Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:07:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
583 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Yep, completely closed minded, that's me.
You said it, not me.
> Oh wait, you were talking about yourself there, and not me, weren't you,
> since you've never ever changed your mind about anything significant, and I
> have.
How grand of you, we're truly blessed (sniff sniff). And what exactly am I
supposed to change my mind about?
> So by those lights, the words "Palestine", "Israel", "US Oppressors" and
> most especially "Racist Zionist" need never be uttered by you again here, as
> you've said all there is to say about that.
You jump, I jump. Each time somebody wants to throw support toward Israel,
I'm here for the reality check. Israel is NOT our friend and deserves the
harshest criticism.
> Ditto but x10, based on your track record. Do look at my DebateCard(tm)
> score...
Not sure what you're talking about here.
> I *do* change my mind, and admit it without prevarication, if the
> case is made strongly enough. Cite where you've ever changed your mind about
> anything substantive, will you? Admitting you were wrong in phrasing
> something (but not about the central idea) after 17 back and forths of
> increasingly disruptive nature doesn't count. (meta: I bet you won't admit
> you're wrong about this either... but if you produce a cite, I will)
What do you want me to change my mind about?
> (gee, maybe we could get Dave to do one for all the major players here. I'd
> love to see LFBs... is there a category for being able to overwhelm with
> correct, relevant detail???)
You've lost me here. What are you referring to?
> They were like, not that far back. Not sure why Dave's searches failed.
Have you tried finding them yourself?
> OK, is the Intifada morally justified? (first under your statement that only
> soldiers are targeted, and then under the reality of what actually happens)
If targeting the Israeli military, YES, of course! The uprising of ordinary
Palestinians against Israeli occupation forces IS morally justified, yet how
effective are stones and Malatov Cocktails against machine guns and tanks?
Take a look at the body count, pal. And you YOURSELF said you support
citizens raising up against a crooked government, I can't think of a more
open-and-shut case. Why the double standard?
> Are the actions of Hamas morally justified?
Only if they targeted Israeli occupation forces and not civilians.
> Of Hezbollah?
Ditto.
> Of the PA in voicing support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and not trying very
> hard to stop them?
Like I said, only if they targeted the Israeli military and not civilians.
> Israel *is* the evil racist Zionish occupier of the oppressed Palestinians
> after all...
What the hell is Zionish? Is that like Jewish and Zionist combined or
something? I hope that was a typo because I've never said "Zionish" anyware
and never heard of such a term. Either way, even though you're being
sarcastic, that statement sums up the truth of the matter. The Zionists ARE
racists, they ARE occupying Palestine, they ARE killing the native people,
so what's to support? Why do you keep defending Israel? Can't you tell wrong
from right, who's the aggressor and who's the victim?
I'm assuming this what I'm supposed to change my mind about... or are you
referring still to something else? Quit jerking me around and get to the
point. For the record: Do you support the Israeli occupation--yes or no.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) By "harshest" do you mean more harsh criticism than against any other? I would agree that Israel needs harsh criticism of some of it's tactics. You've got a lot to do to convince me that the government Israel is worse than the government of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Sarcastically. (1) That's distortive because you snipped the cite. At the same time you were composing your post accusing me of being closed minded, I was composing a post acknowledging a serious hole in the argument I advanced. That's not the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Yep, completely closed minded, that's me. (URL) admitting that my arguments might not be 100% water tight or that I might be wrong about anything. Oh wait, you were talking about yourself there, and not me, weren't you, since you've never ever (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
