Dissident 'Republicans' disrupt olympic torch event in Derry.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

Considering China was then, and is now, an authoritarian regime with little or no participation by the people, and that the tanks were there to crush a protest by the people, I fail to see how the movement of said tanks could even be considered to be a legitimate action.

Those :rolleyes: are probably the most inane, idiotic thing about this website. Even more inane and idiotic are the people who use them to make a point. Worse even than those people, are those who make an inane and idiotic point, as you just did, and then use those horrible, smug little faces in an attempt to buttress the argument.

You are trying to have cake and eat it. The tank represented the law in China...fact. The guy had a protest and did what he thought neccesary. Sometimes you have to break the law to make your point. Nothing unique there.

Censorship

humanji wrote: »

This thread has nothing to do with 9/11, so I still don't know why you insist on bringing it up.

And nor is the definition of moderator. So what has the olympics to do with imperialism or military power?


But it's probably for the best that they're not true believers, otherwise it could turn violent.

9/11 is a question I ask to judge how stubborn people are."Moderators" seem to be the most gullible & usually try to avoid questions. I know your answer, even though you will not answer it.

The definition of the moderator is important for you and I to have a productive discussion. You should learn it's definition.

The olympics are 'games' organised by the masters of imperialism, nobody who has different moral & political views are allowed to host, no underprivileged countries are allowed to host.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHDvsHwxu8

Paparazzo

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are trying to have cake and eat it. The tank represented the law in China...fact. The guy had a protest and did what he thought neccesary. Sometimes you have to break the law to make your point. Nothing unique there.

Exactly, break the law, but don't wonder why the police are arresting you or moving you on.
It fun if every little minority decided to do this. The irish branch of NAMBLA blocking the M50, but you'll agree with their right to protest

humanji

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are trying to have cake and eat it. The tank represented the law in China...fact. The guy had a protest and did what he thought neccesary. Sometimes you have to break the law to make your point. Nothing unique there.

But that viewpoint generally revolves around the moral belief in what is right. The man is seen as good, the tanks as bad. But in the case in Derry, nearly everyone agrees that the protestors are the bad guys. Just because the law is on the side of the torch bearers, doesn't mean that they must be at fault.

Censorship wrote: »

9/11 is a question I ask to judge how stubborn people are."Moderators" seem to be the most gullible & usually try to avoid questions. I know your answer, even though you will not answer it.

The only relevance it has is that you're trying to use it as a strawman to argue against. It has no relevance to this thread. Insulting peoples intelligence also lends your cause no creedence.

The definition of the moderator is important for you and I to have a productive discussion. You should learn it's definition.

I'm well aware of the many meanings of that word. But it has no relevance here, as I am discussing this like any other user.

The olympics are 'games' organised by the masters of imperialism, nobody who has different moral & political views are allowed to host, no underprivileged countries are allowed to host.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHDvsHwxu8

The underprivileged countries can't afford to host the Olympics. And you can't get much more politically and morally diverse than the likes of Naxi Germany, Communist China, Capitalist America and dictatorial Russia.

And dumping the likes of Australia, Greece, Italy, Japan, Norway, Mexico etc in with those countries and claiming that they are totally subservient to them is clutching at straws and heading miles away from your original point and my question (which I'll expand on):

How are the Olympics a celebration of military power and imperialism, and what does the torch passing through Ireland (when invited to do so) have to do with morality or sovereignty? And why are the protestors in Derry right to block something that the majority seem to have no problem with?

Einhard

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are trying to have cake and eat it. The tank represented the law in China...fact. The guy had a protest and did what he thought neccesary. Sometimes you have to break the law to make your point. Nothing unique there.

No Happyman, I'm not having any cake. You though, are making an absurd analogy. I specifically stated that protests shouldn't prevent others from going about their legitimate business. Now, you may believe otherwise, but I don't think that the murderous crushing of student protests in China was legitimate.

The analogy made between a man protesting the brutal crushing of dissent in an authoritarian state, and some men seeking to prevent the passage of the Olympic torch in a democratic state is frankly ridiculous. I don't disagree with their protest, merely their manner of protesting. In doing what they did, they unreasonably sought to position their rights and perogatives over those of other people in society, and that's simply not acceptable IMO.

Happyman42

Paparazzo wrote: »

Exactly, break the law, but don't wonder why the police are arresting you or moving you on.
It fun if every little minority decided to do this. The irish branch of NAMBLA blocking the M50, but you'll agree with their right to protest

I'd imagine, getting arrested, moved on was the point. It was a publicity stunt after all, so that the blind might see. The moniker of 'dissidents' is the media's remember, these where people from a section of the community with concerns about illegal internment and human rights and police discrimmination and brutality. Hardly trivial issues.

humanji wrote: »

But that viewpoint generally revolves around the moral belief in what is right. The man is seen as good, the tanks as bad. But in the case in Derry, nearly everyone agrees that the protestors are the bad guys. Just because the law is on the side of the torch bearers, doesn't mean that they must be at fault.

I seen that argument used before some place.....where was it.......hmmmmmmmmm ....oh YES! About the civil rights march that took place on Bloody Sunday. How many years until the dead where seen as good?
These people believe in what they stand for......so your 'moral' argument only applies to what you see as 'moral'.

Censorship

humanji wrote: »

But that viewpoint generally revolves around the moral belief in what is right. The man is seen as good, the tanks as bad. But in the case in Derry, nearly everyone agrees that the protestors are the bad guys. Just because the law is on the side of the torch bearers, doesn't mean that they must be at fault.


The only relevance it has is that you're trying to use it as a strawman to argue against. It has no relevance to this thread. Insulting peoples intelligence also lends your cause no creedence.


I'm well aware of the many meanings of that word. But it has no relevance here, as I am discussing this like any other user.
The underprivileged countries can't afford to host the Olympics. And you can't get much more politically and morally diverse than the likes of Naxi Germany, Communist China, Capitalist America and dictatorial Russia.

And dumping the likes of Australia, Greece, Italy, Japan, Norway, Mexico etc in with those countries and claiming that they are totally subservient to them is clutching at straws and heading miles away from your original point and my question (which I'll expand on):

How are the Olympics a celebration of military power and imperialism, and what does the torch passing through Ireland (when invited to do so) have to do with morality or sovereignty? And why are the protestors in Derry right to block something that the majority seem to have no problem with?

Communism, facism, capitalism....they're very similar.

It's not a "strawman", it's the greatest crime in history.

They are subservient, they push the lie about the greatest crime in history & turn a bind eye while america & the brits are committing atrocities against mankind.

Protest is a healthy part of society, it should not be frowned upon. The olympics are historically a time & venue for protest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802706.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agQeM3-tecE

humanji

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'd imagine, getting arrested, moved on was the point. It was a publicity stunt after all, so that the blind might see. The moniker of 'dissidents' is the media's remember, these where people from a section of the community with concerns about illegal internment and human rights and police discrimmination and brutality. Hardly trivial issues.


I seen that argument used before some place.....where was it.......hmmmmmmmmm ....oh YES! About the civil rights march that took place on Bloody Sunday. How many years until the dead where seen as good?
These people believe in what they stand for......so your 'moral' argument only applies to what you see as 'moral'.

And Anders Breivik was right to kill all those kids? We can spend all day pointing out various other situations that reinforce each of our positions, but the simple fact is that in Derry, the protestors were protesting the policing of the event. This, ironically enough, backed up the need for policing event. The protestors are seen by nearly everyone as being morally wrong. There's no real grounds for them to claim to be in the right.

humanji

Censorship wrote: »

Communism, facism, capitalism....they're very similar.

It's not a "strawman", it's the greatest crime in history.

They are subservient, they push the lie about the greatest crime in history & turn a bind eye while america & the brits are committing atrocities against mankind.

Protest is a healthy part of society, it should not be frowned upon. The olympics are historically a time & venue for protest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802706.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agQeM3-tecE

Want to answer the questions?

Paparazzo

Happyman, if you're ok with performing illegal activities to make your point, what about kidnapping someone? You'll get your voice heard there too.

Censorship

humanji wrote: »

Want to answer the questions?

You don't answer my questions & the greatest crime in history shows how stubborn.
You won't even answer the definition of words correctly.

Happyman42

humanji wrote: »

And Anders Breivik was right to kill all those kids?

Deary me, we are struggling.
You can't impose your moral framework on others, the guy in China, The Chinese, or the protestors in Derry.

We can spend all day pointing out various other situations that reinforce each of our positions, but the simple fact is that in Derry, the protestors were protesting the policing of the event. This, ironically enough, backed up the need for policing event. The protestors are seen by nearly everyone as being morally wrong. There's no real grounds for them to claim to be in the right.

They were protesting illegal internment and police brutality. Still happening in Northern Ireland. A responsible government having seen what happened in the past would deal with that instead of letting it spiral out of control and grow. Which it is doing, growing, despite all the moral fencesitters and those who indulge of the politics of the last atrocity. That kind of useless bull**** never advanced the situation one inch, despite the double daring do-gooding.

humanji

Censorship wrote: »

You don't answer my questions & the greatest crime in history shows how stubborn.
You won't even answer the definition of words correctly.

I've answered the questions that are relevant to this thread. Because you want a different answer doesn't make my answers incorrect. Now, why shouldn't the flame travel through Ireland?

humanji

Happyman42 wrote: »

Deary me, we are struggling.
You can't impose your moral framework on others, the guy in China, The Chinese, or the protestors in Derry.

Breivik did what he thought was necessary. How is that any different to the guy in front of the tank? It's our interpretation of these events in accordance to our own moral compass that lets us decide who our support should go to.

In the case of the protestors in Derry, they are trying to hijack an event for their own purposes. When so many of those that the protestors might have considered allies come out against it, then you have to think if it was a good or a bad thing.

They were protesting illegal internment and police brutality. Still happening in Northern Ireland. A responsible government having seen what happened in the past would deal with that instead of letting it spiral out of control and grow. Which it is doing, growing, despite all the moral fencesitters and those who indulge of the politics of the last atrocity. That kind of useless bull**** never advanced the situation one inch, despite the double daring do-gooding.

Well that, I'd fully disagree with. Searching for alternatives in a difficult situation isn't fencesitting. Sure, things could be handled better, but the world isn't as simple as saying "Do the right thing and everything will work out fine". There's consequences to all actions they take, so they have to go the path of least resistence.

Censorship

humanji wrote: »

I've answered the questions that are relevant to this thread. Because you want a different answer doesn't make my answers incorrect. Now, why shouldn't the flame travel through Ireland?

Your question does not relate to the thread.

"Moderators" use thread parameter rules for censorship.

Answer my question, then i'll answer yours.

Paparazzo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Deary me, we are struggling.
You can't impose your moral framework on others, the guy in China, The Chinese, or the protestors in Derry.

They were protesting illegal internment and police brutality. Still happening in Northern Ireland. A responsible government having seen what happened in the past would deal with that instead of letting it spiral out of control and grow. Which it is doing, growing, despite all the moral fencesitters and those who indulge of the politics of the last atrocity. That kind of useless bull**** never advanced the situation one inch, despite the double daring do-gooding.

Ok, give us a rough idea on how far you can go illegally in order to protest?

And considering you're comparing a few people blocking the olympic flame to tank man in china, I think the Anders Breivik comparison is definitely valid, after all, you said:

The guy had a protest and did what he thought neccesary. Sometimes you have to break the law to make your point.

That's almost word for word what Anders Breiviks defence said.

Einhard

Happyman42 wrote: »

Deary me, we are struggling.
You can't impose your moral framework on others, the guy in China, The Chinese, or the protestors in Derry.

OK Happyman...say I am sexually attratced to kids...say I reist my urges and never give in to them...but say I think that criminalisation of those urges is wrong...I set up an organisation campaigning for paedophiles rights...and during, say, the women's marthon, I stage a sit down protest on O'Connell St with a few dozen like-minded individuals.

