Mossfinn

I have no problems with what people do with their lives.

i have no problems with bar girls being bar girls,

I have no problem with the men using their services,

but dont for a second expect me to give them sympathy or respect for what they do,

everyone makes their own decisions in life (well for the most part), some go down the bar girl route, some go down the office job route

What are you suggesting in regard to the video? Please don't suggest Mary was a reformed prostitute, you are not that stupid.

There are many reasons for immigration, force and actions, and very relevant reasons for control.

Each and every one of us could come up with reasons for the whys and wherefores of each reason, the economic climate in the individuals home country, and conversely the climate in the hoped for country.

Locality, porous of borders, ease of transport and family ties in said proposed country, maybe even romantic reasons for travelling near or far, we could all fire back and forth comparable, contrary and when necessary controversial views and reasons in regard to your own personal view points.

But there is no reason for reasoned debate on this thread in regard to who has the claim for best country and/or who has the most immigrants and associated arguments within.

But I guess that is no reason why people won't keep posting unreasonable posts on a very reasonable thread.

Good Luck

Moss

semantics, semantics, you need to drop an e mate!

I forgot how "informed" you are about the whole conflict.

The Israelis only want the Palestinians to get a recognized state when they live up to their pledge in the Oslo Accords - dealing with Israel directly - and stop the terrorist attacks. It is pretty simple really.

The Oslo Accords

Or are you still ignoring me?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine

I could argue the last line Benalbina, maybe out of context though, life is full of compromises.

You'll fit in well here, along with not answering simple questions,

 

 

 

It does seem strange that posts deemed anti Semitic are removed, yet the majority of Islamaphobic, ones, even if reported, remain!
 
(That may cause me to be off on a holiday; but it had to be said.)

My guess would be, from reading your posts for years, is that what you consider "Islamaphobic", most other people don't.

 

 

If you are as familiar with my posting history as you claim to be you will see that I have regularly and consistently expressed my outrage and condemnation of Islamic terrorists at each and every opportunity.

 

Whilst at the same time defending the right of all people, whatever their religion, to peacefully go about their lives.

 

In the same way, I condemn and am outraged by the actions of the Israeli government and the IDF, for reasons which I have posted many times. I wont post them again; as you have said to Mossfinn many times, go back and read them.

 

Doing so does not make me, nor anyone with the same opinion, Judeophobic, anti Semitic or whatever the word of the day is.

 

Neither does it mean I do not support the right of the Israeli people to go peacefully about their daily lives. I have condemned the attacks by Hamas as well.

 

 

Sorry to break the news to you, but continuously posting Pro-Palestinian posts and dodging every question I ask you which answer to may show that Israel is right, just proves your bias. 

 

Dodging every question? Perhaps he is reading from your rule book, I have got to the end of page 5 so far, another 18 to go, and although I understand the stance, I bet if I continue to read, and the jury is out on that at the moment, there will be no answer to my question.

Care to oblige, yourself and ug, if only to spare me your unswerving loyalty?

 

 

GentlemanJim has not figured out that they are on the same side yet. 

You just don't get it do you ugg?

 

Tell it to someone who has not seen the silly games that you play for years, already. Maybe they will take your trolling seriously.

 

You have altered my post, isn't that against forum rules, as the poster who liked your post, was prompt to tell me earlier
 

I guess by asking uncomfortable questions, I will get called many names. But by not responding to a simple question, I am requested to troll through a myriad of pages, I have heard of trying to defend the indefensible, but that is just plain ridiculous.

 

 

Yes, you are harassing. Replying to a personal message I sent in the forum, continuously posting the same message over and over urging for response, is harassment, and the mods deleted those posts you made to give you a hint, maybe they should have issued warnings...

And no, it's not about the responses I may get, I have heard them all by now, I can hold my own, no worries.

 

Maybe we have a different view of harassment, if you answered the question, I wouldn't have to repeat it would I?

 

 

GentlemanJim has not figured out that they are on the same side yet. 

 

You just don't get it do you ugg? I am on nobody's side, just want you to answer a simple question, and yet you dance and hide away behind smoke and obfuscation. If you are so scared of the answer, it is a little shameful really. I just do not have the inclination to read a dozen threads, when all I want is one answer.

 

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

 

 I have a life thank you.

 

 

And many people of all persuasions now don't.

 

And all I ask is for answers to my questions, maybe I ask too much?
 

 

 

I was not talking to you and you have clipped my post and made it completely out of context. That is against forum rules!, At NO TIME have you asked ME any questions. Take your gripe to the people that you asked questions to and leave me out of it. Clear!

 

Mossfinn, I am completely with GJ on this one.

You are harassing and pushing too strongly while you are not willing to go back to the beginning of discussions to get up to speed.

Some other things you are doing (as GJ mentioned) are against forum rules and the mods won't like them one bit... (gentle hint)

 

I have apologised to Jim, my action was flippant and not directed at him, but was wrong and I have genuinely apologised. However, I am not harassing, I just want genuine answers that you will not give. You seem quite happy to reiterate the same responses, why not answer my simple question, or do you not like the response you may get? Please do not proffer advice regarding moderation.

Jim, I have reported my post, please suggest sanction if you think it is warranted.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

 

 I have a life thank you.

 

 

And many people of all persuasions now don't.

 

And all I ask is for answers to my questions, maybe I ask too much?
 

 

 

I was not talking to you and you have clipped my post and made it completely out of context. That is against forum rules!, At NO TIME have you asked ME any questions. Take your gripe to the people that you asked questions to and leave me out of it. Clear!

Jim, my apologies, my flippant response has angered you and that is inexcusable. I will report it and ask for it to be removed, it has had the response I neither expected, or wanted, and in absolutely no way was directed at you.

Moss

 

 

 

 

 In a world where presumably the ideal goal in the long-run is to reduce anti-Semitism and intolerance towards Jews, I can't possibly see how removing the right to vent one's anger and frustration on the street over the killing of innocent women and children can possibly help achieve this scenario? Surely it will be counter-productive?

 

"[You] can't possibly see" suggests that further information to enlarge your context would not help your understanding the events in Paris. Paris has a law that bars any religious displays, protests, etc. This applies to all religions and has for sometime. Every Friday, Muslims lock down entire areas of Paris into No-Go areas while they pray. Christians, Jews, secular citizens, all, are barred from passage and function. This backdrop, and the muslim riots give context to the concerns of authorities regarding the mechanations of these protests. As France, for the most part, has a tolerable environment for various religions it must be concluded that authorities would not have acted in this manner had they the choice, or the wise counsel otherwise.

 

The absurdity of suggesting Muslims and others protesting, or not, has the great weight and history of liberty and freedom of speech to support their actions belies the fact that these freedoms exist for no one throughout the muslim world, least of all non muslims. Masking your disdain for Jews as dispassion has hardly worked. I know these common refrains; we have all heard them by omission- when Jewish innocents die- Jews died. When Muslim innocents die- innocents died! Its palpable.

 

Listening to terrorist apologists take this position to the next level they then bemoan the inequality of the deaths on each side (See UN Spokesperson on Iron Dome, etc., ad nauseum). I reasonably infer were losses equal on both sides the argument would then be that in relation to citizen population Israel is losing less lives. Its totally sick watching the ethical relativists such as yourself try to cloak in reason that which is deplorable universally- Hamas kills its own. Hamas kills others. Hamas kills all. Manifesting in polity the mandate of their sacred books their reason for existence is declared without ambiguity in the Hamas Charter= to kill every single Jew alive. Hamas murders its own who protest their using schools militarily, hospitals, and public spaces for the conduct of war, and apologists such as yourself, who have only assigned your lately declared opinion to an issue you know little about, weep for the "innocents." Rarely in warfare has one side done so much to mitigate injury for so many. Yet, Hamas refuses to let their own people seek shelter, flee, or hide in order to amass numbers for international consumption. People who buy this are pawns and don't know it or care. That is a slave!

 

 

Arjunadawn

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.
 

 

 

NO! Without question, the immediate Israeli deaths leading up to this debacle make the continued action indefensible- on that pretext alone. If this is the nature of your question, the answer is no. Its a peculiar thing for me as the only people I know throughout that slice of earth are all Muslims, the ones that are still alive anyway. I don't have any Israeli friends or contacts, yet I think it is pretty clear I tend to support Israel in my posts. Why? I think it is because I deeply appreciate the nature of their predicament, and the massive forces arrayed against them- politically, militarily, socially, intellectually, religiously, culturally, geographically, regarding industry and natural resources.. you get my point.

 

Israel cannot have the luxury of viewing unfolding events in antecedent- or causal time. Israel has made grave mistakes by not employing the breadth of their intelligence/military/political industry in their calculations. Israel has no choice. No other country that I can think of existed so perilously close to their own demise every single moment. As I have posted elsewhere, I have no clue how to resolve the issue in the Middle east, but I do declare I have very objective thoughts about it all.
 

NOTE: I just re read your post; I think I got it right: You ask if the previous Israeli deaths justify the later Palestinian deaths? I presumed this was correct.

 

Thank you Ajunadawn, it is much appreciated. If I may, I would like to respond to your reasoned response in more depth later, as I am about to take my son out. However, you have the courage of your convictions and I appreciate that, unlike others.

However, your last line is incorrect, I posted specifically regarding Israeli deaths, before and afterward.

 

 

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.

Your questions and your links have been dealt with ad nauseam in the past few weeks. That is why everyone is just ignoring you. Go back read all the threads, if you want to have some clue of what you are talking about.

 

Go on humour me, if it has been answered, 'ad nauseum', previously you won't mind one more time will you? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Or do you all fear the response, go on one more time, I promise to be gentle with you.
 

 

 In a world where presumably the ideal goal in the long-run is to reduce anti-Semitism and intolerance towards Jews, I can't possibly see how removing the right to vent one's anger and frustration on the street over the killing of innocent women and children can possibly help achieve this scenario? Surely it will be counter-productive?

 

"[You] can't possibly see" suggests that further information to enlarge your context would not help your understanding the events in Paris. Paris has a law that bars any religious displays, protests, etc. This applies to all religions and has for sometime. Every Friday, Muslims lock down entire areas of Paris into No-Go areas while they pray. Christians, Jews, secular citizens, all, are barred from passage and function. This backdrop, and the muslim riots give context to the concerns of authorities regarding the mechanations of these protests. As France, for the most part, has a tolerable environment for various religions it must be concluded that authorities would not have acted in this manner had they the choice, or the wise counsel otherwise.

 

The absurdity of suggesting Muslims and others protesting, or not, has the great weight and history of liberty and freedom of speech to support their actions belies the fact that these freedoms exist for no one throughout the muslim world, least of all non muslims. Masking your disdain for Jews as dispassion has hardly worked. I know these common refrains; we have all heard them by omission- when Jewish innocents die- Jews died. When Muslim innocents die- innocents died! Its palpable.

 

Listening to terrorist apologists take this position to the next level they then bemoan the inequality of the deaths on each side (See UN Spokesperson on Iron Dome, etc., ad nauseum). I reasonably infer were losses equal on both sides the argument would then be that in relation to citizen population Israel is losing less lives. Its totally sick watching the ethical relativists such as yourself try to cloak in reason that which is deplorable universally- Hamas kills its own. Hamas kills others. Hamas kills all. Manifesting in polity the mandate of their sacred books their reason for existence is declared without ambiguity in the Hamas Charter= to kill every single Jew alive. Hamas murders its own who protest their using schools militarily, hospitals, and public spaces for the conduct of war, and apologists such as yourself, who have only assigned your lately declared opinion to an issue you know little about, weep for the "innocents." Rarely in warfare has one side done so much to mitigate injury for so many. Yet, Hamas refuses to let their own people seek shelter, flee, or hide in order to amass numbers for international consumption. People who buy this are pawns and don't know it or care. That is a slave!

 

Arjunadawn

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.
 

 

 

What do you mean 'more?'

Perhaps he was referring to these.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGeP6yVP-Ro

 

 

That happened BEFORE the incident at the housing estate; so is not 'more' but 'previous.'

 

Jeez, don't you guys read the articles you link to before posting them?

 

Read, yes they read, but like the black haired Dwarves of Narnia, they only see what they want to see.

Still waiting on answers to my question guys

 

Remember the Alamo has turned into White Cats with Blue Eyes

And how many people died from those blind firing rockets? And how many people died after the splash. And do you justify the incursion and subsequent death?

I have all day,

Who mentioned fair? Crickey this is like shooting Amblyopsidae in a barrel

How many Israelis died from Rockets before the incursion?

How many Israelis died after?

Do you justify the math, it is a simple question, ...........................

 

 

How about the THOUSANDS falling before and after that cheery-picked date? 

 

I take it from your silence that you agree then that in my cheery [sic] picked dates less than one rocket per week had fallen. Thank you

 

 

 

Maybe he doesn't know what a cheery picked date is?

You don't mean cherry picked by any chance?

 

(sic) 5555
 

 

As I have stated previously, and apologies to those that have responded, 'ad nauseum', Israel always had the high ground, now it would appear they do not, except from the big hitters in the play ground, why is that?

 Just because you have decided otherwise, does not really change the big picture - in any way.

 

 

 

 

 

Pray tell, where I have decided otherwise? I know that the U.S and Ireland are separated by a common language ( quote GBS ), but please answer my question, I know it is difficult for you.