Enormous Toronto Mayor Admits Crack Smoking

[Levied Troop]

LT has already said he just picked it as a current example and it could have been Uzbekistan - no harm no foul from my point of view then, although I think unlikely given what I said above.

No, I did say I picked it as the latest example of political assassination*, but the nod to Uzbekistan is merely picking another example of a state apparently prone to murdering its political opponents. In respect to Arafat, the odds on favourite for murdering him is Israel. The country had means, motive and opportunity and the state apparatus has already admitted trying to kill him in the past. It also has a track record of using assassination as a political tool.

*Noting that this is unproven in a court of law as yet but also noting that it is not common to ingest large amounts of polonium-210 in the course of the average middle-eastern diet.

[Bronshtein]

Out of interest, as an atheist how do you square your lack of faith with Zionism,

There are lots of types of Zionism - something the vociferous anti-semites either don't know or don't care about - Socialist Zionism rejected Orthodox Judaism because it conspired with a victim mentality of the diaspora - hence a socialist and largely secular basis for the establishment of Israel.

since the principle justification for Israel's location and existence is religious?

One of not all - see above

If you don't base your support for Israel on biblical prophecy and divine mandate, then surely you are supporting an unwanted occupation and subjugation of an indigenous population by a largely immigrant minority?

No. And what the hell does that mean anyway? Are you saying a belief in divine destiny would negate occupation and subjugation? Nobody subjugated anybody - there are still many Arabs in Israel-see below. A lot left in '48 because oddly enough the Jews were a bit pissed off about being exterminated at the time and fought back when every Arab country around tried to throttle Israel at birth.

Would you expect a statement from a white South African* 20 years ago "And if everyone would stop trying to exterminate us for a bit we'd be very happy to live in peace with everyone thank you." to be accepted by a member of the ANC, even if the Africaans people had suffered centuries of persecution and pogroms?

No- and irrelevant.

*I am not equating Israel with the Aparthied regime in SA (though I don't think they are a million miles apart), just illustrating the principle involved with a more stark example.

Which reveals a lot.
Some Jews remained in Palestine and more in the Middle East in general for millennia. Some converted to Christianity and then Islam or remained as Dhimmi. More moved into empty land or bought land in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. If whites had been around for two millennia in South Africa you might get to first base in your comparison, they weren't and you don't. There are about 1.4-1.6 million Arab Israeli citizens, they sit in the Knesset, they are in the civil service - admittedly in lower numbers than their percentage of population would suggest they should be - they are encouraged to join but you can't make people. Apartheid? Bollocks.
Principle? You mean the principle where Jews should be grateful for being tolerated but if we decide enough is enough and never again will we wait for God to save us while the world spits on us we are being a bit too brash thanks very much?

[Bronshtein]

In respect to Arafat, the odds on favourite for murdering him is Israel. The country had means, motive and opportunity and the state apparatus has already admitted trying to kill him in the past. It also has a track record of using assassination as a political tool.

But why kill him in 2004? He was past it, isolated in his own group and almost irrelevant. The people who hated him most were those around him whom he had made irrelevant with him and the Palestinian opponents who hated his deal with Israel.
Even Shuha his widow said she thought it was one of his close circle who had done it. (she did suggest Israel was 'behind' it however.)
People then jumped on a bandwagon and said 'only Israel in the area has Polonium!' 'Its the Israelis!' Lots of people other than Israel produce Polonium210 - ask Litvinenko.
So - not much motive, one of many with the means, no opportunity without the help of his 'friends'. Please, this case is so full of holes. I'm not saying Israel didn't do it, but its one of those cases where if Israel is within a thousand miles of something bad it must be them. It could be lots of people. (or a setup - why weren't his wife or his friends contaminated? Litvinenko's associates were) Get off the bandwagon.

[Doremi Fasol Latido]

From laughing at a crazy fat bloke smoking crack to Israel in just 6 pages! Is that a Frothers record?

[Ajsalium]

From laughing at a crazy fat bloke smoking crack to Israel in just 6 pages! Is that a Frothers record?

Only records that count on Frothers are:
1) From zero to bloop.
2) Number of pics of boobs.

The first one belongs to the duo Gailbraithe-Frank.

The second one... needs being researched...

[Skipp]

From laughing at a crazy fat bloke smoking crack to Israel in just 6 pages! Is that a Frothers record?

I think if pushed we could make it to bloop con one.

[Duff]

since the principle justification for Israel's location and existence is religious?

One of not all - see above

Nope, you're missing the point. The principle of a Jewish homeland may not be reliant on Biblical mandate, but its location in Palestine certainly is.