Would you denounce the powers that be were they to remove me from O'Connell St?

Censorship

humanji wrote: »

I've answered the questions that are relevant to this thread. Because you want a different answer doesn't make my answers incorrect. Now, why shouldn't the flame travel through Ireland?

Your question is not relevant to this thread.

Answer my question & i'll answer yours.

humanji

Censorship wrote: »

Your question is not relevant to this thread.

Answer my question & i'll answer yours.

I think you'll find it is, and I've no idea if 9/11 was an inside job. There's no proof either way. No, how will you evade my questions this time?

Happyman42

humanji wrote: »

Breivik did what he thought was necessary. How is that any different to the guy in front of the tank? It's our interpretation of these events in accordance to our own moral compass that lets us decide who our support should go to.

In the case of the protestors in Derry, they are trying to hijack an event for their own purposes. When so many of those that the protestors might have considered allies come out against it, then you have to think if it was a good or a bad thing.


Well that, I'd fully disagree with. Searching for alternatives in a difficult situation isn't fencesitting. Sure, things could be handled better, but the world isn't as simple as saying "Do the right thing and everything will work out fine". There's consequences to all actions they take, so they have to go the path of least resistence.

Isn't the point though that they have no other way to get their points across. That's where protest usually springs from. Exactly the same circumstances which brought the IRA back from the cold in the late 60's and 70's. The British have a knack at fostering the growth of revolutionaries.

Paparazzo wrote: »

Ok, give us a rough idea on how far you can go illegally in order to protest?

Depends on circumstances, if people are so desperate then the stopping of a torch run wouldn't worry me too much.

And considering you're comparing a few people blocking the olympic flame to tank man in china, I think the Anders Breivik comparison is definitely valid, after all, you said:

That's almost word for word what Anders Breiviks defence said.

^^ Hysterical nonsense.

Einhard wrote: »

OK Happyman...say I am sexually attratced to kids...say I reist my urges and never give in to them...but say I think that criminalisation of those urges is wrong...I set up an organisation campaigning for paedophiles rights...and during, say, the women's marthon, I stage a sit down protest on O'Connell St with a few dozen like-minded individuals.

Would you denounce the powers that be were they to remove me from O'Connell St?

As above, hysterical nonsense and completely not the point (the act is illegal to begin with, these people are protesting illegal acts) or even the same thing. Maybe try ringing Joe! I can guarantee there will be a few housewifes (with nothing better to do than listen to you), doing this :rolleyes::rolleyes: in their kitchens

Censorship

humanji wrote: »

I think you'll find it is, and I've no idea if 9/11 was an inside job. There's no proof either way. No, how will you evade my questions this time?

This thread has nothing to do with why the flame shouldn't pass through Ireland.

You have no idea............you should get an idea. There's much proof.

My 9/11 question, as I said earlier, is a test I use during discussions. You failed the test due to ignorance & self importance. Until you educate yourself on political issues, I will not debate them with you.

Einhard

Happyman42 wrote: »

As above, hysterical nonsense and completely not the point (the act is illegal to begin with, these people are protesting illegal acts) or even the same thing. Maybe try ringing Joe! I can guarantee there will be a few housewifes (with nothing better to do than listen to you), doing this :rolleyes::rolleyes: in their kitchens

So you have nothing at all of consequence to add to this thread? Thought so. Just blathering incoherently. I'm the bigger idiot for expecting a reasoned response for you.

I'll try one last time:

Do you think it reasonable that a group should decide to lie down on O'Connell St and block the progress of a major community event, say the women's marthaon or the Patrick's Day parade? Do you think it unreasonable that the authorities would have these people removed and the event proceed?

Simple question. Simple answer. I don't hold out much hope for a response though. If you don't answer I'll just assume you've conceded the point.

humanji

Happyman42 wrote: »

Isn't the point though that they have no other way to get their points across. That's where protest usually springs from. Exactly the same circumstances which brought the IRA back from the cold in the late 60's and 70's. The British have a knack at fostering the growth of revolutionaries.

But they do have other ways to get their points across (I'm talking about the Derry case here). They chose instead to try and latch onto an event and hijack that for their own interests. And in the process they've damaged themselves, the city, the country and the Olympics. Not in any way that can't be repaired, but they've not done themselves any favours.

Their point was lost in the widespread condemnation of their actions.

Censorship wrote: »

This thread has nothing to do with why the flame shouldn't pass through Ireland.

You have no idea............you should get an idea. There's much proof.

My 9/11 question, as I said earlier, is a test I use during discussions. You failed the test due to ignorance & self importance. Until you educate yourself on political issues, I will not debate them with you.

So basically you can't defend your own arguments and instead of even trying, you build strawmen, become evasive, and final insult people and cower in the hopes that nobody notices. Got ya. Good talking to you.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

Do you think it reasonable that a group should decide to lie down on O'Connell St and block the progress of a major community event, say the women's marthaon or the Patrick's Day parade? Do you think it unreasonable that the authorities would have these people removed and the event proceed?

Yes it's reasonable and I defend their right to protest, if protest is the only avenue open to them. Protests around the world over the course of history have made me aware of human rights abuses and I cherish that. It's a safety valve in many instances, supress the right at your peril because it WILL manifest in other ways.
No, it is not unreasonable for the authorities to try to remove them within the law.

Einhard

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, it is not unreasonable for the authorities to try to remove them within the law.

Thank you for conceding the point.

Censorship

humanji wrote: »

But they do have other ways to get their points across (I'm talking about the Derry case here). They chose instead to try and latch onto an event and hijack that for their own interests. And in the process they've damaged themselves, the city, the country and the Olympics. Not in any way that can't be repaired, but they've not done themselves any favours.

Their point was lost in the widespread condemnation of their actions.


So basically you can't defend your own arguments and instead of even trying, you build strawmen, become evasive, and final insult people and cower in the hopes that nobody notices. Got ya. Good talking to you.

The answer to your question is a question of morality, not facts. You will not agree with my views.

The answer to my question has facts, which you ignore.

You will not even define a word correctly.

Chips Lovell

What's this got to do with 9/11 again?

AEDIC

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What's this got to do with 9/11 again?

People's one track minds and stale agenda's??

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

Thank you for conceding the point.

You do know what the purpose of the protest was, don't you?....to bring attention to their cause. Because they know the police, they knew what the reaction would be. Heavy handed and over the top. Nothing new there. Result, even more people are aware of Marian Price and her circumstances, even more people are aware that police are using the same old same old tactics to supress.
I'd say, it's a win win for the protestors cause...wouldn't you? Think on that as you sit on the moral high ground, some people have real lives to live and cope with.

humanji

Not sure why I bother, but:

Censorship wrote: »

The answer to your question is a question of morality, not facts. You will not agree with my views.

I don't know your views as you've yet to define them within the context of this topic. This is another evasive answer on your part.

The answer to my question has facts, which you ignore.

You have given no facts, merely supposition. I asked for clarification, and again you evaded.

You will not even define a word correctly.

I did define it correctly, and you refused to accept that definition, no doubt because you had a smart arse reply to your version and really want to say it. It's also irrelevant to the topic and another example of you evading questions.

I've little doubt that you'll come back and claim it was myself that was being evasive, but since I was responding to your original claims, that belief is verifiably false.

And as for your line:

This thread has nothing to do with why the flame shouldn't pass through Ireland.

Then why would you bring it up if you didn't want to discuss it? If you don't want to eleborate on the points you posted, then don't post them. A simple answer from yourself would have stopped this thread going wildly off-topic (something that I'm guilty of doing nothing to stop, so sorry to everyone else for that).

