over before it started.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Indeed, shouldn't US products be boycotted in the US as well? Afterall it was an American Drilling company, chartered by BP, whose shoddy operational ethos actually caused the disaster. The "Deepwater Horizon" although registered in the Marshall Islands, was US crewed, owned and operated. "

I would be more than happy to boycot British goods if that would help, especially since it was them that got us to foot the bill for Israel anyway.
BTW why is it that every time England screws up one of their occupation/overthrow/emancipation/profiteering schemes it is the USA that ends up cleaning up the mess?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OH!! Now you've ruined it for me!!
> 
> My boycott is over before it started.


Well I will pick up where you left off. I will buy California Sea salt, Real Hummus from Lebanon, and I will boycott Falafels just because they suck.

Oh, wait I just remembered I boycotted them 20 years ago when I found they were engaged in industrial espionage to find product designs to steal and manufacture in Israel. Then I boycotted them again about 20 more time for other crimes and violations of human rights since then. Israel is no newcomer to crime and corruption.

Update
I saw Alex's comment about allegations in another related thread so update this to include that the word 'found" above is literal. I was an eye witness at several points over time to the activities and then several years later found the technology had surfaced in Israel. In reality the theft was a long term endeavor.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ...because, well...again, look it up...do your own homework...why should I have to spell everything out all the time


Answer to your question: If you want someone to care about something that you're already assuming they don't care about, don't tell that person to do their own research to find out why. No salesman has ever cold-called me up on the phone and said, "Buy this product, it's really good, if you want to know why it's so good just look it up." Want me to care? Sell me a reason.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"anti-semitic is and always has been a flawed term because, well...again, look it up...do your own homework"

Actually I have, and find jews to be Semites only by happenstance. It is basically false advertising or more generously an ancient memory of a couple of their mythical ancestors. What that has to do with Israel I don't know. Palestine lately called Israel was controlled by damn near every nation but the jews during biblical times so while Semites (not Hebrews) may have often controlled it, Hebrews were just around because they lost God's directions on how to get to their promised land, wandered around in the desert for a while then murdered a bunch of farmers to get a toe hold in the area Then they did nothing else of consequence since.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

Israel's spying on the United States and the efforts made by some for Jonathan Pollard's freedom are, to me, far more offensive than the botched blockade efforts of late. Equally offensive is the sinking of the USS Liberty by the Israelis in 1967. Still, I do not favor boycotting the country closest to having a democracy that the middle east has. Israel is not always the best ally, but it is an ally of the United States. Many who oppose Israel are not, and never will be, allies of the US.

As for the IHH, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Danish Institute for International Studies, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy also think that the organization has ties to radical islamic groups.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Just make sure you buy the ones made in Ireland!

With that all said Intel does enough evil stull on its own to warrant a boycott - well that's my opinion anyway. I should just practive what I preach though. Hmmm, AMD or abacus?....


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Earl, did you actually read the link you posted, It also says the following:
'But the ITIC says the Turkish charity is an overt supporter of Hamas - an Islamic militant group that seized power in Gaza in 2007, and is branded by Israel, the EU and US as a "terrorist organisation".'

So the EU, US and Israel say it is a terrorist group, but you argue it isn't because it is in lots of countries and helped in Haiti?


Aren't you guys a bit late to the party anyway? I thought 13 nations vowed to exterminate the nation of Israel when it was founded. There were 4000 rockets in one year shot onto Israeli cities and you're going to boycott sea salt and hummus?


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> "Indeed, shouldn't US products be boycotted in the US as well? Afterall it was an American Drilling company, chartered by BP, whose shoddy operational ethos actually caused the disaster. The "Deepwater Horizon" although registered in the Marshall Islands, was US crewed, owned and operated. "
> 
> I would be more than happy to boycot British goods if that would help, especially since it was them that got us to foot the bill for Israel anyway.
> BTW why is it that every time England screws up one of their occupation/overthrow/emancipation/profiteering schemes it is the USA that ends up cleaning up the mess?


I thought that it was England's screwing up of their occupation/overthrow/emancipation/profiterring scheme of the 13 colonies is what became the US? :icon_smile:


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Still, I do not favor boycotting the country closest to having a democracy"

Words that I always bear in mind might be appropriate here. I't my phrasing but an age old truism.

"When you allow someone to be close it makes it easy when they reach out to stab you in the back."


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

blue suede shoes said:


> I thought that it was England's screwing up of their occupation/overthrow/emancipation/profiterring scheme of the 13 colonies is what became the US? :icon_smile:


Yes but look at the mess we became!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Hmmm, AMD or abacus?.... "

AMD. The abacus is not energy efficient even though it runs a lot cooler!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> Answer to your question: If you want someone to care about something that you're already assuming they don't care about, don't tell that person to do their own research to find out why. No salesman has ever cold-called me up on the phone and said, "Buy this product, it's really good, if you want to know why it's so good just look it up." Want me to care? Sell me a reason.


But that's my whole point. I don't care if you care or not. I'm simply informing you that I DO. If you do care enough then you'll automatically read up on the subject for yourself 

On the News each evening, you see items that just wash over, then you see some that you find intereting & might find out a bit more about. Then you see some that really fire you up & you go and find out about them directly, but no one force feeds you exactly the info you want. YOU have to read up on subjects yourself and make your own judgements.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

P Hudson said:


> Earl, did you actually read the link you posted


No, of course I didn't I just plucked it out of thin air & created a post for no reason whatsoever. What a stupid question!!!!
It's a balanced article telling both sides, which is why I posted it for others to read.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> "anti-semitic is and always has been a flawed term because, well...again, look it up...do your own homework"
> 
> Actually I have, and find jews to be Semites only by happenstance. It is basically false advertising or more generously an ancient memory of a couple of their mythical ancestors. What that has to do with Israel I don't know. Palestine lately called Israel was controlled by damn near every nation but the jews during biblical times so while Semites (not Hebrews) may have often controlled it, Hebrews were just around because they lost God's directions on how to get to their promised land, wandered around in the desert for a while then murdered a bunch of farmers to get a toe hold in the area Then they did nothing else of consequence since.


Exactly. We're in agreement then. That was my whole point in saying that anti-semitic is a flawed term. Because all Jews and all Arabs are Semites, as well as the old Babylonians, Assyrians and Phoenicians. In other words any person who speaks a Semitic language is a Semite. I really don't know how the term anti-semitic in modern times came to be synonymous with anti-Jewish...but whatever the reason it is WRONG and I don't use it.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But that's my whole point. I don't care if you care or not. I'm simply informing you that I DO. If you do care enough then you'll automatically read up on the subject for yourself
> 
> On the News each evening, you see items that just wash over, then you see some that you find intereting & might find out a bit more about. Then you see some that really fire you up & you go and find out about them directly, but no one force feeds you exactly the info you want. YOU have to read up on subjects yourself and make your own judgements.


