Are Older Men in Thailand Trading Love for Financial Ruin

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Para 1. The early Zionists were not even religious and had considered a Zion in several countries other than Palestine. So much for their connection to the Holy Land. And for the religious Zionists, the Bible is not a real estate ownership deed, entitling European colonizers to displace resident Palestinians.

 

Para 2. Zionism needed the permission and support of the Mandatory power Britain to introduce European Jewish migrants on a large scale into Palestine. Zionism could not have succeeded in Palestine without British collaboration. Britain thought it was encouraging a Jewish Anglo friendly proxy colony. But the Zionists had their own agenda. They wanted a Jewish only state, not just a haven or homeland. Both were colonialists and treated Palestinians as invisible people, just as colonial Australia regarded the continent as terra nullius "the land of no-one".

 

Para 3 ad hominem attack. You have debunked nothing. Link please.

 

Para 4 You are saying Israel need not address its brutal opppression, because other countries took a long time to admit theirs. Two wrongs don't make a right. You'd think Israel would have learned from others' mistakes.

 

Para 5 I pretty much agree with your long winded version of what I said. Politicians, such as the Aussie and Israeli PMs, can be diplomatic, pragmatic and deceptive when it suits them.

 

 

For someone expressing care about going off topic, you sure have a knack for posting on nothing but your usual agenda, regardless of the OP not even mentioning Zionism. Nor does anything resembling your propagandist versions of history appear there.

 

I'm positive that you are aware of this, but Zion is one of Jerusalem's names, hence, even the name of the movement embodies the connection referred to. Mind, I did not bring up religious connections, but ones relating to heritage and history. That you choose to ignore them will not make them disappear or become untrue. Another regular feature of your hateful rants is the lack of consistency - on many occasions, you refuse to acknowledge differences of views withing Zionism, while on other posts such as above, these sort of differences are pointed out. Other places were indeed considered by some Zionists (and ultimately, rejected) - definitely not by all. If anything it serves to highlight the pragmatist element of the movement.

 

That there was a certain convergence of interests between the British and the Zionist movement is not debated. That it was well laid out, smooth and conspiracy-like cooperation as alluded, is a stretch of reality and facts. Each was promoting its own interests and cooperating to the extent it served. This was nothing new to the British, who made similar alliances with various groups all over the world. And, it should be pointed out, turned their back on them when circumstances changed. Your posts do give the feeling that you have a hard time accepting that's how politics and international relations work, even in our times.

 

No ad hominem attack, but a correct description of your posts and posting style. A good example would be asking for links - last time we did this song and dance, you were provided with such, and then proceeded to complain about "stalking". I'll repeat - all the points you raised, even the nonsensical ones, aren't new but were re-hashed and addressed numerous times on previous topics. That you keep pretending otherwise, while whining about "playing games" is nothing but the usual fare.

 

I never said Israel does not need to address it's wrongdoing. That you twisting my words. What I did say is that countries that did so, took their time about it and such acknowledgement is usually offered long after it carries any practical meaning. There is no specific reason given as to why Israel is obliged to act differently. Furthermore, I did point out that unlike other countries, such public debate and discussion actually already exits in Israel, and that you have even addressed this on other topics. This is even a more dishonest position when considering your views rejecting anything related to Palestinian introspection, acknowledgement of past decisions and accountability.

 

So you agree that politics are what they are. Great. Now go apply the same to any politician spewing anything resembling your adopted narrative and find the differences. I can tell you beforehand, that there are none.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

I stayed on topic saying international law should be followed to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The poster then tried to deflect discussing conflicts in other countries. At that point I declined to drift off topic, which you are still trying to bait me into doing.

 

Ah, the victim routine? The evil poster tricked you into going off topic?

As pointed out, you have no issues bringing up comparisons of other countries when it suits your agenda. Such comparisons are only ever rejected or deemed off-topic when they don't. Similarly, no issues going on off-topic pseudo-historical diatribes incorporating your propaganda....and you try to spin this as "baiting"? Pffft...

[Scott]

Stay on topic and keep the discussion civil.  

[dexterm]

from the OP...
>>My government will not support one-sided resolutions criticising Israel of the kind recently adopted by the U.N Security Council
... which demonstrates Turnbull's hypocrisy because UN resolution 2334 was not one sided. There was nothing new in the resolution that was not the current foreign policy of Australia.