I've wasted enough time on your silliness.

awec

Happyman42 wrote: »

You do know what the purpose of the protest was, don't you?....to bring attention to their cause. Because they know the police, they knew what the reaction would be. Heavy handed and over the top. Nothing new there. Result, even more people are aware of Marian Price and her circumstances, even more people are aware that police are using the same old same old tactics to supress.
I'd say, it's a win win for the protestors cause...wouldn't you? Think on that as you sit on the moral high ground, some people have real lives to live and cope with.

What was heavy handed about the police response?

That's a term that's thrown about far too easily these days.

gibraltar

Censorship wrote: »

The answer to your question is a question of morality, not facts. You will not agree with my views.

The answer to my question has facts, which you ignore.

You will not even define a word correctly.

I think the problem here is a translation is needed,

Censorship wrote: »

The answer to your question is a question of morality, not facts.

Translation; I do not actually know any facts, but I have watched a lot of youtube.

Censorship wrote: »

You will not agree with my views.

Translation; I'm right! I read it on the internet!

Censorship wrote: »

The answer to my question has facts, which you ignore.

Translation; my fantasy is hard for me to understand and you may have trouble following it.

Censorship wrote: »

You will not even define a word correctly.

Translation; you will not blindly agree with me, I am taking my ball and going home.

Hope that helps.

Censorship

humanji wrote: »

Not sure why I bother, but:I don't know your views as you've yet to define them within the context of this topic. This is another evasive answer on your part.

You have given no facts, merely supposition. I asked for clarification, and again you evaded.

I did define it correctly, and you refused to accept that definition, no doubt because you had a smart arse reply to your version and really want to say it. It's also irrelevant to the topic and another example of you evading questions.

I've little doubt that you'll come back and claim it was myself that was being evasive, but since I was responding to your original claims, that belief is verifiably false.

And as for your line:

Then why would you bring it up if you didn't want to discuss it? If you don't want to eleborate on the points you posted, then don't post them. A simple answer from yourself would have stopped this thread going wildly off-topic (something that I'm guilty of doing nothing to stop, so sorry to everyone else for that).

I've wasted enough time on your silliness.

My views are clearly anti-imperialism & I believe the olympics is an imperialist event.....we will agree to disagree on that.

You have not asked for any facts or clarifaction on 9/11. Ask if you wish, there are many facts. Your answer started with, "i've no idea"

You did not define 'moderator' correctly, scroll back then pick up a dictionary.

I brought it up because I wanted to discuss it, I do not 'want' to discuss it with someone who has, "no idea", about the biggest political event in history.

Chips Lovell

OK, let me get this straight. If someone thinks 9/11 wasn't an inside job, you think there's no point in arguing with them about anything because their mind is too closed? Or is it the other way around?

I'm genuinely confused.

Happyman42

awec wrote: »

What was heavy handed about the police response?

That's a term that's thrown about far too easily these days.

Why? Because they are doing your work for you?
Do your own research and viewing, I spoke to people who where and who saw what happened on the protest and are as far away from the lazy and handy label of 'dissenter' than you guys are from human rights activists.:rolleyes:

gibraltar

Censorship wrote: »

I brought it up because I wanted to discuss it, I do not 'want' to discuss it with someone who has, "no idea", about the biggest political event in history.

Please for the love of god get yourself a history book, really I mean it - there are just not enough facepalms to convey my feelings about that sentence.

Censorship

gibraltar wrote: »

Please for the love of god get yourself a history book, really I mean it - there are just not enough facepalms to convey my feelings about that sentence.

Hola, WW2 the only opposition to my statement, the lack of television in the 1940s is what clinches it for 9/11.
9/11 is more dangerous then an atomic bombs & hitler's men.

gibraltar

Censorship wrote: »

Hola, WW2 the only opposition to my statement, the lack of television in the 1940s is what clinches it for 9/11.
9/11 is more dangerous then an atomic bombs & hitler's men.

Please listen to me, I really mean this - get a history book - or even better a library card, honestly if you think 9/11 was "the biggest political event in history" then you have a lot of catching up to do.

awec

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why? Because they are doing your work for you?
Do your own research and viewing, I spoke to people who where and who saw what happened on the protest and are as far away from the lazy and handy label of 'dissenter' than you guys are from human rights activists.:rolleyes:

What are you on about? And what do you mean "you guys" ?

I asked what was heavy handed and you have tried to deflect.

So, I'm just taking it that you don't actually know.

Censorship

gibraltar wrote: »

Please listen to me, I really mean this - get a history book - or even better a library card, honestly if you think 9/11 was "the biggest political event in history" then you have a lot of catching up to do.

What's bigger, amigo?

gibraltar

Censorship wrote: »

What's bigger, amigo?

well you could start with the origin of politics itself, the birth of the idea of democracy, birth of the commonwealth, the fall of the Berlin wall (and lets not forget how it got there), Watergate, the cold war, apartheid, african colonialism and the domino theory, just off the top of my head.

Rented Mule

Jorah wrote: »

Erm no.

The Olympics are an event that should be above politics. Some people still can't understand that concept and insist on dragging it down.

The Olympics should be above politics, as well as above the influence of corporations and special interests. Sadly, they have all been dragging the games down for decades now.

Rented Mule

gibraltar wrote: »

well you could start with the origin of politics itself, the birth of the idea of democracy, birth of the commonwealth, the fall of the Berlin wall (and lets not forget how it got there), Watergate, the cold war, apartheid, african colonialism and the domino theory, just off the top of my head.

Watergate ?? Seriously ?? lol I understand where you were trying to go with your answer, but I wouldn't throw Watergate into that mix You might as well have thrown in Monica Lewinsky's gift to Bill Clinton and call it the 'shot heard round the world'.

I will throw in Pearl harbor, the sinking of the Maine, the Lusitania, Franz Ferdinand assassination etc.. as some better examples.

gibraltar

Rented Mule wrote: »

Watergate ?? Seriously ?? lol I understand where you were trying to go with your answer, but I wouldn't throw Watergate into that mix You might as well have thrown in Monica Lewinsky's gift to Bill Clinton and call it the 'shot heard round the world'.

I will throw in Pearl harbor, the sinking of the Maine, the Lusitania, Franz Ferdinand assassination etc.. as some better examples.

Yes Watergate, when the press managed to bring down the most powerful man in the world and people got first hand testimony on the corruption in the white house, the same watergate that altered US politics completely and changed global politics at the same time.

Censorship

gibraltar wrote: »

well you could start with the origin of politics itself, the birth of the idea of democracy, birth of the commonwealth, the fall of the Berlin wall (and lets not forget how it got there), Watergate, the cold war, apartheid, african colonialism and the domino theory, just off the top of my head.

9/11 is the 21st century tool for everything you mentioned, jaja.

Happyman42

awec wrote: »

What are you on about? And what do you mean "you guys" ?

I asked what was heavy handed and you have tried to deflect.

So, I'm just taking it that you don't actually know.

Good man/girl yourself! you take what you want...but why not take a look at the story and the footage, talk to or listen to those that were there and make your own mind up.

gibraltar

Censorship wrote: »

9/11 is the 21st century tool for everything you mentioned, jaja.

Well you did state:

Censorship wrote: »

I brought it up because I wanted to discuss it, I do not 'want' to discuss it with someone who has, "no idea", about the biggest political event in history.

not the biggest political event in the last 12 years, btw 9/11 is not even the biggest event of the 21st century.

good luck with the library card.

awec

Happyman42 wrote: »

Good man/girl yourself! you take what you want...but why not take a look at the story and the footage, talk to or listen to those that were there and make your own mind up.

Another post, no answers.

You're the one going on about police heavy handedness yet you seem unable to tell us all what they did that was heavy handed.

The problem with listening to people that were there is that certain elements have cried wolf for years around police heavy handedness and nobody believes them any more.

Also didn't tell me what you meant by "you guys".

Censorship

gibraltar wrote: »

Well you did state:



not the biggest political event in the last 12 years, btw 9/11 is not even the biggest event of the 21st century.

good luck with the library card.

In your british idoctrinated opinion.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Back on topic please.