| FreddiesGhettoTrench 20.11.2005 21:34 |
I sure hope so! JUSTICE FOR NICK BERG, PAUL JOHNSON, KIM SUN-IL, EUGENE ARMSTRONG, JACK HENSLEY, KENNETH BIGLEY ET AL!!! *crosses fingers* |
| Mr.Jingles 20.11.2005 23:02 |
Recent reports say that he hasn't been captured, yet it won't make much of a difference because there's still way too many terrorists either on the loose or still in power. - Osama Bin Laden - Dick Cheney - Kim Jong Il - Donald Rumsfeld - Mullah Mohammed Omar - Ariel Sharon - Muqtada Al-Sadr - George W. Bush - Ayman Al-Zawahiri - Karl Rove The list is endless |
| Music Man 21.11.2005 00:44 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Recent reports say that he hasn't been captured, yet it won't make much of a difference because there's still way too many terrorists either on the loose or still in power. - Osama Bin Laden - Dick Cheney - Kim Jong Il - Donald Rumsfeld - Mullah Mohammed Omar - Ariel Sharon - Muqtada Al-Sadr - George W. Bush - Ayman Al-Zawahiri - Karl Rove The list is endlessI didn't think Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Karl Rove were terrorists. Something tells me you deviously manipulated that list to provide the illusion that there are more terrorists than there actually are... Regardless, I must congratulate both of you on your spelling prowess. Not that I actually know if your spelling was accurate, but it looks good enough for me. Anyway, does anybody actually truly care whether or not we catch these specific people or not? Or is it just a false pretense to give some manner of facade that we are concerned? I mean, does it actually matter to anybody? Just something to ponder over. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 21.11.2005 06:51 |
BTW, where did FGT get this info? I can't see anything on google news.It was on Yahoo News yesterday. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 21.11.2005 06:57 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Recent reports say that he hasn't been captured, yet it won't make much of a difference because there's still way too many terrorists either on the loose or still in power.Yes, it will make a difference. This guy is the main asshole who's been slaughtering innocents in Iraq. We knock him out, we knock out a lot of this cowardly suicide-bomber shit and the beheadings, therefore saving the lives of many Iraqis and Americans alike. - Osama Bin LadenHe's probably dead. And if not, he will be soon. If he's not dead, he's probably in Syria and we'll get him when we kick the ass out of the bastards there. - Dick CheneyHah. Hah. He's suicide-bombing with his pacemaker, I suppose? - Kim Jong IlNot at war with North Korea. Would you like us to be? - Donald Rumsfeld*rolls eyes* - Mullah Mohammed OmarAgain, probably in Syria or Pakistan. - Ariel SharonOh yeah... those evil Israelis!!!! Give me a break. Israel is doing what it has a right to do. That country's been through a lot of shit. - Muqtada Al-Sadr - George W. Bush - Ayman Al-Zawahiri - Karl Rove The list is endlessNo, not exactly endless, since you seemed to not be able to make a list of ACTUAL terrorists and instead but in the normal scapegoats of Bush, Cheney, Rove & Sharon to make your list seem longer and to make some kind of point. When will people leave Sharon alone??? |
| Serry... 21.11.2005 07:15 |
Masters of war... |
| Mr.Jingles 21.11.2005 07:37 |
Serry<h6>Inventer of terrible English wrote: Masters of war...Indeed, war is a business and these people know how to manipulate it well. The most particular thing that both Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush have in common is that both have a following of morons who consider them "freedom fighters", when in fact all they do is spread more violence, hatred, and terrorism. Meanwhile both will keep pointing fingers at each other calling one another "the root of evil". Of course, since they are both cowards, all they will do is send others to fight the wars that they started. |
| Mr.Jingles 21.11.2005 07:46 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Dick Cheney Hah. Hah. He's suicide-bombing with his pacemaker, I suppose?Possibly one of the most evil that I mentioned. After all, there's something very particularly malevolent about a man who sends his own soldiers to fight for oil. We all know what Halliburton is doing in Iraq, and is not "liberating Iraqi civilians". |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 21.11.2005 11:32 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:If Halliburton were making money off of Iraq's oil, my group would be winning the Stock Market Game. As it is, we're in last place in the region.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Dick Cheney Hah. Hah. He's suicide-bombing with his pacemaker, I suppose?Possibly one of the most evil that I mentioned. After all, there's something very particularly malevolent about a man who sends his own soldiers to fight for oil. We all know what Halliburton is doing in Iraq, and is not "liberating Iraqi civilians". |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 21.11.2005 11:34 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Due to the fact we are fighting Osama bin Laden, it's physically impossible for two people to both start a war. So who started it, bin Laden or Bush??? Get a grip with your "comparisons". Bush isn't sending people to blow up civilians and children or behead businessmen. He's bringing in democracy.Serry<h6>Inventer of terrible English wrote: Masters of war...Indeed, war is a business and these people know how to manipulate it well. The most particular thing that both Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush have in common is that both have a following of morons who consider them "freedom fighters", when in fact all they do is spread more violence, hatred, and terrorism. Meanwhile both will keep pointing fingers at each other calling one another "the root of evil". Of course, since they are both cowards, all they will do is send others to fight the wars that they started. It's interesting to note that many of the same arguments that liberals have today against the war on terror are the same arguments they had in the 40s against entering World War II. |
| Serry... 21.11.2005 11:51 |
Isn't USA government helped Osama bin Laden in the 80s...? Democracy and blood, blood and death, death and democracy - it's all what Mr Bush can bring to the world... It's interesting to note that many of the same arguments that Bush-lovers have today for the war on terror are the same arguments Hitler had in the 30s for World War II. His enemies were jews... Bush goal is his kind of "democracy". |
| Haystacks Calhoun 21.11.2005 12:16 |
The liberals are hopeless.... |
| Music Man 21.11.2005 12:54 |
Barry © wrote: "Anyway, does anybody actually truly care whether or not we catch these specific people or not?" Yes it does matter imo. It would be a moral booster for troops stationed there for starters. I would love to see all of those terrorists captured and put on trial, not that they deserve a fair trial. My son is in the British army, my cousin is a Sergeant in the British army stationed in Iraq. Would the relations of the people that this cocksucker has beheaded like him killed or captured? Does it matter to them? It is also now suspected that the Iranians are involved with the new explosives being used there against 'our' troops. BTW, where did FGT get this info? I can't see anything on google news.Well, that's not what I meant, and I'm sure it came out wrong. Obviously it will matter to many particular people, but I was questioning as to whether it actually mattered to the general public - to people such as myself and FGT, or do they simply concern themselves as to take up some manner of cause they are not personally involved in? |
| Music Man 21.11.2005 13:07 |
Serry<h6>Inventer of terrible English wrote: It's interesting to note that many of the same arguments that Bush-lovers have today for the war on terror are the same arguments Hitler had in the 30s for World War II. His enemies were jews... Bush goal is his kind of "democracy".Such as? You don't mean racial cleansing, do you? Or maybe you're referring to the potential threat of foreign countries, such as Poland and Austria, with hidden stockpiles of WMD's? |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 21.11.2005 13:28 |
Serry<h6>Inventer of terrible English wrote: Isn't USA government helped Osama bin Laden in the 80s...? Democracy and blood, blood and death, death and democracy - it's all what Mr Bush can bring to the world... It's interesting to note that many of the same arguments that Bush-lovers have today for the war on terror are the same arguments Hitler had in the 30s for World War II. His enemies were jews... Bush goal is his kind of "democracy".FYI, Hitler didn't want a war. He just wanted to take over Europe and kill people. He didn't want resistance. And are you trying to say Bush' is an enemy of the Jews, too? Tell that to Wolfowitz and Pearl! |
| Fairy 21.11.2005 13:35 |
Yeah I've heard it on the radio too!!! But it was unofficial... Finally some good news! Too bad there are always some jerks who like to spoil the good news, like those who compare Bush etc. with the terrorists who like to use their own children as human shields....I don't know why they like to do it. I wish they could become an Iraqi child for one day, during the Saddam era, to judge if it's better to live under Bush or under Saddam...The truth is, they know this will never happen...So easy to play the peacemaker from the safety of your own, cozy Western homes...haha. But let's not let them spoil the news too much, FGT!! We think alike. Fairy |
| Serry... 21.11.2005 13:36 |
I just said that Hitler had goals and he thought his goals were right and he fought for his goals and didn't care about the price. He wanted to bring to the world his kind of "democracy" - without jews, slavic people, africans etc. (as he said) And now we have another leader who doesn't care about the price and send army to other countries, now he wants to bring his kind of "democracy" (as he says). But problem is in the price, because price is - human life. When FGT would grow up and become mother, and someone would send her sons to die for someone's "democracy" we'd back to this discussion. |
| Serry... 21.11.2005 13:39 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: FYI, Hitler didn't want a war. He just wanted to take over Europe and kill people. He didn't want resistance. And are you trying to say Bush' is an enemy of the Jews, too? Tell that to Wolfowitz and Pearl!"Hitler didn't want a war?" Uhhh... So 20 millions Russian people dead because of flu, I guess... Hitler didn't make tanks, submarines, and Hering was just playing chess through the days. "And are you trying to say Bush' is an enemy of the Jews, too?" Did I say that? Whose English is terrible then? I said it was Hitler's goal, and your Bush goal is "democracy", learn how to read. "Pearl" I'm sorry but I'm so stupid that I don't know who he is even. By the way, do you know Nikolai Kondrat'ev? No? Shame on you. |
| Fairy 21.11.2005 13:42 |
Good luck to your son and cousin, Barry. We owe a lot to people like them. |
| Serry... 21.11.2005 14:25 |
Fairy wrote: like those who compare Bush etc. with the terrorists who like to use their own children as human shields....I don't know why they like to do it. I wish they could become an Iraqi child for one day, during the Saddam era, to judge if it's better to live under Bush or under Saddam...The truth is, they know this will never happen...So easy to play the peacemaker from the safety of your own, cozy Western homes...haha.I am a former officer of Russian army, I was in Chechnya, I've seen WHAT IS THE WAR - do you want to hear the stories about the WAR? Do you want to know what it's like? So easy to sit in your Western homes and send someone to die... Sorry, Fairy, but when war is in thousands miles away from your home it's really easy to talk about democracy, how bad was Saddam, how happy is people of Iraq now, it's really easy... I've seen the war and I would never wish someone to see what I've seen there! I've seen mothers' tears when they 18-years old sons were killed for "democracy", I don't want American mothers to feel the same. I've seen young kids without legs and hands, because of the war for "freedom"... |
| Music Man 21.11.2005 15:56 |
Serry<h6>Inventer of terrible English wrote: I just said that Hitler had goals and he thought his goals were right and he fought for his goals and didn't care about the price. He wanted to bring to the world his kind of "democracy" - without jews, slavic people, africans etc. (as he said) And now we have another leader who doesn't care about the price and send army to other countries, now he wants to bring his kind of "democracy" (as he says). But problem is in the price, because price is - human life. When FGT would grow up and become mother, and someone would send her sons to die for someone's "democracy" we'd back to this discussion.First of all, as far as I'm concerned, everyone who is in Iraq is there of their own free will. It's part of joining a volunteer military. The only person to blame for a death in Iraq is the soldier who enlisted, not the politician who sent them. Just because the politicians are smart enough to keep their children out of the armed forces doesn't mean you should point fingers at them and tell them they should be the ones fighting. Anyone can see how that is quite possibly the stupidest, most unconvincing anti-war argument one could imagine. Now, onto Hitler. You fail to understand the difference between sending enlisted soldiers to war and performing an activity we all now like to refer to as the "Holocaust." It was probably the fact that Hitler kinda, sorta committed mass genocide that gave him his bad name. You know, kill eleven million innocent people, of which includes six million innocent Jews, the general public tends to put a bad rap on your reputation, you know? The fact that he sent Nazi soldiers to die was sort of, shall we say, overshadowed by this. Now, if you would like to talk about Mr. Bush's flaws in his vision of "democracy," why, then let's have an open forum! But don't compare him to Hitler because "both of them were involved in a *gasp* WAR." War happens. Been that way for a while, you know? |
| Music Man 21.11.2005 15:57 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: "we" might? I don't see "you" going out there. Besides, if you get one, another comes forward and takes the regime from there...like republicans.Oh my, or Democrats! |
| Serry... 21.11.2005 16:16 |
If you'd spend at least one day on the war - you'd shut up with you pro-war posts for ever, but you wouldn't, because you're too brave to speak about war, but not to fight there... I was on the war, you wasn't - you're just talking about the things you have never seen. I don't know what kind of activity gave Hitler bad name for people of USA, but for us - people of Russia - his bad name came with the WAR! Not with genocide! Learn fucking history before telling me what's happened in my country and with members of my family just 60 years ago! BTW: I don't have any fucking clue what's the main difference between democrats and republicans, I really don't care about it, because it's political troubles of your country, not mine - I don't care at all who's Bush - democrat or republican. Please don't think for the God's sake that every person on the Earth should know the little details of American politic system! You've lost your people in Korea, in Vietnam, and now in Iraq and you still can't understand the price of human life... No-one can't help you then, if you don't want to help yourself firstly! Therefore I'm not going to continue this discussion - I'm out of this, you wanna lose your guys there? Okay. Last advice: don't listen to Roger's "Strange Frontier" - there's one so dangerous for your ears and brains song... Just after "Racing on the street". Good luck. |
| Mr.Jingles 21.11.2005 17:44 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Let's see, if you saw R.Kelly installing security cameras inside the dressing rooms of a high school basketball team, would you believe him if he said those cameras are there for the security of those girls?Mr.Jingles wrote:If Halliburton were making money off of Iraq's oil, my group would be winning the Stock Market Game. As it is, we're in last place in the region.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Dick Cheney Hah. Hah. He's suicide-bombing with his pacemaker, I suppose?Possibly one of the most evil that I mentioned. After all, there's something very particularly malevolent about a man who sends his own soldiers to fight for oil. We all know what Halliburton is doing in Iraq, and is not "liberating Iraqi civilians". Why would a giant oil corporation be willing to risk so much becoming a contractor in a war zone. Simply because, there are millions and millions of good reasons. |
| Mr.Jingles 21.11.2005 17:47 |
Music Man wrote:Just because you're not a Republican doesn't mean you're a Democrat. As far as I'm concerned many of the people who strongly disagree with the Bush administration consider themselves independent.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: "we" might? I don't see "you" going out there. Besides, if you get one, another comes forward and takes the regime from there...like republicans.Oh my, or Democrats! So it doesn't mean that if one person doesn't belong to one side, then he must belong to the other side. Sadly, there's labels already made for those who choose to be neutral. |
| Maruga 21.11.2005 19:27 |
Music Man wrote:I support you list, but can i add Pinochet?, he is a terrorist too.Mr.Jingles wrote: Recent reports say that he hasn't been captured, yet it won't make much of a difference because there's still way too many terrorists either on the loose or still in power. - Osama Bin Laden - Dick Cheney - Kim Jong Il - Donald Rumsfeld - Mullah Mohammed Omar - Ariel Sharon - Muqtada Al-Sadr - George W. Bush - Ayman Al-Zawahiri - Karl Rove The list is endlessI didn't think Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Karl Rove were terrorists. Something tells me you deviously manipulated that list to provide the illusion that there are more terrorists than there actually are... Regardless, I must congratulate both of you on your spelling prowess. Not that I actually know if your spelling was accurate, but it looks good enough for me. Anyway, does anybody actually truly care whether or not we catch these specific people or not? Or is it just a false pretense to give some manner of facade that we are concerned? I mean, does it actually matter to anybody? Just something to ponder over. Cheers. |
| Maz 21.11.2005 19:42 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: It's interesting to note that many of the same arguments that liberals have today against the war on terror are the same arguments they had in the 40s against entering World War II.If you are going to abuse history, please do it properly. Isolationist sentiment in the early-twentieth century ran stronger in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Please re-read your textbook. |
| goodco 21.11.2005 19:58 |
zeni wrote: "If you are going to abuse history, please do it properly. Isolationist sentiment in the early-twentieth century ran stronger in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Please re-read your textbook." Probably too busy reading about intelligent(?) design to study real history... Gee, let me try and think....my Dad was a Democrat, and fought in WWII. Mom was a Democrat, and worked in a factory on assembly lines producing various war machinery. Please, try and open your eyes, read both sides of the story, and show a little independent thinking for once, FGT. I suggest skipping the 'label' bit. Or, do you call John McCain and other moderate Republicans 'liberals', since they share so many of my 'moderate' viewpoints. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 21.11.2005 21:54 |
goodco wrote: zeni wrote: Probably too busy reading about intelligent(?) design to study real history...*rolls eyes* For the record, I believe in evolution. Gee, let me try and think....my Dad was a Democrat, and fought in WWII. Mom was a Democrat, and worked in a factory on assembly lines producing various war machinery.I never said "Democrats", I said "liberals." And, gee, lemme think: - my mother was in the Army - my maternal grandfather fought in WWII, in Henry Cabot Lodge's division in North Africa - both of my paternal grandparents were Marines - I myself am going to be a member of ROTC in college. Please, try and open your eyes, read both sides of the story, and show a little independent thinking for once, FGT. I suggest skipping the 'label' bit. Or, do you call John McCain and other moderate Republicans 'liberals', since they share so many of my 'moderate' viewpoints.Never called McCain a "liberal". I admire him greatly and he is a great man. I don't agree with him on everything, of course, but he's very sensible and has a great record. Very brave, smart, kind man as well. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 21.11.2005 21:57 |
Serry<h6>Inventer of terrible English wrote: I just said that Hitler had goals and he thought his goals were right and he fought for his goals and didn't care about the price. He wanted to bring to the world his kind of "democracy" - without jews, slavic people, africans etc. (as he said)A democracy = country run by the people. Dictatorship = country run by one person. Yep, Hitler really wanted "democracy", that's why he was running everything. And now we have another leader who doesn't care about the price and send army to other countries, now he wants to bring his kind of "democracy" (as he says).Except Bush actually WANTS democracy. But problem is in the price, because price is - human life. When FGT would grow up and become mother, and someone would send her sons to die for someone's "democracy" we'd back to this discussion.I know full well the price of war. I come from a long line of people who were in the military. Many of my friends and classmates have joined up as well (including myself, when I get to college.) War is hell. It's got to be brutal so people don't enjoy it so much. It's got to be a last resort, but when it's necessary it's necessary. |
| Maz 21.11.2005 22:52 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: I never said "Democrats", I said "liberals."link link link link link Those most likely to argue against foreign involvement prior to the Second World War were conservatives (think opposite of liberals). Meanwhile, liberals were more likely to support intervention against facism. In fact, many of those "liberals" were not Democrats, but many of the "conservatives" were Republicans. So what kind of semantics do you want to play now? |
| Music Man 22.11.2005 00:49 |
Zeni, master of semantics, has spoken. I think we should move on to the point of the argument, however...whatever that is. |
| Saint Jiub 22.11.2005 01:57 |
As Iraq was never a threat, and the war is and always was a complete farce with no value, the solution is clear: 1. Immediate evacuation from Iraq. 2. Release of all "innocent" political prisoners including Saddam. 3. Let Russia send in peace keeping forces as they have an excellent history of dealing peacefully with Islamic extrememists. |
| Serry... 22.11.2005 02:07 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: 3. Let Russia send in peace keeping forces as they have an excellent history of dealing peacefully with Islamic extrememists.You should be ashamed of yourself talking in this way and joking about that, when we've lost over 100 000 people in these wars. And your country didn't came to Olympic Games to Moscow in 1980, because we sent our army to Afghanistan - your country didn't like it and sent money to Bin Laden to help them to fight against us. Now you preffer to forget about this fact... Now we have Chechnya... It's a part of Russia, it's not somewhere on the other side of Earth, but who cares... War is still a joke for you, war is still seems as funny Sunday picnic for you... Now your country sends army to another Islamic country, but no-one can critisize you - because it's a war for "freedom and democracy"... of oil companies. No-one can judge USA. USA is a home place of God, saints, truth, justice and democracy. And everyone who disagree - must be destroyed (for the democracy sake, of course)! We did mistakes, you repeat them. Good luck! And here's a song for your pleasure! Bush - Ah - Saviour of the universe Bush - Ah - He'll save every one of us Bush - Ah - He's a miracle Bush - Ah - King of the impossible He's for every one of us Stand for every one of us He'll save with a mighty hand Every man every woman every child With a mighty Bush Bush - Ah Bush - Ah - He'll save every one of us Just a man with a man's courage He knows nothing but a man But he can never fail No-one but the pure in heart May find the golden grail oh oh oh oh Bush Bush I love you Bush! |
| Saint Jiub 22.11.2005 03:07 |
Because the Russians rule Chechnya with an iron fist, The Chechans kill Russians - usually not Chechans. If Russians are innocent pacifists, why do they not withdraw from Chechnya, The invasion of Afghanistan was a completely unprovoked land grab. I do not recall Afghanistan invading Kuwait and ignoring UN sanctions for 15 years, or gasing its own people with mustard gas. Amazingly, however, Iraq's are slaughtering their own people. The Sunni terrorists are killing Shiites and Kurds in Islamic mosques, in a desperate bid to reinstaye their brutal dicatatorship. The difference between the USA and Russia is that the USA cares about the oppressed Kurds, Shiites, and Afghans (and Kuwait), but Russia never cared about the Chechnian or Afghan people. |
| Serry... 22.11.2005 03:18 |
Difference? Are you talking about the existing of differences in reasons TO KILL PEOPLE? AS I WROTE: WE DID MISTAKES! That's the difference! You'd never say "Bush did a mistake" - never! You can't be mistaken, others can, but not you. You still don't reply on the fact your government helped Bin Laden to fight against USSR. He was a big friend of US government... Rule with iron fist? All those phrases about Afghanistan and Chechnya... Sorry, Rip, but don't watch your TV and don't read your papers anymore. You need to wash your brains from all this shit you've heard and read about my country. I WAS ON THAT WAR, not you! USA becomes an awful parody of USSR, we had a damned propaganda, and now you have it. They've fucked your brains... Read YOURS National Geographic magazine articles about what's happened in Afghanistan in the end of 70s (read what British army did there before us!), before telling why we came there and though we had our own "reasons" - WE DID MISTAKE! And we've paid for our mistake by people's lives, but still - human life is not something to care about for US government. Indeed, MK77 and 'white phosphor' (sorry, I don't know how it calls on English) is the best support to bring democracy for civilians of Iraq... And don't talk me about UN - WE ALL know the country what doesn't care about UN and what destroyed UN! OMG, Russian man defends American soldiers while American man wants to send them to die! P.S. As I remember USA cared about nuclear weapon, not about Kurds... By the way - do you still try to find nuclear weapon there...? Or it was just a little mistype in the statement about why USA have to bomb Iraq? P.P.S. Guys, I respect you for your love to your country, to your President, I really respect it! But please if you're doing something wrong or bad - just say "yes, it wasn't the best solution, yes, there were PROBABLY some other reasons to bomb Iraq, except bringing democracy, yes... yes... yes...". Be a man! |
| Fairy 22.11.2005 04:08 |
Serry, I never said I like wars...! I just said you can't compare Western leaders with terrorists and dictators. The press rightly emphasizes when the Americans kill a few civilians by mistake. The critics of Bush and the like don't waste any opportunity to express their anger when this happens. But they don't appear to me to show the same anger when they talk of the atrocious brutalities committed by Saddam, or by the suicide bombers, or when they recall Sept 11. As the war in Iraq was about to start I had mixed feelings. I checked the Amnesty International web site for enlightenment. There I found a list of questions AI was addressing to Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair, Mr. Aznar, and Mr Hussein. They were all treated and addressed in the same way. One of the questions addressed to them was: "How will you protect civilians during the war?". I found this ridiculous. No matter what the Allies do, they will always try not to harm civilians on purpose. Instead, I know Saddam liked to use children as human shields, and suicide bombers actually aim specifically at innocent civilians when they plan their attacks. I found the statements on Amnesty's site so disgusting that I've stopped being a member. I had been an active member of AI, I even got a prize from them...But I think such stances show no guts, and they have lost my respect. One thing is to oppose the war, another is to equate presidents of democratic countries with terrorists who would kill their own children in the name of a distorted idea of God. Fairy |
| Serry... 22.11.2005 04:20 |
Fairy, I have never said that Saddam is a saint and the best man in the world! USA is not a poor African country, they have money, they have power, they have weapon, they have one the best military professionals in the world, but... But they couldn't to arrest/kill/anything else what they wanted to do - just ONE man! Saddam! You're from Italy and of course you know they guy called Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, right? Was there any need to destroy whole Italy because of him? No! One man was arrested and things changed in your country... And it was 60 years ago... They can't find Osama, okay - it's hard, I agree, but to find the leader of the country?! Is it hard? I respect Israel's army for HOW they replied to what's happened in Munich in 1972. They spent many years, a lot of money and they found everyone who was involved in that attack and destroyed 'em. No bombings, no chemical weapon, nothing! But USA need to bomb Yugoslavia because of one man, they need to bomb Iraq because of one man... It's the worst solution of the problem (and as you see I call the Saddam's regime as a problem, not as beautiful years of Iraq). People of USA don't know WHAT is like when war is near you or in your country. Yes, they've been involved in WW1 and WW2, but wars were in Europe mostly. Though without USA help it would be very-very hard to over the war! And it were USA messengers who were trying to get in contact with Himmler in the end of WW2 and they didn't care what he did here (in Europe), for us - it was impossible to talk with that man about anything even! Wars became the pure business, there are no goals like democracy or liberty, there's only business. Anyway I agree with you - what's happened with people of Iraq - can't and mustn't be happened again in any other country. Never! About 9/11 - I don't see any Western leaders who'd help Russia to solve problem with Chechnya, you all know what's happened in Beslan with 1000 kids, what's happened in Moscow many times (I've lost my neighbour in one those terrorist attacks) - but still we're awful and terrible bloody Russians who kills sweet and saint Chechen guys for nothing. Double standards... OT: My posts become longer and longer... Sorry guys, you need to read these my thoughts on MY English... ;) |
