No they are not fair. You clearly changed the statements with a result that they were signficiantly less arguable. In short, you are weaseling and you failed to correct the problem when called on it. Bye.
He means that PMW accurately represents what goes on in Palestinian media/culture, which is different from the “truth” he presents.
This goes a long way to identify what he means when he talks about “truth”.
I regret this discussion ending with bad feeling.
Finn, I don’t think that’s what Sevastopol means. But I would like some cites here, and some explanation of why the cites prove his assertions.
Sorry, I was being a bit tongue in cheek.
Suffice it to say, when he’s talking about truth, he isn’t.
When he’s talking about decency and justice, he isn’t.
When he complains about PMW, it’s not because it’s actually wrong or mistranslates anything, but because it makes his distortions that much more obvious. The situation is that he’s arguing for a gloss which all the evidence shows is blatantly false, so he needs to do his best to ignore everything that’s true. His posts should be read like Newspeak. Truth doesn’t mean accurate, it means conforming to his narrative.
You almost definitely won’t get any cites, ever, despite your request. The fact that sites like PMW accurately reflect the facts of things like the PA’s genocidal incitement are all the reason he needs to attempt to handwave them away. He’s argued that Hamas’ religious motivation for genocide can be ignored because it mentions talking trees. That when they talk about Jews they really mean “Israelis”, even though Hamas itself differentiates between Jews, Judaism and Israelis in its own words, in its own charter. And so on.
Things that show his position to be… inaccurate, are thus not part of the “truth”.
YMMV.
Finn. I meant from him.
If you want to argue it’s A reason, knock yourself out. Of you want to argue it’s THE decisive reason, as was being suggested, you’re wrong.
Bin Laden’s primary beef is that he wants to see the return of Islamic rule and Sharia law – along the lines of the Taliban – in all Muslim lands. That includes Israel, but also includes all of the rest of the middle east, north africa, Turkey, etc. and most importantly in, his eyes, Saudi Arabia. America is bad because he sees us as propping up the Sauds (probably correctly, as far as that goes) in particular, and as being the chief force behind non-islamic attitudes (read: modern civilization) in the rest of the world in general.
According to his 1996 fatwa, his basic problem is with the Saudi royal family.
His 1998 fatwa, which is usually seen as the one that led more directly to 9/11, is still concerned with the Saudis, but adds to a lot of greviences about Iraq. He sees American support for Israel as the cause of the then-continuing sanctions against Iraq (of course, these sanctions were UN mandates). He also blames America for the fact that the Arabian peninsula is divided among several different political entities.
In a 15-minute rationalization given in 2004, the one where he actually took credit for 9/11, Bin Laden mentions Palestine briefly, towards the very end.
So, no, it is not plausible to contend that 9/11 would never have happened if the US were less supportive of Israel. If you want to look for “what we should have not done,” you’d be much better off picking from either “supporting the Saudi royal family” or “post Gulf-War sanctions against Iraq.”
Oh, I know. I was just elaborating on why you’ve got a better chance of finding a three dollar bill.
Israel recognized a long time ago the power of lobbying and money in American politics. They have a huge ,well funded lobby that can exert pressure on any pol who might vote wrong. If you got the nerve to vote against their interests ,they will throw a lot on money on your opponent.You would have trouble getting re-elected.
They have a NRA like ability to rally single issue voters.
It’s not clear to me what you are asking for.
I hope you are not asking me to wander through Palestinian Media Watch and its infected ilk: There is a thing, … which thou hast often heard of, and it is known to many in our land by the name of pitch. This pitch, as ancient writers do report, doth defile; so doth the company thou keepest.
As for the OP, this article is interesting. I do not wholly agree with it (I think I think the religious causes are overstressed, and the social causes are somewhat underplayed), but it is surely more nuanced than the old “Israel lobby” canards.
Called it.
It’s definitely a more nuanced and valuable contribution than the perfidious democracy schtick. Of course, it won’t make any dent in those who’ll still argue that, for instance, AIPAC’s failure to get the US embassy moved to Jerusalem just proves how powerful they are. :smack:
It is most certainly not a canard. It is an important factor in political votes, at least according to the pols I know and talk to. They definitely feel the pressure . Of course the religious right backing them throws even more weight behind the Israelis.
It is a canard.
The fact is that the American public is, for a variety of historical reasons, quite sympathetic to Israel, and the politicians - as one would expect - mirror that sympathy.
Absent that fact, all the lobbying in the world would not have any effect. The notion of an all-powerful lobby is not credible.
The Lobby made you say that.
They know if you’ve been bad or good, so be good…for goodness sake!
-XT
Don’t pick and choose, lad. If you wish to cite the 9/11 commission, look at the whole thing. I encourage you to read all of section 2, about the “root causes.” You will learn of Al Quaeda’s numerous grieviences, most of which have nothing to do with Israel.
Support of Israel was a factor; for SOME members of the conspiracy, it may have been the decisive one. There is, however, no credible support for the proposition that 9/11 only happened because of US support for Israel. The claim is one that reveals more about the claimant than anything else.
Always the personal attacks. It does not make for persuasive argument, this vituperation. —>
If you had been thinking of this discussion instead, you would not have falled into your error here. What you’ve outlined above is no different from the position I put forward. ’
You rebut ’ 9/11 **only **happened because of … ’ Who ever argued the US’s support was the sole or only reason?
In what Universe is this a fact. A theory, perhaps. But a fact?! Wow… without blinking even.
And even as a theory stinks of dishonesty. As anyone remotely familiar with US Senate and Congress politicians and their dealings.
While at the subject of “mirroring the sympathy” (what a phrase attached to a politician :eek:), how do you explain NY senator flying to Florida to “persuade” certain strong block of voters to vote for Obama? Despite their non-sympathy for the Democratic candidate for reasons so un-American.