birdog1960

this is the standard game. they (especially this member of the chorus) knows exactly what you meant, knows precisely why he didn't directly answer and knows that it frustrates you to engage in such an argument. fact is, it really isn't an argument. it's some poor attempt at discussion board performance art. the chorus is rarely clever enough to engage in actual debate. nevertheless, the extreme, shameful and distasteful opinions often display themselves and it's then of value. it's good to confirm what the extreme right is thinking or being spoon fed.

sounds good to me. methinks the libertarians should agree.

clearly not. they seem to have little concern for morality at all. where else have we seen that in recent history? oh yeah... the "reformation "

no. i believe the concept originated in Catholicism (appropriate given the religious basis for this conflict) http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine. pay attention to the section about the concept in today's world. i subscribe to the principles so concisely documented here.

i agree with the article. do you?

therefore i must necessarily regret the revolution to be able to regret the way native americans were treated? who is the idiot here? i believe in the concept of a just war http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/netanyahu-war_b_5574984.html. much of what israel engages in is not just imo.

you're arguing that israel's acts justrified because the us has done similar things. and to make that argument, one must agree that the us was justified in those actions. i don't. precedent doesn't equal justification.

the one sentence on palestine here is accurate. it is far from statehood and peace. recent event do threaten a continuing cycle. i wouldn't characterize those points as either sympathetic or not. unlike the other countries critiqued in this article, palestine is occupied and does not control it's own destiny. it's a pretty important point to the topic. well, as long you're ok with it...."they" in this case includes a great deal of material assistance from secondary parties. these historic conflicts were not decided in a vacuum.

hmmm...perhaps this is why so many UK news outlets are sympathetic to the palestinians. conscience is a B word.

i'm talking about the fact that you linked to an editorial written by "a passionate moderate" (as described by the publication) who also happens to be a professor at mcgill! not exactly your everyday zionist.

wouldn't need to do homework if such sentiments we're being widely disseminated on the airwaves and pages. they're not. read the first two comments after the article: :"bunch of feel good nonsense...". are you all posting on that site too. seems eerily familiar.

can only see the first paragraph, setting up the father of the slain palestinian boy's perspective. perhaps that leads later to a tirade on conscience? don't know. no way i'm giving them a buck to read more....

i don't know. i haven't sen or heard a lot of wailing and mea culpaea's other than what i linked. perhaps dr ruth was really sorry but just forgot to mention it while revelling in her glory days shooting people from hidden positions. how bout you link some?

do you aim for mediocrity or even inferiority in your job? do you aim for the highest standards instead? do you feel unfulfilled or disappointed if they aren't acheived? shouldn't people, cultures and gov'ts strive for the highest ideals? should they not feel guilty when they fail miserably? guilt has long been a strong suit for the Jews imo. it's still there even if repressed recently: http://blogs.forward...khdeir-beating/ "jews did this. blind hatred did this. we should look inside, and be ashamed" - from the rabbi quoted in my previous link.

by the standards of decency and morality. brutally beating prisoners and teenagers is barbaric and immoral in any context. it's indefensible from an ethical standpoint. but i'm sure you vehemently disagree. there's no middle ground on this. it's either wrong or it isn't.

http://www.theatlant...-crimes/374097/. the article is a step in the right direction but he just can't avoid using "but" in the end. israel isn't held to a higher standard. it's humanitarian standards towards the palestinians are abysmally low and disgraceful.

"i know it when i see it"? he was arrogantly talking about pornography but i think it applies well here in regards to apartheid. now, which quote were you actually referencing?

yes, because that is clearly a validated method of measuring intellect.

more like: when the chorus frequently sings monotonously, they likely lack creativity.

nope. my views aren't mainstream either. but there's one of me here for every 10-15 of ya'll at the other end of the bell curve. it's statistically improbable based on chance alone.

nope. never. usually goes like this: these dudes are so far from the mainstream. this must be a cruel, sad cartoon.

you came to the wrong place for independent thought. this is ground zero for mobthink

um, no. ishmael and isaac go back to about 1600 BC. according to the old testament, sarah and abraham started it. which tribe were they?

and enlist morons like dr ruth to tout your invinciblity and gloat.

and? do you find this inspiring? hopeful? honorable? or juvenile? inflammatory? conflict provoking?there are innocents dying and she's bragging about bewing a sniper? shame on her. really can't see how anyone could consider this statement useful.