In The Interest of Objectivity

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
Cosima__J

In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Cosima__J » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:01 pm

I have ALWAYS posted comments favorable to Israel and that is where my hearfelt sentiments lie. But I ran across an article in Foreign Policy magazine online that gave me a little different viewpoint to ponder:

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... ws_fallacy

It's made me think about the fact that there are always two sides (or more) to an argument and one should at least be willing to listen to the other side.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26047
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by jbuck919 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:14 pm

Cosima__J wrote: It's made me think about the fact that there are always two sides (or more) to an argument and one should at least be willing to listen to the other side.
I am glad to hear it, but: This was a revelation to you?

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Cosima__J

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Cosima__J » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:30 pm

Look, I was trying to post something that presents a viewpoint somewhat different from what I've previously expressed. How many posters here do that? Do you?

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26047
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by jbuck919 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:47 pm

Cosima__J wrote:Look, I was trying to post something that presents a viewpoint somewhat different from what I've previously expressed. How many posters here do that? Do you?
As a matter of fact, occasionally I do (on climate change for instance). And I should not have picked on you. There is an element of incomprehensibility about the settlements, an incongruity with everything Israel says it stands for and usually does, that makes the plain reality about them hard to acknowledge. When you add reluctance to appear to be in sympathy with Israel's enemies and unreasonable critics (i.e., most of the rest of the world), they are even harder to take.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Corlyss_D » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:20 pm

jbuck919 wrote: There is an element of incomprehensibility about the settlements, an incongruity with everything Israel says it stands for and usually does, that makes the plain reality about them hard to acknowledge.
In middle east politics, a single maxim prevails: Watch what they do, not what they say.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26047
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by jbuck919 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:25 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
jbuck919 wrote: There is an element of incomprehensibility about the settlements, an incongruity with everything Israel says it stands for and usually does, that makes the plain reality about them hard to acknowledge.
In middle east politics, a single maxim prevails: Watch what they do, not what they say.
And not just there.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6630
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by living_stradivarius » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:31 pm

Cosima__J wrote:I have ALWAYS posted comments favorable to Israel and that is where my hearfelt sentiments lie. But I ran across an article in Foreign Policy magazine online that gave me a little different viewpoint to ponder:

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... ws_fallacy

It's made me think about the fact that there are always two sides (or more) to an argument and one should at least be willing to listen to the other side.
What about the article changed your mind?
Image

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Corlyss_D » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:40 pm

jbuck919 wrote:
Cosima__J wrote:Look, I was trying to post something that presents a viewpoint somewhat different from what I've previously expressed. How many posters here do that? Do you?
And I should not have picked on you.
OMG! Apologies from you AND Rob in a single day! The end times are near! I'm going to the gym now so the corpse will be slightly less bulky!
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:56 pm

Cosima__J wrote:I have ALWAYS posted comments favorable to Israel and that is where my hearfelt sentiments lie. But I ran across an article in Foreign Policy magazine online that gave me a little different viewpoint to ponder:

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... ws_fallacy

It's made me think about the fact that there are always two sides (or more) to an argument and one should at least be willing to listen to the other side.
This was the most idiotic poorly written amateurish void of any real fact article I have read the entire month.

I therefore present the award for this month's worst article to the writer of this garbage.

***WORST ARTICLE FOR MARCH***

The Arabs have no historical or legal or any other rights on Jerusalem.
If they want to live there, they must be good and peaceful citizens and accept Jewish and Israeli authority on all of Jerusalem and all of Israel.
If they can't do that, then they should leave or forcefully thrown out, for they are the enemies of Israel.

Jerusalem belongs only to the Jewish people, The Temple mount Belongs only to the Jewish people. Our King, David, had legally purchased this land in order to build the Temple. It was all done legally. The Arabs on temple mount are occupiers and aggressors.

A day will come that their Alaqsa Masque will be destroyed, and the third Temple will be there.

Arab presence in Israel is temporary.

Let them go back to their beloved 'brothers' to take care of them.

Israel is not obligated by any norms to help their enemies when their enemies are wealthy and don’t give a s**t about their 'Palestinian brothers'.

Israel has many poor Jews living in Israel and elsewhere, and it needs to help its own people and not give aid and assistance to its enemies.

As I said before, If I was the Israeli Prime Minster and the Arabs would behave like they behave now, no single Arab will stay in Israel, and the whole world can scream and yell foul, I don't care.

