Terrorist tries to blow up plane over Detroit.

Tomasello said:
It's a medical fact that everyone is technically full of shit. Just some more than others.



Not even going to rebut the "It's all the jews fault they are America's puppet masters after all" comment. That kind of liberal radicalism speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

So to double check we have a nation's president/leader saying crap like that(you don't even have to believe it's accurate), claiming that the US president is their bitch and that they ordered him to remove the secretary of state from a UN vote because she wasn't going to do what they wanted,whom has conspired and committed acts of terrorism vs the US that they ADMIT doing and recently publicly honored the people involved as heroes for committing a terror plot against the US, etc ,etc,65 UN resolutions against it , which is smack dab in the middle of tensions for an entire region and it's not even important to be concerned about? Such statements made publicly will have no effect on the other nations/people's attitudes towards the US?
Oh yeah. here's the wiki link to the terrorist attacks I mentioned and the part where they admitted it and praised the people whom tried to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair#Legacy
 
Khajit...

Leaving the Lavon Affair aside. Because, well, it was 50+ years ago, and anybody with any brains already knew that the Israelis pulled tricks like that back in those days, largely because they saw their survival as a nation to be a matter of some serious uncertainty.

Your sources are, well, bad. Inaccurate. Deliberately misleading. A cursory cross-check of the information they provide to you will reveal that.

For example. The supposed "Jews control America" quote? Published by exactly one "news" agency. Care to guess which one?

That's right, the Islamic Association for Palestine.

Who are basically a fundraising front for Hamas.

Could you possibly see how that particular report might be somewhat politically skewed?

Or as is the more commonly held opinion, outright fabricated for political reasons?
 
Care to explain the rest away? Be sure to include how the New york times is biased and anti semetic for reporting what Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said about how he ordered the US president to Make Condelizza Rice abstain from a UN vote. Yet again even taking the path of it being a lie by the prime minister why isnt it worthy of any concern that he's running around claiming that? The list of UN resolutions on wikipedia are all doctored and spondered by Hamas right?
And did you seriously just imply that terrorism is ok if you think the outcome is positive for the side you're on or you think the survival of your nation is tenous? Palestine's survival as a nation seems kinda tenuous right now with that whole blockade of the entire nation thing, does that mean it would be ok for Hamas to attack a random country in an attempt to trick X country into thinking Israel did it? In 40 years is it going to be ok for some middle east countries to delcare national osama day because sept 11 was old news?
 
Last edited:
Khajit said:
And did you seriously just imply that terrorism is ok if you think the outcome is positive for the side you're on or you think the survival of your nation is tenous? Palestine's survival as a nation seems kinda tenuous right now with that whole blockade of the entire nation thing, does that mean it would be ok for Hamas to attack a random country in an attempt to trick X country into thinking Israel did it? In 40 years is it going to be ok for some middle east countries to delcare national osama day because sept 11 was old news?
Click to expand...

He implied nothing of the sort, and you bleeding well know it.

Likewise, the rest are ridiculous comparisons, and I thought you knew better than that, Khajit...
 
Histrionics, how delightful.

The State Department refuted Olmert's claim, and expressed displeasure through diplomatic channels.

The list of UN Resolutions violated by both sides in this conflict is varied and extensive.

Attacking me doesn't alter the fact that you are naturally credulous regarding sources that pander to your particular predisposed views on the topic.

And no, I did not say that terrorism is "ok". I said that 50 years ago, Israel thought it was okay to do pretty much whatever it took to ensure the survival of their nation.
 
Was your source claiming that the quote I'd had was falsified the organization CAMERA which is what turned up when I looked first and most often?
Several editors from there were apparently banned from Wikipedia or middle east articles for conspiring to secretly alter information in may 2008. They've also accused Israel's leading newspaper as being antisemitic so your sources don't exactly seem unbiased either.
 
Nope.

It took all of a simple Google search to locate the source of the quote, then a second search on the IAP to come to that conclusion all on my own.

See, I have this tendency to not believe everything I read. If I find a website with an obvious agenda (like pretty much every "source" you've quoted so far), I especially mistrust whatever it is that they're saying, and tend to try and verify the material from a more trusted source.

