No shit, Sherlock.

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Friday, June 13, 2008 03:46
VIEWED: 7860
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

AURAPTOR

Monday, June 9, 2008 11:38 PM

So, Saddam would have been a camel hump groomer had the big bad USA not come along and force fed him guns and ammo ?

Really Chris... you're too funny.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, June 9, 2008 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hey, Winston Churchill ordered the use of gas on Kurds
Actually, there's no evidence I know of that gas was used during the Kurdish uprising, just that it was suggested.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
]

after doing some additional research it is pretty well documented that Churchill requested to use gas on rebellious arab populations...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

I have found a split in sites who state that either use was considered or it actually happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

Lets party like its 1939

SIGNYM

Monday, June 9, 2008 11:56 PM

Quote:
Saddam would have been a camel hump groomer had the big bad USA not come along and force fed him guns and ammo ?

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Rapo, you surprise me! You got to the nub in 30 words or less!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
after doing some additional research it is pretty well documented that Churchill requested to use gas on rebellious arab populations...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

Suggested and Requested mean much the same thing in this context, though requested and actually used are two different things.

Quote:
I have found a split in sites who state that either use was considered or it actually happened.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

That's the same opinion piece I responded to before. There's still no evidence that gas was actually used or even authorised.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 2:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Really Chris... you're too funny.

And you are consistently amusing as well.

But really, Citizen nailed it very clearly. Notice he's not saying "America is to blame for all world evils" there. His was an objective, non-partisan analysis of the situation- best listen to and fully digest his fair & thoughtful post, IMO.

The momentarily serious Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 2:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Saddam would have been a camel hump groomer had the big bad USA not come along and force fed him guns and ammo ?
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Rapo, you surprise me! You got to the nub in 30 words or less!

He must've 'ad an apostrophe.

Smeadisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 2:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Really Chris... you're too funny.

And you are consistently amusing as well.
But really, Citizen nailed it very clearly. Notice he's not saying "America is to blame for all world evils" there. His was an objective, non-partisan analysis of the situation- best listen to and fully digest his fair & thoughtful post, IMO.

The momentarily serious Chrisisall

Why then were we getting bombed, attacked back when Clinton was in office? Can't blame the Neocons for the Islamo fascists bombing of the WTC in '93, can ya? Or the USS Cole ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Why then were we getting bombed, attacked back when Clinton was in office?

Are you really asking me?
We built up decades of hate from both dumass Dems & hardline Reps...our support of Israel & dismissal of the Palestinians combined with our palsy nature with their leaders whom we corrupted with the sickness of greed due to our dependence on the Holy Black Crude is what precipitated it.

Quote:
Can't blame the Neocons for the Islamo fascists bombing of the WTC in '93, can ya? Or the USS Cole ?

Not so much- that's on the idiots in power at the time. But look deeper than just Dims or Repugs here...the real power is where the money is...

Puppet theatreisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...the real power is where the money is...

Puppet theatreisall

Colonel Sanders ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
after doing some additional research it is pretty well documented that Churchill requested to use gas on rebellious arab populations...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html
Suggested and Requested mean much the same thing in this context, though requested and actually used are two different things.
Quote:
I have found a split in sites who state that either use was considered or it actually happened.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts
That's the same opinion piece I responded to before. There's still no evidence that gas was actually used or even authorised.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

I found dozens of opinion pieces that say the same thing.....

Tomorrow I'll go looking for something better than Wikipedia or Fox news

But the fact he asked for permission to use Mustard and chlorine gas on civilian targets really says something... I mean it isn't a point of contention he ordered widespread aerial bombing of dissenters

Well hopefully tommorow

Lets party like its 1939

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:36 AM

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...the real power is where the money is...

Puppet theatreisall

Colonel Sanders ?

See that can of whoopass by your feet AU? Open it.

Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I found dozens of opinion pieces that say the same thing.....

They're still opinion peices, and without evidence one opinion peice is as good as ten. Consider, it could be just one opinion, they could all be parroting what they heard, and what they heard could have been from the same place. Requested could be misunderstood as used in one account, then picked up and passed around. I'm not saying it defiantly wasn't used, I'm saying it there's no evidence, and it seems fair to say guilty until proven innocent.

Quote:
But the fact he asked for permission to use Mustard and chlorine gas on civilian targets really says something...

Not really, this was prior to any international bans or treaties on gas, when it was still a valid weapon of war, and had been wielded against and by British troops in the First World War, only a few years previously. Britain was fighting a costly war in an Imperial possession foisted on them by the League of Nations, a war costing the British more than the original British supported Arab uprisings previously. I don't think it's correct to say Churchill was as bad as Saddam or whatever because he wanted to use Gas back then.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

See that can of whoopass by your feet AU? Open it.

Chrisisall

What, and let the springy snakes fly out ? Not a chance!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I found dozens of opinion pieces that say the same thing.....
They're still opinion peices, and without evidence one opinion peice is as good as ten. Consider, it could be just one opinion, they could all be parroting what they heard, and what they heard could have been from the same place. Requested could be misunderstood as used in one account, then picked up and passed around. I'm not saying it defiantly wasn't used, I'm saying it there's no evidence, and it seems fair to say guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
But the fact he asked for permission to use Mustard and chlorine gas on civilian targets really says something...
Not really, this was prior to any international bans or treaties on gas, when it was still a valid weapon of war, and had been wielded against and by British troops in the First World War, only a few years previously. Britain was fighting a costly war in an Imperial possession foisted on them by the League of Nations, a war costing the British more than the original British supported Arab uprisings previously. I don't think it's correct to say Churchill was as bad as Saddam or whatever because he wanted to use Gas back then.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Take me a bit to find the link again, but there were treaties. Only they decided that the treaty only applied if they were fighting a " civilized "
enemy. Rebelling indigenous people didn't count as civilized so whatever means to massacre them was okay.

It seems we have hit one of those was Hitler worse than Stalin debates. Hmmm concentration camps vs starvation.....

BTW are you trying to say Britain was forced to try to maintain its empire by the League of Nations ? Not really buying that sorry

Lets party like its 1939

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Take me a bit to find the link again, but there were treaties. Only they decided that the treaty only applied if they were fighting a " civilized "
enemy. Rebelling indigenous people didn't count as civilized so whatever means to massacre them was okay.

The only treaties that I know of that went into effect weren't signed until after the Arab uprising. There's the Arms something or other of Washington in 1920, but that didn't go into effect because the French wouldn't sign off on it.

Quote:
It seems we have hit one of those was Hitler worse than Stalin debates. Hmmm concentration camps vs starvation.....

Not really, comparing Churchill to either is simply assine.

Quote:
BTW are you trying to say Britain was forced to try to maintain its empire by the League of Nations ? Not really buying that sorry

No, I'm saying that the League of Nations made Iraq (Actually Mesopotamia, which Iraq was a part of) a protectorate of the British Empire, and compelled Britain to maintain and run it, under the Mandate of Mesopotamia. Iraq wasn't 'officially' part of the British empire, Britain took short term control of Iraq to help it toward nationhood after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1930, as it was supposed to under the dictates of the League of Nations Mandate. I don't expect you to buy anything, it's verifiable history.

