There's hope for the British Empire after all, I anticipate that when he returns he shall finally instigate the long-awaited Act of Reunion and you downtrodden colonists shall be returned to the warm embrace of the bosom that is merry ol' Blighty.
Hmm, I'm not sure that saying nice things about another Head of State adds up to him being a British Loyalist. In fact, I would say that he's anything but...
Well now that just spiffy, so now that you are coming back.....erm I don't know how to....er.. put this...........but there is the small matter of the back dated Tea Taxes owed Mr President.
So basically Obama said that the queen is a nice old lady.
She came down here for Jamestown's 400th anniversary, we tarred and feathered her and replaced her with a robotic queen. What Obama said is actually a code that will cause her to raise Boudicca from the dead to enslave the british peoples. Then we shall 'relieve' the beleagured british forces only to have Obama say the words to activate the killswitch installed on robo-queen and then zombie Boudicca will die again and America will rule all of England, except for Wales, Wales is weird.
halonachos wrote:So basically Obama said that the queen is a nice old lady.
She came down here for Jamestown's 400th anniversary, we tarred and feathered her and replaced her with a robotic queen. What Obama said is actually a code that will cause her to raise Boudicca from the dead to enslave the british peoples. Then we shall 'relieve' the beleagured british forces only to have Obama say the words to activate the killswitch installed on robo-queen and then zombie Boudicca will die again and America will rule all of England, except for Wales, Wales is weird.
What about Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Also Boudica was fighting for freedom so i don't see why undead Boudica would be enslaving people.
That said maybe being dead changes your perspectives on things...
purplefood wrote:Also Boudica was fighting for freedom so i don't see why undead Boudica would be enslaving people.
I was going to say that.
But what the Americans don't realise is that Obama is actually a British 00 agent working to bring America more into line with England in terms of healthcare, etc, so that their eventual assimilation back into the Empire is much easier for all involved.
purplefood wrote:Also Boudica was fighting for freedom so i don't see why undead Boudica would be enslaving people.
I was going to say that.
But what the Americans don't realise is that Obama is actually a British 00 agent working to bring America more into line with England in terms of healthcare, etc, so that their eventual assimilation back into the Empire is much easier for all involved.
Frazzled wrote:Actualy I think a lot of people think that.
The British Inquisition have been dispatched to your location.
They have been issued with live haggis rounds for their bagpipe launchers.
Fortunately for me, Respresentatives of Wiener Legion High Command are visiting this week due to perimeter fence work at the primary bunker (replacing fence). Wiener dogs love haggis...
Albatross wrote:The point is that modern day Brits are overwhelmingly descended from the same genetic stock as Boudicca would have been...
...But then we've been through this before on here, many times.
Directly descended? I find that incredulous.
If I said it, quote it, bold it.... you know the drill.
Also, Emp, I'm not sure that 'incredulity' is something that can be assigned to an assertion, rather to a person's reaction to that assertion. I could be wrong, however, as I'm too ill to give a gak (stomach bug, oh the irony...).
Albatross wrote:The point is that modern day Brits are overwhelmingly descended from the same genetic stock as Boudicca would have been...
...But then we've been through this before on here, many times.
I had read that the Saxons were behind one of the most complete genetic assimilations in history; you are unlikely to find too much Celtic blood kicking about within your stock Englishman?
Normans mostly kept to their own stock and even when they did become naturalised, they assumed the role of the upper classes.
Albatross wrote:
If I said it, quote it, bold it.... you know the drill.
I didn't mean to imply you said directly from Boudicca, I meant directly from Celtic stock, without foreign taint. I think that would be a wee bit rare.
Also, Emp, I'm not sure that 'incredulity' is something that can be assigned to an assertion, rather to a person's reaction to that assertion. I could be wrong, however, as I'm too ill to give a gak (stomach bug, oh the irony...).
I think you're right. But I also don't care too much. It's past my beddy-bies time, you see?
Medium of Death wrote:Obama sent back the Churchill bust from the oval office.
I loved that his comments about Israel's borders have pretty much been decried by congress, after they gave a standing ovation to Mr. Netanyahu.
I wish they would drop this special relationship BS, it clearly doesn't exist any more. Hello, Falklands!
Please watch the language ! Reds8n
Thought if I put 'cake' at the end it would make it ok.
I re-submit this: Obama is an arrogant so-and-so!
Based on what?
Returning the Churchill bust that was gifted to the Bush Jnr administration from the Blair regime? You know Obama's grandfather was tortured under policies enacted by Churchill?
Israel should turn over that land, it invaded and stole it. Congress fawns at any Israeli leader in a desperate attempt to appease the fairly large and powerful Jewish lobbying groups. Also, the Republicans would side with Freddy Krueger if Obama had opposed him, for the sake of opposing Obama.
Medium of Death wrote:Obama sent back the Churchill bust from the oval office.
I loved that his comments about Israel's borders have pretty much been decried by congress, after they gave a standing ovation to Mr. Netanyahu.
I wish they would drop this special relationship BS, it clearly doesn't exist any more. Hello, Falklands!
Please watch the language ! Reds8n
Thought if I put 'cake' at the end it would make it ok.
I re-submit this: Obama is an arrogant so-and-so!
Based on what?
Returning the Churchill bust that was gifted to the Bush Jnr administration from the Blair regime? You know Obama's grandfather was tortured under policies enacted by Churchill?
Israel should turn over that land, it invaded and stole it.
Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Also, the Republicans would side with Freddy Krueger if Obama had opposed him, for the sake of opposing Obama.
QFT! if he said he liked Oxygen and it was good, the Rightwing(elected and otherwise) would find a reason for it to be bad and or wrong.
"like to breath it?! you know it's flamable, right?"
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Also, the Republicans would side with Freddy Krueger if Obama had opposed him, for the sake of opposing Obama.
QFT! if he said he liked Oxygen and it was good, the Rightwing(elected and otherwise) would find a reason for it to be bad and or wrong.
"like to breath it?! you know it's flamable, right?"
Oxygen isn't flammable otherwise if you lit a match much of the atmosphere would be covered in fire.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Israel should turn over that land, it invaded and stole it.
That is generally how countries come into being and grow. One group rises up and takes land belonging to someone else as their own. Or a group is attacked, beats up the attackers and takes some of their land during the fighting.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Also, the Republicans would side with Freddy Krueger if Obama had opposed him, for the sake of opposing Obama.
QFT! if he said he liked Oxygen and it was good, the Rightwing(elected and otherwise) would find a reason for it to be bad and or wrong.
"like to breath it?! you know it's flamable, right?"
Oxygen isn't flammable otherwise if you lit a match much of the atmosphere would be covered in fire.
Okay, horrid example, but you do get the point i hope.
Saying oxygen isn't flammable is misleading. Oxygen is the main reason that things catch on fire in the first place, as without it, the overwhelming majority of combustion reactions-- IE, fire-- wouldn't work.
Frazzled wrote:
Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.
Glad to hear you were outraged at Bush Senior's attacking Saddam then, when he took Kuwait...
Modern, recent conquest is met with dismay. Most nations now try to operate with the notion that borders are now set and the 'days of conquest' are behind modern 'civilised' countries.
Also, see Scottish devolution, peace talks in Ulster and the Northern Ireland coalition government and the Welsh National Assembly...
I'll agree there's plenty of hypocrisy here, also a lack of knowledge on topic seems to be occurring from certain posters...
Glad to hear you were outraged at Bush Senior's attacking Saddam then, when he took Kuwait...
***You mean liberated Kuwait from its invaders? er...thats blindingly not appropriate. Further, the US gave up the territory which is stage two in why this example proves my point, not yours. Moving to the US has addled your argument skills. Soon you'll lose that fine accent and start talking like an American...
Modern, recent conquest is met with dismay. Most nations now try to operate with the notion that borders are now set and the 'days of conquest' are behind modern 'civilised' countries.
***Really? When? India and Pakistan have had how many wars over territory? Who controls Tibet now? Why are the Arab nations nervous about Iran-the historical empire maker- getting a Bomb? Why is Britain rattling sabres over the Falklands and vice versa? Everything has happened before and will happen again.
Also, see Scottish devolution, peace talks in Ulster and the Northern Ireland coalition government and the Welsh National Assembly...
***They are still part of Great Britain. Lancaster is still under the same roof as York. All were conquered by oe power or another.
I'll agree there's plenty of hypocrisy here, also a lack of knowledge on topic seems to be occurring from certain posters...
***Indeed.
Obama represents America, the Statue was given to Bush after 9/11 as a sign of British/American solidarity. Harking back to a time where America and Britain (obviously others too) stood side by side in difficult times. Him returning it for personal reasons is arrogant. 'I don't like Winston Churchill. Send it back.' As president he should be above such things.
Albatross wrote:The point is that modern day Brits are overwhelmingly descended from the same genetic stock as Boudicca would have been...
...But then we've been through this before on here, many times.
I had read that the Saxons were behind one of the most complete genetic assimilations in history; you are unlikely to find too much Celtic blood kicking about within your stock Englishman?
Normans mostly kept to their own stock and even when they did become naturalised, they assumed the role of the upper classes.
Yeah but Wales, Scotland and Ireland kinda made a social counter invasion some years later...
It is easy to find people with celtic blood anywhere in Britain.
Good! You can teach us manners, and we can teach you freedom!
As to Israel "invading and stealing" - really? Stealing it from whom? Criminal Syrian exiles put there and kept there by their muslim "brothers" as a ready source of martyrs and a political football? Does a nation lack the right to seize territory being used as a staging ground to attack its citizens? Those territories have been returned and retaken endlessly - because the people living there can't be trusted to live there in peace. They elected a terrorist organization as their government.
Frazzled wrote:
***You mean liberated Kuwait from its invaders? er...thats blindingly not appropriate. Further, the US gave up the territory which is stage two in why this example proves my point, not yours. Moving to the US has addled your argument skills. Soon you'll lose that fine accent and start talking like an American...
Why should the US have involved it's self in the natural assimilation of a weaker state by a stronger one? Why take on Iraq when you've just justified Israel's conquest of neighbouring territory?
Frazzled wrote:
***Really? When? India and Pakistan have had how many wars over territory? Who controls Tibet now? Why are the Arab nations nervous about Iran-the historical empire maker- getting a Bomb? Why is Britain rattling sabres over the Falklands and vice versa? Everything has happened before and will happen again.
I was referring to the last 30 years or so. The India Pakistan conflicts are climbing down and have been for a long time now. Tibet was taken in the 50s, before the Israeli border expansion.
Britain does not sabre rattle about the Falklands, Argentinian government or would bes sabre rattle about the Malvinas and then remember what happened last time they tried.
Frazzled wrote:
***They are still part of Great Britain. Lancaster is still under the same roof as York. All were conquered by oe power or another.
Lancaster has no desire to be a separate nation to York, the Celtic nations have all been afforded greater freedom and autonomy (with the exception of my beloved Cornwall) and yet still have governmental influence on the rule of England. There's a strong argument that they shouldn't have that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:Obama represents America, the Statue was given to Bush after 9/11 as a sign of British/American solidarity. Harking back to a time where America and Britain (obviously others too) stood side by side in difficult times. Him returning it for personal reasons is arrogant. 'I don't like Winston Churchill. Send it back.' As president he should be above such things.
And yet, strangely, he still seems to be offended by his granddad being tortured.
Why should the US have involved it's self in the natural assimilation of a weaker state by a stronger one? Why take on Iraq when you've just justified Israel's conquest of neighbouring territory?
1) Should the UK, France, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, blah blah have? Evidently there was some reason. Even the UN supported it.
2) Still doesn’t support your statement as Kuwait is not a part of the US.
Frazzled wrote:
***Really? When? India and Pakistan have had how many wars over territory? Who controls Tibet now? Why are the Arab nations nervous about Iran-the historical empire maker- getting a Bomb? Why is Britain rattling sabres over the Falklands and vice versa? Everything has happened before and will happen again.
I was referring to the last 30 years or so. The India Pakistan conflicts are climbing down and have been for a long time now.
***You must have missed the terrorism in India in the last few years, and of course both countries getting nukes.
Tibet was taken in the 50s
***Its still Chinese. The Dali Lama is still bitty bopping around outside of Tibet.
Britain does not sabre rattle about the Falklands,
***Bull fething gak it doesn’t.
Argentinian government or would bes sabre rattle about the Malvinas and then remember what happened last time they tried.
***Don’t push your luck Brit boy. The world has changed. If Brazil sides with them you’re fethed.
Lancaster has no desire to be a separate nation to York
***It was originally conquered. All terriroties in Britain were originally conquered as they amalgamated from tribes into nations. Your country was built on slaughter. Live it, learn it, love it, but don’t be hypocrticial about it.
purplefood wrote:Many countries were, Britain has had a history of invasions and in-fighting for over a thousand years.
I won't get into the Falkands...
Thats the point. Every country has a history of invasions, fighting, and infighting. Its what we do. Singling one country out is contraindicated, when it literally obtained those territories after other countries attacked it.
I hardly think that's the same thing - there are still Palistinians alive who can remember being forced out of their homes and businesses to make way for incoming Jews returning 'home' from Europe.
Wait, that situation sounds eerily familiar....
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Christ, people half-read an article about BRICs, and all of a sudden Brazil is some global power, ready to stomp all in their path...
The reality is, they still have a long way to go before they surpass the UK in terms of military power.
Albatross wrote:I hardly think that's the same thing - there are still Palistinians alive who can remember being forced out of their homes and businesses to make way for incoming Jews returning 'home' from Europe.
Wait, that situation sounds eerily familiar....
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Christ, people half-read an article about BRICs, and all of a sudden Brazil is some global power, ready to stomp all in their path...
The reality is, they still have a long way to go before they surpass the UK in terms of military power.
So what? Conquering is conquering. It doesn't matter when. They should have immediately annexed them (and Syria), but thats the topic for another thread.
Brazil. They would be on their own turf and you're having problems projecting power across the Mediterranean. This is what happens to the Brits. they get arrogant because of their ultimate doomsday weapon of Haggis, forgetting that its devilish powers are only effective on the British Isles (and strangely Pago Pago, hey I don't make this stuff up, I just write about).
Having said that Argentina is not going to make an issue of it.
Frazzled wrote:Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.
Well the U.N. hasn't told us to... and our acquisitions were perfectly legal at the time
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
purplefood wrote:Many countries were, Britain has had a history of invasions and in-fighting for over a thousand years.
I won't get into the Falkands...
Thats the point. Every country has a history of invasions, fighting, and infighting. Its what we do. Singling one country out is contraindicated, when it literally obtained those territories after other countries attacked it.
It's also a lot harder for us to turn our heads and ignore it when a (culturally?) European nation is responsible. Especially when said nation behaves like the power its constituents fled from. (Israeli marriage laws, anyone?)
Frazzled wrote:Why? -Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.
Well the U.N. hasn't told us to... and our acquisitions were perfectly legal at the time
It wasn't even Britain (Various foreign kings that eventually lost control of Britain) that did most of the conquering (of Britain), admittedly attempted rebellions were put down with extreme force (16 seperate Irish rebellions to date) Most of what we have now is staying put and a good deal gets home rule, though how much is a bit iffy...
Frazzled wrote:Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.
Well the U.N. hasn't told us to... and our acquisitions were perfectly legal at the time
"As always Ceasar, your word shall be law."
"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."
Frazzled wrote:Why?
-Britain isn't giving up Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the various shires. Its not even giving up the Falklands. few nations have ever given up land they conquered (US and Mother Russia being exceptions. Hypocrisy is mighty on this topic.
Well the U.N. hasn't told us to... and our acquisitions were perfectly legal at the time
"As always Ceasar, your word shall be law."
"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."
Curses, that quote from antiquity has succeeded in superseding my sense of modern international norms.
My best friend went through officer training for the submarines and said it was actually a lot harder/a closer match than people often realise (the Falklands that is).
Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.
Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.
Well no but it will make everything a touch more difficult and a fair sight more bloody i imagine...
Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.
So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.
Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly. I know its a horrible concept. You'll just have to console yourself with maintaining a world class economy, and be free from the constant colonial wars. Ask the Swiss, they are down with peace!
Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.
So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.
Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly.
What you mean we don't run the world anymore? Well observed. At least we managed 200+ years! You guys managed to make a hash of it within 60 years... Also, for future reference: don't become dangerously in debt to your main rivals.
Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.
So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.
Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly.
What you mean we don't run the world anymore? Well observed. At least we managed 200+ years! You guys managed to make a hash of it within 60 years... Also, for future reference: don't become dangerously in debt to your main rivals.
Son, Britain am disappoint.
Careful. Don't make us seize your country and sell the mortgage! France put in a bid last night...
Theirs appear to be second-hand French aircraft. Ours are state of the art. Irrelevant really, as they have zero in the way of force projection.
A sight more than you have baby.
Care to explain how? Or shall we just assume that you're talking out of your arse? Again.
Seriously, explain to me how a military with (as far as I can tell) no strategic bombing capability, one second-hand French carrier, no bases of any kind within several thousand miles of europe, and aircraft that were designed in the '70s, plans to strike the UK, or anywhere held by the UK for that matter?
Your idea of war seems to boil down to 'hurrr they has more mans!!' So what? It doesn't count for gak if they spend a third of the amount we do on defence, and have nowhere near the same capabilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.
So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.
Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly.
What you mean we don't run the world anymore? Well observed. At least we managed 200+ years! You guys managed to make a hash of it within 60 years... Also, for future reference: don't become dangerously in debt to your main rivals.
Son, Britain am disappoint.
Careful. Don't make us seize your country and sell the mortgage! France put in a bid last night...
The USA hasn't seized a country with any degree of effectiveness since... I want to say Japan, as Germany was partitioned. I'll rest easy, I think.
French aircraft...the ones with the bullseyes painted on them? Oooh, scary.
Also, learn something about the history and creation of Israel before you talk about "kicking people off the land to make way for Jews". The Hajs SOLD the land, because one piece of arid desert was much the same as the next to them. The Israelis irrigated and built it into something worthwhile - THEN it becaues "My People's ancestral laaaaaands!".
Oh, and those people there at the time (the ones who's leaders *sold* the land) were not "Palestinians". There hasn't been a "Palestine" in 3000 years. What you are calling Palestinians are largely Syrian exiles and (now) their kids. They were thrown out of their real "homeland" for being criminals and other kinds of undesirables. The Arab countries refused these refugees entry, and they squatted where they are now (where they became a hate-filled thorn in Israel's side). They are there at the behest of their muslim brothers, and have resisted naturalization violently and at all turns. If they were ANYWHERE else, they'd have been wiped out.
purplefood wrote:Brazil has 750 aircraft...
Britain has 1000 that are at a much much* higher standard
*by requisition of Alby
Some are. Some aren't. And how many are in the Western hemisphere?
Care to explain how? Or shall we just assume that you're talking out of your arse? Again.
Seriously, explain to me how a military with (as far as I can tell) no strategic bombing capability, one second-hand French carrier, no bases of any kind within several thousand miles of europe, and aircraft that were designed in the '70s, plans to strike the UK, or anywhere held by the UK for that matter?
Your idea of war seems to boil down to 'hurrr they has more mans!!' So what? It doesn't count for gak if they spend a third of the amount we do on defence, and have nowhere near the same capabilities.
***You have to come to them. The Falklands are on our side fo the pond, not yours. Absent you oblitereatedfiveminutesbeforethewarstarts air base you’re all alone on this side. No carriers, no advanced Aegis type ships. Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.
The USA hasn't seized a country with any degree of effectiveness since... I want to say Japan, as Germany was partitioned. I'll rest easy, I think.
Funny we kicked the crap out North Korea pretty well, fought China to a draw, defeated Serbia from the air, and obliterated Iraq 2-12 times. We just gave ‘em back up. In this instance, we just be turning over the keys for the note so we could burn the note in the Barbie.
I'm leaving this here, because Frazzled is getting into 'Yeah? Well, I fire my lazer!! Oh YEAH?! Well I've got a super force field that beats your lazer! PEW PEW PEW!' -schoolground nonsense.
However much you might want it to be the case, Brazil's military is not currently a match for the UKs, nor would they declare war on the UK at the behest of the Argentinians. This is all just fantasy talk. Boring.
Well he said if they were anywhere they would have been wiped out. This includes Wales, since it is a place and i don't think the Welsh would do that since they are very nice people with a strong tradition of hating the English (Only sensible really)
Albatross wrote:I'm leaving this here, because Frazzled is getting into 'Yeah? Well, I fire my lazer!! Oh YEAH?! Well I've got a super force field that beats your lazer! PEW PEW PEW!' -schoolground nonsense.
**Alby whines as he leaves the field to the victors. Viva America! LAALALALALALAALAL!!!
However much you might want it to be the case, Brazil's military is not currently a match for the UKs, nor would they declare war on the UK at the behest of the Argentinians. This is all just fantasy talk. Boring.
Unless Brazil is attempting to invade up the Thames it can handle itself just fine.
But of course its fantasy talk. Where the hell do you think you're posting? Its all fantasy talk here.
Oh and here's something you should be used to hearing from interactions with Latin America.
Albatross wrote:I'm leaving this here, because Frazzled is getting into 'Yeah? Well, I fire my lazer!! Oh YEAH?! Well I've got a super force field that beats your lazer! PEW PEW PEW!' -schoolground nonsense.
**Alby whines as he leaves the field to the victors. Viva America! LAALALALALALAALAL!!!
Albatross wrote:I'm leaving this here, because Frazzled is getting into 'Yeah? Well, I fire my lazer!! Oh YEAH?! Well I've got a super force field that beats your lazer! PEW PEW PEW!' -schoolground nonsense.
**Alby whines as he leaves the field to the victors. Viva America! LAALALALALALAALAL!!!
Frazzled wrote:
Funny we kicked the crap out North Korea pretty well
Wait, what did the 600,000 SK troops do?
Frazzled wrote:
, fought China to a draw,
Again, what did the 600,000 SK troops do?
Frazzled wrote:
defeated Serbia from the air,
What did the ~30,000 KLA insurgents do?
Frazzled wrote:
and obliterated Iraq 2-12 times.
Really? We obliterated Iraq? What did the other ~450,000 soldiers do?
No, the coalition did that, then the UK and the US maintained a no-fly zone, and then we invaded a seriously weakened nation, got stuck on the ground, and are presently trying our best to escape a stupid mistake. I don't see much obliteration there, certainly none related to the US alone.
I just want to give an amen to Voidangel's last post (& I don't even go to church!).
This so called "Palestenian People" thing is a media creation by a bunch of difficult people who were not wanted by Syria, Jordan or Lebanon (although the Lebanese got the worst of them).
Further the western world (U.S.A., U.K. & Europe) support of them & vilification of Israel is really just another form of the antisemitism so deeply rooted in Europe (& I'm not even Jewish!)
