- Joined
- Sep 24, 2003
- Posts
- 12,796
You're like stickmanloser, in that, the closest thing he could come up with approximating an argument was: "bu-bu-but it's the New Republic!" when I was giving links (not just my opinion) of when Reuter's got caught on one of their shameful fully-staged pro-Palestinian hit-pieces on Israel. And yet... I still link to Reuters newsfeed articles, full-well knowing that. Protip: if I stopped linking to any site which I had a personal difference of opinion on editorial direction, I wouldn't link to ANYONE. It's the message that matters, not the messenger.
So far, stick's half-assed attempt, is a one-up on what you've been posting. All of your responses to my arguments have been either "tl;dr" or longer, but not necessarily more articulated, variations of "Nuh-uh!" If you got links or an inside track: post em'. All else is butthurt.
Also, speaking of butthurt, what the hell's your beef with me and Iran? All I've said definitively was: that there were protests, they were put down, and not much else. There isn't much information to be had about this current wave of protests coming out of the county this time (at least, nothing I can link to, so far), so I haven't said much about Iran at all. A weird thing to get a hair up your ass about.
You still seem to have misunderstood our conversation. We weren't, or at least I wasn't, arguing about how fair the press was. The disagreement was over whether or not criticism of Israel was necessarily antisemitic.
I critiqued your apparent assertion that it was, thinking the absurdity was self-evident, but if you'd like for me to "back up" my point, here it goes:
Israel is a state.
States are entities governed by human beings.
Human beings are fallible.
The states they govern are fallible by virtue of human fallibility.
Fallible entities are valid targets for criticism.
Israel is a valid target for criticism.
To "support" your own argument, you used a non sequitur that might be formulated thus: "Criticism of Israel is antisemitic because reuters faked an article."
Reuters faking an article has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Even if it were relevant, by your own logic, it wouldn't matter how many lies in newspapers you manage to hunt down, you still would be left with the burden of proving every individual assertion made by such papers was false. Only the message is important, not the messenger. By the way, why is it impossible for you to disagree with a message without heaping insults on the messenger?
You're so wrapped up in your own narrative that it's impossible to have a discussion with you. Your interpretation of facts and arguments ensures we'll always be having two different conversations. It's like talking to wizkid about psychology.
Last edited:
Libya is quite different, Have never been there but a friend of mine has for several years and I have some sort of insight into the situation. I get my news from BBC and Al Jezzera (fairly impartial) and listening to my friends at the bar who have visited North Africa.

