European Jewish Congress wants Turkish Islamist group IHH banned in Europe

[Apocalypse]

gunner, I think that you're simply indoctrinated by an opposing belief and train of thought, so you actually share the indoctrination process. The difference, your train of thought is on the other end of the spectrum, so you take a polarizing view [as do religious extremists] allowing little room for understanding.

Seriously.

 

[gunner]

gunner, I think that you're simply indoctrinated by an opposing belief and train of thought, so you actually share the indoctrination process. The difference, your train of thought is on the other end of the spectrum, so you take a polarizing view [as do religious extremists] allowing little room for understanding.

Seriously.

If that was so, do you think i would exonerate the IDF troops who carried out the action?

Paul

 

[Gardener]

Its not exactly mystifying or confusing. You are simply indoctrinated by an opposing belief and train of thought, so you actually share the indoctrination process. The difference, your train of thought is on the other end of the spectrum, so you take a polarizing view [as do religious extremists] allowing little room for understanding.

Paul

So supporting Islamists shows common sense.

Got it.

 

[gunner]

So supporting Islamists shows common sense.

Got it.

It shows no more common sense than the ideology you espouse.

Paul

 

[Apocalypse]

If that was so, do you think i would exonerate the IDF troops who carried out the action?

Paul

You have refused to condemn the activists for the violence, even when I've asked you if you condemn them two times.
I think it's crystal clear that this is the situation with you.

 

[gunner]

You have refused to condemn the activists for the violence, even when I've asked you if you condemn them two times.
I think it's crystal clear that this is the situation with you.

Considering i,m not a pacifist, if those on the boat chose violence, that choice lies with them.

Now answer my question...

Paul

 

[Gardener]

It shows no more common sense than the ideology you espouse.

Paul

I support liberal values, and I am consitant about it. I do not support totalitarians, and it is both logical and very sensible for me to do so because I am smart enough to realize that I need to stand up for these liberal values if I wish for them to continue.

 

[Apocalypse]

Considering i,m not a pacifist, if those on the boat chose violence, that choice lies with them.

In other words, you refuse to condemn violence that is taken against soldiers.
You have answered your question with your own post.

 

[gunner]

In other words, you refuse to condemn violence that is taken against soldiers.You have answered your question with your own post.

Read that back to yourself. Apoc, it kinda goes with the job..

Now for a third TIME answer my question. If i was so 'polarised' in my opinions would i exonerate IDF soldiers from blame?
YES or NO will suffice.

Paul

 

[Apocalypse]

Read that back to yourself. Apoc, it kinda goes with the job..

Really?
Can I simply attack a British soldier, simply because he's a soldier?
What in heavens' sake are you talking about?

Now for a third TIME answer my question. If i was so 'polarised' in my opinions would i exonerate IDF soldiers from blame?
YES or NO will suffice.

Exonerating the IDF soldiers from blame does not neglect the refusal to condemn the unjustified violence taken against them.

 

[gunner]

Exonerating the IDF soldiers from blame does not neglect the refusal to condemn the unjustified violence taken against them.

Simply answer the question.... [for a fourth time]

You have accused me of a polarised stance which i totally refute.

Paul

 

[Apocalypse]

Simply answer the question.... [for a fourth time]

You have accused me of a polarised stance which i totally refute.

Paul

I believe I just did.
What did you find non-sufficing in my answer?
You say that your description would not fit you because you do not blame the soldiers for the violence, but you do refuse to blame the activists for it, and instead blame the Israeli politicians/commanders for the violence caused by the activists.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Irrelavent to the fact that witnesses' accounts are not facts.

No, a witness account is a witness account. Sometimes they are as close as a court will get. I'm repeating this till you finally understand the point "the IDF has the activists equipment so there can be no proof of the activists accounts from the other ships"

I know you understand it - but you are determined to pretend I'm saying something else. I will simply repeat it till you "get it."

Although I'm certain I'd be able to find you referring to those witnesses' words as facts, you're arguing for alexa's post in this thread that has referred to the words of the witnesses as facts.

Translates to : No, I can't back my claim up so I will ignore it and deflect.

Even if true, and this discussion proves otherwise, that's still a billion times more than you do. Figure it out and you might win a teddy bear.

Impressive argument and rebuttal...

Its not exactly mystifying or confusing. You are simply indoctrinated by an opposing belief and train of thought, so you actually share the indoctrination process. The difference, your train of thought is on the other end of the spectrum, so you take a polarizing view [as do religious extremists] allowing little room for understanding.

