Pentagon Paid $540mn to PR firm Bell Pottinger to Produce Fake Terrorist Videos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

Is magnanimity a posh word for lying?

---

You've had three weeks to contact Michael Lees, when three weeks ago your arse was on fire with demands as to how he could be reached. He's on Twitter, Facebook and his blog at Uprooted Palestinians.

What have you done about it son?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

You've had three weeks to contact Michael Lees, when three weeks ago your arse was on fire with demands as to how he could be reached. He's on Twitter, Facebook and his blog at Uprooted Palestinians.

What have you done about it son?

---

Honestly mate, do you have brain issues?

You've been caught out lying on a number of times on here and you answer it by replying about me asking who owned a website a month ago. :hehe:

It's not normal behaviour. It's like you read different words to the rest of us. :shrug:

I think I'm going to start answering posts in the same manner as you do.

So in answer to your questions have I contacted Michael Lees, the answer is Kevin Moran in 85 was the first. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

Honestly mate, do you have brain issues?

You've been caught out lying on a number of times on here and you answer it by replying about me asking who owned a website a month ago. :hehe:

It's not normal behaviour. It's like you read different words to the rest of us. :shrug:

I think I'm going to start answering posts in the same manner as you do.

So in answer to your questions have I contacted Michael Lees, the answer is Kevin Moran in 85 was the first. :thumbup:

---

I'll refresh your feeble memory for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

Who runs thats uprooted website? Where can I find out more detail about them and it. I'm trying to do my "critical analysis".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

Who is he? Trying to find some stuff on him, also where does it say he's the owner, also who verifies all these independent journalists articles?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

Let's deal with the original questions first, we can move onto other places afterwards.

1. Who is Michael Lee?
2. Where is the confirmation that he owns that website?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

Therein lies the difference as I don't respond to questions about religion, don't debate people on religion and have no particular interest in ever doing so.
If you're going to debate on politics and political history, you need at the very least to have some knowledge, no matter how basic it is, on the subject.

---

I have some knowledge about the topic. I just hadn't heard of Jabotinsky. Nobody on this site had heard of him until you mentioned him. Hardly anyone in the world knows about him. What you are really saying is that because you have this little bit of arcane knowledge on one particular aspect of a situation we should all accept your view as the final word.

Most of these disputes boil down to arguments about general principles and not just facts about who did or said what.

Suppose someone urgently needs some haemorrhoid cream and he asks his flatmate where the haemorrhoid cream is. This flatmate spends all his time sitting on his butt posting on the internet about politics so he obviously needs his own supply of haemorrhoid cream and because of that he refuses to say where he has hidden it.

Now let us suppose they ask some neighbours to arbitrate in their dispute about who should have the haemorrhoid cream. One neighbour is a busybody who knows the names of both parties in the dispute and he has intervened in their arguments for many years. He is the person who knows the most facts about the dispute. The second neighbour is a doctor who specialises in haemorrhoids but he doesn't know the neighbours. The third neighbour is a Professor of Law at Cambridge University who has also never met the neighbours.

I think most people would say the views of the second two neighbours are just as important as the views of the person who knows the most facts about the history of the dispute. The doctor could examine their haemorrhoids and decide which one needed the cream most. The professor of law could decide which one is legally entitled to the cream.

Why don't you like mentioning your views on religion? Is it because these views might expose you as having an ulterior motive for taking one side in this dispute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

I have some knowledge about the topic. I just hadn't heard of Jabotinsky. Nobody on this site had heard of him until you mentioned him. Hardly anyone in the world knows about him. What you are really saying is that because you have this little bit of arcane knowledge on one particular aspect of a situation we should all accept your view as the final word.

Most of these disputes boil down to arguments about general principles and not just facts about who did or said what.

Suppose someone urgently needs some haemorrhoid cream and he asks his flatmate where the haemorrhoid cream is. This flatmate spends all his time sitting on his butt posting on the internet about politics so he obviously needs his own supply of haemorrhoid cream and because of that he refuses to say where he has hidden it.

Now let us suppose they ask some neighbours to arbitrate in their dispute about who should have the haemorrhoid cream. One neighbour is a busybody who knows the names of both parties in the dispute and he has intervened in their arguments for many years. He is the person who knows the most facts about the dispute. The second neighbour is a doctor who specialises in haemorrhoids but he doesn't know the neighbours. The third neighbour is a Professor of Law at Cambridge University who has also never met the neighbours.

I think most people would say the views of the second two neighbours are just as important as the views of the person who knows the most facts about the history of the dispute. The doctor could examine their haemorrhoids and decide which one needed the cream most. The professor of law could decide which one is legally entitled to the cream.

Why don't you like mentioning your views on religion? Is it because these views might expose you as having an ulterior motive for taking one side in this dispute?

---

3...2...1 and we're back to whataboutery again.

I would have thought in any discussion on Revisionist Zionism the founder of it, Ze'ev Jabotinsky was pretty germane to the subject under discussion.

After all as Bibi Netanyahu's father was Ze'ev Jabotinsky's right-hand man it is entirely understandable why the thread of Jabotinsky's doctrine continues now in modern day Israel and why Netanyahu embraces it so passionately.

The morality under discussion is only moral from a Zionist perspective, as clearly all other perspectives simply do not count. That's Revisionist Zionism, based on fascist ideology which continues to this day in the ruling Likud party.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ar...cle.aspx/19580

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

I'll refresh your feeble memory for you.

---

I'm not denying asking the question, you answered it and I believed you (maybe stupidly with your history). There was no more needed to be said.

It's just a weird thread to post it in.

All that's happened here is that I couldn't be arsed private messaging your Jew hating mate, then I called you a liar, added to that I proved you never answered questions the other day so you've shoehorned this in, in a desperate bid to make me look silly.

You should've waited, you'd have had your chance to get this point in, but at least in a thread where it made sense.

On the converse though dad, I'm impressed at you being able to multi quote my posts. :thumbup:

"On the converse though dad, I'm impressed at you being able to multi quote my posts."

Piece of cake. But getting the Tipex off the screen after I've corrected spelling mistakes is proving to be more difficult.

:thumbup: