Does it get any more revolting than this?

jackiebaron

hillary clinton cackling over the death of Ghadaffi. It's stomach-churning:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29472.htm

Denerick

You seem to have a great deal of sympathy for Gadaffi and the Lords Resistance army in Uganda. In the 1970s being a radical meant overtly supporting popular third world movements and being a covert Marxist. In the modern world being a radical means overtly supporting third world dictators and monsters supposedly 'opposing' western colonialism and covertly being... something rather confused and conflicted, I suppose.

Hayte

What a terrible strawman. He isn't voicing support for Gaddafi or the Lord's Resistance. He is just appalled by a person who apparently delights in the death of another person. It doesn't matter if its a political enemy.

jackiebaron

Denerick wrote: »

You seem to have a great deal of sympathy for Gadaffi and the Lords Resistance army in Uganda. In the 1970s being a radical meant overtly supporting popular third world movements and being a covert Marxist. In the modern world being a radical means overtly supporting third world dictators and monsters supposedly 'opposing' western colonialism and covertly being... something rather confused and conflicted, I suppose.

You "suppose"???

That tripe argument that you put forward is as weak as a shïthouse fly.

When did I voice support or encouragement for dictators anywhere? Come out and set me straight or hold your tongue.

And what exactly is a "Marxist"? Some label that you've been told was suspect? So tell us all here what a Marxist is....and what a covert Marxist is.

And radicalism aside.....the definition of which is to oppose common practice. Anti-slavery people were "radicals".....so slap your parrotted labels on someone who can't tell the difference. Next you'll call me left wing or some other such crap. Well, my politics aren't about right and left, buddy, they're about right and wrong.


I "suppose".

Denerick

You seem like an intensely angry person... I didn't even watch that video you posted from some cranks website. Let me just say I've noticed a pattern and its probably not a coincidence that you loudly defend the rights of murderous dictators and extreme militant groups to exist... It just seems a little... inconsistent...*

(*Cue righteous anger and frequent usage of the word 'despicable')

jackiebaron

Denerick wrote: »

You seem like an intensely angry person... I didn't even watch that video you posted from some cranks website. Let me just say I've noticed a pattern and its probably not a coincidence that you loudly defend the rights of murderous dictators and extreme militant groups to exist... It just seems a little... inconsistent...*

(*Cue righteous anger and frequent usage of the word 'despicable')

Do you have any thought of your own on this matter or are you going to constantly throw little neutral terms like "you seem" or "most likely" or "you're probably" .... blah blah. ?

But leaving aside that cloak of ambiguity for the time being, let's address, straight away, your accusation that I loudly defend the rights of murderous dictators. Please do. I, and I'm sure others, would like to hear how you can make such a claim.

Show me how I defended or even attacked the rights of anyone. I challenge you to back up your claims.

Denerick

I'm more of an ideas man. I leave the empiricism to others.

jackiebaron

Denerick wrote: »

I'm more of an ideas man. I leave the empiricism to others.

You are, are you? You vomit out unfounded absurdities, get questioned and bleat out some more side-tracked nonsense. Back up what you said or be quiet.

For you personal edification:

“The faces of the leaders of ‘world democracies’ are so happy, as if they remembered how they hanged stray cats in basements in their childhoods,”

George Bush used to stuff firecrackers up the rectums of frogs yet made sure he'd never see the odd angry shot as he gleed when American bombs landed on Baghdad and incinerated the helpless.

You seem to be of the same library of the brave. Actually, I shouldn't use that word "seem"

AlekSmart

jackiebaron wrote: »

hillary clinton cackling over the death of Ghadaffi. It's stomach-churning:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29472.htm

Oh dear.....does the lady not have some media people in her entourage.....?

My own personal belief is that Gadaffi will eventually come to be viewed in a far less negative light than is currently required by the likes of Hilary Clinton in order to puff up her reputation.

If Hilary clinton can end her political career having achieved for her people even a fraction of the very real benefits which Gadaffi brought to his,then she may be allowed a cackle....until then she'd be well advised to zip it and watch those red lights.

Butch Coolidge

AlekSmart wrote: »

Oh dear.....does the lady not have some media people in her entourage.....?

What we see here is more honest a reaction than normal because she was on camera as the news was being broken to her and her pr people hadn't a chance to tell her how to react.


More reaction from the bbc here. Really puts the campaign into perspective.