I don't believe you. I'm not buying your "I don't care if you care or not" schtick. Oh, I'm sure you don't care specifically whether I do or don't, since you don't know me and have no reason to target me specifically as an individual. But I know as well as anyone else that the reason for posting a message like your original post isn't just to say, "Hey, this is what I care about and I don't care if anybody else does or not." No, on the contrary, your use of multiple imperative statements clearly indicates that you _do_ in fact want other people to jump on your bandwagon.

That being said, I would like to thank you for not going into any more detail than you already did. I, for one, wish this forum was kept to discussions of a lighter nature than this crap.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> That being said, I would like to thank you for not going into any more detail than you already did. I, for
> one, wish this forum was kept to discussions of a lighter nature than this crap.


Bye bye then!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I, for one, wish this forum was kept to discussions of a lighter nature than this crap. "

Wow, you are a little late to be wanting light conversation in the Interchange. This little chat does not even register on the Interchange Geiger Counter. When this forum gets hot, it sizzles.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"In other words any person who speaks a Semitic language is a Semite"

EoO,
We do have a slight technical difference. I view a Semitic group as one of the many that migrated from the Fertile Crescent. Thus they would share a common base in their language but my definition requires actually being from that area as opposed to migrating to an area and adopting a variation of the language Which is why Turks are not necessarily Semites (an arguable concept) but Lebanese definitely are.

However I think we can skip the debate over this technical detail.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> "Indeed, shouldn't US products be boycotted in the US as well? Afterall it was an American Drilling company, chartered by BP, whose shoddy operational ethos actually caused the disaster. The "Deepwater Horizon" although registered in the Marshall Islands, was US crewed, owned and operated. "
> 
> I would be more than happy to boycot British goods if that would help, especially since it was them that got us to foot the bill for Israel anyway.
> BTW why is it that every time England screws up one of their occupation/overthrow/emancipation/profiteering schemes it is the USA that ends up cleaning up the mess?


Like the Exxon Valdez, for example? Or Bhopal? Would you care to enlighten me about other "occupation/overthrow/emancipation/profiteering schemes " that Britain has engaged in the has required the US to sort out?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> "However I think we can skip the debate over this technical detail.


Agreed. However, one last point, the Jews though are originally from Ur in Babylonia, which was also smeitic, so they are covered by the term semite. Fascinating stuff though but perhaps a bit too tangental for the purposes of this discussion. Feel free to start a thread on the linguistic intricacies of the ancient world


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> Answer to your question: If you want someone to care about something that you're already assuming they don't care about, don't tell that person to do their own research to find out why. No salesman has ever cold-called me up on the phone and said, "Buy this product, it's really good, if you want to know why it's so good just look it up." Want me to care? Sell me a reason.


It worked for "healthcare reform!!"


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Bye bye then!


Exactly. Thank goodness for the Ignore feature of vBulletin.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Agreed. However, one last point, the Jews though are originally from Ur in Babylonia, which was also smeitic, so they are covered by the term semite. Fascinating stuff though but perhaps a bit too tangental for the purposes of this discussion. Feel free to start a thread on the linguistic intricacies of the ancient world


Actually it would take a forum of its own since one would have to derive dialects from the root. There is no logical motivation for me to start a discussion on linguistics since I am merely a novice on the lingual, cultural and racial aspects of the Middle East and the various historical events which altered each.. Migratory patterns are easier since being human, we left lots of garbage behind along the way which can be used to plot a rough map of the various migrations (not that I am going to open a discussion on old garbage either)
Note that I was not trying to remove the jews from the Semites but only to point out that it was some OTHER Semites sometimes including Palestine in their empires when Rome was not around to collect the taxes. Some confuse a king with an Emperor and don't realize there is usually a whole layer of government above a kingdom in ancient times. A king is no big deal when an Emperor enters the picture.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Like the Exxon Valdez, for example? Or Bhopal? Would you care to enlighten me about other "occupation/overthrow/emancipation/profiteering schemes " that Britain has engaged in the has required the US to sort out?


Now, now, folks, let's not throw digs across the Atlantic. We are an offspring of the British Empire, and we are still one big, happy, highly, dysfunctional family. :icon_smile_big:

It was the US, Britain and Russia that put Israel on the map and we will just have to live with it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> Now, now, folks, let's not throw digs across the Atlantic. We are an offspring of the British Empire, and we are still one big, happy, highly, dysfunctional family. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> It was the US, Britain and Russia that put Israel on the map and we will just have to live with it.


I agree. However, I was replying to comments made previously. If accusations or assertions are made, it would be appropriate for the member making them to offer evidence. BP's record on ecological disasters was raised, with an explicit assertion that Britain was responsible, I merely responded.


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I agree. However, I was replying to comments made previously. If accusations or assertions are made, it would be appropriate for the member making them to offer evidence. BP's record on ecological disasters was raised, with an explicit assertion that Britain was responsible, I merely responded.


 I don't think all that facts and reports are in regarding BP. While I've read reports claiming that at meetings including all companies involved with the drilling operation pre-disaster, BP took the position that they were in charge. However, that's just a news story, which now-a-days is 50/50 regarding accuracy. I was not assigning blame, just highlighting a reactionary boycott movement. The US was on my boycottable list; pick a decade and you can find a reason.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

dmbfrisb said:


> I don't think all that facts and reports are in regarding BP. While I've read reports claiming that at meetings including all companies involved with the drilling operation pre-disaster, BP took the position that they were in charge. However, that's just a news story, which now-a-days is 50/50 regarding accuracy. I was not assigning blame, just highlighting a reactionary boycott movement. The US was on my boycottable list; pick a decade and you can find a reason.


That's fine, the post that you've highlighted was one made in response to one made about a post I made in response to Country Irish. I was seeking to add to you list rather than criticise it!


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*boycott details*

remember that israeli newspapers have a broader range of opinions on matters palestinian than american media have (read haaretz), and some of the most historically important research on israeli misbehaviour toward palestinians since 1948 has recently been published by israeli academics in israeli universities. so blanket boycotts, especially against israeli universities, seems unfair and even counterproductive. i also suspect that the israeli cultural scene may contain as many allies as opponents of reform.

so, as once with south africa, boycotting tourism and ordinary products, signing petitions and holding peaceful protests educate people and help overall, but maybe a full boycott is not what is needed.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> I don't believe you. I'm not buying your "I don't care if you care or not" schtick. Oh, I'm sure you don't care specifically whether I do or don't, since you don't know me and have no reason to target me specifically as an individual. But I know as well as anyone else that the reason for posting a message like your original post isn't just to say, "Hey, this is what I care about and I don't care if anybody else does or not." No, on the contrary, your use of multiple imperative statements clearly indicates that you _do_ in fact want other people to jump on your bandwagon.


 
This seems to be a good description of Earl of Ormonde- Not really honest. Good at gab, but he really can't hide behind it. 

Abraham was promised that his descendants would have the land from the Tigris and Euphrates to the River of Egypt. Israel is not perfect, but unlike some of their neigbors, are a whole lot better. Perhaps we should boycott Earl of Ormonde.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

WA said:


> Perhaps we should boycott Earl of Ormonde.


Nah. EoO, overall, seems like a decent and cool guy. He has some opinions that are different from mine, but so what. Not even identical twins share all the exact same opinions. He believes in the things that his life experiences, education, upbringing, and brain structure cause him to believe. But he's trying to change the world, to make it better according to his beliefs, and the courage to do that is admirable.


----------



## realbrineshrimp (Jun 28, 2010)

I think we should just boycott everything. Enough with materialism!!!


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

realbrineshrimp said:


> I think we should just boycott everything. Enough with materialism!!!


Right...Well, while you boycott everything,I'll just stick to my very materialistic life.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> Nah. EoO, overall, seems like a decent and cool guy. He has some opinions that are different from mine, but so what. Not even identical twins share all the exact same opinions. He believes in the things that his life experiences, education, upbringing, and brain structure cause him to believe. But he's trying to change the world, to make it better according to his beliefs, and the courage to do that is admirable.


Perhaps he is over educated and hasn't worked his education back to the roots (for example, he really isn't a socialist, but seems to think so). So higher educated are lost in a sea of knowledge. They make more money, but they are still lost. Some people are part way gifted with words and deep subjects, so they really seem to say a lot when really they have said nothing. Truely intelligent people don't waste their time on nothing. Like I said, if you don't trace back to the roots, you are floundering.

He does start some interesting threads. The problem with this thread is he just wants to fit in with popular. The problem with this is he really stands for nothing, but he certainly gets in the way. Does he know that? No.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

You want to keep the economy going. 

To those who want to boycott- If we boycott everything where is the next pay check going to come from? If you don't have a garden what are you going to eat?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WA said:


> Truely intelligent people don't waste their time on nothing.


Indeed!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> Nah. EoO, overall, seems like a decent and cool guy. He has some opinions that are different from mine, but so what. Not even identical twins share all the exact same opinions. He believes in the things that his life experiences, education, upbringing, and brain structure cause him to believe. But he's trying to change the world, to make it better according to his beliefs, and the courage to do that is admirable.


Thanks for those kind words.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Interesting...*



JJR512 said:


> *But he's trying to change the world, to make it better according to his beliefs, and the courage to do that is admirable*.


This sounds like Bin Laden... to me :icon_scratch:

Isn't it?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

lovemeparis said:


> This sounds like Bin Laden... to me :icon_scratch:
> 
> Isn't it?


That depends. Did bin Laden ever say that the courage to change the world is admirable? If he did, then yes, what I said sounds like something he said.

However, you need to understand that there is a _huge_ difference between having the courage to change the world, and being willing to do anything, without limitation, to do so.

Some of the things that I said about EoO could very well be applied to bin Laden as well: "He believes in the things that his life experiences, education, upbringing, and brain structure cause him to believe. But he's trying to change the world, to make it better according to his beliefs, and the courage to do that is admirable." Yes, bin Laden has the courage to try to change the world and fix the things that he perceives as wrong and unjust, and that, _in and of itself_, is admirable. Where the admiration ends, though, at least for me, is the _means_ that bin Laden is willing to go to in order to accomplish the change he wants. If bin Laden had the same ideals and desires that he has now, but was trying to change the world by means of political activism, grassroots movements, public awareness, etc., instead of through terror and death, well, we might agree or disagree with his point of view but we probably wouldn't think of him as evil, would we?

Ultimately, I believe that bin Laden has probably done his cause more harm than good by using terrorism to try to get what he wants. Now, whatever his cause actually is, it is associated with terrorism, which automatically makes most people be against his cause automatically.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

lovemeparis said:


> *But he's trying to change the world, to make it better according to his beliefs, and the courage to do that is admirable*.
> 
> This sounds like Bin Laden... to me :icon_scratch:
> 
> Isn't it?


Or Jesus.


----------



## njkyle (Oct 11, 2009)

In a global economy, a boycott is senseless. First figuring out what proportion of an Israeli product is purely Israeli, and not from some other country, is hard enough. Then figuring out what the impact will be on your own economy, or the economy of friends, is difficult.

For example, here in Southern California, some brain-dead politicians in LA chose to boycott Arizonian products and services due to the passage of a recent bill in that state concerning illegal immigrants (or, "intruders," if you prefer). Later, these geniuses figure out that 25% of the region's electricity is generated in Arizona, and the LA city's red-light camera system is operated by an Arizona company. There are many other example. Suddenly, they have gone quiet. And why are these Arizona companies able to win the contracts in the first place? Because these same politicians have made California "business-unfriendly." 

Boycotts are "feelgood" knee jerk reactions that are quick to organize and hard to control. They are a bludgeon, not a scalpel. 