You might want to try it. It's enlightening.
 
So once you saw the organization which gave the quote you didn't then follow up on the organization which disproved the quote(camera) to see that it was banned from wikipedia for the reasons previously mentioned. There's even a nice long discussion page on wiki where they were deciding what to do about it, verified the emails(which is how the fact that the group existed was leaked) were true and you can download said emails to see such wonderful things like a person being commended for being "anti-islamic." Truly an impartial source eh?
 
Last edited:
Uh... I didn't have to follow up on Camera, since I didn't pay any attention to them.

What part of this is difficult for you to understand?

I find it entertaining that you'll believe a Hamas mouthpiece who makes a statement that not one single reputable source ever heard, and that the supposed sources of the statement outright deny, and take their statements as gospel, but then have the outright fucking GALL to attack other sources as biased.
 
Tristam Green said:
Likewise, the rest are ridiculous comparisons, and I thought you knew better than that, Khajit...
Click to expand...

Far left liberal zealots are direct supporters of terrorist organizations like Hamas and hate Israel.

I hope this isn't news to some of you.....
 
Last edited:
Not news to me. I get their newsletter and march in their parade every year. /eyeroll
 
Halifirien said:
Not news to me. I get their newsletter and march in their parade every year. /eyeroll
Click to expand...

Well at least you admit your a zealot though I get the feeling that's not the kind of parade you like to march in.
 
Doesn't really matter how I label myself; I figure I meet your requirements for being called a far left liberal zealot.
 
Halifirien said:
Doesn't really matter how I label myself; I figure I meet your requirements for being called a far left liberal zealot.
Click to expand...

Hating Jews and blaming them for the world's problems is left wing zealotry. Whether you think that applies to you is your call.
 
Valandil said:
Hitler and the Nazi regime was as far right as anyone can possibly be.
Click to expand...

ummm.... false. National SOCIALIST party, ring a bell?

not to mention it was the American "progressives" that had a hardon for the guy(and mussolini) before that whole WWII thing started.
 
Last edited:
Thelona said:
ummm.... false. National SOCIALIST party, ring a bell?

not to mention it was the American "progressives" that had a hardon for the guy(and mussolini) before that whole WWII thing started.
Click to expand...

Mussolini was a fascist.
Hitler was a racist who attempted to twist socialism into a form of fascism, and failed. All he could do was provide the Germans with a scapegoat for thirty years' worth of economic woe.

People, try to get your historical facts in line before speaking.

I implore you.
 
I think maybe the one who calls Hitler and the nazi party "right wing" need to get their historical facts inline.

I never denied he was a racist or fascist, but he wasn't anywhere near the "right wing"


Personally I think comparing any modern American politician or party to the nazi party is a good way of making yourself look like a dipshit.

(not even sure what your getting at here, I hope its not that Hitler was right wing, if so, I'm surprised in you Tristam)
 
Last edited:
Thelona said:
I think maybe the one who calls Hitler and the nazi party "right wing" need to get their historical facts inline.

I never denied he was a racist or fascist, but he wasn't anywhere near the "right wing"


Personally I think comparing any modern American politician or party to the nazi party is a good way of making yourself look like a dipshit.

(not even sure what your getting at here, I hope its not that Hitler was right wing, if so, I'm surprised in you Tristam)
Click to expand...

You do know where Fascism is on the political spectrum, right? I think you should go and research Hitler before you class him as "left", or even "right." Go and read about the classifications for being "left wing", and see if it fits in with Hitler. I'll give you a clue: he might be neither.

Edit, I can't be assed getting into a long debate, so I'll cut it short.

Let's plump for wiki, it's first on the list.

Left wing: Support for social change? You could say that, lol. Hitler fits in there.

Creating a more Egalitarian society. Creating - a more - Egalitarian - society. Egalitarian, so you don't have to google it, basically means everyone treated as equals. Hitler. Equality. Hitler. Equality. Aryan. Equality. No. Hitler Left Wing? Not really.

So, we're left with Right Wing's definition: Support for preserving traditional social orders. No. Was Hitler conservative? Um...no.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top