Morch

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    7,911
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,305 Excellent

About Morch

  • Rank
    Desperate Brotherhood Member

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Thailand

Recent Profile Visitors

13,268 profile views
  1. Mrs. Morch just informed me that Thursday is actually tomorrow, and not the day after. So as much as I'd like to stick around, a project must be finished, and a white night awaits. Apologies for participants, trolls included. Rest assured your valued opinionated opinions will be addressed in good time.
  2. No, the UN did not compare Israel to Nazi Germany. You did. The "report" was rejected as representing the views of his authors. The authors biased was already referred to.
  3. A right to resist does not imply an free pass to take whatever means or target whomever. Indiscriminate rockets launched at civilian concentrations, bombs and other terrorist attacks against civilians, suicide attacks - all are not allowed. There are constraints there. As much as I do not see Palestinian violence as assisting their struggle for self determination, I have less objections when such attacks are carried out against Israeli security personnel, as compared when directed at civilians. Ayelet Shaked, as are the other members of her party, are fascists. They do not, at this point, represent the whole state of Israel, and do not dictate IDF operations and policy. If you were to apply the comparison to her statement, rather than try to generalize it to the whole of Israel, I'd have no problems with that. Matter of fact, pretty much the same was posted at the time. That it reflects badly on Israel, sure. But making Israel equivalent to Nazi Germany, nope. Still hyperbole. Goes back to a point made earlier about balance - the comments rejected are not those warning that Israel might be sliding down a slippery slope, but the ones alleging that it is already there. You say you never claimed Israel is the worst. Why, then, compare it to the worst? No distractions. If it is legitimate to compare Israel as above, why is it a distraction to carry out other comparisons? Or is that sort of labeled bashers-only? And no, this topic is not about "the conflict between Israel and Gaza", not by a long shot. Wasn't really much discussed previously. And yes, it does matter what happens in other conflicts and other countries. Not because it exempts anyone, but because it shows how conflicts involving Israel receive greater attention regardless of their magnitude. Hamas operates using the cover of civilians and civilian installations to carry out attacks. In a prefect world, they would not do so, and civilian lives would be less at risk. You either misrepresent or misunderstood my comment about Hamas use of funds. This had to do with another issue, of not providing security to the civilian population, but preferring to invest in facilities to protect themselves or those used to carry out operations against Israel. There are no easy answers when combating militants using civilians as a shield. And no, attacking installations such as described is not automatically a war crime, especially so if there they are used by the Hamas as staging grounds, storage places or rocket launcher pads. You may claim whatever you like about many of Israel's targets being "illegal", it still wouldn't make them so. Many people do not realize that contrary to common belief, a whole lot of things are in fact legally allowed. And again, if you wish to bring up legality, then this doesn't square with Hamas's usage of civilian facilities in general, and with using the population as shield as well. War isn't fair. This isn't some pistols at dawn thing. One doesn't bring a knife to a gunfight. The Hamas knew how this will end, and still carried on. Can't say that shows a whole lot of care for their own people. I do not think that "Israel specifically targeted citizens" is a good description of events. No doubt that such things did happen during the fighting, but to as a general statement - If Israel was targeting civilians, there would have been a whole lot more casualties. Hamas getting full back up from the UN. Well...that's a whole different topic right there. One which touches also upon the Palestinian divide and the Palestinian attitude toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Goes much further than the scope of the current topic. For someone bringing up antisemitism, Nazi comparisons and the Gaza War, or Hamas - all of which did not feature much on this topic, you sure do have an interesting take on what counts as going on tangent.
