Haqqani versus Amalek - Page 2

Skybird · 06-24-09, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

I guess you are not used to being challenged Mr. Skybird. That being the case is either one of two things. Either you speak for many or you report those who do speak against you. It is enlightening..

What challenge? You do not set up a challenge. You play tricks. 7 postings by you now - and not one argument by you specifying where and why Follath said something wrong.

i think you have wasted enough of my and our time.

Bye.

06-24-09, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Or how's about assuming the sky is green and the grass is blue.

Either you can counter Follath on what he says, or you can't. "If" and "eventually" and "we were not there" does not help you. You said they probably have it all wrong in that essay. Give your agument on the matter - where is it all wrong, why is it wrong, and what is the correct information there. You just try character assassination so far.

It is hard to refute what is ultimately an opinion piece. It's Mr. Follath's opinion. If you agree with it that is your option, more power to you and us, in knowing your opinion.

CaptainHaplo · 06-24-09, 06:27 PM

Me - a lefty. Now thats FUNNY!

I have been told that if politics were an airplane, I would have 2 right wings!

Now here is the rub CastleBravo. The article didn't give much opinion at all. It gave a fairly concise rendition of what is easily verifiable regarding both men, both in their public and more "private" lives. Having had the priviledge of meeting Benny, and then taking time to learn about the man (because he made that much of an impression on me that I felt I should know more about him - and that says something), I can attest to the FACTS presented about him. Now I can't say that I have done much checking on Achmawhackjob, but I suspect that the veracity of other facts in the article give me reason to think that were I to do so, the history and background of A would be proven to be factual as well.

With that being said, the CONCLUSIONS that the writer draws are reasonable and logical given the known psychological profiles of the men involved. In some cases, the conclusions also are supported by the history of actions by both men.

I didn't see anywhere in there where he said conflict was inevitable. In fact, he ASKED the question - is it? If anything - the only opinion the writer brings forth - is an invitation to form your own. Thats actually good writing.

If your opinion thus points in a direction you don't like, that doesn't make the writer slanted. Sometimes in the political world we must accept that things are not what we would like.

I recognize he postulates a POSSIBLE future scenario where a conflict could be created because of these two leaders. Yet for it to be "political opinion", there would have to be some level of lifting one side over the other. Having read it as objectively as possible (and for the record, I would vote for "Bibi" if I was an Israeli citizen.), I saw nothing in there that slammed either side while raising the other. It pointed out historical fact, asked a couple of questions, and then lets you consider the implications. How is that "left" or "right"?

Fish · 06-26-09, 12:16 PM

From the Jeruzalem Post:
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/warpedmi...spiegel_posted

Quote:

No doubt, when it comes to demonizing Israel, the race is on - though it's not entirely clear if the finish line is set at the bottom of journalism or the height of hypocrisy. In any case, here is a strong contender: under the title "Potential for Apocalypse," the German news magazine Der Spiegel asked on Monday: "Is War between Iran and Israel Inevitable?" The lead-in for the long essay of some 4400 words provides a sensationalist summary to whet the appetite of readers:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may seem very different, but they are united in their apocalyptic religious visions. Their respective beliefs may be propelling them on a collision course with potentially horrific consequences."

I rubbed my eyes in disbelief, and read it again, and again - but that's what it says: Bibi Netanyahu, the secular prime minister of a secular democracy, has "apocalyptic religious visions" that somehow "unite" him with the Holocaust-denying, fanatically religious Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who recently "won" re-election by "divine assessment," because the "supreme leader" of the Iranian mullahcracy said so.
The author of this piece of gibberish is apparently a veteran journalist, Erich Follath, who poses as an expert on this kind of comparison because he has met Netanyahu a few times - first back in 1976, shortly after Yonatan Netanyahu was killed at Entebbe - and he has also been to Iran and even interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Well, then, the man must know what he is talking about!!!

Skybird · 06-26-09, 01:58 PM

That's what I would call almost a pamphlete by style.

Conservative Israelis certainly do not like being referred to as sharing a responsibility for things. Like republicans do not like being referred to as being responsible for the failures of Bush's policies, the Kreml not liking to be referred to as sharing responsibility for Georgia, and saakashvili not likng to be referred to be responsible for the war, and the EU... well, you get the pattern.

The religious certainly project a very massive influence on the forming of Israeli policies. So I wonder what that article by the Jeruslem Post should illustrate. they just show that they do not like being given a share of responsibility for things to come, and that they do not like to be reminded of that their mythologic background may drive their politics more than they are ready to admit to the world.

I have read many articles by Follath over the years, and their general quality was such that I have memorised his name and tend to read a piece just because he is the author of it. The Jeruslem Post must not like him.

But I'm sure the Iranians do not like what he had to say about them, too.

There might be an Iranian comment to the Spiegel essay somehwere that maybe sounds exactly like the Israeli article, just under Iranian prefixes.

06-24-09, 06:27 PM	#18
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Me - a lefty. Now thats FUNNY! I have been told that if politics were an airplane, I would have 2 right wings! Now here is the rub CastleBravo. The article didn't give much opinion at all. It gave a fairly concise rendition of what is easily verifiable regarding both men, both in their public and more "private" lives. Having had the priviledge of meeting Benny, and then taking time to learn about the man (because he made that much of an impression on me that I felt I should know more about him - and that says something), I can attest to the FACTS presented about him. Now I can't say that I have done much checking on Achmawhackjob, but I suspect that the veracity of other facts in the article give me reason to think that were I to do so, the history and background of A would be proven to be factual as well. With that being said, the CONCLUSIONS that the writer draws are reasonable and logical given the known psychological profiles of the men involved. In some cases, the conclusions also are supported by the history of actions by both men. I didn't see anywhere in there where he said conflict was inevitable. In fact, he ASKED the question - is it? If anything - the only opinion the writer brings forth - is an invitation to form your own. Thats actually good writing. If your opinion thus points in a direction you don't like, that doesn't make the writer slanted. Sometimes in the political world we must accept that things are not what we would like. I recognize he postulates a POSSIBLE future scenario where a conflict could be created because of these two leaders. Yet for it to be "political opinion", there would have to be some level of lifting one side over the other. Having read it as objectively as possible (and for the record, I would vote for "Bibi" if I was an Israeli citizen.), I saw nothing in there that slammed either side while raising the other. It pointed out historical fact, asked a couple of questions, and then lets you consider the implications. How is that "left" or "right"? __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

06-26-09, 01:58 PM	#20
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,609 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	That's what I would call almost a pamphlete by style. Conservative Israelis certainly do not like being referred to as sharing a responsibility for things. Like republicans do not like being referred to as being responsible for the failures of Bush's policies, the Kreml not liking to be referred to as sharing responsibility for Georgia, and saakashvili not likng to be referred to be responsible for the war, and the EU... well, you get the pattern. The religious certainly project a very massive influence on the forming of Israeli policies. So I wonder what that article by the Jeruslem Post should illustrate. they just show that they do not like being given a share of responsibility for things to come, and that they do not like to be reminded of that their mythologic background may drive their politics more than they are ready to admit to the world. I have read many articles by Follath over the years, and their general quality was such that I have memorised his name and tend to read a piece just because he is the author of it. The Jeruslem Post must not like him. But I'm sure the Iranians do not like what he had to say about them, too. There might be an Iranian comment to the Spiegel essay somehwere that maybe sounds exactly like the Israeli article, just under Iranian prefixes. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.