Subject:
|
Re: Cease fire (was: Re: Peace in the Mid-East?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:19:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1059 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > >
> > > > Anyone who supports the actions of
> > > > terrorists is just as culpable as the terrorists themselves.
> > >
> > > I happen to agree with this viewpoint.It's nice and tidy and has a nice
> > > absolute finality to it. No equivocating. But it has a big problem. It opens
> > > one up to questioning one's own motives.
> > >
> > > People who want to assail one's position will (rightly) point out that you
> > > yourself have supported terrorists before.
> >
> > Isn't that merely deflection; skirting the issue at hand? I talk about
> > Palestininan terrorism, and they shift the focus to *my* supposed support of
> > terrorism. How is that germane? Merely as an attempt to discredit me as a
> > hypocrite? "Everyone's hands are dirty, so we can't judge"? I don't buy it.
John,
You said:
"Anyone who supports the actions of terrorists is just as culpable as the
terrorists themselves."
I demonstrated that your tax dollars and your countrymen support "terror". I
also shattered you allusion that Israel is a nation in search of peace – I
proved their belligerence. No big deal.
>
> Oh ya, I agree. But it's what you're up against here in this newsgroup.
> Until you can make this case (at the meta level), you're stuck. And no one
> here has been at all effective at making that case in the past. c.f. what
> happened to me when I tried to argue with Dan J. that there was a difference
> in degree between Israel and the PLO... went nowhere.
Larry,
Indeed it did not, as you could not justify your own words:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=10252
Did you ever?
>
> Hence debating this topic (and many others as well) is a waste of breath...
> no common ground.
This may sound odd, but I have found it educational. I hope others have too.
> Note that decrying the tactic itself only works if you yourself have never
> used it, and I fail on that regard since I've lambasted Scott for the UK's
> egregious mishandling of internal and external affairs, especially w.r.t.
> Palestine (I still consider the original partition of UK admined palestine
> as a big part of the current problem)
You may well *consider* that to be the case, but without putting meat on the
bones it is hard to figure out just what you mean?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cease fire (was: Re: Peace in the Mid-East?)
|
| (...) Oh ya, I agree. But it's what you're up against here in this newsgroup. Until you can make this case (at the meta level), you're stuck. And no one here has been at all effective at making that case in the past. c.f. what happened to me when I (...) (23 years ago, 30-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
|
|
|
|
