It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WORLD: UN fabricates story of Israel shelling UNRWA school in Gaza (Confirmed)

page: 11
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 


It's only hate speech and generally worthy of condemnation when inflammatory speech is aimed at the west ( Caucasians, clearly "God's" "chosen" people, etc ); when in discussing the possibility of turning the Mideast around Israel into a parking lot that's allowed as the poor 'coloured' majority of the world are after all not human beings. I mean why wouldn't you bomb them when these 'animals' refuse to work 12 or 16 hour days in the factories and fields, eat and generally almost survive on starvation wages that allows for a tiny minority of westerners to become billionaires?

The problem is that many ATS members , citizens of the west and rich minorities in most countries, have been propagandized into believing that their interests are tied to those minorities that must exploit so many , including those they pretend to defend, to maintain and gain even more power.

It's just hard talking to people who are for one misinformed reason, aiding and abetting these crimes against humanity.

It's a good thing that i don't expect positive changes to happen much faster than seems to be the historic norm.

But you seem to know most of this so thanks for your posts so far.


Stellar




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by BlueRaja
 





There's a difference between having the freedom to express your disapproval of something verbally, and the freedom to murder(or encourage violence against) those with whom you disagree

See if you read that statement couple of more times you would see the problem. You are basically saying you are allowed to express yourself but you are not allowed to others what to do like let's say kill the infidels, but what if you are not telling other to kill infidels but you are expressing your hate towards the infidels which could potentially result in the deaths of innocent people? Hence Inciting hate, or hate speech which is banned in Western countries.


The concept of freedom of speech/expression is that you can state your opinion, even if it is offensive, without having to fear persecution, imprisonment, or physical harm. If someone takes offense, they have the freedom to let you know, and if you've portrayed something inaccurately, show where they're misinformed. Anything less than this is not freedom of speech.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by StellarX



Who said it was condoned other than yourself? What about the abuse of children in the Catholic Church? What about the rape statistics in western 'Christian' countries? For that matter when did western 'christian' countries decide that men did not have to beat their wives when they wanted to? You mean to suggest that while the Nazi's were killing Jews, the Americans hanging blacks, the South Africans regime doing whatever it had to hang on to power all you can think of is how possibly many Muslim men don't treat their women with the the 'respect' very few other other religions and societies show their women?

Your just wasting my time here and showing up your bias and general hatred of anything different from yourself.


Can you cite me the passage and verse in the bible condoning abusing women, children, blacks, etc...? None of your examples have anything to do with Christian doctrine.




But what exactly did he depict? Are you going to share that with the rest of the group or should i? Why do you have so much sympathy for people who know just enough about 'freedom' to believe that this gives them universal rights to slander others as well as protection against the resulting anger? Which planet are you from?


I am from Earth, and I have no tolerance for anyone that thinks it's ok to murder someone because of a cartoon. This isn't the 12th Century, and there are certain expectations in civilized society with regards to acceptable behavior. Murdering infidels doesn't fall into this category.




Lol. So your telling me that you believe that Muslims are generally more prone to violence when their faith or institutions are attacked? Will you provide proof or is that just the type of presumption all your bigoted attacks rest on?

You talk about understanding yet everything you say indicates a totally uninformed ( or shall i say propagandized) view of both Muslim culture/religion and all the rest. Well done on not being able to spot the bigoted and racist behaviour that is so inherent in all the major monotheistic religions. Well done on proving that you picked one and are thus forced to attack the other for no reason other than the fact that you feel compelled to prove that you are 'better' without having actual evidence of individual excellence.

Sad.

Stellar



Can you give me some dates for the last time a Presbyterian car bomb went off at a Baptist picnic, or when Buddhists blew up a Synagogue?
There is only one major world religion that has spreading the faith by the sword as a major tenent of the faith, or that infidels have the choice of conversion, death, or dhimmitude.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Ridhya
They lied, they have an agenda, Israel lied, they have an agenda, HAMAS lied, they have an agenda, Im summing this up, I have an agenda. Mine is to convince you they are all pricks spewing propaganda like pond water from a poorly made ceramic angel in the back of Grandmas garden.

