Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here's the ABA Journal. Any reporting on this is going to relate facts that come from Warren and Franke, or the Israeli government. You rejected anything that comes from CCR as biased,* but you still haven't answered my question from last night about how you could accept reporting based on what the Israeli government says, since it too is presumably biased, yes? Or are you using "bias" in the sense of "coming from someone with whose policy views I disagree"? |
I want to hear why the government says it did what it did.
Example of why- USA 2018 "let's ban all muslims." Why? "Because too many are terrorist." Now we can reach an opinion of whether we support the ban or not. Contrast that with hypo US 1999 "let's ban M. Atta." Why? "Because he seems singularly dangerous, see X, Y, Z." Again we can support or not the decision.
As to why I dismiss something that devolves into hate against israel within its few paragraphs, you really don't understand?
But the ABA summary does show the failings of your earlier "news." Now most of the delegation got in, just the 2 were barred. Can you see how that might impact the story and why your earlier news might have mentioned it?
