And isn’t it worth considering that the poster exposes his utterly denegrating racism and his completely ignorance of Judaism in an attempt to make it seem as if
I should be “insulted” by his “brown people”.
I am reading the sillyness of some idiot who’s writings were published some months ago in some US media about Jewish rituals that as far as I know never existed, not even in the most remote history of Judaism. I know of this publication because at that time I was posting on an other message board and people came up with it.
This member here thus must have been reading that and is convinced that it is some “Muslim belief” or something.
But as far as I recall, it handled about Jews wanting blood from not-Jewish children, no particular “race” mentioned. So his refering to the “brown people” as being searched for this is inaccurate.
And he is not complete in his listing since he only mentiones “brown people” as targets.
To me, the Vietnamese aren’t “brown people”.
By the way: I didn’t want to disappoint him too much… But now that you come up with it again…
If he is thinking about me with his “brown people”… He must buy an other Cristal Bal.
I’m not even “light brown”. I think I could describe myself as gold
All there is left to say about this is that some people can’t help their ignorance, no?
Salaam. A
Aldebaran, please tell me this is your attempt to whoosh us…please. No one…I mean, NO ONE, can be this dense. Please say that you were making a joke…
If this is a woosh, I’m not falling for it to explain to you. If not…seek help, soon. Either that, or up the voltage on your shock treatments…
From AlahAkbar
Again…whoosh? Whoosh or stupidity though, whats this have to do with the debate? I want to hear more on how the debate has shifted from individual acts that may be illegal (ok, that ARE illegal) to the whole campaign being illegal. Afaik, there is nothing that can be put forth that says the US was doing an ‘illegal’ act in invading Iraq. From what I recall, there were UN resolutions that made it quasi-legal for the US to do what they did…and UN resolutions that did not. So, the whole thing was fairly murky, again from what I remember, with nothing cut and dried. If this is not the case, can someone on the ‘US actions were illegal’ side present some cites to back that up? I know Alderbaran won’t be one of them, rant mode is all he knows. Anyone else up to take a shot?
(except for the stream of consiousness rants, this has been an education for me at least)
Well xtisme… the US very liberally interpreted some UN resolutions and found it enough… the rest of the world interpreted it differently. if the invasion was “quasi-legal” it wasn’t totally legal… making for the “illegal” label not being that inapropiate.
It's not a strong case for illegality... but the same weakness is valid for the US justification for invasion. What good will pressing the illegality help at this moment anyway ?
I do suppose this has been discussed extensively in the past… so I prefer we keep to the current factual illegal killings and the current US messy situation in Iraq.
(If your a neo-con change that to the: Collateral Damage and the Glorious Liberation of the Oppressed People of Iraq.)
I have read your Constitution and for my surprise I have found no article or amendment saying that foreign States are protected from an agression by the US. So, technically you are right! The US are entitled to invade any country they want, since your Constitution does not forbid it.
This makes me very concerned. If tomorrow a huge American enterprise, who contributes for the campaign of your President, decides to enhance its profits, my country could be invaded.
