Next you will tell me that Noam Chomsky is reliable.
Yeah, I suppose his credentials probably pale in comparison to your own, which I have pasted below from the MIT site.
Professor Chomsky has received honorary degrees from University of London, University of Chicago, Loyola University of Chicago, Swarthmore
College, Delhi University, Bard College, University of Massachusetts, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Amherst College, Cambridge
University, University of Buenos Aires, McGill University, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Columbia University, University of Connecticut,
Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Harvard University, University of Calcutta, and Universidad
Nacional De Colombia. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science. In addition, he is a member of
other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the
American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin
Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others.
Chomsky has written and lectured widely on linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history, contemporary issues, international affairs and U.S. foreign
policy. His works include: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax; Cartesian Linguistics; Sound Pattern of English (with Morris Halle); Language and Mind;
American Power and the New Mandarins; At War with Asia; For Reasons of State; Peace in the Middle East?; Reflections on Language; The Political
Economy of Human Rights, Vol. I and II (with E.S. Herman); Rules and Representations; Lectures on Government and Binding; Towards a New Cold War;
Radical Priorities; Fateful Triangle; Knowledge of Language; Turning the Tide; Pirates and Emperors; On Power and Ideology; Language and Problems of
Knowledge; The Culture of Terrorism; Manufacturing Consent (with E.S. Herman); Necessary Illusions; Deterring Democracy; Year 501; Rethinking Camelot:
JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture; Letters from Lexington; World Orders, Old and New; The Minimalist Program; Powers and Prospects; The
Common Good; Profit Over People; The New Military Humanism; New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind; Rogue States; A New Generation Draws the
Line; 9-11; and Understanding Power.
Clearly just a marginalized rabid anti-Semite with a political axe to grind. And he's been working for the very same institution of higher learning
since 1955, which also seems a little shifty.
And pardon me for calling you out on something, but you stated to EUF, a little condescendingly:
You seem to have a simplistic view of things and that is generally the case with people who criticize sides in a conflict.
His links have been pretty solid. His arguments pretty clear and well thought out. You continue to serve up such lame ducks as :
Half those pictures are taken out of context, the rest are blatant lies. What I love about them is that the picture depict dead bodies but not
who shot them. Just because they say Israelis did it does not mean its true. [Does it mean then that it is automatically untrue? What's your
UK Politician - I guess that answers the second part of what you said regarding reliability. [Wow, all UK politicians are absolutely 100% unreliable?
Do you have a link?]
John Rose is NOT Israeli and is a Guardian reporter who reports many anti-Israel articles. I think the agenda is clear. It is now clear to me were
your points of views comes from and in what political spectrum you are in. I call it lalaland politics.
That last one is the kicker. Do you actually plan on refuting, say, one single solitary piece of information from that article (with references to
articles in the Post, the Times, the Boston Globe, the Guardian, the Financial Times, Ha'aretz, Ma'ariv, etc), or do you just denounce it all in one
wave of your hand as the work of an anti-Israeli?
And you don't even seem to realize your own slant.
The entire world was up in arms over what was going on in Jenin. The Palestinians Leadership was hysterically claiming that Israel has killed
over 500 innocent civilians and the world came screaming to Israel. In the end approximately 50 Palestinians were killed (mostly combatants) and 30
With one single parentheses, those civilian deaths are totally reduced. I don't know if you're referencing the UN report on Jenin but they actually
claim "By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least
52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been
civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead." (my underline)
So let's say 25 civilians. Is there some chart somewhere that references what it takes to make something an official "massacre"? Can you
cross-reference if the military operation takes place in a refugee camp, what weapons are used, how many people in wheelchairs are run over by tanks,
Do you actually defend any of this or just rail at the sources and then claim some sort of knowledge of the "truth of it" all to yourself, totally
unsubstantiated to the rest of us.
Wanna start another thread on it maybe? Taking articles from various news agencies and putting them together into a clear version of your side of the
argument, based on eyewitness accounts, wire service news reports, various human rights group reports from around the world, etc? Hmm?