I love you Eugene but what do you have to say about this?

[chenGOD]

well, i suppose its a good time to re-close the thread? eugene gave a pretty decent response on the matter.

Unfortunately Eugene was less than diplomatic in his attempts to get the thread reopened and as a result his account was suspended for a day (forever on the Internet right?). Give him a bit of time to respond.

[MadameChaos]

I was confused about why he insisted on the thread remaining open yet not posting in it. I guess what we think about it is a moot point anyway.

[lumpenprol]

*takes land back from Eugene*

 

"whatcha gonna do about it now, eh?"

[triachus]

While we wait for Eugene's response, we can all sit down, relax, and listen to the song I Love You Eugene (But What Do You Have To Say About This?) (Piano+Strings Only Mix).mp3 by The Flashbumlb


http://youtubedoubler.com/9RsS




Here is the Waddem Ruffnex Riddim Cru Breakin Pon Dem Bombaclot Babylon An Creashon An Ting, Seen? remix


http://youtubedoubler.com/9RsX

[eugene]

make no mistake, the settlements are indeed illegal.

 

eugene is simply making the case for legality based on what israel decides is legal for itself. it's perfectly "legal" so long as at some mysterious point in the future israel "swaps" the land it took for, like, some other totally cool land that's TOTALLY just as good and stuff.

yes that's the fact, israel acts upon israeli laws where the status of west bank is "disputed land" or something but not a "palestinian territory". all of the settlements are built in area C which according to oslo accords is a land under israeli control until further negotiations. just to reiterate again. i'm not supporting it, i just try to explain the rationale.

 

anyway, take a look at this channel guys, i think you'll find it very interesting: http://www.youtube.com/user/coreygilshuster

[goDel]

A watmmer being less than diplomatic?

 

 

[DerWaschbar]

Eugene how many banks and media outlets do you personally control?

Do you guys divide them up evenly or is it based on seniority?

[xox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ

[eugene]

a honest israeli jew and Real Truth in one youtube video ?!?! *mind assplodes*

[xox]

Don't worry E, 74 millions of similar videos waiting on youtube.

 

[eugene]

here we fucking go again, learning history and complex political conflicts with youtube spam.

[xox]

here we fucking go again, learning history and complex political conflicts with youtube spam.

 

Ok, now it's clear where you stand.

You and your Zionist tactics! If it's one video then you go 'it's impossible to learn anything from it' and when it's two then 'it's spam'?! People on WATMM is not THAT stupid.

I posted for other people, not you. You've said yours.

[Alcofribas]

eugene, in the snowden/conspiracy thread you took pains to frame the surveillance issue in terms of law. basically, you made two claims:

1) that there was "nothing illegal" about what the us gov/nsa are doing and 2) snowden clearly broke the law.

 

for now I'll leave aside the recent developments on that particular case, although i may take them up again in the appropriate thread.

 

however, what i would like to know is your take on the basically unanimous international consensus in the illegality of Israeli settlements. the record is unambiguous here, the entire international community continuously agrees that this shit is illegal right? so in this case do you adhere to the same strict legal argument you had in the snowden thread? or, is your position that international law and decades of un resolutions and so forth are simply not applicable to israel or in some way do not capture the reality of the situation "on the ground?"

 

i think your answer here may jeopardize, or at least complicate, the integrity of your stance in the other thread. that is, of course, unless you come out in the end basically just saying that the state can pick and choose what it determines legal; which is more or less what I think your real position was in that thread.

 

also, cheers and lols to you etc. as much as i have really taken issue with a lot of your arguments in these issues i do admire how unabashed you can be, especially in a thread like this where you've been specifically targeted. while we may never see eye to eye here, we are nevertheless bros in the greater watmm community imo.

[eugene]

 

 

here we fucking go again, learning history and complex political conflicts with youtube spam.

Ok, now it's clear where you stand.
You and your Zionist tactics! If it's one video then you go 'it's impossible to learn anything from it' and when it's two then 'it's spam'?! People on WATMM is not THAT stupid.
I posted for other people, not you. You've said yours.

 

it's impossible to learn anything from 40 million youtube videos if the producers set a goal of hand picking particular facts to construct a very particular narrative, that's usually the case with pretty much everything that originates from RT and from anyone who purports to present you the "real truth".

[goDel]

Fair.

 

But wasn't it Russian truth?

[eugene]

eugene, in the snowden/conspiracy thread you took pains to frame the surveillance issue in terms of law. basically, you made two claims:

1) that there was "nothing illegal" about what the us gov/nsa are doing and 2) snowden clearly broke the law.

 

for now I'll leave aside the recent developments on that particular case, although i may take them up again in the appropriate thread.

 

however, what i would like to know is your take on the basically unanimous international consensus in the illegality of Israeli settlements. the record is unambiguous here, the entire international community continuously agrees that this shit is illegal right? so in this case do you adhere to the same strict legal argument you had in the snowden thread? or, is your position that international law and decades of un resolutions and so forth are simply not applicable to israel or in some way do not capture the reality of the situation "on the ground?"

 

i think your answer here may jeopardize, or at least complicate, the integrity of your stance in the other thread. that is, of course, unless you come out in the end basically just saying that the state can pick and choose what it determines legal; which is more or less what I think your real position was in that thread.

 

also, cheers and lols to you etc. as much as i have really taken issue with a lot of your arguments in these issues i do admire how unabashed you can be, especially in a thread like this where you've been specifically targeted. while we may never see eye to eye here, we are nevertheless bros in the greater watmm community imo.

my personal take ? i think there are difficulties in applying inter. law to israel/palestine conflict but israel should adhere to it anyway.

i just think that it's usually more interesting to learn the reasons and justifications of its non-adherence rather than to reiterate the mantra of " israel should return to 67 lines, remove the occupation from west bank and its blockade on gaza etc".

[xox]

 

here we fucking go again, learning history and complex political conflicts with youtube spam.

 

Ok, now it's clear where you stand.

You and your Zionist tactics! If it's one video then you go 'it's impossible to learn anything from it' and when it's two then 'it's spam'?! People on WATMM is not THAT stupid.

I posted for other people, not you. You've said yours.

 

it's impossible to learn anything from 40 million youtube videos if the producers set a goal of hand picking particular facts to construct a very particular narrative, that's usually the case with pretty much everything that originates from RT and from anyone who purports to present you the "real truth".

 

 

You're just blind to facts, nothing else really. You can or must lie to your self but rest of us can see it as is, so crap the shit (Zionist propaganda).

 

But, ok....Should we talk about Zionist agenda and it's connection to the majority of todays news space instead? I don't think is necessary. It's a well known fact even on Jupiter.

[xox]

Fair.

 

But wasn't it Russian truth?

 

You're referring to the channel? It's Russia Today.

[eugene]

if you really want to have some kind of conversation with me you better define what you think zionism/zionist agenda is because i have a hard time arguing with a bot who spews senseless talking points from the average RT youtube comment section.

[Alcofribas]

 

eugene, in the snowden/conspiracy thread you took pains to frame the surveillance issue in terms of law. basically, you made two claims:

1) that there was "nothing illegal" about what the us gov/nsa are doing and 2) snowden clearly broke the law.

for now I'll leave aside the recent developments on that particular case, although i may take them up again in the appropriate thread.

however, what i would like to know is your take on the basically unanimous international consensus in the illegality of Israeli settlements. the record is unambiguous here, the entire international community continuously agrees that this shit is illegal right? so in this case do you adhere to the same strict legal argument you had in the snowden thread? or, is your position that international law and decades of un resolutions and so forth are simply not applicable to israel or in some way do not capture the reality of the situation "on the ground?"

i think your answer here may jeopardize, or at least complicate, the integrity of your stance in the other thread. that is, of course, unless you come out in the end basically just saying that the state can pick and choose what it determines legal; which is more or less what I think your real position was in that thread.

also, cheers and lols to you etc. as much as i have really taken issue with a lot of your arguments in these issues i do admire how unabashed you can be, especially in a thread like this where you've been specifically targeted. while we may never see eye to eye here, we are nevertheless bros in the greater watmm community imo.

 

my personal take ? i think there are difficulties in applying inter. law to israel/palestine conflict but israel should adhere to it anyway.

i just think that it's usually more interesting to learn the reasons and justifications of its non-adherence rather than to reiterate the mantra of " israel should return to 67 lines, remove the occupation from west bank and its blockade on gaza etc".

very well.

 

but then you're doing a bit of an about face, aren't you? in the other thread you're stating that the law is clear cut, "nothing illegal" about the us, snowden is a criminal. where's your curiosity there? why are you reluctant to make the same firm claims about israel? in years of threads on this subject you're always willing to examine their motives without ever condemning their illegality.

 

tbh, I don't buy the argument you're making, ie, that you find it more interesting to examine motives than apply slogans. for instance, i don't think you are willing to be interested in the possibility that israel or the us are corrupt governments that couch their thuggish behavior in legalese that no one really believes in. it seems to me that your interest is not as cool and objective as you make out. you ridicule and belittle perspectives that subvert the discourse of power. one would think a student of history would be more weary of official government propaganda.