Whats with all the citing of "goals to wipe out Israel"? Zionists have stated time and time again they want to wipe out Arabs from the area! They're basically the same people under a different banner. Well, plus one lives in fenced poverty *cough*


The fallacy of your analogy is that you're using the terrm Zionist as a synonym for Israelis/Jews/supporters of Israel and Jews. It most certainly isn't the goal of the Israeli government/military to wipe out Arabs from the area. Israel has been the only party that has been willing to make any compromises in negotiations. Hamas, etc.. will except nothing than an all or nothing solution, and DO seek the eradication of Israel.




i think you need to read some more about Zionism...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Ridhya
They lied, they have an agenda, Israel lied, they have an agenda, HAMAS lied, they have an agenda, Im summing this up, I have an agenda. Mine is to convince you they are all pricks spewing propaganda like pond water from a poorly made ceramic angel in the back of Grandmas garden.

Whats with all the citing of "goals to wipe out Israel"? Zionists have stated time and time again they want to wipe out Arabs from the area! They're basically the same people under a different banner. Well, plus one lives in fenced poverty *cough*


The fallacy of your analogy is that you're using the terrm Zionist as a synonym for Israelis/Jews/supporters of Israel and Jews. It most certainly isn't the goal of the Israeli government/military to wipe out Arabs from the area. Israel has been the only party that has been willing to make any compromises in negotiations. Hamas, etc.. will except nothing than an all or nothing solution, and DO seek the eradication of Israel.




i think you need to read some more about Zionism...


I think you need to read more about the Israeli government/IDF. If Israel wanted to eradicate all of the Arabs, there are far more effective ways to go about it. Not every Israeli citizen, soldier, or politician, is a "Zionist" by a long shot. To use the term interchangably is simply inaccurate, and intellectually disengenuous.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Ridhya
They lied, they have an agenda, Israel lied, they have an agenda, HAMAS lied, they have an agenda, Im summing this up, I have an agenda. Mine is to convince you they are all pricks spewing propaganda like pond water from a poorly made ceramic angel in the back of Grandmas garden.

Whats with all the citing of "goals to wipe out Israel"? Zionists have stated time and time again they want to wipe out Arabs from the area! They're basically the same people under a different banner. Well, plus one lives in fenced poverty *cough*


The fallacy of your analogy is that you're using the terrm Zionist as a synonym for Israelis/Jews/supporters of Israel and Jews. It most certainly isn't the goal of the Israeli government/military to wipe out Arabs from the area. Israel has been the only party that has been willing to make any compromises in negotiations. Hamas, etc.. will except nothing than an all or nothing solution, and DO seek the eradication of Israel.




i think you need to read some more about Zionism...


I think you need to read more about the Israeli government/IDF. If Israel wanted to eradicate all of the Arabs, there are far more effective ways to go about it. Not every Israeli citizen, soldier, or politician, is a "Zionist" by a long shot. To use the term interchangably is simply inaccurate, and intellectually disengenuous.


did i say so then??

Are you to put me in a corner where you can call me an Anti-whatever?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Reignite
 


No. I just want you to use terms correctly.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Reignite
 


No. I just want you to use terms correctly.





what terms?? i only used Zionism and i did not say anything about them did i?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Reignite
 


No. I just want you to use terms correctly.





what terms?? i only used Zionism and i did not say anything about them did i?


My point is that you use the term Zionism interchangably with Israelis, and that's simply not the case. The vast majority of Israelis want nothing more than for things to stop blowing up. They're not interested in expanding the boundaries of Israel.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Reignite
 


No. I just want you to use terms correctly.





what terms?? i only used Zionism and i did not say anything about them did i?


My point is that you use the term Zionism interchangably with Israelis, and that's simply not the case. The vast majority of Israelis want nothing more than for things to stop blowing up. They're not interested in expanding the boundaries of Israel.



where did i?????


again, you are trying to put me in a corner where you can call me anti-whatever



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Reignite
 


No. I just want you to use terms correctly.




what terms?? i only used Zionism and i did not say anything about them did i?


My point is that you use the term Zionism interchangably with Israelis, and that's simply not the case. The vast majority of Israelis want nothing more than for things to stop blowing up. They're not interested in expanding the boundaries of Israel.



where did i?????


again, you are trying to put me in a corner where you can call me anti-whatever


Everytime you use the term when referring to Israel, you're doing it. I'm not sure how much plainer I can make it for you.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Reignite
 


No. I just want you to use terms correctly.




what terms?? i only used Zionism and i did not say anything about them did i?


My point is that you use the term Zionism interchangably with Israelis, and that's simply not the case. The vast majority of Israelis want nothing more than for things to stop blowing up. They're not interested in expanding the boundaries of Israel.



where did i?????


again, you are trying to put me in a corner where you can call me anti-whatever


Everytime you use the term when referring to Israel, you're doing it. I'm not sure how much plainer I can make it for you.




i belive the first time i ever used the word 'zionism' was when replying to your post about zionists...

[edit on 12/2/09 by Reignite]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Reignite
 


No. I just want you to use terms correctly.





what terms?? i only used Zionism and i did not say anything about them did i?


You should stop attempting to use an archaic term when describing the state, government, and peoples of Israel. You are misusing the term.

To refresh your memory, "Zionism" refers to an international political movement to establish a Jewish homeland. I've got news for you bub, the nation of Israel was established more than 50 years ago, and it ain't going anywhere.

Your incorrect use of the term "zionism" would analogous to a British person referring to Americans as "colonists" with their silly notions of independence. The use of the term is an attempt to be demeaning, and is usually uttered from a position of arrogance or bigotry.

Israel is a fully-functioning country and society. They are not going away. Calling supporters of the Israeli state "Zionists" quietly implies that there is the possibility that the establishment of the Israeli state is not yet complete, or is still in the process of being created. This, of course, is nonsense.

If, for some reason, a person does not believe that the Israeli state has been fully established (i.e. by calling them "zionists"), then by extension that person probably believes that Israel can be undone (or more accurately, destroyed). Ergo, using the term "zionist" to describe a supporter of Israel is to tacitly imply that Israel can (and should) be stopped/undone/disregarded.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 



i did not read your post because of the first or second line:

'You are misusing the term. '


if you can point me out where i used the term except here:

'i think you need to read some more about Zionism... '

that was a reply to BlueRaja.


I DID NOT MISUSE IT


so please dont accuse me of it OK??



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
some people just try to drive people in a dark spot by continually posting and replying and bending words or spreading lies.

then after quite a while, they will tell you this:

'you see, you start to look like an anti-semetic'
or
'is that hate speech you are talking about'
or
'is all of your text maybe your hate against a specific race'
or
'you just hate every jew don't you'

etc....


so please stop bending words and spread lies and please stop suggesting people are certain things..



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by BlueRaja
 





There's a difference between having the freedom to express your disapproval of something verbally, and the freedom to murder(or encourage violence against) those with whom you disagree



The concept of freedom of speech/expression is that you can state your opinion, even if it is offensive, without having to fear persecution, imprisonment, or physical harm. If someone takes offense, they have the freedom to let you know, and if you've portrayed something inaccurately, show where they're misinformed. Anything less than this is not freedom of speech.

Once again the point stands, it is a propaganda word that is why there is too much confusion Flurishing around it.

Question I would like you to answer: Isn't hate speech part of freedom of expression? Simple yes or no.




The concept of freedom of speech/expression is that you can state your opinion, even if it is offensive, without having to fear persecution, imprisonment, or physical harm.


According to this statement yes it is part of freedom of speech/expression. Do you accept the so called terrorists expressing their hate towards the West which in return ends up in the killings of innocent people?



even if it is offensive, without having to fear persecution, imprisonment, or physical harm.

Let me explain in depth, if you go and knowingly say something to an individual who you know will get offended with your words, he will react, right? The law of action - reaction. If you know there is gonna be a negative reaction why do it? For the sake of freedom of speech? Which is something used by the politicians to propagate their lies. Why would you do that. If you go and say "F@ck Your MOM" to an individual you don't even know, how would you expect him to react? It exist in Western societies also, action - reaction.

