Israeli organ borrowing revisited

[Pat]

Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?

[Pat]

This discussion reminds me of a quote, by the way.

     War has returned to its primitive form.  The war of
     people against people is giving place to another war-- a
     war for the possession of the great spaces.
     Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture-
     grounds.  Today war is nothing but a struggle for the
     riches of nature.  By virtue of an inherent law, these
     riches belong to him who conquers them.  The great
     migrations set out from the East.  With us begins the ebb,
     from West to East.

     That's in accordance with the laws of nature.  By means
     of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.
     The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by
     allowing the survival of the fittest.
     Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest
     against nature.  Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity
     would mean the systematic cultivation of the human
     failure.

--- A man with a moustasche who wasn't very nice, but at least had a concept of natural law more consistent with history than the other ones variously expressed.

[Pat]

By the way that was also really tangential to the discussion, and I'm not saying Israel = Nazi germany or anything; maybe we should start a new thread if there's interest to continue the "Civilization = Might" subtopic.

[grumbler]

BTW, since people don't seem to read the article, and in the interest of people seeing things with their own eyes, here's the picture accompanying the article:


The boy on the picture was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers. His cause of death was already known, yet they took his body with them to perform an "autopsy". 

Wow.  Gullible beyond belief.     None of us can see "with our own eyes" that all his organs are missing, and we know nothing from this photo that we didn't know before:  that people split open for autopsies are not pretty afterwards.

Oh, and btw:

Organs were not harvested if it was believed relatives might discover it, he said, adding that in some cases glue was used to close eyelids to hide missing corneas.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/



Judging by the picture above, I feel quite safe in my assumtion that the same courtesy was not extended to the families of the Palestinians.

Judging by your postings, I feel quite safe in my assumption that your assumtion [sic] is not based on any desire to be objective about this.  After all, your own source notes that

After getting permission from family members to perform an autopsy, "we felt free" to harvest organs, he said.

Your assumption should be, then, that this was true of Palestinians as well.  But you assume otherwise.  I am not surprised.

[Pat]

1)

I never said he had seen with their own eyes their organs missing. He had, however, seen many other things which made him ascribe credibility to the stories of the Palestinians, and made him write the story with their quotes. The author of the article later claimed to Israeli radio that he doesn't know if the Palestinian claims are true, but that he wanted it looked into.

I'd say it's an act of great journalism, especially since he uncovered something that had been hidden for many years and no one would have heard about if he hadn't written his story. He deserves a prize.

2)

My assumtion is not that the Israelis are telling the truth. That seems to be yours. Who's gullible?

[grumbler]

This discussion reminds me of a quote, by the way.

     War has returned to its primitive form.  The war of
     people against people is giving place to another war-- a
     war for the possession of the great spaces.
     Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture-
     grounds.  Today war is nothing but a struggle for the
     riches of nature.  By virtue of an inherent law, these
     riches belong to him who conquers them.  The great
     migrations set out from the East.  With us begins the ebb,
     from West to East.

     That's in accordance with the laws of nature.  By means
     of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.
     The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by
     allowing the survival of the fittest.
     Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest
     against nature.  Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity
     would mean the systematic cultivation of the human
     failure.

--- A man with a moustasche who wasn't very nice, but at least had a concept of natural law more consistent with history than the other ones variously expressed.

Do lots of things remind you of sayings by that guy?  I've never met anyone who related to him like that before.  Most of us dismiss him as emo and uninteresting by our late teens.

[Pat]

I find the argument "might is civilization" somewhat similar in nature to the argument "might is right". Not quite the same thing, but enough similar to remind me of that quote.

[Viking]

Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the mongols destroyed western civilization?

[Pat]

Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the mongols destroyed western civilization?

Key words are "assume" and "ignore the likelyhood" - i.e. let's say they did.

[Viking]

I find the argument "might is civilization" somewhat similar in nature to the argument "might is right". Not quite the same thing, but enough similar to remind me of that quote.

call me grumbler, but nobody made that argument

[Viking]

Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the mongols destroyed western civilization?

Key words are "assume" and "ignore the likelyhood" - i.e. let's say they did.

OK, lets assume you have AIDS and ignore the likelyhood that you are a virgin.

[Pat]

I find the argument "might is civilization" somewhat similar in nature to the argument "might is right". Not quite the same thing, but enough similar to remind me of that quote.

call me grumbler, but nobody made that argument

Seems to be the opinion of Neil. Wasn't directed at anyone in particular though.

[Pat]

Ignore the likelyhood and assume all of Europe is in array and exhausted from internal strife. Mongols suddenly appear and destroy most of European civilization. Does it follow that European civilization isn't worth anything?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the mongols destroyed western civilization?

Key words are "assume" and "ignore the likelyhood" - i.e. let's say they did.

OK, lets assume you have AIDS and ignore the likelyhood that you are a virgin.

Speaking of STDs, I was just telling Jaron over MSN about the Asian girl who gave me chlamydia. But that, alas, is for another thread.

[grumbler]

1) I never said he had seen with their own eyes their organs missing. He had, however, seen many other things which made him ascribe credibility to the stories of the Palestinians, and made him write the story with their quotes. The author of the article later claimed to Israeli radio that he doesn't know if the Palestinian claims are true, but that he wanted it looked into.

I'd say it's an act of great journalism, especially since he uncovered something that had been hidden for many years and no one would have heard about if he hadn't written his story. He deserves a prize. 

So he didn't see Palestinians with "all their organs missing" with his own eyes, but he accepted stories from Palestinians that claimed such?  And you think that this is acceptable journalism?  I can think of no reason whatever for any Israelis to take all the internal organs from Palestinians.  What motive does this author ascribe to such bizarre, horror-movie-like behavior?

I'd say it is no great act of journalism, since the story or the harvesting of corneas and heart valves has been around for a while, and the "harvesting of Palestinians" and the removal of "all their organs" seems to be made up either by the journalist or by Palestinians seeking to take advantage of a credulous Swede. 

2) My assumtion is not that the Israelis are telling the truth. That seems to be yours.  [/quote]
My assumption is that extraordinary claims ("killing Palestinians for their organs" or Palestinians "brought back five days later without any organs") requires extraordinary proof.  I also assume that the Israelis have done what they admitted to doing (since such admissions are contrary to their interests) and that denials that serve an interest have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Who's gullible?

You.  Perhaps the Swedish journalist, though I don't know if he believes what has been ascribed to him.  I haven't seen anyone else writing such credulous stuff.

[Pat]

Grumbler, you clearly have no intent of arguing honestly. Even though I explain things you still keep writing the same falsehoods and misconceptions over and over.

1) He didn't "accept them as such". I already explained this! Did you read my post? In particular, this part:

"The author of the article later claimed to Israeli radio that he doesn't know if the Palestinian claims are true, but that he wanted it looked into."

You're right extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. That's why he made no claims. All he did was mention the suspicious circumstances, and ask for further investigation, and for that he was viscously attacked. Well, now it seems there was something to it! He was right to call for further investigation! And if he hadn't, none of us would know of this.

2) I have also already explained "any organs" (wrongly attributed to me as "all the organs" - see, I can also play this game). I'm not going to explain it again.