Hamas and Israel broker ceasefire [Archive]

Thomas Veil

Jun 21, 2008, 10:34 AM

Oh yeah, that's exactly how it works.Most of the time it is. However Israel's not guiltless. See the next response.

I'll try that excuse next time I fire a mortar into my neighbor's yard.I believe what Remmy is alluding to is that Israel is easily provoked into a reaction, and then it goes ballistic.

Cease-fires aren't always that cut-and-dried. All it takes it one loose cannon to blow it on either side, and all of a sudden it's over. Nobody ever stops to think, "Gee, it might've been somebody deliberately trying to provoke us into a reaction." They just go with their knee-jerk reaction: hit 'em back hard.

Eraserhead

Jun 21, 2008, 11:54 AM

Is that in Revelations? :confused:

I doubt very much that the Egyptians will break it.

They piss off all our governments and lose the tourism revenue.

Gray-Wolf

Jun 21, 2008, 01:52 PM

For Skunk

Daniel 9:27 - 27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The week, represents 7 year period.

When that peace comes, watch for the rebuilding of the temple in Israel. The priest line is already learning how to offer sacrifices, and they are raising red heifers for that purpose. It's not far away.

Badandy

Jun 21, 2008, 02:51 PM

Is this an extended joke I'm missing here?

(Talking about above post and previous)

PlaceofDis

Jun 21, 2008, 02:55 PM

Is this an extended joke I'm missing here?

(Talking about above post and previous)

i don't think so, but i hope so.

skunk

Jun 21, 2008, 02:58 PM

Is this an extended joke I'm missing here?

(Talking about above post and previous)It was a small joke, until The Rapture stuck its foot in the door. Now we know why Finalday chose his username...

themadchemist

Jun 21, 2008, 03:11 PM

Perhaps if the jews and muslims followed his ways rather then their ancient books we wouldnt to have hear of this anymore and they would discover peace. Hate is so much easier then love.

Wait, wait...Are you suggesting that the solution to violence in the Middle East is to convert everyone to Christianity?

és:

Jun 21, 2008, 03:15 PM

Most of the time it is.

No, it isn't. You need to have a memory that goes back more than a few weeks to see what's really going on.

It's a subject that's very close to me and one that I'm very passionate about, so I think I'll politely leave it at that. As arguments are likely to happen, as is so often the case with this subject.

EDIT: I've just had a thought; maybe you missed the sarcasm in my previous post? I was actually disagreeing.

Thomas Veil

Jun 21, 2008, 09:36 PM

EDIT: I've just had a thought; maybe you missed the sarcasm in my previous post? I was actually disagreeing.I'm aware of that.

And although I'm not as short-memoried as you may believe, if you want to leave it at that, I'm cool with it.

KingYaba

Jun 24, 2008, 01:06 PM

LOL (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians) well that didn't last long.

Eraserhead

Jun 24, 2008, 01:08 PM

LOL (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians) well that didn't last long.

Hamas didn't fire the rockets though...

takao

Jun 24, 2008, 01:11 PM

i actually misread the title of this thread as "Hamas and Isreal _broke_ ceasefire"

which shows how used we are to broken ceasefires in the middle east

skunk

Jun 24, 2008, 02:25 PM

LOL (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians) well that didn't last long.Well actually, since the ceasefire was between Hamas and the Israelis, and the rockets were fired by Islamic Jihad, the ceasefire has not been broken. LOL indeed.

mactastic

Jun 24, 2008, 04:11 PM

Well actually, since the ceasefire was between Hamas and the Israelis, and the rockets were fired by Islamic Jihad, the ceasefire has not been broken. LOL indeed.
Now, now... Be gentle. Most conservative-leaning folks view all Muslims as interchangable. Sunni, Shia, Hezbollah, Hamas.... it's all the same thing to a lot of them.

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 24, 2008, 05:27 PM

Wait, wait...Are you suggesting that the solution to violence in the Middle East is to convert everyone to Christianity?Not really, just do a few things he said to do. Live and let Live. Anyways that lasted a whole 5 days.

és:

Jun 24, 2008, 05:31 PM

Now, now... Be gentle. Most conservative-leaning folks view all Muslims as interchangable. Sunni, Shia, Hezbollah, Hamas.... it's all the same thing to a lot of them.

Scathing. Harsh. True.

Macky-Mac

Jun 24, 2008, 05:53 PM

Well actually, since the ceasefire was between Hamas and the Israelis, and the rockets were fired by Islamic Jihad, the ceasefire has not been broken. LOL indeed.

cept that Islamic Jihad said they were going to respect the ceasefire too

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 24, 2008, 06:00 PM

I think they should give both sides an unlimited supply of Estes rockets and b motors:D more points for unusual models. lets face it these two have hated other since day 1 and they are related. Man is a crazy fruitcake. No wonder ET wont make contact.:confused:

Badandy

Jun 24, 2008, 06:02 PM

Now, now... Be gentle. Most conservative-leaning folks view all Muslims as interchangable. Sunni, Shia, Hezbollah, Hamas.... it's all the same thing to a lot of them.

I'm calling you out on this. Do you have any data that would corroborate your usage of "most" conservative view Muslims as interchangable? If I were to utter this in a thread, I would be attacked for it by more than one person, yet your post has stood with no response to your incredibly ignorant generality.

és:

Jun 24, 2008, 06:02 PM

cept that Islamic Jihad said they were going to respect the ceasefire too

There was no peace agreement with them. It really is that simple.

