Discussing about Middle East.

[Cleopatra]

Thomas Friedman, the collumnist has said once that people who discuss about Middle East tend to become insane after two minutes.

Well, just a glance at this forum can persuade you immediately about how true this is.

Some of us are deeply involved and interested in the subject.Although that some of us are personally involved we try to avoid flaming and trolling. We try to be reasonable and even handed.

There are some people though that do nothing but trolling about this issue. I am using as an example the newcomer zenith-nadir who pretends to support Israel although he does nothing but posting irrelevant and contradictory info that derail threads.

The problem is not that he is doing this alone. The problem starts by the moment that reasonable posters-- in the name of critical thinking-respond to his stupidity and we have the phaenomenon a discussion about Middle East to equal zero.

I started this thread to avoid derailing very essential thread that demon started. Everybody knows how demon and I get along BUT this thread he started hits the nail on the head. Grammatron how is a very reasonable and serious poster said in response to a comment of mine that he gets involved in the context of critical thinking.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870312461#post1870312461

Well, since when responding to trolls constitute critical thinking?

Something else. Why you keep debating the same useless things again and again?

 

[Zero]

LOL, yeah, it is tough...we all tend to have knee-jerk reactions to anything that people post about Israel(myself included). For instance, I noticed in that other thread, that Grammatron immediately jumped on me for what I'll admit was not the clearest post I could make. I don't have a problem with Grammatron, even though I often disagree with him. But, it would be very easy to start yelling about things, instead of being rational and explaining my position.

As far as debating things over and over...that is what the Internet is for, isn't it?

 

[davefoc]

ZN has been called a troll in a few places.

ZN is not a troll as I would define the word.

I think ZN actually is fairly skillful at regurgitating the standard American pro-Israeli arguments.

In the US, for those who think about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict much, I think his views would be fairly mainstream, especially in that he throws in the biblical connection which lies at the heart of many Americans pro-Israel thinking. Even non religious Americans have a sense that the Jews have always been there and it's the evil Palestinians that are trying to remove the noble Jews from their birthright.

This is not to say that American discourse on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is monolithic, but the discourse in the public media is close to monolithic.

A small example of what passes for pro-Palestinian propaganda in the American media: One of the major news stations, I think it was CNN, did a bit about the lives of some Palestinian school children that had been killed by an Israeli bomb. The next day I heard people calling in to talk shows and complaining about the bit because people were dying in Israel and how dare they devote any bandwidth to dead Palesinians.

In the US, I do not know of a public commentator that doesn't favor the Israeli position or that has ever been critical of any Israeli actions. I hope I am wrong and would appreciate being corrected if somebody could give a contrary example.

It seems far easier to find balanced commentary on the conflict in the Israeli press than in the US press.

 

[Grammatron]

Thomas Friedman, the collumnist has said once that people who discuss about Middle East tend to become insane after two minutes.

Well, just a glance at this forum can persuade you immediately about how true this is.

Some of us are deeply involved and interested in the subject.Although that some of us are personally involved we try to avoid flaming and trolling. We try to be reasonable and even handed.

There are some people though that do nothing but trolling about this issue. I am using as an example the newcomer zenith-nadir who pretends to support Israel although he does nothing but posting irrelevant and contradictory info that derail threads.

The problem is not that he is doing this alone. The problem starts by the moment that reasonable posters-- in the name of critical thinking-respond to his stupidity and we have the phaenomenon a discussion about Middle East to equal zero.

I started this thread to avoid derailing very essential thread that demon started. Everybody knows how demon and I get along BUT this thread he started hits the nail on the head. Grammatron how is a very reasonable and serious poster said in response to a comment of mine that he gets involved in the context of critical thinking.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870312461#post1870312461

Well, since when responding to trolls constitute critical thinking?

Something else. Why you keep debating the same useless things again and again?

I think you are putting extremist sand trolls in the same group and they do not belong there. A troll is someone who posts any crap simply to get a response and they have no interest in holding any type of discussion. The best example of a troll on this forum is Huzzington.

Extremists, on the other hand, are people who are like trolls in that they do post some ignorant material but they are more than willing to discuss it and tell you why they hold the views they do. It's a good idea to reply to them and hold discussion to them because it's important to know why people reach those extremes.

