NationStates Jolt Archive

He promoted the use of suicidal tactics. Only suicidal people would go up against an army without any weapons. If he would have tried this tactic centuries earlier, they would have all likely been cut down.

He tried to forcefully take over a salt factory resulting in the severe beating of several of his suicidal followers.

He used one of the most deplorable military tactics ever known to man by making the English feel guilty. A low blow by just about any mans standards.

He still has a large contingent of followers who like to quote him any chance they get to try to make people feel guilty. Which almost seems surprisingly similar to other religious fundamentalist extremist groups.

The followers of Gandhi will gladly let themselves be beaten to a pulp and possibly die for their cause if it means gaining converts. Which is similar in the way that suicide bombers try to kill off their enemy, well not always their enemy but the people that they’re enemy are supposed to protect. It is a means of undermining the trust of the government in both cases. .

Gandhi didn’t want to fight a war against the English. He wanted the English to fight the English. Just like Terrorists don’t want to fight other countries. They want the people of the country to fight their own government.

I submit to you that Gandhi is the father of all modern terrorism. Although that might not exactly be what his plans were, it seems more and more likely that it was an end result. Then again if even the best ideas can be corrupted than so can pacifism.

I hate Gandhi, the British should have killed him before he got popular.

Actually, the USSR (under Lenin) invented modern terror.

He promoted the use of suicidal tactics. Only suicidal people would go up against an army without any weapons. If he would have tried this tactic centuries earlier, they would have all likely been cut down.

He tried to forcefully take over a salt factory resulting in the severe beating of several of his suicidal followers.

He used one of the most deplorable military tactics ever known to man by making the English feel guilty. A low blow by just about any mans standards.

He still has a large contingent of followers who like to quote him any chance they get to try to make people feel guilty. Which almost seems surprisingly similar to other religious fundamentalist extremist groups.

The followers of Gandhi will gladly let themselves be beaten to a pulp and possibly die for their cause if it means gaining converts. Which is similar in the way that suicide bombers try to kill off their enemy, well not always their enemy but the people that they’re enemy are supposed to protect. It is a means of undermining the trust of the government in both cases. .

Gandhi didn’t want to fight a war against the English. He wanted the English to fight the English. Just like Terrorists don’t want to fight other countries. They want the people of the country to fight their own government.

I submit to you that Gandhi is the father of all modern terrorism. Although that might not exactly be what his plans were, it seems more and more likely that it was an end result. Then again if even the best ideas can be corrupted than so can pacifism.

Violence probably was his goal. Just because he said he was nonviolent doesn't make it true. Look at Martin Luther King, Jr., for example. He always prattled about 'nonviolence,' yet every time he said that, blood spilled. King's goal was to provoke violence, not end it.

lol are you guys serious?

this is completely ridiculous. If you preach and practice non-violence then you must obviously want bloodshed and death for all. :rolleyes:

lol, okay I reread and see the joke now. i r dumb and will take that cyanide pill now.

although I don't think Endo was joking and therefore feel sorry for that one.

lol are you guys serious?

this is completely ridiculous. If you preach and practice non-violence then you must obviously want bloodshed and death for all. :rolleyes:

I never said that. I simply said that, just because somebody preached nonviolence, didn't mean they were nonviolent.

you DID say it "King's goal was to provoke violence, not end it. "

Getting beaten up, and blowing people up. Very similar I would think. [/sarcasm]

Gandhi didn’t want to fight a war against the English. He wanted the English to fight the English. Just like Terrorists don’t want to fight other countries. They want the people of the country to fight their own government.

Now where the hell did you get this from?

Salt Factory?? He went to a baech to get salt from the ocean. A bit different dont you think?

And I think your confusing the whole guilt thing with the Catholic Church.

I personally dont like Gandhi, but not for the reasons you put forward. Get your facts straight.

He used one of the most deplorable military tactics ever known to man by making the English feel guilty. A low blow by just about any mans standards.


This is absolutely the best troll ever! Gandhi was a terrorist because he made British feel quilty? Ruuaaaahhhahahahahaaaa. sorry. Couldn't help it.

Do you think Gandhi PHARMED?

What are you blathering on about?

There's a difference between getting beaten to a pulp and willing to die for a cause, and blowing yourself up and others along with you for a cause.

Ghandi was one of the founders of NON-VIOLENT revolution. It takes training to be able to stand still and take a beating without retaliating. There are courses you can go on.

The other founders, if my Anarchism and Contemporary Global Protest module wasn't a waste of time, were Tolstoy and Kropotkin. Tolstoy was the major influence for both Ghandi and Kropotkin, two different anarchist revolutionaries.

Anyway, during an analogy between Ghandi's suicide tactics (if he even encouraged any) and the suicide bombers of today is completely illogical. Non-violent ideology is a recent concept in mans conscious. Suicide bombers and other suicidal killers have been around for AT LEAST a century.

He used one of the most deplorable military tactics ever known to man by making the English feel guilty. A low blow by just about any mans standards.

they took over his country... a country that was around since the dawn of civilization...

Would his post constitute flame bait?

kamakazi

Especially if you are American doesn't because If I'm correct you celebrate Alamo and even some also Custer in your history. Both clearly suicidal american should they also be blame for terrorism? That Gandhi and Marthin Luther King did was to find a really good way to fight oppresive and brutal regimes but who had a people with concience. For example in a normal democracy they woudn't had that kind of bloody response to their peacful demonstration and in a Nort Corea type of dictatorship they would have been killed while the radio and television station played operamusic. And that is your oponion they should have done instead accept they condition (in India being oppressed by a small country on the others side of the world (in America the oppresive apharteid system). Or should they start a violent war it could have work in India but the result whould have been totall bloadshed and it would have been hard to create a stable goverment afterwards. In america that strategy wouldn't have work because the black was a minority but they could have lead to alot of killed people.

If you were trying to start a flame war, you forgot to say that

Ghandi was GAY! Gay, gay, gay!

lol - read the first posters signature

Well, there are rumors that suggest that he was smoking weed on a regular basis.

And that he was going to vote for W.

Especially if you are American doesn't because If I'm correct you celebrate Alamo and even some also Custer in your history. Both clearly suicidal american should they also be blame for terrorism?Uh, Custer was far from suicidal, he actually thought it was gonna be a massacre the other way around (like it had been in his previous encounters) and was racing to reap what he thought would be first glory for his troops in the 1876 Indian campaign. He had no idea the tables would be turned on him. And the Alamo defenders weren't provoking the confrontation, they were defending, true against long odds, but they nevertheless hoped to come out alive.

they took over his country... a country that was around since the dawn of civilization...

*cough* *cough* :rolleyes:


As for the subject matter... I only have this to say to you:

"BBBBAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

You are one of those people who also proclaim that Mandela was a terrorist, and that G.W.B. is the rightful ruler of the universe.. correct?

*cough* *cough* :rolleyes:


As for the subject matter... I only have this to say to you:

"BBBBAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

You are one of those people who also proclaim that Mandela was a terrorist, and that G.W.B. is the rightful ruler of the universe.. correct?

what the hell?

where do you get that from, other than thin air or your ass?

I just remembered another.

Ghandi won three purple hearts.

*cough* *cough* :rolleyes:


As for the subject matter... I only have this to say to you:

"BBBBAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

You are one of those people who also proclaim that Mandela was a terrorist, and that G.W.B. is the rightful ruler of the universe.. correct?

Mandela was a terrorist.

Terrorists try to kill as many people as possible. Ghandi didn't kill people. Many terrorists do want to fight other countries. (Well, most terrorist groups fight the government of their country.)

But in the context of global terrorism, Al-Qaeda openly states that they want to fight against America and Europe. They have not caoused any civil wars to break out. (No, hard-fought election campaigns don't count as civil wars!)

As for Nelson Mandela, he actually was a terrorist who fought South Africa's Nazi government. That's what he was imprisoned for.

Terrorists try to kill as many people as possible. Ghandi didn't kill people. Many terrorists do want to fight other countries. (Well, most terrorist groups fight the government of their country.)

But in the context of global terrorism, Al-Qaeda openly states that they want to fight against America and Europe. They have not caoused any civil wars to break out. (No, hard-fought election campaigns don't count as civil wars!)

As for Nelson Mandela, he actually was a terrorist who fought South Africa's Nazi government. That's what he was imprisoned for.

South Africa did not have a Nazi government.

Of course South Africa didn't have a nazi government- white people could vote for who they wanted in charge of oppressing the native inhabitants.

The story of the world is one of Europeans killing everyone else because they weren't christians. The 'they weren't technologically advanced and deserved to die' argument doesn't hold water, because many of those civilizations were actually quite socially advanced, or did not require it. The last thing they expected was some crusader coming over and killing them.

The only reason there are African Americans is because we brought them over to do our hard farm work, which 'pure white men' were too lazy to do.

And would you call General Westmorland a terrorist? He no doubt struck terror into the hearts of the Vietnamese populace.

But he was a white american, and is therefore justified in whatever he did.

You can't just ask people to stand there and take what's being thrown at them. If they want to be nonviolent, more power to them, but the use of violence in fighting an equally violent and oppressive regime to gain basic rights is a perfectly acceptable course of action.

And would you call General Westmorland a terrorist? He no doubt struck terror into the hearts of the Vietnamese populace.

