|
Grex > Agora41 > #273: PM's wife 'sorry' in suicide bomb row | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 20 new of 69 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 50 of 69:
| 
Jul 12 23:15 UTC 2002 |
I'd just like to point out I never said it *would* pass, just that it looked
likely. You're the one making an absolute claim, because you feel Israel
can never do wrong.
|
lk
|
|
response 51 of 69:
|
Jul 13 12:44 UTC 2002 |
No, I said so because it's not likely to pass. Why is it that you thought
it is "likely" to pass? Because you have a penchant for believing anything
that is anti-Israel and can be useful to paint Israel as evil? (The
non-existent massacre in Jenin and the amount of destruction, "unique"
immigration laws that actually many (perhaps most) countries have,
and most recently the "dichotomy" about outposts and housing.) It's your
negative perception of Israel that makes you believe these things, thus
increasing your negativity -- a vicious cycle. Hmmm; where did it begin?
|
scott
|
|
response 52 of 69:
|
Jul 13 22:06 UTC 2002 |
Wow, that's an awful lot of words you're stuffing into gull's mouth, Leeron.
|
lk
|
|
response 53 of 69:
|
Jul 14 04:37 UTC 2002 |
Scott, still no response to my #42?
Do you withdraw your questioning of my "assumption" in your #40?
|
scott
|
|
response 54 of 69:
|
Jul 14 13:37 UTC 2002 |
Re 40: No change.
Re 42: The premises are so ludicrous I'm not even going to bother to respond
in kind. Further, you haven't yet explained your claim that the outposts
weren't dismantled because the troops used to *protect* those outposts were
wanted elsewhere.
|
scott
|
|
response 55 of 69:
|
Jul 14 13:40 UTC 2002 |
Ah, here's the quote Leeron would prefer to ignore (taken from a CNN article
posted in Summer Agora item 13, response 70):
Israel says the illegal outposts pose a burden for Israeli security forces
who must protect the settlers, in sometimes remote areas, from possible
terror attacks.
Well, Leeron?
|
lk
|
|
response 56 of 69:
|
Jul 14 16:17 UTC 2002 |
Scott, I already mentioned increased patrols twice (#46, #49). So you can
stop your straw man argument whenever you are ready to respond to #42
instead of asserting that the "premises" outlined by 3 reknown experts
in the field (including a former 2-term President of the International
Court of Justice) are "ludicrous". Can't you be more specific?
|
scott
|
|
response 57 of 69:
|
Jul 14 18:17 UTC 2002 |
Your "increased patrols" claim is weak at best, Leeron. But it's interesting
to see how it starts as conjecture in #46 and by #49 you're calling anything
else a "straw man" argument. Nicely weasled!
Read the article again; it clearly states that the outposts were being
dismantled because of the increased burden of security. Not, as Leeron would
like to claim, that the increased security was some minor technical issue
while the outposts were dismantled for other reasons (say, like being an
illegal seizure of land... where *are* those bulldozers, anyway?).
|
lk
|
|
response 58 of 69:
|
Jul 15 15:39 UTC 2002 |
Scott, as I also mentioned some of those "outposts" didn't exist on the
ground and didn't even require "increased patrols".
Re your non-response to #42: What "premises" outlined by 3 reknown experts
in the field (including a former 2-term President of the International
Court of Justice) are "ludicrous"?
|
scott
|
|
response 59 of 69:
|
Jul 15 16:14 UTC 2002 |
It's your presentation & conclusions that is ludicrous.
And when did we shift to discussing only "some" of the outposts?
|
brighn
|
|
response 60 of 69:
|
Jul 15 16:48 UTC 2002 |
Oh god, are they STILL arguing about this?
The thing is, all I have to do is see long posts from Leeron to know it's THAT
topic again. All the same, it's too early in the quarter to root for this to
go on until the next rollover. Yet. =}
|
scott
|
|
response 61 of 69:
|
Jul 15 18:29 UTC 2002 |
Well, there's no money on the line this time.
|
lk
|
|
response 62 of 69:
|
Jul 15 18:31 UTC 2002 |
Scott says:
> It's your presentation & conclusions that is ludicrous.
Can you be more specific? For example, my "presentation" in #42 is basically
limited to explaining who I am quoting. And I didn't really present any
conclusions other than a 2-3 line mention that the Oslo process was following
a certain formula in according with remarks made by Julius Stone.
The bulk of the text (about 40 lines) quotes what the experts have written.
Did you draw different conclusions from their words? If so, what are they?
|
scott
|
|
response 63 of 69:
|
Jul 15 22:41 UTC 2002 |
I'd be more interested in a response to #57, without you trying to limit the
topic to "some" of the outposts.
|
lk
|
|
response 64 of 69:
|
Jul 16 13:37 UTC 2002 |
My comments weren't limited to "some" of the outposts. What you're missing
is that your argument, that the outposts were dismantled for security
reasons, does not apply to all the outposts. Ergo this could not have been
the primary motivation. That some outposts required additional security
measures (in the form of increased patrols) and that others didn't only
supports what I said.
So what conclusions did you draw from the experts quoted in #42?
(If you don't respond, I guess I'll re-enter your #40(?) and my #42 as
a new item in the current Agora cf and then, unless anyone objects, I
can freeze this item here.)
|
scott
|
|
response 65 of 69:
|
Jul 16 14:48 UTC 2002 |
Re 64:
What you're missing
is that your argument, that the outposts were dismantled for security
reasons, does not apply to all the outposts. Ergo this could not have been
the primary motivation.
"Ergo"? Perhaps you should go back and read the article, and then try to
reconcile your argument with reality. Hint: Not all outposts are being
dismantled.
But beyond that, there's a basic logical fallacy in your "some" argument.
The primary motivation for dismantling the outposts, as the article points
out, was to free up security forces. This was not some invention of the
author, this was what Israel itself said. Are you claiming CNN (which you've
called one of your mainstream sources) is biased or incorrect on this matter?
|
lk
|
|
response 66 of 69:
|
Jul 16 15:29 UTC 2002 |
Reviewing this item, I see no CNN article, only a reference to it in
another item that your raised in #55 -- as a distraction from #42.
So here's your last chance to address #42 before I freeze this item
and enter this as a new item in the current Agora cf.
|
scott
|
|
response 67 of 69:
|
Jul 16 16:44 UTC 2002 |
You're polytarp?
|
brighn
|
|
response 68 of 69:
|
Jul 16 17:04 UTC 2002 |
Can't the mod just link it?
|
scott
|
|
response 69 of 69:
|
Jul 16 21:02 UTC 2002 |
I can't imagine her wanting to, but yes, she could.
|