If we really want stability in the Middle East maybe we should support one of the few democratic, stable countries in that part of the world . . .
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
This so called "Palestenian People" thing is a media creation by a bunch of difficult people who were not wanted by Syria, Jordan or Lebanon (although the Lebanese got the worst of them).
So its a group of people that you're able to delineate easily, but will continue to marginalize because you:
A: Don't like them.
B: Like Israel.
C: Don't like the people who advocate this group of people, who are easily delineated, but are not allowed to have a proper name.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
If we really want stability in the Middle East maybe we should support one of the few democratic, stable countries in that part of the world . . .
Stable countries occupy territory and bomb targets in neighboring countries?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VoidAngel wrote: The Hajs SOLD the land, because one piece of arid desert was much the same as the next to them. The Israelis irrigated and built it into something worthwhile - THEN it becaues "My People's ancestral laaaaaands!".
There was a war that was almost entirely about driving people off of land, Arab, and Jewish. The war which made Israel a real thing. If you're going to lecture people on their knowledge of history, then you should probably know a few things about it.
And don't use the slur "haj", it isn't that hard.
VoidAngel wrote:
Oh, and those people there at the time (the ones who's leaders *sold* the land) were not "Palestinians".
They sold some land, land gets sold. They didn't sell all the land.
VoidAngel wrote:
There hasn't been a "Palestine" in 3000 years.
Ah, so that's the barometer of legitimacy, where has Israel been, then?
VoidAngel wrote:
What you are calling Palestinians are largely Syrian exiles and (now) their kids. They were thrown out of their real "homeland" for being criminals and other kinds of undesirables.
Really?
VoidAngel wrote:
The Arab countries refused these refugees entry, and they squatted where they are now (where they became a hate-filled thorn in Israel's side).
Wait, so they're refugees, and exiles? That's not possible.
VoidAngel wrote:
They are there at the behest of their muslim brothers, and have resisted naturalization violently and at all turns. If they were ANYWHERE else, they'd have been wiped out.
I made myself a drink because of this, just so you know.
Nothing you have said here is correct, and it saddens me to have read it.
@ Dogma, I have friends from Jordan, from Syria (only 2 though), and from Lebanon. I have heard their opinions of these "marginalized people". Many of the people forced out of Israel during that conflict have peacefully merged with the other nations and are no longer in the news. Those who would not do so were ejected from the kindly Islamic people who took them because of their actions.
If you have any friends from Lebanon that are not Palestinian, you will have hearc how poorly they have treated a peaceful country.
I don't particulary "like" Isreal any more than I worry about the futures of Malawi, Mongolia, or Belize, but if a neighboring people were perpetuating the terrorism and suicide bombing that the Palestinain people have, then I would want my government to "occupy land or bomb targets in foreign countries" to protect our citizens.
So Mr. Dogma, while I respect that you area an educated and intelligent person, I see things differently than you. I see alot of media antisemitism involved with the "downtrodden" Palestineans. Are innocents being hurt on both sides, yes. This is always unfortuante. I wish there could be peace in the area, but while I trust the Isreali government to control their populace, I have little faith in the new Palestinean government to do so.
I don't think their history for the past 30 years supports it. Believe it or not I have a few Palestinian friends, and thery are great people, but we don't talk politics
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:@ Dogma, I have friends from Jordan, from Syria (only 2 though), and from Lebanon. I have heard their opinions of these "marginalized people". Many of the people forced out of Israel during that conflict have peacefully merged with the other nations and are no longer in the news. Those who would not do so were ejected from the kindly Islamic people who took them because of their actions.
And? I never said that the Palestinians were good, laudable, or anything of that sort. I said that they're Palestinian, and that is their identity, and that they are marginalized. We marginalize criminals in the US, being a criminal does not mean that you are not marginalized.
You're saying the same thing right now you're just not willing to admit to it for reasons that I would love to have elaborated on.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
If you have any friends from Lebanon that are not Palestinian, you will have hearc how poorly they have treated a peaceful country.
I have several, and the ones that do say it speak in the same vein as those people that speak of Mexicans, Blacks, or Chinese in the US, so I only listen to them with great skepticism.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
I don't particulary "like" Isreal any more than I worry about the futures of Malawi, Mongolia, or Belize, but if a neighboring people were perpetuating the terrorism and suicide bombing that the Palestinain people have, then I would want my government to "occupy land or bomb targets in foreign countries" to protect our citizens.
You know that more people in Israel die of murder by Israeli citizens than die of foreign terrorism, right?
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
I wish there could be peace in the area, but while I trust the Isreali government to control their populace, I have little faith in the new Palestinean government to do so.
Why would you trust the Israelis to do that? One of their number killed their former President.
Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.
You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right? i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.
Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.
You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right? i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.
She has one or two...
They are hidden under those bearskin hats the Royal Guard wear...
Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.
You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right? i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.
She has one or two...
They are hidden under those bearskin hats the Royal Guard wear...
That's why they never smile! i imagine it's all they can do to keep from screaming!
Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.
You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right? i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.
She has one or two...
They are hidden under those bearskin hats the Royal Guard wear...
That's why they never smile! i imagine it's all they can do to keep from screaming!
It's actually a maniacal laugh...
They are quite insane, you think you guys play games trying to get them to smile?
It's actually them playing games with you trying to get you to come close enough so they can lick you...
You display your lack of sophistication on the subject in no clearer possible way than when you misinterpret my use of the word 'Haj' as a racial slur.
'Haj' refers to a holy leader - one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, and therefore speaks for his people (tribe) and can *negotiate* on their behalf and for their welfare.
In this context, one of those who sold the now contested lands.
Frazzled wrote:
1) Should the UK, France, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, blah blah have? Evidently there was some reason. Even the UN supported it.
Perhaps because there is an international norm predicated on the sanctity of sovereignty, it might even be in the charter of a major international organization, maybe even the one mentioned above.
Frazzled wrote:
Really? When? India and Pakistan have had how many wars over territory? Who controls Tibet now? Why are the Arab nations nervous about Iran-the historical empire maker- getting a Bomb? Why is Britain rattling sabres over the Falklands and vice versa? Everything has happened before and will happen again.
Wait, so a claim to "most" is now "refuted" with specifics?
I dare say that is something called a "hasty generalization".
Frazzled wrote:
You must have missed the terrorism in India in the last few years, and of course both countries getting nukes.
Wait, the terrorism in India was sponsored by the Pakistani government? That would be big news if true, I'm sure many people would pay handsomely for that evidence.
Frazzled wrote:
Bull fething gak it doesn’t.
Such eloquence, such tact.
Frazzled wrote:
Don’t push your luck Brit boy. The world has changed. If Brazil sides with them you’re fethed.
Yes, and if Canada sides with Mexico, so is the US. You can't just put two countries together and call it an argument, not if you're interested in being sensible.
Frazzled wrote:
It was originally conquered. All terriroties in Britain were originally conquered as they amalgamated from tribes into nations. Your country was built on slaughter. Live it, learn it, love it, but don’t be hypocrticial about it.
You can very easily claim that past action X is wrong while living in the present place in which said action was perpetrated without being hypocritical. Unless, of course, Fraz is endorsing all those murders on the Southern border of Texas.
Frazzled: You must have missed the terrorism in India in the last few years, and of course both countries getting nukes.
Dogma: Wait, the terrorism in India was sponsored by the Pakistani government? That would be big news if true, I'm sure many people would pay handsomely for that evidence.
What planet do you live on, Dogma. Jebus - try to pay *minimal* attention!
You display your lack of sophistication on the subject in no clearer possible way than when you misinterpret my use of the word 'Haj' as a racial slur.
'Haj' refers to a holy leader - one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, and therefore speaks for his people (tribe) and can *negotiate* on their behalf and for their welfare.
No, that word is Hajji, as in one who has made the Hajj. Hajji are not given automatic authority to speak for their tribe, in fact they very well may not have a tribe, though often those who speak for their tribe are Hajji.
The way that you used haj is a slur for stolen goods, and brown people.
VoidAngel wrote:
In this context, one of those who sold the now contested lands.
Please pronounce 'Haj' and 'Hajj' for me - and make there be qualitative difference. Oh, wait - you can't. Spot me a 'j' and try to hold up your end of a conversation without resorting to semantics to score points.
VoidAngel wrote:
What planet do you live on, Dogma. Jebus - try to pay *minimal* attention!
I'm still waiting for evidence.
VoidAngel wrote:Please pronounce 'Haj' and 'Hajj' for me - and make there be qualitative difference. Oh, wait - you can't. Spot me a 'j' and try to hold up your end of a conversation without resorting to semantics to score points.
My entire claim, that you used a racial slur, is based on semantics; semantics being matters of the meaning and usage of words.
When you say that the Hajji did X, and you aren't talking about the entire set of people who completed the Hajj, then you are clearly just using a slur against at least Muslims people. Its like someone saying that the Rabbis did X when talking about Israel, and not just Rabbis.
No, you are attempting to make it look that way - and you are failing. Go by the definition I offered. "A one who has completed the pilgrimage" and not your imaginary racial slur (which would be "Haji" - by the way).
VoidAngel wrote:No, you are attempting to make it look that way - and you are failing. Go by the definition I offered. "A one who has completed the pilgrimage" and not your imaginary racial slur (which would be "Haji" - by the way).
Actually, Haji, Hajji, and Hadji are all considered acceptable transliterations; though I'm just going by what you wrote. Though I should also say that I wouldn't transliterate the word with only one J, as that would necessitate a sharp A as in "had", which is an incorrect pronunciation.
In any case, your claim is that all the people who completed the Hajj sold all the presently contested territory to Israel?
Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.
You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right? i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.
She has one or two...
They are hidden under those bearskin hats the Royal Guard wear...
No those are the aformentioned Haggis grenades, in case of Martian attack. The Martians made it to London in their tripods before the discovery of Haggis Bombs. The Queen, Black Watch, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the Silver Beatles have been on guard ever since.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Their Embraers drop cruise missiles. Their older French ships drop cruise missiles. Their Migs drop cruise missiles. Plus China has a vested interest and would be more than happy to sell them the latest in missile and aircraft toys…for a small fee.
You do know that the Queen has a few cruise missles laying around herself, right? i think you're arguing just hear yourself type. it would be a quick fight, that the UK would win.
Finally, someone figured it out. Now I am freed !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VoidAngel wrote:I agree. "My rumba is better than yours - give me Algeria!"
Thailand would be a regional power, but again Brazil would dominate and uber pwon alles. Jeez its a cultural obsession to them, and win for everyone else. They've planned for this contingency for decades.
And now to seize on the excuse to again bring you...Samba!!!
Theirs appear to be second-hand French aircraft. Ours are state of the art. Irrelevant really, as they have zero in the way of force projection.
A sight more than you have baby.
Care to explain how? Or shall we just assume that you're talking out of your arse? Again.
Seriously, explain to me how a military with (as far as I can tell) no strategic bombing capability, one second-hand French carrier, no bases of any kind within several thousand miles of europe, and aircraft that were designed in the '70s, plans to strike the UK, or anywhere held by the UK for that matter?
Your idea of war seems to boil down to 'hurrr they has more mans!!' So what? It doesn't count for gak if they spend a third of the amount we do on defence, and have nowhere near the same capabilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:Are you under the impression that we will go to war with Argentina tomorrow? Next year? I don't think so, largely because Aircraft Carrier or no, we have an airforce base within striking distance of their capital city.
So thats the first target that goes boom. Got it.
Nope, just don't get your UK butt uppity. Its a new century and in the game of global world domination, you've slipped, badly.
