Originally Posted by Talia2006

"Then who said that Sunny Side is Albanian. I did not! So from whom exactly were you defending him? Or better yet, why did you have a sudden urge to say that Sunny Side is not Albanian?"

the reason he felt the urge, is that you said you were tired of answering albanian posters, that they were not objective....thereby insinuating that he and others who were pro-KOSOVO in their posts were albanian.
personally I am not albanian....and I feel nationality is irrelevant, I only tell you to convince you that Im not biased by nationality in stating my oppinion.

Originally Posted by drama

Then are you his lawyer? In that case I want to see the legal paperworks that go with representing someone's view in a political forum.

I never said anything about Sunny Side and his comments. In all honesty I think he is one of the most objective posters on this board and represents views of all and would love to see some closure on this issue via compromise of both parties involved.

Originally Posted by Talia2006

your quote;" Ok Savior I will try to respond but honestly I am really tired of responding to these accusations by these Albanian posters simple because they are not even a bit objective. I was not EVEN able to establish the fact that Kosovo was Serbian about 60 days ago (before they self proclaimed it)."

I rest my case.

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

The reason I would not trust Russia to be a neutral observer.




Emphasis mine. You have no way of knowing that.




You implied it...I responded with a fact (Sunnyside is not albanian). You then claimed I put words in your mouth.

I never put words in your mouth. I simply pointed out that Sunnyside isn't Albanian as far as I know. Which is true. Stating a fact is not putting words in your mouth.



I did not defend him. I stated a fact.

From what I have seen, he can defend himself quite nicely.




To clear up any possible confusion. It seems to be a variable with you.



If you want to convince me of your position you do.

If you don't want to convince me of your position, then I'm not sure what the point of your response is in the first place.

You asked why I did not acknowledge that they "lied", and I gave you an answer.




I don't accept your premise, and it isn't up to me to find evidence to support your own claims. If you are making the claim, you are expected to provide the evidence. Your accusations are not correct by default.



I am not taking your word for it that they lied.



Then your effort was pointless. I already knew that. You have told me nothing new.




I trust them more than I trust you. They have to answer to the media and to their superiors. You dont. They are under public scrutiny. You are not.




See above. I dont assume they are by default. Whether they are accurate or not is irrelevant if all alternative sources are less accurate than they are.



Nonsequitur.




Collateral damage is not deliberate.



Why?




Which is fine. But killing someone by accident is not the same thing as shooting them deliberately.




Request denied.

Semantics are relevant to this discussion. If the words both mean the same thing to you, why use the word "lie" at all? Why not just say "mistake"?



I disagree. The level is irrelevant. A lie requires intent.



I have no idea. I don't know the details surrounding each individual that made the decisions.




In order to stop their oppression of another people? Yes, it is ok to do that.

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

I know...I think all of my points are pretty obvious too. But I am trying to be patient with you.



Yes.

Not sure how it works in your country, but in America we differentiate even in our own legal system. If you kill someone deliberately, the crime is murder. If you kill someone accidentally by negligence, it is manslaughter. The penalties for murder are far worse than manslaughter, because we distinguish between the two crimes.

That distinction is not confined to America...most of Europe recognizes it as well.



By the circumstances surrounding the crime. Ultimately, it is subjective.

If I hit you with my car because I didn't see you, that is not murder, even if I killed you.

If I hit you with my car because I was deliberately trying to run you over, and you are killed, that is murder.

Intent matters.

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

I know...I think all of my points are pretty obvious too. But I am trying to be patient with you.



Yes.

Not sure how it works in your country, but in America we differentiate even in our own legal system. If you kill someone deliberately, the crime is murder. If you kill someone accidentally by negligence, it is manslaughter. The penalties for murder are far worse than manslaughter, because we distinguish between the two crimes.

That distinction is not confined to America...most of Europe recognizes it as well.



By the circumstances surrounding the crime. Ultimately, it is subjective.

If I hit you with my car because I didn't see you, that is not murder, even if I killed you.

If I hit you with my car because I was deliberately trying to run you over, and you are killed, that is murder.

Intent matters.

Originally Posted by TrueAlbo2006

you should become a lawyer. No doubt, you would be very successful!