The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Spin that you vile little man.
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> Same as the march I was on in London.
> A massive diverse group of race, religion, age, class and sex.
Can i ask something? How many Iraqi's were on the march. Not just people from that area, but people who had suffered under Saddam??? Personally, i don't remember seeing all that many Iraqi's opposed to the war. Sure, some knew civilians would die and opposed it, but most followed in Rooservelt words,
"If i have to choose between peace or Righteousness, i choose righteousness!"
> Same as the march I was on in London.
> A massive diverse group of race, religion, age, class and sex.
Can i ask something? How many Iraqi's were on the march. Not just people from that area, but people who had suffered under Saddam??? Personally, i don't remember seeing all that many Iraqi's opposed to the war. Sure, some knew civilians would die and opposed it, but most followed in Rooservelt words,
"If i have to choose between peace or Righteousness, i choose righteousness!"
Belldandy wrote:
> Can, Communists oppose Capitalism and it's governments, hence to see
> Communists funding a campaign which whips up anti-government support.
> I'm not saying there should be no campaign, I'm saying the financial
> side is suspect in the least, and noticeably you didn't reply to any
> of the finance related questions I posed.
So you are saying that sole funding, or even a majority of the funding is coming from the communist party yes?
I want to make sure of this before I discuss this point any further.
And noticeably I didnt reply to any of the finance related questions as you noticeably didn't respond to the fact you did lump everyone together, and then said you weren't.
As you noticeably didn't respond to the fact that you dismissed Zimbabwe as "only a few African leaders are complaining"
> But were we lied to at all ? Investigations still continue, and most
> witnesses to the Hutoon Enquiry, whilst expressing concerns about the
> information, have not said any of it was pure fabrication. Wrongful
> intelligence ? Maybe, but that's not lying.
---
The Hutton enquiry is not about whether we were lied to or not.
It is investigating the reasons for Dr David Kelly committing suicide and how his name became public.
Tony Blair refused to allow a judicial enquiry into the causes of the war.
Only the dossier is being discussed, and in relation to the points raised by Gilligan in his report and subsequent fallout.
> Can, Communists oppose Capitalism and it's governments, hence to see
> Communists funding a campaign which whips up anti-government support.
> I'm not saying there should be no campaign, I'm saying the financial
> side is suspect in the least, and noticeably you didn't reply to any
> of the finance related questions I posed.
So you are saying that sole funding, or even a majority of the funding is coming from the communist party yes?
I want to make sure of this before I discuss this point any further.
And noticeably I didnt reply to any of the finance related questions as you noticeably didn't respond to the fact you did lump everyone together, and then said you weren't.
As you noticeably didn't respond to the fact that you dismissed Zimbabwe as "only a few African leaders are complaining"
> But were we lied to at all ? Investigations still continue, and most
> witnesses to the Hutoon Enquiry, whilst expressing concerns about the
> information, have not said any of it was pure fabrication. Wrongful
> intelligence ? Maybe, but that's not lying.
---
The Hutton enquiry is not about whether we were lied to or not.
It is investigating the reasons for Dr David Kelly committing suicide and how his name became public.
Tony Blair refused to allow a judicial enquiry into the causes of the war.
Only the dossier is being discussed, and in relation to the points raised by Gilligan in his report and subsequent fallout.
Goatboy wrote:
> Doesn't that strike you as somewhat hypocritical on the Coalition's
> part ?
>
> No it doesn't. Because communism is not at fault here, nor is it a
> dirty secret to be ashamed of. I'm not communist, but millions of
> people are and it's just not a big deal. As an ideal, I agree with
> it. But practicality, as with any system of governing, creates
> problems, errors and unworkable practices.
But how does that relate to Stop The War Coalitions hiding of where there money comes from ? You have concerns about Bush because of where his campaigin money comes from, yet at least he declared most of it, Stop The War has declared very little, yet it's supporters don't seem to care.
> That's a daft comparison Bell.
> The BNP is an inherently racist organisation that employs incendiary
> rhetoric and prays on the stupidity and close-mindedness of a tiny
> proportion of the public.
