Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3286
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Yeah, you want Israel to annex the West Bank officially into Israel and remove or completely disenfranchise the Palestinians who currently live on it.  Israel doesn't want peace.  If they did, they could have built the wall and left the West Bank long ago.  They are the only party with power there.  They can create a Palestinian state entirely unilaterally.  

    Greggy: If Israel wanted the West Bank, they could take it.

    DD: If Israel wanted to offer up the West Bank they could always just recognize it as Palestine and leave.

    Greggy: There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.

    Yeah, that sounds like someone that wants to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

    But here's your problem, greggy.  The below simply isn't true, and you know it:

    Greggy: And if the Israelis wanted, they could get rid of every Palestinian if they chose to do so.

    Unfortunately, the world will tolerate your apartheid just as it tolerated South Africa's.  It will even tolerate the inhumane treatment of people.   It won't tolerate genocide, so you'll continue to be stuck trying to figure out what to do with the Palestinians there.

    To the world's credit, they will not tolerate the apartheid arrangement. The problem is that the UN has a defect in its structure, namely the permanent member status and all the powers/rights that come with it. Were it not for the US veto, Palestine would be an established state going back to 1976 at the very latest. But people like greg don't want to hear that and they want to forcefully tell fanciful stories, almost as if to convince themselves, that the fantasy world they live in is any more real than the Wizard of Oz.

  2. 2 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

    They left Gaza unilaterally in hopes that it would help the peace process and they were wrong.  

    Yeah, that's total bullshit.

  3. 11 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

    You're an idiot. Quit embarrassing yourself. The Palestinians could have already had their own country. They declined. And to say that Hamas has no relevancy is beyond stupidity. The only thing that you proved is that you have no clue. Keep up your hatred.  Its always good to read what people like you at the bottom of the bell curve think. Its comic relief.

    They've been voting with the majority every year this issue comes up twice per said year (Arab League and OIC) and voice solidarity with the majority (because they can't actually vote) in the UNGA. They vote in the affirmative of the Two State Settlement each time it comes up, and they've been in favor of it for 42 fucking years ever since that first SC resolution came up that the US vetoed after Israel practically begged them to. Every word of what you just said is bullshit.

    4 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

     now useless due to Iron Dome

    Actually, Iron Dome doesn't do jack shit. That whole thing is a hype machine and essentially nothing else. You'd do well to read the literature provided by Theodore Postol on the topic. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528991/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system/

    What makes those "rockets" as impotent as they are is the fact that they aren't actually rockets in any meaningful sense. They're enhanced fireworks. Israel has imposed a blockade of Gaza since 2007. Hardly any materials get through to them. In 2014, Israel claimed that something like 8,000 projectiles were fired at them...and only 3 hit their targets (5 Israeli civilians killed, 1 house destroyed). But Iron Dome only exists in the major urban centers and Hamas cannot fire such puny "weapons" that far. In fact, Postol examined the contrail evidence and estimated that its efficacy was about 5%. 

  4. 6 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

    Hamas has no relevancy in the WB so all this fluff about the charter is yet another bogus excuse to keep occupying the west bank

    Oh we've known that for quite some time. They said the same thing about the PLO Covenant and it was just as ridiculous, not to mention totally hypocritical.

    When the PLO drafted its Declaration of Independence in 1988, Israel's response was that "Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan." It also stated that "Israel will not conduct negotiations with the PLO." And far from what they did say, notice what they did not say. They did not say "Israel will not conduct negotiations with the PLO unless it revises its Covenant by omitting all inferences that contests Israel's legitimacy." It just says that they won't even talk to them under any conditions.

    This is just shameful goal-post moving and excuse making that seeks to evade a peaceful settlement to the conflict, which has enjoyed perhaps the broadest of international support more than any other issue in international affairs for the past 51 years.

    • Like 1
  5. 14 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

    Why on earth did he do it? 

    That was just the coaching culture at the time. If I'm not mistaken, John Jenkins created a huge rift in the coaching community when he was at UH and absolutely refused to teach/share anything to absolutely anyone. His quote on the topic was “Do I.B.M. and Xerox share their policies so that some competitor can come in and kick their butts?”

    • Like 1
  6. 15 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Memorial day is for remembrance of fallen servicemembers.

    Memorial day is for the military. Or, to put it in the words of the DOVA website, Memorial Day "commemorates the men and women who died while in the military service."

    What Huck said is correct. Conflating the two is a huge problem.

  7. 17 hours ago, Smax said:

    i was wrong

    You've been wrong about absolutely everything you've said thus far. 

    17 hours ago, Smax said:

    his hands weren't clenched, he still proceeded to approach the man as he was on the ground and bowed his shoulders/arms out after he pulled his shorts up, an aggressive move.

    I was not referring to that, and you knew that. In the very beginning, I explained to you very clearly:

    "Meanwhile the decedent took fully 2 steps backwards in an obvious sign of retreat starting from the moment he saw the guy was drawing something until a full second before the weapon fired."

    What you're talking about is before the murderer went for his weapon, and now you're deliberately trying to confuse things by pretending that I was talking about the same timespan. I wasn't, and you knew that. Your reading comprehension cannot possibly be that piss poor, so you have to be lying.

    17 hours ago, Smax said:

    Multiple people on this thread stated the attacker retreated after he pushed the guy to ground, guess they are liars too

    They've said that he retreated the moment he saw the murderer going for a weapon, and they would be correct in saying so. 

    8 hours ago, Smax said:

    now youre the liar go watch the vid

    It's like you're intentionally ignoring the last part of what he said. What good that will do you exists strictly within the confines of your own head.

  8. 1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    My ten year vet buddy (retired as a captain) told me that he 11 percent in favor of this shit are the evangelical assholes in the officer corps. 

    Wouldn't you know who won the pony?

  9. 16 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    What if his old lady has a dirty .380* and you get hit from the car.

    If that possibility was on his mind (and we know it wasn't because he didn't have enough time to say "TELL THAT FUCKIN' BITCH TO CHILL!"), the worst thing he could have done for himself was what he actually ended up doing. If she had drawn on him, the only way she shoots is if he shoots first. 

  10. Just now, Chad Fuck said:

    Hang on, I'm getting a psychic reading....I think this will be the best attended parade ever in the history of all times.  

    Will Sean Spicer be reinstated to passionately announce this fantasy?

  11. Just now, Smax said:

    2 steps back and squared up bowed his shoulders and arms out and looks like his hands were clenched in fists

    You're just lying now. 

    Just now, Smax said:

    So you've just been thrown to the ground (assaulted) a much larger individual is still standing over you in what appears to be an aggressive stance and you expect this guy just to lay there and hope the assaulter isn't going to beat his ass even more? Mind you all of this transpires in a matter of seconds and now we have all you monday morning quarterback dissecting this

    As others have already said, I take no issue with the fact that he drew the gun. What I take issue with was the fact that he fucking shot him for the purpose of killing him after he had already signaled that he wanted no more part of it upon realizing he was armed. The fact that concept is too lofty and complex for you to understand is a problem that you have to resolve. And please spare me with that teenaged interpretation of "matter of seconds" because the shooter was doing this in a shockingly calm fashion. This was not a reflexive draw-and-shoot. What happened there was reflective, and that's why it's murder. And it's not "monday morning quarterbacking" to say so. It's as transparent as the fact that thus far, you've been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything that you've said.

  12. 2 hours ago, thrillhammer said:

    every night on fox or oan i hear conservatives complain about being called fascists.  now this.  nobody loved a parade like hitler.

    Benito was quite fond of them as well.

  13. As the shooter calmly drew his weapon, he had assumed a fixed position to more or less steady his aim. Meanwhile the decedent took fully 2 steps backwards in an obvious sign of retreat starting from the moment he saw the guy was drawing something until a full second before the weapon fired. His hands were clearly visible and was not in any position to further demolish that little toad. At the very best, you could argue that he had the right to shoot-to-wound, and even that's ridiculous on its face. But shooting for the purpose of killing him? That's not self-defense, that's just murder. A 14-year old cannot understand that, but an adult can. You're making this too easy.

    That guy was not thinking "oh my god, this guy is gonna kill me, I need to defend myself." By the calmness of his actions starting with shifting around into that fixed position, he was thinking "that motherfucker shoved me? I'll show him!"

    • Like 2
  14. 6 minutes ago, Smax said:

     

    Youre right, smaller weaker people just need to deal with the fact that larger and stronger individuals can assault them for yelling and there is nothing they can do to defend themselves ..

    I don't know which is more deluded: the idea that this moron was "defending" himself, or the idea that you're gonna stand and trade with people on this topic.

  15. 21 hours ago, Smax said:

    don't start no shit wont be no shit

    and don't park in a handicap spot unless you're handicapped 

     

    20 hours ago, Bacon Gayfield said:

    There's about a million posts about douchebag parkers on the shag/surly regarding how disgusting and infuriating it is when non-handicap people park in handicap spots. Now suddenly, when a black couple does it, and you add in some assault on a "white male gun nut", suddenly you people take the side of the douchebags, because politics. Never waste a "tragedy"!

    You leftists are a reprehensible bunch. Just foul.

    You DO NOT park in handicap spots when you're not handicapped. 

    You DO NOT assault people. 

    If he had not assaulted the man, he wouldn't be dead.

    And these, ladies and gentlemen, are the personification of today's gun nut culture in today's "conservative" movement. If it can be argued by a 14-year old, then it will be.

    • Like 2
  16. 17 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    My Fox news brainwashed in-laws are attending this parade. They booked their room at Trump Hotel DC back in March. 

    The people who took their reservation are probably laughing their asses off.

    • Like 1
  17. 1 hour ago, Monster said:

    Fast paced history lesson with an objective perspective.      

    It's an attempt at whitewashing. For example, he says that Israel's counterargument to the settlements is "well Palestine isn't really a state."

    First, that's not even true. Go back even to the days of Moshe Dayan and you'll find him and the cabinet openly admitting that what they were doing was illegal. That's not really a dispute. 

    Second, the few blowhards that do offer a defense is that the territory onto which the Israelis have encroached is "a buffer to terrorism." Fucking lame as that is, it has nothing to do with whether or not Palestine is a state.

    Third, no one takes that claim seriously and the person in the video does nothing to rebuff it. He states a very valid claim by the Palestinians, a very weak rebuttal that's only offered by a handful of Israel's supporters (not even actual Israelis offer that argument), and pretends like those are equally valid claims. When people do shit like this, they enable the military occupiers. Fake objectivity is nothing more than an affirmation of the status quo (another example of these are the massive omissions of the Clinton era).

  18. 40 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    When you are a partisan hack, you view everyone else is as a partisan hack I suppose. 

    It's a paradigmatic example of the pot calling the silverware black, i.e. projecting faults onto others who, in reality, do not share them.

    "I'm a hack, you're a hack; it's a wash!"

×
×
  • Create New...