Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53950)	10/22/2002 1:42:57 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is quite another to claim as SFD does, that there were "good effects" on the Lebanese border from Israel's returning its "stolen" land -- while ignoring the existence of Hizbullah Yes, there were good effects. After withdrawal, there were fewer dead Israelis than before as a direct result of hte Lebanon-Israeli conflict. I think fewer dead Israelis is a good thing - don't know about you. Of course, not all Israelis think so - some think killing Rabin was a good thing, so fewer dead Israelis is not always seen as good by all it seems. As to "ignoring" Hizbollah. First of all, I did not ignore it - I pointed out, how Hizbollah was the result of insane Israeli policies, an Israeli creation as it were. Israel turned the local Lebanese population of allies to ENEMIES by creating a crazy "security zone" (INsecurity zone, really) - from that Hizbollah was the next step supported subsequently by Syria, Iran etc. But Israel prepared the ground, which they then exploited. Good job, Israel - quite in keeping with their traditions of creating seas of hatred, and quite the "smart" policy in power for many years of the Israelis supporting Hamas and the Islamicists in hope of destroying the PA. Well, they succeeded again. As they did with the Hizbollah. Congratulations! Second, my point was that there were GOOD effects of the Lebanese withdrawal for Israel - and so there were, like in fewer dead Israelis, Hizbollah or no Hizbollah - so what is all the talk about Hizbollah? Did the Hizbollah kill more Israelis before or after the withdrawal? Case closed! Now we see where the "Goebbels" comparison is more apt - the Debka-style disinformation and ad hominem arguments, or my arguments based on evidence.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53950)	10/22/2002 10:18:41 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It is not "balanced" to set the speeches of Goebbels against the speeches of FDR! Whoops, pardon me for my mistake. And when did you make it back, Franklin? Talk about changing the subject in order to try to debate rather than talk. Let's back up. I simply remarked that, in reply to your comment that SFD could find no wrong with Arafat, I thought that was not exactly correct and that his arguments balanced yours in which you could find no wrong with Sharon. Goebbels and FDR!! Please. As for whether you've got the "facts" on your side or SFD has on his, I would rather watch the two of you argue about it and see which particular "fact" makes the most sense. I doubt either of you have a pipeline. John, Fisk has told a number of proven lies about Israel, then whined how he's being smeared by his enemies for criticizing Sharon when he is criticized for his lies. As for Fisk, I could say some of the same things about some of the posts you offer to the thread. My point was that posters should feel encouraged to post diverse views and we should all feel encouraged to criticize those views. Am I under an obligation to be as accepting of the words of liars as of honest men? Even women. No, of course not. You're missing the point. I plan to criticize, vigorously, some of the stuff you post. I have a problem only when someone insists other points of view should not be posted. Fisk made an excellent point about the consequences of calling all criticisms of the Sharon government antisemitism.