₦airaland Forum

Nurses dey very rude though.

What about female doctors in their white coats? Very delectable, yummy!  

spoilt:
Fine. if you think Naija police men are rich i don't intend to change your mind.  
I find it hard though to take them seriously. I just don't see them running straight into the heart of danger to rescue anyone. So that action hero fantasy does not exist with them.

You haven't seen them mount a commando raid to rescue a bit of egunje that ran the risk of escaping them?   Siddon there. Imagine what Morenike can buy with all the crumpled N20 notes.

birdman:
It has always been about resources, more than land, true. Israel is the best proposition now. It probably wont be in the future. The Arab nations are slowly but surely turning themselves into tech and business powerhouses. Even the recent financial crises helps more than hurts them as they are buying and consolidation on the cheap.

Gulf success is success built on one thing, oil. This is a transient success.  The Gulf's fortunes is inextricably linked to the price of oil and such fortunes are hollow.

Real success is internal. Establishing a viable and robust democracy, strong domestic technological base and a diversified industrialised economy. None of these are present in the Gulf. Ironically, Gulf states compete amongst themselves to be the host of US military installations and will be loath to forsake the security of the military umbrella that the US offers. Fact is, they are more scared of Iran than Israel.

Picture the middle east 40 years from now.

Not an appealing picture. A cross between the ''overpopulated'' fragile states such as Egypt and Gulf states possibly rid of their one true wealth - oil.

The top 2/3 economic powerhouses are Arab. 90% of the region's resources are Arab. And the have military might at par with anyone else in the region. Israel is still strong militarily, but much less resource rich, population the size of one Arab megacity and only the 4th or 5th strongest economy. You, as the head of state of some country X, interested in having a share of this region's wealth by trade,  who will you side with in policy issues? Want to guess who Europe and the US will side with too? See why Israel's heavy handedness wont get anywhere?

You contradict yourself, if the Middle-East is so powerful, why the pathetic cries of powerlessness?

The Middle-East remains wealthy so long as foreigners, whether Americans or Europeans, continue to buy its commodities and its tourists visit its attractions. It has no technological or scientific edge and remains at the mercy of its oil customers.

Move to joke section.

tope2000:
I think they are sexy excluding naija one sha

See the love of my life.    No mind the Morenike girl and her desire for a MOPOL boyfriend.

How was your Xmas?  Hope you enjoyed all those gifts I bought for you. Only the best gifts for the best lady.  

@Morenike

This your love for white men, ehn. No wonder you no gree for me

birdman:
@4Play
When it comes to nations, trend matters more than current facts. Sure Israel whooped them a generation ago, and rightfully so. But there is a reason Rabin, and even Sharon were willing to make larger concessions to Palestinians. The tide is definitely against Israel long term. When Pakistanis hit Mumbai, India did not go on a bombing spree in the capital of Pakistan.  Israel did what it did because it could. How about a generation from now? What then?

Israel is a nuclear power so I don't see any ''trend'' that will serve to weaken it when faced with a conventional military threat.

Rabin and Sharon embarked on negotiations because for the first time in decades, the Arab position underwent a seismic shift. Arab Govts were now prepared to recognise the concept of a 2 state solution. Until then, their default position as expressed in the Khartoum conference of 1967 was the 3 Nos - No negotiation, No peace with Israel and No recognition of Israel.

Before that, the ability to reach accommodation was severly restricted to put it euphemistically.

As for India/Pakistan, same applys. Both are nuclear powers and I'm not aware of India ever responding to terrorist attacks by bombing Karachi so I don't see how their forbearance here marks a turning of the tide. Bear in mind, Israel hasn't bombed any Arab capital city, it has simply targeted the source of a rocket barrage on its sovereign undisputed territory.

davidylan:
this is one of the reasons i am FIRMLY convinced that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not political but religious.

I lost any such illusions about Arab intentions back in 2000 when I had the mis-fortune' to spend time watching Arab TV channels.

Israel had just pulled out of Lebanon and was steeped in negotiations with the Palestinians, negotiations for which it made unprecedented concessions. While Western observers were hailing the dawn of a new peaceful era, Arab callers, supposedly the educated and Westernised ones for they were speaking English, were salivating at what they thought was Israel's sign of weakness - pulling out of Lebanon - and demanding an escalation of jihad, while copiously quoting from the Koran.

Any illusions I had was lost when the 2nd intifada commenced while Hezbollah, notwithstanding Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, pledged to continue fighting until Israel was destroyed.

birdman:
In another 30-40  years, as Arab nations get stronger militarily and economically, this move will look really foolish. You'd think Israeli leaders would hash something out NOW, while they still have bargaining chips.

Why wait 30-40 years, when we have the vivid example of 1948. When the Arabs, inebriated in their supposed military superiority, launched an unprovoked attack against the infant nation of Israel - population 600,000 - and were summarily defeated?

If the Arabs think they can resolve this issue militarily, history is replete with examples that expose such thinking to be utter folly.

I know what a carpet bomb is,  which is why 200 people are dead and 700 injured.

No sir, you don't. If a city of 1.5m is carpet bombed, there will be more than 200 dead. You will be looking at tens of thousands dead. To carpet bomb is to seek the wholesale destruction of a place, from history, we have examples such as Guernica, Dresden and Vietnam.

Sure. But is it a crime to have your children walking to school? or Attending graduation in other  parts of the city.

Shouldn't that question be addressed to Hamas for citing military bases near schools? As for the point about those attending graduation, those were Hamas graduands, so I don't know how they fall under ''innocent civilians''.

At what point is force excessive against a mostly civilian population.

Again, the targets were military, the casulaties were mostly military, so your statement is misleading.

birdman:
Even under the hardliner Sharon, they used tanks. You know where the culprits live, and they don't have any power to stop you. Go get them. It has worked for all previous Israeli governments.  Why carpet bomb a whole city now. This is the definition of a war crime.

Don't use terms you fail to grasp. .  .''carpet bomb''? If Israel ''carpet bombed'' Gaza, tens of thousands would be dead.

Go get them? You think Hamas militants will simply sit in their installations waiting for the IDF to come pick off its targets by driving across Gaza with tanks and APCs?

You either bomb military installations from the air, with the element of surprise and precision that it entails or you run the whole gamut of launching a land invasion, reversing the military pull out Sharon sanctioned, and precipitating a bloodbath that will make today's events look like child's play.

Sharon picked off Hamas from the ground because there were Israeli ground troops inside Gaza at the time. Israel has pulled out of Gaza ever since, it either mounts a bloody invasion or pursues air strikes. The latter is the less costly option, in terms of innocent lives.

I had made it abundantly clear to DavidDylan what I thought the influence of religion had on Stalin and not once in the exchanges I made during the subject did I mention genes. Not once in the subsequent thread did I ever mention Stalin and genes. The only person who ever mentioned them was you.

Precisely slowpoke, that is not in dispute. To the extent that you addressed the gene question, that is because I brought it up, for no other reason were you addressing it.

Remind me again why I brought it up, it's right there on page 4 you lying tit, to ascertain the life influences of Stalin et al. If you were not such a mendacious tit,you won't be trying to deny that.

The question of genes was not brought up randomly out of the blue,it was brought up within the frame of the debate. Now you are embarking on idiotic distinction between ''Stalin'' and ''our''. Is Stalin not a human being? Doesn't he have a genetic make up? So what is this degenerate liar trying to prove, that the question excludes Stalin or what, what a lying scoundrel.

Your words. No mention of Stalin and the word "presumably". You don't say "Stalin's genetic make-up" you say "ours" - to anyone with half a clue that's referring to the human race and not an individual. And it was the human race I referred to in my argument regarding genes having an influence on religion.

Stalin, becomes an android(departing the human race) and miraculously ejected as the point of the argument, and is replaced with the nebulous ''our''. Any person with half a clue will realise one thing, the debate stems from the causative factor of human behaviour with Stalin as focal point. The very post you quoted, post 113, was all about Stalin, yet, you proclaim that the statement itself had nothing to do with Stalin

You are responding, not to voices in your head, but to queries I made. Queries clearly made because of your statement that ''every'' thing is down to religion, a statment you made while debating the Stalin/Mao issue, the focal point of our debate. At some point, you claim every thing is as a result of religion, later, this lying dingbat claims that ''every'' no longer includes Stalin and was a response made in a vacumn and unrelated to certain individual. This will be the first time on planet earth the word ''every'' had exceptions, but ordinary grammar is not going to be an obtsacle to this lying slowpoke's tissue of lies.

The idea that your responses to my questions did not have anything to with my questions expose you as a deceitful nincompoop. Your claim is that my question had nothing to do with Stalin. What an slowpoke, Stalin is what we were debating. Why he was who he was and what were the causative factors. To claim otherwise makes you a craven bastard.

birdman:
From the same news source ,  
You know why? They used freaking jets! How do you hit a neighbourhood where there are civilians with jets. Unless you really don't care how many bystanders you hit.

Is it? They used ''freaking jets''. . . .  .lets see, is there any evidence that if the IDF sent in its army with tanks, the strikes will be more surgical?

Israel hit Hamas targets. This is not like in the movies, you know those Rambo/Arnie ones, where the enemies' military camps are isolated from civilian neighbourhoods, preferably in isolated pristine deserts.

This is the real world and in the real world, no hit on Hamas targets is 100% guaranteed to exclude civilian casualties. Unless you are suggesting Israel just fold its hand in despair, it retains the right to strike back at its enemy irrespective of where the enemy chooses to locate its installations.

I don't think these attacks would damage Hamas though, certainly not in the short term. I don't know what new tactic the IDF is trying that it hasn't tried before that will eliminate Hamas

Only when Hamas begins to lose credibility amongst the Palestinian people will it be liquidated, or at least, condemned to the fringes. For now, the IDF attacks are about retribution and curtailing their ability to launch attacks on Israel.

This is from the web link you posted:

The short but brutal aerial blitz — codenamed Operation Cast Lead — was aimed at targets held by the Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas, [/b]which seized control of the Gaza Strip 18 months ago.

[b]After weeks of rising tension and repeated Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli territory, the air force struck with warplanes and unmanned drones loaded with guided missiles.

They hit at least 100 security compounds and rocket-launching bases across the heavily populated Strip.

An attack on military targets is an attack on innocent civilians?

congoshine:
Correction-contributed.

We equally have large hydrocarbon deposits,agreed larger population,but Sharia govs&Emirs(tho' a recent phenomenom here) don't live the priciples of Sharia !

It hasn't ''contributed'' either. These nations are wealthy inspite of, not because of, Sharia.

There is little basis for comparing a nation of 140 million to Gulf emirates with mickey mouse populations. Their leaders are as corrupt as ours. Actually, it is remarkable that wilth all their wealth, they are not noted for any technological/scientific acheivements.

Na me dey ghostwrite for Mukina o. Make she no deceive una

congoshine:
Sharia has lead to great things in other countries of the Gulf except Nigeria.

They deliberately make their countries safe ,habitable etc,but Nigeria's emirs don't give. . . . . . .

Sharia hasn't led to ''great things'' in the Gulf. Prodigious amounts of hydrocarbon and tiny populaces has.

Afam:
Israel is still occupying lands belonging to the people of Palestine. Cease fires that fail to address the core issues raised even by a legitimate (democratically elected Hamas government that the West and Israel have refused to recognize) government don't mean anything.

If occupation is at fault, strange since Hamas' irredentist views go beyond that, then Israel's withdrawal from Gaza should have heralded a new dawn of peace, no be so? Instead, Israel's withdrawal heralded an escalation of violence.

If a ceasefire is not worth it until the fundamental issues are resolved, then the Palestinians, and their sympathisers, should stop whining when the inevitable consequences of the absence of a cease fire, violence, is inflicted on Palestinians. Putting it colloquially, if you fail to cease fire, you must be prepared to face fire.

we must learn to empathize my friend, that is the only you will see things objectively.

Empathy shouldn't be one-sided. What about empathy for Israelis who have to face a daily barrage of rockets? The consequence of an act of graciousness on the part of Israel, pulling out of Gaza.

How you take know? Of course, we cannot conclude or discuss the problems between Israel and Palestine without talking about disproportionate response. Unless you believe that 1 Israeli life is worth 2000 Palestinian lives, is that it?

Proportionality is a red herring. The rightness or wrongness of any measure in this conflict is not a question of totting up each side's body count.

Compliments of the season. Let us hope that this Christmas period will help us begin to look at the problems in the Middle East with objectivity, fairness and fear of God.

Amen! On one side,you have Israel, prepared to accept a 2 state solution and has put in practice this principle by pulling out from Gaza. On the other, you have Hamas, still wedded to the theological position that Israel must be wiped off the map.

No objective or fair minded person can fail to see where the biggest obstacle to peace is.

There is no justification for the killing of any innocent person whether the killer is militant, suicide bomber, Israeli government with the usual disproportionate response.

True, Israel does not justify such. Can't say the same for Hamas, what is clear is that innocent people will be caught up in any conflict between a Govt exercising its legal rights to protect its people and an organisation that poses an existential threat to the said Govt.

''Chrisbenogor'' . . . . . the name echoes that area where they take blunt and filthy instruments to women's clitorises. Probably a case of vaginal infection damaging Chris's brain before he hit mother earth. Can't say I blame the slowpoke.

@Chris

Is it not because of the prevalence of domestic sexual abuse that you ended up an slowpoke?

Per Bastage few hours ago:

The question "Have genes influenced religion" is a red herring? You pathetic creep. It is the statement and the question that I have been stating since you joined this thread with your idiocy. And now it's irrelevant?

Bastage few hours later:

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin. Not once have I suggested his actions were undertaken because of his genes. I stated that religion was an influence on him through society. You were the one that bought up the subject of genes

What is the relevance of the influence of religion on genes, same di*khead, different responses.

You responded to the question of genes because I brought it up but I brought it up in relation to Stalin et al. Yet, your response has nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin. Then who were you responding to, your imbecilic self?

Same mooncalf, same lying scum, same Bastage, yet, different responses.

@Chrisbenogor

Please, whatever expertise you have in your life, whether inbreeding or simply trying to survive while remaining an slowpoke, you are a disgrace to your progenitors.

Bastage:
Bit by bit your house of sand is getting washed away by the sea. Or maybe I should say that your lies are getting washed away by the truth.
This is all I need from the rant above to prove you a liar yet again.
For the past couple of posts you've been burbling that Huxley, DavidDylan and yourself all stated that I was talking about a Muslim gene. Now you admit that it's only you that saw it as an argument for a religion gene.

Look at this lying fecal existence. This retarded oik is obviously grammatically challenged. How does ''David,Huxley and I'' constitute only me? Is this not proof that you are an slowpoke?

I am now "David,Huxley and I". . . . .this slowpoke is hopelessly confused.

Let me just reiterate what I've been saying all along.Religion has had an influence on genes.
The invasions of the Moors and the Crusaders were both undertaken because of religious beliefs. In both instances, the invaders left behind chromosomes which left their marks on the indigenous populations.
End of story.

What an idiot. Why did David,Huxley and I come to a different conclusion as to the view you were advancing? You are an uncompromising oaf.

Explain how the above sheds light on the Stalin issue, in regards to which the issues of genes was introduced, idiot.

davidylan:
Uncle richy . . . when next you intend to plagiarise a website please reference it.

http://www.discoverdvforum.com/when-will-israel-ever-be-recognized-as-the-apartheid-state-it-is-t313971/

Na today you sabi say Richy be the typical copy and paste plagiarist that pollutes NL?

[quote author=sleek_p link=topic=207488.msg3274301#msg3274301 date=1230378299]He probably has something more to add but as the saying goes if you come down to a fool's level he would beat you. (because he's more comfortable at that level).
The man told you he don't want to use profanity, time to move on and continue with your expletives.[/quote]Add what? He has contradicted his starting position, exhausted any semblance of credibility that he may possess and concluded with an absurd cop-out.

What do you understand an ''expletive'' to mean? Now, saying that you are an unlettered piece of sh*t, which you are, that is an expletive, dumb ass.

Chrisbenogor:
See you get power bastage, I have been following this thread from the beginning and have been waiting for his answer, we all know that blurring lines is the best they can do to throw everyone off track.
They will hold on to anything including grammatical errors.
I don't take em seriously abeg if you are done with them I need to ask you about Horus.
(ok guys you can insult me, remember I am already a Arrow, an slowpoke and many others so hehehehe, just make it short and sweet.)

Look at this inbred riff-raff. One has to mock your grammar for you will think a degenerate bumpkin like you who assumes the mantle of the brainy would have basic grasp of grammar.

With no iota of logic or sapience in your posts, my advice still stands, let the progenitors of this excremental-brain pay for inflicting on humanity, the cesspit of imbecility called Chris.

The plain truth is that 4-Skin knew he was getting screwed on the subject of "Religion influenced genes", so his only way out was to try to smokescreen with a Muslim gene. He then introduced it to the topic and even when I told him it wasn't what I was referring to, still pushed it forward. As I've said, you'll notice the only time I ever mention it is to refute it's presence in this thread. His eight refusals to answer the question "Has religion influenced genes" also shows that he knew exactly what the topic was about. Otherwise, why not simply answer it? If the subject is about a "Muslim gene" as he claims, an answer to that question would not be an admission that a "Muslim gene" exists. He had nothing to lose with an answer either way if I was arguing on a "Muslim gene", but as I was arguing about the "influence of religion" he was well aware that any answer he gave would screw him. Hence his blatant refusal to answer the question (which as I stated, DavidDylan did answer) eight times. His repeated refusal to answer the question proves he knew exactly what the topic was and proves him a liar yet again.
I will post those refutals again:

Plain truth? You wouldn't know the truth if it was standing right in front of your lying degenerate self. Lets see, I ''introduced'' a subject belatedly, eventhough I had been asking questions, at least 9 times, on same subject from page 4? To lie may be pretenatural to you but it verges on self-harm when you seem to indulge in self-deceit.

Can you explain in simple English, why the red herring, has religion influenced genes, first asked on page 6, is relevant to the debate? So relevant that you only saw fit to ask it after embarking on your lying charade? Never did you ask that question before, page 5 - nada, page 4 - zilch. All of a sudden, mirabile dictu, this question is suddenly the core issue. This self-assured bumpkin can't explain why it is relevant and why he never saw fit to ask this purpotedly primary question until his belated exhibition of hare brained mendacity.

unfortunately for him? My very first post on the topic of religion and genes!!!
Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?
Irrefutable proof of my consistency and 4-Skin's lies.

So irrefutable that everyone - Huxley, David and I - looked at your posts and came to a different conclusion. Nobody knows where you stand, I doubt you know yourself because the toxic combination of fraudulent lies and incoherence that you steep yourself in won't allow you any semblance of consistency or cogency.

A few pages ago, everything is as a result of religion . That must include every scientific breathrough, every genetic make up, every inch of your lying existence. Subsequently, it becomes a question of in some cases, religion has some influence on genes. Bloody hell, can't this lying scum maintain a semblance of consistency over the course of a couple of days?

I specifically pointed out many times I was not speaking about a religion gene.

This craven liar is still at. Of course you did, on bloody page 6! After I spent 2 pages, from 4 to 5, asking on at least 9 occasions, whether you believe in a religious gene. You must be from a dysfunctional background with a culture of self-deceit.

Until then, David,Huxley and I were astounded by your pseudo-science. Like the craven prick that you embody, your new line came after falsely accusing me of a total u-turn, and that was from page 6. Prior to that, your usual response was copy and paste.

If you don't understand English and can barely communicate, the congenital cause of your excremental brain has nothing to do with your interlocutors. Face it, you are either just an slowpoke or a craven liar, or God forbid, a combination of both.

Even with all of the shit that you have put above, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Now I don't know how your logic works, but if a certain topic is being discussed it would be easy to show that I was talking about it. If I was discussing a religion gene, in my dozens of posts rather than the influence of religion, it would be a piece of piss to prove it, wouldn't it? Yet, strangely, nowhere in my words do you see the words "religious gene", "Muslim gene" or "gene for religion", except when I say (early on) that it is not what the topic is about and that it is irrelevant.

I don't know how your retarded brain works, but if one asks you on at least 9 occasions, why you think your copy and paste material proves the existence of a religious gene, especially if all the other posters on the thread think you are engaging in voodoo science, it should tell you that no matter what you think you are communicating, your incoherence is creating another impression entirely.

This is nothing but a complete and utter red herring from you. I came into the thread on page 4 pertaining to the question of Stalin's life influence. Tell me, how does the question of a probable religion inspired influence on Stalin's genetic make up shed light on the subject of the causative factors behind Stalin's behaviour?

Let me point it out to you again. It's there for all to see, very early on in my posts:
"My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke.""
Anyone can go back and look at it. It is irrefutable proof that you are a total and utter liar.

You odious liar. The above enclosed quote was from page 6. Page 6 was the genesis of the tweak on your argument. We have been debating from page 4, after at least 9 questions on the subject of a religious gene, you came back in page 6 with a new garb and false accusations of a total u-turn. Total u-turn from what, I may ask?

Here is a 3 page argument and the only evidence you have of ''refuting'' the Muslim gene is page 6, bloody idiot! Why didn't you refute it when I asked you 9 times whether such a gene existed? Early on indeed! You must be bred to lie.

The only reason you kept bringing it up was so that you could sidetrack the topic yet again. To claim otherwise, to cherry pick my posts just proves you are nothing but the lying sack of shit you proclaim me to be. I wonder - if you act like this in real life, I'l bet you don't have many friends. Nobody likes a liar.

The only reason I kept bringing it up? What a colossal slowpoke. . . .I've been putting the same question to you from the very first page I joined the thread. If you disagreed with the premise of the question, one answer will suffice, no. Instead, this grammatically challenged mooncalf proceeds on an inane copy and paste job only to re-emerge on page 6, when everyonelse has left to trot out a new line, inbred Arrow.

The question "Have genes influenced religion" is a red herring? You pathetic creep. It is the statement and the question that I have been stating since you joined this thread with your idiocy. And now it's irrelevant?
I have not dodged a single one of your questions. Even the pathetic "Muslim gene" question was answered (strange that it was answered early yet you still claim it was the topic). But you? You refuse to answer the same question that has been put to you a dozen times.

Look at this idiot, the question is irrelevant. Why so? I introduced the question of genes in relation to Stalin and Mao, principally, why did they act the way they did? You said religion would have created them. I said there are other factors involved and genes is one of them. You said everything is as a result of religion, I disputed that by referrence to genetic make ups.

How does the probable influence on mating choices by religion shed any form of light on why Stalin acted the way he did? This red herring you have invented, a la contemporaneity when it came to the historical mentions of Jesus, does not wash. Take your lying scum of existence to where it came from.

When your bovine brain got round to answering the question of Muslim gene, in page 6 and after the use of the magic words 'gene for religion', you suddenly proclaimed that your red herring was the paramount issue, in what way exactly? Perhaps, in the cretinous existence you were brought up in, such a moot issue sheds light on Stalin's behaviour.

After page 6, you took up the toga of a blithering infantile stricken by a compulsive need to put forward an inane question that you never for one moment prior to page 6, for 2 bloody pages in an entire night, saw fit to ask in a crass and craven attempt to change the substance.

You are nothing but a total and utter waste of time 4-Skin.

Look at this self-contradicting slowpoke. Are you also schizophrenic for I seem to recall that you have invested time and effort in one of the most cowardly and hilarious attempts I have seen on NL to save face, a bloody dysfunctional idiot.

You don't have the mental capacity to debate. You can only lie, cheat and twist. I welcome anyone to go back and read through this whole thread properly and make their own judgement. Although you can burble all you like about the total and utter lie that I was talking about a religion gene, only a cretin or verminous scumbag like you would make that claim as it is abundantly clear that it is not so.

Either Huxley, David and I are all cretins or you, a paid up member of the oik society is the one indisputable oaf on this thread. Your one supporter, the grammatically challenged Arrow called Chris, hasn't even seen the need to testify to what you were claiming.

Where you not the lying swine that said on page 6 that I claimed that there is no connection between genes and religion? I challenged you to produce one such quote, this lying fecal existence chose the path of infantilism.

Where do you stand? Everything is as a result of religion, every genetic make up or is it now a case that in some cases, religion was an influence in some people's genetic make up. This befuddled dysfunctional lying piece of excrement can't make up his oik brain where he stands.

I'm done with dealing with you. Talking to you in this thread has been like scraping a turd off my shoe. Distasteful. It's got to be done, but once the shoe is clean and the turd is gone, it's easy enough to move on.

Dishonesty comes easy to you. Last debate, no historical mentions of Jesus outside scripture, you said. A few posts later, the bastard re-emerges with an insertion of the issue of contemporaneity. I knew your ways, keep that to the dysfunctional cesspit of mendacious existence you emerged from. Lying scum.

davidylan:
If you shoot 100 rockets at the sun everyday, send suicide astronauts to the sun daily, actively seek to kill and capture the sun's rays . . . i'd be more than convinced that given the opportunity you would destroy the sun in a heartbeat.

But don't let simple things like facts get in the way of your day dreaming.

Moreso, if he has repeatedly made it clear that he seeks nothing but the destruction of the sun.

Why is Richy advancing a view about Hamas' theological stance that Hamas does not advocate? If it was a false impression, Hamas has not exactly ever demonstrated any willingness to correct it, instead, they have done the reverse.

It seems a case of, if Richy doesn't like the facts, he invents an alternative state of affairs that he finds more preferable, even if incompatible with reality.