[Mnesymone]

Salad - about that peacefully christianised thing I was talking about the Dark Ages... before Muhammad's time even. The Crusades were neither peaceful nor did they Christianise the area, and they were a good deal later. And I know that the Ottomans overran the area but they were content to, once in a position of power, leave the racial and religious makeup of Palestine alone.
And if you check, a large number of the Jews who arrived in Europe were hardcore or Zealotic groups who were unable to adapt to the religious transformation of their homeland. Don't bloody call me an anti-semite just because I didn't say 'fleeing religious persecution' or whatever it was you were looking for. I'd also like to point out that just because I seem to be arguing against you, I'm not arguing alongside JM - because I still don't agree with his 'Zionist' label and his admiration for Palestinian paramilitaries.

[Renegade]

1: Jeebus man it's just a title, I refer to His Excellency The President of Palestine in the same way. If honoring people who oppose imperialism bothers you it's probably because you're an imperialist.

It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with someone, its just rather odd for me to call someone "his excellency". I like FDR a bunch but I don't call him "his godliness".

2: The burden of proof lies upon you. Prove that it ISNT illegal to starve Cuban citizens for no good reason and against international wishes. I see no reason why it wouldnt be.

LMAO.. do you know how law and order works? I don't have to PROVE someone is innocent, you have to prove their guilty of violating a given international law. If you think someone is guilty until proven innocent move to France.

3: Yeah yeah what happened to Saddam was just an individual soldier... etc etc

Just stop ok? Your making a mockery out of your argument by saying posting pictures of Saddam in his underwear AND AND clothed is illegal. HES STANDING TRIAL. How would it be possible to not show his pictures? Are you saying the nurenberg trials were illegal because they showed Herman Goering? Was that wrong? Your argument makes no sense. We're not parading him around, hes in jail and one picture was happened to of been taken by PRIVATE interests, not the govt. This isn't the same the Vietnamese army and govt having a POLICY of taking videos of our POWs in order to weaken our resolve. Don't you understand the difference? And I still can't believe the hypocricy in your argument.

4: So if the US motives aren't noble why do you blame people for fighting against them?

Cause there's isn't either generally.

5: His Excellency's revolution will live on unless the US interferes

No it won't, it has no effective way of transfering govt. It's based on one man and govt's like that die with the individual. He's basically creating his own dynasty by proclaiming his brother is his successor (oh ya I guess there wasn't ONE member of the communist party in his country that he could trust, despite having one for 40 odd years, bullshit). Even Soviet Russia had a better way of maintaining power and transfering it.

It only makes sense that the freedom fighters target them while they're not almost invulnerable.

7: How can you call it war when one side does not have an army to defend itself? The Zionist soldiers shoot Palestinian children or civilians as their main target. The freedom fighters are justified to fight back however they can.

Amazing. So your argument is that because arabs can't beat Israel in a real battle/war, they must resort to terrorism (ie. killing innocent civilians). And the second part was just retarded... I AGREED with you that its not terrorism when they suicide bomb into an Israeli military outpost but you still had to continue ranting on to another argument. Can't you ever accept someone agreeing with you?

8: Of course the Zionists benefit from murdering Palestinian civilians or else they wouldnt do it.

No they don't ... if Zionists could, they would hope to round up all high ranking Palistinian militants and kill them and not a single civilian. That's there MILITARY objective. Palistinean military objective though is to kill as many civilians as possible to make them so fearful or scared that they simply give up. There's a big difference.

11: Half of what you mentioned is just regular trade.

Regular Trade? Ummm.. so when America sells arms to Iraq its murder, but when France does it, its "regular trade". When Russia sells nucleur plants to Iran as opposed to say, Israel, its "regular trade"? Maybe you should reevaluate your position that everyone has noble causes and just ones except for America exclusively.

[Slade]

Hammy:

Ottomans are Muslims, but they are not Arabs! Muslim does not equal Arab. Call a Turk an Arab, and you'll be picking up your teeth with broken fingers.

