Nelson Mandela facts you won't hear from the Mainstream Press [Archive] - Debate Policy

Little-Acorn

12-05-2013, 08:01 PM

- In the 1960’s, Nelson Mandela was a key leader of “MK” - the militant, Communist-backed, anti-government wing of the African National Congress (ANC).

- “MK” was classified as a terrorist organization by both the United States and South Africa.

- In 1962, Mandela met with foreign communist leaders, and received 6 months of military insurgent training in Ethiopia.

- He went on to mastermind 193 violent acts of sabotage against the South African government, including bombing power stations, govt buildings and burning crops.

- In 1964, Mandela was sentenced to life in prison for sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the government.

- In 1985, the South African President offered to free Mandela, if he would renounce violence. Mandela refused the offer.

- After serving 27 years in prison, an international campaign lobbied for his release, which was granted in 1990.

---------------------------------------------------------

Nelson Mandela Quotes:

"We are not racists, as the white oppressors are."

“We felt that without violence, there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy.”

------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

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

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

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandelaaccount.html

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-05-2013, 09:36 PM

fj1200

12-05-2013, 10:05 PM

- In the 1960’s...

You would have him do what against racial oppression?

Drummond

12-05-2013, 10:12 PM

Obama loved the guy that told me all I needed to know. Told me Mandela was a socialist and damn sure no angel as he has been portrayed to be for consumption FOR GULLIBLE AND IGNORANT EASILY MISLED AMERICANS!--Tyr

Mandela wasn't just a Socialist, but particularly hardline as one. He visited the UK a number of times, and once declared our LABOUR PARTY to be .. 'God's own people'.

I'm not saying Mandela didn't do good in his life, or that he lacked principle (to a degree, anyway). BUT ... Mandela was FAR from being any sort of saint.

Here's a bit of balance to add to the mix ...

http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights -

-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983

-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985

-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988

-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986

-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead

-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987

-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988

Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”

tailfins

12-05-2013, 10:14 PM

You would have him do what against racial oppression?

So you condone necklacing?

http://images.wikia.com/theshield/images/2/21/Fire-necklace-2.jpg

fj1200

12-05-2013, 10:19 PM

So you condone necklacing?

I think my nine-word question sufficiently lays out my position on the subject. :rolleyes:

Drummond

12-05-2013, 10:23 PM

You would have him do what against racial oppression?

A suggestion: murdering innocent men, women and children is NOT a method of fighting racial oppression that lends itself to a principled defence.

Let me guess, FJ. You're back to a 'Let's defend terrorists' theme, once more ?

Oh, and in your guise as a supposed 'Thatcherite' .. :laugh: ... this might interest you ...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/deannelson/100025913/the-right-got-it-so-wrong-on-nelson-mandela/

Margaret Thatcher denounced the ANC as a “typical terrorist organization,” and one of her strongest supporters, Teddy Taylor, said Nelson Mandela “should be shot.”

fj1200

12-05-2013, 10:26 PM

A suggestion: murdering innocent men, women and children is NOT a method of fighting racial oppression that lends itself to a principled defence.

That's not an answer to the question.

Let me guess, FJ. You're back to a 'Let's defend terrorists' theme, once more ?

Oh, and in your guise as a supposed 'Thatcherite' .. :laugh: ... this might interest you ...

Don't be an idiot... sorry, too late. Please try and stay on topic for once.

Drummond

12-05-2013, 10:33 PM

That's not an answer to the question.

Direct answer or not, my comment stands as it is.

Or ... do you APPROVE of what Mandela's Commie gang got up to ?

Consider my previous comment about your defending terrorists re-made ... because I fail to see how you're doing otherwise.

Don't be an idiot... sorry, too late. Please try and stay on topic for once.

Back to the pathetic crossings-out yet again, I see. They add nothing to any process of honest debate.

fj1200

12-05-2013, 10:37 PM

Direct answer or not, my comment stands as it is.

Or ... do you APPROVE of what Mandela's Commie gang got up to ?

Consider my previous comment about your defending terrorists re-made ... because I fail to see how you're doing otherwise.

I don't care about your comment as it doesn't answer the question.

Back to the pathetic crossings-out yet again, I see. They add nothing to any process of honest debate.

:laugh: Man you're delusional. What process of honest debate was present here?

Let me guess, FJ. You're back to a 'Let's defend terrorists' theme, once more ?

Oh, and in your guise as a supposed 'Thatcherite' .. :laugh: ... this might interest you ...

Drummond

12-05-2013, 10:44 PM

I don't care about your comment as it doesn't answer the question.

Correction: you'd rather dismiss my comment, because you find it inconvenient to address it. I understand.

:laugh: Man you're delusional. What process of honest debate was present here?

See above .... :laugh:

Gaffer

12-05-2013, 11:02 PM

You would have him do what against racial oppression?

Oh just about anything besides killing innocent people and planting bombs. He wasn't sent to prison for political reasons he was sentenced for murder and armed insurrection. He was no Gandhi.

As far as apartheid goes it was the same in South Africa in the 60's as it was in the 80's. If your looking to compare SA and the US those are apples and oranges.

fj1200

12-05-2013, 11:33 PM

Correction: you'd rather dismiss my comment, because you find it inconvenient to address it. I understand.

See above .... :laugh:

Well, directly above your last comment (in bold) was my statement that you are in fact delusional so I can conclude your agreement on the matter. :)

Moving on, your comment is only indicative that you're unable to move beyond your delusions and your crutches. To give you some much needed assistance on the matter let's lay out what everyone agrees on; socialists are bad mmkay, terrorism is bad mmkay, targeting civilians is bad mmkay, etc. etc. So, now, you would have him do what against racial oppression?

fj1200

12-05-2013, 11:48 PM

Oh just about anything besides killing innocent people and planting bombs. He wasn't sent to prison for political reasons he was sentenced for murder and armed insurrection. He was no Gandhi.

As far as apartheid goes it was the same in South Africa in the 60's as it was in the 80's. If your looking to compare SA and the US those are apples and oranges.

Great, an answer, thank you. Do you think that would have been sufficient? If it was the same in the 60's and 80's then it doesn't suggest that they made much headway.

And no, not sure why I would compare SA and the US. But I think a more apt comparison might be Israel and Gaza but I wouldn't say that the Israeli's desire to oppress the Palestinians like what was done against the blacks in SA.

revelarts

12-06-2013, 12:49 AM

and should we say that the south african gov't treated the afriacans like angels?

2 wrongs don't make a right .
But i just find it odd that when mlk day comes around .. who never killed anyone and was not a communist.... on a few occasions people have found "what the mainstream won't tell you about MLK" as well.
But rarely are the abuses that SPAWNED the protest mentioned.

Soo what's the motivation for wanting to point out ONLY the flaws of a man that just died?

At George Washington's death would it be appropriate to point out that Washington pulled out the teeth of healthy slaves to make dentures for his on mouth. or other shady thing things he did during the Indian wars or revolution.
and go down swinging in verbal debate, never giving any credit for the good he's done?

I mean there a time for such things sure but. the fact is the gov't he was figting against was a hard core racist regime. he fought against it in some not so honorable was. I agree 100%.
but many of you here have not shed a tear for "colateral damage" of terrorist strike. and have proposed preemptive strikes on Iranian cities and the like where 1000's of innocents, women and children would be killed.

so I'm not sure about the concern or moral high ground some of you are claiming when the man fighting for his country.

if he'd been in Nicaraga during the 80's overthrowing the gov't he'd be called a "freedom fighter".

but hey , don't let me spoil the party , let the 10 minute hate go on for the dead African who help make a peaceful transition to more universal rule in his country.

whatever..

fj1200

12-06-2013, 08:33 AM

and should we say that the south african gov't treated the afriacans like angels?

You wouldn't be suggesting would you that the whites always acted to protect the women and children of the blacks would you? That would be shocking. :eek:

gabosaurus

12-06-2013, 09:14 AM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-06-2013, 09:27 AM

I seem to remember that many on this board had their feathers greatly ruffled when shots were taken at Margaret Thatcher upon her death. Yet you have chosen the occasion of Nelson Mandela's death to launch an attack on him?

Why not just remember and respect him as a great world leader? Or does your personal racial prejudices prevent you from doing such?
There, I said it. You are not comfortable in your own skins, do you come down on those in different colored skins. I bet you supported Rhodesia as well.

How can any of you who derided whose who celebrate Thatcher's death turn around and laud the death of Mandela? It merely shows what kind of people you are. I made no great attack upon him myselfand certainly did not laud his death.. I did acknowledge the truth. He quite likely did emerge from prison a different man that he was before he went in. That doesn't change what he did before he went in and it wasn't the image which is being portrayed to the masses now. It was murder, terror and bombings. Despite the cause he was a terrorist but they now craft an image of him being some kind, generous and honorable hero struggling against the great Satan. Truth needs to be told not this leftist style standard propaganda that lauds terrorists and praises their actions. As a general rule no true history/image of a leader ever comes out until they have been dead at least 50 years or more. He was a man (IMPERFECT AS WE ALL ARE) not a skin color Gabby, why toss that in? Thatcher never murdered people and never served time for murder and bombing Gabby. MANDELA PRISON SENTENCE WAS NOT A TRUMPED UP CHARGE. Consider that if you can. --Tyr

jimnyc

12-06-2013, 09:34 AM

I seem to remember that many on this board had their feathers greatly ruffled when shots were taken at Margaret Thatcher upon her death. Yet you have chosen the occasion of Nelson Mandela's death to launch an attack on him?

Why not just remember and respect him as a great world leader? Or does your personal racial prejudices prevent you from doing such?
There, I said it. You are not comfortable in your own skins, do you come down on those in different colored skins. I bet you supported Rhodesia as well.

How can any of you who derided whose who celebrate Thatcher's death turn around and laud the death of Mandela? It merely shows what kind of people you are.

If someone wants to simply discuss events from his life, even pointing out the negative, I think that's normal after a death. Outside of that, believe it or not, I do agree with you. Now wouldn't be the time to attack the man. While I am firmly against various things, like those LA pointed out, I also acknowledge he did a lot of good in his life. But keep in mind, there's a big difference between going over his life, and attacking him - or even worse, making fun of an ailment or such just after his death, as some did with Ronald Reagan.

But this doesn't mean people MUST remember him as a great world leader. One can still remember him in a negative light AND respect him during the mourning period. Just as I highly doubt you respected RR as a great world leader, especially considering you called him, I think it was an "eggplant" because of his ailment?

tailfins

12-06-2013, 06:54 PM

aboutime

12-06-2013, 08:07 PM

Sounds like Gabby would prefer all of us show how much we are hypocrites, and say nothing but nice, sweet things about someone who once was called a Terrorist by our nation.

That's almost like saying...after learning of his suicide. How Hitler might have been a pretty nice guy to have a few beers with during Octoberfest in Germany. But never turn your back on him.

gabosaurus

12-06-2013, 08:59 PM

But this doesn't mean people MUST remember him as a great world leader. One can still remember him in a negative light AND respect him during the mourning period. Just as I highly doubt you respected RR as a great world leader, especially considering you called him, I think it was an "eggplant" because of his ailment?

None of you felt the same way when I pointed out that a great many folks actually celebrated the death of the UK's Iron Maiden. You felt it was crass that such statements were made immediately after death.
I am surprised at how many of you continue to support apartheid and the principles of racial inequality. But I support your right as a free American to be a redneck.

Jeff

12-07-2013, 12:48 AM

I have to agree with those that say ya shouldn't bash the guy after he dies, with that said a great world leader :laugh: hardly ( at least we know how some will remember Obama ) but he was human so I wont trash him but I did find this article interesting ( it probably has the same info as what LA had posted but if so don't read it )

“There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle.”

—Nelson Mandela
With the media gushing about the greatness of Nelson Mandela now on the day after his death, a counterpoint with the rest of the story is badly needed. Below are a few video interviews of South African missionary Peter Hammond, who tells the real truth about Mandela.
Portrayed as a liberator by the media, Mandela was a Marxist and convicted terrorist. Hammond relates of Mandela:

http://americanvision.org/9813/missionary-reveals-real-mandela/#sthash.CXCf9iLb.UwEeJc4M.dpbs

jimnyc

12-07-2013, 08:18 AM

None of you felt the same way when I pointed out that a great many folks actually celebrated the death of the UK's Iron Maiden. You felt it was crass that such statements were made immediately after death.
I am surprised at how many of you continue to support apartheid and the principles of racial inequality. But I support your right as a free American to be a redneck.

Can you REALLY not see the difference, right after a death, between discussing the negative aspect of one of those leaders lives - and tossing out names about those recently deceased? Pointing out FACTS and discussing negative aspects of ones life, right after they die, is normal in my book, so long as discussed tactfully. But to immediately toss out names and ridicule in an immature manner? There's a HUGE difference between pointing out who Nelson Mandela was prior to prison, and discussing that - opposed to calling someone an eggplant, aka vegetable, because they had alzheimers and couldn't function properly.

Actually, I'm starting to believe that you don't see these things, that you do think it's OK and normal. Again, speaks volumes about YOU.

As for your last sentences - even if all of us were against racism and apartheid - do you think violence is the resolution to those problems? I don't know why I even bother, as we all know you're incapable of having a rational and mature discussion.

jimnyc

12-07-2013, 08:24 AM

But I support your right as a free American to be a redneck.

Why would you CONTINUALLY avoid and dodge ANY type of an official debate with people you think are beneath you? I suppose it would in fact suck if you completely got your ass handed to you from the very people you think you're mocking.

Honestly, you REALLY need to rethink the way you post, IMO. No, not censored, as you're allowed to continue posting anyway you like. But your posts have become more and more personal as of late, and you have zero desire to contribute and discuss and it seems all you care about is being a troll. Sure, I know your comeback will be to point at others, and I know some do troll - but every other person here gets involved in non-stop discussions, even if you disagree with their stances. You don't even make that effort.

tailfins

12-07-2013, 09:50 AM

Why would you CONTINUALLY avoid and dodge ANY type of an official debate with people you think are beneath you? I suppose it would in fact suck if you completely got your ass handed to you from the very people you think you're mocking.

Honestly, you REALLY need to rethink the way you post, IMO. No, not censored, as you're allowed to continue posting anyway you like. But your posts have become more and more personal as of late, and you have zero desire to contribute and discuss and it seems all you care about is being a troll. Sure, I know your comeback will be to point at others, and I know some do troll - but every other person here gets involved in non-stop discussions, even if you disagree with their stances. You don't even make that effort.

Let us not forget that Gabby married her prosperity. All she is fit to be is a submissive little lady.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-07-2013, 10:16 AM

I have to agree with those that say ya shouldn't bash the guy after he dies, with that said a great world leader :laugh: hardly ( at least we know how some will remember Obama ) but he was human so I wont trash him but I did find this article interesting ( it probably has the same info as what LA had posted but if so don't read it )

http://americanvision.org/9813/missionary-reveals-real-mandela/#sthash.CXCf9iLb.UwEeJc4M.dpbs In my opinion Mandela came out of prison a different man but than does not excuse , validate or make up for the man he was before going into prison. One can not make up for terrorism, bombings and murder by being good the last third of one's life IMHO. THE MAN ILL-SERVED A VERY JUST CAUSE. The world always forgets the deceased in favor of a living hero be that hero good or bad. It easier to praise a famous man and forget his great misdeeds especially if he was a socialist that ended up being a President. Damn , after reading that it occurred to me , was I just speaking of Mandela or Obama!??- :laugh: --Tyr

Drummond

12-07-2013, 11:10 AM

None of you felt the same way when I pointed out that a great many folks actually celebrated the death of the UK's Iron Maiden. You felt it was crass that such statements were made immediately after death.

Gabby, Mandela's earlier life was one of being a terrorist. Worse, he LED a group of them .. the terrorist wing of the ANC. This fact is not in dispute .. he was tried and convicted of terrorist offences. He pleaded GUILTY to those offences - offences which involved the deaths of innocent men, women and children.

Margaret Thatcher was never a terrorist, but an OPPONENT of them. She was never tried or convicted of any such crime. She was one of the greatest world leaders THIS WORLD HAS EVER SEEN.

Mandela, however, was a terrorist.

Who else but a Leftie - or another terrorist ? - would unswervingly see Mandela as GOOD, and Lady Thatcher as BAD .. ???

KarlMarx

12-07-2013, 11:36 AM

I seem to remember that many on this board had their feathers greatly ruffled when shots were taken at Margaret Thatcher upon her death. Yet you have chosen the occasion of Nelson Mandela's death to launch an attack on him?

Why not just remember and respect him as a great world leader? Or does your personal racial prejudices prevent you from doing such?
There, I said it. You are not comfortable in your own skins, do you come down on those in different colored skins. I bet you supported Rhodesia as well.

How can any of you who derided whose who celebrate Thatcher's death turn around and laud the death of Mandela? It merely shows what kind of people you are.

Interesting that you brought up Thatcher's death. Not a single person from this administration attended Margaret Thatcher's funeral. Yet, Margaret Thatcher helped bring down the Soviet Union. She did just as much as Mandela, if not more so, to advance the cause of freedom. The Obama administration in effect told the British to go to hell and not bother to write..

But hey, she was a conservative and, as one, could do no right in the Left's eyes. Just as Nelson Mandela can do no wrong.

jimnyc

12-07-2013, 11:38 AM

Gabby, Mandela's earlier life was one of being a terrorist.

Even the USA had him listed as a terrorist prior to his prison time. That doesn't mean I disrespect his change and leadership that he eventually displayed, but pointing out his younger days is simply fact. I'm not tossing around names looking to make fun of the deceased, as Gabby is fond of, and then hypocritically claims she has an issue with others doing it, even if she is wrong as usual.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-07-2013, 11:46 AM

Interesting that you brought up Thatcher's death. Not a single person from this administration attended Margaret Thatcher's funeral. Yet, Margaret Thatcher helped bring down the Soviet Union. She did just as much as Mandela, if not more so, to advance the cause of freedom. The Obama administration in effect told the British to go to hell and not bother to write..

But hey, she was a conservative and, as one, could do no right in the Left's eyes. Just as Nelson Mandela can do no wrong. bamboy ordered the American flag to be flown at half mast for ten days for Mandela's death. For Thatcher our great ally, one of Britain's greatest leader not even a half mast flag flown for even a single day. As noted by me before Obama honors our enemies and other socialists but never our allies and other conservative western leaders. By doing this he betrays his true allegiance and true hatred for this nation IMHO.-Tyr

fj1200

12-07-2013, 02:34 PM

Gabby, Mandela's earlier life was one of being a terrorist. Worse, he LED a group of them ..

And as such is demonstrably subhuman and should have been subjected to retributive torture...

... right?

Jeff

12-07-2013, 10:15 PM

This is a bit different but still about Mandela , personally I am with this Sheriff , he was not a American so why fly them at half mass and yes I know we have for others that weren't American but how many of them had the record Mandela did .

For one South Carolina sheriff, defying President Obama’s order to lower the American flag to half-staff in honor of former South African President Nelson Mandela is simple: Mandela “was not an American.”

Pickens County Sheriff Rick Clark took to Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/rick.clark.33046)Friday to explain to seemingly supportive residents why he will not lower the flag at the Sheriff’s Office for Mandela, despite Obama’s Dec. 5 Presidential Proclamation:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12/07/he-was-not-an-american-sheriff-defies-obamas-order-to-lower-flag-for-mandela-88539?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Drummond

12-07-2013, 10:33 PM

And as such is demonstrably subhuman and should have been subjected to retributive torture...

... right?

I suggest you check out post #4 on this thread. In it, I quoted this:

Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”

Those who want to elevate Mandela to sainthood (judging by the BBC's output, they'd much rather he be made one !!!!!) might want to consider Mandela's refusal to renounce violence. Fact is, in his earlier life he was a terrorist, led a terrorist group which committed the usual so-called 'human' atrocities against innocents (... well, YOU would call them human, eh ?), he was caught, gave a 'guilty' plea, and was jailed for a substantial period for his crimes.

Did he renounce his violence ? NO. Regardless of the subhumanities involved, HE DID NOT.

Now ... who believes that, had he been subjected to torture in response to his terrorism, he'd have folded .. seen the error of his ways, and turned against his ANC terrorist buddies ? H'm ?

Remember his charming wife .. Winnie Mandela, and her own enthusiasm for terrorism .. ?

Mandela did good things in his later life. But then, how much of that was achieved as a spin-off from the success of the cause he said he was fighting for, rather than a straight and wholly measurable degree of proof of his reversion from subhuman acts to genuine, heartfelt humanitarianism ?

I find myself wondering: if Osama bin Laden had turned away from Al Qaeda in his final years and joined Amnesty International .... how many, today, would be mourning HIS death, as Mandela is now mourned ?

fj1200

12-08-2013, 12:09 AM

I suggest you check out post #4 on this thread.

So... you're not willing to call a black man subhuman? That's probably the smartest thing you've done on this forum even if it does show the vacuousness of your position.

red states rule

12-08-2013, 06:38 AM

The previous post is brought to you by Debate Policy's Department of Civility, Tolerance, and Open Mindedness. It is always fun to see a devoted blue nosed lib show off their character traits

I guess in a perfect world everyone would submit their posts to FU for approval before they are posted publicly

red states rule

12-08-2013, 06:45 AM

It is clear why the usual; suspects are defending Mandela and attacking those pointing out those pesky facets about him

Birds of a feather you know

Rest In Whitewash: Networks Set to Ignore Mandela's Communist Party Ties, Dictator Friends

At the Daily Beast, Michael Moynihan (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/05/nelson-mandela-was-undeniably-great-but-he-doesn-t-need-a-halo.html) attempted to overcome the tendency of journalists and celebrities to make Nelson Mandela a secular saint. Moynihan recalled that when Margaret Thatcher died, these same people denounced her for here "indulgence" of right-wing dictators like Agosto Pinochet in Chile, who allowed his country to become a democracy.

ABC called her reign an “elective dictatorship.” (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2013/04/09/bozell-column-remembering-and-forgetting-thatcher) NBC reported several times (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/04/17/britain-says-goodbye-networks-tout-ugly-attacks-polarizing-divisive-)that “Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead” became a popular iTune after she passed away, and CBS predicted the funeral would be a "tense and controversial affair." It's safe to guess these networks wouldn't dream of recalling Mandela’s associations with despots like Fidel Castro and Muammar Qaddafi, as Moynihan insisted they should:

So Mandela was painfully slow in denouncing the squalid dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. He was rather fond of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro (it won’t take you long to find photos of the two bear-hugging each other in Havana) and regularly referred to Libyan tyrant Muammar Qaddafi as “Brother Leader of the Revolution of the Libyan Jamahariya.” It was on a return visit to Robbin Island, when Mandela, as president, announced with appalling tone deafness that he would invite both Castro and Qaddafi to South Africa.

The media had this same whitewashing tendency at the height of Mandela’s legend, when he visited the United States in 1990. For our newsletter MediaWatch, we performed a study on “The Media’s Mandela Mania.”

http://www.millardberry.com/wp-content/uploads/galleries/post-532/full/Mandela1990Rouge043.jpgA MediaWatch study of evening news coverage of Mandela's release during the first three weeks of February found that reporters often compared Mandela to the Pope, Jesus Christ, and Moses, but not one story discussed Mandela's embrace of communism and only a few CNN reports mentioned his role in acts of terrorism.

MediaWatch analysts found the same thing in network morning news (ABC's Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, and NBC's Today) and evening newscasts (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN's PrimeNews and NBC Nightly News) from June 17 to June 30. In 142 news stories, network anchors and reporters ignored Mandela's embrace of communism and his terrorist past.

Instead, Mandela was hailed as "the hero of oppressed people everywhere" (David Ensor, ABC); a "larger than life figure" (John Holliman, CNN); and "a virtual symbol of freedom" (Harold Dow, CBS). On June 24, NBC's Brad Willis described "A huge rally on Boston's esplanade for a freedom fighter that many compare to the revolutionaries who fought against the British here more than two centuries ago." But what didn't the reporters cover?

Communism. In their rush to proclaim him a symbol of freedom, none of the networks covered Mandela's ideology or the relationship between Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP). In his own handwritten manuscript How To Be A Good Communist, Mandela wrote "Under a Communist government, South Africa will become a land of milk and honey." With the exception of NBC's Bob Kur and Mike Jensen, no reporter even mentioned Mandela's support of economic nationalization. With Mandela's ideas and "loyal and disciplined" membership in the ANC, would South Africa become a multi-racial democracy or a one-party Marxist state like its neighbors? No one asked.

Political Prisoner. "The former long-time political prisoner will address Congress," Dan Rather announced when Mandela arrived. TV reporters called Mandela a political prisoner eight times, but never referred to Mandela as a saboteur or terrorist, even though Amnesty International declared in 1985 that "Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence, so that he could no longer fulfill the criteria for the classification of political prisoners." Network reporters did report Mandela's refusal to renounce violence in 14 stories, but most referred to it only in the context of fighting apartheid, not in the context of the ANC's involvement in black-on-black violence or the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mandela_castro1-450x290.jpgArafat, Castro, Qaddafi. Without Ted Koppel's June 21 "town meeting" with Mandela, the tour might have escaped controversy completely. Questioners asked Mandela to explain his praise for Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro and Moammar Qaddafi. The questions were prompted by Mandela hailing Castro's Cuba in May: "There's one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest. That is in its love for human rights and liberty." A week later in Libya, he praised Qaddaf's "commitment to the fight for peace and human rights in the world." These statements, which appeared in The New Republic, were never quoted on the networks when he said them, or when he visited here.

The networks barely reported Mandela's ABC remarks until Jewish and Cuban groups and print outlets made them an issue, mentioning the controversy in 26 stories. ABC, which taped the Koppel special in the afternoon on June 21, didn't find the remarks worth including in a story on that night's newscast summarizing the "town meeting."

The next morning, Good Morning America did one story on the remarks, but left it out of its three other newscasts. NBC's Today aired three stories without mentioning the remark. Harold Dow left it out of the one story on CBS This Morning. In fact, NBC and CBS dropped the Mandela story from its morning news for the next two days. On the Evening News, CBS gave the remarks brief mentions on June 22, 25, and 28. NBC Nightly News spent 45 seconds on the remarks on June 22, and included brief mentions on June 24 and 26. But the show ignored Mandela from June 27 to 29, when Mandela was greeted by thousands of protesting Cubans in Miami.

ABC's World News Tonight was the only newscast to question Mandela's contentions. Reporter James Walker noted: "Many find it a paradox that Mandela asks Americans to involve themselves in South Africa's internal affairs while he refuses to pass judgment on the internal affairs of Libya or Cuba, or to involve himself in America's racial problems." But Peter Jennings dampened the impact with his remark on Castro: "The Cuban President has long been a leading supporter of liberation movements in southern Africa."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/12/07/rest-whitewash-networks-set-ignore-mandelas-communist-party-ties-dictato#ixzz2mso1rhfF

Drummond

12-08-2013, 01:22 PM

So... you're not willing to call a black man subhuman? That's probably the smartest thing you've done on this forum even if it does show the vacuousness of your position.

... WHAT ??

FJ, congratulations - typical Leftie trick, this, using the 'race card' to try and win an argument. I've seen this done time and time again by them.

For your information, Mandela's skin colour never entered my head as any consideration relevant to his humanity (or otherwise). I know you have ideological scriptwriters to satisfy .. nonetheless, you should regret having introduced what you have into this debate.

Drummond

12-08-2013, 01:26 PM

It is clear why the usual; suspects are defending Mandela and attacking those pointing out those pesky facets about him

Birds of a feather you know

It's the same here. His 'struggle against apartheid' gets frequent mentions. That he was imprisoned, likewise. But, NOT ONE WORD about the acts he and his group committed .. not ONE WORD lending consideration of the innocents who suffered and died at the hands of that terrorism. And, not ONE WORD about the Communist element involved.

tailfins

12-08-2013, 01:35 PM

The questions were prompted by Mandela hailing Castro's Cuba in May: "There's one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest. That is in its love for human rights and liberty.

It is clear why the usual; suspects are defending Mandela and attacking those pointing out those pesky facets about him

Birds of a feather you know

I dare ANYBODY to distribute the following flyer in Cuba, then tell me about "its love for human rights and liberty"

http://www.sigloxxi.org/NOTICIAS/CubaYoNobig.jpg

fj1200

12-08-2013, 01:36 PM

... WHAT ??

FJ, congratulations - typical Leftie trick, this, using the 'race card' to try and win an argument.

I don't need a race card to expose you, it's just a matter of time. And FWIW, the race card was injected decades ago.

Drummond

12-08-2013, 04:54 PM

I don't need a race card to expose you

-- But you used it anyway ?

And what do you mean, 'expose' ? Are you still smarting from my having exposed YOU as NOT being 'Thatcherite', from your repeated failure to answer questions that a real 'Thatcherite' would've known the answer to ?

FJ, if you have an accusation to make about me, then MAKE IT. Come on ...

aboutime

12-08-2013, 06:29 PM

I don't need a race card to expose you, it's just a matter of time. And FWIW, the race card was injected decades ago.

That's right fj. Racists like you don't need a race card. You grew up, and perpetuate it without a card. Just like Obama, Jesse, and Al use it to EXTORT false representation to the perpetually ignorant, and easily led...LIKE YOU.

logroller

12-08-2013, 11:12 PM

-- But you used it anyway ?

And what do you mean, 'expose' ? Are you still smarting from my having exposed YOU as NOT being 'Thatcherite', from your repeated failure to answer questions that a real 'Thatcherite' would've known the answer to ?

FJ, if you have an accusation to make about me, then MAKE IT. Come on ...
Are you sympathetic to the apartheid cause?

You see, the Afrikans had a race card too. See pass laws. The simple fact of the matter is you evaded fj's direct question. I know why you did, because all the things you would suggest were tried, and met with violent oppression against man, woman and child alike-- Organized protests and strikes were crushed, the leaders jailed and beaten to death. Thus, in accordance with your no terrorists acts maxim, they're left only to be subjugated, or worse. Great plan--worked out fantastically for the Jews in 1930's Germany. Ive long known the result of uber- conservative leanings such as yours.

No doubt you revere Winston Churchill as a champion of freedom; likely excusing the fire-bombing of Dresden which resulted in the death of thousands of innocents under the auspices of necessity towards a great cause-- the defeat of an powerful and oppressive state. Yet for Mandela you fail to apply the same justification. Why? Are you sympathetic to apartheid?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-09-2013, 12:33 AM

Are you sympathetic to the apartheid cause?

