Nice to see our allies respecting human rights

[frogwoman]

So he deserved to hear fascists torturing his friend to death while he was trying to sleep and not be able to help him or do anything about what was happening???? He deserved to see people he knew, and cared about, murdered? Just because he believed in something and tried unsuccessfully to act upon it? Did my mum deserve to hear the death threats of murderous Nazis laughing at her down the phone?

And yes, it was purposeful.

How can you judge someone without knowing the history? Do you know what hell black people in South Africa had to live in? It is disgusting that you are justifying the actions of a State which had no popular support and no legitimacy just because of his actions, and don't forget he was an isolated individual - this stuff didn't happen every day! If black people had been given a say in how their country had been run, would they have chosen to live under South African sovereignty? Did you know that South Africa was a one party state - they allowed a few token members of the legal opposition like Helen Suzman into parliament in order that they can say, "look, we're democratic, we allow everyone a say" but they were a one party state and only one party was in power the whoel time! They were going to "ethnically cleanse" South Africa and kill and expel the black population if Verwoed had lived to carry out his plans before he was assassinated - which would have meant genocide. Of the majority! There were secret papers that were discovered just a few years ago about these plans, showing the regime's true nature beyond any doubt.

By the way, the television station was not a privately owned company, OK? It was SABC, the South African broadcasting corporation, which was owned by the state and a vehicle for racist propaganda.

I didn't say the Burmese state WAS a state of Nazis, btw. I said it was the closest thing in the modern world to the Nazi state. No other government comes remotely close IMO in the 21st century, and Burma's regime isn't even THAT close.

 

[frogwoman]

They want genocide.

"The SS.": Sorry, as atrocious as they were and my mom was victimised by them and had most of her family annihilted by them, they were not terrorists. They were the apparrattus of a sovereign nation which elcted them democratically.

They did not engage in random violence per se, they had actual objectives and well denfined parameters.

The German people didn't elect the SS , the SS were not the Army of Germany. The SS were an elite unit created by Himmler to guard Hitler and barely had any purpose before the Nazi regime siezed power. Do you know how the SS was created, and why? They were a paramilitary organisation that undermined the authority of the German Army and came to replace the SA, Hitler's street thugs, once they got a bit too rowdy and left-wing for his liking.

They operated above the law and undermined the legitimate institutions of the state like the army and police force. The German army hated them for this reason. They often, although not always, did things that were not directly ordered by the State but just legitimised. They are and were terrorists, they were unelectible, unaccountable, and operated outside the law using acts of violence to achieve their aims. You say that they did not use random violence. That puts them on the same footing as a terrorist organisation because terrorists don't use acts of violence "randomly", they do it with a specific goal in mind and their violence is as much designed to be propaganda as anything else, it is designed to frighten people and convince them that resistance is futile or that they are doing the right thing. The SS's specific goal was to create an ethnically pure Germany. They did this as much through terrorism as anything else. Terrorism that was legitimised by the entire Nazi state apparatus. There are many examples of this today, although none as extreme.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Did he deserve?": Yes, he deserved much worse. Sorry, that is how it is.

"Mom deserve death threats."; No, never. Sadly, it is natural to want to vent and if your uncle was unavailable, and folks knew how to locate his ster, they sometimes will.


"How can I judge people I did not know?": All I need to know is that they used indiscriminate volence against non-combatants, PURPOSEFULLY. That is the sum of it. What else matters? I do not care if you aim to put a chicken in every pot, if you bomb babes to hell with you (not you per se, just bombers).

"Does Rachamim know what Apartheid blacks went through?": Sure do. i used to rally against it actually, decades ago. I also know that Jews living under Nuremburg ss not step nto Berlin cafes and bomb them. There is NEVER an excuse to purposefuly hurt innocents.

"Justifying the actions of a state...": No, justfying the right to remove murderers from society. That is EVERY nation's right. If they confind their actions towards govt. facilities, that is one thing. Taking out TV stations is not the same thing.