| jasen101 22.11.2005 04:36 |
I think we should make a trade for Osama...we give em Bush and let em do what they want with him and then we get Osama...and have our way with him...it's a win-win situation. There will be peace for ever more!:P Second trade will be Rush Limbaugh for Zarquawi...what do you think?? |
| Fairy 22.11.2005 06:35 |
Serry, 1. Your English is perfect! 2. Such topics deserve long posts, so long posts are great. 3. I agree with some of the things you say. But I don't agree on others :-). For example, the Coalition did not go to Iraq to destroy it, and Iraq was not destroyed at all. It was actually liberated. A few weeks ago, democratic elections have taken place in Iraq, and recently also in Afghanistan. Why doesn't anyone bother to praise all this? Italy was bombed, ravaged, destroyed for real. Not Iraq. To get at Mussolini and eradicate fascism/nazism, Italy was indeed destroyed. This has not happened in Iraq. But any Italian with some common sense, even those who don't like the US, will never hate them for "invading" us. They saved us! 4. Unfortunately I don't know enough about Chechnya, so I can't comment on that. I agree it is a terrible problem that most countries seem to overlook. And that is a shame. Oops my posts are long too! And considering that I'm at work I'd better close. :-) Dosvidania! Sorry for my terrible Russian... Fairy |
| Serry... 22.11.2005 07:15 |
Vero, Fairy, this is what I've said! In 40s we have war against Italy/nazism, not Mussolini. But then there was a need to catch Mussolini - they did it! They didn't destroy Italy, just because of him, it wasn't the goal of the war! Italy was destroyed because of the war. But now we have another case - we're supposed to have war against Saddam, but it seems like a war against Iraq! If you compare Iraq before the war and after the war - you'll see that a big part of Iraq was destroyed actually. Not at all, of course, but it was - just because of one man! Saddam's regime was awful, but it has nothing to do with buildings, airports etc. what they had before the war. It wasn't poor country. And still - it wasn't war against Iraq, as they told us. Very high price, IMHO! This is what terrorists are doing. They have something against USA government, so they go and kill... civil people of USA. USA wanted to have Saddam, so they went and started the war against PART of people of Iraq (Saddam had supporters anyway). They have different goals, certainly, but use the same ways sometimes. And now different companies and corporations rebuild Iraq and as we all might see those companies are from West Europe and from USA. Destroy the country - and build it again. Pure business, as I wrote above! And sometimes it's very hard to explain to a man who has no food to eat and clothes to wear - that he must be happy, because now he may go to the elections... A lot of people in Russia still misses about USSR - we didn't have elections then, but we had food. About Chechnya - yes, you don't know the details, as well as other guys from the rest of the world. But they blame us, they judge us and prohibites us to compare terrorism in Chechnya with terrorism in other Islamic countries. We have here "wrong" terrorism (we deserve it maybe by someone's opinion?), UN didn't care about 1000 killed children in Beslan. And no-one knows the details... And in the end I wanna say one simple thing: there's no any goal in our world that would deserve human life to be taken as a price for it! Ciao ;) |
| Mr.Jingles 22.11.2005 08:24 |
Serry Not only you have better english than many Russians who've been living in America for years, but you have a better use of the language than the President of the United States. It seems like you're not of person who'd say something like: "Is our children learning?" |
| Mr.Jingles 22.11.2005 08:30 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: As Iraq was never a threat, and the war is and always was a complete farce with no value, the solution is clear: 1. Immediate evacuation from Iraq. 2. Release of all "innocent" political prisoners including Saddam. 3. Let Russia send in peace keeping forces as they have an excellent history of dealing peacefully with Islamic extrememists.Why point fingers at each other when both the United States and Russia have a past of violating international law and invading other nations for the sole purpose of pushing their own extremist political agendas. Vietnam and Afghanistan are proof of this. At least Serry is smart enough to admit that his own country has made mistakes in the past. |
| Fairy 22.11.2005 11:58 |
Serry, I think our views have more similarities than differences. However, I think the big difference between the way we see this thing is that I see the Iraqi war as a war against a regime, and for the restoration of democracy, whereas you see it as a war against the Iraqis. Mussolini had lost all his power when he was captured. This required destruction and civilian casualties. It doesn't matter if his very capture didn't require bombs. The entire process did. All the Americans and Brits who died to free us were heroes. If the Iraqis understand this, they can take it from there and build a better future for themselves...and what's so wrong about foreign investments, if it brings wealth to a ravaged country? I can't understand how someone from Russia can miss the USSR. In Afghanistan, the internet was forbidden. So was TV except for the national channel. I have an Afghani penpal who told me he used to watch TV and Western movies in secret, and he had set up a satellite dish on his roof, at the risk of being jailed for it. I don't know if this is worth having more food...Freedom can imply more sacrifice at the beginning. But it also offers great opportunity. The freedom of speech is one (who knows if the internet would be allowed if you were living in the USSR). Freedom of travel is another. Freedom of hearing the music you like is another. In Afghanistan music was virtually forbidden. Ciao Serry! :-) |
| Mr.Jingles 22.11.2005 12:29 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: The difference between the USA and Russia is that the USA cares about the oppressed Kurds, Shiites, and Afghans (and Kuwait), but Russia never cared about the Chechnian or Afghan people.Now, that's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Sure the Russians have their history of violation of human rights, but what a hypocrite way to blame others for things that we've done as well. You can't point a finger to murderer while your hands are stained with blood, you know. I really can see how much the U.S. government cares about innocent civilians when they burned villages in Vietnam, bombed people with napalm, tortured and killed anyone who they suspected were Vietcong supporters. Then came the Iran/Contras affair, the illegal trade of arms that triggered a war to stop the spread of communsism in Central America to the cost of thousands of innocent civilians, while giving support to right wing extremists who were just about as ruthless as their communist enemies. All for the sake of protecting American interests. Do I need to get started with our support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s? There was so much hatred against the Ayatollah after the hostage crisis, that we pretty much gave weapons to anyone who stood against Iran. 100.000 lives after the end of the gulf war in the 80s, the invasion of Kuwait, and the massacres of Kurds & Shiites, then all of sudden we realized that Saddam was one bad ass motherfucka. Of course, how can we forget our support for the Taliban regime and Osama Bin Laden when they were still receiving financial and military aid after the Russians left Afghanistan. I guess we thought back then that they weren't supossed to bite the hand that fed them, didn't we? Nowdays it's all about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. It's all about the air strikes that accidentally kill innocents. It's about the torture, the abuse, and the violation of human rights against anyone who "we think" is a supporter of terrorist groups and militias. I won't deny that in certain ways we're actually helping defend and protect the lives of civilians, but we can't fight the enemy by becoming the enemy. The desperation for defeating the insurgency and putting an end to terrorism is making terrorists out of ourselves. Do we expect a child who has lost his parents in the crossfire to grow up and understand that our intentions were not to kill his loved ones. Sadly, there's too many children in Iraq today who are very likely to grow up to become terrorists. May God help them understand that all the hatred they're holding inside their hearts can't be eliminated by firing a weapon. |
| Music Man 22.11.2005 15:52 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:How sad that you somehow misconstrued that as me calling you a Democrat. I just felt it necessary to balance the scale, due to your obvious one-sided attacks. It's not like you've never seen me adding counterweights before, and if you haven't, then pay attention.Music Man wrote:How sad that you cannot grasp the fact that I'm not a democrat either. However, in the case of democrat/republican, I'd go for the lesser evil of the two, which is NOT a republican (it would've been in the 19th century, though)!<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: "we" might? I don't see "you" going out there. Besides, if you get one, another comes forward and takes the regime from there...like republicans.Oh my, or Democrats! |
| Mr.Jingles 22.11.2005 16:34 |
Music Man wrote:Once I told this girl that I thought that Angeline Jolie was extremely hot, and she went on to say that I was a pervert, a chauvinistic pig, and a potential rapist. Which really upset me back then...<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:How sad that you somehow misconstrued that as me calling you a Democrat. I just felt it necessary to balance the scale, due to your obvious one-sided attacks. It's not like you've never seen me adding counterweights before, and if you haven't, then pay attention.Music Man wrote:How sad that you cannot grasp the fact that I'm not a democrat either. However, in the case of democrat/republican, I'd go for the lesser evil of the two, which is NOT a republican (it would've been in the 19th century, though)!<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: "we" might? I don't see "you" going out there. Besides, if you get one, another comes forward and takes the regime from there...like republicans.Oh my, or Democrats! ...then I realized that she just wanted to balance the scale between males and females. |
| Saint Jiub 22.11.2005 23:42 |
Like many other breakaway republics, Chechneya briefly, had it's independence after decades of brutal repression by the Soviet Union. Ironicly, Russia could not let go of Chechneya because of an oil pipeline running through it. The UN is a joke ... food for oil, putting rogue nations who murder their own innocent people in charge of human rights monitoring ... As for Bosnia, perhaps the genocide should have been ignored ... because war is killing and killing is wrong. And of course Milosovic should not have been arrested and tried, because too many people died while he was pursued. Fifty years ago Harry Truman could not be re-elected as as US president because of the Korean war. Look at Soth Korea now: an economic powerhouse that produces quality goods second only to Japan. If the spread of communism was allowed, South Korea would be ruled by North Korea and in poverty. Unfortunately, South Vietnam never was able to capitalize on their rescue from communism. The first liberation of Afghanistan (from the Soviets) had one major beneficial side effect: It helped initiate the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus freeing half of Europe and most of the breakaway republics (Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and the Whatever-Stan's are all this geographicly impaired American can remember off the top of his head). As for the US supporting Saddam and Osama 20 years ago, who knows how strong an unchecked Soviet Union and Iran would be now? Certainly no one had a crystal ball to predict the twin towers collapse, the gassing of the Kurds or the invasion of Kuwait. This war is a just war for liberating the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, and preventing Saddam from further destablizing the middle east (Anyone remember Saddam's monetary awards to families of suicide bombers who hit Israel?) Perhaps (but I doubt it) the war would not have been necessary if France (oil), Germany (oil) and Russia were not in Saddam's back pocket due to strong economic ties to Iraq. Funny how this war for oil involves the UN, France, and Germany, but the USA has not received one drop of oil. As to whether the weapons of mass destruction is a lie ... I do not care. All Politicians lie. Regardless, this war was necessary to eliminate Saddam and his cronies, and of course liberate Iraq and establish democracy. Halliburtan and no bid contracts is wrong, but it is much better than having Gore or Kerry in the White House. Of course if this war is so wrong and because Iraq was never a threat, The USA should immediately evacuate Iraq, and free all the political prisoners (including Saddam). |
| Mr.Jingles 23.11.2005 00:03 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: The UN is a joke....and the U.S. is not? I think all Americans should be thankful for the Bush administration because it makes 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' worth watching every single day. We all know this is one fucked up world, but we all have one thing in common. We all have our share of blame on fuckin' it up even more. Sadly nobody wants to admit it. |
| Mr.Jingles 23.11.2005 00:43 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: As to whether the weapons of mass destruction is a lie ... I do not care. All Politicians lie. Regardless, this war was necessary to eliminate Saddam and his cronies, and of course liberate Iraq and establish democracy. Halliburtan and no bid contracts is wrong, but it is much better than having Gore or Kerry in the White House.Let's see... Apparently it's OK for the Bush administration to lie. It's OK for them to tell us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, that there were links to 9/11 and Al-Qaida which were then proven false. It's OK for Halliburton and other contractors to take advantage of the situation and have American soldiers sacrifice their lives in order to bring a profit to corporations. All of that is OK. Yes, all politicians lie. I mean, Clinton lied about a blow job, didn't he? How did it affect us that an intern was giving him the pleasure that Hillary couldn't give him in bed? Who cares! All of sudden someone's sex life is considered a matter of national security, when all things needed were a marriage counselor and less than 10 bucks to wipe a couple of cum stains off a blue dress. Morally wrong? Yes, indeed. Yet not as bad as starting a war based on empty accusations and false information. Then again, it's OK to lie about that, isn't it? Keep posting more, dude. This is getting even funnier than Fatty's stories. |
| Saint Jiub 23.11.2005 01:39 |
It was unfortunate that Clinton administration got away with Whitewater, travelgate, the Vince Foster suicide coverup, the looting of the White House before leaving office, destruction of government property when leaving office, attempting to allow China exclusive free use of a Navy port for importing, Gore attempting to fleece China for campaign contributions (Buddhist temple), having a Chicagoan couple audited by the IRS because they refused to shake his hand during a Chicago visit (Put Out the Fire), and attempting to allow a Chinee government company run the Panama Canal. And do not forget, that Clinton is a rapist. Clinton's (including Gore and Hillary) treasonous, currupt and indulgent conspiracies were clearly not in US interest. At least Bush attempts to do what is right for America, and does not receive a blow job while Arafat waits in an adjoining room. |
| Music Man 23.11.2005 02:52 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Apparently it's OK for the Bush administration to lie. It's OK for them to tell us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, that there were links to 9/11 and Al-Qaida which were then proven false. It's OK for Halliburton and other contractors to take advantage of the situation and have American soldiers sacrifice their lives in order to bring a profit to corporations. All of that is OK.I'm still not quite convinced that Bush lied. Perhaps I am merely uninformed, and I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could clarify this for me. It is to my understanding that Bush had received intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This was the primary reason for going to war. It is to my recollection that Bush stated that he had such information. If he had this information, regardless of how inaccurate it turned out to be, I can't imagine how he had lied. Well, eventually, these claims proved false. Thus, the initiation of the war lacked merit. To no one's fault, from what I gather, just an accident. However, there is a different set of prerequisites for a) going to war and b) remaining in war. The first set is much stricter, as it involves the invasion of another territory. This set requires that some action of the other country is somehow negatively affecting yours. The potential presence of WMD's was this cause. Now, since we are already in Iraq, these prerequisites need not be as strong. Entry into Iraq was already committed. You can't redo that, nor can you undo that. Thus, any further reason for remaining in this territory is acceptable. Hence, the removal of an undesireable dictator and the instillment of a democracy. This makes sense to me, although I am not sure I explained it perfectly. Still, one must first explain to me as to how Bush lied, and therefore I may more accurately formulate my opinions. |
| Fairy 23.11.2005 05:20 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: |
| Serry... 23.11.2005 07:17 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: Like many other breakaway republics, Chechneya briefly, had it's independence after decades of brutal repression by the Soviet Union.Hahahaha! I was laughing 'till the tears! Where did you get this shit?! Is it in your American history books? Well... I'd better wouldn't reply on your other statements then, because you KNOW NOTHING AT ALL! Chechnya is a part of Russia, my dear, for few hundreds years and USSR started its life about 90 years ago... QZ always learn you something interesting, isn't? And Chechnya has never had any independece, because it never was a republic like Ukraine and others. You really need to check your facts before telling shit like that! About UN - I know one country where has been said the following "We don't need UN sactions and resolutions, if we want to bomb someone because of our safety!". Do I have to name this country...? This is why UN is a joke now. Who cares about what they're doing, if ONE country (I'm not gonna name it), do its bussiness and don't care about what UN think about. And still - "we've helped Bin Laden? There's someone who helps Iran now..."... Man, JUST SAY ONE LINE: SERRY, YES, WE'VE HELPED HIM AND WE DID MISTAKE! Are you brave enough to say that or you'd preffer to go on this list of what we did (according to your history books of course)? That's funny, really! And most funniest thing is: AMERICAN MAN TELLS ME, WHO'S LIVED HALF OF LIFE IN USSR, HOW IT WAS TO LIVE IN USSR (UNDER ITS BRUTALITY AND OTHER)! I love it! P.S. The last country on the Earth who would need someone's oil is Russia. Open books and read - we have oceans of oil and don't need in Iraq, Iran... P.P.S. We don't know what is communism, because we didn't reach it - USSR as well as other countries from Eastern bloc - were socialistic countries, not communistic. You really need to wash your brains from your the Cold War propaganda garbage (I wouldn't be surprised if some of you think that we have snow in Moscow in summer and there are bears walking in the streets...). Rip, don't reply to me in this discussion - it's useless and hopeless to understand each other in these politic/history fights. And sorry if I'm too much rude, but it pisses me off that the Cold War is not over yet. Our government sucks, yours sucks, Queen rules! ;) |
| Mr.Jingles 23.11.2005 08:34 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: It was unfortunate that Clinton administration got away with Whitewater, travelgate, the Vince Foster suicide coverup, the looting of the White House before leaving office, destruction of government property when leaving office, attempting to allow China exclusive free use of a Navy port for importing, Gore attempting to fleece China for campaign contributions (Buddhist temple), having a Chicagoan couple audited by the IRS because they refused to shake his hand during a Chicago visit (Put Out the Fire), and attempting to allow a Chinee government company run the Panama Canal. And do not forget, that Clinton is a rapist. Clinton's (including Gore and Hillary) treasonous, currupt and indulgent conspiracies were clearly not in US interest. At least Bush attempts to do what is right for America, and does not receive a blow job while Arafat waits in an adjoining room.Oh man, that's just hilarious! Now Clinton, that man is pure evil. He sure was a rapist. He was the one who brought those kids to Neverland Ranch to have a wild party with Michael Jackson. Oh, and don't get me started with that sex tape where he's fucking Paris Hilton. Seriously speaking now, it cracks me up how the ultra conservatives make a fuss over Clinton getting a blow job, and then saying: - "HE'S A TRAITOR, HE BETRAYED OUR NATION AND NOW HE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AND BE SENT TO JAIL" -. The truth of the matter is that the only person Clinton betrayed was his wife. Turns out to be that our extreme right wing buddies hate Hillary even more than Bill Clinton himself. Gotta love the extreme right wing. The really know how to keep the spirit of Joseph McCarthy alive. I can see you get all your sources from FOX News, don't cha? Of course Bush does what's right for America. Just like when he received that memo on August 6th 2001 from the CIA warning of the possibility of terrorists attacks from Al-Qaeda involving hijacked planes. link Was an emergency meeting called? Apparently not, but with the justified reason that Dubya needed to go spend some vacation time at his Texas ranch. Let's cut the poor dude some slack. He really needed a break, and terrorism of course can wait to be taken care of. Then on that tuesday morning in Septmber: THE UNEXPECTED! Please don't blame Dubya for just sitting there in front of the classroom reading 'My Pet Goat' while the country was under attack. I mean... SHIT HAPPENS. How was he supossed to know that what was written on that memo was correct? Keep it coming, man. I'm killing myself here. |
| Music Man 23.11.2005 12:28 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:If that's what you call an appropriate analogy, I suppose you're an idiot. It's ridiculous how little thought and substance actually went into that post. It's funny how I'm even dignifying it with a response.Music Man wrote:If that's what you call "counterweights", I suppose you call decapitation a good cure for a headache? Sorry for the cliché, but your daft comments aren't worthy of anything remotely original.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:How sad that you somehow misconstrued that as me calling you a Democrat. I just felt it necessary to balance the scale, due to your obvious one-sided attacks. It's not like you've never seen me adding counterweights before, and if you haven't, then pay attention.Music Man wrote:How sad that you cannot grasp the fact that I'm not a democrat either. However, in the case of democrat/republican, I'd go for the lesser evil of the two, which is NOT a republican (it would've been in the 19th century, though)!<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: "we" might? I don't see "you" going out there. Besides, if you get one, another comes forward and takes the regime from there...like republicans.Oh my, or Democrats! Let me explain to you what a counterweight is. When one party decides to baselessly attack one, and only one, of two opposing groups, it is necessary for another to consider the other group, and not exempt it from the mercy of the original party's unfounded attack. You see, it's all a scale. When you tip the scale in favor of one group, I will tip it back to evenness. Unless, however, you have explained a valid point. You seem to frequently run short of those, however. Thus, counterweights. |
| Saint Jiub 23.11.2005 20:47 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote:P.S. The last country on the Earth who would need someone's oil is Russia. Open books and read - we have oceans of oil and don't need in Iraq, Iran...link |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 23.11.2005 22:01 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote:FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: FYI, Hitler didn't want a war. He just wanted to take over Europe and kill people. He didn't want resistance. And are you trying to say Bush' is an enemy of the Jews, too? Tell that to Wolfowitz and Pearl!"Hitler didn't want a war?" Uhhh... So 20 millions Russian people dead because of flu,No, 20 million dead because Stalin and the Communist PArty of your country aided and abetted Hitler almost every step of the way, partitioning Poland, overrunning the Baltic states, making it possible for Hitler to attack the West by signing a non-agression pact with him, sending Hitler badly needed supplies of oil, allowing Germany to bypass the regulations of the Treaty of Versailles by secretly training on Russian soil (near Kazan). He modeled the Gestapo on the NKVD (do you know what THAT was? SHame on you!) He modeled the National Socialist education of his troops on the commissar system of the RKKA (aka Workers' and Peasant's Red Army)Then he double-crossed you and kicked the shit out of you!I guess... Hitler didn't make tanks, submarines,No, Hitler did not work in a factory, so he didn't actually make any tanks... But TANKS for the memories, anyway...and Hering"Chop down the mightiest tree in the forest - with a HERRING!" Do you mean Hermann Goering, the Head of the Luftwaffe? You are obviously incredibly ignorant if you don't even know who the Number Two man in the Third Reich was.was just playing chess through the days. "And are you trying to say Bush' is an enemy of the Jews, too?" Did I say that? Whose English is terrible then?YOURS!I said it was Hitler's goal, and your Bush goal is "democracy", learn how to read. "Pearl" I'm sorry but I'm so stupid that I don't know who he is even."Pearl" is Daniel Pearl, journalist murdered by the Islamofacists simply because he was Jewish. There is also former Undersecretary of State Richard Perle (famed neo-conservative)By the way, do you know Nikolai Kondrat'ev? No? Shame on you.You mean the Russian economist and statistician? Shame on YOU! |
| Saint Jiub 23.11.2005 23:22 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Now Clinton, that man is pure evil. He sure was a rapist. He was the one who brought those kids to Neverland Ranch to have a wild party with Michael Jackson. Oh, and don't get me started with that sex tape where he's fucking Paris Hilton. Keep it coming, man. I'm killing myself here.Here is a Washington Post article about Clinton the rapist: |
| Music Man 24.11.2005 02:37 |
You know, some thing about Russia: they used to have a real kick-ass hockey team. Back in the days of Kharlamov, Larionov, Tretiak, and company. |
| Serry... 24.11.2005 07:40 |
FGT - now you need to hear that English is not my native language and I don't any fucking care how Hering name spells on English? About USSR and Germany - have you ever heard what kind of document was signed in Munich in 1938? And who have signed it? No? Then back to your college! (I guess this is not what you can hear in your college so read it: link ) And no - Kondratiev is not economist or statistician, you even can't use fucking Google! Haha! About my English again - did I say something about Bush and jews anyway? Or I didn't? Or you just have seen it in your nightmare? "No, 20 million dead because Stalin and the Communist PArty of your country" - after these words, you don't exist anymore for me. My grandfather died on that war and you tell me that it was because of Stalin. You can't hardly imagine even how stupid you are! |
| Serry... 24.11.2005 07:45 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: linkRip, now listen to me - if you're gonna prove your position by articles written by Chechen or American journalists (the article you've posted is written by Chechen journalist, it's like if I'd give you link to Bin Laden home page for learing history of USA!), then yes - we're the most awful and terrible country in the world. But if you listen to me - then I'd tell you Chechen's oil is 1% of all Russian oil. One! It's not something to start war about, but still - PEOPLE OF RUSSIA HATE OUR FORMER PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE STARTED THAT WAR! WE DON'T ENJOY IT! WE'RE NOT SAYING - LOOK, HOW GOOD AND CLEVER WE ARE - OUR KIDS ARE DYING, THEIR KIDS ARE DYING, WHAT A FUN! My point was: we don't need in oil from Iraq. I don't know about Germany or France, but we - don't need it, we have our own oil. We don't need to defend Iraq because of oil. You bombed Iraq, they can't sell oil now, prices getting higher, Russia gets more money actually... You said: politicans lie! So, Rip, are you politician? No. Am I? No. So why do we need to lie to each other? I've said that my county did bad things, I've said that our government sucks, I've said that Saddam is an enemy. You can't say something fair about country. That's the problem. But you still can't understand it, you grow up with one idea around you "Russia is an enemy!", time changes, but your mind - not. And it's YOUR problem, actually! |
| Serry... 24.11.2005 07:58 |
Fairy, I forgot to reply you about art in communistic country. You're wrong. Not completely, but still wrong. The problem is that when the Iron Curtain falled we have got here a lot of Western music, movies, books, we've seen that you weren't so afwul as they told us! But USA and other countries - didn't get into what was/is REAL Russia. They still think that communistic times were terrible... For whom? I'm not communist, I don't love them, but when you say that people of USSR (not only of Russia - of all republics!) were unhappy - that's wrong. Queen music have never been prohibited in Russia. Never! If you'd look into Queen discography there is a lot of their official releases in USSR, I've seen Queen promos on TV in the 80s. Yes, they didn't broadcasted Queen music on radio, yes, yes, yes, but it wasn't prohibited. Queen never were a politic band and have never said something bad about USSR, so why do they need to be banned? Elton John - with all his gay image - played in USSR, Richard, Tom Jones and others played here. Without any serious problems! When you're talking about Islamic countries - this is not fairly too, because Western music (part of) is not allowed by their religion, not by their leaders. And to be honest - not all of them are interested in Western music. It's like to say "Look, people in Nigeria don't listen to Russian/Italian folk-music! It's probably because of their dictators... We must bomb and help them!". But they just don't interested in Russian folk-music, that's why they don't hear it. And about censorship and art I must tell you one thing. There was a guy who was a probably the biggest and best Hollywood star ever, this guy filmed a lot of movies and have a lot of fans, his movies still brings fun and laughter over the world, his name is still alive and would be alive as long as cinema exists. But he had some friends who were communists, he filmed movies where some "lefty" things have been said, and he had to leave USA because of that. He had to leave the country where he lived for about 40 years. Just because someone thought that he was a communist. His name is Charlie Chaplin... Do I need to name someone else or put some more facts (for instance about Charlie's "The Great Dictator" movie, when guys from the White House came to him and said - Charlie, you must to stop to film this movie, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TROUBLES WITH MR HITLER!). So please, don't tell me about censorship in so-called "democratic" countries and how it was hard to work for an artist in USSR... It was hard, but not that hard as people in Europe and USA used to think! Ciao! (isn't my Italian nice? :) |
| Saint Jiub 24.11.2005 10:13 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote:Rip Van Winkle wrote: linkPEOPLE OF RUSSIA HATE OUR FORMER PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE STARTED THAT WAR! WE DON'T ENJOY IT! WE'RE NOT SAYING - LOOK, HOW GOOD AND CLEVER WE ARE - OUR KIDS ARE DYING, THEIR KIDS ARE DYING, WHAT A FUN! |
| Serry... 24.11.2005 11:06 |
Yes, Rip, I agree with you! We need to go them away! If I'd be President - there would not be any problems! :) We make our own bloody business there, but why someone else does need to repeat it?! Especially not on its own territory, but in other country? It's all about money - in Russia, in USA, in Vatican - everywhere. |
| Music Man 24.11.2005 12:04 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I'm definately with Serry here! The people on FGT's side, such as Music Man, are absolutely full of it. They keep yelling that we are screwing up the facts and slanting (read between the lines of MM's posts), when they wouldn't recognize a valid argument if it hit them in the face. I'm not going to bother responding to these idiots anymore. Music Man, you pretend to be intellectual and intelligent, however, your posts prove the opposite. Accusing ME of improper analogies when prime examples of those can be found in YOUR posts? I detect a large amount of American nationalism and semi-fascist tendencies here, which I distantiate myself from. As a final word of conclusion: Bush would prefer nuking his homeland over instating a TRUE democracy in the US.The only fact is that you have yet to confute a single thing I have ever said. You are the clearly the one putting up a pretense of some manner of righteous understanding, when it is never clear to anyone that you actually know what you are talking about. 90% of your posts attack the integrity and person of others, while the other 10% baselessly promote your views. I am no one to say whether these views are correct, but I can clearly and openly judge that they have to foundation that you have explained to anyone. Now, I asked a perfectly valid question on the page before, which I deemed a perfect tool for any promoter of anti-Bush sentiments. Your unwillingness to answer this leads me to one, and only one, conclusion: you are full of shit. It's unbelievable how short-sighted some people can be... |
| The Real Wizard 24.11.2005 13:21 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Bush isn't sending people to blow up civilians and children or behead businessmen. He's bringing in democracy.You and millions of fellow conservatives are making the assumption that Iraqi people want a democracy. They have never been exposed to democracy, nor do they want to change their ways to be more like the west. If they did, then they would have said so a long time ago. Nobody asked the US to go there and do anything. It's got to be a last resort, but when it's necessary it's necessary.In this case, it was not necessary. Bush chose to go there and spend trillions of tax-payers dollars. And in the same breath, he couldn't afford to properely barricade New Orleans. Try and talk your way out of this one. |
| Mr.Jingles 24.11.2005 13:42 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote:Mr.Jingles wrote:Can you truly believe someone who is accusing someone of a rape more than 20 years after the incident happened? All of sudden this woman realizes that there's a whole bunch of Republicans willing to back her up, and then she realizes... HEY, NOW THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT MONICA LEWINSKY I SHOULD BE TELLING WHAT CLINTON DID TO ME.Now Clinton, that man is pure evil. He sure was a rapist. He was the one who brought those kids to Neverland Ranch to have a wild party with Michael Jackson. Oh, and don't get me started with that sex tape where he's fucking Paris Hilton. Keep it coming, man. I'm killing myself here.Here is a Washington Post article about Clinton the rapist: link |
| Mr.Jingles 24.11.2005 13:44 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: Here is a Washington Post article about Clinton the rapist: linkCan you truly believe someone who is accusing someone of a rape more than 20 years after the incident happened? All of sudden this woman realizes that there's a whole bunch of Republicans willing to back her up, and then she realizes... HEY, NOW THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT MONICA LEWINSKY I SHOULD BE TELLING WHAT CLINTON DID TO ME. Anyone who prefers to remain silent and not notify authorities after being victim of a crime is a fuckin' idiot. That's exactly the same reason why Michael Jackson is free. I don't know whether Michael Jackson is guilty or not, but all I know is that the parents of that kid were willing to settle the matter out of court. Which means that they were either con artists, or dirty scumbags who were willing to prostitute their own child and receive money just to not notify authorities that he has been abused. |
| Mr.Jingles 24.11.2005 13:45 |
(Double post) |
| Mr.Jingles 24.11.2005 13:47 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote:It's useless Serry.Rip Van Winkle wrote: linkRip, now listen to me - if you're gonna prove your position by articles written by Chechen or American journalists (the article you've posted is written by Chechen journalist, it's like if I'd give you link to Bin Laden home page for learing history of USA!), then yes - we're the most awful and terrible country in the world. But if you listen to me - then I'd tell you Chechen's oil is 1% of all Russian oil. One! It's not something to start war about, but still - PEOPLE OF RUSSIA HATE OUR FORMER PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE STARTED THAT WAR! WE DON'T ENJOY IT! WE'RE NOT SAYING - LOOK, HOW GOOD AND CLEVER WE ARE - OUR KIDS ARE DYING, THEIR KIDS ARE DYING, WHAT A FUN! My point was: we don't need in oil from Iraq. I don't know about Germany or France, but we - don't need it, we have our own oil. We don't need to defend Iraq because of oil. You bombed Iraq, they can't sell oil now, prices getting higher, Russia gets more money actually... You said: politicans lie! So, Rip, are you politician? No. Am I? No. So why do we need to lie to each other? I've said that my county did bad things, I've said that our government sucks, I've said that Saddam is an enemy. You can't say something fair about country. That's the problem. But you still can't understand it, you grow up with one idea around you "Russia is an enemy!", time changes, but your mind - not. And it's YOUR problem, actually! Someone who is not willing to admit the mistakes of their own just has his head way up his ass. |
| Mr.Jingles 24.11.2005 14:01 |
Serry I remember watching on HBO a couple of weeks ago a documentary called 'The Children Of Beslan' where the Russian children who were witness accounts of the tragedy in their own school tell their own side of the story. It was the saddest thing to watch this children comment on how horrible it was to watch their friends, teachers, and parents get shot right in front of their eyes. They also mentioned how all of sudden millions of Russians had an outpour of sympathy for the people of Beslan, and each kid received a whole bunch of money collected from charities, and yet all of that didn't mean anything to them because nothing would ever erase the painful memories from that day. Some of them mentioned having a thirst for revenge, and said that they can't wait to grow up to join the Russian army and go to Chechenya and kill all the terrorists. As obvious it is that terrorists should be brought to justice, there's no doubt that all the hatred that these kids hold inside their hearts could make potential terrorists out of them. We can't blame them for feeling they way they do, but these children do really need a lot of help overcoming all the hate that has obscured their innocence. |
| Saint Jiub 24.11.2005 14:17 |
"Broaddrick was dubbed Jane Doe No. 5" At least five woman had credible acusations against Clinton the PERJUROR of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment. |
| Saint Jiub 24.11.2005 14:34 |
Because this war is unjust and the US immediate evacuation is imperative, then all political prisoners include Saddam must be released and the previous government reinstated. |
| Serry... 24.11.2005 14:37 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Serry I remember watching on HBO a couple of weeks ago a documentary called 'The Children Of Beslan' where the Russian children who were witness accounts of the tragedy in their own school tell their own side of the story.So it's not so bad in USA with receiving true information about what's happened in Chechnya... This is something at least! The whole country are still trying to help these kids, but if you have seen their eyes... It's impossible to help them actually. Terrorists didn't give them water therefore they needed to drink they own urine (I'm sorry, but it's really happened there) even. And these terrorists received money from the guy who "helped initiate the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus freeing half of Europe and most of the breakaway republics" as it was said before. What a nice price for the collapse of another super-power! |
| Mr.Jingles 24.11.2005 15:33 |
Sadly 'The Children Of Beslan' was only shown on HBO, which is just a cable channel. I wish it could have been broadcasted on national TV. This documentary is indeed something that everyone should watch. Despite the horrofic stories of the reality of war and terrorism, it's something that truly opens people's eyes to understand how the innocence of children is completely shattered destroyed by the hatred of people who think that they can take "eye for an eye" in order to bring justice. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 24.11.2005 18:10 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Iraq DOES want a democracy. The Iraqi people have VOTED in favor of the new Constitution.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Bush isn't sending people to blow up civilians and children or behead businessmen. He's bringing in democracy.You and millions of fellow conservatives are making the assumption that Iraqi people want a democracy. They have never been exposed to democracy, nor do they want to change their ways to be more like the west. If they did, then they would have said so a long time ago. Nobody asked the US to go there and do anything.It's got to be a last resort, but when it's necessary it's necessary.In this case, it was not necessary. Bush chose to go there and spend trillions of tax-payers dollars. And in the same breath, he couldn't afford to properely barricade New Orleans. Try and talk your way out of this one. I don't believe Bush is the governor or mayor of New Orleans, do you? Both of whom were... Democrats... |
| Aaron Powell 24.11.2005 19:06 |
I wish someone would give George Bush a blow job so we could impeach the bastard,because apparently sex is far worse than lying to your citizens and sending them off to fight a war made up of lies. |
| Mr.Jingles 24.11.2005 19:10 |
...as far as I'm concerned building a far more secure structure of levees would definitely go over the local budget, and it does indeed need to be requested to the federal government. Both the Bush administration and local authoritires responded horribly to Katrina. However, it's absolutely ridiculous that a President would decide to do some old buddy a favor and give him a job as head of FEMA when he had no fuckin' experience whatsoever in emergency management, and was even fired from an Arabian horse association. I'm very sorry, but a president who chooses to give his close pals a high government positions instead of picking the most qualified individual is a president that should be removed from office. Just like when Harriet Miers was nominated for member of the Supreme Court. |
| Saint Jiub 24.11.2005 22:04 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: ...as far as I'm concerned building a far more secure structure of levees would definitely go over the local budget, and it does indeed need to be requested to the federal government. |
| Music Man 24.11.2005 23:42 |
Music Man wrote:The forum messed up the placement of this (as usual), so I think I'll repost it since I'm quite sure Thomas had overpassed it.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I'm definately with Serry here! The people on FGT's side, such as Music Man, are absolutely full of it. They keep yelling that we are screwing up the facts and slanting (read between the lines of MM's posts), when they wouldn't recognize a valid argument if it hit them in the face. I'm not going to bother responding to these idiots anymore. Music Man, you pretend to be intellectual and intelligent, however, your posts prove the opposite. Accusing ME of improper analogies when prime examples of those can be found in YOUR posts? I detect a large amount of American nationalism and semi-fascist tendencies here, which I distantiate myself from. As a final word of conclusion: Bush would prefer nuking his homeland over instating a TRUE democracy in the US.The only fact is that you have yet to confute a single thing I have ever said. You are the clearly the one putting up a pretense of some manner of righteous understanding, when it is never clear to anyone that you actually know what you are talking about. 90% of your posts attack the integrity and person of others, while the other 10% baselessly promote your views. I am no one to say whether these views are correct, but I can clearly and openly judge that they have to foundation that you have explained to anyone. Now, I asked a perfectly valid question on the page before, which I deemed a perfect tool for any promoter of anti-Bush sentiments. Your unwillingness to answer this leads me to one, and only one, conclusion: you are full of shit. It's unbelievable how short-sighted some people can be... |
| jasen101 25.11.2005 03:05 |
What planet are u on Freddiesghetto? You sound like a nut. |
| Guy 25.11.2005 03:12 |
jasen101 wrote: What planet are u on Freddiesghetto? You sound like a nut.And how did you reach that conclusion? |
| Guy 25.11.2005 03:16 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:What do you mean by "they would have said so"? Free speech isn't exactly the first right one gets to use in a tyran regime.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Bush isn't sending people to blow up civilians and children or behead businessmen. He's bringing in democracy.You and millions of fellow conservatives are making the assumption that Iraqi people want a democracy. They have never been exposed to democracy, nor do they want to change their ways to be more like the west. If they did, then they would have said so a long time ago. Nobody asked the US to go there and do anything.It's got to be a last resort, but when it's necessary it's necessary.In this case, it was not necessary. Bush chose to go there and spend trillions of tax-payers dollars. And in the same breath, he couldn't afford to properely barricade New Orleans. Try and talk your way out of this one. |
| pma 25.11.2005 03:31 |
You're all nutty left-wing liberals in my view, posting on this god-forbidden homosexuality promoting anti-christian website. When a disaster strikes on queenzone, don't dare ask God to help your evil souls. Ask your false prophet Mercury for help! A long-time-ago'ah you have turned your backs on GOD allmightay! PS. Tinky-winky knew Freddie I'll be on FNC soon... :-P |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 25.11.2005 08:09 |
Aaron Powell wrote: I wish someone would give George Bush a blow job so we could impeach the bastard,because apparently sex is far worse than lying to your citizens and sending them off to fight a war made up of lies.Yep, because fighting for democracy is a lot worse than using your position to sexually harrass women and then LYING about it. Maybe I remind you that Clinton got us into a completely useless war as well? |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 25.11.2005 08:11 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: I'm very sorry, but a president who chooses to give his close pals a high government positions instead of picking the most qualified individual is a president that should be removed from office. Just like when Harriet Miers was nominated for member of the Supreme Court.Harriet Miers was very well-qualified as well as a person who was well-liked as a candidate by liberals and moderate Republicans. The only reason she didn't get through is because the far right-wing couldn't keep their mouths shut. She would have been a very good Justice, IMO. |
| Mr.Jingles 25.11.2005 11:25 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Oh man, you're so full of it Sarajane. This is exactly the same reason why people in this message board don't take you seriously.Mr.Jingles wrote: I'm very sorry, but a president who chooses to give his close pals a high government positions instead of picking the most qualified individual is a president that should be removed from office. Just like when Harriet Miers was nominated for member of the Supreme Court.Harriet Miers was very well-qualified as well as a person who was well-liked as a candidate by liberals and moderate Republicans. The only reason she didn't get through is because the far right-wing couldn't keep their mouths shut. She would have been a very good Justice, IMO. First of all, the nomination of Harriet Miers was criticized by the great majority of members of congress (both Republicans and Democrats alike) due to the fact that she lacked the experience that many judges across the country had. It seemed more than obvious that Bush just wanted to do her old pal a favor instead of actually finding a qualified judge with a credential of experience good enough for such a high position. That's exactly why she decided to withdraw her own nomination, she obviously knew that she wasn't qualified and there was way too much pressure on her nomination. Now, I would like you to tell me that Michael Brown was qualified to be head of FEMA. Let's see what you can come up with. |
| Saint Jiub 25.11.2005 13:40 |
Dubya was running scared when he nominated Myers. He wanted a moderately conservative woman who had no track record that be confirmed easily and would not be nit picked by the Democrats (the other qualified female candidates had strong conservative records and would have been fillibustered to death). Now "Scalito" is nominated and he is pure evil, because he is against husbands just even being informed when their wives have an abortion. Heck my wife had to give permission twice for each of my two vasectomies, but my wife (if she wanted) could have an abortion without even telling me. |
| Fairy 25.11.2005 15:13 |
Serry, it’s great to hear the perspective of someone who actually lived in the USSR. I’m glad to hear things were not as terrible as some of us think in the West! However I have a few questions for you about the USSR and the former Communist block (which also apply to today’s Communist countries): Were the governments democratically elected? Could people speak against the government, and make fun of politicians like they do with Bush and all Western leaders? Or were political dissidents often jailed? Were there many newspapers of different orientations, like we have in Italy, in the US and everywhere in the West? Could people hear the music they chose to hear? (It doesn’t matter if most people in one country are not interested in foreign music. What matters is that if one wants to, one is free to buy whatever music he chooses). And could artists express their opinions even when they disagreed with the government? And were all singers allowed to perform there? Not just Queen. Could people travel freely outside the Eastern block? Why did many people try to escape to the West, and the opposite never happened? (If Westerners moved to the East, they just went there, they didn’t need to escape) Was free communication possible? Nowadays, China allows the internet but it is supervised. I think the answer to these questions is negative. And if it is, that is enough for me to think that I would dread living in those conditions. I perfectly remember when the Berlin wall fell. I saw people on TV going nuts, crying for joy as they were reunited with relatives they hadn’t seen in decades, and as they rushed to see cities in Western Germany they had not been allowed to see. Berlin families were brutally separated. Still, some people in East Germany, in Russia etc. are nostalgic about the Communist era. I think that may be because they were expecting too much from the change. Freedom means to have to work more. After the war, Italy went through years of total poverty. It rose to become a wealthy country, thanks to the hard work of its inhabitants. You cannot take anything for granted. Being free also means that nobody thinks for you, in every sense. Islamic countries are in many ways similar. What difeence does it make if the leaders or the religion prohibits this and that, when in these nations politics and religion are the same thing? Your Italian is improving Serry!! LOL Sorry for the long post. But now I’m going out, it’s Friday night!! So no more babbling from me....for today I mean! :-) Fairy |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 25.11.2005 15:25 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Hitler did prepare for a war, but he didn't want one. He would have obviously rather had other countries kowtow to him and try to appease him. This should be completely obvious... When you want to do something, you don't want resistance. You prepare to beat that resistance if necessary, but you would rather not have that resistance.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: FYI, Hitler didn't want a war. He just wanted to take over Europe and kill people. He didn't want resistance.I suppose that is why he ignored the Versailles treaty (granted, it was injust, but still), fortifying Germany, expanding the army to enormous proportions, preparing a full-scale battlefleet and creating a highly effective airforce during the 1930s? Where were you during, say, ALL history classes concerning the first half of the 20th century? |
| Serry... 25.11.2005 16:22 |
Fairy, "Were the governments democratically elected?" Parliament - yes (though we have only one party to vote for :)), government - no. As well as in other countries I suppose :) But the problem was that the leading power was the communistic party, not the government. For instance, everyone know guy Leonid Brezhnev, he was the leader of USSR for many years, but technically President of USSR was Nikolay Podgorny. "Could people speak against the government, and make fun of politicians like they do with Bush and all Western leaders?" Speak against Western leaders, yes - of course :) Against our own leaders - not from TV, not from radio. But actually a lot of funny stories about our leaders were circulating between ordinary people. But on other hand Stalin was blamed officially from TV, radio, papers etc. And some jokes about anti-Western mood have been said from TV. "Or were political dissidents often jailed?" Yes. They've been jailed, but not often and there were very few of them actually. "Were there many newspapers of different orientations, like we have in Italy, in the US and everywhere in the West?" We have a lot of newspapers now, it's true. In some of them you can read about sexual lives of our stars, in other some rumours about them... Is this something what we must be proud of? Tabloid media came to us only after 1991. "Could people hear the music they chose to hear?" Yes. When McCartney played the show in Moscow most of the audience were guys over 40 years old, so as you see they've started to hear The Beatles in Soviet times. In HR's rerelease of Jazz is the image of USSR single "Jealousy", therefore you could buy it in the shops and listen. As I wrote very few bands were prohibited, because of their scene images or lyrics mostly. "And could artists express their opinions even when they disagreed with the government?" No. But they did. There's the Russian band "Mashina Vremeni" (Time Machine) - they're "our" Rolling Stones, started to play in the 60s and still playing and recording music. In their songs were a lot of innuendos and hidden messages about our government. "And were all singers allowed to perform there?" No. You know, for Russian people it's very hard to explain what's funny when Ozzy shows his ass in TV cameras as he did one week ago. This kind of "jokes" looks very stupid here. So such artists couldn't play. "Could people travel freely outside the Eastern block?" Yes, it was hard, but possible. The special man from KGB would always follow for the group of Soviet tourists when they were outside the Eastern block. Though usually he slept in hotel room and did nothing at all, we all are people - even guys from KGB and they understood everything in the right way. "Why did many people try to escape to the West, and the opposite never happened?" How many? 0,1%? 0,2%? You're talking about the country where lived over 250 millions people and if 1000 of them wanted to escape - it doesn't say a lot about the country. And funny thing is that some guys escape from West to us even sometimes! "Was free communication possible?" I can't answer on this question, because I'm not sure that Italy have the Internet in 60-80s too ;) But you could always wrote letters in other countries without any problems. "I think the answer to these questions is negative. And if it is, that is enough for me to think that I would dread living in those conditions." When women sell itself or millions are dying because of AIDS it's terrible too. AIDS and prositution, corruption came to us with "wind of changes". You always can find something bad in all politic systems. "Freedom means to have to work more." Who have to work more? Old people whose earnings now are about USD 80-100? And 40-50 of them they p |
| Music Man 25.11.2005 19:59 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Leave it to an idiot to determine what is intellectual, and what is quasi-intellectual. No, thank you. The only quasi-intellectual bullshit I see is your biased, one-sided, blind, baseless attacks on people who suggest opinions that differ from your own. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you never really know what you are talking about.Music Man wrote:And which question would that be? I must've missed it, as it was most probably burried knee-deep in your quasi-intellectual bullshit.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I'm definately with Serry here! The people on FGT's side, such as Music Man, are absolutely full of it. They keep yelling that we are screwing up the facts and slanting (read between the lines of MM's posts), when they wouldn't recognize a valid argument if it hit them in the face. I'm not going to bother responding to these idiots anymore. Music Man, you pretend to be intellectual and intelligent, however, your posts prove the opposite. Accusing ME of improper analogies when prime examples of those can be found in YOUR posts? I detect a large amount of American nationalism and semi-fascist tendencies here, which I distantiate myself from. As a final word of conclusion: Bush would prefer nuking his homeland over instating a TRUE democracy in the US.The only fact is that you have yet to confute a single thing I have ever said. You are the clearly the one putting up a pretense of some manner of righteous understanding, when it is never clear to anyone that you actually know what you are talking about. 90% of your posts attack the integrity and person of others, while the other 10% baselessly promote your views. I am no one to say whether these views are correct, but I can clearly and openly judge that they have to foundation that you have explained to anyone. Now, I asked a perfectly valid question on the page before, which I deemed a perfect tool for any promoter of anti-Bush sentiments. Your unwillingness to answer this leads me to one, and only one, conclusion: you are full of shit. It's unbelievable how short-sighted some people can be... Page 3, second post by Music Man, if you're interested in once more promoting your incompetence. |