As for Israel itself, I think its actions in Gaza are despicable; but I also know that many Jew-haters start off their arguments by attacking Israel and over the course of the thread transition to a "proof" that Jews are bad. Yawn.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

EoO I'm not sure if you're familiar with this, but you might find it interesting, here in the US (God Bless America :aportnoy, there are Israeli women at shopping malls who sell dead-sea products, and all across the country they have the same approach of selling. It goes like this:
They see you (a man) from their kiosks approaching from a mile away, grab you by the wrist and "Have you ever heard of the dead sea?" while rubbing some gooey, sticky white stuff on your hands and telling you she's from Tel Aviv and "so what do you think?", to which you reply, I'm a guy I don't use such stuff, "what do you use for your face"? and you say soap, "so what about your wife?" I don't have one, "girlfriend?" none right now, "what does your mother use on her skin?" I really don't know, you say. then she says "this product is worth $1000 (for three small bottles of lotion), no I'm just kidding it's only a $100 but for you only and don't tell anyone it's for $30", and that's when you really decide to boycott Israel . Kind of creepy huh?! Not to mention suddenly rubbing some white and sticky material on your hands without your permission :confused2:.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"there are Israeli women at shopping malls who sell dead-sea products, and all across the country they have the same approach of selling. It goes like this:"

I thought this thread died some time back but here it is reincarnated as mall memories 

There are two ways to reply to this. maybe even three. First you should shop in the real stores so you could get her fired if she smears you with bottled, 5000 year old genuine sea salt or what ever it is. Kiosks are for the midway at the county fair.
Second nothing in a kiosk that I have seen is worth having and if it is a jewish con you are buying that makes it even worse that you stopped.
Third if you read the old testament literally, then you don't have to guess about which business to avoid AND while you are at it avoid all kiosks regardless of who the con artist is behind the folding counter.
What this has to do with a boycott of Israel I can't guess because the ancient Dead sea goop was most likely made in upstate New York.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> I thought this thread died some time back but here it is reincarnated as mall memories


What in the world was it doing on top of the threads list then?! I have not even noticed the dates :icon_smile_big:.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"What in the world was it doing on top of the threads list then?! I have not even noticed the dates . "

There is no telling. It may have been revived by some offhand comment from someone else but I just responded to the first post on the last page, yours.
That's OK though because having someone putting goop on your hand without an invitation is worthy of a thread of its own if not all out urban warfare.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

It seems to me that Israel takes bomb after bomb, like over a thousand, sometimes, before they stop bending over backwards and do something. Then the hypocrite countries in Europe and else where blame them. Those who didn't get a bombed house or daughters wedding blown up or blasted away in a street market by real terrorist shouldn't be saying boycott Israel. Have the so called educated forgotten how to think Or, is educated being a robot, which is told what to think. I rather be poor at grammar and spelling than a educated idiot. A well educated idiot has great grammar and spelling, but is really nothing more than a pawn. Trying to figure out how to fit into a crowd well is the same as stepping onto a ship with out a rudder. Or, well say truely aimless. If you say Israel is not perfect, and you know your not perfect, and you say boycott Israel, then how are you going to boycott yourself to be honest? This boycott Israel is from misguided people.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Is it truely aimless?*



WA said:


> It seems to me that *Israel takes bomb after bomb*, like over a thousand... well say truely aimless.


Do you know the reason why these bombs?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

WA said:


> It seems to me that Israel takes bomb after bomb, like over a thousand, sometimes, before they stop bending over backwards and do something. Then the hypocrite countries in Europe and else where blame them. Those who didn't get a bombed house or daughters wedding blown up or blasted away in a street market by real terrorist shouldn't be saying boycott Israel. Have the so called educated forgotten how to think Or, is educated being a robot, which is told what to think. I rather be poor at grammar and spelling than a educated idiot. A well educated idiot has great grammar and spelling, but is really nothing more than a pawn. Trying to figure out how to fit into a crowd well is the same as stepping onto a ship with out a rudder. Or, well say truely aimless. If you say Israel is not perfect, and you know your not perfect, and you say boycott Israel, then how are you going to boycott yourself to be honest? This boycott Israel is from misguided people.


Watch a lot of Fox News?

Though speaking for myself, I'd much rather be not an idiot. I prefer to be well informed, well educated, good with grammar, punctuation and spelling than someone who's poor with grammar and spelling - with the added burden of being an idiot.

But maybe it's just me....


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

WA said:


> It seems to me that Israel takes bomb after bomb, like over a thousand, sometimes, before they stop bending over backwards and do something. Then the hypocrite countries in Europe and else where blame them. Those who didn't get a bombed house or daughters wedding blown up or blasted away in a street market by real terrorist shouldn't be saying boycott Israel. Have the so called educated forgotten how to think Or, is educated being a robot, which is told what to think. I rather be poor at grammar and spelling than a educated idiot. A well educated idiot has great grammar and spelling, but is really nothing more than a pawn. Trying to figure out how to fit into a crowd well is the same as stepping onto a ship with out a rudder. Or, well say truely aimless. If you say Israel is not perfect, and you know your not perfect, and you say boycott Israel, then how are you going to boycott yourself to be honest? This boycott Israel is from misguided people.


I don't really know where to start , you seem so misguided that you're beyond salvation in your lack of knowledge (a.k.a ignorance) on this issue. At least you got one thing right, your confession of being an uneducated individual. Could the documented Israeli bombing of infants, toddlers, and layettes be ever justified? Not to mention the other documented war crimes. Of course, your likes can see things from one side only, which is from the far right. The Palestinians have their mistakes too, but there isn't any unbiased reports of them butchering toddlers. I suggest you start looking at things from the center, not extreme right or left. One more thing, no more Fox News for you sir !


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Wow... just, wow. First, "homosexuals need to invent their own words for being married." Now this. I don't know what to say.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Wow... just, wow. First, "homosexuals need to invent their own words for being married." Now this. I don't know what to say.


Who's talking about homosexuals?!


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Israel... homosexuals???*



Jovan said:


> First, "*homosexuals need to invent their own words for being married*." Now this. I don't know what to say.


So, you mean Israel is homosexuals and is the reason why they got bombed?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I was referring to some other far out thing WA once said.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Got it.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

camorristi said:


> ...Could the documented Israeli bombing of infants, toddlers, and layettes be ever justified? Not to mention the other documented war crimes.... The Palestinians have their mistakes too, but *there isn't any unbiased reports of them butchering toddlers*.


:icon_scratch: When they lob rockets how do they make sure to avoid toddlers?

Palestinian mistake?


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

rkipperman said:


> :icon_scratch: When they lob rockets how do they make sure to avoid toddlers?


Why, they send them in at 5 or 6 feet, that way they fly over toddlers' heads. Didn't you read the safety instructions with your rocket launcher?

Andy B.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

rkipperman said:


> :icon_scratch: When they lob rockets how do they make sure to avoid toddlers?
> 
> Palestinian mistake?


Really?! Wow, you are very smart aren't you?! You figured me all out and left me defenseless, you Wikipedian genius. Alright, the Palestinians killed "one" Israeli child and they should be held accountable for it, but how does that compare with Israelis killing thousands of Palestinian children? I can understand if someone has a different opinion, but there's no excuse for stupidity. You could have debated my point with a reasonable answer, but citing that one isolated Wikipedia incident?! You know better than that. I remember a quote by Mussolini with ideas similar to the ones you're implying.



andy b. said:


> Why, they send them in at 5 or 6 feet, that way they fly over toddlers' heads. Didn't you read the safety instructions with your rocket launcher?
> 
> Andy B.


You engage the child safety lock, it's all in the manual :teacha:. Or, how about firing at armed enemy personnel only?! I am very disappointed that you find the death of toddlers something to be sarcastic about.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think I'll step out of this thread. For the record though, my remark to WA was with my moderator's hat off.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WA said:


> It seems to me that Israel takes bomb after bomb, like over a thousand, sometimes, before they stop bending over backwards and do something. Then the hypocrite countries in Europe and else where blame them. Those who didn't get a bombed house or daughters wedding blown up or blasted away in a street market by real terrorist shouldn't be saying boycott Israel. Have the so called educated forgotten how to think Or, is educated being a robot, which is told what to think. I rather be poor at grammar and spelling than a educated idiot. A well educated idiot has great grammar and spelling, but is really nothing more than a pawn. Trying to figure out how to fit into a crowd well is the same as stepping onto a ship with out a rudder. Or, well say truely aimless. If you say Israel is not perfect, and you know your not perfect, and you say boycott Israel, then how are you going to boycott yourself to be honest? This boycott Israel is from misguided people.


Numerous news agencies, numerous television channels, numerous radio channels, numerous NGOs, numerous govt agencies working in the humanitarian field (my own included), numerous governments (USA included), the UN, human rights courts, International Law, experts and academics in many fields all say the opposite to you. So you'll understand why I don't take a blind bit of notice of what you have to say on the subject.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I'm out of this thread


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

camorristi said:


> Or, how about firing at armed enemy personnel only?!


Be that as it may, I still fail to see the difference between a randomly fired rocket or a cluster bomb dropped from a plane from the perspective of the dead. They are just as dead.

But the intent of those that lauch rockets or drop the bombs are not equally unjust.

Let's just say I support Israel.

Not blindly.

But in general I do.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Numerous news agencies, numerous television channels, numerous radio channels, numerous NGOs, numerous govt agencies working in the humanitarian field (my own included), numerous governments (USA included), the UN, human rights courts, International Law, experts and academics in many fields all say the opposite to you.


They say boycotting Israel is an effective means to protest their policy??


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

camorristi said:


> You engage the child safety lock, it's all in the manual :teacha:. Or, how about firing at armed enemy personnel only?! I am very disappointed that you find the death of toddlers something to be sarcastic about.


"How can you shoot women and children?"

"Easy, you just don't lead them as much."

My attempt at injecting a twist on some pop-culture humor into the discussion wasn't meant to make light of the deaths of children, just to lighten a somewhat heavy thread.

Andy B.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I don't think that anyone is denying that Hamas, or their operatives, launch missiles into Israel. However, Israel seem to be applying the concept of collective responsibility, ie "the Palestinians of Gaza" are responsible, rather than the actual individuals, and are therefore carrying out a collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza. Both concepts are outlawed by the UN, both are classed as War Crimes by the UN and the International Court, both are concepts that condemned their perpetrators to serious sanctions in the Nuremburg Trials in 1945. 
At the most sympathetic level to Israel, it is a lazy response to a problem. It is also illegal under international law.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> They say boycotting Israel is an effective means to protest their policy??


I assumed you were following international developments.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I assumed you were following international developments.


It is not uncommon for news stories to go unreported in the US. It's revealing to go on line and gain perspecive from an International audience.

I was not aware that the agencies you referenced supported a boycott on Israel as an effective means of action. I asked for clarification, because I'm not even sure that's what you meant!!

(Language barrier you know  )


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> I don't think that anyone is denying that Hamas, or their operatives, launch missiles into Israel. However, Israel seem to be applying the concept of collective responsibility, ie "the Palestinians of Gaza" are responsible, rather than the actual individuals, and are therefore carrying out a collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza. Both concepts are outlawed by the UN, both are classed as War Crimes by the UN and the International Court, both are concepts that condemned their perpetrators to serious sanctions in the Nuremburg Trials in 1945.


Is this why they are so often at adds at imposing economic sanctions against NK and Iran??

Because such collective punishment is illegal??


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Chouan said:


> I don't think that anyone is denying that Hamas, or their operatives, launch missiles into Israel. However, Israel seem to be applying the concept of collective responsibility, ie "the Palestinians of Gaza" are responsible, rather than the actual individuals, and are therefore carrying out a collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza. Both concepts are outlawed by the UN, both are classed as War Crimes by the UN and the International Court, both are concepts that condemned their perpetrators to serious sanctions in the Nuremburg Trials in 1945.
> At the most sympathetic level to Israel, it is a lazy response to a problem. It is also illegal under international law.


And lobbing missles into Israeli civilian terrorties is not in violation of international law?


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

camorristi said:


> Alright, the Palestinians killed "one" Israeli child and they should be held accountable for it, but how does that compare with Israelis killing thousands of Palestinian children?


One? You really think the Palis only killed one child? I don't think even *you *believe that. Oh, by the way, there is a huge difference between purposely targeting civilians (including the two children mentioned in the wiki link) and civilians being killed.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

camorristi said:


> I'm out of this thread


I am sure you will continue to post when you return from your Gaza "peace" mission.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It is not uncommon for news stories to go unreported in the US. It's revealing to go on line and gain perspecive from an International audience.
> 
> I was not aware that the agencies you referenced supported a boycott on Israel as an effective means of action. I asked for clarification, because I'm not even sure that's what you meant!!
> 
> (Language barrier you know  )


Fair enough. Anyway I'm out of this thread now, it's just going round in circles. I'm sorry I started it now. The biggest surprise I got on this thread was the amount of support there is for terrorism committed in the name of a state i.e. Israel.

See ya.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Fair enough. Anyway I'm out of this thread now, it's just going round in circles. I'm sorry I started it now. The biggest surprise I got on this thread was the amount of support there is for terrorism committed in the name of Gaza.
> 
> See ya.


Fixed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

rkipperman said:


> Fixed.


FAIL!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

rkipperman said:


> And lobbing missles into Israeli civilian terrorties is not in violation of international law?


Of course it is. So Israel should identify the individuals responsible, extradite them, and deal with them. 
If a pysochopathic thug living in a housing estate, that the residents are frightened of, fire into a neighbouring area, you would expect the police to identify him and arrest him. You wouldn't expect the police to build a wall around the estate and occasionally use helicopter gunships to shoot up cars that they think the thug might be travelling in, would you? Or stop food getting in, stop the residents from going to work, and start shooting the residents who complain about it.
This, essentially, is what Israel is doing. The Palestinian people, as a whole, are not responsible, yet they, as a whole, are being punished for something that they can't control.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Of course it is. So Israel should identify the individuals responsible, extradite them, and deal with them.
> If a pysochopathic thug living in a housing estate, that the residents are frightened of, fire into a neighbouring area, you would expect the police to identify him and arrest him. You wouldn't expect the police to build a wall around the estate and occasionally use helicopter gunships to shoot up cars that they think the thug might be travelling in, would you? Or stop food getting in, stop the residents from going to work, and start shooting the residents who complain about it.
> This, essentially, is what Israel is doing. The Palestinian people, as a whole, are not responsible, yet they, as a whole, are being punished for something that they can't control.


Very well put Chouan, a perfect analogy.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Of course it is. *So Israel should identify the individuals responsible, extradite them, and deal with them. *
> If a pysochopathic thug living in a housing estate, that the residents are frightened of, fire into a neighbouring area, you would expect the police to identify him and arrest him. You wouldn't expect the police to build a wall around the estate and occasionally use helicopter gunships to shoot up cars that they think the thug might be travelling in, would you? Or stop food getting in, stop the residents from going to work, and start shooting the residents who complain about it.
> This, essentially, is what Israel is doing. *The Palestinian people, as a whole, are not responsible, yet they, as a whole, are being punished for something that they can't control*.


1) How do you suggest Israel find an individual lobbing a rocket from a school? Even if they could, you really think the Pali's will extradite him???
2) The Palestinian people have lawfully elected their representatives (i.e., Hamas).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Of course it is. So Israel should identify the individuals responsible, extradite them, and deal with them.
> If a pysochopathic thug living in a housing estate, that the residents are frightened of, fire into a neighbouring area, you would expect the police to identify him and arrest him. You wouldn't expect the police to build a wall around the estate and occasionally use helicopter gunships to shoot up cars that they think the thug might be travelling in, would you? Or stop food getting in, stop the residents from going to work, and start shooting the residents who complain about it.
> This, essentially, is what Israel is doing. The Palestinian people, as a whole, are not responsible, yet they, as a whole, are being punished for something that they can't control.





Earl of Ormonde said:


> Very well put Chouan, a perfect analogy.


The International "cops and robbers" approach has regained popularity in the US as well.

I'll explain why the analogy is faulty.

My murderous neigbor and I both live in the same jurisdiction. We have the same Mayor/Governor/Nationality. Redress is sought through that authority. And even then, in Philadelphia back in the 70's, and Waco (TX) in the 90s, they did surround them and bomb them out!! But be that as it may...

If my murderous neigbor lives in a seperate National Entity or proxy nation of another State, represented by another power than my own, and niether that power nor his neigbors curtain his activity, than that power and those neigbors are collectively responsible for their own inaction. When it's the US involved, and the violence is bad enough (terrorism or worse) the FBI doesn't go, they don't have International jurisdiction, drones bombs and marines go.

This stuff really seems basic to me.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*In the Bible...*



rkipperman said:


> I am sure you will continue to post when you return from your *Gaza* "peace" mission.


If GOD can create it... GOD can destroy it!!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The International "cops and robbers" approach has regained popularity in the US as well.
> 
> I'll explain why the analogy is faulty.
> 
> ...


Which is also illegal if done without the sanction and agreement of the UN.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> This stuff really seems basic to me.


Reminds me of an English student I had in the late 90s, who on starting English lessons with me said "I find English quite easy" Then about six months later said, "You know James I feel that I knew more before I started the lessons, it feels like my English is getting worse". I said "Eva, that's because you now know how little you knew when you started and how much there is left to learn" 
I then explained to her the basic principle of studying any subject, in that once you've been studying it for a while you come to realise how much there is left to learn and how little you actually knew before you started with your formal study of it. If that wasn't the case schools, colleges, and universities wouldn't be needed.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I then explained to her the basic principle of studying any subject, in that once you've been studying it for a while you come to realise how much there is left to learn and how little you actually knew before you started with your formal study of it. If that wasn't the case schools, colleges, and universities wouldn't be needed.


When it comes to making simple things complicated, a Liberal Arts degree is most appreciated. With mine I realized that my engineering freinds can think critically, read and write much better than I can engineer!!

Now then, maybe we can speak of my analysis of the failed analogy above??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> When it comes to making simple things complicated, a Liberal Arts degree is most appreciated. With mine I realized that my engineering freinds can think critically, read and write much better than I can engineer!!
> 
> Now then, maybe we can speak of my analysis of the failed analogy above??




I don't think Chouan's analogy failed at all. I think it works well


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I don't think Chouan's analogy failed at all. I think it works well


OK.

Explain how The Palestinian people, or the people of Israel, the US or the UK, as a body politic, can't control their elected officials or be accountable for their policies when he said...



Chouan said:


> The Palestinian people, as a whole, are not responsible, yet they, as a whole, are being punished for something that they can't control.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Which is also illegal if done without the sanction and agreement of the UN.


What will the UN do if you do something without their blessing?

Andy B.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OK.
> 
> Explain how The Palestinian people, or the people of Israel, the US or the UK, as a body politic, can't control their elected officials or be accountable for their policies when he said...


If armed terrorists in Gaza fire missiles/rockets at Israel, how do ordinary, unarmed, members of the civil population stop them? Rocket attacks on Israel aren't the policy of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, but they also can't stop them without effectively provoking a civil war within Gaza and being seen as supporters and defenders of Israel. 
My analogy, I believe, still holds true.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

andy b. said:


> What will the UN do if you do something without their blessing?
> 
> Andy B.


They could apply sanctions, after passing a resolution condemning the illegal action. However, just because the UN seems to be powerless to stop unilateral actions, such as those of Israel or the US, doesn't mean that those actions aren't illegal.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OK.
> 
> Explain how The Palestinian people, or the people of Israel, the US or the UK, as a body politic, can't control their elected officials or be accountable for their policies when he said...


I feel you've missed the whole point of Chouan's analogy and you've now quoted part of his text out of context. The analogy is correct in that a whole nation should and must not be held accountable for the actions of the few, be they criminals,terrorists, or freedom fighters; in exactly the same way that a whole city borough's population should and must not be held accountable for the actions of the criminal few.

The Palestinian authorities are hampered at every turn by Israel. 
The fledgling Palestinian state is hampered at every turn by Israel. 
They are not anywhere near on an equal footing.

*The American War of Independence*
The Americans fought for their freedom from the govenrment and interference of another state i.e. Britain 
Imagine if now today everytime the USA wanted to do something, Canada interfered and dicated what the USA could and couldn't do, and set up blockades and embargos and built walls and so on to prevent the USA from functioning as a fully sovereign state. 
And imagine if everytime a US freedom fighter fired a rocket or a rifle against this Canadian oppressor to try to force them to leave the USA alone and the RCAF responded by blanket bombing the nearest US city regardless of intel about where the freedom fighter was?

THAT is what Israel is doing to Palestine.THAT is the current relationship between Israel and the area that is trying to function as the Palestinian State.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I feel you've missed the whole point of Chouan's analogy and you've now quoted part of his text out of context. The analogy is correct in that a whole nation should and must not be held accountable for the actions of the few, be they criminals,terrorists, or freedom fighters; in exactly the same way that a whole city borough's population should and must not be held accountable for the actions of the criminal few.
> 
> *The American War of Independence*
> The Americans fought for their freedom from the govenrment and interference of another state i.e. Britain
> ...


1. This still makes no sense.There are municipal boarders within Nations and International boarders. They are different, they are not the same.

Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay were not war criminals. What the people of Germany and Japan did not know they should have known and were accountable 'till their deaths.

2. That's why we bought our guns from France!!

2a. Is the US provoking Canada by declaring it's presence illegal and launching rockets into it??

I'm all for self government and determination for the reasonable people of Palistine.



Chouan said:


> If armed terrorists in Gaza fire missiles/rockets at Israel, how do ordinary, unarmed, members of the civil population stop them? .


Where are the Ghandis??

The MLKs??

The hunger strikes??

Any element that I can empathise with??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

You're still missing the main point. The retaliatory attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces on the people of Palestine as a whole because of the acts of the few are illegal and immoral.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Where are the Ghandis??
> 
> The MLKs??
> 
> ...


But here perhaps we're touching on a major difference of opinion. For me armed struggle is ALWAYS justified in the face of a struggle to rid one's self of an oppressor. The IRA in 1919; the Americans in 1776; the South Americans under Bolivar; Lenin and Trotsky in 1917; the French in 1789; the ANC in South Africa.

Would you not that they had done so?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But here perhaps we're touching on a major difference of opinion. For me armed struggle is ALWAYS justified in the face of a struggle to rid one's self of an oppressor. The IRA in 1919; the Americans in 1776; the South Americans under Bolivar; Lenin and Trotsky in 1917; the French in 1789; the ANC in South Africa.
> 
> Would you not that they had done so?


Here we differ as what an oppressor is. 
Was Britain really an oppressor in Ireland before the Proclamation of the Republic in 1916? I mean at the time? I don't think so. Some Nationalists, even most, wanted self-rule, which is notevidence that Britain's rule was oppressive. There are many Scottish Nationalist who want independence for Scotland, not because Westminster in oppressive, orbecause they view the government of the UK as oppressors, but because they want self-rule. Britain became an oppressive occupying force in reaction to the actions of the IRA, which gained sympathy for the IRA in Ireland, and set the scene for the War of Independence.
Was Britain's rule of America in 1776 oppressive? To the American elite who saw advantages in self-rule, yes. To the bulk of the American population, no. However, the American Revolutionaries managed to convince sufficient people that it WAS oppressive, and were able to start the Revolution.
Was Spanish rule in S.America oppressive? Yes, it probably was.
Was Russia ruled by an oppressor, or an oppressive government when Lenin and Trotsky overthrew the government? No, it was a very immature parliamentary democracy that was seeking to reform Russia, which they overthrew in Petrograd and Moscow. It took them 5 years to complete the Revolution, mainly because many Russians, of all classes, were opposed to the end of their newly won democracy.
France in 1789. Armed struggle against what exactly?
The ANC in S.Africa? Yes, oppression by a white minority of a white majority. 
N.Ireland in 1968-9? Yes, where there was the oppression of a Catholic minority, although a majority in Derry, by a Protestant minority, and where attempts to gain civil rights by parliamentary and peaceful means had already failed. Even then the armed struggle there began as a reaction to the use of violence by the oppressor. Which, incidentally, wasn't the British Government, but was the Government of N.Ireland.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1. This still makes no sense.There are municipal boarders within Nations and International boarders. They are different, they are not the same.
> 
> Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay were not war criminals. What the people of Germany and Japan did not know they should have known and were accountable 'till their deaths.
> 
> ...


1) Britain and the USA were at war with Germany, following formal declarations of war. Hence military action, even with civilian casualties as collateral damage, is acceptable. Israel isn't at war with Gaza; there certainly hasn't been a declaration of war, or even an ultimatum issued.
Israel is simply making a populist, for Israel, racist, knee-jerk reaction to terrorist actions by individuals, the consequences of which, the imposition of collective punishments as a demonstration of the Israeli belief in collective responsibility, is illegal in international law.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But here perhaps we're touching on a major difference of opinion. For me armed struggle is ALWAYS justified in the face of a struggle to rid one's self of an oppressor. The IRA in 1919; the Americans in 1776; the South Americans under Bolivar; Lenin and Trotsky in 1917; the French in 1789; the ANC in South Africa.
> 
> Would you not that they had done so?


Was I supposed to not notice you are unable to cite a presence such as these in Palistine??

Where are the Ghandis??

The MLKs??

The hunger strikes??

Any element that I can empathise with??

But I'll answer YOUR question.

Different times and circumstances call for different measures. There is a time and place for almost anything. I want to reach out to a reasonable element in Palastine so they can enjoy the benefits of self rule in Gaza.

Where are they??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Here we differ as what an oppressor is.
> Was Britain really an oppressor in Ireland before the Proclamation of the Republic in 1916? I mean at the time? I don't think so. Some Nationalists, even most, wanted self-rule, which is notevidence that Britain's rule was oppressive. There are many Scottish Nationalist who want independence for Scotland, not because Westminster in oppressive, orbecause they view the government of the UK as oppressors, but because they want self-rule. Britain became an oppressive occupying force in reaction to the actions of the IRA, which gained sympathy for the IRA in Ireland, and set the scene for the War of Independence.
> Was Britain's rule of America in 1776 oppressive? To the American elite who saw advantages in self-rule, yes. To the bulk of the American population, no. However, the American Revolutionaries managed to convince sufficient people that it WAS oppressive, and were able to start the Revolution.
> Was Spanish rule in S.America oppressive? Yes, it probably was.
> ...


