Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship, and beat people on board. Fatalities reported.

[Johnny Canuck3]

This sounds to me like "people must die for progress to be made". The Turkish navy aren't going to unilaterally break the blockade either.

We have a difference of opinion that we're unlikely to resolve but I'm grateful for your thoughtful responses. You've probably been the only poster worth engaging with on this thread.

There you are!

Now tell me: what have I said on this thread that you disagree with?

 

[sihhi]

This sounds to me like "people must die for progress to be made".

Given the modus operandi of the Israeli state - shoot-to-kill, shooting inspite of white flags, bombing schools and ambulances as potential terrorist hideouts, firing on fishing vessels, a highly militarised conscription programme, targeted assasinations, punching through walls, impunity for police and soldiers, siphoning tax resources, blockade, torture of prisoners - that seems probable.

Any meaningful resistance faces violence.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Given the modus operandi of the Israeli state - shoot-to-kill, shooting inspite of white flags, bombing schools and ambulances as potential terrorist hideouts, firing on fishing vessels, a highly militarised conscription programme, targeted assasinations, punching through walls, impunity for police and soldiers, siphoning tax resources, blockade, torture of prisoners - that seems probable.

Any meaningful resistance faces violence.

Invasion?

 

[Spymaster]

Just out of curiosity: what have I said on this thread that you disagree with?

"Arse-about-face" insofar as you've sought to broaden the discussion from the the topic at hand, the IDF raid on the Flotilla, to the wider subject of the M.E. question.

For me, this debate starts at the Israeli dicision to illegally board an aid ship in international waters, and ends at what could have prevented the deaths that occured, with discussion about each parties motivations.

I have to admit that Free Spirit has got me thinking about the legitimacy of violent confrontation and martyrdom and it's something that I need to think about more before I take him on further.

I've said the boarding was illegal.

Tbh, mate, I didn't realise you had. I had the impression that you were defending it.

As you may have noticed I've been kind of busy fighting my own battles!!!

 

[Flavour]

Invasion!

You heard it here first. JC3 supports the invasion of Israel. You fucking dirty, sick, anti-Semitic Nazi scumbag cunt piece of shit.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

"Arse-about-face" insofar as you've sought to broaden the discussion from the the topic at hand, the IDF raid on the Flotilla, to the wider subject of the M.E. question.

For me, this debate starts at the Israeli dicision to illegally board an aid ship in international waters, and ends at what could have prevented the deaths that occured, with discussion about each parties motivations.

I have to admit that Free Spirit has got me thinking about the legitimacy of violent confrontation and martyrdom and it's something that I need to think about more before I take him on further.



Tbh, mate, I didn't realise you had. I had the impression that you were defending it.

As you may have noticed I've been kind of busy fighting my own battles!!!

I tried to broaden it when it dawned on me that what we get is a stream of threads about the latest Israeli atrocity. Surely the paramount issue that arises out of this litany is - what should be done to bring about resolution.

It isn't derailment, imo, it's a focus on the issue that matters the most.

 

[Spymaster]

There it is. He makes up his own idiosyncratic definition of fascism, and says he agrees with that [his own definition].

The response is, it means something else. You're banned.

He wasn't espousing the bad definition that Crispy is familiar with. But he's banned nonetheless.

Oh well. That's one less poster who isn't happy with the party line. Back to the circle jerk.

Fridgemagnet banned Rachamim, not Crispy.

I agree that the banning was outrageous and seemed to me to be more pandering to the anti-Israel psychos than anything Rachamim said.

Jesus, the things that were posted at him by Grandma Death, 8 Ball and others, made nursery rhymes out of his views.

Anything for a quiet life though, eh Fridge?

 

[Spymaster]

Ask yourself: which posters will take a position that goes against the standard anti zionist doctrine that is most accepted here?

I used to, but gave up after rachamims banning. They're not interested in discussion. Just agreement.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've realized my error, but I'll take the opportunity to apologize to Crispy for slagging him about something he didn't do.

 

[bingiman]

It isn't derailment, imo, it's a focus on the issue that matters the most.