Macky-Mac

Jun 24, 2008, 06:15 PM

There was no peace agreement with them. It really is that simple.

so you're suggesting Hamas failed to keep their end of the ceasefire by preventing people from firing rockets from Hamas controlled territory?

mactastic

Jun 24, 2008, 06:21 PM

I'm calling you out on this. Do you have any data that would corroborate your usage of "most" conservative view Muslims as interchangable? If I were to utter this in a thread, I would be attacked for it by more than one person, yet your post has stood with no response to your incredibly ignorant generality.
Are you not responding to my "incredibly ignorant generality", thereby voiding your own criticism?

Suffice it to say that if "most conservatives" knew the difference between Sunni and Shia, McCain would not be getting away with not knowing the difference between the two. To paraphrase you, "if Obama were to utter such a statement, he would be attacked for it by more than one media organization, yet McCain gets a pass on his "incredibly ignorant" statement." His supporters defend this statement, so either they don't see a problem with it, or they don't care.

The Bushevics have spent 7 years now trying to meld secular arab with al Qaeda, Sunni with Shia, Persian with Arab, Hezbollah with Hamas, Islamic Jihad with AQI. Don't try to pull this schoolyard "I'm calling you out" (ooo I'm so scared :rolleyes:) taunt and pretend this hasn't been going on.

I didn't think I needed to prove the obvious, but I'll provide it for you since you're being so incredibly ignorant in general.

Oh, and here (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_of_Americans_believe_Saddam_0624.htmlhttp://). People who believe Saddam and al Qaeda are in cahoots, aka interchangable.
Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"
And who are those people, you may ask? Surely they can't be the fine upstanding conservatives of America making such mistakes, can they?

Why yes. They can (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/2642.html).
Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda,” similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression.
Unless you're prepared to prove to me that FOX viewers are overwhelmingly liberal, you better try calling someone else out, lest you get your ass handed to you yet again.

Incredibly ignorant indeed... heh.

és:

Jun 24, 2008, 06:26 PM

so you're suggesting Hamas failed to keep their end of the ceasefire by preventing people from firing rockets from Hamas controlled territory?

Erm, no. I'm not.

This was talked about in great length before the ceasefire started.

Badandy

Jun 24, 2008, 06:28 PM

Are you not responding to my "incredibly ignorant generality", thereby voiding your own criticism?

No.

Suffice it to say that if "most conservatives" knew the difference between Sunni and Shia, McCain would not be getting away with not knowing the difference between the two.

That's a far cry from saying that most conservatives think all muslims are the same, and you know it. You have zero data to back up your generalization.

To paraphrase you, "if Obama were to utter such a statement, he would be attacked for it by more than one media organization, yet McCain gets a pass on his "incredibly ignorant" statement." His supporters defend this statement, so either they don't see a problem with it, or they don't care.

Your paraphrasing skills need some brushing up; I made no such point.

The Bushevics

Brilliant, don't you feel good about yourself now?

I didn't think I needed to prove the obvious, but I'll provide it for you since you're being so incredibly ignorant in general.

Oh, and here (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_of_Americans_believe_Saddam_0624.htmlhttp://). People who believe Saddam and al Qaeda are in cahoots, aka interchangable.

That is ridiculous. Believing someone to be in association does not mean to believe they are identical.

skunk

Jun 24, 2008, 06:30 PM

so you're suggesting Hamas failed to keep their end of the ceasefire by preventing people from firing rockets from Hamas controlled territory?Since Hamas' democratically elected government has been consistently undermined by Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah, the USA and the EU, you can hardly complain that they should be maintaining control anywhere.

iShater

Jun 24, 2008, 06:30 PM

mactastic 1
badandy 0

mactastic

Jun 24, 2008, 06:34 PM

No.
Yes.

That's a far cry from saying that most conservatives think all muslims are the same, and you know it. You have zero data to back up your generalization.
I'm just getting started.

Your paraphrasing skills need some brushing up; I made no such point.
I never said you made such a point. You're tilting at windmills again...

Brilliant, don't you feel good about yourself now?
That all you got? Somehow I suspected as much.

That is ridiculous. Believing someone to be in association does not mean to believe they are identical.
Oh lordy. Split hairs much? Data shows that conservatives are much more likely to have bought the administration line regarding Muslims and terrorists. I'm sure it doesn't make you happy to have to face that reality, but there it is.

Sucks when you call someone out, and then end up looking like the incredibly ignorant one. Ah well, give it time. That sting will go away eventually.

skunk

Jun 24, 2008, 06:34 PM

Believing someone to be in association does not mean to believe they are identical.Believing two outfits completely antagonistic towards each other were in association just because your war criminal leaders said so in denial of the known facts for political gain is nothing less than shameful. If you're going to make war, you could at least be honest about it.

iShater

Jun 24, 2008, 06:36 PM

badandy, if what mactastic said doesn't apply to you, then why don't you just say so? Just cause he said majority, doesn't mean EVERYBODY. I have friends from both sides of the fence who know the difference, but even they say that many people have no friggin clue.

Badandy

Jun 24, 2008, 06:38 PM

mactastic 1
badandy 0

Stir the pot all you want, but mactastic made an assertion that most conservatives think all Muslims are the same, without providing evidence. When I called him on it, he made an absolutely ridiculous argument premised upon the idea that when people perceive two groups to be in association, they cannot perceive the differences between them.

When someone thinks there is an association of Saddam and Al Qaida (however incorrect) that doesn't mean they think that Al Qaida and Saddam are interchangeable or the same thing. Mactastic only advanced that argument in order to wriggle out of a situation that was set up becuase of some lazy generalizations put forward as fact. That's all.

iShater

Jun 24, 2008, 06:41 PM

badandy, you asked for information, he provided it. Where is your counter point? AFAIK the same people that say Saddam + AlQaeda = 1 are the same who think Sunni=Shia.