 

[Grammatron]

LOL, yeah, it is tough...we all tend to have knee-jerk reactions to anything that people post about Israel(myself included). For instance, I noticed in that other thread, that Grammatron immediately jumped on me for what I'll admit was not the clearest post I could make. I don't have a problem with Grammatron, even though I often disagree with him. But, it would be very easy to start yelling about things, instead of being rational and explaining my position.

As far as debating things over and over...that is what the Internet is for, isn't it?

I am sorry if that what happened, I think it's because your guitar stands out so much

Seriously though, I don't think I single you out. It has to do with few factors: 1) You and I seem to be able to have a civil and reasonable discussion so might consider your post first because it might lead to a better discussion 2) I already replied to others on the thread and they don't appear to have anything more of value to add to the discussion.

 

[Grammatron]

ZN has been called a troll in a few places.

ZN is not a troll as I would define the word.

I think ZN actually is fairly skillful at regurgitating the standard American pro-Israeli arguments.

In the US, for those who think about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict much, I think his views would be fairly mainstream, especially in that he throws in the biblical connection which lies at the heart of many Americans pro-Israel thinking. Even non religious Americans have a sense that the Jews have always been there and it's the evil Palestinians that are trying to remove the noble Jews from their birthright.

This is not to say that American discourse on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is monolithic, but the discourse in the public media is close to monolithic.

A small example of what passes for pro-Palestinian propaganda in the American media: One of the major news stations, I think it was CNN, did a bit about the lives of some Palestinian school children that had been killed by an Israeli bomb. The next day I heard people calling in to talk shows and complaining about the bit because people were dying in Israel and how dare they devote any bandwidth to dead Palesinians.

In the US, I do not know of a public commentator that doesn't favor the Israeli position or that has ever been critical of any Israeli actions. I hope I am wrong and would appreciate being corrected if somebody could give a contrary example.

It seems far easier to find balanced commentary on the conflict in the Israeli press than in the US press.

My personal view on the conflict is neither group has a bigger claim on the land and so they should share it. Historically speaking, Israel has been more than willing to do this but lets forget that for a moment. Right now, the biggest thing that sides me more with Israel than Palestine is suicide bombing. The fact that people defend it and try to justify it angers me even more. Yes, Israel causes Civilian deaths as well, but the main and most important difference is they do not deliberately target large civilian population centers simply for the sake of killing as many Palestinians as possible.

When the suicide bombing stops or the very least moves to be strictly anti-military and/or Israel will be the only party causing the aggression I will remove any and all support for Israel, until then I simply can't view them both as equally wrong.

 

[Zero]

My personal view on the conflict is neither group has a bigger claim on the land and so they should share it. Historically speaking, Israel has been more than willing to do this but lets forget that for a moment. Right now, the biggest thing that sides me more with Israel than Palestine is suicide bombing. The fact that people defend it and try to justify it angers me even more. Yes, Israel causes Civilian deaths as well, but the main and most important difference is they do not deliberately target large civilian population centers simply for the sake of killing as many Palestinians as possible.

When the suicide bombing stops or the very least moves to be strictly anti-military and/or Israel will be the only party causing the aggression I will remove any and all support for Israel, until then I simply can't view them both as equally wrong.

What I find interesting is that you see things in the same way that I do. However, when someone tries to introduce the idea that Israeli troop actions aren't always exactly kosher, the reaction seems to be "stop supporting suicide bombers!!".

I think a good first step would be for all sides to accept all the ways that the different involved parties are screwing things up, and also being willing to recognize when anyone takes a positive step.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Although that some of us are personally involved we try to avoid flaming and trolling. We try to be reasonable and even handed.

I want very much to participate in the discussion but you will have first to secure it from this troll --zenith-nadir and those who feed him.If you agree let me know, please.

Calling someone a troll repeatedly is flaming.

Flaming people is a part of trolling.

Advertising for their censorship in your signature is priceless.

 

[Zero]

I am sorry if that what happened, I think it's because your guitar stands out so much

Seriously though, I don't think I single you out. It has to do with few factors: 1) You and I seem to be able to have a civil and reasonable discussion so might consider your post first because it might lead to a better discussion 2) I already replied to others on the thread and they don't appear to have anything more of value to add to the discussion.

Hey, it is a sweet guitar, and it plays better than it looks!

Anyhoo, I didn't feel singled out, I just used that exchange as the most recent example of how easily things can spiral out of control when we let it. While we disagree, me and you seem to bve able to keep things civil, which allows both of us to make our points in a manner that can be at least understood, if not agreed with.

I think it is a great thing when people can at least moderate their views through an understanding of opposing viewpoints.

 

[Grammatron]

What I find interesting is that you see things in the same way that I do. However, when someone tries to introduce the idea that Israeli troop actions aren't always exactly kosher, the reaction seems to be "stop supporting suicide bombers!!".

I think a good first step would be for all sides to accept all the ways that the different involved parties are screwing things up, and also being willing to recognize when anyone takes a positive step.

Not quite the case. Most of the example of Israeli troops none "kosher" behavior comes from people like AUP who find the most biased sources possible. By the time I get into a discussion a lot of the facts are already debunked and the entire thread has once again melted into a discussion about Israel vs. Palestine. However, there are legitimate cases of Israeli soldiers breaking laws and killing innocent Palestinians. Those soldiers get investigated and punished when found guilty -- whether or not the punishment is adequate is a different topic.

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Discussing about Middle East.

Calling someone a troll repeatedly is flaming.

Flaming people is a part of trolling.

Advertising for their censorship in your signature is priceless.

When people like Cleopatra, Demon, Grammatron, and myself all agree that your presence in a thread takes away more than it adds, you should consider your style of posting pretty carefully, don't you think?

 

[Zero]

Not quite the case. Most of the example of Israeli troops none "kosher" behavior comes from people like AUP who find the most biased sources possible. By the time I get into a discussion a lot of the facts are already debunked and the entire thread has once again melted into a discussion about Israel vs. Palestine. However, there are legitimate cases of Israeli soldiers breaking laws and killing innocent Palestinians. Those soldiers get investigated and punished when found guilty -- whether or not the punishment is adequate is a different topic.

Well, there is a difference between what you just posted, and the postings of some people, which goes "Israeli troops are above reproach, until you make every other country in the world perfect, you can't complain about Israel defending itself." The point that you made, about some of the reports being overblown, can be debated rationally(in another thread, of course). The other viewpoint is just an invitation to meltdown.

 

[Grammatron]

Well, there is a difference between what you just posted, and the postings of some people, which goes "Israeli troops are above reproach, until you make every other country in the world perfect, you can't complain about Israel defending itself." The point that you made, about some of the reports being overblown, can be debated rationally(in another thread, of course). The other viewpoint is just an invitation to meltdown.

Those people are ignorant as well and I call them on it when I see it.

It's very hard to have a rational debate on Middle East. The last one I had, was on the thread DanishDinamite started, this one appears to be one as well. But almost inevitably trolls and extremists show up and ruin it with name-calling.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Discussing about Middle East.

When people like Cleopatra, Demon, Grammatron, and myself all agree that your presence in a thread takes away more than it adds, you should consider your style of posting pretty carefully, don't you think?

HUH?

Zero, Demon is a biased nut with an authority complex. He managed to pull himself together long enough to start one coherrent thread...and suddenly he's a poster worthy of mention alongside Cleo, Grammatron, and your good self??

Now honestly I don't know what Z-N has done to provoke Cleo into thinking he's a troll. Z-N made one mistake that I know of in re-posting info from a SPAM message, but mistakes are made by us all.

I've learned a great deal from debates here on JREF on a myriad of topics. Skeptic, Cleo, Mycroft, and Renata are among the most knowledgable on the subject of Israel-Palestine and I've learned alot from them. I have no doubt that should Z-N stick around he'll find this out for himself.

If Cleo thinks Z-N is a troll, then I'd say it's very likely he is just that,...all I can say is that I don't get that impression from him. (yet)

-z

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Discussing about Middle East.

HUH?

Zero, Demon is a biased nut with an authority complex. He managed to pull himself together long enough to start one coherrent thread...and suddenly he's a poster worthy of mention alongside Cleo, Grammatron, and your good self??

