|
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Notice Digi doesn't respond to the content of my post, instead he makes it about me and my lack of knowledge. I didn’t respond to him because he’s not interested in discussing the issue, he would rather engage in mudsling or do anything to distract from the issue. In part he has already succeeded because we are talking about him instead of the issue I raised.
His implications are: I’m not worthy to discuss the issue and if I knew more about the circumstances I would understand the justification for kidnapping Vanunu. Terrorist always defend their actions based on their higher purposes, but understanding their motivations doesn’t justify their actions (ends don’t justify the means).
It’s not debatable whether the kidnapping took place or if it was illegal, however my interpretation it was an act of terrorism is open to debate. Even if someone could convince me that it doesn’t fit “the definition” of terrorism, one must admit it’s a heinous act. Just like you would condemn the abduction of a child by a pedophile.
I think it’s pretty clear Israel treatment of Vanunu was designed to deter anyone who would have the audacity to provide proof that Israel has nuclear weapons program. Most people would consider, kidnapping someone, imprisoning them in solitary confinement for 18 years, and denying him the right to ever leave the country after release, as a form of terrorism to frighten anyone from blowing the whistle on their ‘secret’ WMD program. Sounds like tactics that a totalitarian regime would use to silence its opponents. |
That's interesting, I could have sworn I actually DID respond to the content of your post, and asked you several questions which you did not know the answer to. In response, you told me that *I* should go do the research and "prove you wrong."
Vanunu being "illegally kidnapped" is your opinion. He committed a crime under Israeli law and fled to another country. He did not commit the crime in Italy and thus Italy would not extradite. Extradition requires the cooperation of both states. Apprehending a known criminal is not illegal.
The notion that it was performed as a deterrent to others is not "clear", it is your opinion. When ordinary criminals in your own home town are apprehended by police, it is law enforcement, not terrorism. Apprehending a known criminal is not terrorism.
I was not speaking of a "higher purpose", I was speaking of a very simple purpose: Vanunu broke Israeli law and was imprisoned under Israeli law. There is nothing special about this. The fact that he was some sort of "hero" for revealing tactical secrets about his country, as opposed to a common criminal, is your opinion.
You made an attempt to use Vanunu as an example of Israel's "terrorism" without having any clue as to what actually happened. You were not able to answer any detailed questions whatsoever. One could surmise that you merely read an article about it somewhere, decided that it flowed well with your personal opinion of Israel, and posted it with the assumption that everyone would agree. Upon being challenged, you could not provide additional details because you did not KNOW any additional details. Thus, yes, you do NOT have the proper knowledge to debate this issue.
Your lack of knowledge is key in this matter because it has resulted in the lack of any coherent, connected argument. You merely state an abbreviated, short-sighted view of what happened and expect those reading to "use their imagination" to fill in the blanks, and therefore agree with you. The problem is that what's really in the blanks is not what you imagine it to be. This was the apprehension of a criminal, not a terrorist act on some sort of war hero.
I do not call this "mudslinging". I asked you a set of questions about the issue YOU brought up, and you replied that you did not know the answers, preferring instead that I should answer them myself. I merely pointed out that you CLEARLY were not in possession of the level of knowledge necessary to carry on a normal debate, which was something that YOU brought to light with YOUR lazy answer to my challenge, NOT a random insult on my account.
You seem to think that your personal opinion has the same authoritative power as factual evidence and that everyone must agree with what YOU consider to be "clear" or "well-known" or "common sense" - this is simply not the case. Please, learn the issues you are debating before you debate them. Then, maybe we can have some intelligent discussion.
Edit: Yoepus, it's all well and good that I shouldn't attack people, but when I present a perfectly rational argument or challenge and they reply by shrugging it off, flaunting some sort of moral superiority, stating their personal opinions as "the facts", or just telling me to go "do my own research", then I'm left with little choice on the matter. It's not as if these "attacks" are unprovoked insults - they address specifically the nature of the posts and why they are not coherent arguments.
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