Where are your references that show otherwise?

Not stirring the pot, but I read his detailed information, and I don't see yours.

Eraserhead

Jun 24, 2008, 06:43 PM

Stir the pot all you want, but mactastic made an assertion that most conservatives think all Muslims are the same, without providing evidence.

Well he showed quite a lot of smoke in that direction. At best you can say he's exaggerating the true position, but he definitely showed that conservatives are largely ignorant of the muslim world.

Badandy

Jun 24, 2008, 06:44 PM

Yes.

No. Please explain what you're saying here.

I'm just getting started.

Uh-oh.

I never said you made such a point. You're tilting at windmills again...

You mean when you started off the thought I quoted with "to paraphrase you"? Oh, that?

That all you got? Somehow I suspected as much.

Do you think I care if you make some snide comment about how you perceive my intelligence?

Oh lordy. Split hairs much? Data shows that conservatives are much more likely to have bought the administration line regarding Muslims and terrorists. I'm sure it doesn't make you happy to have to face that reality, but there it is.

It's not splitting hairs. It's demarcating two different situations that are almost completely different from each other. Believing two groups to be in cahoots does not mean believing in their sameness.

Sucks when you call someone out, and then end up looking like the incredibly ignorant one. Ah well, give it time. That sting will go away eventually.

I'd say I suspected as much from this final insult, but I'll refrain. I wouldn't want you quoting this little section and repeating it over again.

skunk

Jun 24, 2008, 06:45 PM

Not stirring the pot, but I read his detailed information, and I don't see yours.Come on now, be fair: absence of evidence of a clue is not evidence of absence of a clue.

mactastic

Jun 24, 2008, 06:54 PM

No. Please explain what you're saying here.
No.

Uh-oh.

You mean when you started off the thought I quoted with "to paraphrase you"? Oh, that?

Do you think I care if you make some snide comment about how you perceive my intelligence?
What a waste of electrons. Isn't it obvious that I don't care what you think?

It's not splitting hairs. It's demarcating two different situations that are almost completely different from each other. Believing two groups to be in cahoots does not mean believing in their sameness.
It is one readily available example of how this administration has conflated groups with radically different aims and attempted to package them into one group of "terrorists". Deny it all you want, but we've all seen it happen. How many times did Bush utter the words "those who attacked us on 9/11" while making the case for war with Iraq?

I'd say I suspected as much from this final insult, but I'll refrain. I wouldn't want you quoting this little section and repeating it over again. You were the one who started throwing insults. Why am I not surprised to find yet another conservative who can dish it out, but can't seem to take any return fire? Hell, many of them decided they'd rather piss their pants and give away their freedoms rather than stand up to terrorists, so I guess I'm not surprised.

Macky-Mac

Jun 24, 2008, 06:54 PM

Erm, no. I'm not.

This was talked about in great length before the ceasefire started.

yes and Hamas offered assurances that they were speaking for all the groups in Gaza;

...Gaza Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said all the armed factions in Gaza are on board with the truce...

.....For now, Hamas appears to be relying on calls for Palestinian unity to maintain the truce. It made sure to include Islamic Jihad in the consultations with Egypt. On Tuesday, Islamic Jihad said it would honor the agreement as long as Israel didn't attack ... quoted from CBS news report (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/17/world/main4188767.shtml)

blackfox

Jun 24, 2008, 06:55 PM

Stir the pot all you want, but mactastic made an assertion that most conservatives think all Muslims are the same, without providing evidence. When I called him on it, he made an absolutely ridiculous argument premised upon the idea that when people perceive two groups to be in association, they cannot perceive the differences between them.

When someone thinks there is an association of Saddam and Al Qaida (however incorrect) that doesn't mean they think that Al Qaida and Saddam are interchangeable or the same thing. Mactastic only advanced that argument in order to wriggle out of a situation that was set up becuase of some lazy generalizations put forward as fact. That's all.

I think the larger point is being lost here - whether "people" perceive different groups as being the same - or whether they make assumptions of association between them - in both cases this tends to be lazy generalization.

The end point remains the same - a distorted view of a complex situation, in which lazy assumptions can open up a big opportunity for disastrous policy.

I have no data to say that the average conservative is more prone to this than anyone else, except the potential relationship between conservatives and support of US/Israeli actions in the region, and the belief in the rationale of said activities.

Eraserhead

Jun 24, 2008, 06:56 PM

yes and Hamas offered assurances that they were speaking for all the groups in Gaza;

But they can't exactly be said to directly control them, and the truce is between Hamas itself and Israel.

Badandy

Jun 24, 2008, 07:00 PM

What a waste of electrons. Isn't it obvious that I don't care what you think?

And is it not obvious that I do not care what you think? But here we are, responding to each other...

You were the one who started throwing insults.

You mean when my first post was about calling you out on a lazy generalization borne out of an ignorant viewpoint?

Why am I not surprised to find yet another conservative who can dish it out, but can't seem to take any return fire?

What are you talking about? If I don't respond to this thread, it's not because my feelings are hurt. I'm either doing something else I need to be doing, or have lost interest.

Blackfox: good post. And I agree with you. But if lazy generalizations give way to disastrous policy, then lazy generalizations of other citizens lead to less understanding and more hostility. Both are undesirable, and I was merely trying to point out one.

iJohnHenry

Jun 24, 2008, 07:04 PM

Is this thread still here??

What's it been .... about 2,000 years???

iShater

Jun 24, 2008, 07:05 PM

Is this thread still here??

What's it been .... about 2,000 years???

ME, the political gift that keeps on giving!

skunk

Jun 24, 2008, 07:09 PM

Is this thread still here??

What's it been .... about 2,000 years???Well it's only been 60 years since the Jews were the terrorists in the Middle East.

mactastic

Jun 24, 2008, 07:18 PM

And is it not obvious that I do not care what you think? But here we are, responding to each other...
Actually you seem quite obsessed with how I view your intelligence...

You mean when my first post was about calling you out on a lazy generalization borne out of an ignorant viewpoint?
And he nails it in one.

What are you talking about? If I don't respond to this thread, it's not because my feelings are hurt. I'm either doing something else I need to be doing, or have lost interest.
Ummm... ok. Sure.

How does showing evidence that Fox News viewers believed in the supposed connection between Saddam and AQ mean that most conservatives view all Muslims as interchangable?
Because if conservatives understood that al Qaeda and Saddam were not interchangable, and indeed were often at odds with each other, they would not have bought into the lie that the two were in cahoots. If you believe that Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots, it means that you believe one Muslim group is interchangable with another. It means you don't understand WHY Shiites and Sunnis are different. It means you don't understand that for those two to have had an operational relationship, they would have had to set aside vast differences that showed no sign of having been done. It means those who believed that (who have been shown to be mostly conservative -- unless you are ready to argue that FOX viewers skew liberal) simply did not possess the understanding necessary to differentiate between different Muslim groups. Which leads inexorably to the conclusion that many, if not most, conservatives saw the two groups as similar enough to be interchangable.

iJohnHenry

Jun 24, 2008, 07:43 PM

Well it's only been 60 years since the Jews were the terrorists in the Middle East.

Sure, because the Brits "were not amused.

Let's just nuke Jerusalem, and start again.

skunk

Jun 24, 2008, 07:47 PM

Sure, because the Brits "were not amused.

Let's just nuke Jerusalem, and start again.Strange contribution.

iJohnHenry

Jun 24, 2008, 07:53 PM

Strange contribution.

Remove the cause of friction, remove the friction.

This "Solomon" approach doesn't seem to be working.

The Jews got all the good stuff. :p

themadchemist

Jun 24, 2008, 08:08 PM

Sure, because the Brits "were not amused.

Let's just nuke Jerusalem, and start again.

Shall we call this the Tehran approach? :eek:

iJohnHenry

Jun 24, 2008, 08:12 PM

Are there holy shrines in Tehran being fought over??

I don't think so.

iShater

Jun 24, 2008, 08:14 PM

Are there holy shrines in Tehran being fought over??

I don't think so.

I think he meant all the talk on how Iran's nuclear ambitions are claimed to be for the purpose of doing what you sarcastically said.

Sarcasm + sarcasm = confusion.

themadchemist

Jun 24, 2008, 08:15 PM

I think he meant all the talk on how Iran's nuclear ambitions are claimed to be for the purpose of doing what you sarcastically said.

Sarcasm + sarcasm = confusion.

Yes! Thanks!

és:

Jun 24, 2008, 08:16 PM

yes and Hamas offered assurances that they were speaking for all the groups in Gaza;

quoted from CBS news report (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/17/world/main4188767.shtml)

I'm not sure if you're just not getting it, or if you're genuinely using a news reporters words as proof for your argument.

"Hamas official Ahmed Yousef told the BBC: "I am confident that everybody will abide by what we've agreed. All the groups which went to Cairo gave their okay to the ceasefire.

"If anybody does anything, they will be doing it on their own."

Hamas gave no assurances for anyone other than Hamas.

Islamic Jihad also said they would stick to it unless they were attacked, which they believe they were.

iJohnHenry

Jun 24, 2008, 08:16 PM

OK, but unlike Tehran I would allow sufficient time for all residents to evacuate.

If some choose to chain themselves to The Wailing Wall, that is of their own volition.

themadchemist

Jun 24, 2008, 08:17 PM

OK, but unlike Tehran I would allow sufficient time for all residents to evacuate.

If some choose to chain themselves to The Wailing Wall, that is of their own volition.

Oh, so you weren't being sarcastic. Well, then.

iShater

Jun 24, 2008, 08:21 PM

Oh, so you weren't being sarcastic. Well, then.

I think he is going for "if we eliminate the reason they are all fighting, we eliminate the fight".

Interesting, but the only time I heard someone* say that (and they were serious), was a very racist comment about giving a heads-up to the Israelis ... and none to anybody else. :eek:

And he was a Christian African American college student saying it in response to the OK city bombings. :rolleyes:

iJohnHenry

Jun 24, 2008, 08:22 PM

Yes, thank you.

Real estate is after all, just that.

Enough of this **** fighting over it.

iShater

Jun 24, 2008, 08:23 PM

If it were only that simple. *sigh*

iJohnHenry

Jun 24, 2008, 08:25 PM

To paraphrase from a Henry Fonda movie about Wyatt Eurp:

"Marshall, someone should just shoot you!!"

"Yes, but who's to do it."

themadchemist

Jun 24, 2008, 08:28 PM

Yes, thank you.

Real estate is after all, just that.

Enough of this **** fighting over it.

I think those who come from places with thousands of years of history will tell you that real estate is more than real estate. Whole cultures are tied to this ground. And even aside from that, this place is home to hundreds of thousands of people.

How about this for an example. Let's say someone came to you and said, we're going to blow up your house. Please leave, so that you and your family don't die. How would you feel about that?

Let's say that this person even offered--we'll pay for the damages and help relocate you? Would that make you agree?

As an added twist, let's say that it turned out that your house was part of the grounds for the most sacred sites of your religion. And just for fun, let's say that the guy who wants to blow it up--well, he's a representative of another country, and has no legal jurisdiction to claim any of your property, let alone blow it to smithereens.

Now does this sound like a good solution to you?

