American position on the PA - Page 7

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:39

Quote:

Do you automatically disregard any NYT article about the war on terrorism, just because they quote US military and political sources?

No, because a NYT story would either say 'ackording to US army sources' (in which case I would take the information with a pinch of salt), or it would be checked by a NYT journalist.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:40

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Good. That takes care of your points 8, 9 and 11. There is no moral requirement to call off an attack because Israel has decided to put some kids there. Sharon is guilty of the deaths of these children.

This is again your biggotry showing

The kids were not mistakenly killed, but rather targetted.

How is entering a school dormatory, and shooting the kids, or enetring a house where children were sleeping and targetting them is different from me targetting your child?

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:40

Quote:

correction - you should have said:
"A few stories I could verify myself, as they appeared in western media as well".

Minor difference.

GeneralTacticus · June 28, 2002, 04:40

Quote:

Which would be true, if palestine occupied israel.

This makes no difference. The Palestinians (and other Arab nations) have been attacking ISrael since it's founding. IF you attack somewhere, you lose, and they take action to stop you attacking again, tough.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:42

Quote:

apparently

Means 'based on my impressions'. Not a statement of fact. Not a claim.

Could this be the cause of your confusion regarding sources? You really don't understand when they are needed?

Well if you don't have a source, don't post it then.

You require the same from me.

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
No, because a NYT story would either say 'ackording to US army sources' (in which case I would take the information with a pinch of salt), or it would be checked by a NYT journalist.

And Israeli newspapers did not say "IDF sources" or "Israeli radio" ??

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:43

Quote:

As far as I can remember, you read a report in JP about an article in "die welt" which you later couldn't find.

As you yourself said - just because you don't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You could simply not notice it, and it is frequent that online versions of newspapers are not the same as the printed ones, or aren't free.

Well, since the JP 'quoted' an article in Die Welt, that same story should exist in Die Welt. It didn't. The web version is the same as the print version.

(and while this is subjective, I do think it is importnat: the story was sufficiently huge that if true, it would have been on the first page of every news media in the world...).

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:44

Quote:

If you are going to claim that Israeli newspapers are not credible you need to find a based source for it, such as a report claiming otherwise.

And a lack of sources is untrustworthy. Very simple.

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:44

Quote:

If you are going to claim that Israeli newspapers are not credible you need to find a based source for it, such as a report claiming otherwise.

And a lack of sources is untrustworthy. Very simple.

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:46

Quote:

Not at all.

You still haven't given a viable example of an Israeli media lie which was done knowingly.

I just did.

Not to mention the NUMEROUS stories which were never sourced, published with the sole intention of inflaming hatred against palestinians.

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:47

Quote:

Their business in being there is to attempt to stop the Palestinians from attacking Israel. As has been stated previously, terrorism against Israel has been going on for years before 1967. The occupation provides a boost to the terrorism, nothing more: the goal remains the destruction of Israel.

Which might have some relevance if there had ever been a palestinian state.

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:49

Quote:

So it is moral for me to kill your wife, just because she profits from theft?

Sweet.

Bloodthirsty? You might want to warn her first, however, that her actions are illegal. I don't think a single Israeli is unaware of the illegality of their actions. (although I don't doubt that most wont admit it).

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:49

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Do you have sources for 1, 7 and 10?

It all comes from my memory of the events in the last 2 years.

You are welcome to search the forum if you want my sources then.

I distinctly remembered to only put things on the list which were 'real' according to your definition (ie covered by western meda)

Quote:

2: Near? And source, please.

same as aboce.

near, means near the exit.

Quote:

3 &4: Can you tell a teen from an adult on shooting distance?

3 refers to an incident where their heads were smashed with rocks.

4 refers to an incident which hapenned in a lit sport field in school. It hapenned at night, but the court was lit.

The shooter was determined to be near the field.

Quote:

5: That one is weird and twisted... Not defending that one.

why not?

was he not enjoying palestinian land?

Quote:

6: First of: no one there was under 18? Second: Do you expect the Hamas to know the difference between a disco for 16-18 and 18-20?

