French Bias attacks mount

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you serious? Using that logic, no one in the world is able to criticize anything anyone else does.

I'm getting tired of you totally missing the point of what I write. Perhaps you should read it again.

IF you support American killing of civilians in atomic bomb drops and Dresdan, THEN you have no right to critique the Pals for their bombings.

People can critique other people on morality if they do not support the horrible things their countries have done in the past.

Oh, and for the record, I do support the Atomic bomb blasts.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually the facts of the movie seem to best fit events that took place in 1911, in which a Mississippi govenor who actually favored better treatment of blacks was soundly defeated by a Klansman, not the other way around.

Which governor are you talking about? I always thought that the only to State to which the KKK rose to such heights in that time period was in Indiana.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm getting tired of you totally missing the point of what I write. Perhaps you should read it again.

IF you support American killing of civilians in atomic bomb drops and Dresdan, THEN you have no right to critique the Pals for their bombings.

People can critique other people on morality if they do not support the horrible things their countries have done in the past.

Oh, and for the record, I do support the Atomic bomb blasts.

Well, I read your point again and I think I got your point loud and clear.

Sikander said,

Americans are not allowed to criticize violence (or more accurately to be taken seriously when they do) whatever their opinion was about their own history simply because they are Americans.

To which you replied,

Exactly... they shouldn't be taken seriously, because they support things we've done in our history that have been just as bad, if not worse than what the Pals are doing (the atomic bomb being dropped comes to mind).

Note that Sikander's post suggested that you believed that all Americans are disallowed from criticizing current violence because of their nationality, irregardless of their personal views on America's past acts. You replied to this by saying "exactly". Excuse me for thinking that "exactly" meant that you were actually in agreement with Sikander's suggestions.

Maybe you're the one who needs to read things a little more carefully.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which governor are you talking about? I always thought that the only to State to which the KKK rose to such heights in that time period was in Indiana.

Nope, Oregon too.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nope, Oregon too.

I guess you do learn something new everyday. Can you give me a few details about thier reign in Oregon? I only know about Indiana and how events thier led to thier temporary downfall on the political scene.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Note that Sikander's post suggested that you believed that all Americans are disallowed from criticizing current violence because of their nationality, irregardless of their personal views on America's past acts. You replied to this by saying "exactly". Excuse me for thinking that "exactly" meant that you were actually in agreement with Sikander's suggestions.

Please manage to read the whole thread to see what posts Sikander was responding to, and what that was in response to. And since a vast majority of Americans support the killing of civilians as done by Americans at some point in our history, then yes, a vast majority of Americans can't claim moral horror at Palestine.

And, I don't think I'm wrong here... but there were more words after the 'exactly' . Like I said learn to read. For you again... after the exactly:

they shouldn't be taken seriously, because they support things we've done in our history that have been just as bad, if not worse than what the Pals are doing (the atomic bomb being dropped comes to mind).

You extrapolated this to say no one in the entire world could critique anyone based on their history for some reason.

[chequita guevara]

Nope, all I can tell you is that they controlled the state for a time politically. It was the 1920, at the height of the Klan's power in the US.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, I read the post again and still can't find where you made a distinction between "Americans" as a whole and "Americans who support historical acts of questionable morality". Maybe you can help me out.

Sikander originally replied to this quote,

Felch: We are saying it is hypocritical for Americans to condemn Palestinian suicide bombings in light of our history.

by saying this,

You act as though we are not individuals but simply cells of the organism of state. Americans are not allowed to criticize violence (or more accurately to be taken seriously when they do) whatever their opinion was about their own history simply because they are Americans.

to which you replied by saying,

Exactly... they shouldn't be taken seriously, because they support things we've done in our history that have been just as bad, if not worse than what the Pals are doing (the atomic bomb being dropped comes to mind).

It seems to me that you were saying that Americans as a whole support the past actions of our nation and are therefore not able to criticize Pals without being hypocrites. You've backpedaled since then, now claiming that " since a vast majority of Americans support the killing of civilians as done by Americans at some point in our history, then yes, a vast majority of Americans can't claim moral horror at Palestine." I don't want to be a *****, but if you are going to claim that I can't follow an argument, you might want to go back and make sure that your argument was clear in the first place. You can't refer to "Americans" and expect others to know that you meant "Americans who support past injustices". I apologize if I didn't understand your argument completely, but the misunderstanding is certainly not a result of my reading skills.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


In any war, you attack an enemy at his weak point. The IDF is far too strong to be combatted directly, so the only option left is to take the war to its supporters. It is completely hypocritical for Americans to decry the horrors of suicide bombers while it was applauding the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructures of Iraq and Yugoslavia. Feh! A suicide bobmer has nothing on American death from the skies.

I see. Dropping a bomb on a strategic bridge or power plant is equivalent to deliberate murder of civilians. This is also the argument of Nazi apologists. It is not international law.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Are you serious? Using that logic, no one in the world is able to criticize anything anyone else does.

I'm getting tired of you totally missing the point of what I write. Perhaps you should read it again.

IF you support American killing of civilians in atomic bomb drops and Dresdan, THEN you have no right to critique the Pals for their bombings.

People can critique other people on morality if they do not support the horrible things their countries have done in the past.

Oh, and for the record, I do support the Atomic bomb blasts.

The US dropped bombs on cities which contained munitions factories and armed forces. That includes Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden. The discussion of suicide bombings is not of attacks by Palestinians on Israeli soldiers that happen to kill civilians. It is of attacks in shopping malls, hotels, where there are only civilians.

BTW, Imran, your friend, Pres. Bush has made it clear that these bombings are terrorism, and are unacceptable.

LOTM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I see. Dropping a bomb on a strategic bridge or power plant is equivalent to deliberate murder of civilians. This is also the argument of Nazi apologists. It is not international law.

LOTM

You are an idiot and an apologist for murder. If the murder is committed by Americans, you will twist and turn so that you can pretend it is legitmate. If the killing is committed by an occupied people, who ahve a legal right to wage an armed struggle aginst their occupiers, you will twist and turn so that it can only be cold-blooded murder.

Dropping a bomb on a bridge, and let's drop this strategic BS, because they didn't just bomb the bridges going into Kosovo or Kuwait, but every frikkan bridge in the country, is murderous. Hospitals and people frequently reside on different sides of rivers. Destroy the bridge, and you condemn injured people to death. It also disrupts the econmy, which causes people to die. Setting in motion the events that you know will cause someone's death is called 2nd degree murder in most of the United States.

In any event, the war on Yugoslavia was totally illegal. Any deaths arising out of an illegal war would therefore be murder.

Furthermore, dumbsh*t, the deliberate targetting of civilian infrasstructure IS against international law. Stop talking out of your *ss.

If this post seems harsh, it's because I got tired of people being deliberately obtuse while attempting to put words in my mouth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW, Imran, your friend, Pres. Bush has made it clear that these bombings are terrorism, and are unacceptable.

So I have to accept all he states now? I find myself drifting farther and farther away from him.

I back che... if not his emotion .

And drake, sorry if I got out of line. I didn't mean to.. it was one time where I got emotional. Hopefully you will forgive me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You are an idiot and an apologist for murder. If the murder is committed by Americans, you will twist and turn so that you can pretend it is legitmate. If the killing is committed by an occupied people, who ahve a legal right to wage an armed struggle aginst their occupiers, you will twist and turn so that it can only be cold-blooded murder.

Dropping a bomb on a bridge, and let's drop this strategic BS, because they didn't just bomb the bridges going into Kosovo or Kuwait, but every frikkan bridge in the country, is murderous. Hospitals and people frequently reside on different sides of rivers. Destroy the bridge, and you condemn injured people to death. It also disrupts the econmy, which causes people to die.

LOTM - So boycotting a country is also murder?? Gandhi was a murderer of Lancashire textile workers? No. Bombing a bridge is bombing a bridge. What matters is intent. If you are doing it with intent to stop the flow of military traffic, or economic traffic that supports war, and you do not intend to kill civilians, it is not murder. Just as causing economic disruption is not murder.
Deliberately killing civilians is murder. My countrymen HAVE committed such murder - at My Lai, and at Wounded Knee, both to our everlasting shame. But not in Yugoslavia.


Furthermore, dumbsh*t, the deliberate targetting of civilian infrasstructure IS against international law. Stop talking out of your *ss.

LOTM - citations please.

If this post seems harsh, it's because I got tired of people being deliberately obtuse while attempting to put words in my mouth.

LOTM - I put no words in your mouth, and i am damned tired of people making excuses for intentional murder, and confusing it with unintended deaths in war they dislike.

I also think you are an idiot for using a yiddish word that is a derogotory word for gentile - a word I DONT use because of its derogatory connotations- as your nickname here - I dont know what you are trying to prove by it - that some jews are racist? It gives me the constant impression that you are obsessed with Jews, and filled with hate for them.


LOTM

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Which governor are you talking about? I always thought that the only to State to which the KKK rose to such heights in that time period was in Indiana.

Sorry, I meant Klan supported, not an actual member.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

2 more attacks on Jews properties.