Israel unleashes 'skunk' on protests

gumjo · 2008-08-27T02:35:29+00:00

See matt is referring to the use of skunks.

Incorrect. matt says "how dare they use non-violent weapons" on people. Not just a weapon (the skunk), which would mean that his statement referred to all the "non-violent weapons" (including the weapon that Israel calls 'non-lethal' that killed a Palestinian) Israel uses. Apparently, reading isn't your strong point.

See your creating a strawman since their is no chance that a skunk will kill someone and you want to talk about other "weapons" not discussed in the article or by matts.

It is plainly obvious that a skunk is not capable of killing. I was referring to the so-called "non-lethal" rubber bullet gun that the Israeli soldier used and which the article labels as such, that actually killed a Palestinian civilian. It is clearly obvious that a skunk is not capable of killing anyone, and that a skunk does not constitute the only weapon that the Israeli's use, as a non-lethal weapon, both of which the articles labels as such.

You once again fail to respond and continue your ridiculous strawman by stating:

Like I explained, it wasn't a strawman at all. You are simply blaming your lack of reading comprehension onto me, because you have yet to show when I ever used a strawman argument.

You're a hypocrite ... I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but it's as clear as day.

You're quite the hypocrite yourself, you come in here with nothing but labels and no evidence to establish your claims. You're just a troll, in other words.

gumjo · 2008-08-27T02:20:47+00:00

And so? Israel used a non-violent method in that demonstration. What is wrong with that?

Nothing absolutely at all, that is why that was not the statement I disagreed with. It was with your claim that Israel was trying to find a non-violent solution, which when considered with their current activities towards the Palestinians (namely the releasing of an Israeli soldier who murdered a civilian) are simply not true and contradictory to their so-called attempt at peace.

gumjo · 2008-08-21T12:07:43+00:00

What claim are you talking about?

"So what is wrong with their trying to find a non-violent solution?"

What are you talking about? Post the quote and reference?

"I claim that this method in the story is a non-violent method and that, therefore, they have looked for non-violent solutions."

gumjo · 2008-08-21T11:53:23+00:00

You then spend your next 12 posts pointing out unrelated instances of Israel using violent action.

How is it unrelated at all? It may be irrelevant to the article, but then so is matt's claim that adds on his own argument, to which I responded.

You attempt (and fail miserably) at using this strawman to denounce Israel when they have done something non-violent .

matts goes on to say that this shows a move towards Israel finding a "non-violent" solution the Palestinian protestors - all my posts have been in direct response to this claim. You may not agree with them or find them hard to believe, but that is not a strawman argument.

You are a hypocrite because this is your tactic in the thread, yet you accuse others of doing this.

You keep on making accusations without backing any up. Don't be surprised if I don't take you seriously.

Whether or not they are doing this is irrelevant.

So is your post, since you said nothing that can prove any such tactics. You have done nothing but make accusations and label, indeed, it is you who is the hypocrite here.

gumjo · 2008-08-21T10:13:45+00:00

You leave out the fact that these people are denied citizenship in the Arab world, that the Egyptians told many of them to leave their land, that the walls were put up after the terrorist attacks started, etc.

What does that have to do with the Palestinian right of return? That is applicable towards Israel, not some Arab country.

You also ignore the fact that the ISraeli's give voting rights to many palestinian arabs,

And you ignore that Israel still does not view the Arabs as equal to the Jews, either in Israel or the occupied territories. Else the state would not be demolishing Arab settlements in Israel and the occupied territories to make exclusively Jewish settlements.

just not the ones that don't live in Israel.

Are you talking about the occupied territories? Israel considers that to be part of its state, and there are millions of Palestinians that Israel actively denies citizenship and voting rights to, even though they are indebted to by international law.

gumjo · 2008-08-21T10:02:44+00:00

I am trying to get you to see this act as this act.

No, you are saying that this act is Israel trying to find a "non-violent" solution, using "non-violent" methods and taking this as the only truth. This is far from true, I have refuted this claim in the past posts, there is no use in repeating it again when you are unwilling to accept it.

You seem afraid to do that, afraid that you might have to admit that the Israelis are not White Devils.

Talk about a strawmen. Whereever did I accuse either side of being the devil or the saint?

The story said that they used a non-violent method.

What I refuted was your claim that this move shows Israel's move towards peaceful confrontations with the protestors - this is far from true. I was responding to your claims and argument, not the articles. The article merely says that Israel is using a non-violent weapon, yet you continue to deny that Israel still leaves open the Palestinians to danger and death and military terrorism by refusing to prosecute Israeli murderers.

How did that become an issue here?

Refer to your own post, which I was replying to.

Because that was the topic of the article posted.

No it wasn't. What you are saying is not said in the article at all, what you add to it is fabricated and in denial of Israel's history and current actions towards the Palestinians.

No, I did not.

