Hamas legitimate?

[jimnyc]

I ask this based on a recent story where Jimmy Carter has stated as much.

Suppose it was Al Qaeda? Does the Palestinians voting them into office now make them legit? Any less of a terror organization? What if they were in Pakistan? Iran? or maybe even America?

Does a terror organization EVER become legitimate? My belief is, once you become such an organized group, and you start murdering people - you can NEVER be legitimate. Not even votes can make it so. Votes don't suddenly make a murderous crew innocent, nor bring back the people they terrorized and killed.

ISIS. Now what if they are voted into office in Iraq? Do we forget what they are doing right now? What about Hezbollah down the road? Islamic State?

I guess what I'm asking is - can a terrorist group EVER be an officially recognized government by other legitimate governments, or should they? My answer is HELL NO!

[Daniyel]

I Just viewed some stuff about ISIS, they are on their way to Israel, and it is pretty obvious that terrorists make pact over mutual goals..it is time to stop this insanity and wipe'em out, completely.
Horrific rape, beheading, slaughtering and mass killing of Christians and Kurdish, getting reinforcement from Muslims all over the world, this must end, every day is a good day to kill terrorist - and the sooner the better.
Warning - Graphic! (http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/08/07/isis-jihadists-are-systematically-beheading-christian-children-in-iraq/)

[Jeff]

I have noticed jafar has gone missing, y'all don't think he is on his way over there ? Naa he would rather fight the war hiding behind a computer screen typing his lies.

[Gaffer]

There are two types that recognize terrorists as legitimate. Those that support and harbor them and those that live in a galaxy far, far away. Darth Vader killed the evil emperor so he's immediately granted equal status with Yoda and Obi Wan. He done a good thing all is forgiven.

There are the supporters, the perpetually stupid, and the rest of us that want to destroy these insects and everything they stand for.

[fj1200]

I guess what I'm asking is - can a terrorist group EVER be an officially recognized government by other legitimate governments, or should they? My answer is HELL NO!

Define legitimate. :hide: Were the Nazis legitimate?

[jimnyc]

Define legitimate. :hide: Were the Nazis legitimate?

Legitimate - internationally recognized government, not defined as terrorists/murderers, committing genocide...

I suppose we could argue which groups make up those definitions till the end of time. We can argue what defines a terrorist. For the sake of this thread, I think we all know what I mean for the most part - whether groups that are labeled as terrorist organizations around the world - can turn around and be considered at the same time to be legitimate governments around the world. Never mind the nazis and such, 2 different animals and an entirely different discussion.

[Daniyel]

I Think its time for the UN to discuss a vote over international-law of terrorism.
Something like - All UN members must contribute to fight over designated terrorist organizations.

[fj1200]

Legitimate - internationally recognized government, not defined as terrorists/murderers, committing genocide...

I suppose we could argue which groups make up those definitions till the end of time. We can argue what defines a terrorist. For the sake of this thread, I think we all know what I mean for the most part - whether groups that are labeled as terrorist organizations around the world - can turn around and be considered at the same time to be legitimate governments around the world. Never mind the nazis and such, 2 different animals and an entirely different discussion.

Then you've answered my question. The Nazis were not legitimate except that they were recognized internationally. They committed acts of terror and committed genocide in reality whereas Hamas hasn't committed genocide at all and are recognized internationally. You can't say that the Nazis are a different discussion when asking that question, it needs to be asked in historical context. The Nazis sucked, the Khmer Rouge sucked, the Imperial Japanese sucked..., Hamas does suck and they were all legitimate to some extent.

But if you just want to ask a rhetorical question and be validated then...

[Gaffer]

I Think its time for the UN to discuss a vote over international-law of terrorism.
Something like - All UN members must contribute to fight over designated terrorist organizations.

I think the only ones that should be allowed in the UN should be those with actual legitimate elected govts. As it stands now three quarters of the UN members would gladly join hamas if they thought they could get away with it. Only fear of the US and EU cutting off their funds keeps them in line.

[jimnyc]

Then you've answered my question. The Nazis were not legitimate except that they were recognized internationally. They committed acts of terror and committed genocide in reality whereas Hamas hasn't committed genocide at all and are recognized internationally. You can't say that the Nazis are a different discussion when asking that question, it needs to be asked in historical context. The Nazis sucked, the Khmer Rouge sucked, the Imperial Japanese sucked..., Hamas does suck and they were all legitimate to some extent.

But if you just want to ask a rhetorical question and be validated then...

So YOUR answer is that since these others in the past were recognized - therefore current terrorists should be, or are recognized? IMO, historical context means jack shit today. If we didn't learn from our past...

Rhetorical? I think anyone in the world could answer my extremely simple question, and answer with a yes or no, without dredging out the definition before doing so. It's an opinion thread. This has shit to do with any type of validation. You can just as easily disagree with my opinion. Is disagreeing with me also validation? I just don't see the need to always have strict definitions before we are able to entertain threads that are of ones opinion.

I am NOT going to discuss nazis and other groups of the past, just so I can ask a question about current day. Now, if you want to use that as part of your reasoning in your answer, that's cool. If others want to argue what terrorism is, and how the past determines my question, they can have at it too. But my question was simple, and everyone can use their own reasoning in determining their response.

[fj1200]

So YOUR answer is that since these others in the past were recognized - therefore current terrorists should be, or are recognized? IMO, historical context means jack shit today. If we didn't learn from our past...

Disagree but nevertheless it's my answer that the question is moot. Carter can say they're legitimate and you can say that they're illegitimate but the answer doesn't change the situation. If they have the support of the people then they're essentially legitimate. If they are illegitimate and they don't have citizen support then it's immoral to cause civilian casualties. If they are legitimate and have the support of the people then civilians are a valid target a la Tokyo and Dresden. Those may not be correct but decisions don't exist in a vacuum.

If you are right, what do you expect to come of it?

[jimnyc]

Disagree but nevertheless it's my answer that the question is moot. Carter can say they're legitimate and you can say that they're illegitimate but the answer doesn't change the situation. If they have the support of the people then they're essentially legitimate. If they are illegitimate and they don't have citizen support then it's immoral to cause civilian casualties. If they are legitimate and have the support of the people then civilians are a valid target a la Tokyo and Dresden. Those may not be correct but decisions don't exist in a vacuum.

If you are right, what do you expect to come of it?

I don't expect anything to come of it. Hopefully in the long run all terrorists around the world will be dead, but I know that's hoping for too much. I was simply asking members here whether they see Hamas as legitimate. Just because their people support them, that doesn't mean we need to, or the international community.

It's obvious that the UN won't do anything about Hamas. I assume others won't do anything either, unless directly harmed by them. But if they continue on the path they have lead since taking over Gaza? I hope that eventually Israel will destroy them. The people will eventually have to understand that with sending rockets into another country, comes rockets in return. If they want to support the people sending those rockets, then they support the consequences. War is war. I would hope that if Hamas continues, Israel just full force make it so that it's nearly impossible for them to continue.

[jimnyc]

To add onto my original question, and this might sound similar - Is there anyone who does not see Hamas as a terrorist organization?

[fj1200]

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-sing-kumbaya-6.png

[jimnyc]

^^ Your point?

[Gaffer]

There is no country of palistine, there's just un-annexed territory inhabited by local arabs. Therefore there can be no elected govt to be recognized by anyone. The PLA is not a govt, it's an organization designed to handle the welfare of the people in the territory. hamas is a terror organization that has taken control of much of the territory through intimidation and terror. hamas in gaza was elected by the people to replace the PLA. The PLA and hamas have now joined forces. Neither is a govt as that requires a country. But they both want to recognized as a govt.

Recognize them as a govt then carpet bomb the gaza strip.

[fj1200]

^^ Your point?

Singing Kumbaya will provide the same result? :poke:

[jimnyc]

Singing Kumbaya will provide the same result? :poke:

You complain that somehow I'm looking for validation. You'll complain that everyone is back slapping. You'll imply we'll sing songs and get the same results.

But what you haven't done is answer any of the questions and actually try to make a go of this thread. And in case you haven't noticed, only 3 of us posted here thus far. Ya might give it some time before ending it prematurely, or at least take the time to answer the question instead of looking to force definitions or bust my balls.

[Gaffer]

It depends on your definition of is, this is why I call him Bill.

[fj1200]

You complain that somehow I'm looking for validation. You'll complain that everyone is back slapping. You'll imply we'll sing songs and get the same results.

But what you haven't done is answer any of the questions and actually try to make a go of this thread. And in case you haven't noticed, only 3 of us posted here thus far. Ya might give it some time before ending it prematurely, or at least take the time to answer the question instead of looking to force definitions or bust my balls.

I did answer your question.


If they have the support of the people then they're essentially legitimate.

And yes, if you don't expect anything to come of it or at least ponder what difference it would make then singing kumbaya provides the same result. I'm singing kumbaya right there with ya' and if this threads ends any differently I'll be pleasantly surprised. :)

And yes, Hamas is engaging in terrorist acts against Israeli citizens. I also think they engage in terrorism against their own people.


It depends on your definition of is, this is why I call him Bill.

Sorry, I don't blindly accept anyone's premise.


There is no country of palistine...

There used to be no country on the North American continent. If Palestine wants to be a country they have a long way to go... considering how much Hamas sucks and all.

[jimnyc]

I did answer your question.

And yes, if you don't expect anything to come of it or at least ponder what difference it would make then singing kumbaya provides the same result. I'm singing kumbaya right there with ya' and if this threads ends any differently I'll be pleasantly surprised. :)

And yes, Hamas is engaging in terrorist acts against Israeli citizens. I also think they engage in terrorism against their own people.

Ok, so you think Hamas is legitimate, but at the same time admit they engage in terrorism, even against their own people. Personally, I think people that do such acts, are barred from being seen as legitimate. If they expected to ever be allowed at the table, they should have thought about that prior to their terror ways. Nothing they ever do will change the deaths, the murders and the lives they took. Yes, the people voted for them. Maybe in their little own bubble over there Hamas is seen as legit. But the rest of the world needs to see them as a regular government as a result? What if Al Qaeda strolled into town, and they were voted in. Would you expect a single government in the world to recognize them? Other than the silly Pallies of course... That's what the question is here, and that's what makes a government legitimate, recognition from the world body.

As for singing, whatever, do what you have to do. I'm not going to play the little games.

[Kathianne]

Ok, so you think Hamas is legitimate, but at the same time admit they engage in terrorism, even against their own people. Personally, I think people that do such acts, are barred from being seen as legitimate. If they expected to ever be allowed at the table, they should have thought about that prior to their terror ways. Nothing they ever do will change the deaths, the murders and the lives they took. Yes, the people voted for them. Maybe in their little own bubble over there Hamas is seen as legit. But the rest of the world needs to see them as a regular government as a result? What if Al Qaeda strolled into town, and they were voted in. Would you expect a single government in the world to recognize them? Other than the silly Pallies of course... That's what the question is here, and that's what makes a government legitimate, recognition from the world body.

As for singing, whatever, do what you have to do. I'm not going to play the little games.

To the best of my knowledge Hamas came to power more legitimately than Hitler did, though acceptance of both by other countries codified their legitimacy. Legitimate governments are culpable for their actions. Thus Germany was pounded into the ground eventually. IMO, Israel's response in not doing just that has been a problem that's brought all the problems up to this point.

[aboutime]

HAMAS is....a legitimate TERRORIST GROUP of KILLERS who hide behind Women and CHILDREN. No matter what the ASS, Jimmy Carter says.

[fj1200]

Ok, so you think Hamas is legitimate, but at the same time admit they engage in terrorism, even against their own people. Personally, I think people that do such acts, are barred from being seen as legitimate. If they expected to ever be allowed at the table, they should have thought about that prior to their terror ways. Nothing they ever do will change the deaths, the murders and the lives they took. Yes, the people voted for them. Maybe in their little own bubble over there Hamas is seen as legit. But the rest of the world needs to see them as a regular government as a result? What if Al Qaeda strolled into town, and they were voted in. Would you expect a single government in the world to recognize them? Other than the silly Pallies of course... That's what the question is here, and that's what makes a government legitimate, recognition from the world body.

As for singing, whatever, do what you have to do. I'm not going to play the little games.

No game, 'twas merely a joke.

It's just that the whole thing is a red herring to quibble over some definition of legitimacy. They were unfortunately elected and unfortunately seem to have the support of the people so if you're going to deny their legitimacy the question becomes; now what? But remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[jimnyc]

It's just that the whole thing is a red herring to quibble over some definition of legitimacy. They were unfortunately elected and unfortunately seem to have the support of the people so if you're going to deny their legitimacy the question becomes; now what? But remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I'm betting that somewhere out there are folks who see Al Qaeda as freedom fighters, and the same with ISIS. They are terrorists, IMO, no matter what fools decide to back a murderous group. Personally, no amount of support for a terrorist group would have me suddenly see them as freedom fighters. You're either purposely killing civilians or you are not. I'm sure Palestinians will say that Hamas are freedom fighters as well. But their terror ways and killing of innocents and children have taken them out of that group, IMO. The Palestinians thinking otherwise, because they also claim to defend them, doesn't retract their terror ways. A person that murders someone, and then saves a drowning child, is still a murderer.

[jimnyc]

To the best of my knowledge Hamas came to power more legitimately than Hitler did, though acceptance of both by other countries codified their legitimacy. Legitimate governments are culpable for their actions. Thus Germany was pounded into the ground eventually. IMO, Israel's response in not doing just that has been a problem that's brought all the problems up to this point.

I believe with any more shelling coming into their nation, Israel should in fact turn around and pound them into the ground. Anything short of that is literally the definition of insanity, as the entire world knows that when dealing with them you are getting the same results over and over.

[Drummond]

To the best of my knowledge Hamas came to power more legitimately than Hitler did, though acceptance of both by other countries codified their legitimacy. Legitimate governments are culpable for their actions. Thus Germany was pounded into the ground eventually. IMO, Israel's response in not doing just that has been a problem that's brought all the problems up to this point.

No - I can't agree that Hamas came to power 'more legitimately than Hitler did'.

Hitler was originally voted into power. So was Hamas. Hitler's Nazis weren't originally terrorists, though over time they 'evolved' (if that's the right word for it) to become a Party which committed horrific acts which can't be thought of as any better than terrorist acts.

However .. Hamas has always been a terrorist organisation. It exists to be one. Hamas's own Charter commits them to behaviour which locks them into terrorism as mandated methodology, and with goals which are terrorist in nature. Moreover, and I think critically ... Germany was, and is, a bona fide Nation State. Gaza is, by my understanding, NOT one. So, what's legitimate about Hamas as a 'Government' ? Surely, nothing at all.

My answer to the 'Hamas legitimate ?' question is also a 'HELL NO'. Recognition of any legitimacy of Hamas constitutes an insult to every reputable authoritative body which reasonably earns legitimacy.

The most legitimate state Hamas can reach is to become a bombed-out crater.

[Kathianne]

No - I can't agree that Hamas came to power 'more legitimately than Hitler did'.

Hitler was originally voted into power. So was Hamas. Hitler's Nazis weren't originally terrorists, though over time they 'evolved' (if that's the right word for it) to become a Party which committed horrific acts which can't be thought of as any better than terrorist acts.

However .. Hamas has always been a terrorist organisation. It exists to be one. Hamas's own Charter commits them to behaviour which locks them into terrorism as mandated methodology, and with goals which are terrorist in nature. Moreover, and I think critically ... Germany was, and is, a bona fide Nation State. Gaza is, by my understanding, NOT one. So, what's legitimate about Hamas as a 'Government' ? Surely, nothing at all.

My answer to the 'Hamas legitimate ?' question is also a 'HELL NO'. Recognition of any legitimacy of Hamas constitutes an insult to every reputable authoritative body which reasonably earns legitimacy.

The most legitimate state Hamas can reach is to become a bombed-out crater.

Hitler manipulated, perhaps even caused the death of the chancellor. http://www.ithaca.edu/history/journal/papers/fa03Hitler.htm

Hamas was truly elected by the Palestinians. In either case, other countries acknowledged each to be legitimately in control.

[Drummond]

Hitler manipulated, perhaps even caused the death of the chancellor. http://www.ithaca.edu/history/journal/papers/fa03Hitler.htm

Hamas was truly elected by the Palestinians. In either case, other countries acknowledged each to be legitimately in control.

Well, hadn't Hitler's Party already become the electorally dominant Party of the Reichstag ?

And I've made the point already that Germany was a bona fide Nation State, whereas Gaza doesn't share that status. So on that basis, how can any proper comparison be made of the legitimacy of elections between them ?

[Kathianne]

Well, hadn't Hitler's Party already become the electorally dominant Party of the Reichstag ?

And I've made the point already that Germany was a bona fide Nation State, whereas Gaza doesn't share that status. So on that basis, how can any proper comparison be made of the legitimacy of elections between them ?

You didn't read the site. Nothing new there, it actually made news stories at the time, though nothing would stop the nation states from acknowledging him, ala Chamberlain and such.

Germany in the 20's and early 30's was only a quasi nation state, as been emasculated by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler certainly changed that.

[SassyLady]

Jim, if you believe that legitimacy is awarded through the democratic process then, yes, Hamas is legitimate. They gained power in 2006 through an election process.

Although they gained power, it's rival, Fatah, were not willing to cede. Civil unrest, assassinations, civilians deaths (I think almost 1,000). In 2007 Hamas got the upper hand and then started doing humanitarian stuff for the citizens .. food banks, schools, hospitals, etc. For awhile they were popular with the citizenry.

So, while we may not like the idea of a terrorist organization/government, it is still possible for it to be legitimate.

Carter thinks that peace won't be achieved until the world sees Hamas as legitimate. He believes that once the world acknowledges their legitimacy they will lay down their weapons and work peacefully with it's neighbors. He's an ostrich and thinks the Osolo Accord process can work here. Obviously, he doesn't understand the Hamas Charter and the willingness of the "legitimate political actor", Hamas, to carry it through to completion.

I just hope Israel is just as committed to taking out or at least convincing Hamas that they are done with negotiating.

[jimnyc]

Jim, if you believe that legitimacy is awarded through the democratic process then, yes, Hamas is legitimate. They gained power in 2006 through an election process.

I don't believe that. Like I stated earlier - what if Palestine decides to elect Al Qaeda? Even though the people voted for them, no way and no how are they legitimate. No country in the world outside of there would recognize them and they would still be a band of murderous terrorists with a long history of terror acts and killing innocents, women and children. No amount of votes, IMO, can somehow change that.

I don't think legitimately being put in office in a particular area makes someone particularly legitimate around the world.

It's so ILLEGITIMATE that the overwhelming majority of countries in the world wouldn't even allow a known terror group to run, let alone hold any type of office.

Lastly, a question to those stating they are perhaps legit - if so - why doesn't the USA, the EU and other major countries have any type of type of diplomatic efforts with them? No meetings? No recognition outside of terrorist status? Is that because we simply disagree with them - or because they are designated a terrorist organization?

[SassyLady]

I don't believe that. Like I stated earlier - what if Palestine decides to elect Al Qaeda? Even though the people voted for them, no way and no how are they legitimate. No country in the world outside of there would recognize them and they would still be a band of murderous terrorists with a long history of terror acts and killing innocents, women and children. No amount of votes, IMO, can somehow change that.

I don't think legitimately being put in office in a particular area makes someone particularly legitimate around the world.

It's so ILLEGITIMATE that the overwhelming majority of countries in the world wouldn't even allow a known terror group to run, let alone hold any type of office.

Lastly, a question to those stating they are perhaps legit - if so - why doesn't the USA, the EU and other major countries have any type of type of diplomatic efforts with them? No meetings? No recognition outside of terrorist status? Is that because we simply disagree with them - or because they are designated a terrorist organization?

Has there ever been a legitimate organization running Palestine? Perhaps therein lies the answer ... Palestine is not legitimate.

I'm sure fj will be here to refute this with some type of UN Charter watchmacallit to dispute this assertion. But, hey, maybe that's the problem. Country not legitimate, governing power not legitimate.

[jimnyc]

Has there ever been a legitimate organization running Palestine? Perhaps therein lies the answer ... Palestine is not legitimate.

I'm sure fj will be here to refute this with some type of UN Charter watchmacallit to dispute this assertion. But, hey, maybe that's the problem. Country not legitimate, governing power not legitimate.

I wouldn't even mind recognizing a governing power that was NOT a terror organization, if that's what helps achieve peace over there. But they will NEVER see peace when they have terrorist scum in charge of Gaza. I believe, whether the country is legit or not, that a terror group remains illegitimate regardless. No country in the entire world would be recognized as a legitimate government if they should somehow vote in Al Qaeda, for example. Sure, they "might" be considered such in whatever shithole voted them in, and they may see them as legit in that little corner, but that's a fantasy, IMO.

A government really can't be a government if said people are leading via terrorism. Then it's a government in name only and not true governing.

[Kathianne]

I'm betting that somewhere out there are folks who see Al Qaeda as freedom fighters, and the same with ISIS. They are terrorists, IMO, no matter what fools decide to back a murderous group. Personally, no amount of support for a terrorist group would have me suddenly see them as freedom fighters. You're either purposely killing civilians or you are not. I'm sure Palestinians will say that Hamas are freedom fighters as well. But their terror ways and killing of innocents and children have taken them out of that group, IMO. The Palestinians thinking otherwise, because they also claim to defend them, doesn't retract their terror ways. A person that murders someone, and then saves a drowning child, is still a murderer.

To the best of my knowledge neither Al Qaeda nor ISIS have been elected by anyone. Hamas was. Now if the latest polling is correct, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183382#.U-YUnZRX-uY then Hamas may have a problem. Time will tell.

[Drummond]

I'm amazed by what I'm reading.

Hamas is not legitimate. It cannot be, because it is a terrorist organisation ! Why is this not the end of the story .. why is there any question about it at all ???

If I was a bank robber, and I called for people around me to vote me in as a leader of a gang of bank robbers, would this, then, LEGITIMISE my leadership of them, and from it, what I led that gang to do ?? OF COURSE NOT !!

What could be more obvious ?

In Gaza, we have the 'double whammy' effect of Gaza not being a legitimate, stand-alone, Nation State in the first place. Add to that an understanding of what Hamas is ... something far WORSE than a bank-robbing gang, and an organisation intent upon committing acts certainly no more legal than bank robbery is (!!!!) .... and from all this, anyone can think that Hamas is something LEGITIMATE ??

I say it again. I'm amazed !!

I don't care who voted for Hamas, or why, or how many did. If Hamas is legitimate, then bank robbing gangs are as well ... just so long as they have elected leadership to direct their crimes !!!!!

[jimnyc]

To the best of my knowledge neither Al Qaeda nor ISIS have been elected by anyone. Hamas was. Now if the latest polling is correct, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183382#.U-YUnZRX-uY then Hamas may have a problem. Time will tell.

I never stated otherwise and stated "what if". I'm of the belief that electing a group such as Hamas, or another terrorist organization, does absolutely nothing to change the horrible crimes they have committed. It would be the same if Al Qaeda were in fact elected there. The people of Palestine might very well consider them legit, as they voted for them, but I can't see any sane nation in the world having diplomatic relations with Al Qaeda and considering them legit in anyway at all, regardless of what the ballot box states.

[jimnyc]

If I was a bank robber, and I called for people around me to vote me in as a leader of a gang of bank robbers, would this, then, LEGITIMISE my leadership of them, and from it, what I led that gang to do ?? OF COURSE NOT !!

That's kind of my thinking, votes in no way can relieve people of their crimes and terror ways. And with those still there, I find it impossible to consider them legit. Hezbollah taking over Iran... And what if ISIS runs and is elected in Iraq? Bomb them one day and recognize them the next? So many groups and many countries, but NONE of them, IMO, should ever be considered legitimate, or recognized by other countries, or have any relations at all, IMO.

"We do not negotiate with terrorists"

I think that should include giving them any type of legitimacy at all.

[Drummond]

That's kind of my thinking, votes in no way can relieve people of their crimes and terror ways. And with those still there, I find it impossible to consider them legit. Hezbollah taking over Iran... And what if ISIS runs and is elected in Iraq? Bomb them one day and recognize them the next? So many groups and many countries, but NONE of them, IMO, should ever be considered legitimate, or recognized by other countries, or have any relations at all, IMO.

"We do not negotiate with terrorists"

I think that should include giving them any type of legitimacy at all.

Totally agree, Jim.

I'd also argue that anyone voting for the likes of Hamas is an act that - loosely so, at minimum - makes each and every voter supporting them complicit in the crimes that Hamas commits. After all, to vote Hamas into any position of power is to give them power which aids them in what they do.

So whenever we see (... as we do HOURLY here, courtesy of BBC propagandising) so-called 'innocents' who've suffered the effects of an Israeli strike, we need to consider that it's unlikely that the 'victims' are actually INNOCENT victims.

Of course, you can't sweepingly generalise. Even so, an awful lot of Gazans put Hamas into power. Yet more may be giving them support in very direct ways.

And I don't know whether it's an effect of BBC propagandising, or an actual reflection of the reality in play .. but I've yet to see even ONE Gazan emerge from Israeli strikes and be prepared to declare HAMAS as being at fault !

[jimnyc]

I'd also argue that anyone voting for the likes of Hamas is an act that - loosely so, at minimum - makes each and every voter supporting them complicit in the crimes that Hamas commits. After all, to vote Hamas into any position of power is to give them power which aids them in what they do.

Can't say I disagree here. They shouldn't complain when the group tehy voted in shoots rockets, and then rockets come back in return. Again - consequences. Hamas=violence, so don't be surprised when violence comes around.

I suppose if Al Qaeda magically snuck into the USA, and a small area harbored them, voted them in, cheered for them... I certainly wouldn't and couldn't give a rats ass if they were taken out as collateral damage.

[Drummond]

Can't say I disagree here. They shouldn't complain when the group tehy voted in shoots rockets, and then rockets come back in return. Again - consequences. Hamas=violence, so don't be surprised when violence comes around.

I suppose if Al Qaeda magically snuck into the USA, and a small area harbored them, voted them in, cheered for them... I certainly wouldn't and couldn't give a rats ass if they were taken out as collateral damage.

Here's a thought. What if someone like Jafar moved to the US, managed to get enough voting support to become a State Governor (if Arnie can do it, why not a Muslim foreigner) ... then tried to convert the State into some form of pocket Caliphate ? Or at minimum, made sure that a mosque could be found on nearly every street corner, and did his damndest to get local legislation as much 'Muslim friendly' as possible ?

What if State funds were channelled into Islamic causes .. what if it was done in such a way that those funds found their way into terrorist coffers ?

By the way, here's an example over here of an extremist politician trying to make an English city an 'Israeli-free zone' ... anyone remember George Galloway, ex-Leftie and crawler to Saddam Hussein ??

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/07/ban-israeli-tourists-from-bradford-says-george-galloway_n_5657464.html


UPDATE: Yorkshire Police have launched an investigation over George Galloway's comments that Bradford is an 'Israel-free zone'.

Israeli tourists are not welcome in Bradford, according to local MP George Galloway in a speech to Respect party activists.

The Guido Fawkes blog posted a video of the Bradford West MP speaking to party members in Leeds in front of a Palestinian flag, calling for harsh, if implausible, measures to protest his anger at the month-long bombardment of the Gaza Strip.

“We have declared Bradford an Israel free zone. We don’t want any Israeli goods. We don’t want any Israeli services. We don’t want any Israeli academics, coming to the university or the college.

"We don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford, if any of them had thought of doing so.

"We reject this illegal, barbarous, savage state that calls itself Israel. And you have to do the same.”

The Huffington Post UK has asked the MP's office for clarification on his speech.

Galloway is not the only Bradford MP to stir up controversy over the conflict which has killed nearly 1,900 Palestinians. Liberal Democrat MP David Ward issued what the party described as a "categorical apology", after posting a tweet suggesting that he would "probably" fire rockets from Gaza into Israel.

The Bradford East MP faced a furious backlash and was accused of inciting violence with the comments, but has insisted that his tweets were not intended to support Hamas.

Ward has had a long-running dispute with the Lib Dem leadership over his use of language with regard to Israel.

He also posted a tweet earlier this year calling Israel an "apartheid state" and saying that "Zionists" were "losing the battle".

Galloway too has been criticised previously for directing his anger at the actions of the Israeli government toward ordinary citizens of the country.

Speaking at an event last year at Oxford University in favour of the motion "Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank", and less than three minutes into his opponent Eylon Aslan-Levy's speech, Galloway interrupted, asking "You said we. Are you an Israeli?"

Third year student Aslan-Levy answered "I am, yes." Galloway promptly stood up and replied: "I don't debate with Israelis, I've been misled, sorry."

As the Bradford West representative left the room, a member of the audience shouted "racism", to which the MP replied: "I don't recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis." Another student added: "But he [Aslan-Levy]'s a person, he's a human being!"

Nice, eh ?

Galloway's stance should be actionable in law, under UK law, on the grounds that it's 'hatespeech' that might lead to incitement to violence. Muslims can use the same law to object to any public pronouncements against Islam, by the way, on those same grounds ...

[Kathianne]

I never stated otherwise and stated "what if". I'm of the belief that electing a group such as Hamas, or another terrorist organization, does absolutely nothing to change the horrible crimes they have committed. It would be the same if Al Qaeda were in fact elected there. The people of Palestine might very well consider them legit, as they voted for them, but I can't see any sane nation in the world having diplomatic relations with Al Qaeda and considering them legit in anyway at all, regardless of what the ballot box states.

That's the whole problem that Israel faces, many states indeed do recognize Hamas leadership as legitimate. Even when the UN says they should stop lobbing missiles at Israel, they condemn Israel for returning fire since their defenses keep them relatively safe.

Only the 'poor' can make war, the rich need to stop or be condemned. Really quite odd, but to some degree I blame Israel for years of 'land for peace' only to have the land given become launch sites. Indeed, that is where the 'settlements' ended up rearing to put a presence there and for the most part it was done not by the government but by conservative Jews.

[fj1200]

I'm betting that somewhere out there are folks who see Al Qaeda as freedom fighters, and the same with ISIS. They are terrorists, IMO, no matter what fools decide to back a murderous group. Personally, no amount of support for a terrorist group would have me suddenly see them as freedom fighters. You're either purposely killing civilians or you are not. I'm sure Palestinians will say that Hamas are freedom fighters as well. But their terror ways and killing of innocents and children have taken them out of that group, IMO. The Palestinians thinking otherwise, because they also claim to defend them, doesn't retract their terror ways. A person that murders someone, and then saves a drowning child, is still a murderer.

And it comes down to opinion on the one hand and irrelevancy on the other. As I earlier predicted much of the "debate" on this issue is validation of one's view. Case in point. \/


No - I can't agree that Hamas came to power 'more legitimately than Hitler did'.

Hitler was originally voted into power. So was Hamas. Hitler's Nazis weren't originally terrorists, though over time they 'evolved' (if that's the right word for it) to become a Party which committed horrific acts which can't be thought of as any better than terrorist acts.

As if that matters. Especially when you consider that you think you get to decide an irrelevant point based on some definition you won't even entertain.

[fj1200]

Lastly, a question to those stating they are perhaps legit - if so - why doesn't the USA, the EU and other major countries have any type of type of diplomatic efforts with them? No meetings? No recognition outside of terrorist status? Is that because we simply disagree with them - or because they are designated a terrorist organization?

We don't? I would presume we did considering the complaints I've heard here about funding Hamas. I don't think that there is a requirement that we have diplomatic efforts with any group we recognize. :dunno:


Has there ever been a legitimate organization running Palestine? Perhaps therein lies the answer ... Palestine is not legitimate.

I'm sure fj will be here to refute this with some type of UN Charter watchmacallit to dispute this assertion. But, hey, maybe that's the problem. Country not legitimate, governing power not legitimate.

What would I dispute? Palestine is merely an area of land that has been mostly conquered and governed by others for a couple millennium give or take. The history of a hunk of land is largely irrelevant IMO. Shall we count the number of countries that were only hunks of land prior to becoming legitimized countries? Shall we also count the number of countries that are deemed legitimate while also fulfilling the terrorist definition?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

CBS Incorrectly Claims Hamas Was Elected to Power in Gaza

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/11/22/cbs-incorrectly-claims-hamas-was-elected-power-gaza#ixzz3A6rqZPnM

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/11/hamas_in_gaza_how_the_organization_beat_fatah_and_ took_control_of_the_gaza.html

And this article from June, 2007, seems to indicate Hamas was anything but "duly elected."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I'm having all sorts of issues posting links, so I'm just going to try again with a new post:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/11/22/cbs-incorrectly-claims-hamas-was-elected-power-gaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html

The New York Times article is particularly interesting because it was written in "real time" and not from a historical basis.

[NightTrain]

The palestinians themselves view Hamas as a brutal military dictatorship and have said so many times.

I would definitely question any 'election' with suspicion, especially given the track record of election results from military dictatorships. Ol' Saddam pulled off almost 100% election results. I imagine it's hard to vote for anyone else with an AK-47 pointed at you in the booth.

Hamas is officially a terrorist organization, therefore it is not a legitimate government. It doesn't matter what some of the fools in the UN are saying or nutjob politicians. You don't deal with terrorists as a civilized country. You bomb them further into the stone age and eradicate them before they grow strong enough to harm your soft civilian underbelly with another sneak attack.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

The palestinians themselves view Hamas as a brutal military dictatorship and have said so many times.

I would definitely question any 'election' with suspicion, especially given the track record of election results from military dictatorships. Ol' Saddam pulled off almost 100% election results. I imagine it's hard to vote for anyone else with an AK-47 pointed at you in the booth.

Hamas is officially a terrorist organization, therefore it is not a legitimate government. It doesn't matter what some of the fools in the UN are saying or nutjob politicians. You don't deal with terrorists as a civilized country. You bomb them further into the stone age and eradicate them before they grow strong enough to harm your soft civilian underbelly with another sneak attack.

You're dealing with a stretch of land that is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide with a population of over a million people. How do you bomb them into the stone age without killing innocent civilians?

And no, I'm not necessarily pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. But, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that Hamas is the equivalent of the Taliban.

[Drummond]

You're dealing with a stretch of land that is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide with a population of over a million people. How do you bomb them into the stone age without killing innocent civilians?

And no, I'm not necessarily pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. But, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that Hamas is the equivalent of the Taliban.

Well, it would definitely help matters if Hamas didn't position their rocket launchers in civilian areas, such as near schools and hospitals !

And what would not only help, but would cure, the hostilities .. would be to see Hamas renounce violence and verifiably disarm.

Hamas's terrorism makes a response necessary. For as long as Hamas remain a terrorist threat, that response is mandated. Don't kid yourself - Hamas bears the fullest responsibility for Israel's actions.

[aboutime]

Well, it would definitely help matters if Hamas didn't position their rocket launchers in civilian areas, such as near schools and hospitals !

And what would not only help, but would cure, the hostilities .. would be to see Hamas renounce violence and verifiably disarm.

Hamas's terrorism makes a response necessary. For as long as Hamas remain a terrorist threat, that response is mandated. Don't kid yourself - Hamas bears the fullest responsibility for Israel's actions.



Sir Drummond. This may sound terribly awkward, and even racist to many. But I see Hamas, and the way the Palestinian people follow them, as near equal in comparison to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP here in America with our OVERLY HIGH UNEDUCATED Black population across this nation that voted for OBAMA, and who continue to vote for the political party that makes the most UNKEPT Promises at election time.

Like our Democrat/Obama liars. Hamas has promised the Dreadfully Uneducated, and Easily led to never question anything because they know. They will be threatened with being part of the RACIST portion of society.
Can't state it much better than that?
(a quote by aboutime)

[NightTrain]

You're dealing with a stretch of land that is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide with a population of over a million people. How do you bomb them into the stone age without killing innocent civilians?

And no, I'm not necessarily pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. But, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that Hamas is the equivalent of the Taliban.


I already outlined my solution to the problem in Gaza... it's the only way I can see out of that mess.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45609-66-years-ago-today&highlight=66+years+ago

[jimnyc]

And it comes down to opinion on the one hand and irrelevancy on the other. As I earlier predicted much of the "debate" on this issue is validation of one's view. Case in point. \/

So there are quite a few varying stances on what I have asked, but you still claim it's solely about some sort of validation? And exclude everyone in the thread to make your point? Same as I say to the others, probably best to ignore what you don't like and reply to those that you prefer to engage. But certainly nothing is accomplished by going on about validation and the other crap.

[jimnyc]

We don't? I would presume we did considering the complaints I've heard here about funding Hamas. I don't think that there is a requirement that we have diplomatic efforts with any group we recognize. :dunno:


You quote me, to be sarcastic about what you've seen others post? And did I say it was a requirement, or is your comprehension button broken once again? It's certainly fair to assume in many cases that when a legitimate government is in place, we generally have some sort of diplomatic relations with them. In many cases, SOMEONE out there has diplomatic relations with legitimate governments.

[Jeff]

You're dealing with a stretch of land that is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide with a population of over a million people. How do you bomb them into the stone age without killing innocent civilians?

And no, I'm not necessarily pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. But, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that Hamas is the equivalent of the Taliban.

They voted these animals in, they cheered as Hamas sent rocket after rocket into Israel and at a million strong maybe they should think of over running Hamas before Israel annihilates them. just my opinion, but I don't think here in America we would allow a group of people drive us to death.

[Gunny]

I ask this based on a recent story where Jimmy Carter has stated as much.

Suppose it was Al Qaeda? Does the Palestinians voting them into office now make them legit? Any less of a terror organization? What if they were in Pakistan? Iran? or maybe even America?

Does a terror organization EVER become legitimate? My belief is, once you become such an organized group, and you start murdering people - you can NEVER be legitimate. Not even votes can make it so. Votes don't suddenly make a murderous crew innocent, nor bring back the people they terrorized and killed.

ISIS. Now what if they are voted into office in Iraq? Do we forget what they are doing right now? What about Hezbollah down the road? Islamic State?

I guess what I'm asking is - can a terrorist group EVER be an officially recognized government by other legitimate governments, or should they? My answer is HELL NO!

A legitimate terrorist organization backed by Iran. To answer your last question, didn't Arafat win the Nobel Peace prize? Mr PLO. And he was Egyptian. But you stay around long enough with the media, and even Obama can get it.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

They voted these animals in, they cheered as Hamas sent rocket after rocket into Israel and at a million strong maybe they should think of over running Hamas before Israel annihilates them. just my opinion, but I don't think here in America we would allow a group of people drive us to death.
Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. Apparently, it took a coup for Hamas to take control. Please read the links I posted. They aren't from liberal sources.

[Gunny]

Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. Apparently, it took a coup for Hamas to take control. Please read the links I posted. They aren't from liberal sources.

No? The so-called Palestinians voted this terrorist organization in as their government. They are to blame and lost ANY legitimacy with me they never didn't have. They're a terrorist organization. Terrorist = target to me. And you know what targets do? They die.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

No? The so-called Palestinians voted this terrorist organization in as their government. They are to blame and lost ANY legitimacy with me they never didn't have. They're a terrorist organization. Terrorist = target to me. And you know what targets do? They die.
Again, I am not arguing whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are. I'm asking you to determine for yourself whether or not they were truly "elected into power." I've posted some links that indicate that was not the case.

[fj1200]

So there are quite a few varying stances on what I have asked, but you still claim it's solely about some sort of validation? And exclude everyone in the thread to make your point? Same as I say to the others, probably best to ignore what you don't like and reply to those that you prefer to engage. But certainly nothing is accomplished by going on about validation and the other crap.

I didn't mean you, that many of the posters here are validating their own opinion based on their own biases. Is Hamas legitimate? Dare I ask for legitimacy be defined?


Forms of legitimate government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#Forms_of_legitimate_governm ent)In determining the political legitimacy of a system of rule and government, the term proper — political legitimacy — is philosophically an essentially contested concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept) that facilitates understanding the different applications and interpretations of abstract, qualitative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_properties), and evaluative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation) concepts such as “Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art)”, “social justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice)”, et cetera, as applied in aesthetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics), political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy), the philosophy of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history), and the philosophy of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#cite_note-8) Therefore, in defining the political legitimacy of a system of government and rule, the term “essentially contested concept” indicates that a key term (communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism), democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), constitutionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism), etc.) has different meanings within a given political argument. Hence, the intellectually restrictive politics of dogmatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma#Dogma_outside_of_religion) (“My answer is right, and all others are wrong”), scepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scepticism) (“All answers are equally true or [false]; everyone has a right to his own truth”), and eclecticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclecticism) (“Each meaning gives a partial view, so the more meanings the better”) are inappropriate philosophic stances for managing a political term that has more than one meaning.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#cite_note-9) (see: (Walter Bryce Gallie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._B._Gallie))


Communism — The legitimacy of a Communist state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state) derives from having won a civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war), a revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution), or from having won an election, such as the Presidency of Salvador Allende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende) (1970–73) in Chile; thus, the actions of the Communist government are legitimate, authorised by the people. In the early twentieth century, Communist parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) based the arguments supporting the legitimacy of their rule and government upon the scientific nature of Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism). (see: dialectical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism))



Constitutionalism — The modern political concept of constitutionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism) establishes the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) as supreme over the private will, by integrating nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism), democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), and limited government. The political legitimacy of constitutionalism derives from popular belief and acceptance that the actions of the government are legitimate because they abide the law codified in the political constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_constitution). The political scientist Carl Joachim Friedrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Joachim_Friedrich) (1901–84) said that in dividing political power among the organs of government, constitutional law effectively restrains the actions of the government.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#cite_note-10) (see checks and balances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances))



Democracy — In a democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), government legitimacy derives from the popular perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed) that the elected government abides democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) principles in governing, and thus is legally accountable to its people.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#cite_note-11)



Fascism — In the 1920s and the 1930s, Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) based its political legitimacy upon the arguments of traditional authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition); respectively, the German National Socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) and theItalian Fascists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism) claimed that the political legitimacy of their right to rule derived from philosophically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) denying the (popular) political legitimacy of elected liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) governments. During the Weimar Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic) (1918–33), the political philosopher Carl Schmitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt) (1888–1985), whose legal work as the “Crown Jurist of the Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich)” promoted fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) and deconstructed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) liberal democracy, addressed the matter in Legalität und Legitimität (Legality and Legitimacy, 1932) an anti-democratic polemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemics) treatise that asked: How can parliamentary government make for law and legality, when a 49 per cent minority accepts as politically legitimate the political will of a 51 per cent majority?[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#cite_note-12)



Monarchy — In a monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy), the divine right of kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings) establishes the political legitimacy of the rule of the Monarch (King or Queen); legitimacy also derives from the popular perception (tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition) and custom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_(norm))) and acceptance of him or her as the rightful ruler of nation and country. Contemporarily, such divine-right legitimacy is manifest in the absolute monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy) of the House of Saud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud) (est. 1744), a royal family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_family) who have ruled and governed Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) since the 18th century. Moreover, constitutional monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy) is a variant form, of monarchic political legitimacy, which combines traditional authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition) and legal–rational authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law), by which means the monarch maintains nationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) unity (one people) and democratic administration (a political constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_constitution)).



How, pray tell, is a monarchy legitimate? Because God said so? How were the Nazis legitimate when they started exterminating its own people? Because they were legitimate at one point? How is Kim Jong Un legitimate? Because his dad was legitimate? Should Hamas be legitimate? Probably not, they just are.


You quote me, to be sarcastic about what you've seen others post? And did I say it was a requirement, or is your comprehension button broken once again? It's certainly fair to assume in many cases that when a legitimate government is in place, we generally have some sort of diplomatic relations with them. In many cases, SOMEONE out there has diplomatic relations with legitimate governments.

I wasn't being sarcastic, merely asking a question. I don't know the answer. I'm surprised that we would provide funding to an organization that we don't recognize diplomatically.

[jimnyc]

I didn't mean you, that many of the posters here are validating their own opinion based on their own biases. Is Hamas legitimate? Dare I ask for legitimacy be defined?

How, pray tell, is a monarchy legitimate? Because God said so? How were the Nazis legitimate when they started exterminating its own people? Because they were legitimate at one point? How is Kim Jong Un legitimate? Because his dad was legitimate? Should Hamas be legitimate? Probably not, they just are.

My belief is that a known terrorist organization CANNOT be legitimate. I notice "terrorist government" was not on the list you supplied.

And if Hamas IS legit, WHY are so many countries refusing to even acknowledge them and/or have any official relations with them? Do you know what that reason is?


I wasn't being sarcastic, merely asking a question. I don't know the answer. I'm surprised that we would provide funding to an organization that we don't recognize diplomatically.

My point was that you brought up the validation again and pointed to Drummond while stating so. There were quite a few posting here and there were multiple stances. I don't see anyone seeking validation, just members voicing opinions on whether Hamas is legit, and why they feel so.

Now, when you say "providing funding", are you saying that we don't recognize them but directly give them money? Or are you stating that the US government funds the Palestinian government, part of which Hamas has overtaken more or less by force? Personally, I wouldn't send over a penny until Hamas is destroyed, but last I checked I didn't think we were working with and directly sending them money. And if that is the case, sending funding to the Palestinian Authority for their budget, is much different than stating we are funding their organization.

[fj1200]

My belief is that a known terrorist organization CANNOT be legitimate. I notice "terrorist government" was not on the list you supplied.

And if Hamas IS legit, WHY are so many countries refusing to even acknowledge them and/or have any official relations with them? Do you know what that reason is?

There were plenty of terrorist organizations on that list; Commies, Nazis, Fascists... but I repeat myself. I'm sure a few monarchies qualify or at least have qualified in the past. And I have no idea what their official reason is but I'm sure the unofficial reason is that they suck.


My point was that you brought up the validation again and pointed to Drummond while stating so. There were quite a few posting here and there were multiple stances. I don't see anyone seeking validation, just members voicing opinions on whether Hamas is legit, and why they feel so.

Now, when you say "providing funding", are you saying that we don't recognize them but directly give them money? Or are you stating that the US government funds the Palestinian government, part of which Hamas has overtaken more or less by force? Personally, I wouldn't send over a penny until Hamas is destroyed, but last I checked I didn't think we were working with and directly sending them money. And if that is the case, sending funding to the Palestinian Authority for their budget, is much different than stating we are funding their organization.

It was merely a case in point but everyone is basing it on their bias. If we go with "because terrorist" then we need to start declaring scads of regimes around the world as illegitimate which then comes down to my other question; if X is illegitimate, now what?

It looks like we fund the Palestinian Authority of which Hamas is a part.

[jimnyc]

There were plenty of terrorist organizations on that list; Commies, Nazis, Fascists... but I repeat myself. I'm sure a few monarchies qualify or at least have qualified in the past. And I have no idea what their official reason is but I'm sure the unofficial reason is that they suck.

Times have changed. Some groups we look back upon may very well be look at as terrorist organizations today. The ones killing innocent civilians would likely be on that list. I don't think communists and fascists would be terrorists, unless of course they are killing civilians and/or innocents.


It was merely a case in point but everyone is basing it on their bias. If we go with "because terrorist" then we need to start declaring scads of regimes around the world as illegitimate which then comes down to my other question; if X is illegitimate, now what?

It looks like we fund the Palestinian Authority of which Hamas is a part.

In today's world, most people know what a terrorist is. You want to dissect the definition and go over the history of the world though. NOTHING that happened in the past will change the fact that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. What about the Germans, Japanese, commies or fascists would change that fact today? If they didn't kill back then, would Al Qaeda not be a terror organization today?

[fj1200]

Times have changed. Some groups we look back upon may very well be look at as terrorist organizations today. The ones killing innocent civilians would likely be on that list. I don't think communists and fascists would be terrorists, unless of course they are killing civilians and/or innocents.

:cough: WWII :cough:


In today's world, most people know what a terrorist is. You want to dissect the definition and go over the history of the world though. NOTHING that happened in the past will change the fact that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. What about the Germans, Japanese, commies or fascists would change that fact today? If they didn't kill back then, would Al Qaeda not be a terror organization today?

Hamas, you mean? What has happened in the past makes this a moot question.

[jimnyc]

:cough: WWII :cough:



Hamas, you mean? What has happened in the past makes this a moot question.

Nope, I meant Al Qaeda, it was an example. You want to use comparisons from the past, nazis, commies and other stuff - what I was asking was - was there ANYTHING in the past that would somehow NOT make them a terrorist organization? Would anything about any of the groups you mentioned, would anything somehow make them NOT a terror organization?

The answer is of course not. They are a terrorist organization, no ifs and or buts. History won't magically change current day terrorism.

[aboutime]

Terrorist Organizations are nothing but Terrorist Organizations. They have NO legitimacy anywhere in the World.

Unless someone here can show where the UNITED NATIONS provides a seat on the floor of Security Council with a vote.

TERRORISTS are TERRORISTS. Giving them any kind of Recognition, other than for their TERRORIST activities is STUPID.

[fj1200]

Nope, I meant Al Qaeda, it was an example. You want to use comparisons from the past, nazis, commies and other stuff - what I was asking was - was there ANYTHING in the past that would somehow NOT make them a terrorist organization? Would anything about any of the groups you mentioned, would anything somehow make them NOT a terror organization?

The answer is of course not. They are a terrorist organization, no ifs and or buts. History won't magically change current day terrorism.

OK. But the question wasn't can a terrorist organization rule legitimately. And the question wasn't is Hamas a terrorist organization. You say that the former excludes the latter and I say that's too simple. Were the Nazis legitimate? Was Stalin legitimate?

[jimnyc]

To add onto my original question, and this might sound similar - Is there anyone who does not see Hamas as a terrorist organization?


OK. But the question wasn't can a terrorist organization rule legitimately. And the question wasn't is Hamas a terrorist organization. You say that the former excludes the latter and I say that's too simple. Were the Nazis legitimate? Was Stalin legitimate?

It was part of my question, and this further questioning is a stepping stone.

If the questions is "IS Hamas a terrorist organization" - and the person answering states yes - then the answer to whether they can rule legitimately should then be a resounding no. IMO, anything shy of that is giving in towards them. We shouldn't give terrorists a single inch.

But of course there are some who don't see Hamas as a terrorist group, and that changes the answer for those folks.

[fj1200]

It was part of my question, and this further questioning is a stepping stone.

If the questions is "IS Hamas a terrorist organization" - and the person answering states yes - then the answer to whether they can rule legitimately should then be a resounding no. IMO, anything shy of that is giving in towards them. We shouldn't give terrorists a single inch.

But of course there are some who don't see Hamas as a terrorist group, and that changes the answer for those folks.

OK, the Nazis and Stalin then?

[jimnyc]

OK, the Nazis and Stalin then?

Don't give a crap about them, unless I'm reading a history book. It won't change whether Hamas is a terror organization or not, nor "should" it change whether people today think a terror organization should be a recognized legit government.

[fj1200]

Don't give a crap about them, unless I'm reading a history book. It won't change whether Hamas is a terror organization or not, nor "should" it change whether people today think a terror organization should be a recognized legit government.

Based on your expressed opinion it should be an easy answer. :dunno:

[jimnyc]

Based on your expressed opinion it should be an easy answer. :dunno:

If I wanted to make comparisons between today's terrorists vs. the history of bad leaders, I would have asked for that comparison.

Either you think Hamas are terrorists, or you do not think they are terrorists. Then you either think a terrorist group can be seen as legitimate today, or you do not believe they can be legitimate. If you want to add in history to your decision, so be it. But I sure as fuck don't need to qualify my answer based on the past. I think my answer was extremely clear, and my reasoning as to why the past shouldn't matter is a sound argument, which the stepping stone question went unanswered.

I'll assume your answer is that they are terrorists who engage in terrorist acts against Israel and against their own people. I'll further assume you believe they can still be legitimate. I'll further assume that meaning they "can" still be legitimate, is because I won't go into the past and answer your questions. Sorry to disappoint.

[fj1200]

If I wanted to make comparisons between today's terrorists vs. the history of bad leaders, I would have asked for that comparison.

If you're going to have a bright line rule I'm not sure why it doesn't work for all. I can easily say that the Khmer Rouge or the Kims Jong are illegitimate if Hamas is illegitimate.

[jimnyc]

If you're going to have a bright line rule I'm not sure why it doesn't work for all. I can easily say that the Khmer Rouge or the Kims Jong are illegitimate if Hamas is illegitimate.

I wouldn't argue with either of those. Ultimately, IMO, those examples ruled themselves out of legitimacy with the killing of the innocents. Hamas got voted in via terrorism.

[Gunny]

No game, 'twas merely a joke.

It's just that the whole thing is a red herring to quibble over some definition of legitimacy. They were unfortunately elected and unfortunately seem to have the support of the people so if you're going to deny their legitimacy the question becomes; now what? But remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The elephant in the room is a red herring? When you drag noncombatants in as targets and shields, you just lost any claim to being anything more than a target. "Freedom fighters" aren't cowards. Islamic terrorists are cowards. They hide behind women and children and have no qualms about murdering them.

Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization funded by Iran. The so-called "Palestinians" who are nothing more than just another gaggle of Arabs voted Hamas in as their government. Therefore, they have NO legitimacy. There is no Palestine. There's no such thing as a Palestinian. The grandaddy of all ME terrorist was Arafat. He was an egyptian. And stick around long enough, like O-blah-blah, and you get a nobel peace prize.

There are no borders in the ME as we recognize borders here. Those Arabs can go live anywhere they want. If they behave, they can even live in Israel. This legacy of hatred and "palestine" is contrived bullshit by those who would have to get a real job if they weren't so busy selling hate.

[fj1200]

The elephant in the room is a red herring? When you drag noncombatants in as targets and shields, you just lost any claim to being anything more than a target. "Freedom fighters" aren't cowards. Islamic terrorists are cowards. They hide behind women and children and have no qualms about murdering them.

Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization funded by Iran. The so-called "Palestinians" who are nothing more than just another gaggle of Arabs voted Hamas in as their government. Therefore, they have NO legitimacy. There is no Palestine. There's no such thing as a Palestinian. The grandaddy of all ME terrorist was Arafat. He was an egyptian. And stick around long enough, like O-blah-blah, and you get a nobel peace prize.

There are no borders in the ME as we recognize borders here. Those Arabs can go live anywhere they want. If they behave, they can even live in Israel. This legacy of hatred and "palestine" is contrived bullshit by those who would have to get a real job if they weren't so busy selling hate.

Yes, red herring. So now that you've declared them illegitimate... Now what?

[Gunny]

Yes, red herring. So now that you've declared them illegitimate... Now what?

You're asking ME?

I'd blow 'em off the map. But then, we already KNOW I'm quite the diplomat.

I don't have to declare them illegitimate. History already proves it. They're Arabs. No such thing as a "Palestinian". They were called Phillistines back in the day and they got their asses kicked. That's the way it was. So why is it, this one place (besides the indians in Minnesota that want their damned land back) different from the rest of the world?

I'm curious here. You think there's no God behind this? The Jews lost what they had when they sold out to the pharisees. They paid. Bigtime. Holocaust? Yet no one's ever kicked their asses in battle except themselves. Coincidence?

And I'm not Jewish, btw. Southern Baptist,

[fj1200]

You're asking ME?

I'd blow 'em off the map. But then, we already KNOW I'm quite the diplomat.

I don't have to declare them illegitimate. History already proves it. They're Arabs. No such thing as a "Palestinian". They were called Phillistines back in the day and they got their asses kicked. That's the way it was. So why is it, this one place (besides the indians in Minnesota that want their damned land back) different from the rest of the world?

I'm curious here. You think there's no God behind this? The Jews lost what they had when they sold out to the pharisees. They paid. Bigtime. Holocaust? Yet no one's ever kicked their asses in battle except themselves. Coincidence?

And I'm not Jewish, btw. Southern Baptist,

You'd blow them off the map including all the innocent civilians that have been subjugated by Hamas? And the rest of your post would seem to validate my contention that the question is a red herring designed to validate one's own position. :)

[Gunny]

You'd blow them off the map including all the innocent civilians that have been subjugated by Hamas? And the rest of your post would seem to validate my contention that the question is a red herring designed to validate one's own position. :)

Nah. I'd tell them what I told you. You're Arabs. You can travel freely in every Arab state. So why are you demanding one of the most worthless pieces of land there is in the ME? There's NOTHING there worth fighting over.

The red herring is those trying to blame it on Israel. They aren't starting shit. They finish in damned good fashion though. Trying to make an international terrorist organization a legitimate government? Really? They're murderers and scum. I'd feel more guilt shooting a rabid dog. The dog doesn't know any better.

[NightTrain]

I'm curious here. You think there's no God behind this? The Jews lost what they had when they sold out to the pharisees. They paid. Bigtime. Holocaust? Yet no one's ever kicked their asses in battle except themselves. Coincidence?

And I'm not Jewish, btw. Southern Baptist,


I've been saying the same thing for years... and I was raised Baptist.

Anyone that has any doubt as to who's side God is on can simply look at the results of battle after the dust settles. Against overwhelming odds Israel has performed mind-blowing victories with staggeringly few losses.

[fj1200]

Nah. I'd tell them what I told you. You're Arabs. You can travel freely in every Arab state. So why are you demanding one of the most worthless pieces of land there is in the ME? There's NOTHING there worth fighting over.

The red herring is those trying to blame it on Israel. They aren't starting shit. They finish in damned good fashion though. Trying to make an international terrorist organization a legitimate government? Really? They're murderers and scum. I'd feel more guilt shooting a rabid dog. The dog doesn't know any better.

And your legitimacy in telling them what to do is greater than that of Hamas? But believe it or not I'm pretty sure that there are some people who actually live there and don't want to go some place else. But my question doesn't really concern Hamas, they've made themselves targets no question. My question concerns those who have been subjugated by an illegitimate group.

[Drummond]

And your legitimacy in telling them what to do is greater than that of Hamas? But believe it or not I'm pretty sure that there are some people who actually live there and don't want to go some place else. But my question doesn't really concern Hamas, they've made themselves targets no question. My question concerns those who have been subjugated by an illegitimate group.

You're assuming mass subjugation. I am not.

I do feel sorry for the children caught up in all this .. those not old enough to have an opinion. As for everyone else, well, ARE they victims, or are they behind Hamas in all it does ? Many voted Hamas into power. More are willing to have their kids turned into human bombs. Yet more shield Hamas from Israeli targeting.

Those firing the rockets .. how many are Hamas 'people', and how many are willing helpers ?

And I tell you this. Of all the interviews I've seen screened of Gazans, NOT ONE has voiced even so much as CRITICISM of Hamas - indeed, one woman said she didn't used to be a Hamas supporter, but IS one, now.

Given the choice between living in rubble, with more bombing likely, and being without electricity for (as is estimated) A YEAR, and, going elsewhere, free of bombs, free of insanitary conditions, with amenities available ... who would choose the first set of options ? Other than a Hamas supporter, that is ..

[fj1200]

You're assuming mass subjugation. I am not.

I do feel sorry for the children caught up in all this .. those not old enough to have an opinion. As for everyone else, well, ARE they victims, or are they behind Hamas in all it does ? Many voted Hamas into power. More are willing to have their kids turned into human bombs. Yet more shield Hamas from Israeli targeting.

Those firing the rockets .. how many are Hamas 'people', and how many are willing helpers ?

And I tell you this. Of all the interviews I've seen screened of Gazans, NOT ONE has voiced even so much as CRITICISM of Hamas - indeed, one woman said she didn't used to be a Hamas supporter, but IS one, now.

Given the choice between living in rubble, with more bombing likely, and being without electricity for (as is estimated) A YEAR, and, going elsewhere, free of bombs, free of insanitary conditions, with amenities available ... who would choose the first set of options ? Other than a Hamas supporter, that is ..

Then you can't have it both ways, either they are supported and have an air of legitimacy despite your vacant protestations or they aren't supported and aren't legitimate.

[Gunny]

And your legitimacy in telling them what to do is greater than that of Hamas? But believe it or not I'm pretty sure that there are some people who actually live there and don't want to go some place else. But my question doesn't really concern Hamas, they've made themselves targets no question. My question concerns those who have been subjugated by an illegitimate group.

My legitimacy? How about there is right and wrong? Hamas is wrong.

I understand your question. You can't save them.

[aboutime]

My legitimacy? How about there is right and wrong? Hamas is wrong.

I understand your question. You can't save them.


Gunny. I guess now...You and others finally understand why I have labeled 'fj' as "F'n Jerk"??

[fj1200]

My legitimacy? How about there is right and wrong? Hamas is wrong.

I understand your question. You can't save them.

Yes, your legitimacy in telling them where they should live.

[Gunny]

Yes, your legitimacy in telling them where they should live.

Aren't you the one that just called something else a "red herring"? Now, read what I wrote. I'm not telling anyone where to live and your deflection is bullshit. I pointed out a fact. Those Arabs can live anywhere in the ME they want. Instead they choose to wage war on a bunch of civilians over a litter box. And yes, I have been there. You? Didn't think so.

Don't try to tell me what time it is when I'm the one wearing the watch.

If this gets moved to the cage, so be it. I'll still play. You?

[fj1200]

Aren't you the one that just called something else a "red herring"? Now, read what I wrote. I'm not telling anyone where to live and your deflection is bullshit. I pointed out a fact. Those Arabs can live anywhere in the ME they want. Instead they choose to wage war on a bunch of civilians over a litter box. And yes, I have been there. You? Didn't think so.

Don't try to tell me what time it is when I'm the one wearing the watch.

If this gets moved to the cage, so be it. I'll still play. You?


You're Arabs. You can travel freely in every Arab state.

:dunno:

You've been in Gaza? Interesting perspective them I'm sure you have to add. Nevertheless the question is a red herring because it's just people validating their own opinion with absolutely no power to make any difference.

And why would this need to be in the cage other than some anger issues?

[DragonStryk72]

I ask this based on a recent story where Jimmy Carter has stated as much.

Suppose it was Al Qaeda? Does the Palestinians voting them into office now make them legit? Any less of a terror organization? What if they were in Pakistan? Iran? or maybe even America?

Does a terror organization EVER become legitimate? My belief is, once you become such an organized group, and you start murdering people - you can NEVER be legitimate. Not even votes can make it so. Votes don't suddenly make a murderous crew innocent, nor bring back the people they terrorized and killed.

ISIS. Now what if they are voted into office in Iraq? Do we forget what they are doing right now? What about Hezbollah down the road? Islamic State?

I guess what I'm asking is - can a terrorist group EVER be an officially recognized government by other legitimate governments, or should they? My answer is HELL NO!

Well, I'd agree with you, but it's a moot point. The Palestinians got Gaza as a part of a peace treaty with Israel. When HAMAS attacked Israel, they voided that agreement, meaning they obviated their separate state deal. Israel is entirely within their rights to reclaim the land, period.

Maybe HAMAS should try, you know, honoring peace treaties.

[jimnyc]

Nevertheless the question is a red herring because it's just people validating their own opinion with absolutely no power to make any difference.

We offer opinions on subjects here, day in and day out, and 99% of them we have really no power to make a difference. Why with this thread is it somehow people validating their own opinions? Isn't that pretty much in every thread? It's almost like saying that there is no point to the thread, that people are only offering their meaningless opinions - which is kinda what I thought the point was. I honestly have no idea why you've harped on this from page one. Can people not simply offer their opinions on a matter with offering cures to make some sort of difference?

Is Al Qaeda legitimate? I don't offer an opinion yet - as why bother, as I am powerless to make any kind of difference, no?

[logroller]

I ask this based on a recent story where Jimmy Carter has stated as much.

Suppose it was Al Qaeda? Does the Palestinians voting them into office now make them legit? Any less of a terror organization? What if they were in Pakistan? Iran? or maybe even America?

Does a terror organization EVER become legitimate? My belief is, once you become such an organized group, and you start murdering people - you can NEVER be legitimate. Not even votes can make it so. Votes don't suddenly make a murderous crew innocent, nor bring back the people they terrorized and killed.

ISIS. Now what if they are voted into office in Iraq? Do we forget what they are doing right now? What about Hezbollah down the road? Islamic State?

I guess what I'm asking is - can a terrorist group EVER be an officially recognized government by other legitimate governments, or should they? My answer is HELL NO!
It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

[logroller]

Well, I'd agree with you, but it's a moot point. The Palestinians got Gaza as a part of a peace treaty with Israel. When HAMAS attacked Israel, they voided that agreement, meaning they obviated their separate state deal. Israel is entirely within their rights to reclaim the land, period.

Maybe HAMAS should try, you know, honoring peace treaties.
So is/was hamas legitimate? If they weren't legitimate, then they has no authority to enter into a treaty, let alone be held accountable for breaking it.

[Gaffer]

It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

If the people select and support an organization, then they are responsible for what that organization does. That organization is made up of the people. And you have to have a sovereign nation to have a legitimate govt. Neither gaza nor the west bank are sovereign nations.

hamas is a terrorist organization. It's in their charter. They don't have a sovereign country.

taliban are an affiliate of al qaeda. They don't have a sovereign country.

ISIS are bunch of animals out to conquer the world. They don't have a sovereign country.

Why don't we throw hezbollah in there too. They have something in common with the others, they don't have a sovereign country.

None of them have legitimacy. But the people in sovereign nations that support them are responsible and will be held so.

[fj1200]

We offer opinions on subjects here, day in and day out, and 99% of them we have really no power to make a difference. Why with this thread is it somehow people validating their own opinions? Isn't that pretty much in every thread? It's almost like saying that there is no point to the thread, that people are only offering their meaningless opinions - which is kinda what I thought the point was. I honestly have no idea why you've harped on this from page one. Can people not simply offer their opinions on a matter with offering cures to make some sort of difference?

Is Al Qaeda legitimate? I don't offer an opinion yet - as why bother, as I am powerless to make any kind of difference, no?

It's a red herring because nothing will come of the answer. We can all feel good and say they're not legitimate because, "er'm terrorist," but at the end of the day there is no difference in outcome. The question I've been asking is "now what?" If you don't at least acknowledge that there might be a change in strategy or thinking based on the legitimacy question then that reinforces the red herring status in my mind.

Is AQ legitimate? AFAIK they haven't sought out a governing role, they just have a cause.

[Gunny]

:dunno:

You've been in Gaza? Interesting perspective them I'm sure you have to add. Nevertheless the question is a red herring because it's just people validating their own opinion with absolutely no power to make any difference.

And why would this need to be in the cage other than some anger issues?

What exactly different do you think you are trying to do? Well, besides validate an illogical stance. Once again, lest we forget history, last time I was near Lebanon the Israeli's had kicked the PLO's so THAT far north. They didn't have to let them come back. What those Arabs claiming they are Palestinians have was given to them by those they are trying to destroy. I wouldn't have given them shit, and I'd have run their asses into the Red. In half a heartbeat.

The word "Palestine" is a red herring all unto itself. Me? I'd get tired of getting my ass kicked every time I pulled some shady crap. And raise my children to hate when they don't even know why? Beneath contempt.

[Gunny]

It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

Sure you can. The people voted a known international terrorist organization in as their government. The people lost their legitimacy then, but are STILL accountable for their actions. I'm not a government nor a nation, but if I go out and commit murder, my ass gets held accountable by higher authority. Correct?

[Gunny]

If the people select and support an organization, then they are responsible for what that organization does. That organization is made up of the people. And you have to have a sovereign nation to have a legitimate govt. Neither gaza nor the west bank are sovereign nations.

hamas is a terrorist organization. It's in their charter. They don't have a sovereign country.

taliban are an affiliate of al qaeda. They don't have a sovereign country.

ISIS are bunch of animals out to conquer the world. They don't have a sovereign country.

Why don't we throw hezbollah in there too. They have something in common with the others, they don't have a sovereign country.

None of them have legitimacy. But the people in sovereign nations that support them are responsible and will be held so.

Oh. I see you already said that. :laugh:

[fj1200]

If the people select and support an organization, then they are responsible for what that organization does. That organization is made up of the people. And you have to have a sovereign nation to have a legitimate govt. Neither gaza nor the west bank are sovereign nations.

When did the US gain sovereignty?


What exactly different do you think you are trying to do? Well, besides validate an illogical stance. Once again, lest we forget history, last time I was near Lebanon the Israeli's had kicked the PLO's so THAT far north. They didn't have to let them come back. What those Arabs claiming they are Palestinians have was given to them by those they are trying to destroy. I wouldn't have given them shit, and I'd have run their asses into the Red. In half a heartbeat.

The word "Palestine" is a red herring all unto itself. Me? I'd get tired of getting my ass kicked every time I pulled some shady crap. And raise my children to hate when they don't even know why? Beneath contempt.

All I'm doing is stating that there are different ways to be legitimate and that the question isn't really leading to anything. Logic states that if Hamas is illegitimate because "er'm terrorist" then the Nazis weren't legitimate. I'm willing to state that, no one else has so far.

And I agree totalitarians are beneath contempt.

[Gunny]

When did the US gain sovereignty?



All I'm doing is stating that there are different ways to be legitimate and that the question isn't really leading to anything. Logic states that if Hamas is illegitimate because "er'm terrorist" then the Nazis weren't legitimate. I'm willing to state that, no one else has so far.

And I agree totalitarians are beneath contempt.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but does not the US have a list of "why's" and "why not's" as far as legitimacy is concerned? I will agree about the Nazi's; however, the people that put them in power SUFFERED. They paid the price for blindly following promises without considering them. We can take this as far as you want.

Clash of cultures? You bet. I got attacked by every lefty on a board calling me racist for simply stating Arabs don't think like us. There's no judgement there, just a fact. They'll kill you standing on the sand dune on the left rather than the one on the right because by God ... or Allah ... the one on the left is theirs.

But someone has to draw a line somewhere. They hide behind noncombatants and wage war against them indiscriminately. So we can stand there and do nothing, or stand for something. Someone takes ME hostage? I know the rules. Good luck with that idea, but just saying ....:laugh: I hope some hard ass Marine kills them, even if I die.

You want to call an international terrorist organization legit? They're not legit. The people that back them and put them in power lost their legitimacy by doing so.

So let's cut to the chase. If there was no contrived hatred and no war, WHO would be out of business?

[fj1200]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but does not the US have a list of "why's" and "why not's" as far as legitimacy is concerned? I will agree about the Nazi's; however, the people that put them in power SUFFERED. They paid the price for blindly following promises without considering them. We can take this as far as you want.

Clash of cultures? You bet. I got attacked by every lefty on a board calling me racist for simply stating Arabs don't think like us. There's no judgement there, just a fact. They'll kill you standing on the sand dune on the left rather than the one on the right because by God ... or Allah ... the one on the left is theirs.

But someone has to draw a line somewhere. They hide behind noncombatants and wage war against them indiscriminately. So we can stand there and do nothing, or stand for something. Someone takes ME hostage? I know the rules. Good luck with that idea, but just saying ....:laugh: I hope some hard ass Marine kills them, even if I die.

You want to call an international terrorist organization legit? They're not legit. The people that back them and put them in power lost their legitimacy by doing so.

So let's cut to the chase. If there was no contrived hatred and no war, WHO would be out of business?

I'm not sure we need to go very far. If terrorist is your benchmark then we can rattle off quite a few regimes that are not/were not legitimate. If your going to draw the line use it consistently.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure we need to go very far. If terrorist is your benchmark then we can rattle off quite a few regimes that are not/were not legitimate. If your going to draw the line use it consistently.

I am consistent. You like to play dishonest games with words. Not going to work on me. "Terrorist" in the modern definition is a person or people that use terror as a weapon. They wage war on noncombatants because in a stand up fight they'd get waxed. They scare the noncombatants they wage war against. They don't scare those that will stand up to them.

DO not I used the word modern. You on the other hand probably want to go back in time somewhere, as you did with the Nazi's, and judge those people by today's standard. Dishonest. Different world. Different rules. Different reasons.

I asked a question you didn't bother answer. If there is no hatred and/or war, WHO is out of business?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

More circular reasoning to avoid the reality that the truth presents.
Legitimate or not they are terrorist organizations and as such we have Federal laws giving our government specific guidelines in actions we are to take. BAMPUNK ignores those laws and funds some of the terrorists groups. That's called treason but you will use some bull crap circular reasoning to try to prove that it is not.
If it quacks like a duck , walk likes a duck , swims like a duck then it is a chicken according to you because it lays an egg like a duck.
I suggest you stick to using Google like you usually do. .:laugh:

Note, when terrorist groups that are on our government terrorist list manage to take control of foreign governments it DOES NOT suddenly make them legitimate nor does it serve our interests to appease them as they are still our avowed enemies. A fact that your supposed brilliance ignores! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Elephant in the room would step on you while you thought it STILL wasn't there. :laugh: -Tyr

[Gaffer]

It all depends on what your definition of "is" is right Bill?

ISIS is a terrorist organization that has taken over a lot of territory and declared themselves a caliphate and sovereign state. Does that give them legitimacy?

[DragonStryk72]

So is/was hamas legitimate? If they weren't legitimate, then they has no authority to enter into a treaty, let alone be held accountable for breaking it.

Irrelevant. If HAMAS was legit, then they broke the peace, Gaza goes back to Israel. If HAMAS isn't legit, then Gaza is a rogue nation, with a mission of genocide against, making Israel 100% justified in occupying them.

[Drummond]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but does not the US have a list of "why's" and "why not's" as far as legitimacy is concerned? I will agree about the Nazi's; however, the people that put them in power SUFFERED. They paid the price for blindly following promises without considering them. We can take this as far as you want.

Clash of cultures? You bet. I got attacked by every lefty on a board calling me racist for simply stating Arabs don't think like us. There's no judgement there, just a fact. They'll kill you standing on the sand dune on the left rather than the one on the right because by God ... or Allah ... the one on the left is theirs.

But someone has to draw a line somewhere. They hide behind noncombatants and wage war against them indiscriminately. So we can stand there and do nothing, or stand for something. Someone takes ME hostage? I know the rules. Good luck with that idea, but just saying ....:laugh: I hope some hard ass Marine kills them, even if I die.

You want to call an international terrorist organization legit? They're not legit. The people that back them and put them in power lost their legitimacy by doing so.

So let's cut to the chase. If there was no contrived hatred and no war, WHO would be out of business?

I'm unsure whether FJ's rubbish is worth answering in detail. I'm fascinated by his hinted position that the US's Nation State status is open to question (.. his question about the US's sovereignty ..). The hinted position seems to be that the US is somehow comparable to Hamas's own position ??

And FJ claims not to be a Leftie ...... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm mainly replying because I'm curious about the forum where you got attacked by Lefties calling you a racist ? I'm tempted to join it myself to take on some of these characters. Please PM if you've information you want to give me.

I was once a member of a Left-wing forum (a home-grown one in the UK). I managed to last six weeks there before they decided they couldn't take any more of me, & banned me ... and I sometimes wonder how I lasted that long ... :laugh:

[Gunny]

I'm unsure whether FJ's rubbish is worth answering in detail. I'm fascinated by his hinted position that the US's Nation State status is open to question (.. his question about the US's sovereignty ..). The hinted position seems to be that the US is somehow comparable to Hamas's own position ??

And FJ claims not to be a Leftie ...... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm mainly replying because I'm curious about the forum where you got attacked by Lefties calling you a racist ? I'm tempted to join it myself to take on some of these characters. Please PM if you've information you want to give me.

I was once a member of a Left-wing forum (a home-grown one in the UK). I managed to last six weeks there before they decided they couldn't take any more of me, & banned me ... and I sometimes wonder how I lasted that long ... :laugh:

If you don't know what forum it was I'm wondering what rock you've been living under? :laugh: We don't need to go there. Talking about other forums is bad for business.

I guess you might be missing the point. I have no problem with destroying FJ's arguments. Let him talk. He's not making ME look dumb.:laugh: But at least he tries to make his argument from his POV. He doesn't attack me personally. Remember what this used to be about? Debate? So we disagree? Big deal. I slept fine last night. :)

[fj1200]

I am consistent. You like to play dishonest games with words. Not going to work on me. "Terrorist" in the modern definition is a person or people that use terror as a weapon. They wage war on noncombatants because in a stand up fight they'd get waxed. They scare the noncombatants they wage war against. They don't scare those that will stand up to them.

DO not I used the word modern. You on the other hand probably want to go back in time somewhere, as you did with the Nazi's, and judge those people by today's standard. Dishonest. Different world. Different rules. Different reasons.

I asked a question you didn't bother answer. If there is no hatred and/or war, WHO is out of business?

I assume you're looking for Hamas to be the answer. Sure, their mission right now is anti-Israel but if that were to go away and they would actually start to make things better for the Palestinians then do they become legitimate?

And I'm sorry if you think there are any word games going on but if there were consistency then we would have no problem referring to all the other regimes, past and present, that fit the definition as illegitimate. It's clearly not dishonest to have a historical perspective because perhaps it gives a framework of how to move forward. I actually applaud you for pointing out a definition and using it but now what? Jimmy apparently thinks that granting some sort of legitimacy will make them easier to work with; He's wrong. I don't think stating that they're illegitimate is going to make any difference either; Hamas just sucks.


I guess you might be missing the point. I have no problem with destroying FJ's arguments. Let him talk. He's not making ME look dumb.:laugh: But at least he tries to make his argument from his POV. He doesn't attack me personally. Remember what this used to be about? Debate? So we disagree? Big deal. I slept fine last night. :)

I'm not sure what you think you've destroyed ;) but I can easily have a rational discussion on any point when one is presented to me. :)

[fj1200]

It all depends on what your definition of "is" is right Bill?

ISIS is a terrorist organization that has taken over a lot of territory and declared themselves a caliphate and sovereign state. Does that give them legitimacy?

No, I don't think this has anything to do with it.


verb1.
3rd person singular present indicative of be (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/be).

Of course ISIS isn't legitimate, they're terrorists. :poke: Is North Korea legitimate? They're even worse, terrorizing their own people.

[fj1200]

I'm unsure whether FJ's rubbish is worth answering in detail. I'm fascinated by his hinted position that the US's Nation State status is open to question (.. his question about the US's sovereignty ..). The hinted position seems to be that the US is somehow comparable to Hamas's own position ??

And FJ claims not to be a Leftie ...... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

:facepalm99: Did you do drugs as a young leftie? Acid perhaps? That may explain your imagination issues. Just trying to help. :)

[jimnyc]

I assume you're looking for Hamas to be the answer. Sure, their mission right now is anti-Israel but if that were to go away and they would actually start to make things better for the Palestinians then do they become legitimate?

And I'm sorry if you think there are any word games going on but if there were consistency then we would have no problem referring to all the other regimes, past and present, that fit the definition as illegitimate. It's clearly not dishonest to have a historical perspective because perhaps it gives a framework of how to move forward. I actually applaud you for pointing out a definition and using it but now what? Jimmy apparently thinks that granting some sort of legitimacy will make them easier to work with; He's wrong. I don't think stating that they're illegitimate is going to make any difference either; Hamas just sucks.



I'm not sure what you think you've destroyed ;) but I can easily have a rational discussion on any point when one is presented to me. :)

I never said anything even like that. I think granting them legitimacy is a joke...

And it was at that very moment I realized that you were referring to Jimmy Carter and not me. But I wanted to post this anyway, to show what an idiot I can be at times!

[fj1200]

^:laugh:

Phew.

[jimnyc]

^:laugh:

Phew.

And I even reread it several times before replying. I even thought to myself, that's odd, he never refers to me as Jimmy. I blame it on too much coffee!

[Gunny]

I assume you're looking for Hamas to be the answer. Sure, their mission right now is anti-Israel but if that were to go away and they would actually start to make things better for the Palestinians then do they become legitimate?

And I'm sorry if you think there are any word games going on but if there were consistency then we would have no problem referring to all the other regimes, past and present, that fit the definition as illegitimate. It's clearly not dishonest to have a historical perspective because perhaps it gives a framework of how to move forward. I actually applaud you for pointing out a definition and using it but now what? Jimmy apparently thinks that granting some sort of legitimacy will make them easier to work with; He's wrong. I don't think stating that they're illegitimate is going to make any difference either; Hamas just sucks.



I'm not sure what you think you've destroyed ;) but I can easily have a rational discussion on any point when one is presented to me. :)

I'm not the one looking for an answer here. I already know it.

I'm more sorry that you can't see what everyone else does ... you try to play word games. You address nothing directly. You try to go on the offense with a misdirection play, but you bit off a little more than you can chew. I don't take my eyes off the prize. I am EXACTLY what I was trained from birth to be ... a warrior with a mission. You don't have to like it, me, nor agree with me. I'm every leftwinger's worst nightmare. So is every other vet on this board.

Now, I took your side to knock off a bs argument. Or tried to. Stop talking down to us like we're stupid. I was smarter/more intelligent and could play better semantics in the 5th grade than you can now. You're not that good.

You want to have a civil discussion, go for it. Don't attack me. There's not one person here that doesn't know what I'm going to do when and if you do.

[fj1200]

I'm not the one looking for an answer here. I already know it.

I'm more sorry that you can't see what everyone else does ... you try to play word games. You address nothing directly. You try to go on the offense with a misdirection play, but you bit off a little more than you can chew. I don't take my eyes off the prize. I am EXACTLY what I was trained from birth to be ... a warrior with a mission. You don't have to like it, me, nor agree with me. I'm every leftwinger's worst nightmare. So is every other vet on this board.

Now, I took your side to knock off a bs argument. Or tried to. Stop talking down to us like we're stupid. I was smarter/more intelligent and could play better semantics in the 5th grade than you can now. You're not that good.

You want to have a civil discussion, go for it. Don't attack me. There's not one person here that doesn't know what I'm going to do when and if you do.

Oh brother. :rolleyes: I'll be sure to alert the leftwingers.

[Gunny]

Oh brother. :rolleyes: I'll be sure to alert the leftwingers.

Most are smart enough to leave me alone. I WAS one. Before the left turned "liberal" into a dirty word. I'm as by the book 70's definition liberal as it gets. I'm just not a head-up-my-ass progressive who is just as Nazi as it gets. Having different ideas makes you no better nor worse than Fred Phelps. Except, the left seems to be far more intolerant of different viewpoints than most conservatives. I'm sure you'll come up with an exception to the rule now. That's just how you are.

Kind of flies in the face of being called "liberal" doesn't it?

So far, you've lost every round. I DO admire the fact you keep getting up from the canvas to take another beating though.:laugh:

[fj1200]

Most are smart enough to leave me alone. I WAS one. Before the left turned "liberal" into a dirty word. I'm as by the book 70's definition liberal as it gets. I'm just not a head-up-my-ass progressive who is just as Nazi as it gets. Having different ideas makes you no better nor worse than Fred Phelps. Except, the left seems to be far more intolerant of different viewpoints than most conservatives. I'm sure you'll come up with an exception to the rule now. That's just how you are.

Kind of flies in the face of being called "liberal" doesn't it?

So far, you've lost every round. I DO admire the fact you keep getting up from the canvas to take another beating though.:laugh:

I don't even know WTF you're talking about anymore. E-tough dude wins this round. :rolleyes: For future reference I'll know when the whole semantics argument comes up again that rational thought is over.

[aboutime]

Most are smart enough to leave me alone. I WAS one. Before the left turned "liberal" into a dirty word. I'm as by the book 70's definition liberal as it gets. I'm just not a head-up-my-ass progressive who is just as Nazi as it gets. Having different ideas makes you no better nor worse than Fred Phelps. Except, the left seems to be far more intolerant of different viewpoints than most conservatives. I'm sure you'll come up with an exception to the rule now. That's just how you are.

Kind of flies in the face of being called "liberal" doesn't it?

So far, you've lost every round. I DO admire the fact you keep getting up from the canvas to take another beating though.:laugh:

Gunny. We should get Jim to allow 'fj' to create his own "I LOVE ME" thread. fj is so impressed with everything he says. But never gets the hint that ONLY HE is the one Impressed.

I often wonder if 'fj' has a MIRROR above his laptop screen, where he can look back at himself...vomit, then look again?

fj is nothing but a perpetual trouble maker/troll who must always feel that air of superiority over everyone else.

fj would probably do the same to his mother. But in order to do that. One must first have a mother to condescend with, and to.

[Gunny]

Gunny. We should get Jim to allow 'fj' to create his own "I LOVE ME" thread. fj is so impressed with everything he says. But never gets the hint that ONLY HE is the one Impressed.

I often wonder if 'fj' has a MIRROR above his laptop screen, where he can look back at himself...vomit, then look again?

fj is nothing but a perpetual trouble maker/troll who must always feel that air of superiority over everyone else.

fj would probably do the same to his mother. But in order to do that. One must first have a mother to condescend with, and to.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Gunny]

I don't even know WTF you're talking about anymore. E-tough dude wins this round. :rolleyes: For future reference I'll know when the whole semantics argument comes up again that rational thought is over.

You think I'm just e-tough? I'd tell you to look at my profile pic but you'd probably piss yourself.

Rethink your last statement. The argument is over when YOU start trying to play semantics, not when you get called on it.

[aboutime]

You think I'm just e-tough? I'd tell you to look at my profile pic but you'd probably piss yourself.

Rethink your last statement. The argument is over when YOU start trying to play semantics, not when you get called on it.



Gunny. Since it is Friday. I feel like we need some laughs. So, at 'fj's expense. Here is who I believe he might look like:http://icansayit.com/images/peeweeliberal.jpg

[Gunny]

And I'm going to give you another shot at this. On what basis do you consider Hamas a legitimate governing body? We have laws against recognizing criminal organizations as "legitimate" governments. In another thread, you're hanging on nothing but the law to go against me. In this thread, you want to ignore the law. But you called ME inconsistent, right?

So take a stand. And stand for something. I'll wait.

[aboutime]

And I'm going to give you another shot at this. On what basis do you consider Hamas a legitimate governing body? We have laws against recognizing criminal organizations as "legitimate" governments. In another thread, you're hanging on nothing but the law to go against me. In this thread, you want to ignore the law. But you called ME inconsistent, right?

So take a stand. And stand for something. I'll wait.


Gunny. The easy way to handle people like fj is to let them continue to believe ONLY THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT, while everyone else MUST ALWAYS BE WRONG.

Then. Offer to compliment them, and since they INSIST you are wrong. So is your compliment to them..A LIE.

[fj1200]

You think I'm just e-tough? I'd tell you to look at my profile pic but you'd probably piss yourself.

Rethink your last statement. The argument is over when YOU start trying to play semantics, not when you get called on it.

I don't really care how tough you are. Someone once said this is a debate site so that's what I do. And FWIW, you're only lining up with the silver medal in complaining about how I post with my tricky semantics and question asking. So in rethinking my last statement... Still works for me.


And I'm going to give you another shot at this. On what basis do you consider Hamas a legitimate governing body? We have laws against recognizing criminal organizations as "legitimate" governments. In another thread, you're hanging on nothing but the law to go against me. In this thread, you want to ignore the law. But you called ME inconsistent, right?

So take a stand. And stand for something. I'll wait.

:laugh: "Nothing but the law." I'm sure the law is semantics too. :laugh:

So how are they legitimate? They have the unfortunate support of their people and are presently in charge, sometimes that's all it takes. Our domestic law isn't the end all of when a regime is legitimate.

This is interesting. I was surprised how many countries in the ME don't recognize Hamas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#International_designation_of_Hamas

[Gunny]

I don't really care how tough you are. Someone once said this is a debate site so that's what I do. And FWIW, you're only lining up with the silver medal in complaining about how I post with my tricky semantics and question asking. So in rethinking my last statement... Still works for me.



:laugh: "Nothing but the law." I'm sure the law is semantics too. :laugh:

So how are they legitimate? They have the unfortunate support of their people and are presently in charge, sometimes that's all it takes. Our domestic law isn't the end all of when a regime is legitimate.

This is interesting. I was surprised how many countries in the ME don't recognize Hamas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#International_designation_of_Hamas

Wow. You actually think you're good, don't you? :laugh: Not.

Having the support of their people worked out how well for Nazi germany and Japan? It didn't. But look at at atrocities they committed before someone stepped up and slapped them down. How many people have to die for your semantics? Go find another sand dune. There are plenty. The fact is, Mr I like to call people racist, this is about wiping the Jews off the map. Nothing more. Nothing less. And it's worked out SO well.

Now, again, who is out of job if the hatred for others is gone? And yeah, I re-worded the same question. These people are making a living out of fostering hate because they're worthless otherwise. And they're dragging a bunch of noncombatant dupes down the tubes with them.

You question my solution? Let's hear yours. This crap's been going since 1949. Actually, 1925 if you want to honor the Balfour Agreement that would have circumvented the holocaust. You have generations of people who believe they are something they aren't and blindly following murderers wherever they get told to go. Kind of like the stupid f-cks that voted for Obama.

Now, hears my REAL dreamland solution: Let Israel have California. Kick all the losers that live there out. Gets them out of the ME. Puts Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and Al quaeda out of work. They got nothing to hate. But then you'd support them coming here and attacking the Jews in CA, wouldn't you? You'd come up with some dumbass reason why they were wrong.

Apparently, history and English aren't your subjects. You good at math? I got nothing better to do right now than spank your silly ass all over this board. You've never had to fight for a damned thing have you?

[Drummond]

If you don't know what forum it was I'm wondering what rock you've been living under? :laugh:

It's called the UK, Gunny ...

I expect that the forum you were referring to is well known in the US. But then, not being American, I'll not know various things about your part of the world which will be common knowledge on your side of the Pond.


We don't need to go there. Talking about other forums is bad for business.

I take your point. Could've been fun, though ...:cool:


I have no problem with destroying FJ's arguments.

Neither do I .. it's an easy task, usually.


Let him talk. He's not making ME look dumb.:laugh: But at least he tries to make his argument from his POV.

True. Which he'll do at great length, given half the chance.


He doesn't attack me personally.

Enjoy the privilege. But if my experience is anything to go by, if you keep 'besting' him, that won't last.


Remember what this used to be about? Debate? So we disagree? Big deal. I slept fine last night. :)

... as it should be. And the day the likes of FJ disturbs my sleeping patterns will be the day I deserve to be 6 feet underground.

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: Did you do drugs as a young leftie? Acid perhaps? That may explain your imagination issues. Just trying to help. :)

I always know I'm winning when you stoop to this sort of rubbish.

As for 'imagination issues', try instead your memory issues .. ?

Post #97. Check it out. Here, use this link ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46276-Hamas-legitimate&p=700181#post700181

Gaffer posted ..


If the people select and support an organization, then they are responsible for what that organization does. That organization is made up of the people. And you have to have a sovereign nation to have a legitimate govt. Neither gaza nor the west bank are sovereign nations.

You .. incredibly, in my view .. answered, with ..


When did the US gain sovereignty?

Clear, now ?

I expect you'll now try to wheedle your way out of this one. It's what you do. You can never admit when you're wrong.

[aboutime]

I always know I'm winning when you stoop to this sort of rubbish.

As for 'imagination issues', try instead your memory issues .. ?

Post #97. Check it out. Here, use this link ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46276-Hamas-legitimate&p=700181#post700181

Gaffer posted ..



You .. incredibly, in my view .. answered, with ..



Clear, now ?

I expect you'll now try to wheedle your way out of this one. It's what you do. You can never admit when you're wrong.



Sir Drummond. Something tells me, from past experience in reading 'fj's' posts. That his attempt to accuse you of using ACID, is simply another of the tried, and true liberal attempts to distract attention away from 'jf', and to steer away from his own CONTINUED use of such mindless pleasures with the Liberal tactics he knows, and has used so well.?

Liberals like fj always resort to the accusations, and name calling tactics to prevent exposing their own IGNORANCE, and STUPIDITY that JUMPS OFF THE PAGE...here on DP.

[fj1200]

Wow. You actually think you're good, don't you? :laugh: Not.

Seriously, I don't know WTF you're on about now. Just having a discussion here.


Having the support of their people worked out how well for Nazi germany and Japan? It didn't. But look at at atrocities they committed before someone stepped up and slapped them down. How many people have to die for your semantics? Go find another sand dune. There are plenty. The fact is, Mr I like to call people racist, this is about wiping the Jews off the map. Nothing more. Nothing less. And it's worked out SO well.

How well it worked out isn't really the point. Whether you think Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan were legitimate or not doesn't change the fact that they should have been "slapped down." Whether you think Hamas is legitimate or not doesn't change the fact that they need to be "slapped down." And FWIW I only call people racist when they say racist things.


Now, again, who is out of job if the hatred for others is gone? And yeah, I re-worded the same question. These people are making a living out of fostering hate because they're worthless otherwise. And they're dragging a bunch of noncombatant dupes down the tubes with them.

:confused: Yes, Hamas sucks. I think we all agree on that one.


You question my solution? Let's hear yours. This crap's been going since 1949. Actually, 1925 if you want to honor the Balfour Agreement that would have circumvented the holocaust. You have generations of people who believe they are something they aren't and blindly following murderers wherever they get told to go. Kind of like the stupid f-cks that voted for Obama.

My solution? There isn't really a shooting solution IMO. There won't be peace there until living conditions in Palestine improve. Of course Israel will still be a scapegoat for all the problems in the ME.


Now, hears my REAL dreamland solution: Let Israel have California. Kick all the losers that live there out. Gets them out of the ME. Puts Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and Al quaeda out of work. They got nothing to hate. But then you'd support them coming here and attacking the Jews in CA, wouldn't you? You'd come up with some dumbass reason why they were wrong.

Not really but I'm sure your imagination will come up with something good.


Apparently, history and English aren't your subjects. You good at math? I got nothing better to do right now than spank your silly ass all over this board. You've never had to fight for a damned thing have you?

I'm sure the knuckleheads around here will surely flock to your side. That's the only way you, and they, "win."

[fj1200]

... if you keep 'besting' him, that won't last.

Ah yes, chief knucklehead rides in for moral support.


I always know I'm winning when you stoop to this sort of rubbish.

As for 'imagination issues', try instead your memory issues .. ?

Post #97. Check it out. Here, use this link ...

Gaffer posted ..

You .. incredibly, in my view .. answered, with ..

Clear, now ?

I expect you'll now try to wheedle your way out of this one. It's what you do. You can never admit when you're wrong.

My memory is perfectly fine and what is clear, and has been for quite some time, is that you are dumb as F*. It was a simple question which is where you're confused.

So let your imagination run wild with some more stuff you don't understand.

[Drummond]

Ah yes, chief knucklehead rides in for moral support.



My memory is perfectly fine and what is clear, and has been for quite some time, is that you are dumb as F*. It was a simple question which is where you're confused.

So let your imagination run wild with some more stuff you don't understand.

You know, I'd be more inclined to usefully answer you if you posted something with some substance. But the post I'm replying to from you now is just devoted to an attack.

If that's all you've got to offer .. what's the point of you ? Aren't you just proving yourself to be a waste of space ?

The truth is that I've supplied too much quality opposition against you in the past .. so, now, you're just reduced to throwing insults out. It's what you do when the opposition against you gets to be too good for you to counter.

Truly sad.

It's as I said. You can never admit when you're wrong. Recent posts illustrate that.

[fj1200]

You know, I'd be more inclined to usefully answer you if you posted something with some substance. But the post I'm replying to from you now is just devoted to an attack.

I asked a fricking question dumbA*. If you would spend more time having a back and forth than whining like a chump we might get somewhere. Somewhere beyond your leftie crutch and imagination anyway.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Something tells me, from past experience in reading 'fj's' posts. That his attempt to accuse you of using ACID, is simply another of the tried, and true liberal attempts to distract attention away from 'jf', and to steer away from his own CONTINUED use of such mindless pleasures with the Liberal tactics he knows, and has used so well.?

Liberals like fj always resort to the accusations, and name calling tactics to prevent exposing their own IGNORANCE, and STUPIDITY that JUMPS OFF THE PAGE...here on DP.

The simple truth is as I've said it is. FJ argues to win, to score points. But he can never concede anything, ever. When he's in danger of being bested, then things get more personal with him, and the comments increasingly reflect that. They're meant to be a distraction from weaknesses of argument he is determined to never admit to.

It's a weakness that the lib side has as well (.. which, of course, FJ mirrors). Propaganda stances cannot, dare not, admit to weaknesses or error, since propaganda is invariably built on a 'house of cards' principle. Invalidate one corner of it, one aspect, and the whole edifice becomes fatally compromised.

[Drummond]

I asked a fricking question dumbA*. If you would spend more time having a back and forth than whining like a chump we might get somewhere. Somewhere beyond your leftie crutch and imagination anyway.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I see you're on form today. FJ.

You get nowhere with me when you launch these puerile tirades. Have you really not learned that yet ?

And as to the 'leftie crutch' comment .. this, too, has been covered before (and to exhaustion, I'd have thought ?). Since you argue as a Leftie does, so you get called out on it. You earn what you get.

Have a nice day ... :laugh:

[fj1200]

The simple truth is as I've said it is. FJ argues to win, to score points. But he can never concede anything, ever. When he's in danger of being bested, then things get more personal with him, and the comments increasingly reflect that. They're meant to be a distraction from weaknesses of argument he is determined to never admit to.

It's a weakness that the lib side has as well (.. which, of course, FJ mirrors). Propaganda stances cannot, dare not, admit to weaknesses or error, since propaganda is invariably built on a 'house of cards' principle. Invalidate one corner of it, one aspect, and the whole edifice becomes fatally compromised.

Oh geez. I only post the TRUTH about you. You post propaganda about me which is all you can do when you have failed hundreds of times to point out my "leftie" positions. The only thing that remains is your imagination. See below?


You get nowhere with me when you launch these puerile tirades. Have you really not learned that yet ?

And as to the 'leftie crutch' comment .. this, too, has been covered before (and to exhaustion, I'd have thought ?). Since you argue as a Leftie does, so you get called out on it. You earn what you get.

Have a nice day ... :laugh:

I don't expect anything from you so I'm not surprised when I don't get it. Your failure has been covered before. ;) The definition for "arguing like a leftie" is showing you to be a vacuous fool. :)

[Drummond]

Oh geez. I only post the TRUTH about you. You post propaganda about me which is all you can do when you have failed hundreds of times to point out my "leftie" positions. The only thing that remains is your imagination. See below?



I don't expect anything from you so I'm not surprised when I don't get it. Your failure has been covered before. ;) The definition for "arguing like a leftie" is showing you to be a vacuous fool. :)

Your offerings go beyond your so-called idea of what's true about me. You launch into abusive comments, as anyone can readily see. You've done this a lot with me, because you know that - short of conceding to me, which you just can't face doing - you've nothing else you can do. Such abuse is a clear sign of weakness on your part. I've long since interpreted it that way.

Answering your 'vacuous fool' jibe. Two examples of your Leftie positions ... one ... you invariably find ways of defending Obama from attack. You try to disguise it with the occasional disparagement of yours, but the fact remains that when someone puts together an argument strongly challenging Obama's position, you find some 'grounds' or other to argue against it.

Two ... you once argued strongly against the UK Conservative Party's austerity approach to the UK economy. What you offered instead cloned our LABOUR PARTY'S own preferred approach (our own mainstream Socialist Party). That history had already discredited that approach, and that the Conservatives were having success with their methods, didn't cut any ice with you.

You were committed to your Leftie stance, after all .. and you didn't let a little thing, like PROVABLE FACT, get in your way. What Leftie would ?

-- Fact is that our economy is now rated to be healthier than it was pre-2008. No reckless spending. In its place, responsible prudence.

Anyway, all this detracts from this thread's subject-matter (something you yourself are very good at arranging) ...

[aboutime]

Really?:laugh:


NightTrain. Congrats on becoming a mod but...I was serious with my REALLY?

I posted a simple photo of a commonly used, recognized item in our society today...and it was removed?

Please explain how my photo was more OFFENSIVE than the photo's we have been showered with from GAZA, where the body of a child was repeatedly posted on a thread?

Is political correctness INVADING "DP" now?

[fj1200]

Your offerings go beyond your so-called idea of what's true about me. You launch into abusive comments, as anyone can readily see. You've done this a lot with me, because you know that - short of conceding to me, which you just can't face doing - you've nothing else you can do. Such abuse is a clear sign of weakness on your part. I've long since interpreted it that way.

Answering your 'vacuous fool' jibe. Two examples of your Leftie positions ... one ... you invariably find ways of defending Obama from attack. You try to disguise it with the occasional disparagement of yours, but the fact remains that when someone puts together an argument strongly challenging Obama's position, you find some 'grounds' or other to argue against it.

Two ... you once argued strongly against the UK Conservative Party's austerity approach to the UK economy. What you offered instead cloned our LABOUR PARTY'S own preferred approach (our own mainstream Socialist Party). That history had already discredited that approach, and that the Conservatives were having success with their methods, didn't cut any ice with you.

You were committed to your Leftie stance, after all .. and you didn't let a little thing, like PROVABLE FACT, get in your way. What Leftie would ?

-- Fact is that our economy is now rated to be healthier than it was pre-2008. No reckless spending. In its place, responsible prudence.

Anyway, all this detracts from this thread's subject-matter (something you yourself are very good at arranging) ...

Everything I post about you is true from my perspective. I wish we could have a rational discussion but you always make the thread what you think about me rather than what the thread is about: That's your choice, not mine along with your "leftie" blather.

You could point out me defending BO. But remember defending truth is not defending BO. But yes, I argued against British austerity because as I explained; austerity sucks. I believe in that thread you were 1) eagerly defending the big government approach, and 2) trying to paint me as supporting Labor which was patently false.

So, in conclusion, your "PROVABLE FACT" was nothing more than your imagination. That's a recurring theme isn't it? And guess what, British turnaround coincided with tax cuts which is exactly what I supported. You could revive the thread if you need a reminder. ;)

[gabosaurus]

Does the Palestinians voting them into office now make them legit? Any less of a terror organization? What if they were in Pakistan? Iran? or maybe even America?

Who are we to decide what kind of government that other countries want? Saudi Arabia has a government that not only recognizes terrorism, but financially supports them. Yet we recognize and even do business with them.
We recognize China and Russia, two of the most evil and corrupt nations in the world. Not to mention many African nations ruled by corrupt despots.
The U.S. should not be dictating how other nations want to run their business.

[Gunny]

Who are we to decide what kind of government that other countries want? Saudi Arabia has a government that not only recognizes terrorism, but financially supports them. Yet we recognize and even do business with them.
We recognize China and Russia, two of the most evil and corrupt nations in the world. Not to mention many African nations ruled by corrupt despots.
The U.S. should not be dictating how other nations want to run their business.

Deflection. We don't worry about government other countries want. It IS our choice to decide whether or not to recognize them based on their actions. The US CAN dictate who the US wishes to aid or not, and the US CAN decide who it deems worthy of defending. THAT is our choice, and has nothing to do with deciding who else chooses anything.

The US didn't make the so-called Palestinian's choices. THEY do. We get to choose whether or not we support the good guys or the bad guys.

A footnote for you, ms history buff. The US adamantly opposed the recreation of Israel. Being Americans, the second that rag tag little bunch started kicking butt, that viewpoint changed because we love the underdog here. Which was cool until we lost sight of the who the underdog was and started feeling sorry for another underdog and lost sight of right and wrong in the process.

There is NO SUCH THING as a palestinian. They are arabs. Period. Palestine was a country that a tribe of idiot city states ruled way back when. The Jews took it from them. Way it was. The Arabs sided with axis powers during WWI and lost. Tough. The treaty of Balfour gave Israel to the Jews. Why? No one wanted them in Europe the US and at the time, the ME was a world away.

You lose a war you lose your shit. That's how it was. The Arabs lost and lost their shit. I find it interesting and noteworthy that you apologize for and take the side of anyone that's ever opposed us. You might think there's something wrong with that thinking, considering you don't mind living here and sucking off our milk and honey?

[Drummond]

Everything I post about you is true from my perspective. I wish we could have a rational discussion but you always make the thread what you think about me rather than what the thread is about: That's your choice, not mine along with your "leftie" blather.

I tend to do two things in discussions: firstly, actually discuss what I'm meant to be discussing. The other - since it's relevant to a remarkable degree - is to consider what's driving the discussion in the first place. This is so often an important component when debating with a Left winger, since so much of what they try to advance follows a wider agenda.

You want a rational discussion ? Really ? Then why such ready recourse to abusing posting from you ?? Rewriting your opponents' texts, so as to (you hope !) 'ridicule' that opponent. Or, just straight insulting ...

I think you have two goals in debating. One is to inject Left-wing thinking into this forum. The other is to forever bolster your ego. And YES, this is true from MY perspective .. since I've seen so much posting from you which indicates I'm right about that.

If you object to my 'leftie' blather ... then don't prompt those remarks by arguing as a Leftie !! It's that simple. But for as long as you do, so I'll point it out. Oh, I understand that you'd find it easier to sell your points here if people didn't see the Left-wing aspect to them .. but this is your problem rather than mine.


You could point out me defending BO. But remember defending truth is not defending BO.

Your 'truth' just HAPPENS to turn out that way, though. How many arguments, for example, have been put on this forum about impeaching Obama, and how many times have you entered such discussions and tried to offer a rationalisation which pours cold water over such suggestions ? This you consistently do ... I've never seen a thread where you do anything else than that ... and I will predict that you will continue to, regardless of the detail in those future discussions.

I know this, because I know that you will defend Obama as a 'given'.


But yes, I argued against British austerity because as I explained; austerity sucks.

.. and I recall agreeing that it does. But what I ALSO argued was that it was the only viable solution to our economic difficulties.

I've been proved right, and the British economy is going from strength to strength. This is despite your delusional (and politically convenient) insistence that our current path would drive us into becoming a Third World economy.

And, yes. You produced your graphs and charts at the time to try and prove your argument .. which just HAPPENED to fail to cover the period of emerging upturn ... didn't you ?


I believe in that thread you were 1) eagerly defending the big government approach,

Dream on ... this is a favourite fiction of yours, one of your attempts at demonisation (a favourite Leftie tactic in itself). I defended a commonsense attitude to fiscal management. But, YOU defended the Labour Party's alternative 'approach' instead.

Naturally, you would. And did.


and 2) trying to paint me as supporting Labor which was patently false.

My above point disproves your assertion. You DID adopt the Labour approach, and in defiance of emerging proof that its opposite was working !!

Only adherence to a preferred ideology can credibly explain that.


So, in conclusion, your "PROVABLE FACT" was nothing more than your imagination.

I have not 'imagined' my country's improving fiscal fortunes, and your rubbishing of the methodology employed, even though it was working !!!


That's a recurring theme isn't it?

Your just 'happening' to defend Socialists and their ideologies IS, yes.


And guess what, British turnaround coincided with tax cuts which is exactly what I supported.

Disingenuous. A minor tax cut - which I believe you ridiculed at the time ? - came about as a result of its affordability, this permitted by an already improving economy !!

It was fiscal prudence, not reckless expenditure, which helped us through. Tax cuts are fine, and I support them in principle, IF, and only IF, they can be afforded in the first place !! But Labour was all about spending money it didn't have, through spending other sources of money it had first borrowed.


You could revive the thread if you need a reminder. ;)

If that was to happen .. would you, again, insist upon only producing stats outdated enough to fail to reflect our true, CONSERVATIVE LED, recovery ??

No prizes for the answer ... :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Everything I post about you is true from my perspective. I wish we could have a rational discussion but you always make the thread what you think about me rather than what the thread is about: That's your choice, not mine along with your "leftie" blather.

So that isn't you a couple of posts later calling NightTrain a troll? I could swear that userID says fj1200. Just sayin' ......

[fj1200]

So that isn't you a couple of posts later calling NightTrain a troll? I could swear that userID says fj1200. Just sayin' ......

No. I was agreeing with his decision which is why I thanked the very same post in which you think I was calling him a troll.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Deflection. We don't worry about government other countries want. It IS our choice to decide whether or not to recognize them based on their actions. The US CAN dictate who the US wishes to aid or not, and the US CAN decide who it deems worthy of defending. THAT is our choice, and has nothing to do with deciding who else chooses anything.

The US didn't make the so-called Palestinian's choices. THEY do. We get to choose whether or not we support the good guys or the bad guys.

A footnote for you, ms history buff. The US adamantly opposed the recreation of Israel. Being Americans, the second that rag tag little bunch started kicking butt, that viewpoint changed because we love the underdog here. Which was cool until we lost sight of the who the underdog was and started feeling sorry for another underdog and lost sight of right and wrong in the process.

There is NO SUCH THING as a palestinian. They are arabs. Period. Palestine was a country that a tribe of idiot city states ruled way back when. The Jews took it from them. Way it was. The Arabs sided with axis powers during WWI and lost. Tough. The treaty of Balfour gave Israel to the Jews. Why? No one wanted them in Europe the US and at the time, the ME was a world away.

You lose a war you lose your shit. That's how it was. The Arabs lost and lost their shit. I find it interesting and noteworthy that you apologize for and take the side of anyone that's ever opposed us. You might think there's something wrong with that thinking, considering you don't mind living here and sucking off our milk and honey?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gunny again.

[fj1200]

I tend to do two things in discussions: firstly, actually discuss what I'm meant to be discussing. The other - since it's relevant to a remarkable degree - is to consider what's driving the discussion in the first place. This is so often an important component when debating with a Left winger, since so much of what they try to advance follows a wider agenda.

You want a rational discussion ? Really ? Then why such ready recourse to abusing posting from you ?? Rewriting your opponents' texts, so as to (you hope !) 'ridicule' that opponent. Or, just straight insulting ...

I think you have two goals in debating. One is to inject Left-wing thinking into this forum. The other is to forever bolster your ego. And YES, this is true from MY perspective .. since I've seen so much posting from you which indicates I'm right about that.

If you object to my 'leftie' blather ... then don't prompt those remarks by arguing as a Leftie !! It's that simple. But for as long as you do, so I'll point it out. Oh, I understand that you'd find it easier to sell your points here if people didn't see the Left-wing aspect to them .. but this is your problem rather than mine.

Ah yes, the "agenda" and "ego" argument. :laugh: I insult you because you appear to be as dumb as a rock and are living in some sort of dream world as to what/why/how I post. Proof below. :)


Your 'truth' just HAPPENS to turn out that way, though. How many arguments, for example, have been put on this forum about impeaching Obama, and how many times have you entered such discussions and tried to offer a rationalisation which pours cold water over such suggestions ? This you consistently do ... I've never seen a thread where you do anything else than that ... and I will predict that you will continue to, regardless of the detail in those future discussions.

I know this, because I know that you will defend Obama as a 'given'.

Then you don't know jack because when idiots err, the less intelligent, offer as proof of impeachable offenses trips taken by the FLOTUS it should be pointed out that is not an actual impeachable offense. The idea is not to inject some sort of "left-wing thinking" :rolleyes: it's to show conservatives that they should live in reality and not live in hate. I have offered plenty of political opinion as to why impeachment is an extremely bad idea but that is a different question than has he committed an impeachable offense. Really, a little bit of discernment on your part would go a long way.

So no. You can't find me defending BO. ;)


.. and I recall agreeing that it does. But what I ALSO argued was that it was the only viable solution to our economic difficulties.

I've been proved right, and the British economy is going from strength to strength. This is despite your delusional (and politically convenient) insistence that our current path would drive us into becoming a Third World economy.

And, yes. You produced your graphs and charts at the time to try and prove your argument .. which just HAPPENED to fail to cover the period of emerging upturn ... didn't you ?

It was not the only viable alternative, that's the point of disagreement. That and your disingenuous argument that I back the Labour approach, patently false BTW. But you haven't been proved right, I pointed out where the Conservatives instituted a tax cut that conveniently for me coincided with economic growth. :)

And yes, I do recall you whining about charts. If you have other charts then present them. Do you know how hard it is to find charts about the UK economy?


Dream on ... this is a favourite fiction of yours, one of your attempts at demonisation (a favourite Leftie tactic in itself). I defended a commonsense attitude to fiscal management. But, YOU defended the Labour Party's alternative 'approach' instead.

Naturally, you would. And did.

:laugh: You won't revive the thread because it shows the TRUTH of what I stated. Also your fiction that I defended Labour's appraoch. Then naturally you're a moron because my approach was spending restraint and tax cuts. Tax cuts that stimulate growth and not targeted Keynesian crap that is straight to deficit financing IMO.


My above point disproves your assertion. You DID adopt the Labour approach, and in defiance of emerging proof that its opposite was working !!

Only adherence to a preferred ideology can credibly explain that.

Link it up buttercup. Your imagination is not acceptable as proof.


I have not 'imagined' my country's improving fiscal fortunes, and your rubbishing of the methodology employed, even though it was working !!!

Cut to top tax rate sees revenue climb by £9billion: Amount paid by wealthiest has soared since 50p rate was reduced (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595611/Cut-tax-rate-sees-revenue-climb-9billion-Amount-paid-wealthiest-soared-50p-rate-reduced.html)

The amount of tax paid by the best-off has soared since George Osborne slashed the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, according to a new analysis.New figures from HM Revenue & Customs show the total income tax collected on earnings over £150,000 has shot up from £40 billion last year to £49 billion this year.
Former Conservative Cabinet minister John Redwood, who produced the figures, said it appeared the Chancellor’s tax cut was having dramatic results in what would be a ‘shock to many of the conventional pundits’ who criticised the measure.

I love it when conservatism, actual conservatism that is, is validated. One where tax cuts are a boon to growth. Your methodology was resulting in austerity having to be extended further into the future.

Autumn statement: George Osborne slashes welfare and extends austerity (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/05/george-osborne-welfare-autumn-statement)
Although two years of zero growth will mean that the government's budget deficit next year will be almost double the £60bn predicted in Osborne's first budget in June 2010, the chancellor said progress was being made. By including the expected £3.5bn proceeds of the auction of the 4G spectrum he was able to say that the deficit was coming down in each year of the current parliament.
The OBR predicted that it would take until late 2014 for the economy's output to return to its pre-recession level in early 2008 and that borrowing would be higher in each of the next four years than it expected at the time of the budget in March as a result. But while warning that job losses in the public sector will top 900,000 by 2018, the OBR backed the chancellor's view that the 2012 downturn was caused by factors beyond the government's control and would not increase Britain's structural budget deficit.


Your just 'happening' to defend Socialists and their ideologies IS, yes.

You'll have to provide some proof of that one.


Disingenuous. A minor tax cut - which I believe you ridiculed at the time ? - came about as a result of its affordability, this permitted by an already improving economy !!

It was fiscal prudence, not reckless expenditure, which helped us through. Tax cuts are fine, and I support them in principle, IF, and only IF, they can be afforded in the first place !! But Labour was all about spending money it didn't have, through spending other sources of money it had first borrowed.

I ridiculed a tax cut? Do you have a link? Afforded. That's a government-centric argument. One that you were more than happy to make.


If that was to happen .. would you, again, insist upon only producing stats outdated enough to fail to reflect our true, CONSERVATIVE LED, recovery ??

No prizes for the answer ... :rolleyes:

That depends, are you going to whine incessantly when they prove me right as they did repeatedly? So in short, you should produce what you think to be a better graph or keep your whimperings to yourself. :)

[Abbey Marie]

Singing Kumbaya will provide the same result? :poke:

If all we are concerned with are results, why come on a message board at all?

I'll answer that: We are also concerned with making our viewpoints known. And with being able to discuss with others who may know more about a particular topic. Or who may have a different, interesting, perspective. And then there is one shining moment when someone sees your point, has a change of mind, and they may in turn change others' minds. Well, anyway, those are some of the reasons I am here.

For example, hoping for that last one is the reason I think Jafar is here.

[Abbey Marie]

I never stated otherwise and stated "what if". I'm of the belief that electing a group such as Hamas, or another terrorist organization, does absolutely nothing to change the horrible crimes they have committed. It would be the same if Al Qaeda were in fact elected there. The people of Palestine might very well consider them legit, as they voted for them, but I can't see any sane nation in the world having diplomatic relations with Al Qaeda and considering them legit in anyway at all, regardless of what the ballot box states.

There is also the perhaps unanswerable question of how "freely" did those people really vote?

[Abbey Marie]

It depends on your respect for sovereignty-- if you believe that a sovereign nation is an entity composed of the People, then Hamas/ISIS/Taliban etc are legitimate. Thus, if they're legitimate powers, then you can hold the people accountable for the wrongdoings of their leadership. But if you reject the legitimacy of the organization then you can't, in good conscience, hold the People accountable.

That's quite a leap to go from Sovereign= people= legitimate. All organizations are composed of people. They are only "legitimate" in the case of Hamas by *perhaps* the most technical of definitions. I prefer to take other more important things into consideration than just technicalities.

Further, a so-called "legitimate" government voted in by the people can only remain so if it doesn't go outside the laws set out when they are elected, as amended from time to time. I would strongly suspect that the people who voted here did not agree to, "Yes, you may use my babies as a human shield if you'd like", for one example. Holding people responsible for the actions of a government that exceeds its powers isn't really fair.

[fj1200]

If all we are concerned with are results, why come on a message board at all?

I'll answer that: We are also concerned with making our viewpoints known. And with being able to discuss with others who may know more about a particular topic. Or who may have a different, interesting, perspective. And then there is one shining moment when someone sees your point, has a change of mind, and they may in turn change others' minds. Well, anyway, those are some of the reasons I am here.

For example, hoping for that last one is the reason I think Jafar is here.

Of course, the holy grail is that we convince one of those darn leftists to recognize that conservative views are superior. :) But my point of what you quoted was that on this particular question there really will be no change in result. Should Hamas be legitimate because they suck? No, they just are as so many other regimes shouldn't have been legitimate but just are/were.

[Abbey Marie]

Holy Mother of Pearl.

1. Fj is not a leftie

2. Drummond is far from dumb.

:rolleyes:

Now, let's get back to the subject matter of Hamas. :thumb:

[Abbey Marie]

Of course, the holy grail is that we convince one of those darn leftists to recognize that conservative views are superior. :) But my point of what you quoted was that on this particular question there really will be no change in result. Should Hamas be legitimate because they suck? No, they just are as so many other regimes shouldn't have been legitimate but just are/were.

Re the bolded: Same goes for liberals, Muslims, etc., seeking to convince others. And for every political leaning in between, of course.

I know your point. But you seemed to also be saying to Jim that merely seeking validation for a viewpoint is pointless because there will be no results. I disagree that is all we do, and I disagree that it would be pointless anyway. Or I would not be here.

[Drummond]

Holy Mother of Pearl.

1. Fj is not a leftie

2. Drummond is far from dumb.

:rolleyes:

Now, let's get back to the subject matter of Hamas. :thumb:

Thanks for point #2 !! Most appreciated. I wish it was possible to agree with your point #1, though. I see too many 'Leftie friendly' arguments from FJ to believe he isn't a supporter.

[Gunny]

Thanks for point #2 !! Most appreciated. I wish it was possible to agree with your point #1, though. I see too many 'Leftie friendly' arguments from FJ to believe he isn't a supporter.

Then you must not like me either. I think leftwingers and rightwingers BOTH suck. I think for myself. He argues in the style of a lefty. What his stances are besides contrarian is anyone's guess. He never states them.

And I'm gonna do what Abbey says because the only girl that scares me more than her is shattered. :(

I stand by my original statement. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and the has written rules against recognizing such entities as foreign governments. The Arabs in Gaza elected this terrorist organization to represent them as some warped idea of a government. That's on them.

The only right those Arabs have to that land is that Israel let them have it back. Like sharing your bed with a rattler, IMHO. The terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad to fire indiscriminately on Israel. I'd treat them like the criminals they are.

[Abbey Marie]

Then you must not like me either. I think leftwingers and rightwingers BOTH suck. I think for myself. He argues in the style of a lefty. What his stances are besides contrarian is anyone's guess. He never states them.

And I'm gonna do what Abbey says because the only girl that scares me more than her is shattered. :(

I stand by my original statement. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and the has written rules against recognizing such entities as foreign governments. The Arabs in Gaza elected this terrorist organization to represent them as some warped idea of a government. That's on them.

The only right those Arabs have to that land is that Israel let them have it back. Like sharing your bed with a rattler, IMHO. The terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad to fire indiscriminately on Israel. I'd treat them like the criminals they are.

I agree 100% with the bolded, Gunny. Fj enjoys trying to take apart any argument.

And were he on a Liberal-dominant board, I feel certain they would think him Conservative.

FJ: Sorry to talk about you like you're not here!


(I'm scared of Shattered, too!) ;)

[Gunny]

I agree 100% with the bolded, Gunny. Fj enjoys trying to take apart any argument.

And were he on a Liberal-dominant board, I feel certain they would think him Conservative.

FJ: Sorry to talk about you like you're not here!


(I'm scared of Shattered, too!) ;)

Everyone's scared of shattered. :laugh:

I don't mind talking about FJ whether or not he's here. He can read it later. Thing is, people take HIM personally and he's not taking a damned bit of it personally. So who's REALLY winning? ;)

[shattered]

Pfft.

[Gunny]

Pfft.

Great. Now I'm in for it. I must've interrupted some crafty junk or something. :(

[Drummond]

You know, FJ, it's interesting. This thread is supposed to be concerned with Hamas. But, yet again, a 'discussion' with you has drifted (for want of a better word) away from the intended subject matter. It happens a lot with you.


Ah yes, the "agenda" and "ego" argument. :laugh: I insult you because you appear to be as dumb as a rock and are living in some sort of dream world as to what/why/how I post.

Translation: you freely act as a troll. This says WHAT about you ?


Then you don't know jack because when idiots err, the less intelligent, offer as proof of impeachable offenses trips taken by the FLOTUS it should be pointed out that is not an actual impeachable offense. The idea is not to inject some sort of "left-wing thinking" :rolleyes: it's to show conservatives that they should live in reality and not live in hate. I have offered plenty of political opinion as to why impeachment is an extremely bad idea but that is a different question than has he committed an impeachable offense. Really, a little bit of discernment on your part would go a long way.

Discernment, eh ? Funny how you consistently argue, strongly, against Conservatives on this forum. Here, you talk of Conservatives needing to live in reality and not live in hate'. Now, that's a strong indictment of Conservatives, isn't it ? And you, once a self-styled 'Ultimate Thatcherite' (.. until you changed your monicker), this should firmly label you as a brand of CONSERVATIVE ... except you can't stop disagreeing with them here, and actually attacking them ...

... 'odd', eh ?

On your defences of Obama against calls for his impeachment .. I note what you say to 'justify' yourself. That doesn't alter the accuracy of this following prediction: not only have you always defended Obama from arguments promoting his impeachment, BUT YOU ALWAYS WILL DO SO.

Prove me wrong sometime. I challenge you.

And I offer you this thought, which seems to have bypassed you entirely, 'strangely': why SHOULDN'T a Conservative hate all the damage Obama has done ? A true Conservative will hate the Socialism Obama is foisting on America. How come you fail to grasp this ?


So no. You can't find me defending BO. ;)

I'm having trouble thinking of a single instance when you HAVEN'T.

Tell you what. Why not post an example or two showing us records of your committed opposition to Obama ?

Now to your arguments about the UK economy, and your past anti-Conservative stances ...

First point to make: your detailed discussions on this took place on a thread originally devoted to Islamic incursions in UK schools !! Just another example of your enthusiasm for thread drift. Anyway ....


It was not the only viable alternative, that's the point of disagreement. That and your disingenuous argument that I back the Labour approach, patently false BTW.

So you say. But as I argued on the other thread, there were only two options .. either fiscal prudence, an approach where reckless spending ceased and a housekeeping regime prevailed, OR, the Labour approach of never-neverland spending on pet projects using money not previously earned.

Labour borrowed heavily (.. rather as your Leftie pal Obama has done ? Yes ?). So, when the Credit Crunch of 2008 hit us, the UK was especially poorly positioned to weather the fiscal storm.

In 2010, a joint Conservative/LibDem Government was elected. Their agreed approach was an austerity package, meant to cut right back on spending, even to make deep cuts, rather than continue the insane Socialist spending of previously.

Rule of thumb ... if you're going to spend, first make sure you've got the home-grown funds to do so !!!

So to this following point, of yours ...


But you haven't been proved right, I pointed out where the Conservatives instituted a tax cut that conveniently for me coincided with economic growth. :)

... which is a FALSE point.

Remember what I've posted. Spend anything, IT HAS TO BE AFFORDABLE. And tax cuts HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE.

Your Daily Mail link shows that a tax cut arranged by George Osborne was arranged in 2012. It also shows that benefits flowing from it didn't provably materialise for TWO YEARS.

So in 2012, with an appreciable timelag to be expected between action and remedial effect .. how was the tax cut afforded ?

Well, your Guardian (LEFTIE publication) piece tells us.

From your link, dated 2012 ...


George Osborne has announced deep cuts in welfare and Whitehall spending after admitting Britain's malfunctioning economy had left him unable to meet the government's targets for repairing the public finances.

At the same time Osborne indulged in a very modest tax cut .. which, I recall, you formerly derided because it WAS minor ... at the same time, a balance was being struck. Cuts were being instituted. FACT ... to institute any tax cut without balancing that expenditure with some counterbalancing measure, would've been fiscal madness.

YOU, FJ, have been strongly anti-austerity, saying it 'sucks' .. YET, the tax cut you NOW approved of, was afforded via a 'cuts' regime !!

You're against austerity measures. Well, without them, HOW COULD THE TAX CUT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR ?

If not through counterbalancing austerity, the one alternative was the LABOUR policy of spending borrowed money. THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

.... so. You approve of tax cutting, without the means to pay for it. You expect the tax cut to generate rewards ... but with a troublesome TWO YEAR TIMELAG before it does.

The logic of your argument must be that you fund a tax cut via Socialist 'methodology', i.e by using BORROWED MONEY for it.

So, FJ, do NOT tell me that you weren't supporting Labour, and do NOT tell me that there was a third alternative !! THE TAX CUT WAS MADE TO INITIALLY WORK THROUGH COUNTERBALANCING IT WITH AN AUSTERITY MEASURE !!!!


And yes, I do recall you whining about charts. If you have other charts then present them. Do you know how hard it is to find charts about the UK economy?

I know this much. When making your argument, you somehow failed to find any charts which factually covered any of the positive recovery period, i.e 2013 or later (.. because that time period was disproving your argument !!). You did find one that 'mysteriously' reported up to 2019 (!!), which you wanted us to think was factual, though ...

Take a look at what this link leads to .. a post of mine, answering yours, from the thread (a hijacked one) where this was all discussed ... it's entertaining stuff ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45084-Islamic-education-plot-in-UK&p=688212#post688212

Sample quotes ...


Your first bar chart goes all the way back to 1994 ?? To prove WHAT, about the conditions of 2008 ??
Consider this, though. Factored into all of this is the commitment to not only get spending under control, but to do this with the handicap of paying interest on money borrowed previously. So disgustingly terrible was Labour's recklessness that, regardless of present-day prudence, it's all we can do to cope with the interest payments racked up !!

THIS is the reality our present Government inherited, and is still stuck with !! And on top of that, YOU have wanted them to afford tax incentives ???


Thank you kindly. Better to have explanations, whether obvious or not, than to have the expectation of cloud-cuckooland guesswork.

Mind you ... AGAIN, in the first chart, the hard data AGAIN CUTS OFF AT 2012 !! Why do you refuse to look at 2013, the year of first significant progress ??

There's a clue in that somewhere, FJ ....


:laugh: You won't revive the thread because it shows the TRUTH of what I stated.

You want me to revive a hijacked thread with more hijacking ? Well ... I have no problems in quoting from it.


Also your fiction that I defended Labour's appraoch.

YES. For the reason given. Only two options existed, to afford a tax cut by cutting elsewhere, i.e more austerity; or, to borrow money to fund it, a self-defeating strategy, ONE LABOUR WAS KEEN ON DOING WHEN IN POWER.


Then naturally you're a moron because my approach was spending restraint and tax cuts.

SPENDING RESTRAINT, IN THOSE DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES, COULD ONLY EQUAL AUSTERITY MEASURES !!


Tax cuts that stimulate growth and not targeted Keynesian crap that is straight to deficit financing IMO.

.. With a two year timelag in between tax cut and realisable benefit (!!) .. HOW do you propose the time gap, that black hole in finances, is bridged ?

THERE IS BUT ONE WAY ... USING BORROWED MONEY, I.E A LABOUR STRATEGY.is


I ridiculed a tax cut? Do you have a link?

Yep, you certainly did ! ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45084-Islamic-education-plot-in-UK&p=686646#post686646

I posted:


If you read on, you'll see that Ed Miliband, the current Labour leader, tried to pour water on all of this. But then ... he, and you, think alike. He, and you, don't want to admit that Conservative fiscal prudence WORKS.

The article begins with this helpful Budget summary:




Chancellor announces 1p cut in duty on each pint of beer and a freeze on cider and spirits in crowd-pleasing move
Bingo tax halved to 10% with promise of bigger prizes for players
Help for savers in the penultimate Budget before the election next year
Cash and stocks ISAs to be merged into single ISA with annual tax-free savings limit of £15,000
Osborne promised families extra help after coming through the recession
Working parents offered £2,000 tax break on cost of childcare
Vowed to cut taxes and boost manufacturing during 55-minute statement
Threshold for paying both basic and higher tax rates is hiked
£1 coin scrapped: New version will be shaped like old threepenny bit
New promises will be funded by crackdown on tax evasion raising billions
Growth forecasts upgraded as economic recovery gains momentum
But more cuts are on the way with the welfare bill capped at £119bn




Conservatives will raise tax when they must, FJ. They much prefer to cut it, however. WITH SUFFICIENT LATITUDE AVAILABLE, THEY'LL DO SO. SO LONG AS SUCH CUTS CAN BE AFFORDED.

You replied, with ....


So your vaunted tax cuts are relegated to beer and bingo? If I bothered I'm pretty sure I could compare that list to Labour and the bad plans that BO has burdened us with and see some commonalities. There is almost nothing in there that is pro-growth that spurs the private sector to job growth andvlowered unemployment.

Congratulations on being less than flattering to Obama, by the way !! That aside, though, the fact is that when Osborne took his tax cutting measures, YOU TRIED TO RIDICULE OSBORNE'S ACTION ... HERE IS YOUR PROOF.


Osborne was limited in what he could do. As I explained, and as I had to explain to you before ... tax cuts, to be entered into, MUST be affordable.

[Drummond]

Then you must not like me either. I think leftwingers and rightwingers BOTH suck. I think for myself. He argues in the style of a lefty. What his stances are besides contrarian is anyone's guess. He never states them.

And I'm gonna do what Abbey says because the only girl that scares me more than her is shattered. :(

I stand by my original statement. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and the has written rules against recognizing such entities as foreign governments. The Arabs in Gaza elected this terrorist organization to represent them as some warped idea of a government. That's on them.

The only right those Arabs have to that land is that Israel let them have it back. Like sharing your bed with a rattler, IMHO. The terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad to fire indiscriminately on Israel. I'd treat them like the criminals they are.

I agree with much of your post, Gunny.

Still, you do surprise me. Judging by your second sentence, you see both Left wingers and Right wingers in similarly disparaging terms ?

And I was convinced you had to be a Conservative ... because I've seen a whole lot of commonsense in your posts.

Well, OK. It seems we have a lot more latitude for disagreement than I'd thought. So be it. I'll take on anyone if I think I have reason to.

We may have interesting times ahead ! As you'll have seen from my jousts with FJ, I don't hesitate to take on opposition (although admittedly I'm very long-winded about it, at times ...).

Should be fun ....

[fj1200]

I stand corrected, ma'am. :salute:

Fj needs a :poke:every so often. :laugh:

Don't we all. :salute:


Thanks for point #2 !! Most appreciated. I wish it was possible to agree with your point #1, though. I see too many 'Leftie friendly' arguments from FJ to believe he isn't a supporter.

:facepalm99: Of course for #2 to be true #1 has to be false and ain't nobody believes that but you. Knuckleheads notwithstanding. :)


Then you must not like me either. I think leftwingers and rightwingers BOTH suck. I think for myself. He argues in the style of a lefty. What his stances are besides contrarian is anyone's guess. He never states them.

And I'm gonna do what Abbey says because the only girl that scares me more than her is shattered. :(

I stand by my original statement. Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and the has written rules against recognizing such entities as foreign governments. The Arabs in Gaza elected this terrorist organization to represent them as some warped idea of a government. That's on them.

The only right those Arabs have to that land is that Israel let them have it back. Like sharing your bed with a rattler, IMHO. The terrorists use Gaza as a launching pad to fire indiscriminately on Israel. I'd treat them like the criminals they are.

Lefties are contrarian? Lefties ask questions? Oh, and I state my stances all the time just like I state that I don't disagree with any of the rest of your post.

[fj1200]

I agree 100% with the bolded, Gunny. Fj enjoys trying to take apart any argument.

And were he on a Liberal-dominant board, I feel certain they would think him Conservative.

FJ: Sorry to talk about you like you're not here!

I gotta tell ya'. I'm starting to feel the love. :eek:


I don't mind talking about FJ whether or not he's here. He can read it later. Thing is, people take HIM personally and he's not taking a damned bit of it personally. So who's REALLY winning? ;)

Don't kid yourself, you really are sweet.


I KNOW y'all think I'm this sweet, nice humble guy ....

:eek:

[Gunny]

Don't we all. :salute:



:facepalm99: Of course for #2 to be true #1 has to be false and ain't nobody believes that but you. Knuckleheads notwithstanding. :)



Lefties are contrarian? Lefties ask questions? Oh, and I state my stances all the time just like I state that I don't disagree with any of the rest of your post.

Dude, can you actually read and process? I said YOU are contrarian. I do not recall calling you a lefty. I said that is your argument style. You, on the other hand, I think are just contrarian to be friggin' contrary. That DOES lend you to a style of argument most associated with the left. And for someone that likes to use the term "red herring", you throw more out there than there are in the Bering Sea. It's a style of argument based on the progressive left questioning any rule, standard or norm we have. I was trained in it for years. They teach it in high school journalism. I can read it for what it is.

You just want to argue. I don't think you even care about what.:laugh:

[Gunny]

I gotta tell ya'. I'm starting to feel the love. :eek:



Don't kid yourself, you really are sweet.



:eek:

I'm a real sweetheart alright. Huh. Run that one past some of the older posters here. :laugh:

[fj1200]

You know, FJ, it's interesting. This thread is supposed to be concerned with Hamas. But, yet again, a 'discussion' with you has drifted (for want of a better word) away from the intended subject matter. It happens a lot with you.

If this thread is about me then is squarely your fault. You always cover your lack of an intelligible argument with my "leftie-ism." That's why you're failing to prove me a leftie again. ;)


Translation: you freely act as a troll. This says WHAT about you ?

You know you love trolls which is why your always enabling 'at' and his trolling comments against me. It's why you're a hypocrite. Nevertheless pointing out your stupidity is not trolling, it's calling out TRUTH. ;)


Discernment, eh ? Funny how you consistently argue, strongly, against Conservatives on this forum. Here, you talk of Conservatives needing to live in reality and not live in hate'. Now, that's a strong indictment of Conservatives, isn't it ? And you, once a self-styled 'Ultimate Thatcherite' (.. until you changed your monicker), this should firmly label you as a brand of CONSERVATIVE ... except you can't stop disagreeing with them here, and actually attacking them ...

... 'odd', eh ?

On your defences of Obama against calls for his impeachment .. I note what you say to 'justify' yourself. That doesn't alter the accuracy of this following prediction: not only have you always defended Obama from arguments promoting his impeachment, BUT YOU ALWAYS WILL DO SO.

Prove me wrong sometime. I challenge you.

And I offer you this thought, which seems to have bypassed you entirely, 'strangely': why SHOULDN'T a Conservative hate all the damage Obama has done ? A true Conservative will hate the Socialism Obama is foisting on America. How come you fail to grasp this ?

Oh brother. It's a strong indictment of those who live in hate. I may argue against the occasional conservative but I don't argue against conservatism. Your blather aside I've "defended" BO against stupid charges, it's called TRUTH you know, and I probably will state that impeaching him is an incredibly stupid political decision. He may have certainly committed high crimes and misdemeanors but that's a different question. Now since you don't think I hate what BO's incompetence has done to the country go ahead and try to find a post where I've praised what he's "foisted" on America. I challenge you to fail at this one too.


I'm having trouble thinking of a single instance when you HAVEN'T.

Tell you what. Why not post an example or two showing us records of your committed opposition to Obama ?

:laugh: That's an amazing way to announce your failure. :laugh: Hack move dude.


Now to your arguments about the UK economy, and your past anti-Conservative stances ...

First point to make: your detailed discussions on this took place on a thread originally devoted to Islamic incursions in UK schools !! Just another example of your enthusiasm for thread drift. Anyway ....

Name one anti-conservative stance. Oh, and I'm pretty sure you're the one who derailed it. Yup, you did. Post #32.


Blah, blah, blah...

So, FJ, do NOT tell me that you weren't supporting Labour, and do NOT tell me that there was a third alternative !! THE TAX CUT WAS MADE TO INITIALLY WORK THROUGH COUNTERBALANCING IT WITH AN AUSTERITY MEASURE !!!!

OMG, what a flipping waste of time. Your just attempting to avoid your failure by attempting to rehash a thread that you chose to abandon. If you have a point to make you can make it over there.


I know this much. When making your argument, you somehow failed to find any charts which factually covered any of the positive recovery period, i.e 2013 or later (.. because that time period was disproving your argument !!). You did find one that 'mysteriously' reported up to 2019 (!!), which you wanted us to think was factual, though ...

What point is there in discussing something with someone who is so stupid as to not understand a projection. Dude, your smoking your leftie weed from back in the day.


You want me to revive a hijacked thread with more hijacking ? Well ... I have no problems in quoting from it.

Uh yeah, because the discussion was in that thread, not this one.


YES. For the reason given. Only two options existed, to afford a tax cut by cutting elsewhere, i.e more austerity; or, to borrow money to fund it, a self-defeating strategy, ONE LABOUR WAS KEEN ON DOING WHEN IN POWER.

Only two options exist when you are of a simple mind. A simple mind that doesn't understand anything more than left and right.


.. With a two year timelag in between tax cut and realisable benefit (!!) .. HOW do you propose the time gap, that black hole in finances, is bridged ?

THERE IS BUT ONE WAY ... USING BORROWED MONEY, I.E A LABOUR STRATEGY.is

Reagan was a leftie? Do tell.


Yep, you certainly did ! ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45084-Islamic-education-plot-in-UK&p=686646#post686646

I posted:

You replied, with ....

Congratulations on being less than flattering to Obama, by the way !! That aside, though, the fact is that when Osborne took his tax cutting measures, YOU TRIED TO RIDICULE OSBORNE'S ACTION ... HERE IS YOUR PROOF.

As I said I support growth oriented tax cuts, "beer and bingo" cuts are not growth oriented.


Osborne was limited in what he could do. As I explained, and as I had to explain to you before ... tax cuts, to be entered into, MUST be affordable.

Yup, your government-centric view is never too far away is it?

[fj1200]

Dude, can you actually read and process? I said YOU are contrarian. I do not recall calling you a lefty. I said that is your argument style. You, on the other hand, I think are just contrarian to be friggin' contrary. That DOES lend you to a style of argument most associated with the left. And for someone that likes to use the term "red herring", you throw more out there than there are in the Bering Sea. It's a style of argument based on the progressive left questioning any rule, standard or norm we have. I was trained in it for years. They teach it in high school journalism. I can read it for what it is.

You just want to argue. I don't think you even care about what.:laugh:

I know. I was just :poke: in' at some in the thread not necessarily you. But no, I don't think the left is contrarian. I mostly like to ask question, it's a Socratic thang.


I'm a real sweetheart alright. Huh. Run that one past some of the older posters here. :laugh:

I've been here long enough. :poke:

[shattered]

Great. Now I'm in for it. I must've interrupted some crafty junk or something. :(

You know you did. And FYI, you CAN, in fact, triple stamp a double stamp. :thumb:

[Abbey Marie]

I'm a real sweetheart alright. Huh. Run that one past some of the older posters here. :laugh:

Just a big ol' teddy bear.


With claws and sharp teeth. :laugh:

[Gunny]

You know you did. And FYI, you CAN, in fact, triple stamp a double stamp. :thumb:

It's not my fault. Really. Ummm ..... just hold on while I try to figure out who to blame here ...... FJ. He's ALWAYS guilty. It was him. True story. :smoke:

[Gunny]

Just a big ol' teddy bear.


With claws and sharp teeth. :laugh:

You're not helping my cause here at all. :laugh:

[shattered]

You're not helping my cause here at all. :laugh:
Really? SHE isnt helping your cause? Wanna think that one thru a bit more, toots?

[Gunny]

Really? SHE isnt helping your cause? Wanna think that one thru a bit more, toots?

Yes, dear. Whatever. Dammit. :bow3:

[fj1200]

It's not my fault. Really. Ummm ..... just hold on while I try to figure out who to blame here ...... FJ. He's ALWAYS guilty. It was him. True story. :smoke:

:laugh: Truer words...

[Drummond]

FJ, we both know that, if I allowed it, you'd argue me into the ground (or try to) for weeks, or months .. and you wouldn't care what thread you used for the purpose. As I have in the past, I've no intention of letting this carry on 'indefinitely' .. much though you'd prefer it.

But I'll reply to you this time.


If this thread is about me then is squarely your fault.

Ego getting the better of you ? Where did I say that the thread was 'about you' .. ???


You always cover your lack of an intelligible argument with my "leftie-ism."

I know. Ignoring your Leftieism, FJ, certainly WOULD make for a better quality of posting !!


That's why you're failing to prove me a leftie again. ;)

Ridiculous. Further on I shall be illustrating your true Leftieism yet again !


You know you love trolls which is why your always enabling 'at' and his trolling comments against me. It's why you're a hypocrite. Nevertheless pointing out your stupidity is not trolling, it's calling out TRUTH. ;)

'AT' very rightly posts against you. I don't care that you don't like what he says about you. You call it 'trolling'. I call it highly perceptive posting.

If you don't like what you get, don't earn it.


Oh brother. It's a strong indictment of those who live in hate.

If you were any measure of Conservative, you'd understand the considerable resentment, not to mention outrage, that Conservatives have against Leftie wrecking. But of course, you've no idea about it ... have you ?


I may argue against the occasional conservative

OCCASIONAL Conservative ?? You've got them queuing up to be critical of you !!


.. but I don't argue against conservatism.

When you argue pro-Leftie points, you DO argue against Conservatism !!


Your blather aside I've "defended" BO against stupid charges,

... a case in point !


it's called TRUTH you know,

I call it preference. Because, truthfully, it's exactly that.


and I probably will state that impeaching him is an incredibly stupid political decision.

Oh, really ? What a great surprise !! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


He may have certainly committed high crimes and misdemeanors but that's a different question.

Well ... TELL ME WHAT BETTER REASON THERE COULD BE FOR IMPEACHMENT !!!

Are you trying to sabotage your own argument ?!?


Now since you don't think I hate what BO's incompetence has done to the country go ahead and try to find a post where I've praised what he's "foisted" on America. I challenge you to fail at this one too.

Considering your admission that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' ISN'T ENOUGH - in YOUR view - for impeachment !!!!! -- surely, you must be so biased in Obama's favour that you must very much want him to continue on as he has !

It goes with your Leftieism, after all.

Considering all this, I've no need to meet your challenge, since you're working to meet it yourself ! I trust you to do a better job of it than I can !!


:laugh: That's an amazing way to announce your failure. :laugh: Hack move dude.

I asked you .. 'Why not post an example or two showing us records of your committed opposition to Obama ?'. This is your cop-out reply.


Name one anti-conservative stance.

When I've just finished illustrating one ? Support of Obama does qualify as an anti-Conservative stance.


Oh, and I'm pretty sure you're the one who derailed it. Yup, you did. Post #32.

Seriously ? Track back further. Try post #5, where you tried to discuss Nazi legitimacy.

Or your semi-troll post #14, which prompted Jim to ask you what your point was. Jim came back to you in post #18, with ...


.. But what you haven't done is answer any of the questions and actually try to make a go of this thread. And in case you haven't noticed, only 3 of us posted here thus far. Ya might give it some time before ending it prematurely ..

And you claim that I derailed the thread ???


OMG, what a flipping waste of time. Your just attempting to avoid your failure by attempting to rehash a thread that you chose to abandon.

Rehashed ? Nope. But I have used it to remind you of your past Leftie supportiveness ... in that case, to make a false argument, unsupported by evolving truth, all of it characterised by your support of a position closely matching that of our Socialists' approach to our economy.

Your total opposition to Conservative policy is there for anyone to see.


If you have a point to make you can make it over there.

No need. I've already said all I need to.


What point is there in discussing something with someone who is so stupid as to not understand a projection. Dude, your smoking your leftie weed from back in the day.

The insults are back (again). FJ, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ... :rolleyes::laugh:


Only two options exist when you are of a simple mind. A simple mind that doesn't understand anything more than left and right.

Or, the only two options there are ?

Let me give you another challenge to duck, FJ. Tell me what your 'third' option was. Go on ...


As I said I support growth oriented tax cuts, "beer and bingo" cuts are not growth oriented.

Fine, so you admit what you rejected before ... your criticism of a tax cut.

But 'feelgood' measures boost morale, enough to encourage people to see light at the end of the tunnel. They prepare people to stick with the medicine they need to take.

And we now see the upturn from austerity measures, which YOU refused to agree was likely.

What's it like, FJ, to be wrong as often as you manage to be ?


Yup, your government-centric view is never too far away is it?

Challenge for you, then (eminently 'duckable' ..) - nominate for me the British private Company who you think should take over the governing of the UK economy, if the British Government SHOULDN'T ..

[fj1200]

It's nice how you build yourself an out to cover your shame. That's what big government hacks like you do. My only preference is that you're able to debate honestly and check your imagination at the door.


FJ, we both know that, if I allowed it, you'd argue me into the ground (or try to) for weeks, or months .. and you wouldn't care what thread you used for the purpose. As I have in the past, I've no intention of letting this carry on 'indefinitely' .. much though you'd prefer it.

But I'll reply to you this time.

I already argue you into the ground in every thread because you repeatedly prove yourself to be dumb as F' and a hypocrite to boot. But thank you for replying :laugh: although I expect more of the same trash from you, parsing every half sentence in a futile attempt to try and "get me."


Ego getting the better of you ? Where did I say that the thread was 'about you' .. ???

You've made it about me apparently because you're miles off topic and arguing in this thread since you took a beating in the other thread(s).


I know. Ignoring your Leftieism, FJ, certainly WOULD make for a better quality of posting !!

You know you cover "your lack of an intelligible argument"??? Something we can agree on.


Ridiculous. Further on I shall be illustrating your true Leftieism yet again !

Dream on. You've never done it before and you won't do it again.


'AT' very rightly posts against you. I don't care that you don't like what he says about you. You call it 'trolling'. I call it highly perceptive posting.

If you don't like what you get, don't earn it.

Classic example of why you're a hypocrite. You accuse me of trolling and, well, we know the kind of trash that your sock posts around here. You'll be sure and let me know if he ever posts anything that indicates intelligence won't you?


If you were any measure of Conservative, you'd understand the considerable resentment, not to mention outrage, that Conservatives have against Leftie wrecking. But of course, you've no idea about it ... have you ?

Strawman. Between me and you I can actually discuss conservatism whereas you just scream, "aack, lefties. :eek: "


OCCASIONAL Conservative ?? You've got them queuing up to be critical of you !!

Got some names?


When you argue pro-Leftie points, you DO argue against Conservatism !!

Got an example?


... a case in point !

:laugh: As I said, FLOTUS trips are not a high crime nor a misdemeanor.


I call it preference. Because, truthfully, it's exactly that.

Because it is a bad political decision Dumb F'. Personally I like the chance to win elections and not charge at windmills.


Oh, really ? What a great surprise !! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Only because you're an idiot.


Well ... TELL ME WHAT BETTER REASON THERE COULD BE FOR IMPEACHMENT !!!

Are you trying to sabotage your own argument ?!?

That is the Constitutional basis for impeachment. You do know that don't you?


Considering your admission that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' ISN'T ENOUGH - in YOUR view - for impeachment !!!!! -- surely, you must be so biased in Obama's favour that you must very much want him to continue on as he has !

It goes with your Leftieism, after all.

Considering all this, I've no need to meet your challenge, since you're working to meet it yourself ! I trust you to do a better job of it than I can !!

You don't even know how to read I've gotten so far into your head, I'm quite amazed that with the downright stupidity that has taken over your brain that you even have the ability to type. It's quite mind boggling.


I asked you .. 'Why not post an example or two showing us records of your committed opposition to Obama ?'. This is your cop-out reply.

:laugh: Again you're trying to make your downright, utter failure to prove something my fault. :laugh: You should be ashamed to show your face around here. Thank goodness the internet allows such stupidity as yours to remain anonymous.


When I've just finished illustrating one ? Support of Obama does qualify as an anti-Conservative stance.

:laugh: Gotta link? And I'm pretty sure it's impossible to link to your imagination. :laugh:


Seriously ? Track back further. Try post #5, where you tried to discuss Nazi legitimacy.

Or your semi-troll post #14, which prompted Jim to ask you what your point was. Jim came back to you in post #18, with ...

:laugh: Semi-troll post. :laugh: You're a hack dude.


And you claim that I derailed the thread ???

No claim. I proved it. :)


Rehashed ? Nope. But I have used it to remind you of your past Leftie supportiveness ... in that case, to make a false argument, unsupported by evolving truth, all of it characterised by your support of a position closely matching that of our Socialists' approach to our economy.

Your total opposition to Conservative policy is there for anyone to see.

And you won't even resurrect the thread. Your shame would be laid bare for all to see.


No need. I've imagined all I need to.

;)


The insults are back (again). FJ, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ... :rolleyes::laugh:

It's hard not to discuss things with someone so stupid as yourself without "insulting" you.


Or, the only two options there are ?

Let me give you another challenge to duck, FJ. Tell me what your 'third' option was. Go on ...

I repeated my third option multiple times but you were so blind with hate that you couldn't see it. Restrain spending growth and institute growth oriented tax cuts. You do remember when they did that don't you? I posted a link to where they enacted cuts that I suggested. Awesome good timing for me how it preceded economic growth and all. ;)


Fine, so you admit what you rejected before ... your criticism of a tax cut.

But 'feelgood' measures boost morale, enough to encourage people to see light at the end of the tunnel. They prepare people to stick with the medicine they need to take.

And we now see the upturn from austerity measures, which YOU refused to agree was likely.

What's it like, FJ, to be wrong as often as you manage to be ?

Laughable. Morale doesn't equal economic growth. Your argument is almost Keynesian in its ignorance.


Challenge for you, then (eminently 'duckable' ..) - nominate for me the British private Company who you think should take over the governing of the UK economy, if the British Government SHOULDN'T ..

:laugh: Your big-government hack roots are showing that you think an economy needs to "managed" by someone, let alone by government. Actual conservatives believe that government involvement should be limited to things like ensuring transparency, dispute resolution, etc. The only government "management" of an economy I think are necessary are limited to monetary policy. Then I'll begrudgingly acknowledge that a central bank is a necessary evil.

I also didn't miss that you completely deleted where I pointed out that you apparently think Ronald Reagan is a leftie. Nice move you disingenuous fool.

[Gunny]

It's nice how you build yourself an out to cover your shame. That's what big government hacks like you do. My only preference is that you're able to debate honestly and check your imagination at the door.



I already argue you into the ground in every thread because you repeatedly prove yourself to be dumb as F' and a hypocrite to boot. But thank you for replying :laugh: although I expect more of the same trash from you, parsing every half sentence in a futile attempt to try and "get me."



You've made it about me apparently because you're miles off topic and arguing in this thread since you took a beating in the other thread(s).



You know you cover "your lack of an intelligible argument"??? Something we can agree on.



Dream on. You've never done it before and you won't do it again.



Classic example of why you're a hypocrite. You accuse me of trolling and, well, we know the kind of trash that your sock posts around here. You'll be sure and let me know if he ever posts anything that indicates intelligence won't you?



Strawman. Between me and you I can actually discuss conservatism whereas you just scream, "aack, lefties. :eek: "



Got some names?



Got an example?



:laugh: As I said, FLOTUS trips are not a high crime nor a misdemeanor.



Because it is a bad political decision Dumb F'. Personally I like the chance to win elections and not charge at windmills.



Only because you're an idiot.



That is the Constitutional basis for impeachment. You do know that don't you?



You don't even know how to read I've gotten so far into your head, I'm quite amazed that with the downright stupidity that has taken over your brain that you even have the ability to type. It's quite mind boggling.



:laugh: Again you're trying to make your downright, utter failure to prove something my fault. :laugh: You should be ashamed to show your face around here. Thank goodness the internet allows such stupidity as yours to remain anonymous.



:laugh: Gotta link? And I'm pretty sure it's impossible to link to your imagination. :laugh:



:laugh: Semi-troll post. :laugh: You're a hack dude.



No claim. I proved it. :)



And you won't even resurrect the thread. Your shame would be laid bare for all to see.



;)



It's hard not to discuss things with someone so stupid as yourself without "insulting" you.



I repeated my third option multiple times but you were so blind with hate that you couldn't see it. Restrain spending growth and institute growth oriented tax cuts. You do remember when they did that don't you? I posted a link to where they enacted cuts that I suggested. Awesome good timing for me how it preceded economic growth and all. ;)



Laughable. Morale doesn't equal economic growth. Your argument is almost Keynesian in its ignorance.



:laugh: Your big-government hack roots are showing that you think an economy needs to "managed" by someone, let alone by government. Actual conservatives believe that government involvement should be limited to things like ensuring transparency, dispute resolution, etc. The only government "management" of an economy I think are necessary are limited to monetary policy. Then I'll begrudgingly acknowledge that a central bank is a necessary evil.

I also didn't miss that you completely deleted where I pointed out that you apparently think Ronald Reagan is a leftie. Nice move you disingenuous fool.

First, you're addressing a Brit. His understanding of conservative and liberal are different than ours. No matter what he reads, it's not the same as living here.

Nothing disingenuous calling Reagan a "lefty". Reagan was very much a Democrat. So was I. What you aren't mentioning is the paradigm shift. The left moved left and a lot of Dems got the f- out. Reagan was one of them. Even my grandfather, a staunch union man and Roosevelt Dem voted against McGovern.

In that paradigm shit and the absorption of former "liberals", the GOP had no choice but shift left as well. He was in fact what a lot of former so-called "liberals" were ... a moderate. We weren't going that far left. We still believe in things besides being stupid and unrealistic. ;)

[jimnyc]

I tried to clean this thread up a bit. I moved what I saw as fighting/negative to its own thread in the cage. I understand there is more OT in this thread, but that's normal. If anyone is interested this thread can continue.

[Drummond]

I tried to clean this thread up a bit. I moved what I saw as fighting/negative to its own thread in the cage. I understand there is more OT in this thread, but that's normal. If anyone is interested this thread can continue.

Thanks, Jim.

But I see all this as just tiresome (.. and a bit sad, frankly). I'm in the position I've experienced before ... where, the more opposition I give to a particular poster, so the more insults come my way in place of actual, serious debate ...

Do I really need that rubbish ?

- - Do any of us ... ?

[jimnyc]

Thanks, Jim.

But I see all this as just tiresome (.. and a bit sad, frankly). I'm in the position I've experienced before ... where, the more opposition I give to a particular poster, so the more insults come my way in place of actual, serious debate ...

Do I really need that rubbish ?

- - Do any of us ... ?

I've found over the years that sometimes a member can seem to be insulting, and at other times good debating. Chalk it up to subject matter, bad days, time of year... Sometimes when ya feel that way it may be time to move onto a new subject. And sometimes I can reply to insults in a polite manner, and sometimes I give it back ten fold.

But honestly, where would we be if we didn't post with people we vehemently disagree with? I can speak for myself, my largest "posting binges" over the years were debating with people I was angry with, or seriously disagreed - when you're passionate about something! Generally speaking, we don't get those feelings when we post with others we disagree with. So of course we want 'some' animosity, but of course we also hope that things don't devolve into chaos and solely flaming.

And 2 times in 2 days where a couple of members may want to use an automatic rifle on me - I like FJ. I think he's quite intelligent. Of course there are times I wanted to stick an ice pick into his ear, but I want to do that to family members on occasion! This doesn't mean I don't think he can insult others, he does, but so do I at times. Differences aside, I think he's good people. :)

[fj1200]

But I see all this as just tiresome (.. and a bit sad, frankly). I'm in the position I've experienced before ... where, the more opposition I give to a particular poster, so the more insults come my way in place of actual, serious debate ...

Do I really need that rubbish ?

- - Do any of us ... ?

You reap what you sow. Contain your imagination and you'll get a rational discussion.

[fj1200]

First, you're addressing a Brit. His understanding of conservative and liberal are different than ours. No matter what he reads, it's not the same as living here.

Nothing disingenuous calling Reagan a "lefty". Reagan was very much a Democrat. So was I. What you aren't mentioning is the paradigm shift. The left moved left and a lot of Dems got the f- out. Reagan was one of them. Even my grandfather, a staunch union man and Roosevelt Dem voted against McGovern.

In that paradigm shit and the absorption of former "liberals", the GOP had no choice but shift left as well. He was in fact what a lot of former so-called "liberals" were ... a moderate. We weren't going that far left. We still believe in things besides being stupid and unrealistic. ;)

Of course he's a Brit but we've been over those differences before. As far as my Reagan comment as I explained in the other thread that is constantly referenced is that when Reagan proposed tax cuts in '81 he didn't say that they needed to be "afforded" he explained how they were necessary to turn the economy around; and thank God he did. Of course on this side of the pond those who are explaining that tax cuts need to be "afforded" and "paid for" are those on the left ;) side of the aisle.

But I agree, there was certainly a shift since before FDR, the Progressives in early 1900s?, and moved left until Reagan? moved it back to the right.

[Drummond]

You reap what you sow. Contain your imagination and you'll get a rational discussion.

No. I did not earn your insults.

With the best will in the world to Jim, what I've observed o you in this thread was expected, because it follows a familiar pattern. You'll argue reasonably, IF you think there's no great danger of you being bested in an argument. But when you are, so the incidence of insults increases from you.

I my debate with you in the future .. and I'm in no doubt I'll see this very same pattern repeated time and again.

The ball's in your court, so far as I'm concerned. Reasoned debate is welcome. If you resort to insults to cover for a lack of ability to counter my arguments, I don't actually CARE that you do, beyond observing that you place ego way above debating substance.

You could admit when you're losing an argument. THAT could gain you respect. But ... we both know, FJ, that this is one thing you will never, ever, do.

And its your loss. It truly is.

[fj1200]

No. I did not earn your insults.

With the best will in the world to Jim, what I've observed o you in this thread was expected, because it follows a familiar pattern. You'll argue reasonably, IF you think there's no great danger of you being bested in an argument. But when you are, so the incidence of insults increases from you.

I my debate with you in the future .. and I'm in no doubt I'll see this very same pattern repeated time and again.

The ball's in your court, so far as I'm concerned. Reasoned debate is welcome. If you resort to insults to cover for a lack of ability to counter my arguments, I don't actually CARE that you do, beyond observing that you place ego way above debating substance.

You could admit when you're losing an argument. THAT could gain you respect. But ... we both know, FJ, that this is one thing you will never, ever, do.

And its your loss. It truly is.

Blah, blah, blah. I'll post it again for you.


You reap what you sow. Contain your imagination and you'll get a rational discussion.

[Drummond]

And there we have it, FJ -- an illustration of the calibre of debater you really are.

This is just a waste of my time. Ego above all else, eh ?

[fj1200]

And there we have it, FJ -- an illustration of the calibre of debater you really are.

This is just a waste of my time. Ego above all else, eh ?

WTF is wrong with you? What exactly was I supposed to "debate" in that post? If you want me to point out how you are, yet again, wrong then find a thread that you've previously abandoned and make a rational point without falling to your leftie crutch and imaginatory musings. That's all I ask but what I never get. :sheesh:

[Drummond]

WTF is wrong with you? What exactly was I supposed to "debate" in that post? If you want me to point out how you are, yet again, wrong then find a thread that you've previously abandoned and make a rational point without falling to your leftie crutch and imaginatory musings. That's all I ask but what I never get. :sheesh:

Nothing at all is wrong with me (you just couldn't resist that jibe, could you, even IF 'crossed out').

A serious debater would be willing to admit when s/he is wrong (for example, several posts back, when I proved an example of your thread hijacking, which you failed to concede). Instead, you're - again - trying to 'build' a case which defends a basis for your insults (.. and repeat a couple, into the bargain ..).

You never learn a thing. You never have any interest in doing so. Indeed, there's an utter determination from you to NEVER do so. To you, throwing insults out is infinitely preferable to fairness in debating.

Tiresome. Also pointless. I've better ways to spend my time than in perpetuating all this ... if you're not prepared to learn from any of this.

ENOUGH.

[fj1200]

... if you're not prepared to learn from any of this.

Laughable. You have nothing to teach. I'm waiting for you to admit that your wrong in tyr's "racism" thread.

[Drummond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46355-Racism-charge-A-HANDY-TOOL-FOR-COWARDS-LIBS-AND-ASSHATS-DEMS&p=699967#post699967

(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46355-Racism-charge-A-HANDY-TOOL-FOR-COWARDS-LIBS-AND-ASSHATS-DEMS&p=699967#post699967)Revisit that post, linked to above .. and try answering it, on the same thread, instead of copping out, as you did last time.

[fj1200]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46355-Racism-charge-A-HANDY-TOOL-FOR-COWARDS-LIBS-AND-ASSHATS-DEMS&p=699967#post699967

(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46355-Racism-charge-A-HANDY-TOOL-FOR-COWARDS-LIBS-AND-ASSHATS-DEMS&p=699967#post699967)Revisit that post, linked to above .. and try answering it, on the same thread, instead of copping out, as you did last time.

I already did, there just wasn't much to respond to other than you avoiding a direct inquiry in the post above it. But I'll give it another go just for you. Are you going to address the other open posts in that thread?

[Drummond]

I already did, there just wasn't much to respond to other than you avoiding a direct inquiry in the post above it. But I'll give it another go just for you. Are you going to address the other open posts in that thread?

There was a lesson for you to learn, FJ (more than one, in fact). Lessons you're continually showing the forum, in that thread AND this, that you're totally unwilling to learn.

Respond to the post in the way that reasonable debate requires you to do.

Try it.

I dare you.

If you can possibly depart from Left-wing thinking in doing so, then so much the better. It limits you, and any/all adherents of it, very considerably --

[fj1200]

There was a lesson for you to learn, FJ (more than one, in fact). Lessons you're continually showing the forum, in that thread AND this, that you're totally unwilling to learn.

Respond to the post in the way that reasonable debate requires you to do.

Try it.

I dare you.

If you can possibly depart from Left-wing thinking in doing so, then so much the better. It limits you, and any/all adherents of it, very considerably --

Oh geez. That's why I smoke you and will continue to smoke you. You're not living in reality. When you repeatedly say ridiculous things you'll reap what you sow. ;)

[aboutime]

And there we have it, FJ -- an illustration of the calibre of debater you really are.

This is just a waste of my time. Ego above all else, eh ?



Sir Drummond. Here in the Colonies, it's better to describe FJ's caliber as "Shooting Blanks". Much like someone who had a vasectomy.

There is no caliber to anything FJ might happen to say to IMPRESS HIMSELF.

[Gunny]

No. I did not earn your insults.

With the best will in the world to Jim, what I've observed o you in this thread was expected, because it follows a familiar pattern. You'll argue reasonably, IF you think there's no great danger of you being bested in an argument. But when you are, so the incidence of insults increases from you.

I my debate with you in the future .. and I'm in no doubt I'll see this very same pattern repeated time and again.

The ball's in your court, so far as I'm concerned. Reasoned debate is welcome. If you resort to insults to cover for a lack of ability to counter my arguments, I don't actually CARE that you do, beyond observing that you place ego way above debating substance.

You could admit when you're losing an argument. THAT could gain you respect. But ... we both know, FJ, that this is one thing you will never, ever, do.

And its your loss. It truly is.


This thread was split once. Come on. You got a response in the cage from me. If y'all think FJ is bad, you haven't been around.:laugh:

[Drummond]

This thread was split once. Come on. You got a response in the cage from me. If y'all think FJ is bad, you haven't been around.:laugh:

Well now, Gunny ... if you think that FJ is 'good', you're welcome to try and convince me ... :laugh::laugh:

[Gunny]

Well now, Gunny ... if you think that FJ is 'good', you're welcome to try and convince me ... :laugh::laugh:

No problem. He's got several people upset at him, not discussing the topic. Y'all are discussing HIM. And there's me, trying to get y'all to stop the crap. And he's probably sitting behind his computer laughing his ass off. THAT ain't good? I'd say that's damned good. Looks like he's manipulating 4 people last I counted.

This thread got split for a reason. And now you get to "meet" Gunny. The thread got split to get the personal bullshit out, but y'all just won't stop. The personal crap is in the cage. You want to talk dynamics? A visitor comes on this board and sees all this whiny, sensitive, pouting in the corner like a 3 years old bullshit drama and walks. They can't see in the cage. They CAN see this.

I didn't come back here to watch people run around in their diapers crying because someone spilled their damned milk. The very behavior I described is why others don't post here. Don't know what it takes to get that through y'all's rock-hard friggin' grapes. I don't care if it's FJ or gabby or noir or whoever. Let them say what they want. You get to. Why shouldn't they? And why does it have to be personal if someone disagrees?

Y'all are pissing me off. How about if y'all put on your big boy panties and act like you can fill them?

Geez.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well now, Gunny ... if you think that FJ is 'good', you're welcome to try and convince me ... :laugh::laugh:

fj lives to piss people off my friend.
Just prove him wrong, ignore him or play it back at him..
Stay within the rules its all good.
Feel free to ignore anybody being childish or bullying my friend.
Of course when any not a mod member tells you what you can and can not do, can and can not post --ignore that too.

Its all good. ;)-Tyr

[fj1200]

Just prove him wrong...

:waiting:

:slap: