I would expect you to attack the source because there is no room to attack the facts as presented. They've covered direct incidents of biased news reporting with the actual reporter's coverage. There is no doubt that you would not defend the sources in question, but attack the messenger delivering the unequivocal proof. Incorrect, it is 100% admissible. And you are correct, you cannot argue overwhelming biasness. That's why you chose to attack the messenger of the biased coverage. No, it goes much further to illustrate direct examples of that biased coverage. Again, this is why you chose not to address the biased coverage, but rather attack the source. As if a "liberal media" outlet would cover such! Hang on a sec.....LMAO! Yeah, disproportionate! Gotta love that new liberal sensitivity to terrorists! You've fallen for BBC biased coverage. Sneer at the term liberal? I find the term "liberal" highly offensive! Do nothing, excuse making liberals! It explains it quite well. Even the UN has condemned hezbollah for hiding behind civilians. It explains they are cowards. And the BBC is an "alleged" left wing terrorist sympathizing news source. But that's not the point. The UN's own material confirms what happened. It's all over the news...oh wait, you get your news from the BBC, so that might explain it. Hezbollah apparently was running low on women and children to hide behind and started hiding behind UN observers, knowing they could not be fired upon. Right, I was able to ascertain this from your mulitiple condemnations of hezbollah and hamas hiding behind civilians, while condemning Israel only for using, hang on a sec....I gotta laugh again..."disproportionate" force in fighting terrorists! Well, lets peel off a few howitzers and missles for hezbollah to even things out We wouldn't want the terrorists to have an unfair advantage! One weapon for me, two weapons for thee! And I'll repeat this again, incase you didn't understand - they are hiding behind women and children and now UN observers. Why you ask? Cowardice comes to mind, but that wouldn't be politically correct to point out, huh? Not very sthensthitive to the terrorists. Ah, poor terrorists, they don't have the same fire power as those they attacked in the first place. Here's a hint, if you know you don't have enough fire power, don't cross international borders and kidnap people and fire rockets into your enemy daily. What a revelation! And you blame Israel, instead of cowards who hide behind civilians and UN observers. Now it makes sense! Ah, so now hamas are victims for kidnapping soldiers and firing rockets into Israel. Poor terrorists can't cut a break. And to think, some sympathize with them. Yes, well out of balance! How dare me to point out the BBC seeking anti-Israel stories from Gaza and not seeking the same from Israel! Oh, the shame! Nor did I say you worked for the BBC, which is what those comments were directed towards. Of course, you do defend those things. Hang on a sec, watching another report from Lebanon. Bint Jbail this time. Let's see, you were offended that I doubted you, after claiming 5-6 minutes of Lebanon coverage in two hours? And I noted how much live coverage, as I was watching? Yes, I do doubt you. Willful bias huh? Hang on a sec, they are reporting on Lebanon again. Wow, but you only saw 5-6 minutes in two hours! Wait, more reporting on Lebanon now, about the UN incident. Noting how no one is comdemning a hezbollah rocket fired on a UN target. Gee, there's a surpise! Nope, no Lebanon reporting here. Perhaps they could even out the "perceived" biasness by calling for anti-Israel propaganda from Gaza? Why, that would be fair and balanced! Heh, that was good! Now it's a conspiracy! That's reaching pretty low. It's just a discussion, no need to go off into conspiracy theories. So when I see coverate if Haifa, followed by coverage in Tyre, and coverage in other parts of both countries, it's biased, because they shouldn't be covering Israel? 8:1 huh? Right... You mean like when the BBC refuses to call terrorists "terrorists," and when they call for anti-Israel propaganda? No bias here! I only have your posts to judge your "well-earned reputation for being fair, just and honest." Still no mention of hezbollah and hamas hiding behind women and children and now UN observers? Seems like "fair, just and honest" observations to me. You would be so wrong there, I'm having a blast with this. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time! Sure, it was a change in tactic from their Kommandant. You know, that guy that voted Democrat for Al Gore, John Kerry and is now supporting the Clinton campaign! And all because little ol' GTech pointed it out on the DP political forum! And you think I'm angry? You can't even fathom how much I'm laughing here! Changed it from what? Your two hour experience "non biased" observation? Alrighty then! So your mind was, and is, already made. I see. The BBC was a good example above, of recording bias on both "sides." Unfortunately, I do not see middle ground. This is best illustrated by how bad Israel is for killing civilians, and my constant pointing out that hezbollah and hamas are hiding behind civilians. There is condemnation at large for Israel, but little to none, unless I point it out, for hezbollah and hamas. The only thing I see for hezbollah and hamas is "it's not fair that they don't have enough weapons." You may see that as middle ground. I do not. Sorry, but I don't care. I've seen too many people here and elsewhere start off a post with "I'm not against Israel's "right" (as if they need a right) to defend theirselves, but..." And we all know where that "but" goes. People that need a disclaimer are masking their true feelings on the subject. I contend that there are some gullible enough to believe that. After all, when Spain complied with terrorists demands after their bombing, they uncovered yet ANOTHER active plot against their country. Appeasement doesn't work. Of course, Bali is not a part in the war on terror, but it was bombed. Same with Egypt and many other countries. To suggest that if a country was not part of the war on terror, they would be safe, is the craziest thing I've heard yet. The problem in Europe is overwhelming. It's too late for Europe. It's already becoming Eurabia. The damage is done, the cowering to terrorists (especially in the UK) is well under way. Inaction is not the best course of action. Europe is finding that out the hard way. Right, they should talk to them, offer them flowers, give into their every whim like Europe has. Israel is doing exactly the right thing, doing the job the UN and Lebanon should have done, but would not. Taking out a terrorist group with as much force as possible (still can't get over that "disproportionate force" sissy talk, as if fighting terrorists should be like a baseball game!) to take out the threat, once and for all. It's a very accurate description. I think hezbollah hides behind women and children so they can hold them up like fresh caught fish and say "look at what these savages have done." Oh, and they hide behind UN observers too. What would I do? I would have taken out hezbollah a long time ago, like the UN and Lebanon was supposed to. It explains it very well. Just meters away from the UN post, as noted by UN Reports, hezbollah was firing rockets. I've explained it several times. As you note, keep an open mind. No need to look for altered reality here. I like Dos Equis, three degrees below freezing with ice crystals and lime. Liberal bias is just that, making the side that would do the most damage to them in the real world, victims. Of course, some want to be spoonfed that it's PC to be kind to terrorists and make them victims. I'll pass on that, but we could enjoy a good beer over it. I can't say I'd ever be over in your part of the world, but I'd surely have a beer with you and get you on the right track! This is why I have a "do not support terrorist" policy. All it takes is just that once, looking for altered reality to justify what they do and the next thing you know, you're painting them as victims and saying silly things like "but it's not fair, they don't have as many weapons." Damn right they don't, and that's a good thing! Oh yes, thanks for the civil discourse. I haven't taken any of your jabs at me personally, hope you will do the same with my jabs.
Well I never thought I'd see the day! But Bill O'Reilly just suggested the Iraq War was a MISTAKE! And he even went on to suggest the oil companies are screwing us, jacking up the prices and profiting from war! He actually sounded reasonable for 10 full minutes!!! What a day!
I think he has been talking about the oil companies giving us the shaft for quite some time now. I have heard him say that the last time I heard him about a month ago and before that too.
Lol, taking things out of context again, eh, yo-yo? Cite it. You always ask us to prove stuff, and we sure as heck aren't going to believe your twisted facts/opinions.
It's a shame there wasn't a better answer to that post then the one given, I guess it deserved more than the usual sarcasm, avoiding the points and deliberately misunderstanding the points raised.
