I seem to have attracted another critic. In case you have missed his comments and my responses:
To my article entitled "How many are children?"
Anonymous said...
To my article about the Muslim Brotherhood:
Critics! And critics and who don't answer questions, just complain..
To my article entitled "How many are children?"
Anonymous said...- Clearly the killing or imprisonment of any child is wrong, regardless of their nationality. Was simply making the point that children on both sides of the conflict suffer - what exactly is wrong with that position? Oh, and I was thinking of doing lasagne...
- Not a sheep said...
- I would say the killing of any child is wrong. Imprisonment would depnd on what the child in question had been found guilty of doing. If the child was guilty of murder, attempted murder, violent assault or other serious crimes then why should they not be imprisoned? Hamas and Hezbollah use children as weapons and as willing covers for their terrorist activities; should such children be exempt from punishment? The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in the UK. I know plenty of under 10s who know the difference between right and wrong, and more should know the difference. Sorry I already have sausages under the grill...
- PaulH said...
- Hmm. By thinking as you do you are perpetuating the separation, keeping apart by coming out on the 'other side' from the side you hate. Would it be so wrong to say that BOTH sides are killers and BOTH sides have, most likely EQUALLY, killed children and innocent people of all ages? Would it be impertinent to suggest that BOTH are living in the past and that, in todays world, to kill for religion is tantamount to treating people as animals. We really can know better. ANY child killed is an innocent victim. There is no such thing as collateral damage and Israel are certainly not innocent as Palestine are neither. I think posting such things are bringing down the fun side of the site in my opinion, a pity as I recently found (and started to enjoy reading) you. I don't eat sausages...or Lasagna
- Not a sheep said...
- Paul H: Oh dear oh dear, you really don't get it do you? Time for a some light Fisking I feel: 'Hmm. By thinking as you do you are perpetuating the separation, keeping apart by coming out on the 'other side' from the side you hate.' I don't 'hate' the 'other side'. However even if I did, I would do nothing more than blog. The 'other side' blow up pizza parlors full of innocent teenagers, slit the throats of innocent children & their parents and are on record as wanting to kill all Jews in Israel & the rest of the world. Tell me, who is full of hate? 'Would it be so wrong to say that BOTH sides are killers and BOTH sides have, most likely EQUALLY, killed children and innocent people of all ages?' Yes, it would be quite wrong. Islamic terrorists deliberately set out to kill as many innocent Jewish adults & children as possible. By way of contrast the Israeli armed forces do all they can to not kill innocent Palestinian children, even when they are being used as human shields by their Hamas or Fatah terrorist elders. 'Would it be impertinent to suggest that BOTH are living in the past and that, in todays world, to kill for religion is tantamount to treating people as animals. We really can know better.' If you characterise believeing in religion as 'living in th epast' then maybe you have a point BUT there is an important distinction - Islamic terrorists, as products of centuries of brainwashing kill on behalf of their religion (or maybe a perverted idea of that religion - that is a bigger point), israel kills to protect itself from destruction. If you want to test that theory, ask yourself this - If the Palestinians laid down their weapons and recognised Israel's right to exist, what would happen? Would Israel let the Palestinians live in peace? If however Israel disbanded its armies and the Palestinians did not, what would happen? Would the Palestinians let Israel live in peace, alive? 'ANY child killed is an innocent victim.' Is that ALWAYS the case? What if a 15-year old Palestinan decides to try and blow themselves up in a crowded Jerusalem cafe thus killing dozens of teenage Jews. Would you call that 'child' an 'innocent victim'? 'There is no such thing as collateral damage' Really? As I have said before, the Islamic terrorists want to kill as many innocent people as possible, Israel tries not to kill the innocent people who the Islamic terrorists often hide amongst. 'and Israel are certainly not innocent as Palestine are neither.' Well you are half right, quite good for you. 'I think posting such things are bringing down the fun side of the site in my opinion, a pity as I recently found (and started to enjoy reading) you.' The fun things are an aside not the point of this blog, if you don't understand that then... 'I don't eat sausages...or Lasagna' That's OK I don't think I would want to partake of dinner with you.
To my article about the Muslim Brotherhood:
- Alex said...
- You're using Glenn Beck to make a point? Really?
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
- Not a sheep said...
- So you think the Muslim Brotherhood are 'largely secular' and 'have eschewed violence'? Do you? Really?
Just because you ridule Glenn Beck does that mean everything he says is untrue?
- PaulH said...
- He has a point about Glenn Beck.
To say the truth is found on his own sensationalist tabloid fluff disguised as patriotic passion, is one of the worst examples of a pseudo news source.
Sorry but I was with you until that.
Of course not EVERYthing GB says is untrue but he ALWAYS has an agenda my friend...you must see that.
It seems you do too though on this topic.
I am not for one side or the other. I am not Jewish, have no reason to dislike EITHER 'side'.
You, on the other hand are biased.
You really should try to be objective. Especially when you are passionate about a subject, for that is when you can be swayed by others.
Glenn Beck indeed.
- Not a sheep said...
- PaulH: As previously - So you think the Muslim Brotherhood are 'largely secular' and 'have eschewed violence'? Do you? Really? Just because you think Glenn Beck has an agenda does that mean what he said in this case is incorrect? I ask you - is the Muslim Brotherhood 'largely secular'? Have the Muslim Brotherhood 'eschewed violence'? Please answer those questions before attacking me for using Glenn Beck to backup my argument.
Critics! And critics and who don't answer questions, just complain..