Soldier's mother Cindy Sheehan in Bush protest

[nino_savatte]

Look, nino, this is what you said: "Criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact.

I put it to you that you are spreading racism by stereotypes, i.e., you describe 4 Muslim men, who are unable to defend themselves, as criminals and terrorist murderers, in the absence of any due process whatsoever!

Who appointed you judge jury and executioner, like?

Was it urban's resident doomsday cultist, Gunther?

You're off your head, pal.

 

[nino_savatte]

"Spreading racism by stereotypes"? Is he fucking serious???????

 

[phildwyer]

"Lighten up" eh? I'm fine and I would be much better if some of the eejits on Urban all took themselves off somewhere and never came back.

I forgot to add: je suis détendu...like ice cool, bébé!

Well, I thought I'd just about mastered Savattean rhetoric, but now he's complicating things with the Francais. I'll have a go though....

"Ice cool," eh? Cobblers--I *don't* think! Anyone reading this post can see that it is now certain that you are merely a vain eejit. Plume de ma tante! Your onanism is now certainly polluting your screen, and what is certain is now that you have never been to Florida. Sacre bleu--I *don't* think!

Hmm, needs a bit of work, maybe you guys can rattle his cage a bit more and we'll see what he comes up with?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Look, nino, this is what you said: "Criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact.

I put it to you that you are spreading racism by stereotypes, i.e., you describe 4 Muslim men, who are unable to defend themselves, as criminals and terrorist murderers, in the absence of any due process whatsoever!

Who appointed you judge jury and executioner, like?

Was it urban's resident doomsday cultist, Gunther?

So in effect you're saying that everybody should qualify their posts to the nth degree because otherwise you'll be forced to make assumptions based on your interpretation of what they have written?

Who appointed you "thread policeman" and "racist-outer general", bigfish?

 

[bigfish]

You're off your head, pal.

Hang on! Your the one calling British Muslims, who are unable to defend themselves through due process, "criminals" and murderers. But, according to you, its me who is off my head!

You said: "criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact."

Do you stand by your statement - Yes or No?

 

[ViolentPanda]

"Coloured people"?

 

[bigfish]

"Coloured people"?

British Muslim's, on the hole, tend to be people of colour. But anyway I have now amended the the phrase to read: "British Muslims".

 

[bigfish]

http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/2005/ns_sheehan.html

On Thursday, in his transparent attempt to halt the momentum of the vigil led by Cindy Sheehan, the president spoke to journalists and repeated his usual rationales. Along the way, Bush provided a sing-song catchphrase of the sort that political consultants are paid big bucks to script: “As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” It all added up to insistence on war and more war. “Pulling troops out prematurely,” he said, “will betray the Iraqis.” But Bush got his scripted syntax inverted when he made the mistake of saying something that rang true: “Obviously, the conditions on the ground depend upon our capacity to bring troops home.”

While Bush sees the war as a problem and Dean bemoans it as a stalemate, Sheehan refuses to evade the truth that it is a crime. And the analysis that came from Daniel Ellsberg in 1972, while the Vietnam War continued, offers vital clarity today: “Each of these perspectives called for a different mode of personal commitment: a problem, to help solve it; a stalemate, to help extricate ourselves with grace; a crime, to expose and resist it, to try to stop it immediately, to seek moral and political change.”

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, I thought I'd just about mastered Savattean rhetoric, but now he's complicating things with the Francais. I'll have a go though....

"Ice cool," eh? Cobblers--I *don't* think! Anyone reading this post can see that it is now certain that you are merely a vain eejit. Plume de ma tante! Your onanism is now certainly polluting your screen, and what is certain is now that you have never been to Florida. Sacre bleu--I *don't* think!

Hmm, needs a bit of work, maybe you guys can rattle his cage a bit more and we'll see what he comes up with?

You're showing your true colours, phil. Not content with spouting the usual shite, you've come here to troll.

In fact, I always thought you were a troll. Indeed, most people on Urban think you're a prat; a dribbling onanistic prat.

You also lack originality: that's another weakness.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hang on! Your the one calling British Muslims, who are unable to defend themselves through due process, "criminals" and murderers. But, according to you, its me who is off my head!

You said: "criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact."

Do you stand by your statement - Yes or No?

I really don't know how you could possibly infer that I am racist based on that statement. It's all in your head.

In case you'd forgotten bf, Muslims are not part of a race they are members of a particular faith based movement - a religion.

 

[nino_savatte]

British Muslim's, on the hole, tend to be people of colour. But anyway I have now amended the the phrase to read: "British Muslims".

I think you mean "whole" and not "hole".

 

[bigfish]

nino: you said: "criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact."

Do you stand by your statement - Yes or No?


Come on nino, answer the question, there's a good lad.

 

[nino_savatte]

nino: you said: "criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact."

Do you stand by your statement - Yes or No?


Come on nino, answer the question, there's a good lad.

Again, I don't know how you can infer that I am a racist from that statement. It seems to me that you are misreading what I have said for the sake of argument.

Let's get something straight, I've been dealing with racism since the day I was born. How about you? Do you have black skin? No, I'll bet you haven't got black skin. And yes, it does matter.

 

[Jangla]

nino: you said: "criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact."

Do you stand by your statement - Yes or No?


Come on nino, answer the question, there's a good lad.

On this page of the thread, the only poster I can see that's made a single inference to colour or race is you bf:

British Muslim's, on the hole, tend to be people of colour.

The statement by Nino seems to be largely true:
The bombers did describe themselves as Muslim.
They did kill, amongst others, British Muslims.

Maybe if you told us why you think it's rascist and back it up with facts, we could begin to understand you a little better?

 

[nino_savatte]

Not only that, and as I reminded bf, Islam is not a race it is a religion.

 

[nino_savatte]

British Muslim's, on the hole, tend to be people of colour. But anyway I have now amended the the phrase to read: "British Muslims".

That's a little racist, if you don't mind me saying so, bf.

 

[jonH]

Not only that, and as I reminded bf, Islam is not a race it is a religion.

So what are the jews religion or race or are the terms not useful, not useful

 

[Jo/Joe]

bigfish, it's hardly fair for you, of all people, to start demanding levels of proof that you come nowhere near providing for any of your outrageous, agenda driven claims. Trying to trip people up for, shock, suggesting the bombers were muslim, is the sort of pathetic, judgemental,'left wing' tactic that pisses normal people off and drives them away from progressive politics.


You still there pbman? Any room in that xtian heart of yours to condemn the media treatment of a grieving mother? Surely you can disagree with her views and disagree with the viscous attacks against her at the same time? Or is the party line more important? Stalin works in mysterious ways it seems.

 

[bigfish]

That's a little racist, if you don't mind me saying so, bf.

But do you stand by your earlier statement - Yes or No?

 

[nino_savatte]

But do you stand by your earlier statement - Yes or No?

Now you're beginning to sound like mears. Your thesis that I am a racist has all been formulated in your head - the same head that produces reams of conspiracy theory drivel. If you can read something into my post that isn't actually there, then you don't deserve an answer and I certainly do not care to waste anymore time on your little power games.

Take that how you like bf, but you're the one who looks foolish here, not me.

 

[bigfish]

Well thanks for clearing that one up for me nino.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well thanks for clearing that one up for me nino.

Like I say, it's all in your head. Thanks for confirming that.

 

[X-77]

good article about the vigils that took place all over the US. I really don't know what's going on over here, why don't we have the same sort of unity that seems to be present with the US anti-war groups?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom

 

[phildwyer]

good article about the vigils that took place all over the US. I really don't know what's going on over here, why don't we have the same sort of unity that seems to be present with the US anti-war groups?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom

Its really true. In the US, sentiment against the war is vehement and committed. In the UK, it is lukewarm and apathetic. The reason is not hard to find--far more Americans are being killed than Brits. This tends to *divide* a country; many Americans are passionately supportive of the war, while many more are passionately against it. In the Uk, few people seem to feel strongly either way. Any ideas about what might be done to change this?

 

[X-77]

Its really true. In the US, sentiment against the war is vehement and committed. In the UK, it is lukewarm and apathetic. The reason is not hard to find--far more Americans are being killed than Brits. This tends to *divide* a country; many Americans are passionately supportive of the war, while many more are passionately against it. In the Uk, few people seem to feel strongly either way. Any ideas about what might be done to change this?

you'd think that most of Britain would be spitting venom at Blair after 7/7 but sadly not even that was enough to stir the anger towards our great and noble leader...unless it's all bubbling under the surface?

are you in the States at the moment did you say?

 

[Jo/Joe]

Bollocks. Blair lost a lot of support over the war. People may not be on the streets, but there has been a lot of anger. It has been an issue that would not go away.

The US response has been smaller, especially since the US govt started the whole thing. It's only now beginning to wake up.

 

[phildwyer]

you'd think that most of Britain would be spitting venom at Blair after 7/7 but sadly not even that was enough to stir the anger towards our great and noble leader...unless it's all bubbling under the surface?

are you in the States at the moment did you say?

Yes, I'm in the States now, but I travel between the two countries a lot (left the UK in early July and will be back in late September) and so can compare the public moods quite well. My sense is that UK Lefties don't despise Blair in the way that US Lefties despise Bush, because most of them are still under the delusion that he's somehow to the "Left" of the Tories, and therefore better. Both on this board and in real life, the usual British response to my pointing out what a right-wing, hawkish bastard Blair is has been: "oh, so you'd rather have the Tories in then?"

Well, *yes,* actually, I would--I think New Labour is considerably to the "right" of the Tories. So part of the reason why the anti-war movement is stronger in the US is the political alignment--the "Left" is out of power here, and so free to hate the government. I'm afraid, though, that the number of deaths is the most significant factor, and it may take (God forbid) another 7/7 to lull the Brits out of their complacency.

 

[phildwyer]

Bollocks. Blair lost a lot of support over the war. People may not be on the streets, but there has been a lot of anger. It has been an issue that would not go away.

Its not "an" issue in the States, its *the* issue, as it should be in the UK, and as it would be if a simliar proportion of Brits were dying as Americans. Always remember that a higher proportion of the British elctorate voted for Blair than Americans voted for Bush. But the most striking difference is the division within the societies--in the US everyone either loves Bush or hates him; in the UK everyone seems indifferent towards Blair and his insane foriegn policy.

 

[fela fan]

Bollocks. Blair lost a lot of support over the war.

And promptly got voted back in.

Anyone spot a contradiction there...?

 

[fela fan]

Yes, I'm in the States now, but I travel between the two countries a lot (left the UK in early July and will be back in late September) and so can compare the public moods quite well. My sense is that UK Lefties don't despise Blair in the way that US Lefties despise Bush, because most of them are still under the delusion that he's somehow to the "Left" of the Tories, and therefore better. Both on this board and in real life, the usual British response to my pointing out what a right-wing, hawkish bastard Blair is has been: "oh, so you'd rather have the Tories in then?"

Well, *yes,* actually, I would--I think New Labour is considerably to the "right" of the Tories. So part of the reason why the anti-war movement is stronger in the US is the political alignment--the "Left" is out of power here, and so free to hate the government. I'm afraid, though, that the number of deaths is the most significant factor, and it may take (God forbid) another 7/7 to lull the Brits out of their complacency.

Top post phil.