KrustyKidd

Why are you looking for a safe place to bury a minor's hole? As screwed up as you have shown yourself to be I never figured you for an evil sicko. :angry:

And you go back and forth as the guy who can't answer

If you are incapable of understanding the relationship between Gandhi and his followers then why would you for a moment figure the guy is even worth mentioning? They did what he told them to do and, what he told them to do was to put themselves in harms way where they were certain to be beat to a pulp. Much like a father would place a two year old in harms way. So, was he a great leader or just a name and why?

Try followers. You know, Gandhi is a leader, they are followers. He tells them what to do and they do it. I would say that this is all lost on you but you seemed to grasp it for a moment here;

It's like you placing your two year old grandson in the middle of a busy street and then blaming the guy who runs over him for his death and then, finally, you, 'Dub the Peaceful' get to proclaim that there should be a traffic light there to slow the cars down.

I was responding to this comment That I did not comment nor post any video should have alerted you to the possibility that I wasn't talking about nor posting a vid. i did post a story by Newsweek thoughg. Why don't you read it to see how Hamas uses it's own population as a human shield rather than wallow in stupidity disguised as outrage born of confusion.

And even they didn't do it. It was the guns and clubs that did. Now as for who created the situation where those people would be sure to be beaten and shot, it was Gandhi. He knew the British would react with violence, in fact, he counted on it and so, sent his followers out to be beaten and killed knowing that the propaganda victory would be his. Just like Hamas fires rockets from the middle of residential areas in the hopes that Israel will attack and cause civilian casualties so they too, can have a propaganda coup.

You are confused as usual. I never contended anything about video in this portion of the discussion. I did however, give a link and this quote so you can see that Hamas as policy, uses their own people as human shields as reported by newsweek; Hey Dub, just wondering, don't you think it is sort of dangerous to be firing those things unnecessarily in the middle of a residential area? It might backfire, return fire might happen. All sorts of dangers Hamas is putting their people in by storing and having these prohibited weapons where women and children congregate.

My opinion? Only loon bats would classify Israeli action as terrorism. Not even the UN or the biased AI does this. A military operation with the intent to deny the enemy capability to attack is not terrorism no matter how you spin it or no matter how scary it may seem to some. Terrorism is completely senseless violence, and, even a moron knows that Hamas operates fluidly everywherre in Gaza. On the other hand, rockets lobbed to land wherever and whenever with no set target is certainly terrorism as the victims are completely random and, there is no military purpose or reasoning in the action.

They did and then they were attacked by six Arab nations. Four of them are still at war with them.

Really? One terrorizes with Russian made weapons and the other conducts a militarary operation with clear objectives - to take out the capability of the enemy to terrorize. If they only wished to terrorize they would simply drop bombs indiscriminently rather than target military leaders, tunnels, suicide bombers houses etc.

Only iin certain cases where the state elicits the aid of a terrorist group to purposely create terrorism against an entity. Terrorism is pretty much senseless acts of violence against random victims in order to create a reaction favorable to creating conditions desired by the group supporting the terrorists from the people targeted or the government protecting the people. A government normally has the power simply to force people to do something or, simply carry out a military operation to force action to create whatever conditions they desire.

She is paying out profits to each and every Alaskan. If she were spreading the wealth, she would be taking money from the rich and not so rich Alaskans and giving to the poor and not so poor Alaskans. Now, in Obama's case, he just takes the company over completely,refuses to sell it back when the company wishes to purchase it, places somebody who has never managed a business in charge of it and then takes from the rich and gives to the poor beyond normal taxes and, as the companies he has taken over no longer can make a profit, unlike Alaska under Palin, nobody gets a share of the profits hence, the poor get money from the rich. That is socialism.

The agreement is that when the oil company drills into the people's land, they pay money hence, it is not the oil company's money but rather the people's at that point. Golly, it's simple capitalism at work. As for Mathews, he says he gets a tingling up his leg when he hears Obama speak. It's on the vid. No, she is a good leader who gives out money to the people which the state earned from capitalist entities that produced a profit as per an agreement with the state to the people. If she were a communist, they would recieve none of that money and be living in state housing while she spent that same money on whatever she felt the state needed. You might want to crack a book or two if you find this confusing.

She doesn't take that money from anybody though, it's already there coming in so instead of filtering it to pet projects of special interest groups and supporters she spreads it to all which is what all good leaders should do once the basics have been covered. Great thread though. Nine months after her relevancy she is still the focus of the Left. More talked about than Bush for crying out loud. And hot. Mmmmmmmm. While Obama might do it for quasie male lefties like Matthews Palin does it for any red blooded man.