knapplc

I am trying to have a legit discussion on this, but when you can't take your conversation partner's point as fact without links and articles that you can find on your own via simple search, which I did for you no less, it's pretty pointless. There's nothing to be gained in having a conversation with you if you ONLY adhere to the stance that Israel is bad and their Arab counterparts are good. What would it matter if I posted a link to a BBC article about Hamas breaking a truce? Is it not a fact prior to the posting of that link? Insistence on this makes no logical sense.

Start with CNN, then include the rest. How does CNN and "the rest" censor our news to favor Israel? And what is their motivation for doing this?

I saw it on the internets... it's in the tubes! So the BBC is not to be trusted? CNN? ABC? FOX? CBS? It's pretty easy to find articles from about two dozen sources citing Hamas breaking truces. Same goes for Israel breaking truces.

Do you really believe that Obama is engaged in class warfare?

It's amusing that you'd rather go on and on about the fact that I didn't copypasta an article here than admit your assertion is wrong.

I'll be as plain as I can: Which part/parts of Article Two show that America is engaging in genocide in Afghanistan? Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Out of curiosity, which members of "our media" is/are pro-Israel, to the point where they're hiding "the truth" about this situation from Americans?

Yes, I read Article Two. Doesn't say what you're implying.

In what way is he any more racist than the rest of the Republican crop of candidates? I do not believe Mitt Romney, etc, have published newsletters with racist remarks like Paul has.

Your arguing technique is weird. You're shown, by the simplest of methods, that your assertion is wrong, and you want to claim that you're right because I didn't post a link in this thread? How does a person even come up with this stuff?

Christians who do bad things don't do them because they are Christian . . . but . . . Muslims who do bad things do them because they are Muslim! (sarcasm) Yes and no!! A Christian who steals and then feels remorse and asks for forgiveness does not do it because he is a christian but rather that he gave into temptation. The same could be said for a muslim if they stole and then repented of their sin. But the same can't be said when a muslim slams a plane into a building yelling praise allah. Then that falls on the muslim faith of that person and what and who taught him to be that way. Can the same thing be said of a "Christian" who takes part in mass killings, like the Norway mass-murderer? There are obvious examples of people who claim to be Christian doing very un-Christian things. That doesn't mean we get to blame Christians for those things any more than we get to blame Muslims because some nut-jobs flew some planes into some buildings.

I did. Click the little google link I gave you already. Once there, click on any of the links on that page. I think you owe me an apology for making me type this.

Why is that funny? At no time did I claim that Israel doesn't break truces. They do. Israel breaks truces, Hamas breaks truces, the PLO broke truces.... the list goes on. It's not one-sided like you're presenting. It's a situation of mutual blame.

Ummm..... nope. Pretty much an established fact. oh so google search results in entries that support a claim. You win..you win. LOL Well.... yes. How would you support your contention that Hamas breaking truces is "just an assumption?"

His explanation was saying the same thing over and over, and claiming people didn't get it. And your 51%-99% explanation was silly.

Ummm..... nope. Pretty much an established fact.

Definitely agree with both.

well he went on to explain what he meant and it was you guys that wouldn't accept it. you guys really owe him an apolgy. You gotta be kidding me.

Call the Ticket Office or go there in person. Don't do it online.

We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next?

Just google "hamas breaks truce" and you'll find about a hundred examples. Of course you can tie those instances to Israeli activity, which can in turn be tied to Arab activity. It's a never-ending mishmash of retaliation. And you can go back to 1947 and find instances of Arab terrorism killing Jews in marketplaces, and you can go back beyond that to find Israeli atrocities. OF COURSE it hinges on land. You shoe-horned an entire country into a space where it didn't exist previously. But to state that Israel is "the aggressor" simply based on land is missing the point, and giving an unnecessarily free pass to the Arabs. You keep saying, Cactus, that Israel is to blame, and citing Israeli wrongs. The truth is that both are in the wrong - and both are in the right.

You got a problem with the Ptolemaic Egyptian dynasty?

Something that is very conveniently forgotten by today's Republicans.

I typed a response to Sub's post but it's not here. I must have closed the window before hitting Submit. Anyway.... Genocide has nothing to do with what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're targeting specific people, not a whole population. If we were intent on genocide we'd round up whole villages and put them to the sword. Implying that the U.S. is engaged in genocide in Afghanistan is like saying anyone who commits murder is guilty of genocide. It's not the same thing.

Except that Hamas is notorious for making ceasefire deals with Israel and then breaking them once the Israelis let their guard down. Believing that Hamas would adhere to a 10-year truce is a nice utopian view, but nobody anywhere trusts that. This conflict dates back to the Balfour Declaration (and of course before that, but we're talking the modern-day issue, not ancient issues) and the issue of dividing the Ottoman Turkish empire between various parties and ethnicities, including the Arabs and the Jews. The territories created by the British and the UN just after WWII were in jeopardy from the instant of their inception, mostly because neither side would compromise. Both hated the borders, and both wanted the whole without sharing. This made the 1948 war inevitable, from which the modern state of Israel was carved. Israel never stopped conspiring against her neighbors from that day, but then again, her neighbors never stopped conspiring against her, either. Both sides had spies, secret police, assassinations, etc. Neither sides' hands are clean, and neither is "more wrong" than the other.