Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Middle..._%28Chomsky%29

Here's a good lecture on the US's middle east policy and their relationship with Israel and the Arab countries.

and there we go again ...

you can't source arguments with guys that have an axe to grind. It doesn't stand up.

Chomsky is very left leaning, has a history of tirades against the US government and has been called an anti-semite. None of this makes him wrong, I'm not saying that, but certainly not the source to use to support your arguments.

Hell the site you linked to has an entire section about opposition to Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

So like I said ... I'm not calling the man wrong, but he's not a wise choice to support your beliefs as fact.

[FlamesAddiction]

I am not familiar with this Galloway guy, and while I think he makes some excellent points, I can't stand his technique. He is one of those people who thinks that if he argues the loudest, then that wins the debate. It's not unlike guys like Limbaugh or O'Reilly.

I thought when he pointed out the media bias by asking them to name a Palestinian victim was bang on. When Israelis are killed, people remember. When Palestinians are killed, most people in the West forget pretty quickly - even though way more Palestinians have died in conflicts.

I do think he is doing too much "good guys vs. bad guys" thinking. When it comes right down to it, there are enough people to blame on both sides of the conflict. It's more "bad guys vs. bad guys" with the good people getting caught in the middle - most of whom happen to be Lebanese at this moment.... and that does nothing to help the long term prospects of defeating terrorism.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hakan

If they were blowing up our pizza joints because my country had invaded Montana and not given back all of the territory then I would probably want my government to give that territory back and begin the process of establishing diplomatic relations.

pretty level headed response to a guy that just lost a family member to a terrorist bombing ... you should be running a country with that level of calm at your disposal.

so Israel just rolled in and took territory on a whim or was there some agression that started the ball rolling with a loss of territory being the result, not the aim?

[FlamesAddiction]

Here is a pretty good summary of conflicts Israel has had with its neighbours.

Some they started, others were forced upon them. And either side can claim their attacks to be "pre-emptive". That is really a subjective term.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/israel_5.htm

[Hakan]

so Israel just rolled in and took territory on a whim or was there some agression that started the ball rolling with a loss of territory being the result, not the aim?

Well you can look up the 1982 Lebanon invasion and see for yourself if Israel had a right to invade and occupy another country and then never fully ceed the conquered territory back.

I'd love to hear an argument justifying that though.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What they see as their historical homeland I would assume.

So you would have no problem with the natives in Canada shooting missles into our cities because it was originally their land. Unbelievable.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Chomsky is very left leaning, has a history of tirades against the US government and has been called an anti-semite. None of this makes him wrong, I'm not saying that, but certainly not the source to use to support your arguments.

So one of the most credible sources available (a professor who actually knows how to research and source all of his information) shouldn't be considered credible because he disagrees with right-wingers, is critical of the US gov't and despite being the son of a Hebrew scholar and growing up experienced anti-semistism is called an anti-semitic?

Sorry but none of the those points are any reason to doubt his credibility. His credibility should rest on how well he sources his information and in that he is far more credible than many whom one can drawn on as a source.

Obviously you buy-in wholesale to the right-wing smears against this guy. Someone at the New York Times called him one of the most important intellectuals living today. Like or not he's more informed than any of us on the issue and has the ability to find news sources that regular joes like us can't (partially because he can read Hebrew and therefore gets more news out of that region.)

Did the read the lecture Bingo? If not, I'd ask you to do so. Unless you are the type that will only read points of view from the side you've chosen.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So you would have no problem with the natives in Canada shooting missles into our cities because it was originally their land. Unbelievable.

Clearly that is not what I said. In fact I had several posts about why the Native parallel is not a particularly fair one. Maybe you should comment on those instead.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Source?

That sounds blatantly false to me based on the information I've read.

Well I had read that to be true, but striaght from the horses mouth it is not. But Egypt get's alot. I guess it would be fair if Hezbollah sent 3 rockets into Egypt for every 4 that go into Israel then?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

"attacking" is a loaded word. hezbollah TARGETS (as best they can) civilians. Israel tries it's best to not TARGET civilians.

