[ise]

Quote by: Atlas ...Quotes are one thing, and they can be confirmed or dis-confirmed by other sites, if bush was quoted "I wear a pink baby doll under my suit" in the Al-Qaeda site you would confirm this information with more reliable sites, wouldn't you?

Yes, that was my point in saying this

Quote by: Atlas I specifically excluded your usage of Israeli media sources to fuel your Israeli corruption obsession from my comment, mostly, you take your material from nonobjective sites that are clearly pro-Palestinian, and I can show you examples of that, but I'm sure you remember your own posts.

So you exclude the majority of my posts that are from Israel media sources and then you end up with an artificial new majority to prove your allegation of my "material from nonobjective sites that are clearly pro-Palestinian". I'm sure you meant to write 'objectionable sites' and not "nonobjective sites". I am right, am I not? "Clearly pro-Palestinian, and I can show you examples of that, but I'm sure you remember your own posts." I would appreciate this information if you could find it.

Quote by: Atlas As for Jews against Zionism, I admit they exist and whether you consider their view to be objective or not they are a minority among Jews, thus not representing in its view the majority of Jews in the world.

So you dispute that Jews against Zionism is also not objective. Why is that? How small a minority are they. Is what they say against Zionism RIGHT or WRONG?

Quote by: Atlas By the way, you never replied to my example of Arabs for Israel or the other articles I posted in "the holocaust" thread, this might be a good time...

Coming up very soon

Quote by: Atlas And please, tell me what do you, enlightened Irishmen think is an unbiased media source?

There are NO restriction in Ireland on the availability of ANY newspapers in all the world. This here is the land of the free. Certainly most of the non-American media is unbiased.

Quote by: Atlas Let me rephrase that: guerrillas do not put their civilian countrymen deliberately in danger when involved in an all-out conflict. Simplified: Does not use them as human shields.

What??? Could you rephrase it yet again, please? Who does not use who as human shields?

Quote by: Atlas All the sources I mentioned consider that Hezbollah would consider using their children as human shields, therefore by your Judgment they are racists, not to mention SICK SICK degenerates, don't try and dig your way out of this one, OK.

I'm not the one doing the digging. Let me tease this out.

• You chose a number of sources that somehow believe that Hezbollah uses its community as human shields.
• I say that Israel is racist as it believes that other human beings are capable of deliberately endangering their children as human shields.
• You conclude from this that I infer/suggest that your sources are racist.

Is that your case? On a kind day, I suggest twisted logic.

Quote by: Atlas My point is that if you claim that only believing such acts are possible is "sick" then what do you call people who believe (not that there's anything to believe in, it is an historical fact) in the existence of the holocaust, the events that took place there are far sicker than the worst Hezbollah can think of.

Holocaust or Irish Famine. Are we trading historical facts now for some reason. What has the Holocaust got to do with this?

Quote by: Atlas We're all for world peace, even Al-qaeda and the Nazi's are for world peace in some point, yet you're never going to get it in peaceful ways with that attitude, just like they would not.

"you're never going to get it in peaceful ways with that attitude, just like they would not" You're joking. "You're never going to get [peace]t in peaceful ways with that attitude". Is there another way to get REAL peace unless it is a peaceful way?