Look, Gtech, we can’t go on like this indefinitely, with so many rhetorical one-liners it certainly looks like you’re running out of material…. Are you still clinging to that piece of right-wing propaganda? Damn, you’re like a dog with lockjaw; let it go, Gtech, you have to eat sometime. As has been made clear, the source of your "wisdom" is a multi-million funded, right-wing organisation, therefore it is in itself so biased that is inadmissible. Unequivocal proof? (Fascist) pigs might fly! There’s no attack from me on them, that’s not my style, I’m merely highlighting their right-wing backing. The days of mobilising the masses by a charismatic nut-case standing up and shouting spite are long gone, my friend. Yet the big lie, telling an untruth so colossal that no one could believe anyone could be so bold as to distort the truth so massively, is a nefarious legacy of those days. Bias - noun, adjective. Which messenger, GTech, the liars or the lied-to? Again, don't make the mistake that I'm attacking, I'm not the hostile one. I simply point out that the source of the claim is a multi-million funded group with the sole intention of attempting to undermine and appropriate the evidence and majority opinion. Glad you find the time to amuse yourself, GTech, laughter is to the soul what soap is to the body; an old Hebrew proverb, incase you didn't recognise it. I don't fall for anything, GTech, though you appear to have fallen into the assumption that all I watch is BBC News. Channel 4 News is good too, with an occasional smattering of ITN and some Fox News, as you know. I've even started checking CNN to see of there's any bias in there, as you pointed out - you see, GTech, I listen to you but you seem not to listen to me. We've already spelled-out the definition of liberal, and if you find those who are not limited by authoritarian attitudes, views and dogmas, free from bigotry, open-minded and tolerant as offensive, then I pray for your soul, old man. Did you just accidentally miss or just willfully ignore the fact there that I partially agreed with you? Yes, some of those terrorists will hide behind innocent civilians in order to further their cause. But it still does not explain why the ambulances were hit. It doesn't explain why innocent people, far from Hizbollah or their cohorts have been hit. Admit it. Go on. I know it pains your heart to agree with those you oppose, but we are open-minded enough to do it, why can't you? You are out of control, Git-tech, you are blinded my such negative enthusiasm that you just can't keep a handle on it can you? I said that Fox was biased and in return you have launched a tirade of abuse upon the BBC. Now what was that fancy term again? Yes, Hizbollah most probably do use this tactic, but to say they're running out of women and children is further evidence of the emotive angles used by extremists in your camp to attempt to pollute the knowledge pool with an overwhelming amount of your own exaggerated opinion. Look, you fool, the amount of force being used to fight "only" terrorists is very obviously causing greater damage to innocent people. Yes, for the human shield reasons you point out, but also for the sheer amount of ordnance that has been used in "return" fire. 600 dead is a disgusting amount of casualties, especially when you consider the majority will not be fighters. Do not trivialise the poignancy of what we are discussing with your inane laughter. Go get yourself a nice cup of tea and get your breath back. You're just being facetious here. Go get Hizbollah. Don't get the civilians. Surely the hi-tech weaponry your defence industry boasts so proudly about in sales literature to the Israeli forces should be accurate enough to do the job? I mean, that was such a clean shot on the UN outpost, surely you could pull that off again on every guy wielding an AK47 or stood by a rocket battery? But that's not the answer, just part of it. Yes, GTech, yes, yes, yes (yawn) but you can not attribute every single civilian death to the human shield tactic. Well, maybe YOU can, but your view is hardly impartial is it? No, I blame both sides and others too, though if you take a step back and look at the damage done to civilians, civilian infrastructure, the potential of peace and progress in the region, let alone the affects the whole situation itself has upon the world view of all those involved and not, then you see that there is quite a difference between the two "sides". How many foreigners were mass evacuated from Israel in the time of these rocket attacks? How many Israelis are fleeing in convoys along massively damaged roads? How many Israelis without homes, without water, without food? I really do feel for the Israelis but the strength of their reaction is appaling, quite literally. Now it should make sense! Your self-generated incredulity seems to be clouding your ability to respond in a calm, logical and amiable manner. Did you finish your tea? Best go get another one, aye? We've discussed the detail of that, only a shame you, once again, choose to ignore the information I put before you. You seem to be selectively processing data to suit your own agenda. If you had a little more guile I'd expect you to have a job offer at Newsbusters, I think you'd fit the job description perfectly. and neither did I mention or imply nor think you mentioned or implied that I have any connections with the BBC. I do not believe accusations of bias from sources which only exist simply to undermine what may not be advantageous