Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Liddie,

I am still waiting for your reply to my post.

*hiss* *hiss*

no excuses will be accepted

*hiss* *hiss*

At 7/9/03 10:48 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

That's a handy "statistic". Any sort of proof or basis for it?

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php

You mean the regimes that practically enslaved their own people under authoritarian dictatorships with forced collectivization, mass executions, political purges, secret police and rule by fear and murder?

No, I mean democratically-elect regimes that happened to be leftist so they were overthrown by the U.S. government because of the imaginary threat of communism.

Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of their own people died from these regimes (USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.), not to mention the casualties when they invaded their neighbors in wars of conquest.

I am not reffering to the communist axis of evil, though.

Peaceful "collectivism"? I think not.

There was a dictatorship in, say, Grenada?

What people that toss around arguments about U.S. interventionist tactics often do is tell a one sided story. You talk of Cold War, yet only mention one side. Add to this a bit of exaggeration and smudging of the truth and you can tell a story about great evils and atrocities committed by evil imperialists upon a peaceful, unsuspecting world. It's an interesting story, but it's a drastic departure from the truth which is that the Cold War was a forty year conflict played out between two equally matched superpowers and their allies.

I'm not talking about the cold war.

At 7/9/03 11:37 PM, poxpower wrote: Liddie,

I am still waiting for your reply to my post.

*hiss* *hiss*

no excuses will be accepted

*hiss* *hiss*

ill gladly do it when i know what post it is?? sorry im oblivious....

dude i replied to your post, i just didnt quote directly

bakshi what did i do now?? and how the fuck do you get your post count up so high in one day???

Aw man, seems like all of the politics threads nowadays transform into chttering instead of debating. I for one, would like to see more intelligent conversations in this forum.

*sighhh* sorry im just communing with my hebrew sistaz.. back to politics folks!

*decides to spark some serious debate and take absolutely NO responsibility for his actions*

Lyddie, what about the charges that Jewish gangs in ghettos invented usury and interest as ways to control the populace, despite that practice being wrong according to the Pentatuch? Is it not true that Jews invented our current banking system and use it to control the US and other countries?

*runs away like little bitch, never to defend his argument*

*hides in corner reading "My Struggle"*

fair enough funk, but i gotta say i never heard anything about the gangs *sigh*, except that i do know my grandma's ear operation when she was a little girl was paid for by the jewish mafia. i think there really are no jewish mafioso/gangs anymore. also as far as the banking goes, well the jews diddnt really start arriving in droves until the banking system was already set up and they just tooka dvantage of it to get rich, but the system was already tehre ahead of time!

cheers, mate

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! I'm sorry, but Jews aren't anything like what you said.

At 7/10/03 11:34 PM, BaKsHi wrote: what are you talking about?

What are YOU talking about? Seriously, I have no idea.

At 7/10/03 11:55 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:
What are YOU talking about? Seriously, I have no idea.

What are YOU talking about? Like... wtf???

Seriously Liddie.... for you honor... try me....I shan't accept an excuse. Reply or do not reply, there is no redirection.

Hisss

Hissss

good fucking g-d i replied already!!!! just read my other g-ddamn posts!! i am not just going to reiterate everything i already posted in this topic to satisfy someone who is too lazy just to go and read and figure it out for himself.

At 7/10/03 05:52 PM, BaKsHi wrote: Wasn't that site made by Michael Moore, and not a university professor?

Holy Hell! Go look around and you'll see that he uses legitimate outside sources! I'm getting really tired of this Moore-bashing. People are angry at him because he's the deliverer of the truth that wakes them from their American Dream. Kill the messenger, sheesh!

At 7/9/03 11:51 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php

So your source is "Michael Moore says so"?

I am not reffering to the communist axis of evil, though.

Yet wars with them are part of the "statistics" you cite.

There was a dictatorship in, say, Grenada?

Grenada's stable government was overthrown in a violent Marxist coup and the U.S. sent a force to restore order at the request of other Caribbean islands and nations, as well as to rescue Americans trapped on the island. It was an extremely brief and relatively bloodless conflict.

GRENADA CASUALTY FIGURES:
U.S.-- 19 dead (officially).
Grenada-- 49 dead and several hundred wounded.
Cuba-- 29 dead and over a hundred wounded.

Source: Kohn, George C. Dictionary of Wars.

I'm not talking about the cold war.

