herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
EnglishDomNW: Exactly. In your own words, "they considered themselves Palestinians"
Which contradicts your statement: If you steal SOMEONE’S land, and THEY object to it, did THEY start the conflict or did YOU?
In order for your statement to be applicable, the Jews would NOT have been Palestinians.
EnglishDomNW: Are you on a mission to defeat your own arguments throughout this entire thread?
That is not what I am doing. My rebuttal did not support your statement, but pointed out its flaw. None of my statements defeats what I have stated before. They poke holes in your statements while supporting the arguments that I have already presented.
EnglishDomNW: No, YOU'RE wrong (as Lil pointed out, "again") and I'm RIGHT.
In order for me to be wrong, there would have to be ZERO Jews living in Palestine at the time of the British Mandate, and the Jews that DID fought the Arabs would ALL have to be from OUTSIDE of Palestine.
But that is not the case. Your statement, if you steal someone’s land, and they object to it, indicates that the Jews STOLE the land and ignores the fact that Arabs lost land as a result of what actually was a civil war between the Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians.
EnglishDomNW: Isn't that awful? Everyone condemns that tactic, don't they.
In the case of Hezbollah, yes, everybody that does not see things from the same point of view as the radical terrorists would condemn that act. However, those that condemn the Israeli side, without taking all facts into account, are condemning prematurely. I would wait for the results of any Israeli investigation before I release judgement on them.
EnglishDomNW: Let's see how far you can keep this argument up
Got a month? Year? I will keep going as long as you want to.
EnglishDomNW: You are never at the scene when a rocket falls in Northern Israel but you know it happens. How? You watch the news.
There is more to this than just watching it on the news. Considering that Hezbollah’s SOP calls for inflicting terror in the civilian public, and considering that they have proven that they will go out of their way to do just that, and considering that they don’t try to hide that tactic, all one has to do is put the pieces together and know that they have carried out what they intended to do. No secrets behind their intentions there.
It is against IDF policy to attack neutral and civilian targets. If they do, it is because those that got targeted were at the wrong place at the wrong time, were being used to the enemy’s advantage, or some other legitimate military reason. There are exceptions, and they end up under investigations. The Israelis DO investigate abuses committed by the IDF.
EnglishDomNW: How do you know, are you at the scene when they do it? Or do you watch the news?
quote:
EnglishDomNW: There's this amazing belief instilled in your head
Not a belief, but assessment based on experience, research, and reading/watching multiple news reports.
Do you remember this? I think I posted it a couple of days ago, you had to read it. Do you see the part in dark purple, especially the underlined parts?
Again, there is more to this than what is reported on the news. My assessments are based on more than what is going on in the news. What the news does report brings many things that I have read and researched to the front.
How do I know that Hezbollah will go out of the way to attack civilian populations? Books and articles that have nothing to do with the news. By the time the news talks about it, it is “old” news. Their tactics of drawing enemy fire into vulnerable targets that would put their enemy in a bad light is no secret. (In fact, the news confirmed that there WERE Hezbollah fighters in the vicinity of the UN compound. It also confirmed that Hezbollah was deliberately attacking the Israelis from and around UN buildings in order to draw fire to these structures.)
Then we have the IDF. Like the U.S., they have rules of engagement, and there is print - both online and on paper - that point to the fact that they have ROE’s. The IDF is prohibited from attacking civilian targets “just for the hell of it”.
Now, when the evening “news” talks about a UN Building that was attacked by the Israelis, or an ambulance that was destroyed, a person’s mind HAS to go to work putting past knowledge together with the new knowledge.
If the Israelis did these things, there HAS to be a good reason. Was the ambulance transporting missiles? Was someone shooting at the Israelis from the back? Was someone inflicting damage on the Israelis while using the ambulance or the UN building as cover?
I know that it is much easier to not work the mind and to simply condemn the Israelis based only on what was seen on your “news”, but using this approach lets people fall into the, “they did not say it on the news, it ‘can’t’ be true!” trap.
The fact that the Israelis are launching an investigation on the UN building incident speaks volumes about where they stand on destroying non combatant or neutral parties. If that investigation turns out that the Israelis involved were negligent, and that there was no need for them to do that, THEN it would be appropriate to lambast the Israelis - and only those that were involved.
You don’t have to wait for a similar investigation on the Hezbollah side, because attacking civilian targets is one of their SOPs.
