benny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 By going to Iran? By participating seriously to this topic. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Posted July 25, 2009 By participating seriously to this topic. In support of Iran? Quote
jdobbin Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Posted July 25, 2009 troll I think the namecalling is uncalled for. I am just trying to figure out your stance. Quote
benny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 I think the namecalling is uncalled for. I am just trying to figure out your stance. You will not achieve your stated goal by cross-posting the same questions over and over again. Quote
myata Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 I provided you the Washington Post story and that information is repeated all over the media this week.The same numbers are stated a few times. The only time it was stated here, in this thread, was in the Washington post article, the source of the number being according to that article, the leader of settlers, having all interest in exaggerating the numbers, and therefore hardly credible. And this is yet another obscure source from some Russian agency with unknown credibility. "Estimated" by whom, no reference provided. If you have the original reference, please post it so that its credibility could be verified, otherwise it maybe yet another "success" sucked right out of your finger. You insist that there is but 100 or so people being talked about and provided an old NZ story that doesn't even refer to the settlements in question. Correct, despite you stubborn insistence on using word "settlement" indiscriminantly, perhaps to make that 2,500 unit development sound the same as the makeshift hamlet (it's all in the sound, correct?) all sources, even Israeli ones, refer to this possible project as the removal of "outposts", and NZ TV described in detail, and provided pictures of one such outpost. Until there's credible information confirming your numbers, this is by far more reliable than everything that you posted so far, coming from independent, professional and verifyable source. Your support of Hamas and not being able to admit they are a terrorist group colours your entire view, it seems. Anything that seems, or appears or can be imagined will now go in your argument, because you're simply out of all factual, logical, verifyable information that may support your position. All because you want it to appear something it certainly is not, and anybody with a grain of an open mind and impartiality will see that instantly. Your party Hamas ... Congratulations, Dobbin. You could hardly find a more convincing argument. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
benny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Posted July 25, 2009 Canadian Jews are not stupid enough, I hope, to give their support to a Canadian politician who thinks that it is more important to speak about Hamas than to speak about Iran. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Posted July 25, 2009 The only time it was stated here, in this thread, was in the Washington post article, the source of the number being according to that article, the leader of settlers, having all interest in exaggerating the numbers, and therefore hardly credible.And this is yet another obscure source from some Russian agency with unknown credibility. "Estimated" by whom, no reference provided. If you have the original reference, please post it so that its credibility could be verified, otherwise it maybe yet another "success" sucked right out of your finger. So you'll stick with your 100 settlers position. Okay. Correct, despite you stubborn insistence on using word "settlement" indiscriminantly, perhaps to make that 2,500 unit development sound the same as the makeshift hamlet (it's all in the sound, correct?) all sources, even Israeli ones, refer to this possible project as the removal of "outposts", and NZ TV described in detail, and provided pictures of one such outpost. Until there's credible information confirming your numbers, this is by far more reliable than everything that you posted so far, coming from independent, professional and verifyable source. And your source is impeccable and the real number is only 100. Anything that seems, or appears or can be imagined will now go in your argument, because you're simply out of all factual, logical, verifyable information that may support your position. All because you want it to appear something it certainly is not, and anybody with a grain of an open mind and impartiality will see that instantly. Given that all you are about is on settlement, I think we know where your support lies. Congratulations, Dobbin. You could hardly find a more convincing argument. You have a hard time convincing otherwise when you can't even say that Hamas is a terrorist organization not even interested in talks. Quote
benny Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 You have a hard time convincing otherwise when you can't even say that Hamas is a terrorist organization not even interested in talks. Hamas is a charitable organization compared to Iran. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 26, 2009 Author Report Posted July 26, 2009 Hamas is a charitable organization compared to Iran. Really? Iran uses children as bombs? Quote
benny Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) Really? Iran uses children as bombs? Iran uses its brightest children to build nuclear bombs. Edited July 26, 2009 by benny Quote
jdobbin Posted July 26, 2009 Author Report Posted July 26, 2009 Iran uses its brightest children to build nuclear bombs. How old? Quote
jdobbin Posted July 26, 2009 Author Report Posted July 26, 2009 School-age children obviously. Amazing that they have knowledge of nuclear physics and that Iranians are using them as suicide bombers. Quote
benny Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Amazing that they have knowledge of nuclear physics and that Iranians are using them as suicide bombers. They also have knowledge of remote-control. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 26, 2009 Author Report Posted July 26, 2009 They also have knowledge of remote-control. Incredible. And how many bombs have they set off? Quote
jbg Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 I think the namecalling is uncalled for. I am just trying to figure out your stance. Why bother? He''s just a wisecracker. And not a very good one. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
benny Posted July 26, 2009 Report Posted July 26, 2009 Why bother? He''s just a wisecracker. And not a very good one. reported Quote
myata Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 So you'll stick with your 100 settlers position. Okay. Good that you agree. Because unlike your vague sources about vague and remote possibilities, that reference is a fact confirmed by a professional news source. Indeed we'll have to "stick" with that position, until reliable information otherwise is provided. Given that all you are about is on settlement, I think we know where your support lies. "You" can guess all you want, even as my position has been stated clearly so many times and it's all about peace mediation in good faith that obviously involves presence of principles other than "see no evil by my buddy". There's no need to guess about that from your strategy given your obvious and persistent desire to ignore the reality that would not fit your rosy "plan". You have a hard time convincing otherwise when you can't even say that Hamas is a terrorist organization not even interested in talks. Serious peace talks, in good faith would involve balanced position on all main peace agendas. Because you're so obviously not interested in noticing major violations of one of them, serious talks isn't something that you have seriously on the table. The rest is of course facade, distractions, diversions, and smokescreens to hide that quite obvious conclusion. When there's anything of real, factual value to prove otherwise, we can resume this conversation. Till then, there's nothing you can say that would change the fact that there's been a massive, 70% increase in illegal settlements and "peace" mediators haven't bothered to do anything about it, and some would struggle to the last to even be made to notice it. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
