Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[theskull1]

or we get something like the bullshit answer which Seafoid gave me above which so neatly proved what I was saying.

To you a bullshit answer is a response that you're not willing to reflect upon. As simple as that. You're not interested in finding anything that might persuade you to think a different way than you do now so stop blaming anyone who's trying.

[Franko]

or we get something like the bullshit answer which Seafoid gave me above which so neatly proved what I was saying.

To you a bullshit answer is a response that you're not willing to reflect upon. As simple as that. You're not interested in finding anything that might persuade you to think a different way than you do now so stop blaming anyone who's trying.

Did you actually read what he said (and what I said for that matter)?  It was just the type of flippant, bullshit, I-know-better-than-you-so-don't-challenge-my-opinion answer that is trotted out on this thread regularly. I've highlighted the bit below which I think should illustrate what I am saying.

Good god lads it's just as well that GHD and Seafoid aren't battling for the hearts and minds of the board members.  You two really are the most infuriating posters on this board - you don't engage in debate if it looks like you are going to have to answer tough questions and endlessly post articles which, like I have said before, are maybe informative but are blatantly one-sided.

I can't speak for any other posters but the antics of you two alone makes it hard to support your point of view at times.

What sort of balance do you want, Franko ?
Myra Hindley loved puppies. 

Don't put words in my mouth - I can see when someone is deflecting and/or talking rubbish to avoid giving answers to awkward questions.  I assure you that my mind is fully open to listen to all arguments - maybe moreso than those you are trying to defend here if you were to take a closer look.

[theskull1]

I assure you that my mind is fully open to listen to all arguments - maybe moreso than those you are trying to defend here if you were to take a closer look.

So if that's the case what specific arguments have people made on the thread that have made you doubt your original position?

[Franko]

Muppet put forward a good argument a few pages back which made me soften my stance a little.  If you care to read back through the thread you can educate yourself as to the details.

[theskull1]

Much simpler if you just tell us what it was that persuaded you? ....haven't the time to trawl now

[deiseach]

Good god lads it's just as well that GHD and Seafoid aren't battling for the hearts and minds of the board members.  You two really are the most infuriating posters on this board - you don't engage in debate if it looks like you are going to have to answer tough questions and endlessly post articles which, like I have said before, are maybe informative but are blatantly one-sided.

I can't speak for any other posters but the antics of you two alone makes it hard to support your point of view at times.

Franko, throughout this thread I have given my opinion on numerous occasions, and answered any questions put to me. As I have said before, the articles I post are informative and don't appear to often in the MSM. If you feel my support for Palestine is one sided, then you are right, and i make no apologies for it. The truth for some is hard to take.

Firstly I want to start by saying that, broadly speaking, I agree with most of what you say on here (especially with regard to Israel's position in Palestine).

The Israel = BAD / Palestine = GOOD black and white scenario is not as simple as you guys and your articles make out.  When someone challenges you about it the answers dry up - or we get something like the bullshit answer which Seafoid gave me above which so neatly proved what I was saying.

seafoid's point about Myra Hindley is flippant but it serves a serious purpose. You accuse him of being "blatantly one-sided". Of course he's one-sided on the issue of Israel v Palestine and he gives chapter and verse on why he is one-sided. I can assure you that if someone accused me of being "blatantly one-sided" with regards to Hillsborough, my response would not be so polite.

[Franko]

Much simpler for you.

The fact that he actually engaged in a discussion and tried to put forward answers to the things I asked was a start.  Not giving condescending answers or posting articles which are not relevant to the immediate topic under discussion also helped.

Deiseach also introduced a few interesting viewpoints IIRC.  Seafoid, on the other hand, totally ignored any of the direct questions and concentrated on posting links to articles.  But hey, that's just my opinion. Like I said earlier - I don't speak for any other posters.

It's all there for you to read if you can bother yourself.

[theskull1]

This is fairly typical ... I ask you to be specific and you ask me to go and trawl back pages to answer the question  ...Can you not be a bit more forth coming?

[Franko]

Well it's either you go trawling back through or I do.  And as it's you that's actually looking for the info I'd venture that it's your bag.

[deiseach]

Well it's either you go trawling back through or I do.  And as it's you that's actually looking for the info I'd venture that it's your bag.

So he has to go looking for something that he can't be sure is there?

[theskull1]

Muppet put forward a good argument a few pages back which made me soften my stance a little.  If you care to read back through the thread you can educate yourself as to the details.

I've just educated myself  . Here is the only thing that youve "agreed" with (those with a different perspective than yourself) in the past 8 days in regard to this debate. You agreed with muppet that Articles from the Guardian or Robert Fisk are "helpful".

I agree that posting links to articles in the Guardian or from Roberk Fisk can be helpful and informative but the thing is that the big bad yanks havent got the luxury of getting away with that - they are in a position where they must do something or do nothing and I have a feeling that the usual suspects are going to slate them to high heaven on here no matter what way this pans out.

No wonder you didn't want to explain that that was all you've taken on board throughout the discussion.

[trileacman]

Good god lads it's just as well that GHD and Seafoid aren't battling for the hearts and minds of the board members.  You two really are the most infuriating posters on this board - you don't engage in debate if it looks like you are going to have to answer tough questions and endlessly post articles which, like I have said before, are maybe informative but are blatantly one-sided.

I can't speak for any other posters but the antics of you two alone makes it hard to support your point of view at times.

Franko, throughout this thread I have given my opinion on numerous occasions, and answered any questions put to me. As I have said before, the articles I post are informative and don't appear to often in the MSM. If you feel my support for Palestine is one sided, then you are right, and i make no apologies for it. The truth for some is hard to take.

Firstly I want to start by saying that, broadly speaking, I agree with most of what you say on here (especially with regard to Israel's position in Palestine).

The Israel = BAD / Palestine = GOOD black and white scenario is not as simple as you guys and your articles make out.  When someone challenges you about it the answers dry up - or we get something like the bullshit answer which Seafoid gave me above which so neatly proved what I was saying.

seafoid's point about Myra Hindley is flippant but it serves a serious purpose. You accuse him of being "blatantly one-sided". Of course he's one-sided on the issue of Israel v Palestine and he gives chapter and verse on why he is one-sided. I can assure you that if someone accused me of being "blatantly one-sided" with regards to Hillsborough, my response would not be so polite.

My problem is that we are constantly being told by the pacifists that Syria is a complicated issue that you can't just paint as Assad=BAD Rebels= Good.


Yet when the Isreali's take a shit it's a immediately as Isreal= the devils, palestine= innocents. You just can't have it both ways.

[Franko]

Do I have to write it on the board every time my opinion changes?

I'm telling you that the arguments put forward by those mentioned changed my stance slightly on the issue - and I had quick a look back - Deiseach's point obout nuclear weapons was one of the ones which I definitely took on board.

When I first started reading this thread I thought that pretty much the only course of action was some sort of physical intervention.  Even before Russia's move a few days ago I was given to thinking that that might no longer be the right move.  However, it wasn't the standard Seafoid move of posting an article from the Guardian/condescending remark/ignoring of my questions that did it.

Are you happy now?

[Franko]

Well it's either you go trawling back through or I do.  And as it's you that's actually looking for the info I'd venture that it's your bag.

So he has to go looking for something that he can't be sure is there?

Erm... yes??

[Franko]

Good god lads it's just as well that GHD and Seafoid aren't battling for the hearts and minds of the board members.  You two really are the most infuriating posters on this board - you don't engage in debate if it looks like you are going to have to answer tough questions and endlessly post articles which, like I have said before, are maybe informative but are blatantly one-sided.

I can't speak for any other posters but the antics of you two alone makes it hard to support your point of view at times.

Franko, throughout this thread I have given my opinion on numerous occasions, and answered any questions put to me. As I have said before, the articles I post are informative and don't appear to often in the MSM. If you feel my support for Palestine is one sided, then you are right, and i make no apologies for it. The truth for some is hard to take.

Firstly I want to start by saying that, broadly speaking, I agree with most of what you say on here (especially with regard to Israel's position in Palestine).

The Israel = BAD / Palestine = GOOD black and white scenario is not as simple as you guys and your articles make out.  When someone challenges you about it the answers dry up - or we get something like the bullshit answer which Seafoid gave me above which so neatly proved what I was saying.

seafoid's point about Myra Hindley is flippant but it serves a serious purpose. You accuse him of being "blatantly one-sided". Of course he's one-sided on the issue of Israel v Palestine and he gives chapter and verse on why he is one-sided. I can assure you that if someone accused me of being "blatantly one-sided" with regards to Hillsborough, my response would not be so polite.

My problem is that we are constantly being told by the pacifists that Syria is a complicated issue that you can't just paint as Assad=BAD Rebels= Good.


Yet when the Isreali's take a shit it's a immediately as Isreal= the devils, palestine= innocents. You just can't have it both ways.

+1 - but don't dare ask for an explanation why.