Not all of 'em, though. And not nearly as much terror as the VC struck into their hearts.

Of course South Africa didn't have a nazi government- white people could vote for who they wanted in charge of oppressing the native inhabitants.

The story of the world is one of Europeans killing everyone else because they weren't christians. The 'they weren't technologically advanced and deserved to die' argument doesn't hold water, because many of those civilizations were actually quite socially advanced, or did not require it. The last thing they expected was some crusader coming over and killing them.

The only reason there are African Americans is because we brought them over to do our hard farm work, which 'pure white men' were too lazy to do.

And would you call General Westmorland a terrorist? He no doubt struck terror into the hearts of the Vietnamese populace.

But he was a white american, and is therefore justified in whatever he did.

You can't just ask people to stand there and take what's being thrown at them. If they want to be nonviolent, more power to them, but the use of violence in fighting an equally violent and oppressive regime to gain basic rights is a perfectly acceptable course of action.

But did you know most of the people Mandela and his thugs killed were black?

Yeah, India is the only surviving ancient nation. China ended with the communist revolution, which threw away the culture that defines a people.

Gandhi wasn't a terrorist. And on that topic "one man's freedom-fighter is one man's terrorist". That Brown dude from Harper's Ferry raids terrorized "innocent" slaveowners. To the USA he was a terrorist and executed. For people who believed in Civil Rights, he was a freedom-fighting saint.

In India there was a "freedom fighter" that was more popular than Gandhi. This dude took a philosophy that they must kill anyone who is white. I dunno his name...we briefly learned about him. Why? Because he was a communist. The American school system does not like teaching about communists who are fighting for a "good" cause.

Actually, the USSR (under Lenin) invented modern terror.
First of all, what exactly do you mean by "terror" and how did Lenin invent it? I mean, technically, "terror" means scaring people. I don't think ANYONE invented that.

Second of all, what's the difference between "modern terror" and "not-so-modern terror"? Most of the practices used by terrorists today have existed for hundreds of years.

OH! I feel "the proof Nelson Mandela was a nazi" coming. Please Roach... not that Stormfront South-Africa one again... that would be too much. :)

The father of modern terrorism's name was (I believe) Muhammed al-Quatb. He lived during Gen. Nasser's rule of Egypt, and led a failed coup in Algeria. He wrote basically everything that terrorists believe: that all Muslims in the world should unite into a theocracy, and the West, especially the US, was the greatest obstacle to this.
Other than that, however, terrorism has existed for hundreds of years. Interestingly enough, however, modern terrorist tactics developed with the Hassassins in modern day Iraq.

OH! I feel "the proof Nelson Mandela was a nazi" coming. Please Roach... not that Stormfront South-Africa one again... that would be too much. :)

No, I won't get into that. This is a Gandhi thread, not a Mandela one. Please call me RB, not Roach.

Yeah, India is the only surviving ancient nation. China ended with the communist revolution, which threw away the culture that defines a people.
Uh, China had been torn to bits by 30 years of near-constant war before that revolution. I think it's safe to say the Chinese didn't need any more of that.

And also, what aspects of Chinese culture are you talking about, exactly? The inferior status of women, or the traditional near-slavery of peasants to the emperor?

There are some parts of ancient culture that you don't want to take into the modern world. But at any rate, Maoists are rather nationalistic, and certainly put a lot of emphasis on the "Chinese characteristics" of their system, so I don't really see what you're talking about.

Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting the ancient nations of Greece and Israel.

Please call me RB, not Roach.

Sure RB

Sure RB

Thanks! :p

Uh, China had been torn to bits by 30 years of near-constant war before that revolution. I think it's safe to say the Chinese didn't need any more of that.

And also, what aspects of Chinese culture are you talking about, exactly? The inferior status of women, or the traditional near-slavery of peasants to the emperor?

There are some parts of ancient culture that you don't want to take into the modern world. But at any rate, Maoists are rather nationalistic, and certainly put a lot of emphasis on the "Chinese characteristics" of their system, so I don't really see what you're talking about.

Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting the ancient nations of Greece and Israel.
By definition, however, Israel is a modern nation. For one, it is made of people from different cultural backrounds and such. Despite this, and constant attacks from their neighbors, Israel built a successful, liberal society that has a national identity and one of the highest per capita incomes of the Middle East.

Thanks! :p

No worries! I still think he was the father of modern civil disobedience, not terrorism by far. But i'm a drunken liberal, so be cautious.

South Africa did not have a Nazi government.
Well, they believed in the oppression of "inferior peoples."

They unofficially supported Germany in World War 2. They stopped British immigrants from coming into SA. The British were too tolerant for the Afrikaaners, who were the majority of white people there. And then there was the annexation of Namibia.

They don't sound too far from Nazism. Hitler's party believed in purifying Germany for the Aryan "master race", in oppressing, killing and enslaving "inferior peoples", and in their country's divine right to rule other lands (like Poland).

The SA Nationalist party believed in setting up SA for the Afrikaaner "master race", in oppressing, killing and enslaving "inferior peoples", and in their country's divine right to rule other lands (like Namibia).

Once again, apartheid government = Nazis.

Well, they believed in the oppression of "inferior peoples."

They unofficially supported Germany in World War 2. They stopped British immigrants from coming into SA. The British were too tolerant for the Afrikaaners, who were the majority of white people there. And then there was the annexation of Namibia.

They don't sound too far from Nazism. Hitler's party believed in purifying Germany for the Aryan "master race", in oppressing, killing and enslaving "inferior peoples", and in their country's divine right to rule other lands (like Poland).

The SA Nationalist party believed in setting up SA for the Afrikaaner "master race", in oppressing, killing and enslaving "inferior peoples", and in their country's divine right to rule other lands (like Namibia).

Once again, apartheid government = Nazis.

Wrong. SA declared war on Germany and fought alongside the Allies during WWII. There are some big differences between Nazis and South Africa's government. South Africa wanted to eventually establish separate, independent homelands for the different tribes. South Africa didn't (to the best of my knowledge) force people to be sterilized or have abortions, or kill sick, handicapped, retarded, etc. people against their will. And South Africa didn't force blacks to work all day in concentration camps, etc.

No worries! I still think he was the father of modern civil disobedience, not terrorism by far. But i'm a drunken liberal, so be cautious.

He and his thugs did kill thousands of blacks, though.

Well, they believed in the oppression of "inferior peoples."

They unofficially supported Germany in World War 2. They stopped British immigrants from coming into SA. The British were too tolerant for the Afrikaaners, who were the majority of white people there. And then there was the annexation of Namibia.

They don't sound too far from Nazism. Hitler's party believed in purifying Germany for the Aryan "master race", in oppressing, killing and enslaving "inferior peoples", and in their country's divine right to rule other lands (like Poland).

The SA Nationalist party believed in setting up SA for the Afrikaaner "master race", in oppressing, killing and enslaving "inferior peoples", and in their country's divine right to rule other lands (like Namibia).

Once again, apartheid government = Nazis.
There were differences, however. The Afrikaaners didn't completely shun the blacks the same way that the Nazis ever shunned the Jews in the early thirties. In fact, by the seventies, South African businessmen treated the blacks as an advantageous market. If one was a businessman in Nazi Germany that sold to the Jews, that person would be shot.
Another difference is their view of superiority. South Afrikaaners did believe in mastery of the surrounding blacks, but not more "living space", or total enslavement. The Nazis, on the other hand, had the ultimate goal of wiping out every non-German on the planet.

There were differences, however. The Afrikaaners didn't completely shun the blacks the same way that the Nazis ever shunned the Jews in the early thirties. In fact, by the seventies, South African businessmen treated the blacks as an advantageous market. If one was a businessman in Nazi Germany that sold to the Jews, that person would be shot.
Another difference is their view of superiority. South Afrikaaners did believe in mastery of the surrounding blacks, but not more "living space", or total enslavement. The Nazis, on the other hand, had the ultimate goal of wiping out every non-German on the planet.

Well said.

He and his thugs did kill thousands of blacks, though.

...drunk, remember... but I have difficulties finding proof N. Mandela killed thousands of people, not to mention black people (which he must've killed, cos if he killed one white person, he'd be dead).

Well said.
Thanks. But South Africa wasn't a model for nations to follow, though.

I submit to you that Gandhi is the father of all modern terrorism

Complete and utter nonsense. I doubt you'll find even one extremist muslim terrorist today who is inspired by Ghandi. Suicide tactics and a fanatical desire to be martyred for one's cause, are as old as humanity. People have been doing that for hundreds, even thousands of years. Were Japanese Kamikaze pilots inspired by Ghandi too? :rolleyes:

Thanks. But South Africa wasn't a model for nations to follow, though.

I know.

He promoted the use of suicidal tactics. Only suicidal people would go up against an army without any weapons. If he would have tried this tactic centuries earlier, they would have all likely been cut down.

He tried to forcefully take over a salt factory resulting in the severe beating of several of his suicidal followers.

He used one of the most deplorable military tactics ever known to man by making the English feel guilty. A low blow by just about any mans standards.

He still has a large contingent of followers who like to quote him any chance they get to try to make people feel guilty. Which almost seems surprisingly similar to other religious fundamentalist extremist groups.

The followers of Gandhi will gladly let themselves be beaten to a pulp and possibly die for their cause if it means gaining converts. Which is similar in the way that suicide bombers try to kill off their enemy, well not always their enemy but the people that they’re enemy are supposed to protect. It is a means of undermining the trust of the government in both cases. .

Gandhi didn’t want to fight a war against the English. He wanted the English to fight the English. Just like Terrorists don’t want to fight other countries. They want the people of the country to fight their own government.

I submit to you that Gandhi is the father of all modern terrorism. Although that might not exactly be what his plans were, it seems more and more likely that it was an end result. Then again if even the best ideas can be corrupted than so can pacifism.

Except he didn't use violent force, terror, or attack civilains.

This is absolutely the best troll ever! Gandhi was a terrorist because he made British feel quilty? Ruuaaaahhhahahahahaaaa. sorry. Couldn't help it.

We seem to be getting a resurgence of this 'Rule Britannia' Imperialistic spirit.

And of course Nelson Mandela was a terrorist because he attacked those oh so good and noble white soldiers. Of course when a British or American soldier dies in combat its the end of the world, but its an Iraqi, its simply a statistic. You dont get any human interest new reports about the families of dead Iraqi Soldiers.

Good on the insurgents in Iraq - Al Sadr proved today he is not a barbarian like the Americans make him out to be - he is a freedom fighter.

And of course Nelson Mandela was a terrorist because he attacked those oh so good and noble white soldiers. Of course when a British or American soldier dies in combat its the end of the world, but its an Iraqi, its simply a statistic. You dont get any human interest new reports about the families of dead Iraqi Soldiers.

Good on the insurgents in Iraq - Al Sadr proved today he is not a barbarian like the Americans make him out to be - he is a freedom fighter.

Most of the people Mandela killed were blacks.

Except he didn't use violent force, terror, or attack civilains.
Except for that factory that he tried to take over. He was in jail at the time, but his followers rushed the gates. Now I don’t care what anybody thinks, but that is anything but nonviolence.

Violent n 1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting with great force.

Now a bunch of people trying to get through the gates of a factory guarded by only a few other people to me seems like a great force regardless of whether or not they fought back.

Most of the people Mandela killed were blacks.

Who were tools of a disgusting white regime. It was necessary action and it worked. Mandela is a hero to his people - yet he killed blacks - that logic doesn't seem to hold up but it does, for the reason I gave above.

Who were tools of a disgusting white regime. It was necessary action and it worked. Mandela is a hero to his people - yet he killed blacks - that logic doesn't seem to hold up but it does, for the reason I gave above.

I'm just curious, but what race are you? (Not that it matters, but you sound very anti-white)

Who were tools of a disgusting white regime. It was necessary action and it worked. Mandela is a hero to his people - yet he killed blacks - that logic doesn't seem to hold up but it does, for the reason I gave above.

Nothing justifies murder. Especially not the way Mandela and his thugs did it. And they didn't just kill 'tools' of the regime, they mostly killed anticommunist blacks, or else killed them to 'persuade' other blacks to join them.

Nothing justifies murder. Especially not the way Mandela and his thugs did it. And they didn't just kill 'tools' of the regime, they mostly killed anticommunist blacks, or else killed them to 'persuade' other blacks to join them.

Thats mostly right wing propoganda, furthered by the regime at the time of Mandela's struggle. Again, Right wingers think they know whats right for a country and discount popular opinion. South Africa is now a democracy and it is down to Mandela's struggle that it happened. As for the comments you make about Mandela pretty much killing any opposed to him - I've got to laugh at that, I remember watching a documentary about his struggle and hearing pretty much the same thing but said by the disgusting enforcers of apartheid.

In your eyes, South Africa should become a US protectarate and have a pro-US capitalist, corrupt Government installed, like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. In the case of South Africa - The people wanted Mandela and he delivered, its amazing how Right Wingers will even dispute the 'freedom' and 'democracy' they love so much.

I'm just curious, but what race are you? (Not that it matters, but you sound very anti-white)

I'm Cypriot. And I'm not 'anti-white', that opinion just doesn't exist. Its furthered by a few angry Republicans who were called 'crackers' by a few blacks, and decided to tarnish the whole race with the same brush.

I'm Cypriot. And I'm not 'anti-white', that opinion just doesn't exist. Its furthered by a few angry Republicans who were called 'crackers' by a few blacks, and decided to tarnish the whole race with the same brush.
I'm sure, then, that you get a lot of your television programming from Greece, right?

I'm sure, then, that you get a lot of your television programming from Greece, right?

No, I live in Britain - Wrong again I'm afraid.

And who is an American to talk about bias in News, Mr. Fox News, CNN and other Corporate pro-Right crap.

No, I live in Britain - Wrong again I'm afraid.

And who is an American to talk about bias in News, Mr. Fox News, CNN and other Corporate pro-Right crap.
How would you know if I was talking about media bias? I was just simply asking if Cyprus gets Greek television programming, not biased news. For all I care, it could just be Greek sitcoms. Can sitcoms be biased? Or soap operas?

How would you know if I was talking about media bias? I was just simply asking if Cyprus gets Greek television programming, not biased news. For all I care, it could just be Greek sitcoms. Can sitcoms be biased? Or soap operas?

Yes, they can actually.

Yes, they can actually.
So, you're gonna go down the list, and tell us what US sitcoms are biased. Let's start with my personal favorite: Will & Grace. I know you get it there. Anyhow, how is that biased?

So, you're gonna go down the list, and tell us what US sitcoms are biased. Let's start with my personal favorite: Will & Grace. I know you get it there. Anyhow, how is that biased?

Hang on just a minute. I said a sitcom or TV Series can be biased, for example The Simpsons has not once attacked George W. Bush, when they attacked Clinton all the time, probably at risk of the creators being called unpatriotic. It may be unintentional, but it is still bias.

And I never said every Sitcom could be bias. Using your 'favourite' doesn't mean anything - I merely stated it was possible for a sitcome to be bias. Stop trying to exceed your intellectual capacity by posting absolute, irrelevant rubbish (though maybe it extends from the disease 'patriotism' - in that case its not your fault).

No, I live in Britain - Wrong again I'm afraid.

And who is an American to talk about bias in News, Mr. Fox News, CNN and other Corporate pro-Right crap.

CNN is not 'pro-right.' Don't forget, it's founder, Ted the Red Turner, gave the UN a billion dollars.

Hang on just a minute. I said a sitcom or TV Series can be biased, for example The Simpsons has not once attacked George W. Bush, when they attacked Clinton all the time, probably at risk of the creators being called unpatriotic. It may be unintentional, but it is still bias.

And I never said every Sitcom could be bias. Using your 'favourite' doesn't mean anything - I merely stated it was possible for a sitcome to be bias. Stop trying to exceed your intellectual capacity by posting absolute, irrelevant rubbish (though maybe it extends from the disease 'patriotism' - in that case its not your fault).
So, you're also implying that news media can be biased, but it doesn't have to be, right?

CNN is not 'pro-right.' Don't forget, it's founder, Ted the Red Turner, gave the UN a billion dollars.

Oh yeh, CNN is so left wing!

Your living in a dream World - Watch the BBC and you'll probably think you are watching the Communist News Service, thats how politically extreme America is to the right.

Thats mostly right wing propoganda, furthered by the regime at the time of Mandela's struggle. Again, Right wingers think they know whats right for a country and discount popular opinion. South Africa is now a democracy and it is down to Mandela's struggle that it happened. As for the comments you make about Mandela pretty much killing any opposed to him - I've got to laugh at that, I remember watching a documentary about his struggle and hearing pretty much the same thing but said by the disgusting enforcers of apartheid.

In your eyes, South Africa should become a US protectarate and have a pro-US capitalist, corrupt Government installed, like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. In the case of South Africa - The people wanted Mandela and he delivered, its amazing how Right Wingers will even dispute the 'freedom' and 'democracy' they love so much.

South Africa is now a country with rampant corruption, a high crime rate, the highest rape rate in the world, etc. Laugh if you want, Mandela was a brutal and sadistic murderer. Though the left loves him, nothing changes that fact. Then again, the left has loved lots of mass murderers in the past; Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, Che Guevara, etc.

So, you're also implying that news media can be biased, but it doesn't have to be, right?

That wasn't my intent at all. Reply to the points I made rather than fabricating things from your right wing perspective.

NWV.. you read my mind.. you dragged the words out of my mouth.. cheers..

That wasn't my intent at all. Reply to the points I made rather than fabricating things from your right wing perspective.
And what points did you make? I saw none, or at least none directed toward me.

Oh yeh, CNN is so left wing!

Your living in a dream World - Watch the BBC and you'll probably think you are watching the Communist News Service, thats how politically extreme America is to the right.

Being further to the right than something else doesn't make it 'right-wing.' Need I remind you, Turner gave a billion dollars to the UN, and even married a self-proclaimed communist (even though they divorced).

Oh yeh, CNN is so left wing!

Your living in a dream World - Watch the BBC and you'll probably think you are watching the Communist News Service, thats how politically extreme America is to the right.

I love the BBC. I listen to it on the radio every night.

Then again, the left has loved lots of mass murderers in the past; Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, Che Guevara, etc.

Ok, this is getting stupid.

I suppose you think the Vietnamese people loved you Americans right? And that your intervention was 'a defense of freedom'? (That required 2 million innocents to be killed by Americans). Gorbachev was not a murderer, Reagan was, he declared a War on Central America and allowed a sadistic illegal regime to take power in Nicaragua. It was an act of International Terrorism to defend US Interests.

Yeltsin was not 'left' - he privitized everything, and by everything I *mean* everything. He was as far right as they get in Modern Europe.

Putin can be compared to your own 'president' in his War on Chechnya.

Che Guevera was one of the greatest communist figures ever. He was a martyr for his cause, and I respect that.

Being further to the right than something else doesn't make it 'right-wing.' Need I remind you, Turner gave a billion dollars to the UN, and even married a self-proclaimed communist (even though they divorced).

Is Communist a buzz word for evil in America?

So much for your 'freedom' eh?

I'm so glad I live in Europe - The real home of freedom that doesn't curb your civil liberties and declare illegal Wars to defend its interests.

South Africa is now a country with rampant corruption, high crime rates, the highest rape rate in the world, etc. Laugh if you want, Mandela was a brutal and sadistic murderer. Though the left loves him, nothing changes that fact. Then again, the left has loved lots of mass murderers in the past; Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, Che Guevara, etc.


You know what this is all about??.. It's about Mandela hating America's guts..

It's about Mandela telling America to go to hell on several occasions, denying the US President access to his birthday party, and the right-wing which tried desperately to deny him his freedom after years of imprisonment..

Mao... Ho Chi Minh.. Castro.. Che Guevara.. they were all men who fought for ideals.. maybe you don't support those ideals.. but their ideals were centered on opposing America.

Well my friend, I for one think Mandela's self is worth more than any other on the planet.. in fact.. it's worth more than a few slimeballs who currently reside in office.. put together..

And Gandhi?.. If I could bring him back, I gladly would.. humanity can certainly sacrifice millions of idiots and fanatics and corporate slimeballs to bring back a person as great as him.

You might disagree.. well.. I don't give a damn.

South Africa is now a country with rampant corruption, a high crime rate, the highest rape rate in the world, etc. Laugh if you want, Mandela was a brutal and sadistic murderer. Though the left loves him, nothing changes that fact. Then again, the left has loved lots of mass murderers in the past; Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, Che Guevara, etc.

You fail to realize that half the reason that cuba and china became bad was because we left them to the soviets to run. The US simply did not care.

And how do you vouch for the US-supported governments of Chile, Ecuador, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia (yes Pol-pot was supported by the US because he was hated by vietnam), and Iraq (yes Regan did support Saddam because he was fighting the Iranians)?

Now I agree that many communist role-models did not hold up to standards of human rights, but the fact that the US tried to kill their revolutions turned them all paranoid.

The US has supported its fair share of mass murderers.

But again, the story of the world: The US and USSR screwing all the little guys to get a better position than the other.

Is Communist a buzz word for evil in America?

So much for your 'freedom' eh?

I'm so glad I live in Europe - The real home of freedom that doesn't curb your civil liberties and declare illegal Wars to defend its interests.
just ignore roach-busters he is a naive extremist who ignorse the evils of human nature that prevent free market from being perfect then criticises communsim for the same problem

Yes.. there are myriads of murderers the US installed and/or supported, and some it still supports now..

Ok, this is getting stupid.

I suppose you think the Vietnamese people loved you Americans right? And that your intervention was 'a defense of freedom'? (That required 2 million innocents to be killed by Americans).

A lot of them did. Otherwise, why the hell would so many of them have come to the United States? Almost every one of them lived in mortal fear of the Vietcong. Granted, there was a lot of anti-American sentiment in Vietnam, but there were also a lot of pro-American Vietnamese, too. And the U.S. did not kill 2 million people. A better question would be, why aren't you also condemning Ho Chi Minh?

Gorbachev was not a murderer, Reagan was, he declared a War on Central America and allowed a sadistic illegal regime to take power in Nicaragua. It was an act of International Terrorism to defend US Interests.

They both were. Gorbachev's regime slaughtered over 500,000 Afghanis. Reagan supported dictators like Saddam Hussein and Rios Montt (who I learned about from Drabikstan), in addition to others. And the Ortega regime was sadistic, too.

Yeltsin was not 'left' - he privitized everything, and by everything I *mean* everything. He was as far right as they get in Modern Europe.

I never said he was left or right, just that the left loves him.

Putin can be compared to your own 'president' in his War on Chechnya.

Agreed.

Che Guevera was one of the greatest communist figures ever. He was a martyr for his cause, and I respect that.

And he also helped a mass murderer achieve power.

just ignore roach-busters he is a naive extremist who ignorse the evils of human nature that prevent free market from being perfect then criticises communsim for the same problem

Still flaming, eh, Chess Squares?

Still flaming, eh, Chess Squares?
not at all, just pointing out the obvservation i have made of you from posts in several threads

And how do you vouch for the US-supported governments of Chile, Ecuador, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia (yes Pol-pot was supported by the US because he was hated by vietnam), and Iraq (yes Regan did support Saddam because he was fighting the Iranians)?

I don't. In fact, I even made a thread a few days ago discussing the very same thing.

not at all, just pointing out the obvservation i have made of you from posts in several threads

Sorry, but I find being called a 'naive extremist' to be flaming. I don't call you names (I probably flamed a few times in the past, but I'm not now), so please refrain from name-calling as well.

Sorry, but I find being called a 'naive extremist' to be flaming. I don't call you names (I probably flamed a few times in the past, but I'm not now), so please refrain from name-calling as well.
well from what oi have seen you are naive to the problems inherent in full blown capitalism and you are extreme in those and anti communsit views, naive extremist

Then what's your point? The left are idiots...the right are too but the left are idiots.

You can't claim to be a crusader for human rights, now.

And what points did you make? I saw none, or at least none directed toward me.
Ok then, I found one.
I watch the BBC a few times a month. They're a good news source for what's happening in Europe and Russia. However, their front story is always about American action, with little exceptions. They always shine America in a bad light. They're not some left wing hippie station, more centrist, actually. But they're ready to make Americans seem horrible.
And yes, Fox News is slanted right, while CNN teeters to both sides occaisonally. The real left-wing media is print media. Take The New York Times, for example. Only one of their op-ed columnists is conservative. And if the headline has something to do with any Republican, they find the least flattering photo possible. The LA Times is even worse.

Wrong. SA declared war on Germany and fought alongside the Allies during WWII. There are some big differences between Nazis and South Africa's government. South Africa wanted to eventually establish separate, independent homelands for the different tribes. South Africa didn't (to the best of my knowledge) force people to be sterilized or have abortions, or kill sick, handicapped, retarded, etc. people against their will. And South Africa didn't force blacks to work all day in concentration camps, etc.
I didn't say that their actions were in imitation of the Nazis, but I said that the central tenets of the Nationalist Afrikaaner belief system were similar to those of the Nazis.

I probably wan't sufficiently clear in support for Germany in WW2. The Broderbund paramilitary organisation, a central part of the nationalist movement, supported Germany.

well from what oi have seen you are naive to the problems inherent in full blown capitalism and you are extreme in those and anti communsit views, naive extremist

I know capitalism has problems. I never said it was perfect. And even though I am anti-communist, I don't hate communists themselves.

Then what's your point? The left are idiots...the right are too but the left are idiots.

You can't claim to be a crusader for human rights, now.

I never said anyone was an idiot, and I never claimed to be a crusader of human rights. I simply said that Mandela was a terrorist admired by the left, and that many other terrorists were also admired by them (but of course, the right has its share of terrorists they love, too; as you pointed out, Reagan-Saddam).

A lot of them did. Otherwise, why the hell would so many of them have come to the United States? Almost every one of them lived in mortal fear of the Vietcong. Granted, there was a lot of anti-American sentiment in Vietnam, but there were also a lot of pro-American Vietnamese, too. And the U.S. did not kill 2 million people. A better question would be, why aren't you also condemning Ho Chi Minh?

The US killed 4 Million people according to recent reports including one by UNHCR, including 2 Million civilians. Actually they didn't kill them, they murdered them. And as for your comments about HCM, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting correspondence between himself and NVA or VC soldiers about killing innocents - Thats like saying LBJ ordered My Lai.


They both were. Gorbachev's regime slaughtered over 500,000 Afghanis. Reagan supported dictators like Saddam Hussein and Rios Montt (who I learned about from Drabikstan), in addition to others. And the Ortega regime was sadistic, too.

An Afghan War conceded to be started by the US according to Brznziski in his memoirs - they started funding and arming rebels 8 months before the Invasion. A War furthered and prolonged by The US' support of extremist groups for thier own end. A War that the US started and came back to haunt the US. And Ortega was nothing compared to the Somozas. Here is an example.

"The National Guard had always been remark ably brutal and sadistic. By June 1979, it was carrying out massive atrocities in the war against the Sandinistas, bombing residential neighborhoods in Managua, killing tens of thousands of people. At that point, the US ambassador sent a cable to the White House saying it would be "ill advised" to tell the Guard to call off the bombing, because that might interfere with the policy of keeping them in power and the Sandinistas out."



I never said he was left or right, just that the left loves him.

Really? I've never heard that one before - How could the left 'love him' if he was neither left or right in your eyes?

I know capitalism has problems. I never said it was perfect. And even though I am anti-communist, I don't hate communists themselves.
you have implied capitalism is either perfect or does not need control, in and ofitself implying its perfect. and you dont hate communists? you love mccarthy and the UUAC

well from what oi have seen you are naive to the problems inherent in full blown capitalism and you are extreme in those and anti communsit views, naive extremist

Well, you do have a point there.

you have implied capitalism is either perfect or does not need control, in and ofitself implying its perfect. and you dont hate communists? you love mccarthy and the UUAC

How did I imply capitalism was perfect? And I hate communism not communists.

Ok then, I found one.
I watch the BBC a few times a month. They're a good news source for what's happening in Europe and Russia. However, their front story is always about American action, with little exceptions. They always shine America in a bad light. They're not some left wing hippie station, more centrist, actually. But they're ready to make Americans seem horrible.

So in your eyes they should not report America's offensive action that is detrimental to the surrounding populace because it makes them 'seem horrible'?

Forgive me for laughing :D

The US killed 4 Million people according to recent reports including one by UNHCR, including 2 Million civilians. Actually they didn't kill them, they murdered them. And as for your comments about HCM, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting correspondence between himself and NVA or VC soldiers about killing innocents - Thats like saying LBJ ordered My Lai.

Then obviously you aren't looking hard enough for sources. And I don't know where you got your absurdly inflated numbers from. I doubt both sides combined even killed that many people, directly or indirectly. And most US soldiers did not 'murder' civilians. Of course, some did- I'm not denying that- but most of them did not. The NVA and VC, though, frequently and routinely slaughtered people.

[/QUOTE]An Afghan War conceded to be started by the US according to Brznziski in his memoirs - they started funding and arming rebels 8 months before the Invasion. A War furthered and prolonged by The US' support of extremist groups for thier own end. A War that the US started and came back to haunt the US. And Ortega was nothing compared to the Somozas. Here is an example. "The National Guard had always been remark ably brutal and sadistic. By June 1979, it was carrying out massive atrocities in the war against the Sandinistas, bombing residential neighborhoods in Managua, killing tens of thousands of people. At that point, the US ambassador sent a cable to the White House saying it would be "ill advised" to tell the Guard to call off the bombing, because that might interfere with the policy of keeping them in power and the Sandinistas out." [/QUOTE]

Source? (And no, I ain't defending Somoza, I'm just curious)

[/QUOTE]Really? I've never heard that one before - How could the left 'love him' if he was neither left or right in your eyes?[/QUOTE]

Again, you misquoted me. I never said he was 'neither left nor right,' just that I had not called him left or right. I never said he was either one of them, or neither of them. Moreover, I'm getting very sick of your sarcasm.

So in your eyes they should not report America's offensive action that is detrimental to the surrounding populace because it makes them 'seem horrible'?

Forgive me for laughing :D
Absolutely not. I'm just saying that this is bias on their part. They potray every single nation except the US in a positive light. This isn't confined just to the political arena. The BBC is very critical about Wall Street, and even makes a point to broadcast every peice of financial news from their New York office. I see this as a desire to examine America under a microscope.

The source is: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Nicaragua.html

And the numbers are not inflated - they are widely confirmed, by The UNHCR and other independant sources. The only ones that offer any counter argument are insane Republicans. And the US did "Murder" Civlians - They dropped bombs - With intent. I call that murder, dont you?

The fact you are 60,000ft in the air and cant see your helpless victims doesn't justify it as you claim.

And if the NVA and VC murdered so many people, and the US were so noble, why did the South Vietnamese population despise the US and support N. Vietnam in thier actions? Maybe it was because of the US Airforces murders, or the routine torture methods carried out, or perhaps the supporting of a brutal, dictatorship of a South Vietnamese regime, or maybe because the US would not allow free elections in The South.

I see this as a desire to examine America under a microscope.

And how is this a bad thing? You mean rooting out the truth of the actions of American Right Wing Governments (both democrat and Republican) over the past 40 years is a bad thing?

That was an extremely bad mistake of a comment on your part, or a slip of the tongue (or in this case, key).

The source is: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Nicaragua.html

And the numbers are not inflated - they are widely confirmed, by The UNHCR and other independant sources. The only ones that offer any counter argument are insane Republicans. And the US did "Murder" Civlians - They dropped bombs - With intent. I call that murder, dont you?

The fact you are 60,000ft in the air and cant see your helpless victims doesn't justify it as you claim.

And if the NVA and VC murdered so many people, and the US were so noble, why did the South Vietnamese population despise the US and support N. Vietnam in thier actions? Maybe it was because of the US Airforces murders, or the routine torture methods carried out, or perhaps the supporting of a brutal, dictatorship of a South Vietnamese regime, or maybe because the US would not allow free elections in The South.

The numbers sure as hell look inflated to me. I've never seen any source, left-wing or right-wing, give numbers that insanely high.

Not all South Vietnamese despised the US. If they did, why did so many of them come to live in the US? :rolleyes:

Torture methods were not 'routine.' Yes, ARVN soldiers may have used torture a lot, but most US soldiers didn't. And most South Vietnamese did not 'support' North Vietnam, and the vast majority of those who did (and again, this was a very small number) did so because they didn't want their families killed. And South Vietnam was not a 'brutal dictatorship.' A corrupt, unpopular, authoritarian regime, yes, but not a 'brutal dictatorship.' (Of course, Diem's regime was one) North Vietnam's, however, was. And South Vietnam did have free elections. In 1971, however, it was only a one-man race because the other two candidates, Ky and Minh, dropped out.

And how is this a bad thing? You mean rooting out the truth of the actions of American Right Wing Governments (both democrat and Republican) over the past 40 years is a bad thing?

That was an extremely bad mistake of a comment on your part, or a slip of the tongue (or in this case, key).
They can report what they want. It's the way they do it. Bias is harder to detect in broadcasts than in print, so it may go unnoticed. However, it is certainly there, and like I said, it's barely confined to our politics. Everything about the American people seems to be criticized. The BBC seems to relish the fact when a rapist in Britain is an American, as what happened a few months ago. And when the BBC interviews Americans, these Americans are the most inarticulate people I've ever met. It seems as if the BBC specifically looks for these people, because they're on all the time. They never interview an intellectual from the US.

I'm so glad I live in Europe - The real home of freedom that doesn't curb your civil liberties and declare illegal Wars to defend its interests.
Errrm, don't you live in Britain? Outside of the UK, I agree with you mostly.

France, however, recently banned the civil liberty of wearing religious symbols in schools.

If your dream of an EU superstate (socialist or not) comes to reality, with its own army, no doubt in its infinite arrogance it will declare illegal wars. That's why I don't want an EU Superstate. I don't want my home continent to become another USA or USSR.

Hang on just a minute. I said a sitcom or TV Series can be biased, for example The Simpsons has not once attacked George W. Bush, when they attacked Clinton all the time, probably at risk of the creators being called unpatriotic. It may be unintentional, but it is still bias.
Did you ever notice that the Simpsons only started slagging Clinton in 2001, when he had left office? I expect that they will royally roast Bush starting in 2005 when he leaves office.

They can report what they want. It's the way they do it. Bias is harder to detect in broadcasts than in print, so it may go unnoticed. However, it is certainly there, and like I said, it's barely confined to our politics. Everything about the American people seems to be criticized. The BBC seems to relish the fact when a rapist in Britain is an American, as what happened a few months ago. And when the BBC interviews Americans, these Americans are the most inarticulate people I've ever met. It seems as if the BBC specifically looks for these people, because they're on all the time. They never interview an intellectual from the US.

As you said to me on a prievous thread.

Can you offer any substantial evidence, i.e. Transcripts of these conversations with Americans, that backs up your point?

Errrm, don't you live in Britain? Outside of the UK, I agree with you mostly.

France, however, recently banned the civil liberty of wearing religious symbols in schools.

If your dream of an EU superstate (socialist or not) comes to reality, with its own army, no doubt in its infinite arrogance it will declare illegal wars. That's why I don't want an EU Superstate. I don't want my home continent to become another USA or USSR.


Did you ever notice that the Simpsons only started slagging Clinton in 2001, when he had left office? I expect that they will royally roast Bush starting in 2005 when he leaves office.
True. It's sort of like an unofficial code of conduct on TV, that they never critisize a sitting president, out of respect for his office. Once he's out, they're fair game. The Simpsons seems to be the best about this, and it produces some very funny things on all former presidents. And in case you're wondering, they had an entire episode about Bush I, portraying him as Mr. Wilson from Denice the Menace.

Not all South Vietnamese despised the US. If they did, why did so many of them come to live in the US? :rolleyes:

One of the major reasons for the Americans finally realising victory was not attainable, was the realisation that the South Vietnamese populace, by majority, had become to despise them and side with the North Vietnamese. We study this in History class in Europe, I suppose you don't study anything deemed to be 'anti American' in America?

True. It's sort of like an unofficial code of conduct on TV, that they never critisize a sitting president, out of respect for his office. Once he's out, they're fair game. The Simpsons seems to be the best about this, and it produces some very funny things on all former presidents. And in case you're wondering, they had an entire episode about Bush I, portraying him as Mr. Wilson from Denice the Menace.

Out of respect for the office!?

Wow your society really loves freedom!

One of the major reasons for the Americans finally realising victory was not attainable, was the realisation that the South Vietnamese populace, by majority, had become to despise them and side with the North Vietnamese. We study this in History class in Europe, I suppose you don't study anything deemed to be 'anti American' in America?

Most of them did not side with the North Vietnamese. And from what you studied, it sounds more like Propaganda class, not History class, if they portray all Americans as heartless monsters (which most of them weren't/aren't) and at the same time cover up the communists' atrocities.

And for the last time, lose the sarcasm! :mad:

As you said to me on a prievous thread.

Can you offer any substantial evidence, i.e. Transcripts of these conversations with Americans, that backs up your point?
Why should I? I have a few articles I can provide, but you'll embrace the BBC spin, and not be concerned about the bias. I've concluded that you can believe whatever you please. As for me? I don't like talking to you. I hate your ad hominem attacks, and the fact that you talk down not only to me, but anyone who posts with American spelling.

Most of them did not side with the North Vietnamese. And from what you studied, it sounds more like Propaganda class, not History class, if they portray all Americans as heartless monsters (which most of them weren't/aren't) and at the same time cover up the communists' atrocities.

Want some sources?

1.In Their Defense: U.S. Soldiers in the Vietnam War (by Dr. Pham Kim Vinh, a Vietnamese)

2.Stolen Valor (don't remember the authors)

3.Losers are Pirates: A Close Look at the PBS Series 'Vietnam: A Television History' (by James Banerian)

4.Buddha's Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam (by Nguyen Cao Ky)

5.Death by Government (by R.J. Rummel, a liberal, antiwar activist)

6.Deliver Us From Evil (by Dr. Thomas Dooley, who witnessed the barbarity of the North Vietnamese firsthand)

7.Background to Betrayal (by Hilaire du Berrier)

And for information, the only reason the U.S. lost was because of the Rules of Engagement. They were so asinine and absurdly restrictive that they virtually prohibited victory.

Want some sources?

1.In Their Defense: U.S. Soldiers in the Vietnam War (by Dr. Pham Kim Vinh, a Vietnamese)

2.Stolen Valor (don't remember the authors)

3.Losers are Pirates: A Close Look at the PBS Series 'Vietnam: A Television History' (by James Banerian)

4.Buddha's Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam (by Nguyen Cao Ky)

5.Death by Government (by R.J. Rummel, a liberal, antiwar activist)

6.Deliver Us From Evil (by Dr. Thomas Dooley, who witnessed the barbarity of the North Vietnamese firsthand)

7.Background to Betrayal (by Hilaire du Berrier)

And for information, the only reason the U.S. lost was because of the Rules of Engagement. They were so asinine and absurdly restrictive that they virtually prohibited victory.

That still does not in any way get rid of the evidence of the numerous independant reports and the UNHCR report. And The US lose because they lost support from the S. Vietnamese (alienation), underestimated the VC, realised that N. Vietnam was an unattainable target, dissent at home due to Tet and the lack of manpower.

Learn some facts will you. You Americans can't accept you lost the War in Vietnam, just accept it!

Ok, I have a guilty conscience, so I'll post one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3559298.stm
This is about Bantus that actually live in a city just down the road from where I live. Bear in mind that New York is a northern state. We've never had that many rascists living up here, and while it regretably happens, it isn't often. The BBC devouts half the article to it.

Why should I? I have a few articles I can provide, but you'll embrace the BBC spin, and not be concerned about the bias. I've concluded that you can believe whatever you please. As for me? I don't like talking to you. I hate your ad hominem attacks, and the fact that you talk down not only to me, but anyone who posts with American spelling.

Haha, I really got to you didn't I? Oh well, no worries!

To be honest I don't really automatically differentiate between American spelling and real spelling, its just not an impuslive reaction when you are reading a post. But please! Do post the articles you have - I wonder if you will be angered at thier 'unpatriotic' nature?

That still does not in any way get rid of the evidence of the numerous independant reports and the UNHCR report. And The US lose because they lost support from the S. Vietnamese (alienation), underestimated the VC, realised that N. Vietnam was an unattainable target, dissent at home due to Tet and the lack of manpower.

Learn some facts will you. You Americans can't accept you lost the War in Vietnam, just accept it!

Like I said, we only lost because of the Rules of Engagement. If we had been permitted to invade North Vietnam, mine Haiphong Harbor, bomb Hanoi, SAM sites, military bases, dams, factories, transportation links to China, etc., provided our troops with the latest and greatest equipment (not surplus WWII crap), mobilized the reserves, etc., victory would have been won in a very short time. By the way, what is UNHCR?

Ok, I have a guilty conscience, so I'll post one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3559298.stm
This is about Bantus that actually live in a city just down the road from where I live. Bear in mind that New York is a northern state. We've never had that many rascists living up here, and while it regretably happens, it isn't often. The BBC devouts half the article to it.

Was it unpatriotic? Or just that it highlighted a horrible part of America that you like to keep hidden with the shiny, glossy corporate image?

Learn some facts will you.

Speak for yourself.

Like I said, we only lost because of the Rules of Engagement. If we had been permitted to invade North Vietnam, mine Haiphong Harbor, bomb Hanoi, SAM sites, military bases, dams, factories, transportation links to China, etc., provided our troops with the latest and greatest equipment (not surplus WWII crap), mobilized the reserves, etc., victory would have been won in a very short time. By the way, what is UNHCR?

The Human Rights Division of The United Nations.

Mobilized the reserves?
Hah!

And how much more dissent would have that brought at home - it was unfeasible to do it. And you constantly bombed North Vietnam, with a total disregard for human life, you murdered millions of North Vietnamese innocents.
And don't forget that The War was started on a false pretense (The Gulf of Tongkin incident).

Accept you lost the War - Accept invasion of the North was unattainable. Accept it instead of being blinded by patriotism.

Most of them did not side with the North Vietnamese. And from what you studied, it sounds more like Propaganda class, not History class, if they portray all Americans as heartless monsters (which most of them weren't/aren't) and at the same time cover up the communists' atrocities.

This coming from the same country were the Administration directly controls the curriculum.

Jesus, you actually honestly believe the majority of the South Vietnamese agreed with the US! I can't believe how misinformed Americans are.

Was it unpatriotic? Or just that it highlighted a horrible part of America that you like to keep hidden with the shiny, glossy corporate image?
It's a part of America that is pretty much dead. There are a few loonies that are leftover from the days of the Klan, but do they exist? I've never experienced rascism before. I've never seen a rascist, nor seen any black or Asian afraid to approach me. This is hardly enough to warrant half the article, if even a paragraph.
You know though, what's the use with arguing with you? I'm never gonna convince you about anything. You believe what you want, but I'll tell you one thing: I'm happy with America today.

The Human Rights Division of The United Nations.

Mobilized the reserves?
Hah!

And how much more dissent would have that brought at home - it was unfeasible to do it. And you constantly bombed North Vietnam, with a total disregard for human life, you murdered millions of North Vietnamese innocents.
And don't forget that The War was started on a false pretense (The Gulf of Tongkin incident).

Accept you lost the War - Accept invasion of the North was unattainable. Accept it instead of being blinded by patriotism.

Accept that you're rude, sarcastic, and incapable of having a civil debate rather than a flame war. Yes, the war was started on false pretenses. Yes, we constantly bombed North Vietnam, but as General Curtis LeMay said, "We're hitting the wrong targets. We're killing people that shouldn't be killed," or something to that effect. And as for this 'total disregard for human life,' crap, I find it sickening. The soldiers were just doing their job. Do you honestly think they came to Vietnam thinking, "Oh, goodie gumdrops, I'm a-gonna kill me a buncha gooks!" Of course not. So stop with the racist flaming. When your country is perfect, then feel free to be racist, but until then, please refrain. And if you want me to give you sources proving the war was winnable, just ask (politely, of course) and I'll give you plenty.

This coming from the same country were the Administration directly controls the curriculum.

Jesus, you actually honestly believe the majority of the South Vietnamese agreed with the US! I can't believe how misinformed Americans are.

I said the majority of them did not side with the North Vietnamese. I never said most of them sided with the Americans. Most of them favored neither side. Many of them didn't care who won, as long as the war ended. And nearly everyone in South Vietnam despised and greatly feared the communists.

This coming from the same country were the Administration directly controls the curriculum.

No, this coming from Vietnamese as well as US soldiers who actually fought there.

Accept that you're rude, sarcastic, and incapable of having a civil debate rather than a flame war. Yes, the war was started on false pretenses. Yes, we constantly bombed North Vietnam, but as General Curtis LeMay said, "We're hitting the wrong targets. We're killing people that shouldn't be killed," or something to that effect. And as for this 'total disregard for human life,' crap, I find it sickening. The soldiers were just doing their job. Do you honestly think they came to Vietnam thinking, "Oh, goodie gumdrops, I'm a-gonna kill me a buncha gooks!" Of course not. So stop with the racist flaming. When your country is perfect, then feel free to be racist, but until then, please refrain. And if you want me to give you sources proving the war was winnable, just ask (politely, of course) and I'll give you plenty.
So only when my country is 'perfect' can I criticise the imperfect US? And unfortunately racism among 'your boys' was quite common, as was rape of Vietnamese women in Saigon. The bombing of North Vietnam was sickening, accept it.

THE IRONY!!!!!! (Oh wait Americans don't get irony do they?)

This coming from the same country were the Administration directly controls the curriculum.

Jesus, you actually honestly believe the majority of the South Vietnamese agreed with the US! I can't believe how misinformed Americans are.

I don't think he ever said the majority of South Vietnamese sided with the US, just that they did not agree with North Vietnam. And exactly what proof do you offer that the South Vietnamese didn't side with the US, I'm far more inclined to believe RB, who studies the war, and has provided several statements you've yet to refute (like why if the South hated the US, why were so many clamoring to reach the US after the collapse of South Vietnam). And what makes you think American classes don't teach anti-american POV's, my entire Junior level American History class was nothing but the idea that the US is becoming the new Nazi Germany, and that we were being indoctrinated to believe the Soviet Union was evil and going to fall (*cough*), and the truth was the people loved it over there..... yea.

I don't think he ever said the majority of South Vietnamese sided with the US, just that they did not agree with North Vietnam. And exactly what proof do you offer that the South Vietnamese didn't side with the US, I'm far more inclined to believe RB, who studies the war, and has provided several statements you've yet to refute (like why if the South hated the US, why were so many clamoring to reach the US after the collapse of South Vietnam). And what makes you think American classes don't teach anti-american POV's, my entire Junior level American History class was nothing but the idea that the US is becoming the new Nazi Germany, and that we were being indoctrinated to believe the Soviet Union was evil and going to fall (*cough*), and the truth was the people loved it over there..... yea.
Plus, the Administration has no control of the cirriculum. The only ones that do are individual states.

No, this coming from Vietnamese as well as US soldiers who actually fought there.

Wow your bias books completely invalidate the opinions of well respected Political Analysts, The UNHCR and countless independant investigations. As Chomsky once said 'Most Americans believe (in a gallup poll) that 500,000 or so Vietnamese died during the War - now imagine what our response would be if most Germans thought 500,000 Jews died during the Holocaust'.

Ignorance of Americans stretches beyond all borders. (As they say).

So only when my country is 'perfect' can I criticise the imperfect US? And unfortunately racism among 'your boys' was quite common, as was rape of Vietnamese women in Saigon. The bombing of North Vietnam was sickening, accept it.

THE IRONY!!!!!! (Oh wait Americans don't get irony do they?)

It was not 'quite common,' you moron. Just because a few US soldiers did barbaric things doesn't mean all of them did. You're a rude, racist, flaming moron, but does that mean all Europeons are? Of course not.

Plus, the Administration has no control of the cirriculum. The only ones that do are individual states.

Federal Government still influences those states that are under the current Administrations control - this is plainly evident.

Wow your bias books completely invalidate the opinions of well respected Political Analysts, The UNHCR and countless independant investigations. As Chomsky once said 'Most Americans believe (in a gallup poll) that 500,000 or so Vietnamese died during the War - now imagine what our response would be if most Germans thought 500,000 Jews died during the Holocaust'.

Ignorance of Americans stretches beyond all borders. (As they say).

I'm sure your sources are 'biased, too, you @$$hole.

Federal Government still influences those states that are under the current Administrations control - this is plainly evident.
Just because some aid is given out doesn't mean that the administration controls the cirriculum. You are really acting like a dickhead tonight, aren't you?

It was not 'quite common,' you moron. Just because a few US soldiers did barbaric things doesn't mean all of them did. You're a rude, racist, flaming moron, but does that mean all Europeons are? Of course not.

Nope, just the ones that disagree with America, right?

And it was 'quite common' - Americans were dehumanized, broken down, then built back up again to believe the Communists were evil for years by thier propoganda in thier own country at the time.

And the US did isolate itself from the South Vietnamese - For example The Operation to build Walls around S. Vietnamese hamlets to isolate them from the Freedom Fighters. You gradually alienated yourselves, and eventually lost all thier support due to your support of a disgusting dictatorship, corrupt, evil Government started by Diem.

Nope, just the ones that disagree with America, right?

And it was 'quite common' - Americans were dehumanized, broken down, then built back up again to believe the Communists were evil for years by thier propoganda in thier own country at the time.

And the US did isolate itself from the South Vietnamese - For example The Operation to build Walls around S. Vietnamese hamlets to isolate them from the Freedom Fighters. You gradually alienated yourselves, and eventually lost all thier support due to your support of a disgusting dictatorship, corrupt, evil Government started by Diem.

No, it was not 'quite common.' Who told you that, Howard Zinn? :rolleyes:

You're right about most S. Vietnamese being isolated from the US, but most of them hated the NVA and VC just as much if not more.

Just because some aid is given out doesn't mean that the administration controls the cirriculum. You are really acting like a dickhead tonight, aren't you?

Yes, he is. :mad:

I'm sure your sources are 'biased, too, you @$$hole.
Most, if not all, sources are biased. No need to call him an asshole though.

Yes, he is. :mad:
Why don't we just leave this prick alone? I mean, he has nothing better to do but flame and try to say that being patriotic is like Original Sin.

Nope, just the ones that disagree with America, right?

And it was 'quite common' - Americans were dehumanized, broken down, then built back up again to believe the Communists were evil for years by thier propoganda in thier own country at the time.

And the US did isolate itself from the South Vietnamese - For example The Operation to build Walls around S. Vietnamese hamlets to isolate them from the Freedom Fighters. You gradually alienated yourselves, and eventually lost all thier support due to your support of a disgusting dictatorship, corrupt, evil Government started by Diem.

When has RB ever said that the South Vietnamese sided with the US or were freinds with them, or that they even supported them, all he has said is they didn't support the North Vietnamese.

Most, if not all, sources are biased.

Agreed.

No need to call him an asshole though

Again, agreed. But he's been a real smart-ass all night. He's really pissing me off! :mad:

When has RB ever said that the South Vietnamese sided with the US or were freinds with them, or that they even supported them, all he has said is they didn't support the North Vietnamese.

Thank you, The Sword and Shield. :)

Why don't we just leave this prick alone?

Good idea! :p

Agreed.



Again, agreed. But he's been a real smart-ass all night. He's really pissing me off! :mad:
Me, too. I've always wondered if a hard core anti American truely existed. I think I have my question answered. There's someone out that that truely hates every aspect of the USA.

Thank you, The Sword and Shield. :)

I've had to deal with him in other threads, most recently over exactly where civilization was born, odds are he'll just disappear after a few posts.

Me, too. I've always wondered if a hard core anti American truely existed. I think I have my question answered. There's someone out that that truely hates every aspect of the USA.

Disgusting, isn't it?

I've had to deal with him in other threads, most recently over exactly where civilization was born, odds are he'll just disappear after a few posts.

Phew, that's a relief. It's not the fact that he disagrees with me that I don't like, but how rudely he does it.

Phew, that's a relief. It's not the fact that he disagrees with me that I don't like, but how rudely he does it.
Same with me. I've had plenty of civilized conversations with people who share his same beliefs.

Same with me. I've had plenty of civilized conversations with people who share his same beliefs.

Me, too. It wouldn't kill NWV to learn some manners...er, actually, maybe it would. :p

Same with me. I've had plenty of civilized conversations with people who share his same beliefs.

At least he didn't pull out his "my people were writing drama while yours were swinging from trees". For someone who hates American patriotism so, he is voilently pro-Greek. How exactly me and him went from discussing France, to the Lend-Lease and Soviet Union, to Mesopotamia and Greece in only 2 pages of thread is beyond me.

At least he didn't pull out his "my people were writing drama while yours were swinging from trees". For someone who hates American patriotism so, he is voilently pro-Greek. How exactly me and him went from discussing France, to the Lend-Lease and Soviet Union, to Mesopotamia and Greece in only 2 pages of thread is beyond me.

Yeah, it's strange, isn't it?

At least he didn't pull out his "my people were writing drama while yours were swinging from trees".
And I'm sure NWV will critisize you for watching American films.
For someone who hates American patriotism so, he is voilently pro-Greek. How exactly me and him went from discussing France, to the Lend-Lease and Soviet Union, to Mesopotamia and Greece in only 2 pages of thread is beyond me.
Is is pro Greek, then. I wonder what his rhetoric would be if Greece was the world's sole superpower.

Yeah, it's strange, isn't it?

Never mention Cyprus or Turkish domination of Greece around him, the reaction is akin to mixing flames and gunpowder.

Is is pro Greek, then. I wonder what his rhetoric would be if Greece was the world's sole superpower.

I bet if America put out a forest fire and saved a million people, he'd whine that we wasted too much water.

Never mention Cyprus or Turkish domination of Greece around him, the reaction is akin to mixing flames and gunpowder.

Okay. I think I might do it, though, because that guy really pisses me off!

I bet if America put out a forest fire and saved a million people, he'd whine that we wasted too much water.
LOL! Let's let this thread die if we want him to melt away, though. I think we're better off discussing a substance the Great Satans are addicted to: oil! I have a thread on it I'm dying to grow.

LOL! Let's let this thread die if we want him to melt away, though. I think we're better off discussing a substance the Great Satans are addicted to: oil! I have a thread on it I'm dying to grow.

Really? Could you give me a link?

Really? Could you give me a link?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=348458
I find it better to talk about something, rather than sitting here like old women and gossiping.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=348458
I find it better to talk about something, rather than sitting here like old women and gossiping.

Thanks!

Lol...:p

Never mention Cyprus or Turkish domination of Greece around him, the reaction is akin to mixing flames and gunpowder.
Imagine metioning 'Nazi Domination' to the Jews over them. Why do you think I am touchy on that subject when people try to put Pro-Turkish rhetoric in it? Because one of my family members died in that unjust War, a murderous War, A War which The US supported.

Long live the heroes of EOKA and The 1821 Revolution.

Imagine metioning 'Nazi Domination' to the Jews over them. Why do you think I am touchy on that subject when people try to put Pro-Turkish rhetoric in it? Because one of my family members died in that unjust War, a murderous War, A War which The US supported.

Long live the heroes of EOKA and The 1821 Revolution.

From here on out, we're ignoring you, @$$hole. :p

Phew, that's a relief. It's not the fact that he disagrees with me that I don't like, but how rudely he does it.

I wouldn't consider it rude. You are insensitive about the millions of Vietnamese murdered by Americans in The Vietnam War - A War were the American Public accepted the Government's carpet bombing and hence, murder of so many people - Dissent first started to surface around the 60's but it was never the kind of humanitarian dissent, it was simply dissent because thier 'boys' were dying. And being so short sighted - Americans first blamed it on the inherent evils of Communism rather than the involvement of The US in a disgusting, unjust War furthered by the Hegemonic Truman Doctrine and furthering of the Monroe Doctrine.

Then again if even the best ideas can be corrupted than so can pacifism.
If your idea of pacifism is blowing yourself up to take out innocent bystanders, maybe you could use a little rest.

Imagine metioning 'Nazi Domination' to the Jews over them. Why do you think I am touchy on that subject when people try to put Pro-Turkish rhetoric in it? Because one of my family members died in that unjust War, a murderous War, A War which The US supported.

Long live the heroes of EOKA and The 1821 Revolution.

If anyone was putting a pro-Turkish spin on it I could understand it, but you came out shooting talking about an entire race being barbaric and so on. I admit some people will not listen unless you put a gun to their heads and tell them to stop, but that is going a bit far.

From here on out, we're ignoring you, @$$hole. :p
Oh good! I was going to do it myself but you saved me the trouble of listening to your inherent babbling only backed up by books written by largely far right authors, hell you even like McCarthy. :D

If your idea of pacifism is blowing yourself up to take out innocent bystanders, maybe you could use a little rest.
Somehow I don't think that's what he meant.

If anyone was putting a pro-Turkish spin on it I could understand it, but you came out shooting talking about an entire race being barbaric and so on. I admit some people will not listen unless you put a gun to their heads and tell them to stop, but that is going a bit far.

What do you expect?

Over 1000 people are still 'missing', 1000's more were killed, napalm was used, Churches were burnt to ground, Graveyards were desecrated. If that isn't 'barbaric', what is?

What do you expect?

Over 1000 people are still 'missing', 1000's more were killed, napalm was used, Churches were burnt to ground, Graveyards were desecrated. If that isn't 'barbaric', what is?

The city of Troy no longer exists (somehow, it was destroyed in a war, and it's population sold into slavery or executed), if legend is to be believed at least one of the times it was sacked was by the Greeks, but I wouldn't say all Greeks are barbaric. Iraq gassed hundres of Kurds in the 80's, but I don't think all Iraqi's are barbaric, every nation has some account of tragedy in it's history, so by your reasoning we're all barbaric, so would you like to be the pot or kettle?

The city of Troy no longer exists (somehow, it was destroyed in a war, and it's population sold into slavery or executed), if legend is to be believed at least one of the times it was sacked was by the Greeks, but I wouldn't say all Greeks are barbaric. Iraq gassed hundres of Kurds in the 80's, but I don't think all Iraqi's are barbaric, every nation has some account of tragedy in it's history, so by your reasoning we're all barbaric, so would you like to be the pot or kettle?

Rhetoric at the end. Stupid examples at the beginning.

Troy was... What 2500 years ago? This invasion was.... what 30 years ago?

Stop preaching your own right wing version of goodwill - You cant convince two nations to stop hating each other simply because you believe its the decent thing to do - until you have lost someone in your family, or one of your friends to a barbarian race like the Turks, you cannot comment. And as for Halabjah - I would say pretty much all the Kurds involved in that despise Iraqis - I am not going to take that right away from them because I know how it feels. People want revenge, its a basic instinct.

Oh, so now I haven't lost anyone to anything, therefore I know nothing. So my father, who lost part of his stomach on a mountain in Korea pulling a soldier who had been hit by napalm off, does that not qualify enough for you? Ok, how about my close friend's son, who was killed only some months ago in Iraq, someone I was rather fond of, yet I hold no grudge against the Iraqi people, and as far as I know from talking with them, they don't either (not the Iraqi people per se, but they do hate Muqtada al-Sadr with a passion).

Still not enough? How about my sister who was raped in Brockton (A city in Mass), I don't hate everyone in Brockton, there are a lot of rapes there, my sister was one of them, but do I want them wiped off the planet, no. And I'm not trying to convince two nations to stop hating each other, I'm trying to get you to realize why wishing death and terror upon an entire people's becuase of the actions of a few, is wrong.

Oh, so now I haven't lost anyone to anything, therefore I know nothing. So my father, who lost part of his stomach on a mountain in Korea pulling a soldier who had been hit by napalm off, does that not qualify enough for you? Ok, how about my close friend's son, who was killed only some months ago in Iraq, someone I was rather fond of, yet I hold no grudge against the Iraqi people, and as far as I know from talking with them, they don't either (not the Iraqi people per se, but they do hate Muqtada al-Sadr with a passion).

Still not enough? How about my sister who was raped in Brockton (A city in Mass), I don't hate everyone in Brockton, there are a lot of rapes there, my sister was one of them, but do I want them wiped off the planet, no. And I'm not trying to convince two nations to stop hating each other, I'm trying to get you to realize why wishing death and terror upon an entire people's becuase of the actions of a few, is wrong.

Again, the examples you use to forcible change my opinion are flawed.

Brockton = A Place, we are not talking about a specific place within a country here.

Korea = The US/UN was the invading force - he was a soldier, not a non-combatant.

Iraq = Again, he was a soldier. Moqtada Al Sadr declared War on the US occupation and therefore it does not equate to invading a country and murdering innocent people.

You a moron to try and forcibly change my opinion of Turks, they will always be barbaric, their nation is racked with barbarism over the past 500 years.

Gandhi was a complete idiot. He invented the liberal movement of "We can solve every hostile situation with words and lawsuits only." Too bad that only works with civilized countries in the West. He tolerated everything that happened to him and that what got him killed. If he was leader of India today, Al Qaeda would have been able to totally massacre all and gain control of a much larger country. See the fact is tolerance of anything against is going to get you killed or keep you at a low level of life. He is the reason why the world is so screwed and why N. Korea and etc. are allowed to exist.

Again, the examples you use to forcible change my opinion are flawed.

Brockton = A Place, we are not talking about a specific place within a country here.

Ok, in that case, I don't hate all Americans, it was a microcosm example.

Korea = The US/UN was the invading force - he was a soldier, not a non-combatant.

Iraq = Again, he was a soldier. Moqtada Al Sadr declared War on the US occupation and therefore it does not equate to invading a country and murdering innocent people.

Granted, you are correct on these two examples

You a moron to try and forcibly change my opinion of Turks, they will always be barbaric, their nation is racked with barbarism over the past 500 years.

I'm not trying to forcibly chagne your opinion, if I wanted to do that I would find you, put a gun to your head, and say "You believe this or else". I tried arguing with you using my points against yours, it's called debate, but obviously you are very entrenched in your position, so I throw in the towel, hate the Turks all you want.

I'm sure their is a Turkish kid who hates you and your people just as much as you hate him, and if we're lucky, you both will wipe each other out in revenge against each other, becuase neither side is willing to accept that it's never going to end this way. And once you have all slaughtered yourselves, maybe then the world can have a little peace, so more power to you.

Ghandi was the innovator of Non Violent protest.

as such, anyone who calls him a "Terrorist" is an idiot.

Gandhi was a complete idiot. He invented the liberal movement of "We can solve every hostile situation with words and lawsuits only."

India isn't British is it?

Too bad that only works with civilized countries in the West.

Gandhi himself admitted this was true, he admitted that his actions would only work against a people like the British, it wouldn't work against a state like Nazi Germany.

He tolerated everything that happened to him and that what got him killed.

What got him killed was an assasin who thought he would lead to a united India, both Hindu and Muslim, it has nothing to do with his ideas except for a Free India.

f he was leader of India today, Al Qaeda would have been able to totally massacre all and gain control of a much larger country.

As I pointed out, he did not believe non-voilence would always work, so it's not like he would make India some unarmed country ripe for a terrorist takeover.

See the fact is tolerance of anything against is going to get you killed or keep you at a low level of life.

Yeah, that's why India is a British colony, and African Americans are still segregated in the South..... oh wait.

He is the reason why the world is so screwed and why N. Korea and etc. are allowed to exist.

Ok, your going to have to give me a really good explanation as to how you worked that one out. What the hell does N. Korea have to do with Gandhi.