All this took place during that time period and was part of that conflict. These events cannot be looked upon as isolated incidents. The full political climate, tension and struggle of the time must be taken into account.

At 7/11/03 12:41 AM, BaKsHi wrote: Don't use Michael Moore as a source. As I said, he doesn't rank in as a smart university professor. To get real facts, search university webs and stuff.

Michael Moore is not a source, Michael Moore uses sources to prove his points.

Or search official government records.

THAT'S WHAT HE DOES! God, you didn't even visit his website. How in the hell can you claim he doesn't know what he's talking about if you don't listen to him?

Michael Moore just skims war and takes out the details that stand out against the government. I read his book. [[[I survived.]]]

Because that's how you inform of such a thing? If he wanted to expose the truth about photosynthesis, he'd take out details about pollinization involved in the growth of a plant. If he wants to expose the truth about the U.S's imperilialistic policies he'd take out details about its few good deeds since they'd be totally unrelated to what he's writing about.

At 7/11/03 12:43 AM, BaKsHi wrote: Michael Moore does not know the fullest extent of what happened in Grenada. LOL, was he even there? No, he's just whining and said it was our fault. As Commander K-25 pointed out, his source was probably made by someone more legit.

Holy crap, Micheal Moore never mentioned Grenada in any of his books or in any of his documentaries.
...

Not once.

Never.

If you're going to attack Michael Moore, please attack him on a real basis, not something you made up.

Liddie.

You are the lazy one. There is only one way out of this. You know what it is. Do it already.

<reverse psychology> or are you scared? </reverse psychology>

Liddie, it is TIME.

At 7/11/03 01:58 AM, BaKsHi wrote: I'm just pointing out that I have to argue against Michael Moore whenever someone mentions his name. I respect your opinion.

Man, are we still talking about that guy? His name has been said so many times it's completely lost all of its meaning. Wow. I never thought I'd be driven to the edge by one rotund fellow.

At 7/11/03 01:54 AM, poxpower wrote: Liddie.

You are the lazy one. There is only one way out of this. You know what it is. Do it already.

<reverse psychology> or are you scared? </reverse psychology>

Liddie, it is TIME.

*dramatic sighh* fuck you, i have chinese to study, i dont have time for this crap.

At 7/9/03 10:48 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/9/03 12:58 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

Almost 5 000 000 people have died as a result of US interventions

That's a handy "statistic". Any sort of proof or basis for it?

Sheesh. Awfully picky for someone who's offered no proof or statistics.

Here's an article all about it. It even tells you how to get to the federal document that explains how they knew all these innocents would die, but did it anyway.

http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html

Here's another article on the same page that shows how the US were the ones who first gave WMD and Anthrax, etc. to both Iraq and Iran just so the two would weaken one another in the Iranian Conflict (and by weaken, I mean kill one another).

Iranian Conflict: "From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and Iran waged a terrible war against each other, a war that might not have begun if President Jimmy Carter had not given the Iraqis a green light to attack Iran, in response to repeated provocations."

Why would we give weapons to both countries for no apparent reason?

"Noam Chomsky suggests that this strategy is a way for America to keep control of its oil supply."

http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

Well, you can decide for yourself.

PS. If you want more sources, I have some more articles. But they're all from other political magazines that you'd have to search out yourself. They're not on the internet.

At 7/8/03 04:33 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: alright with the exception of slizor and nirvana (most of the time) the rest of you are fucking crazy conspiracy theorists (excuse the immature name calling but hell this is newgrounds guys). did i ever say jews were not rich? no. did i say that that money doesnt buy them protection from opression? yes. most of you here seem to hate jews no matter what position we are in. you bitch at us for "playing the victim card" yet then get angry when we fucking stand up for ourselves and call us greedy warlike and imperialistic. so what if israel asks for money to defend themselves?? they arent just defending themselves against palestine, its against all otehr extremists in the arab world and the fortunes that back them (which, ok, if anyone ehre knows anything about islam, apparently the muslim judgement day is near when the muslims gain all of the holy land and lose mecca SO IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE TO TAKE ISRAEL). so what the heck, guys? can jews ever do right by you? im not playing some damn victim card here because i dont believe in that shit, which is why you are now going to call me a warmonger and tell me that the world sucks because of jews like me. but fuck that shit. jews are powerless because as you guys prove there is an underlying hatred of us and suspicion of everything we do. just look at your own damn posts!! all of you, with the exception of slizor who is awesome because he doesnt give a fuck and isnt a closet jew hater even tho he is anti israel (thats cool with me, man), look like anti semite apologists. congradulations.