Now honestly I don't know what Z-N has done to provoke Cleo into thinking he's a troll. Z-N made one mistake that I know of in re-posting info from a SPAM message, but mistakes are made by us all.

I've learned a great deal from debates here on JREF on a myriad of topics. Skeptic, Cleo, Mycroft, and Renata are among the most knowledgable on the subject of Israel-Palestine and I've learned alot from them. I have no doubt that should Z-N stick around he'll find this out for himself.

If Cleo thinks Z-N is a troll, then I'd say it's very likely he is just that,...all I can say is that I don't get that impression from him. (yet)

-z

I wasn't making a qualitative statement about Demon...I was making the point that a negative view of Z-N exists on more than one side of the debate. It isn't an anti-Israeli viewpoint that leads to Z-N's lack of popularity, in other words.

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Discussing about Middle East.

HUH?

Zero, Demon is a biased nut with an authority complex. He managed to pull himself together long enough to start one coherrent thread...and suddenly he's a poster worthy of mention alongside Cleo, Grammatron, and your good self??

The point being that if three people with widely divergent viewpoints on Israel can agree on ZN, chances are pretty good their characterization of ZN has some basis in reality.

 

[Zero]

See?!? Even thinking about a (suspected) troll can derail a thread!!!

 

[zenith-nadir]

I've learned a great deal from debates here on JREF on a myriad of topics. Skeptic, Cleo, Mycroft, and Renata are among the most knowledgable on the subject of Israel-Palestine and I've learned alot from them. I have no doubt that should Z-N stick around he'll find this out for himself.

If Cleo thinks Z-N is a troll, then I'd say it's very likely he is just that,...all I can say is that I don't get that impression from him. (yet) -z

In my own defence.

Have I ever called Cleo a troll? Or advertised for her censure.

No.

Did I ever tell Zero to go "hump a flag and let the adults discuss things"?

No.

Did I ever personally attack anyone for the sole purpose of illiciting a response?

No.

Did I ever post "SPAM" after it was revealed to me that the last four FRIGGIN lines of the very first post I ever made at JREF was spam?

No.

In fact I have gone out of my way to document everything I have said with links so that you would see that I was quoting accurately. Unlike many others.

Have I ever spoken to skeptic.

No.

Have I ever spoken with Renata.

No.

Have I ever said that Skeptic, Cleo and Renata are not knowledgable on the subject of Israel-Palestine?

No.

Have I started a thread in the Politics, Current Events, and History and proceed to repeatedly label any of them a troll?

No.



And now after ALL that egregious "behaviour" I am tried and convicted as being a "troll"?

Shouldn't this open trashing, (flaming), of a new member be in the Flame thread? where it belongs, and not in Politics, Current Events, and History?

And I'm the troll?......Curious indeed.

No need to reply to me, I'm a troll remember?

....continue trashing me.

 

[Hutch]

I have to agree with several others here, Cleo. Although I disagree with Z-N on almost every point of discussion regarding Israel-Palestine, he has not become personal or abusive that I can recall and does try to engage the other person's argument. In that his primary method of engagement is a recital of Palestinian attacks ad infinitum, he may be accused of predictability, but not a waste of bandwidth.

Besides, he has shown up in several other sections of the JREF forums and has shown the ability to stay away from this topic and display a sense of humor....so he is not the "one trick pony" I had thought and thus has moved well above the troll status, IMHO. Strongly biased in his position, as are Skeptic, AUP, and demon, I grant you, but not a troll.

The situation in the Middle East is not going to be solved here. But I'll stick with folks like Zero and Danish Dynamite in being able to try to have at least some sort of rational discussion--even if this a very minor planetary issue that consumes way to much time and energy for it's relative importance. (and yes, dear lady, I will develop that in a day or so into a separate thread, so you, dear Cleo, will not add me to the dreaded troll list.

The only trolling I've done is in the evening in Syntagma Square during the 1980's

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discussing about Middle East.

Originally posted by Zero


When people like Cleopatra, Demon, Grammatron, and myself all agree that your presence in a thread takes away more than it adds, you should consider your style of posting pretty carefully, don't you think?

I think she/he's a bit extreme and should really consider writing his own opinion instead of lists of events and excerpts, but that's not the same as taking away from the debate.