Figleaf

Is it possible Figleaf your bias and preconceived notions as to Iran preclude you from conveiving that it funds terrorist activities? Do you think that could be true? Not likely, since I have no favorable feelings whatsoever for the Iranian theocratic regime. What you don't seem to grasp is that I don't have to feel favorably toward Iran to feel negatively about having our own media and governments trying to feed us heaping plates of shit about it. Shit is shit, even if I don't like the people being lied about. There's a repetitious script on this forum that is getting tiresome..

FCQV, fyi....

HELLO! From the forum guidelines:

Wouldn't that just totally defeat their purpose though?

As in the other reports on this subject, Aljazeera.com (not aljazeera.net) headlined it with 'Israel' and quoted him saying 'regime'. The "regime" in Israel is democracy. Do you think Madjab would be just peachy with Israel if it were say, a totalitarian state? Is that what you think he meant? That he's just fine with Jews, but not so fine with democracy? I've been over this already on this thread with other posters, and your comment brings nothing new to the discussion. You can review my comments if they interest you. 1. If these persistent references to a 'sweal' are supposed to elicit some particular reaction, you'll have to explain it better. 2. I am not backpedalling. Grow up and spare us such petty provocations.

"Unmarried soldiers? Your lives are worth less! Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?" The shrillness is almost hiti-like. All you need to do is misspell "hypocrisy" a few times, and it'll be a great impersonation. The shrillness is something you brought. My comment had no exclamation point, and Everything before 'why' was a heading, not part of the longish whinge you would make it out to be. Nice, ah ... frontage though.

As in the other reports on this subject, Aljazeera.com (not aljazeera.net) headlined it with 'Israel' and quoted him saying 'regime'.

Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't.No surprise there. This exchange of sophomoric nonesence is what drives people away from bulletin board posting. You've got that right, it ads nothing to the debate, ... If you know that, why did you start it?

A swealian squirm par excellence... Oh, you're back. Too bad. Did you have anything to contribtute to the discussion here? Or can we count on you to limit your commentary to one-line clutter? In case you hadn't noticed, Rue and I were discussing media coverage and Iran's position in the Middle East. My view is that our media ought to report the facts and allowd us, the citizens to determine what to think of people like Arnojihad. I don't go for the proto-fascist Straussian approach of groomed news and manufactured consent, particularly consent to follies that kill thousands. Seemingly, you are unable to take on that position with argument, so you have determined to resort to trolling -- blighting discussions with incitement and inanity. Be careful, or I'll put you on Ignore.

I can't say this case adds anything to the good repute of the California justice system. What a dog's breakfast (lucky Tinkerbell, I guess).

Rue -- I read the quotes you provided. If you read them closely, and don't imputing extras, they add up to much less than the accusations about them. Wait! I'm NOT saying Ahabjihad doesn't hate Israel, I'm NOT saying he doesn't hate Jewish people, I'm not saying he's not a threat to the west. I am saying: (1) We are ill served by a media that cannot report a world leader's words properly, no matter how much of a loony toon he seems to be. (2) Maybe rather than being a simple raving lunatic, Afflictjihad is a complex conniving lunatic.

Because you CLAIM to be impartial and I just wanted to point out that you are not. 1) I'm not sure where you got the impression I claimed to be 'impartial'. I have a definite preference for Western society and values over totalitarian middle eastern regimes. 2) Demanding that the media not stump for war by making up shit is not a bias, it's a desire for truth and professional integrity.

My goodness! I'm sure I didn't say (or suggest) the sentiment "its o.k.".

Would you like to make an excuse for him now or would yo like to condemn him like any sane person should? We are waiting. Waiting for what? All the quotes there confirm what I've said. Achmetjihad said 'regime', not 'Israel'. But I don't get why you have this weird need to be upset with me. You want me to 'condemn' him ... okay, do you want me to condemn him for things he really said, or things he didn't say? Either way, why do you need MY condemnation? As for making excuses for him, I really think you need to learn what words mean before you use them. I haven't stated any judgements or excuses, I've merely pointed out facts. It seems to me that if Armedjihad is the devil incarnate it should be sufficient to condemn him using what he actually says rather than making stuff up.

It's obviously a gerrymander-like attempt to bribe married voters! -k Now now, kimmy, keep it in your pants.

The problem with your argument, is that it depends on specific factual assumptions to make it work. Your example situation is one case. What about comparing these two cases: Soldier A, no kids, married six months ago, wife about to file for divorce, already blew him off to party with drug dealers before he went to Afghan. Soldier B, no kids, sole support to single parent, 68yrs.

FCQV, fyi -- Forum Guidelines:

No need, your anti-semitic stereotype made it all quite clear.

Every news piece cited so far on this thread has a headline that says 'Israel' and then inside has a quote that says the 'regime'. The two are not the same. Amenjihad is being subjected to quite blatant distortion.

Lies hurt. You can't tell the difference, you dirty anti-semite. Denied the Holocaust lately?

This is all such obvious bullcrap. Did you read that ABC article? Garble? Whaaat? Does anyone think that rings true?

Thank you for going to the trouble. It's a very wise and eloquent article. I particularly thought this was good: Reading that, I think I'd add that what seems to flow from those feelings is a tendency for the interests of moderates on either side to be swept up by the reactions of their own extremists.

Because you can't let the untruths anddistortion of history go That's exactly the motive that usually prompts me to write posts on this conflict.

Yes, they will see how shocking your attitudes about Jewish people really are. {And so how do you like the taste of your own medicine?}