If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And you have lost the plot by thinking that there can be any division that bears out in the real world. Metamerism occurs in more than just colour.
Being Zionist is impossible, the same as any linkage between 2 seperate humans is impossible. A ridiculous idea, with no basis in fact.
The neo-cons are arrogant enough to detail their illicit desires on their own website:
We all know that they were pushing to go into Iraq long before 9/11, that the first response by Rumsfeld, within 5 hours of the 9/11 attack, was to tell his officials to draw up plans for attacking Iraq.......
We also know that Rumsfeld was one of the signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles in 1997.
And, this week, they're still trying to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida
So, we can use the neo-cons documents to see exactly what it is they're rooting for, and how they have pushed for a war with Iraq that has ended up being totally counter-productive.
ETA:
Isn't it time that that duvdevan got his google fixed? Stormfront comes at the end of page 2....... One of the things about neo-cons and zionists is that they are arrogant enough to say shit like this, thats why the quote is credible - you only have to look at how America treats Israel after all.....
Don't get the first paragraph.
And I completely disagree with you on the latter. Guess that most here will.
No two people sense things exactly the same way. As colour is a property of your perception, so is everything else that you sense. Things don't feel "cold" or "hot" you feel them as "cold" or "hot".
Then they would be wrong.
What material fact makes someone "jewish"?
Is it microwaves that connect them? Or perhaps some chemical property? Perhaps a type of radiation?
No, I don't.
Kindly explain it.
Is that their aim/illicit ends?
I would also love to hear ftp definition of what a zionist is, considering he is quoting one in his sig. Ftp is a real patriot.
What connects them is the fact that they share a history. Same in partnerships really. People share some sort of common bond, in the Jews case it is a history.
Regarding the first part, I thought we already concluded this
I am guessing that they have a history because they are "jews" and are "jewish" because they have a history, right? Catch 22.
Double bind's lead to schizophrenia, y'know.
So there is no real world connection then?
Apparently you're one
:yes:
It isn't philosophy it's fact.
And it takes the focus away from discussing trivia such as "race", "nation" etc and puts it where it should be -
Why do you get taught such rubbish?
Who benefits from these kinds of beliefs?
Is it in your self interest to believe you are somehow connected to people who have nothing to do with you and apart from people who have nothing to do with you, based on arbitary and imposed fiction?
And so on....It's not a difficult realisation to see that all political power comes first from fiction and then from a gun.
That is not a definition though, is it?
Well, I'm just wondering what the point of defining the term zionist to a self-defined zionist might be.
It also seems somewhat strange that you would describe yourself as a zionist when you don't know what the term means.
Is zion Jerusalem or is it a particular holy site?
Great. Lets hope all their aims are fulfilled soon.
What seems strange is that you won't define the term...
Anyways - have this definition:
No. Arrogance is the assumption that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you just isn't informed enough.
What you miss is that we may be informed enough, but come to a different conclusion.
Either one of us could be wrong, yet you have never accepted that the person who is wrong could be you.
No, it's about presenting balance.
You may have noted over the last few years that I will argue different perspectives on the same issues. I will condemn Bush and I will defend him (for example)... even when I don't personally hold the view.
Thank you for underlining my point.
What you refer to as "actualities", I refer to as "opinion". I thought you understood how to present historical "facts". Perhaps you need to start first grade history again. It was something I learned a long time ago. It's not just the "fact" that you look at but the source for the "fact". That way you can make a personal assessment on the reliability and bias of that source.
At that point you come down to your own interpretation and opinion.
TBH, just to add. I find it difficult to accept lectures on principles, and the basis of "right" and "wrong", from someone who apparently believes it acceptable to stand and watch whilst genocide is being committed. That view being on the basis that it is happening within a nations border and that "international law" (which doesn't in reality exist) protects those borders.