Thread: israels gonna have to do something fast

Besides, I don't think it was all that much of a secret, his stance on Israel.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Regardless of his personal opinions regarding Israel and Palestinians, those opinions don't change the fact that JPost is nothing more than a propaganda machine for an extremist segment of Israel.

Yeah and they are the only news agency with an agenda. lol
I didnt say it was a big secret. I said his agenda is now clear. Which means he loses credibility when discussing a matter between israel and palestine.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

But i thought you said in the past you dont take sides. At least now your agneda is clear for future conversations.

At least now we know when you bitch about jpost we know the real reason behind it.

I've never said I don't take sides. I always support the side that is fighting against oppression. My stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is well-known and it's not some secret that just came out. My whole point of bringing up the JPost was to point out the hypocrisy of Commander saying to not put much stock into the NYT while he puts his whole stock in a propaganda "news" outfit. It's a blatant double standard.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Yeah and they are the only news agency with an agenda. lol
I didnt say it was a big secret. I said his agenda is now clear. Which means he loses credibility when discussing a matter between israel and palestine.

And how did I lose the credibility to discuss this matter? By having an opinion on it? Do you also think Commander has no credibility to discuss this matter?

Originally Posted by Fovezer

And how did I lose the credibility to discuss this matter? By having an opinion on it? Do you also think Commander has no credibility to discuss this matter?

No not at all. I didn't say you had no credibility nor would i say commander has none. Commander has pretty much always sided with Israel and it doesn't take long to figure out which side he routes for. If someone has choosen a side then it is impossible to have an unbias opinion. That is why you loose credibility. Dont get me wrong there is nothing wrong with choosing a side just dont act like you can discuss the topic without bias when your routing for a side. Dont take it for more then what i actually said.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I've never said I don't take sides. I always support the side that is fighting against oppression. My stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is well-known and it's not some secret that just came out. My whole point of bringing up the JPost was to point out the hypocrisy of Commander saying to not put much stock into the NYT while he puts his whole stock in a propaganda "news" outfit. It's a blatant double standard.

I know it was a double standard which is why i really didn't say anything about that in my post.

Originally Posted by shoi

Taking sides doesnt mean you become an apologist for that side..

I'm sure there are things palestinians do that fov doesn't agree with at all but he recognizes that Israel is pretty bad to palestinians..

There's a difference between supporting a cause and being a hardliner for a side

I agree but it does mean you are more apt to look the other way on stuff. There is more ground to cover then just nuetral and hardlined.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

No not at all. I didn't say you had no credibility nor would i say commander has none. Commander has pretty much always sided with Israel and it doesn't take long to figure out which side he routes for. If someone has choosen a side then it is impossible to have an unbias opinion. That is why you loose credibility. Dont get me wrong there is nothing wrong with choosing a side just dont act like you can discuss the topic without bias when your routing for a side. Dont take it for more then what i actually said.

Okay, I understand what you are saying, and I partially agree. I agree in the sense that if you know someone supports one side, you should take what they say with a larger grain of salt and investigate the claims more thoroughly yourself. That's one of the reasons I always try to use independent and well-known reliable sources to back my claims up. If you are using propaganda websites or clearly biased sources, then that will begin to hurt your credibility. I disagree, because of those reasons, that people that take a side on an issue automatically begin with less credibility than someone who doesn't. I've never said I discuss these issues without bias, because quite frankly, I think it is almost impossible. The place bias shows up most prevalently is when you are interpreting a story. For instance, the Gaza blockade. Commander views it as a necessary tool to stop the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza. That's the Israeli point-of-view. I see it as excessive collective punishment against civilians. That's the Palestinian point-of-view. Who's right and who's wrong? Well, that's why we are having a discussion. How can you have a political discussion without opinion? This isn't like a scientific discussion, where there is a definitive right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Okay, I understand what you are saying, and I partially agree. I agree in the sense that if you know someone supports one side, you should take what they say with a larger grain of salt and investigate the claims more thoroughly yourself. That's one of the reasons I always try to use independent and well-known reliable sources to back my claims up. If you are using propaganda websites or clearly biased sources, then that will begin to hurt your credibility. I disagree, because of those reasons, that people that take a side on an issue automatically begin with less credibility than someone who doesn't. I've never said I discuss these issues without bias, because quite frankly, I think it is almost impossible. The place bias shows up most prevalently is when you are interpreting a story. For instance, the Gaza blockade. Commander views it as a necessary tool to stop the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza. That's the Israeli point-of-view. I see it as excessive collective punishment against civilians. That's the Palestinian point-of-view. Who's right and who's wrong? Well, that's why we are having a discussion. How can you have a political discussion without opinion? This isn't like a scientific discussion, where there is a definitive right and wrong.

I can agree with everything excluding having a political discussion without an opinion.