Moonbox

Describing the specific violence doesn't do a good enough job of that? Reporting on beheadings, babies being murdered, women being raped and grandmothers getting shot 40+ times in their homes isn't sufficiently informative? ? I would argue the opposite. The descriptions themselves are far more effective than frivolously used and emotionally charged language to which the world has grown numb and dismissive.

That's the point. The term is emotionally charged and therefore not very informative. It's thrown around frivolously and meant to rile people up and little else. Not using the term isn't supporting terrorists. It's refusing to peddle in lazy heuristics, as you so often do. See: When you can't really articulate your point, you revert back to generalizations about the "other/them". In your case that's the "left". Nobody's questioning whether it's terrorism, just like the BBC wasn't sympathizing with the Nazis by not calling them evil. The assumption here is that when the CBC reports on women and children being murdered in their homes by militants, you're intelligent enough to make the conclusion yourself.

I know what you're saying, and I can point out when it's foolish. I see Hamas as a terrorist group. I think they're evil. I don't need the CBC or BBC to tell me that, or to rant about how bad it is to kill grandmothers carrying cookies in the street. Fox News and CNN have a procession of personalities who will step out and provide the rants you desire. It's not good news, but it's more entertaining for certain types. ?

Since when have you cared so much about what's been officially declared? ? Terrorist isn't worth much as a word anymore. It's been bandied around by leaders all over the world to basically label anyone that opposes them as "the bad people". It's a slogan. The Turks call the Kurds and the Armenians terrorists. The Indians call the Sikhs terrorists. The Kremlin complains about Ukrainian terrorist attacks on their infrastructure. It's just a word meant to make you angry now. Now that's moronic, because not aping the words like everyone else does isn't the same thing as giving Hamas legitimacy. I suspect if you read the CBC you'd see them unequivocally condemning Hamas and doing very little to criticize Israel's response. Your response here highlights the problem - ranting, not thinking.

Here's why. They're taking a page out of the BBC, which has metric tons more credibility than the CBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67083432 Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.

The only thing these fragile, spastic responses do is demonstrate what's going on in your head. Keep derailing your own threads with your aggressive stupidity though. ??

Your the one spamming caps. exclamation markets and emotes, muppet. ?

No. Everything about this thread was brilliant. I'm 10/10 entertained.

I have this genius on ignore, but boy am I glad I read this. ? Don't do drugs, kids.

A record deficit fueled economy, that helped drive inflation coming out of it. All Biden’s fault though, according to your smooth brain. ?

Muslim’s haven’t been around for 3000 years, nor have “Arabs” as we know them. The fact that Israel can and has got along with a number of its neighbours for decades (even former enemies) proves that the sweeping generalizations are attractive heuristics but that don’t really hold water.

If any of the above were remotely true, you wouldn't need to keep repeating it like an incantation. As we know: The same can be said about all of your limp boasting. It's not really clear who you think you're convincing. All you're doing is confirming your low self-esteem. Thanks for the laughs, as usual. ?

I don't have to imagine what you do all day. This is what an actual observation looks like. ?

If we're talking about emotional damage, let's consider the obvious and gaping hole in your life that has you sitting at your computer all day, every day, shitting up every corner of the forum and insisting to people how you're making them "insanely butthurt." Go get a job, or at least a hobby...just something...anything. ?

Par for the course for this fool. He needs to go to Indian garbage news sites to find things that line up with his clownworld perceptions. ?

Is that what you think you're doing here? Debating? ? Spamming the board all day every day in battlemode and projecting your insecurities on anyone who disagrees with you doesn't count as "debating". That's just a desperate cry for help and attention. This forum has literally never seen a bigger no-life than you. ?

You've chosen to believe that I was glued to a bunch of personalities I've never quoted, referenced or promoted once on this forum. ?? That's a perfect encapsulation of your worldview, isn't it? Evidence-be-damned, this is what you want to believe so this is what's true.

No, there's almost nothing more stupid than the shit you're slurping. That Fox News' lawyers argued that no reasonable person takes what he says as factual/truthful should have informed you of how much of a charlatan Tucker Carlson is, but since you're not a reasonable person it's no mystery why that went over your head. Unemployed, I think. I didn't watch him and have never in my life quoted him anywhere, so...good comeback I guess. ?

Says the guy who quotes Tucker Carlson and Russia Today. ?

This is one of his proposals that actually makes sense. 500,000 immigrants per year is ridiculous for a country our size. We have already have upwards of 1,000,000 students and temporary workers, and nowhere to house them. There are good things and bad things about immigration and the math is full of trade-offs. Trudeau and his government live in a fantasy world where the problematic issues with excess immigration are not only not being planned for or mitigated, but ignored altogether as if they don't exist.

Yes, but they haven't gone back to communism, nor will they. It's not what they want. It's what they tolerate. The Russian people have a long tradition of servility. With a culture of keep your mouth shut, mind your own business, don't ask questions etc, they get what they tolerate.

The Russian people didn't want an end to communism? Is that why they went back to communism? ?

It may be, by the time it's done. That's pennies on the dollar for neutering what's been Europe/Western's primary adversary for the last 75 years. Gotta get a good jab in there on the trannies and the woke, amirite? ?

I don't exempt him from blame with China. I've complained about how he handled Huawei, the Michaels and the election interference and don't trust him on foreign policy whatsoever. He's too dumb to understand the nuances and the consequences of what he does and says. Regardless, it's still pathetic to watch you carry on about his lack of action on the Chinese issues, and then defend hostile Indian actions whilst criticizing Trudeau for openly opposing them - absolutely pathetic.

He sees it as the ideal time because he doesn't actually know anything about it. ?‍♂️