Tik Shiro Car Crash Sparks Demand for Alcohol Test Inquiry

[Morch]

 

This won't help things one bit...

 

Security Guard Seriously Wounded in Jerusalem Terror Attack
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.828030

 

But this will..

 

Israel Destroys Hamas Cross-border Attack Tunnel Leading Into Israel
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827988

 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Are you twisting my words or simply having comprehension issues? Hard to tell.

 

I did not dispute the report, even if I do not take it as gospel as you seem to. I pointed out that there's plenty of coverage on the demonstrations and not all of it conforms to your cherry-pick-and-generalize version. That you seem to think any details in any story portraying Israel negatively are the complete and only truth, is your issue. That you cannot address demonstrations actually featuring Palestinian violence - the same demonstrations Hamas called for - is again, just another form of deflection.

 

I'm not afraid of no truth, certainly not from what passes for such in your posts. Deflect some more and don't forget to milk every least bit of it all. Helps focusing on the agenda.

 

 

No twisting of words, no spin. No need to.  You have actually repeated your falsehood above for all to see.

 

First we have the classic meaningless Morchspeak gobbledegook full of double negatives..
"I did not dispute the report, even if I do not take it as gospel"
Translated = I did not dispute the report, even though I did dispute it.

 

I pointed out two demonstrations in the current uprising that I dealt with separately.

One demonstration in Jerusalem itself that I found particularly nastily handled, I quoted the reporter's actual words, then comes the Morch dishonesty that you have actually repeated above for all to see.

Morch wrote.."I pointed out that there's plenty of coverage on the demonstrationS."

 

Note folks the plural demonstrationS. You deliberately tried to conflate and confuse the reporting of one peaceful demonstration in Salah Eddin Jerusalem with others elsewhere implying that the Jerusalem Palestinians had not been peacefully protesting, and by extension that the Israel police and IDF had no option but to viciously attack.
At best deflection; at worst dishonest.

This folks is how the Israeli propaganda machine operates.

Edited December 10, 2017 by dexterm

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Catoni said:

      Well.... there was a little something about Arab nations launching military attacks and war on Israel (1973 Yom Kippur War anyone?....Intifadas perhaps ?  Also retaliation for bus and pizza parlour and restaurant bombings... ad infinitum )  

True, and after defeating the enemy, they should have gone back to their own borders. It's because they are still illegally occupying Palestinian land and building settlements on land that they don't have any right to that there is all the trouble.

I'm sure you'd be a bit annoyed if your neighbouring country had invaded yours and stayed there for 60 years and made it difficult for you to move around in your own country, all the while evicting your countrymen and building houses on their land.

[F4UCorsair]

On 12/8/2017 at 1:00 PM, Bluespunk said:

Hamas calling for a “day of rage” ...shocker!

 

How unusual for an organization like Hamas.......<deleted> idiots.   It appears they can't count, because today is the fourth day of rage.....rage all you like guys, you're up against the best fighting forces on the planet.

Edited December 11, 2017 by metisdead
8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

[geriatrickid]

19 hours ago, Srikcir said:

It's not an off-topic deflection but an unspoken subject that reflects back on badly for a supposed democratic Israeli.

A Jewish theocratic state would more likely accept a one-state solution with the Palestinians becoming stateless with the sovereignty of Israel. Palestinians would not be eligible to hold elected office. A secular, democratic Israel should be more acceptable with a one-state solution with the Palestinians having full rights as Israeli citizens.

Israel isn't blocking the Arabs from  creating their state. They already have enough autonomy in Gaza and the West Bank to show the world that they are capable of pursuing peace and building a  nation. The Arabs have had Gaza since 2005 and have been free to pursue excellence in education, science, culture, sports, human rights, the humanities etc. Instead, in that time, the arabs  invested in building munition stores, the funding of  terrorist attacks on Israel,  the building of armouries and military  control zones within UN and EU funded schools and hospitals, and have denied basic human rights to a large portion of the population. That wasn't Israel's doing. 

 

Israel has just closed an attack tunnel from Gaza into Israel. This is the 2nd tunnel stopped in the past 6 weeks. These tunnels are intended for raids into Israel and were constructed long before the  Jerusalem announcement. This sums up the Arab mentality. They have no interest in peace and will continue attacking Israel until they are stopped. And once they are done with Israel, they will move on to restoring their caliphate in  Spain and western Europe.

 

[Srikcir]

7 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Israel isn't blocking the Arabs from  creating their state.

Apparently Israeli government has thought otherwise in the headline:

"Deputy defense minister: This government will block any two-state deal"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/deputy-defense-minister-this-government-will-block-any-peace-deal/

"Israel’s ruling party and the governing coalition are staunchly opposed to a two-state solution and would block the creation of a Palestinian state if such a proposal ever came to a vote" - Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon.

[geriatrickid]

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Apparently Israeli government has thought otherwise in the headline:

"Deputy defense minister: This government will block any two-state deal"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/deputy-defense-minister-this-government-will-block-any-peace-deal/

"Israel’s ruling party and the governing coalition are staunchly opposed to a two-state solution and would block the creation of a Palestinian state if such a proposal ever came to a vote" - Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon.

The Israelis can vote against it, but they cannot block the establishment of a state in the  Gaza or West bank. The arabs can declare it and all the Israelis can say is that  they do not accept. It won;t change anything, anymore that the  announcement that israel has its capital in Jerusalem.

The arabs do not wish to go the declaration route because it means having to accept that the borders with Israel are established. The cornerstone of the arab position is the destruction of Israel and the refusal to accept the existence of Israel. Greed and avarice are a bitch.

[Catoni]

15 hours ago, dexterm said:

Off topic. We are not discussing Egypt's 1973 Yom Kippur war.

      It was a statement in reply to "thaibeachlover"s statement:   "Had the project been carried out properly and Israel confined to the 1948 borders, with Jerusalem an international city, the world would have been spared much blood and treasure."

        Maybe some people would want to know WHY Israel did not stay within the 1948 border etc.  

And I would like to know WHY "thaibeachlover"s post would be on topic, and mine not.

   Perhaps your agenda is to simply see Israel as the "bad guy" and and Hamas, Hesbollah, PLO, PA, and the arab contries that attack Israel as the "good guys" and to have all opposition shut down...  huh ?  

   Please hurry back with your answer comrade. 

[Catoni]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

True, and after defeating the enemy, they should have gone back to their own borders. It's because they are still illegally occupying Palestinian land and building settlements on land that they don't have any right to that there is all the trouble.

I'm sure you'd be a bit annoyed if your neighbouring country had invaded yours and stayed there for 60 years and made it difficult for you to move around in your own country, all the while evicting your countrymen and building houses on their land.

    Israel was attacked and won that land in war. If you attack someone and fail, what right do you have to complain about losing some land if you lose your war ?    

      Israel was nice enough to withdraw from much of it, and return much if it, (Sinai Peninsula etc.)  

 

Do you think the Arabs and Hamas, Hezbolla, PLO would be nice and return some land to Israel  had they captured some of Israel ? 

 

    Israel kept some, only some, of the land they captured... "spoils of war",  that is called.  

Be happy they didn't just keep it all.. That's what the Arabs and PLO, PA would have done.  They would not return any land to Isael they would capture if they captured some.  Especially when the goal for many of them is to murder every Jewish man, woman and child if they get the chance......the total wiping of Israel from the face of the map. 

    

   

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, Catoni said:

    Israel kept some, only some, of the land they captured... "spoils of war",  that is called.  

 

A very blase, throwaway statement for what is a very complex legal issue. Your already tenuous arguments are heavy on the John Wayne style swaggering, but they convey nothing other than hubris.  

 

 

[Morch]

 

 

@dexterm

 

 

Pathetic.