I think he is going for "if we eliminate the reason they are all fighting, we eliminate the fight".

Of course, they're fighting for a lot of other reasons, too, and so no, the fighting won't stop. They'll just start killing each other over to whom the blame goes for the Americans blowing up Jerusalem.

solvs

Jun 25, 2008, 01:11 AM

Most conservative-leaning folks view all Muslims as interchangable. Sunni, Shia, Hezbollah, Hamas.... it's all the same thing to a lot of them.
Not much for generalizations from either side, but to be fair Badandy, he did add the qualifiers of "most" and "-leaning", as well as a lot of them. He didn't say all, or simply "conservatives". Personally I would used a term like neocons. Maybe Republicans, but I would've used different qualifiers. That's just me though. If this doesn't include you Badandy, then he probably wasn't talking about you. He was talking about those who something like calling Obama a Muslim works on because they equate all Muslims with terrorists. Or those who, as he clarified, think McCain repeatedly confusing Shia and Sunni (not to mention Bush apparently not even knowing there were several different sects before invading Iraq (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html)) is no big deal. There are people like that out there. And as he showed, a majority are right leaning. Not all, there are plenty of them who know the difference, plenty of liberals and moderates who don't know as well, but a majority.

Though the comment was pointed at KingYaba, who was just quoting an AP story, and defines himself as a libertarian, which means you were partially incorrect on that part mac. ;)

This "Solomon" approach doesn't seem to be working.
I'm just going to assume you were just trying to make a point and go with that.

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 01:23 AM

Now, now... Be gentle. Most conservative-leaning folks view all Muslims as interchangable. Sunni, Shia, Hezbollah, Hamas.... it's all the same thing to a lot of them.

I'm wondering if it's possible to have a debate around here without "conservative" being used as an insult?

edit: Badandy vs. Mactastic royal rumble and "qualifiers" notwithstanding.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 01:41 AM

themadchemist

Jun 25, 2008, 01:53 AM

My problem was with the term "most", for which I asked for data. The data mactastic provided was not sufficient in my eyes, it was in his. I didn't think so because I don't think that saying "Most Fox news viewers think there is a link between Al Qaida and Saddam" means "Most conservatives think all Muslims are the same". He doesn't agree. I would have preferred the term neocons as well, because that *may* have been accurate. I'm done arguing this, my opinions are there, his opinions are there.

I can definitely understand your parsing of things here. While I generally agree with mactastic's point about a lack of information regarding Islam and the Middle East, the data he provides requires a leap to get to the conclusions he reaches.

That said, I don't think the NPR/PBS vs. Fox News comparison is fair. My guess is that level of education differs widely between these two groups, too. If you took, say, CNN, you'd probably have a more comparable set of numbers to that of Fox News. While I think that a lack of knowledge about the distinctions in the Middle East is probably greater among conservatives, my guess is that the gap is not so dramatic as mactastic's data, once it is corrected for education status. We must not forget that both left and right are ill-informed about foreign affairs, in general.

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 02:00 AM

That said, I don't think the NPR/PBS vs. Fox News comparison is fair.

Being against the war also doesn't necessarily indicate a greater level of education, understanding, or intelligence. You can be against the war and still have a brain comprised entirely of soggy cornflakes.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 02:25 AM

Being against the war also doesn't necessarily indicate a greater level of education, understanding, or intelligence. You can be against the war and still have a brain comprised entirely of soggy cornflakes.

Speaking of that, Quaker Oatmeal Squares (with a hint of brown sugar) are absolutely delicious.

madchecmist: Interesting what you say about NPR/PBS vs. Fox. In my view, Fox News makes absolutely gigantic mistakes when dealing with social/world issues, but *generally* seems pretty accurate on economic matters. Contrarily, I find NPR does a good job in news reporting on issues outside the country, but are completely outclassed in economic matters by most major media outlets. Just my opinion.

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 02:34 AM

Speaking of that, Quaker Oatmeal Squares (with a hint of brown sugar) are absolutely delicious.

I eat lentils for breakfast. Always soggy.

On topic: I hate the term "liberal" lobbed at me like some kind of dismissive insult. Thus I disdain the use of "conservative" as such. If your argument in so strong as to be unassailable, surely you can make it without sweeping generalizations*.

__________
*sticking "most" in front of a generalization doesn't suddenly stop it from being one.

skunk

Jun 25, 2008, 02:59 AM

If your argument in so strong as to be unassailable, surely you can make it without sweeping generalizations*.It's good to argue on a clean floor.

solvs

Jun 25, 2008, 03:15 AM

I hate the term "liberal" lobbed at me like some kind of dismissive insult.
Ditto. As if simply making a contrary point to something on the right, even if it's far right, is liberal alone, worse yet it's an insult. Even when a majority of the country would agree as well. Prior to 9/11 I was considered a moderate, even right leaning on some things, especially when criticizing Clinton. Suddenly, I criticize Bush and the GOP Congress at the time for the increasing budget deficit, and I'm a far left wacko partisan. Even criticizing the Iraq war STILL can get you labeled as such.

Yet, mac did add the qualifiers, and if someone were to make such a comment about most "liberals" (were it accurate), especially if it didn't apply to me, I don't know if I would care. Especially if liberals were the ones in charge and making these mistakes. The fact stands that most of those with right leanings don't know they aren't the same, or at least in cahoots. But then, you could say that about most Americans, or even most non-Muslims, who don't know there even is a difference. Not that it helps move the political dialogue forward saying it. But then, neither does thinking those who fired the rockets are the same as, or even aligned with, Hamas.

This reminds me of the Israel/Palestine conflict... er, abstractly.

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 03:54 AM

It's good to argue on a clean floor.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not :o

If you're pointing out that I've made generalizations in the past (I'm sure I have) or anything of a similar nature, it'd be wrong of me to deny it. I do, however, try not to let it colour my argument nor become the content of. I aspire to be better.

themadchemist

Jun 25, 2008, 10:32 AM

madchecmist: Interesting what you say about NPR/PBS vs. Fox. In my view, Fox News makes absolutely gigantic mistakes when dealing with social/world issues, but *generally* seems pretty accurate on economic matters. Contrarily, I find NPR does a good job in news reporting on issues outside the country, but are completely outclassed in economic matters by most major media outlets. Just my opinion.

Depends on your viewpoint, eh? The economic issues are intimately tied to those other issues, in my opinion, and if you're not getting one right, you're not getting the other. They are very soft on the Bush tax cuts, which don't seem to be making a whole lot of sense.

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 11:07 AM

Reading some of the posts from last night, it did dawn on me that pre-9/11 too I would have been considered a moderate-conservative, but now would be considered on the liberal side. Even though I don't believe that my views have changed, but the general feeling the states has changed.

Both sides tend to use terms that traditionally have meant one thing, as insult.

"Conservative! Liberal!"

But what terms can be used to define Neocons that are part of the masses? I always felt it really reflected more on policy makers and people with "power" vs. average joe.

mactastic

Jun 25, 2008, 04:12 PM

Speaking of that, Quaker Oatmeal Squares (with a hint of brown sugar) are absolutely delicious.

madchecmist: Interesting what you say about NPR/PBS vs. Fox. In my view, Fox News makes absolutely gigantic mistakes when dealing with social/world issues, but *generally* seems pretty accurate on economic matters. Contrarily, I find NPR does a good job in news reporting on issues outside the country, but are completely outclassed in economic matters by most major media outlets. Just my opinion.
I'm going to call you out on this. Do you have any proof that MOST media outlets outclass NPR, or are you simply spouting an incredibly ignorant viewpoint?

Eraserhead

Jun 25, 2008, 04:38 PM

I'm going to call you out on this. Do you have any proof that MOST media outlets outclass NPR, or are you simply spouting an incredibly ignorant viewpoint?

Can we please get back to talking about the middle east?

Back on topic, it seems so far that Israel haven't reacted to Islamic Jihad on this. Good for them.

mactastic

Jun 25, 2008, 04:43 PM

Can we please get back to talking about the middle east?

Back on topic, it seems so far that Israel haven't reacted to Islamic Jihad on this. Good for them.
Hmm... interesting that you only put forth requests to return to topic when I post, but when Badandy pull the same off-topic stuff you were ok with it...

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 04:47 PM

I'm going to call you out on this. Do you have any proof that MOST media outlets outclass NPR, or are you simply spouting an incredibly ignorant viewpoint?

I'm not going to get a huge argument with you, this requires a very simple explanation:

In my view...

Just my opinion. Besides, this is a completely subjective topic, I wasn't referring to quantifiable criteria.

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 04:47 PM

Can we please get back to talking about the middle east?

Back on topic, it seems so far that Israel haven't reacted to Islamic Jihad on this. Good for them.

Closing crossing points again, that counts as a reaction right?

Hmm... interesting that you only put forth requests to return to topic when I post, but when Badandy pull the same off-topic stuff you were ok with it...
I think we have been off-topic for quite a few posts from all of us, lets now take it too personal. :)

Eraserhead

Jun 25, 2008, 05:26 PM

I think we have been off-topic for quite a few posts from all of us, lets now take it too personal. :)

+1. It really wasn't personal, more like the straw which broke the camels back ;).

Closing crossing points again, that counts as a reaction right?

Hmm, I suppose, but at least no bombs have been let off. It seems like a more reasonable reaction, especially if they quickly open them again.

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 05:32 PM

Hmm, I suppose, but at least no bombs have been let off. It seems like a more reasonable reaction, especially if they quickly open them again.

Anybody who has been through a crossing point/checkpoint will probably suggest that even when they are open, they feel like they are closed.

Eraserhead

Jun 25, 2008, 05:38 PM

Anybody who has been through a crossing point/checkpoint will probably suggest that even when they are open, they feel like they are closed.

The problem is that its an international border crossing so they will always be fairly troublesome, especially as they aren't EU countries or something. I haven't been through any international land borders except in the EU though, so I don't know what they should be like. I also haven't been through a checkpoint in Israel/Palestine.

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 05:48 PM

I haven't been through any international land borders except in the EU though, so I don't know what they should be like. I also haven't been through a checkpoint in Israel/Palestine.

Kiss your lucky stars! :D

skunk

Jun 25, 2008, 05:55 PM

It's certainly not an "international border" in any accepted sense of the phrase.

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 05:56 PM

It's certainly not an "international border" in any accepted sense of the phrase.

I venture to call it a prison gate.

Eraserhead

Jun 25, 2008, 05:58 PM

Kiss your lucky stars! :D

I doing it hopefully 3 times in the next year, so I've got that fun to come ;).

themadchemist

Jun 25, 2008, 06:00 PM

Being against the war also doesn't necessarily indicate a greater level of education, understanding, or intelligence. You can be against the war and still have a brain comprised entirely of soggy cornflakes.

Amen. Liberals (myself included) need to listen to Air America every now and then, the later the better...You can hear all the conspiracy theory nutters calling in...Or worse, the idiotic hosts who seem to attack the President in every way except the ones that make sense--and really, this is a feat, like missing the Great Wall of China with a pea shooter from three feet away.

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 06:04 PM

I doing it hopefully 3 times in the next year, so I've got that fun to come ;).