EDIT:
According to Wikipedia, it wasn't until 1925 that use of Poison gas was outlawed, except the US, which didn't ratify the treaty until 1975:

Quote:
In 1925, sixteen of the world's major nations signed the Geneva Protocol, thereby pledging never to use gas in warfare again. Notably, in the United States, the Protocol languished in the Senate until 1975, when it was finally ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_gas#Interwar_years

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:05 PM

Quote:
Why then were we getting bombed, attacked back when Clinton was in office? Can't blame the Neocons for the Islamo fascists bombing of the WTC in '93, can ya? Or the USS Cole ?

Rapo, do you know the word "history"? Does your definition extend backwards to anything beyond "but Clinton"?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 6:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Why then were we getting bombed, attacked back when Clinton was in office? Can't blame the Neocons for the Islamo fascists bombing of the WTC in '93, can ya? Or the USS Cole ?
Rapo, do you know the word "history"? Does your definition extend backwards to anything beyond "but Clinton"?

---------------------------------
.

It never ends w/ you, does it? You're assuming I give their grievances any credit, of which I do NOT. Listening to the terrorist about how "unjustly " they've been treated is akin to paying close attention to Hitler rant on about his struggle. Please !

Oh sure, it sucks to have been them at times, I've no doubt. But none of that, in any way , gives them the slightest right to claim justification for what they did on Sept. 11, or any other time the US has been attacked before then.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh sure, it sucks to have been them at times, I've no doubt. But none of that, in any way , gives them the slightest right to claim justification for what they did on Sept. 11, or any other time the US has been attacked before then.

Why?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:12 PM

Quote:
It never ends w/ you, does it? You're assuming I give their grievances any credit, of which I do NOT. Listening to the terrorist about how "unjustly " they've been treated is akin to paying close attention to Hitler rant on about his struggle. Please !

Yanno, it might have been a good idea to pay attention to the rising young Hitler and German grievances. If Germany hadn't been on the ropes economically and diplomatically (Can you say hyperinflation and war reparations? Sure you can!) Hitler would have remained a soap-box orator and part-time artist. The fact that he found millions ready and willing to follow his path should tell you that there is more to popular movements than a single nutcase.

We avoided repeating THAT history by rebuilding Germany and Japan... both monsters which spawned concentration camps and death marches and killed tens of millions. We didn't grind them into the dust, altho that would be YOUR approach. That should tell you what works and what doesn't. But you're deaf and blind to history.

Quote:
Oh sure, it sucks to have been them at times, I've no doubt.

What with the being taken over, bombed, invaded and all that. But... who's counting, eh?

Quote:
But none of that, in any way , gives them the slightest right to claim justification for what they did on Sept. 11, or any other time the US has been attacked before then.

Just as it sucks to be them sometimes it also sucks to be us sometimes, but by your own logic we had no justification to attack anyone either. Or to meddle in their nations.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh sure, it sucks to have been them at times, I've no doubt. But none of that, in any way , gives them the slightest right to claim justification for what they did on Sept. 11, or any other time the US has been attacked before then.
Why?

No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Take me a bit to find the link again, but there were treaties. Only they decided that the treaty only applied if they were fighting a " civilized "
enemy. Rebelling indigenous people didn't count as civilized so whatever means to massacre them was okay.
The only treaties that I know of that went into effect weren't signed until after the Arab uprising. There's the Arms something or other of Washington in 1920, but that didn't go into effect because the French wouldn't sign off on it.
Quote:
It seems we have hit one of those was Hitler worse than Stalin debates. Hmmm concentration camps vs starvation.....
Not really, comparing Churchill to either is simply assine.
Quote:
BTW are you trying to say Britain was forced to try to maintain its empire by the League of Nations ? Not really buying that sorry
No, I'm saying that the League of Nations made Iraq (Actually Mesopotamia, which Iraq was a part of) a protectorate of the British Empire, and compelled Britain to maintain and run it, under the Mandate of Mesopotamia. Iraq wasn't 'officially' part of the British empire, Britain took short term control of Iraq to help it toward nationhood after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1930, as it was supposed to under the dictates of the League of Nations Mandate. I don't expect you to buy anything, it's verifiable history.

EDIT:
According to Wikipedia, it wasn't until 1925 that use of Poison gas was outlawed, except the US, which didn't ratify the treaty until 1975:
Quote:
In 1925, sixteen of the world's major nations signed the Geneva Protocol, thereby pledging never to use gas in warfare again. Notably, in the United States, the Protocol languished in the Senate until 1975, when it was finally ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_gas#Interwar_years

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

After doing some further reading I'm willing to concede the point that Chemical weapons were not used.

That said they were shipped in theater, and Churchill did seek permission for their use.

On the other hand, Churchill in order to maintain control of Mesopotamia ( cheaply as you pointed out ) did order the aerial bombing of civilian targets.

I submit he was willing to use any means to control the Kurdish population, as did Saddam.....

So in short, I compare him to Saddam in his actions...

I'm sure you disagree

impasse

Lets party like its 1939

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.

High horse much, AU?

I'll answer for ya then:

Because we do no intentional wrong, of course. We mean well, even when we arm one side, then the other, back tyrants, schmooze with oppressors and such. These little countries have no business being mad at us, and if they are, we have every right to pre-emptively pull the chain on them.

How's that?

AUisall

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.

It's not a ridiculous or absurd question. You made a statement as flat out fact, I asked you to explain your assumption. The fact you seem unwilling or unable to do so only undermines your own premise.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I submit he was willing to use any means to control the Kurdish population, as did Saddam.....

So in short, I compare him to Saddam in his actions...

I'm sure you disagree

impasse

There was nothing cheap about the operations in the region, and Britain had recently been economically crippled, and had nearly and entire generation of young men wiped out in one of the most destructive wars in history.

I would ask, what do you think of the comparison between Mackenzie King and Adolf Hitler?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.

High horse much, AU?

I'll answer for ya then:

Because we do no intentional wrong, of course. We mean well, even when we arm one side, then the other, back tyrants, schmooze with oppressors and such. These little countries have no business being mad at us, and if they are, we have every right to pre-emptively pull the chain on them.

How's that?

AUisall

Chris, we don't do anything that any other country isn't trying to do. They might use different means, but their goals are as lofty, or as devious as ours. Point being NONE of that in any way justifies what happened on Sept.11., 01. High horse, you're damn right, Every day and twice on Sunday. Once you side w/ the terrorist, then there's really nothing you can say when I or anyone else decides they want to rape your daughter or your wife. Hey, they had it comin', don't blame me!

C'mon now, this isn't even a serious discussion. I refuse to even acknowledge the basic premise of the concept. Not now, never.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
C'mon now, this isn't even a serious discussion. I refuse to even acknowledge the basic premise of the concept. Not now, never.

What basic premise? A question was asked, you were unwilling or unable to answer it. The only implication of my question is in your inability or unwillingness to answer it. If it's so silly, and obvious as to not be worth talking about, you should have no problem answering the question.

Quote:
Chris, we don't do anything that any other country isn't trying to do. They might use different means, but their goals are as lofty, or as devious as ours. Point being NONE of that in any way justifies what happened on Sept.11., 01. High horse, you're damn right, Every day and twice on Sunday.

Every country is just trying to protect it's own interests, though not every country gets quite as indignant about others protecting they're interests as America and Americans seem to. I sometimes wonder if Americans as a people actually realise that there are people outside of the USA, I mean the American only sports tournament apparently isn't the American Series, its the World Series. A country is either working to further American interests, or a threat to the world as a whole. What gives?

Quote:
Once you side w/ the terrorist, then there's really nothing you can say when I or anyone else decides they want to rape your daughter or your wife. Hey, they had it comin', don't blame me!

Yeah, but they see you as the 'terrorist', so saying "them doin' it to us is bad, us doin' it to them is good", doesn't really wash. You're not giving any reasons, you're just stating what's what, and leering at people for not accepting your say so. The death toll is heavily skewed to the Arabs, America has directly killed more Arabs than Arabs have killed Americans, even if we just talk civilians and ignore deaths by American proxies. A lot of the Arabs who have died at American hands aren't terrorists, they're no different to those that dies in 2001, yet you maintain that America has legitimate reasons to attack them, but they don't have legitimate reasons to attack you, why? Manifest Destiny? Or are American's just worth more than Arabs?

Don't forget that your country was founded by people who today would have been labeled terrorists. What was the American justification for the Killing of British Soldiers and Civilians during the war of Independence? Not wanting to pay taxes? What makes that a better justification than the oppression and killing of Arabs? Or is it just different because "they're them and you're you?"

America has been in the business of oppressing and killing the people of the Middle East since at least the 1950's, there's no justification for that either, but it hasn't stopped you. They have no multi-trillion dollar military, the terrorist attacks on America are the only way they could fight back. That's not condoning it, it's not justifying it, it's understanding it. Saying "They have no right to attack us, but we have every right to attack them" is part of the reason they want to kill you. It's also reminiscent of the nationalism that had a hand in causing the First World War. As was parodied in Blackadder goes forth:

Quote:
Lieutenant George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
Captain Blackadder: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
Lieutenant George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [Aside, to Baldrick] Mad as a bicycle!

At the end of the day you can say they have no justification, but then, neither do Americans for a lot of what they've done in the Middle East. What makes your unjustified acts better than theirs?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in st

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I submit he was willing to use any means to control the Kurdish population, as did Saddam.....

So in short, I compare him to Saddam in his actions...

I'm sure you disagree

impasse
There was nothing cheap about the operations in the region, and Britain had recently been economically crippled, and had nearly and entire generation of young men wiped out in one of the most destructive wars in history.

I would ask, what do you think of the comparison between Mackenzie King and Adolf Hitler?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

and yet they chose to use force to control a people who want to see them off their land.... sorry I think that is something like using the UN resolution to justify anything the US does in Iraq

As for Mackenzie King, he liked Hitler, disliked Asians and Jews. Rumor has it he kept several prostitutes in employ. Did he order the deaths of civilians to maintain power.... not to my knowledge, perhaps you know something I do not?

Lets party like its 1939

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
and yet they chose to use force to control a people who want to see them off their land.... sorry I think that is something like using the UN resolution to justify anything the US does in Iraq

You're still conveniently ignoring the simple fact that Britain wasn't there as part of imperialistic folly, it was carrying out a League of Nations mandate. As such it's more like using the UN intervention in Bosnia to justify bombings carried out by NATO aircraft. It's nothing like using UN resolutions to Justify the Iraq war, because Britain was placed in it's position and compelled to keep order by the order of a League of Nations mandate, the US was not given a UN mandate to invade Iraq. So it's completely and entirely different.

Quote:
As for Mackenzie King, he liked Hitler, disliked Asians and Jews. Rumor has it he kept several prostitutes in employ. Did he order the deaths of civilians to maintain power.... not to my knowledge, perhaps you know something I do not?

Hitler put civilians in concentration camps, Mackenzie King did likewise.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:38 PM

This may be off topic - but I couldn't help but drop this into the No Shit, Sherlock thread - it just fits.

Saw this yesterday - in an interview with the Times, of the UK Bush says the following.... no shit

Quote:
“I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article410
7327.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164

again - no shit

what a, you know, doofus.....

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:55 PM

RAPO-

Quote:
Chris, we don't do anything that any other country isn't trying to do.

Bullshit. No other nation has as many foreign bases as the USA. We spend more money on "defense" that everyone else combined. 99% of nations have no interest in being an empire.

Quote:
They might use different means

And that's the point. If you have something I want I can pay for it or I can get a gun, shoot you or at least intimidate you, and take it. More often than not, we do the latter.

Quote:
Point being NONE of that in any way justifies what happened on Sept.11., 01.

And by YOUR logic, very few of our "interventions" are justified either.

Quote:
Once you side w/ the terrorist, then there's really nothing you can say when I or anyone else decides they want to rape your daughter or your wife.

So when we bomb/ kill/ rape people it's OK but when others do it it's terrorism. Got it! (BTW- Do you even have a wife? Daughter? Girlfriend? Why do you keep hiding behind skirts all of the time?)

Quote:
C'mon now, this isn't even a serious discussion. I refuse to even acknowledge the basic premise of the concept.

What concept is that? The concept of having a military bootprint all over the friggin' world and then whining Why do they hate us so much??? The fact that we've effectively been putting a gun to the head of the world and now that other nations are economically coming on-line we're getting all paranoid about the blowback? Yanno Rapo, our military is in their region, not the other way around. You're doing very much what you described Hitler as doing: whining about the trials and tribulations of empire.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
and yet they chose to use force to control a people who want to see them off their land.... sorry I think that is something like using the UN resolution to justify anything the US does in Iraq
You're still conveniently ignoring the simple fact that Britain wasn't there as part of imperialistic folly, it was carrying out a League of Nations mandate. As such it's more like using the UN intervention in Bosnia to justify bombings carried out by NATO aircraft. It's nothing like using UN resolutions to Justify the Iraq war, because Britain was placed in it's position and compelled to keep order by the order of a League of Nations mandate, the US was not given a UN mandate to invade Iraq. So it's completely and entirely different.
Quote:
As for Mackenzie King, he liked Hitler, disliked Asians and Jews. Rumor has it he kept several prostitutes in employ. Did he order the deaths of civilians to maintain power.... not to my knowledge, perhaps you know something I do not?
Hitler put civilians in concentration camps, Mackenzie King did likewise.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
]

I do not believe that British actions as part of the League of Nations mandate was selfless as you imply, it very much had to do with imperialism and economic control ( oil - surprise ). Dividing the spoils of the Ottoman empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Iraq

also this movie was terrific

A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099356/

As for concentration camps, are you referring to Japanese internment ?

While not agreeing with the policy do you think conditions in those camps were better or worse than the British concentration camps set up for the Boers, or in India during their independence movement ?

Once again I am still not aware of any deaths being ordered by King

Lets party like its 1939

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I do not believe that British actions as part of the League of Nations mandate was selfless as you imply, it very much had to do with imperialism and economic control ( oil - surprise ). Dividing the spoils of the Ottoman empire.

I didn't say, nor imply they were, I said they were in compliance with a League of Nations Mandate, which also compelled them to keep order. You said it's all about British imperialism, and that's simply not true. Everything done by nations is on some level self interest, but the fact is at the time Britain wouldn't have been there if the League hadn't mandated it, that is if the League of Nations hadn't put them there, and they could very well have withdrawn from a frankly fucked up situation inherited from the Ottomans if the Mandate hadn't kept them there.

Your dividing the spoils line belies the fact that Iraq was given Independence in 1930, as they were supposed to under the mandate, that you'd have us believe had nothing to do with Britain being there.

Quote:
As for concentration camps, are you referring to Japanese internment ?

Yes.

Quote:
While not agreeing with the policy do you think conditions in those camps were better or worse than the British concentration camps set up for the Boers, or in India during their independence movement ?

We could go all day about the whose country is worse, but that would just be to ignore the actual point further. Nice dodge though.

Quote:
Once again I am still not aware of any deaths being ordered by King

Since, despite Churchill requesting it, gas was never used on the Kurds, no deaths resulted from that either. It hasn't stopped you comparing Churchill to Saddam, so by your logic no deaths doesn't stop me comparing King to Hitler. I don't think there's anything to a comparison between Hitler and King, the same as there's no comparison between Saddam and Churchill. However, if you want to jam Churchill into the definition of a mass murdering military dictator who gassed his own people, because Churchill requested to use gas once, I have no problem comparing King to a mass murdering military dictator who interned his own civilian population in camps, because King interned some of his own population in camps once. It's your logic, not mine, if it only works where you want it to work, that indicates it's your logic that's faulty, not mine.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I do not believe that British actions as part of the League of Nations mandate was selfless as you imply, it very much had to do with imperialism and economic control ( oil - surprise ). Dividing the spoils of the Ottoman empire.
I didn't say, nor imply they were, I said they were in compliance with a League of Nations Mandate, which also compelled them to keep order. You said it's all about British imperialism, and that's simply not true. Everything done by nations is on some level self interest, but the fact is at the time Britain wouldn't have been there if the League hadn't mandated it, that is if the League of Nations hadn't put them there, and they could very well have withdrawn from a frankly fucked up situation inherited from the Ottomans if the Mandate hadn't kept them there.

Your dividing the spoils line belies the fact that Iraq was given Independence in 1930, as they were supposed to under the mandate, that you'd have us believe had nothing to do with Britain being there.
Quote:
As for concentration camps, are you referring to Japanese internment ?
Yes.
Quote:
While not agreeing with the policy do you think conditions in those camps were better or worse than the British concentration camps set up for the Boers, or in India during their independence movement ?
We could go all day about the whose country is worse, but that would just be to ignore the actual point further. Nice dodge though.
Quote:
Once again I am still not aware of any deaths being ordered by King
Since, despite Churchill requesting it, gas was never used on the Kurds, no deaths resulted from that either. It hasn't stopped you comparing Churchill to Saddam, so by your logic no deaths doesn't stop me comparing King to Hitler. I don't think there's anything to a comparison between Hitler and King, the same as there's no comparison between Saddam and Churchill. However, if you want to jam Churchill into the definition of a mass murdering military dictator who gassed his own people, because Churchill requested to use gas once, I have no problem comparing King to a mass murdering military dictator who interned his own civilian population in camps, because King interned some of his own population in camps once. It's your logic, not mine, if it only works where you want it to work, that indicates it's your logic that's faulty, not mine.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

The dodge is yours, are you denying the aerial bombing of civilian targets ?

As for your independence angle, the treaty provided for a "close alliance," for "full and frank consultations between the two countries in all matters of foreign policy," and for mutual assistance in case of war. Iraq granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Al Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country.

In other words rule by proxy, Britain maintain control over any issue they felt in their interest and allowed the rest to be ran by their picked lackeys. Also they held their control over the Turkish Petroleum Company and nearly all of the oil concessions.

In other words the same crap the US is trying to set up today.

I have conceded the point gas was not used a few times, but machinegun and bombings attacks did the trick, and I believe that was the reason gas was b not used.

If you wish to throw King in with Saddam and Churchill, while you have presented no fact of deaths or ordered attacks causing deaths, etc.....

Sure I'll accept it. Saddam, Churchill and King.. all bastards of the same stripe.

Lets party like its 1939

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The dodge is yours, are you denying the aerial bombing of civilian targets ?

No, and the point I was making didn't require it, I'm not even sure who you are talking too now. You dodged the point I was making by going off on a tangent. I on the other hand have tackled everything you've brought up head on.

Quote:
As for your independence angle, the treaty provided for a "close alliance," for "full and frank consultations between the two countries in all matters of foreign policy," and for mutual assistance in case of war. Iraq granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Al Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country.

Spurred on by your pre-existing bias no doubt, you're making far more of it than there actually was. I never denied the British used the opportunity to gain influence, I said that they were there and were compelled to fight the Arab uprising due to the Mandate. Given the British position at the time they wouldn't have even been there if it wasn't for the Mandate. Rather than tackle that, you simply lie about what I said, bravo you.

Quote:
I have conceded the point gas was not used a few times, but machinegun and bombings attacks did the trick, and I believe that was the reason gas was b not used.

Believe what you like, fact is gas wasn't used, so you've got no deaths to point to from Gas, which was your big reason for comparison of Churchill to Saddam. Your premise was that Churchill was like Saddam because he used Gas on the Kurds, now that's been conceded you're saying it's because of the aerial attacks, and trying to imply I'm denying they took place. No, I was talking about your original assertion regarding gas, but since we're talking parallels with US policy, it's certainly been the Bush administrations policy to change they're rhetoric then act like that's always what they were saying.

Quote:
If you wish to throw King in with Saddam and Churchill, while you have presented no fact of deaths or ordered attacks causing deaths, etc.....

Like here for instance. I was only ever arguing against your assertion that Churchill used Gas, you are lying about what I said, and you are lying about what you said. My point never required proof of deaths, my point was just highlighting the absurdity of your logic (or rather illogic). It's you who had to show deaths from Churchill's Gas attacks, and it's you who've been unable to do so. You say you've conceded the point, but you haven't really, you're just trying to use smoke and mirrors to shift the argument, that's called a strawman and a red herring BTW. If you feel you have to lie about what I said and what you said to make yourself appear the 'winner', knock yourself out, it doesn't reflect on my character at all

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:35 PM

'Rappy:

You say there are no possible justifications for "the terrorist", without ever stopping long enough to consider what drives one to BECOME a terrorist.

When you and your family have been imprisoned for simply being the wrong color or religion, when you and your family have been targetted for extermination because of your beliefs, when you have been given no rights, and no possible legal means of redress to air grievances about not having those rights, when your land, your home, your job, and your family are all taken away from you simply because you're different from those in charge, what's left to you?

I don't know about you, but at some point, I'm going to break. I'll snap, I'll put on that explosive vest, I'll pick up a sniper rifle, and I'll try to take as many of the bastards as I can with me when I die. We've seen it all over the world - Iraq, Beirut, Palestine, Nicauragua, El Salvador, Ireland, Algeria, Viet Nam, Burma, and even the good old USA, where a small band of "terrorists" decided that rather than lay down and die for their King, they'd stand up and fight for their land. We call them "Founding Fathers" and "Patriots", but they were, in every sense of the word, terrorists.

Terrorists become terrorists largely because they can see and find no other way out of their situation, and death for a just cause feels better than death by slow starvation.

Suppose I were somehow able to pass a law in this country that outlawed the Rebublican part and made conservatives criminals, with no legal rights or standings whatsoever. Being a longtime conservative, your positions are pretty public and clearly known, so I'll make an example of you in your town by siezing all your assets, booting you out of your home and off your land, and taking everything you have, except for what you can carry on your back. Don't bother trying to fight it in the courts; you have no standing there. As a person, you simply no longer exist - except for the fact that there you are, defiantly EXISTING when you've been told to either go away or lie down and die.

What would you do? Would you fight? Would you do what you're told? Would you just follow blindly along?

That's the mindset we're dealing with with a lot of these terrorists - people who feel they have nothing left to lose but their lives, which aren't worth squat the way they've been treated up to now.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The dodge is yours, are you denying the aerial bombing of civilian targets ?
No, and the point I was making didn't require it, I'm not even sure who you are talking too now. You dodged the point I was making by going off on a tangent. I on the other hand have tackled everything you've brought up head on.
Quote:
As for your independence angle, the treaty provided for a "close alliance," for "full and frank consultations between the two countries in all matters of foreign policy," and for mutual assistance in case of war. Iraq granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Al Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country.
Spurred on by your pre-existing bias no doubt, you're making far more of it than there actually was. I never denied the British used the opportunity to gain influence, I said that they were there and were compelled to fight the Arab uprising due to the Mandate. Given the British position at the time they wouldn't have even been there if it wasn't for the Mandate. Rather than tackle that, you simply lie about what I said, bravo you.
Quote:
I have conceded the point gas was not used a few times, but machinegun and bombings attacks did the trick, and I believe that was the reason gas was b not used.
Believe what you like, fact is gas wasn't used, so you've got no deaths to point to from Gas, which was your big reason for comparison of Churchill to Saddam. Your premise was that Churchill was like Saddam because he used Gas on the Kurds, now that's been conceded you're saying it's because of the aerial attacks, and trying to imply I'm denying they took place. No, I was talking about your original assertion regarding gas, but since we're talking parallels with US policy, it's certainly been the Bush administrations policy to change they're rhetoric then act like that's always what they were saying.
Quote:
If you wish to throw King in with Saddam and Churchill, while you have presented no fact of deaths or ordered attacks causing deaths, etc.....
Like here for instance. I was only ever arguing against your assertion that Churchill used Gas, you are lying about what I said, and you are lying about what you said. My point never required proof of deaths, my point was just highlighting the absurdity of your logic (or rather illogic). It's you who had to show deaths from Churchill's Gas attacks, and it's you who've been unable to do so. You say you've conceded the point, but you haven't really, you're just trying to use smoke and mirrors to shift the argument, that's called a strawman and a red herring BTW. If you feel you have to lie about what I said and what you said to make yourself appear the 'winner', knock yourself out, it doesn't reflect on my character at all .

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

How manys times have I stated I was mistaken saying gas was used ?

I have also said that the weapons used were immaterial whether gas, nuclear, or machineguns and aerial bombing... civilians who didn't fall into line were killed for not bowing down to British authority.

You see no comparison to Saddam beating down the very same people for not bowing down to his authority years later.

You have tried to deflect responsibility to the league of nations for forcing poor Britain to jump in and control the brown man before he gets out of hand, I said bullshit they were there for the cash and pointed to treatys and deals made out of that mess which supports that thought.

You keep hammering on my original post, even after I admitted to being misled by an opinion piece, my argument has evolved, facts corrected, but you want to make this a matter of character.

Prove your point Britain didn't want control of the

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Perhaps we need others to help settle this, Chris ? Rue ?

Don't see as there's much to settle...you each have your points. But yeah, the gas issue is a little beat into the ground.

CIA

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:42 PM

Quote:
What would you do? Would you fight? Would you do what you're told? Would you just follow blindly along?

I don't think Rapo is interested in this thread anymore. I wonder why....

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
'Rappy:

You say there are no possible justifications for "the terrorist", without ever stopping long enough to consider what drives one to BECOME a terrorist.

Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad'. Not poverty, not the perceived notions of injustice, not the plight of the Palestinians, nor the non existent threat of the Jews against the millions of Arabs who out number them 100 to 1 in the surrounding region. No. it's none of that, nothing other than the twisted, distorted view that Allah is the one true God, and all are to obey , or die. That's all it is, nothing more.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad' . Nothing more.

Uh, that's nice.

Now can you answer Mike's question please?

Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad' . Nothing more.

Uh, that's nice.

Now can you answer Mike's question please?

Chrisisall

No, because the question is moot. It does not apply to what is going on around the world w/ Islam. It isn't relevant.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:03 PM

And mine?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And mine?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

You had a question ? Looked to me more like an ill informed , America hating rant than a question.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
How manys times have I stated I was mistaken saying gas was used ?

How many times have I stated half a dozen things that you've just ignored?

Quote:
I have also said that the weapons used were immaterial whether gas, nuclear, or machineguns and aerial bombing... civilians who didn't fall into line were killed for not bowing down to British authority.

I don't recall you saying that at all. But what's your next step? Bombing was used in Bosnia and killed civilians too, so are the leaders of the NATO nations also comparable to Saddam?

Quote:
You see no comparison to Saddam beating down the very same people for not bowing down to his authority years later.

Do I see any comparison between Saddam and Churchill? Do you see and comparison between King and Hitler?

Quote:
You have tried to deflect responsibility to the league of nations for forcing poor Britain to jump in and control the brown man before he gets out of hand, I said bullshit they were there for the cash and pointed to treatys and deals made out of that mess which supports that thought.

And you have tried to push all the responsibility on to Britain, and I'm calling Bullshit on your twisting of history. Britain capitalised on it's situation, contrary to what you've said about my posts, I've never denied that, in fact I stated it myself earlier, but it wouldn't have been in the area if the Mandate had been given to someone else. I can point to the Mandates by the League of Nations that put Britain in there, you can point to as many after the fact treaties and deals you like, but that won't make the Mandate disappear.

Britain capitalised on it's position, but it was there by Mandate, and I have the Mandates to prove it whether you like it or not. I'd ask though, if Britain was just in it for the cash from the beginning, do you believe in telepathy? Precognition? Because that's the only way they could have known Oil was there, since it wasn't discovered until the late 1920's.

Quote:
You keep hammering on my original post, even after I admitted to being misled by an opinion piece, my argument has evolved, facts corrected, but you want to make this a matter of character.

You're the one twisting and misrepresenting what I said, trying to insinuate I was talking about one thing when I was talking about another. I would say that's what made it about character.

I'm sorry if my response doesn't support your pre-conceived notion that Britain was a fascist state murdering everyone under the maniacal military rule of Herr Churchill, but a comparison between Churchill and Saddam is idiotic. Saddam was a totalitarian militaristic dictator who slaughtered his own people, and for all his faults Churchill wasn't. You're the one who hasn't proved your point. You started off by saying Churchill was like Saddam, because he used gas. You've let the gas thing go, but you just can't bear to let the "Churchill is Saddam" thing go can you? Despite not actually providing anything beyond hyperbole to support it.

The repression of the Kurds was hardly the defining aspect of Saddam's rule. Just because their policies in somewhat different circumstances and times are superficially similar doesn't mean there's any real meaningful comparison to make. Trying to expand one superficial similarity in to a "Churchill is Saddam" comparison is mere hyperbole and confirmation bias.

Quote:
Prove your point Britain didn't want control of the area, did they try to bring in other league members to form a coalition, have a debate where the government discussed a pull out, anything?

Well, that was never my point, did you not even bother to read my posts? My point was that Britain was given the Mandate for the region, which put them in Mesopotamia, and compelled them to stay there, when in fact given they're slow recovery after the First World War, the man power shortages, and the struggling economy, it's highly unlikely they would have entered the region without the Manda

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No, because the question is moot. It does not apply to what is going on around the world w/ Islam. It isn't relevant.

Congratulations, you've perfected the "Us VS. Them" mentality to it highest level, you have expunged empathy from your being, and limited yourself accordingly. You also prove that the message concerning The Operative and his redemption in Serenity is totally lost on you- you simply see a bad guy turn good.

Thus endith the expired equine concussions for me todayisall

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad'. Not poverty, not the perceived notions of injustice, not the plight of the Palestinians, nor the non existent threat of the Jews against the millions of Arabs who out number them 100 to 1 in the surrounding region. No. it's none of that, nothing other than the twisted, distorted view that Allah is the one true God, and all are to obey , or die. That's all it is, nothing more.

Quote:
The problem with America is that you are isolationists playing at globalism, you're too inward looking and ideological. You assume things are going to go the way you want, which leads you to be totally blind sided, and say things like "why do these people hate us?", when they don't.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No serious reply can be given to such a ridiculous and absurd question. Try again.
It's not a ridiculous or absurd question. You made a statement as flat out fact, I asked you to explain your assumption. The fact you seem unwilling or unable to do so only undermines your own premise.

I liked you better when you were partially defending Winston Churchill. At least then, I could passively sit by and side w/ you on something.

Other than that, there's little polite that I have to say, so I'll hold my tongue. I still don't believe anyone can hold the position that the US " had it comin' ". I never will. Ever.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No, because the question is moot. It does not apply to what is going on around the world w/ Islam. It isn't relevant.

Congratulations, you've perfected the "Us VS. Them" mentality to it highest level, you have expunged empathy from your being, and limited yourself accordingly. You also prove that the message concerning The Operative and his redemption in Serenity is totally lost on you- you simply see a bad guy turn good.

Thus endith the expired equine concussions for me todayisall

And congrats to you for buying into the distorted, revisionist and blatantly fabricated notion that those who think 9/11 was an abhorrent , unimaginable act of unprovoked violence upon a civilian population also hold that the US can do NO wrong, is blameless in every account and holds itself above all. That isn't me, nor do I think the US is " superior " in all or even most accounts. But what I do hold to is that nothing the US has done justifies the attacks of 9/11, or any other attacks in the previous 10 yrs.

Don't care what others think , that's how I feel, and I'm not going to change. Period.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Other than that, there's little polite that I have to say, so I'll hold my tongue. I still don't believe anyone can hold the position that the US " had it comin' ". I never will. Ever.

Hello, is this thing on? 123 123 testing? Seems there's some internet filter between my computer and the rest of the net.

I never said the US had it coming, that's them there simplifications you yankees seem to fall into rather too often with foreign policy. I believe my general sentiments were more along the lines of "enemies don't appear from thin air to attack the virtuous". Do you think the people currently getting hit by smart bombs and stray bullets really had it coming? It's still coming their way though.

Point is that you don't have to have something coming to be responsible for creating it.

The further point is, that if they're actions aren't justified, and your actions aren't justified, how the hell can you hold yourself morally superior?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
the distorted, revisionist and blatantly fabricated notion that those who think 9/11 was an abhorrent , unimaginable act of unprovoked violence upon a civilian population also hold that the US can do NO wrong, is blameless in every account and holds itself above all.

Well, there is a little light in the forest after all...

Twinkleisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Point is that you don't have to have something coming to be responsible for creating it.

Citizen, why do you hate Frankenstein monsters?

(?}isall

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:45 PM

Quote:
Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad'. Not poverty, not the perceived notions of injustice, not the plight of the Palestinians, nor the non existent threat of the Jews against the millions of Arabs who out number them 100 to 1 in the surrounding region. No. it's none of that, nothing other than the twisted, distorted view that Allah is the one true God, and all are to obey , or die. That's all it is, nothing more.

And THAT is the attitude that will keep you from ever "winning" this "war". You actually think that there are that many millions of "true believers" in Islam - believers so devout that they are willing and eager to die for their beliefs, while so many here - even the ones who BELIEVE in this war, and even the ones who LAUNCHED it - are not only unwilling to die for their beliefs, but are unwilling to even serve in the military services of their country - all the while claiming to be "patriots".

Once again, you've managed to utterly and completely buy into the bullshit that even BushCo knows better than to try to shovel - that this is a PURELY ideological conflict. It's not. War rarely is.

You think "god" is on your side, they think "allah" is on theirs. Guess what - whoever wins, it proves that they were right! After all, he's god, right? You think he'd back a loser?

Guess that means we *didn't* have god on our side in Korea, 'Nam, or Somalia... Why does god hate America?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Guess that means we *didn't* have god on our side in Korea, 'Nam, or Somalia... Why does god hate America?

God does NOT hate America, we were simply doing God's will as far as we needed to, to teach a lesson of some kind, and don't ask me what that was; God's plans cannot be understood by us, his children, or those Arabs, either.

