Son of senior Hamas figure an Israeli spy

[Abtigiis]

Originally posted by Raamsade:

Of course Israeli government would never do that for moral reasons. Which shows, in my opinion, the higher moral plain Israel occupies compared to its Muslim/arab arch nemesis. In contrast, Arab/Muslim counterparts would feel no moral restraint in blowing up the whole hotel if they could kill one Israeli official.

 

It seems to me that in the eyes of some in this world, Israel can do nothing right in its battle for survival.

 

If it uses conventional military power against those that send rockets and suicide bombers against its cities, Israel is guilty of War Crimes. Despite the fact that Hamas and other Islamists deliberately use civilians as human shields; using hospitals, mosques and schools as weapons depot and staging grounds... Israel is guilty of war crime if it fights back.

 

But when Israel quietly assassinates avowed enemies without a SINGLE collateral victim, Israel has committed a genocide. They should've just blown up the whole bloody hotel!

 

What Israel's critics are basically asking is for it to sit back and do nothing as its enemies slowly bring about its demise.

 

But they're discounting one critical distinction between modern Jews and the old, docile and supine Jews. Modern Jews have vowed to never passively walk into gas chambers ever again. They will fight for self-determination and right to exist as equal with dignity.

 

When Arabs/Muslims abandon their deep and atavistic hatred of Jews, accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination and Israel's right to exist, stop their fanciful designs of driving the Jews into the sea... when Arabs/Muslims do that like Jordan and Egypt have somewhat, they'll find a willing partner in Israel.

(1)It is a common belief that when confronted with an uncomfortable situation, ostriches- which have the distinction of having eyes bigger than their brains- tend to bury their heads in the sand so that they do not see the approaching danger. The story, howver, is a controversial one, with some claiming it is just a myth. But the story forms the gist of denial, what Malika and psychologists would call " cognitive dissonance".

 

Why is this relevant? It is relevant because it explains the basis of Raamsade's false assertions here. For someone whose religion is supposed to be rationality, he sounds very irrational and unreasonable. How can he claim Israel would not blow up a hotel in Dubai, for moral reasons? Is this not the same man who strangles us for facts and figures when it comes to debate on abstract religious matters?

 

Who have displaced the largest number of people from their houses? who have taken over the land of someone and keeps it while the owner of the house is languishing in abject penury next door? Who have razed Beirut to the ground just few years back? Who have flattened Gaza, using white phosphate and dangerous substances?

 

The question here is not whether Isreal is threatened by Arabs or whether its claim of the land is legitimate. The question is how can Ramsade deny the brutality of the Israeli's when the world have seen a father being shot after crying over his dead son (totally unarmed) some years back?

 

Ramsade's hate for Arabs (whom he holds responisible for turning Somali's into muslims) have blinded him even from his suppossed religion of "reason" and "objectivity".

 

This has helped me understand what Frederick Mann calls the "unreality imperative", in his seminal paper, "the many forms of denial", which he says is the " strong urge to distort or deny aspects of reality- by creating or accepting "unreal beliefs" because confronting them and seeing certain aspects of reality for what they are is considered too "uncomfortable", "threatening" or "painful". John Shumaker's basic thesis in his two books "wings of illusion" and "the corruption of reality" is also that certian aspects of reality are unpalatable to human consciousness/intelligence. To cope with this, humans have developed a "counter-intelligence" that enables us to escape harsh reality with unreal beliefs. Ramsade is evading the fact of Isreali brutality by developing false attitudes about Isreali morality when it is manifestly clear that Israeli behaviour is inconsistent with his attitudes.

 

He can accuse me that I too have developed a 'counter-intelligence' of denying jewish predicament, but that is a charge I accept at face value. It is him who presents himself as the embodiment of rationality, reason and fairness and hence, it is he who has to prove he is all of this.

 

(2)On the Dubai issue, it is not because Isreal did have a moral considerations that they didn't blow up the Hotel. It is because such operation might have been more complicated and its result less sure. What if they bomb the Hotel but the target escapes unscathed? What if they are caught while smuggling the particles for the bomb? What if the bomb-planter panicks and it goes off when the target is not inside the hotel? It was practical feasibility considerations that could have determined the method of assassination, not moral considerations.

 

I respect ailamos. He is a fair guy.

[Sikaawe]

No surprise here, arab is an arab after all and well known for their two-facedness and double standards. My advice is: do business with them but never trust them with honesty.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

I respect ailamos. He is a fair guy.

I am humbled A&T

[Castro]

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

Why is this relevant? It is relevant because it explains the basis of Raamsade's false assertions here. For someone whose religion is supposed to be rationality, he sounds very irrational and unreasonable. How can he claim Israel would not blow up a hotel in Dubai, for moral reasons? Is this not the same man who strangles us for facts and figures when it comes to debate on abstract religious matters?

 

Who have displaced the largest number of people from their houses? who have taken over the land of someone and keeps it while the owner of the house is languishing in abject penury next door? Who have razed Beirut to the ground just few years back? Who have flattened Gaza, using white phosphate and dangerous substances?

Raamsade is as biased and dogmatic as the "faith-heads" he often ridicules (occasionally rightly too). But his tirade on Israel and morality (as if governments are moral entities), reads like the standard, and tired, op-ed on Israel's right to exist and how many atrocities it should be allowed to get away with in the pursuit of that right.

 

A&T, prepare yourself for the coming "using white phosphorous is consistent with international law. It is the terrorists who fire rockets then hide behind women and children who are forcing us to rain the stuff on everyone to smoke them out" argument.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Legend of Zu:

So Raamsade, if you apply the same logic as you posted above (Isreal's battle for survival) if a Palestinian suicide bomber kills civilians because he is acting on for the survival of his people, would you argue on his behalf I wonder?

 

You gonna have try that again because it resembles nothing like the logic I employed.

 

I said Israel -- like every nation on earth -- has the right to defend its territory(ies) and people from external and internal enemies. That does not imply Israel has the right to purposefully target civilians. What it implies, instead, is Israel has the right to engage Arab military targets -- sadly, that sometimes includes mosques, schools and residential buildings that have been converted into military targets by Hamas.

 

It is well documented that Hamas and other Palestinians have no moral compunction in storing their weapons in Mosques, schools, farms, hospitals, using ambulances to ferry fighters and ammo etc... and using civilian buildings to fire Kassam rockets aimed at kindergartens and shopping malls in Israeli. Palestinians make no attempt in discriminating their targets. To them, it appears that every Jew is legitimate target whether a child or an adult, armed or unarmed.

 

An analogous Palestinian right to self-defense or fight for survival would be them targeting legitimate Israeli military targets. These targets include Israeli security forces (military and police), other security establishments targets like the intelligence services. No one, least of all me, would have any qualms with Palestinians if they limit their targets to the Israeli security (or occupation) establishment.

 

So long as the Arabs are purposefully and premeditatedly are targeting civilians, the moral high ground -- by default -- belongs to Israel.

[Jacpher]

^Madmadoobe Alla ku yaqaan.

 

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

(1)It is a common belief that when confronted with an uncomfortable situation, ostriches- which have the distinction of having eyes bigger than their brains- tend to bury their heads in the sand so that they do not see the approaching danger.

Ostriches DO NOT bury their heads in the sand when they sense danger. It's a rank falsehood that is at variance with everything we know about Ostriches.

 

What an inauspicious start in a tirade lambasting me for my "false assertions" and for sounding "irrational and unreasonable." One would think that someone making such accusation would refrain from indulging in the same vices he's deriding. Which raises the interesting question: if you can't get a basic and well-known behavior of Ostriches correct AND if you're unaware of long discredited baseless myth about Ostrich behavior, what confidence can we have that you'll be able to discern myths from reality regarding other matters?

 

The answer is NONE. I have no confidence that you can tell myth from reality and the rest of what you write only reinforces my lack of confidence.

 

BTW, you should dispense with all the psychobabble. It's superfluous to this topic and personalizes the thread. Debate ideas, not people.

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

Who have displaced the largest number of people from their houses?

Clearly, the Arabs and by a long margins. Let the numbers speak for themselves:

 

The most authoritative sources put the number of Arabs forced (or became refugees) out of their homes during 1948 Arab-Israel War in 650,000-800,000 range. Averaging these two limits gives us a 725,000 figure.

 

Similarly, the most authoritative figures on the number Jews forced out of their homes from 1948 War to 1973 War range from 800,000 to 1,000,000. Again, averaging gives us a figure of 900,000. The descendants of Jews from Arab/Muslims lands make-up nearly half of all Jews in Israel today. Not only are they full and equal citizens with other Jews in Israel but they rose to ranks of Presidents (Katsav - Iranian Jew), Chief of Defense Staff (Moshe - another Iranian Jew), cabinet members, parliamentarians, famous artists and players (benayoun of LFC) etc.

 

So, relying on the numbers alone, more Jews have been forced from their lands by Arabs/Muslims than Arabs by Jews. Of course, you'll claim that you're solely motivated for humanitarian reasons and not hatred of Jews.

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

who have taken over the land of someone and keeps it while the owner of the house is languishing in abject penury next door?

And why is the owner of land "languishing in abject penury next door?" Israel absorbed the Jews forced out of their land (about FOUR times the size of modern Israel at 100,000 sq km) by Arabs/Muslims as have the French (Algerian and Morocco Jews) and US. Kuwait expelled approximately 400,000 thousand Palestinians and in Lebanon (probably other Arab countries) Palestinians are deliberately kept in state deprivation by denying them equal rights.

 

How can you explain these discrepancies? Israel and the rest of the civilized world welcomes Jews forced out of their Muslim dominated lands (similar to the Christian exodus of nowadays) but Arabs not only deny Palestinians citizenship status but discriminate against them and even expel them from their homes. Arab expulsion of Palestinians is OK. Jewish expulsion of Palestinian is unmitigated evil. Only antisemitism can rationally account for this.

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

Who have razed Beirut to the ground just few years back?

Actually it was the Lebanese themselves. Have you forgotten the Lebanese Civil War? This sort of hyperbole and selective amnesia is emblematic of Arab/Muslim failure to assume responsibility for their actions.

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

Who have flattened Gaza, using white phosphate and dangerous substances?

White phosphorous is not a prohibited substance, so I don't get what your issue with its use is. You might as well object to the use of guns, tanks and airplanes while you're at it.

 

With regard to Gaza, not a single building would have been bombed nor would a single Palestinian have been killed if Hamas seized its rocket attacks on Israeli towns. One must live with the consequences of one's actions.

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

The question here is not whether Isreal is threatened by Arabs or whether its claim of the land is legitimate.

The existential and very real threat facing Israel from its Arab neighbors shapes EVERYTHING Israel does. So your suggestion that we forget about it reflects your naivety.

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

The question is how can Ramsade deny the brutality of the Israeli's when the world have seen a father being shot after crying over his dead son (totally unarmed) some years back?

I never denied Israel's brutality. I just brisk at the cant and hypocrisy of you and others. You judge Israel by standards that you apply to no one else. There is NO conflict/war in human history that is shorn of brutalities. No army in the world today that is as tested as the IDF is without blemishes.

 

Army personnel going berserk and committing crimes in contravention of established laws of warfare are almost given in any protracted conflict. The important question is: is the criminal behavior of individual soldier based on orders from higher up in the chain of command or based on army policy? I've seen no evidence of IDF policy intended to gratuitously brutalize Palestinians.

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

Ramsade's hate for Arabs (whom he holds responisible for turning Somali's into muslims) have blinded him even from his suppossed religion of "reason" and "objectivity".

You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel. I've never expressed "hate" for any ethnic group on this forum. Certainly not Arabs, that would betray everything I stand for. I don't hate people for who their great-great-great-great grandpa happened to be but I might for what they do. Nor do I subscribe to any ideology/world-view that militates hatred of Arabs. This scurrilous attack only vindicates me.

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

He can accuse me that I too have developed a 'counter-intelligence' of denying jewish predicament, but that is a charge I accept at face value.

What are you accepting? Jew hatred?

 

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax:

(2)On the Dubai issue, it is not because Isreal did have a moral considerations that they didn't blow up the Hotel.

Maybe, maybe not. But I prefer not to engage in idle speculation. Instead, I rely on historical precedents and there is ample evidence showing that Israelis do not attack targets if they know ahead of time that the civilian casualties will be high. Even Palestinians rely on this predictable Israeli behavior by running away from PA/HAMAS buildings during Israeli reprisals. Why would they do that if Israel randomly attacks anything that moves or stands? And even sometimes, Palestinians form "human chain" around buildings Israel plans to attack and you know what? Israel has called off a number of planned targets because of Palestinian "human chain." Now, if those Palestinians can predict Israeli behavior, why can't you?

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Jacphar:

^Madmadoobe Alla ku yaqaan.

 

Hey, since you seem to be in personal contact with one Mr. Chomsky as evidenced your constant quoting of him, kindly pass this to him courtesy of Hamas Charter:

 

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

 

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

 

 

"Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

 

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)."

 

 

Let me know what he thinks of Hamas' proclamations.

[Abtigiis]

Ramsade

 

Nothing shows your dishonest nature and selectivity in choosing the issues you want to refute than the fact that you quote part of my first statement and leave out what you didn't want.

 

It is a common belief that when confronted with an uncomfortable situation, ostriches- which have the distinction of having eyes bigger than their brains- tend to bury their heads in the sand so that they do not see the approaching danger.

By the way, I didn't say the comment belief is correct or not. Nor should I dwell on the veracity of fables when I am using them to point out other issues.

 

I can't assume you didn't read this:

 

The story, howver, is a controversial one, with some claiming it is just a myth. But the story forms the gist of denial, what Malika and psychologists would call

" cognitive dissonance".

And this dishonesty is even more apparent when you talk of the Lebanese civil war, when you know I was referring to the Isreali bombardment of beirut.

 

Your hatred for Arabs and Islam is well-documented.

[Rayyan]

Originally posted by Cara.:

People in prison are susceptible to this sort of thing, they are literally a captive audience who have made some bad choices in life and are desperate for "guidance". Remember the shoe bomber?

 

LOL@ "he was raped". You people! I am not aware of any research that shows victims of sexual assault look too kindly on their attackers, much less agreeing to continue associating with their rapists as spies against their own community. It must be a guy thing, that your phallus is the ultimate instrument of persuasion

Lool, am questioning your research ability inanta (my fair lady) - that phallus can be an instrument of persecution too, though it’s an old story now, the allegedly prisoner guy was possibly tormented, sexually-abused, tortured, and humiliated, and abu-qurabied (Iraqi prison style) or perhaps part of his family was done to that. The said instrument could be persuasion tool in a different setting - ala romantic style in some other times not in this circumstance.

 

I see the post came from an ardent feminist and hard nosed atheist, but all in all the guy speaks differently now. and he's entitled to.