30 days
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
spike
New Member
Gonz said:
If you can see both sides and remain objective that's when you're really using your head.
The palestinians were removed from the land often very violently.
This whole piece you wrote jtotally ignores every transgression (and there are many) that Israel has comitted. I suspect that if I continue to put information regarding Israel's equal (at the very least) role in the violence right in front of you that it will continue to be ignored.
I imagine it is because you have chosen a side and can no longer be objective.
This would explain the practice of yours were you use the UN when what they dictate supports your side but turn around and complain how useless they are when it doesn't.
No matter what Israel does it must be good, so if you are shown that due to their own actions Israel has been condemned more than every other nation comnined you explain that with a unrealistic statement like "the UN hates Israel". They couldn't possibly have ever done anything wrong.
I know there's a tendency many people have where they have to take complicated situations and apply labels and generalizations until it becomes simple. They're usually not accurate and the Israel = good / arabs = bad thing cetainly isn't.
After all this dicussion for you to still be acting as if Israel has never done anything wrong, has no hand in causing the violence, and is completely innocent is totally absurd.
Black and White thinking like this is actually one symptom of a few different disorders. I'm not implying you have a disorder just that it's not a good habit. Google "black and white thinking" and see that I'm serious.
spike
New Member
chcr said:
I know what a Zionist is. If Zionists usurp my land I'd be pissed because they usurped my land not because they are Zionists.
If the Mets take a crap on my lawn I may say "Those damn Mets crapped on my lawn". I'm not mad because they are Mets, I'm mad because they crapped on my lawn.
chcr
Too cute for words
Semantic games. The Mets analogy is an oversimplification but if you identify them as "Mets" it's a baseball team regardless of whether your're upset about them playing baseball or not. If you say some guys crapped in my yard...
You're purposely using religious invective, therefore you are making it a religious issue. If you want to illustrate that it's not the religious issue that's really bothering you, why did you use the religious connotation in the first place? Clearly you are having trouble separating the purely secular conflict (which is a fantasy, by the way) with the religious one.
You're purposely using religious invective, therefore you are making it a religious issue. If you want to illustrate that it's not the religious issue that's really bothering you, why did you use the religious connotation in the first place? Clearly you are having trouble separating the purely secular conflict (which is a fantasy, by the way) with the religious one.
spike
New Member
chcr said:
If identify them as Mets it is a baseball team. That doesn't mean the problem I have with them has anything to do with baseball. I wouldn't say "some guys" if the Mets did it because I could be more specific.
Same if you use the description Zionists. It means the Zionists usurped your land. You wouldn't say "some guys" usurped my land because you have more information about who did it. Doesn't mean the problem is they are Jewish just that a specific group of Jewish people did the usurping.
I think you are having difficulty understanding that are other reasons in addition to religious differences. Specifically the acts and deeds done by the people involved (for instance land usurping).
chcr
Too cute for words
I do understand that other reasons exist. In fact, the root conflict predates either religion. What I was trying to point out is that, by using the perjorative "zionist," you are laying the blame for the conflict at the feet of the jewish faith. Not "land usurpers," not soldiers, not murderers but jews. This, of course, has been your transparent intention from the beginning. I'm just pointing out that playing games with semantics is unlikely to fool anyone.spike said: