Mephisto said:
Can you post the link to your "equally reputable source? You know the routine, you question my source, I question yours . . . "
Oh, sorry, I mentioned the CNN article and sorta assumed you would realize it could be found at CNN. Didn't mean to leave you hanging there, so please,
click here. I trust you can find the rest of the way yourself.
The subject isn't your judgement of the media. You were insisting that your source was equally reputable to the one I quoted, I requested to see your source. You originally requested my sources that indicated acid was thrown on Israeli soldiers. I provided it at which point you quoted a source you've yet to credit making claims that the fluid thrown on the Israeli solders was watered down paint thinner.
Thanks for the recap, but I was there, I saw the exchange we had. But you have confused yourself a bit... actually, I referenced CNN before you brought up MSNBC. Look back up there and you'll see, it's right by the spot I thank you for following through.
I wonder if they'll explain WHY paint thinner? And why watered down paint thinner? Was it like the Alamo and they were running low on paint thinner to throw at the soldiers so they had to ration it out, no more indiscriminate art or redecorating?
Because they're Israeli apologists? I'm guessing that's where you're going with this anyhow... Likewise, perhaps I should be asking why MSNBC declined to mention what kind of acid was used. Nitric? Boric? There's a lot of play in there as well.
The source I subsequently provided also indicated that the throwing of acid may have been a cultural insult from Jewish lore (the assertion was from a source NOT in the middle east), yet you maintain that the media should have said, acidic substance and not acid.
That is untrue. What I said was there were two wordings from roughly equally reliable sources, and that the discrepancy was significant. I did not, at any point, call you a liar like you are now attempting to do to me.
Post my words claiming one source or the other was definitely wrong. I dare you.
Au contraire, I came in with a post regarding the obvious lack of casualties in confrontations between displaced Jewish settlers and Israeli soliders. I was expressly interested in the current opinions of the subject from those members who have habitually supported anything the Israeli government/military has ever done. Now that the country of Israel is making some pretty heavy concessions, does their disarming their soldiers while dealing with Israeli settlers in any way indicate that they were distrustful of their military's ability to peacefully confront unarmed protestors?
Oh, so now "apologists" has become "habitual supporters." I think you have a problem with definitions as well as understanding the plain, simple English used in this very thread.
Yes, and hopefully the passion for cause will die and be replaced by the passion for life and an understanding that will result in peace. If liberal is to become a dirty word in the U.S. then I assert that apologist is an equally dirty word. It can also be just as indiscriminately slung around those who use words to justify the violence against innocent humans by their government.
Truly, a paragon of maturity. You don't like the connotations of one word, so you decide to mangle the meanings of more. That, and of course you seem to blame me (or Israel? It's hard to follow your train of thought) for sullying the "L" word.
I'd worry less about me and more about citing a famous holocaust denier in a thread about Israel.
Next you'll be telling me not to attend that diversity lecture with David Duke!!! 