Stop using the possessive form "we". I am not responsible for the acts of others who share my skin color and only my skin color. Again, you show yourelf to be just such a victim of the white male guilt conspiracy. Only whites, particularly white males, are allowed by PC doctrine to be blamed on a collective basis by virtue of their skin color and sex and nothing more.

A little testy, aren't we? Well, a little more than usual, I should say. I'm not victimizing myself, just too lazy to type out "The United States." There's this funny thing where when you live in a country, you associate yourself as being part of said country and resort to pronouns to save time. Stop wasting your time arguing semantics when you could be sticking more insults, cowardly taunts, and random narcicism in your posts.

To all parties: There's a difference between disliking people because of their actions and because of their religion. All of those cries of "anti-semitism" involving Palestine/Israel are utter bullshit. Spare me your guit by association tactics.

[Renegade]

All of those cries of "anti-semitism" involving Palestine/Israel are utter bullshit. Spare me your guit by association tactics.

Well when someone justifies the killing of innocent israelis (and never even refers to them as such, but rather "Zionists") because the cause is "just" but doesn't believe they themselves were justified in forming there own state after WWII is pretty hypocritcal to me.

[Jordan]

lol, the banner i'm reading at the bottom of the page MESSSIANIC CONNECTIONS>COM, for single christian jew's looking for a partner.

[Ham Salad]

Well when someone justifies the killing of innocent israelis (and never even refers to them as such, but rather "Zionists") because the cause is "just" but doesn't believe they themselves were justified in forming there own state after WWII is pretty hypocritcal to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure he'd support a separate Kurdistan, Tibet, Catalonia, united Ireland, Kashmir and any other place in the world where ethnic peoples are trying to create an independent homeland. But no, not Israel!
How about if all the Native American tribes agreed to have their own independent nation in present day Colorado? Would JM support this? Would he vacate his home for the Native Americans, or would he protest and complain and kill? He would be free to be repatriated to any of the surrounding US controlled lands. Just as Palestinian ARABS were free to go to any of the other surrounding ARAB controlled lands. Now what if this new Native American nation said, 'fine, since you won't leave and you are targeting our innocent civilians, we will offer you an independent state carved from our small lands provided you end terrorism and the call for our destruction', would JM agree to that?
If he were to behave like the Palestinians that he cherishes, the answer is no.

[Slade]

So, essentially, what you're saying is that if someone shows up and asks you to move out of your house because someone else wants it because he's a descendant of someone who lived there over one thousand years ago, he should shrug and move out without a fuss? I don't condone terrorism/killing civilians, but don't try and make the foundation of Israel into some noble movement. At the end of World War I, the British told both Zionists and Palestinians that they were to have the entire region to themselves.

Then after WWII, The UN asked Palestine to chop their land in two and give half of it to a group of people who just showed up at their doorstep, and the many illegal immagrants who were already living there, either peacfully or using terrorism to pressure the allied governments to give in to their demands (Zionist Congress)). Palestine, of course, said no way, but the UN created the state anyway.

The Zionists were smacktards for thinking that they could pester another country into giving them land that wasn't theirs. The Palestinians are smacktards for using terrorism. The British were smacktards for playing both sides like musical instruments for political support and then screwing them. The UN were smacktards for creating two separate states or deciding that a minority of illegal immigrants could have half of the country that wasn't theirs.

I'd ask you to look into the Oneida Indian land claim, but I doubt you will. And I don't see your point, if it exists.

This post has been edited by Slade: 29 July 2005 - 10:29 PM

[Ham Salad]

The only "smacktard" around here is...YOU can fill in the blank.
I don't consider Jews who lived without interruption in Israel for thousands of years to be illegal immigrants. I don't consider Jews from around the world who were discriminated against, ostracized and butchered leading to a return to their ancestral homelands as illegal immigrants. I don't consider Jews of the diaspora who were routinely evicted from their homeland by force over the course of thousands of years who have maintained an oath to return to Jerusalem in their prayers and rituals to be illegal immigrants.
I don't consider Jews tired of the meddling British, western and United Nations institutions who finally stood up and asserted themselves and their claim to live peacefully in their rightful homeland despite what others without claim would like to manage to be "smacktards"

My point is Israel is here, it exists and it is not going away. It's goal is preservation at all costs. Israel, reversed roles, and has demonstrated the ability to play all the meddling powers in the Middle east like a violin, strengthening its position, its power, its populace despite what others would want Israel to do. This is what makes you angry, the fact that Israel is all grown up now, like a young adult, more powerful, independent, and will still take a monetary gift or two, but it's still going to do what it wants. Get used to it.
Maybe the Oneida Indians should learn from this.

[Slade]

When you assume, you make an ass out of you. What makes me angry is that all sides are guilty of idiocy and the place has been a hotbed of violence for the past 60 years or so. And it all depends on what you consider gives a people a right to property. I don't see being out of the country for 1000 years and showing back up as reason to sweep aside a group of people already there. I don't see why everybody couldn't just live in one damned country without shooting one another.

I dunno what you mean about Israel being independant. The US gives it over 8 billion dollars a year in aid, not counting arms. And you could do with some growing up. Less sensational arguments and more substantial information would help too, but I'd settle for less calling everyone who disagrees with you some form of "Mr. Poopie Pants"...

[Renegade]

Wikipedia:

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known as the Israeli War of Independence or al-Nakba, 1948-1949, began after the British withdrawal and the declaration of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948. Arabs had formally rejected the United Nations Partition Plan of November 1947, which proposed establishment of an Arab and a Jewish state in Palestine. Jewish and Arab militias had begun a campaign to control territory both inside and beyond the partition-designated borders. Joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, and fought to destroy the nascent Jewish state. About 2/3 of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled by Israeli forces from the territories which came under Jewish control (see Palestinian Exodus); Arabs also expelled Jews from the territories which came under their control. In addition, many Arab countries' Jewish populations fled due to anti-Jewish sentiment and, in some cases (e.g. Iraq) legal oppression (see Immigration to Israel from Arab lands). About 700,000 Palestinians (estimates vary from 520,000 to 957,000 [1]) and estimated 600,000 to 900,000 [2] Jews became refugees. In a few cases, (e.g. in Morocco) local Arab governments encouraged Jews to stay, and some Jewish leaders (e.g. in Haifa) encouraged Arabs to stay

Not that the Israeli's were perfect on their independence but it wasn't like they were the only ones doing anything that would be considered "wrong".

This post has been edited by Renegade: 31 July 2005 - 12:38 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Renegade-

1Excellency is a well known term for statesmen that people respect. George Washington's most recent biography is titled "His Excellency" Your objections are not about my title for him, you simply hate Castro for bringing his people freedom from foreign tyranny and opposing the imperialism which you swear up and down does not exist.

2But your contention is the one that bares less weight. Which is more likely: That an action that we both agree to be immoral is UNLAWFUL or that an action that we both agree to be immoral is LAWFUL. You see, you're arguing up-hill here, so in this instance the burden of proof rests with you.

For instance, when Ozzy Osborne urinated on the Alamo, he didn't go about and say "Hey, I never saw a law that says I can't urinate on the Alamo" He said "Ok officer, I'll hop in the patrol car as soon as I've snorted the rest of the ants."

3 A TRIAL has to be public (well it dosn't as shown by the US' secret tribunals for the people they secretly hold and secretly torture) Yes, the media is generally present at a TRIAL. But when you get tossed in jail do you want someone outside your cell filming you? Fuck no. That would be illegal. There are certain times when photographing people is inappropriate.

For the last bloody time, THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS FORBID MAKING A POW A PUBLIC CURIOUSITY! You can whine all you like, but the US has violated the Geneva conventions, both my allowing the torture of detainees, by sending detainees to countries where they can be tortured for just that purpose, and by distributing humiliating pictures of detainees including Saddam so that ignorant fucking hillbillies can gawk at them and say "Hey maw, look at that thar AY-rab in his undies, ah bet later he puts em on hees head fer a TER-Ban hehyuck!"

4: So what the US does is A-ok just because the other side hurts people too? So we're absolved of all wrong doing cuz "they're meany heads" come on! They have NO CHOICE. The middle east is their home, and the US is invading their home and shooting at them and trying to steal their stuff and stripping them naked and electrocuting their privates. When someone storms into your home and tortures you and disappears your loved ones you FUCK THEM UP. Not because you're a bad person, but because you have no damn choice but to kick their ass or die trying. That's why the resistance is going to win. The US has a choice whether to oppress people and wage imperialist wars, so they're in the wrong.

5: So your problem with Castro is that he feels he's entitled to rule the country that he bled, starved, and was shot at, and tortured while trying to overthrow? Why? He has a much better mandate than certain other so-called presidents. The only thing the pig in the white house suffered through to lead the nation was a fucking pretzel.

6: I think we already esstablished that Zionist "civilians" either have served or are going to serve in the military. Just because they're not in uniform YET dosn't mean they aren't going to have a part in the Zionist oppression. And hey, when you vote for a guy who's going to commit genocide, you're making yourself a party to fucking genocide, Jack, so don't be surprised when a guy in a turban decides to blow you up.

No they don't ... if Zionists could, they would hope to round up all high ranking Palistinian militants and kill them and not a single civilian. That's there MILITARY objective. Palistinean military objective though is to kill as many civilians as possible to make them so fearful or scared that they simply give up. There's a big difference.

HEHEHEHEHE Oh man are you ever off. Ok, so the Palestinians love killing innocent civilians, and that's their military goal? And the Zionists hate killing innocent civilians, and would much rather just kill all those who dare oppose them?

Then why is it that the Zionist Entity has killed more civilians than the Palestinians if the former isn't trying to and the latter is actively trying to? I mean, that dosn't make sense to me. Think about it. The Zionists are hoping that by randomly bombing urban areas and killing protesters and various other criems against humanity they will break the back of Palestine.

11, and your most recent argumetn: Ok, so everyone else is a meany head, so it's ok for us to be the biggest meany head.

[Renegade]

Your objections are not about my title for him, you simply hate Castro for bringing his people freedom from foreign tyranny and opposing the imperialism which you swear up and down does not exist.

Lmao not really, i could care less about Castro quite frankly. If his country were to suceed good for him, if not well sucks for him. I just think its silly that u refer to a human being as his excellency repeadetly.... i have a lot of heroes but i don't think there perfect people or worthy of giving these titles EVERYTIME i mention them.. but anyway i'm done with this since obviously you have no problem kissing someone's feet and I don't. C'est la vie, do what you wish.

2But your contention is the one that bares less weight. Which is more likely: That an action that we both agree to be immoral is UNLAWFUL or that an action that we both agree to be immoral is LAWFUL. You see, you're arguing up-hill here, so in this instance the burden of proof rests with you.

Umm not really... I said we MAY consider something not right or immoral in your eyes, but that doesn't mean its necessarily AGAINST THE LAW. You asserted that we were violating INTERNATIONAL law. Do you know what Law is? A set of guidelines and regulations for individuals (or countries in this case). Embargoing a country doesn't violate any law internationally so by definition we aren't violating international laws. Furthermore, lots of things may be immoral in your eyes or mine. I may think its immoral that we don't donate 10% of our GDP to AIDS crisis, but does that mean its violating international law? NO. Just admit that your wrong in stating were violating international LAW (not opinion) by embargoing Cuba.

For the last bloody time, THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS FORBID MAKING A POW A PUBLIC CURIOUSITY!

Ok I'm gonna again outline my argument so you can properly make a counter (though it'll be wrong since it has no grounds).

First, he's not a POW. A prisoner of war is a soldier or combandent that is captured in combat or surrenders. He's a political leader who has been captured like Hitler or Goering or Milosovic. So that alone gets rid of the fact that we shouldn't take pictures of him normally, since the public obviously deserves to see him standing trial or just seeing him period. You asserted pictures of him CLOTHED were illegal too which you still haven't rebuked. As for the one picture that WAS released, it was taken by an unknown source, and SOLD to a BRITISH tabloid, so again it wasn't a govt funded "parade" of Saddam. There's literally no way to make the argument that America as a country violated international law by that photo being released. Lastly, I still don't see a rebuke to you being a hypocrite. You say that Palestine terrorism is justified because Israeli terrorism is worse. But when it comes to Saddam, you think ANY humiliation of him (even though he's under pretty good conditions in jail all things considered) is completely unjustifable despite his slaughter and torture of hundreds of thousands. What a fucking joke.

So what the US does is A-ok just because the other side hurts people too? So we're absolved of all wrong doing cuz "they're meany heads" come on! They have NO CHOICE.

Well you've made the case that Vietnam was justified in invading Cambodia because Cambodia was a murderous oppresive regime, so because the end result was better, the Vietnamese weren't wrong in invading. My argument is essentially the same in that, while America doesn't always act based on noble causes, neither does its opponents and the end result of our intervention is generally also better than the contrary.

So your problem with Castro is that he feels he's entitled to rule the country that he bled, starved, and was shot at, and tortured while trying to overthrow?

My problem again, which you have yet to address or rebuke, is that he essentially has built a govt around himself only. Proof of this is that he doesn't trust ANYONE within his own party to succeed him and rather names his brother (essentially making a dynasty). Just because someone risks there life for their cause doesn't mean there justified in doing anything they want afterwords. Pol Pot probably risked his life many times to gain control of his regime but that doesn't mean he was justified in killing others. Under your argument, if your risk your life to take over a country, that means you are entitled to rule that country forever by any means necessary.

I think we already esstablished that Zionist "civilians" either have served or are going to serve in the military. Just because they're not in uniform YET dosn't mean they aren't going to have a part in the Zionist oppression. And hey, when you vote for a guy who's going to commit genocide, you're making yourself a party to fucking genocide, Jack, so don't be surprised when a guy in a turban decides to blow you up.

So again you basically argue that any country with conscription is not entitled to protection from terrorism. Iran which has mandatory conscription of males then I guess could be terrorized by Israel if Israel feels threatened because oh well, every male citizen at one time will serve or did serve in the military so its ok if they get terrorized. And oh so because there president may be a criminal its ok to terrorize their civilians even if you don't know if they voted for Sharon or not? This is a brilliant argument on your part because essentially what your saying is that, if someone comes and kills you right now, they are justified because you let Bush (who you believe is a war criminal) come into power (even though you didn't vote for him). Maybe you'll care to retract from that statement now huh?

Then why is it that the Zionist Entity has killed more civilians than the Palestinians if the former isn't trying to and the latter is actively trying to? I mean, that dosn't make sense to me.

Dude common sense. Israel KNOWS it loses internationally and with Arabs when it kills more civilians because it knows that will only fuel more terrorism and anti semiticism in arab states. On the contrary though, Palestine KNOWS it can't win with conventional methods so the only means it has is through terrorism. Thus their only military objective realistically is to keep terrorisizing Israelis so much that they simply can't take it anymore and coputulate. And the claim that Israeli's kill more is just ridiculous. If Palestine had the same equip, they'd be killing just as many if not more Israeli's, they just don't have the proper equipment to do so.

11, and your most recent argumetn: Ok, so everyone else is a meany head, so it's ok for us to be the biggest meany head.

Ummm not really.. i merely stated your argument and asked you to justify it. I said everyone trades like America does, and you said America is the only murderous one while the others are doing "regular" trade. So defend your argument, how is France selling arms to Iraq not murderous but America doing the same thing is?

This post has been edited by Renegade: 31 July 2005 - 03:32 AM

[J m HofMarN]

1: Well I have a problem with you refering to the nazi in the whitehouse as a president but I'm not petty enough to bring up issues of semantics and bitch about them for several posts since it wouldnt help my argument at all.

2: Yeah, so it's not illegal to purposely try to starve and isolate the population of an entire country as long as it's your favorite imperialist government? What kind of bourgoise fantasy world do you live in where there's even the hint of justification for this? You don't think it's illegal? Well try reading this: http://www.unis.unvi...001/ga9979.html

The US is comitting genocide against Cuba. The US, as an IMPERIALIST POWER, is illegally occupying a part of Cuba and using that land to torture people it has kidnapped from other countries during other imperialist interests. The greatest threat to the security and peace of the world is the imperialist government of the United States of America.

3: Yeah yeah you're full of it. Noone we capture is a POW. Noone we capture has any rights at all. They're all "enemy combatants" so it's perfectly moral to electrocute their genitalia. You're an appologist for the imperialists and you'll condone any outrage they commit by quibbling over terminology or outright ignoring the facts. The US government wasn't trying to distribute those pictures as part of a campaign to punish Saddam for being naughty. They distributed them to try to stop the rebels and humiliate Iraq as a whole by humiliating its former leader. I suppose it's alright for us to violate the Geneva conventions though, cuz Saddam is a meany head.

the end result of our intervention is generally also better than the contrary.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh yes, oh yes, the end result of American imperialism is always a load of fun. "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you" said the nice man in a suit at Waco. It's super how we helped 10000 people in Chile, and 100000 in Iraq, and 3 million in Vietnam, and who could forget all the people we helped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the 5000 people we helped in the Congo, and the 20000 we helped in Nicaragua, and of course the hundred and some people we helped in Bolivia, and how we helped to torture His Excellency and his followers before they managed to overthrow the very helpful Battista dictatorship that we were using to "help" Cuba. And who could forget how we helped blacks and indians, and of course helping Japanese Americans during world war 2, and all the help we gave to the thousand and some odd Arabs we hold in secret detention in the US, and another thousand we hold outside the US. Oh and don't forget 4000 Palestinians we helped by giving weapons to Israel, and the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt we've helped by keeping their wonderful democratic governments stable. Oh and the people of East Timor we helped, and of course who could forget the time we invaded Russia in an attempt to help them to restore their "representative" government of tyranical monarcy.

Yeah, the US isn't imperialist, they're just helpful. And they make the world a better place. Sure they do.

Come on admit it you just want His Excellency out of power so the US can go in and take over Cuba again. There's nothing wrong with it, your views are totally in line with the pigs who run the US. Just say "I'm an imperialist, and I want His Excellency gone so we can go in and turn the place into a plantation again." Hey, if you're going to go whining about rulers of other countries what about Saudi Arabia, a country that has been ruled by the same corrupt monarchy for longer than His Excellency has ruled Cuba. Your only problem with His Excellency is that he has successfully defied imperialist aggression. You would rather that there was a ruler in Cuba who would bow to the imperialist power, and I for one am glad that you and the scum who think like you will not get their wish. Cuba is ruled by a Cuban for the first time in its history. A Cuban who has in his heart no loyalties except to his people. Cuba's people are better off now than they were under the US. If this bothers you than you are an imperialist.

On the Zionist Entity, the analogy is wrong. Iran isn't attacking or commiting genocide against Palestine. You can't just say "Hey they have conscription lets blow them up" What's going on is "They're using conscription to commit genocide against my people and they just bulldozed my house, I'm going to go blow up whatever part of their country I can get to" you can condemn that all you want, but I know that the greater evil is the Zionist Entity. If someone sees fit to hold me responsible for failing to prevent the evil deeds my country has committed than I will hold no bitterness against them. I havn't done nearly enough to prevent the genocide in Iraq and so I share some of the guilt for it. If my meager efforts have been completely insufficient and someone judges that I should die in vengeance for those who are murdered by my tax dollars, then who am I to complain?

If Palestine had the same equip, they'd be killing just as many if not more Israeli's, they just don't have the proper equipment to do so.

If a cow had the chance it would eat you and everyone you love. Eat beef!

11: Perhaps because the US does it on a far larger scale, and then invades the country later? Perhaps because the US uses its economic and trading power to try to starve the populations of countries it disagrees with? Yes, lots of countries do bad things, but if you count up the number of people murdered by current world governments the US comes out on top easily. But of course that's just idealistic superkeen democro-murder, and not imperialism, right?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 31 July 2005 - 01:07 PM

[Slade]

Rememberer: Your name is well deserved, I'm just sorry that most of your post fell on deaf ears, and that certain food stuff wasn't swift enough to understand any of it.