Let Sweden and Europe destroy itself by letting a vicious Muslim population dictate what will take place there. I am not willing to let Arabs or any other country to intimidate us, and to hurt our country.

Obama can kiss Israel's behind, he is a nobody. In 3 years someone else will take office. This schmuck believes that in 4 years he can force Israel to do what he wants. He should learn from history, that the Jewish people outsmarted and defeated and overcame Great Empires for thousands of years. We won them all, we saw them all, and we defeated everyone who tried to harm us.

Jews will live anywhere they want, and build and expand and flourish and prosper, and Obama and the other anti Semitic scum balls and dirtbags that exist in this world, will watch and wont be able to do a thing.

Israel forever!

Jerusalem united under Jewish Rule forever!
Last edited by SaulChanukah on Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Corlyss_D » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:00 pm

^^^

See, Cosi! :lol:
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26047
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by jbuck919 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:24 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:^^^

See, Cosi! :lol:
I knew there was another reason the settlements were fishy!
SaulChanukah wrote: Jews will live anywhere they want, and build and expand and flourish and prosper, and Obama and the other anti Semitic scum balls and dirtbags that exist in this world, will watch and wont be able to do a thing.

Israel forever!

Jerusalem united under Jewish Rule forever!
Lebensraum! Vaterland! Anschluss! (I'm sorry, Saul, but that's exactly what you sound like. You think that kind of bombast is helpful to Israel?)

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:28 pm

Here's yet a different perspective by a real Israeli, ie one who cares enough about Israel to live there, not in Brooklyn. Former Israelis have no more influence on Israeli policy than other Jews who are concerned about Israel. Decisions about Israel must be made by the people who have the guts to live there. And, as often happens, they are not all of one opinion.

Settlement Whiplash
By DANIEL GORDIS
The Jerusalem Post
19/03/2010

It was only a matter of time until settlement construction – the issue that the Obama administration has chosen to situate at the very core of its Mideastpolicy, as if settlements have anything at all to do with decades of Palestinian recalcitrance – reared its proverbial head once again. But now that the issue is back, it’s time for some honesty on both sides of the political divide: The wisdom or folly of settlement construction is substantially less obvious than most observers are willing to acknowledge.Barack Obama, Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton are all justifiably incensed by the embarrassment caused to Biden by the sheer buffoonery of Israel’s elected officials. But their ire says nothing about the substance of the issue, which is once again being addressed with a stridency born of the fact that everyone believes that there is absolutely no merit to the position of the other.
LIVING IN Jerusalem, you don’t have to be prime minister to have periodic bouts of settlement whiplash. Life in the Jewish capital is sometimes comprised of conversations so surprising that you wonder whether to believe your ears. In the hopes of injecting even a drop of bilateral humility into the discourse, I share two conversations that took place not long ago – before most people had heard of Ramat Shlomo, but after it was already clear that settlements were a cause célèbre once again.
I was sitting at one of those ubiquitous cafés on Rehov Emek Refaim, chatting with a lay leader from New York. Biblical claims to the land no longer matter, he was telling me. Nor do picayune legalistic arguments about why this family or that has the right to inhabit this building or that. All of that, he insisted, is now irrelevant.
“You’re losing us,” he explained. “Lots of deeply committed American Jews have just had it with Israel. They want to care, but they can’t. Ninety percent of America’s Jews are Reform and Conservative Jews, but the Jewish state spits on them, and then expects us to pretend that it’s rain. You never elect a prime minister with the guts to stand up to those thugs called chief rabbis. You really expect us to be loyal third-class citizens?”
And he took a deep breath. “But then, you make us not only angry, but ashamed. Doesn’t anyone here give any consideration at all to how Israel’s policies play in our community? How are we supposed to defend policies that push the Palestinians off of more land and out of more neighborhoods, when the world’s decided that that’s simply abhorrent? And have you got a strategy? Do you want a two-state solution? Because if you do, you’d better start leaving them some land on which to create one. And if you don’t want a two-state solution, what do you plan to do with those millions of Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank? Kick them out? Make them non-citizens forever, and then prove that Jimmy Carter was right about the apartheid accusation all along? Are you still going to expect us to watch your backs then? Really, do you guys ever actually think?”
I pushed back, but only a bit, and very gently, because I wanted him to know that I had, indeed, heard him. I disagreed with many of his factual claims, but his angst was genuine, and he was far too articulate to be easily ignored.
But it was soon time to go, for I had to pick up our car from its annual service. A short while later, I found myself in the waiting room, the car not quite ready though I’d been assured it would be. Sharing the space with me was a blond gentleman in a tweed suit and a tie, speaking English with a thick European accent. We had time to kill, so I figured I might as well talk to him. He was from Scandinavia, it turned out, but was now working for the European Union in “Palestine.”
Oy. This, I could tell, was just going to be one of those days. From the frying pan into the fire. I asked him about his counterparts in the Palestinian government. Some good people, he said, but a lot of corruption. They have a long way to go before they’re ready for statehood, he added.
That surprised me. So I pushed. “So, are we eventually going to have peace here?”
“Well,” he said, “‘eventually’ is a long time. But probably not in my lifetime, or yours.”
“So,” I asked, figuring that little could be worse than that conversation at the café, “what should Israel do in the meantime?”
“Just what you are already doing,” he said.
“Meaning what?”
“Meaning, that you keep building your country, and keep building the settlements.”
I wasn’t sure I’d heard correctly. “Build the settlements?”
“Absolutely.”
“Why’s that?”
“Look,” he said. “Some day, they’re going to be ready for serious talks. They’re going to make a huge concession, and recognize your right to exist. But they’re going to expect a similarly grand concession from you. Your concession can’t be recognizing their right to a state, because you’ve already done that. And you can’t compromise on the return of refugees, because then you have no Jewish state. So you need something massive that you can give up on – and that’s going to be the settlements. You’ll have to evacuate and destroy most of them in the end, but if you do that now, then what will you offer at the table? The settlements are your key to making peace eventually.”
AT THAT moment, we were both told that our cars were ready. We shook hands, and went our respective ways. I should have asked for his card, I thought as I was driving home, because I should have introduced him to my American Jewish philanthropist friend. And my American Jewish friend should really speak not to me, but with the people who actually shape Israeli policy.
Which got me wondering: Could those people begin to hear each other? Can we? Not now, probably. But eventually? Perhaps. The problem, though, is that eventually can be a really long time.
Donald Isler