benny Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) "You" can guess all you want, even as my position has been stated clearly so many times and it's all about peace mediation in good faith that obviously involves presence of principles other than "see no evil by my buddy". But, Ignatieff's "lesser evil" doctrine fits perfectly the Iranian official view about Israel (i.e. the little evil). Edited July 27, 2009 by benny Quote
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Posted July 27, 2009 Good that you agree. Because unlike your vague sources about vague and remote possibilities, that reference is a fact confirmed by a professional news source. Indeed we'll have to "stick" with that position, until reliable information otherwise is provided. My sources are not vague unless you think the Washington Post is vague. I think it is laughable that you think there are just a 100 people in the 23 settlements. "You" can guess all you want, even as my position has been stated clearly so many times and it's all about peace mediation in good faith that obviously involves presence of principles other than "see no evil by my buddy". There's no need to guess about that from your strategy given your obvious and persistent desire to ignore the reality that would not fit your rosy "plan". You have cleared nothing up. It certainly looks biased towards Hamas. Serious peace talks, in good faith would involve balanced position on all main peace agendas. Because you're so obviously not interested in noticing major violations of one of them, serious talks isn't something that you have seriously on the table. The rest is of course facade, distractions, diversions, and smokescreens to hide that quite obvious conclusion. Your side Hamas isn't interested in peace talks or hasn't been all this time. When there's anything of real, factual value to prove otherwise, we can resume this conversation. Till then, there's nothing you can say that would change the fact that there's been a massive, 70% increase in illegal settlements and "peace" mediators haven't bothered to do anything about it, and some would struggle to the last to even be made to notice it. There is nothing to convince me that you are not biased to Hamas since all your focus is on Israel. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Posted July 27, 2009 But, Ignatieff's "lesser evil" doctrine fits perfectly the Iranian official view about Israel (i.e. the little evil). I don't you think you know what you are talking about. Quote
jbg Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 I don't you think you know what you are talking about. Very few of his posts make sense. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
myata Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 My sources are not vague unless you think the Washington Post is vague. The "source" quoted by it was a leader of settlers that you conveniently forgot to clarify, most likely to improve the optics of credibility of that "information". For which, let me remind, there's still no more credible confirmation. I think it is laughable that you think there are just a 100 people in the 23 settlements. Yet again, Dobbin, these aren't "settlements" but "outposts, even in Israel government's own (but not yours - for enhanced "clarity", I gather?) terminology, and one of them was described in detail and pictures by a professional news agency that was duly referenced. But knowing your attitude to facts that wouldn't suit your mental framework, nobody should be surprised in your "laughability", would it be as "laughable" as 70% increase in illegal settlements over the two decades that "peace" process had its run? You have cleared nothing up. It certainly looks biased towards Hamas. That's a childish "it's not me but you" argument, unfortunately (for you) having no ground in reality, just like most of the recent statements from you in this discussion. I know that having no real arguments left, anything will go. Your side Hamas isn't Another good one. Making good strides there, following great mentors ("lies repeated a thousand times..."). interested in peace talks or hasn't been all this time. If in your terminology, "peace talks" can be synonimous with "massive increase in illegal occupation", it's just another ruse and smokescreen to hide the obvious conclusion that genuine peace is nothing this strategy is about, pampering to annexation ambitions of Isreaeli govenment is. There is nothing to convince me that you are not biased to Hamas since all your focus is on Israel. Having seen that you could hardly be convinced to admit plain obvious facts of reality, that would not be my purpose here. Open up deceptive talk and expose your real position for what it is in practice, is. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
jdobbin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Report Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) The "source" quoted by it was a leader of settlers that you conveniently forgot to clarify, most likely to improve the optics of credibility of that "information". For which, let me remind, there's still no more credible confirmation. I gave the link. How is anything conveniently left off? The Washington Post, like most newspapers, uses two sources to check facts. The story you provided doesn't talk about the settlements in question but using your own math, you come up with a number of 100. Yet again, Dobbin, these aren't "settlements" but "outposts, even in Israel government's own (but not yours - for enhanced "clarity", I gather?) terminology, and one of them was described in detail and pictures by a professional news agency that was duly referenced. Yet again, it doesn't mean there is only 100 people living in the settlements that the Israelis are going to remove people from. The numbers that you have talked about are your own made up numbers. If it it was just 100, it certainly wouldn't require the entire Israel defence forces to do the job. But knowing your attitude to facts that wouldn't suit your mental framework, nobody should be surprised in your "laughability", would it be as "laughable" as 70% increase in illegal settlements over the two decades that "peace" process had its run? Laughable is the bloviating I am seeing here. That's a childish "it's not me but you" argument, unfortunately (for you) having no ground in reality, just like most of the recent statements from you in this discussion. I know that having no real arguments left, anything will go. Since you can't even resolve that Hamas is a terrorist organization and seem focused on Israel, I think it is fairly easy to see where you stand. Another good one. Making good strides there, following great mentors ("lies repeated a thousand times..."). You never answer the question on Hamas. If in your terminology, "peace talks" can be synonimous with "massive increase in illegal occupation", it's just another ruse and smokescreen to hide the obvious conclusion that genuine peace is nothing this strategy is about, pampering to annexation ambitions of Isreaeli govenment is. There you go again. It is all about Israel. Having seen that you could hardly be convinced to admit plain obvious facts of reality, that would not be my purpose here. Open up deceptive talk and expose your real position for what it is in practice, is. Admit that Hamas is terrorist organization. Is that so hard? Edited July 27, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.