The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[LaCroix]

My guess is that you should have read the link I provided a little more thoroughly.  If 37% of the people in a country are antisemitic and 66% are anti-Israel, I'd say that 37% is a major factor. 
This sort of thing happens all the time.  I brought up a purely domestic situation where the leadership of a country wants to convince the public of something.  You didn't care much for it, (I guess it made to much sense), and went on Saddam Hussein.  If you would like another example of the phenomena, I point to the EU.  Here we have several countries, aligning themselves in a common market.  This took quite a bit of doing since many of these countries at been at war with each other fairly recently.  The leadership of these countries worked to convinced their respective public the benefit of these treaties.  When new treaties need to be created the respective countries try to convince the public to vote for them.

raz, as i said, i'm talking about global opinion. if your contention has been this whole time that anti-semitism can be a major factor in one country, then we're not in disagreement.

the federal government of the united states does not try to convince people to vote for the current sitting president. that's why it's a bad analogy. i was giving you a freebie with sadam hussein.

the EU was formed over arguments among political parties within countries, with pro-EU parties winning out. the french government did not try to convince people, it held a referendum on whether to sign maastricht. political campaigning on both sides occurred, and the french people voted.

so, to bring us back to your original contention where you said, "European states wanting to get on the good side of about a billion Muslims rather then 10 million Israelis" and "Many governments would rather piss off a few Israelis then a billion Muslims.  Since that is the case, the leadership of those countries try to lead their people toward that point of view." could you point to instances of this actually occurring? oil embargo aside.

in 2008, merkel pledged support for israel, yet we have 77% negative opinion of israel - this is one example. countries trade with israel equally as much as they trade with the rest of the arab world. the only instance the arab world has ever demanded anything of european countries in relation to activities with israel was 50 years ago with an oil embargo - and there the arab world asked only that no outside country intervene on the side of israel or supply israel with military arms. there's no reason for european governments to choose israel or the arab world, because neither israel nor the arab world has asked them to.

[Razgovory]

I guess I should have been more clear.  When I'm talking about government I'm talking about the peoples and parties in government not the state apparatus itself (though in some countries they act in tandem).

I can think of lots of cases.  Many European countries really dragged their feet in calling Hamas a terrorist organization.  Votes against Israel in the UN  Like this one http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3E4C2A16A576DF3E852560D600476FB8 attacks on Israel by Euro politicians, etc.

[LaCroix]

I guess I should have been more clear.  When I'm talking about government I'm talking about the peoples and parties in government not the state apparatus itself (though in some countries they act in tandem).

I can think of lots of cases.  Many European countries really dragged their feet in calling Hamas a terrorist organization.  Votes against Israel in the UN  Like this one http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3E4C2A16A576DF3E852560D600476FB8 attacks on Israel by Euro politicians, etc.

yup, israel doesn't get a lot of love. i meant disliking israel because they wished to better relations with the arab world.

[Razgovory]

What exactly then are you looking for?  A statement, that we are siding with the Arabs because there are more of them and they are more economically important?  I don't think anyone is honest enough to put that out to the public.  Likewise most Muslim states don't say they want make the Middle East "Jew Free", but I have no doubt that is the intention of many states in the region.

[LaCroix]

What exactly then are you looking for?  A statement, that we are siding with the Arabs because there are more of them and they are more economically important?  I don't think anyone is honest enough to put that out to the public.

yes. if all these governments are purposely acting with an agenda in mind to turn their populations against innocent israel so the governments can start conducting business with the arab world, then surely a politician or whistleblower will have made a comment somewhere.

[Admiral Yi]

Rockin' fuckin' montage Puff.  Nice goddamn work.

[Razgovory]

Why would there be a whistle blower?  They've committed no crime.  I do remember when the French ambassador to the UK said that all the worlds troubles were the cause of a little shitty country in the middle east called Israel.  You didn't want any mention of events not related to The oil crisis in the 1970's.  Is there a reason why you don't want that brought up?

[LaCroix]

Why would there be a whistle blower?  They've committed no crime.  I do remember when the French ambassador to the UK said that all the worlds troubles were the cause of a little shitty country in the middle east called Israel.  You didn't want any mention of events not related to The oil crisis in the 1970's.  Is there a reason why you don't want that brought up?

that's another example of a politician disliking israel. we've established israel doesn't get much love. i'm still not seeing any evidence of this non-conspiratorial contention of yours. 

and i explained the oil embargo in my earlier post.

[Razgovory]

I'm going to have a trouble proving a negative.  But please, elaborate on the oil embargo.  I'd like to here more.

[LaCroix]

I'm going to have a trouble proving a negative.

i'll consider your argument conceded, then

[Viking]

I'm going to have a trouble proving a negative.

i'll consider your argument conceded, then

That's not how logic works.

Though Raz didn't understand it either when he argued against intermediate species.

You can't prove a negative.

[LaCroix]

That's not how logic works.

Though Raz didn't understand it either when he argued against intermediate species.

You can't prove a negative.

this is a different situation. raz doesn't seem to understand that there are people who can view the israeli-palestinian conflict and side with palestine without being (1) anti-semitic, (2) manipulated by their government, or (3) manipulated by the palestinians. he conceded the first and third points by dropping his arguments throughout the discussion.

he's now stuck in a corner concerning this odd conspiracy theory that global governments actively convince their populace to dislike israel for the purpose of doing business with the arab world. assuming this argument makes any sense (which it doesn't, because global governments have conducted business with the arab world while politically supporting israel for years and years). like with the fake moon landing theorists, there would be evidence on a mass scale if politicians of political parties around the world were trying to convince their constituents to hate israel to push their agenda of business with the arabs. there would be massive evidence of this. there isn't, though, because it's utterly nonsensical.

but, raz doesn't appear to be willing to concede this final point regardless of how weird his argument is. so, i'm gonna do us both a favor and acknowledge his concession for him.

[Eddie Teach]

You haven't articulated a non-racist argument for siding with Palestine. It's either "Jews are evil" or "while technically the Jews haven't been quite as bad as the Palestinians, the Palestinians are too stupid to know better so it's the Jews' fault anyway".

[LaCroix]

You haven't articulated a non-racist argument for siding with Palestine. It's either "Jews are evil" or "while technically the Jews haven't been quite as bad as the Palestinians, the Palestinians are too stupid to know better so it's the Jews' fault anyway".

yes i have. in my very first post i did.

i mean, why do you think so many people dislike israel? they're not all anti-semitic - that's an intellectually bankrupt argument.

i could talk about how it's a never-ending cycle caused by israel's fundamental unwillingness to cast aside it's obsession with remaining a jewish state, but i'm not gonna waste even more time on this discussion. basically, by the mere fact that there are so many people who side against israel, to even think they're all dumb, manipulated, or wrong is simply stupid. i don't even like palestine. i'm a big supporter of israel. but i'm not gonna pretend that everyone else doesn't have legitimately valid reasons for preferring palestine. i've read the arguments, as i'm sure most people here have. some disagree with the oro-palestinian arguments, yes, but that doesn't make them any less valid. same with pro-israel arguments for the hardcore pro-palestinians. this conflict is too fucked, and there are way too many nuances, for there to be a clear winning side. if there was, there wouldn't be the heated discussion there is today. both sides focus on different aspects of the conflict, which i raised in one of my responses to raz. ffs, as if i even need to raise an argument for why people might support palestine. 

[Viking]

but, raz doesn't appear to be willing to concede this final point regardless of how weird his argument is. so, i'm gonna do us both a favor and acknowledge his concession for him.

you are almost as batshit as he is, I'm not following the argument. You can't declare victory on the grounds that the interlocutor can't prove a negative.