The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Don't worry I already know the answer and the fact that you aren't willing to answer truthfully only makes it more amusing.

I know for a fact you would say 'Yes' if nation (1) was either America or Israel but if you think of nation (1) as some other country you would probably try to spin it as you just did.

So anyways...what about the Saudi/Pakistan example I gave?

You have no facts, yet, I am the liar... I point out a huge flaw in your "hypothetical", and I am a liar. I see. Keep in mind, there are several other fatal errors in your hyposthesis which I have not addressed.


Please... regale me with the history of the "nation" of Palestine? Please. Knock yourself out. Just let me know when that "nation" existed, first.

Ahh you see that is where you are mistaken. In a "hypothetical" example there are is such thing as (flaws). When you make a hypothetical statement or ask a hypthetical question it can't be flawed...thus its hypothetical. No boundaries since imgaination is everything.

If I were to ask you:

"Hypoythetically speaking wouldn't it have been cool if the Redskins won the Superbowl last year?"

I would think you would answer it rather than debating about the validity of the statement and wheather or not it has flaws due to the fact that last year is finished and the Skins didn't win. Besides - I never mentioned any nation by name (you took it upon yourself to do that) I labeled them by number (1) (2) (3) since it was a hypothetical scenario.

So back to the hypothetical question: Does nation (1) have a right to defend itself, if it's land was conquered and divded by nation (2) and given to nation (3) to occupy? No names just numbers....we aren't putting a face to these nations becuase once you do that people tend not to think honestly but rather blindly.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

How is calling for the end of the Zionist "regime" the same as calling an end to 'Israel'. It's no different then America wanting to eliminate the Iranian or Iraqi "regime". Does that imply America wants to wipe Iraq and Iran from the face of the earth?

LINK HERE

How is calling for the end of the Zionist "regime" the same as calling an end to 'Israel'. It's no different then America wanting to eliminate the Iranian or Iraqi "regime". Does that imply America wants to wipe Iraq and Iran from the face of the earth?

What's frightening is that you are serious when you ask that question.

You no longer exist. POOF

Countertrey wrote:

If nation (1) has its land invaded and stolen by nation (3) and given to nation (2) to occupy without mutual consent from all parties does nation (1) have a right to defend itself?

Since the nation who's land became Israel was Jordan, and since Jordan has made peace with Israel, I'd say your hypothetical is flawed.

It's even more flawed than you think. Israel was never part of Jordan, The Brits gave Transjordan (east of the Jordan River) to Abdullah I as a consolation prize for getting his butt kicked by the Saudis. There had not been a nation in what is now Israel (including Judea & Samaria) in more than 2000 yrs. Then it was a Jewish nation.

EDIT: I had a long post to try and reason with some of you. But it's no use....you can't reason with people who support these types of crime and the more I read your comments the more I lose respect for some of you.

The ultimate thinking of a terrorist is to make excuses for your own crime but condemn others for theirs. Those of you who have goodness in your heart will be rewarded sooner or later and for those who support this type of behavior will hopefully be enlighten one day.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14167395/?GT1=8404

dnpmakkah wrote:EDIT: I had a long post to try and reason with some of you. But it's no use....

It took you a long time to arrive at that conclusion. Me too if it serves of any consolation to you. But I had been warned in advance not to even try. You would not believe how this thread looks like from my current perspective.

A U.S. military court in Baghdad heard graphic testimony on Monday of how three U.S. soldiers took turns raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl before murdering her and her family.

LINK HERE

Personally I think the soldiers didn't do it. The U.S. and its excellent servicemen would NEVER commit such an act of crime....NEVER. And even if they did GANG RAPE a 14 year old she probably deserved it.

Since this is a time of war (anything goes). Either she was a terrorist or terrorists were using her as a human shield thus her rape is justified in my opinion. [/sarcasm]

It's unfortunate that this is not in Smack, so that the response could be truly appropriate. That aside, I would think that even the originator of a thread would be expected to remain on topic.

Lastly, since you bring it up (and, despite my certainty that you will completely miss the point, as per usual... [it requires some mastery of logic]), kindly tell me how many of the "insurgents" and al Qaeda cowards are being tried by their chain of command for the endless atrocities committed by them?




Yeah, that's what I thought.

Meeeeow....don't get so bent out of shape. Why so angry, no need to hate bro. I can almost sense the rage in your text. Don't get mad at me. All I did was post an article. I think the girl deserved it. One of the following is probably what happened in this situation.

A. This is a lie (the rape never happened) - terrorist are known to lie.
B. She was being used as a human shield by the terrorist & what was done had to be done.
C. It was an accident. They didn't mean to gang rape her but in war this type of incident happens.

Ultimately we need to first find out the facts but in my heart I don't think this rape happened on the sole belief that American troops would never commit such a crime.

Countertrey wrote:kindly tell me how many of the "insurgents" and al Qaeda cowards are being tried by their chain of command for the endless atrocities committed by them?

I must hand it to you, that was an excellent counter argument. I think the lawyers for these fine young men should use that during trial. So instead of focusing on the crime you would rather me praise the fact that justice is being served? I guess you are right. Why focus on the negative when I can brush it under the rug and focus on the positive instead.

dnpmakkah wrote:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

How is calling for the end of the Zionist "regime" the same as calling an end to 'Israel'. It's no different then America wanting to eliminate the Iranian or Iraqi "regime". Does that imply America wants to wipe Iraq and Iran from the face of the earth?

LINK HERE

Iran (& Arab countries) have, since 1948, refered to Israel as "the Zionist entity" or "the Zionist regime" because they don't admit that Israel exists. Anyone who is even a casual follower of medeast news would know that.

A U.S. military court deciding whether four soldiers should be court-martialed for rape and murder heard on Tuesday how troops were “driven nuts” by combat stress and got high on Iraqi cough syrup.

Another day - another excuse, how typical.

On Monday, an Army investigator testified that the soldiers took turns raping the girl, and one of them put a bullet through her head after killing her parents and 5-year-old sister.

Interesting. Kind of makes you wonder about the crimes we DON'T hear about.

Cortez pushed the girl to the floor, lifted her dress and tore off her underwear while she struggled, Bierce said, citing Barker’s statement. Cortez appeared to rape her, then Barker tried to rape the girl, according to the statement.

Suddenly, the group heard gunshots, and Green came out of the bedroom holding an AK-47 rifle and declared: “They’re all dead. I just killed them,” according to the statement.

Green then raped the girl while Cortez held her down, Barker’s statement said. Green picked up the AK-47 and shot the girl once, paused, then shot her several more times, Bierce said, quoting Barker’s statement.

Barker said he poured fuel from a kerosene lamp on the girl’s body but did not say who set it on fire. The soldier’s statement did not say whether Howard or Spielman participated in the rape, Bierce said.

Another investigator, Gary Griesmyer, quoted Cortez as telling him that the teenage girl was weeping and speaking in Arabic and that Barker told her to “shut up.”

Ahhh the war on terror at work in its finest hour. Three men raping a 14 year old girl at gunpoint then killing her and her family and finally setting them on fire is both COWARDLY and an act of TERRORISM.

Wait for those that want to debate this incident I'll help you out.

1. It never happened
2. She was a terrorist
3. Terrorist were using her as a human shield
4. Its war and things happen during war
5. Well how many of those terrorist put their own on trial?
6. Well they started it

There I hope that covers all the excuses you are about to give regarding this article. That way you don't even have to waste your time typing. This is tooooooo easy.

LINK HERE

Well, I don't think it's making excuses to suggest that we wait for the outcome of proceedings before pronouncing sentence, is it?

UK Skins Fan wrote:Well, I don't think it's making excuses to suggest that we wait for the outcome of proceedings before pronouncing sentence, is it?

It's not an excuse it only makes sense to wait, I see you point there.

But I feel that since it was on Iraqi soil and Iraqi civilians are dead. This trial should be held in an Iraqi court. We should let the people of Iraq decide the outcome. It's only fair.

dnpmakkah wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Well, I don't think it's making excuses to suggest that we wait for the outcome of proceedings before pronouncing sentence, is it?

It's not an excuse it only makes sense to wait, I see you point there.

But I feel that since it was on Iraqi soil and Iraqi civilians are dead. This trial should be held in an Iraqi court. We should let the people of Iraq decide the outcome. It's only fair.

Well, if they were UK troops, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see them subjected to Iraqi justice. But if I was an Iraqi, I'd think the opposite.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Well, if they were UK troops, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see them subjected to Iraqi justice. But if I was an Iraqi, I'd think the opposite.

Yes very true, I guess everything is a matter of perspective. Personally I feel these men should go before a jury of Iraqi citizens. The alleged crime happened over there it's only fitting.

If someone commited a criminal act against the U.S. especially on U.S. soil wouldn't we be the ones to put him on trial rather than the country he is from?

This video is 9 minutes long but still a very interesting interview. SKY NEWS broadcaster speaking with George Galloway. Not everyone will agree with his point of view but the tension in this video is classic. Dude was so fired up.

Video Link Here

I can't stand George Galloway - he's a self publicising buffoon. Having said that, I will always try to listen to people like him who are willing to stick their heads above the parapet and voice an opinion that runs so violently against the norm. There are too few members of parliament in this country who are willing to do that.

Love him or loathe him, it is important that views like his are heard, if only to be shot down. Unfortunately, he only seems to see one side of the argument, and that's a problem with a lot of people in this debate.

There are too few members of parliament in this country who are willing to do that

So, you're saying that it's important to have MP's who are idiots?

Countertrey wrote:

There are too few members of parliament in this country who are willing to do that

So, you're saying that it's important to have MP's who are idiots?

If true, the US congress is in great shape.

Countertrey wrote:

There are too few members of parliament in this country who are willing to do that

So, you're saying that it's important to have MP's who are idiots?

Whether they are idiots or not is in the eye of the beholder, but their views have to be heard. If all MP's or Congressmen simply followed the herd, then there would be no meaningful debate. I abhor many of Galloway's views, but that is no reason not to listen.

UK Skins Fan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

There are too few members of parliament in this country who are willing to do that

So, you're saying that it's important to have MP's who are idiots?

Whether they are idiots or not is in the eye of the beholder, but their views have to be heard. If all MP's or Congressmen simply followed the herd, then there would be no meaningful debate. I abhor many of Galloway's views, but that is no reason not to listen.

Are you saying that all points of view are equally valid?

I abhor many of Galloway's views, but that is no reason not to listen.

Overt bigotry and hate speech has a legitimate place in public discourse and must be considered???? Do you hear what you are saying?

yupchagee wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

There are too few members of parliament in this country who are willing to do that

So, you're saying that it's important to have MP's who are idiots?

Whether they are idiots or not is in the eye of the beholder, but their views have to be heard. If all MP's or Congressmen simply followed the herd, then there would be no meaningful debate. I abhor many of Galloway's views, but that is no reason not to listen.

Are you saying that all points of view are equally valid?

Not sure what your point is. Some people are wrong, some people are right. The key is that we should not dismiss a view because we don't like it - you can ignore them if you like, but that won't win an argument. I prefer to have my views, opinions and received wisdom challenged from time to time. That's why I force myself to listen to people like Galloway. He's not a great parliamentarian like Tony Benn was - another MP who was willing to stand up and argue against the tide of public opinion. In fact, as I've already said, I think Galloway is a buffoon. But in the absence of any great debate in parliament, he might be all we have. Sad, but true.