On 3 Nov, 19:44, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Saracene wrote:
On 3 Nov, 16:40, William Black <william.bl... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
True Blue wrote:
"Ariadne" <ariadne.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85b72f76-1700-436c-9154-bf1e3d4c1d78 at (no spam) d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
snip
Hold on. Imagine you were posed the same question that Malanie Philips
was asked. If there was to be a hypothetical confrontation between
Israel and Britain, which side would you declare for?
No weasel-words or "hate crimes" bullshit please, just a straight,
honest answer.
Britain, every time.
But as representative democracies don't go to war with each other I'm
not actually worried it might happen.
--
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
The rebuttals are all valid.

What's the problem?

There are also counter rebuttals, equally valid, The idea that
democracies don't go to war with each other is far from being any kind
of historical law, and a flimsy basis for predicting the future.
That is the argument of the piece. You can see that for yourself if
you can read.

I have a problem with being expected to swallow all the corny cliches
in which you delight.

Melanie goes on to say:

"When I said, however, that Israel was a democracy the audience did a
horrible and astonishing thing. They laughed.

That incredulous laugh was more shocking even than Self’s attack. It
revealed that however many Israeli teenagers are blown to smithereens
by suicide bombers, the British have seen on TV Israel’s tanks
demolishing Palestinian houses and above all seen those Palestinian
children being killed by Israeli soldiers, and they have formed the
view that Israel is a tyranny and the Jews are the real terrorists."

On 3 Nov, 09:31, Saracene <john.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov, 09:11, Ariadne <ariadne.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:





On 3 Nov, 09:09, Saracene <john.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On 2 Nov, 23:55, Ariadne <ariadne.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Saracene <john.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Also Self, himself of Jewish stock, was not saying that all Jews
had double loyalties, he was ascertaining whether or not she did.

He was using an antisemitic canard.

'antisemitic canard', ie familiar criticism that has never been
refuted.

Yes, denying the meaning of words is
part of the hate syndrome. Why do
you hate Jews?

I don't really. I do have a certain antipathy of dishonest arguments.
Nor do I like to submit to moral blackmail.
Self had been reading her articles and found her pro-Israeli
sympathies so strong that he felt moved to ask the question he did. .
It is an entirely natural question.

Apart from your mangling of the meaning of
words you now project you own deceit on to
me!

The dishonesty

!

Does "Holocaust denial" come next?