Welcome to World War 3

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-tribune-cooperatdec10,0,2227525.story

Ok you seem to be living in your own reality.
1. How is the Illinois governor scandal a Zoinist conspiracy?
2. You realise this was a request from U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald right?
3. You realise that law enforcement make requests like that all the time?
4. You realise that they reported this themselves?
5. You realise that you are using a source you claim is baised?

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that Sam Zell withheld the story at the request of a Zionist conspiracy.

please read this - http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/27/opinion/oe-fisk27

nyarlothothep

BravoSierra wrote: »

An interesting speech...

Its a pity that there are national leaders who still seek to impose their religious doctrine on the rest of the world. That is what his speech appeared to be, despite all its references to love, peace and global solidarity. He's a fruitcake.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

please read this - http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/27/opinion/oe-fisk27

Ok, if you look at the address you gave you'll see the word opinion. And if you'll look at the site you'll find that this article is in the opinion section. Thus I conclude that this is an opinion piece. Opinion = not fact. And whats this supposed to prove anyway? The Zionist conspiracy demands news outlets not cover up any just use less offensive language?
And how exactly does this address any of my points in my previous point?
Or the ones you have since ignored?
Or are you just throwing up articles you see as proof of Zionist controlled media no matter how flimsy the connection?

All I ask is for verifiable proof that media outlets are controlled by a Zionist conspiracy. Why is it so hard for you if it exists?

here is a short video on Palestine. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3305336102094143351&hl=en

And here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html you will find that 44% of her refugee population are 14 or under. These are the defenseless people dying. Did you know 5 sisters from the same family, all under 18 were killed.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, if you look at the address you gave you'll see the word opinion. And if you'll look at the site you'll find that this article is in the opinion section. Thus I conclude that this is an opinion piece. Opinion = not fact. And whats this supposed to prove anyway? The Zionist conspiracy demands news outlets not cover up any just use less offensive language?
And how exactly does this address any of my points in my previous point?
Or the ones you have since ignored?
Or are you just throwing up articles you see as proof of Zionist controlled media no matter how flimsy the connection?

All I ask is for verifiable proof that media outlets are controlled by a Zionist conspiracy. Why is it so hard for you if it exists?

How about you comment on the facts contained within, or better yet prove the opposite.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

here is a short video on Palestine. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3305336102094143351&hl=en

And here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html you will find that 44% of her refugee population are 14 or under. These are the defenseless people dying. Did you know 5 sisters from the same family, all under 18 were killed.

But isn't the CIA part of the Zionist conspiracy too?

So are you going to actually address my points or are you going to pull a rtdh and ignore what you can't answer?

King Mob wrote: »

Ok you seem to be living in your own reality.
1. How is the Illinois governor scandal a Zoinist conspiracy?

This is a big perhaps, but its possible that they have some information to blackmail obama with.
2. You realise this was a request from U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald right?
3. You realise that law enforcement make requests like that all the time?
4. You realise that they reported this themselves?
5. You realise that you are using a source you claim is baised?[/quote]
Yes to all.

King Mob wrote: »

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that Sam Zell withheld the story at the request of a Zionist conspiracy.

No. of course not

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

How about you comment on the facts contained within, or better yet prove the opposite.

Ah yes that "well you can't disprove it" tactic, a classic.
You are making the claim you have to supply the evidence.

And what facts? the opinion piece you linked references no particular article.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

This is a big perhaps, but its possible that they have some information to blackmail obama with.

But isn't Obama part of the conspiracy?
What evidence or reasoning leads you to this conclusion?
I mean it's a big perhaps but possible that they learned Obama is in fact a space alien.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

2. You realise this was a request from U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald right?
3. You realise that law enforcement make requests like that all the time?
4. You realise that they reported this themselves?
5. You realise that you are using a source you claim is baised?
Yes to all.

So you acknowledge that this is not a conspiracy to control the media?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

No. of course not

So you are assuming without any basis whatsoever that he changed facts to support a zionist conspiracy.

King Mob wrote: »

Ah yes that "well you can't disprove it" tactic, a classic.
You are making the claim you have to supply the evidence.

And what facts? the opinion piece you linked references no particular article.

It's a two way street.

It explains how reporters a coerced to skew their reports against their will to portray Israels actions in a better light.

King Mob wrote: »

But isn't Obama part of the conspiracy?

probably

King Mob wrote: »

What evidence or reasoning leads you to this conclusion?

His handlers, and his financial supporters. Oh and his appointees for the white house.

King Mob wrote: »

So you acknowledge that this is not a conspiracy to control the media?

Nope.

King Mob wrote: »

So you are assuming without any basis whatsoever that he changed facts to support a zionist conspiracy.

No. This is you again putting words into my mouth.

I've gotta ask. Hypothetically, what is so inconceivable about a political group that already control the money supply, to monopolise the media to promote their own agenda?

This objective enough for you? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-ml-israel-facing-rockets%2C1%2C3196687.story

Alternatively here is a study of how Muslims are portrayed in media if you are interested.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

It's a two way street.

It explains how reporters a coerced to skew their reports against their will to portray Israels actions in a better light.

No it doesn't it explains how in that one reporter's opinion he feels that editors want to use less "offensive" language. It is not evidence of a conspiracy.
And again you fail to show any evidence of a story's facts being changed.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

probably

Bet you have tons of evidence and good reasoning behind that.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

His handlers, and his financial supporters. Oh and his appointees for the white house.

What about them? Some are Jewish?
Any evidence at all they are part of a conspiracy?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Nope.

So there's no cover up, nothing illegal, it happens quite regularly, and then was reported by the same news paper. I fail to see any conspiracy.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

No. This is you again putting words into my mouth.

Well you have offered no evidence or sound reasoning tho show he is part of a conspiracy. What basis do you have? Or is it just "He's a Zionist"?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I've gotta ask. Hypothetically, what is so inconceivable about a political group that already control the money supply, to monopolise the media to promote their own agenda?

First a zionist conspiracy does not control the money supply, don't be ridiculous. What is you evidence and reasoning for this exactly? A lot of bankers are Jews?
Second it's not inconceivable, just unlikely and unsupported by facts, evidence or logic.
Have you considered that you are just seeing conspiracies where there are none?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

This objective enough for you? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-ml-israel-facing-rockets%2C1%2C3196687.story

It's a report on Israeli citizen's reaction to the crisis, what's your point?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Alternatively here is a study of how Muslims are portrayed in media if you are interested.

Where is this?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

"breach" really is the wrong choice of word here.

Really what would you describe a sustained rocket attack over a period of days as?

Except it is not only "Hamas encampments". Doesn't humanity matter to you?

"Doesn't humanity matter to you" What does that even mean?

Apologies if it comes across this way. To turn this on its head would be to say Israel are in the wrong because they actually are slaughtering innocent civilians; whereas Hamas are trying to. Both are fully aware of the consequences and impact of their actions from the outset. I seen this morning on an Israeli news program that there are more Israelis being treated for shock, rather than actual injuries.

Your rational is that Palestinians are more in the right because they're bad at killing Israelis?

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Your rational is that Palestinians are more in the right because they're bad at killing Israelis?

No. I'd say it's the fact that it's because it's like a heavyweight boxer kicking the ****e out of a 9 year old armed with a pointy stick. Oh, and the heavyweight boxer killed the 9 year old's parents and is living in their old house. Nobody likes to see that.

Kernel wrote: »

No. I'd say it's the fact that it's because it's like a heavyweight boxer kicking the ****e out of a 9 year old armed with a pointy stick. Oh, and the heavyweight boxer killed the 9 year old's parents and is living in their old house. Nobody likes to see that.

Yep, cause that simplistic analogy is a fair assessment of 50 odd years of conflict.

Kernel wrote: »

No. I'd say it's the fact that it's because it's like a heavyweight boxer kicking the ****e out of a 9 year old armed with a pointy stick. Oh, and the heavyweight boxer killed the 9 year old's parents and is living in their old house. Nobody likes to see that.

You really are going to describe sustained rocket attacks that killed 4 Israeli's in the past few days, as the equivalent of a small child with a stick?

Is your analogy creator just like broken?

I'm sorry, this once again mixes up intent with action. I'm thankful someone with your mindset isn't in charge of our criminal justice. The idea of attempted murder would get a slap on the wrist, while justified manslaughter would be getting a massive sentence.

Yes the Palestinian death toil is much, much higher than Israeli, but Gaza has the one of the highest population density in the world.

So heres a simple question, do people who place such little regard on their own people's life that they launch rockets from residential districts, really have a right to be outraged, when Israeli counter strikes at rocket sites in Gaza, kill civilians?

Diogenes wrote: »

justified manslaughter .

Please...Do go on.

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes the Palestinian death toil is much, much higher than Israeli, but Gaza has the one of the highest population density in the world.

And the amount of civilians it is acceptable to kill is directly proportonial to population density? That was a joke right?

Diogenes wrote: »

So heres a simple question, do people who place such little regard on their own people's life that they launch rockets from residential districts, really have a right to be outraged, when Israeli counter strikes at rocket sites in Gaza, kill civilians?

Yes.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

And the amount of civilians it is acceptable to kill is directly proportonial to population density? That was a joke right?

It's the reason why Israel kill so many people with their air strikes. Hamas keep launching rockets from positions in densely populated areas of which there are plenty in Gaza.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Please...Do go on.

We should be clear, I'm not describing Israeli actions as justified man slaughter, I was using an analogy.

And the amount of civilians it is acceptable to kill is directly proportonial to population density? That was a joke right?

No again you are being intentially obtuse. Gaza has an incredibly high population density. It means invariably there will be a higher civilian death toil from Israeli counter strikes. It also means that the Hamas leadership which started this by breaching the cease fire, has gone underground, allowing the Palestinian civilians to bear the brunt of this attack

Yes.

So to be clear, you think that if you fire rockets from the roof of a school, you bear no responsibility for the counter attack that hits the school?

Diogenes wrote: »

We should be clear, I'm not describing Israeli actions as justified man slaughter, I was using an analogy.

How would you describe it then? For me, slaughter yes. Maybe man, woman and child indiscriminate slaughter.

Diogenes wrote: »

No again you are being intentially obtuse. Gaza has an incredibly high population density. It means invariably there will be a higher civilian death toil from Israeli counter strikes. It also means that the Hamas leadership which started this by breaching the cease fire, has gone underground, allowing the Palestinian civilians to bear the brunt of this attack

The cease fire had expired. Don't you think that placing an occupied land under siege constitutes a declaration of war? http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_17_english.pdf, this was the "diet" the Palestinian people were on.

Diogenes wrote: »

So to be clear, you think that if you fire rockets from the roof of a school, you bear no responsibility for the counter attack that hits the school?

I didn't say no reponsibility

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

How would you describe it then? For me, slaughter yes. Maybe man, woman and child indiscriminate slaughter.

You know there is a difference between slaughter and manslaughter right?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

The cease fire had expired. Don't you think that placing an occupied land under siege constitutes a declaration of war? http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_17_english.pdf, this was the "diet" the Palestinian people were on.

So then what is launching rockets into Israel? And didn't Israel open Gaza to humanitarian aid just before Hamas attacked?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I didn't say no reponsibility

But it's ok for them to be outraged for the destruction of said school despite launching rockets from it and with full knowledge Israel might bomb the site?

More evidence of a Jewish controlled media trying to cover up Israel's actions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm

Oh wait.....

Edit: And look how they refuse to report opposition to the Israeli strikes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7809656.stm

Oh wait.....

And all from the Zionist controlled BBC. Wow.

King Mob wrote: »

You know there is a difference between slaughter and manslaughter right?

Of course. I was highlighting the difference.

King Mob wrote: »

So then what is launching rockets into Israel? And didn't Israel open Gaza to humanitarian aid just before Hamas attacked?

Why was the aid necessary in the first place? The first rocket was fired hours into the ceasefire,( it was an Islamic Jihad rocket) and was condemned by Hamas. This was in response to Israeli operatives killing an Islamic Jihad member also in the ceasefire.

King Mob wrote: »

But it's ok for them to be outraged for the destruction of said school despite launching rockets from it and with full knowledge Israel might bomb the site?

No but its okay for the innocent Palestinian people to be outraged, understandable. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
&
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/183ED1610B2BCB80C125751A002B06B2?opendocument

"The recent upsurge of violence occurred after an Israeli incursion that killed several alleged Palestinian militants within Gaza. It is a criminal violation of international law for elements of Hamas or anyone else to fire rockets at Israeli towns regardless of provocation, but such Palestinian behavior does not legalize Israel's imposition of a collective punishment of a life- and health-threatening character on the people of Gaza, and should not distract the UN or international society from discharging their fundamental moral and legal duty to render protection to the Palestinian people."

Can you argue against this?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Why was the aid necessary in the first place?

Because Israel was blockading them. Whats your point?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

The first rocket was fired hours into the ceasefire,( it was an Islamic Jihad rocket) and was condemned by Hamas. This was in response to Israeli operatives killing an Islamic Jihad member also in the ceasefire.

Where are you getting this?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

No but its okay for the innocent Palestinian people to be outraged, understandable.

Funny because you agreed that it was ok for Hamas to be outraged.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
So heres a simple question, do people who place such little regard on their own people's life that they launch rockets from residential districts, really have a right to be outraged, when Israeli counter strikes at rocket sites in Gaza, kill civilians?
Yes.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
&
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/183ED1610B2BCB80C125751A002B06B2?opendocument

"The recent upsurge of violence occurred after an Israeli incursion that killed several alleged Palestinian militants within Gaza. It is a criminal violation of international law for elements of Hamas or anyone else to fire rockets at Israeli towns regardless of provocation, but such Palestinian behavior does not legalize Israel's imposition of a collective punishment of a life- and health-threatening character on the people of Gaza, and should not distract the UN or international society from discharging their fundamental moral and legal duty to render protection to the Palestinian people."

Can you argue against this?

Argue against what exactly?

For the umpteenth time: this is not a black and white situation. You don't have to be on one side or the other, you can disagree with both sides.

And again where's the conspiracy?

King Mob wrote: »

Because Israel was blockading them. Whats your point?

that was my point. Israel were the cause not the solution.

King Mob wrote: »

Where are you getting this?

Memory

King Mob wrote: »

Funny because you agreed that it was ok for Hamas to be outraged.

Read it wrong intiially.

King Mob wrote: »

Argue against what exactly?

Collective punishment is a morally bankrupt policy, supported by US/UK.
If you agree please tell me why.

King Mob wrote: »

For the umpteenth time: this is not a black and white situation. You don't have to be on one side or the other, you can disagree with both sides.

Please do this then.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

that was my point. Israel were the cause not the solution.

I never stated they were the solution. Neither are continued rocket attacks. Imagine that, violence not solving a complex situation.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Memory

Where did you hear this initially? I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim, given you pretty biased outlook on the situation.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Read it wrong intiially.

So then Hamas have no right to be outraged and bare some responsibility for civilians being killed by Israeli attacks?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Collective punishment is a morally bankrupt policy, supported by US/UK.
If you agree please tell me why.

I don't and never claimed to.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Please do this then.

I do and have done.

This has got to be like the seventh time I've asked: but where's the conspiracy?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

How would you describe it then? For me, slaughter yes. Maybe man, woman and child indiscriminate slaughter.

Okay this is once again your soapboxing. I was referring to the legal concept of justified manslaughter, you're using this an excuse to rant about "slaughter".

Consider the strike against Nizar Rayan, a man killed with his four wives and 6 of his 14 children. A horrendous attack.

But then Rayan was a senior member of Hamas who preached Jihad. He preached and argued for Jihad so vehemently that in 2001, he sent his own son out as a suicide bomber. Furthermore Rayan refused to live apart from his family, (unlike the rest of Hamas) during the bombing. Finally there were 30 people injured in the attack as well, the very high death toil, it seems likely, that Rayan kept a weapons stockpile in the house.

So an awful death, but the death of man who kept weapons with his family, was a target who refused to take steps to protect his family, and sent his own son out to kill himself.

Does he not bare some small party in responsibility for the deaths?

The cease fire had expired. Don't you think that placing an occupied land under siege constitutes a declaration of war? http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_17_english.pdf, this was the "diet" the Palestinian people were on.

Do you want me to try and defend the blockade? I won't. Will you defend the hundreds of rocket attacks by Hamas in the previous few weeks. There are reports in the press today, that Hamas shelled border crossings when they opened, because the blockade firmed up their stranglehold on power in the Strip.

Are you really going to continue grossly oversimplifying this complex conflict?

I didn't say no reponsibility

Yes yes you did.

I wrote

Diogenes wrote:

So heres a simple question, do people who place such little regard on their own people's life that they launch rockets from residential districts, really have a right to be outraged, when Israeli counter strikes at rocket sites in Gaza, kill civilians?

you wrote

SofaKingGood wrote:

Yes.

Thats an unvarnished and empathic agreement with the premise. So answer this, you do think Hamas bares some responsibility for the civilian deaths in Gaza? Yes or No.