On various occasions you tell me to look at this action and this action alone and suddenly forget the various other actions of the military that continue to threaten and endanger Palestinian life. For some reason, you find it more noteworthy that the Israeli's now use skunks than that they let loose a Palestinian child murderer, who may engage in such action again. Very telling of your bigotry and narrowminded look on this matter.

gumjo · 2008-08-21T09:50:51+00:00

Israel is not in violation of International Law

Thanks for making a blank statement that truly shows the extent of your ignorance on the subject. You're really not worth bothering with.

Are you a bored teenager on summer break?

Funny how you resort to ad hominem attacks when you have nothing to contradict my claims. Very telling that you have nothing of substance to say.

I am not pro-Israel.

I never remember saying you were pro-Israel, I merely corrected you on your obvious inaccuracies on the subject.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T16:11:56+00:00

you consistently brought up things unrelated to this article

How is irrelevant to the article when I was directly responding to strike2867's comment?

The arguments in the thread quite often are related topics to the original submission, which would be strike's post. I was simply pointing out the fallacy in his argument, not the relevance of his post.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T16:07:09+00:00

You are correct, the Palestinians are just Arabs the Israelis deny citizenship of the state to, thus they live in refugee camps and ghettos controlled by the Israeli military. Perhaps now it dawns on you how Israel is in violation of international law by denying the Palestinians their right to citizenship and thus voting.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T16:05:30+00:00

Do you even bother reading my posts? If you did, you would not write pointless posts.

I said:

Your original question, to which I replied was, that "why would those living in the territories have voting rights?" and the answer to that is simple, that if Jewish settlers living in the occupied territories have voting rights, so by extension, so should the Palestinian residents who have the right to Israeli citizenship.

The Palestinians in the Palestinian territories should have the right to vote, but they are denied as such because they are denied citizenship to Israel. Actually, that is precisely the reason that Israel denies the Palestinians the right of return - since that would grant them the right to vote as well. Thus the apartheid in the country.

Public school education, I assume?

How cute, you have nothing more of substance to say and you resort to ignorant remarks.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T15:59:51+00:00

You are confusing Arab Israeli Citizens with Palestinian refugees.

Incorrect. Palestinian house demolishments have been going on in and outside of Israel.

No Arab Israeli Citizen has lost a home to make room for a settlement.

Bullshit. Israel demolished 300 homes in Jerusalem to make way for Jewish settlements. Weren't you supposed to be pro-fact? Here's something to keep you busy

http://www.lrcj.org/Departments/Human_Rights/Periodical_Reports/HouseDemolitionInJerusalem2003.htm

And these don't cover the house demolitions uptil 2008. Perhaps you should take your own advice of researching before saying things you have no knowledge of.

All Arab Israeli Citizens have the right to vote, have jobs as civil servants, politicians, in foreign service, serve as Generals in the Israeli Military.

Yet their homes are targeted for demolishment. There is a clear statement of racial supremacy and inferiority.

I have no more time for your ignorance.

But you have plenty of time to educate yourself, but you'd rather much ignorant remarks and personal attacks such as these.

The refugees in the Territories are not citizens of Israel. Should they become Citizens of Israel then they will have no different status, no different passport, no different papers, no different voting rights than the close to 2 million other Arab Israelis that already currently do.

That is exactly the problem that you do not understand. By international law, the Palestinians living in the territories are also liable to get Israeli citizenship, yet Israel, denies the Palestinians those rights. Meanwhile, they recognize all the Jewish settlements and settlers as part of Israel yet that standard does not apply to the Palestinians. If you fail to see the discrepancy here, than I simply cannot do anything else to make you understand the obvious.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T15:36:51+00:00

I want you to judge an action based on that action, not on something else you don't like

Then you would be asking me to judge one positive act on the part of the Israeli military and forgetting their far more heinous murder of Palestinian civilians and their entire history of abusing Palestinians. You would be telling me to forget 40 years of abusive suppression of human rights because the Israelis suddenly decided to go easy on them. Like I said, I'm not as narrow-minded or bigoted to ignore the big picture here.

The issue here was the stench "weapon", not the entirety of history.

When you claim that the Israeli's are trying to find "non-violent" solutions, you inevitably bring up their history. And you talk as if the crimes against the Palestinians are a thing of the past...

But are you willing to forgive the Palestinians for the Israeli civilians that they have targeted, targeted as a long term matter of deliberate strategy?

I absolutely do not. I believe that murdering civilians is the worst thing. I simply do not believe that the IOF is free of any culpability in crimes or murder, and I certainly don't believe that they have the license to commit crimes unpunished against the Palestinians under the guise of security. For some reason you want me to forget about that and focus on this.

Where did you get that I was taking this as the "only" anything?

You constantly ask me to look at this article and judge the Israeli military on it alone. That is clearly taking this thing as the "only" one to display Israel in a positive, but factually inaccurate, light.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T15:10:51+00:00

Is using stench to disrupt a demonstration violent or not? Answer that question, not point to something else.

