From your own article...
Ignoring facts, or my posts, doesn't make you any more right and the truth any less relevant.
Why you cry about being labeled an ideologue is beyond me. You and the astroturfers, have much in common.
Several dead, many wounded in bus attack in Israel
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Why you cry about being labeled an ideologue is beyond me. You and the astroturfers, have much in common.
This isn't about being an "ideologue".
There is still the possibility that those individuals are not who the Israelis claim them to be. I would hold Canada up to the same standard if, for whatever reason, we were sparring with our southern neighbours.
There is still the possibility that those individuals are not who the Israelis claim them to be. I would hold Canada up to the same standard if, for whatever reason, we were sparring with our southern neighbours.
Then stop posting like one.
Because you know for sure that Israel didn't perform due diligence in their investigation?
You're making stuff up to suit your ideology again.
Any sane person would. But that isn't what you're doing here.
Because you keep saying things like...
And...
The very telling, passive wording, aside, you aren't saying they should have taken longer. You are saying outright, that they haven't done any investigating at all.
How do you know that?
Where are the facts?
Your own post stated that Israeli officials tracked several of the assailants.
Are the Israeli's lying?
I'm not sure if the recent air attack in the Gaza were conducted by Israelis. Hamas should have a long investigation before they start pointing fingers.
Hamas isn;'t held to the same standard.
Israel is the stronger Nation, so it's their fault.
Anyway, I'll go with the Haeertz confirmation since they're pretty reliable..
--
The attack was planned in the Gaza Strip by the Popular Resistance Committees and perpetrated by terrorists who crossed from Gaza into Sinai via smuggling tunnels. They then traveled some 200 kilometers to reach an area of the border protected only by a tattered wire fence, about 15 kilometers north of Eilat.
The assault began around noon, when three terrorists armed with rifles, grenades and explosives entered Israel from Egypt and stationed themselves at intervals of about 200 meters along the highway to Eilat, Route 12, at a stretch of road that runs very close to the border. At 12:30 P.M., they opened fire on an Egged Bus 392, wounding seven passengers, causing light to moderate injuries. Most of those injured were soldiers.
Coordinated attacks in south kill 8 - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
It would be a matter of degree actually, that would have to factor in the exposure of each party, their relative power compared to the other and so forth.
There's no "fault" - rather it is just a matter of exposure to casualty.
I still think the Gazans must conduct a full investigation. It is possible that the airstrikes were conducted by someone else for political reasons and unrest. We shall know in a few days.
Is this seriously where you want to go with this?
You're not pro bono enough.
Thanx for proving me right, again. Why don't you just listen to me in the first place, and avoid all the embarrassment, when you end up proving me right?
It will likely be the closest I should expect, since I'm not an Admin.
This is the same thing you were doing here...
I'll take that as you conceding to the fact that you were incorrect in your claims that Israel should have done some investigation.
It will likely be the closest I should expect, since I'm not an Admin.
Irrelevant.
There's no fault? A minute ago it was Israel's fault, according to you.
Why not?
This is the same thing you were doing here...
Just out of curiousity, what about your jump to condemn Israel was for the good of the public?
You know, if you're half as intelligent as you pretend to be you would see that your posts are littered with quite a few fallacies as well. While I admit I am not perfect, I can't even begin to respond to yours if they're always these multi-quote scattershots. The difference between me and you is that while I may not always polite or courteous, your posts are a constant barrage after mine, so I don't have the energy to jump back and forth (I have a life as well).
If you would like to meet me half way, go ahead, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
If you would like to meet me half way, go ahead, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
I'm not pretending, which is why I'm generally right, as you have aptly proven for me twice, in as many days.
If your talking about fallacies in argument, I don't deny that. If you're talking about fallacies as in my facts. You haven't been able to prove me wrong yet.
I'm not perfect either, and I find it odd that one of the best debaters I have ever come across on line (ITN), has oft complimented me on how I break down a post and address each detail. I guess I have to be dealing with some that actually wants to converse and is capable of meeting me at a higher level.
I bet you do, but given your intelligence, I simply expect more from you.
I'd love to. But first you have to actually want to, and show me that you're sincere, you'd need to drop the ideology binds.
Do you even read my posts?
............
Why not?
This is the same thing you were doing here...
I still don't understand where the connection is?
There was a greater likelihood of the original negligent parties not being Hamas than the Israeli attack being one other than Israelis.
Just after the original attack, there was speculation that it could be other parties. In fact many media sources acknowledged this possibility. After the Israelis followed suit, there was no question that the response was their own.
So why am I being ganged up on for this?
Where is the logical inconsistency?
There was a greater likelihood of the original negligent parties not being Hamas than the Israeli attack being one other than Israelis.
Just after the original attack, there was speculation that it could be other parties. In fact many media sources acknowledged this possibility. After the Israelis followed suit, there was no question that the response was their own.
So why am I being ganged up on for this?
Where is the logical inconsistency?
That isn't what you said.
And what is a "negligent party"?
So a mask gun man, attack a bus of Troopers is being negligent?
I'm not following you here.
8O
Who accused you of that?
You never did tell me how your kneejerk reaction was good for the public.
A little math lesson for you:
FIVE militants
ONE innocent
is NOT "mostly killing innocent civilians"
Not even close.
Don't you EVER get tired of being wrong?????
That was my original intention.
I thought it could be Mumbarak's followers or Israelis or who knows - I didn't at the time. I even acknowledged that the likelihood of it being Israelis was low, precisely due to the fact that there was such heavy artillery.
But regardless, we did not have confirmation at that time.
Why is this such a $hitstorm for you guys?
And this is the quote that has been presented to you several times now.
You can keep ignoring the facts, it just goes to show everyone, your claim of wishing to meet in the middle was disingenuous.
It isn't and never was. It was however, a **** storm for you...
Which is what you asked ES when he took the same route as you. Only on the other side.
Now, we can point out your logical inconsistency.
Although, the fact that you already used those exact words, before either of us called you on it.
I suspect you already knew you were done. You just haven't the fortitude to admit it.
I don't see any response to this.
Was it wrong to think this?
Because that is the message that you're sending here.
I don't see any response to the several questions you've been asked prior.
I f you want reciprocation, i suggest you get crackin' on answering to your other posts first.
Or should we just right off your credibility altogether now?