[bladesman123]

Yeah I agree she was hot

[zuiram]

Originally Posted by exorio ↗

So obviously she wasn't shot in the chest (or back, or belly, whichever the news said).

Makes sense. The blood on the vest they’re showing is consistent with the neck or the head being the site of injury.

A simple explanation would be that she took a stray rock to the back of the head. The protesters usually fling a fair number of those, often with questionable skill. That will not cause enough damage to the skull to be evident from the front (which is shown in the pictures), unlike every single caliber used by military forces, where one can reasonably expect the head to pop.

Friendly fire with no need for conspiracy theories in either direction.

Mystery solved?

[zuiram]

Originally Posted by fapfapfap ↗

If you think Christianity's "bad name" has only to do with American Christians you have a pretty bad grasp on history.

I have a decent grasp of the present, and in the present, it’s modern American Christians that are being ridiculed and held up as an example of the dangers of religion even in educated and industrialized countries, at least in the cultures I’m familiar with. Simple as that.

I’m not making any moral judgment about American Christians one way or the other, at least as regards these “right” and “wrong” concepts you’re referring to (I’ve not found them useful myself, on the balance), just letting you know how this all comes across, since a lot of Americans seem unaware of how they appear to others in my admittedly limited experience.

I have no horse in this race. I could probably not care less if the Israelis genocide the Palestinians just for the lulz. I do have a problem with their current approach, which lacks the will to act in one consistent way or the other. They bought land with serfs and cast the serfs out. That’s a class issue deferred for a few decades because their supposed ideals can’t handle being universalized and their image can’t take a genocide. To me, that’s just hypocrisy, paired with quite unrealistic expectations in their rhetoric and policies, which matters a lot more (to their detriment) to me than which course of action they choose in the end. Nothing wrong with being the “bad guy”, per se, it’s the middle ground of pursuing neither stable state I have an issue with.

Have a nice one.

[bobafett]

Originally Posted by Dahlia_Neda ↗

Your name isn't blue so that indicates that you're not. When you pay, you get a blue name that's valid for a year, after that it goes back to black (like yours is).

That's not what was advertised when I signed up 7 years ago. It stated it was a one time fee.

[SimoneFlen']

Originally Posted by bobafett ↗

That's not what was advertised when I signed up 7 years ago. It stated it was a one time fee.

"Supporting Member:
Supporting members are members that have donated the suggested amount of 13$ to help support the site. They have no ads, and no restrictions placed on their accounts for a term of one year, once that year passes, their account will drop down to the Registered Users level. After that one year passes, if you donate the suggested amount again, your account will be moved back up to a Supporting Member for another year."

[bobafett]

Like I just said. That's not how it was setup when I originally signed up, and I paid more than $13 back then, so go fuck yourself.

[SimoneFlen']

Originally Posted by bobafett ↗

Like I just said. That's not how it was setup when I originally signed up, and I paid more than $13 back then, so go fuck yourself.

Why the fuck are you being a cunt? I'm stating the facts to you dickhead.

If you want to have a tantrum like a little child, take it up with chris, I'm sure he'll be happy to put you straight. Fucking twat!

[kasapin]

cool down guys... both of you have a point.. things have changed since bobafett signed up... my memory also has it that it was one time payment... but hey now it changed.. so adapt.

back to topic... this documentary shows a different not that popular story:

[bobafett]

Originally Posted by kasapin ↗

cool down guys... both of you have a point.. things have changed since bobafett signed up... my memory also has it that it was one time payment... but hey now it changed.. so adapt.

so what you are saying is the lifetime membership i purchased was not a lifetime membership. I just checked archive.org and that's exactly how it was advertised back then. I'm sorry, but I feel like I should be grandfathered in, and not forced to pay more if I want to view something posted to the site.

[kasapin]

Originally Posted by bobafett ↗

so what you are saying is the lifetime membership i purchased was not a lifetime membership. I just checked archive.org and that's exactly how it was advertised back then. I'm sorry, but I feel like I should be grandfathered in, and not forced to pay more if I want to view something posted to the site.

You may have a point.. Contact Chris ... it is up to him in the end. Fighting in a thread with other members wont accomplish anything .