Your complete lack of objectivity is obvious from the number of posts you made bashing Palestinians (ZERO) and the number of your posts bashing Israelis (MANY). The difference between me and you is that I admit to having no objectivity, you on the other side are deluding yourself... and probably no one else.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Sure I am objective, and you are in no position, by your admission to no objectivity to question my own objectivity.
Quote from dddooo:
Your complete lack of objectivity is obvious from the number of posts you made bashing Palestinians (ZERO) and the number of your posts bashing Israelis (MANY). The difference between me and you is that I admit to having no objectivity, you on the other side are deluding yourself... and probably no one else.
Then again my position is based on facts, research and history, yours on general (and inaccurate) observations.
Quote from Sam123:
Why should we feel sorry for Palestinians when they think and believe the way the do?
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3706
Quote from dddooo:
No you're not, we already discussed it before, if two are fighting blaming both equally without trying to find out who started the fight and who refuses to stop fighting is not objective, it's simplistic.
What's also ironic is that people (like you, Rob and a few others) who constantly criticize Israel and never start a thread or make a post criticizing Palestinians/arabs/muslims are the same people who demand objectivity from the supporters of Israel.
Quote from drmarkan:
Z10 is definitely not objective on this issue. He managed in this thread to say both sides are wrong, but that is just to satisfy his ability to make his argument. It doesn't take much time to go back to other threads and see how he chooses repeatedly to denounce Israel while Palestinians get a free pass.
He has made bigoted remarks as he did about Rearden Metal calling him a drug addicted Jew. He will try to argue that he is stating a fact that Rearden is a Jew, but we all know he was using the word in a derogatory manner. This guy has never directly condemned the actions of the Palestinians without adding the caveat that Israel is just as much to blame. However, he will denounce the Jews while saying nothing against the actions of the Palestinians.
Quote from RobMc:
Unfortunately the simpletons argument put forward by Bush "you're with us or with the terrorists" seems to have gained credence to the point where, in any complicated arena, dissent from one position is seen as support for another (just see the silly thread titles that appear - NYT supports terrorists etc, or the knee jerk accusations in this thread). Its a good way to bludgeon people into a position but it means that intelligent discussion is also a victim of terrorism.
Quote from traderNik:
Hi RobMc
Thanks for the reply. Ok, I think I understand your position. You are essentially saying that even if the majority in Palestine implicitly support the kidnapping (and this is by no means a given in your opinion) it is a essentially a political stance and civilians should not be targeted because of their politics. Also, it is the same as targeting someone who voted for Bush because you think it implies he wants the death of all Muslims or takes a similarly hard line against those who actively seek to undermine U.S. hegemony; some who voted for Hamas may not support the kidnapping, is that correct?
With regard to the 'with us or agin' us' stance taken by the right, I agree, it is so obviously simplistic. But that's the stock in trade of the hard right. Complex ideas and analysis don't go over well with them - they need easily understandable statements and directives, like '40% of blacks are idiots', 'the liberals want to murder U.S. citizens', 'those who support a woman's right to choose are murderers' or Jerry Springer-like stuff like 'Her Mom is pregnant - her boyfriend is the father'. Nice and simple, easy to understand.