First : nope. All were high-school students.
Second: Yes, as they look high school age. There was a disco across the street with people in ages 21 and up.

One could determine their ages were teens.

Quote:

8, 9 & 11: Seems pretty clear that the purpose was not to kill chlidren, just israelis in general. Again, Sharon carries the guilt for the death of these children.

When a person boards a bus specifically at time when children travel to school, then there's intention in it.

When a child is simply at home, and is being shot specifically, not even by an automatic weapon (which could be claimed an incident) then it's not "in general" but rather on purpose.

GeneralTacticus · June 28, 2002, 04:50

Quote:

Which might have some relevance if there had ever been a palestinian state.

So you think that terrorists without a state are blameless or something?

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:51

Quote:

Minor difference.

Not at all minor.

Neither you nor me can verify personally that Amy Smart is really missing.

We have to rely on local news services and police in England.

I can't state: "this is all lies, she isn't really missing, since i can't verify it".

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:54

Quote:

Therefore the guilt for palestinian dead innocents falls directly on thier shoulders, as they do not prevent them from going to battle fields, and infact provoke them to confront soldiers.

I could swear I already answered this one...

Oh, wait, I did!

Here it is: Either way, while you could question the basic humanity of someone taking cover behind a child, the moral fault is still with the invading soldiers. If they don't open fire, no children will get hurt.

I'm fascinated that you still haven't managed to figure it out yet... the criminal is repsonsible for all damage caused by his actions. Israel is responsible for all suffering caused by its greed...

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:55

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu I just did.

Not to mention the NUMEROUS stories which were never sourced, published with the sole intention of inflaming hatred against palestinians.

If they are not sourced then the article writer is the actual source and wittness.

Quote:

Well, since the JP 'quoted' an article in Die Welt, that same story should exist in Die Welt. It didn't. The web version is the same as the print version.

(and while this is subjective, I do think it is importnat: the story was sufficiently huge that if true, it would have been on the first page of every news media in the world...).

a)Which story would that be? I specifically remember you already mentioning this in another thread, in which some poster iirc even said he has seen a similar story.

b) well, the Palestinains promoting hatered in school is expected to be on the first page of every news media in the world. but it isn't. It rarely appears on back pages, which shows intentional down-playing.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:56

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Which might have some relevance if there had ever been a palestinian state.

Since their hasn't been, how could we occupy it?

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:56

Quote:

I'm asking your opinion.

I luckily have my own morals which differentiate between civilians and combatants, unlike you.

I wouldn't invoke morals in your shoes. You are defending a nation that has invaded another and the deaths this occupation causes.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:57

Quote:

Either way, while you could question the basic humanity of someone taking cover behind a child, the moral fault is still with the invading soldiers. If they don't open fire, no children will get hurt.

a) you chose to ignore questioning the humanity of those who take cover behind children. at least when they are palestinains.

b) the invading soldiers aren't invading then, since as you have self stated, there was no palestinian state.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:58

G. Tactics - Gnu is a biggotted troll. You should have noticed it.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 04:59

Quote:

You are defending a nation that has invaded another and the deaths this occupation causes.

How could we have invaded palestine if there has never been a palestine, as you have stated yourself?

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 04:59

Mr President:

Quote:

Newspapers often get facts not just wrong, but completely wrong. Even your precious New York Times frequently prints retractions.

Mistakes happen. I'm assuming that things written in the NYT is true until I have reason to believe otherwise, as it is a widely respected media. The fact that it prints retractions is a vital part of that.

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 05:02

Quote:

How is entering a school dormatory, and shooting the kids, or enetring a house where children were sleeping and targetting them is different from me targetting your child?

You don't even know your own posts? Do check your numbered points again.

I asked for a source on the dormitory. If you can manage to find one (and we assume that the palestinian knew it was indeed a kids dormitory), then I'll condemn it. I'm not holding my breath though... Soiurces aren't one of your strong points either...

