Ahed Tamimi - a young woman to admire

hatrickpatrick

dotsman wrote: »

Afraid you're wrong there. Just an Irish person who doesn't follow the standard Sinn Fein/IRA/Anti-Israel crap.

Do you have any particular reason for siding with thieves? Is it merely that you subscribe to the right wing political mindset (there's no right or wrong, only victory) or is there another reason?

Most people who support Israel do so out of a "they won, they can take what they want, tough sh!t" mentality. I'm just wondering if there's anything more to it than that. Personally I find that mindset a particularly vile one which denies any sort of progress that humans have made in evolving beyond uncivilised animals, but that's purely my opinion and I do accept that not everyone shares it. I don't believe that a territorial region's ownership can change by literally any mechanism other than the democratic consent of the majority of the people living there. I'm pro-Palestinian because a majority of the residents of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip have not voted for the sovereignty over those areas by the Israeli government in a democratic election or referendum. In my opinion, pretty much every other aspect of this conflict is totally irrelevant - the people haven't accepted Israeli rule, therefore Israeli rule is illegitimate. The end.

RobbieTheRobber

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do you have any particular reason for siding with thieves? Is it merely that you subscribe to the right wing political mindset (there's no right or wrong, only victory) or is there another reason?

Most people who support Israel do so out of a "they won, they can take what they want, tough sh!t" mentality. I'm just wondering if there's anything more to it than that. Personally I find that mindset a particularly vile one which denies any sort of progress that humans have made in evolving beyond uncivilised animals, but that's purely my opinion and I do accept that not everyone shares it. I don't believe that a territorial region's ownership can change by literally any mechanism other than the democratic consent of the majority of the people living there. I'm pro-Palestinian because a majority of the residents of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip have not voted for the sovereignty over those areas by the Israeli government in a democratic election or referendum. In my opinion, pretty much every other aspect of this conflict is totally irrelevant - the people haven't accepted Israeli rule, therefore Israeli rule is illegitimate. The end.

Sounds like you are willing to discuss this matter in a fair and reasonable way alright!
:eek::eek:

Odhinn

SnakePlissken wrote: »

........
This is a direct quote from Ahed Tamimi on the murder of those children;

I admit that I was a bit disappointed, because I had hoped for a larger toll. Yet when they said "three dead," I said: 'Allah be praised'...Two minutes later, they said on the radio that the number had increased to five. I wanted to hide my smile, but I just couldn't. Allah be praised, it was great. As the number of dead kept increasing, the passengers were applauding.

Why haven't you provided a source for that quote, might I inquire?

SnakePlissken

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do you have any particular reason for siding with thieves?.

Do you deny Israel's right to exist? If so, where do you suggest it's native citizens who are the children and grand-children of peoples born in the region go?

WanderlustIre

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Do you deny Israel's right to exist? If so, where do you suggest it's native citizens who are the children and grand-children of peoples born in the region go?

Do you believe Jerusalem belongs to Israel?

SnakePlissken

Odhinn wrote: »

Why haven't you provided a source for that quote, might I inquire?

Seeing as you've not really shown yourself as an admirer of facts I didn't think you'd be interested in one, easily rectified however, here's a video of her speaking that very quote.

https://www.memri.org/tv/released-hamas-terrorist-ahlam-tamimi-palestinian-publics-delight-suicide-bombings

Odhinn

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Do you deny Israel's right to exist? If so, where do you suggest it's native citizens who are the children and grand-children of peoples born in the region go?

He's more than likely referring to the colonies established outside the recognised borders.

RobbieTheRobber

Odhinn wrote: »

He's more than likely referring to the colonies established outside the recognised borders.

Its still a simple question to answer though.

Odhinn

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Seeing as you've not really shown yourself as an admirer of facts I didn't think you'd be interested in one, easily rectified however, here's a video of her speaking that very quote.

https://www.memri.org/tv/released-hamas-terrorist-ahlam-tamimi-palestinian-publics-delight-suicide-bombings

SnakePlissken wrote:

This is a direct quote from Ahed Tamimi on the murder of those children;

That's not ahmed tamimi.

RobbieTheRobber

Odhinn wrote: »

That's not ahmed tamimi.

No it is her aunt.

SnakePlissken

WanderlustIre wrote: »

Do you believe Jerusalem belongs to Israel?

Belongs is a contentious word when referring to Jerusalem, I'm a supporter of a two-state solution with Jerusalem being the seat of power for both Israel and Palestine, I do however concede this is not possible currently due to the seething hatred quite visible on both sides of the conflict.

SnakePlissken

Odhinn wrote: »

That's not ahmed tamimi.

I never claimed it was. Serious question, do you only read every second word of the posts you're responding to?

Odhinn

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I never claimed it was. Serious question, do you only read every second word of the posts you're responding to?

I'm afraid you did

This is a direct quote from Ahed Tamimi on the murder of those children;

I admit that I was a bit disappointed, because I had hoped for a larger toll. Yet when they said "three dead," I said: 'Allah be praised'...Two minutes later, they said on the radio that the number had increased to five. I wanted to hide my smile, but I just couldn't. Allah be praised, it was great. As the number of dead kept increasing, the passengers were applauding.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107657915&postcount=151

Ahed Tamimi did not say that, her aunt did.

hatrickpatrick

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Sounds like you are willing to discuss this matter in a fair and reasonable way alright!
:eek::eek:

I'm stating my own opinion, but I'm also accepting that my opinion is fairly radical and I'm interested in hearing if there are other reasons for people to support Israel, besides adherence to what I see as the outdated and archaic model of "to the victor go the spoils". That's all, really. Personally as a leftist, I think that the spoils should be divided fairly between humans regardless of who wins or loses.

I'm just trying to figure out if there are motivations other than the right wing worldview of how resources should be divided, which might motivate someone to take Israel's side - despite the fact that when you strip it all back to its most basic elements, Israel v Palestine is essentially a classic case of the "haves" taking from the "have nots" because they have the power to do so by force. There are plenty of people who believe ideologically that this is how the world should in fact work, and personally I find that fairly horrendous, but I do accept that it's a legitimate world view.

SnakePlissken

Odhinn wrote: »

That's not ahmed tamimi.

I completely hold my hands up to that, I did of course mean her Aunt Ahlam Tamimi which I referenced earlier, autocorrect isn't au fait with these first names so it was an error.

hatrickpatrick

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Do you deny Israel's right to exist? If so, where do you suggest it's native citizens who are the children and grand-children of peoples born in the region go?

I would have denied its right to exist at the time of its creation. In the current era, I regard it much like Northern Ireland, in that as you say it's too many generations removed from the original wrong to simply undo it. In that context, where Israel is concerned, I do acknowledge its right to exist.

Where you and me seem to differ is that I acknowledge Israel's right to exist entirely within the border agreed upon by the UN when the state of Israel was created. The West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem were not part of this international recognition - they were taken by military force in subsequent conflicts, and the majority of the civilians living there have never accepted or consented to the sovereignty of the Israeli state over those territories. That's where I differentiate. As I say, I do not believe that the world should continue to operate on the principle of "might is right" - it should operate on the principle of democratic consent. If a government is overwhelmingly rejected by the people living in an area, then that government does not legitimately rule over that area. In that context, the Israelis don't have any moral right to make laws, enforce laws, or allow its citizens freedom of movement, in any of the four territories captured in 1967 - because the people living there have not democratically consented to it. And in that context, as long as they continue to assert their control of these areas through military force, they are the villains and their military personnel deserve every single rock thrown at them. But their retaliation is not justified, because they are being attacked themselves for justifiable reasons. The only justifiable response from the Israeli government in the cause of stopping attacks against its soldiers in the occupied territories, is to stop occupying those territories.

SnakePlissken

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

despite the fact that when you strip it all back to its most basic elements, Israel v Palestine is essentially a classic case of the "haves" taking from the "have nots" because they have the power to do so by force.

Do you condemn the Unites States for stealing the land from its natives, do you boycott US products and services etc? Or do you conserve your ire purely for Israel?

hatrickpatrick

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Belongs is a contentious word when referring to Jerusalem, I'm a supporter of a two-state solution with Jerusalem being the seat of power for both Israel and Palestine, I do however concede this is not possible currently due to the seething hatred quite visible on both sides of the conflict.

That's where we would differ. I do not concede that this not possible because of hatred on both sides, I would contend that the impossibility of this scenario is overwhelmingly because Israel continues to assert, wrongly, that it has a right to the whole city and not just the Israeli-majority half.

hatrickpatrick

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Do you condemn the Unites States for stealing the land from its natives, do you boycott US products and services etc? Or do you conserve your ire purely for Israel?

The United States is similar to Northern Ireland - the initial wrong happened too long ago for it to be justifiable to pursue any kind of retribution against the descendants of the settlers. They are now part of the democratic process. In Israel this is not the case - it's a recent occupation, and most of the settlers living there are first or second generation.

For what its worth, if America was being discovered today for the first time, I'd be on the front line of any protests against taking land from its existing inhabitants without getting their democratic consent to do so.

Odhinn

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Do you condemn the Unites States for stealing the land from its natives, do you boycott US products and services etc? Or do you conserve your ire purely for Israel?

Here we have a chance to stop such a thing occurring.

glic71rods46t0

Obi_Wan_Kenobi wrote: »

Nope, long term reader on here, short term poster ....

sounds legit:rolleyes:

RobbieTheRobber

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm stating my own opinion, but I'm also accepting that my opinion is fairly radical and I'm interested in hearing if there are other reasons for people to support Israel, besides adherence to what I see as the outdated and archaic model of "to the victor go the spoils". That's all, really. Personally as a leftist, I think that the spoils should be divided fairly between humans regardless of who wins or loses.

I'm just trying to figure out if there are motivations other than the right wing worldview of how resources should be divided, which might motivate someone to take Israel's side - despite the fact that when you strip it all back to its most basic elements, Israel v Palestine is essentially a classic case of the "haves" taking from the "have nots" because they have the power to do so by force. There are plenty of people who believe ideologically that this is how the world should in fact work, and personally I find that fairly horrendous, but I do accept that it's a legitimate world view.

Im not even right wing not even slightly, however i do not accept that the situation in Israel is entirely the fault of the Israeli people.

WanderlustIre

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Im not even right wing not even slightly, however i do not accept that the situation in Israel is entirely the fault of the Israeli people.

Really? You dont accept the Palestinian land grab is an issue of Israel. They occupy palestine.

RobbieTheRobber

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Where you and me seem to differ is that I acknowledge Israel's right to exist entirely within the border agreed upon by the UN when the state of Israel was created.

The same one rejected by the Arab nations at the time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Arabs

the General Secretary of the Arab League, was quoted by an Egyptian newspaper as saying "Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades."

The Egyptian king, Farouk, told the American ambassador to Egypt that in the long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and drive them out of Palestine

RobbieTheRobber

WanderlustIre wrote: »

Really? You dont accept the Palestinian land grab is an issue of Israel. They occupy palestine.

Did you read my quote?
I think i said exactly want I wanted to say in it.

If you want to ask me another question feel free. However do not try to mix two separate questions with the answer to one.

Odhinn

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The same one rejected by the Arab nations at the time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Arabs

the General Secretary of the Arab League, was quoted by an Egyptian newspaper as saying "Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades."

The Egyptian king, Farouk, told the American ambassador to Egypt that in the long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and drive them out of Palestine

...but farouk lost his bollocks on that bet, and the state of israel was recognised by the international community. The problem today is the colonisation of areas outside those recognised borders.

RobbieTheRobber

Odhinn wrote: »

...but farouk lost his bollocks on that bet, and the state of israel was recognised by the international community. The problem today is the colonisation of areas outside those recognised borders.

Those borders that were not accepted by the Arab nations at the time?

Odhinn

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Those borders that were not accepted by the Arab nations at the time?

....so? The UN accepted the borders. Israel now colonises land outside them, illegally, with the protection of the US. 'but the Arabs...' is neither here nor there.

s7ryf3925pivug

Farouk wasn't the real bad guy though, just extremely ruthless. David was the real danger all along.

hatrickpatrick

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Those borders that were not accepted by the Arab nations at the time?

It doesn't matter though, the only thing that matters is that a majority of the civilians living in the areas being colonised do not want to be colonised.

The purpose of international law, the Geneva convention, the UN, the EU etc was to move humanity beyond settling our territorial differences through physical violence. Israel wants to be considered a modern, democratic country and not among the parts of the world still living in the dark ages - if that's what they want, and they constantly bleat on about being "the only democracy in the middle east", then they have to act like it.

Part of that means, that if a majority of the people in a region do not accept the imposition of the Israeli government's authority in that region, then the Israeli government doesn't have authority in that region. End of story. If the Israeli government subsequently decides, as they have done, to impose their authority through physical violence, then the Israeli government deserves to be condemned, blackballed, and penalised by the civilised world until it chooses - which it is free to do at any time - to join the civilised world, by behaving like a civilised country. It's really that simple.

RobbieTheRobber

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It doesn't matter though, the only thing that matters is that a majority of the civilians living in the areas being colonised do not want to be colonised.

The purpose of international law, the Geneva convention, the UN, the EU etc was to move humanity beyond settling our territorial differences through physical violence. Israel wants to be considered a modern, democratic country and not among the parts of the world still living in the dark ages - if that's what they want, and they constantly bleat on about being "the only democracy in the middle east", then they have to act like it.

Part of that means, that if a majority of the people in a region do not accept the imposition of the Israeli government's authority in that region, then the Israeli government doesn't have authority in that region. End of story. If the Israeli government subsequently decides, as they have done, to impose their authority through physical violence, then the Israeli government deserves to be condemned, blackballed, and penalised by the civilised world until it chooses - which it is free to do at any time - to join the civilised world, by behaving like a civilised country. It's really that simple.

Not to be smart but a democracy is a form of government it does not make a country anything more than a democracy.
Im not going to waste my time listing democracies who have been guilty of human rights abuses because haven't they all.

When was the last Palestinian election?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Palestine

RobbieTheRobber

Odhinn wrote: »

....so? The UN accepted the borders. Israel now colonises land outside them, illegally, with the protection of the US. 'but the Arabs...' is neither here nor there.

No I don't think you understand how an agreement between two warring parties is resolved.
Anyway its usually not by one of them refusing an agreement and declaring to wipe the other out.

Odhinn

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No I don't think you understand how an agreement between two warring parties is resolved.
Anyway its usually not by one of them refusing an agreement and declaring to wipe the other out.

That generalised rhetoric really has no relevance to whats going on at the moment though. Israel is colonising Palestinian land.

skepticalme

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Not to be smart but a democracy is a form of government it does not make a country anything more than a democracy.

I think this is part of Israels problem. By constantly bleating on about being the only democracy in the middle east.
People are equating freedom and equality with democracy.
In Israels case it is only their parliment that is elected democratically.

Donald Trump

xtal191 wrote: »

Sarah Silverman isn't funny

I'd let her have a go of me flute though.


At least the younger version from a few years ago. Not sure about now


I'm a nice fella like that




(I thought her bit about Jury selection was very funny)

hatrickpatrick

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Not to be smart but a democracy is a form of government it does not make a country anything more than a democracy.
Im not going to waste my time listing democracies who have been guilty of human rights abuses because haven't they all.

When was the last Palestinian election?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Palestine

I'm not referring to democracy as a system of government but the broader, ideological system of "the will of the people" determining the status and practises of an area. You cannot be a legitimate government if the majority of the people do not freely accept your authority.

hatrickpatrick

skepticalme wrote: »

In Israels case it is only their parliment that is elected democratically.

Even this is not the case. If Israel asserts sovereignty over the West Bank, for example, then all of the people living there - including Palestinians - must have the right to vote in Israeli elections. Because the Palestinians comprise a majority of the people in those areas, this would fundamentally alter Israel's demographics as a "Jewish state" - so essentially, they want to be an ethnostate while also exerting power (by physical force) over regions in which that ethnicity is not a majority.

This is what makes their rule fundamentally illegitimate.

If the Irish government declared a 32 county Republic tomorrow, despite the fact that a majority of the people in Northern Ireland did not consent to this, they would be guilty of the same democratic violations as Israel - and if they then sent troops, tanks, guns etc to the area in order to force people to comply with Irish rule, and to force them to watch their homes being demolished to make room for the homes of people from the 26 counties, that would make the Irish government every bit as evil as the Israeli government, and would in my view justify calls for the same kind of international action I'd like to see against the Israeli government. Sanctions, international isolation, and other countries sending troops to stand in solidarity with the people of Northern Ireland in resisting the Irish army's forced control of those counties.

It's all about the will of the people. If a majority of the people in an area do not accept the sovereignty of a government over that area, then that government has no sovereignty. It's as simple as that.

Odhinn

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Just clarify something for me that you are the same poster who closed the Nodin account a few years back. I just want to know I'm dealing with the same poster. I am not trolling I want to bring up something Nodin said on the subject of Israel. Thanks

Fire away.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

SnakePlissken wrote: »

When a child such as Ahed Tamimi, is raised by a family of child murderers and terrorists, it's hard to conceive she will grow into an activist for peace, a doubt only reinforced by her online exploits of biting, kicking, punching, and spitting at the IDF who have shown remarkable restraint when dealing with her.

With Israel responsible for so much legitimate injustice, that some wish to prop this little gob****e up as a poster girl for peace is baffling.

Are you actually tanking your own posts with an alternate account just to make your argument seem more legit? That's quite odd man...

Bold part 1: Care you prove that accusation?

Bold part 2: Lol, 8 months is certainly showing great restraint.

SnakePlissken

Agustin Abundant Tech wrote: »

Are you actually tanking your own posts with an alternate account just to make your argument seem more legit? That's quite odd .

Different poster, who, along with having the same favourite movie, also has very similar political views as myself. I could easily change my username but I do think it's funny that we seem to rub the same posters up the wrong way.

Agustin Abundant Tech wrote: »

Bold part 1: Care you prove that accusation?

Google it yourself, this is fact not an accusation.

Brae100

Odhinn wrote: »

That generalised rhetoric really has no relevance to whats going on at the moment though. Israel is colonising Palestinian land.

Israel colonising Palestinian land? The surrounding Arab states launched a war on Israel in 1967 and tried to annihilate it. Israel defended itself and won.

end of the road

Brae100 wrote: »

Israel colonising Palestinian land? The surrounding Arab states launched a war on Israel in 1967 and tried to annihilate it. Israel defended itself and won.

and have been colonising palestinian land since then, slowly but surely taking more and more as the years go on. defending itself and winning should have saw them go back within their borders.

Brae100

end of the road wrote: »

. defending itself and winning should have saw them go back within their borders.

That's an interesting concept in warfare. Let your enemies keep attacking you. When you win, just reset and let them try again.

RobbieTheRobber

Odhinn wrote: »

That generalised rhetoric really has no relevance to whats going on at the moment though. Israel is colonising Palestinian land.

So what your saying is this point doesn't align with your view so you're just going to ignore it. OK great having a discussion with you pal.

s7ryf3925pivug

You can have a mentality of wanting to avoid escalation, aiming for proportionate responses to acts of aggression. Or you can have the mentality of wanting to annihilate your enemy. Imprisoning a 16 year old girl for a slap is definitely indicative of the latter.

Such a mentality does nothing but harm to their own security and nothing but harm to the safety of people in the west in general. Every excessive response and every unfair act feeds terrorist groups around the world.

dr.fuzzenstein

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No I don't think you understand how an agreement between two warring parties is resolved.
Anyway its usually not by one of them refusing an agreement and declaring to wipe the other out.

That tired old horse always gets trotted out as a reason for Israel to keep going as they are.
Time that knackered old mare was put out of it's misery.
It's not even arguing anymore, it's just lazy.

SnakePlissken

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Time that knackered old mare was put out of it's misery.

Are you claiming it's not true? Hamas members and those who voted it into power would most certainly disagree with you.

gandalf

Edison Incalculable Tomato wrote: »

You can have a mentality of wanting to avoid escalation, aiming for proportionate responses to acts of aggression. Or you can have the mentality of wanting to annihilate your enemy. Imprisoning a 16 year old girl for a slap is definitely indicative of the latter.

Such a mentality does nothing but harm to their own security and nothing but harm to the safety of people in the west in general. Every excessive response and every unfair act feeds terrorist groups around the world.

Absolutely especially if there is a similar situation from the "other side" where that girl gets a slap on the wrist instead because she is part of the favoured tribe.

RobbieTheRobber

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That tired old horse always gets trotted out as a reason for Israel to keep going as they are.
Time that knackered old mare was put out of it's misery.
It's not even arguing anymore, it's just lazy.

Someone I replied to explicitly mentioned the 1948 UN Resolution and borders, so what should I not talk about it?
Is it only those supporting Palestine in this thread can trot it out?

SnakePlissken

For those unfamiliar with where I took my username, Snake Plissken is a character from the John Carpenter movie Escape from New York, a movie about a walled, hellish, open air prison, and so I don't for a moment deny the Gaza strip is near identical and I certainly empathise with its many innocents, but if Israel were to disband the buffer zone, tear down those walls, and accept Palestinians as free neighbors, does anyone believe they won't be massacred by suicide bombings and mass stabbings as was the norm in Israel during the 90's. The Israeli's aren't cruel through malice, but warranted fear.