Not in my name

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
Eh, no chill. I think you'll find I was referring to your outright hypocrasy, rather than my opinion just being different to your own.

That being your opinion ! which I respect btw..

And your failure to discuss any of the real points I brought up just highlights the fact that you seem to be here to slag people off, rather than present any real argument.

Bull****. I've tackled pretty well every nonsensical point you have raised - to the nth degree some might even say...

Why? Did all of the Japanese people in those cities "have it coming to them"? Were all of them mass-murdering butchers? Or were some of them (nay, all of them) innocent civilians?

I don't knwo what serious point this rambling is meant to convey.

Let's compare it to the "mass-murdering terrorists in the 21st century". They killed about 4,000 people in the Twin Towers. 4,000 innocent civilians, who did not deserve to die, no matter what the circumstances. The Americans killed 340,000. 340,000 innocent civilians, who did not deserve to die, no matter what the circumstances. Now, don't lecture me on "regard for human life".

Demonstrating why I was right when I said "Your sense of proportion and of comparable morality is appalling if that is how you judge 1945/6 and mass murdering terrorists in the 21st century."

chill

Such as?

Jeez you really need to visit a library once in a while.

But both the US and SA governments took it seriously enough to go to war with Angola.

Some war.

.

Sand

I think the pic I posted pretty much sums up what the thread title, the Not In My Name slogan, is basically about. If you think it's off topic then perhaps a complaint to the mods is in order?

Oh really?

Does it sum up

A) The protestors slagging of Bush and Blair for going against the polls, but then doing the very same thing themselves?

The variability of the protestors bile - seemingly fanatical for Bush and yet extremely muted for Putin even though Chechnya has cost far more lives, is a scene of far greater human suffering and human rights abuses without seemingly any accountability?

Really does it? If this thread was about "Was the war worth it? " then it would have some relevenance as youd be asking whether that little girls injuries were a necessary cost of liberating Iraq, whether she or other children would have suffered if Iraq had not been liberated and so on.....

This is the thread *you* want to have. It is not the original topic of the thread, and it is tired and done to death.

South Africa is about as relevant to the topic as the Russia v Chechnya thing

No, its not. South Africa was/is about apartheid, equality and civil rights etc etc - they dont really apply in the Iraq case to my mind. Chechnya is most directly comparable to the Iraqi "crimes" the anti-war movement rail on about - like, you know, not going to a council of some of the most corrupt and hypocritical states in the world for moral approval.

From day one, the whole discussion surrounding the war has been clouded with completely irrelevant rubbish or outright lies and a genuinely rational approach to the thing became impossible pretty quickly.

They ought to put that in the dictionary as a definition for irony.

I didn't say that direct British involvement was the only reason people protested against the war.

But you said:

Oh yeah, again, British people protested against a war their country helped to start, a war which was based wholly on lies, the WMD and all that. It is NOT hypocritical of them to fail to protest against one they have absolutely no involvement in, ie Russia v Chechnya.

So it is the only reason they came out - its not hypocritical of them to protest one war with its associated crimes, and yet not protest another war with its associated crimes because the British are involved in one and not the other - thats what youre saying. Hence the only thing that gets them out is direct British involvement. I guess all those Chechen civillians should apply for British passports?

It's fairly amusing that while you're so preoccupied with ranting and accusing people of hypocrisy for failing to protest against Putin, you forget that you did not protest against his visit yourself. Did you?

Im criticising the hypocrisy of the anti-war movement who claim to be holier than thou and happily attack the hypocrisy of former governments supporting Saddam and now throwing him down. It has nothing to do with *my* principles which are clearly different to the anti war movements principles as I feel the liberation of Iraq was wholly justified and they do not. Just turning the spotlight back on them for a bit and seeing how principled they are - not very it seems to me.

If I was out there standing in front of the column of tanks in Tieneman or if I was driving one of the tanks myself it wouldnt alter the hypocrisy of the anti-war movements position, no more than it would change water being wet or fire being hot.