Paul

Paul, you're going to find yourself repeating simple statements ad nauseum with these two. You'll be asked for proof of things you might say but you won't get any answers (as you're already finding out) to your questions.

But hey, welcome to the party.

 

[gunner]

gunner, I think that you're simply indoctrinated by an opposing belief and train of thought, so you actually share the indoctrination process. The difference, your train of thought is on the other end of the spectrum, so you take a polarizing view [as do religious extremists] allowing little room for understanding.

Seriously.

You were unable to articulate your position so did a paste job on mine, no problem. That said, you infer, actually directly imply i have a 'polarised' stance meaning i take an 'opposing position'. How does that fit with me not condemning the actions of the IDF?

Paul

 

[Apocalypse]

You were unable to articulate your position so did a paste job on mine, no problem. That said, you infer, actually directly imply i have a 'polarised' stance meaning i take an 'opposing position'. How does that fit with me not condemning the actions of the IDF?

Paul

That would fit because nevertheless you condemn the soldiers' commanders and the politicians instead of the activists who were behind the violence.

 

[Apocalypse]

No, a witness account is a witness account. Sometimes they are as close as a court will get. I'm repeating this till you finally understand the point "the IDF has the activists equipment so there can be no proof of the activists accounts from the other ships"

And I'm repeating my statement that this is irrelevant information regarding the activists claims that they were beaten on the other boats.
Besides that it is also false(as usual, coming from you), the activists have released quite a lot of videos and pictures, and they just didn't happen to aid their cause.

Translates to : No, I can't back my claim up so I will ignore it and deflect.

Well actually I didn't think that I'd have to back up my claims since we've both been there, but I guess one of us is simply being dishonest here.
Here's alexa's post:

No, there was only violence towards Israeli's on one ship but passengers involved in non violent protest were injured on the others.

As you can see alexa is referring to the activists claims as facts here.

Now the expected comment from you would be "yeah but you didn't base your claim that I've done the same".
Well obviously I wouldn't need to base that since you're here defending her reference to the activist's words as facts.
However I wasn't so lazy right now so I found one of your comments where you were referring to the activists' words as facts:

Sorry, unless things have changed since the links were posted by myself and Alexa last week – there were reports of violence, beatings and electric shock on the other boats.

Here you are shamelessly lying and saying that there were reports of violence, beating and electric shock on boats that are not the Mavi Marmara, while those were actually not reports but the activists' words.

If you're wearing a hat right now, I expect you to eat it.

Impressive argument and rebuttal...

It's all relative.
In relation to your decision to abandon an attempt at a rebuttal and simply claim that I have no knowledge over the law, then yes it certainly was an impressive argument and rebuttal, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

And I'm repeating my statement that this is irrelevant information regarding the activists claims that they were beaten on the other boats.
Besides that it is also false(as usual, coming from you), the activists have released quite a lot of videos and pictures, and they just didn't happen to aid their cause.

I know the activists released video and broadcast images before the IDF took over the boats on the flotilla - but are you claiming that the IDf didn't take all the equipment?

Well actually I didn't think that I'd have to back up my claims since we've both been there, but I guess one of us is simply being dishonest here.
Here's alexa's post:
As you can see alexa is referring to the activists claims as facts here.

Now the expected comment from you would be "yeah but you didn't base your claim that I've done the same".
Well obviously I wouldn't need to base that since you're here defending her reference to the activist's words as facts.
However I wasn't so lazy right now so I found one of your comments where you were referring to the activists' words as facts:

I get it now - you've hung up on one particular interpretation of a word. (where does this interpretation come from?) I link to a BBC article which reports two activists interviewed for Greek TV and you think I'm claiming that as proof.

You can choose whichever web based dictionary you want me to go to for the difference between the dictionary definition of the word - "fact" and the dictionary definition of the word -"report."

I'm off to bed now but will check with whatever dictionary you wish to use.

-- Here you are shamelessly lying and saying that there were reports of violence, beating and electric shock on boats that are not the Mavi Marmara, while those were actually not reports but the activists' words.

The last time you decided to start using such terms you ended up making the biggest fool on this forum of yourself when you realised your IDF website wouldn't back you up that Israle doesn't actually provide aid into Gaza.

I guess the words "political bias optional, civility a MUST!" doesn't apply to pro-Israeli Govt supporters on this forum eh?

-- In relation to your decision to abandon an attempt at a rebuttal and simply claim that I have no knowledge over the law, then yes it certainly was an impressive argument and rebuttal, I wholeheartedly agree.

That's a long winded way to demonstrate your lack of knowledge on legal matters?

 

[Apocalypse]

I know the activists released video and broadcast images before the IDF took over the boats on the flotilla - but are you claiming that the IDf didn't take all the equipment?

The activists were able to smuggle videos and pictures. That means they were able to present evidence. Evidence that didn't help them in their cause, and some of it was actually strenghtening the Israeli version which by now is pretty much a based version.

I get it now - you've hung up on one particular interpretation of a word.

You were caught lying buddy. Like it or not, I'm just here pointing it out.

(where does this interpretation come from?) I link to a BBC article which reports two activists interviewed for Greek TV and you think I'm claiming that as proof.

The evidence I presented is crystal clear Chaos, no point trying to avoid it.
You have linked to no BBC article in this post(except one irrelavent-to-this-subject article dealing with Gazan tunnels), in the statement I've quoted you were responding to my claim that there was only violence on board of the Mavi Marmara, saying that "there were reports of violence, beatings and electric shock on the other boats".
Clearly you were referring to the words of the activists as facts, dodging is futile.

The last time you decided to start using such terms you ended up making the biggest fool on this forum of yourself when you realised your IDF website wouldn't back you up that Israle doesn't actually provide aid into Gaza.

Well actually I do not consider myself intelligent, but I am far from being the biggest fool on this forum.
We always have you, for example, and I honestly cannot see myself falling being that. This would be... inhuman.

I guess the words "political bias optional, civility a MUST!" doesn't apply to pro-Israeli Govt supporters on this forum eh?

Judging by your last sentence in post #72 in this thread, I'd say it seems like this rule doesn't apply to anti-Israeli propagandists as well.

That's a long winded way to demonstrate your lack of knowledge on legal matters?

That's a short, cutted way to demonstrate your presented incapability in forming a rebuttal.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

The activists were able to smuggle videos and pictures.

SO the IDF didn't confiscate their equipment then? I've read no reports of such.

That means they were able to present evidence. Evidence that didn't help them in their cause, and some of it was actually strenghtening the Israeli version which by now is pretty much a based version.

It's an Israeli Govt version and the only one available.

You were caught lying buddy. Like it or not, I'm just here pointing it out.

I'm afraid your reading comprehension skills have let you down yet again. And you're again starting to insult - another pattern becoming clear. (When you are wrong you start claiming others are "lying." Only a matter of time before you start implying I'm anti-Semitic now eh?)

The evidence I presented is crystal clear Chaos, no point trying to avoid it.

Present it then - I asked for any dictionary you would like to use to back your version of events and I see nothing this morning. I won't ask for an apology - you've already demonstrated your character on the "Gaza Flotilla" thread and in this thread thanking Alexa's banning.

You have linked to no BBC article in this post(except one irrelavent-to-this-subject article dealing with Gazan tunnels), in the statement I've quoted you were responding to my claim that there was only violence on board of the Mavi Marmara, saying that "there were reports of violence, beatings and electric shock on the other boats".

Yet more reading comprehension. The links are in the "Gaza Flotilla" thread but you demonstrated a clear failure to read many or even the whole of my links there so no wonder you haven't found anything. I also haven't linked to Gazan tunnels here either.

Also - you're quoting my use of the word "report" - have you checked your dictionary yet? I've given you ample time to find one that'll support your definition.

FAIL

Clearly you were referring to the words of the activists as facts, dodging is futile.

Back it up with a dictionary definition please. (Note - like gunner before me I've asked more than once - a clear pattern is evident)

Well actually I do not consider myself intelligent, but I am far from being the biggest fool on this forum.
We always have you, for example, and I honestly cannot see myself falling being that. This would be... inhuman.

You're the one whose reading comprehension is clearly failing and you accuse me of being a fool?

Hahahahahahaha!

Judging by your last sentence in post #72 in this thread, I'd say it seems like this rule doesn't apply to anti-Israeli propagandists as well.

That's an insult? Yet more clear reading failure.

That's a short, cutted way to demonstrate your presented incapability in forming a rebuttal.

Find me a dictionary definition to back up that the word "report."

I'm patient, I can wait - you have the whole internet to try.

 

[Apocalypse]

SO the IDF didn't confiscate their equipment then? I've read no reports of such.

I believe what I said was more around "The activists have published countless of videos and photos".
Try again.

It's an Israeli Govt version and the only one available.

There are two versions, the Israeli version and the activists' versions.
Both versions are "available", only one is based.

I'm afraid your reading comprehension skills have let you down yet again. And you're again starting to insult - another pattern becoming clear. (When you are wrong you start claiming others are "lying." Only a matter of time before you start implying I'm anti-Semitic now eh?)

Oh, the usual "so now you're going to call me an anti-semite" bullcrap.
That usually happens when an anti-Israeli propagandist becomes desperate and has his so-called "arguments" shattered into pieces by pure facts.

Present it then - I asked for any dictionary you would like to use to back your version of events and I see nothing this morning.

Why do I need a dictionary? Are we arguing about semantics here, or is the argument more about you attempting to contradict my statement that there was no violence on any other ship with "there were reports of violence on the other ships", referring to the activists words.

I won't ask for an apology - you've already demonstrated your character on the "Gaza Flotilla" thread and in this thread thanking Alexa's banning

"When you thanked alexa's banning" :rofl

Yet more reading comprehension. The links are in the "Gaza Flotilla" thread but you demonstrated a clear failure to read many or even the whole of my links there so no wonder you haven't found anything. I also haven't linked to Gazan tunnels here either.

I think you're simply being delusional.
You've just said that I can't back up my words, and there I did.
Now instead of eating your own hat and going on your way, you're trying to fight, making even a bigger joke out of yourself.

Also - you're quoting my use of the word "report" - have you checked your dictionary yet? I've given you ample time to find one that'll support your definition.

I think we both know what the word "report" means.
It's a description of occurrences/events, a la inquiry report.
Why would you need a dictionary for that?

You're the one whose reading comprehension is clearly failing and you accuse me of being a fool?

Hahahahahahaha!

You're proving this foolishness with every new comment.

That's an insult? Yet more clear reading failure.

Pal, by all means, whining when someone is attacking you after you attack him is ridiculous.
It has the same bizarre nature as your position on this incident.

Find me a dictionary definition to back up that the word "report."

I'm patient, I can wait - you have the whole internet to try.

You can find one for yourself.
Simply type "report definition" into Google and see the first result.
Although I've already supplied you with a known definition, it's the conclusive description of an event.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I believe what I said was more around "The activists have published countless of videos and photos".

Thank you, I now see Alexa has posted a video in the ME section.

Why do I need a dictionary? Are we arguing about semantics here, or is the argument more about you attempting to contradict my statement that there was no violence on any other ship with "there were reports of violence on the other ships", referring to the activists words.
--snip-- I think we both know what the word "report" means.
It's a description of occurrences/events, a la inquiry report.
Why would you need a dictionary for that?
--snip--

FAIL

Now try again and find me a definition that says the description of events is "factual" please. You are the one trying to say I used the reports by Greek activists as fact.

You've looked and can't back yourself up I'm afraid.

By my reckoning, you've had 12 hours or so to find an internet definition that states that reports are factual or even that the word "report" equates to the word "fact."

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Either stop this mutual backstabbing or I close the thread. Your choice.

 

[gunner]

That would fit because nevertheless you condemn the soldiers' .

Please could you provide the sentence wrote by 'me' where i condemned the IDF soldiers carrying out the assault?
You have permission for another copy/paste.

Paul

 

[Apocalypse]

Please could you provide the sentence wrote by 'me' where i condemned the IDF soldiers carrying out the assault?
You have permission for another copy/paste.

Paul

You have manipulated my words.
The real sentence, as anyone following the link in the quotation box would see, was:
"That would fit because nevertheless you condemn the soldiers' commanders and the politicians instead of the activists who were behind the violence. "
Now if you'd wish me to dig out your post where you were condemning the commanders and the politicians instead of the violent activists, just say so and I'd comply.

 

[Apocalypse]

FAIL

Now try again and find me a definition that says the description of events is "factual" please. You are the one trying to say I used the reports by Greek activists as fact.

You've looked and can't back yourself up I'm afraid.

By my reckoning, you've had 12 hours or so to find an internet definition that states that reports are factual or even that the word "report" equates to the word "fact."

Infinite Chaos,

The term "report" is referring to the description of events.
When you've used it in the context of your statement, you were claiming that there were reports, that there was a description of events, that said there was violence on board of the non-Mavi-Marmara ships.
Essentially, you were saying that the violence was an event that has happened, something that has really occurred.