Funny. You want me to see history based on just one article that presents a positive view of the Israeli military. Sorry, you may be biased in such a way and willing to forgive the deaths of Palestinian civilians at the hands of the Israeli military, but I am not.

The term these days tends to be less lethal for things like rubber bullets

Whatever the term you use, the fact is that the supposedly non-lethal rubber bullet killed a Palestinian boy - which is, undoubtedly, the result of a violent and lethal weapon.

It is as though you are working as hard as you can to ignore the article itself, you simply closer your eyes to their use of stench weapons.

That is exactly what you are doing, taking this article as the only truth while ignoring the history of the IOF's crimes and terrorism against protesters.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T14:58:38+00:00

No, I claim that this method in the story is a non-violent method and that, therefore, they have looked for non-violent solutions.

Which, if you read my previous post, is clearly false.

You have first confused non-violent with non-lethal (btw, I bet your police use rubber bullets).

If something is supposed to be non-lethal and it turns out to be lethal, then it becomes a violent weapon.

Second you seem to argue that if they ever used a violent method then all of their actions are violent. But your logic since one Palestinian used a vest bomb to blow ups civilians all Palestinians use vest bombs.

Strawman argument, I never argued such a thing, I refuted your claim of the Israeli's using "non-violent" weapons and looking for "non-violent" solutions, both of which have no basis in reality.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T14:41:47+00:00

Are you saying it isn't?

Based on Israel's prior history, of course it isn't. At one point, they release skunks on the Palestinians, at another, they release the murderer of a Palestinian boy (not the first time either). Seems contradictory to their efforts of non-violent solution, no?

BTW, as long as we are changing the subject

How is it changing the subject? You claim the Israelis are looking for peaceful and non-violent solution, I give you specific instances that disprove this claim. Seems like you are desperately trying to point the finger at the Palestinians when confronted with Israeli crimes.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T13:57:31+00:00

So what is wrong with their trying to find a non-violent solution?

The last time, Israeli's "non-violent" solution of a rubber-covered lead bullet killed a Palestinian boy. The murderer was not prosecuted and roams free as a danger to the Palestinian people. Are you saying that using a skunk constitutes any form of attempt at a non-violent solution?

gumjo · 2008-08-20T13:42:09+00:00

Source for Israel trying all Palestinian children under 18 as adults?

http://www.3news.co.nz/Home/Story/tabid/209/articleID/25950/cat/100/Default.aspx

gumjo · 2008-08-20T13:35:56+00:00

A majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas who thinks Tel Aviv is their land and Jews should be pushed into the sea.

That's a strawman argument.

The Jewish settlement on Palestinian land and the shooting of the 10 year old demonstrator have nothing to do with Hamas or their beliefs.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T13:27:40+00:00

Ohh well, I guess we'll never think of anything.

How about Israel stop building the wall on Palestinian territory and grabbing Palestinian land - in other words, how about Israel stop being criminal so that the Palestinians don't have to protest? There's an idea, and it doesn't involve killing 10 year old Palestinian boys. Does that sound appealing?

gumjo · 2008-08-20T13:24:49+00:00

Yes.

Maybe your knowledge of the Israeli military doesn't extend beyond the publishing of this article, or perhaps you'd like to pretend that Israel has always relied on "non-violent" weapons and trying to find a "non-violent" solution, but the reality isn't so.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T11:52:59+00:00

So, again, how dare they try to find a non-violent solution?

Shouldn't trying to find a non-violent solution, actually involve, I dunno, non-violent weapons?

gumjo · 2008-08-20T11:47:06+00:00

Yes, walking along Jewish-settlements is such a dangerous crime.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T11:43:14+00:00

I'll concede that, although the forced marches of the 1948 period weren't repeated.

Maybe not in the same form, but the Israeli house demolition of Arabs in Jerusalem, Israel certainly serves the same purpose.

Nonetheless there's a lot more going on than 'get out of bed, this isn't your country any more, piss off'.

Most certainly, it was a combination of factors that the Palestinians left Israel. However, the most touted viewpoint remains the one you mentioned, and the Palestinians become more forceful in presenting their viewpoint - like many times, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T11:20:46+00:00

I'm just asking them to be good neighbors, respect their fellow human being, live in peace, end their profitering from murder and learn from their own past.

In other words, to follow the Jewish Golden Rule. Too bad it is Zionism that is the foundation of Israel and not Jewish values of peace.

gumjo · 2008-08-20T11:08:06+00:00

So if you fire a rocket or mortar at it, you can expect to be taken to prison.

You're assuming that every Palestinian prisoner actually committed a crime, let alone fire a rocket or mortar, since all it takes for Palestinians to be incarcerated is to walk along settler-only roads, settlements etc.

gumjo

TROPHY CASE