Zionism is considered a healthy form of nationalism. In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution slandering Zionism by equating it with racism. Zionism is considered the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland. Zionists feel history has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through a national homeland.

I don’t entirely agree with that. I think Zionism is a form of segregation that separates Jews from all others around the world. Not everyone believes in the same religion so why is it fair that just because they believe they are entitled to a certain land we should give it to them? How is religiously moral to make people leave their homes because another person’s god suggests it be given to them. It is absurd to think everyone will agree with the notion that the Jews are actually entitled to the holy land especially for someone who feels this is there land because they were born there. It would be like doing the same thing the Jews feel happened to them. So if the Jews get this holy land who’s to say 100 years down the line the Palestinians don’t have the right to say we where exiled and raped of our homeland and it is our right to have it back?

At 7/11/03 03:34 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Here's an article all about it. It even tells you how to get to the federal document that explains how they knew all these innocents would die, but did it anyway.

Have you ever heard about a siege? I know this is a politics forum, but sometimes you have to think militarily why we do things. Without chlorine or whatever they need for water, they will give in to our demands. You can call this terrorism if you want, but it is a proven tactic.

Here's another article on the same page that shows how the US were the ones who first gave WMD and Anthrax, etc. to both Iraq and Iran just so the two would weaken one another in the Iranian Conflict (and by weaken, I mean kill one another).

Why would we give weapons to both countries for no apparent reason?

There is a reason, you have to use the lil' thing above your neck. What i'm going to say didn't happen but it was probably what the US Military folks were thinking about. You weaken them both, causing both to collapse. This would thus create a "power vacuum" which the US would probably have filled in and the US gets a ton of oil? need i say more?

At 7/11/03 01:51 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 7/11/03 03:34 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Have you ever heard about a siege? I know this is a politics forum, but sometimes you have to think militarily why we do things. Without chlorine or whatever they need for water, they will give in to our demands. You can call this terrorism if you want, but it is a proven tactic.

Uh. Yes. But did you even get the point? Let's see, we attack the innocent civilians to get at Suddam. Oh, that'll work. We force them to have no clean water, knowing full well that they would die from it, while Suddam was just getting his imported.

Now, this isn't very nice of Suddam. However, the US was doing this for years (even though it was obviously not working) and over 500,000 kids alone were dying from this and the US just plain DIDN'T CARE. That seems pretty bad to me.

Here's another article on the same page that shows how the US were the ones who first gave WMD and Anthrax, etc. to both Iraq and Iran just so the two would weaken one another in the Iranian Conflict (and by weaken, I mean kill one another).

Why would we give weapons to both countries for no apparent reason?

There is a reason, you have to use the lil' thing above your neck. What i'm going to say didn't happen but it was probably what the US Military folks were thinking about. You weaken them both, causing both to collapse. This would thus create a "power vacuum" which the US would probably have filled in and the US gets a ton of oil? need i say more?

Hmmm. I said that exact same thing. @_o' Perhaps you need to use that little thing inside the thing on top of your neck, not just the thing itself. lol.

So, the US goes against UN resolutions by giving two of our enemies WMD and biological weapons (such as anthrax) to fight one another so that we can keep control over our oil trade. And then later, we blame then for having the exact same weapons we gave them, and go to war with them over it for more oil, under the inpression that they were the ones going against UN resolutions.

I know this all. But my point was that this is, I don't know, perhaps a bad thing? It's OK? And even if morals aren't involved, don't you think it was the slightest bit stupid to give our enemies the weapons and technology they need to attack us just for financial benefit?

At 7/11/03 10:14 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: Zionism is considered a healthy form of nationalism. In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution slandering Zionism by equating it with racism. Zionism is considered the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland. Zionists feel history has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through a national homeland.

I don’t entirely agree with that. I think Zionism is a form of segregation that separates Jews from all others around the world. Not everyone believes in the same religion so why is it fair that just because they believe they are entitled to a certain land we should give it to them? How is religiously moral to make people leave their homes because another person’s god suggests it be given to them. It is absurd to think everyone will agree with the notion that the Jews are actually entitled to the holy land especially for someone who feels this is there land because they were born there. It would be like doing the same thing the Jews feel happened to them. So if the Jews get this holy land who’s to say 100 years down the line the Palestinians don’t have the right to say we where exiled and raped of our homeland and it is our right to have it back?

nirv... i see your reasoning and it makes a lot of sense, and i don't deny the fact that all ethnic groups that history has shown to be oppressed deserve a homeland. in fact, i wouldn't really care if they moved israel to the middle of utah or a moon colony or something, as long as we had SOMEWHERE we knew we would always be safe or able to defend ourselves.

but as an argument for the jews having that part of israel, the dome of the rock in jerusalem is i think only the 3rd or 4th holiest site for muslims while jerusalem is the one and only holy land of the jews. since im not a big fan of religion i think that argument sucks for everyone, but considering how influential religion is in today's world, it sshould be taken into account. also the palestinians weren't liked by any of the rest of the arab nations until if gave then a foothold in israel. the palestinians were kicked out of every single other arab nation and are only now supported that they are causing trouble in israel. g-ddamnit, why can't everyone just get along??? *sighhh* every troubled ethnic group deserves at least an autonomous region where they can be safe. id prefer it if everyone could live happily together in one big utopian nation, but considering that that is impossible i think the various ethnic groups need at least a reserve for themselves where they can be safe and practice their culture.

At 7/11/03 05:26 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: i think the various ethnic groups need at least a reserve for themselves where they can be safe and practice their culture.

1. No one is safe anywhere.
2. One does not need a reserve to practice his/her culture unless his/her culture involves direct use of land.
3. One can practice their religion wherever they may please. ex: You don't need to be in India to worhsip Buddha.

At 7/12/03 01:13 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 7/11/03 05:26 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: i think the various ethnic groups need at least a reserve for themselves where they can be safe and practice their culture.

1. No one is safe anywhere.
2. One does not need a reserve to practice his/her culture unless his/her culture involves direct use of land.
3. One can practice their religion wherever they may please. ex: You don't need to be in India to worhsip Buddha.

While we're on the subject of Israel, did anyone hear about the discovery of the new Harry Truman diary, dated somewhere around mid 1947? It's causing a firestorm because of the line "I find the jews to be very, very selfish." with more on the subject of Jews and how they demand special treatment. Now, most people spoke in this manner, and I don't consider Truman an anti-semite because he was one of the men pushing for the founding of Israel. He just spoke his mind. That's all.

At 7/12/03 01:38 PM, BaKsHi wrote:

At 7/12/03 04:47 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

While we're on the subject of Israel, did anyone hear about the discovery of the new Harry Truman diary, dated somewhere around mid 1947? It's causing a firestorm because of the line "I find the jews to be very, very selfish." with more on the subject of Jews and how they demand special treatment. Now, most people spoke in this manner, and I don't consider Truman an anti-semite because he was one of the men pushing for the founding of Israel. He just spoke his mind. That's all.

omg, he really said that? Did he only have one view of Jews as selfish? It's good he pushed for the creation of Israel, but why did he push for the creation of Israel if he really thought of the Jews as selfish who demand special treatment?

No wonder Hitler wanted to kill them... Of course i was being sarcastic. I saw a documentary on Comedy central called the Kings of Jewish comedy, it was talking about how jews it showed that jews were anxious and a bunch of other stuff. Not selfish.

At 7/12/03 07:13 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

At 7/12/03 01:38 PM, BaKsHi wrote:

At 7/12/03 04:47 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

While we're on the subject of Israel, did anyone hear about the discovery of the new Harry Truman diary, dated somewhere around mid 1947? It's causing a firestorm because of the line "I find the jews to be very, very selfish." with more on the subject of Jews and how they demand special treatment. Now, most people spoke in this manner, and I don't consider Truman an anti-semite because he was one of the men pushing for the founding of Israel. He just spoke his mind. That's all.

omg, he really said that? Did he only have one view of Jews as selfish? It's good he pushed for the creation of Israel, but why did he push for the creation of Israel if he really thought of the Jews as selfish who demand special treatment?

No wonder Hitler wanted to kill them... Of course i was being sarcastic. I saw a documentary on Comedy central called the Kings of Jewish comedy, it was talking about how jews it showed that jews were anxious and a bunch of other stuff. Not selfish.

He said something to the effect of "It's no matter what the Estonians or Negroes or Europeans go through, so long as the Jews can get what they wish." Hold on a moment while I find the link..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,996835,00.html