I don't know you tell me you went with a limited explanation when you shouldn't have. So I'm judging it based on the narrow context given, if you didn't want me to do that or anyone for that matter then give more. This is obviously a complex situation so when I ask what do you think is best I don't want a snippet that can be split up in just a matter of second.
Next time I'll find a video containing "a good perspective". It's easier and I don't have to write anything. If you were really interested in debating the "solutions" instead of jumping on evertthing I say as irrelevant, you would understand that what I've said was not a "final" or "magical" solution but a simple comparison between the bases of a 1 state solution vs a 2 state solution. And I focused only in the side of religious differences because in both sides people there are strong believers or fundamentalists.
It's always easy to criticize then to add something relevant.
Yes I do think some of what you said it utterly inane for some one claimed to have this grandiose world view and humanitarian understanding and solemn face. Did you want my view of a solution or do you want to be snide and get in tiff over me being blunt with you. This is debate people come at you with vigor and wanting you to explain in the real world and here, I don't understand why one decides to place themselves in such a scenario and yet feel they don't have to elaborate or take the "abuse". Then don't debate, you were never obligated to respond to me or anyone else but you felt your views had enough conviction at the time to be somewhat further expressed and now you seem to not want to continue.
Citation needed.
I'm obligated to respond to you because you make claims about what I've said that are uttelry made up. And if you like to wave with the AUP and call a mod, then aply the same standard to yourself and provide me with all the claims you've been making about me. I'm still waiting for citations where I say to anyone that their sources are "yellow paper" journalism or pro-zionism or pro-israel, etc.
Well, I guess you'll keep doing the same thing. Make things up about my posts and then I'll have to prove that I'm not saying anything you claim I'm saying.
Never said you did, nor do I care.?
Then, don't make false assumptions. If you don't know, ask it. Making stupid jokes about it won't help.
What I said you used which you did post or liked or followed up on was a twitter snip of a reporter claiming that the image was of Israeli's sitting at a out door drive in watching bombs drop and cheering. Which was the rally cry for you and others to basically make this one sided and ignore that the same is happening to Israel but due to measure to try and prevent this working it is less of a reality and disgust.
I used or liked or followed what? Be precise and give specific examples if you want to acuse me of anything. You can't get away with false claims and then expect not to be called dishonest. I didn't post it nor liked it. I've wrote about it in some of my posts as being an example of how some israeli people are dealing with the conflict.
What is happening to Israel that can you claim is "the same" as what is happening in Gaza?
The same? Source needed.
As for me asking you to provide data, I'm surprised that the mod here hasn't said anything after you've basically just said in simple terms "I don't need to provide anything go look it up yourself" paraphrase. Which is against the AUP and yes I accused you because you were running foul don't do it and I wont accuse you. If I have to control myself under the AUP as agreed, why shouldn't you? So about those numbers and other data could I please get some source material?
You have to control yourself under the AUP but you're failing at it. I've said I wouldn't give you a source because you've been failing to give me proofs of your accusations against me. Every post you make has another claim about me that I'll ask you to prove it and you simply ignore it. If you stop for a second and read your claims about me maybe you'll get to the conlusion why I didn't gave you the source you asked because you didn't gave me the citations I asked for. You can't make things up about what I have not said and then ignore it when I ask you to prove it.
Never said it was, if you wanted me to explain a reference just ask. Wait so you want me to provide a source where you say that though you just said it in your last post?
I want you to explain you false claims about what I've posted. The only references or sources would be easy for you to find, since they're all in this thread.
Also you keep denouncing links and sources we've posted saying they're skewed by the pro-western/Israeli media. Yet when we tell you you'r stuff is skewed for the same bias you claim on ours and we've researched yours you say that it isn't.
Citations needed. Again, you're making things up. Give me examples or you'll be broking the AUP by lying. You've said that I've been saying that EVERY source people give are BS (not paraphrasing). So, I ask you to give me examples. I've said that your source in that particular link to the death rates was a jew journalist and it was comprehensible why he would be pro-israel. You've failed to provide the other huge amount of posts where I've said the same about other sources.
BTW, If anything I say is incorrect, I would like for someone to point it out to me, as I've said in other ocasions.
Um no, you've condemned Israel which is fine, but have yet to do it and only do it when asked (probably like you will in response) to save face. Why not as is being asked don't you show consistency in humanitarian out pour to both sides regardless of the number if civilian casualties. So the guy that is more of an efficient killer when provoked is more of an evil and disgusting murder, than the sloppy killer that wishes to kill everyday of the week and if given the precision would become a more adequate one?.
When provoked? Who's provoking whom? People like you say they aren't biased but always portrait Israel as the one being provoked and the one that is responding, ignoring the everyday life that palestinians live under israeli occupation, opression and torture (innocent people) when Hamas isn't even launching rockets. Before this "war" started, there was already a "war" in the streets in the West Bank.
I've yet to see you post anything of disgust at Hamas doctrine, rallies, speeches or whatever else that puts their people purposely in the cross hairs. Or makes their people indirect martyrs to a cause that most probably wouldn't want to actually take part in, only to perpetuate hate down the line and keep the pot churning on both sides. Where is your bleeding heart for that?
Go read one of my first posts in the thread. July 19. I don't think anyone sane and mentaly coherent will agreed with Hamas extremism. Im not the only one thinking that Israel shouldn't be doing what they've been doing and I don't think the other people support Hamas. I think if you defend Hamas extremism you can't even enter a discussion about this conflict. Happy now? There are other groups /milicias in Gaza that don't fit the Hamas extremism. It's probable that at least a part of those sending rockets and shooting guns are people who were kids in 2004 and lost their families. It's not ALL Hamas. This isn't an excuse, BTW.
But no you sit here you condemn us while we condemn both sides and because our blow horn isn't louder for Palestine as your righteous one is we're proctors of Israel or pro-Israel. Even when we express our disdain equally for both sides you laugh at us when we claim this to you or denounce it like you did to Famine not too long ago.
Well, we disagreed. I can't say that both israeli and palestinians people are equally threatned and that's why I stand for palestinian people. I still condemn Hamas and IDF tough. As I've said severat times, Hamas strategy is simply stupid.
Why does it have to be some hypothetical and change of subject that is not rational? Never once during any debate did I stoop to levels of irrational, fairy tale conjecture. For example in the guns thread, I never did any intellectual dishonesty toward you and said "well when someone has a knife at you or is about ready to blow your head off, I wonder if you'll still not want a gun".
Except you did. As you do here as well, claiming I've said things I didn't and claiming I didn't say another things that I did. Must be your "personality".
Why does me being there some how change my moral understanding of what is wrong and right? I find it stupid and belittling that you think to some extent that we are unable to have perspective on this because we don't show our full distaste of kids dying or anyone else. (even though we do).
If your distaste of kids dying or anyone else exists, how can you still be in the fence and say you don't stand for the kids that are dying then? It's because you think it's irracional or because you think you'll be biased? I don't get it. If people don't show their support of palestinian people, It's pretty much the same as being in agreement with Israel. How did you see the voting chart in the UN proposal for a inquiry in the Israeli ground invasion and investigation for war crimes? Would you abstain?.
Yes and you're opinion will continue you to be scrutinized for the one sided bit it is, of course you don't care if your seen bias because you are you know it and you think it's a viable way to debate. What name calling game? Are you that insensitive that you would put me calling you biased or one sided on some scale as say moron or dumb? Or is your goal to keep screaming some of us as villains so you can avoid the argument?
And I'll continue to respond when I have time to. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But we can still disagreed and have a debate. Well, with you is difficult, but generaly speaking we can.
I was expecting you to start the same type of discourse as in other ocasions. But you didn't, which is nice.
Here is a good perspective on it I think
I'l watch it when I have the time.
@Tornado, It seems wrong.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I think the earth needs it's population growth and number controlled, with the way we are growing now, earth could see very big problem within 50-100 years -advancement in technology is not always a sign of advancement in civilization. We keep breeding and most countries do not care enough about the next 2 or 3 generation in the future. I think the US has the big picture already, especially NASA 