I can really sound like an idiot when I want to...

Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:55 PM

citizen - points well taken. We understand each other, on this , better than I have stated. Also, not all my remarks were directed towards you, so pardon for my part for any resulting confusion or disconnect.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
How manys times have I stated I was mistaken saying gas was used ?
How many times have I stated half a dozen things that you've just ignored?
Quote:
I have also said that the weapons used were immaterial whether gas, nuclear, or machineguns and aerial bombing... civilians who didn't fall into line were killed for not bowing down to British authority.
I don't recall you saying that at all. But what's your next step? Bombing was used in Bosnia and killed civilians too, so are the leaders of the NATO nations also comparable to Saddam?
Quote:
You see no comparison to Saddam beating down the very same people for not bowing down to his authority years later.
Do I see any comparison between Saddam and Churchill? Do you see and comparison between King and Hitler?
Quote:
You have tried to deflect responsibility to the league of nations for forcing poor Britain to jump in and control the brown man before he gets out of hand, I said bullshit they were there for the cash and pointed to treatys and deals made out of that mess which supports that thought.
And you have tried to push all the responsibility on to Britain, and I'm calling Bullshit on your twisting of history. Britain capitalised on it's situation, contrary to what you've said about my posts, I've never denied that, in fact I stated it myself earlier, but it wouldn't have been in the area if the Mandate had been given to someone else. I can point to the Mandates by the League of Nations that put Britain in there, you can point to as many after the fact treaties and deals you like, but that won't make the Mandate disappear.

Britain capitalised on it's position, but it was there by Mandate, and I have the Mandates to prove it whether you like it or not. I'd ask though, if Britain was just in it for the cash from the beginning, do you believe in telepathy? Precognition? Because that's the only way they could have known Oil was there, since it wasn't discovered until the late 1920's.
Quote:
You keep hammering on my original post, even after I admitted to being misled by an opinion piece, my argument has evolved, facts corrected, but you want to make this a matter of character.
You're the one twisting and misrepresenting what I said, trying to insinuate I was talking about one thing when I was talking about another. I would say that's what made it about character.

I'm sorry if my response doesn't support your pre-conceived notion that Britain was a fascist state murdering everyone under the maniacal military rule of Herr Churchill, but a comparison between Churchill and Saddam is idiotic. Saddam was a totalitarian militaristic dictator who slaughtered his own people, and for all his faults Churchill wasn't. You're the one who hasn't proved your point. You started off by saying Churchill was like Saddam, because he used gas. You've let the gas thing go, but you just can't bear to let the "Churchill is Saddam" thing go can you? Despite not actually providing anything beyond hyperbole to support it.

The repression of the Kurds was hardly the defining aspect of Saddam's rule. Just because their policies in somewhat different circumstances and times are superficially similar doesn't mean there's any real meaningful comparison to make. Trying to expand one superficial similarity in to a "Churchill is Saddam" comparison is mere hyperbole and confirmation bias.
Quote:
Prove your point Britain didn't want control of the area, did they try to bring in other league members to form a coalition, have a debate where the government discussed a pull out, anything?
Well, that was never my point, did you not even bother to read my posts? My point was that Britain was given the Mandate for the region, which put them in Mesopotamia, and compelled them to stay there, when in fact given they're slow recovery after the First World War, the man power shortages, and the struggling economy, it's highly unlikely they would

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You actually think that there are that many millions of "true believers" in Islam - believers so devout that they are willing and eager to die for their beliefs

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Many of them have shown this to be the case, that they 'd die for their beliefs. They're called 'suicide bombers', by some, 'homicide bombers' by others.

Back during the Iran/Iraq war, there were 10,000's of these fanaticals, fighting for Iran. They were called estesh-hadiyun (martyrdom-seekers)

Ranging in age from only nine to more than fifty, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks. All such assaults faced Iraqi artillery fire and received heavy casualties. The Iranians sustained an immmense number of casualties, but they enabled Iran to recover some territory before the Iraqis could repulse the bulk of the invading forces.

Quote:
Once again, you've managed to utterly and completely buy into the bullshit that even BushCo knows better than to try to shovel - that this is a PURELY ideological conflict. It's not. War rarely is.

This has nothing to do w/ Bush, as the above point I just gave clearly shows.

Quote:
You think "god" is on your side, they think "allah" is on theirs. Guess what - whoever wins, it proves that they were right! After all, he's god, right? You think he'd back a loser?

I for one am an atheist, so I'm under no delusions that 'God' or 'Allah' is on anyone's side. I also know that the jihadist BELIEVE Allah to be on their side, and that's what drives their actions. I can disbelieve all I want, but it's what THEY believe that matters most, to them.

Quote:
Guess that means we *didn't* have god on our side in Korea, 'Nam, or Somalia... Why does god hate America?

Mike

God doesn't hate America, but it's clear you do.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:49 PM

Quote:
You had a question ? Looked to me more like an ill informed , America hating rant than a question

I had several. When I get the chance I'll repost them.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Sorry your opinion pieces do not convince me of any of your points,

but as this is spinning around in a circle lets just agree that we disagree on the subject and walk away.

I'm sorry the fact that there was much debate in Parliament on the issue, doesn't conform to what you want to believe.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:46 PM

Quote:

God doesn't hate America, but it's clear you do.

Ah, I see - you know what I feel, because you imagine yourself to BE god.

How is it again that I "hate America"? What exactly is my sin, O mighty Operative? Realizing that there are people outside our borders who don't share our viewpoints, or admitting that to those who hold them, those viewpoints might just be as valid as ours are to us? Realizing that to try to remake the entire war on terror into a war on all of Islam is a no-win situation? Realizing that we DO have enemies, and that to underestimate them or misidentify their aims and intentions is done solely at OUR peril? Is THAT what makes me such an America-hater?

Or do I hate America because I disagree with the party in power? Or because I don't believe in the absolute power of the "unitary executive" (known in other countries as a "dictator")? Or because I don't buy into the propagandizing that's become part and parcel of this regime's mad power-grab?

Do I hate America because I love the Constitution, or because I disagree with the President when he says of that document, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Is that what makes me an America-hater, in your view?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:52 PM

Those aren't questions, Mike! That's an inaccurate anti-American diatribe!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:57 PM

Quote:
This has nothing to do w/ Bush...

Okay, so we're fighting a "global war on terror" against an army of "millions" of jihadists, but Bush doesn't have anything to do with it?

Cool. War's over, we win, bring everyone home. Well, *almost* everyone. Seems there's just over 4100 American soldiers now dead that Bush had nothing to do with, since surely HE never sent them there...

By the way, Bush BELIEVES that god is on his side. Does that make him wrong, or does it make him just as dangerous as the other terrorists?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Those aren't questions, Mike! That's an inaccurate anti-American diatribe!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

Well.... *technically*, in AwwCrapper's ideal world, a real American wouldn't even be allowed to ASK questions, because questions are by their very nature unpatriotic - REAL Americans would just meekly do as they're told, and believe everything their President said, because he can do no wrong.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 13, 2008 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Ah, I see - you know what I feel, because you imagine yourself to BE god.

