281–290 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And lets not forget that half of the attackers where just ordinary citizens of ghaza.
All of the murderers in LA are ordinary citizens of LA, let’s mass bomb them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. That was the topic of discussion, so let's stick to that. Edit: see, you already managed to derail the conversation AND call me an antisemite. Good job.
> see, you already managed to derail the conversation AND call me an antisemite Yes, the point was that you're only willing to discuss what Israel does wrong, and a conspiracy theory at that (yes, there's a core of truth. Yes, Israel protected Palestinian organizations from the PLA, including hamas. Dozens of them. No, Netanyahu did not arm hamas). How Israel can be blamed for everything. No other comments allowed! T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, here you are agreeing that Israel needs to be stopped by force. An army assembled to go in and kill Israeli soldiers until Palestine is free. See how quick that "morality" flies out the window? Diplomacy and guns, that's all there is. Morality comes later, if ever at all.
It’s absolutely the moral choice to end Israel. Just like apartheid South Africa. Israel just happens to be much worse and much more belligerent with much more control over the rest of the world. They created a situation where the moral option is their complete destruction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> see, you already managed to derail the conversation AND call me an antisemite Yes, the point was that you're only willing to discuss what Israel does wrong, and a conspiracy theory at that (yes, there's a core of truth. Yes, Israel protected Palestinian organizations from the PLA, including hamas. Dozens of them. No, Netanyahu did not arm hamas). How Israel can be blamed for everything. No other comments allowed! T…
Man, you produce these long word salads and call me names (at least you edited out the part where you called me an antisemite a second time), while also directing the conversation in multiple tangentially related directions. Very hesitant to engage in any of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> It's like if people in Wales were constantly firing rockets at London because they wanted to destroy all English people, and England doing nothing about it for years until there was a huge slaughter, and then finally retaliating. Or just like the IRA… asymmetric warfare/terrorism is a natural response to violent oppression
In neither case was oppression happening. The IRA wanted a separate Ireland, and would kill other Irish people and English people to get it.
You'd be far more oppressed (read: killed) if you were a Jew in Palestine, or a gay man in Palestine, or any number of other things in Palestine. Israel was the place where you could be those things. The controls were in place to stop the people coming in that would bring Palestinian "morality" into Israel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man, you produce these long word salads and call me names (at least you edited out the part where you called me an antisemite a second time), while also directing the conversation in multiple tangentially related directions. Very hesitant to engage in any of that.
Uhuh. Likely story. Desperate to change the subject while still wanting to win the argument, that's what's going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were expressing a normative statement about an observation they made; that you took it as an insult is your problem. You brought up Palestine, then said this discussion isn't about Palestine. Indeed, if you think something is not relevant to the discussion, you should not bring it up in a given discussion.
Because they obviously tried to make it any insult by attacking the person they discussed with. Who said it wasn't about Palestine? Who even thinks that? We are talking about the protest regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, right? So, you think Palestine is irrelevant to the discussion of ... rolling the dice ... the Israel-Palestine conflict
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhuh. Likely story. Desperate to change the subject while still wanting to win the argument, that's what's going on.
To be frank, from your first message I knew there was no winning with you. Seen it so many times. It gets old.
THAT gets old. Really old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were expressing a normative statement about an observation they made; that you took it as an insult is your problem. You brought up Palestine, then said this discussion isn't about Palestine. Indeed, if you think something is not relevant to the discussion, you should not bring it up in a given discussion.
Because they obviously tried to make it any insult by attacking the person they discussed with. Who said it wasn't about Palestine? Who even thinks that? We are talking about the protest regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, right? So, you think Palestine is irrelevant to the discussion of ... rolling the dice ... the Israel-Palestine conflict
It is not an insult to observe another's behavior and commment on it. What you've pulled out from their comment and called an insult reads as an admonishment. It is no worse than saying "you misunderstand the topic and seem angry based on your own misunderstanding". Bear in mind, I am not saying that is an insult, either, but another admonishment. Rather, you appear to be using this accusation as a tactic to discredit people who are not agreeing with you with you.
> Who said it wasn't about Palestine? Who even thinks that?
These questions are how a reader can be sure you are not discussing in good faith. I was referring to this commment, which was posted by you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48535128>. The child comment of that one which you took as an insult appears to be expressing the commenter's exasperation at your discussion style, seeing it seems to be conducted in bad faith.
> So, you think Palestine is irrelevant to the discussion of ... rolling the dice ... the Israel-Palestine conflict
I don't believe I wrote anything to that effect but you're welcome to correct the record, I suppose.
Separately, I'm noticing you told on yourself in the comment I initially replied to, the behavior observable in your comments in this thread: "So, somehow my comment angered you that you had to resort to the tactics of undermining the other side." As you accuse, you've been trying to undermine the arguments made by others rather than addressing the substantive points they raise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be frank, from your first message I knew there was no winning with you. Seen it so many times. It gets old.
What gets old in your kinds of arguments is the constant diversion of focus away from Palestinians, what they do and the reasons, the agency behind it. Because arguments like yours fall to pieces even touching that festering pool of filth. THAT gets old. Really old.
Cool. So now you know not to respond when people point out how Israel supported Hamas to divide Palestinians.
I guess we learned something in the end after all.