Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:17:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > We must work at
> > > finding peace. Real peace only comes with understanding, via education, not
> > > with supplying guns and ammo to either side to escalate the violence.
> >
> > Again I say to you, Dave, in all sincerity: what if one party doesn't *want*
> > peace? This is the dirty little secret we in the West are having such a hard
> > time understanding. Of course everyone wants peace, right? That's the goal of
> > any civilized society. But we are not talking about "civil" people; we are
> > talking about people who murder innocents randomly and for what? What do they
> > want? Peace? They want something, but peace isn't it. I'll let you connect
> > the dots.
>
>
> John,
> Your whole thesis appears to be:
> 1) Arabs/Palestinians are uncivilised troublemakers.
I was referring to PLO *terrorists*.
> 2) Israel is a peace loving nation.
Never said that. What would Israel know of peace?? She has
never been allowed to exist in peace! Yes, Israel *would like* to exist in
peace, but for now, Israel would just like to exist, period.
> 3) There is an international anti-Israeli media conspiracy which distorts
> reality.
I never said that, either. I said there is a liberal bias in the media, which
tends to sympathize with the Palestinians.
>
> However, to date, you have produced nothing that backs your thesis as a
> whole other than your own biased opinion. In short, you lack all credibility
> on this issue.
I made no "thesis". And what the heck's a "biased opinion"? Of course my
opinions are biased! You probably think yours are unbiased. Anyone who
supposes that has no credibility, IMO.
>
> Despite that, you are welcome to hold your opinions. What I don’t get is why
> you hold them? Why do you ignore the truth?
What "truth" do I ignore, Scott? And why do you need to "get" why I hold my
beliefs? I have *no* idea why *you* believe what you believe, and couldn't care
less anyway.
It is not even as if you offer a
> different perspective on events, you just ignore reality and make wholly
> unsubstantiated allegations.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Answer me this, Scott:
1. Is terrorism ever justified?
2. Was the attack on 9-11 justified?
3. What in your opinion *should* have been the US response?
4. Does Israel have the right to exist?
5. Has the PLO ever promised peace?
6. Does Arafat *want* peace?
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) So, if it is only the PLO terrorists who are uncivilised troublemakers, why are you anti-Palestinian? (...) Let’s just question this. Why did Meir (and her cabinet) turn down a cease-fire offer from Nasser (made via the USA?) on 7th Feb 1970? (...) (22 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) John, Your whole thesis appears to be: 1) Arabs/Palestinians are uncivilised troublemakers. 2) Israel is a peace loving nation. 3) There is an international anti-Israeli media conspiracy which distorts reality. However, to date, you have (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
