WATCH: Palestinian teens attack Orthodox Jews with snowballs in Jerusalem

[shira]

This video, of Palestinian teens attacking Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem, really made me sick.

&feature=player_embedded

http://972mag.com/watch-palestinian-teens-attack-orthodox-jews-with-snow-balls-in-jerusalem/63770/

[Buzz Clik]

1. Typical shit.

These little fuckers are bullying people they are pretty sure won't fight back. If these kids had baseball bats rather than snowballs, and somebody shot one of the little bastards, the world would be outraged.

[Jefferson23]

2. They didn't use bats, they used snow..big difference. n/t

[holdencaufield]

3. It always starts with snow

[patrice]

51. Because something has not happened does not mean that it CANNOT happen . . .

nor that it necessarily will or won't within any time frame that may be relevant.

It only means that thing, in this case, sticking to snow, has not happened.

[grantcart]

114. Actually that is exactly how the Boston Massacre started.

[Jefferson23]

4. You've succeeded in passing beyond desperate shira.

Touche.

[holdencaufield]

5. So, what you're saying is ...

... move along here, folks ... nothing to see here.

Pretty sure those Orthodox Jews started the whole thing anyway, right?

[Jefferson23]

6. Best for you not to tell me what I said.

Hold close your lethal snowballs.

[holdencaufield]

7. So, what you're saying is ...

... it's OK for a gang of teens to attack defenseless people walking along the sidewalk. Just as long as those people are "you know who".

[Jefferson23]

8. So what you're saying is you make up bogus bullshit as your hobby in life.

I understand.

[holdencaufield]

9. Maybe ...

... but at least I don't make up excuses for thugs

[azurnoir]

11. so explain to us exactly no one intervened on behalf of the Orthodox

that were being bullied?

[shira]

15. Onlookers probably feared worse getting out of their cars to help. n/t

[azurnoir]

16. oh so on lookers feared snowballs? okay then thanks :)

[holdencaufield]

18. Did you even watch the video?

Or did you just stop at the word "snowballs" and figure it was an Xmas Special?

There was a crowd of a dozen or more screaming teens (or older). Would you have jumped from your car to help them? I guess we'll never know.

[azurnoir]

19. I watched it at +972 yesterday

oh a dozen or more older than teens is it now?

[azurnoir]

21. as I already said on this thread I watched it yesterday :)

[shira]

20. No, a mob. n/t

[intaglio]

102. So your saying this justifies killing women and children in Refugee camps

and it's OK for those with religiously extreme Jews to ban women from buses, threaten to beat up couples holding hands and making certain areas of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem "no go areas" on the Sabbath?

Where's your outrage about that?

[shira]

12. Sorry to offend, but the video demonstrates legit resistance to occupation, right? n/t

[Jefferson23]

13. One can only hope that every resistance movement would use such lethal weapons as snowballs.

Would be great if every army used the same in retaliation too.

[Scootaloo]

10. I shall reiterate my comment from the comments section of that video;

"What’s this? Teenagers being dicks? Never has the world seen the like."

[shira]

14. You don't see deeply racist antisemitism designed to humiliate? n/t

[Scootaloo]

23. I see teenagers acting like dickheads, Shira.

I'm not giving any stamps of approval, but really... it's snow. They're in the wrong, but it's just not something to claw at your face and wail about.

And yes, I would say the same if the snowballs were flying in the other direction.

[Dick Dastardly]

22. My gang and I used to lay down a barrage of snowballs on cop cars and sometimes waited till they

got out of their cars to chase us and then pelted them before we took off.

[shaayecanaan]

24. Obviously, this is indefensible...

and I very much doubt that the ultra-orthodox people did anything to provoke this assault. This is just a shameful instance of bullying by the people concerned.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

26. Without a full video of the whole affair how can you be certain that

ultra-orthodox people did or didn't do anything to provoke this assault?

I'm not saying they did or didn't do anything, but to just assume that they are innocent without complete evidence is not the best approach.

Yes, the kids shouldn't have been throwing snowballs in the first place.

[TheMadMonk]

28. Except expect precedence in far too many ways.

Orthodox Jews expect, demand and all too often get laws tailored to their special sensibilities.

From all sorts of permitted gender inequalities in their "homeland" to the removal of cycle lanes from the public streets in THEIR BIT of New York City.

Orthodox Jews, by their own admission don't care how much they upset other people by their actions, because we're not God's chosen.

[holdencaufield]

29. I'm an Orthodox Jew ...

... and I don't demand a damn thing from you. A lot of people don't care who they upset by their actions -- every seen a PETA or Code Pink rally? So, let's be careful with your ethnic stereotypes, OK?

"There is a reason you weren't chosen" -- Seth Rogen

[TheMadMonk]

31. And provided you keep your othodoxy to yourself...

...I have no problem with your privately held beliefs.

My issue is with people who live up to the stereotypes and then claim (and sometimes receive) religious or cultural exemptions which impact on the community at large.

How many ethnic communities STILL close ranks around wife beaters/killers and rapists, because those actions are considered culturally traditional? I mean active interference in investigation as opposed to Western "didn't happen to me or mine" indifference.

[holdencaufield]

32. I have a problem with antisemitic remarks ...

... if you say them in private to other people who think like you or in a public forum such as this.

Saying that Jews as a group are willing to offend anyone who isn't "chosen" is antisemitic.

[TheMadMonk]

34. And I did not say that. I said that such existed AMONGST...

...Orthodox Jews. And it happens pretty much anywhere ethnic enclaves (of any flavour or stripe) are allowed or made to form. Once enough like minded people are gathered together in one spot, they can become extremely unreceptive to legitimate "outside interference" and oftimes make a point of highlighting differences in order to reinforce their separation.


BTW: Rather disengenuous of you to suddenly make this about Jews in general.

[TheMadMonk]

36. First are we(I) confusing orthodox with ultra-orthodox...

...Hassidic Jews?

My problem, as I've already stated, is with any group (religious, ethnic, or ideological) which closes ranks against "Outsiders", particularly if they do so in order to claim privileges not available to the wider commubity, or in order to defend the indefensible.

And now I have to go work.

[holdencaufield]

37. You should probably get to know people ...

... before you deride them.

Otherwise, you just come off as ignorant.

[Scootaloo]

40. "You should probably get to know people before you deride them"

From your mouth to your own ears, brother.

[holdencaufield]

41. Oh, I do ...

... take everyone one of his sentences concerning Jews and substitute the word Muslims -- then tell me (honestly if you can) he wouldn't have been PPR'd within seconds.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. No, you don't...

There's no instance of anyone being PPR'd in seconds for saying anything that could be construed as anti-Muslim. You haven't been on MIRT and have no idea at all what goes on, so don't pretend you do...

[Scootaloo]

44. He wouldn't have been

Please. Getting banned for speaking poorly of Muslims, on DU?

Interesting insight to your mindset though, Holden. Them Muslims have it so good, don't they? Do you need a candy to soothe your hurt feelings? Maybe a copy of one of Daniel Pipes' fine publications?

[TheMadMonk]

46. OK just answer me this then.

Why, on a board where there is daily vocifereous and oftimes violent denunciation of Christan, Islamic (and in the last few weeks Indian) misogyny, do Ultra Orthodox Hasidic Jews rarely if ever get a mention for their's?

Even at the height of the bike lane debate, folk who would cheerfull even gleefully excoriate others over exactly the same kind of issues were all too often conspicuous in their silence.


BTW: Thank you very much (NOT) for helping me to shoot myself in the foot over that confusion. I suspect very much that you knew exactly what I meant when I first spoke out, but it suited your purpose to lead me into what looked like a broadbrush denunciation of all Jews, when I was refering to the very small and specific subset which in fact were the subject of the "attack" in the OP.

A subset which IIRC, claims all the rights, privileges (including 1 or two specific to them) and protections of the Homeland, but claims special exemption to not participate in it's "defence".

I just saw that you've had a post hidden here, so you will be unable to reply. However, I would appreciate a PM on why you think Jews tend to be given a pass where others would not be. Not why you think they should be, or even if they should be. Just why it happens at all.

[oberliner]

47. People denounce ultra-religious Jews quite regularly

Maybe you should check out this forum more often.

[TheMadMonk]

49. And yet somehow two sovereign states bend over backwards...

...to accomodate at least some of their special peculiarities.

No national service and laws prohibiting women (of any stripe) in certain locales, in Israel, and no bike lanes in "their bit" of NYC.

Also the recent ruling over Hasidic circumcision practices, which puts religious observance ahead of medical safety, even if it does offer a sop of an alternative.

JW's probably love that one, since it gives them the opportunity to reargue the case that their children's lives should be in God's hands and not the state's.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. How long does one need to read I/P before

seeing these people "denounce ultra-religious Jews?"

I have seen a lot of criticism of Israel, its human rights abuses and settlers, but I have not seen a poster being critical or denouncing ultra-religious Jews. perhaps these posters don't exist any longer and were just short-lived trolls?

Whatever faith one wishes to practice/follow then it should be off limits to attack.

[pelsar]

38. classic progressive intolerance i.e. ZERO intolerance for others

Here we see another instance of the progressive intolerance, where "you can be different" but only the parameters that i agree to"
and of course do it privately so you dont disturb us "intolerant types:
classsic

a short lesson for you:
communities require public spaces for their events and cultures. Those of use who actually believe that tolerance of others is essential for communities to both celebrate, confirm their bliefs and pass them on and get along, also understand that they require that the public spaces around their communities also be part of their local culture.


My issue is with people who live up to the stereotypes and then claim (and sometimes receive) religious or cultural exemptions which impact on the community at large.

yes, thats how it works...thats the concept of being tolerant:
Its a shame that your so intolerant of others that a little inconvenience so bothers you


and you are the stereotypical intolerant progressive that everyone must live by your rules, anything different should be done in the privacy of their own homes...one of the more holiest of progressive tenants

[TheMadMonk]

48. My one rule. "Do as thou wilt, an' it harm none."

Utterly unachievable I know, but still a damned sight better aiming point than the bastardised version: Do unto others, as thou wouldst have them do unto you.

That's the one that lets the boys on bikes and the Clocktower mob give themselves permission to bring God to my door when I've just come off a late shift or even just settled down to watch the midday movie.

Mine considers how my behaviour might impact on others. The other EXPECTS that outward behaviour will result in reciprocity.

I am perfectly happy to give anyone and everyone equal LEGITIMATE access to public facilities and spaces. (Need I define legitimate as legally permisible?)

My issue lies with mobs like The Exclusive Brethren and Scientology who build walled compounds and then raise their religion as a nigh on impregnable shield against legitimate investigation of complaints made against them; With door knocking evanjelicals; The RC church which to this very day is using the shield of religious freedom to minimise scrutiny on the subject of systemic institutionalised paedophilia; Jim Jones and Jonestown; Bahgwan Rajneesh and the Orange People; The Family and yet more God ordained paedophilia; Or even Hasidic Jews so offended by the sight of lycra encased buttocks that the city of New York put the lives of cyclists on public streets at increased risk, (or forced them to go around) just to accomodate them.

You tell me my lack of tollerance for special/exclusive treatment is unacceptable, but I should accept intollerance towards me and my lack of faith based belief; that I should accept faith based intollerance towards others, all in the name of religious freedom.

[pelsar]

50. oh....poor baby...you dont like being inconvenienced in respecting others?

Here is your example:

Or even Hasidic Jews so offended by the sight of lycra encased buttocks that the city of New York put the lives of cyclists on public streets at increased risk, (or forced them to go around) just to accomodate them.

Your "religion" is very clear: you ignore and demonize those who believe different from you..your example of the hassidim stands outs as the clearest one of all:

their religion and customs demands modesty.....your behavior or others like you infact DOES impact them as you ride around their neighborhood immodesty, you infringe upon their way of life. and worse you simply refuse to accept the harmless request that you dont ride there, because you are intolerent of their customs, traditions etc

and you probably believe your tolerate...thats the joke of it. Your less tolerant then those hassidim.
_____

You tell me my lack of tollerance for special/exclusive treatment is unacceptable, but I should accept intollerance towards me and my lack of faith based belief; that I should accept faith based intollerance towards others, all in the name of religious freedom.

damn right you should....just because some are intolerant that means you have to be?...sounds like a pretty weak personaity if you ask me.....

[TheMadMonk]

54. All the offence is in their eyes/minds. Just as it was and is...

...with way to many religions and homosexuality.

It has been well established that anyone's religious problems with homosexuality are in this day and age theirs to deal with, and GTFO of other people's lives. Just as it was established a generation earlier that unmarried motherhood was neither God's nor the state's business to regulate. And a generation before that, black people could sit where they pleased on the bus or even appear in a movie about coming home to dinner with a white girl.

Edit to add: And every time, things changed because people stood up and said, "We're not going to tollerate this bullshit any more."

You want to tell me again that I should modify my behaviour to accomodate intollerant people's prejudices in the name of tollerance?

I could not have cared less about those Hasidim, until they FORCED their sensibilites on the public at large.


And two of my concerns have still to be addressed.

Where did tollerance get us with Jim Jones, the Orange People, Exclusive Brethren, The Family, paedophile priests, etc.?

Where does any religion (or race) get off on claiming the right to defy the law in order to protect itself or its own? Why should Cardinal Pell be permitted to head yet another "INTERNAL" investigation into what he catagorically denied was there, when his bloody signature is on contemporaneous paperwork which damned well proves he knew exactly what was going on? Why isn't his enabling arse in jail?

Why did it take fucking You Tube, and stupidity to finally bring institutionalised rape cultures that "everyone's known about for years" out into the public spot light?

[pelsar]

57. tolerance is not about the fanatics, the extremists...

All the offence is in their eyes/minds.


yes, that is the concept of tolerance....thats how it works, you respect what is important to others, that is not important to you (do i really have to explain the concept to you?)

your examples of Jim Jones. the family etc are not relevant here, since they have taken their cults to the extreme....nor are priests that rape relevant
so you can forget using them as a prop for your own intolerance.

this is the crux of your your intolerance
I could not have cared less about those Hasidim, until they FORCED their sensibilites on the public at large.

as long as they stay within the parameters of your religion of privacy, your fine with them, the second they demand that their culture/beliefs which in fact harm no one be public and their community's needs be respected, you go out and complain "its not fair" (since the larger community has to make a few adjustments).

how does it hurt you so much to respect them and not ride your bike through their neighborhood? and what law are they breaking that is asking for a minimum of respect?

btw its not just hassidim, all communities that want to retain their sub culture demand/ask the state or local govt to protect them and their rights.....perhaps you want to take away the special rights of the native indians? how about the illegal immigrants, they too are demanding special rights...that do infact affect others who are sensitive in different ways than you)

face it, your so "religious" in your "secular religion" that you simply cant stand the religious and demand that they hide their own beliefs and "accept your public version of what is acceptable and what is not. i assume your against christmas trees and their decorations since the blinking lights of rudolph can be very disturbing

keep your argument away from the extremists, and your intolerance and fanaticism will come shining through

[TheMadMonk]

60. Bullshit they're not relevant. Extremists and predators...

...benefit constantly from the idea that tollerance must be extended to all comers unless and until they proove (through their own actions, and virtually always too late) themselves to be the authors of great harm.

Bad things happen when we don't look and criticise. Worse things happen when we WON'T ALLOW OURSELVES to look and criticise.

Why should we allow ANYONE to set themselves apart from the wider community, simply because too much exposure to modern ideas threatens their religious/ideological/cultural identity?

If your religion can not survive contact with secularity, it's not a very good religion is it?

Where has tollerance for a gun culture that refused to be governed gotten the US? AND tollerance for intollerance towards the fiscally unfortunate gotten the US? The tollerance for greed that has turnned it into a legally protected right? To the edge of penury, and RIGHT TO THE BLOODY VERGE OF CIVIL WAR.

That might depend on what you define as special rights: Specially afforded rights to subvert the laws of the land I will always consider wrong. Legal protections to prevent ongoing discrimination are an entirely different thing. And even those should be taken down as soon as they are no longer necessary.

[delrem]

62. I somewhat disagree.

It seems to me that "freedom of association" gives people the right (where the right is recognized) to come together in communities and set standards for those communities.
The Amish come to mind, but they aren't the only (existing) communities that have a right to not just a "hands off" approach from gov't interference, but to a certain protection of their communal interests.
There are limits of course - but those limits should also be already entrenched in law, so there can be reference to specific contraventions.

I don't enjoy cultural homogeneity. I even think the "melting pot" narrative is a kind of lie.
I enjoy multiculturalism, cultural diversity, where people of diverse backgrounds interact in peace.

[TheMadMonk]

64. And yet even with the "gentle" Amish, the right to set...

...themselves apart has been perverted into a right to force individual behaviour.

Separatism, in my opinion invariably leads to institutionalised abuses. Inwards, internal and outwards.

Multiculturalism is wonderful in theory. However, in practice it invariably means that the host culture makes the lion's share of the accomodations, even unto allowing guest cultures to practice abuses that the hosts would not tollerate in themselves.

Extreme example: Muslim boys gang raped several girls here in Australia, and claimed justification, because those girls didn't confirm to their cultural norm, but instead "dressed like prostitues".

Now I am fully aware that those boys were simply using their background as an excuse for what the absolutely knew was unacceptable behaviour. No, what was sickening were the number of Muslims who defended them and the number of our own who simply accepted it as normal Muslim behaviour.

[delrem]

66. I think you're being ridiculous here.

I don't think gang rape is tolerated in any culture.

[TheMadMonk]

68. No, but it was strongly defended by too many...

...members of the Islamic community of Sydney. Because those boys had made their religion their excuse, some members of the Islamic community were unable or unwilling to separate that behaviour from the excuse. They blamed the victims, they blamed Australian culture, what they didn't and wouldn't blame were the boys, or their religion's attitute towards "liscentious women".

Oh and you might want to consider a couple of recent examples out of India.

Way, WAY too many cultures tollerate rape and gang rape, provide it's only ever visited upon those designated "the deserving". Which in nearly all cases boils down to women out and about on their own.

FFS take a look at Stubenville for tolleration of gang rape in contemporary America.

[delrem]

69. No thank you. Your argument sucks.

You go from "bike lanes" straight to "gang rape", and it doesn't faze you.
You invent a mythical "secularity" and "wider culture" as if a democratic state such as e.g. the US or Australia doesn't recognize the right of free association, and that it weren't exactly those people who freely associate with others of like mind who, seeing the universal importance of the right, brought it into law.

Your claims are totally out to lunch w.r.t. core IP issues.

[pelsar]

65. and so is your extremism dangerous...

Stalin comes to mind as one "secular" fanatic...N.Korea i belive has out lawed religion, Pot Pal had the same concept..your'll all the same.

it appears (just my impression) that your hatred for others (in this care religious others) is so strong that you put them all together with everyone elses belief that you have no tolerance or respect for.

we're slowly learning that your problem is not intolerance but more of the fanatic secular religious..all have to believe like you, if not they are "dangerous"
______

If your religion can not survive contact with secularity, it's not a very good religion is it?

first who made that up? is that one of the tenates of your religion? Second, what does that even mean? The hassidim and others appear to survive quite nicely in secular countries, they adjust, tolerate and ask from some consideration, that apparently you refuse to give them.

-----
That might depend on what you define as special rights: Specially afforded rights to subvert the laws of the land I will always consider wrong.
i hadn't realize the hassidim were subverting the law of the land, are they?
_____

damn you fanatical:
.themselves apart has been perverted into a right to force individual behaviour.
the amish kids have the right to leave when they reach 18, or after that, plus they have contact with the outside world so they have choices.

you too have been perveted with 'your freedom" and nuclear family and destruction of the "village" an and its connections..ask any religious person. But of course you cant see it because your just like the religious, your all have the same intolerant blinders on

btw i'm not talking about mutli culturalism....that to me is BS, i'm talking about tolerance within the limitations of the law...local adjustments to fit the local communities, adjustments that will affect the seculars and other religions

[TheMadMonk]

67. What's the bet you have no problem with these pithy slogans:

"Get your rosaries off my ovaries." and "Get your Jesus off my penis."?

Religion tends to gets singled out, because religion is humanity's greatest excuse/justification for it's worst inhumanities. INCLUDING Stalin's, Pol Pot's & KJ's fanatical attempts at abolishion.

I don't advocate abolishion, and YOU WILL NOT find one word in anthing I wrote to support that idea. I just won't have religion used as a reason to attempt to run my, or anyone else's life.

The Hassidim and others appear to survive quite nicely in secular countries, they adjust, tolerate and ask from some consideration.

And the right, to greater and lesser degrees, to internally forbid/strictly limit outside contact to their members, except on terms dictated by their leadership, for fear of contamination.

If it's wrong in a controlling spouse, it's AT LEAST equally wrong in a religion.

If it's wrong in The Family and Scientology it should be wrong in ALL religions.

[pelsar]

70. but its ok if your run others lives...i get it

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:55 AM - Edit history (2)

I just won't have religion used as a reason to attempt to run my, or anyone else's life.

yea right, asking you to be a bit tolerant of others is really running your life..talk about ego-centric personalities

at the sametime, you demand that your "secularism" with all of its tenants interfere with the family lives, i get it- just a bit hypocritical here.

and btw, the result of your secular religion does have certain drawbacks, you might want to recognize and then perhaps you might * (reguires an open mind) understand why infact they want to keep your secular values out of their communities.
______

Your secularism religion has totally destroyed the family unit with its self-centered egotistical mentality

how many famiiys, extended families iive in the same neighborhood today? how many divorcess happen after after 50, since the kids are no longer around, no grand kids and there is no reason to stick together? The result are people like you: self-centered, egotistical maniacs that have neither tolerance nor consideration to "others." whom you dont understand

i could go on and on, but the point being, the religious communities by keeping the secular religion out of their homes, with its violent video games, porno, intolerance, "me attitude" etc, keep their family units together, creating a rich multi generational family life together....

the contamination that is coming from your ideology is destructive, at the very least any secular tolerant (non fanatical) person would want to let those communities survive, thrive while offering a option out for their kids who have decided its not for them, Since the kids in fact do see the options and do in fact know others who have opted out, there is not need to force your way of life on them, and in fact the larger communities should protect them.

[TheMadMonk]

71. And boiled down. That amounts to, You reserve the right...

...to direct/impact upon at least some aspects of the lives of others, and you refuse them the right to not have anyone interfere.

If I must be accomodating of Hasidic or Islamic attitudes towards exposed flesh, then needs must I also be accomodating to those who wish to dictate the reproductive health of their employees or customers?

As a toilet cleaner, is it my lot in life to deal with shit in a corner, if a high caste Hindi uses one of the bogs I clean?

[pelsar]

72. and so do you, your just like them...you just cant accept it...

Last edited Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:53 AM - Edit history (2)

you demand the right to impact others lives and their communities, to influence their families.....

first you have to accept that simple fact, that you demand to influence them..you want to give their children choices....thats called interfering in their lives

I know in your belief system, your offering 'freedom and choices" which you believe is inherently good and cannot even be discussed as something that might be "bad."..but they disagree.....because they also know that with that freedom of yours comes family destruction among other things, the breaking up of multigenerational family groups, in your lust of this illusive freedom, which is clearly not for everyone (you might want to learn to accept that as well)

the next step of your rehabilitation from intolerant fanatic to reasonable tolerant citizen is understand the concept of tolerance. (fanatics never seem to know that line, everything is usually black or white with them).

accommodating the Hassidic/muslim communities by not riding your bike is being tolerant and respectful....it has nothing to do with the laws of the land.

Now i shall give what for me is clearly absurd, yet the progressive society seems to think its ok:

the muslim call for prayer, Its a loudspeaker that 5 times a day blares out the call to wake up everyone
5x times a day....
Fajr From dawn until just before sunrise.
Dhuhr After the sun’s zenith until late afternoon.
Asr From late afternoon until just before sunset.
Maghrib From sunset until just before twilight (when the sky turns completely dark).
Isha' From twilight until dawn

____

the stuff will give you sleep deprivation.....

got it?......and just for the record i'm am an escapee from a religous upbringing, however i shall not tell you if it was the secular version that you represent or the more traditional ones, that you seem to believe are not like yours.

but i recognize the signs.....the intolerant types: your all the same cookie cutter template, interchangeable.

[TheMadMonk]

75. And if you can't see that active interferrence...

...is not at all the same thing as passive non-inteference you have a serious problem.

You might also like to brush up on your Star Trek.


"you want to give their children choices....thats called interfering in their lives"

Well that's very interesting. Dad's got god, he has every right to shove it down a child's throat whilst under his roof. What effing right do "they" or you have to take choices away?

I grew up with one of those as father to a mate. He made sure his son knew all about God at the end of a razor strop. Successfully unfortunately.

There are no fucking rights in parenthood, just responsibilities. First and foremost amongst them is to offer them the widest possible ranges of choices consistent with not doing harm to others.

Your first ammendment, your rod, your back. Around these parts, the call to prayer is subject to the same noise pollution laws as any other PA system.


Like I said, my system's not perfect. If it were we wouldn't need laws at all. But under a practical interpretation of it, my system only requires laws to prohibit unacceptable behaviours. Your system appears to demand (or at the very least permit) laws which DICTATE acceptable behaviours.

[pelsar]

86. classic: ignore the consequences....

one of the more classic aspects of the "progressive" is that the consequences are not relevant, whereas the process or the "justice" is. Here we see it in action:

as i understand it your stating the "passive non interference" is not responsible for any of the resulting family destruction that happens as a result of it.

First and foremost amongst them is to offer them the widest possible ranges of choices consistent with not doing harm to others.

and hence this view is not responsible for anything that follows as a result because of it (it passive), it can't be compared to the active and "bad" "family or community rules that a community or family decides for its members, including the younger ones, such as no porn, no TV, no violent video games to secure its own beliefs and values....those are very bad values to enforce according to your vision.
_____

oh im very aware of that sorry excuse for a religion of yours....its main tenant being lack of responsibility for the destruction that follows, as per your views and intolerance for anyone who disagrees

Your system appears to demand (or at the very least permit) laws which DICTATE acceptable behaviours.
yes my system accepts different community standards with limits for the different communities, provides an "option out" as the kids grow older and are more mature to make their own decisions, but more important, recognizes that different people and communities have different needs and those needs, customs etc all have both advantages and disadvantages to the people involved and should be allowed to thrive within the context of the larger community...and that means people like you should learn to respect those that you disagree with even when it mean your actually inconvenienced (like riding you bike down a different street-major inconvenience!)

communities are dynamic and only those that are tolerant and respect its citizens and their communities for their differences will have the greater chance of not just surviving but accepting the additional changes that always occur.

your simply intolerant of others who disagree with your religion and demand that all believe like you....you would probably feel more at home, living in the middle east, we've got tons of your brethren here or perhaps in NY in the early 19th century.....

[TheMadMonk]

88. I don't have a religion. I have a PHILOSOPHY.

And, funnily enough, I also have a reasonably sized extended family. In fact the only close relative not a part of our lives, is a nephew who's mother's religious family DEMANDED my brother join their extended family and essentially sever ties with the rest of us areligious heathens. (Sidenote: That marriage ended in hypocritical adultery.)

We're scattered from one end of the country to the other, but somehow we manage cohesion: Without God; Without a patriarch (though mum can be a bit of a matriarch at times); without a bunch of rules; and without living in each other's pockets, or living each other's lives.

Werstbourough Baptists are your ideal extended family. Total cohesion under God and his self appointed representative on Earth; living under dictatorial rules; in a closed community; and living nigh on identical lives of hatred directed at pretty much everything that lies outside their community.


No! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!

YOUR system makes some people more special than others through privileges (lit. private law) available to them, but not the rest.
Whether it's:

• Permits to allow the Exclusive Brethren a razor wire compound where it's an offense to set mantraps in general, and where there are specific laws against the use of razor wire (or even barbed wire in an urban setting) by the public AND retroactive approval of facilities several times the size of those on the plans submitted for public scrutiny;
  
• A pharmacist permitted by law to dispense according to his religious prejudices rather than the customer's need and doctor's prescription;
  
• A "faith based" employer permitted (again by special law) to hire and fire based upon a person's sexuality or marital status, or to otherwise deny benefits on the same criteria; or
  
• Hasidic Jews enjoying all the benefits of a sovereign JEWISH State, whilst not participating in the national sevice that state requires of every other full citizen.

YOUR system:

• makes indoctrination of the child the norm and escape exactly that, a (probably) hostile exit from durance vile with estrangement of family an all to common (oftimes inevitable) outcome of departure from the fold;
  
• Permits (or at the very least overlooks) chattel slavery of woman and children as god ordained natural order;
  
• Allows, and all too often demands, the denial of informed choice until the dictatorial position is well entrenched.

Actually, when it's an entire neighbourhood, forcing bike traffic to go around is more than an inconvenience. It's almost certainly a measurable safety hazard, as the lion's share of that trafic will be channelled into a handful of streets on the immediate periphery of that neighbourhood. Congestion = accidents.

I am NOT intollerant of those who disagree, because, believe you me, there is a fuckload more room for disagreement in my philosophy than there is in ANY religion.

I am intollerant of those WHO WOULD DICTATE how "outsiders" should live.

[pelsar]

90. its a religion......you have all the tenants of....

starting with intolerence:
this is your sentence:
Your system appears to demand (or at the very least permit) laws which DICTATE acceptable behaviours.

so does yours...you DICTATE, that everyone has as many choices as possible and you do not accept any limitation..and you have no tollernce for those who disagree....you DEMAND passive influence as a condition for living in your community

...all of your examples are extremist...as are your words: indoctrination, estrangement, chattle slavery, natural order. It makes for an easy for you to convince yourself that your right everyone else is wrong and that is the end of the story: Women with masters degrees and PhD who live within their chosen religion are hardly "slaves" in their opinion. Unless of course you believe that they in fact are wrong and you know better than them..i.e. you do not tolerate their opinion and give it any weight at all (do you? it appears not....are they ALL indoctrinated?)

____
as far as your family goes....sorry being cross country cannot compare to multiple weekends when the multi generational family is together, when all of the cousins actually know each other, become best friends, etc. help each out on an hourly basis, share the chores of elderly parents and aunts and uncles and dont have to "fly in' for a few days and take off again

at least "man up' and admit that your philosophy/religion of complete choices is a good part responsible for the destruction of the multigenerational family unit..consequences they are important.
___

dont try to excuse you bike rerouting for the haridim, you were clear the first time, you have no tolerance nor respect for those who have chosen lifestyles other than you own and there is no reason in your mind why you should be inconvienced for them

just state it clearly, you'll feel a lot better.

[TheMadMonk]

91. Beg to differ. My system automatically excludes PROFERRED harm.

Yours embraces it.

My examples are indeed extreme. And yet they are also very, very, very dangerously real examples of preferential treatments allowed under the guise of tolleration. Some are localised, and some are becoming increasingly marginalised in the face of public pressure, but <jabs finger> there they are regardless. I might note too, that elsewhere the exact oposite is happening, as a direct reaction to attempts to externally impose unwanted changes.

You point to degrees, I point to well educated women bewailing "My son is dead to me." because he married a gentile.

How about you MAN up and admit that "FATHER KNOWS BEST" is the only system acceptable to you.


There were and are a plethora of factors that lead to the devaluing of the extended family and the creation of that perversion (hey wow, we agree on something) known as "the nuclear family".

A damned big chunk of it was the idea of real estate as a profit making commodity in its own right, which made moving in next door to mum and dad a financial impossibility. There was also the motor car, and corporations in favour of a mobile workforce that could be made to travel where costs were cheaper, which eventually led to leaving the workforce behind entirely and moving the businesses themselves to where the labour was cheapest.

AND IRONICALLY ENOUGH, it was the most powerful extended families like the WALTONS, the Prescots and Bushes, the Packers and Murdochs, who set about the systematic destruction of the rest.

And yes, I will AGREE WITH YOU yet again, another large part was people exposed to dangerous new ideas saying: "Excuse the fuck me, who are YOU to tell me what to do."


It's not a question of respect for chosen lifestyles. BTW: Respect is something EARNED not CONFERRED or DEMANDED.

It's a matter of not having lifestyles imposed against or absent the will of the imposee.

[pelsar]

92. Respect is a learned....respect to elders for instance...

Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:25 AM - Edit history (4)

respect for the handicapped, respect for those who are different.....
____

spare me the extremist examples...your version of society has produced its share of mass killings in schools recently, people who were 'sick" and i suspect that had they had stronger family units, someone might have noticed. Or we can go into the stats of single family homes and exploit their higher crime rate-weak families- and direct result of your version of society.

of course, despite all of your reasons why familys are not together, the haridim in fact do stay together...funny how you skipped over that, the core of the argument, they seem to have the ability to resist all of those 'evil' people and the mobility and managed to keep their families together..so i guess your secular religion produces a very weak strain of people that simply cant resist the temptations coming from the evil capitalists.....


