It's not the gun laws, it's the Islamists!

[Sandydragon]

And, as already pointed out, that "relative" peace only lasted a couple of decades and applied to internal rather than external peace.

But OF COURSE it was white Europe's fault that the benevolent and kindly ottoman empire crumbled.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

And it appears to be OK for Turks to colonize Arab land, but not Europeans?

I've got to get a screenshot of that particular piece of r---t stupidity.

You don't even understand when you r-----m is r----m, do you?

You put in too many dashes, only 4 required for racism.

Im loving your attempt to get yourself banned, why not just leave? Seriously, if its that bad just go.

[UGagain]

And it appears to be OK for Turks to colonize Arab land, but not Europeans?

I've got to get a screenshot of that particular piece of r---t stupidity.

You don't even understand when you r-----m is r----m, do you?

You put in too many dashes, only 4 required for racism.

Im loving your attempt to get yourself banned, why not just leave? Seriously, if its that bad just go.

You see, the difference is that I don't want to ban you or even complain about you.

But of course you don't see.

Because you're as dumb as a bag of hammers.

[cashead]

I've got to get a screenshot of that particular piece of r---t stupidity.

You don't even understand when you r-----m is r----m, do you?

You put in too many dashes, only 4 required for racism.

Im loving your attempt to get yourself banned, why not just leave? Seriously, if its that bad just go.

You see, the difference is that I don't want to ban you or even complain about you.

But of course you don't see.

Because you're as dumb as a bag of hammers.

You don't want to complain about Sandy, so you make multiple threads about him and follow him from thread to thread, complaining at him about his posts?

[UGagain]

And it appears to be OK for Turks to colonize Arab land, but not Europeans?

I've got to get a screenshot of that particular piece of r---t stupidity.

You don't even understand when you r-----m is r----m, do you?

You put in too many dashes, only 4 required for racism.

Im loving your attempt to get yourself banned, why not just leave? Seriously, if its that bad just go.

You're itching to ban me becauSe you can't win the arguments.Then you'll attack Rowan.

[Which Tyler]

You put in too many dashes, only 4 required for racism.

Im loving your attempt to get yourself banned, why not just leave? Seriously, if its that bad just go.

You see, the difference is that I don't want to ban you or even complain about you.

But of course you don't see.

Because you're as dumb as a bag of hammers.

You don't want to complain about Sandy, so you make multiple threads about him and follow him from thread to thread, complaining at him about his posts?

[Sandydragon]

I've got to get a screenshot of that particular piece of r---t stupidity.

You don't even understand when you r-----m is r----m, do you?

You put in too many dashes, only 4 required for racism.

Im loving your attempt to get yourself banned, why not just leave? Seriously, if its that bad just go.

You see, the difference is that I don't want to ban you or even complain about you.

But of course you don't see.

Because you're as dumb as a bag of hammers.

How dumb is a bag of hammers? As bad as a bag of nails or as good as a bag of hungry badgers?

[rowan]

And, as already pointed out, that "relative" peace only lasted a couple of decades and applied to internal rather than external peace.

But OF COURSE it was white Europe's fault that the benevolent and kindly ottoman empire crumbled.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

And it appears to be OK for Turks to colonize Arab land, but not Europeans?

I've got to get a screenshot of that particular piece of r---t stupidity.

You don't even understand when you r-----m is r----m, do you?

Yes, it's amazing how everything gets twisted. My perfectly realistic comments about relative peace in the Middle East during Ottoman times - as compared with the post-Ottoman era, has been interpreted as support for the Ottoman colonization of the Middle East. But that's not the same thing. & I'm actually far more interested in what's going on in the 21st century, where we find most of the damage is not being done by the Europeans, per se, but by their American successors.

[Donny osmond]

And it appears to be OK for Turks to colonize Arab land, but not Europeans?

I've got to get a screenshot of that particular piece of r---t stupidity.

You don't even understand when you r-----m is r----m, do you?

Yes, it's amazing how everything gets twisted. My perfectly realistic comments about relative peace in the Middle East during Ottoman times - as compared with the post-Ottoman era, has been interpreted as support for the Ottoman colonization of the Middle East. But that's not the same thing. & I'm actually far more interested in what's going on in the 21st century, where we find most of the damage is not being done by the Europeans, per se, but by their American successors.

It hasn't been interpreted that way at all, you're just trying to paint yourself as a victim here.

If you're so interested in modern times why did you bring up the oh-so-peaceful ottoman empire then?

The reason I've been happy to pick you up on your claims isn't because I care about the ottoman empire at all. Its because it's all part of a bigger picture of you falling over yourself at every opportunity to paint white US/Europeans as the only possible aggressors and poor downtrodden Muslims as the only victims. None of the issues on these boards are binary issues, yet every thread, even where entirely unrelated, you leap in with tales of how evil the entire western hemisphere has been for all of history.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[rowan]

You've twisted things around, Donny. I'm beginning to see why UGagain gets so frustrated with you. The initial post which put us on a time machine back a century or so was provided not by me but my Morepork (see below). Now, personally, I had no issue with that. Morepork was making a fair point which I felt merited a response. But to accuse me of being the one who keeps on dragging up the colonial past is largely without basis. If that particular epoch is raised, however, don't expect anyone to pull their punches.

It's not just America. Many foreign powers have had military jollies in the Middle East that have taken from the locals and set up new orders. A jolly old time was had by all in Iraq when it was carved up all those years ago, and invading Iran during WWII was just fantastic for relieving Allied monotony.

[Donny osmond]

You've twisted things around, Donny. I'm beginning to see why UGagain gets so frustrated with you. The initial post which put us on a time machine back a century or so was provided not by me but my Morepork (see below). Now, personally, I had no issue with that. Morepork was making a fair point which I felt merited a response. But to accuse me of being the one who keeps on dragging up the colonial past is largely without basis. If that particular epoch is raised, however, don't expect anyone to pull their punches.

It's not just America. Many foreign powers have had military jollies in the Middle East that have taken from the locals and set up new orders. A jolly old time was had by all in Iraq when it was carved up all those years ago, and invading Iran during WWII was just fantastic for relieving Allied monotony.

I'm twisting? I haven't accused you of dragging up the colonial past, and that's the 2nd post in a row where you've put words in someone's mouth and defended yourself against charges that haven't been laid. But yeah, I'm the one twisting things. Incidentally, that's the exact tactic UG has been persisting with and failing with for the 10 years (? About that long) or so we've all been putting up with him on rugby rebels in various forms.

What I have done is point out, several times over several threads, how one-eyed and rose-tinted is your view of any country that isn't an ally of the US, and how equally one-eyed and pejorative is your view of the US and its allies. Again, that's been UGs tactic for the best part of a decade. It hasn't worked and isn't going to work, someone is always going to call him out on it, just as they will with you. In fairness you do seem to be infinitely more reasonable then UG, so you may have more luck.

Bottom line, I agree with a lot of what you say about the bad guys in the world, but your steadfast refusal to accept or discuss wrongdoing from anyone except US allies is your undoing, it undermines everything you are saying.

The US may well be a great Satan, but it isn't the only one. Admit that and you may find a more receptive audience.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[rowan]

Donny asks If you're so interested in modern times why did you bring up the oh-so-peaceful ottoman empire then?


I reply The initial post which put us on a time machine back a century or so was provided not by me but my Morepork (see below).

Donny says I haven't accused you of dragging up the colonial past

& so it goes

[Donny osmond]

Donny asks If you're so interested in modern times why did you bring up the oh-so-peaceful ottoman empire then?


I reply The initial post which put us on a time machine back a century or so was provided not by me but my Morepork (see below).

Donny says I haven't accused you of dragging up the colonial past

& so it goes

Aww you're such a victim, I'm so sorry...

Um, hang on...

But to accuse me of being the one who keeps on dragging up the colonial past is largely without basis. If that particular epoch is raised, however, don't expect anyone to pull their punches.

"..keeps on"... ".. keeps on". Hmmm that's a turn of phrase now. More than once then.

".. largely without basis." Largely without? So, slightly with, then?

In a discussion of how the mid east fell apart after WW2, the "colonial past" OBVIOUSLY refers to a couple of decades of the the ottoman empire of the 16th century, is that it?

Aye Rowan, you keep rolling your eyes son. You're at it.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[rowan]

In a discussion of how the mid east fell apart after WW2

Wrong war, Donny. Most of them gained their independence after WWII, though America did join Britain & France in meddling in their affairs.

[Donny osmond]

In a discussion of how the mid east fell apart after WW2

Wrong war, Donny. Most of them gained their independence after WWII, though America did join Britain & France in meddling in their affairs.

The almost perfect example of what I'm talking about. Deliberately disingenuous, completely ignoring the point, and wasting no opportunity to highlight the Great Satan and paint Middle East as the poor victims. Perfect.

You'll be glad to hear I'm off for a weeks holiday. Speak to you in 8 days time.

[rowan]

This about sums it up:

[UGagain]

And it appears to be OK for Turks to colonize Arab land, but not Europeans?

I've got to get a screenshot of that particular piece of r---t stupidity.

You don't even understand when you r-----m is r----m, do you?

Yes, it's amazing how everything gets twisted. My perfectly realistic comments about relative peace in the Middle East during Ottoman times - as compared with the post-Ottoman era, has been interpreted as support for the Ottoman colonization of the Middle East. But that's not the same thing. & I'm actually far more interested in what's going on in the 21st century, where we find most of the damage is not being done by the Europeans, per se, but by their American successors.

That's how it goes here, dude.

You can't actually have a rational conversation that deals with empirical evidence and follows a line of logic.

These people will believe 2 + 2 = 5 if the person telling them that is dressed in a Zegna suit or a military uniform and has the correct flags/coloured rags behind him as he says it.


It doesn't matter how crazy the official narrative is. They will rationalise it, believe it and salute it.

Personally it's difficult to believe that these are my species sometimes but that's the magic of western propaganda.

[rowan]

Yes, criticizing America and painting the Middle East as the victims would be on a par with, say, criticizing the British Empire and painting the Africans and Indians (et al) as the victims. Had Donny been around then, I'm sure he would have been outraged by any suggestion the empire was responsible for all the problems, and would have been trying to convince us instead that it was all the natives' own doing. Some things never change, and some people just never learn.

[UGagain]

US Insists Airstrikes Against Syria’s Manbij Will Continue
Spurns Calls From US-Backed Rebels to Halt Attacks
by Jason Ditz, July 22, 2016

With growing disquiet among their allies over a Tuesday morning flurry of airstrikes that killed scores, and potentially hundreds, of innocent civilians around the Syrian city of Manbij, the US was facing calls from its own allies within Syria to immediately suspend their air campaign for the sake of an investigation.

US officials, however, insist that’s not going to happen, with Army Col. Christopher Garver insisting that the US airstrikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria will continue unchanged despite the reports of huge civilian casualties.

It’s perhaps unsurprising, as the US rarely reacts to their most glaring blunders with actual policy changes, instead doubling down and offering a series of blanket denials and flimsy excuses for what happened, and spurning any suggestion of a change being necessary.

Col. Garver is already crafting excuses, insisting today that Manbij is a special case because of “the strategic importance of the city,” and accusing ISIS of forcing the civilians into the line of US fire “as a propaganda tool.”

While the US has often made similar claims that enemies are intentionally trying to get civilians killed in US attacks, US policy seems only too willing to oblige, and in Manbij alone the US is racking up such a horrendously large civilian death toll that the rebel force they’re supposedly supporting, the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF), is said to be facing a growing number of fighters threatening to leave just because they don’t want to be seen as affiliated with the US.

Adding to the sense that this is just business as usual, Col. Garver warned that preliminary investigations into the killings could take quite a bit of time, and even then it’s uncertain if it will lead to a “formal inquiry.” Most incidents of human rights groups confirming US forces killing civilians in Iraq and Syria never get that far, with the Pentagon simply writing them off as “not credible” and never counting them in their minuscule official toll.

http://news.antiwar.com/2016/07/22/us-i ... -continue/

[UGagain]

Yes, criticizing America and painting the Middle East as the victims would be on a par with, say, criticizing the British Empire and painting the Africans and Indians (et al) as the victims. Had Donny been around then, I'm sure he would have been outraged by any suggestion the empire was responsible for all the problems, and would have been trying to convince us instead that it was all the natives' own doing. Some things never change, and some people just never learn.

Western ‘civilisation’ has become so decadent, the masses so dumbed down, so passive and apathetic, so hopelessly addicted to simplistic sound bites and spectacles that it possible for those who keep them in such torpor to occasionally reveal the truth about Western complicity in crimes against humanity, then simply resume the tragic-comical narrative of Western benevolence. Repetition of falsity always triumphs over elucidation of truth. The society of the spectacle only sees what it is told to see. Our crimes are transposed and boldly displayed in a virtual gallery as the crimes of others.

http://www.gearoidocolmain.org/en/wests ... nts-syria/

[bruce]

This about sums it up:

The tragic event aside. That Rania would get it!

[Donny osmond]

Yes, criticizing America and painting the Middle East as the victims would be on a par with, say, criticizing the British Empire and painting the Africans and Indians (et al) as the victims. Had Donny been around then, I'm sure he would have been outraged by any suggestion the empire was responsible for all the problems, and would have been trying to convince us instead that it was all the natives' own doing. Some things never change, and some people just never learn.

More utterly dishonest bullshit goalpost moving. Once AGAIN the mighty seeker of "truth" is putting words on peoples mouths and judging them on things they haven't said. Isn't that Trumps favourite trick?

As I've explained several times, its your never ending habit of always sending criticism one way and never once accepting that it isn't a binary situation that I object to.

But you didn't care about what point I actually make, as you're so stuck in the victim mentality.

Shame as in all other respects you seem like a decent bloke, if you could just get over it, we'd probably get on Ok. Unless you need to feel persecuted, in which case just keep on making stuff up.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[rowan]

In what way am I stuck in the 'victim mentality?' I'm comparing America's actions in the Middle East today to the British Empire's actions in Africa and India. But guess what - I'm not Middle Eastern, and nor am I African or India. So how does that make me stuck in the 'victim mentality?' I'm a neutral observer who happens to be pretty much on the spot, and I call it as I see it. That's all. The apologists for and denialists of America's war crimes in the Middle East, in which Britain itself is also complicit, are no different to the apologists for and denialists of Britains war crimes in bygone centuries.

[rowan]

A couple of interesting stats for you:

1/ Terrorism is actually on the decline in Europe. It peaked in the 70s & 80s when separatist groups such as the IRA & ETA were at their most fearsomely violent.



2/ Toddlers with guns have killed more people in America over the past year than Islamic terrorists.

[Donny osmond]

In what way am I stuck in the 'victim mentality?' I'm comparing America's actions in the Middle East today to the British Empire's actions in Africa and India. But guess what - I'm not Middle Eastern, and nor am I African or India. So how does that make me stuck in the 'victim mentality?' I'm a neutral observer who happens to be pretty much on the spot, and I call it as I see it. That's all. The apologists for and denialists of America's war crimes in the Middle East, in which Britain itself is also complicit, are no different to the apologists for and denialists of Britains war crimes in bygone centuries.

... the bit you constantly leave out is that those crimes are also no different from the crimes committed by Russia or any number of middle eastern countries. That's my point. You're also a denialist and apologist, just on the other side.

Out of interest, can you quote any of my posts where I've denied UK or US involvement in the middle east or former empire countries?

The truth is you just want to put me in that box as it fits your narrative. That's your victim mentality, the need to (falsely) condemn me in order to justify yourself.

Look, I can't really be arsed with continuing this. I've said my piece over and over again. You can either listen or not, at this point I really have ceased to care. Just please don't put words in my mouth, that's all I'm asking.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

A couple of interesting stats for you:

1/ Terrorism is actually on the decline in Europe. It peaked in the 70s & 80s when separatist groups such as the IRA & ETA were at their most fearsomely violent.



2/ Toddlers with guns have killed more people in America over the past year than Islamic terrorists.

1st stat is great, the world is getting better all the time, its nice to see you giving out the stats that prove it.

2nd stat... what to say? America is a messed up place, esp when it comes to gun control. I won't be going there any time soon.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk