Subject:
|
Re: When is a website "independent" and when is it "part of"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:58:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1772 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > With the total destruction of Israel, right? I mean, isn't that what the • hard
> > > > line states (and Yassir) want? For Israel to be gone, wiped off and the
> > > > territory replaced with a new state (not a Palestinian state, mind you...
> > > > that's Jordan).
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that is true.
> >
> > It is though. That's exactly what they want.
>
> I know extemists want that, but they are etremists.
I would like to believe that as well, but I cannot do so in light of the past
events. Arafat was supposedly for peace, and we in Israel hoped for a serious
chance to acheive it. But now it seems that the Palestinians who want peace
are not a majority - not by a long shot. And Arafat is not doing anything to
stop the riots (and yes, he does have the power to do so, but he is not doing
it).
> I read what in the UK is called a "seriouse" newspaper. I also listen to the
> good old BBC, which is, overall, pretty fair. Neither say what you claim.
> Perhaps this is part on the international media conspriscy you hinted at?
Not conspiracy, no. A slightly contorted view, yes.
[...]
> You've lost me on that.
I'll try again (as much as I'd want to believe otherwise, my language barriers
are still there, and especially when I get riled up ;-).
Larry said...
> it's not the US role to be the world's
> policeman, but I digress).
...to which you repied with a post disagreeing with this.
Larry replied saying:
> That was a throwaway comment and I didn't expect a debate, but since you're
> slagging the US, here I am.
In other words, the first quote above was used to prove a point, but when you
challanged the validity of the sentence, Larry backed it up with (whatever it
was Larry used).
Then, you said:
> If the US were to
> withdraw some of its dogmatic support for Israel - it would have ended
> days/weeks/years ago.
The sentence was made to prove your point (CMIIW). I replied challanging that
sentence; you replied saying:
> I did not really intend this to be a Palestinian V Israeli debate [..]
All I'm saying is, Larry didn't intend the original post to be a UK vs. US
debate, but it happened. You didn't intend this to be a Palestinian vs.
Israeli debate, but it happened. Isn't that the same?
Hope that makes more sense. It was just a small comment, so feel free to
disregard it.
-Shiri
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
58 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
|
|
|
|
