Israel Plans to Restore Death Penalty for Everyone but Jews

[BigBallinStalin]

Question: if an organization didn't intend on causing harm to a lot of people, but its policies have resulted in great harm, then how much do intentions matter?

e.g. Israel publicly states a lot of nice things about being nice and reasonable--like many governments do, but their actions have resulted in outcomes which seem pretty shitty and do not seem completely beyond their control.

[Metsfanmax]

If I had more time, I'd love to delve into their works because I wonder how they controlled for other relevant factors in determining that Islam is more dangerous and violent than other religions.

This is largely missing the point. If anything, you are proving the point they are making. Even if it is largely historical factors and not anything intrinsic to belief in Allah that led Islam to become "more violent," nevertheless those historical events did occur and did lead to the current state of affairs. It is true that in particular the Palestinians are physically oppressed and so we perhaps cannot extrapolate from their current actions what they would do if they were in power, but I think that his point that we should take the threat of genocide seriously is a valid one. Similarly, if a large segment of slavery abolitionists or civil rights activists said their goal was the complete destruction of all white people in America, that would have been something to seriously consider*. However, that is not what happened.

Question: if an organization didn't intend on causing harm to a lot of people, but its policies have resulted in great harm, then how much do intentions matter?

Well, if you attribute the current state of affairs to be all Israel's fault, then sure, this is meaningful. But the large number of civilian deaths could be attributed at least in large part to the fact that Hamas seems to want more civilians to die as a PR measure, and is taking active steps to ensure that this happens in response to Israeli military actions (as has been discussed in this thread before).

*Note the religion of the obvious counterexample.

[saxitoxin]

It is actually a fairly common position among public atheist intellectuals to single out Islam as more dangerous/violent than other major religions. Christopher Hitchens took a similar stance. Richard Dawkins is known for making similar comments as well.

And they largely have a point. However, Harris uses "Muslim" as a synonym for "Palestinian." That's why he's a racist. In Harris' mind, every single Palestinian is an obeisant Muslim who prays five times a day and wears a beard. The fact of Islam as a unifying community value, instead of a fanatically observed philosophy, among the vast majority of people is not one Harris accepts. Yet, he would never say "oh look 89% of people in Denmark are Christian - if I go to Denmark it's probably the law that all virgins who are raped must marry their rapist and it's illegal to get tattoos or lend money. What is with the Danish?!"

Sam Harris: Why Don't I Criticize Israel?

The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could.

An incredibly uninformed screed. Hamas controls the only armed apparatus capable of resistance in Gaza at this time, it is not the representative of the Palestinian people.

As he pointed out, Hamas is the representative of the Palestinian people, if we take their election several years back as counting what the Palestinian people want. And also as he pointed out, it doesn't matter if Hamas doesn't represent all of the Palestinian people; it represents enough of them to make the threat credible.

- First, Palestine has not been able to hold elections that meet international norms so the fact that they have a slim majority in the legislative branch, while not controlling the executive branch, is relatively meaningless.

- Second, who people vote for during the middle of a war is not necessarily whom they would vote for during peace.

- Third, as previously noted, Israel has assisted in politically empowering Hamas so that it has the ability to appeal beyond its actual popularity.

- Fourth, the Democratic Party platform says the Democratic Party supports "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel," even though it's clear few Democrats support that. People support parties that will largely deliver what they want, they don't necessarily agree with every line of text in the party's manifesto.

- Fifth, and most important, by this logic attacks against Israeli civilians (attacks that aren't happening) are completely justified because the Israeli government was elected by Israeli civilians.

I think he was arguing this as a matter of realism. It is never in Israel's interest to kill innocent civilians unless its policy is that of outright extermination of all Palestinians (which it is clearly not). Every time it does so, it loses international credibility.

Again, an article of faith unsupported by any shred of evidence.