What you mean we don't run the world anymore? Well observed. At least we managed 200+ years! You guys managed to make a hash of it within 60 years... Also, for future reference: don't become dangerously in debt to your main rivals.
Son, Britain am disappoint.
Careful. Don't make us seize your country and sell the mortgage! France put in a bid last night...
The USA hasn't seized a country with any degree of effectiveness since... I want to say Japan, as Germany was partitioned. I'll rest easy, I think.
Why should the US want to seize any countries? They learned not to do that with the Philippines... sorry, but economic dependence and control along with American corporations in ownership of an entire hemisphere is generally the way to go with neo-colonialism; we just need to catch up... Whilst Brits were dying in the Boer wars, good ol' Teddy Roosevelt was giggling.
VoidAngel wrote:No, you are attempting to make it look that way - and you are failing. Go by the definition I offered. "A one who has completed the pilgrimage" and not your imaginary racial slur (which would be "Haji" - by the way).
Actually, Haji, Hajji, and Hadji are all considered acceptable transliterations; though I'm just going by what you wrote. Though I should also say that I wouldn't transliterate the word with only one J, as that would necessitate a sharp A as in "had", which is an incorrect pronunciation.
In any case, your claim is that all the people who completed the Hajj sold all the presently contested territory to Israel?
No, Twisty McTwisterson - most of the original territory was purchased from tribal leaders. Some of the current territory was siezed from murdering scum as a security measure. When it's given back, murdering scum show up and use it to murder some more. For this reason, it should be kept. Now, if the muslims could police their own like every other culture...then there'd be no problem.
VoidAngel wrote:
No, Twisty McTwisterson - most of the original territory was purchased from tribal leaders.
Yes, by the British, the British then developed the partition, which the Israelis ignored out of legitimate fear for their own safety creating what is now called the Occupied Territory; which itself makes up the majority of the seriously contested land.
VoidAngel wrote:
Some of the current territory was siezed from murdering scum as a security measure.
I see. So when Palestinians kill Israelis they are "murdering scum" but when Israelis kill Palestinians they are not? Considering how the conflict is rather messy, and a legitimate conflict between groups of people is not usually said to feature murder (Do US soldiers murder Iraqis because we invaded Iraq?) this seems an awful like a personal bias against Palestinians. We have certain word for that, and it isn't flattering.
VoidAngel wrote:
When it's given back, murdering scum show up and use it to murder some more. For this reason, it should be kept. Now, if the muslims could police their own like every other culture...then there'd be no problem.
Wait, the Muslims? So you blame Muslims, as a whole, for the Palestinians? Does this include Israeli Muslims? Indonesian Muslims? Are you sure you don't mean to blame the Palestinians? Perhaps you meant to blame Arabs?
Perhaps you're engaging in that unflattering word I mentioned earlier.
Melissia wrote:Saying oxygen isn't flammable is misleading. Oxygen is the main reason that things catch on fire in the first place, as without it, the overwhelming majority of combustion reactions-- IE, fire-- wouldn't work.
Oxygen isn't a fuel source like oil, paper, wood, gas, etc those are flammable materials not oxygen. Although without oxygen and heat a fire doesn't start.
VoidAngel wrote:When you strap on a bomb and blow up a cafe full of civilians, that's murder - not war.
Really? What about when you drop fire bombs on many buildings of differing purpose full of civilians, as the Allies did during WWII and the US did during Vietnam. Is that not murder because we used planes? Or is it possible that the context of the action, a sustained and easily observable conflict between two bodies of people, changes the nature of the action in question?
VoidAngel wrote:
When you put a bomb in your kid's backpack and put him on a bus full of Jewish kids, that's murder too.
Why is the Jewishness of the kids relevant? Attacks by the various militant groups of Palestinian origin have killed plenty of Muslim Israelis, was that not murder?
VoidAngel wrote:
When you do this because you hate people who believe something different than you, it's still murder.
You must have a really, really dim view of the the world's armed forces then. The Vietnam conflict, in particular is probably a sore spot.
VoidAngel wrote:
Are you not paying attention, or just denying reality and saying islam plays no part?
No, I'm explaining to why what you're saying is stupid, and bigoted in equal measure. You're calling an entire group of people murderers, while absolving their opposition of a similar standard of criticism and further arguing that because there are other groups of Muslims in the world they can further be regarded as responsible for the actions of this particular groups of Muslims.
Islam plays a role in the conflict, of course, just as Judaism does, but saying that all Muslims, or all Jews, must act to control the actions of all Muslims, and all Jews is just blatantly ridiculous; especially when you're only talking about Muslims, and not Jews, Christians, Hindus, and any other group of faith holding people.
VoidAngel wrote:
How does telling the truth make me a bigot?
Because you very clearly called the Palestinian people "A bunch of murdering scum" a phrase that, if the word "Palestinian people" were replaced with the phrase "black people" a lot of people would be quite shocked.
You display your lack of sophistication on the subject in no clearer possible way than when you misinterpret my use of the word 'Haj' as a racial slur.
'Haj' refers to a holy leader - one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, and therefore speaks for his people (tribe) and can *negotiate* on their behalf and for their welfare.
In this context, one of those who sold the now contested lands.
That's not true.
A hajji is someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca.
This entitles the person to respect but it is in no way a promotion to a position of religious or social leadership.
A religious leader is an imam or ayatollah.
Religious leadership =/= social leadership in muslim society.
A sheikh, emir, sultan or caliph is a social leader.
Dogma and you few others that don't seem to be reading me right:
"Because you very clearly called the Palestinian people "A bunch of murdering scum" a phrase that, if the word "Palestinian people" were replaced with the phrase "black people" a lot of people would be quite shocked."
No, I clearly did not. I said there were murdering scum amongst the palestinians, not that the palestinians are all murdering scum. Ditto 'muslims'.
Read what I wrote, not what you want me to have said. Your tactics are obvious and fooling no-one but others like yourself, who already agree with no matter what facts are presented to them. You can't paint me the way you are trying to - but you HAVE painted a very clear picture of yourself.
@Killcrazy,
"'Haj' refers to a holy leader - one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, and therefore speaks for his people (tribe) and can *negotiate* on their behalf and for their welfare.
In this context, one of those who sold the now contested lands.
(Killkrazy) That's not true.
A hajji is someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca."
Both are true. In the context of the events I was speaking of, the tribal leaders who sold the land had also made the pilgrimage. If they are better referred to by a different honorific - fine, this is not relevant to the point of the conversation: that those lands were fairly purchased.
VoidAngel wrote:
No, I clearly did not. I said there were murdering scum amongst the palestinians, not that the palestinians are all murdering scum. Ditto 'muslims'.
You wrote this:
VoidAngel wrote:
Some of the current territory was siezed from murdering scum as a security measure.
The territory that was seized was, until large parts of it were recently given back, the entirety of the OT. This statement implies that all the inhabitants of the OT, the vast majority Palestinians in the world (excepting only expats), are murdering scum.
VoidAngel wrote:
Read what I wrote, not what you want me to have said.
I did.
VoidAngel wrote:
Your tactics are obvious and fooling no-one but others like yourself, who already agree with no matter what facts are presented to them. You can't paint me the way you are trying to - but you HAVE painted a very clear picture of yourself.
If you had presented facts in lieu of racist rants and deliberate ignorance of history, then I wouldn't be engaging with you in this manner. But, well, here we are.
VoidAngel wrote:
...that those lands were fairly purchased.
The land that Jewish immigrants purchased was primarily located along the coast, and in low lying areas, and was the basis on which the 1947 partition plan was drawn up. Jewish ownership of the West Bank and Gaza was minimal, and those lands were effectively held by whomever the British sold them to as they were preparing for the end of their colonial mandate.
Moreover, the majority of land which was purchased by Jewish immigrants was purchased from foreign land holders, about 50%, with only about 25% being purchased from Palestinians. So the claim that Palestinian leaders sold the disputed territory, even where "disputed territory" is taken to mean all land under Israeli control, is incorrect.
It is the height of arrogance and dishonesty when you will tell another person what they meant - just shore up your own indefensible position.
I've explain what I said AND what I meant - and you are arguing with me! That's hilarious.
Lastly, there WERE NO "PALESTINIANS" at the time of Israel's creation! HADN'T BEEN for millennia. The land was purchased from tribal leaders (mostly) - who SOLD it willingly. They only wanted it back when it had been turned into something. The 'palestinians' arrived afterward - a group of exile and criminals mostly from Syria. They refused entry or refugee status by the muslim countries precisely to cause the kind of conflict they have, and to present the problem that they do. This should earn them and their unfortunate progeny sympathy - but these people have a history of accepting an olive branch - and then using it as a bludgeon. Witness the lack of cooperation identifying the minority of troublemakers among them. Witness the election of heinous terrorist organization as their government. These things are factual and true - and your refusal to acknowledge them is both telling and suspicious.
VoidAngel wrote:It is the height of arrogance and dishonesty when you will tell another person what they meant - just shore up your own indefensible position.
I've explain what I said AND what I meant - and you are arguing with me! That's hilarious.
No, you're telling me what you intended to mean on the basis of what you said. I have no reason to believe that you're being honest. I don't know you from Adam. All I know is that you said something which is objectionable, and that you are attempting to clarify that statement. That's fine, and part of the process that is conversation, but nothing else you have said here makes me want to believe you when you say something tantamount to "I am not a bigot."
Additionally, you haven't explained, to paraphrase, "seized from murdering scum" in any fashion.
VoidAngel wrote:
Lastly, there WERE NO "PALESTINIANS" at the time of Israel's creation! HADN'T BEEN for millennia.
No one cares. The legitimacy of group identity is not predicated on historical precedent alone. This is obvious to anyone who has spent even a day studying history.
There were no Americans at the time of the creation of America either, so clearly we're all murderers who owe a debt to the British crown.
VoidAngel wrote:
The land was purchased from tribal leaders (mostly) - who SOLD it willingly.
No, not at all, all academic research on the topic contradicts what you're saying. Either you're a racist, or you're incompetent. There are no other options.
VoidAngel wrote:
They refused entry or refugee status by the muslim countries precisely to cause the kind of conflict they have, and to present the problem that they do.
No gak! Its because they want to live on the land they were removed from.
VoidAngel wrote:
These things are factual and true - and your refusal to acknowledge them is both telling and suspicious.
I haven't refused to acknowledge anything, if either of us is guilty of that its you. I have, repeatedly, pointed out where the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have been at fault. The difference is that I don't dispute their legitimacy as a result, because I have no emotional stake here, outside of a pretense to factual information and reason.
This is why I hate, and love, these arguments. The vast majority of people involved lose their head and become irrationally defensive as soon as either side is mentioned. Its like a damn sports match, but with death.
I have a long and glorious history of recognizing when I've wasted too much time on someone incapable and unworthy of further attempts at conversation. I've reached that point with you; and rather than throw around cheap insults like you have - I'll leave other readers to judge your honesty and character.
VoidAngel wrote:I have a long and glorious history of recognizing when I've wasted too much time on someone incapable and unworthy of further attempts at conversation.
I did not realize that calling a large group of people murderers was an invitation to civility. Perhaps I have been wrong all these years to begin with "hello."
VoidAngel wrote:
I've reached that point with you; and rather than throw around cheap insults like you have - I'll leave other readers to judge your honesty and character.
Oh no, they aren't cheap, if they were cheap I would have said "Racist!" at your first post. I didn't, I gave you a chance, and this is your self-acquittal.
