London
- Thread starter AlainK
- Start date
just.wing.it
Deadwood Head
just.wing.it
Deadwood Head
Oh jeez....
my nellie
Masterpiece
People from 11 different countries have been injured.
As soon as the i.d. of the third victim was released to be an American,
Only Americans deserve condolences, the rest nationalities are ..... what????
As soon as the i.d. of the third victim was released to be an American,
wrote on Twitter : "A great American, Kurt Cochran, was killed in the London terror attack. My prayers and condolences are with his family and friends."
Only Americans deserve condolences, the rest nationalities are ..... what????
just.wing.it
Deadwood Head
American Presidents always do that....in any tragedy, they'll name the Americans....
Standard Operating Procedure.
Not to mention, their story is particularly horrible and sad, with the 25 anniversary and all.....terrible.
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
You condemn people that acknowledge the death of an American but you wont condemn the idiot zealot that drove his car into him and a host of others on a bridge in London? What's wrong with your priorities?
just.wing.it
Deadwood Head
Amen.
michaelj
Chumono
No, but it's okay if the president of his country singles him out. Honestly, would it offend you if a Greek had been among the victims and Pavlopoulos had addressed him by name and not specifically mentioned the other victims? It wouldn't have offended me. I saw some stuff from the mayor of the Spanish town where Aysha Frade, one of the victims who died, was originally from. He only talked about her, which was fine.
Paradox
Imperial Masterpiece
Get this man a dictionary, he obviously failed vocabulary.
You dont know the meaning of the word "tolerant". You are the antithesis of "tolerant".
Your thoughts are also very very far from "diverse", in fact you are the biggest bigot and racist I have ever come across in my entire life.
You dont know the meaning of the word "diverse". Nothing you have said represents "diverse thought", rather its nothing but intolerance and hate with every word that drips from your mouth
And now you insult me by calling me a fascist. Cant get someone to agree with you so you devolve into insults.
You obviously dont know the definition of that word either because you've called me a liberal already in this thread and elsewhere.
You really are a model of the American education system. No wonder we are in so much trouble.
I guess I forgot to put you on ignore last night, this time it will be for real because I am going to force myself to take a hiatus from this forum until this thread gets buried or locked as it deserves.
just.wing.it
Deadwood Head
Dang, you must not get out much...
I'm sorry I've offended your left wing sensitive self, so badly.... honestly.
Sorry, I'm done.
my nellie
Masterpiece
You did not understand me correctly!
I just want to exaggerate this behavior on the part of a president to choose not to make any mention of ALL the victims/injured and limit his reference only to his compatriot.
Μr. Wood, of course I do condemn the terrorists/terrorism! I thought I did not need to refer to this!
I just want to exaggerate this behavior on the part of a president to choose not to make any mention of ALL the victims/injured and limit his reference only to his compatriot.
Yes, I would have been deeply offended. Maybe it's just me... BUT I assure you it is my strong belief that the heads/leaders of countries should show their solidarity at least making mention of all people wounded or dead, as a whole, because they all were equally victims for the same reason.
Again, this is not fine with me. Same as with D.T.
Cattwooduk
Shohin
Not sure where the idea that the current radical Islamist terrorism all being the fault of one man comes from besides the need to try and understand a complex situation by making a scapegoat of the figurehead of an entity you dislike.
Think about it - when 9/11 went down the terrorists stated it was retaliation due to all the American intervention and support in other places around the world. Bush and Blair started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not Obama. This isn't an opinion, it's an undeniable fact. Don't know if you had anything similar over there but the Iraq inquiry here found that there was no grounds to go to war at all, and a lot of fabricated reasons cited for going to war.
Obama inherited an absolute mess of a situation so what ever action he took, he would face scorn for it. People wanted their troops out of the middle east - he began withdrawal of forces leaving a massive unstable power vacuum in the region, that is what happens when you leave a war torn country you've just been ripping apart for years. If he did keep troops there people like yourself and others regardless of political stance would be shouting even louder about the ongoing losses of US troops piling up in a pointless war with no actual achievable goal. Guerrilla wars have never been winnable wars and the middle east has been a brewing and unstable cauldron for decades.
What exactly do YOU propose he should have done when he came into office already in a war?
