The Islamophobia split on the left.

[warpus]

Probably not a big Ray Stevens fan, eh?

The only country I like are Stompin' Tom and Leonard Cohen. All other country sounds the same to me and seems to revolve around pickup trucks. which is not my thing.

 

[metatron]

Link to video.

 

[onejayhawk]

As Takhisis said, you ignore their culture, their history, customs, common language etc in favor of perceiving them as one seething mass who are only bound by their collective hatred of Israel, which is pretty racist.

Maybe you should do some reading and abandon your prejudices which you clearly hold against Arabs. Do you know about their history? How at one point Arab's controlled a great swathes of land from Pakistan to spain:

But no, let us reduce them to a bunch of backwards, Israeli hating people.

I am baffled to how you think this is germane to what was posted, much less a coherent response. Try abandoning your prejudices and reading the posts.

J

 

[Phrossack]

Whenever I try to say "arabs", my brain wants to say it as "ay-rabs", which for some reason sounds racist. Ah-rabs sounds wrong too, so then my brain shuts down and I try to change the topic by pointing at something in the sky and running away.

Yeah, the only people I hear pronounce it as "Ay-rabs" are ignorant. One called me that mockingly after it came out in conversation that two of my great-grandparents were Arabs. He was an ignorant and rude person in general, and one of the least pleasant persons I've met.

It's pronounced more or less like this.

 

[Takhisis]

Mr. onejayhawk, are you interested in any discussion at all? Just saying that others are embarrassed or incoherent without even bothering to read -let alone think- about what is being posted hints at potlike and/or infraviaductal threadwinning behaviour.

 

[onejayhawk]

Mr. onejayhawk, are you interested in any discussion at all? Just saying that others are embarrassed or incoherent without even bothering to read -let alone think- about what is being posted hints at potlike and/or infraviaductal threadwinning behaviour.

That was exactly my point about useless' comment. Well put.

Have chanced to have read and thought about what was posted? If so, we could have a discussion. So far I have not seen such indication.

J

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, we kinda did at the time... have you seen any depictions of Germans from the forties? Again, I'm not saying that either one is right, but it shouldn't be a surprise that people in exceptional situations can justify doing things that we in 'normal life' think are awful. It certainly doesn't take an evil person to believe, with the right provocation, that attacking civilian targets is sometimes justified.

Funny how this standard isn't applied to Israelis. Plenty of kooks think we're targeting children in Gaza, why don't any of them make an effort to "empathize" with why we would do that?

 

[LoneRebel]

To the contrary. The argument is that we have gone to excess in holding Christians responsible.

J

Really? How exactly have they been held responsible? I haven't really heard of plenty of official apologies or financial or any other form of compensation for wrongdoings that may or may not have been committed in the name of Christianity.

 

[Flying Pig]

Funny how this standard isn't applied to Israelis. Plenty of kooks think we're targeting children in Gaza, why don't any of them make an effort to "empathize" with why we would do that?

'Other people are wrong in the same way as me' is a pretty desperate argument... People genuinely do understand the rationale for Israeli action in Gaza, it's just that it looks like a much flimsier line of justification than that for violence on behalf of the Gazans. Essentially, the Israeli armed forces cause a much greater degree of destruction (and proportion of civilian casualties) despite Israeli people suffering much less damage in provocation.

 

[Tahuti]

People genuinely do understand the rationale for Israeli action in Gaza

Actually, you're one of the few. Most people side with Palestine for thinking Israel deliberately targets civilians systematically.

 

[Tee Kay]

Actually, you're one of the few. Most people side with Palestine for thinking Israel deliberately targets civilians systematically.

Citation please oh wait you can't

 

[Tahuti]

Citation please oh wait you can't

Look up any formaldehyde post on Israel for instance. They clearly state 'murdered' instead of 'killed'.

Also, your post is in itself quite unreasonable, for automatically assuming bad faith.

 

[Arakhor]

One person is hardly most, Kaiserguard. Formaldehyde was not what I would describe as a moderate believer in causes.

Just because many people can understand why Israel may feel it needs to continue military action against Palestine does not in any way make those actions either acceptable or proportionate.

 

[Tee Kay]

Look up any formaldehyde post on Israel for instance. They clearly state 'murdered' instead of 'killed'.

Yes, Formaldehyde is the chief spokesman for the Palestinian cause.

Also, your post is in itself quite unreasonable, for automatically assuming bad faith.

I just assumed you wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for the claim you're making, and I was right.

 

[Borachio]

Actually, you're one of the few. Most people side with Palestine for thinking Israel deliberately targets civilians systematically.

I don't suppose Israel does target civilians systematically - given the amount of bad publicity which civilians they inadvertently kill gives them.

(I think Israel would deliberately target civilians if they thought they could get away with it, though.)

Nevertheless, I think Israel's long term goals are to discourage Palestinians from living in both Gaza and the West Bank altogether. So, they're not really all that unhappy if Palestinian civilians don't feel secure in their own homes.

 

[Smote]

Link to video.

I'm not sure why Cenk took such an adversarial role towards Sam in this. They frequently agreed on subjects, based on their arguments, though they seemed to disagree on the degrees of influence. However, Sam occasionally indicated his agreement with Cenk, while Cenk almost never did with Sam. Cenk also seemed to use a somewhat patronizing tone ( "Well, Sam, ..."), while Sam seemed frustrated at the constant miscommunications.

The point of the video initially seemed to be to allow Sam to clear the air, from previous speakers who had misinterpreted him. But then Cenk used adversarial tactics such as frequent topic switching, attacking strawmen, etc. that subtracted from the stated intent of the video, and made it seem to me like Cenk wanted Sam to look bad - maybe for personal gain.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Citation please oh wait you can't

Most pro-Israel supporters have to talk this kind of bollocks to justify their bollocky position.

 

[metatron]

I'm not sure why Cenk took such an adversarial role towards Sam in this. They frequently agreed on subjects, based on their arguments, though they seemed to disagree on the degrees of influence. However, Sam occasionally indicated his agreement with Cenk, while Cenk almost never did with Sam. Cenk also seemed to use a somewhat patronizing tone ( "Well, Sam, ..."), while Sam seemed frustrated at the constant miscommunications.

The point of the video initially seemed to be to allow Sam to clear the air, from previous speakers who had misinterpreted him. But then Cenk used adversarial tactics such as frequent topic switching, attacking strawmen, etc. that subtracted from the stated intent of the video, and made it seem to me like Cenk wanted Sam to look bad - maybe for personal gain.

Hm... i think it was ok.
For one a certain... machismo offhandedness is part of Cenk's persona. And then... well, he has to be tough to give Harris the opportunity to assert his ideas in the face of testing.
Overall i think Harris looked quite strong and Cenk was ok with that.

Btw, Funky posted this like 10 pages ago. But noone reacted.
But, yeah, never post long youtube videos merely by providing a link. The chance that people will watch them (with any degree of attention) is low enough. People may as well decide to waste their time on "Israel tangent # 2843" while being confronted with the video itself.

 

[Smote]

Hm... i think it was ok.
For one a certain... machismo offhandedness is part of Cenk's persona. And then... well, he has to be tough to give Harris the opportunity to assert his ideas in the face of testing.
Overall i think Harris looked quite strong and Cenk was ok with that.

Btw, Funky posted this like 10 pages ago. But noone reacted.

Fair enough. I haven't watched any of Cenk's other videos, so I can't judge if Cenk actually was biased compared to other interviewees vs whether it just felt biased to me. I agree that Sam did an admirable job of defending his views. I would've preferred for Cenk to validate points of agreement in addition to jumping on points of disagreement.

I actually started watching it from Funky's post before, in hour or 30 minute increments. Discussing it will probably cause more people to view it (which I think we both want!) I thought the nuclear issue was very interesting. I too wouldn't want to have a cold war situation where MAD (mutually assured destruction) is an incentive towards the one side that wants to reach the afterlife...

 

[onejayhawk]

Most pro-Israel supporters have to talk this kind of bollocks to justify their bollocky position.

You don't need to support Israel. You only need to seek objectivity, which is noticeably lacking here.

J