The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 1) Are you suggesting that every single person that marched in
> protest, over a million people with zero trouble, was a member of the
> Stop The War Coalition?
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. If they marched in march not involving Stop The War Coalition then they were obvisouly not associating with them. And you'll find that not every protest and march passed off without trouble, a Stop The War protest at Lakenheath resulted in many arrests when campaigners attempted to scale the fences of the base, similar happened at Fairford and Mildenhall, to name but a few.
> 2) And are you therefore suggesting that every single member of the
> Stop The War Coalition is somehow a communist because of money
> donated from outside parties? That every single person to was/is
> opposed to a war based on misinformation is somehow a communist by
> proxy?
No, I'm saying that the motives of Stop The War's leaders are suspect because of where the funding came from and there past history. Don't get me wrong, many people genuinelly did campaign to stop the war, but when someone in charge has a history tied with Communism, and opposing just about every thing ever done by Capitalist nations, you have to wonder if he is leading a group because of the war, or because it's just another way to mobilise people against government. It's a case of a worthy cause being subverted by a few, yet without the funding Stop The War Coaltion would have had difficulty existing so effectively.
Another troubling aspect was the way many established organistation readily allied themselves with Stop The War - Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth, CND, all and more could be seen joining in and actively working with the Coalition. Since when did Greenpeace have any relevance to Iraq ? Friends Of The Earth ? CND surely wants every country to disarm...strangely that is not the case.
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. To me, the insisence that we pull out right now is further proof that Stop The War Coalitions LEADERS were more interested in just opposing any Western Action anywhere, rather than any specific interest in Iraq, or it's people.
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.
> 1) Are you suggesting that every single person that marched in
> protest, over a million people with zero trouble, was a member of the
> Stop The War Coalition?
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. If they marched in march not involving Stop The War Coalition then they were obvisouly not associating with them. And you'll find that not every protest and march passed off without trouble, a Stop The War protest at Lakenheath resulted in many arrests when campaigners attempted to scale the fences of the base, similar happened at Fairford and Mildenhall, to name but a few.
> 2) And are you therefore suggesting that every single member of the
> Stop The War Coalition is somehow a communist because of money
> donated from outside parties? That every single person to was/is
> opposed to a war based on misinformation is somehow a communist by
> proxy?
No, I'm saying that the motives of Stop The War's leaders are suspect because of where the funding came from and there past history. Don't get me wrong, many people genuinelly did campaign to stop the war, but when someone in charge has a history tied with Communism, and opposing just about every thing ever done by Capitalist nations, you have to wonder if he is leading a group because of the war, or because it's just another way to mobilise people against government. It's a case of a worthy cause being subverted by a few, yet without the funding Stop The War Coaltion would have had difficulty existing so effectively.
Another troubling aspect was the way many established organistation readily allied themselves with Stop The War - Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth, CND, all and more could be seen joining in and actively working with the Coalition. Since when did Greenpeace have any relevance to Iraq ? Friends Of The Earth ? CND surely wants every country to disarm...strangely that is not the case.
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. To me, the insisence that we pull out right now is further proof that Stop The War Coalitions LEADERS were more interested in just opposing any Western Action anywhere, rather than any specific interest in Iraq, or it's people.
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.
No worries, cheers.
I spent most of the morning trying to do a PC network so I'll reply late on okay ?
*pop*
Because I'm interested in your reply Bell.
Because I'm interested in your reply Bell.
*sigh*
Bell, can you see how you undermine any points you may make?
"people who'll be convinced about something because someone does a post about it and posts a few links are probably easily convinced of anything anyway."
Fair enough, a valid and adult point, and a gracious way of not getting involved in a spat.
But what's the next post 5 mins later?
"But while we're here..."
However, as per usual I find your blanket generalisation of those that divert from your views as somehow generically part of the same group offensive, purile and incredibly naive, I have 2 questions:
1) Are you suggesting that every single person that marched in protest, over a million people with zero trouble, was a member of the Stop The War Coalition?
2) And are you therefore suggesting that every single member of the Stop The War Coalition is somehow a communist because of money donated from outside parties? That every single person to was/is opposed to a war based on misinformation is somehow a communist by proxy?
If the answer is yes, then I can quite happily provide you with several phone numbers of people that marched, myself included, that are members of no organisation other than a moral group of random strangers that felt this was an unecessary waste of life.
If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of highlighting monetary donation from organisations you do not agree with?
And since when was it a crime to be a Communist anyway? How does that make the war any more moral or legal?
Or how, taking your supposition, does a million communists marching make their opinion or case any less justified?
Bell, can you see how you undermine any points you may make?
"people who'll be convinced about something because someone does a post about it and posts a few links are probably easily convinced of anything anyway."
Fair enough, a valid and adult point, and a gracious way of not getting involved in a spat.
But what's the next post 5 mins later?
"But while we're here..."
However, as per usual I find your blanket generalisation of those that divert from your views as somehow generically part of the same group offensive, purile and incredibly naive, I have 2 questions:
1) Are you suggesting that every single person that marched in protest, over a million people with zero trouble, was a member of the Stop The War Coalition?
2) And are you therefore suggesting that every single member of the Stop The War Coalition is somehow a communist because of money donated from outside parties? That every single person to was/is opposed to a war based on misinformation is somehow a communist by proxy?
If the answer is yes, then I can quite happily provide you with several phone numbers of people that marched, myself included, that are members of no organisation other than a moral group of random strangers that felt this was an unecessary waste of life.
If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of highlighting monetary donation from organisations you do not agree with?
And since when was it a crime to be a Communist anyway? How does that make the war any more moral or legal?
Or how, taking your supposition, does a million communists marching make their opinion or case any less justified?
But while were here http://www.communist-party.org.uk/home/print.php?sid=90 makes reference to some of what I said, and a quick Google will show that every Communist party/group in existence was part of Stop The War.
Light wrote:
> Actually, I was going to push for you to answer the questions raised,
> but I'm guessing you're not going to. Not that it detracts from your
> opinion, but I will repeat what I've already said; you can't expect
> to convince many people of the truth of your beliefs by avoiding
> answering honest questions.
I can't be bothered. I post links, you'll post links to the contrary, it's the internet, I can probably find links to back up anything about anything. I don't want to convince people, people who'll be convinced about something because someone does a post about it and posts a few links are probably easily convinced of anything anyway. It's my opinion, live with it.
> Actually, I was going to push for you to answer the questions raised,
> but I'm guessing you're not going to. Not that it detracts from your
> opinion, but I will repeat what I've already said; you can't expect
> to convince many people of the truth of your beliefs by avoiding
> answering honest questions.
I can't be bothered. I post links, you'll post links to the contrary, it's the internet, I can probably find links to back up anything about anything. I don't want to convince people, people who'll be convinced about something because someone does a post about it and posts a few links are probably easily convinced of anything anyway. It's my opinion, live with it.
Have you seen the guy who is going to replace Campbell. There's a little photo of him just now on the guardian.co.uk homepage. He has a big comedy moustache and a pair of thick glasses, no doubt to hide his shifty eyes. Hey, Dubya, your ace of spades just got a job working for Tony.
Too right. But nobody's saying these things.
"What was the reason for this war?"
"Liberation of Iraqi people"
"Why did you lie earlier?
"Err....no, see, that was the other reason, there were weapons of mass destruction"
"Were?"
"Are"
"Where?"
"...Look how good these people have it!"
"Sorry, did I just skip a part of the conversation?"
"The Iraqis are now free from the tyrannical Saddam"
"They can have a good loot, enjoy regular shootings and fights with our forces and sit in the dark drinking dirty water too"
"Yes...no sorry! I meant no!"
The thing is, even if someone did ask these questions, not much will happen to Blair. Also you could take the opinion that the damage has already been done.
"What was the reason for this war?"
"Liberation of Iraqi people"
"Why did you lie earlier?
"Err....no, see, that was the other reason, there were weapons of mass destruction"
"Were?"
"Are"
"Where?"
"...Look how good these people have it!"
"Sorry, did I just skip a part of the conversation?"
"The Iraqis are now free from the tyrannical Saddam"
"They can have a good loot, enjoy regular shootings and fights with our forces and sit in the dark drinking dirty water too"
"Yes...no sorry! I meant no!"
The thing is, even if someone did ask these questions, not much will happen to Blair. Also you could take the opinion that the damage has already been done.
Ok, who wants a bet that by this time next week Hoon will have resigned/been reshuffled to a backroom?
Campbell resigned, deflecting attention from Blair's evidence (the day after the black outs a few hours after his evidence). Sure, he was "thinking about resigning as long as last April", but the timing was perfecto for being a shield for Bubba.
Whereas Hoon pointed at everyone else and said "No, it was him Miss, honest" and refused to carry the bag for good ol' Tony.
Campbell resigns, Hoon removed and Blair grins his way through a sham investigation that the public think is about the reasons for war instead of investigating the suicide of an honourable man.
I remind you that Blair refused to allow a judicial enquiry, outside the realms of governmental influence, into the reasons offered for the invasion of Iraq in the face of spurious evidence, national concern and global cyncism as to the justification.
"No" says our glorious leader "It is not necessary"
Yet Dr Kelly, who in an email mere hours before his suicide, spoke to someone of "dark actors at play" merits a nice, drawn out enquiry with ultimate responsibility ending where?
Number 10.
Even Intelligence Officials are admitting concerns over the dossier:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3077830.stm
Campbell gets away with influencing a war based on zero evidence.
Hoon gets moved somewhere else.
Dr Kelly dies.
US now have over 85% of their "most wanted cards", yet are still unable to offer up any evidence whatsoever of these weapons we were warned about that could strike.
Saddam still remains at large.
As does Bin Laden.
Al-Queda appears to be operating just fine thanks.
Bombings of UN buildings, police stations and ambushing of soldiers by....nobody really knows.
And Tony Blair smiles at the cameras and goes on holiday to Tuscany.
Regime change was not a reason offered for war.
Ousting Saddam for the good of the people was not a reason offered for war.
Weapons of mass desruction that were an immediate and very real threat, as spoken by Blair in a televised address to the nation, was the reason.
And as of date, nothing has been found anywhere.
You don't need an enquiry.
You just need to take a step back and look at what's been offered up as "See! Told you!" proof that the warhawks were crowing about when a million people, from people like my mum to the usual suspects marched in protest.
Shameful.
Campbell resigned, deflecting attention from Blair's evidence (the day after the black outs a few hours after his evidence). Sure, he was "thinking about resigning as long as last April", but the timing was perfecto for being a shield for Bubba.
Whereas Hoon pointed at everyone else and said "No, it was him Miss, honest" and refused to carry the bag for good ol' Tony.
Campbell resigns, Hoon removed and Blair grins his way through a sham investigation that the public think is about the reasons for war instead of investigating the suicide of an honourable man.
I remind you that Blair refused to allow a judicial enquiry, outside the realms of governmental influence, into the reasons offered for the invasion of Iraq in the face of spurious evidence, national concern and global cyncism as to the justification.
"No" says our glorious leader "It is not necessary"
Yet Dr Kelly, who in an email mere hours before his suicide, spoke to someone of "dark actors at play" merits a nice, drawn out enquiry with ultimate responsibility ending where?
Number 10.
Even Intelligence Officials are admitting concerns over the dossier:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3077830.stm
Campbell gets away with influencing a war based on zero evidence.
Hoon gets moved somewhere else.
Dr Kelly dies.
US now have over 85% of their "most wanted cards", yet are still unable to offer up any evidence whatsoever of these weapons we were warned about that could strike.
Saddam still remains at large.
As does Bin Laden.
Al-Queda appears to be operating just fine thanks.
Bombings of UN buildings, police stations and ambushing of soldiers by....nobody really knows.
And Tony Blair smiles at the cameras and goes on holiday to Tuscany.
Regime change was not a reason offered for war.
Ousting Saddam for the good of the people was not a reason offered for war.
Weapons of mass desruction that were an immediate and very real threat, as spoken by Blair in a televised address to the nation, was the reason.
And as of date, nothing has been found anywhere.
You don't need an enquiry.
You just need to take a step back and look at what's been offered up as "See! Told you!" proof that the warhawks were crowing about when a million people, from people like my mum to the usual suspects marched in protest.
Shameful.
Page: