A Question, Not An Op-Ed

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Jul 14, 2006.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I usually don't use Front Page, for fear of further anti-Semitism rants, but this isn't an op-ed or perspective piece, rather a question:

    http://frontpagemag.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=688
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I would assume that Israel has it's survival as priority #1 and using all of the inteligence they have at there disposal and any influence they have with larger, more powerful countries they will do what is necessary before they are themselves destroyed.
     
  3. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    (While laughing)

    OMG... so much... so wrong... and misleading... really... hilarious... so... naive... terrible, terrible... question... absolutely adorable...

    (Mr. Conley chokes on own laughter and dies, but is reborn, stronger and more powerful then ever before)
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Why not just answer the question?

    BTW, you never did respond about scientific study on media?
     
  5. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Why not?
    If by lining up you mean their state departments issued brief statements while the actual leaders were off having a good time at the G8 summit in Russia, then yes, world leaders are lining up.
    What the heck? On the side of Islamic terrorists? By urging Israel to show restraint and reframe from bombing civilian targets? That's a far cry from allying, supplying, and assisting the Hamas and Co. while calling for the death of Israel.
    Who cares? The Vatican has no nukes, and no real influence in geopolitics. Plus the Vatican is run by the Catholic church. Of course they are going to call for an end to violence. They're a freaking pacifist religon. That's like expecting the Dahli Lama to call for all out war on North Korea.
    'Oh my God, the Vatican called for an end to violence. Stop the Press.'
    Yea, totally, except that he called on Israel to take the lead in ending the violence.
    Finally, a statement of fact.
    'The Syrian terrorist state' also tells Time magazine it can wipe Israel off the map.
    Yea, Iran's, Syria's, Hamas', and Hizbollah's vast deserts totally kick Israel's desert's ass. Oh, wait, the amount of useless land you own doesn't really come into play in war unless your invading Russia.
    Nice about the population though. Too bad the GDP of the entire Arab world is only slightly greater than that of Spain.
    Plus, Israel has a little thing called total air supremacy.
    Oh yes, they said it, and they can do it. They just haven't really felt like destroying Israel for the past 50 years.
    Okay, so therefore we can expect a 10 way nuclear exchange? I don't think so.
    Okay, I'll give you that one. Good work, they're 2 for 9.
    Except not at all. Russia isn't going to go nuclear over Syria. China doesn't care about Syria because they don't have enough oil. And North Korea? Like they're going to send in troops to fight the Israelis.
    Really? And where is this line? Oh wait, it doesn't exist expect for a few crazies.
    Because everyone knows that the liberal, Jewish media has been having a hard on for another Holocaust for 60 years now.
    And was condemned for it.
    Get serious. Iran's not going to supply Hizbollah with nukes. I doubt that even in ten years they could transport it to Syria, much less but the thing on shoulder-mounted rocket. Besides, Iran doesn't want to get owned in the ensuing international responce.

    Yea, actually, you can. Why? Because Russia and China don't hate Israel enough to use WMDs to destroy them. Chinese people LOVE the Jews.
    Syria has had 20+ years to sneak Hizbollah and Hamas some WMDs, but they haven't. Why would they start now? To force the international community to invade? Yea, they makes prefect sense.
    WMDs are for having not using. Especially when you know you'll get it in the butt if you do use them.
    Partisan F**king Bullshit.
    A read through it, but I can't find the damn thread. I think they raised an interesting concern though, but I have to question their methodology. Based on what I read, I also think the study might have been a bit rushed.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I'll respond to the more important stuff when I return from work this afternoon. On the last though, I think you still owe me rep!

    I conceded the methodology weaknesses from the beginning. I don't think they were a result of 'rush' as much as controlling variables, nearly impossible with the topic. It would take many studies of one variable at a time. If the variables could all be identified, then tested, the summation would still be concentrated on the color of the horse that had once again changed colors. :laugh:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page