  4. So a deflection then. Bummer. Was betting on a rant. Keep dodging. There was nothing said about the level of justification of either side . That's you putting words in my mouth. I merely asked why the Israeli immigration policies are to be denounced as racist, while ignoring that the Palestinian goal of achieving an extreme version of their own in their future state. That while presenting oneself as a "humanist". Try again. The "report" is biased. It was rejected by the UNSG in a statement that clearly said that the views included represent those of the authors. There is a rather long public record of the authors views, and they can be termed as nothing but biased. According to your reasoning, this should be ignored, and the "report" taken at face value as an objective document. No particular reason as to why the authors views are to be ignored. As for the "Palestinian conspiracy" falsely attributed to me - are you for real? There is nothing secretive about this, rather out in the open for all to see. It is not a conspiracy at all, but an obvious goal. Under a two-state solution, the future state of Palestine will not include Jews. Where is the conspiracy, exactly? And yes, it will be more extreme than the Israeli version, which will still support a large Palestinian minority, and will is expected to accept even more. No conspiracy, and not too hard to figure out. You go on about Israeli policy being racist, nothing to say about this one. Mind, I did not even say that I object to such an arrangement, quite the other way around. But then I don't have much issues with anything which sorts things out in a way decreasing the risk of violence. Unlike adhering to unrealistic absolute justice nonsense. Deflect some more, why don't ya.
  5. Why don't you take a pill of the your own prescription - The topic was not about antisemitism, nor the validity of vile comparisons, nor the Gaza War. That is, until you came along and made those to be focal points.
  6. No spins. Or maybe you should be clearer when posting. You said Palestinians had a right to resist, you said they will not be tried for war crimes, you said rockets were ineffectual and that they were an Israeli excuse. If you want to make another, accurate comment, that's fine. The statements made in regard to the Gaza War were, for the most part, nothing on par things stated and said by the Nazis. It is not a given to anyone not insisting on an inane point. There was nothing carried out by Israel on the Gaza War that did not feature on other conflicts in the ME. If this was about "genocide" casualties would have been way higher than that, and there wouldn't have been any ceasefires as well. But sure, go with the hyperbole comparisons, that's what you're here for. So you feel that Israel should not target Hamas militants and installations unless they are standing out in the open carrying big signs saying "Hamas". There is no shred of responsibility attributed to the Hamas for placing their people and hardware among the civilian population, thus putting them at harm's way? There's nothing to say about Hamas spending millions in Aid money and building materials to construct tunnels kept for their own use, rather than protect the population? And no, not all of Israel's targets were illegal, that is the point. Balance. If you wish to claim some of what Israel did was wrong, fair enough. Look up my old posts and you'll find such thoughts, even with regard to specific instances. If you wish to claim that Hamas ought to enjoy immunity due to whichever reasons - you're quite out there. Any war carried out in urban surrounding carries a toll of civilian lives. That is a fact. It doesn't stop them from happening not in Gaza nor anywhere else in the world. The ME got a rich history of such, insisting that Israel is the worst of the bunch is nowhere near close. Commenting on these issues without any context or reference, while focusing on one party is a no go.
  7. Getting a wee bit feisty there, Shawn. Your whole involvement in the topic started from barging on a comment about what other people say, and went on to ascribe a general description of what other people say. Now you don't care for such. Great. You bring up a rather off topic side issue, take it center stage and then whine about "distraction"? No problems You go on about a "verdict", "court" and whatnot, while actually referring to nothing of the sort - while hectoring on "facts"? Sure thing. As said on earlier occasions, nothing but an argumentative SJW troll.
  8. That's a rather clumsy spin. There were such statements directed at Israel from various regional leaders. As well as against each other. Some were followed by acts of war and violence. And no, even if you claim otherwise, nothing that happened in Gaza is on par with the actions or statements of the Nazi regime. Hard to tell if ignorant or trolling there. And no, what actually happened was that Hamas leaders had to vow that they will take personal responsibility if such cases were brought to trial. This was partially the context alluded to before. As to whether or not this agreement will hold, or if it constitutes a valid defense, remains to be seen. It is certainly not as "decided" as you claim. This too, was thoroughly covered on a couple of previous topics. That you consider launching unguided rockets at civilian populations as acceptable, as legally allowed and as morally right - puts the previous (and surely, upcoming) moralization on shaky ground. But if to get back to the real world of facts, your expert legal opinion is not actually an accepted legal norm, and the same goes for other sort of terrorist attacks. Not all is permitted. Even if you allow it.
  9. @dexterm Errr, no. The OP is about a biased "report" claiming the sort of things you raise in your many posts. Similarly, it was rejected. The usual "accounts" cited of how things happened, always fully supporting the adopted narrative. Not a chink in the armor. Ever. Doubt you even believe it yourself. In fact, I know you don't. You've said as much in the past. There was nothing mentioned of a "Palestinian conspiracy". One more lie to the growing collection. And again, allowing comparisons only when they suit your purposes is rather obvious. Perfectly willing to compare Israel to whatever as long as it vilifies, rejects any comparison which puts things in context. Same goes for any comparison showing your positions to be less than matching the ideals you claim to uphold. All this deluge or repetitive hateful drivel and the same worn links and quotes are aimed at one thing, and one thing only - deflecting a question. Here it is again: If Israeli immigration policies are indeed abhorrent and deserve to be denounced, how does this reflect on the Palestinian goal amounting to pretty much the same thing (if to a greater extent)? Why is one embraced (or ignored) while the other is rejected? And how is this compatible with a self-described "humanist" position? I wish I could say I'm waiting for an answer, but I'm actually expecting another deflection or a lengthy rant ignoring it.
  10. I get it that most Thais buying such stuff aren't exactly clued in. More a fashion thing. Same goes for Chairman Mao, Che Guevara or even Serpico images. But then you have the university students pulling these stunts every few years. Usually scoring some headlines and a media outrage, until the next time. When it comes to these, I see it more as an inane way of trying to express non-conformism, to agitate a bit. Even if they aren't totally clued in, they aren't totally clueless as well. Foreigners wearing Nazi stuff in Thailand...guess it depends. Some might be into it, some may think its just a laugh.
  11. I participate and read such topics regularly. There is nothing resembling the sustained diatribes and rants going on here. Considering I often post direct criticism on Israel's government, "blindly biased" is way off mark. The trouble is for most of the resident haters (which claim to be pro-Palestinian, but cannot usually say one intelligible thing about the Palestinians) create an atmosphere, where anything but total rejection of Israel is considered "blindly biassed". As I'm getting similar flak on other, supposedly pro-Israeli forums, guess all's well with my positions. Who's playing the victim card, then?
  12. Hell no...I'm on a winning streak of personal bets left and right. Chalking up an self-allowed drinks for every reply correctly guessed in advance.
  13. And you ignore that such statements are commonplace in the region, and are uttered by pretty much any extreme politician facing a microphone. With all the non-existent respect to your "account" of events, things were not quite as clear cut as claimed, nor were the Palestinians (as a whole) "innocent" as well. Now, since your obvious reply would be "what you're account then" or something inane thing like that - you're welcome to look up relevant topics, instead of derailing this one with your nonsense. You may keep fantasizing that the Russel Tribunal amount to a "court case". But if to return to the issue of facts, they aren't quite what you make them to be. And here we go with the "soulless individual"...denouncing anyone not seeing things your way. Quite the little zealot. And no, launching unguided rockets at civilian population is not "within Palestinian rights". It is, in fact, a war crime. This was even conceded and commented upon by the Palestinians themselves (albeit, by the PA's people, among them UN representatives).
  14. Here's the thing. This rhetoric is not used while discussing other conflicts, not even those including far worse things. There is no balance. Nothing resembling the vehemence and bile spewed on these topics. And do me a favor, have a clue before posting garbage. I never defended all of Israel's actions and policies. And I do comment on other conflicts as well. On any occasion, I do my best to avoid the inflammatory, hyperbolic rhetoric many posters employ.
  15. No, it is you spinning the question round in an attempt to avoid a direct answer. Not the first time, probably not the last. To remind you, the question had to do with your vehement rejection of Israeli immigration policies, while keeping mum on Palestinian goals manifesting similar trends. That while self-congratulating yourself as a "humanist", going on about justice and ideals. Ever since this was raised - all you have are spins. And it is neither a "schtick" nor off-topic - you seem perfectly alright with comparisons of Israel to other countries or even to the Palestinians as long as this serves your adopted narrative. Comparisons and references are only rejected when they do not support your point of view. Standard practice by now. And the usual cop out to avoid anything resembling criticism of the Palestinians. There is wide gap between voicing concern and engaging in the kind of rhetoric you're in to, or supporting your extreme and hateful positions.