US ambassador 'killed in Libya'

[Developereo]

And not one name. Not of the 'officers'. Not of the NIMA 'source'.

Are you saying that the Guardian, a respectable mainstream source, is making things up?
Ever heard of media protecting their sources in other, highly controversial, situations?

So here is your dilemma...

1- If China was actively involved in assisting one side in a conflict via a Chinese Embassy, then China, not merely the embassy ground, lost ALL protection usually granted to a neutral party caught in the middle of a conflict. That mean that particular embassy lost all protection and was a legitimate target.

2- That it was a mistake on our part.

The dilemma is on your part.

- Was the Chinese embassy targeted deliberately because, according to NATO, it had lost its protected status? In that case, NATO would need to prove beyond a doubt its claims of 'rebro'

- Or did the NATO targeting mechanism mysteriously malfunction in a most convenient way?

a personal attacking post deserves an equally hard hitting reply.

There is nothing personal in pointing out your posts in this thread, which eagerly await a major escalation of this conflict.

As for the rest of your rant, I can't be bothered...

 

[illusion8]

 

[angeldust]

There is nothing personal in pointing out your posts in this thread, which eagerly await a major escalation of this conflict.

As for the rest of your rant, I can't be bothered...

I have followed your posting trends on this forum. You have a well known tendency of huffing and puffing without substance when called out, as you are doing once again.

It is equally obvious that you have a serious chip on your shoulder with Zoroastrianism and those of us who follow that ancient faith. It smacks of a defensive mindset when you jump in with your rants on everything Zoroastrian or Iranian. Both of which have no love lost for your faith.

Your are openly and rabidly anti-semitic as well. Your hatred of Jews is no secret to anyone here. Or your pathological paranoia of the Zionist agenda that circumvents the world, targeting your faith and your people as a conspiracy of Biblical proportions.

Yet you have the gumption of accusing others for having their own pet dislikes and agendas?

Don't shoot the messenger man. It is as it is. Do what you can to redeem yourself in the eyes of those you have wronged. Or accept their dislike for what it is. Well deserved.

Please do not bother talking to me moving forward. I do not do mullas.

Especially the sanctimonious ones.

 

[asad71]

As the US Rep to NTC, Stevens was the CEO of the US-French invasion of Libya. He would have known and sanctioned atrocities committed by NTC/US Spl Dorces/French Spl Forces/UK Spl Forces. Those include the cold blooded killing of Gadaffi and the tortures that preceded.

 

[W.11]

just the face saving, nothing else

 

[BigDaddyWatch]

Then why did not the Chinese retaliate? I asked the Chinese this and they evaded. Why not? Because they know that it was an accident. The Chinese government allowed their citizens to vent but once the security services told the protesters to STFU -- the people did STFU.

I am glad that so many people here approved, directly or indirectly, the violation of one the most sacred of diplomacy -- an embassy.

The American public will remember this.

That's nothing a lot of Americans approve of the violation of the most sacred of international laws and the basis of the relationships between states "sovereignty". The world knows.

Typical American hypocrisy if their embassy is being violated then its the end of the world, but invading other nations and bombing other countries and killing innocent people is just fine.

 

[Developereo]

Do what you can to redeem yourself in the eyes of those you have wronged.

More ranting, combined with a thousand year old victim mentality.

I went to a Parsi school and have great respect for Zoroastrians, because I know many Parsis in real life. I have NO respect for pathological hatemongers, regardless of their faith, who spout the vilest anti-Arab rants (to please a handful of racist Iranians and Indians), as well as the usual anti-Islam vomit.

If you check my posts,I am respectful as long as you talk about Zoroastrianism itself, but when you guys jump, inevitably, onto your racist soapbox of anti-Arab, anti-Islam rants, only then do I step in. I even left you alone even though you repeatedly violated forum rules against religious proselytizing.

As for the Zionist angle, I am unapologetically anti-Zionist, as are many Jews who have resisted the Zionist brainwashing to see that cause as their religious duty. Zionism is in the same league as any other religiously motivated fanatic ideology.

 

[angeldust]

More ranting, combined with a thousand year old victim mentality.

I went to a Parsi school and have great respect for Zoroastrians, because I know many Parsis in real life. I have NO respect for pathological hatemongers, regardless of their faith, who spout the vilest anti-Arab rants (to please a handful of racist Iranians and Indians), as well as the usual anti-Islam vomit.

If you check my posts,I am respectful as long as you talk about Zoroastrianism itself, but when you guys jump, inevitably, onto your racist soapbox of anti-Arab, anti-Islam rants, only then do I step in. I even left you alone even though you repeatedly violated forum rules against religious proselytizing.

As for the Zionist angle, I am unapologetically anti-Zionist, as are many Jews who have resisted the Zionist brainwashing to see that cause as their religious duty. Zionism is in the same league as any other religiously motivated fanatic ideology.

You do not need to explain yourself to me.

I see we understand each other. Only too well.

 

[gambit]

Are you saying that the Guardian, a respectable mainstream source, is making things up?
Ever heard of media protecting their sources in other, highly controversial, situations?

Yeah...These news sources never erred, or made things up, or slanted their reportage.

The dilemma is on your part.

- Was the Chinese embassy targeted deliberately because, according to NATO, it had lost its protected status? In that case, NATO would need to prove beyond a doubt its claims of 'rebro'

- Or did the NATO targeting mechanism mysteriously malfunction in a most convenient way?

No, it is yours. You brought on that source and believed in it. Now you must eat it. Your source said, and they believed it based upon their sources, that China took side in that conflict, you cannot demand that I must prove your source for you. So either you eat your source, or you disavow it.

You are typical of people who brought on sources only after they found a sentence that they like. Never actually reading/studying the whole thing. Can you disprove what I said about the logic of privately taking sides in a conflict while publicly demanding neutrality status? No. My source on that is impeccable. Far more than yours. Funny how the supposedly 'impartial' newspaper omitted the Geneva Convention in its reportage, ain't it?

 

[Leviza]

USA need to eliminate ROOT CAUSE of these things, and make sure no one hurt other people feelings,

its a crime to hurt other people feelings............. BTW americans are not innocents....

 

[Developereo]

You do not need to explain yourself to me.

Don't flatter yourself. My post was to address the nonsense in your post.

You, I know, are beyond reason.

 

[Solomon2]

As for the Zionist angle, I am unapologetically anti-Zionist..Zionism is in the same league as any other religiously motivated fanatic ideology.

Perhaps you should re-consider apologizing, Developereo, as your perceptions of Zionism are so far from reality and full of ignorance that you resort to judging Zionism on the basis of OTHER ideologies rather than what Zionism is, and judging Jews on a surface perception of anti-Israel sub-groups, rather than deeper knowledge.

I see the drift here is that if a single American does something offensive to a Muslim than any American can be killed without apology or punishment, regardless of whether he had a hand in the matter or not.

If that is what you insist on turning Islam into then there is no justice in Islam.

 

[angeldust]

Don't flatter yourself. My post was to address the nonsense in your post.

You, I know, are beyond reason.

I am beyond your brand of reason for sure.

Its just nice to be able to talk to the man behind the cloak.

Life is too short to waste trying to love everyone.

 

[Developereo]

Yeah...These news sources never erred, or made things up, or slanted their reportage.

Big bad Guardian newspaper is making up fake stories about NATO. Uh huh!

No, it is yours. You brought on that source and believed in it. Now you must eat it. Your source said, and they believed it based upon their sources, that China took side in that conflict, you cannot demand that I must prove your source for you. So either you eat your source, or you disavow it.

You are typical of people who brought on sources only after they found a sentence that they like. Never actually reading/studying the whole thing. Can you disprove what I said about the logic of privately taking sides in a conflict while publicly demanding neutrality status? No. My source on that is impeccable. Far more than yours. Funny how the supposedly 'impartial' newspaper omitted the Geneva Convention in its reportage, ain't it?

Oh, I read the article in full before posting it. I wanted your reaction, and you took the bait with the argument that "it was an accident and, even if it wasn't, the Chinese deserved it anyway".

Perhaps you should re-consider apologizing, Developereo, as your perceptions of Zionism are so far from reality and full of ignorance that you resort to judging Zionism on the basis of OTHER ideologies rather than what Zionism is, and judging Jews on a surface perception of anti-Israel sub-groups, rather than deeper knowledge.

I know that Zionism, as originally envisioned by Herzl, was a noble concept to rally the Jewish people against the persecutions they were facing. However, over the years, it has morphed into an unapologetic, uncompromising, unreasonable defence of Israel. Israel has hijacked Herzl's Zionism, just as they have hijacked and abused Holocaust sympathy and the anti-Semitic label. I understand the original Zionists weren't absolutely married to Israel -- they were open to Ecuador or Uganda as alternatives.

Like I wrote, there are Jews who are staunchly devoted to Judaism, but who do not feel it is their religious duty to support Israel as this morphed Zionism demands.

For me, the biggest crime of these new Zionists is the rift they have created between Jews and Muslims, two peoples who mostly got along over the centuries. The relationship wasn't perfect -- nothing ever is -- but it was relatively benign. The creation of Israel was badly handled by both sides and has changed all that.

I see the drift here is that if a single American does something offensive to a Muslim than any American can be killed without apology or punishment, regardless of whether he had a hand in the matter or not.

If that is what you insist on turning Islam into then there is no justice in Islam.

Que?

 

[Solomon2]

I know that Zionism, as originally envisioned by Herzl, was a noble concept to rally the Jewish people against the persecutions they were facing. However, over the years, it has morphed into an unapologetic, uncompromising, unreasonable defence of Israel. Israel has hijacked Herzl's Zionism, just as they have hijacked and abused Holocaust sympathy and the anti-Semitic label. I understand the original Zionists weren't absolutely married to Israel -- they were open to Ecuador or Uganda as alternatives.

It's only "unreasonable" if you are keen to deny relevant facts, Developereo. I know that Muslims throughout the world are immersed in a stew of Israel-hatred that says otherwise but many people know the truth, even if they lack the courage to say so. We should work to change that, yes?

Like I wrote, there are Jews who are staunchly devoted to Judaism, but who do not feel it is their religious duty to support Israel as this morphed Zionism demands.

Many of these were against Zionism from the beginning. It gets complicated but is ultimately irrelevant to the justice of the cause of Zionism.

Que?

Yeah, you have to think lots about that.