My fellow Earthlings: The jig is up

Iz the Wiz

I don't know what "they bare irrelevance" means (does it mean "they bear no relevance"? ...probably)

Im surprised you had to guess.

but I certainly didn't smear anyone's character. What I said was completely on the subject. Besides, context matters for determining whether an attack is ad hominem. "He's pot-bellied and pimply" is an ad hominem attack when applied to a Supreme Court nominee, but not when applied to a Mr. Universe contestant. Get it?

Whether I understood the term ad hominem was never in doubt.

Is there a Palestinian army illegally occupying Israeli territory?

Illegally?

No? ...Then how can the U.N. call for Palestine's withdrawal? (If indeed calling for such a withdrawal amounts to "condemnation.") The following is typical---a resolution that simply calls for a peace conference, in which Palestine would be recognized "on an equal footing":

It calls for Israel to withdraw back to the 1967 borders, dismantle settlements yet makes no demands on the part of the PA to offer Israel any support in defending its people from suicide bombers and terrorism. Israel is quite willing to withdraw if it facilitates the creation of a Palestinian state. Quite rightly, Israel is not prepared to withdraw in a move that would embolden the cause of terrorism and make no assurance as to Israeli security, state or no state.

This isnt a peace agreement whatsoever and its frankly appalling that you use that terminology when one of your main 'points' was to condemn Israel for NOT agreeing. Id be interested to see which nation proposed this 'peace agreement'.

Reply 183

Iz the Wiz

Good for you, but that isn't what Douglas did: He simply dismissed their statement out of hand, because it came from "the Left" and was therefore invalid. In fact, he responded exactly as described in my "ad hominem attack": "... you [Douglas] immediately write off contrary information (or non-Conservative sources of information) as 'Leftist.'"

What a tedious set of affairs.

Reply 184

RetiredAccount89

18

Vienna

Are you suggesting that combatants captured by the enemy during conflict, having no rights under the third Geneva Convention should now be let go, despite the fourth Geneva Convention making the detention of unlawful combatants entirely legal if the US believes they remain a threat?

Let go? No

I am suggesting that your incredulity at the suggestion that "...detainees awaiting tribunal for acts of murder and terrorism, should be afforded the same respect as a law-abiding Afghani or Iraqi..." suggests that you have already decided that these people (innocent till proven guilty) should be entitled to less 'respect' and poorer treatment than those arrested (innocent till proven guilty) for other crimes.

Reply 185

foolfarian

Let go? No

So what do you plan on doing with them?

I am suggesting that your incredulity at the suggestion that "...detainees awaiting tribunal for acts of murder and terrorism, should be afforded the same respect as a law-abiding Afghani or Iraqi..." suggests that you have already decided that these people (innocent till proven guilty) should be entitled to less 'respect' and poorer treatment than those arrested (innocent till proven guilty) for other crimes.

I didnt use the word respect, its rather ambiguous. I was interested in framing exactly what the suggestion of respect meant in the context of locking someone up and not locking someone up.

"So basically as far as the prison/guards are concerned they are guilty by way of being there/accused."

I didnt make this suggestion either, although I would hope any security personnel made the assumption that detainees were extremely dangerous.

Reply 186

Vienna

It calls for Israel to withdraw back to the 1967 borders, dismantle settlements yet makes no demands on the part of the PA to offer Israel any support in defending its people from suicide bombers and terrorism. Israel is quite willing to withdraw if it facilitates the creation of a Palestinian state. Quite rightly, Israel is not prepared to withdraw in a move that would embolden the cause of terrorism and make no assurance as to Israeli security, state or no state.

Do you maintain that the 144 nations that voted FOR the proposal did so because they are pro-terrorism?

Vienna

This isnt a peace agreement whatsoever and its frankly appalling that you use that terminology when one of your main 'points' was to condemn Israel for NOT agreeing. Id be interested to see which nation proposed this 'peace agreement'.

My point was not to condemn Israel but to establish a plausible reason for Islamic hostility & why it's directed mainly toward Israel and America. Year after year they see this sort of thing ... yeah, they must just hate us for our freedom.

Reply 187

Vienna

What a tedious set of affairs.

It's impressive you can maintain a stuck up attitude while you're losing; but it would be even more impressive if you could come up with substantial arguments.

Reply 188

Iz the Wiz

Do you maintain that the 144 nations that voted FOR the proposal did so because they are pro-terrorism?

I never suggested such an absurd thing. The nations that voted for the proposal agree with what the proposal states. I dont believe it is acceptable or valuable to establishing two-state peace in the region.

My point was not to condemn Israel but to establish a plausible reason for Islamic hostility & why it's directed mainly toward Israel and America. Year after year they see this sort of thing ... yeah, they must just hate us for our freedom.

Why is their Islamic hostility to the WEST if the US is the lone defender of Israels right to exist?

Reply 189

Iz the Wiz

It's impressive you can maintain a stuck up attitude while you're losing;

Losing what? What game are we playing? Ad hominem or not, you clearly favour the use of personal remarks and insults as a primary argument ahead of reason and debate.

but it would be even more impressive if you could come up with substantial arguments.

You and Douglas can argue over who said what to who as much as you wish. Your comments in that respect require no response.

Reply 190

Vienna

I never suggested such an absurd thing. The nations that voted for the proposal agree with what the proposal states. I dont believe it is acceptable or valuable to establishing two-state peace in the region.

You said Palestinian authority should agree to protect Israel from terrorists, which assumes that Palestinian authority actually controls terrorists. If this is the case---and 144 UN nations vote to recognize Palestine's authority and claims---then my question is not absurd at all.

You may not think it's likely to acheive peace, but just 1 post ago you found it "appalling" that I called it a peace agreement! Okay, so me & 144 nations are appalling.

Vienna

Why is their Islamic hostility to the WEST if the US is the lone defender of Israels right to exist?

"Israel's right to exist." I like that. Those 144 countries don't think Israel has a right to exist?

The "West" certainly tends to back U.S.-Israeli interests outside of the UN, when push comes to shove militarily, with a few isolated and inconsistent exceptions.

Reply 191

OP

Iz the Wiz

Do you maintain that the 144 nations that voted FOR the proposal did so because they are pro-terrorism?

Or anti Israeli.

My point was not to condemn Israel but to establish a plausible reason for Islamic hostility & why it's directed mainly toward Israel and America.

Israel for obvious reasons, America because we're their main supporters.

Year after year they see this sort of thing ... yeah, they must just hate us for our freedom.

Does this make sense??

Reply 192

Douglas

Or anti Israeli.

144 anti-Israel nations in the world? That's really what you think?

Douglas

Iz the Wiz

Year after year they see this sort of thing ... yeah, they must just hate us for our freedom.

Does this make sense??

Yes. I was being sarcastic. We consistently block their interests in the UN (not to mention elsewhere); they have a rational reason to be angry with us. (When I call it "rational" that doesn't mean I agree with it, I just mean that actual human beings outside of blockbuster movies really function that way.)

Reply 193

OP

Iz the Wiz

Good for you, but that isn't what Douglas did: He simply dismissed their statement out of hand, because it came from "the Left" and was therefore invalid. In fact, he responded exactly as described in my "ad hominem attack": "... you [Douglas] immediately write off contrary information (or non-Conservative sources of information) as 'Leftist.'"

Everyone know Amnesty International is a leftist organization, it's indisputable.

If I read in the Wall Street Journal that U.S. prisons are gulags, I'll believe it.

Reply 194

That's what I mean. you dismiss other sources, not on the ground that they tell lies, but on the ground that their ideology is not yours.

I'm not trying to argue here that an organization isn't Leftist, just that their ideology isn't a real criteria for their trustworthiness.

Reply 195

Iz the Wiz

You said Palestinian authority should agree to protect Israel from terrorists, which assumes that Palestinian authority actually controls terrorists.

"yet makes no demands on the part of the PA to offer Israel any support in defending its people from suicide bombers and terrorism"

I think it would be rather irresponsible to believe that the PA has total control of groups such as Hamas, but there are measures that they can take to prevent acts of terrorism against Israel yes.

If this is the case---and 144 UN nations vote to recognize Palestine's authority and claims---then my question is not absurd at all.

But it isnt the case. The 144 UN nations vote to recognise the text of that Resolution. I believe that for real peace in the region, a two-state agreement has to be negotiated with Israeli security concerns a priority.

You may not think it's likely to acheive peace, but just 1 post ago you found it "appalling" that I called it a peace agreement! Okay, so me & 144 nations are appalling.

144 nations signed a UN resolution. You alone labelled that UN resolution a peace agreement despite all the logic demonstrating the contrary.

"Israel's right to exist." I like that. Those 144 countries don't think Israel has a right to exist?

Its hard to draw a general consensus over 144 diverse nations. What do you think would happen if the West refused to offer Israel assurances of security?

The "West" certainly tends to back U.S.-Israeli interests outside of the UN, when push comes to shove militarily, with a few isolated and inconsistent exceptions.

So the West is hated because we share common values and alliance with the United States of America, who in turn offer Israel support?

Reply 196

OP

Iz the Wiz

144 anti-Israel nations in the world? That's really what you think?

No, is that what you think? Or is it just the 144 nations that think that?

Wiz....post 191...."Israel's right to exist." I like that. Those 144 countries don't think Israel has a right to exist

Reply 197

Iz the Wiz

Yes. I was being sarcastic. We consistently block their interests in the UN

Sorry, "their"? You mean Muslims or Arabs? You mean Israel and the US blocking resolutions pertaining to the Middle East conflict? How many resolutions have been made against the aggression toward Israel? None. Is Israel allowed to vote on the UNSC? No. Do Israelis and/or Jews hate the West because their voting record against Israel is overwhelmingly one sided?

(not to mention elsewhere); they have a rational reason to be angry with us.

Is it rational for British Muslims to call for an end to democracy and a Islamic revolution in Britain?
Is it rational to call for the death of Tony Blair and George Bush?
Is it rational for 70% of young British Muslims to advocate Sharia law courts in the UK?
Is it rational to behead innocent men and women and hang their charred bodies from bridges?
Is it rational to blame the west for the Tsunami disaster because we have sinned so much?
Is it rational for French Muslims to systematically rape and murder in the name of Islam while rejecting their French nationality and its laws?
Is it rational to blow multiple bombs up on a busy Madrid commuter train?

Is it rational to believe this 'rational anger' is because, despite the French and British and Europe and Canada voting time and time again in condemnation of Israel, despite the fact that the French and the EU poured money into Arafat and his terrorist wing, the Americans have blocked 60 or so rather shallow UN condemnations over a considerable period of time?

What muslim, driven with such anger to drive a plane into a tower building, is actually motivated by the rhetoric at the UN?
What muslim, driven with such anger he declares war on democracy, or the west, actually cares for the soft, secular impotence of the UN, itself a Western institution?

Reply 198

OP

Iz the Wiz

That's what I mean. you dismiss other sources, not on the ground that they tell lies, but on the ground that their ideology is not yours.

Are U.S. prisons Gulags??? We are assuming everyone knows what a gulag is....at least a Stalin type gulag.

I'm not trying to argue here that an organization isn't Leftist, just that their ideology isn't a real criteria for their trustworthiness.

Their ideology, along with moveon.org and others *IS* what makes them untrustworthy.

Reply 199