30 days
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
spike said:
Cause no matter what we say everything in here is opinion.
now I see it as good vs. evil, strictly opinion.
I see it as a country defending itself by all means necessary, because another country is harbouring (or at least allowing to exist) a terrorist organization.
But in real life I see it the same way, if someone is attacking my loved ones and they only way to get rid of them is to get them out of a house, I will ask the people inside to kick them out, if they refuse I will burn down the house, and everyone inside. I may be doing a despicable act, but it has a vaild reason behind it, and in the end is saving me and mine. and saving me and mine is a good thing.
We're not a place in which we need to provide linkage and footnotes for every post we make. If you don't believe something someone wrote, see if they can/will back it up, ignore it, or prove it wrong. If you can contradict those statements with mainstream media from any country, more power to you. Please do. It can only add to the discussion at hand.spike said:
We as a website will tolerate opinion for the most part up to the point we would consider it hate-speech. That we can and will not accept, tongue-in-cheek, solely to prove a point, or not. Statements like "All "people of a race/religion/countryoforigin" are or do "...." are inaccurate and inciteful.
Like I said, I don't believe that Gonz's post on terrorists in this thread needs to change. I do not believe that it could be classed as hate-speech. He did not make a statement about a group based solely on their religion or race, or country of origin. He made an entirely rational and logical statement about a group of people who do or intend to commit crimes against humanity. If it can be shown to be inaccurate, cool beans.
As far as the backup question goes...there are posts after which people will say - I don't believe you - back that up - and it's optional whether you bother.
Text copied and pasted require links, otherwise it's plagiarism. That's something we'll expect to be done, and we'll require it/delete posts without links.
Jews eat babies - back it up with a solid link, or edit it, or it's going to be deleted.
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
spike said:
exactly!
that is all this place it is words.
you see it one way, I see it another, neither of us are gonna change our minds.
If I burnt down a house to get to one man (who was gonna kill my family) you would see me as a criminal, my family and family of my family would not.
as to backing things up, if you state something as a fact, you should back it up, if you don't it is just an opinion, and yes people will say it's a fact, with no back-up, and yes it is annoying. I agree with you there. Is it a fact that Israel is good and the others are evil, nope, just an opinion.
Now If I say the reason Israel bombed target A was they where harbouring guys with missles, and while target A was a hospital it was justified, then I will back it up with either a news report, or it was common knowledge by the time I posted it. Then we can talk about Target A as a vaild taget or not.
spike
New Member
Like I said, I don't believe that Gonz's post on terrorists in this thread needs to change.
Ok, if you don't think classifying a bunch of Iraqis fighting a foreign invader as terrorists raising their kids to hate Jews as hate speech then so be it. I think that "terrorist" word gets thrown around pretty loosely.
Again, for the record I didn't mean "ALL" I meant it like "Jews teach their children to hate too". Like if I say "Dogs crap on my lawn" doesn't mean all dogs.
Please let me know if any of these qualify as "Statements like "All "people of a race/religion/countryoforigin" are or do" type statements.
The radicals that live in the palestinain region of Syria, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia & Israel attack civilians as a matter of cource & record...ala terrorists.
You think a group of unwanted goat herders living in a region named by Rome but under the control of anybody but them has a right to attack a duly recognized & legal country but said country has no right to protect its language, borders & culture?
Israel is in the right. Palestine does not exist.
It very much is good vs bad. A nation, accepting peoples from all lands, using established democratic principles & controlled particapatory capitalism is under seige & attack by terrorists
The Palestinians are nothing but an unwanted group of Arab desert wanderers who are a convenient tool for those in power.
one of the Arab nations (or their Persian cousins) always attacks the Jews. They just needed to re-arm.
The UN hates Israel.
sells weapons & technolgy to a friendly, successful, democratic nation, that is surrounded by Arab nations with a beef against Jews.
aid nation has, several times, beaten back attacks by those unfriendly, violent nations.