It is mind-boggling to me that you are actually considering the rants of someone who is sitting in judgement on a class of people characterized by race. "This race is guilty, because ..." Astonishing.

[Metsfanmax]

It is actually a fairly common position among public atheist intellectuals to single out Islam as more dangerous/violent than other major religions. Christopher Hitchens took a similar stance. Richard Dawkins is known for making similar comments as well.

While that may be true, only Harris uses "Muslim" as a synonym for "Palestinian." That's why he's a racist. In Harris' mind, every single Palestinian is an obeisant Muslim who prays five times a day and wears a beard. The fact of Islam as a unifying community value, instead of a fanatically observed philosophy, among the vast majority of people is not one Harris accepts.

How do you know this?

- First, Palestine has not been able to hold elections that meet international norms so the fact that they have a slim majority in the legislative branch, while not controlling the executive branch, is relatively meaningless.

- Second, who people vote for during the middle of a war is not necessarily whom they would vote for during peace.

OK, so we don't know who Palestinians would now vote for in a peacetime election. That's hardly relevant. (Although the state of affairs in 2006 was a bit different from the state at this moment.) Hamas is in power now and they aren't being overthrown by the Palestinian people, so they are the de facto representatives. Remember, Harris' point is not that Hamas actually represents the views of Palestinians in some abstract sense; it is that Hamas carries enough actual power (democratically enabled or otherwise) to make its threats of genocide credible.

- Fifth, and most important, by this logic attacks against Israeli civilians (attacks that aren't happening) are completely justified because the Israeli government was elected by Israeli civilians.

Well, his whole point is that Israel is not intentionally engaging in a campaign against Palestinian civilians. From their perspective, the point of view has to be to stop Hamas at all costs.

I think he was arguing this as a matter of realism. It is never in Israel's interest to kill innocent civilians unless its policy is that of outright extermination of all Palestinians (which it is clearly not). Every time it does so, it loses international credibility.

Again, an article of faith unsupported by any shred of evidence.

Israel has complete military superiority over the Gaza strip. They could bomb the Palestinians into oblivion with relative ease if they wanted to. They haven't. That's all the evidence that is necessary.

It is mind-boggling to me that you are actually considering the rants of someone who is sitting in judgement on a class of people characterized by race. "This race is guilty, because ..." Astonishing.

Arguments are more important to me than intentions.

[BigBallinStalin]

If I had more time, I'd love to delve into their works because I wonder how they controlled for other relevant factors in determining that Islam is more dangerous and violent than other religions.

This is largely missing the point. If anything, you are proving the point they are making. Even if it is largely historical factors and not anything intrinsic to belief in Allah that led Islam to become "more violent," nevertheless those historical events did occur and did lead to the current state of affairs. It is true that in particular the Palestinians are physically oppressed and so we perhaps cannot extrapolate from their current actions what they would do if they were in power, but I think that his point that we should take the threat of genocide seriously is a valid one. Similarly, if a large segment of slavery abolitionists or civil rights activists said their goal was the complete destruction of all white people in America, that would have been something to seriously consider*. However, that is not what happened.

Question: if an organization didn't intend on causing harm to a lot of people, but its policies have resulted in great harm, then how much do intentions matter?

Well, if you attribute the current state of affairs to be all Israel's fault, then sure, this is meaningful. But the large number of civilian deaths could be attributed at least in large part to the fact that Hamas seems to want more civilians to die as a PR measure, and is taking active steps to ensure that this happens in response to Israeli military actions (as has been discussed in this thread before).

*Note the religion of the obvious counterexample.

Right, that's why I'm not 100% in saxi's boat. Saxi's teasing out "genocide" from results rather than intentions to make his case against Israel on this matter, and I don't know enough to agree to his position. However, Israel has intentionally exterminated about 1000 Egyptian POWs roughly 40 years ago, had protected and provided assistance to Lebanese Christians who were exterminating Palestinian(?)/Muslim civilians during that massacre in the 1980s, has systematically tortured innocent and allegedly guilty Palestinians, has implemented policies which do cause great harm to innocent civilians--unless you consider all voters as responsible for the acts of their state (which justifies terrorism), etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sam Harris forgets to mention some facts about what he's defending, and he says ridiculous shit like '[all] Muslims do bad thing X,' so I'm going to discount his argument to some degree as well. Nevertheless, he does mention common objections to Hamas, so that's one of the many reasons why I can't hold a strong opinion on this issue.

Israel is constrained by international opinion to some degree on explicitly eliminating all Palestinians, but that constraint is not as strong on other margins. People don't see deadweight losses from embargoes and from treating a group of people like second class citizens, but people readily jump at death counts (not so much at injuries). So, that constraint only goes so far. Politicians and bureaucrats can implement policies that are on the margin of many people's indifference (e.g. voter group A wants a war but doesn't really care on how it should be implemented, so the pols and burs can fill in the blanks). In other words, his 'international public opinion' argument only goes so far.

Besides, who wouldn't say, "f*ck government X" after it has committed decades of oppression against you? I wouldn't imagine black people loving the USG if they were forced into certain areas, required to have their papers and bodies regularly checked, and were treated as second-class citizens within US proper, which would continue to confiscate black people's land and give it to white settlers. Sam Harris' out-of-context argument overlooks the history and the ongoing injustice which has led to this. Any reasonable person would find Israel disgusting if he or she was treated like a Palestinian.

[Metsfanmax]

Israel is constrained by international opinion to some degree on explicitly eliminating all Palestinians, but that constraint is not as strong on other margins. People don't see deadweight losses from embargoes and from treating a group of people like second class citizens, but people readily jump at death counts (not so much at injuries). So, that constraint only goes so far. Politicians and bureaucrats can implement policies that are on the margin of many people's indifference (e.g. voter group A wants a war but doesn't really care on how it should be implemented, so the pols and burs can fill in the blanks). In other words, his 'international public opinion' argument only goes so far.

That is my strongest objection to his essay. The fact is that Israel would probably be inviting serious consequences if it tried something as drastic as outright exterminating the Palestinians, so we cannot take the status quo as proof that in a vacuum, Israel would continue not to exterminate the Palestinians. Still, saxi's position does indeed seem to be that we should assume Israel intends to commit genocide against the Palestinians despite no stated intention to do so and based on limited acts of violence, whereas we should assume Hamas does not intend to commit genocide despite a stated intention to do so and ignoring limited acts of violence.

Besides, who wouldn't say, "f*ck government X" after it has committed decades of oppression against you? I wouldn't imagine black people loving the USG if they were forced into certain areas, required to have their papers and bodies regularly checked, and were treated as second-class citizens within US proper, which would continue to confiscate black people's land and give it to white settlers. Sam Harris' out-of-context argument overlooks the history and the ongoing injustice which has led to this. Any reasonable person would find Israel disgusting if he or she was treated like a Palestinian.

Well, we basically do have this situation in the US -- we've been doing it to the Native Americans for centuries now. There's not much better analogy for the Gaza strip here than the reservations they live on. And while there's no love lost between the two sides on this issue, I don't hear much about them threatening to kill all Americans.

[saxitoxin]

It is actually a fairly common position among public atheist intellectuals to single out Islam as more dangerous/violent than other major religions. Christopher Hitchens took a similar stance. Richard Dawkins is known for making similar comments as well.

While that may be true, only Harris uses "Muslim" as a synonym for "Palestinian." That's why he's a racist. In Harris' mind, every single Palestinian is an obeisant Muslim who prays five times a day and wears a beard. The fact of Islam as a unifying community value, instead of a fanatically observed philosophy, among the vast majority of people is not one Harris accepts.

How do you know this?

How do I know that Palestinians aren't cartoon characters of camel-riding Bedouins waving scimitars over their heads? Do you really want to ask that question?

- First, Palestine has not been able to hold elections that meet international norms so the fact that they have a slim majority in the legislative branch, while not controlling the executive branch, is relatively meaningless.

- Second, who people vote for during the middle of a war is not necessarily whom they would vote for during peace.

OK, so we don't know who Palestinians would now vote for in a peacetime election. That's hardly relevant. (Although the state of affairs in 2006 was a bit different from the state at this moment.) Hamas is in power now and they aren't being overthrown by the Palestinian people, so they are the de facto representatives. Remember, Harris' point is not that Hamas actually represents the views of Palestinians in some abstract sense; it is that Hamas carries enough actual power (democratically enabled or otherwise) to make its threats of genocide credible.

Then he's an idiot.

Palestinian fatalities: 1,948
Israeli fatalities: 67

http://www.ochaopt.org/content.aspx?id=1010361

IDF aircraft: 736
Hamas aircraft: 0

Israeli tanks: 3,870
Hamas tanks: 0

Israeli frigates: 6
Hamas frigates: 0

Israeli nuclear weapons: ~200
Hamas nuclear weapons: 0

Well, his whole point is that Israel is not intentionally engaging in a campaign against Palestinian civilians. From their perspective, the point of view has to be to stop Hamas at all costs.

1. They are not "stopping Hamas at all costs" when they've actually been enabling Hamas so that Hamas can kneecap Fatah. This is like the third time I've brought this up, you've said "oh yeah, I know!" and then made some boneheaded statement that indicates you really don't know.

2. No, their point of view doesn't have to be "stop Hamas at all costs." What law of nature says that has to be their point of view? From the perspective of the gay community, must their view be "stop the Westboro Baptist Church at all costs?" Is it okay if a gay activist group lets off a nuclear bomb in Topeka, Kansas? That would stop the Westboro Baptist Church with no regard for the cost.

Israel has complete military superiority over the Gaza strip. They could bomb the Palestinians into oblivion with relative ease if they wanted to. They haven't. That's all the evidence that is necessary.

Then you're an idiot.

Still, saxi's position does indeed seem to be that we should assume Israel intends to commit genocide against the Palestinians despite no stated intention to do so

There have been so many stated intentions to do so by senior members of the Israeli government that I simply can't recite them all here. Most recently, Ayelet Shaked - a member of the Knesset in the ruling coalition - called for the destruction of "the entire Palestinian nation ... including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure." I could cite another dozen examples of this coming from senior Israeli government officials up to, and including, Netanyahu.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, because the American Indians have been successfully subjugated.

The outcome between the Am. Indians and the Americans is most probably the outcome which Israel desires with the Palestinians. The Israeli government need not say this explicitly, but judging from its decades of actions, it seems obvious enough.

(And, yeah, Hamas is acting immorally, but given its constraints, it's understandable. I just disagree with their estimated effectiveness of their tactics).

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, because the American Indians have been successfully subjugated.

The outcome between the Am. Indians and the Americans is most probably the outcome which Israel desires with the Palestinians. The Israeli government need not say this explicitly, but judging from its decades of actions, it seems obvious enough.

OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so? What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?

[patches70]

OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so?

I guess that depends on who you ask, don't you think?

What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?

Yes, what would be the appropriate response to a foreign power bombing your cities, towns, villages and killing 100's and 1000's of your troops and civilians?

Hmmmm.

[saxitoxin]

Mets, because the American Indians have been successfully subjugated.

The outcome between the Am. Indians and the Americans is most probably the outcome which Israel desires with the Palestinians. The Israeli government need not say this explicitly, but judging from its decades of actions, it seems obvious enough.

OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so?

This is typical hasbara talking points; start reciting a parade of imaginary horribles to justify current atrocities - try to paint devil's horns on your opponent so that people stop rationally considering the question and, instead, respond emotionally.

Fact - there hasn't been a "suicide bombing" from Gaza-affiliated forces in 8 years.

