Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/1/06 01:15 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: The "pro-palestinian" side lacks the realization that the amount of combatants killed by the Palestinian side is significantly less than that by the Israeli side.

Your remark is unsurprisingly generic and adds nothing to the discussion, but I found your contributions in this thread to be pretty ironic.

This global struggle is unwinnable, yeah, but we can certainly lessen the amount of extremism in our world. Less extremism-religious, especially, would benefit us as a world greatly. (...) More than anything, we MUST fight the causes of terror, such as poverty.

We MUST reduce extremism and fight poverty, for example by blowing power plants that are vital to sewerage systems sky high. Now mackid, I know that you're not a neo-conservative and that you to some extent live up to your new user name, which contains the world "liberal", but when it comes to Israel your leftist self rapidly morphs into a right-winger that would make Bill O'Reilly think: "God DAMN, that guy's right-wing". And I think I know why. I hate to turn this entire post into an ad hominem argument but I honestly think it's sort of sad that you let your stance in certain issues be determined by your upbringing and ethnicity rather than your general political convictions.

Lapis, I think that people should not be limited to certain political beliefs just because they are titled liberals or conservatives.
There shouldn't be guidlines for opinions, believe what feels right for you.

At 7/1/06 02:45 PM, Dzex wrote: Lapis, I think that people should not be limited to certain political beliefs just because they are titled liberals or conservatives.
There shouldn't be guidlines for opinions, believe what feels right for you.

When that belief completely contradicts everything else you stand for I don't think it's right. Imagine a guy who has spent the bigger part of his adult years complaining about social security nets and child support in particular. Then when his sister has a baby he suddenly turns into an avid advocate of child support - for his sister, that is. Everyone else who applies for it is still a parasite in his opinion.

Or I could condemn slave traders and keep blaming Americans for their ancestors getting rich at the expense of poor Africans. But when someone excoriates the Dutch part in the slave trade it's suddenly the Zeitgeist and the descendents of those blacks should be grateful for being their ancestors being shipped to countries that would have a lot less problems with civil unrest in the future. Because that's what is happening here, he's singling out Israel as a case whereas he's usually a supporter of a lot more dovish approaches, just because he more or less has ethnic ties to Israel. It's just my opinion but I'm personally not much of an admirer of it.

At 7/1/06 01:59 PM, Turandot wrote: And if they did, I damn well know you guys would have withdrawn to your own land a long time ago. Hope they get some decent weapons, because you guys don't want peace.

Israel gave palastine M16 rifles, trained Fatah snipers, trained policemen and so on in order to keep peace within terrorist groups. That didn't help at all and only caused them to later on use those weapons against us. We did give them those weapons and we want to withdraw... Honestly palastinian weaponry doesn't scare us. All-Scale war will be avoided since we have Nuclear weapons. What they keep doing is developing large-range weapons which they use to target civilians

At 7/1/06 02:33 PM, lapis wrote: I hate to turn this entire post into an ad hominem argument but I honestly think it's sort of sad that you let your stance in certain issues be determined by your upbringing and ethnicity rather than your general political convictions.

I think that his other views on other stuff have nothing to do with his opinions on the manner. You're going offtopic and I think this sort of personal attack does not do your image on this forum justice.

At 7/1/06 04:09 PM, Cahenn wrote: I think that his other views on other stuff have nothing to do with his opinions on the manner. You're going offtopic and I think this sort of personal attack does not do your image on this forum justice.

Sigh, this has been going on for a longer, no, for a lot longer time than just these two threads. I'll admit that it has nothing to do with the topic, I considered posting it in the lounge but I don't think other people wanted to see a personal attack in there. I don't know, it's something that has been bugging me for some time but maybe I should have just PMed him about it. If you feel it disturbs the topic then I apologise for that.

Okay, I PMed him about it. Issue over.

If you think Palistine is innocent in this then you are grossly wrong. Isreal is frankly pissed off and hates the Palastinians just as much as they hate the Jews. They are tired of constantly being bombed and could give a crap about what the world thinks because frankly they aren't gonna take it.

They want Palistine away from Isreal as much as possible and vice versa.

You cannot take a side in this issue because both want the same thing only they have a different religion and way of doing things.

At 7/1/06 06:24 PM, SirXVII wrote: If you think Palistine is innocent in this then you are grossly wrong. Isreal is frankly pissed off and hates the Palastinians just as much as they hate the Jews. They are tired of constantly being bombed and could give a crap about what the world thinks because frankly they aren't gonna take it.

They want Palistine away from Isreal as much as possible and vice versa.

Please don't make generalizations - I think several Israelis here, including myself, have made it clear that we don't hate the Palestinians nor do we want them all out.
Peace. Peace is what we want.
An end to terror. Good relations with our Palestinian neighbours.
Not genocide, not hatred.
But yes, Israel shouldn't have to take terrorism, that's a price too high to pay for peace.

At 6/29/06 08:35 AM, Turandot wrote:

Because they're all true. For too long your country has ONLY existed because of America and some other countries and now it abuses everything it has been given. You'll reap what you sow.

Wow! You sure are an angry little one.

I'm not saying that Israel is innocent in all this, but the claim that Palistine is that "poor little nation who is being abused by mean ol' Israel". Israel, like every country, has a right to exsist no matter how wrong its government might be doing things. Sure they want to put pressure on Palistine to let them know who's boss, but how far is too far?

I'm just a simple American who can only get his sources from the Encyclopdia and news. I still know little because I live on the outside of the situation.

I don't think that Israel wants the complete and utter destruction of Palistine. I'm sure both people on both sides, like the rest of the world, want a peace. Of course it doesn't help that you get the wackjobs from Iran and Palistine calling for the complete destruction of Israel.

That's a call for active genocide if anyone cares to know.

I'm glad an outsider can feel so strongly about this issue and yet be so wrong. Right Turandot?

World Peace Makes The Military Really Boring.

War?
I call it job security!

At 7/1/06 06:47 PM, Dzex wrote:
Please don't make generalizations - I think several Israelis here, including myself, have made it clear that we don't hate the Palestinians nor do we want them all out.
Peace. Peace is what we want.
An end to terror. Good relations with our Palestinian neighbours.
Not genocide, not hatred.
But yes, Israel shouldn't have to take terrorism, that's a price too high to pay for peace.

I promptly corrected myself.

It's a sucky situation from my side because my country is allies with Israel. I think there should be peace, but I fear that it'll never happen.

Ever.

At 7/1/06 06:24 PM, SirXVII wrote: Isrealis are frankly pissed off and hate the Palastinians just as much as they hate the Jews.

Woah, Israelis != Jews, Israelis don't hate 'the Palastinians', Palastinians don't hate Jews in general, nor Israelis in general... That's a lot of generallizing

They are tired of constantly being bombed and could give a crap about what the world thinks because frankly they aren't gonna take it.

We're tired of being bombed, we still care about what the world thinks but some actions just can't be tolerated.

They want Palistine away from Isreal as much as possible and vice versa.

We want the conflict as far as possible, we don't want to deal with anything, we just want to live our lives. I think the average Palastinian (or Israli) cares more about being able to feed his kids than about the Palastinian Israeli conflict. We realise we do have a problem and have to deal with it, but a shadow government and an elected terrorist government make things really hard on us.

You cannot take a side in this issue because both want the same thing only they have a different religion and way of doing things.

Palastinian isn't a religion, neither is Israeli, there are over a million Israeli Arabic Muslims, and a lot of Palastinian Christians too. Stop the generallizations. We all want peace though, being able to live safely.

I live in America.

Sorry about the generalization, but I basically said I'm getting my information from the ouside.

Frankly most Americans (and myself I suppose) thought the Jews were in Israel and the rest were Muslims.

I appoligize for the generalizations.

At 7/1/06 07:09 PM, SirXVII wrote: I live in America.