Ride with a Palestinian driver to enjoy the full benefits of it. :D
(Make sure it is a Palestinian with West Bank plates).

Oh, and leave PLENTY of time before your appointment at your destination, I recommend maybe an 8 hour head start.

mactastic

Jun 25, 2008, 06:18 PM

I'm not going to get a huge argument with you, this requires a very simple explanation:

Just my opinion. Besides, this is a completely subjective topic, I wasn't referring to quantifiable criteria.
Ah... well then by all means feel free to append the words "in my view" to my statement about conservatives. Does that make your argument against my point vanish?

Eraserhead

Jun 25, 2008, 06:19 PM

Ride with a Palestinian driver to enjoy the full benefits of it. :D
(Make sure it is a Palestinian with West Bank plates).

Oh, and leave PLENTY of time before your appointment at your destination, I recommend maybe an 8 hour head start.

No, not in Israel, just a general land border, I've heard they are generally fairly hellish ;).

I would expect closer to a couple of hours rather than eight though.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 06:24 PM

Ah... well then by all means feel free to append the words "in my view" to my statement about conservatives. Does that make your argument against my point vanish?

No.

Putting "in my view" in the context I used it it denotes that the following is pure opinion. Just speculation, neither objective nor quantifiable. Just my personal preferences, plain and simple.

Here's the difference:

Badandy: In my view, I really don't like Mike and Ikes.

mactastic: In my view, most children don't like Mike and Ikes.

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 06:29 PM

No, not in Israel, just a general land border, I've heard they are generally fairly hellish ;).

I would expect closer to a couple of hours rather than eight though.

LOL, then I will refer you to skunk's comment. Yours will be a breeze. :D

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 06:31 PM

Ok, you guys are taking this silly argument not only off-topic, but at every single forum you are posting to? Geeez.

Yes, I did say "silly" because you are arguing on how each of you is expressing his views and the words they used. That doesn't change how you both think of the issues and how you think the other is wrong in how they are expressing it.

mactastic

Jun 25, 2008, 06:32 PM

No.

Putting "in my view" in the context I used it it denotes that the following is pure opinion. Just speculation, neither objective nor quantifiable. Just my personal preferences, plain and simple.

Here's the difference:

Badandy: In my view, I really don't like Mike and Ikes.

mactastic: In my view, most children don't like Mike and Ikes.
More like:
Badandy: In my view, most X are Y (X being news stations being better than, and Y being NPR on economic issues).
mactastic: In my view, most X are Y (X being conservatives, and Y being unable to tell the difference between Muslims).

At least be honest when you argue. You made a quantifiable statement, just as I did. Yet you flew off the handle over my statement, trying desperately to pick it apart on semantic grounds; then turned around and did the same thing you just "called me out" for.

Seems a tad hypocritical, if you know what I mean.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 06:35 PM

mactastic

Jun 25, 2008, 06:39 PM

No, my statement was not quanitifiable.

I expressed an opinion that is not able to be quanitified by facts. Purely subjective.

You expressed an opinion that you thought facts supported. Your opinion has a premise which can be easily studied via "Conservatives: Do you think there are any appreciable differences between different Muslim Groups?" or something to that effect. You can take a random sampling of the population, and use statistics to construct a confidence interval.
You could just as easily study the accuracy and ratings of NPR and FOX on their economic coverage. You could take a random sampling of their broadcasts and use statistics to construct a confidence interval.

Just admit it... you got caught in your own web. It'll save us both a huge amount of time. And it would be in the best interests of the forum.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 06:45 PM

You could just as easily study the accuracy and ratings of NPR and FOX on their economic coverage. You could take a random sampling of their broadcasts and use statistics to construct a confidence interval.

How can you study the accuracy of economic coverage when there are different schools of thought on each issue? I said that I found I liked one type of coverage more than another, I'd guess because it more closely associates to what I believe economically.

Again

Badandy: I like Mike and Ikes more.

Mactastic: Most conservatives like Mike and Ikes more than Hot Tamales.

There is a difference there, and if you don't believe me, my bolding will have to suffice.

Fictional Reporter

"Badandy, why do you like Mike and Ikes?"
"Idk, they taste better I guess"

or

"Badandy, why do you like Fox's economic analysis more than NPR's?"
"Idk, I guess they are closer to my opinions on how they argue for freedom of enterprise over regulation"

Eraserhead

Jun 25, 2008, 06:48 PM

LOL, then I will refer you to skunk's comment. Yours will be a breeze. :D

I'll remember that if it takes a while :p.

iShater

Jun 25, 2008, 06:55 PM

I'll remember that if it takes a while :p.

Everything is relative. Just like our friends here are comparing viewing points. :)

KingYaba

Jun 26, 2008, 01:19 PM

;)

You're a clever guy. :o

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 03:12 PM

How can you study the accuracy of economic coverage when there are different schools of thought on each issue? I said that I found I liked one type of coverage more than another, I'd guess because it more closely associates to what I believe economically.

Again, while I probably vehemently disagree with your political opinions, I'm going to back you up on this argument. It is subjective insomuch as there are competing hypotheses on how to organize an economy (mine are mostly right and yours are mostly wrong, but we'll leave that argument for later :p).

Where mactastic could have a point is that some news outlets might be more accurate in the actual data they provide than others. My guess is that Fox News is loaded with inaccuracies and biases, particularly in its editorial-style shows. I would personally trust NPR and PBS to give me more accurate data, because they seem to have less of an axe to grind. But I don't think is what you were referencing. I don't think you were saying that Fox News is more accurate in its information than NPR or PBS. I think you were saying that it was more on target in its analysis, which I think is a silly opinion, but a reasonable one.

