RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

[Jimmy Chitwood]

You did not exactly understood the point made.

It has to do with the idea that the woman in question would claim rape on the basis of ethnic misrepresentation

 

[Captain Amazing]

The point is that she gave her consent. Throughout the sex act, consent was maintained.

The argument is that she wouldn't have given her consent had he not deceived her. So he committed fraud on her in order to get her consent. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good law, but I can understand why it exists. You want someone to give informed consent, and to lie to someone so they'll have sex with you is unethical, at least.

 

[FinnAgain]

You can't find one single post where I called you an anti-Semite. And you know it.

Of course you call me an anti-Semite. You call half the people who criticize Israel anti-Semite. You may not use the word anti-Semite all the time (or even any of the time) but you are still calling them anti-Semites.

In other words, you're a liar. You can't cite me calling anybody an anti-Semite because you simply made it up. You can't cite me calling "half " of anybody anti-Semites because you made that up too. And you're claiming that I said something else (roughly equivelent, you swear!) to anti-Semite, but you can't cite that, either. And of course pointing out that you're a liar is "nitpicky" but slandering me is cool.

Of course, I didn't think you had the guts to answer why it is that the lies you tell don't go pointed out by others. You just admitted to lying when you claimed I'd called you an anti-Semite, and nobody pointed that out. There's your answer right there; you can admit you were simply making shit up, and not one person on your "side" says anything to you about it.

Its not happening in a vaccuum.

That was my point, you are not only a bigot, you are the kind of cowardly little shit that blames his bigotry on other people. Yes, I'm the puppet master, I made you into a bigot. Kay. And as for your claim that people are okay with admissions of bigotry as long as the bigot is arguing with me, well... that says a lot about them. And you that you're stupid enough to believe that's acceptable.

But again you serve as an object lesson. If it was bigotry against a 'protected' minority, people would be up in arms and your defense would sound like the standard bigoted asshole's apologia. "Oh, a black man was really annoying, so I'm justified in having a knee-jerk anti black reaction!" But no, Finn was a meanie to you, so people nod and say sure, you can be bigoted against Israel.

And you're not honest enough to realize that's not a good thing.

Nobel Peace Prize, only President to make and advance towards peace in the middle east. Shit like that.
[...]
Maybe because they aren't lies. T

Standard dishonesty from you. Carter has been shown to have been systematically and reliably totally 'honestly wrong' about dozens of facts. And yes, despite your defense of a fellow anti-Israel crusader (yet again, ask yourself if you'd be fine with an anti-Palestinian liar, and why or why not). The issue isn't "gee, we can't tell intent!" because in some cases Carter admitted that he was wrong before going on and publishing the same fictions, again. In other cases he absolutely had to know and then the question becomes if he's a deliberate liar or merely senile. Championing a senile bigot is hardly better than a lying bigot, though.
And that's the point you are deliberately missing.

I won't. Just make sure you make a list of all the truths he told also, you know, for the sake of a balanced perspective, n that.

Well then it wouldn't look as bad and we can't have that.

Although you've refused to honestly discuss why you continually lie about me or why you think your fellow travelers accept it, this against shows what you're about. Sure, Jimmy Carter's polemics against Israel, provably, contain dozens of major factual inaccuracies that undermine his premise as he uses them as main supporting details that are often in diametric opposition to the actual facts. In many cases, Carter either should have known the truth or did know and then still chose to publish lies.

But that's not important, because in looking at how Carter's argument is build on "honest errors" and outright lies, you still want it to "not look at bad". Sure, Carter can't get basic facts straight and wrote things he knew weren't true, but can't we do something to make him not look so bad? After all, he's [fill in the blank].

A) A snappy dresser
B) got a divine singing voice
C) a killer vuvuzela player
D) anti-Israel, like the people who want to champion his writings on the subject

Of course, we all know what would happen if someone published a massive polemic laying into Palestine and exonerating Israel, you'd go berserk. Hell, you go berserk when the actual facts are cited and claim that they're not being used "objectively" enough for you.

As of this moment, FinnAgain has used the word 'bigot' seventy one times in this thread, although I may have missed some. As a public service, here is a brief list of synonyms for 'bigot' which will hopefully make his posts a little less tiresome.

The term is accurate. But what a service liars and bigots get from some folks here, all you have to do is consistently lie or be bigoted, and if someone points it out when you're doing it, why, you get off the hook.

How much effort do people have to expend hammering dishonesty and prejudice elsewhere before they get to call you an asshole?

Idiots are free to call me an asshole for minding liars and bigots.
Of course, they're generally the actual assholes as they don't mind lying or bigotry, but do mind someone pointing it out.

And, of course your question is rather disingenuous. How about: at least ever, at all. Most of the folks whiniing about how bigots get called bigots or liars get called out for lying haven't posted, even once, ever, to challenge that shit since either it's on their "side" or they don't care about the facts but boy oh boy the accusations annoy them.

As of this moment, FinnAgain has used the word 'bigot' seventy one times in this thread, although I may have missed some. As a public service, here is a brief list of synonyms for 'bigot' which will hopefully make his posts a little less tiresome.

Getting annoyed by stylistic rigidity is your perogative, of course. As you've admitted that you'd care at all if my accusations are true or not, I really don't care whether or not you think true accusations are being made more often than you'd like.

You see a topic with one admitted bigot and another obvious bigot posting, and it's horrible, just horrible that I pointed it out. Obviously that's a mighty good deal with some of the more rabid anti-Israel crowed. They can post with as much bigotry as they'd like, and they have folks ready to defend them, while admitting that they don't care about the charges, simply because the word "bigot" was used.

If you take the Haaretz article at face value (assuming there weren't other mitigating circumstances), then why was he not convicted of fraud instead of rape?

Same old same old. he was convicted of rape by deception, which has been clarified numerous times in this thread, over and over and over.

The only precedent appears to deal with coercion more than deception:

Why did you post something that you know not to be true and that was, in fact, debunked by your own quote right above it? Another case dealt with, for instance, a man pretending to be a neurosurgeon to make women think he was more desirable than he was. It's in your own cite. You couldn't have missed it.
Why is it that you'd post something that your own cite says isn't true?

And, of course, the Anti-Stylistic Rigidity Warriors couldn't be bothered to notice that 'honest error' either. Totally unexpected.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So is it fraud if someone lies about being married or says "I love you" if they don't.

 

[FinnAgain]

Right cuz you've never tried to justify Israel's acts by comparing them to what an arab nation might do under a similar circumstance.

No, you're making that up. Would it help you if I pretend that I'm surprised that you'd do such a thing?

So now you're going to bring up stuff I said (and then shifted positon on after debate) in OTHER threads?
Do you think taking a post out of context is going to make your argument more credible?

First off, you're full of shit when you claim you "shifted position", the whole point is that regardless of the information, you kept the same exact position again and again and again. Which, of course, is the point. You're the kind of person who doesn't let facts get in the way of your anti-Israel narrative.
Second, I quoted and linked to the entire post where you admitted that you're bigoted against a nation rather than looking at the facts and objecting to any specific set of policies. And there's no "context" in which your admission of bigotry becomes not-bigotry, your dodge is rather lame, but expected.

Those guys you mention who criticize Israel but are not bigots... They're not critics of Israel... they're apologists

Maybe in your view (which you pretend is objective even after admitting that you habitually look for ways to further your anti-Israel narrative and have to fight against your bigotry), criticizing Israel doesn't count unless someone is also a kneejerk anti-Israel partisan. Of course, back in reality, I pointed out several people who've gone on record criticizing Israel but since they're not part of the anti-Israel brigade and they actually engage in object analysis of the facts rather than your biigoted narrative, why, they must be "apologists". And so they totally don't count.

You'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of Israel that hasn't been criticized by one of the other of the folks I listed, but that's not good enough for you. It's not enough to be a knowledgeable individual who takes issues with specific policies, folks need to have the same anti-Israel narrative that you've admitted to or else they're "apologists". Neat little world you have there.

legal experts say is "used sparingly and even then in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage."

Yep, this is the kind dishonesty you habitually engage in to further your stated anti-Israel narrative. Not too surprising. It's been clarified, in this very thread, again and again, that the law has been used multiple times when there was no issue of protracted deceit and no promise of marriage. But you aren't go to let the facts get in the way of your nonsense.

Unsurprising.

You can't buy that kind of irrationality.
I don't think Alessan calls epople anti-semites as regularly as Finn Again does YMMV.

You, who've admitted you're a bigot who instinctively looks to find ways to demonize Israel regardless of the facts or any actual analysis and who routinely ignored facts or uses non-facts as long as they prop up that narrative... you're accusing someone of "irrationality" for pointing out what kind of a person you are. It's comedy, on a certain level.

Of course, you're also making up the fact that I call people anti-semites at all regularly. I don't, that's your fiction. I know it's part of the Big Lie that you folks have got going, but it simply doesn't fly. Likewise, as part of the standrd anti-Israel Brigade's narrative, you also would rather look at whether or not the accusation is made rather than whether or not they're any substance to it. Like going to a cat convention and savagely nibbling on the ankles of someone while decrying that, why, he said that a lot of thigns there were cats! If you don't want me to point out the biases and dishonesty of your little coterie, stop using dishonesty in service of your anti-Israel narrative. Is it really that hard? And while you're at it, maybe find out wtf you're talking about before you make an argument. Not that "I have no idea what the facts are but I'm willing to demonize Israel!" isn't cute, and all.

Of course, a good few of your little coterie are bigoted against a nation, so I suppose you can pat yourselves on the back that you are only bigots and not racists. Truly, a noble distinction.

 

[FinnAgain]

Yet in your mind, because I don't accept without question everything Israel does and have been known to criticise them I must somehow be anti-Israel, a bigot, a shill and no doubt an anti-Semite.

That says much more about you than it does about me.

Actually what it says is that, predictably, you've decided to start lying, no doubt as part of a bit of your standard trolling so that now you can clutch at your wounded breast and moan about how very unfair it is that I've pointed out that you're lying. It's a neat trick, and an admitted pedophile like you would probably get upset about someone deliberately crafting dishonest accusations in order to get upset that they're called a liar. Why, I bet that now you'll say I'm lying and that you aren't really a pedophile. Predictable.

Rather obviously, you're just making shit up. Nobody on this board accepts everything Israel does without question. Most likely, nobody in the world does either. But that's one of your pack of jackals' standard lies when it comes to this topic, anybody who doesn't demonize Israel properly must, of course, support everything they do always.
Just like your "Oh please oh please oh please call me an anti-Semite!" idiocy.

Just like I've criticized Israel, Malthus has criticized Israel, DSeid has criticized Israel, Jack has criticized Israel, Captain Amazing has criticized Israel.... and, lo and behold, none of them are bigots, or dishonest, or shilling for an agenda. Go figure.

The actual OP doesn't mention being jailed "for being Palestinian" at all. There are no lies in the OP at all. There is simply a hyperbolic thread title.
Hell, the title doesn't even mention Israel either.

Yeah, that's the kind of habitual dishonesty that I'm talking about, thanks for the object lesson. "Why, the OP wasn't even about Israel and sure the very first thing that the OP says and that everybody sees is the lie that a Palestinian man was jailed for simply being a Palestinian, but it was in the title not in the OP, and it's a lie that supports my hatred of Israel, so it's cool!"

me being anti-Israel and a shill

Why don't you go start another ATMB thread where you whine about how I'm allow to insult you in the Pit?
Of course, you are an anti-Israel shill and you are objecting to someone being called for for lying because that lie supports your anti-Israel bias.

I see the title as hyperbole

Yes, as already noted, you are a partisan shill without a shred of personal honor or honesty when it comes to your hatred of Israel. Of course a blatant lie is mere "hyperbole", a word whose definition you rather obviously don't know despite your babble about dictionaries. And, of course, as you're just a partisan whore, you'd be up in arms if someone claimed that Israel is totally justified since all Palestinians are terrorists. You're just a shill who'll support one set of lies as "hyperbole" and another as something you just won't stand for (because it doesn't support the narrative you're shilling for, natch).

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

Of course they can. However, they are not allowed to do so after the fact.

 

[amanset]

Case in point, you have on multiple occasions now accused both me and other of being liars. I must have asked about five times now for you to point out what I have lied about.
You have yet to do so.

Kindly refrain from lying while moaning about how awful it is that you've been caught lying. I just pointed out to you that I'd made it quite clear what I was calling you out on when I called you out for any of your instances of lying. Your feigned lack of comprehension is not exactly novel, either. If you had an honest question, you might quote the places I've pointed out that you're lying, and challenge them. Instead, you pretend I haven't done so and, instead, post again and again and again about how you want me to show what the actual instances of you lying are.

It's a bit of trolling that, I'm sure, will go unremarked by your fellow travelers, as usual.

To remind you, as you seem to have a conveniently short memory but a surplus of retard strength spew:

WHERE?

Seriously. Just show me where I am lying! How difficult is that?

I find it genuinely amusing that we're here, a page and a half or so later and several posts from FinnAgain, but he still won't tell me what I was lying about.

I pointed out what you were lying about. And you know it. Good bait though.

Especially when faced with facts that go against his world view, like the numbers of "rockets" that Palestinians have fired into Israel in the last year and a half. He likes to think they are raining down on Israel

Cite. Of course, you can't, as you're making it up.
Also good little trick putting the word rocket in hard quotes. You'll sure fool people that way.

Of course, not only did you not provide a cite for your lie about my statements on the number of rockets, or "rockets" as you call them, you immediately feigned non-comprehension. You're not even a particularly good troll. You ask for an instance where you're lying (and in the process you lie some more), I specifically point out that you've just said something that is a lie... and then you immediately start moaning again about how I won't point out any specifics as to what you're lying about.

If you can't troll harder, at least troll smarter.

The sheer act of discussing things with you is my cite. We have discussed rockets before. This isn't GD, I am not going to search through past discussions to look for a cite. I don't have to. I know how you argue. I know your opinions. So no, that wasn't a lie.

Question: if you don't think the rockets are raining down on Israel and you don't think there are loads of suicide attacks in Israel (according to Wikipedia the most recent one was 2.5 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks) how can you justify the way Israel treats Palestine, especially the Gaza Strip?

What actually are the Palestinians doing that justifies the way they are treated?

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

That's the pdf link about rape by fraud that I linked to and quoted from. It was specifically focused on that concept. Warning: it is a bit long.

Damuri examples of the other cases of rape by fraud prosecuted in Israel have been provided in this thread. Have you forgotten already?

I saw some refeernce to other cases where jewish men were convicted of the same charge. I don't remember seeing links with the details but I do remmeber seeing a quote by a former prosecutor saying that this was rarely prosecuted and usually only in cases of protracted fraud or promises of marriage.

As far as your understanding of the facts of the case ... where exactly do you get those? All I can find is that the man has plea bargained to an admission that he lied about his religious identity in order to get sex. As a result of that plea bargain he is getting 18 months. If you have sources for more details pleas share them.

I googles the guy's last name Kashur, Palestinian, violent, rape and fraud. I got a bunch of articles. A lot of them have somewhat conflicting accounts, for example, most articles state for a fact that Kashur pretended to be a Jewish bachelor looking for a serious relationship, a few articles give Kashur's side of the story but there is no conflict on the notion tha the original charge was violent rape and sexual assault and that the charge dropped to the current charge after cops received evidence that the sex was consensual.

And from your pot point I take it that you are trying to say that the statistical analysis of one case being brought against a Palestinian male for rape by fraud regarding religious identity against a Jewish female vs none against a Jewish male for the same crime against a Palestinian female (albeit Jewish males have been prosecuted for lies about their jobs, which I would think is less important than religious identity to many) is evidence of racist application of a law? You sure that's not you smoking the pot?

You really don't see any reason to think that this is anything other than a neutral application of the law by the prosecutors and judges? It might be that this was in fact a neutral application of teh alw but you don't see anything about how the case progressed from real rape to the current charge that makes you scratch your head a bit or at least want to ak a few more questions?

 

[Malthus]

Yeah the naturalization law is highly criticized too. I'm not saying all Israelis are bigots I'm saying the society has institutionalized racism against Palestinians. You don't think that there were South Africans that criticized apartheid?

There may well be cases of unjust laws with institutionalized racist intent or effect in Israel - but this particular case is not one of them.

and in all likelihood of people like you were writing and enforcing Israel's laws, I would have no reason to compare it to South Africa.

That's very complementary.

But it is criminal in Israel and the law is being applied to this particular case.

And in this particular case, there is no evidence of racism.

And if it enforced in a racist manner then it would be racist.

True, but this case alone is not sufficient evidence that it is enforced in a racist manner.

Perhaps this guy is full of shit but if he is then why is there so much criticism of this case in Israel?

For the same reason there is here - because it appears, to the uninformed who have not actually thought about it, to be discriminatory.

Just look at this very thread title: "Palestinan jailed fir being Palestinian". Naturally, this invokes anger (also in the title: "RO" = "recreational Outrage").

Yeah but he has some idea of the purpose and prosecution of the laws in Israel.

But what he's saying isn't "racist", it is simply an acknowledgement of reality: the same would be true here in Canada - many Jewish women would be upset if they found out that their lovers were lying about being Jewish just to screw them.

Do you think that the Jewish guy calling himself Omar in a Palestinian bar would have been the first guy that they prosecuted for this sort of thing?

I have no idea. To assume facts not in evidence as proof of racism just demonstrates that the actual facts in evidence are not proof of racism.

I agree that the high court does its best to be as fair as possible but they can only be as just as the laws they interpret. If the laws allow for institutionalized prejudice then the high court must do so as well. I have nothing but respect for Jewish legal scholarship (not all Jewish legal scholars but the scholarship, it comes from millenia of tradition of thinking about the law and our legal tradition has incorporated much of that).

But, as I've pointed out, there is nothing about this law that facilitates "institutionalized prejudice".

Certainly, if the law was applied in an unjust manner, that would be evidence of prejudice in the system. But that has nothing to do with the law. If for example only Blacks are ever charged with murder and never Whites, the system is racist - but that doesn't mean the law against murder is racist.

We only have a single case of someone being charged with this sort of rape for identity - that simply is not evidence of institutionalized racism.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

The laws of, like, time and space cover that already.

 

[FinnAgain]

And said law is, in my view, utterly ridiculous

There is a difference between "I do not agree with that law" and "an action which is clearly and objectively a specific crime under a specific law doesn't count because I don't like the law."

Why would that be easy to find? Where would that information be recorded?

You mean, you just made it up because you're a bigot so it sounded like a good thing to say, and you can't prove it so you won't bother?
Surprising!
And yes Dio, you're a bigot who makes stuff up because you can't think when you let your hate wash over you and start making stuff up because it kinda sounds good to you and fits in with your hatred, and obviously folks who aren't fine with just making shit up because they're full of hate must have some real problems! Anybody who isn't bigoted against the same people you hate simply must be crazy if they're not 'merely' disingenuous. Because who but a crazy disingenuous person doesn't hate the same nationalities you do?

Obviously, if someone was properly bigoted and hates the correct nationality, like you, then they'd accept that the hypothetical you made up and certify that the people who are part of the hated national identity would act (hypothetically) as horribly as you imagine.

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

That's actually a very good example of the problem we are chewing over in this thread.

The law against pot smoking in that state is racially "neutral". However, if Black guys and only Black guys (or a vastly disproportionate number of 'em) are charged and convicted, absent some explanitory factors the system appears to have racism built in to it.

That's exactly the sort of judgment that reiterated examples can provide; because pot smoking is really common, we know lots of White people do it too, and so you'd expect that many ought to be convicted - if the laws were applied even-handedly, right?

Now, the problem in this case is its uniqueness. This is clearly a newly-developed area of law - from what I remember the leading case was only a couple of years ago - and this is the first time any person has been charged on the basis of their ethnic (as opposed to professional) identity. If such charges became common, and always worked one way and not the other - that is, Jews who impersonate Arabs to get laid never get charged, but Arabs who impersonate Jews commonly are charged - then the situation would be analogous to the "Blacks smoking pot" situation.

As it is, there is simply not enough data to make that determination. You cannot logically base "systemic' discrimination on the basis of a single data point.

You're right that this is not EXACTLY analogous to the pot example because there is only one Palestinian sitting in jail for this crime. I agree that the argument would be stronger if there were a hundred palestinian sitting in jail for this crime.

But I would like to point to the case of the 18 eyar old black high school senior who got sentenced to 10 years in jail in Florida who had sex with an with a 16 eyar old white girl and got sent to jail for a blow job (they couldn't get him on rape because it was obviously consensual, they couldn't get him on statutory rape because of Romeo and Juliet laws, so they got him for something like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or sodomy or something because the girl gave him oral sex. The law was facially neutral but was only ever applied in his case. They started with all sorts of charges that couldn't be supported until they found one that would stick. I think that this case might be a bit like the Florida case.

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

Of course, a good few of your little coterie are bigoted against a nation, so I suppose you can pat yourselves on the back that you are only bigots and not racists. Truly, a noble distinction.

Its not some small minority of anti-semites that you are talking about. Half the board thinks you foam at the mouth whenever someone criticizes Israel. In any given thread about Israel you are calling half the posters (usually more) anti-semites.

My opinion of Israel is subject to change depending on what Israel does. When they do something I think praisewortyhy, i praise them and when they do something I think deserves criticism, I criticize them. Your opinion of Israel is inflexible and does nto change regardfless of what Israel does.

 

[Malthus]

You're right that this is not EXACTLY analogous to the pot example because there is only one Palestinian sitting in jail for this crime. I agree that the argument would be stronger if there were a hundred palestinian sitting in jail for this crime.

I'd put it differently - that there would *be* an argument, and a good one, if there were lots of examples one way and none the other.

But I would like to point to the case of the 18 eyar old black high school senior who got sentenced to 10 years in jail in Florida who had sex with an with a 16 eyar old white girl and got sent to jail for a blow job (they couldn't get him on rape because it was obviously consensual, they couldn't get him on statutory rape because of Romeo and Juliet laws, so they got him for something like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or sodomy or something because the girl gave him oral sex. The law was facially neutral but was only ever applied in his case. They started with all sorts of charges that couldn't be supported until they found one that would stick. I think that this case might be a bit like the Florida case.

I have no idea about this Florida case (the details you give are not very clear), but if the argument is that the case is an obvious never-applied absurdity and thus that it therefore *must* be an example of racism because use of such an absurd, archaic law is a transparent attempt to "get" a guy they otherwise could not charge, that argument fails as well - because while one could argue that the law is "absurd", it has been previously applied to several Jews, as you know; it has not 'only been applied in his case', but rather 'only been applied to an Arab in this (very unusual) specific fact situation'.

As far as I know, *all* other examples of folks charged under this law have been - Jews! Which sorta cuts against the notion that the law is applied "racially".

I dunno how you'd analogize that to your BJ example - it only "works" if Whites aren't being charged for getting BJs, if (as you say) "The law was facially neutral but was only ever applied in his case".

We *know* that's not true in the Israeli example. In fact the reverse is true. Far from being some archaic hold-over from the 19th century like "sodomy" that is just kept on the law books because it is too much trouble to remove it, this is as we know a really new legal development - fueled I suspect by feminism. It isn't an old law "never applied" but a new law where a large body of case-law has yet to be accumulated ...

 

[Guinastasia]

Alessan is actually quite reasonable. I mean he is actually Israeli, so it shouldn't be surprising that he's a bit partisan.

I would also imagine that he has a better perspective, than Finn, who IIRC, lives here in the U.S.

 

[ElvisL1ves]

Yes, why is it that so many of the most choleric Israel jingoists don't have enough courage of their convictions to actually go live there?

Alessan does live in the world of the sane, true, but he does share some of Frothy's huge blind spots regarding seeing Palestinians as humans and neighbors.

 

[FinnAgain]

Elvis, as one of the single dumbest fuckers on the entire internet, I am sure your analytical skills can better be spent vomiting. I know you like to imagine that anybody doesn't see Palestinians as human but, see, that's because you're stupid and your brain doesn't function. Just like when I pointed out that hypocrisy of the anti-Israel brigade by illustrations from the destruction of a camp in Lebanon and the entire town of Hama, and your synapses short circuited and you decided that I was advocating a repeat of Hama.

You really are Gonzomax level retarded.

In any given thread about Israel you are calling half the posters (usually more) anti-semites.

I see that having it pointed out that you're lying doesn't dissuade you from keeping on lying. Please, lie bigger next time. The lie that |I call lots of people anti-semites is stupid and easily proven false, so go bigger. I call people Nazi anti-Semites. No, I call people Nazi lawyer anti-Semites!
I mean, as long as you've decided that you're going to lie about me, lie big, bucko.

My opinion of Israel is subject to change depending on what Israel does.

I don't think I used to be a knee-jerk Israel criticiser but Finn is quickly turning me into one. I don't sepdn time slowly digesting new facts into my gestalt of what is going on in the middle east, instead I find myself trying to fifure out how new facts can be incorporated into a narrative against Israel and I have to make a conscious effort to retain objectivity and that really bothers me. I don't think this was the case before I encountered Finn.

So were you lying then, or are you lying now?

Of course, you're full of it when you claim that you change your opinion. As I already pointed out and the facts show, you are totally immune to proof and refutation. You will repeat an argument, over and over and over again, even if it's been refuted and shown to be completely fictional. And you will use the same fiction to support your argument. Just like you decided that a totally neutral law that was properly applied was really 'apartheid!".

And even after the actual legal framework had been cited and quoted perhaps a dozen times in this thread, you still decided that even though it wasn't true, since the claim that it's never applied except in cases of marriage promises and long term deception was helpful to your anti-Israel narrative, you'd use it.

Your opinion of Israel is inflexible and does nto change regardfless of what Israel does.

Yet another lie. Good for you, but lie bigger. Of course I've criticized numerous policies and actions that Israel has undertaken, so your lie is obvious but not quite big enough. Go big! I don't just never criticize Israel, I'm really an evil Israeli Agent on the payroll of the Mossad. If you're going to lie, put your heart into it at least.

Oh and:

there is no conflict on the notion tha the original charge was violent rape and sexual assault and that the charge dropped to the current charge after cops received evidence that the sex was consensual.

You're making that up too. The original charge was not "violent rape", at all. And the "evidence" that was received was the woman's own testimony that formed the basis of the complaint that went to the court. You're just trying to fit the facts into your habitual anti-Israel narrative.

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

I have no idea about this Florida case (the details you give are not very clear), but if the argument is that the case is an obvious never-applied absurdity and thus that it therefore *must* be an example of racism because use of such an absurd, archaic law is a transparent attempt to "get" a guy they otherwise could not charge, that argument fails as well - because while one could argue that the law is "absurd", it has been previously applied to several Jews, as you know; it has not 'only been applied in his case', but rather 'only been applied to an Arab in this (very unusual) specific fact situation'.

I hope somebody can help me out. It happened several years ago. there was a black high school football captain or quarterback in Florida. They had a party where there was casual sex involving a sixteen year old girl. Someone caught it on their cell phone and they sent the guy to jail for 10 years. I'm not saying the Florida case MUST be racism but it sure looks that way.

On the one hand I have credible claims that Jewish men have been charged and convicted under this law. On the other hand I have a credible claim that this crime is usually reserved for situations involving protracted fraud or promises of marriage. What I don't have are the facts of those other cases to see if we are comparing apples to apples.

If for example it turns out that these cases are sitautions where some Jewish guy lied about his job, had a one night stand and ended up in jail then OK, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. No detectable racism.

On the other hand it turns out that the Jewish guys that ended up in jail conned a string of women or conned one woman for a long period of time, then I would suggest taht the law is being applied in a new and novel way and there might be some racism present.

As far as I know, *all* other examples of folks charged under this law have been - Jews! Which sorta cuts against the notion that the law is applied "racially".

Like I said, I think some of it depends on the circumstances of those other cases.

I dunno how you'd analogize that to your BJ example - it only "works" if Whites aren't being charged for getting BJs, if (as you say) "The law was facially neutral but was only ever applied in his case".

I would say that its not the mere fact that the law hasn't been applied in the past. its the fact that it was being applied in this circumstance. I believe that the Florida case was not based on dead letter law that was never applied until they needed something to pin on a black guy. It could have very well been applied in other cases but it had never been applied in that context before.

We *know* that's not true in the Israeli example. In fact the reverse is true. Far from being some archaic hold-over from the 19th century like "sodomy" that is just kept on the law books because it is too much trouble to remove it, this is as we know a really new legal development - fueled I suspect by feminism. It isn't an old law "never applied" but a new law where a large body of case-law has yet to be accumulated ...

I'd like to see the other cases where this law was applied.

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

...lyou're lying ...lying.... Please, lie bigger next time. ...The lie that...you're going to lie ...lie big, bucko. So were you lying then, or are you lying now? ...Of course, you're full of it when you claim that you change your opinion.... ...Yet another lie. ....Good for you, but lie bigger.... so your lie is obvious ...If you're going to lie,...You're making that up too..

Does it strike you as odd that I lie and lie big all the fucking time and you're the only one that notices it (or at least the only one that thinks it lying)? And yet every Israel thread you shit on has a dozen posters saying "Oh no, Finn Again found this thread"

I used to get all worked up when you called me an anti-semite or a liar until I realized that was what you did to anyone that criticized Israel.

You may know your shit when it comes to Israel but noone trusts that you are presenting all the facts in anything close to an objective manner.

You simply have little or no credibility with anyone on this board (well maybe there are a handful of folks) and to the extent you are a crusader, you are doing your cause more harm than good.