What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?

Let's answer that question with a question.

• Q: What would not be an appropriate response to a Native American nationalist group killing one civilian in New York?
  A: Lining up to two hundred 155mm howitzers on the edge of the reservation and letting loose.

[Metsfanmax]

1. They are not "stopping Hamas at all costs" when they've actually been enabling Hamas so that Hamas can kneecap Fatah. This is like the third time I've brought this up, you've said "oh yeah, I know!" and then made some boneheaded statement that indicates you really don't know.

I don't mean that they intend to annihilate Hamas -- I mean that they intend to effectively destroy its warmaking capability. A friend of mine has likened this to "mowing the grass" -- while I despise the terminology, it's not a bad analogy for what Israel is doing. They want Hamas to stay popular enough in Palestine to captivate public interest, but not powerful enough to actually do meaningful damage to Israeli civilians.

2. No, their point of view doesn't have to be "stop Hamas at all costs." What law of nature says that has to be their point of view? From the perspective of the gay community, must their view be "stop the Westboro Baptist Church at all costs?" Is it okay if a gay activist group lets off a nuclear bomb in Topeka, Kansas? That would stop the Westboro Baptist Church with no regard for the cost.

I didn't say it ought to be -- I said it has to be, in the sense that this is the conclusion that they will inevitably be led to given current constraints.

There have been so many stated intentions to do so by senior members of the Israeli government that I simply can't recite them all here. Most recently, Ayelet Shaked - a member of the Knesset in the ruling coalition - called for the destruction of "the entire Palestinian nation ... including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure." I could cite another dozen examples of this coming from senior Israeli government officials up to, and including, Netanyahu.

He is stating that he views the conflict against Palestine as a war, and that in war, all of the people are the enemy, not just the militants. (Regardless of whether this is a view to be condoned, it is held up in countless examples of past wars between other nations.) The relevant text -- which was actually being quoted from someone else, by this member of the Knesset:

the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

[Metsfanmax]

OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so?

I guess that depends on who you ask, don't you think?

If the morality here is just relative, then wtf are we doing commenting on the situation?

What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?

Yes, what would be the appropriate response to a foreign power bombing your cities, towns, villages and killing 100's and 1000's of your troops and civilians?

Hmmmm.

Are you going to answer, or just say "hmmmm?"

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, because the American Indians have been successfully subjugated.

The outcome between the Am. Indians and the Americans is most probably the outcome which Israel desires with the Palestinians. The Israeli government need not say this explicitly, but judging from its decades of actions, it seems obvious enough.

OK, so let's say that they started streaming out of the reservations and suicide bombing NYC and LA -- would they be justified in doing so? What would an appropriate response be on the part of the US government?

Let's break it down to the individual level, then work our way up.


1. You were born in an area which was perhaps taken from a group or it was given (the history of the circumstances is unclear*).

• *gradually it became clearer as people kept pushing the Am. Indians farther west, but let's assume we're on the East Coast.

2. In the past, other people took/were given the land. These other people also killed other people.

3. You're definitely not responsible for the actions of people who came before you, and your chances of influencing political policy within your area is negligible.

4. Someone who identities himself as a victim who has been wronged then blows up your family while you're away on vacation.

5. Is that attack justified? No. (He should've targeted the organization responsible--which is usually a government. I hold governments responsible for the past policies, and pols and bureaucrats who step into the ranks must accept the responsible of those who came before them--unless the old government was overthrown). It's a bit arbitrary, and it doesn't quite apply to corporations (which usually have compensated the harmed through the legal system; governments tend to avoid punishment from their own legal systems--unsurprisingly).

6. To answer your other question, you'd be justified in retaliating or seeking compensation.

[saxitoxin]

A friend of mine has likened this to "mowing the grass" -- while I despise the terminology, it's not a bad analogy for what Israel is doing.