| Music Man 25.11.2005 20:03 |
|
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 25.11.2005 21:16 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: What you obviously do not realize is that it is a commonly known ECONOMIC FACT that a war is an effective means of repairing/boosting a damaged economy. Unemployment is solved by increased demand for factory workers The products they produce are almost instantaneously destroyed, keeping up the demand By means of conquest raw materials and other assets are acquired This is what he was after all the time.No, Hitler was out for blood. He couldn't give two shits about the German people, he wanted power and blood. He got both, thanks to idiots who appeased him. |
| Guy 26.11.2005 03:07 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Right on. Thomas obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: What you obviously do not realize is that it is a commonly known ECONOMIC FACT that a war is an effective means of repairing/boosting a damaged economy. Unemployment is solved by increased demand for factory workers The products they produce are almost instantaneously destroyed, keeping up the demand By means of conquest raw materials and other assets are acquired This is what he was after all the time.No, Hitler was out for blood. He couldn't give two shits about the German people, he wanted power and blood. He got both, thanks to idiots who appeased him. |
| Fairy 26.11.2005 07:01 |
Hi Serry! I'm not sure we should keep discussing this topic, as we clearly have very different views on what has priority, and on how and why some things happened. and though I do agree on some points you made, my view of it is extremely different...I don't think it would make much sense if I reply to your points :-) (though I can try if you think it would be worth it.) I'm just so happy that there are wonderful, universal things like music that keep all of us together! Smiles Fairy |
| Serry... 26.11.2005 07:44 |
Buongiorno, signora Fairy! Come stai? :) il tavolo, i tavoli... Seems like Italian will be more simple language to learn than English for me :) |
| Guy 26.11.2005 08:12 |
Fairy, I know this is off-topic, but where did you take your signature from? When did Freddie say that? That's a great quote. Thanks! |
| Guy 26.11.2005 09:57 |
<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:What does that mean? Is she responsible for decisions made over 60 years ago? If you read some history, you'd know Roosevelt wanted to join the war, but the congress didn't allow him.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:and it's easily said that some of the 'idiots' were from your country. Yes, they entered that war but it took them a while.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: What you obviously do not realize is that it is a commonly known ECONOMIC FACT that a war is an effective means of repairing/boosting a damaged economy. Unemployment is solved by increased demand for factory workers The products they produce are almost instantaneously destroyed, keeping up the demand By means of conquest raw materials and other assets are acquired This is what he was after all the time.No, Hitler was out for blood. He couldn't give two shits about the German people, he wanted power and blood. He got both, thanks to idiots who appeased him. Apparently, some of the idiots were from your country as well, as you're the living proof. |
| Guy 26.11.2005 09:59 |
Alex Solan wrote: This whole thread it's a big pile of stinkin' SHIT. No surprise coming from FreddiesGhettoFuck. Oh, and her stupid friends.My apologies for having an opinion that differs from your own. Now quiet =) |
| Mr.Jingles 26.11.2005 10:42 |
I think we all should learn from Serry and Fairy, guys. Apparently they're the only ones here who have been able to have a decent discussion without getting into each others throats. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.11.2005 10:51 |
<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:Yes, I fully admit that the US appeased him as well by isolationism. Isolationism was a crappy, heartless policy regarding what was going on. Even after we entered the war, there were still isolationists (such as Lindbergh) who felt we had no right to be in the war, which is insane IMO.Guy wrote:Of course she's not responsable. But if she's saying that it was the UK's fault for appeasing him then I have to respond that the USA also did a form of appeasement. Except it was more like international isolation. And, as for my country, yes they didn't do much for a while. I never said they did. But they did have thier fair share of involvement in that war. And if you call me an idiot with actually no proof *rolls eyes* and no actual reference to the arguement than this can become a slagging match. And believe me, I will win that one.<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:What does that mean? Is she responsible for decisions made over 60 years ago? If you read some history, you'd know Roosevelt wanted to join the war, but the congress didn't allow him. Apparently, some of the idiots were from your country as well, as you're the living proof.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:and it's easily said that some of the 'idiots' were from your country. Yes, they entered that war but it took them a while.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: What you obviously do not realize is that it is a commonly known ECONOMIC FACT that a war is an effective means of repairing/boosting a damaged economy. Unemployment is solved by increased demand for factory workers The products they produce are almost instantaneously destroyed, keeping up the demand By means of conquest raw materials and other assets are acquired This is what he was after all the time.No, Hitler was out for blood. He couldn't give two shits about the German people, he wanted power and blood. He got both, thanks to idiots who appeased him. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.11.2005 10:54 |
Alex Solan wrote: This whole thread it's a big pile of stinkin' SHIT. No surprise coming from FreddiesGhettoFuck. Oh, and her stupid friends.Gee, sorry to burst your bubble, but the news on the possibility of getting al-Zarquawi was news that not everyone had heard yet and many would have an interest in. Also, FYI, calling someone "stupid" is so 3rd grade. What's next, "I know you are but what am I?" *G* I'm so tempted to reply, "That's what YOU say, you say that I am." Thank you, Jesus in JCS. *fluffs hair* |
| Guy 26.11.2005 11:07 |
Alex Solan wrote:Well, my leg hurts a little, and last time I checked "leg" wasn't "truth".Guy wrote:Who the fuck was talking about opinions? You and your friends are fucking morons. Is that so hard to understand? Does the truth hurt so much?Alex Solan wrote: This whole thread it's a big pile of stinkin' SHIT. No surprise coming from FreddiesGhettoFuck. Oh, and her stupid friends.My apologies for having an opinion that differs from your own. Now quiet =) |
| Fairy 26.11.2005 11:09 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote: Buongiorno, signora Fairy! Come stai? :) il tavolo, i tavoli... Seems like Italian will be more simple language to learn than English for me :)Serry, considering your English is nearto perfect, and considering you speak such a complex language as Russian...I have no doubt you'd learn Italian in 1 month! Yes, your Italian is improving!!! Hey I do know a few sentences in Russian, but I think I would only seem stupid if I try to write them, also because transcribing from the cyrillic I have no idea what it would turn out to be like...LOL!!! |
| Guy 26.11.2005 11:12 |
<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:Hitler's rise and its consequences were everyone's fault. They were the USA's fault, the UK's fault, France's fault, the German people's fault etc.Guy wrote:Of course she's not responsable. But if she's saying that it was the UK's fault for appeasing him then I have to respond that the USA also did a form of appeasement. Except it was more like international isolation. And, as for my country, yes they didn't do much for a while. I never said they did. But they did have thier fair share of involvement in that war. And if you call me an idiot with actually no proof *rolls eyes* and no actual reference to the arguement than this can become a slagging match. And believe me, I will win that one.<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:What does that mean? Is she responsible for decisions made over 60 years ago? If you read some history, you'd know Roosevelt wanted to join the war, but the congress didn't allow him. Apparently, some of the idiots were from your country as well, as you're the living proof.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:and it's easily said that some of the 'idiots' were from your country. Yes, they entered that war but it took them a while.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: What you obviously do not realize is that it is a commonly known ECONOMIC FACT that a war is an effective means of repairing/boosting a damaged economy. Unemployment is solved by increased demand for factory workers The products they produce are almost instantaneously destroyed, keeping up the demand By means of conquest raw materials and other assets are acquired This is what he was after all the time.No, Hitler was out for blood. He couldn't give two shits about the German people, he wanted power and blood. He got both, thanks to idiots who appeased him. The USA had its fair share of involvement in the war as well. We already had this discussion, and I believe we can all agree the allies wouldn't win the war without the USA (just like they wouldn't win it without Russia or the UK). Sorry for calling you an idiot, I was out of line. |
| Fairy 26.11.2005 11:13 |
Guy wrote: Fairy, |
| Fairy 26.11.2005 11:17 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: I think we all should learn from Serry and Fairy, guys. Apparently they're the only ones here who have been able to have a decent discussion without getting into each others throats.:-) I love hot debates and I often get inflamed to defend my opinions, but those who insult others and call them names just because they have a different view aren't really worth talking to at all. |
| Fairy 26.11.2005 11:28 |
Sorry, Guy, the interview was from 1984. :-) |
| Guy 26.11.2005 11:57 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Dum-dee-dum.Guy wrote:...which is very rich, coming from an idiot like you.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Right on. Thomas obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: What you obviously do not realize is that it is a commonly known ECONOMIC FACT that a war is an effective means of repairing/boosting a damaged economy. Unemployment is solved by increased demand for factory workers The products they produce are almost instantaneously destroyed, keeping up the demand By means of conquest raw materials and other assets are acquired This is what he was after all the time.No, Hitler was out for blood. He couldn't give two shits about the German people, he wanted power and blood. He got both, thanks to idiots who appeased him. Edit: You should watch those analogies to Neo-Nazis, Thomas. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.11.2005 12:13 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: </B> I must say I find the fact that you keep yelling how stupid I am, how blind, one sided and baseless I am, while you yourself are the person who cannot present a fact, or recognize one when presented with it. I suggest you join your far-right religious fanatic friends FGT and Guy and go play on some neo-nazi forum instead of QueenZone.Far-right religious fanatic? I am no such thing. I am very conservative, on some issues, yes. A religious fanatic I am absolutely not. I detest fundies from either side. (Religious fundies, meaning Fred Phelps and his band, and atheist fundies, meaning Michael Newdow and people who go in Christian chatrooms and say "Nail him again!"... not fun.) I see no evidence to support your claim that I am a "religious fanatic". Care to share? In the interest of full disclosure, I HAVE seen The Passion three times, and JCS more times than I can count, I'm reading Ben-Hur and I read Biblical Archeology Review, and I'm going to go to a Catholic college. If you can get "religious fanatic" out of that, have fun. Also, FYI, the nazis were generally ANTI-religion, so a religious fanatic would not fit in with Neo-Nazis anyhow. You see, this place houses sensible people, and any Neo-Nazi forum will play host to people more in your line of 'thought' (or actually: a lack of that).It's obvious that the only thing you can do is throw out ad homieum arguments. Obviously any sensible person can see I am anything BUT a Neo-Nazi, but yet you insist upon using that argument. My grandfather fought in WWII in Henry Cabot Lodge's division in North Africa, so I think my family understands the Nazi threat a tad bit more than you seem to. I am in fact very pleased that you dislike me so much, as that itself is evidence that I am at least not part of the most short-sighted, narrow-minded, neo-fascist group of braindead white-house nuts.That's what YOU say, YOU say that I am! (There, I got to say it! Whoo hoo!) So go be a loyal citizen, propagate Bush's 'righteousness' and join in useless nationalist activities like visiting Ground Zero, and saying how great it is that you have a man like Bush to take care of the country.So, have pride in one's country is a negative thing? |
| Guy 26.11.2005 12:13 |
Fairy wrote: Sorry, Guy, the interview was from 1984. :-)Thanks :) |
| Guy 26.11.2005 12:37 |
Barry © wrote: Has anyone btw visited ground zero? are they rebuilding there?I have, 2 years ago. At the time, the whole area was empty and surrounded by a fence. |
| Guy 26.11.2005 12:53 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Why won't you reply to the following sentence?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So, have pride in one's country is a negative thing?I'm not even going to dignify the rest with a response. "Also, FYI, the nazis were generally ANTI-religion, so a religious fanatic would not fit in with Neo-Nazis anyhow." |
| Guy 26.11.2005 14:41 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:What aspects of Judaism were incorporated into the Nazi ideology?Guy wrote:...because you ask me so nicely [/CYNICAL TONE] The nazis were a religious cult of themselves and thus opposed to the major religions. However, they did incorporate aspects of Judaïsm (yes, really) and Christianity into their occultist 'philosophy'. Moreover, many high-ranking nazis were devout Christians (look in the high ranks of the Wehrmacht and several politicians. Then of course, there was the leader of the Vichy-French, Pétain, who was a religious (CHRISTIAN) fanatic by ANY definition).<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Why won't you reply to the following sentence? "Also, FYI, the nazis were generally ANTI-religion, so a religious fanatic would not fit in with Neo-Nazis anyhow."FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So, have pride in one's country is a negative thing?I'm not even going to dignify the rest with a response. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.11.2005 15:34 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Well, why don't you explain why I'm a religious fanatic? I'd certainly like to know. If I'm a religious fanatic, I'd hate to see an atheist.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: So, have pride in one's country is a negative thing?In the case of YOUR country under THIS specific president: yes. I'm not even going to dignify the rest with a response. |
| The Real Wizard 27.11.2005 01:27 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Iraq DOES want a democracy. The Iraqi people have VOTED in favor of the new Constitution.As long as that constitution doesn't match the US constitution perfectly, then you have no proof that the Iraqi people want a democracy AS THE US WOULD SEE FIT. There are more "democracies" than American democracy. Besides, at the moment, the United States is far from being a democracy. I don't believe Bush is the governor or mayor of New Orleans, do you? Both of whom were... Democrats...It's been well-established that this is a federal issue. When Bush was asked about it, his reply was that the money was needed for the war. He didn't say, "this is not a federal concern, but rather a municipal/state concern". Guy wrote: What aspects of Judaism were incorporated into the Nazi ideology?How about Deuteronomy 13, verses 6-11, where it says it's okay to condemn and kill people who believe differently than you? |
| Music Man 27.11.2005 02:27 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:100% ad hominem attacks, 0% rational points. I rest my case.Music Man wrote:Yes, and your posts are SO nuanced and unbiased [/SARCASM]. I must say I find the fact that you keep yelling how stupid I am, how blind, one sided and baseless I am, while you yourself are the person who cannot present a fact, or recognize one when presented with it. I suggest you join your far-right religious fanatic friends FGT and Guy and go play on some neo-nazi forum instead of QueenZone. You see, this place houses sensible people, and any Neo-Nazi forum will play host to people more in your line of 'thought' (or actually: a lack of that). I am in fact very pleased that you dislike me so much, as that itself is evidence that I am at least not part of the most short-sighted, narrow-minded, neo-fascist group of braindead white-house nuts. So go be a loyal citizen, propagate Bush's 'righteousness' and join in useless nationalist activities like visiting Ground Zero, and saying how great it is that you have a man like Bush to take care of the country. Or did you make that visit already? It wouldn't surprise me the slightest bit...<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Leave it to an idiot to determine what is intellectual, and what is quasi-intellectual. No, thank you. The only quasi-intellectual bullshit I see is your biased, one-sided, blind, baseless attacks on people who suggest opinions that differ from your own. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you never really know what you are talking about. Page 3, second post by Music Man, if you're interested in once more promoting your incompetence.Music Man wrote:And which question would that be? I must've missed it, as it was most probably burried knee-deep in your quasi-intellectual bullshit.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I'm definately with Serry here! The people on FGT's side, such as Music Man, are absolutely full of it. They keep yelling that we are screwing up the facts and slanting (read between the lines of MM's posts), when they wouldn't recognize a valid argument if it hit them in the face. I'm not going to bother responding to these idiots anymore. Music Man, you pretend to be intellectual and intelligent, however, your posts prove the opposite. Accusing ME of improper analogies when prime examples of those can be found in YOUR posts? I detect a large amount of American nationalism and semi-fascist tendencies here, which I distantiate myself from. As a final word of conclusion: Bush would prefer nuking his homeland over instating a TRUE democracy in the US.The only fact is that you have yet to confute a single thing I have ever said. You are the clearly the one putting up a pretense of some manner of righteous understanding, when it is never clear to anyone that you actually know what you are talking about. 90% of your posts attack the integrity and person of others, while the other 10% baselessly promote your views. I am no one to say whether these views are correct, but I can clearly and openly judge that they have to foundation that you have explained to anyone. Now, I asked a perfectly valid question on the page before, which I deemed a perfect tool for any promoter of anti-Bush sentiments. Your unwillingness to answer this leads me to one, and only one, conclusion: you are full of shit. It's unbelievable how short-sighted some people can be... But then again, why quit when I'm ahead? I never said my posts were unbiased. The bias is toward those who present a logical point, and it is against those that do not. On the political scale, as one may call it, I am very much a moderate, although slightly con |
| Music Man 27.11.2005 02:30 |
You claim I do not present many facts. This is true. I don't. Generally, I don't have a side or a position to support. All I have are questions. Questions like, "Why?" or "How?" These questions are this forum's last safeguard against ignorance. When I don't receive an answer I am satisfied with, I will provide adverse arguments. I will admit, several times these arguments may be flawed. Yet still, you do not find the flaws in my arguments. You do not confute them. All you do is label me as a conservative and move on.
Now, when you cannot answer these questions I pose, ThomasQuinn, it becomes increasingly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. It is obvious you hold a position, and several opinions, but it's quite hazy when it comes down to why you have these opinions, and how you support them.
All this I can even put up with. Ignorance is everywhere. I won't even say that I lack ignorance. None of us do. But when there is the opportunity to abolish ignorance, and it is completely disregarded, now that bothers me. It also bothers me that you can make assumptions, based on your ignorance. If there is one thing society has been working to abolish all these years, it is this kind of judgment. Racism. Sexism. The list goes on. Your prejudices are abundantly clear.
Just read your post. I am a Neo-Nazi? Are you serious!? Neo-fascist White House nut? Please do not categorize me, I have not done so to you.
Never have I propogated Bush's righteousness. Never have I visited Ground Zero. Never have I passed a day without resenting the presence of George W. Bush in the Oval Office. But one more thing. Never have I allowed anyone to disparage Bush, or anyone else for that matter, until they have given me a reasonable justification. I'm still waiting on you, Thomas.
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I am in fact very pleased that you dislike me so much, as that itself is evidence that I am at least not part of the most short-sighted, narrow-minded, neo-fascist group of braindead white-house nuts.I do not dislike you, ThomasQuinn. I hardly even know you. But you seem so full of hate and hostility, and I feel sorry for you. And it is very sad that you believe that liking or disliking someone should be based upon their views and opinions. |
| jasen101 27.11.2005 02:30 |
Clinton for '08 haha |
| Guy 27.11.2005 16:04 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Come on, Bob, you know that's not what it says.Guy wrote: What aspects of Judaism were incorporated into the Nazi ideology?How about Deuteronomy 13, verses 6-11, where it says it's okay to condemn and kill people who believe differently than you? It says that if someone tries to *convert you* and change your belief in God, you should kill him. Did the Jews in Germany, Austria & Poland attempt to convert Christians to Judaism? Is that really why Hitler murdered them? Or gays? Or gypsies? Or handicapped? It was a matter of not belonging in the "Aryan Race". As we all know, Hitler didn't care about religion, nor did he believe in God (and if he did, he saw himself as God's messenger). I don't support everything the Bible says, but there's no place for such comparison. I suggest you look at the following verses: Numbers 19, verses 33-34 Numbers 25, verses 35-37 Deuteronomy 10, verse 19 Deuteronomy 13, verse 8 There are quite a few more examples, by the way. |
| Mr.Jingles 27.11.2005 16:37 |
Guy wrote:Still, that's pretty fucked up and it doesn't make sense at all. People have the right to believe what they want to believe in terms of religion as long as they're not enforcing it on others.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: How about Deuteronomy 13, verses 6-11, where it says it's okay to condemn and kill people who believe differently than you?Come on, Bob, you know that's not what it says. It says that if someone tries to *convert you* and change your belief in God, you should kill him. If a Buddhist (or someone from any other religion for that matter) comes to me trying to spread his faith, all I can say is: - "I do have my own beliefs, and I hope you understand and respect my point of view." - The only way that you'd possibly have the right to use resistance against someone is if they're forcing you to believe in what they believe. God gave us A SENSE OF REASON to be able to discuss our differences without resolving matters with physical violence, and that's what separates us from animals. Look, I truly believe that what Jesus stood for (love, tolerance, peace). When he mentioned that we should love even our worst enemies, that was something that made sense. Hatred only brings more hatred, and violence is most likely to bring nothing but more violence. Jesus didn't come to tell us to believe he was the son of God or rather burn in hell for all eternity. All he wanted was for each and everyone of us to have mutual love and respect despite all the differences. Regardless of whether people believe that Jesus was the son of God or not, it doesn't really matter as long as we understand how important it is to coexist as human beings. I'm sorry to all of you devoted christians but the Old Testament is in many ways a whole load of bullcrap. Why does Jesus say that we shall be good to everyone, and then the Old Testament says that wars and killing others are justified. A lot of the things written there are probably not even the word of God, because if God was as we've been told "PERFECT", he wouldn't be contradicting himself so much. |
| The Real Wizard 27.11.2005 21:40 |
Guy wrote:It's not exactly that in the New Revised Standard Version. There are dozens of published versions of scripture, as well as tens of thousands of manuscripts and fragments. How can one know which is the right one? Either way, any piece of text can be interpreted however one wants it to be interpreted. But regardless, killing someone because they tried to convert you to another religion is still called murder. I hope you or anyone in this day and age doesn't stand by that kind of hate-filled scripture.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Come on, Bob, you know that's not what it says. It says that if someone tries to *convert you* and change your belief in God, you should kill him.Guy wrote: What aspects of Judaism were incorporated into the Nazi ideology?How about Deuteronomy 13, verses 6-11, where it says it's okay to condemn and kill people who believe differently than you? Numbers 19, verses 33-34 Numbers 25, verses 35-37Hmm, these don't exist in the NRSV. I guess my copy of the Old Testament has some major differences from your copy of the Jewish scriptures. I found a website to search through the King James version (yuck, yuck, yuck!), and the passages couldn't be found there, either. Mr.Jingles wrote: Look, I truly believe that what Jesus stood for (love, tolerance, peace). When he mentioned that we should love even our worst enemies, that was something that made sense. Hatred only brings more hatred, and violence is most likely to bring nothing but more violence. Jesus didn't come to tell us to believe he was the son of God or rather burn in hell for all eternity. All he wanted was for each and everyone of us to have mutual love and respect despite all the differences. Regardless of whether people believe that Jesus was the son of God or not, it doesn't really matter as long as we understand how important it is to coexist as human beings.Too bad we don't hear too much about that Jesus. I guess he doesn't bring in much $$. Unfortunately compassion doesn't make money, whereas fear tactics do. |
| Guy 27.11.2005 23:29 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:My mistake:Guy wrote:It's not exactly that in the New Revised Standard Version. There are dozens of published versions of scripture, as well as tens of thousands of manuscripts and fragments. How can one know which is the right one? Either way, any piece of text can be interpreted however one wants it to be interpreted. But regardless, killing someone because they tried to convert you to another religion is still called murder. I hope you or anyone in this day and age doesn't stand by that kind of hate-filled scripture.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Come on, Bob, you know that's not what it says. It says that if someone tries to *convert you* and change your belief in God, you should kill him.Guy wrote: What aspects of Judaism were incorporated into the Nazi ideology?How about Deuteronomy 13, verses 6-11, where it says it's okay to condemn and kill people who believe differently than you?Numbers 19, verses 33-34 Numbers 25, verses 35-37Hmm, these don't exist in the NRSV. I guess my copy of the Old Testament has some major differences from your copy of the Jewish scriptures. I found a website to search through the King James version (yuck, yuck, yuck!), and the passages couldn't be found there, either. Leviticus 19, verses 33-34 Leviticus 25, verses 35-37 Sorry for the trouble :) |
| The Real Wizard 28.11.2005 00:11 |
Guy wrote: Leviticus 19, verses 33-34 Leviticus 25, verses 35-37 Sorry for the trouble :)Hahahaha! No worries. :) And yes, now I do see the point you're making! |