[Renegade]

1: Well I have a problem with you refering to the nazi in the whitehouse as a president

Well its the title of his position so why wouldn't i... I don't like Castro but i'd still call him leader of Cuba or whatever his title is.

: Yeah, so it's not illegal to purposely try to starve and isolate the population of an entire country as long as it's your favorite imperialist government?

Ok you still don't know how laws work. Cite me the law that exists internationally that embargoing a country is illegal. Ok? Not some "request" or "query" or "call" for ending the embargo, but an actual LAW that states its illegal. Until then, how bout admitting you were wrong that it violates international LAW and just argue about the morality of it?

Yeah yeah you're full of it. Noone we capture is a POW. Noone we capture has any rights at all.... yada yada more random shit that doesn't matter

Ok listen, for once just stay on topic ok? I never claimed ANYTHING. You merely stated that showing Saddam in his underwear AND AND AND clothed VIOLATES international law. Showing him clothed obviously doesn't but you still haven't stated that you were wrong for saying that. As for the naked part i keep repeating it over and over and over, you can't accuse a COUNTRY of violating international law when a private individual takes ONE picture of him and sells it to a tabloid magazine. And you still haven't even bothered to respond to your bullshit hypocricy cause I pretty much am assuming you know you're a hypocrite and don't give a shit.

and who could forget all the people we helped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

Oh but wait, that wasn't wrong because Japan was an imperialistic country and thus their civilians "allowed" their country to be so, so killing their civilians was justified wasn't it?!?!?!? I mean you keep repeating how its ok for terrorists to kill us because we are ofcourse imperialistic and deserve it right? And Palestinians are ok to to terrorize Israeli's cause you know, they have a point right? Your hypocricy is so hellarious, I'm not sure if you just don't care if you come off as one or you actually don't know you are one.

Come on admit it you just want His Excellency out of power so the US can go in and take over Cuba again.

Why do you keep repeating this? I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT CUBA. If it were UP to me i'd stop the embargo and let him do whatever the hell he wants since he has literally no threat to the united states nemore. And I think Saudi Arabia's govt is a shitville too, but see the difference is I don't call them my excellency now do I? And you still have not adressed the issue that Castro doesn't trust ONE member of his party... your telling me in ALL this time Castro is the only one who can be trusted to defend Cuba and the only person who sacrificed his life? I swear Castro has sure got a good thing going in Cuba, his supporters REALLY do believe he is God himself.

On the Zionist Entity, the analogy is wrong.

The argument is the same though. I want your answer, do you believe its ok to target civilians on purpose in order to defend your cause and that country has a govt that either has conscription or is pursuing imperialistic aims? Simple question. Don't go off on a random tangent about US imperialism again or some bullshit, just give me a straight answer, is it ok to target innocent civilians if you believe your cause is worth it.

If my meager efforts have been completely insufficient and someone judges that I should die in vengeance for those who are murdered by my tax dollars, then who am I to complain?

Wow thats pretty remarkable... so if ANYONE believes in THEIR eyes that you haven't done nuff its ok to kill you? So basically, if one day I walk over to where you are and I personally believe you haven't done enough to stop the AIDS crisis which has resulted in millions dying, I can kill you? I don't know about you, but i don't like the whole idea of people killing innocents cause they "believe" that person deserves it. But I guess you like the idea of every individual on earth playing God for themselves.

If a cow had the chance it would eat you and everyone you love. Eat beef!

Do you avoid common sense? Right now Palestine is killing innocent civilians in order to defend itself. What makes you think if they had bigger planes, bigger tanks, they wouldn't use those as well to kill civilians at the same rate Israeli's do? Are you really that naive? Jeezuz, get off it.

Yes, lots of countries do bad things, but if you count up the number of people murdered by current world governments the US comes out on top easily.

More random tangent arguments. Just answer the question, you stated its "regular trade" when France sells arms to Iraq but when America did it, it was murderous and imperialistic. So defend yourself, how is what France did different from what America did?

This post has been edited by Renegade: 01 August 2005 - 03:33 AM