Originally posted by FMFI get you. Presumably you'd wrap it up in myths of destiny and honour, twisted historical 'analysis' underpinning claims of divinely endorsed exceptionalism, and deluded duckspeak about being an "honest broker".
That's all your gasp-at-the-audacity contrariness amounts to, water-cooler-dinner-party nonsense.
Originally posted by Merk
[b]If the choice is between killing a people or moving them, which the better choice?
Yours is to back the mass murderers and ethnic cleansers. I get you. Presumably you'd wrap it up in myths of destiny and honour, twis ...[text shortened]... any of the self-righteous myths and delusions that Americans inculcate themselves with.[/b]
If there's one person in the world, who at his heart is genuinely [b]not[/i] interested in being an honest broker, that person is me.
The question isn't what you would do or what I would or how the world should react, the question is what would be best in the case when ethnic cleansing is happening. Would you prefer the offending party kill them or move them?
Originally posted by shavixmirTha choice has already been made and it's been decided that accepting them is not an option, so we can put them on a train and send them to prison camps or send them out of town.
I think the problem lies within the choices you're laying down there, my friend.
What's the better choice, accepting people are somewhere or killing them?
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkWow, your affinity with mass murderers and ethnic cleansers runs deep. Hope you're getting paid for this shilling, because otherwise it's only the clinically insane, and "freepsters", who post this kind of poison on public forums.
Tha choice has already been made and it's been decided that accepting them is not an option
Originally posted by FMFThe middle east situation is unsolvable. Many good ideas have been offered over the years regarding this, but it still comes down to 2 groups want there own nation on the same piece of ground. As long as that's the case, it will remain unsolvable. 😏
" Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has sparked controversy by saying a Palestinian state would provide "a national solution" for Israel's Arabs. [...] Israeli politicians have long grappled with the issue of a growing proportion of ethnic Arabs in the Jewish state. "Transfer" has been mooted explicitly only by far right-wingers in Israel. [...] In remarks t ...[text shortened]... l's minority Arab community simply does not have Israel's best interests at heart?
Originally posted by FMFAnd how might I ask have you drawn the conclusion that I have affinity for mass murderers.
Wow, your affinity with mass murderers and ethnic cleansers runs deep. Hope you're getting paid for this shilling, because otherwise it's only the clinically insane, and "freepsters", who post this kind of poison on public forums.
Remember: The same rules still applies to this debate as our first debate.
Just because you say something does not make it so.
Just because you say something, does not make it so.
Just because you say something, does not make it so.
What part of advocating moving people instead of killing them is poison?
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by Merk
Passing off your cretinous Hobson's Choice as political discourse is poisonous water-cooler-dinner-party nonsense.
Okay then. I'll take that to mean you prefer the Nazis killing millions of Jews to relocating them.
No. What you should take it to mean is that passing off your cretinous Hobson's Choice as political discourse is poisonous water-cooler-dinner-party nonsense.
Originally posted by FMFKill'em all! I get it.
Originally posted by Merk
[b]Okay then. I'll take that to mean you prefer the Nazis killing millions of Jews to relocating them.
No. What you should take it to mean is that passing off your cretinous Hobson's Choice as political discourse is poisonous water-cooler-dinner-party nonsense.[/b]
By the way, Chap, the only reason I keep responding is because it pains you not to have the last word.