Einhard

AlekSmart wrote: »

If Hilary clinton can end her political career having achieved for her people even a fraction of the very real benefits which Gadaffi brought to his,then she may be allowed a cackle....until then she'd be well advised to zip it and watch those red lights.

What.

The.

Fcuk.

It's astonishing, and a little bit sickening, to see that peoples' hatred for the West can cloud their perceptions to such an extent that they begin to excuse the actions of murderous tyrants.

jackiebaron

Einhard wrote: »

What.

The.

Fcuk.

It's astonishing, and a little bit sickening, to see that peoples' hatred for the West can cloud their perceptions to such an extent that they begin to excuse the actions of murderous tyrants.

Why is "hatred of the west" always trotted out when legitimate criticism is levelled? Can you not do any better than that. Why am I a "shinner" if I rail against the RUC beating the Fück out of unemployed kids for fun? Why am I a holocaust denier or an anti-Semite (whatever the hell that is) if I express outrage at IDF forces holding Palestinian kids down and breaking their arms with rocks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRcuy5jOplg

Why am I a "commie" tree-hugger because I speak out against polltion that affects your dumb kids as well?

You blab like a cretin about a "murderous" tyrant. Let's just say that Ghadaffi "murdered" 100,000 of his people, which is farcical, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.5 MILLION murdered in Iraq by the US and NATO lapdogs. It's nothing compared to the 500,000 Iraqi children that died (that that cünt, Albright said were worth it) during the sanctions. It's FÜCK all compared to 2 million Vietnamese or 1 million Cambodians.

SO, tell me how many and exactly how Ghadaffi murdered. I'd love to know....or are you just another parrot?

Double-plus-good-duckspeak.


Go on! report this post and get me banned. And then giggle about your weak-ass "murderous" tyrant crap.
I don't hear you calling the House of Saud a bunch of murderous tyrants or that rat in Uzbekistan or the wonderthug Pinochet or Pahlavi or any other manner of scum that the US or UK installed and enjoyed their little genocides. Don't seem to fault the US for propping up Pol Pot or the Afghans who Reagan called "modern-day Jeffersons" (haha) and now they're terrorist because they're fight American occupiers rather than Soviets.

Just change the record.

ed2hands

We're all anti-West now apparently; or far left, or some ****. FFS

Yahew

ed2hands wrote: »

We're all anti-West now apparently; or far left, or some ****. FFS

thats true because most of the West is defended by the US.

That said Ghaddaffi was probably better than the alternatives (Islam). So was Franco(Stalinism), so was Tito(sectarian bloodbaths), so is Assad( sectarian bloodbaths and Christian extermination). Only one of those will be controversial.

Yahew

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why is "hatred of the west" always trotted out when legitimate criticism is levelled? Can you not do any better than that. Why am I a "shinner" if I rail against the RUC beating the Fück out of unemployed kids for fun? Why am I a holocaust denier or an anti-Semite (whatever the hell that is) if I express outrage at IDF forces holding Palestinian kids down and breaking their arms with rocks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRcuy5jOplg

Why am I a "commie" tree-hugger because I speak out against polltion that affects your dumb kids as well?

You blab like a cretin about a "murderous" tyrant. Let's just say that Ghadaffi "murdered" 100,000 of his people, which is farcical, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.5 MILLION murdered in Iraq by the US and NATO lapdogs. It's nothing compared to the 500,000 Iraqi children that died (that that cünt, Albright said were worth it) during the sanctions. It's FÜCK all compared to 2 million Vietnamese or 1 million Cambodians.

SO, tell me how many and exactly how Ghadaffi murdered. I'd love to know....or are you just another parrot?

Double-plus-good-duckspeak.


Go on! report this post and get me banned. And then giggle about your weak-ass "murderous" tyrant crap.
I don't hear you calling the House of Saud a bunch of murderous tyrants or that rat in Uzbekistan or the wonderthug Pinochet or Pahlavi or any other manner of scum that the US or UK installed and enjoyed their little genocides. Don't seem to fault the US for propping up Pol Pot or the Afghans who Reagan called "modern-day Jeffersons" (haha) and now they're terrorist because they're fight American occupiers rather than Soviets.

Just change the record.

I will report you post, because you clearly can't argue without getting angry.

But let me say something about the IDF. Your "concern" for the Palestinians is nonsense. It's mere fashion-thought. There are far worse regimes in the middle East who have been engaged in ethnic and sectarian practices which vastly outweigh the IDF's tally. YOu don't care because it is not cool to care. The West, or America, can't be blamed, so the killed don't meet your ideological criteria for "concern"/

As for Iraq. The 1.5 million ( a largely spurious number, based on one report of killings and largely discredited outside the totalitarian left) were mostly killed by Iraqis. And most - almost all - by the insurgents. The US probably killed thousands, the insurgents hundreds of thousands.