You see, the Afrikans had a race card too. See pass laws. The simple fact of the matter is you evaded fj's direct question. I know why you did, because all the things you would suggest were tried, and met with violent oppression against man, woman and child alike-- Organized protests and strikes were crushed, the leaders jailed and beaten to death. Thus, in accordance with your no terrorists acts maxim, they're left only to be subjugated, or worse. Great plan--worked out fantastically for the Jews in 1930's Germany. Ive long known the result of uber- conservative leanings such as yours.

No doubt you revere Winston Churchill as a champion of freedom; likely excusing the fire-bombing of Dresden which resulted in the death of thousands of innocents under the auspices of necessity towards a great cause-- the defeat of an powerful and oppressive state. Yet for Mandela you fail to apply the same justification. Why? Are you sympathetic to apartheid? Are you seriously comparing Mandela's actions as a terrorist with WW2 actions to defeat a nation's armies in a worldwide conflict? And doing so while conveniently ignoring the atrocities that both Japan and Germany inflicted upon millions they murdered!?? I mean , go ahead compare a molehill to a mountain if you like but it doesn't fit as a good comparison IMHO. MANDELA WAS LEADING NO STANDING ARMY OF A SOVERIEGN NATION . And firebombing of Dresden very likely saved many thousands of our troops lives or doesn't that count in your equation? Additionally your comment looks like you are saying terrorism was justified in Mandela's case because previous avenues had failed. To that I say the murdering innocent women and children as Mandela did was not the correct path. Ghandi showed the correct path but Mandela the communist desired a faster victory now didn't he? Lets do try to cut thru the crap of the man being a saint shall we? As a communist there has never been anybody even remotely approaching any kind of hero status or Sainthood. Never! Communism has caused the death of well over 200 million people since it first infected mankind. Or are you now presenting that Mandela did not start out as a murdering communist terrorist? And even comparing Churchill to Mandela was off the charts wrong. Mandela wouldn't even make Churchill's little finger! Mandela became a great hero because victory came after he was imprisoned for the crimes he did and they needed a hero to solidify the government, communists always use any and every means at their disposal. I find this "communist terrorist hero fantasy" a bit too much to take from any supposedly intelligent human. Perhaps a reply could clarify it a bit more for this redneck Southern man.. I mean when I see a snake I call it a snake, when I see a tiger I call it a tiger ... I do not call the first a worm and the second one a kitty cat.--Tyr

red states rule

12-09-2013, 02:55 AM

Drummond

12-09-2013, 03:49 AM

Drummond, you know damn well when a liberal is losing the debate and cannot refute the facts presented they draw the race card from the bottom of the deck

Hell the Bushies did the same thing when they were losing the amnesty debate

FU is no different. Calling you a racist is all he has left to try and save face. It is a feeble attempt to elevate himself by trying to lower you

It was another epic fail on the part of FU

I do indeed ... I've seen this done by them loads of times. No worries - FJ just disgraces himself by using such - revealing - tactics.

Drummond

12-09-2013, 04:00 AM

Are you sympathetic to the apartheid cause?

You see, the Afrikans had a race card too. See pass laws. The simple fact of the matter is you evaded fj's direct question. I know why you did, because all the things you would suggest were tried, and met with violent oppression against man, woman and child alike-- Organized protests and strikes were crushed, the leaders jailed and beaten to death. Thus, in accordance with your no terrorists acts maxim, they're left only to be subjugated, or worse. Great plan--worked out fantastically for the Jews in 1930's Germany. Ive long known the result of uber- conservative leanings such as yours.

No doubt you revere Winston Churchill as a champion of freedom; likely excusing the fire-bombing of Dresden which resulted in the death of thousands of innocents under the auspices of necessity towards a great cause-- the defeat of an powerful and oppressive state. Yet for Mandela you fail to apply the same justification. Why? Are you sympathetic to apartheid?

The apartheid cause, by my understanding, is a matter of history. But for your information, I had considerable sympathy with the plight suffered by black people in South Africa.

Nonetheless, I'm a realist. That cause was hijacked by South Africa's version of the Left wing ... the ANC took its own lead. And so did THEIR TERRORIST WING .. HEADED BY MANDELA.

I'm not saying Apartheid didn't deserve opposition. But, TERRORISM ?

I ask again .. why is no consideration AT ALL being given to the acts committed by that ANC group ? How come there's total silence on that ? Bombings occurred, killing and maiming innocents. FACT. But, 'amazingly', all we get on that is ... complete silence.

What we currently have, in your press and mine, is a propaganda machine going into overdrive, to paint Mandela as the saint he WASN'T.

Your reference to Churchill and Dresden is surely a diversion. Churchill had a war to win, he had morale to defeat. And it was full-blown WAR, and a World War, at that. I'm not defending the Dresden action. But neither will I condemn it. Context was different to what we're discussing now.

I'm sorry that you take exception to my 'uber-Conservative leanings', Logroller ... as, of course (though not in so many words) FJ also will. But be thankful for them, because it's such 'leanings' that save me from being wedded to blinkering propaganda initiatives from the Left.

Drummond

12-09-2013, 04:10 AM

Are you seriously comparing Mandela's actions as a terrorist with WW2 actions to defeat a nation's armies in a worldwide conflict? And doing so while conveniently ignoring the atrocities that both Japan and Germany inflicted upon millions they murdered!?? I mean , go ahead compare a molehill to a mountain if you like but it doesn't fit as a good comparison IMHO. MANDELA WAS LEADING NO STANDING ARMY OF A SOVERIEGN NATION . And firebombing of Dresden very likely saved many thousands of our troops lives or doesn't that count in your equation? Additionally your comment looks like you are saying terrorism was justified in Mandela's case because previous avenues had failed. To that I say the murdering innocent women and children as Mandela did was not the correct path. Ghandi showed the correct path but Mandela the communist desired a faster victory now didn't he? Lets do try to cut thru the crap of the man being a saint shall we? As a communist there has never been anybody even remotely approaching any kind of hero status or Sainthood. Never! Communism has caused the death of well over 200 million people since it first infected mankind. Or are you now presenting that Mandela did not start out as a murdering communist terrorist? And even comparing Churchill to Mandela was off the charts wrong. Mandela wouldn't even make Churchill's little finger! Mandela became a great hero because victory came after he was imprisoned for the crimes he did and they needed a hero to solidify the government, communists always use any and every means at their disposal. I find this "communist terrorist hero fantasy" a bit too much to take from any supposedly intelligent human. Perhaps a reply could clarify it a bit more for this redneck Southern man.. I mean when I see a snake I call it a snake, when I see a tiger I call it a tiger ... I do not call the first a worm and the second one a kitty cat.--Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Definitely a lot better put, than my own answer ! This is what I get for skimming threads ... missing stellar postings like this one, when they most deserved to be seen.

fj1200

12-09-2013, 07:53 AM

I do indeed ... I've seen this done by them loads of times. No worries - FJ just disgraces himself by using such - revealing - tactics.

You know, he almost had it right.

Drummond, you know damn well when a big government "conservative" is losing the debate and cannot refute the facts presented they draw the leftie card from the bottom of the deck

;)

You can always count on a knucklehead to come in and try to save the day.

fj1200

12-09-2013, 08:08 AM

-- But you used it anyway ?

And what do you mean, 'expose' ? Are you still smarting from my having exposed YOU as NOT being 'Thatcherite', from your repeated failure to answer questions that a real 'Thatcherite' would've known the answer to ?

FJ, if you have an accusation to make about me, then MAKE IT. Come on ...

I didn't use the race card. I noted your unwillingness to stand by your convictions.

But way to deflect with that whole Thatcherite business you seem to know little about.

I'm not saying Apartheid didn't deserve opposition. But, TERRORISM ?

Which leads me back to my original question that you can't seem to answer.

You would have him do what against racial oppression?

I'm sorry that you take exception to my 'uber-Conservative leanings', Logroller ... as, of course (though not in so many words) FJ also will. But be thankful for them, because it's such 'leanings' that save me from being wedded to blinkering propaganda initiatives from the Left.

The only thing wrong with his post was his description of "uber" unless by uber he meant conservatives who love big government. Of course you're already wedded to a particular "blinkering propaganda." :shrug:

fj1200

12-09-2013, 08:27 AM

MANDELA WAS LEADING NO STANDING ARMY OF A SOVERIEGN NATION . And firebombing of Dresden very likely saved many thousands of our troops lives or doesn't that count in your equation? Additionally your comment looks like you are saying terrorism was justified in Mandela's case because previous avenues had failed. To that I say the murdering innocent women and children as Mandela did was not the correct path. Ghandi showed the correct path but Mandela the communist desired a faster victory now didn't he? Lets do try to cut thru the crap of the man being a saint shall we?

Is that the distinction then? A standing army? Had the ANC declared independence and rustled up some uniforms would they have then been in the clear?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-09-2013, 10:00 AM

Is that the distinction then? A standing army? Had the ANC declared independence and rustled up some uniforms would they have then been in the clear? Certainly was a distinction but not the only one amigo. Did Mandela using terrorism and murder succeed in accomplishing his goal. --answer is no. You can not defend what he did without defending terrorism as a legitimate method to go about effecting great change. Are you now defending terrorism as a legitimate method?? I cited the difference between Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi as a reference, did you miss it or just dismiss it?-Tyr

jimnyc

12-09-2013, 10:38 AM

jimnyc

12-09-2013, 10:44 AM

Thinking over my own question above, I have to wonder how far they went, to where our government placed his group as a terror group. Let me see if I can find the US state page covering this...

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-09-2013, 10:49 AM

I'm dead serious when I say I know very little about Mandela other than what I read over the years, which mostly was news from his incarceration on. But back to his days prior, can someone tell me - if he was involved in violence/terrorism - was it solely against the government, did they kill civilians, bombs, shootings? Jim, here is the answer to your question.

http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/ 3 Things You Didn’t (Want To) Know About Nelson Mandela
Lee Jenkins June 27, 2013 899 The hero of the anti-apartheid struggle was not the saint we want him to be.

The image of Nelson Mandela as a selfless, humble, freedom fighter turned cheerful, kindly old man, is well established in the West. If there is any international leader on whom we can universally heap praise it is surely he. But get past the halo we’ve placed on him without his permission, and Nelson Mandela had more than a few flaws which deserve attention.

He signed off on the deaths of innocent people, lots of them

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights

-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983

-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985

-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988

-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986

-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead

-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987

-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988

Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.” I would say that proves the man he was before going to prison. As far from the Sainthood they now present about him as one could possibly be. Truth is often a bitter pill for some to swallow, especially the gullible amongst us. -Tyr

jimnyc

12-09-2013, 10:53 AM

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights

-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983

-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985

-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988

-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986

-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead

-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987

-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988

If these were purely public places and innocent people were killed (civilians), and there is no twist - then clearly he and his group were "terrorists". That's basically the definition, to use violence for a political purpose. I can almost see them going after certain government installations that I just read about, which was not harming people at all, but more of 'sabotage'. But if they crossed over into the public to kill and make a statement? I can still see people patting him on the back for his great efforts after prison, but if accurate, the blood on their hands can't simply be forgotten or rinsed off.

jimnyc

12-09-2013, 10:56 AM

Here's an article from 1989...

A Pentagon report listing an anti-apartheid group, the African National Congress, as a terrorist organization has touched off a furor in South Africa, and the State Department today repudiated that characterization.

The report, issued Tuesday with a preface by President-elect George Bush, gives information about the history and operations of 52 organizations around the world described as ''the more notorious terrorist groups.''

The State Department spokesman, Charles E. Redman, said today, ''The United States Government has not determined that the A.N.C. is a terrorist organization.''

He said the United States endorsed some of the group's political objectives, ''such as ending apartheid and establishing a nonracial system of government in South Africa.''

But Mr. Redman added: ''We strongly differ with the A.N.C. on some of the methods they have used to pursue these objectives, including the use of violence. Both publicly and in private contacts with the A.N.C., we have repeatedly condemned tactics such as the intentional placing of bombs in public places which results in civilian casualties.'

South African newspapers and the state-controlled television service portrayed the Defense Department report as a major statement of American policy toward the African National Congress, the main guerrilla force battling white rule in South Africa.

Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha of South Africa said he could not understand why the State Department had any reservations about the report.

''As far as the South African Government is concerned, the Pentagon report correctly analyzed terrorism as it occurs worldwide,'' Mr. Botha said. ''The State Department cannot repudiate the facts, and it must have issued its statement for political purposes.'' Pentagon 'Stands by Report'

It was not immediately clear how the Pentagon came to issue a report that diverged from the State Department position, but it seemed to be a result, in part, of bureaucratic confusion. A State Department official said, ''We did clear and approve'' the Defense Department publication, ''Terrorist Group Profiles.''

Mr. Redman said the Pentagon report was ''an information document'' and was ''not meant to be a policy publication.'' Lieut. Comdr. James M. Kudla, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Defense Department ''stands by the report.'

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/14/world/us-report-stirs-furor-in-south-africa.html

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-09-2013, 11:11 AM

If these were purely public places and innocent people were killed (civilians), and there is no twist - then clearly he and his group were "terrorists". That's basically the definition, to use violence for a political purpose. I can almost see them going after certain government installations that I just read about, which was not harming people at all, but more of 'sabotage'. But if they crossed over into the public to kill and make a statement? I can still see people patting him on the back for his great efforts after prison, but if accurate, the blood on their hands can't simply be forgotten or rinsed off. Jim, these were public places for sure.

Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983 -- car bomb killed 19 injured 200 more.

-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985--

-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986

Here is a short list of the ANC bombings from CSBR:

SA exile Henri le Riche writes: “Other than the ANC siding with the communists during the Cold War, why did UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher and US president Ronald Reagan call the ANC a terrorist organisation? I will let the current US president, Barrack Obama, answer that question. After the April 16 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon, he said: “Any Time Bombs Are Used to Target CIVILIANS It Is an Act of Terror.”

The ANC had an easy choice: Fight soldiers, or take the easy cowardly option terrorists worldwide take,and that is target civilians..

THE ANC’S VICTIMS WERE MOSTLY CIVILIANS:
1981 – 2 car bombs at Durban showrooms
1983 – Church Street Bomb (killed 19, wounded 217)
1984 – Durban car bomb (killed 5, wounded 27)
1985-1987 – At least 150 landmines on farm roads (killed 125)
1985 – Amanzimtoti Sanlam shopping centre bomb Dec 23 (killed 2 white women and 3 white children)
1986 – Magoo’s Bar bomb (killed 3, wounded 69)
1986 – Newcastle Court bomb (wounded 24)
1987 – Johannesburg Court bomb (killed 3, wounded 10)
1987 – Wits command centre car bomb (killed 1, wounded 68)
1988 – Johannesburg video arcade (killed 1 unborn baby, wounded 10)
1988 – Roodepoort bank bomb (killed 4, wounded 18)
1988 – Pretoria Police housing unit, 2 bombs (wounded 3)
1988 – Magistrate’s Court bomb (killed 3)
1988 – Benoni Wimpy Bar bomb (killed 1, wounded 56)
1988 – Witbank shopping centre bomb (killed 2, wounded 42)
1988 – Ellis Park Rugby Stadium car bomb (killed 2, wounded 37)
Late 1980s – numerous Wimpy Restaurant bombs (killed many, wounded many)

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/nelson-mandela-media-fawns-though-marxist-terrorist/

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/nelson-mandela-media-fawns-though-marxist-terrorist/#ws0thBslF2MbbF6K.99

Almost all were civilians... No weapon ever made greater than TRUTH!!! -Tyr

fj1200

12-09-2013, 01:58 PM

Certainly was a distinction but not the only one amigo. Did Mandela using terrorism and murder succeed in accomplishing his goal. --answer is no. You can not defend what he did without defending terrorism as a legitimate method to go about effecting great change. Are you now defending terrorism as a legitimate method?? I cited the difference between Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi as a reference, did you miss it or just dismiss it?-Tyr

I left your Gandhi reference in there didn't I? Gandhi showed A path, a successful one to be sure. Nevertheless it seems that you are quick to judge Mandela but not so quick to judge the Afrikaners and their appalling actions. It's also a pretty weak argument to distinguish between those wearing a uniform and those who are not.

Am I defending terrorism? No. I also don't dismiss the terror done by the other side either.

fj1200

12-09-2013, 01:59 PM

Almost all were civilians... No weapon ever made greater than TRUTH!!! -Tyr

Did I miss your post showing the truth of the horrors of Apartheid?

aboutime

12-09-2013, 03:28 PM

Did I miss your post showing the truth of the horrors of Apartheid?

fj. Finding more reasons to perpetually defend your stupidity here is...old news.

But then again. It is your style to belittle everyone else to Impress yourself with ignorance.

Drummond

12-09-2013, 03:51 PM

I left your Gandhi reference in there didn't I? Gandhi showed A path, a successful one to be sure. Nevertheless it seems that you are quick to judge Mandela but not so quick to judge the Afrikaners and their appalling actions. It's also a pretty weak argument to distinguish between those wearing a uniform and those who are not.

Am I defending terrorism? No. I also don't dismiss the terror done by the other side either.

You ARE defending terrorism. You're going out of your way to see things from Mandela's side. An account of his group's 'activities' has been repeatedly posted here, but still, you insist upon finding reason to excuse him.

Defending terrorists is what I've seen your position to be in the past ... ludicrously attributing 'human' rights to the patently SUBhuman creatures they are. FJ, all I see here is a bit of a twist on a familiar theme.

Then again, FJ ... are you 'just' defending a Leftie ??

Answering Jim .. this link might be of interest ?

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enemy.html

... But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC's campaign of armed resistance to White rule.

His book also provides fresh detail on how the ANC's military wing had bomb-making lessons from the IRA, and intelligence training from the East German Stasi, which it used to carry out brutal interrogations of suspected "spies" at secret prison camps.

But while other ANC leaders also came round to his way of thinking after Sharpeville, the group still had no access to weaponry or financial support. Instead, says Prof Ellis, Mandela looked for help from the Communists, with whom he already had close contacts due to their shared opposition to apartheid.

"He knew and trusted many Communist activists anyway, so it appears he was co-opted straight to the central committee with no probation required," said Prof Ellis. "But it's fair to say he wasn't a real convert, it was just an opportunist thing."

In the months after Sharpeville, Communist party members secretly visited Beijing [Peking] and Moscow, where they got assurances of support for their own guerrilla campaign. In conjunction with a number of leading ANC members, they set up a new, nominally independent military organisation, known as Umkhonto we Sizwe or Spear of the Nation. With Mandela as its commander, Umkhonto we Sizwe launched its first attacks on 16 December 1961.

Its campaign of "sabotage" and bombings over the subsequent three decades claimed the lives of dozens of civilians, and led to the organisation being classed as a terrorist group by the US.

In his book, Professor Ellis, who also authored a publication on the Liberian civil war, elaborates on other murky aspects of the ANC's past. One is that bomb-making experts from the IRA trained the ANC at a secret base in Angola in the late 1970s, a link disclosed last year in the posthumous memoirs of Kader Asmal, a South African politician of Indian extraction who was exiled in Ireland. He was a member of the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement, which, Prof Mr Ellis says, in turn had close links to the British and South African Communist parties.

The IRA tutoring, which was allegedly brokered partly through Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, led to the ANC fighters improving their bombing skills considerably, thanks to the expertise of what Mr Ellis describes as "the world's most sophisticated urban guerrilla force".

fj1200

12-09-2013, 04:14 PM

You ARE defending terrorism.

... ludicrously attributing 'human' rights to the patently SUBhuman creatures they are.

I'm not defending terrorism. Why are you defending the atrocities and racist policies of Apartheid?

So you ARE calling Mandela subhuman. I think I saw a picture of the Queen riding with Mandela... perhaps she has a different definition than do you.

Drummond

12-09-2013, 04:42 PM

I'm not defending terrorism. Why are you defending the atrocities and racist policies of Apartheid?

You are going to EXTREMES to offer just such a defence.

Show me where I 'defend the atrocities and racist policies of Apartheid', FJ. Oh, that's right ... YOU CAN'T DO ANY SUCH THING. But you make the accusation anyway .. because you are going to THAT extreme to defend 'your boy'.

So you ARE calling Mandela subhuman.

Can you prove to me that he wasn't ever a terrorist ?

Can you prove that he was NOT the leader, or heavily associated with, the terrorist wing of the ANC ?

Can you show me where he EVER renounced the ANC's violence ? Did he EVER express regret for the innocents his group killed ?

I suggest to you, FJ, that a human being might've had sufficient humanity in him to have managed at least some of that. So tell me, FJ, why it was that Mandela DID NOT.

I think I saw a picture of the Queen riding with Mandela... perhaps she has a different definition than do you.

I wouldn't know. But, as for Margaret Thatcher ...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/deannelson/100025913/the-right-got-it-so-wrong-on-nelson-mandela/

Margaret Thatcher denounced the ANC as a “typical terrorist organization,” and one of her strongest supporters, Teddy Taylor, said Nelson Mandela “should be shot.”

Are you still calling yourself a 'Thatcherite' ? If so ... WHY ?

Drummond

12-09-2013, 04:57 PM

For FJ, and other Mandela supporters out there ... let me add to my other post. Observe ...

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enemy.html

5790 5791

Here are two photos showing the Church Street bombing. As mentioned before, in his so-called book, "Long Walk to Freedom", Mandela says that he "signed off" with this act of terrorism. People should take a look at what Mandela "signed off" with while he was in prison - convicted for other acts of terrorism! President P.W. Botha told Mandela way back in 1985, that he could be a free man as long as he did one thing: Publicly renounce violence. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser F.W. de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line is that Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced violence - and we should never forget that.

Mandela NEVER publicly renounced violence. You see this from the quote. EXPLAIN THAT.

Was that because Mandela was a 'great humanitarian' ???? Or could it just be that he didn't have it in him to do so ? YOU tell ME.

fj1200

12-09-2013, 05:09 PM

You are going to EXTREMES to offer just such a defence.

Show me where I 'defend the atrocities and racist policies of Apartheid', FJ. Oh, that's right ... YOU CAN'T DO ANY SUCH THING. But you make the accusation anyway .. because you are going to THAT extreme to defend 'your boy'.

"My boy"? Who would that be? :dunno:

I haven't defended terrorism I merely asked a question that you've thus far been unable/unwilling? to answer. And you clearly defend the previous South African government because you don't seem to have any care about those who suffered under it. You seem to care more for the few that may have suffered from Mandela's acts of terror than from the millions who suffered from the terrorism perpetrated by the Apartheid government.

At this point I'd be more interested in the failures of the Socialist policies of SA under the rule of the ANC than harping on past history.

Can you prove to me that he wasn't ever a terrorist ?

Can you prove that he was NOT the leader, or heavily associated with, the terrorist wing of the ANC ?

Can you show me where he EVER renounced the ANC's violence ? Did he EVER express regret for the innocents his group killed ?

I suggest to you, FJ, that a human being might've had sufficient humanity in him to have managed at least some of that. So tell me, FJ, why it was that Mandela DID NOT.

You should embrace your views then. Merely correcting my statement...

... you're not willing to call a black man subhuman?

would have been sufficient. As far as your above requests... I have no desire to "prove" things that I've not stated are not true; if you could get beyond your imagination for a moment you might recognize that. Also, if you could divorce yourself from your over reliance on your leftie "crutch" we might actually be able to have a rational debate. I don't have the desire to prove the failure of your logic again unless you're going to inform us all at what point the mentally handicapped are "subhuman."

fj1200

12-09-2013, 05:11 PM

For FJ, and other Mandela supporters out there ...

Who are all these Mandela supporters you keep seeing?

Drummond

12-09-2013, 05:24 PM

"My boy"? Who would that be? :dunno:

You've suddenly forgotten who it is we're discussing ?

I haven't defended terrorism I merely asked a question that you've thus far been unable/unwilling? to answer. And you clearly defend the previous South African government because you don't seem to have any care about those who suffered under it. You seem to care more for the few that may have suffered from Mandela's acts of terror than from the millions who suffered from the terrorism perpetrated by the Apartheid government.

By weighting matters so as to try to reduce the seriousness of Mandela's violence, YOU ARE DEFENDING TERRORISM ... merely a little less than directly.

You insist on saying that I'm defending the 'previous South African Government'. I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING. However .. two wrongs don't make a 'right', and you're trying your best to obscure Mandela's terrorism by shifting the focus away from it.

Apartheid was a cruel, vicious system. Yes, people suffered under it. But they ALSO suffered when Mandela's mob got started. I have posted pictures as evidence of that suffering.

At this point I'd be more interested in the failures of the Socialist policies of SA under the rule of the ANC than harping on past history.

Why is that ? Do any such failures cause you angst ?

Oh dear .....

As for my 'Leftie crutch' ... tell me. Why are you so very determined to silence references I make to 'Leftieism' (you'd call it Liberalism, of course) .. unless .. it strikes a raw nerve ?

Socialist types have been responsible - as Tyr has pointed out - for a great many millions of deaths on this planet. Now, Mandela's own contribution might seem like a drop in the ocean compared to all of those ... but it WAS a contribution, nonetheless.

I've posted evidence of the truth of that. My suggestion: take the blinkers off, and see it for yourself.

Oh, and as for ..

.... unless you're going to inform us all at what point the mentally handicapped are "subhuman."

... show me where I've ever, myself, personally made such a case.

fj1200

12-09-2013, 05:33 PM

You've suddenly forgotten who it is we're discussing ?

I thought you might be smart enough to understand that he's not "my boy." I thought wrong.

By weighting matters so as to try to reduce the seriousness of Mandela's violence, YOU ARE DEFENDING TERRORISM ... merely a little less than directly.

You insist on saying that I'm defending the 'previous South African Government'. I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING. However .. two wrongs don't make a 'right', and you're trying your best to obscure Mandela's terrorism by shifting the focus away from it.

Apartheid was a cruel, vicious system. Yes, people suffered under it. But they ALSO suffered when Mandela's mob got started. I have posted pictures as evidence of that suffering.

By weighting matters so as to try and reduce the seriousness of the previous South African government YOU ARE DEFENDING IT. See what I did there? ;) You care more about the few than the millions apparently. :dunno:

Why is that ? Do any such failures cause you angst ?

Oh dear .....

As for my 'Leftie crutch' ... tell me. Why are you so very determined to silence references I make to 'Leftieism' (you'd call it Liberalism, of course) .. unless .. it strikes a raw nerve ?

Socialist types have been responsible - as Tyr has pointed out - for a great many millions of deaths on this planet. Now, Mandela's own contribution might seem like a drop in the ocean compared to all of those ... but it WAS a contribution, nonetheless.

I've posted evidence of the truth of that. My suggestion: take the blinkers off, and see it for yourself.

Oh, and as for ..

:facepalm99: Just can't get out from under your crutch can you? It's quite sad. That people are forced to suffer under Socialism causes me angst as does people suffering under racist regimes where their natural rights are infringed. You don't care about those though.

... show me where I've ever, myself, personally made such a case.[/COLOR]

You posted the definition not me. :slap:

gabosaurus

12-09-2013, 05:54 PM

jimnyc

12-09-2013, 06:01 PM

Strangely enough, Mandela was only described as a "terrorist" by whites who felt like he was undermining their chances to retain apartheid.

The US Department of Defense is not a "white" organization. And you can claim it was only whites who labeled him as such - but it's obvious that he was involved in terrorist attacks, and it's been proven right here, the history is now a matter of record and fact. So try and make this an issue about race, but in no way did race force Mandela and his cronies to commit terror attacks.

You are easily the dumbest person to come across this board, you can't even troll worth a damn anymore.

jimnyc

12-09-2013, 06:03 PM

Mandela was also deeply admired and respected by both Bushes. .

Is this why GHWB was a part of the administration that still listed Mandela and the ANC as a terror group in 1989? You really are clueless.

jimnyc

12-09-2013, 06:07 PM

Also, other countries and areas considered them a terror group. Are these all white supremacists? Is the information they have about Mandela and the ANC and their public attacks and killings somehow false?

gabosaurus

12-09-2013, 06:10 PM

Is this why GHWB was a part of the administration that still listed Mandela and the ANC as a terror group in 1989? You really are clueless.

What was then is not now. And the Department of Defense reflects the views of the president. Which, at the time, was Reagan.
And if that is your idea of "terrorists attacks," then the U.S. has done a good idea of carrying out "terrorist attacks" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mandela was rebelling against the status quo, which was basically the same as our 60s era FBI labeling blacks fighting for equal rights as "terrorists."
Fighting for equality and majority rule is not exactly "terrorism." Unless you believe in apartheid. Which obviously you do.

jimnyc

12-09-2013, 06:25 PM

What was then is not now. And the Department of Defense reflects the views of the president. Which, at the time, was Reagan.
And if that is your idea of "terrorists attacks," then the U.S. has done a good idea of carrying out "terrorist attacks" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mandela was rebelling against the status quo, which was basically the same as our 60s era FBI labeling blacks fighting for equal rights as "terrorists."
Fighting for equality and majority rule is not exactly "terrorism." Unless you believe in apartheid. Which obviously you do.

Where has the US went out of their way and purposely blew up civilian destinations in order to promote a political stance? Status quo is not blowing up markets and such, and killing innocent civilians. I don't think blacks in the 60's went around blowing up innocent people for a cause, but obviously, if they did, then they were terrorists, as that is the very definition.

Answer this - do you deny the very long list of public places that were bombed by the ANC? Do you deny that many civilians were killed? Do you deny that it was a part of fighting back on a political stance?

And really, it was Reagan? Did you even bother to read this thread and links before attempting to troll? The foreward/preface was written by GHWB and they were referred to as "one of the world's most notorious terror groups". Also, was Thatcher a white supremacist?

Anyway, so anyone that labeled them a terror group back then, or one who points out the bombings back then - they're all racist in someway?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-09-2013, 06:58 PM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-09-2013, 07:07 PM

Strangely enough, Mandela was only described as a "terrorist" by whites who felt like he was undermining their chances to retain apartheid. Likewise, American whites (including Reagan) regarded him as a "terrorist" because of his desire usurp white control of South Africa. Since Reagan disliked and distrusted black people.

Do you know who strongly advocated Mandela's release from prison? And worked vigorously behind the scenes? Margaret Thatcher.
Mandela was also deeply admired and respected by both Bushes.
Mandela's greatest opposition has always come from white supremacists. Which explains the level of Mandela dislike on DP.
Mandela's greatest opposition has always come from white supremacists. Which explains the level of Mandela dislike on DP OK, GABBY. HOW ABOUT THIS FACT THAT WAS IN ONE OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS.
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things...elson-mandela/ Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.” WERE THOSE REFUSING TO TAKE HIS CASE ALSO WHITE BIGOTS?--Tyr

fj1200

12-09-2013, 08:35 PM

I fail to see how you can defend Mandela who engage in terrorism and still say you are not defending terrorism. Your question to Drummond was --all else had failed, what else would you have him do? I fail to see how that is not a comment attempting to justify the terrorism he engaged in. And pointing out apartheid as justification for the murdering innocent women and children by Mandela is clearing an eye for an eye application. Never saw you as an eye for an eye kind of guy. If you can make the distinction please do. By the way, Mandela's terrorist group murdered about 20, 000 blacks that were not part of the ruling government during their time. How's that for justification to reject this false Sainthood being bequeathed to Mandela? I do not want to accuse of you not knowing the depth to which those communists went to but overlooking that seems a big one in my book. -Tyr

Then you fail to understand extenuating circumstances and by extension justify Afrikaner actions. Why do you not address the many killed and affected by Apartheid over the years? And I agree, communists suck but you can't deny that Apartheid IS justification for action which leaves the question; what would you have them do? Practically every country in war has, if not outright targeted citizens, killed civilians as a matter of course; it's just an understanding that there are few saints in war.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-09-2013, 08:54 PM

Drummond

12-09-2013, 09:49 PM

Then you fail to understand extenuating circumstances and by extension justify Afrikaner actions. Why do you not address the many killed and affected by Apartheid over the years? And I agree, communists suck but you can't deny that Apartheid IS justification for action which leaves the question; what would you have them do? Practically every country in war has, if not outright targeted citizens, killed civilians as a matter of course; it's just an understanding that there are few saints in war.

There we have it. Not that it wasn't clear before, of course, but it's clear again, here. You are firmly on the side of the ANC terrorists.

Just how far DO you take the 'what else would you have them do' argument .. it could justify ANY action coming from WHATEVER set of circumstances in which the choice of options can be said to be limited. In fact, it could be a blanket defence for any form of lawlessness.

Or TERRORISM, in fact.

One could extend this. An Al Qaeda thug could claim that Western presences, or Western influences present in the Middle East, absolutely 'mandate' any measure of terrorism that Al Qaeda cares to inflict. Cue murders, bombings, mutilations of entirely innocent people, be it in the Middle East, or anywhere in the world.

Or it could be used by Hamas, say, to 'justify' the launching of hundreds of rockets into Israeli territory. Cue more death and destruction, again, of innocents.

Just WHEN is it TOO MUCH to 'justify', FJ ??

NO. TERRORISM IS TERRORISM. MURDER IS MURDER. AND YOUR ARGUMENTATION, IF EVER ACCEPTED, WOULD GIVE THE GREEN LIGHT TO ANY MEASURE OF TERRORISM A TERRORIST WOULD EVER CHOOSE TO INFLICT.

And tell me, FJ. Where, in any or all of this, is there the smallest quantity of sheer humanitarianism and decency which says, 'Murder is wrong. We are human beings, capable of better'.

One thing is for sure. Mandela, and his Left wing thugs, definitely were NOT capable of better ... not in the face of a regime which tested their worth as righteous people.

logroller

12-09-2013, 10:44 PM

The apartheid cause, by my understanding, is a matter of history. But for your information, I had considerable sympathy with the plight suffered by black people in South Africa.

Nonetheless, I'm a realist. That cause was hijacked by South Africa's version of the Left wing ... the ANC took its own lead. And so did THEIR TERRORIST WING .. HEADED BY MANDELA.

I'm not saying Apartheid didn't deserve opposition. But, TERRORISM ?

I ask again .. why is no consideration AT ALL being given to the acts committed by that ANC group ? How come there's total silence on that ? Bombings occurred, killing and maiming innocents. FACT. But, 'amazingly', all we get on that is ... complete silence.

What we currently have, in your press and mine, is a propaganda machine going into overdrive, to paint Mandela as the saint he WASN'T.

Your reference to Churchill and Dresden is surely a diversion. Churchill had a war to win, he had morale to defeat. And it was full-blown WAR, and a World War, at that. I'm not defending the Dresden action. But neither will I condemn it. Context was different to what we're discussing now.

I'm sorry that you take exception to my 'uber-Conservative leanings', Logroller ... as, of course (though not in so many words) FJ also will. But be thankful for them, because it's such 'leanings' that save me from being wedded to blinkering propaganda initiatives from the Left.
It was your premise that the targeting of innocent men, women and children to effectuate some end is wrong-- that this is terrorism.

Diversionary? Ironic considering that your initial comment was non-responsive to a direct question. I introduced the Dresden campaign as an example of targeting innocents. Now you claim that defeating the morale of one's opposition under the color of war mitigates such. FYI- the impetus of terrorism is exactly that-- subjugation through fear.
Don't misunderstand my position though, I do believe the firebombing was justified in light of Germany's v2 campaign which undoubtedly served a similar end-- inciting terror to win the morale war-- but so too did these terrorist organizations respond to such under apartheid. I find it unconvincing that declaring "war" excuses terrorists acts.

Regardless of what I believe to be a rebuttal of foundation, you agree that apartheid is deserving of opposition. Positively, what non-terrorist opposition (whereby no innocents are killed and/or targeted) do you suggest should have been taken in apartheid South Africa?

fj1200

12-09-2013, 11:30 PM

I believe I pointed to Gandhi as an example of how they should have waged their campaign but no communist has ever waged a peaceful non-violent protest for change. So Mandela does not deserve the praise he gets . Had he done as Gandhi yes but becoming and leading terrorism negates his cause and thus should nullify the praise so wrongly given to him IMHO.--Tyr

I never said that he was deserving of any praise that he gets but I do note the lack of criticism of the Afrikaners. :shrug:

fj1200

12-09-2013, 11:46 PM

There we have it. Not that it wasn't clear before, of course, but it's clear again, here. You are firmly on the side of the ANC terrorists.

You couldn't be more wrong but that is pretty much par for the course for you. I'm not on their side but I do recognize what they were fighting against.

Just how far DO you take the 'what else would you have them do' argument .. it could justify ANY action coming from WHATEVER set of circumstances in which the choice of options can be said to be limited. In fact, it could be a blanket defence for any form of lawlessness.

Or TERRORISM, in fact.

One could extend this. An Al Qaeda thug could claim that Western presences, or Western influences present in the Middle East, absolutely 'mandate' any measure of terrorism that Al Qaeda cares to inflict. Cue murders, bombings, mutilations of entirely innocent people, be it in the Middle East, or anywhere in the world.

Or it could be used by Hamas, say, to 'justify' the launching of hundreds of rockets into Israeli territory. Cue more death and destruction, again, of innocents.

Just WHEN is it TOO MUCH to 'justify', FJ ??

NO. TERRORISM IS TERRORISM. MURDER IS MURDER. AND YOUR ARGUMENTATION, IF EVER ACCEPTED, WOULD GIVE THE GREEN LIGHT TO ANY MEASURE OF TERRORISM A TERRORIST WOULD EVER CHOOSE TO INFLICT.

And tell me, FJ. Where, in any or all of this, is there the smallest quantity of sheer humanitarianism and decency which says, 'Murder is wrong. We are human beings, capable of better'.

One thing is for sure. Mandela, and his Left wing thugs, definitely were NOT capable of better ... not in the face of a regime which tested their worth as righteous people.

Blah, blah, blah... I've heard it all before from you. But you're wrong, there are always limits. Certain justifications are one thing and then there is taking things too far. But it is ironic for you of all people to be making such an argument when you see fit to declare a human being as "subhuman" based on your subjective definition alone. Once you hit that point there really is no limit to where one can go. Will you acknowledge that simple fact? I highly doubt it given that you refuse to acknowledge it even to this point. You will justify whatever government does in your favor and you will decry any action taken against you. I've pretty much decided that you're simply a nationalist; and I don't include the positive aspects of nationalism.

Another thing that I've decided? That your real name is Oliver Crangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_O'Clock).

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg76/GadflyRage/twilight%20zone/fouroclock/fouroclock04.jpg

Now, is there any more of my argumentation that you would like to get wrong?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-10-2013, 01:24 AM

It was your premise that the targeting of innocent men, women and children to effectuate some end is wrong-- that this is terrorism.

Diversionary? Ironic considering that your initial comment was non-responsive to a direct question. I introduced the Dresden campaign as an example of targeting innocents. Now you claim that defeating the morale of one's opposition under the color of war mitigates such. FYI- the impetus of terrorism is exactly that-- subjugation through fear.
Don't misunderstand my position though, I do believe the firebombing was justified in light of Germany's v2 campaign which undoubtedly served a similar end-- inciting terror to win the morale war-- but so too did these terrorist organizations respond to such under apartheid. I find it unconvincing that declaring "war" excuses terrorists acts.

Regardless of what I believe to be a rebuttal of foundation, you agree that apartheid is deserving of opposition. Positively, what non-terrorist opposition (whereby no innocents are killed and/or targeted) do you suggest should have been taken in apartheid South Africa? I believe I may have already answered your question in my reply to fj.

Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post

Then you fail to understand extenuating circumstances and by extension justify Afrikaner actions. Why do you not address the many killed and affected by Apartheid over the years? And I agree, communists suck but you can't deny that Apartheid IS justification for action which leaves the question; what would you have them do? Practically every country in war has, if not outright targeted citizens, killed civilians as a matter of course; it's just an understanding that there are few saints in war.

I believe I pointed to Gandhi as an example of how they should have waged their campaign but no communist has ever waged a peaceful non-violent protest for change. So Mandela does not deserve the praise he gets . Had he done as Gandhi yes but becoming and leading terrorism negates his cause and thus should nullify the praise so wrongly given to him IMHO.--Tyr

red states rule

12-10-2013, 03:21 AM

Where has the US went out of their way and purposely blew up civilian destinations in order to promote a political stance? Status quo is not blowing up markets and such, and killing innocent civilians. I don't think blacks in the 60's went around blowing up innocent people for a cause, but obviously, if they did, then they were terrorists, as that is the very definition.

Answer this - do you deny the very long list of public places that were bombed by the ANC? Do you deny that many civilians were killed? Do you deny that it was a part of fighting back on a political stance?

And really, it was Reagan? Did you even bother to read this thread and links before attempting to troll? The foreward/preface was written by GHWB and they were referred to as "one of the world's most notorious terror groups". Also, was Thatcher a white supremacist?

Anyway, so anyone that labeled them a terror group back then, or one who points out the bombings back then - they're all racist in someway?

Gabby will not respond to your request for examples of the US purposely blowing up civilian destinations in order to promote a political stance as there are none. In fact our troops have complained about the "Rules of Engagement" that put them in more danger then they need to be

As far as Ronald Reagan, hell Gabby was in diapers (or a blob of plasma) and has to rely on her usual far left sources of information on the nations best President. Gabby has yet to explain if Reagan was so damn bad why he won re-election with 49 states including her beloved CA

Like other defenders of Mandela, she is trying to rewrite history to cover up less then noble behavior but at least like other posters here she is not rewriting other peoples posts

red states rule

12-10-2013, 10:57 AM

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/5385/images/2058278326_Mandela20a20Communist_answer_1_xlarge.p ng

Gaffer

12-10-2013, 11:25 AM

There's also never anything mentioned about his cannibal wife and her continued terrorism affiliations while he was in prison. In prison he had time to reflect and learn how to manipulate people.

red states rule

12-10-2013, 11:27 AM

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRRF-UjHKrMwBE7HF15RDDSF_568z9Bg5dtEIKbMbpCXxgeFSWT

Seems like Winnie was another Moochelle Obama :laugh:

red states rule

12-10-2013, 01:26 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ev4ZM3mqW50/Upg1G2q-r-I/AAAAAAAAFh0/wTnfo3QLB5Q/s640/6319_509431869111912_1076969662_n.jpg

fj1200

12-10-2013, 01:32 PM

^Were AQ and the Taliban suffering under racial oppression?

red states rule

12-10-2013, 01:35 PM

http://rt.com/files/news/21/69/c0/00/nelson-22.jpg

red states rule

12-10-2013, 01:38 PM

I will let Mandela's own words show his support for terrorism and dictators

Mandela was a long-time supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and made a speech to reporters in 1999, in which he agreed to be a political mediator between Israel and its neighbors.
“Israel should withdraw from all the areas which it won from the Arabs in 1967, and in particular Israel should withdraw completely from the Golan Heights, from south Lebanon and from the West Bank,” Mandela stated, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency’s Suzanne Belling.

Mandela met with Fidel Castro in 1991, giving a speech alongside him entitled “How Far We Slaves Have Come.” The country was commemorating the 38th anniversary of the storming of the Moncada, and Mandela hailed Cuba’s ‘special place’ in the heart of the people of Africa, its revolution, and how far the country had come.

“From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orchestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain made in the Cuban Revolution….Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro.”

Mandela urged for the end to harsh UN sanctions imposed upon Libya in 1997, and pledged his support for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was a longtime supporter of his.

“It is our duty to give support to the brother leader…especially in regards to the sanctions which are not hitting just him, they are hitting the ordinary masses of the people … our African brothers and sisters,” Mandela said.

http://rt.com/files/news/21/69/c0/00/nelson-1.jpg

http://rt.com/news/mandela-sharp-quotes-media-860/

Drummond

12-10-2013, 04:39 PM

You couldn't be more wrong but that is pretty much par for the course for you. I'm not on their side but I do recognize what they were fighting against.

Blah, blah, blah... I've heard it all before from you. But you're wrong, there are always limits. Certain justifications are one thing and then there is taking things too far. But it is ironic for you of all people to be making such an argument when you see fit to declare a human being as "subhuman" based on your subjective definition alone. Once you hit that point there really is no limit to where one can go. Will you acknowledge that simple fact? I highly doubt it given that you refuse to acknowledge it even to this point. You will justify whatever government does in your favor and you will decry any action taken against you. I've pretty much decided that you're simply a nationalist; and I don't include the positive aspects of nationalism.

Another thing that I've decided? That your real name is Oliver Crangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_O'Clock).

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg76/GadflyRage/twilight%20zone/fouroclock/fouroclock04.jpg

Now, is there any more of my argumentation that you would like to get wrong?

'Blah Blah Blah' ... yourself.

I have NEVER seen fit to declare any human being as 'subhuman' !! I only call subhuman entities WHAT THEY ARE. Your great difficulty is, and has been, on insisting that they ARE human, when they're demonstably not .. because, in taking that stance, you put yourself on a platform of offering a basis of support for them.

You have done this consistently, with the result that it .. 'just so happens' .. that terrorists are better off under your worldview than a more realistic one. Yes, that's consistently the case.

And yet ... you 'aren't' a terrorist supporter ???

Ho ho.:laugh:

I really don't know what more there is to say to you. You're a 'Thatcherite' without knowing even the basics of her life or achievements. You claim Conservative credentials for yourself whilst earning opposition from other Conservatives, and you do nothing to repair that ... because you remain in OPPOSITION to them (.. e.g, myself). You always find ways of seeing terrorists through rose-coloured spectacles, and insist others should do the same. Now, Apartheid ... what ? DESERVED terrorism, meaning, that INNOCENT PEOPLE deserved to die ???

You fall over yourself to find ways of sanctioning both terrorists and what they do.

I'm tired of you. Again.

Drummond

12-10-2013, 04:44 PM

I will let Mandela's own words show his support for terrorism and dictators

...yes. To state the blindingly obvious, that puts Mandela on the same side as the likes of Hamas.

Terrorists stick together. Kindred spirits, and all that.

fj1200

12-10-2013, 05:03 PM

'Blah Blah Blah' ... yourself.

I have NEVER seen fit to declare any human being as 'subhuman' !! I only call subhuman entities WHAT THEY ARE. Your great difficulty is, and has been, on insisting that they ARE human, when they're demonstably not .. because, in taking that stance, you put yourself on a platform of offering a basis of support for them.

You have done this consistently, with the result that it .. 'just so happens' .. that terrorists are better off under your worldview than a more realistic one. Yes, that's consistently the case.

And yet ... you 'aren't' a terrorist supporter ???

Ho ho.:laugh:

I really don't know what more there is to say to you. You're a 'Thatcherite' without knowing even the basics of her life or achievements. You claim Conservative credentials for yourself whilst earning opposition from other Conservatives, and you do nothing to repair that ... because you remain in OPPOSITION to them (.. e.g, myself). You always find ways of seeing terrorists through rose-coloured spectacles, and insist others should do the same. Now, Apartheid ... what ? DESERVED terrorism, meaning, that INNOCENT PEOPLE deserved to die ???

You fall over yourself to find ways of sanctioning both terrorists and what they do.

I'm tired of you. Again.

Yeah, that's typically what you say after getting smoked in our little debates here. ;) It's also around the time that you backtrack on your own definitions; at what level again are the mentally handicapped subhuman?

And FWIW, you could point out the conservatives who "oppose" me. I mean the ones who can actually find support for their ignorant position. The last time around pretty much everyone agreed that I was a conservative. :laugh: Except for your knucklehead crew who blather their ignorance and have no basis for their opinion. Shall we expect more failure from you in being unable to point out my liberal positions? I expect yes.

Drummond

12-10-2013, 05:28 PM

Yeah, that's typically what you say after getting smoked in our little debates here. ;) It's also around the time that you backtrack on your own definitions; at what level again are the mentally handicapped subhuman?

And FWIW, you could point out the conservatives who "oppose" me. I mean the ones who can actually find support for their ignorant position. The last time around pretty much everyone agreed that I was a conservative. :laugh: Except for your knucklehead crew who blather their ignorance and have no basis for their opinion. Shall we expect more failure from you in being unable to point out my liberal positions? I expect yes.

Disgusting.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE EVER, MYSELF, STATED THAT THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED ARE SUBHUMAN.

I am a Conservative .. there are plenty here who'd agree that I am. But your opposition to me is never-ending. Why ... because, 'you' are a Conservative ?

Those you refer to, equally disgustingly, as a 'knucklehead crew' are THEMSELVES Conservatives. Yes, you oppose them, too. As they oppose you.

The conclusion to be drawn is all too obvious.

I actually succeed in pointing out a liberal position of yours every time I point to your support of terrorists. Your absolute insistence on viewing them as 'human' in the TOTAL absence of the slightest evidence of their 'humanity' ... this is typical of blinkered Left-wing dogmatism.

I can see it. Others can see it. You, self-servingly, 'cannot'.

What a waste of time this is.

aboutime

12-10-2013, 06:19 PM

Sir Drummond. As many of us have previously pointed out. fj is nothing but an intentional, trouble making troll who must continue to convince HIMSELF how smart, wonderful, and absolutely stupid he doesn't want the rest of us to recognize he truly is.

Any attempt to hold a civil conversation with fj here, is much on the same level as speaking with the DNC jackass...that has much more credibility than fj could ever hope to display here.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-10-2013, 07:06 PM

Click on this link for an eye opening truth about the real Mandela. -Tyr
http://www.volkstaat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1248:nelson-mandela&catid=122:nelson-mandela&Itemid=189 Want to know the truth of what he was ? And not be dumbed enough to swallow the fairy tale being told!??? And look at the "necklace victims" when you go there of which many were children! --Tyr

Gaffer

12-10-2013, 07:29 PM

Great find. Should answer all the questions about him. That's the mandela I remember reading about.

jimnyc

12-10-2013, 07:48 PM

Click on this link for an eye opening truth about the real Mandela. -Tyr Want to know the truth of what he was ? And not be dumbed enough to swallow the fairy tale being told!??? And look at the "necklace victims" when you go there of which many were children! --Tyr

I was more surprised to read about Winnie Mandela's contributions and statements, and she's now a member of parliament!

"[W]ith our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country."

That's what she stated during a speech in 1986. She's also accused of ordering kidnappings and murder.

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

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-10-2013, 11:50 PM

I was more surprised to read about Winnie Mandela's contributions and statements, and she's now a member of parliament!

"[W]ith our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country."

That's what she stated during a speech in 1986. She's also accused of ordering kidnappings and murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_Mandela Yes, her and Mandela made a great pair didn't they? This is the truth that the liberals, socialists always find a way to hide when they create the fairytale they feed the gullible and the stupid among us. The world thinks Mandela was sent to prison because he was black and dared to speak out against the oppressive government. When they truth is he helped murder many , many people. Those pics in that link shows work of having the burning necklace applied. They did that to women and kids too!! Kind of reminds me of how the Muslims do the same thing--concentrate on murdering innocent people especially women and children! Cold hard truth shows the savagery and brutality they engaged in. Mandela refused to ever renounce such violence. How anybody can call such a murderer a hero is beyond my ability to decipher. Only those stupid, gullible or heartless can IMHO. NOW THEY HAVE THE GOVERMENT THEY MURDERED FOR AND 40% LIVE IN ABJECT POVERTY WITH A VERY HIG CRIME RATE. CAN NOT BLAME IT ON WHITEY BUT THEY STIL TRY TO.-Tyr

red states rule

12-11-2013, 02:10 AM

...yes. To state the blindingly obvious, that puts Mandela on the same side as the likes of Hamas.

Terrorists stick together. Kindred spirits, and all that.

And it appears using Mandela's own words and actions has gotten FU upset. Seems he has an issue with others using facts in their arguments - and when they are facts he has no counter for - the self professed conservative falls back on insults and personal attacks

He really should go to work for MSNBC he would be the perfect replacement for Martin Basher

red states rule

12-11-2013, 02:12 AM

logroller

12-11-2013, 04:18 AM

Jim, here is the answer to your question.

I would say that proves the man he was before going to prison. As far from the Sainthood they now present about him as one could possibly be. Truth is often a bitter pill for some to swallow, especially the gullible amongst us. -Tyr
Interesting that to you attribute blame to Mandela for those events-- he was imprisoned.

I believe I may have already answered your question in my reply to fj.
Gandhi huh. Ok. Iirc you mentioned some factors fitting into an equation of some type. This equation, as it were, fits squarely into the ends justifying the means.

Mandela was convicted of sabotage and treason-- he pled guilty. The period of real bloody warfare wouldn't erupt until the eighties, wherein communal infighting, especially with the Zulu (who had direct support from SA) took on a most heinous style of violence. after mandela's release he one spoke of curtailing the violence and was imperiled with anger from his followers. Fearing an all-out civil war if he lost the helm, he wouldn't make the same mistake again. The early nineties would see the bloodiest period in the movement, 14,000, mostly black on black. The whole of the movement resulted in something like 21,000 over the entire 46 years. With a 1990 population of around 36 million-- that's roughly a mortality rate of 58 per 100,000. And looking just at the period after mandela's release, 1990-1994 (the height of the violence): 40 per 100,000.
By way of comparison, the us civil war, 1860-1864, had over 200,000 deaths from wounds alone, and with a POP of roughly 31 million, that's a casualty rate of over 600 per 100,000.

Now india. Its true that gandhi renounced all violence. Indeed when his followers engaged in sabotage during the quit india campaign, a response to gandhi's call to civil disobedience, he ended his support-- in so doing, however, this fractured the leadership of the Indian National Congress. (Most would remain imprisoned throughout the war, until 1947). This lack of leadership lent the muslim constituency much more power. It was Gandhi's lack of opposition to this that would result in his murder. This lack of cohesive politics would result in the partition of India, resulting in ~500,000 deaths mostly from communal fighting, as was seen in SA. The 1947 POP of India was 350 million; for death rate 142 per 100,000.
Accepting that Dresden or Hiroshima/Nagasaki, while extreme, actually saved lives (relatively speaking), and therein justifying the means to an end-- when faced with the death toll comparing gandhi's methods to those of Mandela, the latter is a 2:1 favorite.

red states rule

12-11-2013, 04:22 AM

No matter what the usual suspects will continue to turn a blind eye to Mandela's own words and actions. Libs live to rewrite history

Mandela urged for the end to harsh UN sanctions imposed upon Libya in 1997, and pledged his support for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was a longtime supporter of his.
“It is our duty to give support to the brother leader…especially in regards to the sanctions which are not hitting just him, they are hitting the ordinary masses of the people … our African brothers and sisters,” Mandela said.

On the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, December 4. 1997, Mandela assembled a group “as South Africans, our Palestinian guests and as humanists to express our solidarity with the people of Palestine.” At the speech, he called for the metaphorical flames of solidarity, justice, and freedom to be kept burning.

“The UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system. But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

http://rt.com/news/mandela-sharp-quotes-media-860/

Jeff

12-11-2013, 08:26 AM

A bit of a different direction but this is what it cost the American people for our bumbling idiot to say a few words !!

President Barack Obama’s 19 minute speech at Nelson Mandela’s memorial costhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/10/obamas-speech-at-mandela-memorial-will-cost-taxpayers-500000-per-minute/#) taxpayers at least $5 million.
That’s not counting any cakes and coffee he and his inner circle consume aboard Air Forcehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/10/obamas-speech-at-mandela-memorial-will-cost-taxpayers-500000-per-minute/#) One during the 18,000-mile round trip to Johannesburg, via Dakar, in Senegal.
The 28-hour two-way flight to the memorial will cost $5 million because the four-engined Boeing 747 costshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/10/obamas-speech-at-mandela-memorial-will-cost-taxpayers-500000-per-minute/#) roughly $180,000 an hour to operate, according to a May 2012 report (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21835.pdf) by the Congressional Research Service.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/10/obamas-speech-at-mandela-memorial-will-cost-taxpayers-500000-per-minute/#ixzz2n55D7Hmd

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-11-2013, 09:41 AM

Interesting that to you attribute blame to Mandela for those events-- he was imprisoned.

Gandhi huh. Ok. Iirc you mentioned some factors fitting into an equation of some type. This equation, as it were, fits squarely into the ends justifying the means.

Mandela was convicted of sabotage and treason-- he pled guilty. The period of real bloody warfare wouldn't erupt until the eighties, wherein communal infighting, especially with the Zulu (who had direct support from SA) took on a most heinous style of violence. after mandela's release he one spoke of curtailing the violence and was imperiled with anger from his followers. Fearing an all-out civil war if he lost the helm, he wouldn't make the same mistake again. The early nineties would see the bloodiest period in the movement, 14,000, mostly black on black. The whole of the movement resulted in something like 21,000 over the entire 46 years. With a 1990 population of around 36 million-- that's roughly a mortality rate of 58 per 100,000. And looking just at the period after mandela's release, 1990-1994 (the height of the violence): 40 per 100,000.
By way of comparison, the us civil war, 1860-1864, had over 200,000 deaths from wounds alone, and with a POP of roughly 31 million, that's a casualty rate of over 600 per 100,000.

Now india. Its true that gandhi renounced all violence. Indeed when his followers engaged in sabotage during the quit india campaign, a response to gandhi's call to civil disobedience, he ended his support-- in so doing, however, this fractured the leadership of the Indian National Congress. (Most would remain imprisoned throughout the war, until 1947). This lack of leadership lent the muslim constituency much more power. It was Gandhi's lack of opposition to this that would result in his murder. This lack of cohesive politics would result in the partition of India, resulting in ~500,000 deaths mostly from communal fighting, as was seen in SA. The 1947 POP of India was 350 million; for death rate 142 per 100,000.
Accepting that Dresden or Hiroshima/Nagasaki, while extreme, actually saved lives (relatively speaking), and therein justifying the means to an end-- when faced with the death toll comparing gandhi's methods to those of Mandela, the latter is a 2:1 favorite. I know when Mandela was in prison. I also know that he gets credit for founding a terrorist organization that eventually won and ousted the white government, so how can you try to clear him of his part in the violence that terrorist organization continued to do while he was in prison and refusing to renounce violence? So he gets credit for the greatness of the win but none for the violent methods used to force that win!! Quite a bit of biased reasoning if you ask me. Same type of reasoning used to excuse Obama, who always gets credit but never gets blame except from we conservatives that tend to see the TRUTH and dare to repeat it!! Mandela is a hero for winning against great odds but according to you he is innocent of the brutality and murder that garnered that win! Hoss, this 'ole Southern man don't play such games as that. Man shoots my dog twice with a single shot 12 gauge doesn't get to tell me later it was an accidental firing! As to the Dresden /Hiroshima comparison you rate higher as there is some merit to that argument. The plus for my side is we were attacked first and in a defending war from a vicious attack we had every right to try to end it with less deaths to our men. Morally we were in the right and that counts for a lot. War is hell and people die but our guys were not going around and burning tires on the necks of innocent civilians in a terror campaign as did Mandela's terrorist group. Yes, his group he founded and was a member of. His movement that he is hailed as it's heroic leader so do not try to absolve him of responsibility of that terrorist movements 's murderous actions ..for to even ATTEMPT TO do so is pure folly IMHO.. Tyr

fj1200

12-11-2013, 02:57 PM

Disgusting.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE EVER, MYSELF, STATED THAT THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED ARE SUBHUMAN.

You're the one who posted the definition were you not?

: failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings

You state that those exhibiting a lower morality are subhuman so the transitive principle states that you also believe that those exhibiting a lower intelligence are also subhuman. So, at what level are the mentally handicapped subhuman? I will expect your answer to be forthcoming or your rejecting of your own provided definition.

I am a Conservative .. there are plenty here who'd agree that I am. But your opposition to me is never-ending. Why ... because, 'you' are a Conservative ?

Those you refer to, equally disgustingly, as a 'knucklehead crew' are THEMSELVES Conservatives. Yes, you oppose them, too. As they oppose you.

The conclusion to be drawn is all too obvious.

You're not a conservative. You reject conservative principles. A conservative would honor the Lockean view of rights IMO and an American conservative at least would honor the view of rights stated in the Constitution. You have stated you would strip away rights without due process and you deny liberty based on subjective determinations.

As far as your knucklehead crew... I'm glad they're in your corner because they don't exhibit much knowledge in the basics of conservatism and are wholly unable/unwilling to engage in honest debate. You don't either though but at least you're amusing. :)

And those others who agree your a conservative... also agree that I am one as well. ;)

I actually succeed in pointing out a liberal position of yours every time I point to your support of terrorists. Your absolute insistence on viewing them as 'human' in the TOTAL absence of the slightest evidence of their 'humanity' ... this is typical of blinkered Left-wing dogmatism.

I can see it. Others can see it. You, self-servingly, 'cannot'.

So again back to your assertion of Ron and Mags as liberals... That's just crazy talk, do you need me to pull the quotes again or should you just take up your mantle as agreeing with Hitler, Goebbels, various middle eastern dictators, and now apparently the former government of South Africa? Because that's just an awesome group that you agree with.

What a waste of time this is.

As I said, your pat response when getting smoked. :420:

;)

aboutime

12-11-2013, 03:17 PM

Doesn't matter what anyone here says about Mandela.

He's dead. He....literally.....5798. Done. Gone. No longer around.

How long must you argue about this????

red states rule

12-11-2013, 04:19 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BawfpkQIAAAZLCY.jpg:large

fj1200

12-11-2013, 07:06 PM

... so how can you try to clear him of his part in the violence that terrorist organization continued to do while he was in prison and refusing to renounce violence? So he gets credit for the greatness of the win but none for the violent methods used to force that win!! ... Mandela is a hero for winning against great odds but according to you he is innocent of the brutality and murder that garnered that win! ... His movement that he is hailed as it's heroic leader so do not try to absolve him of responsibility of that terrorist movements 's murderous actions ..for to even ATTEMPT TO do so is pure folly IMHO.. Tyr

Who here is attempting to clear him of his actions?

fj1200

12-11-2013, 07:14 PM

And it appears using Mandela's own words and actions has gotten FU upset. Seems he has an issue with others using facts in their arguments - and when they are facts he has no counter for - the self professed conservative falls back on insults and personal attacks

Who is upset? You might want to catch up with the conversation, I stipulated to the facts 7 pages ago.

... let's lay out what everyone agrees on; socialists are bad mmkay, terrorism is bad mmkay, targeting civilians is bad mmkay, etc. etc. So, now, you would have him do what against racial oppression?

What you fail to do is stipulate to the oppression of the Apartheid regime... but cherry picking is your MO along with avoiding discussion of inconvenient questions.

namvet

12-11-2013, 10:57 PM

seems Obozo got a laff at the funeral. not so from Moochelle

http://i42.tinypic.com/2vuk9w0.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/x3bk8g.jpg

if looks could kill

red states rule

12-12-2013, 02:15 AM

Seems the deniers of truth continue to think they have presented their "facts" many pages ago. Typical of the left to declare victory when they have accomplished nothing. They have ignored Mandela's own words and actions and tried to spin their way out. It is clear white liberal guilt is on the rise in this thread

Now lets here form Ms Mandela

http://renegadetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Winnie.jpg

fj1200

12-12-2013, 09:07 AM

Seems the deniers of truth continue to think they have presented their "facts" many pages ago.

Thanks for admitting you have no game.

Who is upset?

red states rule

12-12-2013, 04:08 PM

Drummond

12-12-2013, 04:18 PM

FJ, you can't debate honestly to save your life, can you ??

My challenge to you, was THIS ...

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE EVER, MYSELF, STATED THAT THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED ARE SUBHUMAN.

This is a challenge you have NOT met, though you'd like anyone reading your post to think you had.

You actually replied, with ...

: failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings

This, FJ, you have failed to point out was something 'I, myself' have NEVER STATED.

The nearest I got to doing so, FJ, was not 'near' at all. ALL I DID was to post a definition that SOMEBODY ELSE had stated, in a dictionary page. What's more .. the larger font of the words 'OF MORALITY' were my own emphasis of the words I chose to concentrate on, and address, at that time .. meaning, FJ, that I did NOT give the 'or intelligence' wording any attention in my posting.

YOU, FJ, ARE THE ONE INSISTING UPON TRYING TO TAR MY ARGUMENT WITH A DEFINITIVE JUDGMENT WHICH I HAVE NEVER CONCEDED THE WORTH OF IN ANY OF MY OWN TEXTS.

You're the one who posted the definition were you not?

Posted the definition in order to make my point about the wording I HAD HIGHLIGHTED .... 'OF MORALITY'.

But, no. You absolutely insist upon concentrating on words which I have not, ever, chosen to claim relevance for.

You state that those exhibiting a lower morality are subhuman

Essentially correct. YES, those devoid of human morality cannot claim to have workable 'human' thinking .. and therefore fail to qualify for the description 'human' in any meaningful sense. Where's the humanity, which recognises and identifies with human morality ?

so the transitive principle states that you also believe that those exhibiting a lower intelligence are also subhuman.

That's a massive leap, it doesn't follow, but you insist upon arguing this in order to make your dishonest debating ploy work. A person can be below average intelligence, yet have ample capacity for human warmth and empathy. YOU are the one trying to say otherwise, then pin that judgment on me. But I do not say any such thing .. AND WELL YOU KNOW IT.

So, at what level are the mentally handicapped subhuman? I will expect your answer to be forthcoming or your rejecting of your own provided definition.

THIS, FJ, is how desperate you are to put words in my mouth. I have answered you on this, repeatedly, clearly, unequivocally.

You're not a conservative. You reject conservative principles. A conservative would honor the Lockean view of rights IMO and an American conservative at least would honor the view of rights stated in the Constitution. You have stated you would strip away rights without due process and you deny liberty based on subjective determinations.

Conservatives, certainly on my side of the Pond, are very strong on law and order. They are not predisposed to favouring terrorists or terrorism. By total contast, you, whilst claiming to be a Thatcherite yourself, find excuse after excuse for putting forth arguments which are 'terrorist friendly'. Like, an understanding of terrorism as a reaction to Apartheid which could be defended. Like, absolutely insisting that terrorists have human rights.

I remind you again of Margaret Thatcher's judgment of the ANC ..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/deannelson/100025913/the-right-got-it-so-wrong-on-nelson-mandela/

Margaret Thatcher denounced the ANC as a “typical terrorist organization,” and one of her strongest supporters, Teddy Taylor, said Nelson Mandela “should be shot.”
... yes. She denounced the ANC. She did not praise it, or look for any way of excusing it !!!!

But, how about you ? What's been your view ?

Would you ever, yourself, assert that Mandela should've been shot ?

As far as your knucklehead crew... I'm glad they're in your corner because they don't exhibit much knowledge in the basics of conservatism and are wholly unable/unwilling to engage in honest debate. You don't either though but at least you're amusing. :)

I believe I've just illustrated for you the considerable gap between your thinking, and those you claim to be supportive of. Hardly helps to prove your own bona fides, now, does it ?

And those others who agree your a conservative... also agree that I am one as well. ;)

These so-called 'others' are welcome to advance any case which they thinks prove you to be any sort of Conservative. Let's see iof they can do so, shall we ?

So again back to your assertion of Ron and Mags as liberals... That's just crazy talk

Yes, isn't it. What on EARTH are you talking about ??

.. do you need me to pull the quotes again or should you just take up your mantle as agreeing with Hitler, Goebbels, various middle eastern dictators, and now apparently the former government of South Africa? Because that's just an awesome group that you agree with.

That's one very lively imagination you have there. My my ... such a 'Conservative'. Yet ... so desperate to attack one !

aboutime

12-12-2013, 04:30 PM

It is amazing how FU can amass so much stupidity in one lifetime

I only hope he does not pass his stupidity (and arrogance) onto another generation by bellowing his views onto young minds full of much

red states rule. Not only amazing. But obvious as well. Proven almost every time fj posts a reply, makes an accusation, or uses the standard, liberal brands of name calling disguised as Self-impressive fj statements that mean nothing.

red states rule

12-12-2013, 04:32 PM

red states rule. Not only amazing. But obvious as well. Proven almost every time fj posts a reply, makes an accusation, or uses the standard, liberal brands of name calling disguised as Self-impressive fj statements that mean nothing.

His solution to the nations border problem is too charge more rent

Yes, he is as sharp as a bowling ball

fj1200

12-12-2013, 05:47 PM

FJ, you can't debate honestly to save your life, can you ??
...
That's a massive leap, it doesn't follow, but you insist upon arguing this in order to make your dishonest debating ploy work. A person can be below average intelligence, yet have ample capacity for human warmth and empathy. YOU are the one trying to say otherwise, then pin that judgment on me. But I do not say any such thing .. AND WELL YOU KNOW IT.
...
That's one very lively imagination you have there. My my ... such a 'Conservative'. Yet ... so desperate to attack one !

I'd say showing the failure of your logic is debating honestly. Mission accomplished. Whether the mentally handicapped can show warmth and empathy isn't the question, it's what you consider "subhuman" and by your definition some beings are suspect. You should embrace the definition yo provided or reject it.

I don't attack conservatives. ;)

His solution to the nations border problem is too charge more rent

Yes, he is as sharp as a bowling ball

What does that blather even mean? Never mind, run along little girl, some actual debating might break out and you get confused easily.

aboutime

12-12-2013, 08:23 PM

His solution to the nations border problem is too charge more rent

Yes, he is as sharp as a bowling ball

And I have known Bowling Balls with far more intelligence as well. Thank you Red States Rule.

(Not mentioning how fj's mind is always "IN THE GUTTER", and always "HANGS AROUND IN ALLEYS".)

Drummond

12-12-2013, 11:10 PM

I'd say showing the failure of your logic is debating honestly. Mission accomplished.

Really ?

And I would say that your avoidance of answering a great chunk of my reply - as though it didn't exist - because you knew I was making totally fair and justified points, is FAR from 'debating honestly'. I challenged initially with ..

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE EVER, MYSELF, STATED THAT THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED ARE SUBHUMAN.

You failed to honestly and straightforwardly meet that challenge, because you knew you couldn't do so. My last post's answer exposed that. But it's an answer you've chosen .. should I say, NEEDED to choose .. to ignore.

Whether the mentally handicapped can show warmth and empathy isn't the question, it's what you consider "subhuman" and by your definition some beings are suspect.

I disagree. Capacity for humanity is CENTRAL to the issue, so how can warmth and empathy not be integral to that ?? Subhumanity must of necessity involve its absence. Such as, what is demonstrated by a terrorist each and every time it murders and maims with bombs and bullets.

You should embrace the definition yo provided or reject it.

You mean, you insist on applying it, and in requiring ME to apply it, in precisely a way that I NEVER INTENDED FOR IT ?

-- And you're not a Leftie ??? Allow me my OWN thoughts and my OWN arguments, and stop trying to foist your own deliberate misrepresentations of them back at me !!!

I don't attack conservatives. ;)

Yes, that comment definitely merited a 'wink' ... because it's absolute and evident rubbish.

What does that blather even mean? Never mind, run along little girl, some actual debating might break out and you get confused easily.

Ah, now a bit of abuse from you. A refuge of a Leftie when debate, even dishonest debate, just ain't cutting it !!!

No crossings-out from you this time ? Maybe you'll get busy on that in your next reply.

fj1200

12-13-2013, 12:06 AM

Really ?

And I would say that your avoidance of answering a great chunk of my reply - as though it didn't exist - because you knew I was making totally fair and justified points, is FAR from 'debating honestly'. I challenged initially with ..

Yes, really. Besides I left the chunk in the virtual trash because that's where it belongs. Blathering justifications for such a position as yours are best not read twice and truly shouldn't exist but here we are.

You failed to honestly and straightforwardly meet that challenge, because you knew you couldn't do so. My last post's answer exposed that. But it's an answer you've chosen .. should I say, NEEDED to choose .. to ignore.

Your failure to acknowledge logic was not unsurprising to me.

I disagree. Capacity for humanity is CENTRAL to the issue, so how can warmth and empathy not be integral to that ?? Subhumanity must of necessity involve its absence. Such as, what is demonstrated by a terrorist each and every time it murders and maims with bombs and bullets.

Capacity has NOTHING to do with the issue of the definition you provided. It is demonstrative of where disgusting positions that you hold can lead. This group is subhuman because of X, that group is subhuman because of Y, another group is subhuman because of Z. Nationalists such as yourself don't need much to advance to the next stage especially when you've already granted the State the power to unilaterally infringe the natural rights of man. You've already granted absolution by the mere fact of wearing a uniform so what more does the State need?

You mean, you insist on applying it, and in requiring ME to apply it, in precisely a way that I NEVER INTENDED FOR IT ?

-- And you're not a Leftie ??? Allow me my OWN thoughts and my OWN arguments, and stop trying to foist your own deliberate misrepresentations of them back at me !!!

Of course you never intended but your OWN definition which is the root of your OWN argument is exactly what you're going to get back. A conservative would acknowledge that he's been had. See, what I did there? Further proof.

Yes, that comment definitely merited a 'wink' ... because it's absolute and evident rubbish.

Your own logic sucks doesn't it. You should try and raise your game.

Ah, now a bit of abuse from you. A refuge of a Leftie when debate, even dishonest debate, just ain't cutting it !!!

No crossings-out from you this time ? Maybe you'll get busy on that in your next reply.

I'm a leftie like you torture puppies. An oldie but a goodie and I expect a rousing kerfuffle will ensue from the knucklehead crew right Mr. Crangle?

The most joyous part of your knuckleheads is that they're on your side. :laugh:

red states rule

12-13-2013, 02:30 AM

FU is the type of conservative that would get the endorsement of the NY Times and Washington Post as well as a cash donation from Chris Matthews

And he has the obnoxious personality of liberal Democrat. Hell FU makes Anthony Weiner look humble

fj1200

12-13-2013, 09:38 AM

FU ...

It must be embarrassing for you not to be able to add substance to the discussion.

Drummond

12-13-2013, 03:41 PM

FJ, much of your last post to me was vitriol. It's at times like that, that I know I have you rattled. You doubtless think - in the absence of being able to make 'decent' arguments (whether or not justified at all ...) .. that substituting attacking text somehow serves you. Naturally, I fail to see how.

Yes, really. Besides I left the chunk in the virtual trash because that's where it belongs. Blathering justifications for such a position as yours are best not read twice and truly shouldn't exist but here we are.

... a case in point. You can't concede to me .. and you can't reasonably counter what I've posted, either. So you go in for this, instead.

Your failure to acknowledge logic was not unsurprising to me.

... and again ....

Capacity has NOTHING to do with the issue of the definition you provided.

I can't agree. So, a person is a decent human being by demonstrating just the merest trace of warmth and empathy ?? Deserving of human consideration for being cold and unempathic for, say, 95 percent of the time ??

Nope. You have to be wrong.

It is demonstrative of where disgusting positions that you hold can lead. This group is subhuman because of X, that group is subhuman because of Y, another group is subhuman because of Z.

Realism is disgusting, eh ? OK, a terrorist group is subhuman for not caring about its victims. Consequently, the humanity which exists in most other people, humanity which would make such terrorist acts unthinkable to them, is ABSENT, because .. er'm, they're human beings ???

By recognising the truth behind that, by being realistic about it, you want to call my position 'disgusting' .. ??

Your position, FJ, is untenable.

You may not like to see such judgments made. But your sense of aesthetics isn't the issue, nor should it be. No .. there's a greater truth in play. That you prefer to cling to typically Left-wing sensibilities to try to justify yourself does NOT help you.

Nationalists such as yourself don't need much to advance to the next stage especially when you've already granted the State the power to unilaterally infringe the natural rights of man. You've already granted absolution by the mere fact of wearing a uniform so what more does the State need?

Wow ! I can imagine a pro-Globalist Marxist using JUST such an argument !!

Is it the 'natural right of man' to be soft on terrorist enemies, in order to ensure that an unreal sense of your security is maintained ? And to refuse to budge on that, no matter how many lives it may save in doing so ??

Or, are you being more pro-terrorist than even this ?? Are you fighting, again, for the 'rights' of those devoid of redeeming human traits, for no other reason than because YOU, PERSONALLY, choose to see them through rose-tinted spectacles ?

Can you tell me that GW Bush was soft on the War on Terror ? Or, that Margaret Thatcher was soft on the IRA ? Freedom of speech is a human right, would you agree ? And are you aware that Lady Thatcher banned the broadcasting, on British airwaves, of anything directly said into a microphone by any member of the IRA ?

If you are a 'Thatcherite', you should applaud her. But ... I somehow doubt you would in that instance. For you, a more Left-wing attitude suffices, doesn't it, FJ ?

Of course you never intended but your OWN definition which is the root of your OWN argument ...

AN ADMISSION, FINALLY, THAT YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO TIE ME INTO A POSITION THAT I NEVER, ONCE, TOOK ??

A conservative would acknowledge that he's been had. See, what I did there? Further proof.

I see only that you're getting more desperate in your efforts to defend an untenable position.

Your own logic sucks doesn't it. You should try and raise your game.

.... and back to the abuse, I see. No, FJ. YOU should try to raise YOUR game.

I'm a leftie like you torture puppies.

Your 'humanity' in plumbing these depths speaks volumes.

An oldie but a goodie and I expect a rousing kerfuffle will ensue from the knucklehead crew right Mr. Crangle?

More of your comradeship being exhibited, is it, with fellow Conservatives ... ?

Tut tut. The truth, FJ, keeps 'outing' you.

By the way, I've never heard of this 'Mr Crangle'. An American reference I'd not be aware of, evidently.

Should I care ?

I think not, in this instance.

The most joyous part of your knuckleheads is that they're on your side. :laugh:

Yes, it's good to have decent friends. You should try it sometime.

fj1200

12-13-2013, 05:40 PM

Oh brother, here we go again.

FJ, much of your last post to me was vitriol. It's at times like that, that I know I have you rattled. You doubtless think - in the absence of being able to make 'decent' arguments (whether or not justified at all ...) .. that substituting attacking text somehow serves you. Naturally, I fail to see how.

... a case in point. You can't concede to me .. and you can't reasonably counter what I've posted, either. So you go in for this, instead.

... and again ....

My arguments own you and you and your positions warrant not much more than vitriol.

I can't agree. So, a person is a decent human being by demonstrating just the merest trace of warmth and empathy ?? Deserving of human consideration for being cold and unempathic for, say, 95 percent of the time ??

Nope. You have to be wrong.

Of course you can't agree. The definition upon which your argument lies is flawed and thus your out outcome is flawed.

Realism is disgusting, eh ? OK, a terrorist group is subhuman for not caring about its victims. Consequently, the humanity which exists in most other people, humanity which would make such terrorist acts unthinkable to them, is ABSENT, because .. er'm, they're human beings ???

By recognising the truth behind that, by being realistic about it, you want to call my position 'disgusting' .. ??

Your position, FJ, is untenable.

You may not like to see such judgments made. But your sense of aesthetics isn't the issue, nor should it be. No .. there's a greater truth in play. That you prefer to cling to typically Left-wing sensibilities to try to justify yourself does NOT help you.

No, your position is disgusting. My position is merely that all humans are in fact human beings; that is a position held by billions on this earth. Much of the rest of your blather is internal to you and just as flawed as you. Case in point your inability to make any argument that does NOT have "leftie" in it.

Wow ! I can imagine a pro-Globalist Marxist using JUST such an argument !!

Is it the 'natural right of man' to be soft on terrorist enemies, in order to ensure that an unreal sense of your security is maintained ? And to refuse to budge on that, no matter how many lives it may save in doing so ??

Or, are you being more pro-terrorist than even this ?? Are you fighting, again, for the 'rights' of those devoid of redeeming human traits, for no other reason than because YOU, PERSONALLY, choose to see them through rose-tinted spectacles ?

Can you tell me that GW Bush was soft on the War on Terror ? Or, that Margaret Thatcher was soft on the IRA ? Freedom of speech is a human right, would you agree ? And are you aware that Lady Thatcher banned the broadcasting, on British airwaves, of anything directly said into a microphone by any member of the IRA ?

If you are a 'Thatcherite', you should applaud her. But ... I somehow doubt you would in that instance. For you, a more Left-wing attitude suffices, doesn't it, FJ ?

You can imagine a "pro-globalist marxist" using an argument based on natural rights? :laugh: You don't know globalist marxists at all do you. I've correctly identified YOUR position and it galls you. But more blather that I'm "pro-terrorist" is internal to your ignorance.

AN ADMISSION, FINALLY, THAT YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO TIE ME INTO A POSITION THAT I NEVER, ONCE, TOOK ??

I'm not trying to tie you into anything that your logic is not based on. Proven time and again.

I see only that you're getting more desperate in your efforts to defend an untenable position.

.... and back to the abuse, I see. No, FJ. YOU should try to raise YOUR game.

Your 'humanity' in plumbing these depths speaks volumes.

More of your comradeship being exhibited, is it, with fellow Conservatives ... ?

Tut tut. The truth, FJ, keeps 'outing' you.

By the way, I've never heard of this 'Mr Crangle'. An American reference I'd not be aware of, evidently.

Should I care ?

I think not, in this instance.

Blah, blah, blah sums up most of the above but you should look into the biopic made about you long ago. I'm just glad that I know your real name Mr. Oliver Crangle. I'll know who to avoid if I ever make it across the pond.

Yes, it's good to have decent friends. You should try it sometime.

I have plenty of decent friends who also exhibit intelligent thought. Your knucklehead crew exhibits neither.

aboutime

12-13-2013, 05:49 PM

Somebody please end, or close this thread.

FJ has finally proven, once, and for all. The FJ really does stand for f'n Jerk.

Drummond

12-13-2013, 06:22 PM

I have much sympathy for Aboutime's last post here. So, FJ, I'm going to make this short .. and decidedly sweet ...

Just a couple of points, then.

No, your position is disgusting. My position is merely that all humans are in fact human beings; that is a position held by billions on this earth.

No matter how subhuman the thought or deed, the entity responsible 'must' be human ?? That's nuts.

Do you celebrate the 'humanity' of the 9/11 terrorists ?? When you see footage of people diving to their deaths, having been forced to make such a decision, you really think HUMAN BEINGS did that to them ?!?

I could give so many more such examples. There's a thread on this forum detailing a daily tally of terrorist outrages ... you'd say, no matter how bad, cruel, debased the atrocity, that those responsible were doing HUMAN things, and can be lauded as HUMAN BEINGS ??

If you can believe this .. and that's surely where your argument leads ??? ... then you need a massive reality check.

- And/or someone to wean you off of Leftie propaganda ...

Case in point your inability to make any argument that does NOT have "leftie" in it.

Cease to think and argue as one, and I'll be delighted to be relieved of such a burden. But for as long as you argue as a Left-winger would, I'll call you out on it.

You can imagine a "pro-globalist marxist" using an argument based on natural rights? :laugh:

I can imagine Marxists insisting their arguments are exactly that. They'd manage it by insisting that THEY were the ultimate arbiters of such judgments.

Such is their insatiable desire for power over everybody.

fj1200

12-14-2013, 04:06 PM

I have much sympathy for Aboutime's last post here. So, FJ, I'm going to make this short .. and decidedly sweet ...

Just a couple of points, then.

Ignorant points I'm sure. Let's see:

No matter how subhuman the thought or deed, the entity responsible 'must' be human ?? That's nuts.

Do you celebrate the 'humanity' of the 9/11 terrorists ?? When you see footage of people diving to their deaths, having been forced to make such a decision, you really think HUMAN BEINGS did that to them ?!?

I could give so many more such examples. There's a thread on this forum detailing a daily tally of terrorist outrages ... you'd say, no matter how bad, cruel, debased the atrocity, that those responsible were doing HUMAN things, and can be lauded as HUMAN BEINGS ??

If you can believe this .. and that's surely where your argument leads ??? ... then you need a massive reality check.

- And/or someone to wean you off of Leftie propaganda ...

Yeah, the entity is human; basic biology says so. What kind of moron are you that you think anyone is "celebrating" humanity on 9/11? What kind of moron are you that you think they are being "lauded" as human beings? What kind of moron are you that acknowledging basic facts is "leftie propaganda"? Nobody is celebrating anything when those things happen, humanity is weeping for what other human beings had done. So please, I'd like an answer to those questions: What kind of moron on you???

Cease to think and argue as one, and I'll be delighted to be relieved of such a burden. But for as long as you argue as a Left-winger would, I'll call you out on it.

I haven't thought like a "left winger" since my brief two-month fascination with Dukakis back in '88 which thankfully didn't last into November. Besides, you can "relieve your burden" when you have the courage to admit your failure in identifying any "lefties" here. If it makes it easier for you to do so I will happily let you admit that particular failure and then promise to never mention it again. :)

I can imagine Marxists insisting their arguments are exactly that. They'd manage it by insisting that THEY were the ultimate arbiters of such judgments.

Such is their insatiable desire for power over everybody.

Oh My God!!! :laugh: Do you know how ridiciulous you sound and how you just made yourself out to be a "pro-global marxist" because that's exactly what you want to do. You want to be the ultimate arbiter of EXACTLY that; priceless. Thank you for finally outing yourself as the big-government hack that I've known you to be for so long now. Congratulations Mr. Crangle. :laugh: Take a look below, it'll be like looking in a mirror won't it?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2216/1972924450_ff807f4bd1.jpg?v=0

Drummond

12-14-2013, 09:17 PM

Ignorant points I'm sure. Let's see:

Yeah, the entity is human; basic biology says so. What kind of moron are you that you think anyone is "celebrating" humanity on 9/11? What kind of moron are you that you think they are being "lauded" as human beings? What kind of moron are you that acknowledging basic facts is "leftie propaganda"? Nobody is celebrating anything when those things happen, humanity is weeping for what other human beings had done. So please, I'd like an answer to those questions: What kind of moron on you???

I haven't thought like a "left winger" since my brief two-month fascination with Dukakis back in '88 which thankfully didn't last into November. Besides, you can "relieve your burden" when you have the courage to admit your failure in identifying any "lefties" here. If it makes it easier for you to do so I will happily let you admit that particular failure and then promise to never mention it again. :)

Tut tut. More of the same, I see. More vitriol .. in fact, your post has consisted of little else, this time around.

Your repeated 'what kind of moron' points don't persuade at all. To suppose that DNA makeup is all you'd ever need to identify a human being as such is outrageous nonsense. Make a mannequin out of plastic, and the fact of the plastic used doesn't define the fact of what the object is !! Nor does the use of concrete define the fact of the building made from it. Or, use of cloth, the fact of the existence of the tablecloth made from it. Or the flag. Or the clothing. Base materials do NOT define the end product ... ergo, what makes a human being a human being is WAY more than just DNA, or cellular structure.

Adolf Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Osama bin Laden. Fine examples of human beings (!), or, subhuman trash ? Would anyone care to cast any votes ?

They say that up to 60 percent of a human body is made up of water. Does that mean that, if you stand on a beach and look out to the ocean, the water you're looking at is partly human ??

You've not thought like a Left-winger, you say, since 1988. OK, I'll assure you of this: absolutely no argument I could ever put to you, no matter how persuasive, will stop you fighting for recognition of terrorists as 'human beings'. This puts you firmly in the same camp as Jimmy Carter, a LEFTIE who's fought for terrorist 'human rights'.

Did Carter undertake his stance, before or after 1988 ?? And do you STILL fight on to sanitise the nature of terrorists ? So, no. I IDENTIFY YOU AS A LEFTIE. FORSAKE SUCH LEFT WING THINKING, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE, BUT UNTIL YOU DO, NO DEAL.

Oh, and here's an example of Left-wing stupidity .. which I take it you'll claim does NOT represent your thinking ?

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-left-and-terrorism-stupidity-or.html

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, we are suffering through the inevitable period of liberal hand-wringing. Liberals can’t help themselves: while normal people are reviling the bombers, celebrating their capture or death, and debating measures that can be taken to prevent future atrocities, liberals’ thinking (if you can call it that) goes in a different direction. Liberals call for understanding; tell the rest of us we don’t realize how complex mass murder is; recommend introspection (But why? I didn’t do it.); and warn against various forms of overreaction to the latest terrorist outrage. The reality of evil, a constant in human affairs for millennia, renders liberals not speechless–that would be too much to hope for–but incoherent.

5804

fj1200

12-14-2013, 09:39 PM

Tut tut. More of the same, I see. More vitriol .. in fact, your post has consisted of little else, this time around.

Your repeated 'what kind of moron' points don't persuade at all. To suppose that DNA makeup is all you'd ever need to identify a human being as such is outrageous nonsense. Make a mannequin out of plastic, and the fact of the plastic used doesn't define the fact of what the object is !! Nor does the use of concrete define the fact of the building made from it. Or, use of cloth, the fact of the existence of the tablecloth made from it. Or the flag. Or the clothing. Base materials do NOT define the end product ... ergo, what makes a human being a human being is WAY more than just DNA, or cellular structure.

Adolf Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Osama bin Laden. Fine examples of human beings (!), or, subhuman trash ? Would anyone care to cast any votes ?

See, this is why you're stupid. Point out whoever claimed they were "fine" examples. A human being is what it is, and that is a human being for better or worse.

They say that up to 60 percent of a human body is made up of water. Does that mean that, if you stand on a beach and look out to the ocean, the water you're looking at is partly human ??

:facepalm99:

You've not thought like a Left-winger, you say, since 1988. OK, I'll assure you of this: absolutely no argument I could ever put to you, no matter how persuasive, will stop you fighting for recognition of terrorists as 'human beings'. This puts you firmly in the same camp as Jimmy Carter, a LEFTIE who's fought for terrorist 'human rights'.

Did Carter undertake his stance, before or after 1988 ?? And do you STILL fight on to sanitise the nature of terrorists ? So, no. I IDENTIFY YOU AS A LEFTIE. FORSAKE SUCH LEFT WING THINKING, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE, BUT UNTIL YOU DO, NO DEAL.

Oh, and here's an example of Left-wing stupidity .. which I take it you'll claim does NOT represent your thinking ?

You mean Carter AND Reagan AND Thatcher AND, AND, AND... I could go on with other examples of conservatives who reject your view point but those two should be enough. ;) And FWIW, I don't sanitize terrorists, I just recognize reality. That they are human doesn't make their actions any less abhorrent.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice the part of my post that you DIDN'T address. :laugh: You don't know up from down at this point which reflects your abhorrent views Oliver.

EDIT:

Oh, and your cute little picture... Are you suggesting that Muslims are subhuman?

aboutime

12-14-2013, 09:56 PM

Would someone here on DP please attempt to explain why a member called 'fj' insists on sounding, acting, and typing posts that make kindergarten children look like High School Grads?

fj has a continual MENTAL fight taking place on this forum, and it is obvious...fj is losing the fight.

Inquiring minds MIGHT want to know.

Drummond

12-15-2013, 11:11 AM

Gaffer

12-15-2013, 11:35 AM

And now a Gaffer update;

Nelson Mandela is still dead!

And now back to the regular arguments.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-15-2013, 11:40 AM

Tut tut. More of the same, I see. More vitriol .. in fact, your post has consisted of little else, this time around.

Your repeated 'what kind of moron' points don't persuade at all. To suppose that DNA makeup is all you'd ever need to identify a human being as such is outrageous nonsense. Make a mannequin out of plastic, and the fact of the plastic used doesn't define the fact of what the object is !! Nor does the use of concrete define the fact of the building made from it. Or, use of cloth, the fact of the existence of the tablecloth made from it. Or the flag. Or the clothing. Base materials do NOT define the end product ... ergo, what makes a human being a human being is WAY more than just DNA, or cellular structure.

Adolf Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Osama bin Laden. Fine examples of human beings (!), or, subhuman trash ? Would anyone care to cast any votes ?

They say that up to 60 percent of a human body is made up of water. Does that mean that, if you stand on a beach and look out to the ocean, the water you're looking at is partly human ??

You've not thought like a Left-winger, you say, since 1988. OK, I'll assure you of this: absolutely no argument I could ever put to you, no matter how persuasive, will stop you fighting for recognition of terrorists as 'human beings'. This puts you firmly in the same camp as Jimmy Carter, a LEFTIE who's fought for terrorist 'human rights'.

Did Carter undertake his stance, before or after 1988 ?? And do you STILL fight on to sanitise the nature of terrorists ? So, no. I IDENTIFY YOU AS A LEFTIE. FORSAKE SUCH LEFT WING THINKING, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE, BUT UNTIL YOU DO, NO DEAL.

Oh, and here's an example of Left-wing stupidity .. which I take it you'll claim does NOT represent your thinking ?

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-left-and-terrorism-stupidity-or.html

The denial about what the muslims are doing and what they plan is a campaign waged against us by our own government and the mainstream media here. Our own government wages a non-stop propaganda war against us and for the Islamists! A fact that should scare every damn infidel in this nation but it doesn't even register with most because big government preaches they are not a threat! Teaches we must change our ways and have 100% tolerance for a group that has zero tolerance when it gets the ability and power to start killing its enemies. Do I think Americans will wake up in time. NO! JUST TAKE THIS FORUM FOR EXAMPLE. How some very dedicated few here bust ass defending those that will kill and enslave them and now have succeeded in partially silencing the voices here that opening point out this seriously deadly truth. Tis' why I post so much less here now myself. So they win.. They win when they get others to appease them for whatever reason.. -Tyr

Drummond

12-15-2013, 11:50 AM

See, this is why you're stupid. Point out whoever claimed they were "fine" examples. A human being is what it is, and that is a human being for better or worse.
FOR BETTER OR WORSE. OK, tell me. HOW MUCH worse ?

Unless you can truthfully say otherwise, I believe it to be your position that there is NO 'worse' that can take thought, deed, conduct, out of the realm of human behaviour. That's really it for you, isn't it ?? So if, for example, you were to read page after page of the subhuman atrocities one can easily read about on the thread here that reports them ... you'd never once admit that any of it was evidence of subhumanity. No matter how murderous, savage, debased the act or earned consequence ... you'd be utterly blind to all that.

I daresay it's all 'good' to you - isn't it' FJ ?

Conservatives are realists. We aren't wedded to scripts, 'philosophies', which tell us to see the world in one predetermined way, REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE OF OUR SENSES ... that's what creatures of the Left do. No, FJ. WE MEET REALITY HEAD-ON.

You mention Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. When Margaret Thatcher said she regarded the ANC as a terrorist organisation, she told the evident truth about it. Included in that was NO claim - NONE - that their leader, Nelson Mandela, was an example of a 'fine human being', or, indeed, was there ANY recognition of his 'humanity' at all. How could there be, in the face of realism ?

Ronald Reagan's view was clear as well. In 1986, it was Reagan who saw to it that the ANC, and Mandela, were placed on the US's terrorist watch list. Did he do this in recognition of their HUMANITY, or ITS EXACT OPPOSITE ?

Conservatives cannot equate terrorism with humanity .. we see their thoughts and actions to be alien to human thought and deed. You, by the starkest of imaginable contrasts, refuse to depart from your Left-inspired script. To you, terrorists are human. No matter how subhuman their acts, they're human, regardless. REALITY MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON YOU.

And you're NOT a Leftie ??? Ridiculous !!!

And FWIW, I don't sanitize terrorists, I just recognize reality. That they are human doesn't make their actions any less abhorrent.

In the face of what I've just posted, FJ, I believe we can see what drivel that actually is.

Are you suggesting that Muslims are subhuman?

Zarqawi. Zawahiri. Bin Laden. Are YOU suggesting that they, with all of their murderous, savage intent, were/are human .. ????

Come on, FJ. Why don't you do the Leftie, the Jimmy Carter thing, and defend their 'human rights' to us ... ????

fj1200

12-15-2013, 04:35 PM

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Ah, now I see why you feel the need to clap like a sycophant. Don't want to end up like this guy.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/2013/12/RTR2XXPP/a524ab876.jpg

The one on the left doncha know.

fj1200

12-15-2013, 04:40 PM

JUST TAKE THIS FORUM FOR EXAMPLE. How some very dedicated few here bust ass defending those that will kill and enslave them...

There's no defense. Only acknowledgement of truth. I thought some people around here used to have an appreciation for it. It seems most of the appreciation for some is imagination.

fj1200

12-15-2013, 04:52 PM

FOR BETTER OR WORSE. OK, tell me. HOW MUCH worse ?

Unless you can truthfully say otherwise, I believe it to be your position that there is NO 'worse' that can take thought, deed, conduct, out of the realm of human behaviour. That's really it for you, isn't it ?? So if, for example, you were to read page after page of the subhuman atrocities one can easily read about on the thread here that reports them ... you'd never once admit that any of it was evidence of subhumanity. No matter how murderous, savage, debased the act or earned consequence ... you'd be utterly blind to all that.

I daresay it's all 'good' to you - isn't it' FJ ?

See? Again, why you're stupid. You complain about propaganda on the one hand and then use propaganda on the other. You're not only ridiculous, you're a hypocrite. Please point out where I claimed that it was "good." As you failed before on my challenge to find some "fine" examples you will fail here where I claim it as "good."

Conservatives are realists. We aren't wedded to scripts, 'philosophies', which tell us to see the world in one predetermined way, REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE OF OUR SENSES ... that's what creatures of the Left do. No, FJ. WE MEET REALITY HEAD-ON.

You mention Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. When Margaret Thatcher said she regarded the ANC as a terrorist organisation, she told the evident truth about it. Included in that was NO claim - NONE - that their leader, Nelson Mandela, was an example of a 'fine human being', or, indeed, was there ANY recognition of his 'humanity' at all. How could there be, in the face of realism ?

Ronald Reagan's view was clear as well. In 1986, it was Reagan who saw to it that the ANC, and Mandela, were placed on the US's terrorist watch list. Did he do this in recognition of their HUMANITY, or ITS EXACT OPPOSITE ?

Conservatives cannot equate terrorism with humanity .. we see their thoughts and actions to be alien to human thought and deed. You, by the starkest of imaginable contrasts, refuse to depart from your Left-inspired script. To you, terrorists are human. No matter how subhuman their acts, they're human, regardless. REALITY MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON YOU.

And you're NOT a Leftie ??? Ridiculous !!!

I mention Reagan and Thatcher in how they reject your viewpoint, again, REJECT your viewpoint, and not that they didn't acknowledge terrorist organizations. Conservatives, the ones who face actual reality that is, understand that humans can engage in despicable acts; people like you take the easy way out.

Lefties don't vest unlimited power in the State to declare anyone an enemy and declare anyone subhuman. That would be you. Own it Oliver.

In the face of what I've just posted, FJ, I believe we can see what drivel that actually is.

I understand drivel, and it keeps coming out in your ignorant posts.

Zarqawi. Zawahiri. Bin Laden. Are YOU suggesting that they, with all of their murderous, savage intent, were/are human .. ????

Come on, FJ. Why don't you do the Leftie, the Jimmy Carter thing, and defend their 'human rights' to us ... ????

You know, I'll just do the Thatcher thing here as it is appropriate:

But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

Drummond

12-15-2013, 08:01 PM

Another post to FJ that I'll make a short one, because I'm well aware that these arguments serve no purpose.

I posted:

Unless you can truthfully say otherwise, I believe it to be your position that there is NO 'worse' that can take thought, deed, conduct, out of the realm of human behaviour. That's really it for you, isn't it ??

NOWHERE in your reply did you answer that. This is because I accurately summarised your position.

The term 'subhuman' is outside of your vocabulary, even though its meaning is perfectly clear. Even though a certain thread here contains daily reports of such actions taken.

You defy reality. So do Lefties, if reality falls outside of their scripts.

On Margaret Thatcher .. you posted ...

But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

It was indeed just such an affront, FJ.

Complicity can be said to be manifest in those who seek to sanitise terrorism, and its perpetrators. Also, manifest in those who seek a preferential status for terrorists WHICH THEIR ACTIONS DO NOT EARN THEM.

You are NO genuine Margaret Thatcher supporter !!!

Drummond

12-15-2013, 08:05 PM

From FJ ..

Lefties don't vest unlimited power in the State to declare anyone an enemy and declare anyone subhuman.
No. YOU wouldn't do any such thing. Would you, Mr Leftie ?

fj1200

12-16-2013, 04:19 AM

Another post to FJ that I'll make a short one, because I'm well aware that these arguments serve no purpose.

Thank you for making it short as you only rehash previously refuted arguments. It's clear that the more and more you can't refute that the less and less your responses become.

I posted:

Unless you can truthfully say otherwise, I believe it to be your position that there is NO 'worse' that can take thought, deed, conduct, out of the realm of human behaviour. That's really it for you, isn't it ??

NOWHERE in your reply did you answer that. This is because I accurately summarised your position.

The term 'subhuman' is outside of your vocabulary, even though its meaning is perfectly clear. Even though a certain thread here contains daily reports of such actions taken.

You defy reality. So do Lefties, if reality falls outside of their scripts.

I expected that was another of your overly worded rhetorical questions derived from your overactive imagination. Besides I'm still waiting for proof of all the other claims you make about my position and to prove out your propaganda of "fine" and "good." Nevertheless your blather about what's "really it for me" is another ridiculous attempt for you to internalize your hate that I think there is anything good that comes from acknowledging the truth of what some human beings will do. It's our response that defines who we are not their actions that define who they are. Your response is akin to Hitler, Goebbels, and various middle eastern dictators, mine... is not.

On Margaret Thatcher .. you posted ...

It was indeed just such an affront, FJ.

Complicity can be said to be manifest in those who seek to sanitise terrorism, and its perpetrators. Also, manifest in those who seek a preferential status for terrorists WHICH THEIR ACTIONS DO NOT EARN THEM.

You are NO genuine Margaret Thatcher supporter !!!

It sucks for you that my position is more Thatcherite than yours doesn't it? And what's with this "preferential status" business? The only "preferential" status that they should have is hunted, dead, or locked up.

From FJ ..

No. YOU wouldn't do any such thing. Would you, Mr Leftie ?

Oh my, it appears that I had an extra word in that sentence; "don't." Lefties do vest unlimited power in the State which is the basis of your argument. My apologies, I seek to vest as little power in the State as possible especially when declaring the supposed subhumanity of man. Thank you for pointing that out Mr. Oliver.

Drummond

12-16-2013, 03:24 PM

Thank you for making it short as you only rehash previously refuted arguments. It's clear that the more and more you can't refute that the less and less your responses become.

... which is a total misinterpretation of why I've been posting shorter replies. I already said that I had sympathy for Aboutime's previous post .. but, to serve yourself, you add a false account of my motivation, one designed to give a false impression of the way our 'debate' has gone.

I can understand that you have a need of such a ploy, of course.

I expected that was another of your overly worded rhetorical questions derived from your overactive imagination.

Nope. You're copping out of directly replying to me, by ...

Besides I'm still waiting for proof of all the other claims you make about my position and to prove out your propaganda of "fine" and "good." Nevertheless your blather about what's "really it for me" is another ridiculous attempt for you to internalize your hate that I think there is anything good that comes from acknowledging the truth of what some human beings will do.

... outrageous misdirection. You're clearly so desperate to win out, that you choose to entirely reinterpret the way the debate has proceeded rather than take my points on face value, and answer them as intended.

Still, this is interesting ...

It's our response that defines who we are not their actions that define who they are.

Misdirection again, of course, because you want people reading this to be redirected away from a consideration of the subhumanity 'they' are responsible for, and freely exhibit. OF COURSE YOU DO ... BECAUSE THEIR ACTIONS PROVE ME RIGHT.

No, it seems that 'we' must be locked into an attitude, therefore an overall approach, which conforms to the political correctness which .. well, ANY LEFT-WINGER .. would be proud to identify with.

Margaret Thatcher's stance was concerned, in large measure, with international rule of law. She did NOT, EVER, take a pro-terrorist line !!!

It sucks for you that my position is more Thatcherite than yours doesn't it?

Dream on.

And what's with this "preferential status" business? The only "preferential" status that they should have is hunted, dead, or locked up.

If I were you, I'd be careful. Your comrades might discover you'd posted such heresy ....

Besides, you can't - logically - mean what you say. You're very 'pro' the idea of terrorists enjoying human rights, along with everyone else. But .. how could they ever do so, if they're dead ??!?

You need to make up your mind on this. Do terrorists have any right, according to you, to 'human rights' .. ? Seems to me that, to be consistent, you need to either reject any notion of killing any of them, OR, accept that hunting and killing them (as one might do with an animal, NOT a human) means you'd suspend their 'human rights' altogether. Which means .. you understand that they're NOT human.

Now ... agreed, you got THIS right ...

I seek to vest as little power in the State as possible especially when declaring the supposed subhumanity of man.

Any excuse to escape reality, eh ? But tell me this .. what possible good does it do, for the authorities who are charged with the responsibility of protecting their citizens, to blind themselves to the truth of the nature of their enemy ????

And for what ? POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, GONE MAD ?

This is firmly the domain of the Left !!!!

By the way, as a purely general point added to this thread - who noticed that Gerry Adams was invited to Mandela's funeral ? That's to say ... the same Gerry Adams who was a prominent political spokesman FOR THE IRA, ITSELF A TERRORIST ORGANISATION ....

fj1200

12-16-2013, 05:44 PM

... which is a total misinterpretation of why I've been posting shorter replies. I already said that I had sympathy for Aboutime's previous post .. but, to serve yourself, you add a false account of my motivation, one designed to give a false impression of the way our 'debate' has gone.

I can understand that you have a need of such a ploy, of course.

I have sympathies for his posts too but probably not in the way you're thinking. Make sure you quote him when he makes a coherent point so that I'm able to read it. Now... on to the failures of your arguments.

Nope. You're copping out of directly replying to me, by ...

... outrageous misdirection. You're clearly so desperate to win out, that you choose to entirely reinterpret the way the debate has proceeded rather than take my points on face value, and answer them as intended.

Still, this is interesting ...

Outrageous!!!! I picture you as a walrus when you with a Nixonian accent when I read that.

Misdirection again, of course, because you want people reading this to be redirected away from a consideration of the subhumanity 'they' are responsible for, and freely exhibit. OF COURSE YOU DO ... BECAUSE THEIR ACTIONS PROVE ME RIGHT.

No, it seems that 'we' must be locked into an attitude, therefore an overall approach, which conforms to the political correctness which .. well, ANY LEFT-WINGER .. would be proud to identify with.

Margaret Thatcher's stance was concerned, in large measure, with international rule of law. She did NOT, EVER, take a pro-terrorist line !!!

Their actions don't prove you correct on anything except that they display abhorrent behavior. And the second bold... Awesome, she and I are still in agreement.

Dream on.

I don't have to dream, her words prove me right. Sucks for you doesn't it?

If I were you, I'd be careful. Your comrades might discover you'd posted such heresy ....

Besides, you can't - logically - mean what you say. You're very 'pro' the idea of terrorists enjoying human rights, along with everyone else. But .. how could they ever do so, if they're dead ??!?

You need to make up your mind on this. Do terrorists have any right, according to you, to 'human rights' .. ? Seems to me that, to be consistent, you need to either reject any notion of killing any of them, OR, accept that hunting and killing them (as one might do with an animal, NOT a human) means you'd suspend their 'human rights' altogether. Which means .. you understand that they're NOT human.

Now ... agreed, you got THIS right ...

I'll take the above as acknowledgement that your starting to see the failure that your imagination has sold you. Terrorists, as humans, are entitled to human rights. Of course that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to not be shot, tried, convicted, etc.

Any excuse to escape reality, eh ? But tell me this .. what possible good does it do, for the authorities who are charged with the responsibility of protecting their citizens, to blind themselves to the truth of the nature of their enemy ????

And for what ? POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, GONE MAD ?

This is firmly the domain of the Left !!!!

You love maximum State power. Why do you deny it? Another failure of your imagination is that appropriate action can't be taken without declaring subhumanity; that is the heart of your failure. Well, one of them anyway.

Drummond

12-16-2013, 09:30 PM

Do you realise, FJ, that the percentage of vitriol in your posting has reduced a little ? Are you having a bad day ?

I have sympathies for his posts too but probably not in the way you're thinking. Make sure you quote him when he makes a coherent point so that I'm able to read it. Now... on to the failures of your arguments.

Tut tut. 'Quality' posting, that ...

Outrageous!!!! I picture you as a walrus when you with a Nixonian accent when I read that.

A bit :lame2: ... you usually manage something 'better'. Needless to say, your offering is devoid of objective value.

Their actions don't prove you correct on anything except that they display abhorrent behavior.

A typo ? ABERRANT behaviour would be a lot closer. Aberrant, as in, defies human nature. As in, it has no relation to it at all.

But then, it wouldn't have.

And the second bold... Awesome, she and I are still in agreement.

Nonsense. Margaret was never a terrorist apologist. You, on the other hand, type reams of stuff single-mindedly trying to sell terrorists as human beings !!

I don't have to dream, her words prove me right. Sucks for you doesn't it?

I think you wholly misinterpret the spirit of them. In fact, I'm sure you do. Moreover, you skate over the fact that, in her day, the atrocity of 9/11 hadn't yet happened. Margaret had no case history to draw on to show quite the extent of horrific subhumanity terrorists could stoop to.

I'll take the above as acknowledgement that your starting to see the failure that your imagination has sold you.

You must be limbering up to something truly outrageous ?

Terrorists, as humans, are entitled to human rights.

.... yep ....

Terrorists are NOT humans. They don't think like humans. They don't act like humans. They have none of the human checks and balances that would otherwise banish any and all likelihood of the commission of subhuman acts !!!

But you're deliberately blind to that reality, and you absolutely insist on remaining so. Why ? Well .. why ELSE, but that you have a Left-wing imperative to obey ?

Of course that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to not be shot, tried, convicted, etc.

Shot, certainly (as one might do when hunting animals, for example). Tried, convicted ? Oh dear. Here's you, Mr Leftie, constructing a case to say how 'terribly unfair' establishments such as Gitmo must be !!! Yes, and your Leftie-in-Chief, Obama, used to press for its closure, didn't he ? Unfortunately .. upon becoming President, he was forced to face the reality of how unacceptable that would be.

I'm sure he hates that ... just as you clearly do, right now ....

You love maximum State power. Why do you deny it?

BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR FICTION.

State power is, on occasion, the only appropriate way that enemies of the State can be usefully countered. Nationwide anti-terror laws are surely more effective, therefore more protective, than more piecemeal measures which are less encompassing ? This is not a matter of preference. It is not a matter of lusting after power. It IS a matter of sheer practicality.

Conservatives are realists .. Lefties are not. State power is not to be preferred .. but, when strictly necessary, for the sake of fighting one's enemies in the most effective way, it has its uses.

Tell me. As a State tool, which it undoubtedly is ... would you rather that the US Army didn't exist ? The US Air force, or US Navy, ditto ? Tell me, are they the product of individual States ? Does Texas have a different army to Illinois, do they function as different entities ? And if they all DID, wouldn't each be MUCH weaker against enemies ?

So don't tell me that State power is useless, or that it has no place in your nation's defence.

Another failure of your imagination is that appropriate action can't be taken without declaring subhumanity; that is the heart of your failure. Well, one of them anyway.

The failure is YOURS. Fail to learn of, understand, the nature of your enemy, and you are far less effective against it. Convince that enemy that your insistence on treating them as human beings will not cease, and they'll see you as a soft touch. What you do in doing that is to project YOUR imagination, YOUR worldview, YOUR sensibilities and standards, on creatures that live by entirely different 'thinking' altogether.

One might as well try empathising with an ant, and insist upon believing that the ant will totally understand and appreciate you. THAT is how ridiculous your position is.

Except, of course, that ants don't bomb people, or fly aircraft into skyscrapers. Yes ... ants aren't QUITE that subhuman !!

fj1200

12-17-2013, 01:07 PM

Blah, blah, blah...

Nonsense. Margaret was never a terrorist apologist. You, on the other hand, type reams of stuff single-mindedly trying to sell terrorists as human beings !!

I think you wholly misinterpret the spirit of them. In fact, I'm sure you do. Moreover, you skate over the fact that, in her day, the atrocity of 9/11 hadn't yet happened. Margaret had no case history to draw on to show quite the extent of horrific subhumanity terrorists could stoop to.

The truth sells itself even when it sucks. It's your propaganda that needs mindless repetition. Apparently I have more confidence in the integrity of Mags than do you.

Blah, blah, blah...

But you're deliberately blind to that reality, and you absolutely insist on remaining so. Why ? Well .. why ELSE, but that you have a Left-wing imperative to obey ?

More mindless repetition in denial of the truth. And more mindless "leftie" blather. Still a bit miffed that you can't find anything leftie about me aren't you?

Shot, certainly (as one might do when hunting animals, for example). Tried, convicted ? Oh dear. Here's you, Mr Leftie, constructing a case to say how 'terribly unfair' establishments such as Gitmo must be !!! Yes, and your Leftie-in-Chief, Obama, used to press for its closure, didn't he ? Unfortunately .. upon becoming President, he was forced to face the reality of how unacceptable that would be.

I'm sure he hates that ... just as you clearly do, right now ....

Here comes more propaganda from you. Lose the debate so you need to throw in non-related issues into the mix. Try pointing out where I advocated for closing Gitmo.

BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR FICTION.

Blah, blah, blah...

Tell me. As a State tool, which it undoubtedly is ... would you rather that the US Army didn't exist ? The US Air force, or US Navy, ditto ? Tell me, are they the product of individual States ? Does Texas have a different army to Illinois, do they function as different entities ? And if they all DID, wouldn't each be MUCH weaker against enemies ?

So don't tell me that State power is useless, or that it has no place in your nation's defence.

Ah yes, YOUR FICTION that requires the State mindlessly declare humans as subhuman as the only means to defense. The rest of that... I really have no idea what your blathering on about... Who declared that the government wasn't in charge of national defense?

The failure is YOURS. Fail to learn of, understand, the nature of your enemy, and you are far less effective against it. Convince that enemy that your insistence on treating them as human beings will not cease, and they'll see you as a soft touch. What you do in doing that is to project YOUR imagination, YOUR worldview, YOUR sensibilities and standards, on creatures that live by entirely different 'thinking' altogether.

One might as well try empathising with an ant, and insist upon believing that the ant will totally understand and appreciate you. THAT is how ridiculous your position is.

Except, of course, that ants don't bomb people, or fly aircraft into skyscrapers. Yes ... ants aren't QUITE that subhuman !!

That last bit was insanely stupid so thanks to living down to my expectations; Sheesh!!! :rolleyes:

Sorry, I just can't make it through that bit without laughing at all of your internal rage seeping out. The nature of the enemy is well understood and whether your disgusting, abhorrent viewpoint is used or recognizing the truth that human beings can act in disgusting, abhorrent ways is used is virtually meaningless in the countering of the enemy... except for your disgusting, abhorrent viewpoint may actually make things worse. Keep that crap across the pond please.

Drummond

12-17-2013, 02:08 PM

.... Heh heh. Back to the rewrites, back to the crossings-out. You must be worried.

The truth sells itself even when it sucks.

And what 'truth' would that be ??

Do you suppose that people can read the very lengthy 'catalogue' of terrorist atrocities, listed on this very forum, then come away from it with a firm conviction that HUMAN BEINGS, EXHIBITING FULLY HUMAN QUALITES, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT ALL ???

If you think that, then I suggest that you're seriously delusional.

But then ... even my pointing that out, 'earns' a comment such as ...

It's your propaganda that needs mindless repetition.

.. because, if you can't deal with, or recognise, the truth .. then you have to 'rubbish' it, instead. By demonising it. Or rewriting it. Or crossing it out.

Apparently I have more confidence in the integrity of Mags than do you.

You reinterpret her to suit your own agenda - THAT is the truth. I say again .. Lady Thatcher was never a terrorist apologist.

More mindless repetition in denial of the truth. And more mindless "leftie" blather. Still a bit miffed that you can't find anything leftie about me aren't you?

Ridiculous. Your defence of terrorists as 'human beings', deserving of 'human rights', is classic Jimmy Carter nonsense. And Carter was a CONSERVATIVE, I suppose ?!?

Here comes more propaganda from you. Lose the debate so you need to throw in non-related issues into the mix. Try pointing out where I advocated for closing Gitmo.

To be consistent, you HAVE to want its closure ! Gitmo detainees aren't kept there as inmates following a trial, or awaiting a trial. There's also been plenty said about their treatment there. No, unless you're backtracking on your 'human rights for terrorists' nonsense, you can't NOT want Gitmo closed.

As did the Leftie-in-Chief, of course .. once upon a time, before reality kicked in.

QED.

Ah yes, YOUR FICTION that requires the State mindlessly declare humans as subhuman as the only means to defense.

Nothing 'mindless' about it .. unless you consider recognition of truth to be 'mindless', or preparation for the assessment of the nature of one's enemies likewise a 'mindless' pursuit.

The rest of that... I really have no idea what your blathering on about... Who declared that the government wasn't in charge of national defense?

.. BUT .. since you supposedly 'hate' State power, shouldn't you also hate that the US is defended at a national level ?

Could it just be .. THAT YOU, TOO, SEE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE STATE NEEDS TO TAKE CHARGE ???

But then, you are a Leftie (albeit, you'd hope, a 'closet' one) .. so you would simultaneously favour, yet say you didn't, certain State controls.

... whoops ...

That last bit was insanely stupid so thanks to living down to my expectations; Sheesh!!! :rolleyes:

Oh, you mean, ants really ARE subhuman enough to lob bombs at people ?? Care to offer examples ?

What worries you, FJ, is that the sheer subhumanity of terrorism is so very easily illustrated. Sort of puts a massive dent in the credibility of your rubbish about terrorists being 'human', doesn't it ?

Sorry, I just can't make it through that bit without laughing at all of your internal rage seeping out. The nature of the enemy is well understood and whether your disgusting, abhorrent viewpoint is used or recognizing the truth that human beings can act in disgusting, abhorrent ways is used is virtually meaningless in the countering of the enemy... except for your disgusting, abhorrent viewpoint may actually make things worse. Keep that crap across the pond please.

If the nature of the enemy IS well understood, then you should quit arguing, because nobody will see things your way (except for a few fringe Leftie nutters).

Human beings have humanity in them. Humanity couldn't survive in a mind dedicated to terrorist savagery, ergo, terrorists are NOT human. WHY is this so very hard for you to grasp ??

There can only be one reason. You are wedded to a Left-wing philosophy which insists that you ignore any reality which defies it.

QED .. again.

aboutime

12-17-2013, 03:38 PM

.... Heh heh. Back to the rewrites, back to the crossings-out. You must be worried.

And what 'truth' would that be ??

Do you suppose that people can read the very lengthy 'catalogue' of terrorist atrocities, listed on this very forum, then come away from it with a firm conviction that HUMAN BEINGS, EXHIBITING FULLY HUMAN QUALITES, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT ALL ???

If you think that, then I suggest that you're seriously delusional.

But then ... even my pointing that out, 'earns' a comment such as ...

.. because, if you can't deal with, or recognise, the truth .. then you have to 'rubbish' it, instead. By demonising it. Or rewriting it. Or crossing it out.

You reinterpret her to suit your own agenda - THAT is the truth. I say again .. Lady Thatcher was never a terrorist apologist.

Ridiculous. Your defence of terrorists as 'human beings', deserving of 'human rights', is classic Jimmy Carter nonsense. And Carter was a CONSERVATIVE, I suppose ?!?

To be consistent, you HAVE to want its closure ! Gitmo detainees aren't kept there as inmates following a trial, or awaiting a trial. There's also been plenty said about their treatment there. No, unless you're backtracking on your 'human rights for terrorists' nonsense, you can't NOT want Gitmo closed.

As did the Leftie-in-Chief, of course .. once upon a time, before reality kicked in.

QED.

Nothing 'mindless' about it .. unless you consider recognition of truth to be 'mindless', or preparation for the assessment of the nature of one's enemies likewise a 'mindless' pursuit.

.. BUT .. since you supposedly 'hate' State power, shouldn't you also hate that the US is defended at a national level ?

Could it just be .. THAT YOU, TOO, SEE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE STATE NEEDS TO TAKE CHARGE ???

But then, you are a Leftie (albeit, you'd hope, a 'closet' one) .. so you would simultaneously favour, yet say you didn't, certain State controls.

... whoops ...

Oh, you mean, ants really ARE subhuman enough to lob bombs at people ?? Care to offer examples ?

What worries you, FJ, is that the sheer subhumanity of terrorism is so very easily illustrated. Sort of puts a massive dent in the credibility of your rubbish about terrorists being 'human', doesn't it ?

If the nature of the enemy IS well understood, then you should quit arguing, because nobody will see things your way (except for a few fringe Leftie nutters).

Human beings have humanity in them. Humanity couldn't survive in a mind dedicated to terrorist savagery, ergo, terrorists are NOT human. WHY is this so very hard for you to grasp ??

There can only be one reason. You are wedded to a Left-wing philosophy which insists that you ignore any reality which defies it.

QED .. again.

Sir Drummond. Most of us who have seen this perpetual idiot LINE-OUT much of what you write, already know. Per his endless proof. How nobody will ever fix his STUPID.

FJ is just a figment of his own imagination where...unless he can prove others are equally as STUPID and DUMB as he is. He will never be satisfied with NON-EDITING other words to please his mentally unstable, and broken ego.
You should just leave fj alone.
He's like a football player who always needs to be the last to leave the field...after losing EVERY game of the season. Just to get someone to notice how stupid he really is.

fj1200

12-17-2013, 04:56 PM

.... Heh heh. Back to the rewrites, back to the crossings-out. You must be worried.

Nope, trash gets treated as such Oliver. Let me know when you have new information and not the same rehash of earlier discredited untermensch arguments. FWIW, the Gitmo line of thought is at least new, still ignorant but at least new.

Oh yeah, Mags and Ron agree with me; sucks to be you. ;)

Drummond

12-17-2013, 08:22 PM

Nope, trash gets treated as such Oliver. Let me know when you have new information and not the same rehash of earlier discredited untermensch arguments. FWIW, the Gitmo line of thought is at least new, still ignorant but at least new.

Oh yeah, Mags and Ron agree with me; sucks to be you. ;)

Heh heh. FJ, Aboutime gets it right about you.

So, this is what you're now reduced to. Translation of your post: you can't answer my points, so now, you're evading them altogether. My arguments are far from discredited .. you just don't like them, because you can't usefully counter them.

That's why my points survive, and continue. You have NO good answers to them. So you evade and /or 'rubbish' that which you don't like ... when you're not offering rewrites and crossed-out text in place of my arguments, that is. ANYTHING but offer countering arguments, because you've none you can supply which win out over mine.:laugh:

poet

12-18-2013, 11:26 AM

poet

12-18-2013, 11:28 AM

Obama loved the guy that told me all I needed to know. Told me Mandela was a socialist and damn sure no angel as he has been portrayed to be for consumption FOR GULLIBLE AND IGNORANT EASILY MISLED AMERICANS!--Tyr

Patent bs. Reagan was a socialist, if you really want to know. And who is an angel? I never read anywhere that Mandela has been portrayed as "an angel".

aboutime

12-18-2013, 01:04 PM

Patent bs. Reagan was a socialist, if you really want to know. And who is an angel? I never read anywhere that Mandela has been portrayed as "an angel".

Imagine that. Our newest Democrat calling Conservative favorite president someone like him?

How bout some documentation to back up your assertion poet?

Then, maybe you can tell us about JFK, and then, how Your obvious Idol, LBJ did so much for you, and his Great Society Hoax that Americans are still....anxiously awaiting the arrival of today???

fj1200

12-18-2013, 02:22 PM

Heh heh. FJ, Aboutime gets it right about you.

So, this is what you're now reduced to. Translation of your post: you can't answer my points, so now, you're evading them altogether. My arguments are far from discredited .. you just don't like them, because you can't usefully counter them.

That's why my points survive, and continue. You have NO good answers to them. So you evade and /or 'rubbish' that which you don't like ... when you're not offering rewrites and crossed-out text in place of my arguments, that is. ANYTHING but offer countering arguments, because you've none you can supply which win out over mine.:laugh:

I've countered your ridiculous protestations multiple times and see little purpose in countering the same thing again. You need to face facts that your entire position is based on fear and hate with no difference in result. We haven't declared terrorists as subhuman, we're (apparently) not torturing, we're (apparently) not putting bullets in the back of every terrorists head, we're not releasing every Gitmo detainee back to the wild, etc. and all of your fears are NOT coming true. But you protest and think that ants and bananas are going to be coming for your women and children.

Your idiocy gets old so unless you would like to tell me which of your points I've not already discredited I will be happy to discredit them for you; Not that you'd understand but I'd give it a try. And if 'at' is your benchmark for rational thought then I know you are far beyond help and your capacity for understanding is practically nil.

fj1200

12-18-2013, 02:24 PM

Patent bs. Reagan was a socialist...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't but if you keep this up then you're going to have one angry Brit all in a kerfuffle because he won't know who the actual lefties are. ;)

jimnyc

12-18-2013, 03:03 PM

And yet, he is revered, "world-wide", today....and honored by heads of state, and most of the world, as among the most admired persons in history. Evidently, it depends on who is doing "the spinning", n'est-ce pas?

Spinning? Do you deny that Mandela's group ANC committed terror attacks? That they targeted public areas? That his wife went on to celebrate burning people to death? Sure, he did GREAT things down the road, but NONE of that excuses the prior activities.

aboutime

12-18-2013, 03:05 PM

I've countered your ridiculous protestations multiple times and see little purpose in countering the same thing again. You need to face facts that your entire position is based on fear and hate with no difference in result. We haven't declared terrorists as subhuman, we're (apparently) not torturing, we're (apparently) not putting bullets in the back of every terrorists head, we're not releasing every Gitmo detainee back to the wild, etc. and all of your fears are NOT coming true. But you protest and think that ants and bananas are going to be coming for your women and children.

Your idiocy gets old so unless you would like to tell me which of your points I've not already discredited I will be happy to discredit them for you; Not that you'd understand but I'd give it a try. And if 'at' is your benchmark for rational thought then I know you are far beyond help and your capacity for understanding is practically nil.

fj. You sure your real name isn't Barack Obama? Everyone knows what kind of liar he is.
You sure do a great impersonation. Mental defects and all.

Drummond

12-18-2013, 03:27 PM

I'm pretty sure he wasn't but if you keep this up then you're gioing to have one angry Brit all in a kerfuffle because he won't know who the actual lefties are. ;)

I am the Brit in question, in case you needed to know, 'poet'. But what really alarms me is the 'Twilight Zone' scenario of FJ and I being in any danger of agreeing about anything !!! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

I have a reputation to upkeep ......

Drummond

12-18-2013, 03:39 PM

I've countered your ridiculous protestations multiple times and see little purpose in countering the same thing again. You need to face facts that your entire position is based on fear and hate with no difference in result. We haven't declared terrorists as subhuman, we're (apparently) not torturing, we're (apparently) not putting bullets in the back of every terrorists head, we're not releasing every Gitmo detainee back to the wild, etc. and all of your fears are NOT coming true. But you protest and think that ants and bananas are going to be coming for your women and children.

Your idiocy gets old so unless you would like to tell me which of your points I've not already discredited I will be happy to discredit them for you; Not that you'd understand but I'd give it a try. And if 'at' is your benchmark for rational thought then I know you are far beyond help and your capacity for understanding is practically nil.

OK, I'll give your challenge a try (... though it's not as though I haven't done all this before !!!!)

Here's what I want you to 'discredit' ...

Terrorists act in a subhuman way
Terrorists think in a subhuman way
Terrorists show no evidence of humanity, only savagery, bloodlust, exultation at murdering and maiming ... ergo ...
TERRORISTS ARE SUBHUMAN

I'm sick to the back teeth of making these points, and you claiming - falsely - to have somehow 'dealt' with them. NOW, let's see you DO SO.

NO crossings-out. NO rewrites. NO snide comments. JUST PROVE ME WRONG.

Drummond

12-18-2013, 03:48 PM

Patent bs. Reagan was a socialist, if you really want to know. And who is an angel? I never read anywhere that Mandela has been portrayed as "an angel".

Ditto Aboutime's point. If you're going to claim Reagan to be a Socialist, I'd like to see you back that one up.

As for any claim of Mandela being seen as 'an angel', well ... the BBC can deal with that .. as only the BBC can ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25255269

Get a load of this ..... I quote ...

"Nelson Mandela was a man of incomparable honour, unconquerable strength, and unyielding resolve - a saint to many, a hero to all who treasure liberty, freedom and the dignity of humankind."

American actor Dennis Haysbert portrayed Mandela in 2007's Goodbye Bafana, about the relationship between Mandela and his prison officer.

Haysbert said: "Portraying Nelson Mandela... was a defining moment in my life and my career. We as a society, have been blessed to live in a time that Nelson Mandela has lived, loved, and led.

... Bono ....

"What he has done for his country, his countrymen, and everyone on this planet may not be achieved again. Ever. I will always honour him as a saint.''

Music producer Quincy Jones said: "Today, as it did while he inhabited our planet, Nelson Mandela's spirit truly soars with the angels.

I could make a fortune selling vomit bags, it seems to me ....

fj1200

12-18-2013, 04:58 PM

OK, I'll give your challenge a try (... though it's not as though I haven't done all this before !!!!)

Here's what I want you to 'discredit' ...

Terrorists act in a subhuman way
Terrorists think in a subhuman way
Terrorists show no evidence of humanity, only savagery, bloodlust, exultation at murdering and maiming ... ergo ...
TERRORISTS ARE SUBHUMAN

I'm sick to the back teeth of making these points, and you claiming - falsely - to have somehow 'dealt' with them. NOW, let's see you DO SO.

NO crossings-out. NO rewrites. NO snide comments. JUST PROVE ME WRONG.

So you admit to not adding anything new in the post I recently replied to. that's OK but a simple "nothing new" would have sufficed.

Again, simple biology proves you wrong. The fact is that they are human beings regardless their despicable actions; so, to your "evidence:"

You can't use your conclusion as proof of their actions; Granted: terrorists commit despicable acts
You can't use your conclusion as proof of their thoughts; Granted: terrorists think about committing despicable acts
You haven't shown that terrorists only think about committing despicable acts; Not granted: would you accept that terrorists evidence "humanity" when with their family?
Your posit has not been proven

Further proof is provided that you are unwilling to flesh out the definition that you posted by stating at what point the mentally handicapped are subhuman. You must believe them to have that status as you believe that terrorists lack the morality to be human as your definition says that the mentally handicapped lack the intelligence to be human. And BTW the question is not whether the mentally handicapped commit despicable acts it's whether you accept or reject the definition that you provided this forum.

You've also not addressed our lack of being targeted by terrorists. You have suggested that we cannot win if we don't acknowledge the "true nature" of terrorists yet we seem to be winning, as much as one can against terrorism, while rejecting your viewpoint.

aboutime

12-18-2013, 06:31 PM

Ditto Aboutime's point. If you're going to claim Reagan to be a Socialist, I'd like to see you back that one up.

As for any claim of Mandela being seen as 'an angel', well ... the BBC can deal with that .. as only the BBC can ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25255269

Get a load of this ..... I quote ...

I could make a fortune selling vomit bags, it seems to me ....

Sir Drummond. It keeps getting more comical with every new post fj makes. Amazing how he intentionally DOUBLE-TALKS himself into being convinced ONLY HE is capable of being right 100% of the time, while the rest of us must painfully endure his illiteracy, based on his own impressive stupidity.
You really should just leave him alone to wallow in his own intentional ignorance.
fj is only managing to impress himself with his ability to spread his endless misery, spoken in near-ebonics that represent his mental incapacity to understand his own words, thoughts, and comical presentations.

poet

12-18-2013, 07:11 PM

Ditto Aboutime's point. If you're going to claim Reagan to be a Socialist, I'd like to see you back that one up.

As for any claim of Mandela being seen as 'an angel', well ... the BBC can deal with that .. as only the BBC can ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25255269

Get a load of this ..... I quote ...

I could make a fortune selling vomit bags, it seems to me ....

http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/83147:reagan-the-great-american-socialist

As for Mandela....why stop there? Mother Theresa's outreach would almost certainly make you upchuck, as well.
Vomit bags? In public? How classless. Reminds me of the movie "Carnage", with Kate Winslet, upchucking all over her hosts priceless books.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnkennet107301.html)
John Kenneth Galbraith (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_kenneth_galbraith.html)

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnstuart201721.html)
John Stuart Mill (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_stuart_mill.html)

poet

12-18-2013, 07:29 PM

I'm pretty sure he wasn't but if you keep this up then you're going to have one angry Brit all in a kerfuffle because he won't know who the actual lefties are. ;)

I love Brits being in a kerfuffle.

poet

12-18-2013, 07:33 PM

Spinning? Do you deny that Mandela's group ANC committed terror attacks? That they targeted public areas? That his wife went on to celebrate burning people to death? Sure, he did GREAT things down the road, but NONE of that excuses the prior activities.

Do you deny that Mandela's motivation was apartheid and the genocide and oppression of his people, the majority, by the racist white minority? Native Americans went through the same practices here, in America. Great things? You don't come up on the "winning side" and being revered by the world and anybody who is anybody by being a former terrorist. He was a freedom fighter. What excuses the activities of the white rule government?

poet

12-18-2013, 07:34 PM

I am the Brit in question, in case you needed to know, 'poet'. But what really alarms me is the 'Twilight Zone' scenario of FJ and I being in any danger of agreeing about anything !!! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

I have a reputation to upkeep ......

Not my problem. Charmed, I'm sure.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 07:52 PM

And yet, he is revered, "world-wide", today....and honored by heads of state, and most of the world, as among the most admired persons in history. Evidently, it depends on who is doing "the spinning", n'est-ce pas? The World is not noted for its judicious judgment of fallen leaders. Who cares how many world leaders choose to ignore the truth about the man while they frolic in the limelight of his passing? If you were a man of principle you would know this and not need to be informed by me IMHO. By the way you went a tad overboard in your praise and glorification of the man with the inclusion-" and most of the world" when most of the world had little to no knowledge of who the man was prior to his death.. I found that "padding" to be very self-serving but carry on. As a good member already said about your participation here , "this should be very interesting." I do believe the man was spot on. One may take that for good or bad as to their own liking IMHO. You'll find that I shoot from the hip(LEFTSIDE) and never hesitate to draw my sword swiftly(RIGHTSIDE) when too much liberty has been taken with the truth. Tis' blessed to have been forewarned but also places a certain responsibility upon the receiver. Carry on and welcome to DP. -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 08:00 PM

Do you deny that Mandela's motivation was apartheid and the genocide and oppression of his people, the majority, by the racist white minority? Native Americans went through the same practices here, in America. Great things? ? Hey bub, my grandfather was full bloodied Native American so don't try to compare Mandela's terrorism and murder with the struggle the Native Americans endured. Stick to the apples you know is my suggestion but I am sure you may find such great advice too demanding. -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 08:05 PM

Patent bs. Reagan was a socialist, if you really want to know. ok, Reagan a socialist???? ok, troll on . A couple more and it'll be verified IMHO. -Tyr

Drummond

12-18-2013, 08:05 PM

http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/83147:reagan-the-great-american-socialist

As for Mandela....why stop there? Mother Theresa's outreach would almost certainly make you upchuck, as well.
Vomit bags? In public? How classless. Reminds me of the movie "Carnage", with Kate Winslet, upchucking all over her hosts priceless books.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnkennet107301.html)
John Kenneth Galbraith (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_kenneth_galbraith.html)

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnstuart201721.html)
John Stuart Mill (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_stuart_mill.html)

Your last two links are clearly propaganda pieces .. reflecting a particular worldview.

As for the first one ... I grant you, it's more engaging. Nonetheless, I see that it's an opinion-piece. Its author .. I have done a small bit of research on your Mr Ravi Batra, and what I've found is that he is supposed to have been heavily influenced by one Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.

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

Batra's writings should be considered in terms of the philosophy of his mentor, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, who has had a profound influence on him

Well, on Mr Sarkar ....

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

... I see ...

Sarkar's system of spiritual practice has been described as a practical synthesis of Vedic and Tantric philosophies. He denounced materialism and capitalism, and described the universe as a result of macropsychic conation – the entire universe exists within the cosmic mind, which itself is the first expression of consciousness coming under the bondage of its own nature.

... and ...

Sarkar describes the universe as a result of macropsychic conation – the entire universe exists within the cosmic mind, which itself is the first expression of consciousness coming under the bondage of its own nature. With the evolution of unit beings, individual life, the extroversial projection of the "Cosmic Mind" starts the return journey in an always unique and colourful fashion. No two entities of this universe are the same, and yet all have the same goal to merge once more with their source, the infinite Cosmic consciousness. As such, the cosmological flow is from limitless consciousness to limited consciousness and back to limitless consciousness, attained by meditation.

... yes, er'm, well ... !!! I'll leave it to the reader to decide for himself, or herself, just how seriously Batra's opinion pieces, whether on Reagan or anyone else, should be regarded !!!:rolleyes:

As to your comment on vomit bags .. 'classless' or not, if you need a vomit bag, then you do !! It's a great feature of Capitalistic endeavour that, if there's a market for something, the entrepreneurial spirit will always seek to fill that market in a useful and productive way !!

By the way, I like Kate Winslet.:cool:

poet

12-18-2013, 08:07 PM

Hey bub, my grandfather was full bloodied Native American so don't try to compare Mandela's terrorism and murder with the struggle the Native Americans endured. Stick to the apples you know is my suggestion but I am sure you may find such great advice too demanding. -Tyr

I am Native American on both sides of my family (http://www.frenchcreoles.com/LouisianaPeople/indians/indians.htm) My name is not "Bub". You completely missed the point of European and native born whites doing to Native Americans, what Afrikaners did to the black native population. Don't presume to tell me about any apples. Your reading comprehension is what is in question.

Drummond

12-18-2013, 08:08 PM

ok, Reagan a socialist???? ok, troll on . A couple more and it'll be verified IMHO. -Tyr

You've got to admit, Tyr, that our newcomer is posting some entertaining pieces .... hopefully he can keep them at least relatively civil. :rolleyes:

Drummond

12-18-2013, 08:10 PM

Not my problem. Charmed, I'm sure.

I'm happy that you're happy ...

jimnyc

12-18-2013, 08:14 PM

poet

12-18-2013, 08:15 PM

Your last two links are clearly propaganda pieces .. reflecting a particular worldview.

As for the first one ... I grant you, it's more engaging. Nonetheless, I see that it's an opinion-piece. Its author .. I have done a small bit of research on your Mr Ravi Batra, and what I've found is that he is supposed to have been heavily influenced by one Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.

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

Well, on Mr Sarkar ....

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

... I see ...

... and ...

... yes, er'm, well ... !!! I'll leave it to the reader to decide for himself, or herself, just how seriously Batra's opinion pieces, whether on Reagan or anyone else, should be regarded !!!:rolleyes:

As to your comment on vomit bags .. 'classless' or not, if you need a vomit bag, then you do !! It's a great feature of Capitalistic endeavour that, if there's a market for something, the entrepreneurial spirit will always seek to fill that market in a useful and productive way !!

By the way, I like Kate Winslet.:cool:

Careful... your last paragraph sounds "strikingly liberal". But with all that cutting programs by the Republican Congress, the entrepreneurial spirit is in dire straits...so much talking out of both sides of faces, being "pro small business" on even days of the week, and against education, infrastructure, job training and extending unemployment benefits and healthcare on odd days. And then there is that "in-fighting", with Boehner and McConnell willing to buck The Tea Party. Fiddle dee dee. LOL

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 08:17 PM

I am Native American on both sides of my family (http://www.frenchcreoles.com/LouisianaPeople/indians/indians.htm) My name is not "Bub". You completely missed the point of European and native born whites doing to Native Americans, what Afrikaners did to the black native population. Don't presume to tell me about any apples. Your reading comprehension is what is in question. Bub, my reading comprehension is just fine. You ignoring Mandela's terrorism speaks volumes so don't try that "I'm better than you shit with me". And I did not miss a thing about what was done to my grandfather's people. Apparently you assume too damn much! Next time you want to call me stupid or ignorant do so without trying to be fancy about it. Your dumbass attempt to mix apples and carrots doesn't make the grade. Live with it Bub. Want to discuss things stop trying to troll so much is my suggestion. -Tyr

Drummond

12-18-2013, 08:17 PM

Do you deny that Mandela's motivation was apartheid and the genocide and oppression of his people, the majority, by the racist white minority? Native Americans went through the same practices here, in America. Great things? You don't come up on the "winning side" and being revered by the world and anybody who is anybody by being a former terrorist. He was a freedom fighter. What excuses the activities of the white rule government?

'Freedom fighter' is a term that can cover for all sorts of crimes and atrocities. I think most here would agree that Osama bin Laden was terrorist trash who richly deserved what he got (and a lot more besides) ... nonetheless, various warped individuals would also claim that he was always a 'freedom fighter'.

Fact is, poet, that his earlier activities were not only terrorist, but that he was the leader of a gang of them. Can you honestly tell me that no innocent human being died at the hands of either Mandela, or his terrorist group ?

And consider Winnie Mandela, the 'great man's' WIFE ... AND HER GREAT FONDNESS FOR 'NECKLASING' 'PUNISHMENTS'. Tell me of the 'great justice' such terrorist acts served !!!

How many people have to die horrific deaths before the 'freedom fighter' label becomes too untenable to convincingly push ??

poet

12-18-2013, 08:20 PM

One doesn't need to place tires around the necks of innocent people and light them on fire. Nor bombing markets and other public areas and killing innocent people who did nothing. What motivated them might have been horrible, but what they did with this motivation was just pure terrorism and makes them no different than those who bomb markets and other public areas today, groups like Al Qaeda.

LOLOLOL. Are you saying that with a straight face??? Please. Dick Cheney said we'd be greeted with leis, after the liberation of Iraq. How well did that work out? How many American lives did that fiasco cost? How many innocent Iraqis? Where did all that money go? How did Halliburton get the contracts to rebuild? Oil Summit, anyone? What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was no different. What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is no different. George Bush or Netanyahu will never be a Mandela. Have a seat.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 08:24 PM

One doesn't need to place tires around the necks of innocent people and light them on fire. Nor bombing markets and other public areas and killing innocent people who did nothing. What motivated them might have been horrible, but what they did with this motivation was just pure terrorism and makes them no different than those who bomb markets and other public areas today, groups like Al Qaeda. Poet's dismissing of that shows either ignorance of it or the typical liberal attitude when defending somebody they have chosen to glorify. I find Poet's comments to be self-serving and somewhat trolling in nature. Should it continue I know what the judgment will be by the honest members here. Dismissing as if its of no importance the murder of so many innocent people by Mandela's terrorist group shows a blatant tendency for the disregard for human life and eagerness to defend terrorists past and/or present.

poet

12-18-2013, 08:25 PM

'Freedom fighter' is a term that can cover for all sorts of crimes and atrocities. I think most here would agree that Osama bin Laden was terrorist trash who richly deserved what he got (and a lot more besides) ... nonetheless, various warped individuals would also claim that he was always a 'freedom fighter'.

Fact is, poet, that his earlier activities were not only terrorist, but that he was the leader of a gang of them. Can you honestly tell me that no innocent human being died at the hands of either Mandela, or his terrorist group ?

And consider Winnie Mandela, the 'great man's' WIFE ... AND HER GREAT FONDNESS FOR 'NECKLASING' 'PUNISHMENTS'. Tell me of the 'great justice' such terrorist acts served !!!

How many people have to die horrific deaths before the 'freedom fighter' label becomes too untenable to convincingly push ??

Some cannot, for the life of them, separate the wheat from the chaff. England and Ireland. Serbia and Croatia. Bosnia. Syria. There are more than enough terrorists and atrocities to go around. Funny you want to focus on Mandela, in lieu of others.
Mandela distanced himself from his wife and her actions. And you can "spin" it any way you like. Like America's hands are remotely clean. I claim the 1st amendment.

jimnyc

12-18-2013, 08:26 PM

Drummond

12-18-2013, 08:26 PM

Careful... your last paragraph sounds "strikingly liberal".

Oh, I doubt it, poet. Even so, thanks for the warning. I truly appreciate it. One cannot be too much on one's guard against such tendencies !

But with all that cutting programs by the Republican Congress, the entrepreneurial spirit is in dire straits...so much talking out of both sides of faces, being "pro small business" on even days of the week, and against education, infrastructure, job training and extending unemployment benefits and healthcare on odd days. And then there is that "in-fighting", with Boehner and McConnell willing to buck The Tea Party. Fiddle dee dee. LOL

Being British, I daresay that there will be details of American politics I'll struggle to properly master. Still ... I do know how Socialists on both side of the Pond operate. Obama is typical of the breed ... grandiose plans, grandiose spending to match, ahh .... BUT WITH WHOSE MONEY ??

Obama has done his bit to rack up massive debt. As is true in the UK, Conservatives have to come along and try to clean up after the messes the Left leave behind. I don't doubt that what you're describing is more of the same.

Thinking of Left-winger politicians as dogs that have yet to be housetrained, with Conservatives following with 'pooper-scoopers' ... it works for me !

How about you ?

Drummond

12-18-2013, 08:30 PM

Some cannot, for the life of them, separate the wheat from the chaff. England and Ireland. Serbia and Croatia. Bosnia. Syria. There are more than enough terrorists and atrocities to go around. Funny you want to focus on Mandela, in lieu of others.
Mandela distanced himself from his wife and her actions. And you can "spin" it any way you like. Like America's hands are remotely clean. I claim the 1st amendment.

I'm maybe not the best contributor here for keeping to thread subjects - but I do try. So should you.

Mandela did indeed distance himself from Winnie. I don't blame him !! How on earth could today's hype have had a chance to get off the ground, if he hadn't ?

None of that denies the past, though ... such as the crimes Mandela pled GUILTY to. BECAUSE ... HE WASN'T ?

poet

12-18-2013, 08:31 PM

The World is not noted for its judicious judgment of fallen leaders. Who cares how many world leaders choose to ignore the truth about the man while they frolic in the limelight of his passing? If you were a man of principle you would know this and not need to be informed by me IMHO. By the way you went a tad overboard in your praise and glorification of the man with the inclusion-" and most of the world" when most of the world had little to no knowledge of who the man was prior to his death.. I found that "padding" to be very self-serving but carry on. As a good member already said about your participation here , "this should be very interesting." I do believe the man was spot on. One may take that for good or bad as to their own liking IMHO. You'll find that I shoot from the hip(LEFTSIDE) and never hesitate to draw my sword swiftly(RIGHTSIDE) when too much liberty has been taken with the truth. Tis' blessed to have been forewarned but also places a certain responsibility upon the receiver. Carry on and welcome to DP. -Tyr

Ah, because you know better, right? World leaders are misguided, but you know the truth. LOL. Excuse me, but you wouldn't be the one to judge anyone's principle. And there is nothing you can inform me of, that I don't already know. And find the documentation to support that asinine claim about folks not knowing who Mandela was before his death. Shoot and draw whatever you like. Thankfully, there is an ignore feature, which you just warranted, by your dismissive tone. You think way too highly of yourself, and your relevance. Ciao.

poet

12-18-2013, 08:34 PM

Anything but the topic, huh? Can't even address what Mandela, his wife and what the ANC did? Are you saying that maybe Cheney and various actions in Iraq played a part in Mandela's terrorist actions?

Nope. Not even going to address nonsense. And, no...I didn't say Cheney had anything to do with Mandela, other than to vote against sanctions for South Africa for apartheid.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 08:34 PM

You've got to admit, Tyr, that our newcomer is posting some entertaining pieces .... hopefully he can keep them at least relatively civil. :rolleyes: Maybe, if he can keep his trolling down . His comment on Reagan being a socialist was nothing but pure trolling. It was like saying Hitler was framed and really was a very good man. -Tyr

poet

12-18-2013, 08:37 PM

I'm maybe not the best contributor here for keeping to thread subjects - but I do try. So should you.

Mandela did indeed distance himself from Winnie. I don't blame him !! How on earth could today's hype have had a chance to get off the ground, if he hadn't ?

None of that denies the past, though ... such as the crimes Mandela pled GUILTY to. BECAUSE ... HE WASN'T ?

Like many believe President Obama to be a Muslim......without proof.

"It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.........."

jimnyc

12-18-2013, 08:39 PM

Nope. Not even going to address nonsense. And, no...I didn't say Cheney had anything to do with Mandela, other than to vote against sanctions for South Africa for apartheid.

I'll give you an "A" for honesty, and for a direct reply to my question. But then I give you an "F" for staying on topic, and another "F" for disguising your racism in bringing up white/black rule government, when here I thought we were simply discussing the actions of a particular man. Good news is though, you don't fail, as you can still raise your grades with better posts in the future. :)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 08:41 PM

Ah, because you know better, right? World leaders are misguided, but you know the truth. LOL. Excuse me, but you wouldn't be the one to judge anyone's principle. And there is nothing you can inform me of, that I don't already know. And find the documentation to support that asinine claim about folks not knowing who Mandela was before his death. Shoot and draw whatever you like. Thankfully, there is an ignore feature, which you just warranted, by your dismissive tone. You think way too highly of yourself, and your relevance. Ciao. haha, that didn't take long. I put you on point and you bail out at first sign of gunfire. :laugh: This accusation after you rather cleverly tried to call me ignorant or stupid about my own grandfather and his struggles. Now we see exactly who seems to be so tender and sensitive. No way in hell could you put forth more proof for your liberal dem positions than I can in refutation of them. Want to run go right ahead and don't let the door hit you in the ass as you scurry away. I find it a very feeble excuse for such cowardly behavior.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 08:43 PM

I'll give you an "A" for honesty, and for a direct reply to my question. But then I give you an "F" for staying on topic, and another "F" for disguising your racism in bringing up white/black rule government, when here I thought we were simply discussing the actions of a particular man. Good news is though, you don't fail, as you can still raise your grades with better posts in the future. :) Do you mean like this Jim? Feeble excuse to cut and run. -Tyr

Quote Originally Posted by poet View Post

Ah, because you know better, right? World leaders are misguided, but you know the truth. LOL. Excuse me, but you wouldn't be the one to judge anyone's principle. And there is nothing you can inform me of, that I don't already know. And find the documentation to support that asinine claim about folks not knowing who Mandela was before his death. Shoot and draw whatever you like. Thankfully, there is an ignore feature, which you just warranted, by your dismissive tone. You think way too highly of yourself, and your relevance. Ciao.

haha, that didn't take long. I put you on point and you bail out at first sign of gunfire. This accusation after you rather cleverly tired to call me ignorant or stupid about my own grandfather and his struggles. Now we see exactly who seems to be so tender and sensitive. No way in hell could you put forth more proof for your liberal dem positions than I can in refutation of them. Want to run go right ahead and don't let the door hit you in the ass as you scurry away. I find it a very feeble excuse for such cowardly behavior.-Tyr

Drummond

12-18-2013, 08:51 PM

So you admit to not adding anything new in the post I recently replied to. that's OK but a simple "nothing new" would have sufficed.

Again, simple biology proves you wrong. The fact is that they are human beings regardless their despicable actions; so, to your "evidence:"

You can't use your conclusion as proof of their actions; Granted: terrorists commit despicable acts
You can't use your conclusion as proof of their thoughts; Granted: terrorists think about committing despicable acts
You haven't shown that terrorists only think about committing despicable acts; Not granted: would you accept that terrorists evidence "humanity" when with their family?
Your posit has not been proven

Further proof is provided that you are unwilling to flesh out the definition that you posted by stating at what point the mentally handicapped are subhuman. You must believe them to have that status as you believe that terrorists lack the morality to be human as your definition says that the mentally handicapped lack the intelligence to be human. And BTW the question is not whether the mentally handicapped commit despicable acts it's whether you accept or reject the definition that you provided this forum.

You've also not addressed our lack of being targeted by terrorists. You have suggested that we cannot win if we don't acknowledge the "true nature" of terrorists yet we seem to be winning, as much as one can against terrorism, while rejecting your viewpoint.

H'm. Not free of snide remarks, but credit where it's due. You have at least reduced their incidence. For you, that's an achievement. Well done !

I wasn't aware I had to come up with 'new' material ? And for why, when you'd done such a lousy job with the old lot ?

Biology doesn't help you. One can take a DNA sample and say it had human origins. Yet, the sample wouldn't of itself be human ... it'd be just what it was. No more, no less.

A terrorist may be able to offer up DNA classifiable as human, but then, just as in the sample itself, all we're really talking about is raw material. What makes a human being human is the HUMANITY possessed by that person. But ... terrorists exhibit none when they kill and mutilate. Nor is there any human check or balance there to stop any of that from happening.

If the terrorists we're talking about are human ... then ... WHY NOT ? WHERE DID THOSE CHECKS AND BALANCES GO ?

The only answer that makes sense is to accept that they didn't exist in the first place.

There's only one part of your answer that gives pause for thought ... where you say ...

would you accept that terrorists evidence "humanity" when with their family?

My answer, though, is simple. A mentally deranged person can act normally under certain conditions. But that doesn't prove normal mental function, just the appearance of it. Equally with your 'family man' terrorist ... we could be discussing appearance, and ONLY appearance.

Consider this. A 'man' comes home, after a hard day's terrorising. He might've planted a bomb hours before, and exulted in seeing limbs blown off of his victims.

He spends an evening with his family, maybe watches television, soothes his kid to sleep with a bedtime story (presumably one devoid of grisly content ?).

The following morning, he strolls off, plants another bomb, only this time, he gets blown up by his own device.

So tell me. What kind of 'normal human being' takes such needless and murderous risks with the welfare of his family, as to know he risks depriving his wife of a loving husband, or his kids a loving father ? How come his NORMAL HUMANITY didn't ever manage to so normalise him, as to make his savagery completely unthinkable to him ??

There is but one conclusion, isn't there, FJ ? HE WAS NEVER A HUMAN BEING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Drummond

12-18-2013, 08:58 PM

Like many believe President Obama to be a Muslim......without proof.

"It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.........."

Thanks for the singalong.

Still, lack of proof doesn't necessarily deny fact.

I strongly suspect that the first outright proof anyone will have of Iran's murderous intentions towards Israel will be if we all wake up one morning to discover that Israel has some newly-acquired radioactive craters where cities used to be. Doesn't mean that you do NOTHING beforehand to alert yourself of the perils that led up to that scenario !!

Drummond

12-18-2013, 09:11 PM

Maybe, if he can keep his trolling down . His comment on Reagan being a socialist was nothing but pure trolling. It was like saying Hitler was framed and really was a very good man. -Tyr

I gather that Hitler was kind to dogs, and was a vegetarian. Why, what a splendid human being he must have been !!!:halo9:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 09:18 PM

I gather that Hitler was kind to dogs, and was a vegetarian. Why, what a splendid human being he must have been !!!:halo9:
Yes, see how easy it is. Just ignore the negative, the bad, and only put forth what little good one can find as if it's the whole ball of wax. That is exactly what they have done with Mandela. It's the socialist way--deny all truth.. --Tyr

Drummond

12-18-2013, 09:22 PM

Yes, see how easy it is. Just ignore the negative, the bad, and only put forth what little good one can find as if it's the whole ball of wax. That is exactly what they have done with Mandela. It's the socialist way--deny all truth.. --Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 09:24 PM

Drummond

12-18-2013, 09:33 PM

LOLOLOL. Are you saying that with a straight face??? Please. Dick Cheney said we'd be greeted with leis, after the liberation of Iraq. How well did that work out? How many American lives did that fiasco cost? How many innocent Iraqis? Where did all that money go? How did Halliburton get the contracts to rebuild? Oil Summit, anyone? What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was no different. What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is no different. George Bush or Netanyahu will never be a Mandela. Have a seat.

The question of WMD's in Iraq should never, ever, have been addressed ... eh ? And what terrible message would THAT have sent the world ?

Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's terrorist presence should've been left alone, and NOT tackled ? Why, because Al Qaeda would've grown a conscience and unilaterally disbanded ??

As for the Palestinians, they voted Hamas into power in Gaza ... and Hamas is a terrorist group. Yet, Israel is meant to regard Palestinians (who've NEVER had a Nation State of their own, meaning that their whole supposed 'national identity' has no real meaning) with good fellowship ?!!??

Poet, thanks for the Leftie pap. Entertaining, to be sure, but hardly indicative of how the real world operates.

Drummond

12-18-2013, 09:39 PM

I am willing to bet a 20 spot that the new American world history books include only the lying fable about Mandela and make no mention of his terrorist group and murders of innocent people. Any takers? I haven't even checked some may already do that. But certainly future books will. -Tyr

The BBC is already doing that, judging by their output .... do you know, they have a domestic 'BBC News' TV channel, dedicated to non-stop news reporting (with the occasional discussion programme thrown in) ... but, when Mandela's funeral started, their 80-strong journalist team, all present at the location, broadcast nonstop coverage of it, suspending all standard output until about an hour after the funeral ended. They even cut into a live broadcast, without preamble, to start that coverage ...

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-18-2013, 09:44 PM

The BBC is already doing that, judging by their output .... do you know, they have a domestic 'BBC News' TV channel, dedicated to non-stop news reporting (with the occasional discussion programme thrown in) ... but, when Mandela's funeral started, their 80-strong journalist team, all present at the location, broadcast nonstop coverage of it, suspending all standard output until about an hour after the funeral ended. They even cut into a live broadcast, without preamble, to start that coverage ... The fabled socialist heroes must be worshipped and lied for. Look how they still lie like dogs for Castro!!! And I mean with his destruction of Cuba and murder of who knows how many tens of thousands of its citizens. Socialist lie like we eat and sleep. Its just as necessary for them as that. -Tyr

logroller

12-19-2013, 12:35 AM

The fabled socialist heroes must be worshipped and lied for. Look how they still lie like dogs for Castro!!! And I mean with his destruction of Cuba and murder of who knows how many tens of thousands of its citizens. Socialist lie like we eat and sleep. Its just as necessary for them as that. -Tyr
Socialism is arguably an improvement over apartheid. And so far as murdered citizens go, as I pointed out previously, the deaths in South Africa were comparatively lower than any other revolution I can think of. So what does it matter if its "terrorism" or "war", "murder" or "killing" -- seems to me people just toss about the pejorative to hide the glaring inconsistencies in, if not outright hypocritical justification of politically motivated violence.

poet

12-19-2013, 12:38 AM

Oh, I doubt it, poet. Even so, thanks for the warning. I truly appreciate it. One cannot be too much on one's guard against such tendencies !

Being British, I daresay that there will be details of American politics I'll struggle to properly master. Still ... I do know how Socialists on both side of the Pond operate. Obama is typical of the breed ... grandiose plans, grandiose spending to match, ahh .... BUT WITH WHOSE MONEY ??

Obama has done his bit to rack up massive debt. As is true in the UK, Conservatives have to come along and try to clean up after the messes the Left leave behind. I don't doubt that what you're describing is more of the same.

Thinking of Left-winger politicians as dogs that have yet to be housetrained, with Conservatives following with 'pooper-scoopers' ... it works for me !

How about you ?

Oh, please. Grandiose plans, and spending???? With whose money? Well certainly not the wealthy. They pretty much have their derrieres covered by shifty, "well-paid" lawyer who know the ins and outs of finding loopholes so they can keep their stingy and greedy reputations intact. If they could sacrifice a modicum of profit, to at least pay their underlings a fair and living wage, with benefits, then they needn't face the backlash suffered by "Papa John's Pizza" and Mc Donalds, and Chik-Fil-A or Wal-Mart.

And your lofty (or should I say noble and elevated) view of liberals is almost as subterranean as my view of conservatives. But not quite. The only good conservative......well, you figure out the rest.

poet

12-19-2013, 01:01 AM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2013, 01:03 AM

Socialism is arguably an improvement over apartheid. And so far as murdered citizens go, as I pointed out previously, the deaths in South Africa were comparatively lower than any other revolution I can think of. So what does it matter if its "terrorism" or "war", "murder" or "killing" -- seems to me people just toss about the pejorative to hide the glaring inconsistencies in, if not outright hypocritical justification of politically motivated violence. All war is violence motivated by greed lust, power lust , territory lust, trade and/or religion. Gandhi showed the true and best way IMHO. IT MAY BE A SLOWER WAY BUT IT TRIUMPHED BECAUSE GOOD TRIUMPHS OVER EVIL WHEN IT REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EVIL. AND I DISAGREE SOCIALISM IS AN IMPROVEMENT BASED UPON THIS ONE HUGE THING. A comparison of the numbers of innocent people murdered by each system. A stark difference and socialism enslaved more too. --Tyr

logroller

12-19-2013, 01:04 AM

Oh, please. Grandiose plans, and spending???? With whose money? Well certainly not the wealthy. They pretty much have their derrieres covered by shifty, "well-paid" lawyer who know the ins and outs of finding loopholes so they can keep their stingy and greedy reputations intact. If they could sacrifice a modicum of profit, to at least pay their underlings a fair and living wage, with benefits, then they needn't face the backlash suffered by "Papa John's Pizza" and Mc Donalds, and Chik-Fil-A or Wal-Mart.

And your lofty (or should I say noble and elevated) view of liberals is almost as subterranean as my view of conservatives. But not quite. The only good conservative......well, you figure out the rest.
...is a poor one?

Do you know what percentage of tax revenue comes from the top 20% of income earners? The top 10%? 1%? (Rhetorical question-- of course you don't, else you'd not make such comments)

The simple fact of the matter is the greedy rich pay far more than their "fair share" of taxes and the vast majority of the supposed beneficiaries of the progressive tax system squander their wages on that which glitters.

poet

12-19-2013, 01:05 AM

Thanks for the singalong.

Still, lack of proof doesn't necessarily deny fact.

I strongly suspect that the first outright proof anyone will have of Iran's murderous intentions towards Israel will be if we all wake up one morning to discover that Israel has some newly-acquired radioactive craters where cities used to be. Doesn't mean that you do NOTHING beforehand to alert yourself of the perils that led up to that scenario !!

Oh, please. Israel's public image is not what it used to be.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/8834-israel-opens-dam-flooding-gaza-strip-with-rainwater

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/05/26/violent-anti-african-race-riot-rocks-israel-black-men-and-women-beaten/

poet

12-19-2013, 01:09 AM

...is a poor one?

Do you know what percentage of tax revenue comes from the top 20% of income earners? The top 10%? 1%? (Rhetorical question-- of course you don't, else you'd not make such comments)

The simple fact of the matter is the greedy rich pay far more than their "fair share" of taxes and the vast majority of the supposed beneficiaries of the progressive tax system squander their wages on that which glitters.

Propaganda. Where is corroborated documentation to that effect?

fj1200

12-19-2013, 06:42 AM

http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/83147:reagan-the-great-american-socialist

Wow, Batra gets more wrong than he gets right... but not because of who he knows. ;) Though we, at least, have the benefit of hindsight and Batra didn't know back in 2009 how badly BO would do as POTUS and how his deficits would dwarf Reagan's while at the same time seeing sizable increases in income inequality.

Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

He implies that the rate cuts were the cause of what occurred, and while I agree that the phase-in of cuts would delay all the benefits of the rate cut, the recession was due to the intentional raising of interest rates by Volcker at the Fed to stem inflation. It's clear that post-war Federal revenues have almost zero to do with the top tax rate and more to do with the size of GDP any budget deficits correlate more closely to the unemployment rate. Unless of course you think that the Federal Reserve has little to do with the economy especially when the Fed Funds Rate is hiked so dramatically. Graphs available upon request.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

Were you aware that SS reform was the result of a bipartisan commission, headed by Greenspan BTW, and passed the Democratically controlled House? Do you think Batra was? Or is he just ignoring the realities of DC and attempting to give the impression that Reagan had dictatorial control of government? I'll agree that payroll taxes are very regressive but the SS payouts are also progressive in nature which ameliorates the former to some extent. Batra also doesn't mention that SS was birthed in the 30's, by a Democrat, and that the unitary budget was changed in the 60's, by a Democrat, leaving the reader to assume that all of those evils were created by Reagan himself. A tad disingenuous I'd say.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

A quick question here: Who were the main sponsors of the '86 tax reform bill? Should I wait for an answer or just let you know that it was Bradley (D) in the Senate and Gephardt (D) in the House?

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

He's wrong here too but that's a different story. :)

George Bush ... will never be a Mandela.

No, but that's not his fault. He arguably freed as many people as Mandela though.

poet

12-19-2013, 10:12 AM

Wow, Batra gets more wrong than he gets right... but not because of who he knows. ;) Though we, at least, have the benefit of hindsight and Batra didn't know back in 2009 how badly BO would do as POTUS and how his deficits would dwarf Reagan's while at the same time seeing sizable increases in income inequality.

He implies that the rate cuts were the cause of what occurred, and while I agree that the phase-in of cuts would delay all the benefits of the rate cut, the recession was due to the intentional raising of interest rates by Volcker at the Fed to stem inflation. It's clear that post-war Federal revenues have almost zero to do with the top tax rate and more to do with the size of GDP any budget deficits correlate more closely to the unemployment rate. Unless of course you think that the Federal Reserve has little to do with the economy especially when the Fed Funds Rate is hiked so dramatically. Graphs available upon request.

Were you aware that SS reform was the result of a bipartisan commission, headed by Greenspan BTW, and passed the Democratically controlled House? Do you think Batra was? Or is he just ignoring the realities of DC and attempting to give the impression that Reagan had dictatorial control of government? I'll agree that payroll taxes are very regressive but the SS payouts are also progressive in nature which ameliorates the former to some extent. Batra also doesn't mention that SS was birthed in the 30's, by a Democrat, and that the unitary budget was changed in the 60's, by a Democrat, leaving the reader to assume that all of those evils were created by Reagan himself. A tad disingenuous I'd say.

A quick question here: Who were the main sponsors of the '86 tax reform bill? Should I wait for an answer or just let you know that it was Bradley (D) in the Senate and Gephardt (D) in the House?

He's wrong here too but that's a different story. :)

No, but that's not his fault. He arguably freed as many people as Mandela though.

Batra???? Really? So, if I put you on ignore, I'm running away from dissent, and not dismissing you for disrespecting me, right?
Conservatives can't honestly debate, without getting their panties in a wad, and bringing ad hominem attacks. Not my problem.
Basically right wing nut propaganda. Bye.

fj1200

12-19-2013, 10:22 AM

H'm. Not free of snide remarks, but credit where it's due. You have at least reduced their incidence. For you, that's an achievement. Well done !

I wasn't aware I had to come up with 'new' material ? And for why, when you'd done such a lousy job with the old lot ?

Yes, when you're going to rehash old, previously refuted, arguments and then complain that I don't bother to refute said arguments then yes, you need to come up with new material.

Biology doesn't help you. One can take a DNA sample and say it had human origins. Yet, the sample wouldn't of itself be human ... it'd be just what it was. No more, no less.

A terrorist may be able to offer up DNA classifiable as human, but then, just as in the sample itself, all we're really talking about is raw material. What makes a human being human is the HUMANITY possessed by that person. But ... terrorists exhibit none when they kill and mutilate. Nor is there any human check or balance there to stop any of that from happening.

If the terrorists we're talking about are human ... then ... WHY NOT ? WHERE DID THOSE CHECKS AND BALANCES GO ?

The only answer that makes sense is to accept that they didn't exist in the first place.

There's only one part of your answer that gives pause for thought ... where you say ...

To the first bold? Thank you, that's all that is necessary to prove me correct.
To the second bold? You'll have to see below for a more detailed response but that can also be said for those who are mentally handicapped; at what point are they subhuman?

My answer, though, is simple. A mentally deranged person can act normally under certain conditions. But that doesn't prove normal mental function, just the appearance of it. Equally with your 'family man' terrorist ... we could be discussing appearance, and ONLY appearance.

Consider this. ...

So tell me. What kind of 'normal human being' takes such needless and murderous risks with the welfare of his family, as to know he risks depriving his wife of a loving husband, or his kids a loving father ? How come his NORMAL HUMANITY didn't ever manage to so normalise him, as to make his savagery completely unthinkable to him ??

There is but one conclusion, isn't there, FJ ? HE WAS NEVER A HUMAN BEING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So what you have basically just done is shoot your entire argument in the foot. Your entire argument is based on a lack of morality in what you claim is necessary to be classified as a human being. You can't possibly believe that every terrorist was "subhuman" from birth prior to being "brainwashed" into wanting to become a terrorist. Is Islam a brainwashing cult as has been alleged by some or are there some "subhuman" Christians/Hindu/Buddhists/etc. out there who just need the correct motivation to engage in terrorist activity?

There is no way you can reconcile those logical inconsistencies which means the only logical conclusion is that a human being made a conscious choice in committing despicable acts. It is logical that a family man who shows humane actions toward his family can also display inhumane actions towards his enemy especially when he is held virtually powerless against that enemy.

fj1200

12-19-2013, 10:28 AM

Batra???? Really? So, if I put you on ignore, I'm running away from dissent, and not dismissing you for disrespecting me, right?
Conservatives can't honestly debate, without getting their panties in a wad, and bringing ad hominem attacks. Not my problem.
Basically right wing nut propaganda. Bye.

Um, excuse me? That was his name. :dunno:

Ravi Batra (http://www.truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/itemlist/user/36462?Itemid=252)
I went out of my way to make specific responses to your post and allegation. Was my time wasted or did you not critically think through your link?

poet

12-19-2013, 10:28 AM

The question of WMD's in Iraq should never, ever, have been addressed ... eh ? And what terrible message would THAT have sent the world ?

Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's terrorist presence should've been left alone, and NOT tackled ? Why, because Al Qaeda would've grown a conscience and unilaterally disbanded ??

As for the Palestinians, they voted Hamas into power in Gaza ... and Hamas is a terrorist group. Yet, Israel is meant to regard Palestinians (who've NEVER had a Nation State of their own, meaning that their whole supposed 'national identity' has no real meaning) with good fellowship ?!!??

Poet, thanks for the Leftie pap. Entertaining, to be sure, but hardly indicative of how the real world operates.

LOL. Where are they? They were never found, because he didn't have any, anymore, and the sanctions were working.
George Bush was following Karl Rove's directive, to become a "wartime president", with the lowest possible denominator...wage a war with a third world country, with an assured win, therefore, besting your father (and satisfying his "daddy issues"), and then violate his own directive against "nation building".
Bush missed the opportunity to capture bin Laden on the Pakistan border (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea5e486-dcf3-11de-ad60-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2nvzhpAMW )....as it was he, and not Saddam, who was responsible for 9/11.....but don't let that minor detail unravel your rant.
And much to their chagrin, Palestinians had no say in the election of 2000, did they? Uh, in case you didn't know...I played in a band with a Palestianian-American, who happened to have been born in Kuwait, but became a naturalized U.S. citizen...and who was a Christian (Catholic) by faith.....thus dispelling the notion that all Arabs must be Muslim and anti-American. And he reiterated the 411 about Israel, and the atrocities it committed and continues to commit. Making me pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israeli government.
And you don't know me, or have a clue as to what I know about operations, on any level.

jimnyc

12-19-2013, 10:40 AM

Ah, "projecting" again. You can't exclude the reasons he did what he did, and pretend that he just "willy-nilly", was violent and aggressive for no good reason. But, hey, the truth and folks like you have never been in the same room. And excuse me, but it's above your paid grade to "grade" me...on anything. You're just a moderator in an apparently "biased" forum, falsely accusing me of racism, because the truth is too hard to handle. Typical.

No matter the reason, a terrorist act is a terrorist act. Murder is murder. Pointing out others or claiming they had some good reason doesn't change those facts. You don't go kill innocent people that did nothing to you because of your own harsh treatment. That's what animals do.

Falsely accusing you of racism? LOL Race was never brought up in our exchange, and then out of nowhere you tossed in "white government" crap. You're a racist. I've read MANY of your posts elsewhere, and it's ALWAYS a cry of racism, ALWAYS. That's what racists do.

You get an F for spelling, as it would be "pay grade", and not paid. Another F for saying "I'm just a moderator", as if it's a bad thing. You're still on an F average, you may want to start posting worth a damn! :lol:

poet

12-19-2013, 10:57 AM

No matter the reason, a terrorist act is a terrorist act. Murder is murder. Pointing out others or claiming they had some good reason doesn't change those facts. You don't go kill innocent people that did nothing to you because of your own harsh treatment. That's what animals do.

Falsely accusing you of racism? LOL Race was never brought up in our exchange, and then out of nowhere you tossed in "white government" crap. You're a racist. I've read MANY of your posts elsewhere, and it's ALWAYS a cry of racism, ALWAYS. That's what racists do.

You get an F for spelling, as it would be "pay grade", and not paid. Another F for saying "I'm just a moderator", as if it's a bad thing. You're still on an F average, you may want to start posting worth a damn! :lol:

Sez who? Conservatives, like you? Ha! You'll excuse me if I don't align myself with your viewpoint. George Zimmerman committed murder, while some label it "self defense". Fortunately, there are 2 sides to a story...and we don't have to all subscribe to just one side.
And excuse you? You spake with forked tongue. The American military has killed innocent people that did nothing to anyone, and called it "collateral damage". Are you insane?
And I am not a racist. I wasn't raised that way. And who would I be racist of? White people? Tell that to all of the white people that are friends with me on Facebook. Tell that to all of my white friends listed in my phone. Tell that to my white family members. Racists don't hang out with, socialize with, or have interactions with the objects of their hate.
What real racists do is "project" that others are the reason for their hate. Never once, self-reflecting, to see that they, themselves, are the source of their inadequacies as functioning, well-adjusted human beings in society.
Racism exists. It is alive and well with the right wing and Republicans. Deal with it. Or not. When is the last time you had any minorities in your home, treating them to something more than water? How dare you talk to me in that manner. Being a moderator, is not necessarily a "bad thing". Some, like you, make it a bad thing. Drop the God complex, and have a seat. This is just a political debate forum. And with all your collective "issues", not a very good one.

jimnyc

12-19-2013, 11:03 AM

Sez who? Conservatives, like you? Ha! You'll excuse me if I don't align myself with your viewpoint. George Zimmerman committed murder, while some label it "self defense". Fortunately, there are 2 sides to a story...and we don't have to all subscribe to just one side.
And excuse you? You spake with forked tongue. The American military has killed innocent people that did nothing to anyone, and called it "collateral damage". Are you insane?
And I am not a racist. I wasn't raised that way. And who would I be racist of? White people? Tell that to all of the white people that are friends with me on Facebook. Tell that to all of my white friends listed in my phone. Tell that to my white family members. Racists don't hang out with, socialize with, or have interactions with the objects of their hate.
What real racists do is "project" that others are the reason for their hate. Never once, self-reflecting, to see that they, themselves, are the source of their inadequacies as functioning, well-adjusted human beings in society.
Racism exists. It is alive and well with the right wing and Republicans. Deal with it. Or not. When is the last time you had any minorities in your home, treating them to something more than water? How dare you talk to me in that manner. Being a moderator, is not necessarily a "bad thing". Some, like you, make it a bad thing. Drop the God complex, and have a seat. This is just a political debate forum. And with all your collective "issues", not a very good one.

Sure, and I have "gay friends" too LOL

I don't care if you agree or not - racism is oozing out of your pores. Notice how you bring up Zimmerman, another case that raised racial tensions. You seem to bring race somehow into debates where they don't exist. I can tell that you revel in it. Are you one of those angry black men, offended by whitey for holding you back for so long, and now yo have a chip on your shoulder and all the worlds ills are the fault of the white man?

And with that said, Mandela, his nasty wife and the ANC were involved in various terrorist attacks. WHY a terrorist drops their bombs doesn't matter. They targeted innocent people, knowingly. I think they hated whitey too.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2013, 11:09 AM

Propaganda. Where is corroborated documentation to that effect?

Thanks for revealing that you had not a clue about the information he presented. Google can be your friend too if you just let it. :laugh:-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2013, 11:12 AM

Sez who? Conservatives, like you? Ha! You'll excuse me if I don't align myself with your viewpoint. George Zimmerman committed murder, while some label it "self defense". Fortunately, there are 2 sides to a story...and we don't have to all subscribe to just one side.
And excuse you? You spake with forked tongue. The American military has killed innocent people that did nothing to anyone, and called it "collateral damage". Are you insane?
And I am not a racist. I wasn't raised that way. And who would I be racist of? White people? Tell that to all of the white people that are friends with me on Facebook. Tell that to all of my white friends listed in my phone. Tell that to my white family members. Racists don't hang out with, socialize with, or have interactions with the objects of their hate.
What real racists do is "project" that others are the reason for their hate. Never once, self-reflecting, to see that they, themselves, are the source of their inadequacies as functioning, well-adjusted human beings in society.
Racism exists. It is alive and well with the right wing and Republicans. Deal with it. Or not. When is the last time you had any minorities in your home, treating them to something more than water? How dare you talk to me in that manner. Being a moderator, is not necessarily a "bad thing". Some, like you, make it a bad thing. Drop the God complex, and have a seat. This is just a political debate forum. And with all your collective "issues", not a very good one.

What real racists do is "project" that others are the reason for their hate. Never once, self-reflecting, to see that they, themselves, are the source of their inadequacies as functioning, well-adjusted human beings in society. ^^^^ Story of the black race in America right there in your own words. :laugh:-Tyr

poet

12-19-2013, 11:12 AM

Sure, and I have "gay friends" too LOL

I don't care if you agree or not - racism is oozing out of your pores. Notice how you bring up Zimmerman, another case that raised racial tensions. You seem to bring race somehow into debates where they don't exist. I can tell that you revel in it. Are you one of those angry black men, offended by whitey for holding you back for so long, and now yo have a chip on your shoulder and all the worlds ills are the fault of the white man?

And with that said, Mandela, his nasty wife and the ANC were involved in various terrorist attacks. WHY a terrorist drops their bombs doesn't matter. They targeted innocent people, knowingly. I think they hated whitey too.

Uh, whether obvious or implied...you brought up race and racism first. Sorry. And who sez race and racism doesn't exist, everywhere?
It's such your modus operandi, it's subconscious. You don't even know when you're doing it. Whitey? Who is using racial pejoratives, here?
I never think "whitey". But from your rhetoric, I know you think n-word.
Holding me back? Where are you getting this narrative? I have a published book, a music cd that received rave reviews, a following, and acclaim. What do you have? A moderatorship on one of a sea of political debate forums. A fiefdom. BFD. Not that some whites who had problems with me being black haven't tried. Alas, to no avail. Sorry to disappoint.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2013, 11:15 AM

Uh, whether obvious or implied...you brought up race and racism first. Sorry. And who sez race and racism doesn't exist, everywhere?
It's such your modus operandi, it's subconscious. You don't even know when you're doing it. Whitey? Who is using racial pejoratives, here?
I never think "whitey". But from your rhetoric, I know you think n-word.
Holding me back? Where are you getting this narrative? I have a published book, a music cd that received rave reviews, a following, and acclaim. What do you have? A moderatorship on one of a sea of political debate forums. A fiefdom. BFD. Not that some whites who had problems with me being black haven't tried. Alas, to no avail. Sorry to disappoint. So you have a crystal ball and read minds as well. A man of many fantastic hidden talents, eh? -Tyr

I never think "whitey". But from your rhetoric, I know you think n-word.

Gaffer

12-19-2013, 11:19 AM

Sez who? Conservatives, like you? Ha! You'll excuse me if I don't align myself with your viewpoint. George Zimmerman committed murder, while some label it "self defense". Fortunately, there are 2 sides to a story...and we don't have to all subscribe to just one side.
And excuse you? You spake with forked tongue. The American military has killed innocent people that did nothing to anyone, and called it "collateral damage". Are you insane?
And I am not a racist. I wasn't raised that way. And who would I be racist of? White people? Tell that to all of the white people that are friends with me on Facebook. Tell that to all of my white friends listed in my phone. Tell that to my white family members. Racists don't hang out with, socialize with, or have interactions with the objects of their hate.
What real racists do is "project" that others are the reason for their hate. Never once, self-reflecting, to see that they, themselves, are the source of their inadequacies as functioning, well-adjusted human beings in society.
Racism exists. It is alive and well with the right wing and Republicans. Deal with it. Or not. When is the last time you had any minorities in your home, treating them to something more than water? How dare you talk to me in that manner. Being a moderator, is not necessarily a "bad thing". Some, like you, make it a bad thing. Drop the God complex, and have a seat. This is just a political debate forum. And with all your collective "issues", not a very good one.

You don't like this forum? Leave.

Your just a liberal propagandist spouting the usual talking points. Do you get paid by the number of posts or time on the forum?

Yes racism exists, it's very prominent in the black community. Black Caucus, black colleges, black separatists, black panthers, black TV and more. And your as much a part of it as jackson and sharpton. Comrade poet.

By the way, Jim IS God in this forum.

poet

12-19-2013, 11:20 AM

This message is hidden because Tyr-Ziu Saxnot is on your ignore list (http://www.debatepolicy.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

poet

12-19-2013, 11:20 AM

you don't like this forum? Leave.

Your just a liberal propagandist spouting the usual talking points. Do you get paid by the number of posts or time on the forum?

Yes racism exists, it's very prominent in the black community. Black caucus, black colleges, black separatists, black panthers, black tv and more. And your as much a part of it as jackson and sharpton. Comrade poet.

By the way, jim is god in this forum.

lololol. I.q. 85

About Gaffer<dl><dt>Biography:</dt><dd>Vietnam vet, conservative atheist, islomobigot</dd></dl><dl><dt>Location:</dt><dd>O-hi-o</dd></dl><dl><dt>Occupation:</dt><dd>ummmm

wow. impressive. kinda not
</dd></dl>

jimnyc

12-19-2013, 11:24 AM

Uh, whether obvious or implied...you brought up race and racism first. Sorry. And who sez race and racism doesn't exist, everywhere?
It's such your modus operandi, it's subconscious. You don't even know when you're doing it. Whitey? Who is using racial pejoratives, here?
I never think "whitey". But from your rhetoric, I know you think n-word.
Holding me back? Where are you getting this narrative? I have a published book, a music cd that received rave reviews, a following, and acclaim. What do you have? A moderatorship on one of a sea of political debate forums. A fiefdom. BFD. Not that some whites who had problems with me being black haven't tried. Alas, to no avail. Sorry to disappoint.

Doesn't work that way, I neither implied or directly stated it. It was YOU who brought up "white government". Feel free to show me where I made race an issue in my discussion to you. I'm waiting. Still waiting. Oh, that's right, I never did do any such thing. Racist.

And you didn't disappoint. From the moment you introduced yourself as a "gay black man", I set expectations, and you have met them!

jimnyc

12-19-2013, 11:25 AM

This message is hidden because Tyr-Ziu Saxnot is on your ignore list (http://www.debatepolicy.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

Stop with the games, if he's on ignore - then ignore him, don't play games.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2013, 11:26 AM

This message is hidden because Tyr-Ziu Saxnot is on your ignore list (http://www.debatepolicy.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist). Yet you felt the great need to jab me with the evidence of your running away using a feeble excuse of getting no respect. Well Hoss, you get the respect you deserve. Enjoy seeing that message often because I enjoy pointing out your bias , errors and outright lies. :laugh:-Tyr

jimnyc

12-19-2013, 11:27 AM

<dl><dd>wow. impressive. kinda not
</dd></dl>

He's impressed me and others a lot over the years, Way more than a racist that comes in out of nowhere and acts like we still own him as a slave an is a bit upset with us.

poet

12-19-2013, 11:27 AM

Doesn't work that way, I neither implied or directly stated it. It was YOU who brought up "white government". Feel free to show me where I made race an issue in my discussion to you. I'm waiting. Still waiting. Oh, that's right, I never did do any such thing. Racist.

And you didn't disappoint. From the moment you introduced yourself as a "gay black man", I set expectations, and you have met them!

About jimnyc<dl><dt>Biography:</dt><dd>I am a dirtbag (Boy, howdy!)
</dd></dl><dl><dt>Location:</dt><dd>Westchester, New York</dd></dl><dl><dt>Interests:</dt><dd>Steelers, Boobies & Rock 'n Roll</dd></dl><dl><dt>Occupation:</dt><dd>Professional Bum - Regular bums give us a bad name!

I've been to Westchester. Nice homes. Have a cousin in Show Biz, who lives there. Hope she isn't your neighbor...you're not very nice.

</dd></dl>

poet

12-19-2013, 11:28 AM

He's impressed me and others a lot over the years, Way more than a racist that comes in out of nowhere and acts like we still own him as a slave an is a bit upset with us.

Fantasy. Not a cause for masturbation.

jimnyc

12-19-2013, 11:30 AM

About jimnyc

<dl><dt>Biography:</dt><dd>I am a dirtbag (Boy, howdy!)
</dd></dl><dl><dt>Location:</dt><dd>Westchester, New York</dd></dl><dl><dt>Interests:</dt><dd>Steelers, Boobies & Rock 'n Roll</dd></dl><dl><dt>Occupation:</dt><dd>Professional Bum - Regular bums give us a bad name!

I've been to Westchester. Nice homes. Have a cousin in Show Biz, who lives there. Hope she isn't your neighbor...you're not very nice.

</dd></dl>

Please stop taking threads off topic, and pasting things like this in them.

poet

12-19-2013, 11:34 AM

Please stop taking threads off topic, and pasting things like this in them.

Or what? Please stop taking threads off topic, making ad hominem attacks, and accusing folk of being racist, when that is just an excuse and deflection from your own racism and homophobia.

jimnyc

12-19-2013, 11:35 AM

Poet removed from thread.

jimnyc

12-19-2013, 11:36 AM

Or what? Please stop taking threads off topic, making ad hominem attacks, and accusing folk of being racist, when that is just an excuse and deflection from your own racism and homophobia.

It would have been just as simple to just not goad people you supposedly have on ignore, or not pasting peoples profiles into your posts, as posts. I asked politely on both cases, outside of any debate. You refused.

Drummond

12-19-2013, 02:30 PM

Socialism is arguably an improvement over apartheid.

Give me a couple of years to ponder that one ..... I'm not all that sure I'm convinced.

And so far as murdered citizens go, as I pointed out previously, the deaths in South Africa were comparatively lower than any other revolution I can think of.

OK .. can you define for us what is, and what is not, an 'acceptable' kill rate for 'less productive' terrorists ??

And would any such thinking you might want to indulge, undergo something of a sea change if a loved one just happened to be one of the victims ?

So what does it matter if its "terrorism" or "war", "murder" or "killing" -- seems to me people just toss about the pejorative to hide the glaring inconsistencies in, if not outright hypocritical justification of politically motivated violence.

Fighting Hitler could've been said to be 'politically motivated violence'. After all, there was an alliance there that wanted to defeat Hitler's Third Reich. Do I understand that you see that as 'wrong' as, say, Osama bin Laden's lot flying aircraft into skyscrapers ?

Terrorism, I suggest, is a VERY much worse thing than defending against a tyrannical world power !!

Drummond

12-19-2013, 03:02 PM

LOL. Where are they? They were never found, because he didn't have any, anymore, and the sanctions were working.

NOT TRUE. Here's the proof that you're wrong about Iraq's WMD's:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3492930/Iraq-WMD-Declassified

Read it for yourself .. you'll see that in excess of FIVE HUNDRED were found. Were they in pristine condition ? NO ... but then, UN Resolution 1441 didn't require them to be, in order to qualify as WMD's subject to its sanction.

I'm well aware that your enslavement to a Leftie script will have you reject this evidence out of hand .. just as much of the world's press stayed silent, when Rick Santorum convened a Press conference to lay out these facts to news agencies .. but nonetheless, the truth is there to be seen, if you look for it !!

George Bush was following Karl Rove's directive, to become a "wartime president", with the lowest possible denominator...wage a war with a third world country, with an assured win, therefore, besting your father (and satisfying his "daddy issues"), and then violate his own directive against "nation building".

Pure Leftie bilge. GW Bush wanted his Administration to KEEP OUT of foreign affairs and interests as much as possible .. BUT .. 9/11 forced him to radically rethink his intentions. Bush reacted to events he had no part in shaping, and he did so in the furtherance of the best interests of the US and the wider Western World.

... and the Left hates him for it ...

Bush missed the opportunity to capture bin Laden on the Pakistan border (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea5e486-dcf3-11de-ad60-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2nvzhpAMW )

Is that so ? Well, tell me, how diligent was Bill Clinton on that ? Bin Laden was a terrorist on HIS watch, too, after all ...

....as it was he, and not Saddam, who was responsible for 9/11.....but don't let that minor detail unravel your rant.

Here, granted, you're correct .. of course. But, what of it ? Saddam's regime was aggressive, maverick, it even bankrolled Hamas (!!) ... and as we know, but which Lefties never want to admit to, Saddam WAS known to definitely possess WMD's up to the time of Gulf War #1 (the surviving Kurds attest to that one). Yet ... just because the Left prefers it that way, and for no other reason (!!) ... 'suddenly', because Saddam just declares he has no WMD's, the world was expected simply to TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT ??

Ridiculous !! Yet, the Left insisted that the whole world buy into that crazy myopic blindness.

UN inspections were a farce. Only military action stood a chance of resolving a thing. And even considering this ... Saddam had a window of around six months to move all the WMD's he wanted out of Iraq.

Syria was widely tipped as their destination .. and as we all know, Syria has a WMD arsenal ? YES ?? WHERE FROM, ORIGINALLY ?

And much to their chagrin, Palestinians had no say in the election of 2000, did they? Uh, in case you didn't know...I played in a band with a Palestianian-American, who happened to have been born in Kuwait, but became a naturalized U.S. citizen...and who was a Christian (Catholic) by faith.....thus dispelling the notion that all Arabs must be Muslim and anti-American.

Proving what ? Your one friend proved the bona fides of ALL Arabs ???

How impressive, to be sure.

And he reiterated the 411 about Israel, and the atrocities it committed and continues to commit. Making me pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israeli government.

Yes. I'd noticed, thanks (how typically Leftie of you). Tell me, are you supportive of Hamas, and all of their terrorism ? How do you feel about bombs being strapped on to kids ?

And you don't know me, or have a clue as to what I know about operations, on any level.

.. or even IF you have a clue about such things, at all. Quite !!

But I can easily tell you what you DO have.

You have a Left-wing agenda - which I, for one, will not buy into for a single nanosecond.

Drummond

12-19-2013, 03:12 PM

Oh, please. Israel's public image is not what it used to be.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/8834-israel-opens-dam-flooding-gaza-strip-with-rainwater

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/05/26/violent-anti-african-race-riot-rocks-israel-black-men-and-women-beaten/

Sorry .. I'm not entirely sure I'm following this.

Am I to understand that Israel's 'public image' (in large measure manufactured by propagandist pieces, in any case ..) .. means that it becomes some sort of legitimate target for any Holocaustal plans Iran may have in mind ??

This is the message I infer from your posting of your links in response to me. If that's not correct, then I suggest that YOU, TOO, speak out against genocide, or any prospect of it !!

aboutime

12-19-2013, 04:09 PM

NOT TRUE. Here's the proof that you're wrong about Iraq's WMD's:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3492930/Iraq-WMD-Declassified

Read it for yourself .. you'll see that in excess of FIVE HUNDRED were found. Were they in pristine condition ? NO ... but then, UN Resolution 1441 didn't require them to be, in order to qualify as WMD's subject to its sanction.

I'm well aware that your enslavement to a Leftie script will have you reject this evidence out of hand .. just as much of the world's press stayed silent, when Rick Santorum convened a Press conference to lay out these facts to news agencies .. but nonetheless, the truth is there to be seen, if you look for it !!

Pure Leftie bilge. GW Bush wanted his Administration to KEEP OUT of foreign affairs and interests as much as possible .. BUT .. 9/11 forced him to radically rethink his intentions. Bush reacted to events he had no part in shaping, and he did so in the furtherance of the best interests of the US and the wider Western World.

... and the Left hates him for it ...

Is that so ? Well, tell me, how diligent was Bill Clinton on that ? Bin Laden was a terrorist on HIS watch, too, after all ...

Here, granted, you're correct .. of course. But, what of it ? Saddam's regime was aggressive, maverick, it even bankrolled Hamas (!!) ... and as we know, but which Lefties never want to admit to, Saddam WAS known to definitely possess WMD's up to the time of Gulf War #1 (the surviving Kurds attest to that one). Yet ... just because the Left prefers it that way, and for no other reason (!!) ... 'suddenly', because Saddam just declares he has no WMD's, the world was expected simply to TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT ??

Ridiculous !! Yet, the Left insisted that the whole world buy into that crazy myopic blindness.

UN inspections were a farce. Only military action stood a chance of resolving a thing. And even considering this ... Saddam had a window of around six months to move all the WMD's he wanted out of Iraq.

Syria was widely tipped as their destination .. and as we all know, Syria has a WMD arsenal ? YES ?? WHERE FROM, ORIGINALLY ?

Proving what ? Your one friend proved the bona fides of ALL Arabs ???

How impressive, to be sure.

Yes. I'd noticed, thanks (how typically Leftie of you). Tell me, are you supportive of Hamas, and all of their terrorism ? How do you feel about bombs being strapped on to kids ?

.. or even IF you have a clue about such things, at all. Quite !!

But I can easily tell you what you DO have.

You have a Left-wing agenda - which I, for one, will not buy into for a single nanosecond.

Sir Drummond. How terribly comical they are, never mentioning how the WMD's WERE found in several places...such as in Syria. The Bush haters are still working overtime to prove their lies are far more interesting than THE REAL TRUTH...they ignore, and intentionally DO NOT want to hear, or be shown.

Also. You must remember. Anyone like this who admires Obama, and Jesse (I want poor peoples money) Jackson, and Liar Al (notso)Sharpton so much. Uses false claims, and known lies as their lowered, educational experience.

Drummond

12-19-2013, 09:37 PM

Yes, when you're going to rehash old, previously refuted, arguments and then complain that I don't bother to refute said arguments then yes, you need to come up with new material.

Translation: copping out of arguments put isn't going to stop. Stop expecting anything else ! Either come up with arguments I have a chance of countering ... if you put arguments too strong, too good, to answer ... I'll keep on evading answering them.

Such is your position, FJ.

To the first bold? Thank you, that's all that is necessary to prove me correct.

UTTER ROT !

Slice a wafer-thin piece of skin from anyone possessing human DNA .. then claim that the skin itself is a human being !

WHAT UTTER NONSENSE.

OK, THEN. We're all carbon based life forms .. every human being on the planet is, so .... get a sample of carbon, and you've got yourself a completely viable human being ???

WEIRD ...

But never mind, FJ. Keep copping out, and/or keep offering up nonsense. It's what you're reduced to, now. RAW MATERIAL IS RAW MATERIAL. ONLY A COMPLETE HUMAN BEING QUALIFIES AS ONE !!

To the second bold? You'll have to see below for a more detailed response but that can also be said for those who are mentally handicapped; at what point are they subhuman?

I have never stated, myself, in any words of mine, that those 'mentally handicapped' are less than human. But you insist on trying to demonise my position with that issue. A diversion ... well, yes, of course it is. Desperation .. undoubtedly. It's pretty much all you have left to you. That and crossings out, rewrites, shameless copouts ...

So what you have basically just done is shoot your entire argument in the foot. Your entire argument is based on a lack of morality in what you claim is necessary to be classified as a human being. You can't possibly believe that every terrorist was "subhuman" from birth prior to being "brainwashed" into wanting to become a terrorist. Is Islam a brainwashing cult as has been alleged by some or are there some "subhuman" Christians/Hindu/Buddhists/etc. out there who just need the correct motivation to engage in terrorist activity?

Depends on the individual. Some never possessed humanity. Some have had it driven out of them. Fact is, whatever the precise mechanism causing it, a subhuman is a being devoid of humanity. And a terrorist CANNOT HELP BUT QUALIFY,

There is no way you can reconcile those logical inconsistencies which means the only logical conclusion is that a human being made a conscious choice in committing despicable acts. It is logical that a family man who shows humane actions toward his family can also display inhumane actions towards his enemy especially when he is held virtually powerless against that enemy.

Already answered. A loving, caring family man who also 'risks all' through terrorist acts - to say nothing of cold-bloodedly depriving OTHER families of loved ones !!! - cannot possibly qualify as human, regardless of superficial appearances. Where's the humanity, the empathy, that would kick in to prevent the subhuman act from being committed ??

Answer: IT DOESN'T EXIST. QED.

logroller

12-19-2013, 10:33 PM

Propaganda. Where is corroborated documentation to that effect?
Where? Why in the tax rolls, of course. I googled 'percent tax base by quintile' and found this first off:

Higher-income households pay much more in federal taxes than do their lower-income counterparts: They have a much greater share of the nation’s before-tax income, and they pay a much larger proportion of that income in taxes. Households in the top quintile (including the top percentile) paid 68.8 percent of all federal taxes, households in the middle quintile paid 9.1 percent, and those in the bottom quintile paid 0.4 percent of federal taxes.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2013, 11:08 PM

fj1200

12-19-2013, 11:45 PM

So yes muslim terrorists are not human...

So... just Muslim terrorists. Sorry, but they qualify as well.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-19-2013, 11:53 PM

So... just Muslim terrorists. Sorry, but they qualify as well. So we disagree . Certainly not a big deal to me. You likely have your reasons as do I in believing the way you do. I am a hard boiled egg that takes a stand and the raiders from hell cant budge me. Nobody and no other group on earth teaches murder of innocent people as does Islam. Just a fact that I take one way and others choose to basically ignore. -Tyr

fj1200

12-20-2013, 12:04 AM

Translation: copping out of arguments put isn't going to stop. Stop expecting anything else ! Either come up with arguments I have a chance of countering ... if you put arguments too strong, too good, to answer ... I'll keep on evading answering them.

Such is your position, FJ.

What did I cop out of? I systematically took your reasoning apart. Sucks for you but it's true.

UTTER ROT !

Slice a wafer-thin piece of skin from anyone possessing human DNA .. then claim that the skin itself is a human being !

WHAT UTTER NONSENSE.

OK, THEN. We're all carbon based life forms .. every human being on the planet is, so .... get a sample of carbon, and you've got yourself a completely viable human being ???

WEIRD ...

But never mind, FJ. Keep copping out, and/or keep offering up nonsense. It's what you're reduced to, now. RAW MATERIAL IS RAW MATERIAL. ONLY A COMPLETE HUMAN BEING QUALIFIES AS ONE !!

You do come up with the most inane logic one can imagine. You are correct in that some skin cell is not going to jump out of your closet and scare you but that's only mere deflection rather than face reality isn't it?

I have never stated, myself, in any words of mine, that those 'mentally handicapped' are less than human. But you insist on trying to demonise my position with that issue. A diversion ... well, yes, of course it is. Desperation .. undoubtedly. It's pretty much all you have left to you. That and crossings out, rewrites, shameless copouts ...

Again, it's the failure of the definition that you posted is what is in question. You can keep running from that definition or just own up to it; the mentally handicapped are subhuman at what level?

Depends on the individual. Some never possessed humanity. Some have had it driven out of them. Fact is, whatever the precise mechanism causing it, a subhuman is a being devoid of humanity. And a terrorist CANNOT HELP BUT QUALIFY,

So at this point you're now backing away from your logic in the last post; which argument do I have to take apart this time? That they were always subhuman or they became subhuman? If they were always subhuman then they apparently never felt the pure joy of childhood and if they became "subhuman" then you admit to their humanity in the first place. Which brings up the question that you avoided; Is Islam a brainwashing cult or are there subhumans out there just waiting for the trigger?

Already answered. A loving, caring family man who also 'risks all' through terrorist acts - to say nothing of cold-bloodedly depriving OTHER families of loved ones !!! - cannot possibly qualify as human, regardless of superficial appearances. Where's the humanity, the empathy, that would kick in to prevent the subhuman act from being committed ??

Answer: IT DOESN'T EXIST. QED.

False: You and I may not like what they do but nevertheless they are human beings and your logical failures can't just be written off with some stroke of failed logic; It doesn't work that way. Besides, you still have not countered the facts that your worldview has been rejected and we've not been wiped off the earth because we don't understand the "true nature" of the enemy. Human beings do despicable acts all of the time, complete with a lacking of "humanity and empathy," and they are not declared subhuman and dispensed with by a bullet; there is no consistency in your argument; only desperation.

So it seems we've come full circle again in just two posts, you lacking new material and back to the rehash. But congratulations on not going to that leftie crutch of yours, it's possible that you may have witnessed an actual leftie and now understand the difference. :poke:

fj1200

12-20-2013, 12:06 AM

So we disagree . Certainly not a big deal to me. You likely have your reasons as do I in believing the way you do. I am a hard boiled egg that takes a stand and the raiders from hell cant budge me. Nobody and no other group on earth teaches murder of innocent people as does Islam. Just a fact that I take one way and others choose to basically ignore. -Tyr

We can disagree but I'm not sure who's ignoring that... in a non-Muslim thread btw. This one's about those commie bastards. :poke:

:laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-20-2013, 08:02 AM

We can disagree but I'm not sure who's ignoring that... in a non-Muslim thread btw. This one's about those commie bastards. :poke:

:laugh: Well you know how it is , they both murder so many people I sometimes think they are the same murdering bastards. I do think the commies are ahead on that count as Islam murdered (est.) 260 million in just over 1400 years while the commies have murdered between 85 and 100 million(low est.) in just a few decades alone. Those numbers are nothing to scoff at my friend. One religious entity and one political entity together have almost 400 million people they murdered. No other entity even comes close to those two! So my speaking of one when the subject is the other should be somewhat understandable, n'est -ce pas? --Tyr

fj1200

12-20-2013, 09:27 AM

Well you know how it is , they both murder so many people I sometimes think they are the same murdering bastards. ...

People murder people and ideology may enable them to believe that their opposition is not worthy or in the way. I prefer that we not stoop to their level; we're better than that.

Drummond

12-20-2013, 02:41 PM

What did I cop out of? I systematically took your reasoning apart. Sucks for you but it's true.

Simply untrue.

I assert that terrorists are subhuman - that their thoughts and actions prove it. Other than basically saying 'I don't agree', and 'If they possess human DNA, then they must be human beings', you've neither said nor done anything to usefully counter my assertion.

You do come up with the most inane logic one can imagine. You are correct in that some skin cell is not going to jump out of your closet and scare you but that's only mere deflection rather than face reality isn't it?

Translation: you don't like my reasoning, but you can't usefully fault it. So you 'rubbish' it, instead.

Again, it's the failure of the definition that you posted is what is in question. You can keep running from that definition or just own up to it; the mentally handicapped are subhuman at what level?

Already covered. And AGAIN, you're trying to make my view identify with a portion of a posted definition that I have never argued as true myself !! This is just a repeated effort to demonise and discredit, based on something I myself, personally, have never recognised to be a truth.

You say you're NOT a Leftie ? Who ELSE but a Leftie would have the temerity to insist upon telling me what I must be thinking, or am REQUIRED to think,. regardless of what's true ????

So at this point you're now backing away from your logic in the last post; which argument do I have to take apart this time? That they were always subhuman or they became subhuman? If they were always subhuman then they apparently never felt the pure joy of childhood and if they became "subhuman" then you admit to their humanity in the first place. Which brings up the question that you avoided; Is Islam a brainwashing cult or are there subhumans out there just waiting for the trigger?

This is again diversionary (you do a lot of this). I have consistently said, in more posts than I care to count on this forum, that terrorists are, indeed MUST BE, SUBHUMAN. That is simple fact.

Whether they've managed to be subhuman from the very moment they first took a breath is a diversion from the truth I've been concerned with throughout. Unless .. you assert that a newborn baby is/can be a terrorist ? A TERRORIST IS SUBHUMAN - STATED TRUTH, EVIDENT FACT.

Now, to address your diversionary point ... it's surely obvious that individuals will differ. Some will never have had the capacity for normal empathies and human standards. Some may have had childhoods from which they emerged critically damaged, less than theoretically they could have been. Some, again, will have been radicalised and been converted from reasonable human beings into savage monsters.

It depends on the individual as to what's true.

Have I been critical, or at all 'effusive', about the mechanism by which a terrorist becomes one ? I don't believe so. What I HAVE done is to assert a simple but very obvious truth: a terrorist cannot be human .. since the capacity for humanity within that individual would've prevented the terrorism from being meted out. In those individuals who commit terrorism, such balancing standards or human empathies MUST be absent. Ergo, a terrorist is subhuman.

You talk about human DNA as though this is all that matters. I have tried to point out to you that mere raw material does NOT, of itself, prove humanity, therefore, the existence of a human being AS such. But you've avoided recognising this obvious truth.

If anyone's evading unwelcome truths, FJ, it is you .. not me.

False: You and I may not like what they do but nevertheless they are human beings and your logical failures can't just be written off with some stroke of failed logic; It doesn't work that way. Besides, you still have not countered the facts that your worldview has been rejected and we've not been wiped off the earth because we don't understand the "true nature" of the enemy. Human beings do despicable acts all of the time, complete with a lacking of "humanity and empathy," and they are not declared subhuman and dispensed with by a bullet; there is no consistency in your argument; only desperation.

All you're really saying here is that you choose to believe that terrorists are human. There's no proof offered, evidence ditto, to back you up. You just say it, therefore, 'it must be true'.

As for being 'wiped off the earth' ... well, 9/11 happened, and nobody expected any act of such savagery to be visited upon the US. Well .... DID THEY ??

So, who can say what the future may bring ? And, in fact, how much of it might've been avoidable, if terrorist true subhumanity had been understood, and its consequences forseen. Perhaps your 'wiped off the earth' suggestion will find its real-life equivalent in months or years to come ??

So it seems we've come full circle again in just two posts, you lacking new material and back to the rehash. But congratulations on not going to that leftie crutch of yours, it's possible that you may have witnessed an actual leftie and now understand the difference. :poke:

We've only come 'full circle' because of your evasions, and your insistence upon rejecting a truth that's staring you in the face. And as for witnessing 'an actual leftie', there are different versions of them. Commonly, there are Lefties who are unashamedly Leftie, and push their rot for all they're worth.

Less common, yet NOT unknown, are your type. People such as you and Sullivan seek to persuade that you're something you're not. THAT is the difference.

logroller

12-21-2013, 05:09 AM

Give me a couple of years to ponder that one ..... I'm not all that sure I'm convinced.
probably worthy of its own thread.

OK .. can you define for us what is, and what is not, an 'acceptable' kill rate for 'less productive' terrorists ???
Define 'terrorists'. I believe 'acceptable' anything is subject to the alternatives. If I wanted the best deal on a while supplies last item and killed just to save money, even one death is unacceptable. A tv or even a new house is something which one can go without, albeit one may suffer some grievance but such would be petty compared to the suffered grievance of even one life lost. The same couldn't be said for pursuit of freedom.
I don't believe there is any rate greater than zero that would be acceptable under any and all circumstances, but surely a lesser rate is more acceptable. Thus, comparing the rate between India and SA, the lesser death toll is more acceptable. Unless you believe that more lives lost can be preferred over less, I fail to understand the pragmatism of your position--that all acts that affect terror are unjustifiable-- however principled you believe it to be.

And would any such thinking you might want to indulge, undergo something of a sea change if a loved one just happened to be one of the victims ?

Again, subject to the alternative of what, exactly, ie living under an institution of oppression? No. I'd accept such as necessary to overcome an immoral institution; for my pertinacity is not dissuaded by emotion. That's why I don't find words like 'murder' and 'terrorism' overtly persuasive. They're bad, I get that, but there's far more insidious occurrences.

Fighting Hitler could've been said to be 'politically motivated violence'. After all, there was an alliance there that wanted to defeat Hitler's Third Reich. Do I understand that you see that as 'wrong' as, say, Osama bin Laden's lot flying aircraft into skyscrapers ?
that would depend upon the goal. Defeating the third reich is a goal worthy of lives, even those of innocents, lost to achieve. What was the goal of OBL... A return to a stone-age theocracy? Not worth it by a long-shot.

Terrorism, I suggest, is a VERY much worse thing than defending against a tyrannical world power !!
Terrorism...like say, Dresden.

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.

The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#CITEREFTaylor20 05

Churchill notes that the pretexts, of all out war against a formidable foe I assume, do little to assuage a less-preferred end. With respect to the above memo it is worth mentioning that there were strategic interests in Dresden. Churchill was a politician, not a military strategist. Nonetheless terror is a tool, and an effective one under the right pretexts. Overcoming an oppressive regime with a minimal loss of life seems an acceptable course.

fj1200

12-21-2013, 07:28 AM

Simply untrue.

I assert that terrorists are subhuman - that their thoughts and actions prove it. Other than basically saying 'I don't agree', and 'If they possess human DNA, then they must be human beings', you've neither said nor done anything to usefully counter my assertion.

Translation: you don't like my reasoning, but you can't usefully fault it. So you 'rubbish' it, instead.

:facepalm99: I have utterly destroyed your argument and you seek to cover your failure in loads upon loads of more rehashing your tired hatred.

Already covered. And AGAIN, you're trying to make my view identify with a portion of a posted definition that I have never argued as true myself !! This is just a repeated effort to demonise and discredit, based on something I myself, personally, have never recognised to be a truth.

You say you're NOT a Leftie ? Who ELSE but a Leftie would have the temerity to insist upon telling me what I must be thinking, or am REQUIRED to think,. regardless of what's true ????

:laugh: You seek more proof that you are a big-government err, nationalist hackery? When your tired logic repeatedly fails you we're all subjected to you bringing up past your failures, i.e. your "leftie" crutch, your Sullivan fetish, your Gitmo diversion, etc., and then you say the above. Your failure is epic.

Besides, nobody is telling you what to think; I am merely telling you that what you think is wrong. There is a difference there but undoubtedly you don't understand that either. Perhaps I'll make it easier for you to answer the question; are the mentally handicapped subhuman? Your definition requires you to accept or to reject it. At least now you don't have to put a number on it.

This is again diversionary (you do a lot of this). I have consistently said, in more posts than I care to count on this forum, that terrorists are, indeed MUST BE, SUBHUMAN. That is simple fact.

Whether they've managed to be subhuman from the very moment they first took a breath is a diversion from the truth I've been concerned with throughout. Unless .. you assert that a newborn baby is/can be a terrorist ? A TERRORIST IS SUBHUMAN - STATED TRUTH, EVIDENT FACT.

Now, to address your diversionary point ... it's surely obvious that individuals will differ. Some will never have had the capacity for normal empathies and human standards. Some may have had childhoods from which they emerged critically damaged, less than theoretically they could have been. Some, again, will have been radicalised and been converted from reasonable human beings into savage monsters.

It depends on the individual as to what's true.

Have I been critical, or at all 'effusive', about the mechanism by which a terrorist becomes one ? I don't believe so. What I HAVE done is to assert a simple but very obvious truth: a terrorist cannot be human .. since the capacity for humanity within that individual would've prevented the terrorism from being meted out. In those individuals who commit terrorism, such balancing standards or human empathies MUST be absent. Ergo, a terrorist is subhuman.

You talk about human DNA as though this is all that matters. I have tried to point out to you that mere raw material does NOT, of itself, prove humanity, therefore, the existence of a human being AS such. But you've avoided recognising this obvious truth.

If anyone's evading unwelcome truths, FJ, it is you .. not me.

What unwelcome truth am I evading? The "facts" you like to state are nothing of the sort yet somehow you think that you get to repeat your discredited blather uninhibited; it's laughable. What makes you even more of a hack is the inability to recognize that no one, outside of some middle eastern dictators, follows your prescription and we have not been subjected to terror acts daily. You can't even stay on topic and decide if your "subhuman" terrorists were that from birth or brainwashed into exhibiting abhorrent behavior. If they were such from birth then we would be subject to much more terror attacks, which destroys your mentally handicapped subhuman definition btw, and if they were such later on then you would have to admit that they are human and have exhibited human sympathies and empathies. Of course you won't to anything; you're too deep in the rabbit hole.

All you're really saying here is that you choose to believe that terrorists are human. There's no proof offered, evidence ditto, to back you up. You just say it, therefore, 'it must be true'.

As for being 'wiped off the earth' ... well, 9/11 happened, and nobody expected any act of such savagery to be visited upon the US. Well .... DID THEY ??
So, who can say what the future may bring ? And, in fact, how much of it might've been avoidable, if terrorist true subhumanity had been understood, and its consequences forseen. Perhaps your 'wiped off the earth' suggestion will find its real-life equivalent in months or years to come ??

Exactly, nobody expected it which is why it was successful. All I'm saying is that terrorists are human; truth, fact, logic, and reason determine it to be so. Fear does not determine the opposite which is the basis for your position and your rejecting of said truth, fact, logic, and reason.

We've only come 'full circle' because of your evasions, and your insistence upon rejecting a truth that's staring you in the face. And as for witnessing 'an actual leftie', there are different versions of them. Commonly, there are Lefties who are unashamedly Leftie, and push their rot for all they're worth.

Less common, yet NOT unknown, are your type. People such as you and Sullivan seek to persuade that you're something you're not. THAT is the difference.

:laugh: Thank you for admitting your failure in being able to argue a stated point without attempts to bring in previously failed, and identified as such, attempts at deflection. :laugh: Any more of your statements that I am "diversionary" is UTTERLY discredited and shows you to be a hypocrite.

Shall we identify another of your FAILURES? Point out my leftie positions? :laugh: I await your continued FAILURE.