Countries that are run by people who don't view suicide as a bad thing (and if it involves taking out an enemy, it's a good thing, and encouraged)
the only good Arab is a dead Arab better dead than Red or wearin' a turban
Ok, if you don't think classifying a bunch of Iraqis fighting a foreign invader as terrorists raising their kids to hate Jews as hate speech then so be it. I think that "terrorist" word gets thrown around pretty loosely.
Leslie said:
Again, for the record I didn't mean "ALL" I meant it like "Jews teach their children to hate too". Like if I say "Dogs crap on my lawn" doesn't mean all dogs.
Please let me know if any of these qualify as "Statements like "All "people of a race/religion/countryoforigin" are or do" type statements.
The radicals that live in the palestinain region of Syria, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia & Israel attack civilians as a matter of cource & record...ala terrorists.
You think a group of unwanted goat herders living in a region named by Rome but under the control of anybody but them has a right to attack a duly recognized & legal country but said country has no right to protect its language, borders & culture?
Israel is in the right. Palestine does not exist.
It very much is good vs bad. A nation, accepting peoples from all lands, using established democratic principles & controlled particapatory capitalism is under seige & attack by terrorists
The Palestinians are nothing but an unwanted group of Arab desert wanderers who are a convenient tool for those in power.
one of the Arab nations (or their Persian cousins) always attacks the Jews. They just needed to re-arm.
The UN hates Israel.
sells weapons & technolgy to a friendly, successful, democratic nation, that is surrounded by Arab nations with a beef against Jews.
aid nation has, several times, beaten back attacks by those unfriendly, violent nations.
Countries that are run by people who don't view suicide as a bad thing (and if it involves taking out an enemy, it's a good thing, and encouraged)
the only good Arab is a dead Arab better dead than Red or wearin' a turban
I can, and will if need be, find the reasoning behind each & every one of those UN wristslappings & put them in perspective. I doubt anyone would read it. Why? Because noone cares that much.
FOr the record
Hizballah Charter
I have very strong opinions & will back them up with a reasonable factual base. (in fact, HAVE backed them up is more accurate)
Don't make me do all that work.
FOr the record
Hizballah Charter
I have very strong opinions & will back them up with a reasonable factual base. (in fact, HAVE backed them up is more accurate)
Don't make me do all that work.
spike
New Member
Gonz said:
Even though I was responding to your statement you weren't one of the people to jump all over my post. So it wouldn't probably wouldn't be fair to ask you to go back and do all that work IMHO.
It'd be nice to get an explanation of my examples from the people who did get on my back.
spike
New Member
We will work on the strong and efficient continuation of the Resistance until our occupied land is completely liberated and restored to the national sovereignty, until our people in the occupied strip are released and able to secure a free honorable decent living away from any direct or indirect presence of the usurping Zionists.
That actually sounds pretty frickin reasonable.
That actually sounds pretty frickin reasonable.
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
spike said:
the fight isn't about land, it's about religion
spike said:
Those who see both sides, then pick one, use a thing called judgement. Those who think that violence is unnecessary to maintain freedom should pull their head from the sand.
These people want that piece of dirt because they chose to give it up & somebody else wanted it. Like litle children. Had Saudia Arabia claimed it, wholly, there'd be no fight. Instead, the UN (hey look, its them again) worked out a deal that the local (and historically regional) Jewish tribe could have part of that area & the local (and histoically regional) Arabs could have the other part. Well, the Jews were happy & the nomadic Arabs said, "not just no but Hell No."
Ever since then the Arabs have been mad. However, until a new faction of fundamental Islam started convincing the noamdic tribe that they got screwed, they just called each other names. Once that happened the nomadic Arabs, using nomad tendencies, hopped aboard an airplane, flew to Germany & murdered several Israeli Olympic athletes. That escalated matters. Then, the fundy Islamic radicals took over Iran & our President, in a career ending & world class fuck up, did nothing to stop them. He even went so far as to open dialogue with the worst terrorists in teh region-at the time-Syria. The rest is modern history that you can catch by watching Dan Blather & Katie Couric expound NY Times lies.