Like I said a major difference of opinion, and I don't want to take the thread that far off topic and start discussing those
individual struggles. You know full well my views on Britain in Ireland.  
I'm using those armed struggles as examples what I consider justified, just as I consider the struggle in Palestine justified.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> 1) Britain and the USA were at war with Germany, following formal declarations of war. Hence military action, even with civilian casualties as collateral damage, is acceptable. Israel isn't at war with Gaza; there certainly hasn't been a declaration of war, or even an ultimatum issued.
> Israel is simply making a populist, for Israel, racist, knee-jerk reaction to terrorist actions by individuals, the consequences of which, the imposition of collective punishments as a demonstration of the Israeli belief in collective responsibility, is illegal in international law.


There was nothing "collateral" about Dresden or Nagasaki, fella!!

With exceptions, retaliatory tactical airstrikes and ground ops by Isreal have attempted to be selective and certainly more selective than an indescriminate rocket attack or suicide bomber.

Even the blockade, according to Israel for self defense, is not a collective punishment as civilian aide is clearly permitted.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'm using those armed struggles as examples what I consider justified, just as I consider the struggle in Palestine justified.


Aren't the oppressors in Gaza Hamas and not Israel at all??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Aren't the oppressors in Gaza Hamas and not Israel at all??


If Israel had allowed Palestine a state in 1948 Hamas wouldn't exist today!

As regards your Ghandis and peaceniks and so on, you're assuming incorrectly that I think those are desirable, I don't. I've already told you I think armed stuggles are justified in the face of oppression. But you didn't respond to the USA-Canada analogy. If US "terrorists" were attacking Canada to stop it's oppression of the USA would it be right for the RCAF to blanket bomb US cities just to punish a handful of US "terrorists" and that is exactly what Israel is doing. 
And I'm going to keep coming back to this point of the illegal and immoral collective "punishmnet" by Israel on Palestine as a whole until you understand what I mean.

Whether or not the Palestinians have peaceful demonstrators or not is totally irrelevant and of no interest to me whatsoever.
The Ship to Gaza was peaceful & look what the IDF did to that. The IDF were last week criticized by their own internal investigation for handling the Ship to Gaza situation incorrectly.

Israel and Palestine were beyond peaceful demonstrations when already in 1948 a bunch of European Jews created Israel and started ignoring UN resolutions regarding a Palestinian State.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> If Israel had allowed Palestine a state in 1948 Hamas wouldn't exist today!
> 
> As regards your Ghandis and peaceniks and so on, you're assuming incorrectly that I think those are desirable, I don't. I've already told you I think armed stuggles are justified in the face of oppression. But you didn't respond to the USA-Canada analogy. If US "terrorists" were attacking Canada to stop it's oppression of the USA would it be right for the RCAF to blanket bomb US cities just to punish a handful of US "terrorists" and that is exactly what Israel is doing.


1. You have deflected the question again.

2. I had the courtesy to address your question in post 104



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Whether or not the Palestinians have peaceful demonstrators or not is totally irrelevant and of no interest to me whatsoever.


I think that sums it up.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1. You have deflected the question again.
> 
> 2. I had the courtesy to address your question in post 104
> 
> I think that sums it up.


1. No I haven't, I responded and pointed out that from my perspective the question is irrelevant

2. I don't see where in post 104.

But this is getting a bit silly now as we're just going round in circles again, looking at it from very different perspectives and with very different opinions on what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

I, in agreement with the Geneva Convention, conisder a state's armed forces bombing the civilian population of another country as wrong. Regardless of what terrorsits in that country have done previously.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But this is getting a bit silly now as we're just going round in circles again...


One of us is!!


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The analogy is correct in that a whole nation should and must not be held accountable for the actions of the few, be they criminals,terrorists, or freedom fighters; in exactly the same way that a whole city borough's population should and must not be held accountable for the actions of the criminal few.


So then you believe I should be able to carry a small pocket knife and bottle of juice onto an airplane because " whole population should and must not be held accountable for the actions of the criminal few".

Andy B.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) There was nothing "collateral" about Dresden or Nagasaki, fella!!
> 
> 2) With exceptions, retaliatory tactical airstrikes and ground ops by Isreal have attempted to be selective and certainly more selective than an indescriminate rocket attack or suicide bomber.
> 
> 3) Even the blockade, according to Israel for self defense, is not a collective punishment as civilian aide is clearly permitted.


1) True, but you understand my meaning I'm sure. They were legitimate targets, in wartime.
2) So the IDF say, but evidence on the ground would suggest otherwise. It is interesting that they invariably target police stations. On the other hand, even if they are targeted, but badly, surely firing rockets from a helicopter at a moving car in a heavily populated built up area, because you think a terrorist is in the car is more than a little irresponsible?
3) the civilian aid is determined by Israel, and doesn't cover anything that terrorists might use, including much medical kit, and cement. Given how badly damaged Gaza was by the Israelis, forbidding the importation of cement, without which the Palestinians can't rebuild anything, is a serious punishment to the whole community. In any event, the blockade is punishing the whole community.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

andy b. said:


> So then you believe I should be able to carry a small pocket knife and bottle of juice onto an airplane because " whole population should and must not be held accountable for the actions of the criminal few".
> 
> Andy B.


Do you know anything about civil law for public access to commercial premises (bars, clubs, pubs, shops, hotels, cinemas, museums, planes, boats, trains, buses and so on)?
If so you wouldn't have asked that question as you would have known it was an unworkable comparison for many reasons. Not least because companies are not govt armed forces. Secondly because all commerical premises are legally private places/vehicles therefore the owner/proprietor can specify what,how,where and when the public have access. That has always been the case, long before 9/11.
As I said an unworkable comparison.

That said, yes I think I should be able to take a penknife and a bottle of water on to a plane but like I said the comparison is unworkable.


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

Seeing this thread pop up again reminded me of a story I recently read about a Palestinian player being charged with rape for consensual sex with a Jew: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew . This one's bizzare!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

dmbfrisb said:


> Seeing this thread pop up again reminded me of a story I recently read about a Palestinian player being charged with rape for consensual sex with a Jew: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew . This one's bizzare!


Something don't add up, that's for sure!!



> According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.


Then...



> "The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price -


Innocent?? :crazy:

...and for shaming her family will the Jewish woman be burried alive, stoned, hung in a public place, or mearly lashed??

Seems as if almost everything is relative!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> 2. I don't see where in post 104.


How about post 94 ref 2a??


----------