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:46 pm

Donald Isler wrote:Here's yet a different perspective by a real Israeli, ie one who cares enough about Israel to live there, not in Brooklyn. Former Israelis have no more influence on Israeli policy than other Jews who are concerned about Israel. Decisions about Israel must be made by the people who have the guts to live there. And, as often happens, they are not all of one opinion.

Settlement Whiplash
By DANIEL GORDIS
The Jerusalem Post
19/03/2010

It was only a matter of time until settlement construction – the issue that the Obama administration has chosen to situate at the very core of its Mideastpolicy, as if settlements have anything at all to do with decades of Palestinian recalcitrance – reared its proverbial head once again. But now that the issue is back, it’s time for some honesty on both sides of the political divide: The wisdom or folly of settlement construction is substantially less obvious than most observers are willing to acknowledge.Barack Obama, Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton are all justifiably incensed by the embarrassment caused to Biden by the sheer buffoonery of Israel’s elected officials. But their ire says nothing about the substance of the issue, which is once again being addressed with a stridency born of the fact that everyone believes that there is absolutely no merit to the position of the other.
LIVING IN Jerusalem, you don’t have to be prime minister to have periodic bouts of settlement whiplash. Life in the Jewish capital is sometimes comprised of conversations so surprising that you wonder whether to believe your ears. In the hopes of injecting even a drop of bilateral humility into the discourse, I share two conversations that took place not long ago – before most people had heard of Ramat Shlomo, but after it was already clear that settlements were a cause célèbre once again.
I was sitting at one of those ubiquitous cafés on Rehov Emek Refaim, chatting with a lay leader from New York. Biblical claims to the land no longer matter, he was telling me. Nor do picayune legalistic arguments about why this family or that has the right to inhabit this building or that. All of that, he insisted, is now irrelevant.
“You’re losing us,” he explained. “Lots of deeply committed American Jews have just had it with Israel. They want to care, but they can’t. Ninety percent of America’s Jews are Reform and Conservative Jews, but the Jewish state spits on them, and then expects us to pretend that it’s rain. You never elect a prime minister with the guts to stand up to those thugs called chief rabbis. You really expect us to be loyal third-class citizens?”
And he took a deep breath. “But then, you make us not only angry, but ashamed. Doesn’t anyone here give any consideration at all to how Israel’s policies play in our community? How are we supposed to defend policies that push the Palestinians off of more land and out of more neighborhoods, when the world’s decided that that’s simply abhorrent? And have you got a strategy? Do you want a two-state solution? Because if you do, you’d better start leaving them some land on which to create one. And if you don’t want a two-state solution, what do you plan to do with those millions of Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank? Kick them out? Make them non-citizens forever, and then prove that Jimmy Carter was right about the apartheid accusation all along? Are you still going to expect us to watch your backs then? Really, do you guys ever actually think?”
I pushed back, but only a bit, and very gently, because I wanted him to know that I had, indeed, heard him. I disagreed with many of his factual claims, but his angst was genuine, and he was far too articulate to be easily ignored.
But it was soon time to go, for I had to pick up our car from its annual service. A short while later, I found myself in the waiting room, the car not quite ready though I’d been assured it would be. Sharing the space with me was a blond gentleman in a tweed suit and a tie, speaking English with a thick European accent. We had time to kill, so I figured I might as well talk to him. He was from Scandinavia, it turned out, but was now working for the European Union in “Palestine.”