Your screed has become so vile, disgusting and ugly I'm afraid I can't engage with it anymore. This is probably one of the singularly most dehumanizing, hateful, insane things I've ever seen anyone say and it doesn't surprise me you have friends who think like that. Even Ayelet Shaked's comments pale in comparison (and cute attempt to give yourself a parachute, too - "I don't like this analogy but I like this analogy"). Good luck.

[Metsfanmax]

"I don't like this analogy but I like this analogy"

No -- "I don't like that this is actually a fair assessment of what Israel thinks it is doing, but it is a fair assessment." I don't know why you think I disagree with you on what Israel's dehumanizing view of the Palestinians is. I have said before in this thread that it is apparent to me that Israel does not value the lives of Palestinians in comparison to the lives of its own citizens. Your fanatical obsession with painting people as either entirely pro-Palestinian or otherwise cheerleaders for the Israeli government is leading you to ridiculous conclusions about what people are saying and thinking. Apparently you are the only one who gets to point just how disgusting the Israeli policy is.

[BigBallinStalin]

When we talk of governments, it gets more complicated. Governments tend to harden targets (the president, government facilities, etc.), which decreases the cost of attacking softer targets (civilian). Government is partly responsible for incentivizing terrorists to attack civilians. If the terrorists attacked government facilities which were responsible for immorally killing other people, then I'd have less of a problem with the terrorists--compared to the terrorists killing only civilians. I'd still partly blame government for (a) giving terrorists a good enough reason to be attacked and (b) for hardening targets which were more responsible for the acts of government than the softer targets. Also, civilians who vote for belligerent politicians who then vote on policies which kill innocent people are to some degree responsible, but their deaths aren't justified. They should ideally pay some fine, but it's not like terrorists can enact fines for stupidity during elections, so given reality, it's hard to say.

So, it gets complicated, and that's just one facet.

[BigBallinStalin]

"I don't like this analogy but I like this analogy"

No -- "I don't like that this is actually a fair assessment of what Israel thinks it is doing, but it is a fair assessment." I don't know why you think I disagree with you on what Israel's dehumanizing view of the Palestinians is. I have said before in this thread that it is apparent to me that Israel does not value the lives of Palestinians in comparison to the lives of its own citizens. Your fanatical obsession with painting people as either entirely pro-Palestinian or otherwise cheerleaders for the Israeli government is leading you to ridiculous conclusions about what people are saying and thinking. Apparently you are the only one who gets to point just how disgusting the Israeli policy is.

True.

[saxitoxin]

"I don't like this analogy but I like this analogy"

No -- "I don't like that this is actually a fair assessment of what Israel thinks it is doing, but it is a fair assessment."

yeah, nice backpedal

I'm glad you've calmed down for a moment long enough to realize the intensity of the insane vitriol you just spewed ...

A friend of mine has likened this to "mowing the grass" -- while I despise the terminology, it's not a bad analogy

I mean that's literally a couple syllables away from the famous Nazi vermin analogy ...

• "... as rats are the vermin of the animal kingdom, Jews are the vermin of the human race."

[Dukasaur]

You're wrong about number 3. One out of four statements that I made are true, therefore I'm not the liar, you're the liar, na na na na na!

Disgusting. Aside from the misattributed quote, you posted an image designed to denigrate, demean, and humiliate Muslims. I would never in a million years post an image of someone with a large nose, wearing a kippah and screaming when I make fun of someone like Gweedo. But you, somehow, think the picture you just used is perfectly acceptable. The level of Islamaphobia and anti-Arab hate you've been working overtime to try to stir up is completely astonishing.

Oh, of course. You would never do something like that to make fun of Gweedo.

But you would to make fun of Turks.
Subject: Russia Mobilizes Against Turkey, Hizballah Reinforces Assad

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

• - Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

[saxitoxin]

You're wrong about number 3. One out of four statements that I made are true, therefore I'm not the liar, you're the liar, na na na na na!