If you don't base your support for Israel on biblical prophecy and divine mandate, then surely you are supporting an unwanted occupation and subjugation of an indigenous population by a largely immigrant minority?

No. And what the hell does that mean anyway? Are you saying a belief in divine destiny would negate occupation and subjugation?

No, just that it gives an understandable motive for it, which your secular position doesn't.

Nobody subjugated anybody - there are still many Arabs in Israel-see below. A lot left in '48 because oddly enough the Jews were a bit pissed off about being exterminated at the time and fought back when every Arab country around tried to throttle Israel at birth.

Wow, that's an astonishingly white washed, biased view of events. The majority indigenous population, had a nationality and government forced on them against their wishes, by a minority ethnic group, the majority of whom were immigrants. That's pretty much what the colonial European powers did historically. Just because the Jewish people have been treated appallingly throughout the last two millennia, never more so than in the horrors of the 1st half of the C20, doesn't give them the right to behave in such a way, though it certainly makes their actions understandable.

Some Jews remained in Palestine and more in the Middle East in general for millennia. Some converted to Christianity and then Islam or remained as Dhimmi. More moved into empty land or bought land in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries...... There are about 1.4-1.6 million Arab Israeli citizens, they sit in the Knesset, they are in the civil service - admittedly in lower numbers than their percentage of population would suggest they should be

There were Indian Judges and high ranking civil servants under the Raj, Mandela was a qualified Lawyer, there were women MPs during the 1930s in Britain and Kurdish members of the Baath party. 10% representation of 25% of the population is tokenism. Jews made up only 30% of the population in '48, less than 20% in '20 and only 4% during the middle of the C19. The numbers of contiguous, indigenous Jews was miniscule. The idea that there is some historical justification based on ownership or stewardship of the land is farcical.

they are encouraged to join but you can't make people. Apartheid? Bollocks.

The choice of join us or get nothing is no choice at all. Israel was created as a Jewish homeland. By that very statement of intent, anyone non Jewish living there will be a 2nd class citizen, no matter how well treated, just as any non Muslim living in a country established as a Muslim homeland would be, or a non Christian in a Christian homeland. Personally I disagree with any sort of state based on an ethnic or religious identity, it can't be truly secular and will be discriminatory by its very nature.

Principle? You mean the principle where Jews should be grateful for being tolerated but if we decide enough is enough and never again will we wait for God to save us while the world spits on us we are being a bit too brash thanks very much?

The principle that two wrongs don't make a right. The creation of Israel has insured the complete opposite of its intended goal. It has insured that millions of Arabs and other Muslims will never stop trying to kill and destroy the Jewish people. Without Israel, Islamic fundamentalism would almost certainly be a shadow of it's current form.

I have enormous empathy and sympathy for what previous generations of Jews went through and can understand why they would desperately want a homeland to call their own. But that doesn't mean they had either the moral or ethical right to force it upon another ethnic people. Also, being born Jewish in the C21 is to have won the ethnic Lotto. Jews are the richest, best educated, longest living and healthiest ethnic group on the planet now. None of which in any way lessens the horrors of the previous century of course, or somehow makes what happened ok, but it does mean that the idea of secular Zionism is rather redundant for the current generation.

All of this is just an argument of principles however. Please don't think that my disagreement with the creation of Israel in any way equates to a wish to see it gone now.

[Levied Troop]

I'm not saying Israel didn't do it,

I'll put a quid on Israel, one day we'll find out who's right.

From laughing at a crazy fat bloke smoking crack to Israel in just 6 pages! Is that a Frothers record?

Nah. In the old days we'd have done it in 6 responses.

[Bronshtein]

Wow, that's an astonishingly white washed, biased view of events. The majority indigenous population, had a nationality and government forced on them against their wishes, by a minority ethnic group, the majority of whom were immigrants.

Er, by UN Mandate of 1947 actually.

That's pretty much what the colonial European powers did historically. Just because the Jewish people have been treated appallingly throughout the last two millennia, never more so than in the horrors of the 1st half of the C20, doesn't give them the right to behave in such a way, though it certainly makes their actions understandable.
There were Indian Judges and high ranking civil servants under the Raj, Mandela was a qualified Lawyer, there were women MPs during the 1930s in Britain and Kurdish members of the Baath party. 10% representation of 25% of the population is tokenism. Jews made up only 30% of the population in '48, less than 20% in '20 and only 4% during the middle of the C19. The numbers of contiguous, indigenous Jews was miniscule. The idea that there is some historical justification based on ownership or stewardship of the land is farcical.

But it does make the comparison with European colonialism a bit silly doesn't it? If the Dutch and Brits had swept the blacks out of South Africa, by your reckoning they wouldn't be allowed back in because that would be unfair to the Boers. Right?

The choice of join us or get nothing is no choice at all. Israel was created as a Jewish homeland. By that very statement of intent, anyone non Jewish living there will be a 2nd class citizen, no matter how well treated.

The Palestinians could have had a homeland in 1947 - Israel may have taken a large slice of land but most of it was the fucking Negev. The Arabs rejected Palestine and tried to destroy Israel. 'We will sweep them into the sea.' Sound familiar? If not you should find out about the Arab League's rejection of the Palestinian homeland. AFTER they had tried to kill us all Israel still gave full citizenship to all Arabs in Israel. Yes they were subject to martial law for a while after. Why was that I wonder - oh yes- Because they had tried to 'sweep them into the sea!'

just as any non Muslim living in a country established as a Muslim homeland would be, or a non Christian in a Christian homeland. Personally I disagree with any sort of state based on an ethnic or religious identity, it can't be truly secular and will be discriminatory by its very nature.

For fucks sake... It ISN'T based on religious identity! Its a secular fucking democracy. You don't have to believe in Judaism to be a citizen. The ultra orthodox are getting more vociferous and more dangerous because nob heads in the west are swallowing the shit the Arabs are shovelling.

The principle that two wrongs don't make a right. The creation of Israel has insured the complete opposite of its intended goal. It has insured that millions of Arabs and other Muslims will never stop trying to kill and destroy the Jewish people. Without Israel, Islamic fundamentalism would almost certainly be a shadow of it's current form.

The complete opposite? It gave a focus, a haven after two millennia of wandering, and, I'm not going to dwell on it but neither you nor I can ignore it in this discussion, the Shoa. It doesn't absolve anything but it explains a lot. Islam didn't and never has needed an excuse for violence. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded before Israel was reborn. Islam itself took Jerusalem by force and North Africa, and Persia and forcibly converted the inhabitants. Anger at white colonial promises broken after WWI had as much to do with resurgent Islamism as anything, well before Israel was reconstituted.

Also, being born Jewish in the C21 is to have won the ethnic Lotto. Jews are the richest, best educated, longest living and healthiest ethnic group on the planet now.

Do you still think 'Jewish' is a 'race' or an 'ethnicity'? Anyone can be a Jew - Orthodox Judaism says you have to have a Jewish mother. You can convert - even most Orthodox will allow it (they hate it...but). There are lots of Jewish ethnicities. I'm Ashkenazim, my friend Oran was a Mizrahim Sabra (and a paratrooper in 73), there are Indian and Chinese Jews.

None of which in any way lessens the horrors of the previous century of course, or somehow makes what happened ok, but it does mean that the idea of secular Zionism is rather redundant for the current generation.

?

All of this is just an argument of principles however. Please don't think that my disagreement with the creation of Israel in any way equates to a wish to see it gone now.

So what do you want to do with Israel? We have little choice. Defend ourselves or perish. We saw what happened in the 30s. Where did appeasement get us then?

[Duff]

Right, difficult to know where to begin here. I am reserving the right to contradict what I say here in the future, because I'm just back from the pub.

Wow, that's an astonishingly white washed, biased view of events. The majority indigenous population, had a nationality and government forced on them against their wishes, by a minority ethnic group, the majority of whom were immigrants.

Er, by UN Mandate of 1947 actually.

The '47 plan was a proposal, not a mandate.

That's pretty much what the colonial European powers did historically. Just because the Jewish people have been treated appallingly throughout the last two millennia, never more so than in the horrors of the 1st half of the C20, doesn't give them the right to behave in such a way, though it certainly makes their actions understandable.
There were Indian Judges and high ranking civil servants under the Raj, Mandela was a qualified Lawyer, there were women MPs during the 1930s in Britain and Kurdish members of the Baath party. 10% representation of 25% of the population is tokenism. Jews made up only 30% of the population in '48, less than 20% in '20 and only 4% during the middle of the C19. The numbers of contiguous, indigenous Jews was miniscule. The idea that there is some historical justification based on ownership or stewardship of the land is farcical.

But it does make the comparison with European colonialism a bit silly doesn't it? If the Dutch and Brits had swept the blacks out of South Africa, by your reckoning they wouldn't be allowed back in because that would be unfair to the Boers. Right?

Nope, you've missed the point again.

The choice of join us or get nothing is no choice at all. Israel was created as a Jewish homeland. By that very statement of intent, anyone non Jewish living there will be a 2nd class citizen, no matter how well treated.

The Palestinians could have had a homeland in 1947 - Israel may have taken a large slice of land but most of it was the fucking Negev. The Arabs rejected Palestine and tried to destroy Israel.

Why should they have accepted it? What did they have to gain in giving away over half of their land? What moral of historic justification would they have been bound to, to give vast swathes of what had previously been theirs, to an immigrant people with no rights to any of it?

'We will sweep them into the sea.' Sound familiar?

Yes, it does. Though in the particular circumstances, it reminds me more of "We Shall Fight them on the Beaches" than anything the Nazis came out with.

AFTER they had tried to kill us all Israel still gave full citizenship to all Arabs in Israel. Yes they were subject to martial law for a while after. Why was that I wonder - oh yes- Because they had tried to 'sweep them into the sea!'

Well whoop de fucking do, well done you lot. Pity the Knesset didn't extended that right to Palestinian refugees who might want to return and claim the property they left behind when they fled in fear for their lives.

just as any non Muslim living in a country established as a Muslim homeland would be, or a non Christian in a Christian homeland. Personally I disagree with any sort of state based on an ethnic or religious identity, it can't be truly secular and will be discriminatory by its very nature.

For fucks sake... It ISN'T based on religious identity! Its a secular fucking democracy.

In name only. What political party do you have to vote for as non Jewish secularist? Even the Labour party has the welfare of the Jewish people as its foremost priority. You're living in a dream land Broney. Israel IS NOT a secular democracy.

The principle that two wrongs don't make a right. The creation of Israel has insured the complete opposite of its intended goal. It has insured that millions of Arabs and other Muslims will never stop trying to kill and destroy the Jewish people. Without Israel, Islamic fundamentalism would almost certainly be a shadow of it's current form.

The complete opposite? It gave a focus, a haven after two millennia of wandering, and, I'm not going to dwell on it but neither you nor I can ignore it in this discussion, the Shoa. It doesn't absolve anything but it explains a lot. Islam didn't and never has needed an excuse for violence. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded before Israel was reborn. Islam itself took Jerusalem by force and North Africa, and Persia and forcibly converted the inhabitants. Anger at white colonial promises broken after WWI had as much to do with resurgent Islamism as anything, well before Israel was reconstituted.

I'm not in any way trying to absolve the appalling legacy of British colonial administration of the whole middle east. The entire region, along with much of Africa, is a permanent stain on the history of this country. And I completely understand, and sympathise with the motivations of the Jewish revolutionaries in the late 40s. Nor do I think that Islamic prejudices (or Christian and secular for that matter) would have ceased without the creation of Israel. But it has made them worse (maybe not with many Christian, since many of the Baby Jesus loving fundies of the bible belt seem to believe Israel is a prerequisite for the End Times and the second coming). But none of that gives justification for the colonial subjugation of an indigenous people. It was morally wrong, just as it was in the Americas, Australia, the Caribbean and umpteen other colonial conquests. The only difference was, in favour, a) guilt over the Shoa that motivated the UN to turn a blind eye, and in opposition, b) the modernity of the actions; the UN should have known better than to condone such a blatant piece of European colonialism.

Also, being born Jewish in the C21 is to have won the ethnic Lotto. Jews are the richest, best educated, longest living and healthiest ethnic group on the planet now.

Do you still think 'Jewish' is a 'race' or an 'ethnicity'? Anyone can be a Jew - Orthodox Judaism says you have to have a Jewish mother. You can convert - even most Orthodox will allow it (they hate it...but). There are lots of Jewish ethnicities.

Funnily enough, this was a question I had to ask on here several years ago. I was always confused by the religion/race issue with Judaism. I couldn't see why it was a race. It took a Jewish member to inform me that being Jewish was both. That to be a true Jew (rather than a liberal "not really a Jew" convert) you had to be descended through the matriarchal line. Either way, what I said applies, there is no group on the planet that scores as highly as "Jewish".

All of this is just an argument of principles however. Please don't think that my disagreement with the creation of Israel in any way equates to a wish to see it gone now.

So what do you want to do with Israel? We have little choice. Defend ourselves or perish. We saw what happened in the 30s. Where did appeasement get us then?

I don't think anything should happen with Israel. It exists. Over 7 million Jews live there. It has to be protected. This is a reality, regardless of how I feel about its creation. However, in the 30s you were dealing with a far more ignorant world, a world that accepted horse shit like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You didn't have the tacit approval of the UN, the USA, the EU. Also, you weren't a country. If Israel wants to be seen as a mature democracy, it has to start acting like one and understand that the world does not operate on "My way or the high way" rules. If Israel wants security it has to grow up and stop acting like a hard done by problem child, lashing out at all perceived threats, no matter how horrific it's history. In other words, it has to embrace compromise.