Sorry about the generalization, but I basically said I'm getting my information from the ouside.

Frankly most Americans (and myself I suppose) thought the Jews were in Israel and the rest were Muslims.

I appoligize for the generalizations.

It's ok
The mainstream media is to blame, they are biased and only fuel the conflict further.

At 7/1/06 06:53 PM, SirXVII wrote:

It's a sucky situation from my side because my country is allies with Israel. I think there should be peace, but I fear that it'll never happen.

Ever.

I'm afraid I feel the same way.
Things only seem to be getting worse.

As some of you know this is a situation that really interests me. What sickens me is the position many Western countries have taken. Take for example this media release from the Department of Foreign Affairs about the position Canada has on this situation. Not once did we condem Israel's actions, infact we supported Israel's actions.

Originally when Emar was elected it brought great hope for peace between Israel and Palestine,w ith promises of withdrawl form Palestine and creation of secuirty through peace not peace through secuirty. Clearly all hope of that is now been thrown out the window.

Now Im not saying I am supporting what Palestine ahs done, it is essentially kidnapping (since it was nto done by an official state he cannot be a POW), but the ISrael reaction has been detremental to the peace process and will only invite increased hostilities. Bombing of civilian bridges and power plants to stop militants is inexcuseable. How many people have to die before the international community wakes up to the crimes against humanity being commited? This isnt a war, its god dam target practice.

Rounding and arresting politicians will not bring this to an end, if anything it will create more hate. A few weeks ago there would have been a good possibilty that a referendum would have occured and probally have been successful to recognize Israel. All hopes or thoughts of that are gone now. Israel is more dnagerous to be in now than it was a month ago.

What will bring this situation to an end is international pressure (especially from the US) on Israel, not Palestine. Israel is the one in the position of power here, but as long as they have backing from the US and Western community they will continue unimpeeded.

Well, I had so much to do today that I didn't have time to reply to this thread. I'll post my explanation of the refugee problem here, as promised, and reply to other posts tomorrow.

[This is a two part post.]

WHY ISRAEL DID NOT CREATE THE PROBLEM ON REFUGEES
source: http://www.freerepub..f-news/1501222/posts

In 1947, it was clear that no matter where the partition lines were drawn, there would be war. Many of the rich Arabs from Western Galilee, Haifa, Acco, and other villages went to Beirut or Damascus, planning to wait out the war in safety. No one thought Israel could win a war. Conor Cruis O’Brien, in The Seige estimates that 70,000 fled in this way.

This caused a lack of political and social leadership among the Arabs of Galilee, and many of the normal people fled as well, following their leaders. Estimates range around 100,000 for this flight. At this point, neither Arabs nor Israel were encouraging these Arabs to flee, but they did so freely.

“Arab leadership from among the para-military forces and the forces of Syria were vociferous in their announcements that they wanted Arabs to leave so that the armies would have a clear field which to perpetrate their genocide of the Jews.” This was a major factor in Arab flight. The mayor of Haifa drove through the Arab section of Haifa with a loudspeaker, and in Arabic shouted to disregard the Arab propaganda, and stay. Other Jewish leaders also publicly asked the Arabs to stay. Tens of thousands ended up fleeing. Those who stayed were unharmed and are now citizens of Israel. The British document one such case of Arabs fleeing under no threat in Tiberius.

In March 1948 Iraqi troops entered Deir Yassin. This village overlooks the road connecting Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, and was the only lifeline to the Jerusalem under-seige. They were going to try to cut off the road. A semi-military group, the Irgun, entered the village to drive out the Iraqis soldiers. First, they drove with a loudspeaker telling the civilian population to flee. Many Iraqi soldiers disguised themselves as women, and fired upon the Irgun. When firing back, the Irgun killed innocent women because the Iraqis were dressed like them and hid behind them. After killing or capturing all the Iraqis, the Iraqis surrendered. Then, while in a group, they opened fire again. The Irgun were killed who were taken off-guard, and some fired into the group. In total, according to calculations by Arab scholars and Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah, only 107 Arabs were killed, including Iraqi soldier. Those civilians who were killed were caught in the crossfire.

