anti americanism fashionable - Page 11

14-11-2003, 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

What atrocities exactly?

You may have noticed I posted some links for you to click on. You obviously didn`t bother, probably too scared to be shocked out of your brainwashed view of the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

What the **** does that have to do with anything? I don't know what makes you so dumb but it really works. Am I now a racist because I speak Afrikaans?

No, I said you grew up in a country of racists, so I didn`t find you attitude surprising. I didn`t actually call *you* a racist, you chose to interpret the statement that way, perhaps I touched upon a raw nerve?

I`ve seen some of the other posts you have contributed to both this thread and others (I must admit, your anti-BBC rhetoric is alway good for having a laugh at the ill-informed), but in my opinion the word "dumb" really doesn`t start to describe the very low level of intelligence that I feel you must have.

14-11-2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkangel

everybody is biased in some way not necessarily politically even the red cross, what claims have they made?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

The story is from the BBC, I wonder how soon until Jerrek claims it is a lie?

Jerrek · 14-11-2003, 22:27

No, I said you grew up in a country of racists
I did? You call spending ages 0 to 2 growing up? What the ****? Are you mad?

I didn`t actually call *you* a racist, you chose to interpret the statement that way, perhaps I touched upon a raw nerve?
Oh bull****. I don't give a **** what you meant. What you implied and what 99% of the people here perceive is what counts, and I'm sure everyone perceived what I did.

You may have noticed I posted some links for you to click on. You obviously didn`t bother, probably too scared to be shocked out of your brainwashed view of the world.
I clicked, but I saw no atrocities. Maybe some accidents, but definitely no atrocities.

but in my opinion the word "dumb" really doesn`t start to describe the very low level of intelligence that I feel you must have.
Ah yes, I build my opinions on common sense, not the so-called "intelligence" you are supposed to have. I wasn't the one that justified 9/11. I wasn't the one that said there is no difference between civilian targets and military targets. I wasn't the one that made excuses for the IRA. I wasn't the one that said Americans deserved 9/11. You keep your "intelligence."

Now the fact that the Red Cross does not blast China, or Saddam, or Mugabe means that they support what is going on there and being such a great humanitarian, Mugabe is good person, right?

downquark1 · 14-11-2003, 22:28

Quote:

Oh, they're not dying, and they have tents and lots of water as far as I know. It is funny though, how you are attacking Americans for "terrible" living conditions, but the Chinese's use of thumb cuffs and how they just make people disappear for disagreeing with the government escapes your attention. Yep. Gotta wonder where your loyalties lie.

There's another 'we aren't as bad as someone else so be grateful'.

In that case, communist China is not as bad as nazi germany so I forgive them of all crimes.

darkangel · 14-11-2003, 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm

The story is from the BBC, I wonder how soon until Jerrek claims it is a lie?

that still says nothing of their condition Britain has held people like this on many occasions

Jerrek · 14-11-2003, 22:30

So you support communist China now and their atrocities?

**Chris** · 14-11-2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Bear in mind I'm only trying to understand the terrorist mind, not agree with him. But I don't think they said 'hey let's go blow up children'. The idea is to get attention, what better than to aim a populated area in a busy period. I don't think children in particular had any part in their thinking.

Creating a moral vacuum in which to study different approaches to the world is perfectly valid, but attempting to live in that vacuum is most certainly not IMO. Some of the comments that have been posted in this thread today go way beyond trying to understand the terrorist mind. They smack of apologetics, which I find distasteful in the extreme.

14-11-2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by towny

Creating a moral vacuum in which to study different approaches to the world is perfectly valid, but attempting to live in that vacuum is most certainly not IMO. Some of the comments that have been posted in this thread today go way beyond trying to understand the terrorist mind. They smack of apologetics, which I find distasteful in the extreme.

and there's the rub - I hope I conveyed my support for the demise of terrorism, in my posts.

14-11-2003, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

[b]I clicked, but I saw no atrocities. Maybe some accidents, but definitely no atrocities.

You call the bombing of Laos an "accident"? You really have had your view of the world twisted by propaganda.

I see you now resorted to swearing, even if you have censored the words. I think that amply demonstrates the level of intelligence and reasoning you are bringing to the table. Your attitude amuses me, but I now consider any attempt to engage you in debate to be an utter waste of my time.

Ramrod · 14-11-2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

If I nudge my glass it will fall off the table, break and stain the carpet, much much more than my little nudge. No body said that cause and affect had to be equal.

Whoose fault is the mess?

Good answer, but gravity has no choice in the matter. The terrorists had a choice, they chose to murder innocent people

Quote:

No not at all but people don't kill themselves likely. I can't for the life of me figure out football hulagism's motives, but they are there.

Neither can I but we deplore their actions, we don't try to apologise for them.

Ramrod · 14-11-2003, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

But with this 'war' on terror, they keep the prisioners of the 'war on terror' in terrible conditions.

Those are not terrible conditions, do they make them eat sh*t? do they p*ss on them? do they torture them? Try being an Iraqi captive!

14-11-2003, 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkangel

that still says nothing of their condition Britain has held people like this on many occasions

Yes he does, he points out that the way in which the prisoners are being treated in a behavioural sense is causing them mental ill health. That is very much part of the condition.

Just because the British have behaved in such a manner before doesn`t absolve the USA of any responsibility or guilt. And before you ask, I also have a pretty dim view of the way that the British have approached the rest of the world in the past.

Ramrod · 14-11-2003, 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by homealone

No pro/anti cause is worth the appalling carnage of these acts of violence, how the people who perpetrate them ever get support for what they do is beyond me?

I dunno m8, ask some of the apologists on this forum

Ramrod · 14-11-2003, 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I seem to recall in an earlier post someone mentioning that you speak Afrikaans and that you spent some period of time in South Africa. Given that you were raised in a country where racism was the national pastime I`m really not surpised by this attitude.

You what??? That is some presumption!

Ramrod · 14-11-2003, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

You may have noticed I posted some links for you to click on. You obviously didn`t bother, probably too scared to be shocked out of your brainwashed view of the world.

.

The link you supplied about the red cross critisising 'conditions' at Guantanamo bay actually said:

Quote:

Christophe Girod - the senior Red Cross official in Washington - said it was unacceptable that the 600 detainees should be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without legal safeguards.

No mention of 'conditions' there, just the legal process.....