It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
From what I gathered, Hannity is an oversized maggot and if he spoke like that to my face, I would batter his plastic head in... In other words, he was irrational and arrogant.
originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
When the guy tried to answer the first question, he was cut off and then asked the next question. Though he didn't directly answer the questions, he was responding and may of answered both questions if Hannity didn't interrupt with his raving and ranting. But maybe he wouldn't of given the answer Hannity was after either.
I am right there with you, but for the fact that he started several times and each time was skirting the question, and then eventually said he did answer it. So while I have no doubt Hannity would, and has in the past, have caused the guest to not answer, this guest proved he had no intention of giving an honest answer.
originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
When the guy tried to answer the first question, he was cut off and then asked the next question. Though he didn't directly answer the questions, he was responding and may of answered both questions if Hannity didn't interrupt with his raving and ranting. But maybe he wouldn't of given the answer Hannity was after either.
We will never know because he didn't get the chance to finish what he started saying and that's Hannity's fault, not the guests.
originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
If you could have watched that the whole time why were you asking other people what happened? He consistently cut him off before he got to finish answering, he didn't do that to the Israeli representative, how am I lying?
The man didn't get to finish hence there is no answer.
originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
So why didn't the other get yes and no questions? He was allowed to go on an American propaganda campaign when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I actually thought he was the one who would be For Palestinians lol.. Why didn't Hannity rant and rave when he went off the topic?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: daaskapitalHannity cut him off and eventually closed the programme (without allowing the Palestinian speaker talking time) simply because the Palestinian speaker didn't answer a question the way in which Hannity would have liked it answered.
What was the question, what was the answer. Your post is incredibly biased.
Palestinians openly admit their goal is genocide. Stay biased.
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
They are loyal to the minority, even if they disagree.
originally posted by: daaskapital
I fail to see how my post is incredibly biased.
I provided an outline of what happened. I don't think you can talk either, providing you wrote the following in this very thread:
Palestinians openly admit their goal is genocide. Stay biased.
Now that is what i call bias. Generalising a whole people.
originally posted by: charles1952
After waiting through the 30 second Coke commercial I listened to the first question. CAIR ( a group which has been decribed as everything from a nice charity to a cover for Muslim terrorists) had talked about the disproportionate response which Israel was making.
Hannity's first question was to the Palestinian representative, and asked basically "if you were to get these rockets fired at you, etc. etc. what do you think the proportionate response would be?"
The Palestinian representative began by discussing the years of occupation instead of answering the question. I've seen this happen on ATS often enough so that I could guess where the rest of the conversation was going to go, and I'm not surprised that Hannity lost his temper.
Big deal? No. Maybe an opportunity to criticize Americans or the Western press, wait, that's what this thread is.
But there's nothing particularly earth shaking about it. Yep, Hannity was wrong, no question. But he does have that kind of personality and everyone knows it. That's not an excuse, he could have been more surgical in dissecting the Palestinian, but that's not his style.
originally posted by: SubTruth
Muslims have to stand against the radicals that use and abuse them. They are nothing more then pawns.
"The real Muslim Brothers are those whose hands are never dirtied with the business of killing and burning. They are the secretive bankers and financiers who stand behind the curtain, the members of the old Arab, Turkish, or Persian families whose genealogy places them in the oligarchical elite.....and the Muslim Brotherhood is money. " Muslim Brotherhood- Illuminati Tools
"The Muslim Brotherhood has acted as a clever technique to recruit agent-provocateurs for the Illuminati. The lowest ranks may sincerely believe they are defending Islam, and confronting "Western imperialism". However, these various terrorist groups, through representing different factions, are part of a single network serving the same Illuminati cause." www.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
The issue isn't as simple as "Are Hamas Terrorists". This same question could be asked "Are Israel Terrorists for their actions in acquiring Palestinian lands in 1948".. Providing all the evidence of what they done in 1948 and showing that to Hannity, do you think he would openly answer Yes? Nope..
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: daaskapital
I fail to see how my post is incredibly biased.
I provided an outline of what happened. I don't think you can talk either, providing you wrote the following in this very thread:
Palestinians openly admit their goal is genocide. Stay biased.
Now that is what i call bias. Generalising a whole people.
They elected Hamas. It's part of Hamas' charter. Therefore it's what the Palestinians want, it's what they voted for. That's not bias, that's a fact.