> The Communist Party is an organisation that does not promote racism,
> intolerance, fear and prejudice.
> You simply cannot compare the two.
Can, Communists oppose Capitalism and it's governments, hence to see Communists funding a campaign which whips up anti-government support. I'm not saying there should be no campaign, I'm saying the financial side is suspect in the least, and noticeably you didn't reply to any of the finance related questions I posed.
> Because we weren't lied to about the reasons for attacking a country
> that has never acted aggressively towards us.
> We were told that Iraq presented a serious, credible and very real
> threat to our immediate safety
But were we lied to at all ? Investigations still continue, and most witnesses to the Hutoon Enquiry, whilst expressing concerns about the information, have not said any of it was pure fabrication. Wrongful intelligence ? Maybe, but that's not lying.
> Doesn't that strike you as somewhat hypocritical on the Coalition's
> part ?
>
> No it doesn't. Because communism is not at fault here, nor is it a
> dirty secret to be ashamed of. I'm not communist, but millions of
> people are and it's just not a big deal. As an ideal, I agree with
> it. But practicality, as with any system of governing, creates
> problems, errors and unworkable practices.
But how does that relate to Stop The War Coalitions hiding of where there money comes from ? You have concerns about Bush because of where his campaigin money comes from, yet at least he declared most of it, Stop The War has declared very little, yet it's supporters don't seem to care.
> That's a daft comparison Bell.
> The BNP is an inherently racist organisation that employs incendiary
> rhetoric and prays on the stupidity and close-mindedness of a tiny
> proportion of the public.
> The Communist Party is an organisation that does not promote racism,
> intolerance, fear and prejudice.
> You simply cannot compare the two.
Can, Communists oppose Capitalism and it's governments, hence to see Communists funding a campaign which whips up anti-government support. I'm not saying there should be no campaign, I'm saying the financial side is suspect in the least, and noticeably you didn't reply to any of the finance related questions I posed.
> Because we weren't lied to about the reasons for attacking a country
> that has never acted aggressively towards us.
> We were told that Iraq presented a serious, credible and very real
> threat to our immediate safety
But were we lied to at all ? Investigations still continue, and most witnesses to the Hutoon Enquiry, whilst expressing concerns about the information, have not said any of it was pure fabrication. Wrongful intelligence ? Maybe, but that's not lying.
The Glasgow march also featured a bunch of kids who realised that it was the perfect opportunity to break the 'no drinking on the streets' law, but I thought that might undermine my point.
Same as the march I was on in London.
A massive diverse group of race, religion, age, class and sex.
A massive diverse group of race, religion, age, class and sex.
The anti-war march I was on was incredibly diverse. There were dozens of different organisations there: Muslim groups, Christian groups, Friends of the Earth, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Scottish National Party, the Green Party, trade unions, some dirty communists, school and youth groups, and a bunch of individuals like me with no affiliation whatsoever. The point is that I don't agree with every single thing that every single one of those groups believe, even if I was marching alongside them. And even though I would quite happily punch your average tofu-eating goodie-goodie, they still have a right to their long-winded and pious opinions.
As far as questionable motives go: I had a look at the Stop the War website and their leaders do include people from the moronic Socialist Workers Party, but also from trade unions, Muslim organisations, and writers and MPs. There probably are some bandwagon jumpers, but there are also credible people who were protesting about Saddam at a time when Donny Rusfeld was selling him arms. If ordinary anti-war protestors had refused to go on any march that was organised by someone they disagreed with then we would have hundreds of tiny protests that could be easily dismissed by the government and the media.
As far as questionable motives go: I had a look at the Stop the War website and their leaders do include people from the moronic Socialist Workers Party, but also from trade unions, Muslim organisations, and writers and MPs. There probably are some bandwagon jumpers, but there are also credible people who were protesting about Saddam at a time when Donny Rusfeld was selling him arms. If ordinary anti-war protestors had refused to go on any march that was organised by someone they disagreed with then we would have hundreds of tiny protests that could be easily dismissed by the government and the media.
Belldandy wrote:
> Because for starters I'm liking it to the people behind the protests,
> not the entire bunch of protestors.
But what confuses me is in your previous post, you wrote:
"If that march involved Stop The War then they may as well be members even if they were not, marching with Stop The War effectively associates someone with them.", where you have just linked it to the entire bunch of protestors.
> Doesn't that strike you as somewhat hypocritical on the Coalition's
> part ?
No it doesn't. Because communism is not at fault here, nor is it a dirty secret to be ashamed of. I'm not communist, but millions of people are and it's just not a big deal. As an ideal, I agree with it. But practicality, as with any system of governing, creates problems, errors and unworkable practices.
> True, Communists aren't illegal, but would you find it suspect if the
> BNP marched in support of the new policy supporting the testing of
> asylum seekers on aspects of the UK ? Of course you would, and you'd
> know the BNP would support anything which made it harder for asylum
> seekers.
That's a daft comparison Bell.
The BNP is an inherently racist organisation that employs incendiary rhetoric and prays on the stupidity and close-mindedness of a tiny proportion of the public.
The Communist Party is an organisation that does not promote racism, intolerance, fear and prejudice.
You simply cannot compare the two.
> Interestingly, seeing as there are still plenty of wars going on, how
> come no one protests about them ?
Because we weren't lied to about the reasons for attacking a country that has never acted aggressively towards us.
We were told that Iraq presented a serious, credible and very real threat to our immediate safety (45 mins blah blah blah).
We haven't invaded Liberia under false pretenses.
And if I remember rightly, you defended the current situation in Zimbabwe by saying "Only a few African leaders have protested about Mugabe", and that lead to the whole General Pinochet argument.
Please don't start trying to ask why we haven't acted in Zimbabwe, I've been shouting about that for months and you've explained why you think we haven't.
> Because for starters I'm liking it to the people behind the protests,
> not the entire bunch of protestors.
But what confuses me is in your previous post, you wrote:
"If that march involved Stop The War then they may as well be members even if they were not, marching with Stop The War effectively associates someone with them.", where you have just linked it to the entire bunch of protestors.
> Doesn't that strike you as somewhat hypocritical on the Coalition's
> part ?
No it doesn't. Because communism is not at fault here, nor is it a dirty secret to be ashamed of. I'm not communist, but millions of people are and it's just not a big deal. As an ideal, I agree with it. But practicality, as with any system of governing, creates problems, errors and unworkable practices.
> True, Communists aren't illegal, but would you find it suspect if the
> BNP marched in support of the new policy supporting the testing of
> asylum seekers on aspects of the UK ? Of course you would, and you'd
> know the BNP would support anything which made it harder for asylum
> seekers.
That's a daft comparison Bell.
The BNP is an inherently racist organisation that employs incendiary rhetoric and prays on the stupidity and close-mindedness of a tiny proportion of the public.
The Communist Party is an organisation that does not promote racism, intolerance, fear and prejudice.
You simply cannot compare the two.
> Interestingly, seeing as there are still plenty of wars going on, how
> come no one protests about them ?
Because we weren't lied to about the reasons for attacking a country that has never acted aggressively towards us.
We were told that Iraq presented a serious, credible and very real threat to our immediate safety (45 mins blah blah blah).
We haven't invaded Liberia under false pretenses.
And if I remember rightly, you defended the current situation in Zimbabwe by saying "Only a few African leaders have protested about Mugabe", and that lead to the whole General Pinochet argument.
Please don't start trying to ask why we haven't acted in Zimbabwe, I've been shouting about that for months and you've explained why you think we haven't.
Goatboy wrote:
> My point is, how does linking communism to anti-war protestors make
> their voice any less valid, and even if one million marches were
> communist,how does that change the facts in regards to the actions of
> the UK and US?
Because for starters I'm liking it to the people behind the protests, not the entire bunch of protestors. If it was a mute point, why did Stop The War Coaltion, which like yourself is critical of how Bush funded himself, not make it known where there money was coming from ? I mean, at least we know where Bush's funding came from, it's a matter of public record for the most part, yet if you search the internet, there is very little about where Stop The War Coalition drew it's money from.
Doesn't that strike you as somewhat hypocritical on the Coalition's part ?
But, moving back on track, if Communist organisations and supporters fund a campaign which opposes the government, and puts in charge of that campaign members of their organisation, is the motive for the campaign really Iraq or just another chance to stir up trouble with the Capitalist governments that such Communist groups oppose ? Does it matter ? Maybe. How many of the protestors who complained about the people who donated money to Bush's campaign could tell anyone where the Coalitions money came from ?
True, Communists aren't illegal, but would you find it suspect if the BNP marched in support of the new policy supporting the testing of asylum seekers on aspects of the UK ? Of course you would, and you'd know the BNP would support anything which made it harder for asylum seekers.
Maybe if Stop The War were more open about who they are, where they are, and how they came into being I'd be less cynical.
Interestingly, seeing as there are still plenty of wars going on, how come no one protests about them ? Didn't see much interest in the Liberian situation, or elsewhere for that matter. Zimbabwe seems to have dropped off the media altogehter - though National Geographic has done a good article in the latest issue which underlines how desperate the situation is becoming, if only we'd have used the persecution of British farmers as an excuse to move in...
> My point is, how does linking communism to anti-war protestors make
> their voice any less valid, and even if one million marches were
> communist,how does that change the facts in regards to the actions of
> the UK and US?
Because for starters I'm liking it to the people behind the protests, not the entire bunch of protestors. If it was a mute point, why did Stop The War Coaltion, which like yourself is critical of how Bush funded himself, not make it known where there money was coming from ? I mean, at least we know where Bush's funding came from, it's a matter of public record for the most part, yet if you search the internet, there is very little about where Stop The War Coalition drew it's money from.
Doesn't that strike you as somewhat hypocritical on the Coalition's part ?
But, moving back on track, if Communist organisations and supporters fund a campaign which opposes the government, and puts in charge of that campaign members of their organisation, is the motive for the campaign really Iraq or just another chance to stir up trouble with the Capitalist governments that such Communist groups oppose ? Does it matter ? Maybe. How many of the protestors who complained about the people who donated money to Bush's campaign could tell anyone where the Coalitions money came from ?
True, Communists aren't illegal, but would you find it suspect if the BNP marched in support of the new policy supporting the testing of asylum seekers on aspects of the UK ? Of course you would, and you'd know the BNP would support anything which made it harder for asylum seekers.
Maybe if Stop The War were more open about who they are, where they are, and how they came into being I'd be less cynical.
Interestingly, seeing as there are still plenty of wars going on, how come no one protests about them ? Didn't see much interest in the Liberian situation, or elsewhere for that matter. Zimbabwe seems to have dropped off the media altogehter - though National Geographic has done a good article in the latest issue which underlines how desperate the situation is becoming, if only we'd have used the persecution of British farmers as an excuse to move in...
> Right now Stop The War Coalition wants our troops out, that means
> that their view can also be taken as the view of all those who allied
> themselves with the Coalition, which is confusing as I'd have thought
> the last thing many charities/aid agencies wanted would be the
> removal of what little security existed in Iraq in the first place.
Stop The War Coalition, although I have nothing to do with them, were trying to raise issues in the months before we even went.
They were saying "There is no basis for war at all".
As were an awful lot of newspapers, MP's and a pretty damn large segment of the population.
The anti-war protests were the largest ever recorded for civil protest, and I'm sorry but to say "Well you might as well as be communists" is a ridiculous thing to say.
> I mean, can anyone here reasonably argue how withdrawing all our
> troops form Iraq right now improves anything for the Iraqi people ?
> An answer to this from Stop The War Coalition seems strangely absent
> from all their web sites.
I'm not trying to argue that at all.
I'm saying we should never have been there in the 1st place.
There were no weapons that were a threat to us.
You say there are?
Where are they? Satellite photographs reveal nothing, intelligence reveals nothing, the captured members of that "playing card" group reveal nothing. The death of Hussein's sons have revealed nothing. The removal of the threat of reprisals from the government for co-operating has revealed nothing.
But that's not the point, we're digressing into the usual "Should we/shouldn't we have" crap. And that ends nowhere.
My point is, how does linking communism to anti-war protestors make their voice any less valid, and even if one million marches were communist,how does that change the facts in regards to the actions of the UK and US?
> that their view can also be taken as the view of all those who allied
> themselves with the Coalition, which is confusing as I'd have thought
> the last thing many charities/aid agencies wanted would be the
> removal of what little security existed in Iraq in the first place.
Stop The War Coalition, although I have nothing to do with them, were trying to raise issues in the months before we even went.
They were saying "There is no basis for war at all".
As were an awful lot of newspapers, MP's and a pretty damn large segment of the population.
The anti-war protests were the largest ever recorded for civil protest, and I'm sorry but to say "Well you might as well as be communists" is a ridiculous thing to say.
> I mean, can anyone here reasonably argue how withdrawing all our
> troops form Iraq right now improves anything for the Iraqi people ?
> An answer to this from Stop The War Coalition seems strangely absent
> from all their web sites.
I'm not trying to argue that at all.
I'm saying we should never have been there in the 1st place.
There were no weapons that were a threat to us.
You say there are?
Where are they? Satellite photographs reveal nothing, intelligence reveals nothing, the captured members of that "playing card" group reveal nothing. The death of Hussein's sons have revealed nothing. The removal of the threat of reprisals from the government for co-operating has revealed nothing.
But that's not the point, we're digressing into the usual "Should we/shouldn't we have" crap. And that ends nowhere.
My point is, how does linking communism to anti-war protestors make their voice any less valid, and even if one million marches were communist,how does that change the facts in regards to the actions of the UK and US?
Fair enough, but I was talking about the London march, didn't make that clear.
Tony Benn gave a speech, he's not communist.
However, I fail to see the relevance of communism here.
What does it matter even if the entire 1 million people were communist that marched in London?
Why should that negate the protest? Communism has played no part either in Hussein's behaviour to his people (the reason offered now) or in the collection, purchasing or non-disposal of weapons of mass destruction (the original reason offered)
So even if it was a million people marching waving hammer & sickle flags, does that mean the protest meant nothing, that the views of these people should not be taken into consideration?
But if you wish to take the issue of funding deciding party politics and therefore influencing the behaviour,attitude and mindset of the entire group - then Bush is as guilty.
His campaign was funded by, amongst others, Enron, Halliburton, Time-Warner...and a lot of those self-same companies that contributed to his funding campaign, as with his father, are set to be awarded significant contracts to rebuild Iraq.
If any group looks shady because of funding associations, it's this so-called Coalition.
However - My main point is how does Communism play any part in protesting a war in Iraq? They are not guilty of Sept 11th or anything whatsoever to do with Hussein.
Unlike The UK and US - complicit in, and solely responsible for the current situation. Both pre and after this invasion.
Tony Benn gave a speech, he's not communist.
However, I fail to see the relevance of communism here.
What does it matter even if the entire 1 million people were communist that marched in London?
Why should that negate the protest? Communism has played no part either in Hussein's behaviour to his people (the reason offered now) or in the collection, purchasing or non-disposal of weapons of mass destruction (the original reason offered)
So even if it was a million people marching waving hammer & sickle flags, does that mean the protest meant nothing, that the views of these people should not be taken into consideration?
But if you wish to take the issue of funding deciding party politics and therefore influencing the behaviour,attitude and mindset of the entire group - then Bush is as guilty.
His campaign was funded by, amongst others, Enron, Halliburton, Time-Warner...and a lot of those self-same companies that contributed to his funding campaign, as with his father, are set to be awarded significant contracts to rebuild Iraq.
If any group looks shady because of funding associations, it's this so-called Coalition.
However - My main point is how does Communism play any part in protesting a war in Iraq? They are not guilty of Sept 11th or anything whatsoever to do with Hussein.
Unlike The UK and US - complicit in, and solely responsible for the current situation. Both pre and after this invasion.
Page: