Re: All animals are equal... : Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:45 pm  

Hillbilly_Red wrote: thought the argument would go as it has OK to explain my point http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/briti ... ofcitizen/ What are you talking about? You said: Hillbilly_Red wrote: please note that the article states that spouses will not be allowed citizenship if the marry an Israeli citizen. We cannot throw stones: a similar law exists here for spouses of the Indian sub-continent. Thus, you alleged that we have a law which is similar to the proposition: "spouses of the Indian sub-continent will not be allowed citizenship if the marry a UK citizen." That proposition is bollox. It was pointed out to you that you were talking bollox. In response to this, to "explain", you simply post a link to a governement website which does precisely the opposite! Instead of saying anyone will NOT be allowed citizenship, it actually says in effect they WILL be allowed citizenship, as long as they meet the criteria, and helpfully provides full details of those criteria! I was going to ask how your thought processes had managed to reach a conclusion which is the exact opposite of the actual facts, but won't, as to be honest I am not interested. Hillbilly_Red wrote: I have had several issues in explaining this .... Now that I can believe

Hillbilly_Red wrote: thought the argument would go as it has OK to explain my point http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/briti ... ofcitizen/ What are you talking about? You said: Hillbilly_Red wrote: please note that the article states that spouses will not be allowed citizenship if the marry an Israeli citizen. We cannot throw stones: a similar law exists here for spouses of the Indian sub-continent. Thus, you alleged that we have a law which is similar to the proposition: "spouses of the Indian sub-continent will not be allowed citizenship if the marry a UK citizen." That proposition is bollox. It was pointed out to you that you were talking bollox. In response to this, to "explain", you simply post a link to a governement website which does precisely the opposite! Instead of saying anyone will NOT be allowed citizenship, it actually says in effect they WILL be allowed citizenship, as long as they meet the criteria, and helpfully provides full details of those criteria! I was going to ask how your thought processes had managed to reach a conclusion which is the exact opposite of the actual facts, but won't, as to be honest I am not interested. Hillbilly_Red wrote: I have had several issues in explaining this .... Now that I can believe

Re: All animals are equal... : Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:03 pm  

Has a precedent been set internationally for people to point to and use this exact comment? From a judge of all people!!!

"Human rights do not prescribe national suicide," Judge Asher Grunis wrote in the judgement

ie. Put human rights on the back burner when it comes to preserving our identity, our people and our culture.

Anyone could now quote this and then challenge someone else of an opposing political belief as to why it is OK that one of their country’s strongest allies believes and practices it in their law and yet they are despised if they hold a similar belief.



I guess it's just another case as has been pointed out of an unlevel playing field in world politics. Some animals are more equal than others.

Re: All animals are equal... : Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:14 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

I was told (don't know how true this is) if we and the Americans just stopped supporting and supplying Israel overnight, then some of the Arab states would almost certainly declare war on them not long after.

they tried it twice in 67 and 73 and we know what happened then mate.
ok israel was backed by us and probably the yanks then, but the arabs still went for them and got what they deserved. i doubt they would have the bottle to go after israel again.
plus, if your scenario was ever to happen, the israelis would launch pre emptive air strikes against all their air forces and missile sites.thus there would be no war.

Re: All animals are equal... : Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:58 am  

If the Saudis decided to join the argument, it would be interesting to then see just how much backing Israel received from the US & UK

Re: All animals are equal... : Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:00 am  

cod'ead wrote:

If the Saudis decided to join the argument, it would be interesting to then see just how much backing Israel received from the US & UK

That'd be intriguing: our weapons against the Yanks' weapons.

Well, plus Israel's nukes.

Re: All animals are equal... : Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:19 am  

The Saudi's would never attack - those despots struggle to control their own people never mind conduct a campaign against the most ruthless most organised fighting machine on this planet.

On the Nazi/Jews/Palastinian stuff - there is huge difference between control and complete extermination? You simply cannot suggest the gravity of both is anything like similar. Now if you were to compare the Nazis to the Hutus in Rwanda then I would agree - but of course that might upset the sensibilities of the "worthies" on here?

Re: All animals are equal... : Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:23 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The Saudi's would never attack - those despots struggle to control their own people never mind conduct a campaign against the most ruthless most organised fighting machine on this planet.

On the Nazi/Jews/Palastinian stuff - there is huge difference between control and complete extermination? You simply cannot suggest the gravity of both is anything like similar. Now if you were to compare the Nazis to the Hutus in Rwanda then I would agree - but of course that might upset the sensibilities of the "worthies" on here?

Do you plan getting rid of that chip any time soon?

Of course, you could provide some evidence that anyone here would be likely to underplay the Rwandan genocide – but that wouldn't be easy, would it? A bit like backing up your grand assertion that 'carers have big expense accounts'.

And ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing – that is what Zionists have been trying to do since the 1940s. Poisoning village wells, for instance, is not just "control".

Re: All animals are equal... : Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:10 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Do you plan getting rid of that chip any time soon?

Of course, you could provide some evidence that anyone here would be likely to underplay the Rwandan genocide – but that wouldn't be easy, would it? A but like your guesswork on 'carers have big expense accounts' etc.

And ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing – that is what Zionists have been trying to do since the 1940s. Poisoning village wells, for instance – just "control".

Whoosh

The point about Rwanda has nothing to do with underplaying anything with regards its severity

There is a huge difference between wholesale slaughter e.g. the Nazis and the Hutus and what is happening to the Palastinians - pity your prejudiced views make this simple fact beyond your mental capacity. This is not ethnic cleansing or anything close to it, especially if you are suggesting it has gone on for 70 years - it took the Hutus 100 days to kill a million now that is ethnic cleansing.

On a final matter unless you can provide evidence that I ever said carers had expense accounts please refrain from using this every time I suggest your pearls of wisdom are not gospel?

Re: All animals are equal... : Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:46 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

On a final matter unless you can provide evidence that I ever said carers had expense accounts please refrain from using this every time I suggest your pearls of wisdom are not gospel?

You did assert that carers were "obviously paid expenses" for travelling to and from their clients. I've no doubt that the original thread has now dropped off the boards but have no idea whether a mod has the inclination, let alone the ability to trawl back though the archives to find it.

Re: All animals are equal... : Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:17 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

On a final matter unless you can provide evidence that I ever said carers had expense accounts please refrain from using this every time I suggest your pearls of wisdom are not gospel?

Ah, but you don't deny it. Your careless choice of riposte allows of only the following possibilities:

1. You DID say it, but aren't sure if the record has been deleted; or

2. You DON'T KNOW whether or not you said it; in which case it doesn't matter whether you did or didn't, as if that was not your view, you WOULD know you'd never have said it.

Case closed.