Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Cactus, you're telling me you've never, ever, in your life, read an article or watched a news program talking about Hamas breaking a ceasefire or truce? And you cannot possibly believe this is true without proof? Seriously? Which site would you accept as an unbiased source? I'll find you an article from a news agency of your choosing. You said they do it all the time. I don't think they do. I've shown how our media is biased. I've also heard how Hamas uses human shields in our media...but the evidence showed it was Israel who used them. We need to read past headlines. In one of the article from your articles in your google results the headline was that Hamas broke a truce...but when you read the article it later states it was in retaliation to Israel shooting/killing people on the Gaza beach. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 In one of the article from your articles in your google results the headline was that Hamas broke a truce...but when you read the article it later states it was in retaliation to Israel shooting/killing people on the Gaza beach. Exactly. And Israel would claim that they did shot/killed people on the Gaza beach because of something Palestinians did. And they would, in turn, claim it was retaliation for a previous act by the Israelis, and you can go on and on and on and on. That's my point. It is not just Israel. It is not just Palestinians. It's both, together, equally right and equally wrong. But please - answer the question. Which source is palatable for you? Where should I go to give you that magic link that will show that Hamas has, in fact, broken a truce, something which will be news to you, apparently. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 In one of the article from your articles in your google results the headline was that Hamas broke a truce...but when you read the article it later states it was in retaliation to Israel shooting/killing people on the Gaza beach. Exactly. And Israel would claim that they did shot/killed people on the Gaza beach because of something Palestinians did. And they would, in turn, claim it was retaliation for a previous act by the Israelis, and you can go on and on and on and on. That's my point. It is not just Israel. It is not just Palestinians. It's both, together, equally right and equally wrong. But please - answer the question. Which source is palatable for you? Where should I go to give you that magic link that will show that Hamas has, in fact, broken a truce, something which will be news to you, apparently. You're assumptions are a cop out. If you provided a link that would just be a starting place. I'd cross reference it w/ other source...probably the Israeli media. They are VERY often more honest about what happens over there. I would encourage you to the same when I provide a link. THis isn't about winning and losing an arguement. It's about getting to the truth. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Knapplc, do you agree that Israel it's wrong...regardless if it's illegal(it is), for Israel to move their population into the occupied territories and build settlements there? Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I've been telling you the truth. The truth is that there is enough blame for both sides over there. I've been saying that all along. You're telling me I'm wrong. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Knapplc, do you agree that Israel it's wrong...regardless if it's illegal(it is), for Israel to move their population into the occupied territories and build settlements there? Which territories are you talking about, specifically? EDIT - if you're talking about the lands the Palestinians want for their homeland, then the answer is a cautious yes, with the caveat that the territory in question is and will probably always continue to be debated for ownership. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 I've been telling you the truth. The truth is that there is enough blame for both sides over there. I've been saying that all along. You're telling me I'm wrong. yes and I'm trying to prove to you that you are wrong by digging into the facts, but you insist on going w/ what you think you know from listening to US media outlets. It's how people get frustrated w/ others that go by their gut instead of the facts. again...I understand why you think this way. Our discussion is pretty much exacly like this exchange. and Brzezinski is spot in here...they went on in Taba and Israel finally walked away from the talks. Again...rarely if ever reported/mentined in the US media. I wanna marry this video. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Knapplc, do you agree that Israel it's wrong...regardless if it's illegal(it is), for Israel to move their population into the occupied territories and build settlements there? Which territories are you talking about, specifically? EDIT - if you're talking about the lands the Palestinians want for their homeland, then the answer is a cautious yes, with the caveat that the territory in question is and will probably always continue to be debated for ownership. the occupied territories are the lands that are out side of the borders made for Israel when the state was created. More specifically, in this case the west bank. I'm happy to see we can agree that it's wrong for them to build settlements there. What do you think should happen when/if Israel refuses to stop buidling the settlements, especially during long peace talks? Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I've been telling you the truth. The truth is that there is enough blame for both sides over there. I've been saying that all along. You're telling me I'm wrong. yes and I'm trying to prove to you that you are wrong by digging into the facts, but you insist on going w/ what you think you know from listening to US media outlets. Who said I was looking at US media outlets? They're not the only ones on the web, you know. And if you're trying to prove I'm wrong, please show one shred of evidence that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, and/or that Israel is the ONLY aggressor over there. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 the occupied territories are the lands that are out side of the borders made for Israel when the state was created. More specifically, in this case the west bank. I'm happy to see we can agree that it's wrong for them to build settlements there. What do you think should happen when/if Israel refuses to stop buidling the settlements, especially during long peace talks? I think we should send them a strongly-worded letter telling them to stop. Pretty much what we do with the Palestinians. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 I've been telling you the truth. The truth is that there is enough blame for both sides over there. I've been saying that all along. You're telling me I'm wrong. yes and I'm trying to prove to you that you are wrong by digging into the facts, but you insist on going w/ what you think you know from listening to US media outlets. Who said I was looking at US media outlets? They're not the only ones on the web, you know. And if you're trying to prove I'm wrong, please show one shred of evidence that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, and/or that Israel is the ONLY aggressor over there. well you metioned "So the BBC is not to be trusted? CNN? ABC? FOX? CBS?" 4 of 5 from US. and now you're moving the goal post. This is about you saying Hamas always breaks truces (paraphrased) If you want to have an honest discussion about this we would look at the times the truces were broken and the times of any invastion/attack. Probably easiest to start at most recent and move back. I'm sure there are some times when it's hard to know "who shot first". Other times it will be rather clear. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 the occupied territories are the lands that are out side of the borders made for Israel when the state was created. More specifically, in this case the west bank. I'm happy to see we can agree that it's wrong for them to build settlements there. What do you think should happen when/if Israel refuses to stop buidling the settlements, especially during long peace talks? I think we should send them a strongly-worded letter telling them to stop. Pretty much what we do with the Palestinians. Don't you think it would be better to withhold all or most economic/military support to whichever side holds up the peace talks? So we could say as a first step that Israel has to stop construction of settlements and the palestinians have to stop any terrorist attacks during the peace talks. Whoever doesn't do this gets their economic/military support cut off. Good place to start, right? Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 the occupied territories are the lands that are out side of the borders made for Israel when the state was created. More specifically, in this case the west bank. I'm happy to see we can agree that it's wrong for them to build settlements there. What do you think should happen when/if Israel refuses to stop buidling the settlements, especially during long peace talks? I think we should send them a strongly-worded letter telling them to stop. Pretty much what we do with the Palestinians. Don't you think it would be better to withhold all or most economic/military support to whichever side holds up the peace talks? So we could say as a first step that Israel has to stop construction of settlements and the palestinians have to stop any terrorist attacks during the peace talks. Whoever doesn't do this gets their economic/military support cut off. Good place to start, right? Since we don't economically or militarily support Hamas, that would essentially mean Israel, right? Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 If you want to have an honest discussion about this we would look at the times the truces were broken and the times of any invastion/attack. Probably easiest to start at most recent and move back. I'm sure there are some times when it's hard to know "who shot first". Other times it will be rather clear. Good idea. The last, say, 25 times will do. Get the list prepared and we'll go over it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts