Morch
-
Posts
27,543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Morch
-
-
Guess you'll just keep denying that you exhibit the same behavior, and ignore the fact that an example was linked above.
Given that your declared position is to disregard anything reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side, it's pathetically disingenuous to link a dubious opinion column, which relates a failure to meaningfully discuss things between people holding different points of view. About as hypocritical as it gets.
And its a nonsense piece anyway. No particular reason to accept this self-serving column at face value or as being an accurate representation. Making generalized assertions on the force of a some online interactions (whether real or not), is not particularly convincing. Right up your alley, of course, as it doesn't deal with facts, but makes a bogus emotional plea based on nothing much. Wonder if one of them "besmirch" variety replies will materialize.
People like you, holding one-sided extreme views, aren't bothered by such petty things as facts. Not when these come in the way of a good bash or scoring some imaginary points in the name of supposed justice:
QuoteA demonstrably false claim started spreading on social media sites around the world on Friday night, accusing a long-since-released IDF soldier, Rebecca, of being the sniper who shot dead a Palestinian medic during violent clashes along the Gaza border earlier that day.
Amid widespread Palestinian and international anger over the killing of Razan Najjar, a 21-year-old volunteer paramedic, during a riot along the security fence, the baseless accusation about Rebecca spread rapidly on social media, prompting threats against the former servicewoman, her friends, and family members.
http://IDF vet gets death threats after she’s falsely accused of killing Gaza medic
-
The main consideration would be keeping the political situation stable. Hence the PM being called for talks, and quite possibly replaced. Balancing between keeping the economy afloat and avoiding social unrest is tricky, far from certain the replacement PM will be able to dramatically alter things. Although, as stated above, even a show of "good faith" would probably be enough.
IMO, the IMF will be go easy on Jordan anyway. Doubt there's much interest in yet another ME mess, and that's something that's always bubbling under the surface in Jordan. The country also hosting many, many refugees from various regional conflicts plays a part as well - with regard to the economy, social unrest and the desirability of avoiding things going south.
-
This calls for a new crackdown: Good Inmates In, Bad Inmates Out.
-
Ok then....
-
While your usual vehemence is dully noted, and bearing in mind your previous bogus "deflection" announcement - the point made was with regard to poster's usage of misleading, made up, wide-brush assertions. Your personal take on the merits of differing positions is irrelevant to this.
And, as expected, nothing of substance to address the first bogus assertion, about Iran being supposedly "harmless", and this being a common view.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, dexterm said:
So you have been caught out in a falsehood again. It turns out I did express sympathy for the young American and two elderly Jews killed, but you are able to read my mind and say it was fake sympathy. What can I do? Up2u.
No, there is no "falsehood", other if one accepts your spin.
You may wish to make this about the expression of faux emotions. Or to disregard other words and views you expressed. Doesn't change facts. The point made, though, was that you are perfectly willing to "dehumanize" victims, blame them, hold them responsible and whatnot - so long as they belong to the other side. Apparently, coming up with justifications and excuses for such is not apologetic, when perpetrators are Palestinians.
-
48 minutes ago, dexterm said:
Deflection.
You are the one making the assertion "and it is untrue that everyone (again, that co-opting of "us") objects to sanctions laid on Iran."
But apparently you can't name them.
Lets try again, without your usual spins and twists.
The poster alleged that "...everybody knows that Iran is harmless. None of us wants to see sanctions against Iran."
Both assertions made by poster are of the wide brush variety, aimed at presenting an imaginary unified point of view, while co-opting some imaginary "us".
The first part is obviously bogus. If Iran was "harmless" there would have been no sanctions nor Iran Deal to begin with. Further, while European signatories reject Trump's withdrawal from the agreement, they generally accept the issues raised as problematic with regard to Iran's other activities.
As for sanctions - other than poster presuming to speak for some imaginary "us", this too is obviously bogus. Even before Trump's withdrawal from the agreement, Iran was still under sanctions (if less restrictive than previously). I don't know that there were major objection to this. Regarding the "new" sanctions, signatories to the agreement and other countries rejected these moves. Other governments, opposed to Iran (such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel etc.) hold different views. That you, or other posters do not support the other point of view doesn't mean it does not exist.
I don't see you having any issues with poster making generalized claims both with regard to supposed international support, or Trump's mysterious advisors.
-
10 minutes ago, dexterm said:
>>About the same "complete callous dehumanizing" you dabble in when Palestinian attacks result in Israeli civilians getting killed.
Not true. Put up or shut up. I have always expressed sorrow and sympathy for the loved ones of those unnecessarily killed in the conflict (Jews, Christians and Muslims), if I have been aware of their deaths. Unlike you who callously discusses the efficacy of killing a few with live rounds as a useful crowd control method.I am not obliged to do Zionist apologists' dirty work for them. And I have also learnt that give Zionist apologists an inch and they will take a mile.
Whatever bizarro world you live in, Israel does not win friends by murdering unarmed 21 year female medics who was simply helping someone injured and was no threat to the IDF pyschopath who singled her out for execution.
Pfft. Twist my words again, why not. It's all you got on offer anyway.
'US teen' among five dead in West Bank and Tel Aviv attacks
Notice how in this case, the victim was "aiding the occupation", and "knew exactly what he was doing". What fake sympathy you express is irrelevant. The point made was that you "dehumanize" victims on the other side, then harangue others for doing the same. Further down the same topic you try to justify the murder of two elderly Jews stabbed by a Palestinian, coming up with some bogus excuses about his state of mind and circumstances.
Posters are not obligated to emulate your faux emotional outbursts. That you can't seem to address topics without resorting to such antics is regrettable.
Your "dirty work" nonsense "argument" is worn thin. There's a difference between supporting a side, and being unable or unwilling to acknowledge even obvious negatives. Once more, the use of "apologists" while holding such an extreme position is obviously flawed.
I haven't said anything about Israel winning friends. That's your own twisting way of spinning things. I pointed out that Israel is neither shunned nor sanctioned, whereas the Hamas is. These are facts, a concept which you may want to familiarize yourself with, someday. For example, repeating your imaginary version of events, is not a fact.
Noticeably, still no word as to how the Hamas leadership can be totally absolved of responsibility, and not be held accountable.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, bristolboy said:
And whether any or all of your assertions are true, what has this got to do with the topic at hand?
That the issues raised by poster are mostly not covered by the Iran Deal is true. But when it comes to Iranian trying to rally the world for its cause, they are worth bearing in mind.
-
25 minutes ago, dexterm said:
>>and it is untrue that everyone (again, that co-opting of "us") objects to sanctions laid on Iran.
... so name the countries that do not object to Trump's new sanctions.
Oh dear, are we nitpicking again. Try reading posters' actual words, which weren't about "new" sanctions, but sanctions in general. And while doing so, reflect on the fact that even if the US would have remained party to the agreement - there would have been standing sanctions laid on Iran. The Iran Deal did not automatically lift all sanctions on Iran.
-
1 hour ago, lionsincity said:
that vile creature Bolton for one
Bolton came on board long after Trump expressed his views regarding the Iran Deal. If the argument was about Trump replacing more moderate advisors with hawkish ones, that's one thing. But the poster alleges that Trump isn't the issue here, and that his views are a product of the influence such advisors exert.
-
1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:
Trump's withdrawal is "sad" ???
Why don't you just say it, as it is ? Trump's withdrawal shows that he is being being badly advised and badly influenced by a bunch of war-mongers in the White House.
This is not "sad". It's disastrous and catastrophic. America is being led into World War Three. America against Islam.Because I'm not obligated to subscribe to your inane point of view. Trump's position on the Iran Deal was in place long before he became POTUS. That you try to spin it as otherwise, is just more propaganda nonsense. Noticeably, you do not bother naming anyone.
Similarly, your other hyperbolic views aren't something that I share, or consider to be factual. There is no catastrophe. There is no WWIII. And America is not waging war against Islam.
Worth pointing out that you persist doing the hatchet job on posts, cutting off them pieces you cannot or will not address.
-
More of your usual propaganda trolling.
"Trump is not actually the problem" - sure thing. Care to actually name them "advisors and other people" influencing him? Can't rightly stand up to them without knowing who they are, eh?
And no, "Washington" haven't decided to undo Obama's legacy, this is actually more Trump's personal crusade. Some of Trump's senior advisors were actually opposed to dropping out of the Iran Deal, and the same goes for other policy decisions.
You do not speak for any "we", and there is no such imaginary, nonsensical imperative as you try to paint. Trump being Trump doesn't make China or Russia righteous. Of course, not "everybody" think Iran is "harmless", and it is untrue that everyone (again, that co-opting of "us") objects to sanctions laid on Iran.
-
From the OP:
Quote"The JCPOA (nuclear deal) does not belong to its signatories, so one party can reject it based on domestic policies or political differences with a former ruling administration," Zarif was quoted as saying in the letter, parts of which were published by the state news agency IRNA on Sunday.
Seriously doubt he's got a case there. Or maybe I'm wrong, and following the 1979 revolution, the new Iranian regime upheld all existing policies and international commitments. Countries do not permanently relinquish their sovereignty in the way Zarif implies.
Further, the Obama administrations difficulties in approving the agreement on the domestic front were no secret. If Iran, and other signatories felt that strongly about it back then, perhaps it would have been wiser to iron out these issues rather than feigning dismay at the present.
And yes, Trump's withdrawal from the agreement is "sad".
-
8 minutes ago, dexterm said:
Your post shows a complete callous dehumanizing of the Palestinian victims with a total lack of empathy for people's suffering. It also demonstrates how Israeli apologists think, and why Israel is losing friends and any sympathy it ever had in the world.
About the same "complete callous dehumanizing" you dabble in when Palestinian attacks result in Israeli civilians getting killed. And, of course, that's exactly what you're doing right now as well - milking a death for scoring imaginary propaganda points.
As for your routine "apologists" cries - coming from someone adamantly refusing to even acknowledge any wrongdoing on the Palestinians' part, that's quite rich.
And while you may fantasize, Israel is neither widely shunned nor harshly sanctioned (if that). The Hamas on the other hand, is. Hard for you to accept, perhaps, but such is life.
Noticing you still avoid addressing anything that's not in line with your extreme narrative.
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, cmtg1 said:
so what value does your contribution have??
Pointing out that it might not be necessary to actually head down to their local office. Most things can be sorted online, or by phone. And in both cases, doubt one needs to use the nearest airline office. We dealt with the Phuket branch, while living in BKK and elsewhere.
-
39 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:
You present your assumptions as fact. Your assumptions are based upon claims made by the attacking group. Here are some facts that you cannot deny because they are the truth.
Fact: The woman was part of a group attempting to violently enter Israel.
Fact: There is no supporting information to support that she was actually shot by the IDF. NONE. There are claims that the IDF did it. No autopsy, no photographic evidence, and my how the Pallywood producers love their recordings. How odd that we don't have anything of this nightingale of peace's martyrdom. The attackers have been posting all sorts of videos to their jihadi websites, but somehow they forgot this one.
She could have just as easily been shot by her own people as has been the case in previous deaths. She could have been hit by a ricochet, but no, you know that an IDF sniper targeted her, all because it fits your narrative of demonization of Israelis.
Fact: The status of the IDF carrying weapons or wearing some body armor means nothing. In Afghanistan, my colleagues LAV was destroyed by a woman with an explosives vest. The shrapnel left several seriously injured. Armed IDF soldiers have been stabbed and shot by arab attackers. You expect the IDF kids to put their lives at risk to ensure that the people trying to kill them are not injured. Get real. It's a combat zone and the Gazans are attacking.
Fact: The IDF is under no moral or legal obligation to show restraint when faced with a violent attack. They are allowed to stop a border incursion.
Fact: The woman was part of an attacking force. That made her an attacker, no matter her intentions. The attackers were not going to enter Israel and give loving hugs and spread good cheer. their sole goal was to enter Israel and to harm Israelis.
While agreeing with your criticism of the usual suspect's presentation, it ought to be pointed out that you dabble in the same. A whole lot of assumptions based on very little substance.
I also think you have a rather foggy concept of ROE, and what's allowed or legitimate to do under relevant circumstances. If it's a clue, there are already IDF investigations conducted into the details of some deaths, including the one in the OP.
No idea if her death was intended or accidental, but somehow doubt that it was a crucial part of the effort to avoid a mass breaching of the border fence.
Not too clear as to why you imagine IDF soldiers never make mistakes, or never act wrongly. They are human. Accepting that in no way implies all the IDF does is wrong, or that anything the Palestinians do is right.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:
It is not overdoing it to point out that this story is a propaganda piece, a construct based upon a falsehood. The very fact that the woman is described as a nurse when she was not shows what motive of the story: To create sympathy for an event by presenting the deceased in the most positive light as possible.
It is rather telling that so many media outlets have relied on the incorrect description. This is because they are merely repeating the same story with a few modifications for cost reasons.
In your rush to present yourself as morally correct and arguing with reason you ignore the lie staring you in the face; that this story is BS. She was not a nurse, and not a paramedic. Instead, she was part of the attacking force with her role to provide support to the male attackers. This is the Hamas strategy, to position the young and the women so that they are most likely to be injured and thereby build support from those seeking a reason to attack Israel. Women are not allowed to co-mingle with the male fighters. It's another glaring fact of combat when muslims are involved. Ask anyone who has had boots on the ground experience in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are used as shields, as decoys as IED carriers etc. When these women are presented as valiant medical care workers by the propaganda outlets, I laugh because it is just not true.
If you will notice, there have been several deceitful posts, particularly those from the resident marxist agitator, who has claimed the woman was a heroic nurse. You and others have fallen for it. His whole position is based upon the claim that she was rendering medical care. The truth is that she was in a battle zone and with an attacking group. In law there is a fundamental principle that holds that the fruit of the poisoned tree is poisoned, meaning that claims which come from a false statement cannot be accepted. All those demanding ICC involvement overlook fundamental principles such as this.
The core reality is that the woman was part of a violent, armed group laying siege to a legal border with the sole intent to enter a sovereign nation and to wage war. When people attack like that, they usually end up dead. The same people going on and on about the injustice, really don't care about these arabs. It is an opportunity to go after Israel, period. You go right ahead with your false assumption that those demanding the death of jews and the destruction of Israel can be reasoned with. They cannot. They would rather put the Israelis on a cattle car to Dachau than to discuss legal niceties. That's the cold reality. You go back and forth with a couple of them and all you do is provide an opportunity for them to spread their hateful lies. In effect you are part of the problem.
The death of this young woman is used for propaganda purposes. This is to be expected, and is rather obvious even in some of the posts on this topic. I haven't "fallen" for any nonsense posts, and I'm not blind to Hamas (or posters) attempts of exploiting things for propaganda purposes. I'm not rushing into anything, and I don't care what posters think about me. So might as well save your personal level "analysis" for someone who gives two figs.
The "falsehood" bit, is where I think you're overdoing it.
Whether she was a "nurse", a "medic", a "paramedic" or a "volunteer" isn't germane. That many a media sources aren't too accurate about such details doesn't change the fact that she was supposed to be considered, under ROE, as emergency medical staff. Hence the white coat and tags. I know it doesn't look too "pro", but still. I think IDF soldiers ought to have been able to recognize her as such. If you think the IDF is infallible, I'll have a good laugh, and disagree.
You have nothing whatsoever to support the notion that she was "part of the attacking force". You have nothing to support that "her role was to provide support for male attackers". That you claim this to be the "truth" - doesn't make it so, not anymore than the versions others spew. And allow me to doubt your are in possession of in-depth knowledge of Hamas strategy and tactics (reminds me of a similar conversation we had in the past, about Sinai Peninsula Bedouins...that was a good laugh too).
Instead of going on on about Iraq and Afghanistan, have a closer look at protest footage, and try to accept that this is the Gaza Strip. Things are somewhat different - in part due to unique local circumstances, and in part due to the nature of the current protests. I'll have to point out that she was not armed, hence the whole "mingling in combat" angle is pretty much irrelevant.
If by claiming she was "part of a violent, armed group" you imply she was a member of Hamas etc., I'm pretty sure you're wrong - or that it would be hard to substantiate (quite possibly co-opted after she died, though). There is no evidence she directly partook in the violence, or attempted to breach the fence. Quite a ways from it when she was shot.
No issues with your assessment of how some posters exploit these deaths (and for sure, Hamas leadership does the same, as do Arab and Muslim leaders). As one of my standing points is exactly about Hamas leadership bearing responsibility for such and that it ought to be held accountable, the criticism direct my way isn't very compelling. Not seeking, nor need your approval.
