I Am Canadian!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BeardofPants]

I'll say it again: I have nothing against the people of American. I have friends over there, as well as family. BUT, I do have a problem with the way the State has interfered unduly in affairs that it shouldn't've, as well as the attitude towards tens of thousands of dead civilians, "It was necessary." How so?

[BeardofPants]

I have taken the 'offending' links out.

[jerseydevil]

I didn't say it was necessary - but the United States is going ot act in it's self interest. Just like every human on the face of this earth acts in their self interest - and every nation acts in it's self interest.

By the way - I looked at the home page of the website you supplied. It's all very one sided reporting. I went into some of the articles and and I didn't see any positive news about the US. It's not balanced at all. Common Dreams Newscenter

Concerning your second site -

It is the message of this particular section that explains why the United States and Israel opposed this seemingly innocuous resolution. Both nations oppose terrorism, as long as its definition is acceptable to them.

I'm sorry - but isn't that the way most people AND countries work? Why would a country agree to something that isn't in it's best interest????

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

But seriously, what media isn't propaganda?

A good news orgainzation balances their reporting - and tries to report both sides of a story. These are all one sided. Especially the Common Dreams. The Nicaraguan thing is way more completed than any of those sites make it out to be.

The US doesn't do everything right - but these articles are very leftist and are very much slanted to the point they are trying to make.

I can not believe some of this stuff that's on the ShiaNews.com
This has gotten as bad as me going to a KKK site and saying that what they believe is true because their site says so. GIVE ME A BREAK. You actually believe all these sites? Especially the ShiaNews.com one?????

[BeardofPants]

More links removed.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants



Hmmm....


Like this?

That's not a US news source. It's a website that even says on their main page - Subversive Site

This is a more balanced News Source -
ABCNews.com
Nightline
World News Tonight
This Week

[BeardofPants]

Okay, okay, my mistake for using blatant propaganda to try and fool your superior intellects. Apologies.

Now. I have searched, and searched, and finally come up with the actual ruling, now don't thank me all at once.

It can be found here.

:P

Dude, it isn't. I'll grant you that it is pro-american. Especially right now.....but its NEVER one sided. It gives you both sides.......

Yes, it's the epitome of non-onesidedness. That's why I couldn't find anything there, on the Security council ruling....

[jerseydevil]

That's good. There's nothing in there about the US being charged with International Terrorism though. It basically is saying that we violated the sovoreign right of Nicaragua of self determination and that we violated the Treaty of Friendship.

So I'd like to know where we were tried and conficted of International Terrorism. Or did one of the sites that you supplied just decide to call it that?

This is what you had said in an earlier posted in regards to the information you had just supplied -

Little known fact: the US, to date, has been the only country to be tried for International Terrorism by the world council. It has been the only one to overthrow a resolution by the Security Council, regarding said terrorism.

[jerseydevil]

You wrote this concerning "the masked avengers"comment about CNN being well balanced news source......

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Yes, it's the epitome of non-onesidedness. That's why I couldn't find anything there, on the Security council ruling....

Hey - the ruling you supplied is dated 1986. WAY before the web was around - let alone CNN.com. So just because you couldn't find anything about the ruling on an American news website that happened in the 80's doesn't mean it wasn't reported on when it DID occur. No wonder I didn't remember about it, it occurred 16 years ago.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So I'd like to know where we were tried and conficted of International Terrorism. Or did one of the sites that you supplied just decide to call it that?

Rejects the justification of collective self-defence maintained by the United States of America in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the subject of this case;

Unlawful use of force, aka terrorism.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Unlawful use of force, aka terrorism.

So - unlawful use of force is terrorism? Wow - then everyone in this world is a terrorist.

Your link isn't working

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


So - unlawful use of force is terrorism? Wow - then everyone in this world is a terrorist. Although the judgement only says we used force.

You might want to check out the amnesty international site.... Basic breach of human rights, stuff like that....

[BeardofPants]

Okay, Amnesty International link won't work... PM me if you want it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


You might want to check out the amnesty international site.... Basic breach of human rights, stuff like that....

Amnesty International is ALWAYS against the US. Just like we were singled out in during the African Summit for slavery - but no mention about Europes involvment or Africas. When slavery started in the US - we weren't even a country. Too bad they don't concentrate more on the REAL offenders of human rights.

Are you actually referring to the SAME Amnesty International that brings this up against the US - "15/04/2002 USA: Treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay undermines human rights. Amnesty International memorandum to the US government"

That is completely ridiculous. The prisoners are able to pray, they get muslim dietary meals. Which by the way - New Jersey enacted dietary standards for labeling purposes for muslim meals just last year before the attacks against the US. It's similar to food being labeled as Kosher.

[BeardofPants]

You seem to be taking this VERY personally. Don't.

Yes, other countries have done other grave injustices. The US is not the only one with blood on their hands... I seem to remember agreeing with you on that point.

Anyway, I think we're only going to arrive at an impasse, so lets just back off a little and return to the thread topic.

So: Canadians?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Anyway, I think we're only going to arrive at an impasse, so lets just back off a little and return to the thread topic.

So: Canadians?

Well we agreed on something there.

As I told HOBBIT - America has taken over their thread now. Now they have something else to be upset with us about.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


Well we agreed on something there.

As I told HOBBIT - America has taken over their thread now. Now they have something else to be upset with us about.

Haha!

Although, be fair, it wasn't just a mad New Jerseyian Devil! Don't forget the demented kiwi!!

[HOBBIT]

i'm trying not to take it seriously, but several of the "news sites" that you posted were very anti-semitic . very anti-american.

maybe you took those sites as jokes, but i did not. the people from those countries and other Arab nations actually use that site as a real news site..well it is a real news site. it just is 100% one sided stuff. it is 100% pro muslim. 100% anti american and anti-semetic. they have a right to their opinion...just dont clutter the board with that crap.

i truly hope that you are neither anti-semitic or anti-american. that is what one would infer from the various sites that you supplied.

i realize that you probably meant it as a joke. NOT FUNNY.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by HOBBIT

i realize that you probably meant it as a joke. NOT FUNNY.

I truly don't believe they were meant to be jokes. I think BoP believes that those sites support her views and are legitimate unbiased news sites.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


I truly don't believe they were meant to be jokes. I think BoP believes that those sites support her views and are legitimate unbiased news sites.

I am aware, actually, that those sites were biased. However, they were the only ones I could find at the time, that mentioned anything about the Security Council ruling. It took me about 2 hours to find the actual ruling. I did not mean them to be a joke, nor am I anti-american.... which I have stated at least twice.

As I said earlier, I am backing down from this issue. Please stop trying to incite me into anger with accusations of ignorance, or patronise me for not knowing one sided reporting when I see it.... All I wanted from those sites was the information about the ruling... Which I couldn't find anywhere else.

Now: back to the thread, please.