American position on the PA

[CyberGnu]

Do you automatically disregard any NYT article about the war on terrorism, just because they quote US military and political sources?

No, because a NYT story would either say 'ackording to US army sources' (in which case I would take the information with a pinch of salt), or it would be checked by a NYT journalist.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Good. That takes care of your points 8, 9 and 11. There is no moral requirement to call off an attack because Israel has decided to put some kids there. Sharon is guilty of the deaths of these children.

This is again your biggotry showing

The kids were not mistakenly killed, but rather targetted.

How is entering a school dormatory, and shooting the kids, or enetring a house where children were sleeping and targetting them is different from me targetting your child?

[CyberGnu]

correction - you should have said:
"A few stories I could verify myself, as they appeared in western media as well".

Minor difference.

[GeneralTacticus]

Which would be true, if palestine occupied israel.

This makes no difference. The Palestinians (and other Arab nations) have been attacking ISrael since it's founding. IF you attack somewhere, you lose, and they take action to stop you attacking again, tough.

[Sirotnikov]

apparently

Means 'based on my impressions'. Not a statement of fact. Not a claim.

Could this be the cause of your confusion regarding sources? You really don't understand when they are needed?

Well if you don't have a source, don't post it then.

You require the same from me.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
No, because a NYT story would either say 'ackording to US army sources' (in which case I would take the information with a pinch of salt), or it would be checked by a NYT journalist.

And Israeli newspapers did not say "IDF sources" or "Israeli radio" ??

[CyberGnu]

As far as I can remember, you read a report in JP about an article in "die welt" which you later couldn't find.

As you yourself said - just because you don't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You could simply not notice it, and it is frequent that online versions of newspapers are not the same as the printed ones, or aren't free.

Well, since the JP 'quoted' an article in Die Welt, that same story should exist in Die Welt. It didn't. The web version is the same as the print version.

(and while this is subjective, I do think it is importnat: the story was sufficiently huge that if true, it would have been on the first page of every news media in the world...).

[CyberGnu]

If you are going to claim that Israeli newspapers are not credible you need to find a based source for it, such as a report claiming otherwise.

And a lack of sources is untrustworthy. Very simple.

[CyberGnu]

If you are going to claim that Israeli newspapers are not credible you need to find a based source for it, such as a report claiming otherwise.

And a lack of sources is untrustworthy. Very simple.

[CyberGnu]

Not at all.

You still haven't given a viable example of an Israeli media lie which was done knowingly.

I just did.

Not to mention the NUMEROUS stories which were never sourced, published with the sole intention of inflaming hatred against palestinians.

[CyberGnu]

Their business in being there is to attempt to stop the Palestinians from attacking Israel. As has been stated previously, terrorism against Israel has been going on for years before 1967. The occupation provides a boost to the terrorism, nothing more: the goal remains the destruction of Israel.

Which might have some relevance if there had ever been a palestinian state.

[CyberGnu]

So it is moral for me to kill your wife, just because she profits from theft?

Sweet.

Bloodthirsty? You might want to warn her first, however, that her actions are illegal. I don't think a single Israeli is unaware of the illegality of their actions. (although I don't doubt that most wont admit it).

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Do you have sources for 1, 7 and 10?

It all comes from my memory of the events in the last 2 years.

You are welcome to search the forum if you want my sources then.

I distinctly remembered to only put things on the list which were 'real' according to your definition (ie covered by western meda)

2: Near? And source, please.

same as aboce.

near, means near the exit.

3 &4: Can you tell a teen from an adult on shooting distance?

3 refers to an incident where their heads were smashed with rocks.

4 refers to an incident which hapenned in a lit sport field in school. It hapenned at night, but the court was lit.

The shooter was determined to be near the field.

5: That one is weird and twisted... Not defending that one.

why not?

was he not enjoying palestinian land?

6: First of: no one there was under 18? Second: Do you expect the Hamas to know the difference between a disco for 16-18 and 18-20?

First : nope. All were high-school students.
Second: Yes, as they look high school age. There was a disco across the street with people in ages 21 and up.

One could determine their ages were teens.

8, 9 & 11: Seems pretty clear that the purpose was not to kill chlidren, just israelis in general. Again, Sharon carries the guilt for the death of these children.

When a person boards a bus specifically at time when children travel to school, then there's intention in it.

When a child is simply at home, and is being shot specifically, not even by an automatic weapon (which could be claimed an incident) then it's not "in general" but rather on purpose.

[GeneralTacticus]

Which might have some relevance if there had ever been a palestinian state.

So you think that terrorists without a state are blameless or something?

[Sirotnikov]

Minor difference.

Not at all minor.

Neither you nor me can verify personally that Amy Smart is really missing.

We have to rely on local news services and police in England.

I can't state: "this is all lies, she isn't really missing, since i can't verify it".

[CyberGnu]

Therefore the guilt for palestinian dead innocents falls directly on thier shoulders, as they do not prevent them from going to battle fields, and infact provoke them to confront soldiers.

I could swear I already answered this one...

Oh, wait, I did!

Here it is: Either way, while you could question the basic humanity of someone taking cover behind a child, the moral fault is still with the invading soldiers. If they don't open fire, no children will get hurt.

I'm fascinated that you still haven't managed to figure it out yet... the criminal is repsonsible for all damage caused by his actions. Israel is responsible for all suffering caused by its greed...