<p>Just because you claim the isralis were not terrorists doesnt mean you are right, I will prove you wrong. btw, you are making horrible comparisons, terrorism and math? lmao. You should stop denouncing others just because they have different views that you. By definition you are a biggot.</p>
<p>DanC1986, once again, I solute you.</p>
<p>And primitivefuture, i do have the right to call those who are passionately anti- Israel idiots, because these people are causing the the international pressure on Israel which directly causes the terror to continue in this region.</p>
<p>And if you disagree with my points, then come right up.
Tell me where I am wrong?</p>
<p>PLO = terrorists, or a front for terrorists</p>
<p>Israeli = government struggling with massive internal problems, that is slightly authoritarian at worst (but what else can they do?)</p>
<p>Ya, I would agree with these definitions...</p>
<p>papajohn's lol</p>
<p>where are your confident come backs now?</p>
<p>Like a child, you said I "lost". Well, adopting your terminology, I would say that the fact you aren't answering means that you are the "loser" of this debate.</p>
<p>Sorry orrican, its been a long day. i will answer to all your arguments first thing tomorrow morining. DanC, I will answer to you too, so dont worry about it.</p>
<p>I think it's absolutely hilarious how this thread pertaining to the removal or survival of political threads has itself become a political thread...one which I refuse to comment on...I could go on all day about the Butcher of Gaza and known war criminal Sharon...but I think I'll pass :)...primitive let it go...these few middle aged men have little chance of becoming a politician anytime soon and they seem to be fairly misinformed....you can depend solely on the media for your information, but the news can only cover so much...and it usually presents a one sided view....research the information from an objective source and then continue this debate and I might join in</p>
<p>eh, fyi nahrafsfa, most of this one-sided news influenced by wealth pro-Israeli Jews, what else can you expect ;)</p>
<p>wow. you guys are really buying into those conspiracy theories</p>
<p>nah...actually the media can't cover every little aspect of the news...they appeal to the majority....news has evolved in to a form of entertainment..networks must appeal to their viewers and present the dramatic, off the wall kinda things that corresponds to whatever is on the political and social agenda of the day...furthermore, the networks also have a responsibilty to keep society stable...they aren't organized to set the political agenda, but to evaluate on it and to clarify it so that the general public may understand it....they're in it for profit...how would the MAJORITY of the public like it if NBC decided to document the past of Ariel Sharon as a brutal Zionist?..."by God my country wouldn't support someone like that...those aren't the ones that attacked my World Trade Center....NBC is a lyin devil...i refuse and forbid my family to watch it!"....multiply that by the number of lower-class, and for the most part uninformed individuals in this nation, and you've lost a large portion of your viewing audience.....now.....following a terrorist attack....you can play up what he public wants to hear....."Palestinian suicide bombers, linked to terrorist organizations have struck again..."...now...the same citizen....."this is what America stands for...this is what we're stoppin with these here wars..damn good journalism, them networks showin everyone what we're dealin with."....ratings are up, the public is satisfied, profits shoot high....the media is a very complex entity....but aside from all its intricate details, it is, nontheless, a corporation hell bent on making some $$$.</p>
<p>Theories of the media working like a corporation and bending to what the public wants to hear/the present social and political agendas can be accredited to Thomas Patterson..political scientist - media analyst...also college text book author :)</p>
<p>yeah I've heard of that; don't believe that its true to that degree. considering more people seem to be against israel and even calling irael a terrorist nation on this forum atleast</p>
<p>But calling people on a forum "pro-Jewish agenda" is pretty rough.
(considering atleast one of them is southasian in decent)</p>
<p>It's hard, it's hard, I know</p>
<p>
nah...actually the media can't cover every little aspect of the news...they appeal to the majority....news has evolved in to a form of entertainment..networks must appeal to their viewers and present the dramatic, off the wall kinda things that corresponds to whatever is on the political and social agenda of the day...furthermore, the networks also have a responsibilty to keep society stable...they aren't organized to set the political agenda, but to evaluate on it and to clarify it so that the general public may understand it....they're in it for profit...how would the MAJORITY of the public like it if NBC decided to document the past of Ariel Sharon as a brutal Zionist?..."by God my country wouldn't support someone like that...those aren't the ones that attacked my World Trade Center....NBC is a lyin devil...i refuse and forbid my family to watch it!"....multiply that by the number of lower-class, and for the most part uninformed individuals in this nation, and you've lost a large portion of your viewing audience.....now.....following a terrorist attack....you can play up what he public wants to hear....."Palestinian suicide bombers, linked to terrorist organizations have struck again..."...now...the same citizen....."this is what America stands for...this is what we're stoppin with these here wars..damn good journalism, them networks showin everyone what we're dealin with."....ratings are up, the public is satisfied, profits shoot high....the media is a very complex entity....but aside from all its intricate details, it is, nontheless, a corporation hell bent on making some $$$.</p>
<p>Theories of the media working like a corporation and bending to what the public wants to hear/the present social and political agendas can be accredited to Thomas Patterson..political scientist - media analyst...also college text book author
</p>
<p>primitivefuture, I've never said anything about anyone who disagrees with me - that was only oorican. read my posts in the forum, I am very accepting to others' responeses. you were wrong with your analogy btw, i didn't compare terror with math but actually sided you when you calimed that not everyone who says israeli isn't a terrorists is an idiot - i said he's ignorant about international relations and terror, but he doesn't have to be an idiot, i see nothing wrong with that claim - just like i gave the example with math.</p>
<p>all these "jews controls the media" mambo-jambo are on the line of offensive posts in my opinion - all of you should remove those posts unless you want a jew to get all pist of about it and report - it really smells like the protocols of zion. primitive - and about the conspiracies - about dudes who goes there i think they can be named idiots :-)</p>
<p>the *** in this msg is intended to mark an important sentence (not swearing or stuff like that)</p>
<p>you know what, I came to a conclusion. we can debate forever about who deserves which part of the land and who is to blame for whatever. though. there is one thing in which i feel you might share the same opinion as i do - the way in which pals (lead by arafat) chose to fight (meaning terror) is totally unacceptable, and what IDF is doing (acting in intention to only kill pals terrorists and terror org. members) is totally in the defense of israeli civilians against this terror. checking the evidence shows that IDF acts in response to terrorism as a defense and does not "attack" the pals. of course that <strong><em>rulling the pals is wrong and they have every right to resist the Israeli occupation but</em> the way they chose to do it (fight against the israeli civlians instead of against the army) simply isn't acceptable and strips them of every moral value</strong>.
btw, if you look at media reports - no one will call an attack against Israeli soliders "terror attack".</p>
<p>think we can reach an agreement about claims with this notion?</p>
<p>Im back everyone.</p>
<p>I came to a conclusion as well. All those who are anti-Israeli are at least one of the following:</p>
<p>a)ignorant/misinformed
b)stupid
c) anti-semitic</p>
<p>Many of those on the forum are one of the latter. For some all of the latter hold true.</p>
<p>And the bottom line is, as we can see, the Mid East conflict will not be solved by words. The Israeli side is just - it seeks peace and the protection of its citizens against terrorism and the arab dream of its destruction.
But nevertheless, the world has continued to show its anti semitic character by condemning Israel.</p>
<p>Conclusion: Only the war that will erupt in 10-15 years, the final war of the Mid East conflict, will decide teh future of this region. Only war. Only shells and bullets, not words. And by g-d, the Jewish people will prevail. Israel will be victorious. Our side will be the one that walks tall from this last and final engagement.</p>
<p>Orrican, you are being very offensive and close minded, stop being a biggot! from the way I see it, you have little chance of being a politician since you dont respect the opinions of others. </p>
<p>And danC, I apologize for taking you the wrong way. Maybe we can continue debate in the new thread that i started.Sorry again.</p>
<p>Thank you very much. I am not a biggot.</p>
<p>What I do protest, however, is the fact that many here take use of false facts.</p>
<p>You say I would never be a politicia, but the first rule of politics, buddy, is knowing your facts.</p>
<p>And this goes to everyone on this forum.</p>
<p>"You say I would never be a politicia, but the first rule of politics, buddy, is knowing your facts."</p>
<p>Aww.... how inspiring! Tell that to Bush</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many of those on the forum are one of the latter. For some all of the latter hold true.
[/quote]
Improper grammar. You should have used the word "former" rather than "latter."</p>