Is that the quote to put on your gravestone Johnny

Because that is all you have ever done around here

 

[laptop]

I agree that the banning was outrageous and seemed to me to be more pandering to the anti-Israel psychos than anything Rachamim said.

He finally, explicitly, outed himself as a fascist.

So you regard banning for this as "outrageous"?

 

[Spymaster]

Imagine that. A U75 poster who was insulting, and who threw barbs.

Lordy be.

Quite.

See post #2857.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

The argument in johnny's head often seems to be a very different one to that which is actually taking place.

which is strange and peculair.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I used to, but gave up after rachamims banning. They're not interested in discussion. Just agreement.

I pretty much gave up too. And like I said, when it returned to a big happy circle jerk, the actual discussion died, and the p and p forums dried up.

Makes you wonder what they want. They don't want the rachamims around, but without disagreement, you don't really have a discussion forum.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is that the quote to put on your gravestone Johnny

Because that is all you have ever done around here

Uh...dylans has started a thread about this. I think that's where you want to be.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The argument in johnny's head often seems to be a very different one to that which is actually taking place.

which is strange and peculair.

And once your head gets clouded with drink, we get posts like this, which are like fart bubbles rising up in the bathtub.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm assuming that you aren't simply trying to back out of this, and get back into the favour of the group, by distancing yourself from me, thereby throwing me under the bus?

No chance.

The Israelis and Palestinians will blood-brothers well before I'm "in favour" with most of this lot!

 

[bingiman]

No one threw you under the bus except you.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No chance.

The Israelis and Palestinians will blood-brothers well before I'm "in favour" with most of this lot!

Just putting it out there. I didn't really think so.

 

[bingiman]

Uh...dylans has started a thread about this. I think that's where you want to be.

I am quite happy here Johnny

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No one threw you under the bus except you.

Your name isn't Gordon by any chance?

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1977/1978scr1-548/1978scr1-548.html

 

[bingiman]

no

is your name johnny?

 

[Flavour]

jc3 is the one that actually wants to invade israel though, as he keeps bringing it up. he's the real anti-semite nazi here. let's not forget that.

i've got my eye on your, jonny boy!

 

[danny la rouge]

My question revolved around the transplantation of a large number of refugees to palestine after WW2. Would they have behaved differently in the intervening years?

Let me paraphrase to see if I understand you: from 1947 on, was the Israeli state's actions always inevitable at every juncture, given the events of 47 and before? Is that the question?

Given that I hope for a just settlement, I have to hope not. I have to hope that other choices are possible. I accept that things at the moment look about as bad as they've ever looked. I'm pessimistic to that extent. But I don't think people have to act the way they act. I don't think the Israeli state has to continue along its apartheid-like path. It has choices.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

jc3 is the one that actually wants to invade israel though, as he keeps bringing it up. he's the real anti-semite nazi here. let's not forget that.

i've got my eye on your, jonny boy!

So you'd agree that a military response against Israel is wrong, and out of the question?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Let me paraphrase to see if I understand you: from 1947 on, was the Israeli state's actions always inevitable at every juncture, given the events of 47 and before? Is that the question?

Given that I hope for a just settlement, I have to hope not. I have to hope that other choices are possible. I accept that things at the moment look about as bad as they've ever looked. I'm pessimistic to that extent. But I don't think people have to act the way they act. I don't think the Israeli state has to continue along its apartheid-like path. It has choices.

Had it been another group moving there by the hundreds of thousands in the late 40s, was what happened, what would have happened in any event?

 

[danny la rouge]

He finally, explicitly, outed himself as a fascist.

So you regard banning for this as "outrageous"?

I'd be disappointed if he was banned merely for being a fascist. What are we scared of? That he might infect us with his fascism? Are we Mary Whitehouses now?

 

[Flavour]

So you'd agree that a military response against Israel is wrong, and out of the question?

Killing civilians is usually wrong, yeah.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Killing civilians is usually wrong, yeah.

Yeah, seeing those blown up women and children in Tel Aviv markets is pretty tough.

 

[danny la rouge]

Had it been another group moving there by the hundreds of thousands in the late 40s, was what happened, what would have happened in any event?

I think I've answered that.