Israeli organ borrowing revisited

[grumbler]

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. 

Ah, the ad hom!  We knew this was coming! 

Despicable comments deserve no response, so:  no response

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."

Dunno who you are quoting in the first part (what does "accept them as such" even mean in this context?).  As for the second, one does not call for investigations into organlegging unless one believes there is something worth investigating.

You're right extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. That's why he made no claims.

Ah.  You said he claimed that this was worth investigating.  If he didn't, then there is no issue.

All he did was mention the suspicious circumstances, and ask for further investigation, and for that he was viscously attacked.

Ooo!  The attack was viscous?  Like what, snot? 
Anyway, I thought he wasn't claiming anything (like that there should be an investigation)?  Can you make up you mind which story you are going to tell, here?

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.

So who was saying "without any organs?"  You, or the reporter?  Who has been claiming that Palestinians may have been "harvested for their organs" and that this charge is credible enough to be worth investigating?  You, or the reporter?

The "unreliable narrator" bit works for fiction, Pat, but kills credibility when one purports to be telling truth and one is an unreliable narrator.  Don't be that guy.  N00bs have very little cred to start with, so wasting any of it is bad juju.

[Pat]

I was saying "without any organs" and he didn't use those words. But of course you knew this already. Because I explained it. And I've linked to the article, so you can SEE FOR YOURSELF what the reporter did or did not write, but I can only assume you still haven't read it.

He never claimed to know the Palestinian quotes to be true, but he obviously found them credible enough to be worth investigating. This is a very simple point to understand, and I can not put your refusal to do so down to anything else than bad faith.

Sorry grumbler, not going to play your games any more than this. I know you won't give up until you feel you've "put me in my place" or whatever your motivation may be (it sure as hell isn't the question at hand, that is for sure).

[Martinus]

A fruitless goal? They would clear themselves of some rather heinous allegations. Maybe there's a reason why they have a policy of not even trying to defend themselves? Have you thought about that?

And you're way missing the point here. In your head this seems to all be about Israel vs. Europe. Israel has no obligation to Europe. But doesn't Israel have an obligation of full disclosure to the families of the deceased plundered of their organs without permission, Israeli citizens and Palestinians alike?

Well Israel gets accused of heinous crimes all the time.  That is why they do not bother trying to defend themselves.  There is simply too much and frankly they have a bunker mentality.

I rather think this is more about Israel and its policies towards outside allegations.  Israel may indeed have certain obligations they should be doing...or have already done....or will never do...I don't know.  I simply think you have very unrealistic expectations of Israel but then that is the whole problem with the peace process in the first place.  Everybody seems to want to pretend there has not been a cold/hot war going on over there for 60 years and that the the Israelis are a wholly western logical prosperous country eager to do the international community's will.  The psychological strain on that country is immense and plus they have this mildly corrupt quasi-Russian secretive way of going about government.

I mean I think Israel is great and I like alot of Israelis but lets face it, they are not a warm fuzzy western sort of democracy.  They are an armed camp with a mentality to go along with it.

Plus they have been in the Middle East for 60 years.  That is not going to be kind to one's sanity.

Ok here you are getting unreasonable.

So only because Israel has been accused of evil for the last 60 years, they have no obligation to remedy the wrong done by their medical personal to very specific people, by providing a full disclosure of the wrongdoing that Israeli investigation prove to be true? 

[Pat]

Grumbler, I've been thinking about it, and if you want, I can concede that I have made myself guilty of Ad Hom argumentation. Now that you've won a point of small importance, are you happy now?

[Martinus]

Anyway, the whole story is kinda funny, if you consider how it played out.

(Swedish Journalist): Palestinians say Israel could have been doing A and B.
: WTF! This is antisemitism! Accusations of ritual murder! Holocaust redux!
ROTW:
:
: Err, guys, you did A to one of our boys.
: And actually, you admitted yourself that you have been doing A. 
: Ok true. But we never did B. WTF! This is antisemitism! Accusations of ritual murder! Holocaust redux!
ROTW:

[Martinus]

Also, Valmy, what the fuck are you talking about with "Israel doesn't bother to defend itself"???

After this article was originally published, Israel staged an international shitstorm, including official protests at the highest diplomatic levels. 

What they apparently don't bother with is showing evidence to families of the victims that they are only guilty of one crime, and not two.

[Slargos]

 

It's funny how some issues can be boiled down to their core with the apt use of smilies and concise one liners. Good one, Marty. 

[Vricklund]

Heh. I have to applaude Pat for not giving up.

Reminds me of this...

[Razgovory]

Maybe this argument is due to language misunderstandings.  None of the Palestinians seen leaving Israeli custody were carrying huge musical instruments.  That makes sense and satisfies what Pat is saying.

[DGuller]

Maybe this argument is due to language misunderstandings.  None of the Palestinians seen leaving Israeli custody were carrying huge musical instruments.  That makes sense and satisfies what Pat is saying.

[Neil]

Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.

Indeed.  Your definition is weak-willed and immoral.  My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself.  Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.

Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?

There is more to defending a civilization than just military strength, although obviously military strength is also an important indicator of civilization.

[Neil]

Well I suppose we probably have different conceptions of what it is to be civilized.

Indeed.  Your definition is weak-willed and immoral.  My definition takes into consideration that no civilization is worth anything unless it can defend itself.  Annihilating the Palestians is an act that a civilized society would have to take.

Linking civilization to military might is strange. Were the Mongols more civilized than the societies they annihilated?

No, that's a logical fallacy.  Civilized societies are militarily strong, but not all military strong societies are civilized.

[Scipio]

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?

The Mongol's didn't destroy most of European civilization.  They didn't even destroy Rus, for fuckssakes, and they ruled over it for 200 years.

[Razgovory]

Anyway, when it comes down to it if it's an argument between a Swede and Grumbler I bet on Grumbler.

[Neil]

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?

They didn't even destroy Rus, for fuckssakes, and they ruled over it for 200 years.

Well, they did destroy it as a civilization.