R.I.P. Ariel Sharon (a tribute thread)

[Mouthwash]

If you go back further you will find the land belonged to Israel first.

I think that arguments based on historical right are very bad ones. Most Zionists do think along similar lines, but their arguments are based more on cultural/ideological claims and the idea that Israel was the "only" homeland for the Jews, much more so than the merits of simply having lived there at some point in history. Which, ironically, is the only thing the Palestinians have going for them.

Is it worth pointing out that if Ariel Sharon had been Russian or Pakistani, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila wouldn't have merited a footnote in his biography? King Hussein, who was considered a peacemaker in the Arab world and praised by such historians as Avi Shlaim, killed more Palestinians in a single war than Israel has in its entire history. And Vladimir Putin, after having leveled Grozny and slaughtered fifty thousand Chechens, isn't even being discussed as a monster but as a responsible statesman who diffused the tense situation over Syria. The simple fact is that any Arab leader who had Sharon's human rights record would have been given the Nobel peace prize five times over.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Is it worth pointing out that if Ariel Sharon had been Russian or Pakistani, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila wouldn't have merited a footnote in his biography?

You can "note" it all you wish, but it doesn't make it a fact. But I do find it ironic that these massacres are frequently perceived by many as being "footnotes".

The simple fact is that any Arab leader who had Sharon's human rights record would have been given the Nobel peace prize five times over.

Because the Nobel committee is anti-Semitic?

Begin’s most significant achievement as Prime Minister was the signing of a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, for which he and Anwar Sadat shared the Nobel Prize for Peace. In the wake of the Camp David Accords, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, which was captured from Egypt in the Six-Day War. Later, Begin’s government promoted the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Begin authorized the bombing of the Osirak nuclear plant in Iraq and the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to fight PLO strongholds there, igniting the 1982 Lebanon War. As Israeli military involvement in Lebanon deepened, and the Sabra and Shatila massacre, carried out by Christian Phalangist militia allies of the Israelis, shocked world public opinion,[2] Begin grew increasingly isolated.[3] As IDF forces remained mired in Lebanon and the economy suffered from hyperinflation, the public pressure on Begin mounted. Depressed by the death of his wife Aliza in November 1982, he gradually withdrew from public life, until his resignation in October 1983.

 

[Traitorfish]

Countries with Parliaments are typically thought to be democratic instead of dictatorships.

The English and Scots have routinely conveyed parliaments comprising representatives of all three Estates since the 13th century, but you'd hard pressed to call Britain a "democracy" until the late 19th century. So even before we introduce the possibility of official misrepresentation- and, my, wouldn't that be cynical of us?- it's never been the case that the existence of a parliament marks out a state as meaningfully "democratic".

The simple fact is that any Arab leader who had Sharon's human rights record would have been given the Nobel peace prize five times over.

In Britain, "simple fact" is used to denote something which is plainly and incontestably true, rather than a spurious claim made for rhetorical purposes. Would I be right in thinking that there's some distance, on this point, between British and North American usages?

 

[Mouthwash]

You can "note" it all you wish, but it doesn't make it a fact. But I do find it ironic that these massacres are frequently perceived as being "footnotes" by many.

What...?

Because the Nobel committee is anti-Semitic?

No, because it's racist. The Arabs are violent, genocidal primitives who should be praised for even mouthing the word "concession," but how dare the enlightened white Jews ever allow civilians to come to harm.
Moderator Action: JHyperbole or not, this sort of argument is not welcome here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

In Britain, "simple fact" is used to denote something which is plainly and incontestably true, rather than a spurious claim made for rhetorical purposes. Would I be right in thinking that there's some distance, on this point, between British and North American usages?

Actually, you'd be wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

*

Not a good post.

Edit: editing this so as to make it easier for you to change your own post at #85 if you want to. At the moment it reads as something not that nice.

 

[Mouthwash]

Not a good post.

If taken horrendously out of context.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, you'd be wrong.

I suspected I might, be it seemed more polite to inquire, rather than just saying "don't talk bollocks". Do you not think?

 

[Mouthwash]

I suspected I might, be it seemed more polite to inquire, rather than just saying "don't talk bollocks". Do you not think?

I suppose so, jolly good fellow. Do you want to tell me why you disagree or are we going to confine the rest of this discussion to cheesy sarcasm?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The English and Scots have routinely conveyed parliaments comprising representatives of all three Estates since the 13th century, but you'd hard pressed to call Britain a "democracy" until the late 19th century. So even before we introduce the possibility of official misrepresentation- and, my, wouldn't that be cynical of us?- it's never been the case that the existence of a parliament marks out a state as meaningfully "democratic".

There were open elections and Mossadegh was democratically elected by that Parliament. Ironically, Mossadegh himself, as well as the majority of the Parliament, advocated far more democracy that what existed before the legitimate and sovereign government was overthrown by a military coup.

No, because it's racist. The Arabs are violent, genocidal primitives who should be praised for even mouthing the word "concession," but how dare the enlightened white Jews ever allow civilians to come to harm.

The Nobel committee is "racist"?

Do you have a source for Arabs generally being regarded as "violent, genocidal primitives"?

 

[Mouthwash]

The Nobel committee is "racist"?

Do you have a source for Arabs generally being regarded as "violent, genocidal primitives"?

I'm saying that they don't view Arabs as being accountable to the same standards as Jews. Comprende?

 

[Traitorfish]

I suppose so, jolly good fellow. Do you want to tell me why you disagree or are we going to confine the rest of this discussion to cheesy sarcasm?

Irony, I think, rather than sarcasm, but point taken.

Words have meanings. "Simple fact" describes a statement of uncomplicated, empirically-verified truth. You claim, "that any Arab leader who had Sharon's human rights record would have been given the Nobel peace prize five times over", is nothing of the sort. In the first place, it is an exaggeration for rhetorical effect, that much should be plain even to yourself. In the second, the claim it expresses, that a Palestinian leader who behaved as Sharon did would have a more positive reputation, is not an empirically-verified truth, but simply speculation, a "what if?". You might be able to find empirical evidence to support the claim that that Israeli leaders-in-general are held to more stringent standards than Palestinian leaders-in-general, but that's by necessity a generalisation, which can't be used to prove or disprove claims pertaining to any one individual, much less an entirely hypothetical one.

So when you say "simple fact", what you in fact mean is "complicated fiction", and that's just not the same thing at all.

There were open elections and Mossadegh was democratically elected by that Parliament. Ironically, Mossadegh himself, as well as the majority of the Parliament, advocated far more democracy that what existed before the legitimate and sovereign government was overthrown by a military coup.

I'm not contesting that. I'm simply observing that the fact Iran had "a parliament" has no bearing on whether or not Iran was democratic. Parliaments can be elitist and they can be ineffective, so the simple fact of their existence doesn't tell us anything much about the democratic credentials of a country.

 

[choxorn]

There were open elections and Mossadegh was democratically elected by that Parliament. Ironically, Mossadegh himself, as well as the majority of the Parliament, advocated far more democracy that what existed before the legitimate and sovereign government was overthrown by a military coup.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The Nobel committee is "racist"?

They are. They keep giving awards to Jewish scientists while failing to represent those of Arab descent properly.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think his actions since 2006 were an improvement over what he did prior to that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm saying that they don't view Arabs as being accountable to the same standards as Jews. Comprende?

I know that is what you are "saying". But it doesn't make it actually true.

However, I think it does raise a good point. Why don't you apparently find the Israeli government "accountable to the same standards" as other governments in the region?

I'm not contesting that. I'm simply observing that the fact Iran had "a parliament" has no bearing on whether or not Iran was democratic. Parliaments can be elitist and they can be ineffective, so the simple fact of their existence doesn't tell us anything much about the democratic credentials of a country.

That is true only if you quote mine certain sentences out of context with what was being discussed.

And, yes. I would contend that having an elected Parliament which elected Mossadegh to be its prime minster is at least a semblance of a democracy, despite the Shah continuing to have far too much power. That Mossadegh was ironically removed from office by a military coup at least in part because he wanted it to be even more so.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Yet you haven't offered any sort of real demonstration that I don't.

Does the author of this article also not know what the word means?

The Moment the US Ended Iran’s Brief Experiment in Democracy

Tragically, the coup that overthrew Mossadegh also crushed Iran’s brief experiment in democracy and ushered in six decades of brutal dictatorship followed by religious oppression and regional instability. If Iran is a problem, as the United States persistently and loudly insists, it is a problem of our making. Mossadegh, who earned a doctorate in law from Neuchatel University in Switzerland, was not an enemy of the American people; he was an Iranian nationalist who as the CIA’s own internal report concedes was preoccupied with the well-being of his people as opposed to the profitability of Western oil interests.

How about the author of this article from the Examiner:

US overthrew Iran's democracy 1953-1979, helped Iraq invade 1980-1988, now US lies for more war

 

[Zack]

Does the author of this article also not know what the word means?

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

 

[Tahuti]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Not if its opinions are compatible with Formaldehyde's. In fact, even raving quasi-racist conspiracy websites like the Bilzerian Report become respectable sources as long as these are aligned with Formaldehyde's warped worldview.

 

[useless]

No, because it's racist. The Arabs are violent, genocidal primitives who should be praised for even mouthing the word "concession," but how dare the enlightened white Jews ever allow civilians to come to harm.

It didn't take you that long to express your true feelings. As if we needed any further evidence however.

Moderator Action: Please don't get personal

 

[Formaldehyde]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

.

Only that clearly wasn't my point of pointing this out.

Again, do all these other people who also use the word "democracy" to describe the government of Iran at the time also don't understand the word?

How about the President of the United States? Does he also not understand the word for merely disagreeing with the personal opinion of some in this regard?

President Barack Obama acknowledged the United States' involvement in the coup during a 2009 speech in Cairo.

"In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government," the president said.

 

[Tahuti]

Only that obviously wasn't my point. Now was it?

Well, appeal to authority just plain sucks. I hit myself on the head every time I catch doing to myself and I am extremely sensitive when others do it as well, especially when the sources are kind of lowest of the lowest.