"Does Rcahamim know?" Yes, I do. As stated, I am 41 and do devote a bit of time to socia consciousness. Juust as I now beling to 2 groups in NYC (albeit without doing a dman thing here in Asia, although do have HR activities here to keep myself busy), one an anti slavery group, the other devoted towards stopping the servitude of women in the sex trade (actually a problem in Israel VERY SADLY).

When younger, I was in the street against S. Afrca and against my own govt, for its tactical alliance with it.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "TV station was state run.": Not the same thing. Hit an arm of the state security pprattus, not a place where although the state signs their check (which it did by the way to alot of blacks and cloureds as well) but they could not care less about or have anything to do with poliy.

Propaganda bothers you? Hit the relay, or the original toers, not th station. Farfour from Gaza on al Akhsa TV is about as bad as you can get with propaganda, a bumblebee costumed Arab telling tots to murder JEWS (not Israelis) and yet would nt dream of taking it out.

"Burma.": Well, I still do not agree with the comparison but thanks for clearing it up.


"SS.": You should reread what I posted. Germany elected the Nazi Party, yes? Democractically, yes? The Nazi Party led to the creation of the SS, yes? And so it goes. It was an OFFICIAL arm of the sovereign govt. That it was created before or after elction is inconsequential.

"Do I know that the SS replaced the SA, that it was a paramilitary?" I would think that you could imagine would but to answer you anyway, of course I do.

"They were terrorists.": Sorry, wrong again. they were paid by the state, took direct orders from the state, and so on. That they competed with other arms s not of any bearing. Arafat had almost 30 different Arms at one time but that did not change their umbrella, the PLO, later PA Security Apparattus...Just like the SS came under their own umbrella, NAZI.

"Randomly.": You negate the laternative defnition and context of that word. "Random" in the sense sue it means that they kill nad maim random people. The only probability they have is that if they do ill, it will be within Israel and even if it is atourit as it is it times, it iwll hit the Israeli economy which depends so much on tourism. The adjective has nothing to do with their objectives.

 

[nino_savatte]

Aparthied Era South Africa was the richest nation in South Africa, other nations could not afford not to do business with it.": Here are some facts: Israel has the highest per capita income in the entire Middle East and is richer than all its bordering neighbouring nations, COMBINED. How many of the 33 Arab entities "do business" with it?

What makes you think that I forgot facts about Apartheid Era S. Africa? I am 41 and actually was in the Garden across from K'nesset complaining and demonstrating against Israel's pro-regime policies. I did not need to rely on bombs. I dd not live under the system but was vehemently opposed to it and wanted it gone very badly. Terrorism never solves a damn thing no matter what the fraud Chomsky claims.

You seem very confused here: on the one hand you claim that apartheid-era South Africa died because of economic factors. There was also a cultural boycott and many countries, with the exception of the US, Israel and Britain, participated in this boycott. The aforementioned others did business with SA. You claim to have "protested" against the apartheid regime but your own words on this forum do not match this latest burst of rhetoric from you. You supported KACH, an organisation not known for its tolerance of non-whites.

This is from the Israeli Foreign Ministry website (so you can't claim that it comes from a questionable source)

Though he had declared that once in Israel he would not engage in politics, he spoke out against the black Jews in Dimona, and later openly advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israel.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...gs/THE KACH MOVEMENT - BACKGROUND - 03-Mar-94

 

[frogwoman]

Well if they wanted to "vent" against people like my mum and her family because of what her brother did then maybe the Nazi scum ought to stop whining and think about why he wanted to do it before making people's lives hell ! And how dare you say that the ANC are baby killers, do you know how many black children in South Africa DIED because of inadequate access to medical care, because they had no hope, and no chance of a job? Who is the real baby killer?

Why are you apologising for the actions of the South African state? Did you support the regime in South Africa? How can you sit there and say that what the ANC did was inexcusable?