I'm not trying to wipe off all the shit that's happened under Obama's administration, the ongoing drone strikes etc are no better or worse than having troops on the ground. Sure they've stopped US casualties abroad but if anything they piss off the natives in the targeted countries even more than having troops there. I'm trying to get you to question why exactly you're repeatedly pointing a massive global issue at one man who was nowhere near the controls of US power when all the shit kicked off in the first place? Something you have yet to give an answer to.
Just trying to get you to think a little wider and further back to the causes and effects of what's actually going on, rather than massively over simplifying complex topics into a statement based on nothing. Even what I stated above is only a slightly less simplistic example. If you're going to front a statement about something, back it up if you want people to take it seriously.
It's people on both sides of the debate here levelling personal attacks at each other which doesn't really gain any ground or answer any questions. I do it as well sometimes but for the most part at least TRY to form a discussion based on some rational, critical thinking before I post something. I don't want to start riling people up having not been posting here long, but there are people here way too eager to turn a debate about something into an emotional and personal slagging match you'd see in a play ground. It's kind of sad and makes everyone look way more irrational than they actually are.
I don't think anyone here is inherently bad as such, but Christ on a tricycle I've had more informed conversations with my 6 year old sister about where rainbows come from than some of the statements being thrown around here.
Think about it - when 9/11 went down the terrorists stated it was retaliation due to all the American intervention and support in other places around the world. Bush and Blair started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not Obama. This isn't an opinion, it's an undeniable fact. Don't know if you had anything similar over there but the Iraq inquiry here found that there was no grounds to go to war at all, and a lot of fabricated reasons cited for going to war.
Obama inherited an absolute mess of a situation so what ever action he took, he would face scorn for it. People wanted their troops out of the middle east - he began withdrawal of forces leaving a massive unstable power vacuum in the region, that is what happens when you leave a war torn country you've just been ripping apart for years. If he did keep troops there people like yourself and others regardless of political stance would be shouting even louder about the ongoing losses of US troops piling up in a pointless war with no actual achievable goal. Guerrilla wars have never been winnable wars and the middle east has been a brewing and unstable cauldron for decades.
What exactly do YOU propose he should have done when he came into office already in a war?
I'm not trying to wipe off all the shit that's happened under Obama's administration, the ongoing drone strikes etc are no better or worse than having troops on the ground. Sure they've stopped US casualties abroad but if anything they piss off the natives in the targeted countries even more than having troops there. I'm trying to get you to question why exactly you're repeatedly pointing a massive global issue at one man who was nowhere near the controls of US power when all the shit kicked off in the first place? Something you have yet to give an answer to.
Just trying to get you to think a little wider and further back to the causes and effects of what's actually going on, rather than massively over simplifying complex topics into a statement based on nothing. Even what I stated above is only a slightly less simplistic example. If you're going to front a statement about something, back it up if you want people to take it seriously.
It's people on both sides of the debate here levelling personal attacks at each other which doesn't really gain any ground or answer any questions. I do it as well sometimes but for the most part at least TRY to form a discussion based on some rational, critical thinking before I post something. I don't want to start riling people up having not been posting here long, but there are people here way too eager to turn a debate about something into an emotional and personal slagging match you'd see in a play ground. It's kind of sad and makes everyone look way more irrational than they actually are.
I don't think anyone here is inherently bad as such, but Christ on a tricycle I've had more informed conversations with my 6 year old sister about where rainbows come from than some of the statements being thrown around here.
Last edited:
Vance Wood
Lord Mugo
cancle
michaelj
Chumono
You'll want to avoid the papers for a few days, then, because a whole lot of leaders seem to be taking a similar approach, mourning their own first and foremost.
Not sure I understand your point here. Obviously Bush and Blair weren't responsible for the war that supposedly brought us the 9/11 attacks, and that war was undeniably just, as its objective was to repel an unlawful invasion of Kuwait. Perhaps I missed something in the context of prior posts. Maybe you can explain a bit better.
Cattwooduk
Shohin
I was referring to the 2001 invasion of Iraq rather than the gulf war in the 90s as the cause of the power vacuum and ultimately a staging ground for masses of terrorists groups.