Oy. This, I could tell, was just going to be one of those days. From the frying pan into the fire. I asked him about his counterparts in the Palestinian government. Some good people, he said, but a lot of corruption. They have a long way to go before they’re ready for statehood, he added.
That surprised me. So I pushed. “So, are we eventually going to have peace here?”
“Well,” he said, “‘eventually’ is a long time. But probably not in my lifetime, or yours.”
“So,” I asked, figuring that little could be worse than that conversation at the café, “what should Israel do in the meantime?”
“Just what you are already doing,” he said.
“Meaning what?”
“Meaning, that you keep building your country, and keep building the settlements.”
I wasn’t sure I’d heard correctly. “Build the settlements?”
“Absolutely.”
“Why’s that?”
“Look,” he said. “Some day, they’re going to be ready for serious talks. They’re going to make a huge concession, and recognize your right to exist. But they’re going to expect a similarly grand concession from you. Your concession can’t be recognizing their right to a state, because you’ve already done that. And you can’t compromise on the return of refugees, because then you have no Jewish state. So you need something massive that you can give up on – and that’s going to be the settlements. You’ll have to evacuate and destroy most of them in the end, but if you do that now, then what will you offer at the table? The settlements are your key to making peace eventually.”
AT THAT moment, we were both told that our cars were ready. We shook hands, and went our respective ways. I should have asked for his card, I thought as I was driving home, because I should have introduced him to my American Jewish philanthropist friend. And my American Jewish friend should really speak not to me, but with the people who actually shape Israeli policy.
Which got me wondering: Could those people begin to hear each other? Can we? Not now, probably. But eventually? Perhaps. The problem, though, is that eventually can be a really long time.

Pure Baloney.

Most recently, Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to put into Law that Every Israeli that holds Israeli citizenship would be able to vote in the Israeli elections no matter where he lives.

Kadima's Leader Tzipi Livni strongly objected because she says that only those who live in Israel should be able to influence what's going on there.

This is pure Rubbish on Livni's part because under American Law, every American can vote and doesn’t have to live in the United States.

Why Livni is really against it?

Because she knows that the majority of Israelis who live outside Israel are right wing, and she will lose the elections.

Ask any national from every country that doesn’t live in his own home country: "Are you a real Dutch? are you a real Dane? Are you really Irish? Are you really Japanese? Are you really French? Are you really Israeli?

They will laugh at your face for asking them such an idiotic question, of course they are who they are, and they take with them their identity where ever they go.

All the Jewish people that prayed and waited to go to Israel for thousands of years but didn’t get the chance to make this dream possible, are not 'Real Jews' ACCORDING TO YOU?

Of course they are, in fact they were more Israeli and more Jewish then those left wing fanatical liberals who march with the Palestinians and want Israel to make endless concessions to the Palestinians.

In fact those who live in Israel and support the enemies of the Jewish people because of their twisted liberal fanatical ideas should perhaps consider to move elsewhere, maybe to northern Finland or somewhere in Norway, they are way more less Israeli then those Jews who support Israel, and stand up for Israel and pray for Israel and have Israel in their hearts and minds every single day.

What makes you who you are is not where you are, but WHAT YOU ARE! AND WHAT YOU STAND FOR!

You can be close at home and be a vicious liberal traitor, and you can be as far as possible, even at the very edge of the world and be a true patriot, and a true lover of your country.

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:49 pm

You're confusing the words "Jew" and "Israeli." They're not synonymous. I'm a proud Jew, for example, but am not an Israeli.

Now, I'm curious to know something: When were you last in Israel?
Donald Isler

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:53 pm

Donald Isler wrote:More nonsese.

But I'm curious to know something: When were you last in Israel?
That's not your business, mind your own business.

Actually what I wrote above to refute the pointless article you posted, was absolutely correct and is logical and makes sense.
Only if you really thought about it objectively you would have understood, but you can't, and I wish you could.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26047
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by jbuck919 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:54 pm

Settlements to make it more palatable to the enemy when they're ready to give up? Sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization to me. It's a lot harder to disguise real intentions than many people think, which may be why Bismarck among others didn't bother to try.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm

I regret that I haven't been in Israel since 2003. Have you been there more recently than that?
Donald Isler

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:59 pm

Donald Isler wrote:I regret that I haven't been in Israel since 2003. Have you been there more recently than that?
That is not your business.

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:12 pm

I assume that means you haven't been there in a long time. I wonder if your long absense from "your" country may because if you returned, you'd have to do the military service of several years which is a requirement for all Israelis?
Donald Isler

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:19 pm

Donald Isler wrote:I assume that means you haven't been there in a long time. I wonder if your long absense from "your" country may because if you returned, you'd have to do the military service of several years which is a requirement for all Israelis?
How about you mind your own business?

Where I choose to live is non of your business.

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:27 pm

Thank you. Now, at least I know the answer.

Yes, you have a right to live anywhere you like.

But you don't qualify as much of an Israeli "patriot." You're just another American Jew who has passionate ideas about Israel but prefers to live in the safety of your newest homeland.
Donald Isler

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:49 pm

Assumptions assumptions.

I can also assume something about you, like for instance that you were born with your mustache.

But that will be an assumption, right Donald?

Anyways, you don't know much about me.

Did you know that no one had asked me if I would like to move to the United States, I was a kid, My parents decided that we are moving, and that was that.
I was raised here, and I live here most of my life, so what's your point?

One just doesn’t pick up and leave, you know I have family, friends, Job, and a whole life here. Easier said then done, especially when moving here was not my personal choice.

But what does this has to do with anything?

You should know that Anti Semites tell the Jews to move back to Israel?

Anti Semites believe that Jews should not have opinions, only they should have opinions about anything.

They believe that if Jews have opinions they must be saints, to move to their country and only then express their ideas.

I'm not telling you that you hate yourself, but you sure have been influenced by the twisted thinking of the Liberal anti Semitic snake.

How about you stop having opinions on the Holocaust?

Perhaps move back to Europe?

Can’t you see how WRONG YOU ARE?

By the way are all the millions of American Jews who help Israel in anyway they can are not 'Patriotic'?

Get a clue man!
Last edited by SaulChanukah on Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6630
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by living_stradivarius » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:50 pm

jbuck919 wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:^^^

See, Cosi! :lol:
I knew there was another reason the settlements were fishy!
SaulChanukah wrote: Jews will live anywhere they want, and build and expand and flourish and prosper, and Obama and the other anti Semitic scum balls and dirtbags that exist in this world, will watch and wont be able to do a thing.

Israel forever!

Jerusalem united under Jewish Rule forever!
Lebensraum! Vaterland! Anschluss! (I'm sorry, Saul, but that's exactly what you sound like. You think that kind of bombast is helpful to Israel?)
Paraphrased in the first 5-10 seconds:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ebvc7HlF8Y0&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ebvc7HlF8Y0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Image

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:53 pm

I am not the one who assaulted, in writing, a Jewish grandmother who is a survivor, with Holocaust imagery.
Donald Isler

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:55 pm

Donald Isler wrote:I am not the one who assaulted, in writing, a Jewish grandmother who is a survivor, with Holocaust imagery.
I'm not the one who assaulted in writing the entire Jewish faith and Jewish history and Jewish leaders and the Jewish people.

She did.

And you can't see this, I don't know what has happened to you.

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:56 pm

living_stradivarius wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:^^^

See, Cosi! :lol:
I knew there was another reason the settlements were fishy!
SaulChanukah wrote: Jews will live anywhere they want, and build and expand and flourish and prosper, and Obama and the other anti Semitic scum balls and dirtbags that exist in this world, will watch and wont be able to do a thing.

Israel forever!

Jerusalem united under Jewish Rule forever!
Lebensraum! Vaterland! Anschluss! (I'm sorry, Saul, but that's exactly what you sound like. You think that kind of bombast is helpful to Israel?)
Paraphrased in the first 5-10 seconds:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ebvc7HlF8Y0&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ebvc7HlF8Y0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Ah the Schmuck speaks...

As the famous fable says 'Do not resent the words of a fool, ignore them'. (Read up 'The Ass and the Lion' )

You are a fool.

If you saw what lovers of Israel say in the Marches in support of Israel, you would have known that I have said nothing new.

But scumbags like you, as Corlyss said before believe that the 'Jews are the new Nazis'...

That , Schmuck, is called 'Anti Semitism'.

Fool!

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:10 pm

This is what you said:

"Please explain to me Agnes why do you have horns coming out from your head and a tail coming out from your back?"

This is anti-semitic imagery! I have never in my life heard a Jew, let alone someone who calls himself a religious Jew, address a Holocaust survivor in such a way.

It is sometimes hard to know the right thing to do. But you don't attack someone like that, even if you disagree with every single thing she says. You just ignore it. Try to get into her mind; think where she's been. She can't do anything to hurt the beliefs, or the rabbis who mean so much to you.

You are not the defender of Judaism. Neither am I, though our background is important to both of us.

Leave people in peace.
Donald Isler

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:19 pm

Donald Isler wrote:This is what you said:

"Please explain to me Agnes why do you have horns coming out from your head and a tail coming out from your back?"

This is anti-semitic imagery! I have never in my life heard a Jew, let alone someone who calls himself a religious Jew, address a Holocaust survivor in such a way.

It is sometimes hard to know the right thing to do. But you don't attack someone like that, even if you disagree with every single thing she says. You just ignore it. Try to get into her mind; think where she's been. She can't do anything to hurt the beliefs, or the rabbis who mean so much to you.

You are not the defender of Judaism. Neither am I, though our background is important to both of us.

Leave people in peace.
You really think that I actually believe that she has a tail and horns?

This was in response for turning everything against me, accusing me of everything, and talking about my physical features, what I look like and what I wear. Who does she think she is?
What gives her the right to speak to me like this?

When someone speaks to me with respect, he gets the same treatment from me, I respect them and treat them right.

But if someone attacks me like that, lets not imagine that I will not respond.

Her attacks on my religion and Jewish history and Jewish leaders have been relentless and vicious, that's why I told her, why does she behave like a devil?
Even though she is not, she did behave horribly, without any sensitivity and without any care.

My comments about the Holocaust came after she had asked me a question. I gave her the answer what I have learned based on world famous Jewish Leaders.

She didn’t like the answer and attacked me like a vicious attack dog.

As I said, if she is not willing to get a Jewish answer let her not ask me, let her ask someone else.

I as an Orthodox Jew gave her an answer based on Orthodox Jewish Teachings and Rabbis.

If she doesn’t like it, let her not attack it or attack me, let her show some respect.

NancyElla
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by NancyElla » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:56 pm

Thanks, Cosima and Don, for two interesting articles on the terrible, tangled situation in Jerusalem. It is a situation that certainly has more than two sides. And, Cosima, I have a great respect for people who are at least willing to consider viewpoints that run counter to their own beliefs, even strongly held or long-term beliefs, and to revise their own opinions when new information makes that appropriate. Not to do so seems a sure-fire way to lock oneself into lifelong, narrow-minded bigotry.
"This is happiness; to be dissolved into something complete and great." --Willa Cather

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:10 pm

NancyElla wrote:Thanks, Cosima and Don, for two interesting articles on the terrible, tangled situation in Jerusalem. It is a situation that certainly has more than two sides. And, Cosima, I have a great respect for people who are at least willing to consider viewpoints that run counter to their own beliefs, even strongly held or long-term beliefs, and to revise their own opinions when new information makes that appropriate. Not to do so seems a sure-fire way to lock oneself into lifelong, narrow-minded bigotry.
Yes, that's right...

If new information comes out everyday by some dreamers based on false facts, for instance suggesting that all women came from bats, I tell you to be 'open-minded' , consider the 'studies' and do not let 'viewpoints that run counter to your beliefs' dissuade you from considering that you might be a bat.

Some Bull is NEVER TO BE CONSIDERED!

Jerusalem has always been the Capital, the Only Capital of the Jewish people for 3000 years.

Anyone that claims otherwise is a false dreamer who has a negative agenda against Israel.

The Arabs have no claims over Jerusalem and not a single millimeter of any part of Israel and its Capital Jerusalem has any Arab trace.

All of the Land of Israel and Jerusalem its historical capital is Jewish.

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:40 pm

In your own way, Saul, you're an idealist, and that's good.

You're just not supposed to address an elder in that way. It's wrong to do so. And I think you will eventually realize this.
Donald Isler

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Agnes Selby » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:33 am

Donald Isler wrote:In your own way, Saul, you're an idealist, and that's good.

You're just not supposed to address an elder in that way. It's wrong to do so. And I think you will eventually realize this.
Dear Donald,

Thank you for your kind words. I do not really care about what the ill-mannered
man/child says. It reflects on him not on myself. All I hoped to do is
is to stem the flood of his nonsense. For a while I even thought that
he must be working for some Nazi organisation, for no person in his
right mind would find God's justification in the murder of 6 million people.
He is very good at spreading anti-Semitism. I am still unconvinced that
he is a Jew. A Nazi organisation could easily feed him all that biblical nonsense.
But, I am pleased I no longer have to read his rubbish. However,
I gather from your letters to him that I was the subject of discussion,
hence my response. I am also pleased for him for having escaped the
rigours of the Israeli army. I can just imagine how he would have
fared in the trenches.

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:26 am

Agnes Selby wrote:
Donald Isler wrote:In your own way, Saul, you're an idealist, and that's good.

You're just not supposed to address an elder in that way. It's wrong to do so. And I think you will eventually realize this.
Agnes,

You are preposterous.
Last edited by SaulChanukah on Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6630
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by living_stradivarius » Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:44 am

SaulChanukah wrote:
Agnes Selby wrote:
Donald Isler wrote:In your own way, Saul, you're an idealist, and that's good.

You're just not supposed to address an elder in that way. It's wrong to do so. And I think you will eventually realize this.
Dear Donald,

Thank you for your kind words. I do not really care about what the ill-mannered
man/child says. It reflects on him not on myself. All I hoped to do is
is to stem the flood of his nonsense. For a while I even thought that
he must be working for some Nazi organisation, for no person in his
right mind would find God's justification in the murder of 6 million people.
He is very good at spreading anti-Semitism. I am still unconvinced that
he is a Jew. A Nazi organisation could easily feed him all that biblical nonsense.
But, I am pleased I no longer have to read his rubbish. However,
I gather from your letters to him that I was the subject of discussion,
hence my response. I am also pleased for him for having escaped the
rigours of the Israeli army. I can just imagine how he would have
fared in the trenches.
You are a wicked , stupid woman.

I don't know how you have been able to pass third grade or even finish high school. Such low intelligence is hard to come by.

Anyways, you stupid fool, I have explained to you, that my position is based on rock solid teachings of major Jewish Leaders.

Your ATTEMPT of trying to destroy religion because of the Holocaust have failed.
As you cynically use the Holocaust to live a secular life void of any spirituality and connection to God, you try others to fail with you and follow you to the path of darkness.

Again you wicked woman have asked me a question in order to come down on me, and hit me personally. My answers based on Jewish teachings have shook your ground and destroyed your evil foundation. I said it before and I will say it again, THE JEWISH POSITION IS THAT THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED BECAUSE JEWS LEFT THE TORAH AND GOD.

I didn’t stoop to your level and blamed you of not been Jewish, and I WILL NOT GO THERE, because I have standards. But you have no standards, and no low point which tells you not to go there.

People like you are a danger to Judaism, and to Jews in general. You are pure arrogance thinking that only you know the answers to everything, and that no one is wiser then you.
But the truth is that you’re stupid.

You are more Nazi then the regular German Christian who believes in God. Because you believe in evolution just like the Nazis did, and they practiced this theory on the Jewish people.

So the real Nazi scum is you, you who deny God, and make fun of his servants, and make fun of anything that you don’t agree with.

You are the lowest of the low, the scum that occupies this planet.

You are garbage.

And you have been added from my ignore list!
And I will delete your name and 'written bio' from my webpage!

Thanks but not thanks, you are not worthy to be mentioned with my name or be anywhere around my site you garbage!
You could have been mature about it and left her alone. Apparently you want everyone on this board to do for you what you can't even do for one person who is your elder. Post what you just posted on your website for everyone to see and you can keep track of how many people agree with you and how many aren't "worthY". Hey, you're always right, so what is there to fear?
Image

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Werner » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:15 am

We've seen another demonstration of what is tolerated and protected on this board.