 

So you're still stuck in that fantasy where you speech in front of an imaginary crowd? Must explain all them soapbox posts.

 

Try reading the posts again, without the fixation on making up things, or focusing on grasp-at-straws interpretations handing on the force of s single letter. If that's the sort of argument your have on offer, the Palestinians should be thankful you're not really among their spokespersons.

 

As for "propaganda machine" - not very hard to discern which poster is the one offering a hyperbolic, vehement and one-sided account of things, over thousands of posts. Those with intact memories would recall you even coming out and saying this was your aim when joining up these discussions.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Morch

[dexterm]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

@dexterm

 

 

Pathetic.

 

So you're still stuck in that fantasy where you speech in front of an imaginary crowd? Must explain all them soapbox posts.

 

Try reading the posts again, without the fixation on making up things, or focusing on grasp-at-straws interpretations handing on the force of s single letter. If that's the sort of argument your have on offer, the Palestinians should be thankful you're not really among their spokespersons.

 

As for "propaganda machine" - not very hard to discern which poster is the one offering a hyperbolic, vehement and one-sided account of things, over thousands of posts. Those with intact memories would recall you even coming out and saying this was your aim when joining up these discussions.

I have exposed you yet again posting falsehoods.

I will leave forum members to judge the evidence.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, car720 said:

Before the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990), the country experienced a period of relative calm and renowned prosperity, driven by tourism, agriculture, commerce, and banking. Because of its financial power and diversity in its heyday,Lebanon was referred to as the "Switzerland of the East" 

 

Is that an exaggeration? 

 

Compare your original comment and what you posted now, not quite the same thing. Unless mistaken, the time you allude to refer to the 1960's. Even if these rosy accounts never quite matched reality or failed to address sectarian issues that were already shaping up to the issues plaguing Lebanon today, spinning the undoing of them times solely focusing on Israel is a bit much, even by the low standards of these "discussions".

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

I have exposed you yet again posting falsehoods.

I will leave forum members to judge the evidence.

 

You have exposed nothing but you own delusions and dishonesty.

That you still hold a fantasy that you're at court ("evidence"...) is quite amusing, in its own pathetic way.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Apparently Israeli government has thought otherwise in the headline:

"Deputy defense minister: This government will block any two-state deal"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/deputy-defense-minister-this-government-will-block-any-peace-deal/

"Israel’s ruling party and the governing coalition are staunchly opposed to a two-state solution and would block the creation of a Palestinian state if such a proposal ever came to a vote" - Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon.

 

No one prevented the Palestinians from announcing statehood, independence and whatnot. It's a choice. Israel may object, may act against it, and generally disagree. It doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians are reluctant to go there - for a bunch of reasons. There were a many previous opportunities for the Palestinians to take different routes in order to achieve their goals. Can't pin all their choices on Israel.

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

A very blase, throwaway statement for what is a very complex legal issue. Your already tenuous arguments are heavy on the John Wayne style swaggering, but they convey nothing other than hubris.  

 

 

 

Can't recall a whole lot of objections to similarly styled statements thrown the other way. Same goes for bogus arguments heavy on other uncalled for stylish embellishments.

[RuamRudy]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Can't recall a whole lot of objections to similarly styled statements thrown the other way. Same goes for bogus arguments heavy on other uncalled for stylish embellishments.

You rarely overlook any hint of possibly excessive rhetoric from those more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause - no need, in my eyes, to over egg the pudding. 

But as neither you nor me are mods I don't have expectations on your impartiality and therefore do not see it as an issue that you rarely remonstrate with the more rabid pro-Israel commentators. 

 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

You rarely overlook any hint of possibly excessive rhetoric from those more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause - no need, in my eyes, to over egg the pudding. 

But as neither you nor me are mods I don't have expectations on your impartiality and therefore do not see it as an issue that you rarely remonstrate with the more rabid pro-Israel commentators. 

 

 

I actually do that, if less than in the past. That's mostly due to comments (such as above) being almost intelligible and communication with certain posters almost impossible. That you choose to pretend otherwise, is as said in Thailand - up to you. Nicely done there pitting up "those more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause" vs. "more rabid pro Israel commentators". Thanks for making my point. 

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I actually do that, if less than in the past. That's mostly due to comments (such as above) being almost intelligible and communication with certain posters almost impossible. That you choose to pretend otherwise, is as said in Thailand - up to you. Nicely done there pitting up "those more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause" vs. "more rabid pro Israel commentators". Thanks for making my point. 

I think my point was clear - you are very quick off the mark to point out minor infractions from those with whom you might disagree, but you rarely comment of the more outlandish statements from those who are pro-Israel. If that is because you are selective with whom you interact then I apologise for suggesting some form of bias, but the more extreme right  does seem to get free rein on Palestine/Israel threads on TV.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I think my point was clear - you are very quick off the mark to point out minor infractions from those with whom you might disagree, but you rarely comment of the more outlandish statements from those who are pro-Israel. If that is because you are selective with whom you interact then I apologise for suggesting some form of bias, but the more extreme right  does seem to get free rein on Palestine/Israel threads on TV.

 

And more of them loaded scales - "minor infractions" vs. "more outlandish statements". Guess we all have posts and posters we don't bother responding to, as there absolutely no point, really. As for "more extreme right" getting a "free rein" - reality check: most of the more avid right wing (or extreme right wing) participants in these topics are history. Newcomers flash for a bit and disappear. 

[RuamRudy]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

And more of them loaded scales - "minor infractions" vs. "more outlandish statements".

Guilty as charged -  my allusion to Matthew 7:3.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, car720 said:

You forget just one thing.

I really don't give an act of aerial intercourse.

 

Just trolling, then?

[thaibeachlovers]

59 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I think my point was clear - you are very quick off the mark to point out minor infractions from those with whom you might disagree, but you rarely comment of the more outlandish statements from those who are pro-Israel. If that is because you are selective with whom you interact then I apologise for suggesting some form of bias, but the more extreme right  does seem to get free rein on Palestine/Israel threads on TV.

Please do not confuse right ( wing ) with being pro Israel. IMO one has nothing to do with the other. One may be right wing and pro Israel, but being one not mean that one has to be both.

When I was young I was pro Israel, but now Israel has by it's actions in the illegal occupation and settlement building lost my support. The days when Israel was a small country standing up to bullies has long gone. Now Israel is, IMO, the bully.

[thaibeachlovers]

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 Guess we all have posts and posters we don't bother responding to, as there absolutely no point, really. 

Gold star post.

I was just thinking of posting along those lines. You beat me to it.

[Catoni]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

A very blase, throwaway statement for what is a very complex legal issue. Your already tenuous arguments are heavy on the John Wayne style swaggering, but they convey nothing other than hubris.  

 

 

     Failure to answer my questions:    Noted. 

     Ad Hominem attempt to dismiss:   Noted. 

     Lack of intelligent rebuttal:              Noted.

[RuamRudy]

15 hours ago, Catoni said:

     Failure to answer my questions:    Noted. 

     Ad Hominem attempt to dismiss:   Noted. 

     Lack of intelligent rebuttal:              Noted.

Questions? Did you seriously consider those to be questions that deserved answers? Calling for rebuttal is a seriously unwarranted assumption of the value of your post, but I will indulge you.

 

21 hours ago, Catoni said:

Israel was attacked and won that land in war. If you attack someone and fail, what right do you have to complain about losing some land if you lose your war ?    

      Israel was nice enough to withdraw from much of it, and return much if it, (Sinai Peninsula etc.)  

War is not about winning and losing land. As I explained to you, the definition of spoils of war is complex and unclear. Here is a link that explores this complexity. As I pointed out to you earlier in this thread - I can shout as loudly as I wish to that my cat is, in fact, a dog. But that does not mean that it will bark or that others will throw it a bone. 

 

21 hours ago, Catoni said:

Do you think the Arabs and Hamas, Hezbolla, PLO would be nice and return some land to Israel  had they captured some of Israel ? 

 

While is clearly a hypothetical 'what if', I don't think it is too hard to suggest how anyone would act were they to recover their homelands from those they consider to be foreign aggressors. 

 

21 hours ago, Catoni said:

Especially when the goal for many of them is to murder every Jewish man, woman and child if they get the chance......the total wiping of Israel from the face of the map. 

Can you quantify the 'many' you refer to ? Is it 1, 100, 1 million? Without anything tangible, it is meaningless hyperbole.  

 

 

 

 

[Catoni]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Questions? Did you seriously consider those to be questions that deserved answers? Calling for rebuttal is a seriously unwarranted assumption of the value of your post, but I will indulge you.

 

War is not about winning and losing land. As I explained to you, the definition of spoils of war is complex and unclear. Here is a link that explores this complexity. As I pointed out to you earlier in this thread - I can shout as loudly as I wish to that my cat is, in fact, a dog. But that does not mean that it will bark or that others will throw it a bone. 

 

While is clearly a hypothetical 'what if', I don't think it is too hard to suggest how anyone would act were they to recover their homelands from those they consider to be foreign aggressors. 

 

Can you quantify the 'many' you refer to ? Is it 1, 100, 1 million? Without anything tangible, it is meaningless hyperbole.  

 

 

 

 

      Wow.... the anology you pose is one of the wost analogies I have seen in some time.  And your ignorance of the the history of "Palestine"  is blinding...   (Palestine...an imaginary country that has never existed historically as a state with a goverment and coinage etc.)    This is fact :   Israel has much, much more historical and factual claim to that land than anyone else.  Whether you like it or not.    Now you can go back to reading your Koran or Works of Lenin.  

Edited December 12, 2017 by Catoni
correction

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

      Wow.... the anology you pose is one of the wost analogies I have seen in some time.  And your ignorance of the the history of "Palestine"  is blinding...   (Palestine...an imaginary country that has never existed historically as a state with a goverment and coinage etc.)    This is fact :   Israel has much, much more historical and factual claim to that land than anyone else.  Whether you like it or not.    Now you can go back to reading your Koran or Works of Lenin.  

It doesn't matter that Jews used to live in Palestine 2 thousand years ago. That confers no legal standing now.

The only legality is what the UN gave when it voted to allow Zionists to live in a clearly defined area in 1948.

If historical aspects made a difference, parts of France would be ruled from London, and the Moors could demand the return of large parts of Spain.

[SheungWan]

On 12/9/2017 at 9:40 PM, Grouse said:

I get so bored hearing about Israel. The Jewish people represent less than 0.1% of the world's population but goodness me they make a lot of noise!

 

Look, I get it. I've read the ancient history (Sharma's History of Jerusalem). I am horrified at what happened to the diaspora in Europe in the first half of the last century (my stomach turns every time I read Schindler's Lift!). BUT the UK gave you a homeland. Please play nicely with your neighbours, treat them well.

Sometimes Grouse, your comments just come over as shallow and borderline junk.

Edited December 12, 2017 by SheungWan

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It doesn't matter that Jews used to live in Palestine 2 thousand years ago. That confers no legal standing now.

The only legality is what the UN gave when it voted to allow Zionists to live in a clearly defined area in 1948.

If historical aspects made a difference, parts of France would be ruled from London, and the Moors could demand the return of large parts of Spain.

 

 

It does matter, regardless of the argument over what exactly it confers. If there was no connection to begin with, there would be nothing "allowed" by the UN. Did the UN refer to "Zionists"? Or is this just another way to trying to ignore said connection?

 

As for legalities - did the Arab/Palestinian side accept the terms of the Partition? Does anyone truly expects the very same lines will be applied nowadays?

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Morch