But you highlight my point entirely because saying the bush jr administration was responsible for enticing the 9/11 attacks is also too simplistic. There were prior events the terrorists cited which bush wasn't involved with. It was support for the atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, and sanctions among other things given as reasons for the attacks rather than the liberation of Kuwait. I agree that was a justified intervention.
Bush certainly pushed the button on the invasion with totally fabricated excuses for the war, but the problem already existed in the region.
My point is that Obama inherited the messy situation in the middle east already in full swing and wasn't the cause of ISIS being rampant. Making that assertion is way too ignorant of all the other factors, or if not ignorant then far too willing to ignore them for the purpose of blaming one man.
I wonder why just.wing.it states Obama being the cause of it, and what he has to back it up that doesn't include totally ignoring the time immediately before Obama's administration?
just.wing.it
Deadwood Head
@Cattwooduk
I was trying to stop with this....
But I assume you're referring to me explaining how Barry Hussein from Honolulu facilitated the spread of radical Islam across the world in the last 8 years...
You're partially right, that its not all his fault, and I didn't say that.
It's a war against civilization that has been raging for something like 1400 years......but there is no denying what the thin smoking man from Chicago did do, and didn't do during his time in office.
That's all....
I was trying to stop with this....
But I assume you're referring to me explaining how Barry Hussein from Honolulu facilitated the spread of radical Islam across the world in the last 8 years...
You're partially right, that its not all his fault, and I didn't say that.
It's a war against civilization that has been raging for something like 1400 years......but there is no denying what the thin smoking man from Chicago did do, and didn't do during his time in office.
That's all....
Cattwooduk
Shohin
Yes apart from you are yet to explain anything at all. The Egyptian crisis was not the flash point for the spread of radical Islam, and the Arab Spring would almost certainly would have brought about the exact same situation regardless of any intervention by foreign powers.
Don't get me wrong, the US and other nations involvement in the region absolutely contributed towards the spread of violent Islam, but as I stated - Obama inherited a war already under way, he had few options besides staying in the region or pulling the troops out. By pulling troops out before the region was stable (arguably never was or will be either way) it created a power vacuum to be easily filled with all sorts of terroristic groups. Groups already mad at the western worlds intervention before the current time.
"Obama's reign of Islamic terror began.." was what you said. If that isn't a direct apportionment of blame I don't know what is, and if it is then it utterly detracts from anyone elses prior involvement in exacerbating the problem.
You're very good at making sweeping statements but pretty poor at either explaining them or backing them up.
just.wing.it
Deadwood Head
Yes, the Arab Spring, when Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that "democracy has spread to thousands of countries", ......uuummmm Nancy there are only around 205 countries on earth, depending on what you read.... time for the old folks home with her....
The speech in Cairo, that was the beginning of Obama's Apology Tour, where he went all over the world apologizing for American imperialism, and all the horrible white people we have here.
That was the beginning of Obama's official assault on modern civilization, by allowing ISIS and other terror groups to form and flourish.
There's no need to rehash every detail.
But I'll just give you my opinion, since you're curious.
I personally believe that Obama, from day one, was a plant.
He was implanted into the Senate in the most politically corrupt state in the union by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now, I know you think I'm waaaaay off the reservation with that outrageous claim. But can you give me any proof to the contrary.....?
Tell me one thing that Obama ever did with his policy, or otherwise, that was actually good for our country.....there's nothing.
We are talking about a man who hurt America in every way possible and never once even uttered the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism", not once..... that is extremely offensive to anyone who can think for themselves.
When you read his "autobiography" which is not an autobiography, because it was written by Bill Ayers, who is a domestic terrorist, btw, you find out that he was raised as a Muslim, attended Muslim madrasas for school, and his favorite sound in life is the sound of the Muslim call to worship.
He referred to himself as a Muslim many times, and the media covered it up every time, even to go as far as to lie to us and say the Obama is a Christian man....
Look, if he was just honest, and not a liar, I would not be so wound up about him.
But he's a wolf in sheep's clothing, and he dooped everyone, except me of course.
And now the worldwide Islamic caliphate is 8 years closer to fruition.
Thanks Obama.
Nybonsai12
Masterpiece
I thought this thread was about London. Seems to be going around in circles like Mr. Griswald.
Look kids, Big Ben, Parliament!
Look kids, Big Ben, Parliament!
just.wing.it
Deadwood Head
Yep.....
I apologize for that.....