I trust, Corlyss, that you take pride in the standards of discussion you maintain here.
Werner Isler

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9790
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by karlhenning » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:22 am

Donald Isler wrote:In your own way, Saul, you're an idealist, and that's good.

You're just not supposed to address an elder in that way. It's wrong to do so. And I think you will eventually realize this.
I heartily wish I could share your optimism on that last point, Don.

Cheers,
~Karl
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Agnes Selby » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:27 pm

Thank you, Saul, for the NASTY PM YOU SENT ME.
It says a lot about your person.

Cosima__J

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Cosima__J » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:43 pm

Should I have known that Saul would turn this thread into a message of hate and direct hurtful words at my friend Agnes??? Probably, because he's done it before.

Saul, I don't believe for one minute that you are demonstrating God's love.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:13 pm

Cosima__J wrote:Should I have known that Saul would turn this thread into a message of hate and direct hurtful words at my friend Agnes??? Probably, because he's done it before.
I thought I hinted at it in my pm. I should have been more direct.

If there's one thing members here know, it's that Saul will be on anything about Israel like a Harpy.* He's completely deranged on the subject. Guilt about not putting his body on the line in Israel itself comes to mind, but that's too pop-psychology-ish. He's relentlessly abusive to anyone who tries to discuss moderating views or suggest that maybe Israel could do something differently.

Personally, I think people, most of whom strive for consensus both in life and on this board, who put pressure on Israel in favor of the Palestinians are simply carrying the water for the scurrilous Arabs who have made a life-style of abusing the Palestinians to achieve what they could not with conventional armies fighting a conventional war. For 40 years the PetroArabs have screwed out of Europeans 1) special benefits for Muslims living in Europe and 2) monetary and publicly political support for the Palestinians as a condition for their oil contracts. That's not subject to dispute because there's plenty of documentary evidence of the Arabs' behavior. The mystery is the Europeans being so willing to embrace blatantly racist policies at the behest of medieval primitives like the Arabs. I read the arguments in the international relations rags, and I just have to shake my head. The authors realize no arguments will sway the Arabs, so they lean on the liberal democracy to buckle to unjustified and unjustifiable demands. The most famous international NGO routinely sponsors and adopts a barrage of execrable resolutions condemning the only liberal democracy in the middle east for defensive behavior, and rarely to never criticizes the Arabs for their panoply of aggressive behaviors. I personally have little to no sympathy for the Palestinians, but folks here rarely get to have a decent discussion because Saul is a one-man sapper team. He makes doing so so unpleasant, he turns every thread to one on his abusive behavior. Which is why I wanted to see how it went. The usual suspects chimed in with the usual reactions: baiting Saul, Saul baiting others with his nastiness, rebukes, recriminations, angry denunciations of me for letting the site go to hell, yada yada. It's a familiar cartoon.

*
Image
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:38 pm

Cosima__J wrote:Should I have known that Saul would turn this thread into a message of hate and direct hurtful words at my friend Agnes??? Probably, because he's done it before.

Saul, I don't believe for one minute that you are demonstrating God's love.
If I also had known that this thread would have turned into yet another 'Get Saul' thread, I would have not participated.

Donald began the whole thing, asking me “So why do you live here? So why don’t you move back to Israel? So why this ? So why that? I tried to put him off my back by telling him that it wasn’t his business. Did he let go?

No.

Then Agnes jumped ship with her personal attacks calling me a 'Nazi', she should be ashamed of herself!

Then I get all upset and call her names back, then the Corlyss comes here and begins to cool off the fire.

Clearly the one responsible for destroying this thread was Donald.

What I say about Israel and the Arabs is not an 'attack on the personal lives of the members here'.

Some people take it personally and then they attack me.

We have seen this time and again. The usual trend.

Donald Isler
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by Donald Isler » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:43 pm

Making it up, Saul, and lying as you go along, I see.

I never said these words: "So why don’t you move back to Israel?"
Donald Isler

SaulChanukah

Re: In The Interest of Objectivity

Post by SaulChanukah » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:46 pm

Donald Isler wrote:Making it up, Saul, and lying as you go along, I see.

I never said these words: "So why don’t you move back to Israel?"
I think every thoughtful person reading your remarks would insinuate that that's what you meant.

Anyways I was paraphrasing.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests