Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:David Ben Gurion...terrorist apologist and sympathizer and, one might logically extend from some of you folks' comments, an anti-semite.
No, I wouldn't suggest that he was. As far as I'm aware, he did not condone the tactics of the Palestinians in intentionally target/kill civilians to further their political goals. He understood why they are upset at Isreal ... everyone on this planet understands why they are upset at Isreal, but that doesn't make their terrorist tactics acceptable,
and that doesn't mean they should be condoned.
And your being a shill for Suskind doesn't make you more correct on this issue.
"They shouldn't be condoned". Agreed, with no reservation. But where, outside of the predictable nutty edge) have you seen or read anyone condone Arab or Muslim terrorism? I haven't seen it. I certainly haven't done it myself either here or anywhere else.
Yet, there's simply no question that had I hidden the proper authorship of Ben Gurion's statement and had I disguised it as my own sentiments, then it would have constituted evidence of anti-Israel bias and pro-terrorist sentiment in the eyes of those of you to whom I'm talking.
And I also do not condone the magnitude of Israel's response nor its means which effectively disregards or justities insufficient regard for civilians, either one a violation of fundamental principles of just and humane warfare.
Human Rights Watch was absolutely correct to suggest that Hezbollah is guilty of war crimes and that those who are responsible ought to be charged in international courts. Human Rights Watch is also absolutely correct to suggest that Israel too is guilty, certainly in the use of cluster bombs (if they have, and it looks probable they have) and that those repsonsible should arrive before the court. I also hold that the US is guilty for torture, and perhaps more, and those responsible should be tried for war crimes.
That, of course, won't be acceptable to you. You've "picked a side" as foxfyre puts it. And when you pick a side in this manner and so completely, principle no longer deserves attention or loyalty.
As regards Suskind and the term "shill" you apply to me... I have no doubt at all as to whether you've bothered to read him. You will not have. He's on the wrong side. The wrong side is that side which criticizes your president and his administration. Regardless of who that person might be, what his knowledge might be, what his experience might be, what his service or sacrifice to the country might be, what professional accomplishments he has made, if he goes on to criticize this president and administration's policies strongly or acutely or effectively, he lands on the wrong side for you guys. That Suskind writes carefully and tempers his claims means nothing. That he received a Pulitzer for reporting while working for the WSJ means nothing, except perhaps evidence that the Pulitzer committee is biased.
And, in three years, I've quoted only two short passages from Suskind here. I've linked a single essay. I've recommended a single book, the only one I've read. Thus, I "shill for Suskind".
An exercise in compare and contrast...how many columns from Ann Coulter, of all people, have you pasted here?
