>>20690484 (pb)
'we' anyone who would correct someone who is making false assumptions.
It's OK to use the word 'we', anon.
PS: if you think I made a mistake you are correcting me, right? how is my use of 'we' telling you what to do?
the choice to want to correct someone's mistake is personal, and I never implied that we 'must' correct.
you're attack is weak, and you obviously want to have conflict which I will not give you.
>>20690486 (pb)
didn't I say that it's not all?
PS: to me using the N-word is not an option so, no, I will not say it. you should change 'you can say . . .' to 'one can say . . . ' because as far as it goes, you're using it as a third person pronoun, when it's supposed to be used as a second person pronound.
what is going on here? you're trying to make excuses for using slurs to talk about other people and pretending that others do it too, when others find it VERY OFFENSIVE.
>>20690491 (pb)
terrorism in the mideast? It wasn't the Saracens and the Turks and the Muslims that invented it? or the Mongels?
maybe you should reread history.
and going back even further? The Ninevites?, or even perhaps the Babylonians?
ah, and I see by your last sentence that you're a junvenile jerk so what's the point in me trying to teach you anything?
>>20690498 (pb)
Zionism isn't bad. Why is it bad?
Apartheid is bad. it's sad that there is an Apartheid state there now, and the Zionists ought to know that it's bad, so tell them that.
but saying that Zionism, to return to where they feel they originated? Why is that bad?
if they return and tell everyone else to leave, that's bad.
But that would then be changing what Zionism was supposed to be.
and the solution to murder them all? that's not bad?
no, anon, Zionism isn't bad.
Supremicism and apartheid: that's bad.
and you think these things are all married, but they aren't.