Disgusting. Aside from the misattributed quote, you posted an image designed to denigrate, demean, and humiliate Muslims. I would never in a million years post an image of someone with a large nose, wearing a kippah and screaming when I make fun of someone like Gweedo. But you, somehow, think the picture you just used is perfectly acceptable. The level of Islamaphobia and anti-Arab hate you've been working overtime to try to stir up is completely astonishing.

Oh, of course. You would never do something like that to make fun of Gweedo.

But you would to make fun of Turks.
Subject: Russia Mobilizes Against Turkey, Hizballah Reinforces Assad

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

• - Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

So what? That's a Turk at a J&D rally, just like my caption and topic described. Here's more typical wild-eyed lunatics at rallies of the anti-Syria/pro-Israel Justice & Development Party:

http://static4.demotix.com/sites/defaul ... 447141.jpg
http://theislamicnews.com/wp-content/up ... 00x216.jpg

I wasn't making fun of Turks, I was making fun of Turkey's religious fundamentalist Justice & Development Party as the verbiage of my post, without editing by you, shows. I've also used the appearance of French and Americans at anti gay marriage rallies derisively.

You, on the other hand, clearly just hate brown people. Posting the photo wasn't the issue, it was the hateful language you used to frame it.

[BigBallinStalin]

At the very least, he compares Palestinians to Nazis. Either way, Dukasaur has been acting very hateful in this thread and has yet to apologize for his behavior. This is very unbecoming of a representative of CC.

[Dukasaur]

You're wrong about number 3. One out of four statements that I made are true, therefore I'm not the liar, you're the liar, na na na na na!

Disgusting. Aside from the misattributed quote, you posted an image designed to denigrate, demean, and humiliate Muslims. I would never in a million years post an image of someone with a large nose, wearing a kippah and screaming when I make fun of someone like Gweedo. But you, somehow, think the picture you just used is perfectly acceptable. The level of Islamaphobia and anti-Arab hate you've been working overtime to try to stir up is completely astonishing.

Oh, of course. You would never do something like that to make fun of Gweedo.

But you would to make fun of Turks.
Subject: Russia Mobilizes Against Turkey, Hizballah Reinforces Assad

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

• - Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

So what? That's a Turk at a J&D rally, just like my caption and topic described. Here's more typical wild-eyed lunatics at rallies of the anti-Syria/pro-Israel Justice & Development Party:

http://static4.demotix.com/sites/defaul ... 447141.jpg
http://theislamicnews.com/wp-content/up ... 00x216.jpg

I wasn't making fun of Turks, I was making fun of the religious fundamentalist Justice & Development Party as the verbiage of my post, without editing by you, shows. You, no the other hand, just hate brown people.

In fact, I do not hate brown people.

Furthermore, your attempts to paint criticism of the Arabs' behaviour as a racial thing is ludicrous. Human genomes are inextricably mixed, especially in places with a high degree of historical turnover like the eastern Mediterranean. Without cultural evidence, I doubt very much if anyone could distinguish between 100 randomly-chosen Arabs and 100 randomly-chosen Cypriot Greeks. Trying to describe the conflict in Israel or anywhere else in the region as a racial conflict is nuts.

[Dukasaur]

At the very least, he compares Palestinians to Nazis. Either way, Dukasaur has been acting very hateful in this thread and has yet to apologize for his behavior. This is very unbecoming of a representative of CC.

I don't believe I've directly compared "Palestinians" to Nazis. But if I did, why not? Both advocate the killing of Jews. The comparison is pretty obvious to most people.

[Metsfanmax]

At the very least, he compares Palestinians to Nazis. Either way, Dukasaur has been acting very hateful in this thread and has yet to apologize for his behavior. This is very unbecoming of a representative of CC.

The problem is that the two people most vocal about this are, respectively, (1) someone who has already been banned and (2) someone who compares the Israelis to Nazis.