From your last two posts there seems to be some conflict that leaves me a bit unsure of your actual point, for example
copy & paste, you dislike that practice when others do it yet that is how you have posted in the past.
I use small excerpts of other peoples commentary, or facts for support or to illustrate a point. I certainly don't make a habit of it and I certainly don't abuse it as eao does.
Another statement indicated a need for a balanced input of information from both pro and con articles and then coming to a conclusion. That was said to be the method you use. If these (OP bodies) are discredited as being able to present an accurate view of the 'con-side' then what sources do you use to get that part of the balanced 'reading' before you make a 'fair' judgment call? When using a pro-side source would it mean that no western media has their own opinion as they are merely a conduit for the broadcast of somebodies opinion that is separate from the reporting body. The source report is the one who would be bias and their relationship with Israel or Hamas should be examined. Obviously anything coming out of the US is going to be pro-Israeli, simply based on the fact they have vetoed every UN condemnation of Israel and have repeatedly stated in the media by the WhiteHouse that they will support the gov of Israel and it won't matter if they are in the right or the wrong, that is true bias.
I suggest you do some more research.
Assuming you still read 'link after link' you now offer a summary based on what you have taken in from what others have to say on the subject.
Incorrect, I base my opinion on the facts that have been presented, supported and proven to be correct. Complete with source verification and the bios of said sources.
If anybody has another conclusion they must be the ones in error no matter what they use as support for having that opposing view.
Again, incorrect. They are incorrect when they use propaganda, information gathered under faulty investigative procedures, use testimony from tainted witnesses, or the otherwise use of material from groups that have no oversight of their investigative procedures.
How is your method 'better'?
Mine relies solely on fact, proven fact. Traceable to the source. Verified sources and bios. Whereas you and eao are merely going by what someone has told you is the truth. Neither of you dig any further then that. You don't look at the source of the testimony, the bios of said sources and so on. That is the major difference.
The readers have no idea what articles you read that would influence your bias. Eao has already said Israel should be on trial to determine their guilt, same for Hamas. His posts allow the reader to look at and read the same articles He read (before or in support of a previous judgment call ). The way the courts will examine the charges are closer to his method than yours.
:roll:...I think not.
The fact remains that there is a body that is a recognized court that has a mandate to listen to and judge on issues dealing with that particular area.
This may be true, but there isn't enough evidence to support the case, hence why Israel hasn't been invaded by the UN and brought to bare. That very fact is lost on many.
Your thoughts (on this subject) are entirely based on what others have told you.
Again, incorrect. They are based on facts, gathered from multiple sources, balanced between both accounts and filtered with deductive reasoning and commonsense, hence the issues you and eao have with the subject.
(links to articles or private discussion) You have no idea which are true and which are lies.
Again, incorrect, for reasons I have already highlighted.
That is what taking it to court is about, the ultimate fact finding mission. That is a move that everybody should agree as being a good move considering 1400 people died in just one conflict less than a year ago.
:roll:...and the fact that Israel was
rightfully and
justifiably quelling an aggressor that uses human shields is obviously lost on you.
It seems to be quite common that an Israeli supporter says no to a war-crimes trials (guilt is not established before the verdict) and a pro-Gaza stance does support an extensive trial (meaning issues other than 'cast lead) can be addressed. Your quote below would be the reason your support is steadfast.
Actually that quote would indicate the exact opposite, but I understand why you have difficulty understanding that.
I do believe that Israel should show restraint in it's retaliation for rocket attacks, knowing full well that the target will likely house civilians. In so doing, they bear much of the responsibility in the human cost. On the other hand, they are still justified in so doing, because any attack on a sovereign nation can me met with lethal force, under international law. No matter what groups like AI HRW and so on believe.
Their interpretation of international law, has no standing in reality. And it is
their interpretation of international law that eao and yourself has touted time and time again, erroneously.
Not that those conclusions have much impact on the way things went on the world stage. Nor do I think you can say that for anybody but yourself.
Another statement proving you haven't addressed your reading comprehension issue.
How many pro-Taliban articles have you read from the WhiteHouse website?
None.
Or from the Pentagon on how well the 'Resistance Fighters' in Iraq are doing for being such a bunch of 'mis-fits'. None.
Actually I have read a report on how well organized they have been in their coordination in past attacks, but the word is insurgents, not "Resistance Fighters".
The old WWII stand-by with a twist, this time the ones manning the road-blocks and the weapons were the victims of such acts in WWII. It really is a mirror image right down to the fact the everything is reversed.
And this is where your train derails. You haven't clue one about the political and cultural dynamics of the powers that be in that region, and your assertion is based solely on your limited understanding of said. The stark differences are so vast, that only a complete moron could make such an assertion. Under the Nazi's, the Jewish population was decimated, under Israel rule, the Palestinians have multiplied a thousand fold. That is but the most glaring inconsistancy in your moronicy. Of which the list is monumental, and long.
With the amount of active soldiers doing 'various works' just what would military law look like rather than this Democracy?
Apparently it's good for breeding.
When you found Israel lied about many things did they get greeted with a bit of skepticism on the next article you read?
No, because I don't base my opinion on articles.
How many gov. organizations that use the western media to promote their slant on things are known to be utterly honest in all matters, even if it puts their own gov in a bad light?
I have no idea, likely very few. Which is why I don't use them as a source of information. I prefer to use NGO's, that have proven investigative procedures, that have shown time and time again that they seek only the truth and have brought media giants to bear, over incorrect reporting. That very fact supports their investigative skills. Compared to AI HRW or the UN. Of which have been proven wrong on many occasions, by the NGO's I read from and have been forced to retract or correct their reports.
I might agree if the report was intended for the public media and it ended there. As it is, it will become a matter before the courts so the consequences are quite high. Perhaps it ends up that Gaza has the right to own a number of aircraft carriers as long as they are used for defensive purposes. Armed with just defensive missiles like the S-400 their air-space being totally safe. If the court came up with some sort of recommendation that was against them you don't really expect Israel to obey the court do you?
Not so long as the complainant hides, supports and shelters foreign nationals, for the expressed purposes of attacking Israel.
How can you claim no bias there, you call Gaza and the West Bank people the enemy.
No I didn't. Please show where I did. And they aren't Gaza and West Bank people, they are "Palestinians".
Just what part of that ideology is so different from today. Nazis (not Germans or any particular European country) believed they were more important than any other group they interacted with.
How about open calls for mass genocide? Written mandates that call for the wiping of Israel from the map?
Perhaps you should learn about the influence Nazism had on the Muslims of the area, before you comment further. Or perhaps if you read a little history of the area, that would help you out a lot.
Jews certainly believe that same thing, in all countries not just their own homeland.
Expressed racial stereotyping aside. you really haven't the cognitive skills to debate the matter, if you believe that Israel of today is anything remotely like Nazi Germany.
The US Gov has lots of Jewsish based lobby groups, how many Muslim based lobby groups are there that ask for and get what they ask for? (they use the relationship with God in all 'requests')
Read this first, then get back to me.
The Nazis used machines meant for war against civilians who were basically unarmed, Jews are using that same tactic yet they should be applauded and given even more weapons of war.
Your half truth aside, absolutely. Given the fact that they only killed 1400 people, the bulk of which were armed militia, in an operation of that size, says multitudes about their targeting policies. Only someone with an agenda or a completely idiot, wouldn't be able to see that FACT, as clear as day.