to their own paymasters' agendas, namely your feeders at Media Research Center Inc and their overlords. Well that just proves that you wouldn't know the truth even if you were standing knee deep in it. Simple refusal and denial is such a typical tactic of your sort. You're aggressive and arrogant but your tactics don't scare me. I saw what I saw - Fox and Fiends Sunday, the show was called. But your screeching is getting boring now, I think I'd get more sense out of Darksat's GTech bot. *sigh* That was Sunday and this is now - you obviously failed to read what was so eloquently put before you that it is not past belief that new orders have been handed down to cool it on the "overdoing it" front. Anyway, even if you had seen the same segment I viewed then I expect you would have either laughed it off, denied it, made some excuse to justify it or attempted to shout anybody out who saw the slant, for fear that people have rumbled the poison-pen game. That's just flippant of you. and besides, bias is both a noun and and an adjective. Those are your words not mine. Don't try and try and blow it out of proportion. Your focus here is as narrow as your mindset and there are so many other points I haven't even started to raise yet. It's almost as if you've sworn allegiance to Fox News and any criticism of them results in a rabid attack on the offending party. Your actions seem to fit the behiour pattern of either a psychopath, a terrorist or a religious extremist. You're exhibiting all the symptoms. Then by the same token should I be considered biased for not calling all right-wingers Nazis? and the call was for input from people who were in Gaza and "affected by the violence". That is not the same as your spin and what you call a request for anti-Israel propaganda; you are so obviously trying to influence the nature of that story with your own extreme bias. You seem to look but you do not see. Fair point. and you know I'm fair because I have agreed with some of your points, my friend, it's just that I don't work on an all-or-nothing basis. and yet you seem to not have agreed with any single thing I have said, except where you have attempted to twist my words to your own ends. Look, I agreed that, yes, that has and does happen in cases, yet you seem to have chosen to overlook that in order to try and make me look bad. Well, read through everything I've written, because I know you haven't paid much atention, or else you'd have come out with some more reasonable and accurate responses to my posts than the skimming you have so manifestly done. Sure, GTech, sure. You've got to laugh or else you'd cry, right? Do you need a tissue? Oh, you hack, you. No seriously, if that's true then that's great. People do change sides in order to get the best deal, and if you're talking about Rupert Murdoch. then I'm not surprised - he was once supposedly liberal and then went right wing. He has pandered to the the British Labour party (what was, once upon a time, the left) and has recently been involved with the Conservatives. He also opportunistically attacked the BBC during the Hutton Report and why? Does he wish to dismantle the BBC and add it to his portfolio? How much power can somebody have if they run large swathes of the media? Take note, GTech; I have, once more, agreed with you, and yes, that was funny. and take from this the points that if Rupert Murdoch can change his position he will *and* send out orders accordingly. and, secondly, even in the Wolfsschanze there were factions and internal feuding. Oh good grief - were you born difficult, GTech, or were you brainwashed at an early age? Infants skulls are a lot softer, so I suspect it was done around that stage of your "evolution". I was agreeing with you, but you deliberately avoid seeing that, don't you? and that was a drop of sarcasm there, I'm sorry it was too subtle for you. I said I will, and have continued, to monitor Fox Spews, and I am not the sort of bloke to be programmed by some rubbish and thenceforth fly that flag 'til I die. Your mind is the one that's immutable. Do I detect a breakthrough? "Unless you point it out"? Don't flatter yourself, GTech. and that quote you seem to attempt to attribute to me... Where TF did that come from? You poor, deluded soul. I know you want me to say that, but I won't because I neither think, said nor believe in it. My view is that all this fighting should STOP because rather than put an end to Hizbollah by wiping out all the guys who wave their flag now, the anger at innocent civilian death and the destruction of the country's infrastructure can only breed more contempt for Israel's tactics and can only serve to recruit more numbers to the ranks of the terrorist organisation. This whole matter has been dealt with so clumsily. and as for the point you raise (yawn) once more about terrorists hiding behind women and children... yada yada yada... You're your very own right-wing propaganda station aren't you? When's your next broadcast, oh repetitive one? Remind me to tune in to something I haven't seen before. You've made that quite obvious. But please, carry on; I don't want to quote you out of context. and thus anyone else apparently fitting that template, in your view, is just the same... Look, the world is not just black and white, there are shades of grey inbetween. I'm not anti-Islamic but there are a lot of vicious little hotheads out there... The only terrorist attacks on Spain prior to the Madrid bombings were from the Basque separatist group, ETA.
Running out of words? Using my terms again? Overwhelming? My you do go for the big one every time don't you GTech? No Arabs in my road. Nor my estate. Maybe some in my town, and even my county. So what was the proportion of indigenous to Arab last time you were here, in Europe, GTech? So anyway, what do you suggest? We're not cowering to the terrorists, it's just that we don't have that same redneck knee-jerk reaction islamaphobic reaction that some do. I'd honestly welcome any constructive ideas you have for Europe, even though you do seem to think it's too late. And I thought you lot hated the French more... So that's your idea of being constructive, is it? You're being bipolar again. Just because we don't want to kill offhand doesn't mean we need to go to the other extreme. I feel that you don't have sufficient depth of understanding of how things are to see beyond the surface and are thus limited to making equally shallow responses. I agree that the UN has been pretty pathetic and I believe Lebanon should have had a lot more assistance in dealing with Hizbollah. But as for right now they're doing *exactly* the right thing... I don't think so. This is another example of only diametrically opposed positions that you seem to recognise. Macho talk, GTech. If your son don't do as he's told, beat him with a stick until he comes round to your way of thinking, right? The salient points here are that simply eliminating the terrorists does not solve the problem. That's the bud, you have to administer treatment to the root of the cause too. And regarding the issue, sorry to repeat yourself, where you explain the loss of innocent life in Lebanon is purely down to "cowards hiding behind women and children." I responded that it was "Not in all cases. That is a sweeping generalisation which is incorrect." Your retort was then; In context, yes, but you fail to see the point and assume that 100% of innocent life is lost for this one reason alone... good grief, you are such a pain to deal with. They hide behind women and children /click/ they hide behind women and children /click/ they hide behind women and children /click/ they hide behind women and children /click/ they hide behind women and children /click/ You're sounding like a broken record; is that all you have to say on the matter? Oh. apart from hiding behind the UN /click/ hiding behind the UN /click/ hiding behind the UN /click/... Can somebody from maintenance take a look at the GTech V0.0.1 please? It's an old model and seems to be playing up again... it might have short-circuited and need a major overhaul... better still, do us all a favour and just switch the damn thing off? Thanks. Disarm them or just take them out? Take them out where, to Taco Bell? Or are you talking of base instinct itchy trigger finger blood lust here? Now. I'd like to know HOW you would have taken them out. Look, dumbass, if they were metres from the post then why didn't the strike land metres from the post? Sounds like a sissy drink. No, GTech, that's your lot, don't keep twisting things. and you know I'm already on the correct track, dude. Oh please stop. Do you have nothing new to add to the discourse? I haven't played a single card yet and I've got most of the chips. Anytime, GTech, I've had fun. But this subject may have to rest for a while, I'm gonna be busy and don't know when I can get any more of those awesome body blows in on you again. I was going to go for a knock-out, but some other time, maybe? Oh, and if Yo-yo's right about Bill O'Reilly then there may be hope for you yet GTech I sincerely hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend STOP.
Eurabia, dewussification, cowering, biased, defending terrorist actions, only attacking Israel, Foxaphobia, shallow, uninformed, making excuses. I have lots of words. Which ones describe you best? You've been cowering to terrorists for years. Every time they seethe and whine about their right to preach hatred against your country, someone caves in. It's too late for the UK. More than "you lot" hate the US? France is far more integrated to Eurabia than the UK. Riots last year more than confirmed this. Just a matter of time, if not already, and France will be paying the jizyah. Look for it in the UK, if not already, in the next decade or so. Sufficient depth of "understanding?" In other words "inaction is the best course of action." Of course, one could equally admire your "idea of being constructive" as well. Vague, full of nuance and lacking even an understanding of the problem that lies before you. Keep ignoring it, like a good dhimmi. That's your opinion. Which has no significant value to me, surely as mine has none to you. It's representative of your position that inaction is always the best course of action. Do nothing, always. Say it outloud: Eurabia! An example of those "constructive ideas?" My son is no more part of this conversation than how you beat your gay lover with a leather whip on Saturday nights. But if you want to go there... Do nothing, always, as the best course of action. Yep, you've mentioned that. And you fail to recognize innocent life being lost in Israel. Only the terrorists matter, as usual. People die in war. If hezbollah and hamas are concerned about this (and apparently they are not, so you are on their behalf), tell them to stop crossing international borders to kidnap people, to stop firing rockets into Israel and most certainly, to stop hiding behind civilians and the UN. Duly noted, you have no concern that these cowards hide behind women and children and the UN. *click* Nor do you care about Israel. *click* Congratulations...don't be afraid to let your true feelings come out! Then take the record off and apply some scratch cleaner. Or, in other words, take your fingers out of your ears and stop chanting "lalalalala I can't hear you." Why not try your method first? Chocolates, aroma therapy candles, giving in to their every whim. Cowering. Even more popular, make them victims! They love to be victims in the eyes of the clueless. Their wish is your command! Now? Why not before? Must it be now, or can I reference what I said before? Israel is doing exactly the right thing. And how about you, what would you have done? Chocolates? A few Jews for slaughtering? Tell Israel to just take those rockets coming in and give up soldiers and Israelis when kidnapped? Isn't that generous? Look? Dumbass? More "constructive ideas" from the unbiased reporter who defends terrorists. Alrighty then. So you think when incoming rounds come in, it only affects within a meter? You're buds got hit because they were firing right next to UN positions, as they've already noted. If you don't like this, tell your buds to stop hiding behind UN observers. More importantly, tell the UN to stop turning a blind eye, as usual. More info on your buds: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr012.pdf http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr08.pdf Hezbollah hides behind them and Israel saves them http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr09.pdf Welcome to Eurabia, the "right track." How about dumbass? That's fine commentary to add to discourse, eh? How about I bring up your family members? Your chips are soggy and I've got all the salsa. I think it would be a wise choice on your part! But I'm here for you, if you want to lean your head on my shoulder and tell me all your woes of how your buds are getting the short end of the deal for attacking Israel. Oh, I almost forgot the all important *click* You too! And please, give my regards to the hezbollah leader hiding out in the Iranian Embassy. Guess he's not quite ready for his allocation of virgins yet.
Of course God isn't talking to Bush. well not the Almighty God anyway. But it certainly would not surprise me if Satan was whispering instructions in his ear! Afterall, Satan is described in the Bible as the 'God of this system of things', and 'the ruler of the world'. So it should not surprise us that Bush thinks he is talking to God and is really being led by the master destroyer, who is 'misleading the entire inhabited earth'. His (Bush's) works certainly reflect a vicious, beastly and war-mongering spirit, and he is the leader of the last world power, bent on domination, pretending to be lamblike but behaving just as world powers have always behaved.
Oh GTech, I'm sorry; I thought I'd be away longer than this but I couldn't resist popping in to see what you came out with this time. You see, in the great "liberal tradition" I found myself doing nothing and that reminded me of you... I was referring to your "running out of words" in the general sense of the ever-decreasing quality of your retorts. Resorting to Coulter-esque populist playground taunts does nothing for your cause except amongst the equally inane. Go back to school and try get past the 5th grade before unleashing your banal banter in the adult world. Your limited personal view on the UK's history with terrorism is either plainly unsupported or deliberately distorted. The IRA, once well-funded by US dollars, seems to be no more as a conventional terrorist organisation. Their political wing, Sinn Feinn, has a voice in the Northern Irish Assembly. Since the Good Friday Agreement there has been peace, there is no cowering. The recent terrorist activity in the UK has been the 7 July bombings and the official backlash against that resulted in the authorities 1) shooting an innocent Brazilian, namely one Jean Charles de Menezes and 2) this year raiding the home of two suspected terrorists who were nothing of the sort. The cost of these mistakes in the "War on Terror" have been more than just the death, injuries and accusations against the innocent but also of the public funds that are then used in the enquiries into these failings. In parallel with many other similar activities in the world today, they lack a common element: Intelligence. Or rather, a lack of. You condemn inactivity, which I partly agree with; doing nothing at all is useless. And yet all-out activity has not yielded positive results either. The riots in France were down to 3rd & 4th generation immigrants, French nationals mainly of African descent. The reasons for the unrest are rooted in the notion that these French people feel they are treated like 2nd & 3rd class people when they are French citizens. That's very good, zib, which one of your racist friends primed you with that little nugget, or did you manage to think that one up all on your little lonesome? Your voicebox is sticking again and you're pretending my observations are yours again. I DO value your opinion, GTech, just... not very much in this department; World affairs, clarity of thought, fair judgment and honesty just seem not to be your your strong points, otherwise I'd LOVE to hear about your guns 'n' your truck. The factual anomaly here is that your sick vision of me is in YOUR perverted mind and not based on a single thread of reality, so that's your attempt at depraved humour out of the window. I was just exploring what I correctly suspected to be your simple lack of human empathy and a tendency toward sadism, aptly demonstrated by your bizarre little fantasy. My brief prognoses of your behavioural patterns have identified overtly harsh disciplinary attitudes, and leanings toward aggression - that indicates some sort of disorder, so I'd you go see a specialist; it appears to be affecting your judgment. And why has it taken 16 days of inaction by Condoleeza Rice before finally demanding an urgent cessation of violence? Why did it take 9 days of her inaction before even visiting the region? Address the inaction of your own if you're levelling accusations at others. I do not fail. I do recognise the loss of innocent life in Israel, as I have already mentioned and you have yet again deliberately overlooked. This whole border war debacle should never have started in the first instance, let alone now cease. I do have concern in the instances that it happens, but I cannot be MADE to see something where it does not exist. It seems that you believe that 100% of Lebanese civilian injuries are due to this one reason alone. It's not 100% and it's not 0%, it's somewhere inbetween. You'd do well to take note of a report investigating the "hiding among civilians" myth as part of the issue rather than taking sides. I'm sorry I couldn't refer a compliant right-wing source, but like you, they obscure the facts to promote their own agenda, so I selected an independent media source for you. The scratch cleaner would wipe you clean, GTech; do not attempt to turn the tables, for it is clearly YOU who are not listening. An eye for an eye is a concept of justice and yet you use it as a method of pure retaliation. You do not ever seem to be able to accept any responsibility for your inaccuracies. That is NOT my method but it looks like you could do with some therapy yourself, GTech, you appear to have some extreme anger management issues. I would honestly recommend you calm down, I could not want your coronary episode on my conscience, despite the fact I know you resent, even show open hatred for me. Repetition again. If you have nothing new to add, then it would be better that you just kept your fingers off your sticky little keyboard. Of course my comment was constructive; it puts you one step further up the food chain than you were last week. I didn't say "a meter" I said "within metres". You seem to distort anything placed before you that doesn't fit your template. So why could there not be a more accurate way of hitting the right target? What's wrong with good old-fashioned sniping? After all, they picked out Tom Hurndall from range. Get it out of your twisted perception that they are my "buds". And very interesting too. Save 1, kill 600. Any chance we'll see an advance on the compassion:Kill ratio? Amarillo Uber Alles! How about dumbass what? You can obsess about members all you like. LOL The rest of that sentence is actually pretty good But no, you keep your salty substances to yourself. Oh you're such a teez, but I'll not be duped into your "squeal like a piggy, boy" grooming schemes, GTech. You present too many classic signs of instability to be able to offer any sort of dependable support so I'll skip that and continue to rely on my own clarity. Yeah, sure, GTech, whatever: I'll give him all your retards. Anyway: Until they (ever) shake up their act, Fox News are still biased and George Bush is someone else's mouthpiece. Short but sweet, yet nice to you again. Adios, Amigo.
You got that right, but Satan talks via Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson his servants!!! Bush and the Republican party sure listen to them!!!
Some people are better at finding themselves doing nothing, then they realize. Ah, running out of words, like "dumb ass." I wondered if you had anything better, being a "neutral and unbiased" reporter who only attacks Israel. Apparently not! You have a lot more to worry about than the IRA ever gave concern for. Hopefully you can use these two incidents to suggest that doing nothing is always the best course of action. After all, one in four British muslims support suicide bombings. But we probably shouldn't talk about that, it might "offend" them. I've yet to see "all-out activity" especially in the UK. This is why they were running around screaming "jihad." But we shouldn't mention their religion, it might "offend" them. I've used it before. A quick search would yield results. It's just been a long time since I've come across anyone it describes so well. Yes *click* "inaction is the best course of action!" Good, so you learned your lesson here. Progress... "just exploring" Yes, I was "just exploring" your own tendencies to whip your gay lover on Saturday nights Surprising, coming from a group of people who usually want the US to "butt out" of the world's affairs. Condeleeza Rice is not firing rockets into Israel, nor did she cross international borders to kidnap Israelis. Let me guess the scenario here: Let the terrorists do what they want, they are victims, but when someone goes to fight back, you want the US to get involved? No calls for US involvement when Israel was taking it, day after day after day. More of that "unbiased reporting" you refer to? You may have, but it was masked by the repeated efforts to make your buds victims for hiding behind women, children and the UN. But, Lever only wants action from the US when his buds are having troubles. Not when his buds are firing rockets daily into Israel and crossing borders to kidnap Israelis. Right, I understand, Lever Just as I thought, pretend it's not happening. Not a chance, nor will I let you gloss over it. 100%? You are delusional. Unlike you, I make no call for "all" or "100%" in order to recognize a problem. By your logic, until "100%" of "all" people have aids, nothing should be done. By your logic, until "100%" of "all" people have cancer, we should never work on a cure. I'll pass on the "Salon" report. If I want biased reporting, all I need to do is ask you. Keep making the requirement be "100%," that'll buy you some time to ignore the problem and demand that it's not an issue, until "all" are doing it. Good dhimmi! Inaction, is the best course of action, always. Right, I get it Lever. You don't have to keep repeating it. Flowers, chocolates, aroma therapy, understanding of the needs to hide behind women and children. It's probably a cultural thing and "we" must be sthensthitive to them, so that their feewings are not hurt. Good dhimmi! Yes, it's sthilly of me for not being more sthensthitive to the needs of those hiding behind women and children *click* Calm down? From what? You honestly think you've given me reason to be upset? Novice! This is pure entertainment! By all means, don't hold back on my part! I thought this was the best you had, and have enjoyed making a mockery of you. Calling for "constructive ideas" and playing the role of a victim, while calling me names and slurs. I know your game better than you do! I said meter, because apparently you think that a missle/rocket is only effective within a meter, and not meters. No distortion. By your own admission, if it's outside of one meter, it's "meters" and therefore, no longer accurate. I don't know if that's from a complete lack of knowledge, or being deliberately obtuse. any chance your buds will stop hiding behind women, children and the UN? They are obviously your buds. Most certainly, Israel isn't. I think that's more than been established now. Every post you make, you continue to reassert that with your "unbiased" views Congrats! You learned how to use "whois" and thought it would be a "constructive idea" to illustrate this point. I salute you! Well, the offer is open. I always appreciate biased clarity. Especially when one continues a continuously falling pattern of exposing it on their own, without realizing it. Like I pointed out, your biased mind was already made up. You keep exposing yourself, and I'll keep pointing out the real "unbiased" Lever
Lever, why bother GTech wants to get down to business using Auto Identification and Extermination, his plan echos the Cheney plan, identify the Islamists and Exterminate them! It is very similar to the Islamists plans for Americans and Israel, I guess it is the old eye for an eye deal. Problem is GTech and the Nixon gang can't decide if they like Muslims or not, since they built them up during the Iran-Iraq war by supporting Saddam and in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union invaded, we supported and built up Bin Ladin and Americans loved those noble warriors then!
My apologies AC, you were down here waiting for me all this time to give you some attention. I do hope you will realize I had more pressing matters. My dog had to go take a dump! You've been a good boy; you may go now.
The us military and goverment likes anyone they can flog second hand military equipment to and then provoke into a scrap. The money in the arms business makes the drug trade look like a somalian piggy bank. I wish it would all stop and people would wake up to the corruption in todays goverments.