|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| With Gaza unemployment estimated by the United Nations at more than 40 percent |
The UN? lol. Another anti-semitic hate group.
|
Right. Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, is publishing completely fake stats, fabricated by anti-semites, in order to dupe their mostly Israeli readership. And the readership just falls for it.
| Quote: |
January 1-15th 2009: Israel's incursion into Gaza kills 929 Palestinians
Number of global media reports: 2896
January 1-15th 2009: LRA kills 865 unarmed civilians.
Number of global media reports: 20
|
Got any stats on how much money the Lord's Resistance Army is getting from the US government? |
\\
Haaretz is generally more legit than Junior's numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
January 1-15th 2009: Israel's incursion into Gaza kills 929 Palestinians
Number of global media reports: 2896
January 1-15th 2009: LRA kills 865 unarmed civilians.
Number of global media reports: 20
|
Got any stats on how much money the Lord's Resistance Army is getting from the US government? |
Are you implying that if the United States stopped providing military aid to Israel, the global media would stop its aggressive, atypical scrutiny of the nation in question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are you implying that if the United States stopped providing military aid to Israel, the global media would stop its aggressive, atypical scrutiny of the nation in question? |
We should give it a try and find out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Are you implying that if the United States stopped providing military aid to Israel, the global media would stop its aggressive, atypical scrutiny of the nation in question? |
We should give it a try and find out. |
Supporting Korea costs the US taxpayer $42 billion per year.
http://www.freekorea.us/2007/09/24/some-usfk-stats-and-history/
Supporting Israel costs the US $3 billion a year.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Why don't you withdraw from Korea first? ..If saving costs is the most important thing to you.
Or would you miss the anti-american protests too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoholDiver wrote: |
| I am anti-suffering. Anti-control, and pro-freedom. |
Why then do you support a muslim society that kills women for flirting and does not allow them out of the house without a male escort?
The Palestinian population has mushroomed since the establishment of Israel. You want to eliminate their beneficiary?
| Quote: |
| at the cost of...um...80% of their land. |
The Jews are the original inhabitants of the land.
On what basis do you justify your occupation of North America? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. And let's suppose that a reunified Korea gets into a war with three of its neighbours, and then after the war decides to keep some of the territory it grabbed, moving a bunch of gun-toting adjosshis from LA's Koreatown onto settlements, in order to do battle with the displaced inhabitants, leading to a war that goes on for 40 years, with no end in sight.
Hands up all Dave's posters who want their homeland's government to fund this venture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Yes. And let's suppose that a reunified Korea gets into a war with three of its neighbours, and then after the war decides to keep some of the territory it grabbed, moving a bunch of gun-toting adjosshis from LA's Koreatown onto settlements, in order to do battle with the displaced inhabitants, leading to a war that goes on for 40 years, with no end in sight.
Hands up all Dave's posters who want their homeland's government to fund this venture. |
You seem to be implying that Israel was the belligerent actor in those wars, which isn't really fair. Settlements are ripe for criticism, however, particularly given that they probably work against Israel in the long-term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You seem to be implying that Israel was the belligerent actor in those wars, which isn't really fair. |
I've read arguments on both sides about who was the belligerent in the 1967 War, and I'm not really going to get into that now.
Suffice to say, even if the Israelis were the aggrieved party in 1967, I don't think the post-67 policy of occupying the land and moving in settlers can be justified.
We can probably all agree that Nazi Germany was the belligerent against Russia during World War II. But if Russia's postwar policy had been, in addition to forming the Warsaw Pact, moving heavily armed Russian settlers onto land in Poland and East Germany, kicking the indigenous inhabitants off their land, and fighting an ongoing war against Polish and German rebels, well, not only do I think we'd oppose that, we would certainly think that the Russians, and the Russians alone, should be the ones funding it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You seem to be implying that Israel was the belligerent actor in those wars, which isn't really fair. |
I've read arguments on both sides about who was the belligerent in the 1967 War, and I'm not really going to get into that now.
Suffice to say, even if the Israelis were the aggrieved party in 1967, I don't think the post-67 policy of occupying the land and moving in settlers can be justified.
We can probably all agree that Nazi Germany was the belligerent against Russia during World War II. But if Russia's postwar policy had been, in addition to forming the Warsaw Pact, moving heavily armed Russian settlers onto land in Poland and East Germany, kicking the indigenous inhabitants off their land, and fighting an ongoing war against Polish and German rebels, well, not only do I think we'd oppose that, we would certainly think that the Russians, and the Russians alone, should be the ones funding it. |
...which my post touches on. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
