Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

Conrad Dunkerson
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromConrad Dunkerson
Date2002-04-13 21:31 (2002-04-13 21:31)
Message-ID<FI%t8.27689$QC1.1802349@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsRuss
FollowupsRuss (2h & 48m)
"Russ" <mcresq@aol.com>wrote in message news:20020413144432.01774.00001263@mb-cg.aol.com...

Russ
If you're getting your facts as to the events at the camps from the same sources that are incorrectly inflating the death toll, that leads one to question the source as a whole.

I am citing the Red Cross. You are citing Israeli security. You sure you want to get into an argument about impartial sources?

As for the Washington Post writing 'hundreds' - as they weren't THERE they had only three possible sources; the Red Cross (~3000), Israeli Security (~750), or the survivors (~15,000). That they chose to call it hundreds means either that they prefer the Israeli story or (more likely) they were being unspecific... as 'hundreds' could be said of either 750 or 2750.

The Palestinians have absolutely ZERO right to be outraged by anything.

You are drifting back into 'we should nuke Mecca' territory.

There are plenty of outrageous things going on in the Middle-east. Trying to limit it to just one side is willful blindness.

Simply because you do not like the conclusion of the report does not make it false.

No, the fact that it is clearly false makes it false. Numerous members of the IDF, including Sharon, unquestionably knew that there was a massacre going on and allowed it.

Make up your mind. First you cite the report and now you say its false.

I said that even they had to admit that Sharon was responsible... that isn't exactly an endorsement of the report.

Actually, it was libelous. The jury found it was false and that Time was negligent. What they did not find was they Time acted with actual malice.

In which case... it was not libelous. No malice, no libel. It was a libel suit. The suit failed. Time was found NOT to have committed libel. Sharon got nothing.

Even if he HAD gotten something, the suit was over a totally insignificant footnote... not the massacre itself. Sharon did not contest the majority of the article at all, just one note about a purported conversation with the family of the former Lebanese president. That you continue to try to use such a ridiculous thing as a 'vindication' of Sharon is an absurd exercise in revisionist history.

Google
Russ (2h & 48m)