I say all this (or rather my source that I’m bringing the main points up of does) because Arab spokespersons at the time made up stories of massacres, rape, killing pregnant women and unborn children, and bloodthirsty Jews at Deir Yassin. This was a ploy by the Arabs, propaganda, into shaming the Arab nations into entering the conflict.

“As a result of this propaganda, Arab civilians panicked and lfed by the tens of thousands. This was confirmed in the 1993 PBS documentary called The Fifty Years of War in which Deir Yassin survivors were interviewed. They testified that they had begged [the] … director of Voice of Palestine (the Palestinian radio station in Eastt Jerusalem) to edit out the lies and fabrications of atrocities that never happened. He told them: “We must capitalize on this great opportunity!””

You can’t blame Israel for the propaganda and lies, the tales of massacres, which caused so many to flee. Arafat, in his autobiography, confirms that these lies were spread.

Several hundred thousand estimated Arabs fled because of this propaganda, most of which ended up in Egyption detention camps in Gaza.

There are other examples mention in my source.

In summary, all the Arabs who fled did so needlessly, and from no prodding by Israel. After the February 1949 cease-fire agreement, tens of thousands of Arabs continued to flee. Israel offered to return to the Arabs the lands it had taken, meant to be part of the Palestinian state, if the Arabs would sign a peace treaty. This would have allowed the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees. The Arab countries chose to mount a new offensive instead. In September 1949, Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees even without a peace treaty. “the Arab states rejected the offer because to accept it would involve a tacit recognition of the state of Israel.”

The Arabs kept their refugees living in squalor, in camps suffering, to use as a weapon against Israel. They wanted them as “moral leverage” to use against Israel.

Senior Fatah Central Committee member Sakher Habash explained in 1998, during a lecture at Shechem’s An-Najah University, that, "To us, the refugee issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state."

Even as late as 1979, after Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty, the Egyptions didn’t deal with the refugee issue in Gaza, instead electing to cede all of the Gaza strip to Israel. After the war in 1967, Israel became the governing authority in Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, and in the West Bank. From 1967 to 1992, the Palestinian population the West Bank experienced the highest standard of living of any Arab country with the exception of the oil states. Transfer of authority in the West bank to the PLO in 1993, and the conditions of the population under the PA have declined tremendously. This is due partially to the mis-appropriation of more than 5.2 billion dollars, which went to Arafat, his minions, and weapons stock piling. It is due to the neglect of the infrastructure, and the nature of incessant terror war, against which Israel must exercise defensive controls and deterrents.

If you don’t want to look at the appendix and bibliography of this source, sources confirming that Arab leaders told Arabs to flee and reports related to the departure of the Arab refugees include Time Magazine, the London Times, the London Daily Mail, The London Telegraph, New York Herald Tribune, the Jorddanian daily newspaper Falastin, Newsweek, King Hussein of Jordan, and several books and many Arab newspapers and sources.

[This is a two part post]

I edited some stuff out, so it turns out it all fit into one post.

At 7/1/06 07:13 PM, Dzex wrote: It's ok
The mainstream media is to blame, they are biased and only fuel the conflict further.

Its always the press, isnt it? Always is when they dont put the spin you like on an issue, no? The news is always bad when it doesnt do what you like in it?

How about you dont tell me I believe in conspiracy theories when you believe in them yourself, OK? If anything, stories on what is really happening there are not told here. Hallelujah, thank the AIPAC!!

At 7/1/06 06:54 PM, Cahenn wrote: Woah, Israelis != Jews, Israelis don't hate 'the Palastinians', Palastinians don't hate Jews in general, nor Israelis in general... That's a lot of generallizing

You Jewish? Was Israel created by Zionists? Dont play PC here when Israel was created by Jews with the intent to create a majority in the British Mandate area to create what we now know as Israel. That is exactly what Zionism was about, immigration and then a majority and then a country.

At 7/1/06 04:09 PM, Cahenn wrote: I think that his other views on other stuff have nothing to do with his opinions on the manner. You're going offtopic and I think this sort of personal attack does not do your image on this forum justice.

No, its not off topic and it would take a fool to not realize the hypocrisy that some of you espouse, especially Mr. Sergeant Liberal. It is perfectly reasonable to attack someones ridiculous opinions that are not based off any logical reason other than Im Jewish so Israel is infalliable.

Lapis, dont sell your self short. Dont apologize for making a logical conclusion.

foAt 7/2/06 01:36 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 7/1/06 07:13 PM, Dzex wrote: It's ok
The mainstream media is to blame, they are biased and only fuel the conflict further.

Its always the press, isnt it? Always is when they dont put the spin you like on an issue, no? The news is always bad when it doesnt do what you like in it?

How about you dont tell me I believe in conspiracy theories when you believe in them yourself, OK? If anything, stories on what is really happening there are not told here. Hallelujah, thank the AIPAC!!

Oh please, spare me.

How about you cut the strawman arguements - don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was the media is biased. I didn't complain about anti-Israel bias.
Fox news has pro-Israeli biased, British press (The guardian, BBC) has pro-Palestinian\Muslim bias.

The media shouldn't be biased towards any side.
This is why people with a certain political view will follow a certain media outlet, and

people with a different view will follow another.
And if you want to deny this, go ahead, but there's no way that you can't deny anti-bush
bias.

If you truely believe that there is no media bias, this either means that you find the bias compatable with your agenda, or that you are simply blind.

http://littlegreenfo..s_Newspaper&only
If that is not bias, nothing is.

I'm not going to get into why the whole "hamas is working on a two state solution" is bullshit, I'm just giving you an example of bias.
If you will provide pro-Israeli bias, you'll only be strengthening my point.

Ok, terrible spelling and grammar in my last post (more than usual).
But my point remains the same.

And Moses said - "Edit button, where art thou?"
And God said - "Ye who needs an edit button, is not worthy of posting on this forum"

I know there is bias.

I just find it beyond funny you, a pro Israeli, are complaining of media bias that is hurting the viewpoint you are trying to stress.

You tell me what exactly you mean that the media only hurts the situation more. You mean it hurts your idea of the situation more? Honestly, who else could you be speaking for?

And you are complaining of strawman arguments when you called my ideas conspiracy theories? As you said,

SPARE ME.

At 7/2/06 03:09 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: I know there is bias.

I just find it beyond funny you, a pro Israeli, are complaining of media bias that is hurting the viewpoint you are trying to stress.

Wow, so you're actually accusing me of being pro-truth?
My gut is starting to tell me that arguing with you is a complete waste of time.

You tell me what exactly you mean that the media only hurts the situation more. You mean it hurts your idea of the situation more? Honestly, who else could you be speaking for?

The media is fueling more hate by dividing the people.
Bias creates disinformation, and makes many people quite clueless about the situation (yes, pro-Israelis too).
If people are clueless, it makes things a shitload harder.
In order for peace to be achieved, there should be understanding.

And you are complaining of strawman arguments when you called my ideas conspiracy theories? As you said,

SPARE ME.

Do check the definition of strawman arguments before making refutals such as this.
Strawman arguments mean putting words inside of other people's mouths - using things they didn't say against them.

At 7/1/06 10:29 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Meanwhile:
http://news.independ..t/article1152033.ece

Funny - I don't recall any nbews reportage of a group of Palestinian ministers being arrested, but one kidnapped Israeli soldier gets a lot of coverage. BBC, can I have my £127.50 back please, considering you aren't reporting the news very well at all these days...

At 7/2/06 02:29 AM, Dzex wrote: Fox news has pro-Israeli biased, British press (The guardian, BBC) has pro-Palestinian\Muslim bias.

It's funny isn't it? First we have a Brit who feels that the BBC is focusing on the Israeli side of the argument and some time later an Israeli complains about the pro-Palestinian bias of the BBC. I've been reading BBC website articles for a few days now and in the beginning they had pictures of the kidnapped soldiers in every single one, clearly to create a stronger feeling of sympathy towards the soldier and his family. On the other hand, after Israel invaded most articles finished by mentioning the risk of a humanitarian crisis due to a lack of electricity.

Now I'll admit that Fox News is clearly biased, I have only been to their website a couple of times but the way they covered the WMD situation had little to do with reality. They said chemical weapons had been found but never decided to report that even the Pentagon had stated that those weren't the weapons over which the war had been started. The BBC however seems to be trying it's best to avoid ending up on one end of the issue by focusing on the "people" side of the story, they left out to write a whole article about the capture of the Hamas politicians but mentioned it in others.

A socialist would feel that CNN is too right-wing, since it's very pro-business and never very appreciative of anti-globalist protesters. In Midwestern America it's as far as I know considered to be part of the "liberal media". In the end you'll always have partisans complaining about bias simply because the news reporting doesn't completely favour their position so I think the BBC has been doing a reasonable job so far.

At 7/2/06 07:29 AM, lapis wrote: It's funny isn't it? First we have a Brit who feels that the BBC is focusing on the Israeli side of the argument and some time later an Israeli complains about the pro-Palestinian bias of the BBC.

Well, you have a factual error, the article D2KVirus was referring to was from The Independent, not the BBC. Same as mine, but it doesn't matter.

Now, there is no bias in the article that he has pointed out.
I don't define bias by the amount of coverage of the faults of one side:
If a certain media outlet features twice as many articles about Israeli attacks, and there indeed twice as many Israeli attacks, there's no bias in that.
Same thing goes the other way around.
The article in D2K's link showed balance between the two sides, and even gave Israel a reasonable whooping.

To me, bias is the clear position that is conveyed within the reporting.
And (excuse me for repeating the link) this just screams bias. Black upon white.
http://littlegreenfo..s_Newspaper&only

Lapis writes more stuff...

I might have made a mistake using the BBC as an example, as their bias is of fairly low level, but it's there.

You seem to agree with my point mostly.
What I don't understand is whether you agree that all the international media bias varies outlet to outlet, or are you trying to claim that it's a one-sided hate fest against the Palestinians?

At 7/2/06 08:14 AM, Dzex wrote: Well, you have a factual error, the article D2KVirus was referring to was from The Independent, not the BBC. Same as mine, but it doesn't matter.

He linked to The Independent to note that there were events that weren't being reported by the BBC, after that he stated that the BBC only focused on the capture of the soldier rather than the Israeli retaliation and he said that he wanted his tax payer's money back. My post was in no way factually incorrect, you could have easily spotted the word "BBC" in his post.

Now, there is no bias in the article that he has pointed out.

And I never claimed it did. You completely misread my post. I know little about the Independent - according to Wikipedia one could say that a stereotypical 'Independent' reader is well-educated, a Liberal Democrat or perhaps Labour voter, anti-war and interested in issues about the environment. So they have a certain group of target readers that they try to appeal to. I would never deny that some media focus on certain sides of the issue, I used Fox News as an example because you also mentioned them in your post, my problem was more that you accused the BBC of being pro-Muslim while D2KVirus thought they were either pro-Israeli or just plain incompetent.

I might have made a mistake using the BBC as an example, as their bias is of fairly low level, but it's there.

Alright, name an example of what you feel to be pro-Muslim bias in BBC reports.

What I don't understand is whether you agree that all the international media bias varies outlet to outlet, or are you trying to claim that it's a one-sided hate fest against the Palestinians?

The former. But my most important point was that people are often eager to accuse media of bias when they don't hear what they want to hear. And frankly I have no idea how my post could have insinuated the latter.

My post was in no way factually incorrect, you could have easily spotted the word "BBC" in his post.

I've only followed his link and read your post afterwards, so my context was wrong.
Sorry, I stand corrected.

The former. But my most important point was that people are often eager to accuse media of bias when they don't hear what they want to hear.

If you are referring to me as one of these people - I think that my definition of bias in the previous post is fair.
Don't you agree that the cover in the link I have provided shows unquestionable bias?

And frankly I have no idea how my post could have insinuated the latter.

Simply because you only used Fox as an example of bias, while disproving bias in the rest of them.
You can't say that you've selected these specific examples only because I've mentioned them in my post - the CNN one was your addition.

But don't think of this as an argument, you said it's the former and I've no complaints.
I'm only answering because you asked. You're off the hook :)

Alright, name an example of what you feel to be pro-Muslim bias in BBC reports.

http://littlegreenfo..entry=21277&only
http://www.honestrep..m/a/What_is_Bias.asp

The second link contains the part about the BBC in the middle.

At 7/1/06 10:50 PM, JoS wrote: Not once did we condem Israel's actions, infact we supported Israel's actions.

Justfully,

Clearly all hope of that is now been thrown out the window.

Last time, during the gaza strip withdrawl, we didn't get any cooperation from the Palastinians either. We don't expect any at the next withdrawl although that'd be a nice surprise.

Now Im not saying I am supporting what Palestine ahs done, it is essentially kidnapping (since it was nto done by an official state he cannot be a POW),

Dude, the official Palastinian government ordered the kidnapping...

but the ISrael reaction has been detremental to the peace process and will only invite increased hostilities.

The point is what we have in mind at the moment is freeing our kidnapped soldier, not the peace process. Had your brother been kidnapped, would you care more about the peace process or about freeing him? Think reasonably.

Bombing of civilian bridges and power plants to stop militants is inexcuseable.

Given we paid for those bridges and we supply over %90 of their power needs it makes sense. We did those things to prevent Israeli casualties, and like last time- we'll probably end up paying for their restoration.

How many people have to die before the international community wakes up to the crimes against humanity being commited? This isnt a war, its god dam target practice.

Base that claim, so far I've been able to (very easily) defute every 'fact' you brought up, if you're going to accuse Israel of genocide at least have the decency to back yourself up...

Rounding and arresting politicians will not bring this to an end,

If those 'politicians' are the ones who ordered the kidnapping, and have blood on their hands, it just might you know...

if anything it will create more hate. A few weeks ago there would have been a good possibilty that a referendum would have occured and probally have been successful to recognize Israel.

That was before Hamas becasue the leading party... Hamas has been a terrorist group for a long time. We do not negociate with terrorists.

All hopes or thoughts of that are gone now. Israel is more dnagerous to be in now than it was a month ago.

Israel is not dangerous to be in at all... The chances of you dying in a car crash in Canada is 1000 times bigger than your chance of dying in an act of terrorism in Israel.

What will bring this situation to an end is international pressure (especially from the US) on Israel, not Palestine.

What will bring this situation to an end is the release of our kidnapped trooper and ending Quassam missle launching at Israeli civilian population, we have NOTHING to look for in Gaza normally. We DON'T WANT to send troopers there, they're dragging us to it constantly by refueling the argument.

Israel is the one in the position of power here, but as long as they have backing from the US and Western community they will continue unimpeeded.

Israel does not intend to 'continue'. Think logically for a minute , it is Israel's interest to have peace. All we care about at the moment is our economy and our ability to live safely and self actualize. Peace will help us accomplish that better, but if we can't have that we'll just keep doing what we do which is go into Gaza if there are problems like this one and threats, continue with the withdrawl so we won't have hostile population within our borders, and do whatever we can to keep the area calm

At 7/2/06 01:36 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Lapis, dont sell your self short. Dont apologize for making a logical conclusion.

I stand behind what I wrote, but the topic wasn't officially "why mackid is a fucking hypocrite" so maybe I shouldn't have posted it here. Then again, people go off-topic all the time and it's still Newgrounds, not some high-class debating society.

At 7/2/06 09:19 AM, Dzex wrote: If you are referring to me as one of these people - I think that my definition of bias in the previous post is fair.
Don't you agree that the cover in the link I have provided shows unquestionable bias?

A little. They thought the fact that Hamas had just signed an agreement with Fatah, which was step closer to accepting the two-state solution, was worthy of their headlines. They have to appeal to their anti-war readers. But even if their headlines contained "Israel invades Gaza after Hamas kidnaps soldier" there would be people who'd accuse the paper of pro-Palestinian bias since Israel isn't invading and there would be people who'd criticise the paper for not making the distinction between the political and militant wings of Hamas. You can never avoid accusations of bias, no matter how neutral you try to be when reporting.

Simply because you only used Fox as an example of bias, while disproving bias in the rest of them.
You can't say that you've selected these specific examples only because I've mentioned them in my post - the CNN one was your addition.

I used Fox as an example of bias because I personally knew of a specific instance where what they reported conflicted with the truth. I don't really know anything about The Independent or the Guardian apart from what I just read on Wikipedia. I then added CNN to show that both sides can accuse one TV channel of taking two different sides of the argument, which is ironic and supports my point that people scream bias too often.

But don't think of this as an argument, you said it's the former and I've no complaints.
I'm only answering because you asked. You're off the hook :)

k

Alright, name an example of what you feel to be pro-Muslim bias in BBC reports.

http://littlegreenfo..entry=21277&only

I read that article and you can only accuse them of poor fact checking. "Mr Houdaly says his wife, Ataf, 44, headed a women’s organisation dedicated to providing health services for poor Palestinians." He said it, they don't claim that it's the truth. Like I said, they're trying to appeal to the "people" side which also explains articles like this one. In D2KVirus' words, they dedicate a whole article to one kipnapped soldier but not even one separate article to the dozens of captured Hamas politicians.

http://www.honestrep..m/a/What_is_Bias.asp

Here, an article about Israel which contains nine terror-related words. And here, the profile of the RIRA does not once include a word similar to "terror", only militant or paramilitary. Even the Omagh bombing is not referred to as a terrorist attack. They probably used the word "terror" so often because in that instance their headquarters were the target. Of course the words they use will be more powerful. That isn't a clear example of prejudice, that's a personal connection to the event. You can't seriously blame them for it.

And the second accusation is even lamer. "Tension has been high around the Jewish settlements" is clearly an attempt to stay as neutral as possible. Although the link to the photo is dead I can assume that "Palestinians suffer under Israeli security measures" would be pro-Palestinian and "Terrorists stopped in their tracks by Israeli forces" would be pro-Israeli. This example perfectly illustrates that people will whine about bias whenever the media don't pick their side.

At 7/2/06 03:24 AM, Dzex wrote: Wow, so you're actually accusing me of being pro-truth?

Your idea of the truth is so skewed beyond belief I wouldnt call it "truth," fool. You believe Arabs are the one who drove the Palestinians out of present day Israel. You believe Israel cares about civilian lives because all Palestinians are not dead yet. You use anecdotal evidence to justify why so many civilians are killed in IDF actions to kill terrorists. You believe in telling Palestinians on what terms peace may be achieved.

The day your "truth" is taught is the day the "truth" dies.

The media is fueling more hate by dividing the people.

As if this is not directed towards the Palestinian side. Please. I dont care if it is a strawman but you are a fool if you think you are speaking for Palestinians also.

Do check the definition of strawman arguments before making refutals such as this.
Strawman arguments mean putting words inside of other people's mouths - using things they didn't say against them.

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

Really. You are telling me its not a strawman to tell me I believe in a conspiracy theory when I dont believe its a conspiracy at all but ideas and opinions that are wide out in the open for anyone to see.

$3 BILLION to Israel in aid EVERY YEAR from MY TAXPAYING MONEY to a country that is not valuable to America for any strategic reason at all. BULLSHIT.