You point to degrees, I point to well educated women bewailing "My son is dead to me." because he married a gentile.
i dont understand...i thought you didn't have a problem with that womens choices? She made her choice, her son made hers, they both live with the known consequences, I would think quite the opposite, you should be happy as your 'passive interference" worked and the son has succeeded to leave the family fold?


i actually see no problem with that, perhaps its sad on personal basis but for the society, two people making choices, understanding the consequences and still going forth...whats the problem?

you have a problem with her "bewailing?..once again your intolerance is showing through, loud and strong!!!
___

here is the jist:
It's a matter of not having lifestyles imposed against or absent the will of the imposee.

now explain to me how you are not imposing your version of a life style on others, that of complete choices, via your "passive interference" (i.e. no one is responsible )...and btw when do these "choices begin, at what age and why did you chose that age (does a 5year old decide what school they go to, does a 15 year old? How about watching what videos...can a 4yr old decide they like "zombies eat heads for breakfast" in all its glory?

yes..and when you answer, please explain why your not being hypocritical since you will be actively restricting choices to the younger citizens of the society.....based on your values while ignoring those values of others

my guess, you will put the responsibility for those choices on the govt and not the family, but we shall see.

---

How about you MAN up and admit that "FATHER KNOWS BEST" is the only system acceptable to you.
not only are you intolerant as we've seen again and again, you also apparently have a reading comprehension problem....but i suspect its because your blinded by your theology and demand that everyone has to agree with your version of the correct society and simply cannot accept that others may have acceptable different views.....respect and tolerance are not your strong points, of course the irony is that the haridim have more respect for others, more flexibly for others than you do.

[delrem]

83. pelsar! I never thought I'd agree wholeheartedly with you.

In this post I think you hit very close to the bullseye.

[pelsar]

87. you should at least keep it too yourself...

writing clearly that u agree with me, is not a good idea here.....next thing you know, you might become a real liberal, (not the progressive variation) and then you'll really be in trouble.

[delrem]

95. Never fear,

If you consider yourself a "liberal", I doubt I'll ever be a member of that group.
But then, the term "liberal" is a whore. It can be bought out by any sleazy triangulator. The only whore that's more despicable in politics is "centrist".

[pelsar]

96. liberal..not the western mutation.....

the israeli version is quite simple: it contains to qualities that one doesn't find the western bastidization of it:

personal responsibility for your actions, responsibilities to the state and responsibilities to your fellow citizens (tolerance)....excuses not acceptable.

consequences matter, more than process or theatrics:
________

examples: democracy is more than voting, voting in a non democratic govt invalidates the vote-...i.e. consequences matter and voting in a govt that will infact take away basic rights is an illegal govt and has no right to exist.

voting with ID. Every citizen has the basic responsibility to have an ID, and has the right to vote as long as they have that ID

there is no such thing as "not being responsible" for your actions. The Israeli govt provides a strong safety net for those who need help, but it doesnt take away from personal responsibilities of its citizens.

[delrem]

97. mhmm... nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

101. "there is no such thing as 'not being responsible' for your actions."

Does that language apply to illegal colonization of Palestinian territory or does it only apply to the home team?

[pelsar]

103. the language is applicable to all actions...

Israel is responsable for the actions of its govt and the land it resides....and so too are the Palestinians with their govt and citizens responsible for their actions

simple concept....one standard applied

try it..it will make a mess of your "ideology"

______

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

104. I'm perfectly happy with your clarification.

My ideology is one of human rights so no mess has been made. Thanks.

[pelsar]

105. well lets apply it...

as a one standard, human rights kinda of person....given that the PA has in word and deed rejected the western concept of human rights.....do you believe they should have the right to govern...to have a state?

How about Iran? they've rejected your human rights ideology in word and deed, in your eyes does their present govt have a right to govern?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

106. My argument is with the Palestinian people obtaining a homeland: a state.

Not with what Hamas, Abbas, or what Netanyahu want. I have been clear on this in past posts.

If the Palestinian people can shake off their hawks and Israeli control then they would be better off in the long run.

If you want to load up all the countries that have existed for generations, or longer, you are going to find those who are either more or less inclined to human rights. At many points in history the US sucked, and in some ways it still sucks. They govern, though, and it is the right of their people to make changes and amend the constitution when there is a need and genuine want.

You bring up the PA and Iran. You might as well add more: Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran Egypt etc.

The UN can and will bring resolutions against Palestine if it, as a nation, is unable to protect individual rights, both foreign and domestic, as well as abiding by international laws to prevent hostilities with other nations.

It is not up to you, me or Israel (except under UN resolutions) to determine how the Palestinian people go about their business of self determination. To do anything else would be considered

You argue that the PA has rejected "my" human rights ideology. So has Israel by colonizing lands not belonging to it and prolonging a conflict it could have helped end in a measurable way a long time ago.

[pelsar]

107. oh....so a state is in fact more important....

knowing full well that the PA will not have your version of human rights, your still believe that they should have the right to a new state. In fact your actually promoting the establishments of states that reject your ideology.

If i may be so bold, i shall guess that you believe that having hamas with its theocratice rule is a better or "more just" government than the secular occupation of israel?

correct?
______

Your "after the fact" we will condem the PA state will not do much to help it citizens and their lack of human rights will it?
________________________

so in the end, 'human rights" take a back seat to "state rights". I believe i can conclude that you prefer an established hamas style govt in both the wb and gaza, as opposed to the secular israeli occupation.(which has a few options for ending).

state rights and human rights are not the same thing, ask the iranians, the egyptian, the Palestinians under hamas, they will explain to you that "self-determination does not equal justice, nor does it mean human rights

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

108. I was fairly clear in my last post. Perhaps you should reread it.

First 3 sentences.

[pelsar]

109. thats fantasy...now come back down to earth

the options are/were limited and none are very good.....

just curious in the real world where hamas exists waiting to pounce on a weak PA in the Westbank, just as the did in Gaza, how you can promote the establishment of societies/states that reject your "human rights that you claim is your ideology?

care to explain.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

110. No, actually it is not fantasy.

Even the Palestinians are due their spring, and I hope that they get it.

[pelsar]

115. spring.....as in the muslim brotherhood?

iran had their spring as well....and the govt hangs homosexuals....
hamas in gaza drags bodies in the streets
______

whereas i doubt you promote those particular actions of justice, i certainly would like to know if you promote the concept that societies have the right to elect non democratic govts that negate your ideology of western human rights.

...meaning your concern is with the action itself and not the actual consequences of how people actual live under the "arab spring." (you wrote "long run"... be brave and clarify what that means, since we have examples of syria and lebanon for "long runs.&quot
____

this is bringing your 3 sentences back to earth to the reality of consequences...they dont appear to be of any real concern other than the the UN will condemn them.

I've always wondered what the liberal/progressive thought in khommenis Iran as they led him to the gallows once Khommeni secured his power? Did he think, like his fellow western progressives that "this is the first step toward a better iran, that is good that the shah is gone and he felt satisfied for helping in that..while they put the rope around his neck, or did he think...ooops, maybe the shah wasnt so bad.

(the western progressive as far as i understand doesn't have his confusion, as u wrote in the long run its better for the iranians-btw just how long is the long run? care to give me a number?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

116. Spring as in freedom.

[shira]

119. Freedom? You mean for the Ayatollas?

Certainly not for seculars.

Who else besides the Ayatollahs, Taliban, Hamas... benefit from this "freedom"?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

121. Shira, you seem to be purposefully maligning and misrepresenting what I have stated.

I hope you would read what I have written and not make baseless accusations.

[pelsar]

122. freedom from what?

thats a very vague answer...

what freedom did the Iranians receive when Khomenni took over from the Shah?

what freedom have the secular Palestinians in gaza now have?

what freedom have the Christians and liberals in Egypt under the MB received and what freedom do you expect given their beliefs....
____

is it even relevant to you if their actual living conditions, the additional fear of the "moral police" has now been added to their daily lives?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

125. The freedom from either external or internal forces that prevent them

from self determination.

You appear to be obtuse for a reason given the tenets of the Arab spring have been clearly stated for the past year or two.

[pelsar]

127. i'm not interested in "concepts"....i prefer everyday life

i'm asking about the real consequences, not some vague concept.

for instance: the shah and mubarak both had strong roots in their respective countries, both were secular and protected the secular liberals from the religious.

iran now has a theocratic leader, that has added to the shahs dictatorship by adding moral police, which have long ago decimated the secular liberals freedom to be secular

as they quickly destroyed the "arab spring" in iran, is iran govt still one of self-determination?
__________________________

the exact same happend in gaza, the seculars have lost their ability to be secular...is that part of the self-determination.

if the same pattern happens under the MB in egypt, which is rather obvious, will this also be part of the self-determination, even as the protestors today will be ignored?
_________

i apologize for now being one of the "cult" that nods ones head when someone mentions the proper buzz words, i'm more interested in the actual day to day consequences than vague arm chair verbology of the western progressive.

[shira]

111. Yeah, fairly clear that Palestinian Nationalism trumps Human Rights....

You're for trading a secular occupation for a totalitarian one that is 100x worse.

All because Hamas or the PLO is from the correct gene pool.

And let's face it. The Palestinians aren't getting their own state. See Gaza for example. Hamas got their own state, not the Palestinians. Hamas couldn't care less for their welfare.

But that's what you support, isn't it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

112. Try reading the first three sentences, my friend.

That means read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113428169#post106

[shira]

113. Well, now you know you favor a totalitarian, theocratic, regressive rogue regime....

...that is many magnitudes worse than Israel's secular occupation. You support occupation, no matter how cruel or brutal, so long as it's carried out by others from a different gene pool (Hamas).

And that is most important to you, being a higher priority than human rights.

I'll just have to keep reminding you of what you, as a humanist, support WRT a Palestinian state (Hamas self-determination).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

117. I favour human rights for all. It is a tough road sometimes, but I am for it.

And no, I do not support Hamas. I have told you as much. You should really be careful if your attempt it to malign my character.

[shira]

120. You seemingly support actions that result in horrendous consequences.

The Ayatollahs replacing the Shah.

The MB replacing Mubarak.

Hamas replacing the IDF.

How do you think the seculars in those nations feel as a result of their newfound "freedom"? Or does that not matter?

The way I see it, there's a heirarchy of nastiness. In the 3 examples above, each situation got nastier for our fellow secular and progressive friends. I don't see the motivation behind supporting each of the 3 situations above. You seemingly do.

Can you explain?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

123. Shira, I have never supported the Ayatollahs or the Shah. Both former and present

regimes had atrocious human rights records.

I have never supported:

The MB or Mubarak,

Hamas or the IDF.

I'm not sure how you can accuse me of such things, but I would hope that you would come to your senses.

[shira]

124. Therefore, let's see if we agree....

...that Iran under the Shah, Egypt under Mubarak, and Gaza under the IDF is far more preferable than the Ayatollahs, the MB, and Hamas.

Agree or not?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

126. Shira, there is no credibility left to you in my opinion.

I believe that you should build a great wall around yourself and hide from the rest of the world.

Have a nice day.

[Shaktimaan]

128. Just curious...

But are you even aware of it when you are espousing bigotry and anti-semitism?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

25. Thank you for posting this, my friend.

Being assholes to others should never be tolerated.

Were the teens ever question as to their motives? Were they doing this because they were assholes, or as you suggest doing it because they were anti-Semites?

I have come to understand that Palestinian youths as young as 12 years old, who throw rocks at Israelis, get 2 year jail sentences. What should be the sentence for thrown snow?

[TheMadMonk]

33. So you didn't cheer the finding that giving the bird to police...

...is protected free speech?

Arseholery comes in all flavours and sizes.

These kids might well be in the wrong. However, right now as things stand all they have to look forward to is double digit unemployment, second class citizenship, and being policed even more heavily than black kids were under NYC's stop and frisk laws.

When you get nothing but contempt from others, it's bloody dificult not to return the favour.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. "it's bloody dificult not to return the favour."

True. I still believe that being rude doesn't help. I'm not sure if being video recorded emboldens acts, but it is also s stupid thing to do.

[MrSlayer]

27. If they were merely throwing snowballs it would be one thing.

I'd probably say, "throw some back" but this is a gang of thugs kicking these guys, pulling their hats off, firing snowballs directly into their faces at close range, hooting and mocking them and generally being menacing. This wasn't a prank, this is bullying and intimidation of a most ugly sort.

There's no defending this. I wonder what would have happened if the numbers were even. I hate ratpacking cowards.

[holdencaufield]

30. Lucky for their victims ...

... the snow happened to be handier than rocks.

[Scootaloo]

39. Why stop at rocks? Accuse them of chucking grenades!

Nuclear grenades! From Iran!

[shira]

42. No, there isn't any defending this, try as they may. Israel came into being....

...to prevent this type of classic anti-Jew harassment.

[TheMadMonk]

61. So when will you be campaigning to give the Romany...

...a homeland?

Who do you propose to displace to provide it?

Sadly both groups were/are badly discriminated against because they're both both perceived to practice isolationism/exclusivity from within the larger communities they inhabit.

BTW. Israel came into being, because no one wanted to host large communities of refugee Jews in their own countries and none of the countries they were displaced from were willing to take them back en-mass.

Israel came into being because of discrimination, not despite it.

[patrice]

52. Okay. That DOES heat up, so I'm concerned about everyone's ability to handle it without

doing more damage to justice in a situation that really cannot take much more damage, without harming everyone on both sides, including those, again on both sides, who, had they the power to make things better for everyone, would do the opposite of what we see going on here, that is, they would not choose to make the situation what it is. They would create something else that is good for themselves AND OTHERS, but they will be harmed by escalation of what we are looking at today, something that they, were they free to do so, would never choose.

[delrem]

59. You're totally correct. A sane voice. nt

[azurnoir]

53. this thread is fascinating

because settler attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank and attacks on 'foreigners' in Israel are a weekly event but strangely you see very little about that here but let a bunch of Palestinian teenagers throw snowballs at Orthodox Jews and it's all hell breaks loose big news complete with descriptions of mobs and 'they were probably' adults ect

fascinating

[shira]

55. Actually, attacks on Palestinians are man bites dog...

These attacks on Israelis are the reverse and far more common.

The difference is in who's holding the camera, waiting for action to happen.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

58. "These attacks on Israelis are the reverse and far more common."

Do you have the qualitative data to back that up?

[shira]

78. Start with thousands of rockets from Gaza into Israel in the last decade.

The press only reports when the IDF is forced to defend and then portrays Israel as initiating violence and intentionally going after innocents rather than the other way around.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

80. You do understand what qualitative means?

"The press only reports when the IDF is forced to defend..." is more of an opinion.

[shira]

81. Find some articles about rocket attacks in the NYT, AP, CNN, WAPO, BBC....

....LAT, France24, etc, that report only on the rockets/mortars/kassams and the damage.

Something not headlined by "Israel kills 4 Palestinian militants" in retaliation against such attacks.

Go ahead.

Try.

Thousands of attacks over the last decade. Pretty much one per day on average and you'll find zip.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

82. So your response is anecdotal and not qualitative?

Okay.

[shira]

84. The PLO & Hamas' racist Jew hating rhetoric is all but censored...

...so it's really not surprising rockets and other lesser attacks are underreported.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

85. That is less than anecdotal. Its is a charge, without link or corroboration from a news source.

[shira]

94. Recent rock throwing victim from this week...

https://twitter.com/CaptainBarakRaz/status/291534330524758017/photo/1
https://twitter.com/CaptainBarakRaz/status/291533904417001472/photo/1
https://twitter.com/CaptainBarakRaz/status/291533690314584064/photo/1/large

Nice rock, huh?

This happens all the time, so where's the news coverage? Think if that was a Palestinian boy, there'd be wall-to-wall coverage? His name would be known, his family would be interviewed, Israel would be delegitimized, etc.

Here's a video of a baby victim of rock throwing. And of course, no media coverage...

#!

Maybe there's no coverage because the journalists are directly involved, like this:

&feature=player_embedded

Do you know how the media reported that one? They blamed the driver of the car, of course.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

98. Shira, Shira, you show a twitter link to an IDF Captain with an unsubstantiated photo.

This may come as a shock, but I don't trust the IDF.

Who knows if this is legitimate or not? The second and third links are from 2011 and 2010. There is nobody in custody in the 2011 vid, it's not clear what happened.

So you have three things to show me, and I am supposed to believe you at your word?

"See these three things! Now you have to believe me on all the BS that I present!"


You credibility is seriously in question.

[shira]

99. You won't accept any amount of evidence. That much is clear. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

100. No, my friend, that is not true.

To be honest, you started out with anecdotal accusations.

I asked for qualitative information.

You then deflect to accusations that the press "only reports when the IDF is forced to defend."

I still find that claim dubious. The press may not be informed of every IDF venture. They certainly aren't well informed, if at all, when the IDF shoots at Palestinians or others, and there is always the ubiquitous coverup when flattening some with bulldozers.

You then want me to look for articles that don't exist about rocket attacks, or stoning, that may never have occurred.

I agree that rocket attacks have occurred. It's in the news. It's deplorable. I have gone so far as to write it. The question isn't rocket attacks, which disingenuously tries to move the discussion away from the amount of attacks on Palestinians vs Israelis. The amount of Palestinian Deaths and injuries vs Israeli lays heavily on the former and not the latter. All deaths are grievous though, and all hostilities should stop: Palestinian and Israeli.

You then present old footage and unsubstantiated photos and claim ,"See! Evidence!"

Three incidents. Three incidents. Two are in question as to culprits. Any injury is grievous, and anybody responsible should be brought before they law: Palestinian or Israeli...or anybody for that matter.

What you have failed to do in your argument is accurately claim that there are thousands of unreported cases and that it is the fault of the international press for not reporting on it.

"Find some articles about rocket attacks in the NYT, AP, CNN, WAPO, BBC...." Your words.

If you want to do better to argue your case, my friend then I am all ears, but one thing to consider is that there are two sides to the coin. For every "unreported" case, as you call them, how many are against Israelis and how many are against Palestinians? Which ones do you concern yourself about, and which ones do you ignore?

All of these violent acts are of concern to me. Violence of any form is not the answer; whether it comes from Hamas, the IDF, Israeli settlers encroaching of Palestinian lands, or Palestinians throwing rocks or rockets.

[azurnoir]

63. so according to you Palestinians are dogs?

I can only imagine if the reverse had been said but some people are more equal than others it seems?

[Violet_Crumble]

73. It's an old saying, Az...

What she's saying is that attacks on Palestinians are rare but reported as though there's a lot. And that attacks on Israelis are so common that they don't get reported because they're so common. That sort of attitude isn't surprising seeing as how the response to any attack by settlers on Palestinians is either ignored outright or the Palestinians being attacked are accused of staging the attack to make the settlers look bad. I can go back through the archives and dig out a few examples if anyone doubts it...

[azurnoir]

74. oh I know it's an old saying however

what do you think the result would have been if either of us had said the same only reversing Jews and Palestinians? simple answer we know better it would be said to be an antisemitic statement, there would have been a pile on about signs saying no dogs or Jews ect ect ect

that was my point

[oberliner]

89. True paranoia

Nothing would have been said.
Man bites dog is just an expression.
Your point illustrates much more about yourself than perhaps you realize.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Yeah, yr 100% spot on about how it works when the boot's on the other foot...

I guess I wasn't used to seeing the boot on yr foot for a change!

[Mutatis Mutandis]

118. that statement is utter madness

[Lil Missy]

76. Don't worry - the teens will be shot and killed in retaliation for throwing snowballs. n/t

[shira]

77. Nah, even better is their gentile blood will be used when baking matzah. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

79. You have a singular wit, my friend.