First, my general beliefs: No people should be without a home. Israel is here to stay and the Palestinian people should also have a homeland. Who attacked whom first doesn’t really matter now. Both sides are acting (IMHO) like children and need a good spanking. They each need to be sent to their rooms.
Israel - Get out of the West Bank and Gaza. Give the Palestinians their country.
Palestinians - You aren’t going to destroy Israel. Stop trying. Once you are your own country, Israel can say “sorry, you can’t come in here anymore”. Guess what, you continue blowing up their citizens and they will say that.
United States - Draw a fucking line and build a fucking wall. Make sure that line takes some area that Israel wants and gives it to the Palestinians. Make sure that line takes some area that the Palestinians want and gives it to Israel. It’s call compromise. And good fences make good neighbors (or something like that).
As for the location of the wall, no way I’m going to make believe I know enough of the history to say where. However, I will say since the Dome of the Rock is built ON TOP of the Second Temple Mount, who had the original building permit?
The Irish situation is just an analogy, Coldfire. It’s better to base your evaluation on the actual case at hand. Alessan is no supporter of mine, but he said:
So, the people who are directly affected think it is a vital debate topic.
I provided a cite from a magazine you know nothing about. You didn’t find any errors in the cite. Yet you’re contemtuous of it, calling its creator a “hyperpro-Israel idiot”. Is this a way to look at both sides of an issue?
Fin Man, what about Vatican city, shouldn’t they put in a claim too for the temple mount as before the Dome of the Rock was built there was a church on the site.
Sure. I’m not familiar with the church but if it was built on top of the Temple Mount, then the claim would be subordinate to Israel but before the Palestinians/Arabs.
I don’t know about Vatican city guys, but I would think that any kind of detruction (for whatever reason), of one of the most holiest Mosqes in Islam, will not go over good with a lot of people.
Who the fuck said anything about any destruction? If anything, Israel takes great pains to preserve ancient sites of all religions while the PA is just the opposite. These cites - Assaults on Holy Sites and Joseph’s Tomb - are not unbiased but I think it does show that holy sites were destroyed under PA control.
I took it that since you are claiming that the temple mount was there first the Dome of rock should be destroyed and a new temple should be built on the site (a belief of some of the more fanatical parts of the Israeli pop.). If this was not your opinion, then I am sorry I grossly misinterpeted you.
A debate on who does more to preserve holy sites, the Isreali gov. or the PA is a debate I do not care to get into.
I said I found bias in your “cite”, december, Twister of Words, Slayer of Wisdom and Truth.
Looking at both sides of an issue means listening to rationally formed opinions on either side. That means that the Palestinian who shouts, “All Israelis must be driven into the Mediterranean!” will be ignored by me, as will the Jew who cries, “All Palestinians think that all of Israel belongs to them, and them alone!”. It’s called “considering the source”, and it’s a concept completely alien to you. You’d rather dish up an article (usually from an obviously biased source), pick it apart to find some minor point of criticism towards the P.A., only to blow it all out of proportion. When people then counter with, say, reliable cites stipulating actual errors on behalf of the Israeli government, you will question the validity of their cites, or -your last straw, when the cite is obviously reliable- question if the persons quoted were sincere, as in your Arafat example in this thread.
There is no way to debate you, december. Your opinion is formed, nothing will change it, facts to the contrary will be ignored, vague allegations in support will be glorified. You’re a bigoted, small-minded, intellectually stunted prick.
December, anyone can see just by looking at your little picture-show that is is OBVIOUSLY biased. It doesn’t help your argument when you are deliberately obtuse.
So then you agree they have a bias. The question of whether Israel ought to continue to exist in any form at all is far from settled. How might some on the other side see this? Supporting the continued existence of a state carved out in part through the terrorist activities of the Stern Gang and Irgun, and which has carried out these questionable policies for decades that continue to enrage all their neighbors? See the different ways this can be characterized?
An Israeli state alongside a Palestinian one isn’t the baseline position, that’s not unbiased. Just because it’s in the “middle” between Israel-only and Palestine-only positions doesn’t make it unbiased, they still favor Israel. A so-called moderate position is nonetheless a position. There are alot of biases, and alot of different sides, and alot of ways to characterize the conflict. A journalist who endorses any of them has bias.
Suppose someone had a bias in favor of this position: allowing some abortions early in term, but placing heavy restrictions on late-term abortions. This might be considered the moderate position. But to a 100% pro-lifer, this is bias in favor of allowing some abortions, and to a 100% pro-“choice” person this is bias in favor of preventing some abortions. If your writings assume that position, then your writings are biased.
Hey, Colfire, you dumbshit! There’s no fuckin’ way for some asshole to know he’s posting in the fuckin’ Pit! Cut the asshat some friggin’ slack, OK, shit for brains?!
And if a person is found to be continuously misleading, evasive, a spreader of half-truths and at-best slightly unintentional lies, exhibiting behaviour dangerously close to that of a troll, and on-the-whole less meritorious than a gallon jug of muddy water, should that person’s opinion be ignored?
