• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

GHod bless Britain

pretty sure if they dont go in then people wont be able to blame the atrocities on the west.

you are right though, most people really dont care what happens in the third world until it involves them alot more. Add to that a bit of propaganda and exposure and you have people talking about it.

but here is the thing.....its the west that dont really care what goes on outside its areas of interest. people from poorer nations around bad events DO care.....its just not really shown

I disagree.

People around the globe slaugtered each other for peanuts. They still do.

It's just that certain people, including posters on this board, can't have it. They won't hear of it. If I mention it they will try to steer conversation away from it.

My example with Sudan is paramount.

Why is it important ? Because it proves, that slaughtering each other for ressources, land, moral values or even no good reason at all isn't an invention of western society.

It's just human. Everyone does it. Some excel better than others, sadly.

However it's a dangerous truth for people hellbent to project their own oikophobia onto the rest of us.
 
BTW regarding the UN ?

I see after excelling after making classic genocidal countries like Sudan and Libya sit in their human rights commision, they have now found a state leader spearheading "tourism".

Robert Mugabe.

How people can still defend that bunch of retards as rational, well-meaning world leaders is beyond me.
 
Thanks for proving my point.

You couldn't answer my points without going back to who "we" killed too.

Well done.

Your points:

-No-one mentions the people who died before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

This was clearly flimflam, seeing as I had done so in a post before yours.

-Reports go wild every time a bomb goes off.

Incorrect and an opinion given by someone who does not have a full grasp of the facts.

-Last year, a six figure number were killed in Sudan. That's not interesting. Pick your executioners wisely.

I agreed with that by saying that, unless the criminal is threatening western inteerests or is an enemy of the West, little will be done.

So what were the points that I missed? What exactly was your point?
 
BTW regarding the UN ?

I see after excelling after making classic genocidal countries like Sudan and Libya sit in their human rights commision, they have now found a state leader spearheading "tourism".

Robert Mugabe.

How people can still defend that bunch of retards as rational, well-meaning world leaders is beyond me.

Who's defending the UN as on organisation?
 
Its also hardly surprising that we're going to be discussing the West's involvement in Iraq in this thread, considering the thread subject is about the religion of the leader of the country at the time, and his subsequent justifications using religion.

To suggest that you're somehow the only one who understands that all humans are scumbags and will kill each other for power and resources shows quite breathtaking arrogance imo, especially considering that some of us come from these countries where people bomb and kill each other.

Your example with Sudan is silly and is completely out of place in a thread about Tony Blair's religion. And no-one thinks that killing or pillaging for resources is a Western invention ffs.
 
Well, there were several posters using them as a reference in a right-or-wrong debate. For a start.

You mean the ones who used the fact that UN weapon inspections team (ie professionals) not finding WMDs in Iraq was perhaps a good reason to not invade the country, considering that the main justification was the WMDs and their ability to reach London in less than an hour?
 
Your points:

-No-one mentions the people who died before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

This was clearly flimflam, seeing as I had done so in a post before yours.

They are just no relevant, are they ? And when they are, they too are "our fault", the Iraq sanction being a brilliant example.

-Reports go wild every time a bomb goes off.

Incorrect and an opinion given by someone who does not have a full grasp of the facts.

Play the ball, not the man.

It is not incorrect. Nor have you shown yourself to know more "facts" than anyone else.

News are not impartial. Least of all do they care about human lives. In best case they care about sensation, in worst case about political agenda.

Sudan slaughtering parts of their own population is no sensation, and least of all is it part of the medias prefered political agenda, as it shows, that cruelty and murder is universal, not culturally premeditated.

-Last year, a six figure number were killed in Sudan. That's not interesting. Pick your executioners wisely.

I agreed with that by saying that, unless the criminal is threatening western inteerests or is an enemy of the West, little will be done.

I am not talking about goverments, so no we don't agree.

I am talking about media, about intellectuals and about the whole public opinion. People don't give a brick, unless the executioners are their own political opposition.

So what were the points that I missed? What exactly was your point?

That violence, suffering and cruelty existed before the West, despite the West, even inside the West and will go on beyond the West as long as man lives.

Thus the argument is not whether people were killed in Iraq or whether that was wrong. It was. It always is. It's more about whether the alternative was better or whether things could have and should been done differently.

What do you think ? How do you deal with well armed genocidals, who will not step back and who will not cooperate ? Intervention or no intervention. There's no inbetween. What do we do ?
 
You mean the ones who used the fact that UN weapon inspections team (ie professionals) not finding WMDs in Iraq was perhaps a good reason to not invade the country, considering that the main justification was the WMDs and their ability to reach London in less than an hour?

Oh. So they are ok in that situation, then ?
 
Its also hardly surprising that we're going to be discussing the West's involvement in Iraq in this thread, considering the thread subject is about the religion of the leader of the country at the time, and his subsequent justifications using religion.

To suggest that you're somehow the only one who understands that all humans are scumbags and will kill each other for power and resources shows quite breathtaking arrogance imo, especially considering that some of us come from these countries where people bomb and kill each other.

Your example with Sudan is silly and is completely out of place in a thread about Tony Blair's religion. And no-one thinks that killing or pillaging for resources is a Western invention ffs.

So your main arguments are, that 1) other people are "arrogant" for changing the premises about an argument you yourself have contributed to and 2) than when they've done so, we should all return to the OP topic, despite you yourself having made no such initiative up to now ?

And your slur against my background is despicable, no matter how thinly veiled. You have in fact no idea about my skin colour, religion, geographical origin nor my experiences of the world parts or people we debate. You just assume. Because reflecting would ruin your moral high ground stance.

Oh well. I believe that's what's call debating ad hominen. I will have no part in such.
 
So your main arguments are, that 1) other people are "arrogant" for changing the premises about an argument you yourself have contributed to and 2) than when they've done so, we should all return to the OP topic, despite you yourself having made no such initiative up to now ?

And your slur against my background is despicable, no matter how thinly veiled. You have in fact no idea about my skin colour, religion, geographical origin nor my experiences of the world parts or people we debate. You just assume. Because reflecting would ruin your moral high ground stance.

Oh well. I believe that's what's call debating ad hominen. I will have no part in such.

I'm going to stick a oner on it that you're a white Dane... How'd I do? :D
 
No. But people smear Tories for being self serving when in fact they are at least honest. Labour are a bunch of hypocritical slags.

If you really believe YOUR parrtys representatives are more honest then other partys representatives then they really have done a job on you, they are all out for what they can get for themselves.
 
I'm going to stick a oner on it that you're a white Dane... How'd I do? :D

An assumption, but not a bad one !

The clubs prefix in my nick used to be Lineker, but firstly I'd like someone more "historic" (Gary's still on TV!) and secondly John W due to the circumstances of his final days is such a mythological figure IMHO. I guess that is why I landed there. Modern day players are so ... forgetable !

If you must know :)
 
Please play the ball not the man.

To answer your question: no. I am referring the fact, that Labour consistently wherever you go in europe claim moral superiority based on (claimed) values as tolerance, solidarity and integrity.

My example prove, that despite their big "values" they are mostly lying elitists, who couldn't give a toss. Profit-maximising. Personal profit-maximising. Our very own PM is a school example through her marriage with Mr Kinnock. You do know of the Kinnock family in Britain, don't you ?


You need to get together with Leeds seeing as you feel that there is a difference between the party's morals, because it is not true. Politicians generally are out to feather their own nests regardless on what party they pretend to represent. To say he is a little bit more/less bent then the others is really not accepting what is/has been happening for years..
 
An assumption, but not a bad one !

The clubs prefix in my nick used to be Lineker, but firstly I'd like someone more "historic" (Gary's still on TV!) and secondly John W due to the circumstances of his final days is such a mythological figure IMHO. I guess that is why I landed there. Modern day players are so ... forgetable !

If you must know :)

John White? By Christ he was playing for Spurs when, well, Christ was still around. That's some historic reference!
 
You mean the ones who used the fact that UN weapon inspections team (ie professionals) not finding WMDs in Iraq was perhaps a good reason to not invade the country, considering that the main justification was the WMDs and their ability to reach London in less than an hour?



I am astounded that they are still some people out there who think we went to war because of a just cause, and without telling lies about WMD's
 
They are just no relevant, are they ? And when they are, they too are "our fault", the Iraq sanction being a brilliant example.


Play the ball, not the man.

It is not incorrect. Nor have you shown yourself to know more "facts" than anyone else.

News are not impartial. Least of all do they care about human lives. In best case they care about sensation, in worst case about political agenda.

Sudan slaughtering parts of their own population is no sensation, and least of all is it part of the medias prefered political agenda, as it shows, that cruelty and murder is universal, not culturally premeditated.

I am not talking about goverments, so no we don't agree.

I am talking about media, about intellectuals and about the whole public opinion. People don't give a brick, unless the executioners are their own political opposition.



That violence, suffering and cruelty existed before the West, despite the West, even inside the West and will go on beyond the West as long as man lives.

Thus the argument is not whether people were killed in Iraq or whether that was wrong. It was. It always is. It's more about whether the alternative was better or whether things could have and should been done differently.

What do you think ? How do you deal with well armed genocidals, who will not step back and who will not cooperate ? Intervention or no intervention. There's no inbetween. What do we do ?

How are they not relevant? I mentioned them and said that Saddam was the sickest of dictators in an area rife with sick dictators. But the solution to killing is not more killing. Whether it is the West, Russia, China, the Arabs, Israelis, Turks, whatever, I don't care. The solution to violence is rarely violence.

The Iraq Sanctions were designed to weaken Saddam's grip on Iraq. Tell me how that worked out. Then tell me how many Iraqis, especially children, died from the sanctions. Look at Amnesty or UNICEF's reports. I have no problem with sanctions which incisively strike at a government's ability to hold onto power. The Iraq sanctions were a total embargo and had wide-reaching effects on the population themselves. That is known as collective punishment.