So you are blaming the US for killings by their enemies. You don't care about the killings per say ( if Iraq had broken up without US involvement you wouldn't care at all and it wouldn't be mentioned in whatever "radical" literature you sophomorically enjoy).

These killings, often sectarian and of Christians, or Shia, would concern you not one whit were the killings not attributable to the West ( just as your ideological ancestors didn't care about stalinism, or maoism, and in fact supported them). Not fashionable enough. The dead only matter when the West can be blamed, if even by proxy.

Vietnam was the fault of the US - your figures are distorted however - but the Cambodian killings were carried out by a left wing ideologue who was educated in the Sorbonne by French Leftists who pretty much told him what to do. All of his ideas - year zero, agrarian anti-intellectualism were ( and are) taught by well heeled leftists in France's ugly left wing rentier class of public intellectuals. . Some of whom are sill maoists , or followers of Althusser. The real story here is how that is not told.


The excuse here is to blame US bombings - but Nazi bombings of London didn't lead to Pol Potism - Pol Pot is a creature of the Left, as much as Stalin, or Mao, or Lenin, or most of the Mass Murderers of the last century.

But its not fashionable to care there.

As I said post reported.

Lockstep

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why is "hatred of the west" always trotted out when legitimate criticism is levelled? Can you not do any better than that. Why am I a "shinner" if I rail against the RUC beating the Fück out of unemployed kids for fun? Why am I a holocaust denier or an anti-Semite (whatever the hell that is) if I express outrage at IDF forces holding Palestinian kids down and breaking their arms with rocks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRcuy5jOplg

Why am I a "commie" tree-hugger because I speak out against polltion that affects your dumb kids as well?

You blab like a cretin about a "murderous" tyrant. Let's just say that Ghadaffi "murdered" 100,000 of his people, which is farcical, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.5 MILLION murdered in Iraq by the US and NATO lapdogs. It's nothing compared to the 500,000 Iraqi children that died (that that cünt, Albright said were worth it) during the sanctions. It's FÜCK all compared to 2 million Vietnamese or 1 million Cambodians.

SO, tell me how many and exactly how Ghadaffi murdered. I'd love to know....or are you just another parrot?

Double-plus-good-duckspeak.


Go on! report this post and get me banned. And then giggle about your weak-ass "murderous" tyrant crap.
I don't hear you calling the House of Saud a bunch of murderous tyrants or that rat in Uzbekistan or the wonderthug Pinochet or Pahlavi or any other manner of scum that the US or UK installed and enjoyed their little genocides. Don't seem to fault the US for propping up Pol Pot or the Afghans who Reagan called "modern-day Jeffersons" (haha) and now they're terrorist because they're fight American occupiers rather than Soviets.

Just change the record.

Cut out the ad hominems

Yahew

I don't hear you calling the House of Saud a bunch of murderous tyrants or that rat in Uzbekistan or the wonderthug Pinochet or Pahlavi or any other manner of scum that the US or UK installed and enjoyed their little genocides.

I'd say those "wonder-thugs" killed about as many as Stalin on a wet weekend. Also, my guess is Pincochet's Chile was less controlled than Honnekars East Germany, and there are about 50 dictators not in your list there. What they have in common is that they were communist. You( and your ideological descendants) enjoyed their large genocides.

ed2hands

More presumtous garbage. What a pile of stinking horse manure i've just read from you Yahew.

Denerick

Can't we all just, get along?

jackiebaron

Yahew wrote: »

I will report you post, because you clearly can't argue without getting angry.

But let me say something about the IDF. Your "concern" for the Palestinians is nonsense. It's mere fashion-thought. There are far worse regimes in the middle East who have been engaged in ethnic and sectarian practices which vastly outweigh the IDF's tally. YOu don't care because it is not cool to care. The West, or America, can't be blamed, so the killed don't meet your ideological criteria for "concern"/

As for Iraq. The 1.5 million ( a largely spurious number, based on one report of killings and largely discredited outside the totalitarian left) were mostly killed by Iraqis. And most - almost all - by the insurgents. The US probably killed thousands, the insurgents hundreds of thousands.