Don't like Hezbollah attacking civilians? Then maybe some country should sell them missiles with a guidance system so they can fire them at military targets. The missiles they have right now have no guidance and the best they can do is aim them at objects the size of cities... and I'm sure Israel prefers it that way. I'm sure Hezbollah would rather be able to destroy Israel's military.

As for Israel, they are all talk when it comes to avoiding civilian casualties. Sure they don't target civilians specifically ANYMORE* (although some rogue units have in the past), but they are usually willing to cut through as many civillians as it takes to kill one militant.


* During Israel's 19th and early 20th century colonization, they targeted civillians. The pre-cursor to the IDF was in fact a civillian militia that used to evict Arabs by force.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

you can't source arguments with guys that have an axe to grind. It doesn't stand up.

Doesn't everybody have an "axe to grind"?

How is Chomsky more guilty of this than anyone else?

I'm more tempted to believe a profressor than a political pundit on these kinds of issues. Who do you find MORE credible?

[jolinar of malkshor]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Don't like Hezbollah attacking civilians? Then maybe some country should sell them missiles with a guidance system so they can fire them at military targets. The missiles they have right now have no guidance and the best they can do is aim them at objects the size of cities... and I'm sure Israel prefers it that way. I'm sure Hezbollah would rather be able to destroy Israel's military.

I would disagree. Hezbollah makes no attempts to shoot their missles at Israeli military bases. The other day they were all dancing and celebrating the fact that they hit a Israeli home and killed 6 civilians. They don't care much about the military, if they get a chance, sure they will attack them, they just want to kill jews and make terror.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Don't like Hezbollah attacking civilians? Then maybe some country should sell them missiles with a guidance system so they can fire them at military targets. The missiles they have right now have no guidance and the best they can do is aim them at objects the size of cities... and I'm sure Israel prefers it that way. I'm sure Hezbollah would rather be able to destroy Israel's military.

As for Israel, they are all talk when it comes to avoiding civilian casualties. Sure they don't target civilians specifically ANYMORE* (although some rogue units have in the past), but they are usually willing to cut through as many civillians as it takes to kill one militant.


* During Israel's 19th and early 20th century colonization, they targeted civillians. The pre-cursor to the IDF was in fact a civillian militia that used to evict Arabs by force.

If Israel didn't care about civilians this 'war' would have been over on about 3 days. Hezbollah would still target civilians. It is their stated goal to kill all the Jews. THEY say it. They don't want to fight the IDF because they know they will lose. They are cowards.

[Hakan]

On a side note, this conflict has been very interesting in the fact that this is the first time where the overwhelming military might of Israel is now in question.

The fact that Israel cannot route out Hizbullah missile positions after massive bombing, commando operations and now invasion must have Israelis very nervous.

What else is interesting is that this is the first time since the 70s that the Israeli army is fighting what seems to be a well organized combat ready guerilla force. PLO and other Palestinian resistance was always scant, unorganized and most secular. The Hizbullah fighters appear to be much more of a match for the Israeli army if the reports of IDF casualties in southern Lebanon are true. Another difference is that Hizbullah is a muslim organization and their fighters appear unafraid to die.

The fact that this well organized force is the propietor of surprisingly modern weaponry from Iran may in fact change the face of this conflict. In the past, Israel was not afraid to launch vindictive strikes against supplier nations such as Iraq, Iran and Syria. The fact that Israel has not attacked Syria or Iran's weapon facilities may indeed imply that are at least reluctant to escalate conflict for fear of an unknown reciprocity.

[White Doors]

* During Israel's 19th and early 20th century colonization, they targeted civillians. The pre-cursor to the IDF was in fact a civillian militia that used to evict Arabs by force.

Best to blame the Brits fot that one?

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well I had read that to be true, but striaght from the horses mouth it is not. But Egypt get's alot. I guess it would be fair if Hezbollah sent 3 rockets into Egypt for every 4 that go into Israel then?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

You are confusing Egypt and Turkey.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

So one of the most credible sources available (a professor who actually knows how to research and source all of his information) shouldn't be considered credible because he disagrees with right-wingers, is critical of the US gov't and despite being the son of a Hebrew scholar and growing up experienced anti-semistism is called an anti-semitic?

Sorry but none of the those points are any reason to doubt his credibility. His credibility should rest on how well he sources his information and in that he is far more credible than many whom one can drawn on as a source.

Obviously you buy-in wholesale to the right-wing smears against this guy. Someone at the New York Times called him one of the most important intellectuals living today. Like or not he's more informed than any of us on the issue and has the ability to find news sources that regular joes like us can't (partially because he can read Hebrew and therefore gets more news out of that region.)

Did the read the lecture Bingo? If not, I'd ask you to do so. Unless you are the type that will only read points of view from the side you've chosen.

Have you ever researched and sourced material for your own papers? Footnotes mean nothing. Bias means everything. I could twist and manipulate almost any piece of information to support whatever argument I wanted to make.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Hard to punish a people for something that their great-great-grandparents did don't you think? In the Israel case we're dealing with things that have happened in one lifetime.

I've actually been thinking of a parallel with Natives in North America. To do so we'd have to invent a fictional scenario. Imagine that for various reasons the world declared a Native state in the middle of Canada. Trying to parallel the situation there is hard because of the religious implications of Jerusalem to both sides but let's try and replace religious and cultural significance with monetary significance. So let's say the world declares Alberta to be the new Native state. Let's say that China helps fund and militarily arm this new state. Then let's say that the Canadians flee this state in massive numbers and natives across NA and the world move there. Let's say the Natives attack BC and Saskatchewan a few times and conquer some territory there. Let's say that they start "settling" these areas by displacing the Canadians that had been living there. Let's say China invades BC under the pretext of having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Do you think Canadians would have something against both this Native state and China? Do you think we'd have the right to defend our territory? What if this new state attacked Saskatchewan, would we want to retaliate at all?

To me that much more closely parallels the Israel situation then talking about what happened in the 1800's with the Natives.

You can't compare Canada to the middle East. The middle East has had so many conquorers, owners, governments, liberators, over the past 4000 years, it not so easy to say it belongs to just one group. If anything, the natives have much more of a claim to this land than the Arabs to with Israel as the Natives have been the owners continually for thousands of years. That cannot be said for the mid east. It has been owned by Jews, Cristians and muslims alike, Rome, Persia, Ottoman Empire, Bazytine Empire, England, France, Germany and on and on.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Have you ever researched and sourced material for your own papers? Footnotes mean nothing. Bias means everything. I could twist and manipulate almost any piece of information to support whatever argument I wanted to make.

Okay. So you don't believe in an objective truth then? Or you believe it's inaccessible? So there's no credible sources on any issue? I'm not sure how we are supposed to practically incorporate this point of yours.

You can't deny there are more credible sources and less credible ones. What makes the more credible ones more credible?

[Hakan]

Then maybe some country should sell them missiles with a guidance system so they can fire them at military targets. The missiles they have right now have no guidance and the best they can do is aim them at objects the size of cities... and I'm sure Israel prefers it that way. I'm sure Hezbollah would rather be able to destroy Israel's military.

I actually don't agree with this. Hizbullah's surprising attack on a state-of-the-art Israeli gunboat proves that they do have guided missile technology.

As per the reason they are attacking civilian targets is that they want to stir up the hornets nest. They gambled that Israel would launch a vicious bombing campaign and won. As Galloway said, this can be seen as nothing less than a victory for Hizbullah as their are galvanizing support for them in the Muslim world and finally turning world attention against Israel. Israel has foolishly played themselves into this with no clear way out.