Judge Hades Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 I have tried to see it through their eyes. Did you know that Palestine asks the US for relief money every year? We usually give them something like 400 or 500 million dollars. We ask that the money be spent on medicine, food, etc. Palestine refuses to show us how they're spending our dollars, and some have suggested that money is being spent on terrorism. The nation of Palestine was a poor country filled with desert. When it became a shared land, the Isreali people came in and cultivated the land. They built structures, developed the Gaza strip, and irrigated the land. Then they gave some of the reconstructed land to the Palestine people who were poor. The UN said to share. Now, if Palestine saw this as an invasion, they could appeal the decision by the UN. They could ask for military support. The government knows that they don't have much of an arguement. The government chooses instead to side with terrorism and harbor genocidal desires. Many Palestinians have been quoted as wanting to see all Americans and Isrealis dead. They don't want their land, they want blood. That's a huge difference. In peace talks, people have presented compromises. Isreali gives up land, and the Palestinians are supposed to curb terrorism. Well, one side keeps complying, and the other hasn't. Do you understand the spirit of compromise? How can I have sympathy for a nation that cries for the murder of civilians and genocide? I can't. I'm shocked that you can so easily look over such things. The end does not justify the means. You don't compromise with invaders and again the UN is seen as an invader, as the enemy, and no one in their right mind would want military "help" from the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Okay, Hades. Now try looking through Isreal's eyes. That's their ancestral home land as well. They could claim the Palestinian's are the true invaders/usurpers, and thusly nuke them all back to the stone age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 True, but they lost the rights to that land centuries ago and Israel indeed has the right to take it by force and kill all the Palestinians for their land just as much as the Palestinians has the right to use whatever means they can to kill the Israelis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 True, but they lost the rights to that land centuries ago and Israel indeed has the right to take it by force and kill all the Palestinians for their land just as much as the Palestinians has the right to use whatever means they can to kill the Israelis. How did they lose their rights? By being forcibly removed via slavery and war? If that's your logic than might makes right and you better drop your complaints about the US and Isreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Might does make right, but those who are in a weakened and desparate position have the right to do anything and everything they can against the aggressor's might. Both Israeli and Palestine are right in their battles, but both are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 If that's your logic than might makes right and you better drop your complaints about the US and Isreal. true logic? that no longer exists in the palestinian/jewish conflict... such emotional arguments can be counter to every other belief the holder has, yet they still fail to see the counter-parallel. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Never apply logic to an illogical situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Logic points out the folly of illogical situations. Then again, humans aren't completely logical creatures. We have emotional truth, and logical truth. We often fail to balance these two things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 "does this dress make me look fat?" and other such illogical situations are perfect examples... task comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 No, it's your huge butt that makes you look fat, honey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 yes, logical... you could even say "no, the 20 twinkies a day make you look fat" but both have bad endings... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 mkreku I didn't meant literally naked, but the ding dong is a nice secret weapon. On the Subject of the Mideast.. Before WW2, Israelies were known as Palestinians, now not just Jews call themselves Israelis. How did people decide to become one? Btw Arafat should have taken Barak's deal I doubt he's ever gonna get more then that again. Could have ended this bulls*** in 1999 and gotten almost everything he wanted. What if I wanted to kill the other bounty hunters but still have the Twi'leks chase me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 No, it's your huge butt that makes you look fat, honey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankK Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 The more I read on www.fair.org (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), the more I begin to understand why most americans view the world so entirely different than everyone else in the world. If you're interested in discovering what the small nuances in choice of words have for effect when reporting the news, read this interesting article: http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/pow-tv.html I rarely respond to this forum, but I did have to chime in with this. If you believe FAIR is really 'fair', then you may as well believe Fox News and CNN are are playing to non-partisan crowds. I found many facts on FAIR (both currently and in the past) to be misleading, revisionistic and ommisive. It is clearly an editorial site with truth second to opinion. It's easy to see why people have such a negative view of Americans and their politics when reading sites like FAIR. I would implore you to do what I do--read many sites a day on the same story (and from different countries). don't rely on something like FAIR to 'feed you the truth'. News media today is as it ever has been, selectively telling the truth. If you visit 4 or 5 sites a day, between them you can at least see a portion of what is real. Otherwise you wind up reading what you want to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakron Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 "Truth" is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankK Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 "Truth" is subjective. Good point. I should have said 'facts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiw Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 Huh? By definition truth is objective. It's opinion masquerading as truth that's subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankK Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 Huh? By definition truth is objective. It's opinion masquerading as truth that's subjective. I won't argue that either =) Truth as it pertains to journalism however, seems often to be subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 What we're talking about here has become semantics. Let's say that I hate jelly doughnuts. I sincerely just loathe the damn things. I say that jelly doughnuts are the worst thing in the whole world. My statement is opinion, and thus not objective. Furthermore, one might argue that my opinion is not true. But since I sincerely feel that way, is it not truth to me? In many senses, reality, and thusly truth, is defined by our own perceptions of it. Facts are like postulates. It's what we supposedly accept as non-debatable common truths for sake of argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 I rarely respond to this forum, but I did have to chime in with this. If you believe FAIR is really 'fair', then you may as well believe Fox News and CNN are are playing to non-partisan crowds. I found many facts on FAIR (both currently and in the past) to be misleading, revisionistic and ommisive. It is clearly an editorial site with truth second to opinion. It's easy to see why people have such a negative view of Americans and their politics when reading sites like FAIR. I would implore you to do what I do--read many sites a day on the same story (and from different countries). don't rely on something like FAIR to 'feed you the truth'. News media today is as it ever has been, selectively telling the truth. If you visit 4 or 5 sites a day, between them you can at least see a portion of what is real. Otherwise you wind up reading what you want to believe. It's always a matter of choosing who to believe, no matter how many sources you can come up with. If you read more about FAIR, you'll see that it's a network of journalists, a collective, giving their views on common day news. It's not "some guy" updating an anti-american site. And when people like Noam Chomsky and Susan Faludi supports that organization I do feel they have some credibility. (As a side note: I've been to a lecture held by Noam Chomsky once. It was awesome!) But I do read lots of other media sites every day. I use CNN for updates of the breaking news, I use Fox News when I need comedy and so on. You claim to have found "many facts" on FAIR to be "misleading, revisionistic and ommisive", but you're not giving me any examples or any articles supporting what you believe is right. Another interesting article: http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-aljazeera.html Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 The problem is that even though it's a group of journalists, they have a similiar vision. Editorializing is human nature. And if all these journalists want to prove a certain point, they can all contribute to a site that sees the world the way they want to see it. During the brunt of the military invasion of Iraq, the US military had a CENCOM media briefing every morning. And I watched it every morning on CNN. Journalists from around the globe got to ask our Generals questions. They asked questions such as "why are you dropping yellow bombs and yellow relief packages at the same time?" Well, if they had done their research, they would have found that SNAFU was corrected 6 years ago or something like that. It never happened it Iraq. But journalists were quick to propogate the lie. Then as tanks got to Baghdad in a matter of three weeks, reporters were asking questions like "This war is going far slower, and far more unsuccesfully as you planned and said it would. Will the administration admit to making a mistake?" Well, if the journalist had any credibility or payed attention, they would have seen that Bush, Powell, and the generals all said the war would be lengthy, and difficult. They never gave a time frame. Yet Iraq's infrastructure fell in no time at all. We dismantled Iraq's military in record time. Yet, here journalists kept asking what took so long, and why things were going so poorly. I'm not sure I saw one objective or intelligent question come out of the briefings during the month they were held. Journalists will say what they want to say. I think Frank had it right. The best way to get "objectivity" in journalism is to read multiple sources and compare them, not just a source that happens to cater to your view. If I do discredit a source, it's because I've seen it reguarly be irresponsible in fact-checking, or overtly biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 I won't argue that either =) charlie brown in da house! taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankK Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Edited out comments. Politics is such a horrible conversation topic. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Should we move on to sex and religion? :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I vote the former! 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