Yes it is incorrect. My wife is Egyptian, I have a proficiency in Arabic, I have Iraqi friends who are spending increasing amounts of time in Iraq. There is frequent violence still in Iraq which is rarely reported in Western media. Not because of any kind of bias or malevolent intentions but simply because its not interesting any longer, unless large numbers o Iraqis die, or NATO servicemen and women.

And you've said it perfectly there. News care about sensation. They want the images of a burning car, the news of dozens of deaths. After a while, people become immune and people become bored. They're not going to want to read about a car bomb which killed one person in a Baghdad marketplace.

So you're honestly saying that the media has an interest in showing that media's preferred agenda is showing that cruelty and murder are solely or mainly Western traits?

Peoples' opinions are shaped by their governments, by their cultures, by their media. And its again incorrect to state such an opinion as fact. Look at the Biafra secession civil war as an example. Little Western involvement or feeling for either side so no-one could take a side based on wanting to get one over on the West. Yet there was a huge humanitarian air mission, the biggest ever non-military one. People certainly gave a brick based on just pictures and stories. Nothing about the evil white man or our enemy. Just wanting to help.

Really? Can you link me to a person who has said that violence, suffering and cruelty exists solely because of the West? Because even the most airy-fairy intellectuals tend to stay away from such grandiose statements.

I'll put it this way. We talk about the West because that is currently the world's dominant culture and the world's dominant military bloc. In the cold war, we talked of the US and the USSR. In 30 years, we may talk of China, India or Brazil. Please don't take criticisms of the Western military machine as a personal insult.

The West rarely intervenes militarily unless it serves its own personal interests. That may be to prop up an ally, remove an enemy, maintain trade routes or control natural resources. This is not a trait unique to the West. The USSR did the same crap, all other superpowers in history have done so and all forthcoming superpowers will likely do so too. So the label we have ascribed ourselves as the global police is laughable. Either we always intervene (taking the context into account of course) or we never intervene. You mention what you think of Denmark's labour leader hypocrisy. Which is an excellent point, I hate hypocrisy. Yet you then show hypocrisy in the field of Western interventionism.

For Iraq, the Arabs were so eager to take Saddam out of Kuwait, let them deal with their regional issues. If they cannot, then maybe it is time for external intervention. The sanctions were horrific and had no effect on Saddam's ability to keep hold of power, only punishing his population. And the 2nd gulf war and the subsequent civil war, considering that this ended up killing more people than Saddam did over his 20+ years in power was bad. That's a pretty easy conclusion.
 
Oh. So they are ok in that situation, then ?

:~ The situation when professionals were doing their job and tried to warn against a war which killed hundreds of thousands of people? Yeah, you know what, I'm going to stick my neck out and say they were ok on that one.


So your main arguments are, that 1) other people are "arrogant" for changing the premises about an argument you yourself have contributed to and 2) than when they've done so, we should all return to the OP topic, despite you yourself having made no such initiative up to now ?

And your slur against my background is despicable, no matter how thinly veiled. You have in fact no idea about my skin colour, religion, geographical origin nor my experiences of the world parts or people we debate. You just assume. Because reflecting would ruin your moral high ground stance.

Oh well. I believe that's what's call debating ad hominen. I will have no part in such.

So your main arguments are, that 1) other people are "arrogant" for changing the premises about an argument you yourself have contributed to and 2) than when they've done so, we should all return to the OP topic, despite you yourself having made no such initiative up to now ?

And your slur against my background is despicable, no matter how thinly veiled. You have in fact no idea about my skin colour, religion, geographical origin nor my experiences of the world parts or people we debate. You just assume. Because reflecting would ruin your moral high ground stance.

Oh well. I believe that's what's call debating ad hominen. I will have no part in such.

Don't accuse me of debating ad hominem and then spend most of your time building straw men.

You tell me that some people, including this board, don't understand that cultures outside of the West use violence and brutality. Which implies that these others don't understand, yet you do. Is this not arrogant?

The Iraq war is related to Tony Blair and his religion. Which is what the thread is about. Which is what this thread has been about from the very first post.

Could you inform me how Sudan is related to Tony Blair and his religious beliefs?

What on earth are you talking about? What the hell does religion, skin colour or geographical origin have to do with what I said? You are insistent that you are one of the ones who understand that the West is not alone in its brutality and violence. Others don't. Are you reflecting then or making your own assumptions? Am I one of these people who don't understand that all humans are capable of killing?

Can you describe my slur please?

If you want my main arguments, read back through the thread. They're quite simple, other people were able to debate with me in a perfectly civil manner about my views. None of them felt the need to accuse people (including, I'm guessing, me) of not being able to understand that violence is a universal human trait and not just a Western invention.
 
You need to get together with Leeds seeing as you feel that there is a difference between the party's morals, because it is not true. Politicians generally are out to feather their own nests regardless on what party they pretend to represent. To say he is a little bit more/less bent then the others is really not accepting what is/has been happening for years..

I agree very much. It's not the self-serving part, it's the part where they want commoners to pay more taxes while dodging and the commoners kids to suffer a declining public school system, when all their kids attend elitist closed-entry schools.
 
Back