WDSmart

Morch, Sorry, I forgot one term which is used differently by you and me: Trolling/Commenting

Morch, Here's how I use and equate these terms as related to the factions in this conflict: - Militants: Zionist/Hamas - Regular Citizens: Israelis/Palestinians - Country: Israel/Palestine - Race: Hebrew/Arab - Religions: Jewish/Muslim I am not a Hamas supporter/apologist. But where we differ is I am also not a Zionist supporter/apologist. I see this conflict as not being just "black and white." I see it as a product of both sides' goals and methods, and both sides have historically and recently used methods to achieve their goals which I judge to be deplorable. I would normally say that I hope cooler heads on both sides will prevail and a reasonable agreement can be reached, but in this case, I do not think that is possible and will never happen.

And, you could ask what the Zionists did (or failed to do) that contributed to the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 Oct.

Morch, No, I'm not saying opinion and fact are on equal footing. What I'm saying about "fact" is just because you read it on CNN or FOX doesn't make it a fact. As you admitted, these outlets are biased and present different versions of the "facts." What I'm saying about "opinion" is that most everyone has their own opinion of things. And it is that opinion that I am interested in. I might not agree with it and respond with my own opinion, but that's what I think discussions are all about.

I am the polar opposite of Alex Jones. I am a far, far-left liberal.

Morch, I made my point above. I can see and read all the new reports myself. What I can't do, and what I HOPE is the purpose of Asean Forums, is to discuss the issues with others and hearing (reading) what their point of view is on these subjects.

And what do you accept as something "factual"? Something you've read on social media or something you've seen on TV? And, isn't presenting your "views" and opinions on a topic what discussions are all about?

Bkk Brian, THANKS for your reply. I now understand...kind of. None of my comments were about Wanchai, and he and his situation are the main topics of this thread. As you know (I think), my initial involvement in this thread was just a short reply to someone's comments that "Hamas should be eliminated." My short response was just, "So should Zionists." Nothing more than that. All of these comments then spiraled out from there. And, I could argue that the very first sentence of the article, which is "The resulting conflict between Isreal and Hamas..." does leave the door open, maybe, for comments about that conflict. Am I wrong there? Is that going too far "off topic"? And, please answer the first part of my question above: "Why do you consider my posts "trolling"? Thanks...Bill!

And you think that Zionists have not done all the things you've mentioned above to the Palestinians in the past? You are a Zionist enabler and greatly disappoint me.

Yes, and I believe that "clear difference" is that Hamas represents people who are mainly Muslim, whereas Zionists represent people who are mainly Jewish. And the big difference there is the US, UK, and most other Western countries have a large population of Christians who know their religion has evolved from Judaism. That's the bottom line of the "clear difference" in the way these two groups are characterized for me, and all the terms used to describe the features and activities of each group reflect that: terrorists/patriots, hostages/prisoners, slaughter/collateral damage, etc.

I compare them with Hamas and ISIS, at least the most radical factions of Zionists. Here is the Oxford Languages Dictionary definition of "Zionism" [with my remarks in brackets]: "a movement for originally the re-establishment and now the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine]. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann." This has been done, for the most part, with the approval of the United Nations, but certainly not the approval of the Palestinians who were the primary occupiers of that land before all this started.

Goat! What are you doing? You're actually reading the posts and commenting on what is in them instead of making something up to demean someone with! Wow!

Bkk Brian, If you've been following this conversation, which, believe me, it would be best if you weren't, you'd find Morch used the "dully noted" phrase first. I don't know if it was a misspelling on his part or if it was intentional, but I liked it a lot! So, I thought I'd repeat it in my replies. Just an FYI...

Dully noted...

Your comments above have been duly noted, but most of the contents of your posts have been dully noted.

Check out the "Balfour Declaration" by the British on Wikipedia. It gives a good snapshot into some of the activities that have contributed to the mess we see today. Also, it gives some view into Zionists and Zionism. The resolution was voted on by the UN. It passed, but my point is the then occupants of the land, the Palestinians, had no say in it. They were just told they had to divide their land up and give parts to the Jews. My bottom line is not antisemitic or anti-Jewish, it's just that this land, Palestine, now called "Israel," was once occupied primarily by Arab Muslims, but now they, for many reasons (wars, declarations, etc.) are being slowly eliminated from their home. They now are isolated into two, separated, small territories, and soon, I suspect, will be further contained, if not completely eliminated. And it is that possiblity/probablity that I am speaking out against.

If I "imply" things you have not claimed, I'm not saying you actually claimed that. I'm saying what you claim implies certain other assumptions. That's the nature of a discussion. If you deny my implications, that's fine, but why characterize them as "dishonest"? There is a "more accurate meaning" (USA English double quotes instead of the British English single quotes) of "anti-semitism." It comes from knowing wheret the two parts of the word actually come from and mean. "Anti" is "against," (I assume you agree with that, AT LEAST), and "semitism" comes from "Semite," which means: "...a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs." - Oxford Language Dictionary What could be clearer and more accurate than that? What you're suggesting would be like defining "racist' as a White person who hates Blacks, and not just ANY person of ANY race who hates people of a DIFFERENT race. I'm sorry you think I'm lame. I assure you, I am not. I will continue "trolling," the SECOND definition, which is: "carefully and systematically search[ing] an area for something" - Oxford Language Dictionary

The 1947 UN Resolution and it's history is too much to go into here. Suffice to say it was the result of an earlier action by the UK, who claimed ownership of Palestine (WTF??) and gave rights to the Jews to live there. This resolution was a further sanctioning of that. Neither of these were done with agreement of the actual people who lived there, the Palestinian Arab Muslims. And even then, this resolution divided Palestine up into regions with much less being given to the Jews than they now occupy. Thank you for wishing me luck. I genuinely need it when corresponding with people like you.

I don't know why you keep accusing me of being dishonest. I'm only stating my opinion. Yes, most people only interrupt "antisemitism" with being anti-Jewish and don't even know its more accurate meaning includes Arabs and some North African people. That's probably because we in the West have historically accepted Jews more than Arabs/Muslims. I, AT LEAST, know what "Semite" actually means. I hope you are being truthful about being "done to death" on these sorts of topics. That would be very welcome for me.

My point is there have been continuing wars (military actions) for over 70 years, and that's just on our current calendar. There were many conflicts between Jews and Arabs before that. So, you're pointing to just one of them to prove some kind of point is not convincing to me.

Morch... My use of "at least" means just what it says: you finally did agree that the term "Zionists" includes radicals, but that's all you did. You did not agree with me that those supporting Hamas also include non-radicals. There are plenty of Palestinians who either want all the Jews completely out of their country, or want a two-state solution, or at least (there it is again!) are willing to live with Jews equally as part of a one-state solution but do not support radical actions, such as killings, to achieve that. Yes, most people believe the term "antisemitism" refers ONLY to anti-Jewish sentiments. The term does mean anti-Jewish, but it ALSO means anti-Arab. I have informed myself on the definition of the term. I advise you to do so also. I assume you are a native English speaker, probably from the UK since you use single quote marks, so you should know the meaning of "anti." Then, all you have to do is look up the word "Semite," and you'll find out what "antisemitic" means.

Sounds like you might be a good negotiator for either Hamas or the Zionists...

To which war are you referring? There have been many....

Thanks for at least agreeing that there are some Zionists that are extreme. I do associate them exclusively with the term "Zionist," although I accept that there are some more moderate zionists also. I believe that to be true of Hamas also, but I know you don't. Anyway, my original quote about "eliminating" them refers to the extreme factions in both camps. I am impressed that you know that "semite" does not refer only to Jews but to Arabs and some North Africans also. Most people don't know that. So, although "antisemite" does mean "anti-Jew," it can also be used to refer to anything "anti-Arab" also. I am not going to "Try harder." I'll end our discussion here, unless, of course, you make any other remarks to which I believe a reply is necessary. Ta-ta! I'm sure I'll see you around AseanNow on other topics....

Trump with a "mixed message"? Who would have thought?