Jihadis allowed, Journalists not., We are in the excrement. Options

[x2lls]

He’s got people to do that for him.

Still no evidence. I suggest you are a liar. Please prove you are not lying AC.

I attended, as I've said before, the free speech demo at speakers corner. The only violence I saw was two members of the religion of peace.
One whacked a policeman in the head with a walking stick, the other attacked Katie Hopkins.

[newres]

Still no evidence. I suggest you are a liar. Please prove you are not lying AC.

I attended, as I've said before, the free speech demo at speakers corner. The only violence I saw was two members of the religion of peace.
One whacked a policeman in the head with a walking stick, the other attacked Katie Hopkins.

He incites violence and hatred. He isn’t daft enough to suggest it.

[x2lls]

He incites violence and hatred. He isn’t daft enough to suggest it.

Wrong, he tells it as he sees it. He has never condoned violence.

Find an example.

[Andy Capp]

Really, it comes from a very good source to whit, Daniel Kurtzer, the former U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel, who is the S. Daniel Abraham Professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He wrote it as part of a critique of 'ANONYMOUS SOLDIERS'
The Struggle for Israel, 1917-1947
By Bruce Hoffman

So I have a choice of who to listen to, a celebrated expert in middle East affairs and long time ambassador to the region, or I can listen to you. Wonder which one has the more valid opinion?

I don’t care who you think is valid; both could be, it’s just your argument was poorly framed.

In effect you said: their terrorisum was less terrorist than other terrorism. You also imply soldiers and politicians are more deserving of terrorisum than ‘civilians’. Well in my book they are all humans who have friends and family who are ‘civilians’.

[Turin Machine]

I don’t care who you think is valid; both could be, it’s just your argument was poorly framed.

In effect you said: their terrorisum was less terrorist than other terrorism. You also imply soldiers and politicians are more deserving of terrorisum than ‘civilians’. Well in my book they are all humans who have friends and family who are ‘civilians’.

Wasn't my argument, it was his, you know? The expert? And, in all civilised theaters civilians are considered 'out of bounds'. Directly targeting women and children is a bit different to targeting armed and hostile military personnel.

[je suis Charlie]

Wasn't my argument, it was his, you know? The expert? And, in all civilised theaters civilians are considered 'out of bounds'. Directly targeting women and children is a bit different to targeting armed and hostile military personnel.

Hmm, so, the opinion of an expert with long experience in the region, or a bloke on a train. Tough call!

[newres]

Wasn't my argument, it was his, you know? The expert? And, in all civilised theaters civilians are considered 'out of bounds'. Directly targeting women and children is a bit different to targeting armed and hostile military personnel.

So the IRA are comparable to the Zionist terrorists?

[newres]

Hmm, so, the opinion of an expert with long experience in the region, or a bloke on a train. Tough call!

Funny how one man’s Expert is another man’s clown. Most economic experts are saying Brexit will be bad for the UK but most on here believe a bloke who wears Union Jack shoes. A clown in anyone’s book.

[je suis Charlie]

So the IRA are comparable to the Zionist terrorists?

IRA closest to ISIS, your mates.

[je suis Charlie]

Funny how one man’s Expert is another man’s clown. Most economic experts are saying Brexit will be bad for the UK but most on here believe a bloke who wears Union Jack shoes. A clown in anyone’s book.

You're just a clown, full stop, expert in being 'Speshuul'. How are those shoes you bought in Telford fitting? Pinching yet?

[newres]

You're just a clown, full stop, expert in being 'Speshuul'. How are those shoes you bought in Telford fitting? Pinching yet?

Where did you learn your debating skills?

[je suis Charlie]

Where did you learn your debating skills?

Trying to debate with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon, it struts around, knocks all the pieces over, takes a crap on the board then walks off thinking it's won.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Trying to debate with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon, it struts around, knocks all the pieces over, takes a crap on the board then walks off thinking it's won.

😂 But... He is the Stephen Hawking of this forum.

[Andy Capp]

Wasn't my argument, it was his, you know? The expert? And, in all civilised theaters civilians are considered 'out of bounds'. Directly targeting women and children is a bit different to targeting armed and hostile military personnel.

It was your argument, but even if not, you believe soldiers AND politicians are fair game to ‘casual terrorisum’. Notwithstanding even if ‘civilians’ are not targeted, terrorisum will lead to civilian deaths.

Your argument as well as your source, assuming you have correctly represented the author’s thesis, is laughable, except it isn’t funny.

[Andy Capp]

Trying to debate with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon, it struts around, knocks all the pieces over, takes a crap on the board then walks off thinking it's won.

Be thankful then at least we have you and your mates’ measured musings to enjoy.

[newres]

Trying to debate with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon, it struts around, knocks all the pieces over, takes a crap on the board then walks off thinking it's won.

The one thing I’ve learned is that it’s impossible to win an argument with a bigot and even more impossible to win an argument with a bigot on the internet. Especially one that resorts to name calling.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

The one thing I’ve learned is that it’s impossible to win an argument with a bigot and even more impossible to win an argument with a bigot on the internet. Especially one that resorts to name calling.

Define bigot please. Someone who doesn't hold the newres view of the world?

[Turin Machine]

It was your argument, but even if not, you believe soldiers AND politicians are fair game to ‘casual terrorisum’. Notwithstanding even if ‘civilians’ are not targeted, terrorisum will lead to civilian deaths.

Your argument as well as your source, assuming you have correctly represented the author’s thesis, is laughable, except it isn’t funny.

It was lifted, verbatim, from his critique of another book, I did try to explain that but obviously it's too difficult for you to understand. And it's written by someone with far deeper understanding of the region than I. And certainly you. Just because you either don't understand or agree doesn't make it wrong.

[Turin Machine]

Define bigot please. Someone who doesn't hold the newres view of the world?

Bigot: someone who won't see another's view. See newres.

Oh, and while we're here, 'swivel eyed loon' ring any bells?

[Turin Machine]

Trying to debate with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon, it struts around, knocks all the pieces over, takes a crap on the board then walks off thinking it's won.

Yup, I can picture that.