Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Either way I'm sure we can expect another tu quoque and gish galop post soon.
crank wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Either way I'm sure we can expect another tu quoque and gish galop post soon.
My experience is when you can really pin them down to where they have to come up with facts, they disappear. When I put David Pakman, of The David Pakman Show, in such positions, first 2 or 3 times, he simply ignored the post, the last response I got from him was that he refused to argue anymore with anyone that would in any way defend the terrorism of the rocket-firing Hamas. This was on the shows subreddit, subsequent posts pointing out egregious statements he made went unchallenged except by other brain dead apologists.
HughMcB wrote:crank wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Either way I'm sure we can expect another tu quoque and gish galop post soon.
My experience is when you can really pin them down to where they have to come up with facts, they disappear. When I put David Pakman, of The David Pakman Show, in such positions, first 2 or 3 times, he simply ignored the post, the last response I got from him was that he refused to argue anymore with anyone that would in any way defend the terrorism of the rocket-firing Hamas. This was on the shows subreddit, subsequent posts pointing out egregious statements he made went unchallenged except by other brain dead apologists.
Pakman is a real twat on the Israel issue.
crank wrote:I was damn near shocked at how disingenuous and ultimately dishonest he got, especially if you hear what he proffers as the best solution to the problem, which is pretty much in line with the prevailing view of the world, the UN, the objective experts etc.
crank wrote:
Yes, it's the one generally supported by most folk, Pakman was pretty close, the details have gotten hazy in memory and I'll likely mangle the details but it's two states, back to '67 borders, some small areas still to decide, and I think no right of return to lands inside Israel but compensation to be paid. Basically, the 'Oslo Accords', I think is what most everyone supports. The Palestinians have agreed to this for years, but the US and Israel keep blocking any kind of deal actually getting made.
angelo wrote:After WW2, a large chunk of East Germany, inhabited by 12 million Germans was annexed and given to Poland. Most of the German population left what had been their homes for generations and went to live in Germany proper. The spoils of war of the victorious allies. Plus, to forever weaken Germany's ability to make war on her neighbours, and give Poland a much better defensible border. Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?
duvduv wrote:The Palestinians definitely have a right to defend themselves. They don't want to end up like the Indians who were accused of not accepting the generous terms of the Great White Father. The Zionists are even more selfish, paranoid, neurotic and narcissistic.
Arjan Dirkse wrote:angelo wrote:After WW2, a large chunk of East Germany, inhabited by 12 million Germans was annexed and given to Poland. Most of the German population left what had been their homes for generations and went to live in Germany proper. The spoils of war of the victorious allies. Plus, to forever weaken Germany's ability to make war on her neighbours, and give Poland a much better defensible border. Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?
If they won a war defending that border, didn't they disprove their argument that the 1967 borders are indefensible?
I'm all for Israel's right to defend themselves however they have to, but I don't think this border shifting stuff should be condoned. Using the self defense argument just seems like a cynical excuse to grab some land.
Arjan Dirkse wrote:angelo wrote:After WW2, a large chunk of East Germany, inhabited by 12 million Germans was annexed and given to Poland. Most of the German population left what had been their homes for generations and went to live in Germany proper. The spoils of war of the victorious allies. Plus, to forever weaken Germany's ability to make war on her neighbours, and give Poland a much better defensible border. Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?
If they won a war defending that border, didn't they disprove their argument that the 1967 borders are indefensible?
I'm all for Israel's right to defend themselves however they have to, but I don't think this border shifting stuff should be condoned. Using the self defense argument just seems like a cynical excuse to grab some land.
angelo wrote:Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?
Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests