Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 04:43:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
704 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > You claim to not have taken sides on this issue, but your posts clearly betray
> > sympathy for the Palestinians and their terrorist representatives, the PLO.
> > Just be honest about it.
>
> I am sure Scott can speak for himself, but I can't see why questioning the
> political motives of either side
Either side, or just one?
betrays a leaning for one side or the
> other. Further, I imagine that Scott is working against the perception that
> news information in the U.S., at least, sides with the govt. agenda in
> generally being pro-Israel.
That's news to me. The US media isn't "pro-Israel", that's for sure.
>
> Again, this whole post of yours is in the way of an ad hominem attack --
> attempting to equate Scott's questioning of motives as siding with
> terrorists. As if those things were even remotely equivalents!
1. Scott (and you, I'd imagine) sympathize with the Palestinians.
2. The Palestinians are represented by the PLO, and back them 100%.
3. The PLO are terrorists.
4. Scott sympathizes with supporters of terrorism.
The equation would change if the Palestinians eschewed the PLO, but they
haven't.
Compare this to the US policy on terrorism WRT to Bin Laden. The gov't of al
Queda supported and harbored him, and thus became targets of anti-terrorism
themselves, and rightly so, IMO. Do you disagree?
People who aide, support, harbor, etc terrorists are as culpable as the
terrorists themselves. Do you disagree?
As I've suggested before, the Palestinians need to embrace peace instead of
terrorism to achieve any nationalistic goals they may have.
>
> Your pointed lack of reason galls me. You have stated absolutely nothing of
> substance! If you had argued any facts, if you had made anything like a
> formal argument (and this instead of a personal attack) -- I wouldn't now be
> addressing anything but your reasoning. When and if you EVER have anything
> interesting to say, I am sure we will be happy to hear from you again.
> Until then, you can certainly count me out.
>
> You want an ad hominem attack, John? See if you can guess which finger I
> have raised in your general direction...and right, this is not debate. It's
> mud-slinging. Come get some, you fatuous @$$****!
lol So much for your moral high ground, and any credibility you may have had:-(
-John
>
> -- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) This is a very thinly qualified attack against myself, and obviously more pointedly against Scott. And I DO take offense that you equate any questioning of your unbelievably myopic viewpoints as being the equivalent of siding with terrorists (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) I am sure Scott can speak for himself, but I can't see why questioning the political motives of either side betrays a leaning for one side or the other. Further, I imagine that Scott is working against the perception that news information in (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 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
|
|
|
|