 

that being said, i appreciate you saying israel should adhere to international law. that is also my opinion.

[xox]

if you really want to have some kind of conversation with me you better define what you think zionism/zionist agenda is because i have a hard time arguing with a bot who spews senseless talking points from the average RT youtube comment section.

 

I will define you what i think as zionism/zionist agenda if you tell me what you think about:

 

1.) human rights

2.) double standards

3.) destroying properties of millions and slathering humans for decades

4.) 3rd generation of refugees in a refugee camps

5.) not responding to none of many international resolutions

 

Yes, nice people.

[xox]

waitaminute...what if the questions lead you to zionism?! oh, no!

[eugene]

 

 

eugene, in the snowden/conspiracy thread you took pains to frame the surveillance issue in terms of law. basically, you made two claims:

1) that there was "nothing illegal" about what the us gov/nsa are doing and 2) snowden clearly broke the law.

for now I'll leave aside the recent developments on that particular case, although i may take them up again in the appropriate thread.

however, what i would like to know is your take on the basically unanimous international consensus in the illegality of Israeli settlements. the record is unambiguous here, the entire international community continuously agrees that this shit is illegal right? so in this case do you adhere to the same strict legal argument you had in the snowden thread? or, is your position that international law and decades of un resolutions and so forth are simply not applicable to israel or in some way do not capture the reality of the situation "on the ground?"

i think your answer here may jeopardize, or at least complicate, the integrity of your stance in the other thread. that is, of course, unless you come out in the end basically just saying that the state can pick and choose what it determines legal; which is more or less what I think your real position was in that thread.

also, cheers and lols to you etc. as much as i have really taken issue with a lot of your arguments in these issues i do admire how unabashed you can be, especially in a thread like this where you've been specifically targeted. while we may never see eye to eye here, we are nevertheless bros in the greater watmm community imo.

my personal take ? i think there are difficulties in applying inter. law to israel/palestine conflict but israel should adhere to it anyway.

i just think that it's usually more interesting to learn the reasons and justifications of its non-adherence rather than to reiterate the mantra of " israel should return to 67 lines, remove the occupation from west bank and its blockade on gaza etc".

very well.

 

but then you're doing a bit of an about face, aren't you? in the other thread you're stating that the law is clear cut, "nothing illegal" about the us, snowden is a criminal. where's your curiosity there? why are you reluctant to make the same firm claims about israel? in years of threads on this subject you're always willing to examine their motives without ever condemning their illegality.

 

tbh, I don't buy the argument you're making, ie, that you find it more interesting to examine motives than apply slogans. for instance, i don't think you are willing to be interested in the possibility that israel or the us are corrupt governments that couch their thuggish behavior in legalese that no one really believes in. it seems to me that your interest is not as cool and objective as you make out. you ridicule and belittle perspectives that subvert the discourse of power. one would think a student of history would be more weary of official government propaganda.

 

that being said, i appreciate you saying israel should adhere to international law. that is also my opinion.

 

 

im much more informed about israel/palestine conflict so i can get into nuances as opposed to american stuff.

regarding snowden i just felt that the whole greenwald/snowden stuff was blown out of proportion and the official position made sense and was easily defendable so i tried to defend it, if you would press me and demand my personal honest real truth IMO opinion i would have come up with my reservations about the spying program (as it appears to be from what was leaked/inferred) easily.

 

im studying sociology, not history, so examining motives, mechanism behind various phenomenas,social structures, institutions, culture and generally interactions of different variables is exactly what i'm supposed to do. one of the last papers i did dealt with official israeli propaganda during the lead-up to 1956 war.

[eugene]

 

if you really want to have some kind of conversation with me you better define what you think zionism/zionist agenda is because i have a hard time arguing with a bot who spews senseless talking points from the average RT youtube comment section.

 

I will define you what i think as zionism/zionist agenda if you tell me what you think about:

 

1.) human rights

2.) double standards

3.) destroying properties of millions and slathering humans for decades

4.) 3rd generation of refugees in a refugee camps

5.) not responding to none of many international resolutions

 

Yes, nice people.

 

1. good

2. not good

3. not good

4. not good

5. not good

periods after the number and before parenthesis - perversion that should be punished

[SR4]

waitaminute...what if the questions lead you to zionism?! oh, no!

 

 

you do understand that zionists are not politically or ideologically unified, right?