As for your hyperbole nonsense about the impossibility of reasoning with the Palestinians (and bringing up the Holocaust for good measure, no less), again - try and pay attention to what I actually post, not what you imagine my posts are about.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, dexterm said:
How can I be twisting your words when I quote you verbatim for forum members to judge for themselves?
I think it's disgusting that you attempt to vilify a brave young woman's death.
Yet another deflection. Yet more issues you run away from instead of addressing. Same old.
I think I've demonstrated how you twisted my words. Wouldn't be a first. It's what you do and how you post.
I did not "vilify" the young women killed. And if anything is "disgusting" it would be your habit of milking such deaths for every bit of imagined PR points they are "worth". Just like Hamas does.
So once more:
Hamas rules the Gaza Strip.
Hamas leadership exhibited control of protests.
Hamas leadership encouraged protestors to breach the border fence and clash with the IDF.
Hamas leadership chose this path, regardless of mounting casualties.
Do tell - how is the Hamas leadership not responsible (or if you wish to nitpick, partly responsible)?
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, dexterm said:
You carefully cherry pick your starting point for your timeline. No mention of the small matter of Israel killing over 100 and injuring 12,000 including children, press and medics that may just have provoked some retaliation, prior to where you wish to dictate your perfect narrative.
I didn't "cherry pick" anything. If your point had any merit, there would have been such attacks previously. The Islamic Jihad (which started this conflagration) made the connection to the killing of its operatives very clear. Spin harder.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, dexterm said:
Israel is illegally occupying Palestinians, not the other way around. Palestinians have the right by international law to resist occupation, just like every other brutally occupied people in history.
Mortar and rocket attacks are not considered legitimate. Same goes for terrorist actions against civilians. All the more so when it comes to attacks taking place in Israeli territory. Spin away.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, KhunFred said:
Strange how no one ever denounces violence against Israel.
That is not always the case. For example, following the recent mortar/rocket attacks there was wide international condemnation of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The OP deals with a UN resolution sponsored by the usual suspects, so no expectations it would be worded otherwise. Reactions depend on both venue and context.
36 minutes ago, dexterm said:That's because Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, not the other way around. The Palestinians are entitled by international law to resist occupation.
Other than yourself, and some other extremists, there is no wide acceptance of carte blanche for Palestinian violence. That you justify any Palestinian violence whatsoever, is just another indication of how far gone your views are.
'Unacceptable to Fire at Civilian Communities': UN, EU Condemn Attacks on Israel From Gaza
EU, UN condemn ‘indiscriminate’ attack on Israel from Gaza
https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-condemns-unacceptable-indiscriminate-attack-on-israel-from-gaza/
-
1
-
-
Wouldn't know, I usually buy online, often direct from airline.
-
15 minutes ago, sirineou said:
Sure , there are dangers to leaving the safety of your bed, but the are also great rewards.
I don't know how more plain I can be, I hope we all know what "Status Quo means , or know what the ":current power structure " is.If not then we are trying to discuss the number 12 without being familiar with the numbers 1 0r 2.
As posted on another topic, it becomes obvious that the current accepted mode of discussion leans to the populist. If you wish to over-simply things to the "leaving the safety of your bed" level, go right ahead. Still not a single word about what them supposed "great rewards" are.
You can't be plain when discussing what "status quo" means. Or what the "current power structure" means. You assume that they have some objective, generally accepted meaning. In effect - these are labels, often applied to various aspects of economic, social and political issues (shortlisting here). The nonsense 12 vs 1,2 thing is just a nothing argument.
When Trump supporters talk about "status quo", they mean one thing (well, not true - even then it can have various meaning). When third world (or small) countries go about "status quo" it can carry other meanings. Rock (I use this in a loose sense) fans might have another thing in mind.
A whole lot of people want change. What they want changed may vary. How they want "it" to change is often unclear. Many a times, what they rile against and what they want changed aren't even factual or real issues. And this relates directly to the first line - regarding the present prevalence of populist "discourse"
U.S. urges China to come clean on Tiananmen anniversary
in World News
Posted
While this is obviously confrontational, and quite possibly a "hidden agenda" involved, doubt it's about going to war. Posters going on about imminent war, though - that's something else. Such imaginary wars start (well...almost, at least) a few times a day, on a slow day.
As for Germany, an obvious difference would be Germany openly acknowledging its past.