Macky-Mac

Jun 26, 2008, 07:38 PM

another rocket from Gaza, this time fired by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. from a report by Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/06/200862610573663205.html);

A rocket fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip has landed in southern Israel, an Israeli army spokesperson has said.

The rocket, which landed in an open field near the town of Sderot on Thursday, is the fourth to be fired since a ceasefire agreed between Israel and Hamas came into effect on June 19

Israeli medical officials said there were no casualties in Thursday's attack which was claimed by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed group linked to the Fatah faction of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.

Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the Brigades, said: "The rocket attack was in response to Israeli violations. Any calm deal must end Israeli attacks on our people in the West Bank too."

The Israeli army killed two Palestinians in a raid on the West Bank on Wednesday, an attack that the Islamic Jihad movement had already claimed as provocation for the three rockets fired later the same day.

The truce, brokered by Egypt, does not cover the West Bank.

Nour Odeh, Al Jazeera's correspondent in the West Bank, said: "This ceasefire that was reached through Palestinian consensus in the Hamas controlled Gaza; it was adhered to and welcomed by all Palestinian factions.

"Now we have two factions saying that actions in the West Bank must have repercussions," she said..

one wonders if groups like Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are deliberately trying to undermine Hamas by destroying the truce?

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 26, 2008, 07:47 PM

iShater

Jun 26, 2008, 07:56 PM

Just look at the place its all ruled by archaic ancient religion of vengence,and taking action into your own hands hence thousands of years of senseless eye for a eye stuff or so called holy war. No one wins. God must be laughing watching these morons go after it year after year,decade after decade,century after century.

Thank you for adding your oh so informative post to our thread.

Looks like you don't know enough about the region, its history, politics, religion, etc.
Thousands of years? maybe even when dinosaurs roamed the planet? :rolleyes:

Edit: Oh, I forgot for a minute who is posting. Same old recycled stuff.

Dont Hurt Me

Jun 26, 2008, 08:45 PM

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 10:17 PM

I know enough that they have been killing each other since the start, meanwhile over in the U.S. we threw this crap out the window and decided to live and let live and hence the greatest nation in the earths history. Peace is better.:D

(Bush is slowly learning this)

This is a very creative framing of history. And by creative I mean that it doesn't really fit with any facts and stuff. Yeah. mmk? 'KAY!

solvs

Jun 27, 2008, 12:40 AM

You can hear all the conspiracy theory nutters calling in...Or worse, the idiotic hosts who seem to attack the President in every way
But unlike on the other side, those types of people aren't the ones in charge, or even the vocalist.

You're a clever guy. :o
Just observant. ;)

one wonders if groups like Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are deliberately trying to undermine Hamas by destroying the truce?
That and get Israel to respond, therefor defeating their own truce, which some could then use to blame it all on Israel since Hamas aren't the ones who actually broke it.

themadchemist

Jun 27, 2008, 12:51 AM

But unlike on the other side, those types of people aren't the ones in charge, or even the vocalist.

No, but it's always good to remember that neither side has a monopoly on stupidity. Keeps ya humble. ;)

solvs

Jun 27, 2008, 01:04 AM

No, but it's always good to remember that neither side has a monopoly on stupidity. Keeps ya humble. ;)
Oh definitely. There are wackos on both sides. On all sides. But while even moderate Dems (and those who aren't even Dems) are painted as far leftists (and take it) the far right has taken over the GOP but are still seen as somehow mainstream or even moderate. Even when a vast majority of the country doesn't like them and what they stand for. I just find that odd is all.

themadchemist

Jun 27, 2008, 01:05 AM

Oh definitely. There are wackos on both sides. On all sides. But while even moderate Dems (and those who aren't even Dems) are painted as far leftists (and take it) the far right has taken over the GOP but are still seen as somehow mainstream or even moderate. Even when a vast majority of the country doesn't like them and what they stand for. I just find that odd is all.

Hey brother, I'm with you. For instance, my problems with Obama are from the left; I think he's definitely too moderate. (See my response to your post in the Obama vs. Paul thread)

solvs

Jun 27, 2008, 01:15 AM

For instance, my problems with Obama are from the left; I think he's definitely too moderate.
Sometimes that can be a good thing. He's more fiscally conservative than Bush is. Not saying much, but there it is.

Sometimes not so much, see FISA.

Iscariot

Jun 27, 2008, 01:25 AM

Sometimes not so much, see FISA.

Don't know why that surprises anyone. Democrats are just as culpable, and any serious investigative efforts (really, into anything that's occured over the past eight years) will reveal as much.

solvs

Jun 27, 2008, 02:04 AM

Don't know why that surprises anyone.
With some things I'm not, but with this particular one, I was surprised.

Iscariot

Jun 27, 2008, 02:10 AM

With some things I'm not, but with this particular one, I was surprised.

Not trying to beat the partisan drum, but I hear the idea that the Democrats and the nation was "hi-jacked" in a manner that just doesn't jive with reality. There's no way that the Bush Republicans would have been capable of "hi-jacking" an entire nation for eight years without a very high level of co-operation and looking-the-other-way by both parties. Nobody is willing to look at the cookie jar because their own hand is in there.

solvs

Jun 27, 2008, 02:21 AM

Nobody is willing to look at the cookie jar because their own hand is in there.
That's certainly part of it, and I've pointed this out myself. Some Dems are complicit as well. Either by lack of action, or in some cases, they're just as bad. Just that Obama beats the drum about rights, but then capitulates for political reasons, citing what he might do once in a better position. I get why he did it, and have clearly noted in the past that I don't think Obama is more than any other politician, but am still disappointed.

I'll further this in the FISA thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=504044), we've hijacked this one enough IMO.