EnglishDomNW: Not much point for the Geneva Convention really, since you're giving Israel full reign to attack anything it likes (including UN buildings - clearly marked) because anything on the planet "might" be harbouring hidden missiles, mightn't it?
No, that is not what I am doing, AGAIN…
“Your deliberately ignoring - or refusing to acknowledge the fact that Israel’s enemies will use hospitals, mosques, ambulances, and other protected landmarks for military purposes” -herfacechair
Whether the building is clearly marked “UN” or not, they are not protected by the Geneva Convention when the enemy uses them for military/military support operations. There is no “might” about this. Hezbollah and Hamas are notorious about hiding in places they know - or hope - the Israelis would not shoot at.
Also, it does appear that the UN building was caught in a crossfire between Hezbollah and the IDF. Who did the shooting and who did what damage is still under investigation. It speaks volumes when you would be up in arms about the Israelis “because that was on the news”, yet say nothing about possible Hezbollah involvement with the building’s destruction.
EnglishDomNW: How do you know, did you ask them in your official Mustang role? It must be either that or "you get your information from news sources" which you've already criticised yourself as holding back information. Which is it, herfacechair?
quote:
EnglishDomNW: There's this amazing belief instilled in your head
Not a belief, but assessment based on experience, research, and reading/watching multiple news reports.
Do you remember this? I think I posted it a couple of days ago, you had to read it. Do you see the part in dark purple, especially the underlined parts?
How do I know that Hezbollah will go out of the way to attack civilian populations? Books and articles that have nothing to do with the news. By the time the news talks about it, it is “old” news. Their tactics of drawing enemy fire into vulnerable targets that would put their enemy in a bad light is no secret.
Then we have the IDF. Like the U.S., they have rules of engagement, and there is print - both online and on paper - that point to the fact that they have ROE’s, and their ROE’s prohibit them from doing precisely what you are insinuating they are doing.
Now, when the evening “news” talks about a UN Building that was attacked by the Israelis, or an ambulance that was destroyed, a person’s mind HAS to go to work putting past knowledge together with the new knowledge.
EnglishDomNW: How do you know, did you ask them in your official Mustang role? It must be either that or "you get your information from news sources" which you've already criticised yourself as holding back information. Which is it, herfacechair?
quote:
EnglishDomNW: There's this amazing belief instilled in your head
Not a belief, but assessment based on experience, research, and reading/watching multiple news reports.
Do you remember this? I think I posted it a couple of days ago, you had to read it. Do you see the part in dark purple, especially the underlined parts?
Again, there is more to this than what is reported on the news. My assessments are based on more than what is going on in the news. What they do report do bring many things that I have read and researched to the front.
That piece of information came from FOX News, and it confirms what I have read before. Like the U.S., they have rules of engagement, and there is print - both online and on paper - that point to the fact that they have ROE’s, and their ROE’s prohibit them from doing precisely what you are insinuating they are doing.
EnglishDomNW: Well, good for you. Have an apple
That’s OK, a good laughter does the trick and I am getting a good laugh at your statements.
EnglishDomNW: Haven't you noticed how I'm always right? How much justification do you need?
ROTFLMFAO!
That statement has as much validity - and is as laughable - as this one:
"Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport." - Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (AKA, Baghdad Bob)
Now you know why I indicated that you have not given me justification to trust your opinions?
EnglishDomNW: How do you know, did you ask them in your official Mustang role? It must be either that or "you get your information from news sources" which you've already criticised yourself as holding back information. Which is it, herfacechair?
quote:
EnglishDomNW: There's this amazing belief instilled in your head
Not a belief, but assessment based on experience, research, and reading/watching multiple news reports.
Do you remember this? I think I posted it a couple of days ago, you had to read it. Do you see the part in dark purple, especially the underlined parts?
Again, there is more to this than what is reported on the news. My assessments are based on more than what is going on in the news. What they do report do bring many things that I have read and researched to the front.
As far as what the terrorists see as what constitute a legitimate military action? From reading books on the subject.
EnglishDomNW: Jesus, where the HELL did you go now??
I was pointing out how ludicrous the idea was, the one that you were advocating, where you put equivalency to two groups that did NOT have the same objectives with their actions.
EnglishDomNW: Exactly.
This point is only applicable to Hezbollah and any claims that their actions are “legitimate” military actions.
EnglishDomNW: And just because someone on the internet, a "Mustang Officer" (lol) says it's "legitimate military action" doesn't make it so either.
Not quite. If someone that has done extensive research and reading on this topic disagrees with you on what constitutes a legitimate military action, and this person is also in the military, keep in mind which one of you is the subject matter expert in that area and swallow your pride. Chances are REAL good that you are wrong.
In fact, if they give you detailed responses indicating that you are wrong, you need to seriously reevaluate your position and do more research to find out why you are wrong.
EnglishDomNW: Or anyone from the "Man Boy Association. (lol x 2)
And that is one of the reasons to why I have rejected YOUR definitions of what constitute - or may constitute - a legitimate military action or not.
EnglishDomNW: ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING YOUR OPINIONS ARE UNBIASED? ROOOOOOOOOOFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Don’t mistake my pointing differences out as being a “biased opinion”. Contrary to what you “see” and how you “analyze” what you hear from your “news”, we don’t have two comparable groups with two comparable acts. Seeing those differences don’t make my assessments of what is going on as “biased”.
EnglishDomNW: Come ON, not even you can possibly believe that!!
The question should be this, do you honestly believe what you are putting in these posts? You are the one that is trying to put two things in the same categories when they actually belong to two different categories.
EnglishDomNW: Oh yes, I forgot. You're a "Mustang Officer" on his way to a secret location. Damn, I keep forgetting that, sorry. Sir.
Your sarcasm and “maturity” are noted, but I have yet to make a trip to a “secret” location. The information and extensive research that I talked about are from books, articles, and other areas that are also available to the public. All that is needed is someone with the initiative to find out what is going on behind the news to find and read them.
EnglishDomNW: What is your obsession with this Man/Boy love thing and what could it possibly have to do with Israel or the Dixie Chicks? YOU ARE SCARING ME!
I assumed that you had the capability to connect an analogy to a concept, especially one that argued against your point. Here, let me break this down for you:
“You are trying to put on equal footing two things that are not even close to each other. Here, let me demonstrate. That would be like trying to justify sexual relationships between a man and a boy,” -herfacechair
Did you miss the red part?
(1) You are trying to compare two things (IDF and Hezbollah) that are not even close to each other.
Then comes the red statement,
Then comes the analogy that shows how ridiculous your comparisons are.
Do you see it now?
EnglishDomNW: I think you're seriously close to the edge.
No, I am not close to the edge, but showing you how ridiculous your statements are that put Hezbollah and the IDF in the same category when they are not. I was using an analogy.
You do know what an analogy is, do you?
EnglishDomNW: Thank the sweet Lord you got off THAT subject
I switched to using it to explain how ridiculous your idea was in reference to your comparisons between the IDF and Hezbollah.
EnglishDomNW: The civilians of Lebanon can't win can they?
Actually, they were warned to leave the area. The Israelis gave them time to evacuate. If they can’t win, it is because they failed to heed the warnings, and decided to hope for the best.
EnglishDomNW: If they're in a terrorist stronghold, bang.
If they are in a terrorist stronghold, they should have the common sense to leave the area. The Israelis gave them time.
EnglishDomNW: If they're in a civilian house, under your rules that's a legitimate target because Hezbollah use civilian dwellings to hide their forces.
Not quite what I am saying. If Hezbollah positions itself within a civilian neighborhood, after they have been warned that they will still be shot at, they will get shot at. Hezbollah could easily position itself away from the civilian neighborhoods and eliminate this from happening.
IDF is not aiming for just anybody’s house, unless intelligence indicates that Hezbollah is using these houses.
Again, if your neighborhood gets bombed multiple times, you - as the civilian non combatant - should have the common sense to leave.
EnglishDomNW: So, in your "unbiased" (lol) world, Israel can flatten the entire country because there "might" be terrorists hiding out there. How unbiased.
You are seeing bias where there is no bias. You are also taking what I am saying out of context.
I am saying that Israel will target Hezbollah. If Hezbollah hides and uses places that normally would be neutral as part of their combat operations, they will still come under fire.
Again, they could minimize damage to civilian areas by moving their operations away from civilians and their residence.
EnglishDomNW: I suppose they also flattened the clearly marked UN building just in case, right?
Again…
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideast.main/index.html
quote:
Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said that "UNIFIL obviously got caught in the middle" of a gunfight between Hezbollah guerillas and Israeli troops.
