Pangloss Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 No, he's quite serious about seeing informationclearinghouse.info as an unbiased source. (sigh) Of course I condemn Hamas' actions - or at least the actions of the actual people who fire rockets into civilian areas in 'Israel'. If these actions are justified by Hamas I condemn Hamas unreservedly Simlarly, Israel's actions over the years have caused a reaction - that is militant Arabs/Palestinians etc. Israel needs to understand this rather than proclaim its self imposed right to exist. Only then can they become more humble and start to see things from the viewpoint of the Arabs/Palestinians. Only then will anything approaching peace be possible. You're a good man for saying so, but I do have to point out that you did precisely what I predicted that you would feel compelled, and indeed be unable to do anything else but to do -- condemn the rocket attacks while laying responsibility for them at Israel's feet. Still, you condemn the rocket attacks, and good for you for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 No, he's quite serious about seeing informationclearinghouse.info as an unbiased source. (sigh) If you look a little closer you will see that many of the articles collated by the website are from 'normal' newspapers - like the Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian etc. I think the article I was referring to was from the Independent - a UK quality broadsheet newspaper. You're a good man for saying so, but I do have to point out that you did precisely what I predicted that you would feel compelled, and indeed be unable to do anything else but to do -- condemn the rocket attacks while laying responsibility for them at Israel's feet. Still, you condemn the rocket attacks, and good for you for that. Well that's because it is the truth. How could one deny it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Those are valid sources, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 You are joking, right? Robert Fisk is a journalist for The Independent. A non-partisan (and proud to be so) quality newspaper in the UK. Its website is below: http://www.independent.co.uk/ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou mean, a simple 'No' would have made it look silly when you criticize Israel for something that you are unable to show that any other country would have been able to do differently. Err.... No. I was able to show you the opposite, and that few civilized countries would behave as israel has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 That may be, but it was an opinion piece, not a news article. Just something to bear in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Err.... No. I was able to show you the opposite, and that few civilized countries would behave as israel has done. OK, I'll bite. Which countries had to fight against children with guns or explosives, against terrorists using children as meatshields, and against guerrillas in a city, without killing any innocent children? Please, name the country, not just say that you have shown there are several when you have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 If you look a little closer you will see that many of the articles collated by the website are from 'normal' newspapers - like the Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian etc. I think the article I was referring to was from the Independent - a UK quality broadsheet newspaper. See, it's the "collater" that's the problem. If you're getting your news from places like that, then you're only seeing the cherry-picked stories (and opinion pieces) that support a very narrow and extremely biased viewpoint. So naturally your overall viewpoint is going to be skewed as well, since it would seem to you like everything is always Israel's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 See, it's the "collater" that's the problem. If you're getting your news from places like that, then you're only seeing the cherry-picked stories (and opinion pieces) that support a very narrow and extremely biased viewpoint. So naturally your overall viewpoint is going to be skewed as well, since it would seem to you like everything is always Israel's fault. I don't only read stuff from this website you know! My homepage is BBC News Website. I also read CNN, Al Jazeera, Guardian, Times etc. It's just this website often picks up reports that others miss - or that I have missed. It often offers an alternative to mainstream opinion, which enables me to see the other side of the coin. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThat may be, but it was an opinion piece, not a news article. Just something to bear in mind. Yes, I would accept that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOK, I'll bite. Which countries had to fight against children with guns or explosives, against terrorists using children as meatshields, and against guerrillas in a city, without killing any innocent children? Please, name the country, not just say that you have shown there are several when you have not. None? Maybe? But the argument you are putting forward is irrelevant to this recent conflict. Children were NOT being used to fight, and their use as meatshields is very VERY much open to debate. I would even go as far as to say that this excuse has been extremely exaggerated by Israel to justify what they have been doing. There were no gunmen near the UN building, or the hospitals, or the schools, as verified by independent witnesses, yet they still got bombed. See here for the story of the moment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838465.stm But as I said earlier, the UK was engaged in guerilla warfare in Northern Ireland for many years and never resorted to this kind of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 None? Maybe? But the argument you are putting forward is irrelevant to this recent conflict. Children were NOT being used to fight, and their use as meatshields is very VERY much open to debate. I would even go as far as to say that this excuse has been extremely exaggerated by Israel to justify what they have been doing. There were no gunmen near the UN building, or the hospitals, or the schools, as verified by independent witnesses, yet they still got bombed. See here for the story of the moment: Oh, OK. So every country would do what Israel would do if the situation were as I described, yes? Now, if I can show that children were being used to fight, were being used as meatshields, and militants were shooting from schools and hospitals, you will say that Israel did what any other country would do, right? Because, frankly, I think that you are so biased that when I look these up, you'll just find another reason to pick on Israel. That is why I won't bother to look it up unless you agree that if these things happened then Israel's actions were justified, if not necessarily appropriate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838465.stm But as I said earlier, the UK was engaged in guerilla warfare in Northern Ireland for many years and never resorted to this kind of action. And how many attacks on the UK did these guerillas do outside of Ireland? 7000 attacks a year? No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Oh, OK. So every country would do what Israel would do if the situation were as I described, yes? Now, if I can show that children were being used to fight, were being used as meatshields, and militants were shooting from schools and hospitals, you will say that Israel did what any other country would do, right? Because, frankly, I think that you are so biased that when I look these up, you'll just find another reason to pick on Israel. That is why I won't bother to look it up unless you agree that if these things happened then Israel's actions were justified, if not necessarily appropriate. And how many attacks on the UK did these guerillas do outside of Ireland? 7000 attacks a year? No? I think it was wrong for Israel to bomb civilian areas where there was a high likelihood of civilians getting killed. If Hamas had been launching Scuds I might have a different opinion, but the deaths caused by these rockets were relatively few and did not warrant this sort of heavy handed indicriminate action. If Israel HAD to have a military solution they should have used exclusively ground troops with small arms and tanks to take out gunmen. Yes, more soldiers may have been killed - but that's their job! Soldiers lives are not less expendable than civilians, even Palestinian ones. I think that military solutions to such problems rarely work in the long term. If Israel truly wants a just peace it has to start being more civilised, and has to be able to see the situation from others point of view. It must grow a broader back and stop behaving "...like a mad dog" (to quote Mosche Dayan). I think we'll probably have to agree to differ as this debate is going nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yes, I agree. I presume you also condemn the use of "human shields" or hiding behind civilians, but still feel those positions should not have been bombed. Before we move on I think Bombus deserves credit for having the courage to defend and support his position and the broad-mindedness to be reasonable about many details upon which we all agree. Being in opposition to popular positions on a board is never easy, but there wouldn't be a vigorous debate without it. Let's give him an SFN pat on the back for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I agree.. bombus, I disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but I do think it takes courage to post "against" general opinion (or, well, general opinion in this thread, as it seems from the replies in it.. I can't judge for the rest of the world). I still reserve the right to disagree, but don't take my disagreement as a sign of disrespect.. I usually don't debate in the politics forum for various reasons, but this was - as a whole - a generally good debate. Good for you ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) Some disagreement is good for debate, but with someone who is unwilling to budge no matter how much evidence is presented, the debate will keep going and going and going ... in circles. Bombus, what would any other country do if it were in Israel's shoes? Edited January 23, 2009 by Mr Skeptic double post deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Someone on the Hamas side has chucked another bomb into Israel, and Israel is responding with tanks and force. It's like deja vu, all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 To Pangloss and Mooeypoo, Thanks for those kind words. Much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now