So you are blaming the US for killings by their enemies. You don't care about the killings per say ( if Iraq had broken up without US involvement you wouldn't care at all and it wouldn't be mentioned in whatever "radical" literature you sophomorically enjoy).

These killings, often sectarian and of Christians, or Shia, would concern you not one whit were the killings not attributable to the West ( just as your ideological ancestors didn't care about stalinism, or maoism, and in fact supported them). Not fashionable enough. The dead only matter when the West can be blamed, if even by proxy.

Vietnam was the fault of the US - your figures are distorted however - but the Cambodian killings were carried out by a left wing ideologue who was educated in the Sorbonne by French Leftists who pretty much told him what to do. All of his ideas - year zero, agrarian anti-intellectualism were ( and are) taught by well heeled leftists in France's ugly left wing rentier class of public intellectuals. . Some of whom are sill maoists , or followers of Althusser. The real story here is how that is not told.


The excuse here is to blame US bombings - but Nazi bombings of London didn't lead to Pol Potism - Pol Pot is a creature of the Left, as much as Stalin, or Mao, or Lenin, or most of the Mass Murderers of the last century.

But its not fashionable to care there.

As I said post reported.

Listen, if your argument is "The US isn't as bad as some" or "Stalin wiped out more than the US" or "Ghadaffi's and Assad's torture regimes were far more heavy-handed than America's" then you've already made a bigger idiot of yourself then this shining beacon on a hill crap or this "spread freedom and democracy" nonsense. If that's your argument, if you say you're not as bad as the Nazis then you may as well fück off and shut up now.

Denerick

I like JackieBaron's passion. He doesn't mince his words. Nice and refreshing. Pity that he'll be banned soon.

AlekSmart

Denerick wrote: »

Can't we all just, get along?

Just as most Libyans did for the past 40 years..?

Yup I'd go with that sure 'nuff.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

"Ghadaffi's and Assad's torture regimes were far more heavy-handed than America's" then you've already made a bigger idiot of yourself then this shining beacon on a hill crap or this "spread freedom and democracy" nonsense. If that's your argument, if you say you're not as bad as the Nazis then you may as well fück off and shut up now.

jesus Jackie.. relax. The US is a bit hypocritical but last I checked it has elections and relative free speech and doesn't kill thousands of protesters.

Einhard

jackiebaron wrote: »

You blab like a cretin about a "murderous" tyrant. Let's just say that Ghadaffi "murdered" 100,000 of his people, which is farcical, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.5 MILLION murdered in Iraq by the US and NATO lapdogs.

So, by your logic, as long as one murders less than somebody else, then one isn't really a murderer? As long as Gadaffi murdered less than the US allegedly did in Iraq, then he's not to be condemned for it? Pretty cretinous logic there if you don't mind me saying so.

Also, I'm pretty certain that it wasn't US soldiers of their allies strapping bombs to their bodies and detonating them in crowded marketplaces. Yes, of course, the US and her allies have questions to answers, and there is a huge amount of legitimate criticism than can be leveled at them, but to blame America for the actions of religious fanatics seeking their reward in paradise is, as you say, cretinous. But then, for people like you Jackie, the US and the West are always to blame, right?

It's nothing compared to the 500,000 Iraqi children that died (that that cünt, Albright said were worth it) during the sanctions. It's FÜCK all compared to 2 million Vietnamese or 1 million Cambodians.

The sanctions were UN sanctions. It's ironic how people cry blue murder about the UN being a legitimising body when the US fails to get UN approval for her exploits; and yet when that body takes collective actions, such as with the Iraq sanctions that Jackie disagrees with, and in the current Libya campaign, the previous hue and cry is forgotten about. UN approval is absolutely necessary in one scenario, and to act without such sanction is illegal; when UN approval is granted, that body is suddenly irrelevant. I often wonder if people like Jackie actually confuse themselves such is the level of their inconsistency.

SO, tell me how many and exactly how Ghadaffi murdered. I'd love to know....or are you just another parrot?

Double-plus-good-duckspeak.

I'm not going to provide you with those figures Jackie because you won't pay any attention to them. There's a huge amount of material from reputable humans rights' groups testifying to Gadaffi's regimes and its crimes. You don;t want to hear though, because for people like you, your enemy's enemy is your friend, and so, as long as somebody is sufficently critical of the US, their crimes and outrages can be ignored, condoned, justified, or dismissed. You might think I'm a parrot; I think you and your ilk are bloody hypocrites.

Go on! report this post and get me banned. And then giggle about your weak-ass "murderous" tyrant crap.

Gadaffi was a murderous tyrant. There's not really any question about that. I'm sorry it doesn't accord with your pre-conceived perception of the world, in which anyone who American targets or condemns is good, but that's because your worldview is lazy, inconsistent, and deeply hypocritical.

I don't hear you calling the House of Saud a bunch of murderous tyrants or that rat in Uzbekistan or the wonderthug Pinochet or Pahlavi or any other manner of scum that the US or UK installed and enjoyed their little genocides. Don't seem to fault the US for propping up Pol Pot or the Afghans who Reagan called "modern-day Jeffersons" (haha) and now they're terrorist because they're fight American occupiers rather than Soviets.

You know why you don't hear me say those things Jackie? Because you don't know me. You don't live with me. We don't hang around together. So, naturally, you wouldn't hear me condemn those things. You also haven't heard me condemn Hitler or the crimes of, say, Mao. In your strange reality, that must mean that I really approve of their policies, right? I mean, if you didn't hear or see me condemning them, I must therefore support them. Right...

Nice try.

BTW, the House of Saud are a bunch of murderous tyrants...and I agree with everything else in that paragraph. You know why Jackie? Because I'm not a bloody hypocrite. I call things as I see them, not according to how they fit in with my political ideology. You should try it sometimes.

Just change the record.

Amen. Try it sometime Jackie. Then maybe you might be able to judge people on their actions and deeds, instead of where they stand in relation to the US. You might then have some moral authority, and some credibility in what you say.

BTW, I didn't, and won't, report your post. Your explosions of anger suit my purposes in undermining your arguments, and exposing the deep seated hypocrisy at the core of your worldview.

Overheal

Einhard wrote: »

BTW, I didn't, and won't, report your post. Your explosions of anger suit my purposes in undermining your arguments, and exposing the deep seated hypocrisy at the core of your worldview.

I for one am long since bored of reading not only bad arguments, but bad arguments that can't be conveyed in a rational and civil manner. Even Rush Limbaugh can make it through an hour of his show without blowing a gasket. Now, Beck on the other hand.

Brown Bomber

Yahew wrote: »

You( and your ideological descendants) enjoyed their large genocides.

That's a disgraceful thing to say based on nothing but conjecture.

steelcityblues

The Clintons always will be free from criticism from the D4 latte liberal set. Given they are usually vocal about 'rights' to different groups - humans, gays, children, etc - it is staggeringly hypocritical, that they don't condemn power hungry globalists - only from a different party.

Clinton is a psycho hawk just like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, before her. America has to be the police force of countries that they don't really understand. the 'blue' apologists on these threads, who would spare no mercy to someone from the 'red' side laughing about the death of someone, should answer the Op's question directly.

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

The Clintons always will be free from criticism from the D4 latte liberal set. Given they are usually vocal about 'rights' to different groups - humans, gays, children, etc - it is staggeringly hypocritical, that they don't condemn power hungry globalists - only from a different party.

A latte liberal! I love it!

Though mine is always a vanilla latte. With a croissant. And a menthol cigarette. With the Irish Times.

ed2hands

Denerick wrote: »

A latte liberal! I love it!

Though mine is always a vanilla latte. With a croissant. And a menthol cigarette. With the Irish Times.

Yes quite.:cool:

RichieC

did someone say latte liberal on an Irish site?

Opinicus

steelcityblues wrote: »

to different groups - humans, gays, children, etc

and all those other non humans also?

steelcityblues

Opinicus wrote: »

and all those other non humans also?

I'm sure you have heard human rights groups/campaigners? Google is your friend.

Opinicus

I was just making a joke that the way you worded it made it sound like you didn't consider gays or children to be human.

Overheal

steelcityblues wrote: »

they are usually vocal about 'rights' to different groups - humans, gays,

I'd like to draw that in venn diagram form...

SeanW

Hayte wrote: »

What a terrible strawman. He isn't voicing support for Gaddafi or the Lord's Resistance. He is just appalled by a person who apparently delights in the death of another person. It doesn't matter if its a political enemy.

It may be something of an exaggeration to call Gaddafi a "person."

jackiebaron wrote: »

“The faces of the leaders of ‘world democracies’ are so happy, as if they remembered how they hanged stray cats in basements in their childhoods,”

George Bush used to stuff firecrackers up the rectums of frogs yet made sure he'd never see the odd angry shot as he gleed when American bombs landed on Baghdad and incinerated the helpless.

Do you have a shred of evidence for any of this?