"We do not have yet confirmation what caused these deaths. It could be (Israel Defense Forces). It could be Hezbollah," he said.
The Israelis are investigating this. Even IF this was proved to be an error on the Israelis part, this STILL sets them apart from Hezbollah, who are killing civilians as a policy.
EnglishDomNW: I mean, why take chances?
If they are firing from those locations, or if those locations are caught in the cross fire, there is no “why take chances” about this. This is not about targeting just about anything that they “feel” could be used against them. This is about targeting things that ARE being used by the enemy. This is also about Hezbollah deliberately firing on the Israelis from places like the UN building just to draw Israeli fire toward that building.
You don’t seriously expect the Israelis to simply “just take it” when they are being fired upon from or around a UN compound, do you? I would not expect the Israelis to let the fact that Hezbollah is firing at them from the UN building to get in the way of their fighting back.
EnglishDomNW: How do you know Hezbollah don't, have you infiltrated them as well as the entire planets news services, the Israeli Defence Force and the Man Boy Love association? You Mustang Officers certainly keep yourselves busy .
When you read books and articles that illustrate Hezbollah’s and other terrorist organizations intentions to inflict harm on the civilian population as their SOP, then you get news reports that confirm this, what sense is there for Hezbollah to conduct an investigation on one of its members if they are not violating their SOP in the first place?
EnglishDomNW: And now, back to our unbiased news reporter on the scene, in his rubber militarywear, Sergeant Herfacechair
You claimed that I was determined to prove one side as “good” and the other as “evil” when that is not what I was doing. I was accurately pointing out which side was at fault (Hezbollah) and which side was the victim (Israel). The Israelis have a right to act in self defense.
EnglishDomNW: Presumably you at least lay the blame for the killing of the UN operatives solely at the hands of the Israelis and not because Hezbollah might be hiding in there.
You got that backwards, what I actually said:
“Hezbollah has been harassing Israel MONTHS prior to this current fiasco. They have been attempting to kidnap Israeli soldiers at least since the beginning of this year. The Israelis have finally put their foot down.” -herfacechair
“Second, Hezbollah is specifically going out of its way to target civilian populations, while the Israelis are going out of their way to target enemy combatants. If civilians get killed in the process of an Israeli attacks, it was because Hezbollah knowingly positioned themselves among the civilian population. The purpose? Just as with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the insurgents in Iraq, they know that by hiding among the civilian population, they increase the chances of causing civilian casualties - and drawing world opinion in their favor.” -herfacechair
That is not putting things solely in the hands of the Israelis. There is a cause and effect going on. You are refusing to see the cause (fighting with Hezbollah), but consistently dwell on the effect (resulting Israeli strike on the UN building.)
Now, if an investigation of the attack shows that the Israelis involved were wrong, then I would levy blame on the responsible Israelis. Until then, I am going to give their troops the benefit of the doubt.
EnglishDomNW: Surely, your "unbiased" news reporting allows you to do that, right?
Nothing unbiased, just pointing facts out that you appear to not want to entertain.
EnglishDomNW: LOL - yes, that Man/Boy line punched the hell out of everyone else's opinions.
As an analogy, it exposed the ridiculousness of your line of reasoning, RE IDF and Hezbollah acts being “the same”. That idea is as ridiculous as that held by the group that I used as part of my analogy.
EnglishDomNW: So let me get this straight. If the news "holds a lot of information out", where are you getting your information from? Are you in direct link with the IDF and Hezbollah? Or do you have military friends at the scene sending you the information. I'm curious to know.
Again, there is more to this than what is reported on the news. My assessments are based on more than what is going on in the news. What they do report do bring many things that I have read and researched to the front.
How do I know that Hezbollah will go out of the way to attack civilian populations? Books and articles that have nothing to do with the news. By the time the news talks about it, it is “old” news. Their tactics of drawing enemy fire into vulnerable targets that would put their enemy in a bad light is no secret.
Then we have the IDF. Like the U.S., they have rules of engagement, and there is print - both online and on paper - that point to the fact that they have ROE’s, and their ROE’s prohibit them from doing precisely what you are insinuating they are doing.
Now, when the evening “news” talks about a UN Building that was attacked by the Israelis, or an ambulance that was destroyed, a person’s mind HAS to go to work putting past knowledge together with the new knowledge.
If the Israelis did these things, there HAS to be a good reason. Was the ambulance transporting missiles? Was someone shooting at the Israelis from the ambulance? Was someone inflicting damage on the Israelis while using the ambulance or the UN building as cover?
I know that it is much easier to NOT work the mind and to simply condemn the Israelis based only on the information received from the “news”, but using this approach lets people fall into the, “they did not say it on the news, it ‘can’t’ be true!” trap.
The fact that the Israelis are launching an investigation on the UN building incident speaks volumes about where they stand on destroying non combatant or neutral parties. If that investigation turns out that the Israelis involved were negligent, and that there was no need for them to do that, THEN it would be appropriate to lambast the Israelis - and only those that were involved.
You don’t have to wait for a similar investigation on the Hezbollah side, because attacking civilian targets is one of their SOPs.
EnglishDomNW: When did you interview them?
Throughout the past few years, whenever conversations centered on Israel’s situation.
EnglishDomNW: Give me dates, times, and response figures.
That would be as asinine as me asking you to provide me with dates, times, and response figures of everybody that you have conversed with over the past few years.
EnglishDomNW: I "know" this because I believe the news over a fake military figure on an internet message board. What about you?
Like I have said to a couple of other posters, I will be willing to send docs to a trusted poster and have that poster verify my military status. Just let me know and I will find a trusted poster.
The last time that I challenged you, you replied with this…
“I think the reason I question your status is possibly because of your posts, not despite them. - EnglishDomNW
That is a clear indication that, contrary what you claimed here, that you are questioning my claims. You can’t even get straight what you say about why you do things, and you expect me to take your argument seriously?
Personally, I will take the word of a service member over that of the news when it comes to military matters. Check this out:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-18-connable_x.htm
quote:
I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw.
Do you see the part in red? That is representative of the way the media operates. Selected clips, selected facts. If you are content to let the journalists do the thinking for you and determine for you what you should know and what you should not know, if you are content to just sitting there sorbing things without question, then more power to you.
That is not how I do business. Unlike many people, I don’t let a journalist dictate what reality is for me.
EnglishDomNW: I didn't realise they'd personally called you with an explanation.
They don’t need to. I’ve read books and articles on media bias. It does not surprise me that your “fair and balanced” news source would emphasize one aspect of what is going on while not entertain another aspect of the media. Please see my explanation above about “this being more than what is in the news” as well as on the circumstances that would lead to the Israelis attacking something they otherwise would not attack.
EnglishDomNW: I'm as qualified as you are for saying the reverse.
No you are not. The fact that you refuse to entertain that your media is not reporting the complete set of facts, the fact that you tend to dismiss the fact that there are other things going on behind the scenes that the media does not talk about, you are not anywhere near as qualified as I am on the subject. I don’t mean to sound vain, but I am well read on this subject matter - and it appears that you are not. If you are, then you are not presenting yourself as someone who has done research on this topic.
EnglishDomNW: LOL how can it be wrong for heaven's sake, it's PASTED DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, or did you get the Man/Boy love association to rewrite it while i was making soup?
You are taking what I say out of context.
quote:
EnglishDomNW: Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded (none of which apparently took place).
WRONG. The Israelis HAVE warned Hezbollah to NOT hide among the civilians, this includes both weapons and personnel. They have also warned Hezbollah that they will be fired upon if they try to use civilians, civilian use equipment and structures.
Do you see the red parts? Let me simplify this for you:
You: (none of which apparently took place).
Me: WRONG.
You copy and pasted the text, then erroneously stated, “none of which apparently took place.” THAT is what I was saying WRONG to.
EnglishDomNW: Of course you're not, you're our "unbiased reporter", remember? LOL
No “bias or unbiased” here, the Israelis did warn Hezbollah. It was incumbent on Hezbollah to move away from civilian areas. They failed to do so.
EnglishDomNW: That's a shock.
That shouldn’t be a shock, I am keeping with my argument. Which is, that the Israelis are not going to non combatants and neutral structures “just for the hell of it”.
EnglishDomNW: I don't need to. They've already started their own investigation.
Then quit insinuating that their bombing of the UN building is the “exact same thing” as Hezbollah’s going out of its way to fire missiles at civilian targets.
EnglishDomNW: But I will point out to you that "on the news" which you distrust so much,
quote:
EnglishDomNW: There's this amazing belief instilled in your head
Not a belief, but assessment based on experience, research, and reading/watching multiple news reports.
Do you remember this? I think I posted it a couple of days ago, you had to read it. Do you see the part in dark purple, especially the underlined parts?
I don’t quite trust your news source, especially with the way you are presenting your argument here, but, as I indicate here, I will supplement the news with each other and research.
EnglishDomNW: the UN peacekeepers made as many as ten telephone calls to Israeli's and asked them to stop bombing near the UN building (clearly marked). Despite reassuring them that would happen, the Israeli's kept firing until a direct hit killed the people inside.
Now, you know that when you are watching your news, you are supposed to work your mind, right?
Something caused the Israelis to keep firing at the building even after they gave their reassurances that they would not do this. Now, let us bounce this off another news source:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideast.main/index.html
quote:
Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said that "UNIFIL obviously got caught in the middle" of a gunfight between Hezbollah guerillas and Israeli troops.
"We do not have yet confirmation what caused these deaths. It could be (Israel Defense Forces). It could be Hezbollah," he said.
In this case, they could give the UN reassurances all they want, but if the troops on the ground are coming under fire from hostile forces operating near the building, and that is preventing them from reaching their objectives, and they call for fire support, that reassurance is only going to mean so much. The troops on the ground have to keep fighting.
Here is another thing that I heard on the news, E-mails sent home from one of the peace keepers talked about the UN compound “crawling” with Hezbollah fighters.
Starting to see a connection here?
Until a complete investigation indicates that the Israelis involved were in fact negligent, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the troops.
If a completed investigation does find fault, THEN I will lambast the Israelis responsible, then praise the Israeli government for holding the responsible people accountable.
EnglishDomNW: Ummmm. The UN Building was shooting at nobody for goodness sake.
YOU DON’T KNOW THAT! Again..
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideast.main/index.html
quote:
Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said that "UNIFIL obviously got caught in the middle" of a gunfight between Hezbollah guerillas and Israeli troops.
"We do not have yet confirmation what caused these deaths. It could be (Israel Defense Forces). It could be Hezbollah," he said.
What part of “caught in the middle of a gunfight between Hezbollah guerillas and Israeli troops” is hard to grasp? It does not matter if the UN building itself was shooting or not, a battle was taking place around it! I mean, what are the chances that you are going to get hit if you are in a building in the middle of a battle?
EnglishDomNW: When you see a building with a huge U.N.printed on its roof, you should at least take a wild guess what those letters stand for.
“When you are being shot at, you don’t have time to say, “crap, that is the UN building, we can’t shoot”, especially when all you see is OPFOR firing at you from or near a BUILDING.” -herfacechair
That was included in the quote that you were addressing with your, “huge U.N. printed on its roof,” statement. Going back to the quote, did you miss the part in red?
You missed the point that I was making with that quote. If people are shooting at you from a building, or around a building, and you are firing back, even if you KNEW that the building belonged to the U.N., That is NOT going to stop you from causing your enemy to die for his cause before he makes you die for yours.
EnglishDomNW: Of course it wouldn't. Because you're "unbiased", remember?
No unbiased or biased about it, I am pointing facts out that you don’t seem to want to entertain.
EnglishDomNW: The UN post was hit by a precision guided missile, following as many as 10 calls from the representatives inside to Israeli forces asking them to stop. Despite reassurances that it would, a missile flattened the top floor of the building which collapsed onto the people inside.
You do realize that there is more to the picture than a precision guided missile hitting a building, do you? You know, forces on the ground come under overwhelming fire, said forces call for air support to neutralize the area from which they are taking heavy fire from, air support comes in and does its job. Your “news” sources did inform you of that, did they?
Second, the news has already confirmed reports that Hezbollah is deliberately attacking the Israelis from UN locations.
Again, until a completed investigation indicates negligence on the part of the Israelis involved, I am going to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt.
EnglishDomNW: Stick to Man/Boy Love analogies.
Actually, I am going to have to find simpler analogies for you, as not only are my regular analogies not being understood (or are taken out of context) you seem to take a liking to my using that as a part of my analogy.
EnglishDomNW: I don't know what "Man/Boy Love" is, AND I DONT WANT TO.
“Denial” is not just a river in Egypt.
EnglishDomNW: At least when you talk about that, you ARE unbiased
Biased and unbiased refers to “fair and balanced”, not to talking about things that EnglishDomNW likes to read and hear about.
< Message edited by herfacechair -- 7/27/2006 1:50:07 PM >
|
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread