"death to all Arabs"

Sub, you're looking for a fight where there is none. I'm very simply pointing out to you that Netanyahu didn't say what the site you posted said he said. You implied our media were hypocrites for not covering this story. I explained that there was hypocrisy, but it was on the part of the site you sourced for intentionally (or errantly, which is just as bad for journalists) misrepresenting who posted what on Netanyahu's page. I gave a very apt example of a message board. It is not out of bounds to question your understanding of the way Facebook works, since you are exhibiting a misunderstanding of it by stating that Netanyahu is allowing others to "post in his name." That is a fundamental, and very unnecessary, misunderstanding of how Facebook works.

You're welcome to your rant, but you should be ranting at yourself, not me. I'm just pointing out where you're mistaken.

 
carlfense said:
Sub-Husker said:
carlfense said:
Posted on his Facebook page? That's shaky.
Click to expand...
Did he as a public figure write it, or did he not write it?
Click to expand...
That's my point. We don't know if he wrote it.

Tucker Carlson chimes in.

http://andrewsulliva...-nominee-3.html
Click to expand...
Was wondering when someone was going to post this--his rhetoric on the annihilation of Iran is frightening, to say the least.

Also, here's a link where Mr. Carlson is doing is worst to back away from the comments he made (via a posted email exchange):

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2012/02/email-exchange-with-tucker-carlson.html

Of note:

Glenn Greenwald6:58 PM (28 minutes ago)

I'm really not looking to be persuaded of anything - I honestly want to know what you meant by "annihiliation."

Seems pretty uncharacteristic for you not to defend or elaborate on your own comments.

________________

Tucker Carlson

7:23 PM (2 minutes ago)

It's my fault that I got tongue tied and didn't explain myself well last night. I'm actually on the opposite side on the Iran question from many people I otherwise agree with. I think attacking could be a disaster for the US and am worried that Obama will do it, for fear of seeming weak before an election. Of course the Iranian government is awful and deserves to be crushed. But I'm not persuaded we or Israel could do it in a way that doesn't cause even greater problems. That's the main lesson of Iraq it seems to me.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen someone so adept at talking out both sides of his mouth since I went shopping for a used car.

 
Sub-Husker said:
carlfense said:
Yeah. Thanks for having the patience to explain what I was referring to with my "No. Read it again."
Click to expand...
His misrepresentations of an error on my part is not patience.

Shame on you.
Click to expand...
You made the error. He explained it in detail whereas I only took the time to say that you had made an error.

Shame on you for trying to pick a fight instead of just admitting that you had made an error and that knapplc, myself, AND that U.S. media that you were complaining about had it correct.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sub-Husker said:
2) It does have something to do with Netanyahu since the reply was to something he wrote.
Click to expand...
Wow. Reactions to statements are attributable to the person who made the initial statement.

Let's take advantage of that: Genocide is awesome.

Because this in reply to your statement, I will now attribute that statement to you.

Sub-Husker thinks that Genocide is awesome!!!

 
Carl, it does have "something" to do with him. However that is different from him having done something.

I looked at the source and it was from a usually reliable one. My bad. I usually check sources that I am not familiar with, and from now on I will add this one to my "no post without checking" list.

However I still believe that the amount of hostility that came out over my error was because I was critical of Israel.

And everyone here damn well knows this as a certainty... if my article was falsely critical of Iran or Syria, then there would not have been a peep from those that had criticized me here.

 
Sub-Husker said:
However I still believe that the amount of hostility that came out over my error was because I was critical of Israel.
Click to expand...
Balderdash. It's a simple case of a false report being discussed. You're the one who made this into a big deal. All you had to do was give a mea culpa and this would have gone away.

 
Sub-Husker said:
However I still believe that the amount of hostility that came out over my error was because I was critical of Israel.
Click to expand...
knapplc said:
Balderdash. It's a simple case of a false report being discussed. You're the one who made this into a big deal. All you had to do was give a mea culpa and this would have gone away.
Click to expand...
I have posted a mea culpa on the article source, but the bias against anything anti-Israeli is there.

And you are one of the leaders of that camp.

 
Sub-Husker said:
knapplc said:
Sub-Husker said:
However I still believe that the amount of hostility that came out over my error was because I was critical of Israel.
Click to expand...
Balderdash. It's a simple case of a false report being discussed. You're the one who made this into a big deal. All you had to do was give a mea culpa and this would have gone away.
Click to expand...
I have posted a mea culpa on the article source, but the bias against anything anti-Israeli is there.

And you are one of the leaders of that camp.
Click to expand...

You're mistaking a detestation for misinformation for a pro-Israeli stance. And your mea culpa came well after you blew up. One reaction was necessary, one wasn't. You chose the latter first. Unfortunately.

 
Sub-Husker said:
Carl, it does have "something" to do with him. However that is different from him having done something.

I looked at the source and it was from a usually reliable one. My bad. I usually check sources that I am not familiar with, and from now on I will add this one to my "no post without checking" list.

However I still believe that the amount of hostility that came out over my error was because I was critical of Israel.

And everyone here damn well knows this as a certainty... if my article was falsely critical of Iran or Syria, then there would not have been a peep from those that had criticized me here.
Click to expand...
Not true. Show me one instance where I have been falsely critical of Iran or Syria or posted an article that was falsely critical of the same. One would be sufficient. What we do know is that you have posted lies about Netanyahu.

My hostility is over the fact that you accused the media of intentionally ignoring the story (because that fits with your worldview) when you were actually the one posting false information. Hypocrisy, sir. That's what grinds my gears.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense said:
Sub-Husker said:
carlfense said:
Yeah. Thanks for having the patience to explain what I was referring to with my "No. Read it again."
Click to expand...
His misrepresentations of an error on my part is not patience.

Shame on you.
Click to expand...
You made the error. He explained it in detail whereas I only took the time to say that you had made an error.

Shame on you for trying to pick a fight instead of just admitting that you had made an error and that knapplc, myself, AND that U.S. media that you were complaining about had it correct.
Click to expand...

+1

 
It's probably a pretty common sentiment that there is too much pandering to Israel, I won't really comment about that. This particular discussion doesn't seem to have any angle supporting that argument, though. The guy was reported to have said "death to all Arabs", which would be major, major news.

But it looks like he didn't say any of the like, right? And however many hundreds of comments get posted to facebook pages like these...I wouldn't really blame his staff had there been an oversight.

I don't think there's any hostility here. Just that the premise of this thread turned out to be wrong, and it's not your fault, it's the fault of that article. Seems like they seriously jumped to conclusions.

 
Back
Top