responding with full force? like say another disgusting thing? is this what you mean
No you are wrong again I do not normally say disgusting things unless provoked unlike yourself. When i refer to full force it means lengthy arguments which can will only take us back to a war of words which we have witnessed get us absolutely nowhere.
I am trying to put this behind us but i see you are as rependant as ever. you want to know about me? well i am the guy that made you drop your mask and exposed your self. vips never make the mistake of looking at a gift horse in the mouth, as the saying goes.
well they showed you unity by asking you to apologise to them to which you took a long time to do so.
You are giving yourself to much credit, i don't wear a mask as everyone knows I have always been upfront about what I think that's why it makes some people feel uncomfortable. On the contrary maybe you have been taught to eat some humble pie and become more humble and less foul mouthed.
The delay in making an official apology was again interlinked with your own half baked apologies which meant nothing as people on the forum had asked you to make it sincere and not your usual bullshitting but again knowing you would not come forward I took the first step not because I thought I was wrong in giving you some of your medicine but because I realized my comments had upset others unnecessarily which was not my intention.
but you seen bend as hell in equating 2 people with a disagreement with killings. the difference what happened in 63 and 74 people died. and this contitutes a crime against humanity. what happened between the 2 of us stayed between the 2 of us and no crime happened against anyone. you see the difference? you are trying to propagandasize the whole event to equating with killings. a disagreement is not a crime against humanity.
I find it upsurd to be labelled as criminal and a murderer because i disagreed with someone. i wonder about your state of mind sometimes. reality in the north is either removed or doesn't exist it seems
The magnitude maybe different but the ideology is the same when promoting uniting to act as a force to stop and quash acts of violence or abuse but I'm fast getting the impression you do not want to understand this or you are playing stupid.
and while we are talking about aggressors, when can the 200,000 return back to their homes under the same country they were born, enjoying all the rights available to them. can we have some unity here as well? are we also gonna unite towards this cause or are we going to stay silent on this and allow the aggressors to get away with it again? you can't have it both ways. the 200,000 are longing for their ancestral lands back. i say lets all unite and kick the shit of the aggressors. what do you say to this?
Just as soon as we can agree how this is to be done, whether this be united or divided, at the last attempt need I remind you it was the GCs who said NO with no attempt to put forward any alternatives. Unity only shows itself when the majority believes in the same thing unfortunately the majority on both sides of the divide do not see eye to eye therefore unity cannot be established as we have seen over the past 33 years and under the current climate will continue for a long time to come. Can you have unity on every issue? no you cant...we may have unity regarding verbal abuse but not on uniting, so really what you say about you cant have it both ways is an incorrect evaluation.
I have stated many times that I believe refugees should get back their rights and I will unite with you on this issue but we cannot implement this unless we agree other matters like security, settlers, federal representation, land distribution they are all interwoven and without agreeing one we cannot have the other, will you unite with me on these issues?.