 

"The resolution also included a nod to Israel and its backers by condemning “all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction.” That language is diplomatic scolding aimed at Palestinian leaders, whom Israel accuses of encouraging attacks on Israeli civilians."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-settlements-un-vote.html

 

Netanyahu had simply got his knickers in a twist because the US had refused to let the tail wag the dog and actually dared not to veto the resolution. He is now appreciative of any crumbs of comforting words from a country at the cul-de-sac of the world [affairs], albeit a very beautiful and friendly country I might add.

 

Australia's opposition Labor Party was not so greasily hypocritical and sycophantic. And of course one day the Australian Labor Party may longer be in opposition.

 

Labor MPs call for recognition of Palestinian statehood ahead of Bill Shorten's meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu

' "My position has been for quite a while now that it's time for a game-changer in this protracted process and I think that game-changer is recognition of a Palestinian state," she said.

She welcomed the recent calls from former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd and former foreign ministers Gareth Evans and Bob Carr to join the approximately 130 countries that have recognised Palestine as a state.'

 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-mps-call-for-recognition-of-palestinian-statehood-ahead-of-bill-shortens-meeting-with-benjamin-netanyahu-20170223-gujvkk.html
 

Edited February 25, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Interesting how things are presented on different topics.

 

When UNSC Resolution 2334 was originally discussed on TVF, you did your utter most to ignore any parts included which could project negatively on the Palestinian side, while hailing the resolution as a clear denouncement of Israel. Now, it's presented as balanced.

 

In the same vain, one might compare the above denigrating of Australia as "...a country at the cul-de-sac of the world [affairs]...", with the praise previously hipped on it's smaller neighbor (but apparently, central to world affairs), New Zealand - for it's support of the same resolution.

 

Here's another word used in the above post - "hypocritical".

Edited February 25, 2017 by Morch

[dexterm]

43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Interesting how things are presented on different topics.

 

When UNSC Resolution 2334 was originally discussed on TVF, you did your utter most to ignore any parts included which could project negatively on the Palestinian side, while hailing the resolution as a clear denouncement of Israel. Now, it's presented as balanced.

 

In the same vain, one might compare the above denigrating of Australia as "...a country at the cul-de-sac of the world [affairs]...", with the praise previously hipped on it's smaller neighbor (but apparently, central to world affairs), New Zealand - for it's support of the same resolution.

 

Here's another word used in the above post - "hypocritical".

USA felt it was a balanced resolution, otherwise they would have exercised their veto. Australia only objected out of politeness I believe because Netanyahu's visit was imminent.

 

Australia and New Zealand with small populations are not central to world affairs, but that by no means denigrates them. They are both extremely beautiful and very friendly countries.

 

I think Australia's closest friend New Zealand was particularly brave in speaking the truth by sponsoring the resolution, which Netanyahu hysterically described as a "Declaration of War". He thinks he can bully anyone.

Edited February 25, 2017 by dexterm

[the guest]

Without the support from the US, the country would be a bag full of nothing

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, the guest said:

Without the support from the US, the country would be a bag full of nothing

Australia is very big with a lot of nothing in it regardless! 

[Jingthing]

A heart warming video to people of good will.

It looks like the HISTORIC visit of a serving Israeli PM to Australia was a huge success.

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

USA felt it was a balanced resolution, otherwise they would have exercised their veto. Australia only objected out of politeness I believe because Netanyahu's visit was imminent.

 

Australia and New Zealand with small populations are not central to world affairs, but that by no means denigrates them. They are both extremely beautiful and very friendly countries.

 

I think Australia's closest friend New Zealand was particularly brave in speaking the truth by sponsoring the resolution, which Netanyahu hysterically described as a "Declaration of War". He thinks he can bully anyone.

 

 

The USA may have, but the way you presented it on previous topics was as a one-sided and decisive decision against Israel. This while rejecting references to the actual balanced nature of the resolution and to any unfavorable projections included with regard to the Palestinian side. Somehow, on this topic, a different view is touted.

 

Seriously doubt that Australia's objections were related to Netanyahu's upcoming visit, or that you can actually state that with full confidence and objective support. Your previous post belittled Australia's place in world affairs, while previous posts hailed and praised New Zealand. Seems rather obvious that your criteria for that revolves around a country's position on the conflict,  rather than anything objective. It would appear that some common ground with Netanyahu's been found.

 

New Zealand was "brave" how? According to your posts, most of the world supports the Palestinian cause, and the recent UNSC resolution was supported even by the US. New Zealand did not go against the grain, or did anything spectacular there. There weren't any serious consequences on the line.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, the guest said:

Without the support from the US, the country would be a bag full of nothing

 

Australia?

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The USA may have, but the way you presented it on previous topics was as a one-sided and decisive decision against Israel. This while rejecting references to the actual balanced nature of the resolution and to any unfavorable projections included with regard to the Palestinian side. Somehow, on this topic, a different view is touted.

 

Seriously doubt that Australia's objections were related to Netanyahu's upcoming visit, or that you can actually state that with full confidence and objective support. Your previous post belittled Australia's place in world affairs, while previous posts hailed and praised New Zealand. Seems rather obvious that your criteria for that revolves around a country's position on the conflict,  rather than anything objective. It would appear that some common ground with Netanyahu's been found.

 

New Zealand was "brave" how? According to your posts, most of the world supports the Palestinian cause, and the recent UNSC resolution was supported even by the US. New Zealand did not go against the grain, or did anything spectacular there. There weren't any serious consequences on the line.

New Zealand is brave in not kowtowing to the Israeli lobby as the current Australian government does, as does also the USA.
Netanyahu tried some powerful lobbying not to have that resolution passed.

 

No serious consequences?...Netanyahu just declared war on them! 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-settlements-declaration-of-war-new-zealand-murray-mccully-un-security-a7498331.html

 

OK ... that was of course hyperbole militarily speaking. But I am sure Netanyahu will bear a grudge.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

New Zealand is brave in not kowtowing to the Israeli lobby as the current Australian government does, as does also the USA.
Netanyahu tried some powerful lobbying not to have that resolution passed.

 

No serious consequences?...Netanyahu just declared war on them! 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-settlements-declaration-of-war-new-zealand-murray-mccully-un-security-a7498331.html

 

OK ... that was of course hyperbole militarily speaking. But I am sure Netanyahu will bear a grudge.

 

According to your own presentation, the Palestinian cause already enjoys world wide support (and the recent UNSC resolution was used as an example). At the same time, you apparently promote a parallel view in which support for the Palestinian cause is an heroic act, taken against powerful opposition. These views run contrary to each other, and make very little sense. Also, that you do not accept the possibility of countries, governments and politicians actually not aligning themselves with your views, is not much of a compelling argument. More like run of the mill conspiracy theorist.

 

And once again, other than nonsense - what serious consequences were in store for New Zealand? Mind, even the link provided does not say that, but rather that Netanyahu said NZ's sponsoring the resolution would be considered a deceleration of war. Obviously, no such war is in the cards. But yet another parallel between your posts and Netanyahu's statements - hyperbole.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Morch

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

According to your own presentation, the Palestinian cause already enjoys world wide support (and the recent UNSC resolution was used as an example). At the same time, you apparently promote a parallel view in which support for the Palestinian cause is an heroic act, taken against powerful opposition. These views run contrary to each other, and make very little sense. Also, that you do not accept the possibility of countries, governments and politicians actually not aligning themselves with your views, is not much of a compelling argument. More like run of the mill conspiracy theorist.

 

And once again, other than nonsense - what serious consequences were in store for New Zealand? Mind, even the link provided does not say that, but rather that Netanyahu said NZ's sponsoring the resolution would be considered a deceleration of war. Obviously, no such war is in the cards. But yet another parallel between your posts and Netanyahu's statements - hyperbole.

Para 1  I explained why I thought New Zealand was brave in speaking the truth while this current Australian government wasn't, then you deflect so that you can indulge in the usual silly nitpicking, making a mountain out of a molehill. 

Para 2  Exactly what I said. You are arguing about nothing at all just to get in the last word. I have better things to do with my time today.

Edited February 26, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Para 1  I explained why I thought New Zealand was brave in speaking the truth while this current Australian government wasn't, then you deflect so that you can indulge in the usual silly nitpicking, making a mountain out of a molehill. 

Para 2  Exactly what I said. You are arguing about nothing at all just to get in the last word. I have better things to do with my time today.

 

We must have different takes on what passes for a rational explanation. Basically, you made a ridiculous argument which apparently cannot be supported other by repeating it over and over again. Going with the flow is not "bravery", all the more so without any possible negative consequences involved.

 

And no, it  isn't what you said at all. Read your post, and the link you yourself provided. "Nitpicking" seems to be a safety word, used whenever the usual inaccuracies and nonsense are called out.