IRONY OF IRONIES: 'museum of tolerance' on Muslim graves...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


He lies, Az's hateful and deliberately provocative avatar was banned by the management...

My campaign was a success, as I knew it would be...

Could it be that the management respects the feelings of crazy people?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


He lies, Az's hateful and deliberately provocative avatar was banned by the management...

My campaign was a success, as I knew it would be...

No comment on the premise of your thread being bollocks, eh? Why let that get in the way of your gloating over being the squeaky wheel who got some oil?

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Could it be that the management respects the feelings of crazy people?

Or rational people who complained to the management in writing about about images of deliberate incitement...?

The fact of the matter is that Az was forced to remove his avatar. Such is his pride in refusing to admit his defeat to me that he feels he has to lie about his claim that he removed it himself...

PWNED!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian


No comment on the premise of your thread being bollocks, eh? Why let that get in the way of your gloating over being the squeaky wheel who got some oil?

-Arrian

Well I've only just got here, so I'm working backwards...

[Arrian]

His post looks sarcastic to me. What with the rolleyes smilie and all...

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Yes, it could also be construed that way - as I'm sure he'll now claim...

Either way I achieved my objective at his expense.

[Arrian]

You cried loud enough that you got your way, yeah. You sure are proud of it.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian

No comment on the premise of your thread being bollocks, eh? Why let that get in the way of your gloating over being the squeaky wheel who got some oil?

-Arrian

Actually it's not bollocks insofar as the original premise is still in danger of being a reality...

Granted the Independent article omits extremely important information, however brings to light important issues...

At the moment things hang in the balance with the courts, if SWC wins the cemetery will be built over. Surely as a 'museum of tolerance' it should voluntarily return the land to its rightful owners...

Also it brings to light some of the most reprehensible 'apartheid' activities of the Israeli government in the form of the ongoing discrimination and victimisation of the palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem and those civilians who fled in the justified fear of their lives in the form of land confiscations that flagrantly breach international law...

My guess is that the muslim cemetery fell foul of these confiscations without compensation (e.g. theft) and somehow ended up in the ownership of the SWC...

The fact that the SWC must have knowingly acquired confiscated land is hardly an act of 'tolerance', rather taking advantage of the misery and suffering of others (something they should be intimately accustomed to!). Furthermore, I'm sure even a passing interest into the previous, legitimate, owners of the land might have turned up clues as to what the land was used for...

Arrian, you seem to be a smart guy who's heart is in the right place, why don't you check out the background to the Israeli oppression of Palestinian Jerusalem? That way you can find out about the confiscation question you asked about from a source other than the biased Israeli apologists on this site...

Since East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, the government of Israel’s primary goal in Jerusalem has been to create a demographic and geographic situation that will thwart any future attempt to challenge Israeli sovereignty over the city. To achieve this goal, the government has been taking actions to increase the number of Jews, and reduce the number of Palestinians, living in the city.

At the end of 2002, the population of Jerusalem stood at 680,400: 458,600 Jews (67 percent) and 221,800 Palestinians (33 percent). About 58 percent of the residents live on land that was annexed in 1967 (45 percent of whom are Jews, and 55 percent Palestinians). With the Palestinians having a higher growth rate than the Jews, Israel has used various methods to achieve its goal:

* Physically isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, in part by building the separation barrier;

* Discriminating in land expropriation, planning, and building, and demolition of houses;

* Revoking residency and social benefits of Palestinians who stay abroad for at least seven years, or who are unable to prove that their center of life is in Jerusalem;

* Unfairly dividing the budget between the two parts of the city, with harmful effects on infrastructure and services in East Jerusalem.

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I would prefer that MOBIUS's avatar be removed because I sometimes browse Apolyton from school, and I don't particularly want Nazi symbols on my screen when people pass by.

Freudian slip of the thread award!

Since when was a Star of David seen as a Nazi symbol!!???

Seems to me that 'some' people on this site equate the Israeli government and its actions to Nazism...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
You cried loud enough that you got your way, yeah. You sure are proud of it.

-Arrian

And you should be ashamed of the fact that you didn't have the balls to do anything about it and had to wait for me.

So much for your affected moral high ground...

[Arrian]

The Independent article was biased as hell (as you've grudgingly admitted), and you went right along with it, lapping it up like a thirsty puppy. You saw the opportunity for an Israel-bash and went for it. But oops, it wasn't the whole story.

And now I see you've made a bunch of other assumptions to try and shore up your position. Why am I not surprised?

And you should be ashamed of the fact that you didn't have the balls to do anything about it and had to wait for me.

So much for your affected moral high ground...

Wait for you? Wow, you are full of yourself. I wasn't offended by either avatar.

You keep on defending us from the dangerous avatars, MOBIUS.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Oh, and as a parting comment (it's 5:15 on a Friday and I'm outta here!):

You seem to think I'm pro-Israeli. I'm not (neither am I pro-Palestinian). You like to make assumptions, MOBIUS. In this case, you assume I'm uneducated about Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. I am not (though I'm certainly not an expert).

I am very much against some of Israel's policies. But I'm also for fairness. The article you posted and the argument you made isn't even close to fair. It's ranting based upon your dislike of Israel.

-Arrian

[Az]

His post looks sarcastic to me. What with the rolleyes smilie and all...

-Arrian

I think I am going to plant a flag next time for mobius. I wonder whether he's lack of perception is deliberate for reasons of trolling or just a direct result of his mental capability - I admit I wish it to be the latter, since I really enjoy this mental image of him dancing with glee ( while all he really accomplished is make himself look like a douche )

He lies, Az's hateful and deliberately provocative avatar was banned by the management...

My campaign was a success, as I knew it would be...

notice the ****ing rolleyes smiley. As for me "claiming this now", we could take a short poll on which is perceived to be the truth among apolyton members.

Do you ban (or want banned) everything you find immoral or unethical?

For example, morally speaking, most people would say it is wrong for the KKK to march in a Jewish neighborhood. But those who believe in free speech also know that that moral concern doesn't matter.

Yes, but that's because "morals" are bollocks. It's just sentimental bull**** - unlike ethics - and I say that law should always follow ethics - and we know that banning such a parade would be much more unethical than letting this parade take place.

In the same token, you can say the replaying an inciteful clip designed to rile people up is immoral or unethical, but you can still do it.

And the explanation is precisely the same - banning it would be much less ethical.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's just sentimental bull**** - unlike ethics - and I say that law should always follow ethics - and we know that banning such a parade would be much more unethical than letting this parade take place.

Who is talking about more or less ethical? Is it unethical for the KKK to march in a Jewish neighborhood?

[Az]

Who is talking about more or less ethical?

Who isn't? you can talk about the ethics of a certain thing/action without the simple premise that there are things that are more ethical or less ethical. It's pointless without that. It is unethical for the KKK to march in a jewish neighborhood. However, the results of banning it would be even worse - since they would affect freedom of speech.

When one says that the law should reflect ethics, it doesn't simply mean that things that are unethical should be banned, but that the legal framework of society would strive for the most ethical result of the situation.