Is the USA a rogue State?

JustHalf

Originally posted by Blade
Oh well thats all that counts really isn't it.

When it was used in the original statement it was obvious this was what was meant.

Can you reread that?

Chaos-Engine

Explantion for the increased US/EU tension:

EUropeans aren't anymore Anti-American than they usually are.
Its just that Americans are highly Anti-European. Alot more than usual....

Biffa Bacon

In your answer you rightly pointed out a couple of distortions, and the rest of the time you quibbled ("I don't know this case ... what's the context? etc),…

Well what am I supposed to say if I’m not familiar with the cases in question?

…threw in your own distortions and euphemisms (the School of Americas as 'set up to fight Communism'),…

Was it not?

…or rationalised answers to various points without disputing the facts (see answers on Kyoto, Jenin, Arafat).

What’s wrong with that? Surely we can dispute the interpretation of the facts without disputing the facts themselves?

Generally you didn't make any real points of your own, instead you spread insults ("scum"), invective ("die lefties die") and propaganda.

None of my arguments resorted to insults, invective or propaganda, apart from the revisionist history of Nazi Germany which was beyond parody.

That article was certainly ideologically slanted, but if anything you're worse, since you're the one accusing everyone else of hypocrisy.

I didn’t accuse anyone of hypocrisy. And no, that writer of that article is worse as he distorted the facts. I didn’t.

You're keen to call Chomsky and Pilger liers and hyperbolists but you don't back this up, so I wonder if it's based on anything more than an ideological disagreement.

Do you think “There is no terrorist sanctuary to compare with Florida” is a reasonable assertion?

In the end, the whole argument about rogue states is about whether or not a country consistently applies the same criteria to all, including itself. The US clearly doesn't, and you clearly have no problem with this ("Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. This isn’t hypocrisy – it’s expediency").

I disagree. Just because America might ally itself with human rights-violating nations, it doesn’t mean it approves of them. Short of invading these places and installing liberal democratic governments, what else can you do?

Biffa Bacon

Thats a Jewish website written by Jewish people for Jewish people, what the hell are you expecting them to admit that Sharon is doing anything wrong?

But the article didn’t address the question of whether or not Sharon was right to visit the Temple Mount, it was only arguing that the present intifada was not sparked off by the visit as many seem to think. The fact that they’re Jewish doesn’t make them pro-Sharon either.

Just looking through your ' unbiased ' web site there and just look at the type of cr@p thats in it:

I never said it was unbiased.

Their not too happy when a news channel like CNN actually speaks up about them…

What they’re unhappy about is what they perceive as CNN’s anti-Israeli bias.

…they have to try and replace it in Israel with Fox News thats always ki$$ing Israeli and American a$$es.

But they’re not trying to “replace” it.

Israel, which has a reputation for truth and accuracy ' Yeh right! Amongst who themselves and the Americans?

As a democratic nation with a free press I’d trust Israeli claims far more readily than I would Palestinian.

Biffa Bacon

You mean intellectual honesty like referring to all these people who happen to take a stance you dont like as "commie, lefty, pinko scum", or words to that effect?

I don’t think that’s either honest or dishonest, it’s just a bit of invective.

Blade

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I never said it was unbiased.

As a democratic nation with a free press I’d trust Israeli claims far more readily than I would Palestinian.

You admit it's biased then and yet you use it to back up your comments. Any idiot can see even from just the paragraph I posted from it that it's nothing but Jewish propaganda that so blatent that it looks like it's written by a load of Jewish school children. I suppose you watch Fox News too.

dmcc

Originally posted by ReefBreak

...both summarise for me the sickening attitude of a lot of Irish (and European) attitudes to Israel and the Palestinians. i.e.
Israel is the oppressor and Palestine is the victim. .

This 'sickening attitude' seems to me to be shared by ALL other nations bar Israel, America and the most accompished occupier of them all, England.

Israel IS the oppressor you muppet, the palestinians were not occupying Israel last time I looked.

dmcc

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Well what am I supposed to say if I’m not familiar with the cases in question?

Hmmm.. let me think... you could have a bit of good grace and say nothing instead of spouting out a pile of horse**** maybe.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Well what am I supposed to say if I’m not familiar with the cases in question?

Nothing.

I have no problem with your basic disagreement of the validity of the initial article. However, to start dismissing the validity of points on no more grounds then the fact that you are not aware of them strikes me as a bit strange.

Maybe you werent trying to invalidate them. Maybe you were simply saying "I cant comment on this". If thats the case, then sorry for the misinterpretation, but I would generally take the approach that if I cant comment, I dont

It seems as if you are trying to show that every single word of the article is either a misinterpretation, irrelevant, a lie, and so on. Thats simply not true. A lot of what is in the article is true....but the overall slant isnt.

You talk about intellectual honesty/dishonesty. There is no possibility of anyone being intellectually honest while they maintain that this is a one-sided affair. Neither your pro-Israeli sites, nor the original anti-Israeli article are intellectually honest. No-one who thinks the whole affair is the fault of one side or the other is being intellectually honest, regardless of which side they favour.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

Then again - I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that anyway

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Blade


You admit it's biased then and yet you use it to back up your comments.

It was the only link I could find to a site that refuted the claim that the Intifada was started by Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. To be honest, I don't care if it's biased or not, I only care if it's true. Is it?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dmcc

Hmmm.. let me think... you could have a bit of good grace and say nothing instead of spouting out a pile of horse**** maybe.

But that's exactly what I did.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Maybe you werent trying to invalidate them. Maybe you were simply saying "I cant comment on this".

Absolutely that's what I was doing. I was just trying to leave it open to anyone else who knew about the cases in question and wanted to expand on them.

Blade

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I never said it was unbiased.

As a democratic nation with a free press I’d trust Israeli claims far more readily than I would Palestinian.

It was the only link I could find to a site that refuted the claim that the Intifada was started by Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. To be honest, I don't care if it's biased or not, I only care if it's true. Is it?

Do you not see the obvious problems with your statements here??? The ONLY site on the entire Internet you could find to back up your statement was a site that you admit is biased and one that everyone here can see is riddled with Jewish propaganda making statements like ' Israel, which has a reputation for truth and accuracy ', What does that tell you? Then you say you trust these Israeli claims? Whatever man!

Biffa Bacon

Try this: Palestinian Authority admits: warfare was planned
Both a neutral press agency, Associated Press, and the Palestinian daily, Al-Ayyam, report comments made on two separate occasions by Palestinian Communications Minister Imad Falouji that the Intifada was not sparked by Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. You can protest if you want that the link is to a pro-Israeli site, but I couldn't find any defence of the opposing view anywhere.

Blade

Well again http://arabterrorism.tripod.com/ is pro-Israeli but you could very well be right that it was planned anyway, we'll never know the truth. But one things for sure that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount fueled the violence even more in exactly the same way Orange parades fuel the violence up north. And this is my point that Sharons only causing more tension in the region and yet America is suggesting that Arafat be replaced cause he's not a man of peace while they continue to fund Israel so that a wanted war criminal like Sharon can continue murdering dozens of innocent people in order to kill a few Palestinian terrorists.

JustHalf

We may never know the truth?

*sigh*

GerK

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

I think that's the first time "Noam Chomsky", "even handed" and "fact based analysis" have ever been used in the same sentence.

Ah yes well done Biffa, I now see why you are a professor of linguistics, esteemed intellectual, acclaimed columnist and author with dozens of successful books (many used as standard educational texts) and Chomsky is just some chump who posts crap he can't back-up on message boards.

W e l l d o n e.

That drivel is easy to write but not so easy to substantiate.