Entering the house: well, one could assume that not only kids live in the house, don't you think? In fact, one could even assume that there is a larger propability of there being adults in the house than there being children. So the attack was aimed at adults, and children were the victims. Victims of Sharons greed.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 05:02

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Why? The only thing I do is to call you on your lack of substance in those instances. Would be easier for both of us if you left them out in the first place.

Then deal with it when I call you on your lack of substance as to all Israeli news sources others than JP, whose "dishonest nature" you still haven't proven.

Quote:

You mean things like 'It is all Arafats fault'?

It seems to me that this is also backed by the US intelligence sources, and US government, and even US press.

Are they untrustable as well?

Quote:

So when I ask for sources, you should be able to find ones, right?

Assuming that it's quoted from a web based service - yes.

Quote:

Could you? I'm willing to bet money that the newspaper which employed him aologized and published retractions.

I won't bother finding it, but yes, I think they did appologize.

Israeli newspapers publish retractions too.

What's the point?

It's your bias that makes all the difference.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 05:07

Quote:

You don't even know your own posts? Do check your numbered points again

What difference does it make?

Can't you defend that?

You referred to case 9 and 11, in both the kids were not targetted as part of a general crowd, but rather the attacker went from room to room, hunting down targets.

I would assume it's not "mistakes".

Especially since those kids were usually aged 7, 9 and 11.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 05:09

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
*sigh*... Should I type slowly? They have no business being there. They have no moral right to return fire even if shot upon. They are an occupying presence. The only moral choice they could do is to stop the occupation.

They have every moral right.

Every person has a moral right to defend himself. Isn't that one of your basic pillars?

Quote:

Does it hurt to contemplate Israels crimes? Does it ease the hurt to try to blame others for the suffering those crimes cause? I'm struggling to understand the mental block you seem to have.

To me it appears you have a mental block, understanding the difference between soldiers and civilians, grownups and children, attacker and defender and so on.

so it's not me with the mental problems here.

CyberGnu · June 28, 2002, 05:10

Quote:

This makes no difference. The Palestinians (and other Arab nations) have been attacking ISrael since it's founding. IF you attack somewhere, you lose, and they take action to stop you attacking again, tough.

Not the point. You are claiming that Israeli soldiers must occpuy palestine since palestine carries out attacks on Israel. But it is flawed logic, since the occupation is CAUSING the attacks.

How other arabs attacked in 1948 has nothing to do with terrorist attacks.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 05:13

Quote:

I asked for a source on the dormitory. If you can manage to find one (and we assume that the palestinian knew it was indeed a kids dormitory), then I'll condemn it. I'm not holding my breath though... Soiurces aren't one of your strong points either...

You could have watched it on CNN some month or two ago.

Or you could have followed the threads here.

The fact that you have no idea about this specific terrorist act, makes me even more sure that your words are based on general prejudices with little knowledge as to specific events on the field.

Quote:

Entering the house: well, one could assume that not only kids live in the house, don't you think? In fact, one could even assume that there is a larger propability of there being adults in the house than there being children.

But he entered a room and saw a child and then killed it.

I don't see this as falling under the "killed child on accident" category underwhich it falls on the shoulders of the occupiers.

The Mad Monk · June 28, 2002, 05:14

I was considering making a 'Caption This!' thread with this. Thought better of it.

Sirotnikov · June 28, 2002, 05:17

Quote:

Not the point. You are claiming that Israeli soldiers must occpuy palestine since palestine carries out attacks on Israel. But it is flawed logic, since the occupation is CAUSING the attacks.

Your logic is again false, since the attacks (terrorist attacks) from the territories, and other arab countries existed before the occupation of 1967.

They also existed before 1947.

1929 being the most famous example of local arab massacres of innocent jews.

The real reason for terror is that arabs do not want jews to be their neighbours.

In 1929 jews only settled on land bought, or on unoccupied land in mandatorial palestine.

This continued until 1948.

The terror and resistance started there, due to the arab's unwillingness to accept new neighbours.

Their claim that the jews were stealing their lands, is the same as racist white americans have over the hispanic immigrants stealing US land.