Did you know that the South African regime used to carry out targetted assassinations of people they disliked, even people who were not involved in the ANC or any violent campaigns? So how can you say that they were "better" than people who were trying to liberate their country from a racist regime run by "people" who were planning a fucking genocide?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Sleater:"Nonsense, utter b.s., and so on.": 3 points you respond to and not one fact in any of your response(s). Why waste your time and the thread's space?

You didn't post up any facts yourself, so you can't try and pull that one.

So the ANC toppled the regime?

As for you not believing what I said, pefectly fine but please do not be a fool and think you can read the mind of everyone on the site. Speak for yourself and feel assured that about 5 others agree with you wholeheartedly. However I get more than 2 times that number in positive emails each week (on avg) from folks who agree with me and some who actually have extreme views.

I've been on this site a long time and know a good few people away from the boards, I can assure you it's the majority. All these positive emails that you get and yet no-one enters these arguments besides you, more bullshit.

If you only want to heare your own views, write a blog. Why waste time here? So silly. Almost as silly a person thinking they know what another did 20 years ago, a person them have nevr met. Whatever.

So I was right then, you lied.

As for the one question you posed, "Why nations should be allowed...," nations have rights enshrined in International Law and treaty. They have the right to defend themselves and their citizens and residents from indiscriminate violence.

And what if a nation steps outside International Law, what then?

I would imaginae... just a stab in the dark since of course I do NOT know you, that you have not lived in fear of your life because of indiscriminate violence. Try it and see if you feel the same.

People who have very, very rarely ever make non-sensical points like yours

Let me get this right - living in fear of indiscriminate violence makes people take more rational and sensible choices?.

 

[rachamim18]

Nino: "KACH was known for its non-tolerance for non-whites?": WHAT? What are you on about. It did not even preach non-tolerance of Arabs and if you mean Arabs, we are the same exact race.

By the way, most Jews who are traditional as KACH was do not consider themselves as whites, bu as separate and appart as whites have made us. IF you ever make it to my nation you might be amaed at the average Israeli. they are NOT blonde and blue eyed. We come in all coloures but then towards the darker shades of the spectrum.


If you mean the organisation that KACH evolved out of, the JDL, it had fought hand to hand in the streets of Brooklyn with both blacks and whites. Wetend , in Brooklyn, to live in so called minority neighbourhoods and this brought alot of friction (practically none today).

Blacks and Hispanics were not happy with the share of the Entitlement pie but then we vote, in those communities, as a bloc so we have power.

This led to riots like Crown Heights, although a little boy being run over caused it,etc.

There was no race ideology although there were a few who held it as personal views. They were ostracised and rejected.

Of course, a person who thinks common anthropological procedures are akin to eugeniucs might make this mistake.

"Black Jews in Dimona.": Hahaha. You have no idea about my nation. Black Jews They are BLACK HEBREWS, a cult from Chicago in America. They have been in Dmona for ecades, used to hate Jews claining to be the true Jews.

In the past decade they have cmoe close to actually becming Jewish but they stillhold racist views of anyone light skinned and that includes some Iraelis since we tend, even when black, to not be like American blacks in appearance. THEY are the racists.

"Expulsion of Arabs.": The Govt. of Israel outlawed the party because they feared it. The only exulsion ever called for was that of any non-Jew who was ot willing to live by the 7 Noahide Commandments and under Jewish Law since it is after all, a Jewish Nation.

The problem with the Rav Kahane' the Elder's mindset though was that there is a separation of Religion and State. Israel is secular by definition and practice and his views were not realistic.

He did not advocate forcing anyone out.

You need to study.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Does Rachamm support the actions of the Apartheid Era S. African Govt.?": I do NOT. I support the right of innocent people to not face bombings. Can you not understand the clear and easy distinction?


"How dare Rachamim say the ANC were baby killers.": They were. If you do not like truth, please do not dicuss the issue. That S. Africa killed many more babies is not a logical rationalisation, sorry.