How is it again that I "hate America"? What exactly is my sin, O mighty Operative? Realizing that there are people outside our borders who don't share our viewpoints, or admitting that to those who hold them, those viewpoints might just be as valid as ours are to us? Realizing that to try to remake the entire war on terror into a war on all of Islam is a no-win situation?

Tell me, and everyone else here, just who exactly is trying to do that ? Point them out to me, becasue I sure has hell haven't heard any of that, nor have I been paying attention to anyone spouting such nonsense. But I'm sorry, I don't legitimize viewpoints from tyrants or dictators. And that's what you're talking about, as I hear it. Try being more specific , if you can, so I can tell just who you're referring to ,ok ?

Quote:
Realizing that we DO have enemies, and that to underestimate them or misidentify their aims and intentions is done solely at OUR peril? Is THAT what makes me such an America-hater?

Gee, we just got over the cold war, and you think I need reminding we have enemies ?

Huh.

I just didn't think it would be the very 3rd world camel jockeys whose a$$es we saved from the Red Army. Go figure.

Quote:
Or do I hate America because I disagree with the party in power? Or because I don't believe in the absolute power of the "unitary executive" (known in other countries as a "dictator")? Or because I don't buy into the propagandizing that's become part and parcel of this regime's mad power-grab?

Ya know what really chaps my hide? Is when the party in power , spouts off about how bad a certain dictator is, then, when they get thrown out of power, still claim that same dictator is really , REALLY bad, and something needs to be done. Oh, but wait, ..... when the action becomes politically tough, these sobs who were FOR going after a certain dictator are suddenly AGAINST it ! Gee, what F- ING turncoats they turned out to be. Once the issue becomes politically expedient, they flip flop and try to convince us all they NEVER were for going after the bad dictator. Ever. Honest!

Quote:

Do I hate America because I love the Constitution, or because I disagree with the President when he says of that document, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Is that what makes me an America-hater, in your view?

No, because you forget the spirit in which the US Constitution was formed, and the country which sprang from it, and need to protect that country from all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

And that you'd buy into such propaganda as what a President did or didn't say, based on whether you LIKE him or not.

There are things here more important than some folks still crying over the 2000 election and using every damn ounce of energy they have tearing down our President , regardless of all else that happens. There are bigger things than petty partisanship.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Friday, June 13, 2008 1:17 AM

Quote:
There are things here more important than some folks still crying over the 2000 election

So why do YOU keep bringing it up? I mean, the last 100 times it's been reference has been by you.

Quote:
There are bigger things than petty partisanship.

Agreed. Too bad you haven't found it yet.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 13, 2008 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
There are things here more important than some folks still crying over the 2000 election
So why do YOU keep bringing it up? I mean, the last 100 times it's been reference has been by you.
Quote:
There are bigger things than petty partisanship.
Agreed. Too bad you haven't found it yet.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

The 2000 election is the only logical reason I can imagine you myrmidons for being so pissed off at Bush.

Get the fuck over it. You lost.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Friday, June 13, 2008 3:42 AM

Quote:

Tell me, and everyone else here, just who exactly is trying to do that ? Point them out to me, becasue I sure has hell haven't heard any of that, nor have I been paying attention to anyone spouting such nonsense. But I'm sorry, I don't legitimize viewpoints from tyrants or dictators.

YOU are exactly who is trying to do that. You stated, in your own words, directed at me, "God doesn't hate America, but it's clear you do." Were you not paying attention to the nonsense you yourself were spouting?

As for legitimizing viewpoints from tyrants and dictators, you do it every day, every time you worship at the altar of Dubya. What *I* was doing was stating that there are people elsewhere in the world who have problems with us, and that maybe, just maybe, some of them feel that those are valid issues and valid viewpoints to hold.

Quote:
Gee, we just got over the cold war, and you think I need reminding we have enemies ?

No. I think you need reminding that it's much easier to deal with an enemy, negotiate with an enemy, or defeat an enemy if you have an understanding of his mindset. That requires something more than just thinking of and referring to all Muslims as third-world camel-jockeys and jihadists.

Quote:
And that you'd buy into such propaganda as what a President did or didn't say, based on whether you LIKE him or not.

You mean things like throwing a fit when a President says "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."? Buying into propaganda like that based on whether you like someone or not? Is that what you're referring to? Hell's bells, man, you were apoplectic about some of the crap that someone who KNEW a presidential candidate said - not even things the man himself said, but just someone he knew!

Good to know you'd never buy into any such propaganda. If Obama wins, I'll expect you to sit quietly in the corner and never EVER criticize anything he says or does, because it is your solemn duty to support your President whether you like him or not, and buying into such propaganda based on your likes or dislikes is pure petty partisanship, or so you have stated.

As usual, you've done nothing whatsoever to answer the question I asked: What is it, exactly, that in your view makes me an America-hater? You've clearly stated on more than one occasion that I am such a person, but you've mumbled and dissembled when asked for specifics.

Quote:

No, because you forget the spirit in which the US Constitution was formed, and the country which sprang from it, and need to protect that country from all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

I think it is YOU who forgets the spirit in which the Constitution was formed, in a time of revolution and revolutionary ideas, in a spirit which protects and even calls for criticism and vigilance in regards to one's government, lest those domestic enemies ever gain a foothold to power.

The definitions I found for "mymidons":

From Wikipedia:
The Myrmidons (or Myrmidones; Greek: Μυρμιδόνες) were an ancient nation of Greek mythology. They were very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles.[1] Their eponymous ancestor was Myrmidon, a king of Phthiotis who was a son of Zeus and "wide-ruling" Eurymedousa, a princess of Phthiotis.

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
myrmidon

Main Entry:
myr·mi·don
Pronunciation:
\ˈmər-mə-ˌdän, -dən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English Mirmydon, Latin Myrmidon-, Myrmido, from Greek Myrmidōn
Date:
15th century
1capitalized : a member of a legendary Thessalian people who accompanied their king Achilles in the Trojan War
2: a loyal follower; especially : a subordinate who executes orders unquestioningly or unscrupulously.

If you're referring to me as a legendary, brave, and skilled Greek warrior, then thank you for the compliment.

If you're referring to me as a subordinate who executes orders unquestioningly or unscrupulously, then

KWICKO

Friday, June 13, 2008 3:46 AM

Quote:

The 2000 election is the only logical reason I can imagine you myrmidons for being so pissed off at Bush.

Get the fuck over it. You lost.

The *only* reason? Really? 4100 dead American soldiers, and tens of thousands more grievously wounded and disabled or scarred for life, and the 2000 election is the ONLY reason you can imagine? Wow, is your imagination tiny.

Yes, WE lost. All of us. The entire nation lost.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2