Now since you are one of those people who loves freedom of speech/expression, how can we make sure that no physical harm is implemented on those who use words which would offend people? The solution is already available but the fact is that people don't want to accept it. The solution is to get rid of emotions completely, Movies have been created portraying future civilizations injecting themselves with something which rids them of their emotions. I'm sure you wouldn't want that would you now.

That's the only solution, you can't expect humans to have emotions and yet not get angry and bash you in the face, it will always exists as long as that tyrant takes over the world and force us to immune our emotions and become working robots for the corporations.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros

Originally posted by Reignite

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Reignite
 


No. I just want you to use terms correctly.





what terms?? i only used Zionism and i did not say anything about them did i?


You should stop attempting to use an archaic term when describing the state, government, and peoples of Israel. You are misusing the term.

To refresh your memory, "Zionism" refers to an international political movement to establish a Jewish homeland. I've got news for you bub, the nation of Israel was established more than 50 years ago, and it ain't going anywhere.

Your incorrect use of the term "zionism" would analogous to a British person referring to Americans as "colonists" with their silly notions of independence. The use of the term is an attempt to be demeaning, and is usually uttered from a position of arrogance or bigotry.

Israel is a fully-functioning country and society. They are not going away. Calling supporters of the Israeli state "Zionists" quietly implies that there is the possibility that the establishment of the Israeli state is not yet complete, or is still in the process of being created. This, of course, is nonsense.

If, for some reason, a person does not believe that the Israeli state has been fully established (i.e. by calling them "zionists"), then by extension that person probably believes that Israel can be undone (or more accurately, destroyed). Ergo, using the term "zionist" to describe a supporter of Israel is to tacitly imply that Israel can (and should) be stopped/undone/disregarded.


Not undone, they want more, yes the Zionists, the Zionists who terrorised the Brits and then became the leaders of Israel. But they haven't captured the whole Bible Israel so we can still call them Zionists. That was the mission ohh you forgot, when they just arrived from Europe where they were being massacred, to Palestine they called the whole land of being part of Israel.

Jesus the Son of Marry, why the hell do you think they are creating new settlements daily in Palestinian territories.

By the way just for your curiosity, they are still fighting the people of Palestine who they stole the land from, if you were smart you would know that it's not complete, ummmmm daaaaaa that's why they are fighting. What, you think the Palestinians are fighting because they are fire breathing terrorists lol haven’t used that notion for a while.


[edit on 082828p://28b2 by Ownification]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ownification

Not undone, they want more, yes the Zionists, the Zionists who terrorised the Brits and then became the leaders of Israel. But they haven't captured the whole Bible Israel so we can still call them Zionists. That was the mission ohh you forgot, when they just arrived from Europe where they were being massacred, to Palestine they called the whole land of being part of Israel.

[edit on 082828p://28b2 by Ownification]


Well, let's see. Here is how the numbers add up:

At the conclusion of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Israel had a land mass of approximately 51,220 square miles.

First, they gave up the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in exchange for normalized relations, so subtract 37,820 square miles in that exchange. Then, they gave up the Gaza Strip to the tune of 223 square miles and the West Bank totaling 300 square miles, in an attempt to make peace with the Palestinians. While the Egyptians and Israelis made good use of the exchange to begin a mutually beneficial relationship, the Palestinians have taken their lands and descended into anarchy, corruption, and Islamic extremism.

Today, Israel is approximately 12,877 square miles. The math says they have given away about 38,343 square miles (that's about three times their total existing land mass) for peace.

The Israelis in the 1940's were not interested in conquering the Holy Lands in an attempt to rebuild ancient Judea. They were interested in creating a nation they could call their own, were they would not be persecuted, harassed, and killed by their own so-called friends, neighbors, and countrymen.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Did you mean weaker, or evil countries? The UN supports any control that is anti-God. They are the cesspool of the planet. That's two for you.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 


Hats off that was by far the most rational and well thought out post in this thread. Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join