The govt. made blacks live in separate townships, work in crappy jobs, and genraly treated them as subhuman so let us go and blow up anyone walking by our bombs and "actions?"

The ANC threatened ALL people, including blacks, when setting off indiscriminate bombs. Ratioalise that one.

"How can Rachamim say the govt was better because it carried out targetted killings of people not involved in terrorism?": OK, let us look at what your trying to say:A govt that aims to kill a specific person on purpose is worse than a group that does not aim for particular deaths, just deaths.

Make sense? How could it?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

How hard is it to use the quotation function? Honestly?

 

[rachamim18]

Sleater: "Rachamim did not post facts either.": Not the point. did not toss insults. I offered my view in a mature and adult way. I would hope that you could have appreciated that.

"Rachamim is lying over getting supportive emails.": That is pretty funny. Why would do that? What do I realy gain hee? I gain a few laughs. I get to see hateful people from a bit of their perspective, and what else?

I am happily married, have many kids, very well off, accomplished in my world, so why would I need to try for ego wanking? You have been here a while? As have I. Does that mean then that you have polled all the many hundreds of members? what a joke. Whatever, and yet I am here, so try and deal with it in a mature way or, do as others do, or place me on ignore because I dare not not hold blanket parties for Israel .

Amazing when threads like the ones I have posted on this forum in the past couple of days show how foolish ideologically cloistered people, like the so called "left," and so called "right" for that matter try and tell citizens of other nations what they should and should not do. Anyone readng those threads will see the parrots here who squawk the loudest have no clue whatsoever what goes on in my country.

I tell you to keep your fantasies to a blog and you say it is me admitting I lied? Sure you want to go there? Maybe you wish to go back and reedit? That hole is getting bigger.

"What if a nation defending itself steps outside of International Law?" Then make a case wh the Hague. It happens, it should not but then International Law is not decided on meessage boards nor in the UN's General Assembly.

"Does living in fear of an indiscriminate attack help people make rational choices?": no, but neither should it prevent t if a nation has checks and balances. IT actually should have no bearing.

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: "Does Rachamm support the actions of the Apartheid Era S. African Govt.?": I do NOT. I support the right of innocent people to not face bombings. Can you not understand the clear and easy distinction?

"How dare Rachamim say the ANC were baby killers.": They were. If you do not like truth, please do not dicuss the issue. That S. Africa killed many more babies is not a logical rationalisation, sorry.

I'd like to see evidence of the ANC's "baby killing" please. Do you have any links?

The govt. made blacks live in separate townships, work in crappy jobs, and genraly treated them as subhuman so let us go and blow up anyone walking by our bombs and "actions?"

That's not what the ANC did and you know it mate. They did NOT use violence indiscriminately. They weren't some bunch of black nationalists who hated all white people and wanted to kill them all, or some bunch of people who were bored one day and thought, "I know, I'll plant a bomb!"

And by simply dismissing the National Party's policies as "making them work in crappy jobs and live in separate townships" you are ignoring the effect which they had on the population, you are ignoring the constant fear and humiliation they lived in every day. those people killed hope and they stopped entire generations of black people getting an education, something which the current government has to deal with in South Africa because there are so many people who are inadequately trained and so many people who turn to crime as the only lifestyle because they don't know anything else, they will be dealing with the consequence of it for generations to come!

The ANC threatened ALL people, including blacks, when setting off indiscriminate bombs. Ratioalise that one.

Like the South African government did when they constcripted people to fight on their borders then like my dad putting them at risk of being shot, like they did when they arrested peopel for associating with black people, or for interracial marriages? like they did when they beat up and interrogated peaceful demonstrators, who were often elderly, and mostly white?? you seem to think that the ANC was this evil entity that was doing stuff like this every day. How many bombs did the ANC set off compared to how many innocent people the SA government killed, imprisoned and tortured?

"How can Rachamim say the govt was better because it carried out targetted killings of people not involved in terrorism?": OK, let us look at what your trying to say:A govt that aims to kill a specific person on purpose is worse than a group that does not aim for particular deaths, just deaths.

Make sense? How could it?

they were that group for fucks sake, and they didn't care who died, they were planning genocide (or were in the 1970s). they wanted black people out of south africa.

 

[selamlar]

Back to the OP, its still kicking off over here. Mersin (where I live), Van, and Diyarbakir are still affected, and the police station down the road has just taken delivery of a couple of APC/armoured car jobs. Jolly good. There was a wedding just round the corner from my house that was broken up with water cannon over the weekend, as well.

 

[frogwoman]

Back to the OP, its still kicking off over here. Mersin (where I live), Van, and Diyarbakir are still affected, and the police station down the road has just taken delivery of a couple of APC/armoured car jobs. Jolly good. There was a wedding just round the corner from my house that was broken up with water cannon over the weekend, as well.

fuck's sake! a wedding??

 

[rachamim18]

Frogwoman: "Does Rachamim have any links to the ANC's 'Baby Killing'?":I posted one in the other thread where we are discussing this same issue. Please look at it.


"The ANC did not plant indiscriminate bombs.": Please see the link referenced above.

"The ANC did not want to kill all whites.": Of course not, being as how many whites belonged to it and otherwise supported it. They DID however hope to kill inncoent S. Africans as evidenced in my link. As I aid, INDISCRIMINATE.

Ignoring all the other negative aspects of the S. African Govt.": No, not at all but then again, it is not relevant. Can you not internalise the following?: THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE FOR TERRORISM.

"...Like S.Africa did when t conscripted,etc.,etc...": So? 2 wrongs make a right now? More logic? Oh I get it, let's fight fire with fire so we both burn to death. Or how about this: You are breaking International Law, we, right or wrong in whoevers' eyes, exist as a sovereign nation with all the pursuant rights and no matter how you oppose us, you do not seek to blow up civilian targets and people, does that sound a bit better?

Why not set off a bomb on an army base? Intel facility? Why do it in a place frequented by civilians?

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Rachamim seems to think hat the ANC is some evil entity.": Yes, any entity that bombs its own civilian countrymen, or any civilian on purpose s as evil as evil is. You obviously confuse a just cause with justified means. They do not go hand in hand.


"How many bombs did the ANC set off as compared to the govt's maltreatment and killings?": Again, so what? How does it change what the ANC did? Did Mandela and co. target he govt that oppressed it and its fellow countrymen? Sure did but then it also targeted noone in articular, just the countrymen that happened to be walking by.

"So many people turn to crime because they do not know anything else.":More excuses. How about those countrymen, the vast majority actually, who did not CHOOSE to turn to crime? Unless the majority is doing so, it does not even deserve consideration as a hypothesis....aside from the common sense you are ignoring.

"They were that group!!!": Sorry, again your logic fails. Your whole family wants to kill me, except for you. blow you up? It is ridiculous. Have a fight with the govt.? Then fight the govt.

 

[frogwoman]

you're not going to convince me. i still see them as heroes and i think that they were incredibly brave people who gave so much so that south africa is now free from the national party's rule and will never be controlled by fascists again. without people like that who knows what would have happened?

true, mandela's government was quite incompetent for the first term but this does not change facts. what they do is government is different to the legitimacy of their struggle.

and anyway this thread is supposed to be about turkey and we've both gone badly off the topic ...

 

[sleaterkinney]

"Rachamim is lying over getting supportive emails.": That is pretty funny. Why would do that? What do I realy gain hee? I gain a few laughs. I get to see hateful people from a bit of their perspective, and what else?

You get to pretend you have support when you have none. If you had support, then why aren't they backing you up on the threads?

Amazing when threads like the ones I have posted on this forum in the past couple of days show how foolish ideologically cloistered people, like the so called "left," and so called "right" for that matter try and tell citizens of other nations what they should and should not do. Anyone readng those threads will see the parrots here who squawk the loudest have no clue whatsoever what goes on in my country.

We have every right to have an opinion on what goes on in other countries, should people have ignored what went on in nazi germany?. No. Next!

"What if a nation defending itself steps outside of International Law?" Then make a case wh the Hague. It happens, it should not but then International Law is not decided on meessage boards nor in the UN's General Assembly.

No, because it doesn't happen, not when someone has the backing of the US which has blocked any resolution relating to Israel.

"Does living in fear of an indiscriminate attack help people make rational choices?": no, but neither should it prevent t if a nation has checks and balances. IT actually should have no bearing.

But it does have a bearing according to you, doesn't it?. Or your sentence in meaningless.

"I would imaginae... just a stab in the dark since of course I do NOT know you, that you have not lived in fear of your life because of indiscriminate violence. Try it and see if you feel the same."

 

[frogwoman]

hypocritical though isn't it that we're not, according to you, allowed to have opinions about what goes on in other countries, when you have spoken of your support of the KLA (who've killed many more people than the ANC ever did) ...

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Rachamim is not going to convince Frog who sees the ANC as heroes.": I question your choice of course.

Please though, answer one question clearly: Do you believe that the end justifies the means?

"About Turkey.": Yes, and how a sovereign nation, Turkey, deals with terrorism. t is one and the same really.

Sleater: "If Rachamim gets supportive email, why do those same people not chime in threads.": Some do, others would not go near the public aspect of this forum. anyway, why do you even care?

"Nazi Germany...": WHAT? here did that come from? Are you talking about what Frog said? Please be clear, you are not making much sense.

"The Hagvue des not happen because the US vetoes Resolutions.":Um, Sleater? Resolutions do not have anything to do with tryng for indictment at the Hague. They can, when they are Security Council products, help effect change but do not determine anything other than other partisan nations' position(s). the Hague is meant to be as objective as possible.

"Bearing.": Again, you are wrong. Ar anyway. What was said, was this: "See f you believe he same way," not tha it makes nations act irrational.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Support of the KLA.": Regardless of your thoughts on Serbia,et al,when the KLA was formed, it was a US supported organisation that was trying to rectify a Serbian land grab. They are still considered a S ally in that region. Furthermore, the KLA did not enter Serb cafes and detonate, did they?

And as far as civilain atrocities, the entire war was fought by civlians and back when I was considering it there was no word on any KLA actions of that nature.

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: "Rachamim is not going to convince Frog who sees the ANC as heroes.": I question your choice of course.

Please though, answer one question clearly: Do you believe that the end justifies the means?

"About Turkey.": Yes, and how a sovereign nation, Turkey, deals with terrorism. t is one and the same really.

look if you as a black south african were in south africa now, compared to twenty years ago, which is better? your answer should be obvious.

In reply to your question, it depends what the ends are, and what the means are.

in the case of the anc? definitely
In the case of the KLA maybe, maybe not, the government they were fighting against were a bunch of utter cunts, but it still doesn't justify what they did after those forces had retreated ...
In the case of the cunts who did 7/7 or 9/11? Nope no fucking way.

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: "Support of the KLA.": Regardless of your thoughts on Serbia,et al,when the KLA was formed, it was a US supported organisation that was trying to rectify a Serbian land grab. They are still considered a S ally in that region. Furthermore, the KLA did not enter Serb cafes and detonate, did they?

And as far as civilain atrocities, the entire war was fought by civlians and back when I was considering it there was no word on any KLA actions of that nature.

there's so much wrong with that post (when compared to your other views) I don't know where to begin, first of all the KLA were fighting because they wanted independence from a "sovereign nation" that was persecuting the albanian population, and doing things which btw, i do not condone in anyway, and because their autonomy had been revoked, leading to thousands of people losing their jobs, being unable to attend school/university etc. it wasnt to rectify a land grab in a place that was always a part of serbia to begin with, they wanted independence from serbia given what had just been happening. Unsurprisingly! i'm not saying that one shouldnt sympathise with (some) of their aims ... what they were fighting against was terrible.

But in some ways they themselves were also terrible, and, because they were supported by the US, that makes doing things like mortar attacks on civilians (not an army) shooting dead fifteen people in a village once the war was over, driving out civilians from (non-serb) minorities like Croats or Turks and other minorities in "revenge" (for what? they hadn't done anything), or smuggling drugs and that sort of shit OK but somehow when a person wants to blow up a TV station broadcasting government propaganda, causing the minimum of damage to anyone, its not OK and the deserve execution? How does who they were supported by make a difference to what they did face it, the KLA were far more violent than the ANC ever were and I don't think the ANC ever smuggled drugs or ran guns ...

i dont udnerstand you're always saying that the US and Israel are not friends and you are justifying the behaviour of what blatantly was a terrorist group, regardless of whether you sympathise with it or not, because "the US supported it" and condemning another group who were far less violent. why? i dont understand why you hate the anc so much?

And the ANC were still supported by many governments around the world, some democratic, some not, the US probably gave them some money at one point given that they worked out which direction the wind was going in so given this and given all the other activities it has been involved in, the KLA has absolutely no moral high ground over the ANC sorry ...

 

[selamlar]

fuck's sake! a wedding??

Yup. The line goes 'Big group of Kurds getting together, music, the odd bit of sloganising, shooting in the air. Sounds like a political meeting to be broken up to me, anyway'. Its the same deal with Nevruz, really. It is a religions festival in and of itself, which Turkey first tried to supress, then tried to assimilate. Its more recently become an excuse (on both sides, truth be told. Not that the violence is physically or morally equivalent) for a ruck.

 

[frogwoman]

What is the situation with other minorities in Turkey, Selamlar? I've heard that Greeks and Armenians are given a really hard time and all ...

 

[Random]

See, when a nation invades, even if the stay there 900 years they are INVADERS. They displace original inhabitants and obliterate cultures (some genius will laugh and say how ironic coming from an Israeli and a Zionist but the truth of the matter is, Jews, as always stated by me, are the true inhabitants of Israel, not Arabs who CONQUERED it, or better yet moved there within he last 5 generations from bordering Arab nations).

Better hope the Canaanites don't come knocking! Hang on, maybe the Turks are the descendants of the expelled Caananites, driven east.

 

[Bang to Rights]

Nice to see our allies respecting human rights. ... ... don't you just love the war on terror?

Huh? What do you mean Turks? Turks?

I see, like Brits and the Yanks aren't guilty of some horrendous human rights violations in Iraq. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Random]

I see, like Brits and the Yanks aren't guilty of some horrendous human rights violations in Iraq. Is that what you're saying?

I don't think she was commenting on that, rather that Turkey, a NATO member, was carrying out activities that would have been comdemned if done by a Saddam or a Milosevic.

 

[Bang to Rights]

I don't think she was commenting on that, rather that Turkey, a NATO member, was carrying out activities that would have been comdemned if done by a Saddam or a Milosevic.

Yes, I see your point. It's just that when you say "our allies respecting human rights" it goes without saying that you (she) think that that particular ally is committing a human rights violation that your own countrymen would never do. Britain and the U.S. cannot rightly point the "righteous finger" towards the Turks considering their own dirty deeds in Iraq. I agree with you (her) about it being a violation but she should have left out the "our allies" bit. WE together with our allies would have been much more appropriate. Don't you think?

 

[frogwoman]

Huh? What do you mean Turks? Turks?

I see, like Brits and the Yanks aren't guilty of some horrendous human rights violations in Iraq. Is that what you're saying?

Of course not and yep, WE together with our allies, if you want to be pedantic about it, the fact that its our allies doing it implies that "we" are endorsing it ...