"Lest we forget"

[bogan]

sorry
people who make remarks about women being subsidiary are normally trying to discredit the opposition because they fear they are losing the argument
if that's not you, carry on, glad to have you

It was referring to your point about stopping doing things that aggravate the nasties; and that is an extremely naive view in light of the myriad of cultural differences that serve to aggravate. It was not meant to discredit at all, as I don't buy into that crap, and would fight for gender equality.

You also missed these points...

1. So all we have is ourselves at our time to decide whether it is right to go to war or not; this is why I remember those who made the sacrifice in the name of the freedom we enjoy today. I do not taint that memory by somehow insinuating they were wrong to make such a choice.
2. It is, but again, this changes nothing as all we have is ourselves and our time to make the decision. Years of buildup do not excuse atrocities and oppression that we may choose to go and fight.
3. Pretty simplistic view, you know there are such things as border disputes right? And counterattacks as the best form of defense.
4. Meh, my browser spell check only comes in American English, the two are interchangeable in almost all forms of communication nowadays anyway.

[mstriumph]

jew = blind scared old white muthafucka. They come in all flavours, colours, genders, religions, political ideologies etc... some are sugar frosted, some come with a flake drizzled in blood red syrup... but I prefer the ones dipped in hundreds and thousands and served in a wafer like a sammy. They exist, but they aren't necessarily Jewish by any stretch of the imagination.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[mstriumph]

It was referring to your point about stopping doing things that aggravate the nasties; and that is an extremely naive view in light of the myriad of cultural differences that serve to aggravate. It was not meant to discredit at all, as I don't buy into that crap, and would fight for gender equality.

You also missed these points...

1. So all we have is ourselves at our time to decide whether it is right to go to war or not; this is why I remember those who made the sacrifice in the name of the freedom we enjoy today. I do not taint that memory by somehow insinuating they were wrong to make such a choice.
2. It is, but again, this changes nothing as all we have is ourselves and our time to make the decision. Years of buildup do not excuse atrocities and oppression that we may choose to go and fight.
3. Pretty simplistic view, you know there are such things as border disputes right? And counterattacks as the best form of defense.
4. Meh, my browser spell check only comes in American English, the two are interchangeable in almost all forms of communication nowadays anyway.

Don't believe you - if it walks like a duck, etc.

didn't miss it = was ignoring it as it's mostly been asked and answered (except 4. to which the answer is "no they aren't ... except to the lazy")

ok - once more with feeling and i'll type slowly
1. I wish I had your faith that they went freely, uninfluenced by the propaganda, smoke and mirrors wielded by those who stayed safe home.
2. No.
3. No again - until and unless Australia or NZ have their borders threatened. You can't claim 'counterattack' when we are marching into someone else's country looking for hypothetical weapons of mass destruction which - erm - never existed?

[mstriumph]

...................
Your own attitudes toward Catholicism is exactly the same as any statement that I have made about international Zionism = bigot in your terms.

Personally I only try to put together the things I find in the world that appear to cause the outcomes that we all have to live with.............

The juxtaposing of those two thoughts really bothers me ... that, and that you have a problem with Zionism and yet don't seem to have a problem with the Catholic church.

I don't absolve Zionism for wrong acts committed by it's leaders ... just tell me how any of them are worse than the atrocities perpetuated by the church (and over a much longer period of time).

Please?

[bogan]

Don't believe you - if it walks like a duck, etc.

didn't miss it = was ignoring it as it's mostly been asked and answered (except 4. to which the answer is "no they aren't ... except to the lazy")

ok - once more with feeling and i'll type slowly
1. I wish I had your faith that they went freely, uninfluenced by the propaganda, smoke and mirrors wielded by those who stayed safe home.
2. No.
3. No again - until and unless Australia or NZ have their borders threatened. You can't claim 'counterattack' when we are marching into someone else's country looking for hypothetical weapons of mass destruction which - erm - never existed?

Then I pity you for viewing my honesty with such negativity.

1. They went to preserve our freedom, whether that was smoke and mirrors, proven right or wrong in hindsight does not diminish why they went, or what they gave up. It is that which we remember.
2. This wasn't a yes/no question.
3. Firstly, there is such a thing as border disputes. And again, no nukes is hindsight, information that was not available at the time. What if nz went nuts and built nukes to aim at the french, who then came over to disarm; would you feel fighting them for our right to nuke them is self defense? How about if we nuked paris, would you stand up and fight any frenchies who came over to hold our leaders to account? The sheer range and destructive power of todays weapons render the border front-line style conflict obsolete; and show the "its always defence on home soil" view to be quite naive.

[mstriumph]

Then I pity you for viewing my honesty with such negativity.

1. They went to preserve our freedom, whether that was smoke and mirrors, proven right or wrong in hindsight does not diminish why they went, or what they gave up. It is that which we remember.
2. This wasn't a yes/no question.
3. Firstly, there is such a thing as border disputes. And again, no nukes is hindsight, information that was not available at the time. What if nz went nuts and built nukes to aim at the french, who then came over to disarm; would you feel fighting them for our right to nuke them is self defense? How about if we nuked paris, would you stand up and fight any frenchies who came over to hold our leaders to account? The sheer range and destructive power of todays weapons render the border front-line style conflict obsolete; and show the "its always defence on home soil" view to be quite naive.

I've upset you
Unintentional - Sorry.

Will lay off ... well, mebbe just the last one as it's new.... ish

1. The american leadership was well aware that there were no WMD well before they invaded (yes, invaded).
2. NZ can't afford to build nukes.
3. If they did, there's no evidence they built them to bomb Paris (for f#ck's sake?!)
4. If the French invaded NZ because THEY THOUGHT NZ

• had nukes, despite all intel to the contrary and
• invaded to stop us using what they knew we didn't have to stop us doing something we had no intention or capability of doing

Then yes, of COURSE I'd fight to repel them ... and if YOU weren't right there with me manning the barricades I'd come round to your house and kick your bike over

[jonbuoy]

I've upset you
Unintentional - Sorry.

Will lay off ... well, mebbe just the last one as it's new.... ish

1. The american leadership was well aware that there were no WMD well before they invaded (yes, invaded).
2. NZ can't afford to build nukes.
3. If they did, there's no evidence they built them to bomb Paris (for f#ck's sake?!)
4. If the French invaded NZ because THEY THOUGHT NZ

• had nukes, despite all intel to the contrary and
• invaded to stop us using what they knew we didn't have to stop us doing something we had no intention or capability of doing

Then yes, of COURSE I'd fight to repel them ... and if YOU weren't right there with me manning the barricades I'd come round to your house and kick your bike over

What about if they attacked Australia - would you agree to stand with Australia or "not your problem don't want to get involved"?

[mashman]

What about if they attacked Australia - would you agree to stand with Australia or "not your problem don't want to get involved"?

They'll never get off the beach in Oz. They'll be met by bikini clad ladies shouting "rack off" and won't have a clue what to do.

[oldrider]

The juxtaposing of those two thoughts really bothers me ... that, and that you have a problem with Zionism and yet don't seem to have a problem with the Catholic church.

I don't absolve Zionism for wrong acts committed by it's leaders ... just tell me how any of them are worse than the atrocities perpetuated by the church (and over a much longer period of time).

Please?

Who said I don't have a problem with the Catholic church or that my "problems" (?) are limited to Zionism? ... Religion period is a problem IMHO.

Video clip of Sheik Imran Hosein posted by Brian d marge on another thread summed most of the religious problems up for me.

Judaism .. Christianity .. Islam and their relationships with and toward each other are at the root of world problems!

Add to that the money power and political ambitions of international Zionism!

International Zionism is at the pointy top 1% of the pyramid of world political and religious control - no doubt about that in MHO.

But of course (like everybody else) I am only an interested powerless casual observer/victim and we will all get our arse kicked by them when it suits!

[bogan]

I've upset you
Unintentional - Sorry.

Will lay off ... well, mebbe just the last one as it's new.... ish

1. The american leadership was well aware that there were no WMD well before they invaded (yes, invaded).
2. NZ can't afford to build nukes.
3. If they did, there's no evidence they built them to bomb Paris (for f#ck's sake?!)
4. If the French invaded NZ because THEY THOUGHT NZ

• had nukes, despite all intel to the contrary and
• invaded to stop us using what they knew we didn't have to stop us doing something we had no intention or capability of doing

Then yes, of COURSE I'd fight to repel them ... and if YOU weren't right there with me manning the barricades I'd come round to your house and kick your bike over

Not at all, I'm simply pointing out your negative bias. I do wonder if this is a bias to 'dehumanise' those who disagree with you, so as to discount our opinions; similarly to thinking I am upset.

1. You seem to have forgotten already, Lest We Forget refers to WW1, not the post-911 invasion. In any case you've avoided my point, it is not why they were sent (viewed with hindsight) but why they went (given the information they had at the time).
2. You seem to have lost count as well. #2 was It is (the end product of years of buildup), but again, this changes nothing as all we have is ourselves and our time to make the decision. Years of buildup do not excuse atrocities and oppression that we may choose to go and fight.
3. (and 4) This is a hypothetical, hence it started with 'what if nz went nuts' That you have to change the hypothetical so much to justify your choice to defend clearly shows the idea of "its always defense on home soil" is quite naive.

[mstriumph]

What about if they attacked Australia - would you agree to stand with Australia or "not your problem don't want to get involved"?

they invade ANYWHERE i'm living in the way the US of whatever invaded (add your victim of choice here - you have a few to choose from) and I'd tend to take it personally.

- so yes
- wouldn't you?

[mstriumph]

... Religion period is a problem IMHO............

we are in total agreement on this

............. and we will all get our arse kicked by them when it suits!

I think that, being a bloke and all, your arse is at far more risk from the papists than the hebrews ... although you are prolly a bit old for their preference ...

[mstriumph]

Not at all, I'm simply pointing out your negative bias. I do wonder if this is a bias to 'dehumanise' those who disagree with you, so as to discount our opinions; similarly to thinking I am upset.

1. You seem to have forgotten already, Lest We Forget refers to WW1, not the post-911 invasion. In any case you've avoided my point, it is not why they were sent (viewed with hindsight) but why they went (given the information they had at the time).
2. You seem to have lost count as well. #2 was It is (the end product of years of buildup), but again, this changes nothing as all we have is ourselves and our time to make the decision. Years of buildup do not excuse atrocities and oppression that we may choose to go and fight.
3. (and 4) This is a hypothetical, hence it started with 'what if nz went nuts' That you have to change the hypothetical so much to justify your choice to defend clearly shows the idea of "its always defense on home soil" is quite naive.

[jonbuoy]

they invade ANYWHERE i'm living in the way the US of whatever invaded (add your victim of choice here - you have a few to choose from) and I'd tend to take it personally. - so yes - wouldn't you?

Yes of course but your argument earlier on seemed to be that NZ shouldn't send soldiers overseas to fight for other peoples borders. Which is the opposite of what your saying now?

[bogan]

You seem to have run dry on counterpoints then?