Messages

Please dont shoot the messenger as the article was submitted with out comment other than pointing out that the ICC is skewed.The EU or my opinion of it is off topic.

Blaming someone else?

No idea what you are talking about.

Africa rejects the skewed International Criminal Courts arrest warrant for Gadaffi :

The African Union?  An organisation explicitly working towards creating the United States of Africa, and of which Gaddafi was Chairman.  So you're happy to heed this body's opinion, but meanwhile everything the EU says or does is part of a conspiracy of power-hungry self-interest?

Please dont shoot the messenger as the article was submitted with out comment other than pointing out that the ICC is skewed.The EU or my opinion of it is off topic.


My god though Africans working for their own self interest !

Whatever next !

Africa rejects the skewed International Criminal Courts arrest warrant for Gadaffi :

The African Union?  An organisation explicitly working towards creating the United States of Africa, and of which Gaddafi was Chairman.  So you're happy to heed this body's opinion, but meanwhile everything the EU says or does is part of a conspiracy of power-hungry self-interest?

Please dont shoot the messenger as the article was submitted with out comment other than pointing out that the ICC is skewed.The EU or my opinion of it is off topic.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron - all directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. I'm not defending Gadaffi on this point - but I wouldn't defend any of the first three either.

That is what i find utterly distasteful about the whole thing is their hypocritical self righteousness apart from many other aspects that i find utterly distasteful and sickening  about our elected PMs.And its their abhorrent hypocritical self righteousness etc that was the reason that i talked up Gadaffi in the first place as previously i didnt have much of an opinion on Gadaffi.They are only[failed] humanitarians when there is something in it for them.

Who is going to pay to repair the country once the bombing campaign and invasion is over  presuming that there will be an end to the invasion/occupation ?

Will the Libyans be any better off if Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime is deposed ?

An educated guess says they wont so we will all see how this works out.......

Imagine that i was writing a thesis or a book on Gadaffi as if i was i would have to list the positives as well as the negatives but you will all get the negatives soon enough about what went on inside the prisons and the political dissidents and the torture etc.I dont want to quote from websites regarding that business yet and i did try to find some info from the internet but i gave up looking as it was a plethora of articles written very recently that i dont trust as they all seemed to be loaded articles that were supportive of the US/NATO/UN.

What i did hear about which was appalling was that there was a boatload of Libyan refugees that were stranded out at sea and that NATO ignored their distress calls amd only 9 out of 72 survived the 16 days at sea with no food or water.

Africa rejects the skewed International Criminal Courts arrest warrant for Gadaffi :

Articles:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=999&bih=629&q=africa+rejects+the+ICC&btnG=Google+Search

All people need to do is bookmark this link:

http://www.2000adonline.com/forum/index.php?action=recent

And that should see you through to it all getting fixed up later on.

Now let's all hug, as long as Peter Wolf is still missing his knife.

wow...errr...hey guys....

Soooo, if I change active topics to point to ?action=recent for the time being would that help at all? Or do you want it as well as the other links up top?

Please dont feel pressured by my rants and criticisms as everything is in your own time.

New International is going downhill in terms of revenue of newspaper sales[filthy rags like the Sun and the NOW etc] and the online subscription service has been a disaster as there are not enough subscribers for it.

That should please all of you.

"Mr Murdoch said proceeds from the last edition would go to good causes."

"No advertisements will run in this weekend's paper - instead any advertising space will be donated to charities and good causes."

""While we may never be able to make up for distress that has been caused, the right thing to do is for every penny of the circulation revenue we receive this weekend to go to organisations that improve life in Britain and are devoted to treating others with dignity.""

More like a desperate attempt to make the Murdochs look like human beings instead of greedy hatemongers whose idea of a good time is boiling live kittens in snake venom whilst waiting for democracy to collapse.

Quotations taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733

A pathetic PR attempt to sweeten the public which involves giving to charity because they were forced to do so.I havent been following this at all so i cant comment on anything else.

Its clear to me that you are entirely full of shit because you refuse to see my point.

Your point being what? Gadaffi isn't really that bad?

Well sorry Peter- he is. And you even thinking otherwise is the most monumentally fucking stupid and disgusting thing you have ever come out with- and that's a long fucking list.

As for demanding i didnt demand anything as i suggested that others could look them up for themselves.

Now who is the one misunderstanding how it works?
You claim this is a debate. Well, in a debate one person will make a satement ('Gadaffi isn't that bad') and then follow up that staement with examples to prove that point. DO you see? Do you see how it works?
You however, did not do that, and when asked to do so refused and told people to find out for themselves... do I really need to explain to you any further?

You really are impossible and we seem to have reached an impasse here.

My point was to list the positive acheivements of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime without being an apologist which is what i did.So far i havent pointed out any or very few of the negatives concerning Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime but in time i will do so to balance things out.Gadaffi may be a complete psychopath but those positives exist nonetheless.That was my point.Even if i strenously deny that i support funding the IRA,torture and imprisonment and the abuses of power that i havent listed but i am aware of its still not enough for you.I dont have a problem understanding others points of view even if i dont agree with them but you seem to have a problem with this because if an opinion doesnt fit into your own worldview you reject it outright and deny that i have outlined my reasoning.

The positives exist alongside the negatives of Gadaffi and its called objectivity as i have already pointed out.The positives dont negate the negatives and vice versa.

As i have already pointed out half a dozen times i have already listed the positives in this thread in previous comments which are there for you and anyone else to read but i have to draw the line at repeating myself  on demand as its stupid and unreasonable.

Again i will point out that i did not tell or demand anyone to do anything as i suggested that they either read my comments or look it up for themselves.Its all there in the comments and there is no denying it.

Do i need to explain this again ?

Richmond was right.

Cool!

I said very very clearly that i supported the positive aspects of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime

And you have yet to tell us what they are. Instead of doing so you demanded we find out for ourselves. I dunno- do you think his best feature is selling guns and explosives to the IRA or perhaps the killing of policewoman in London? Which one do you think is his most positive aspect?


Or perhaps- and this is me just thinking out loud- your entire argument is full of shit.



(This is the bit you storm off in a faux huff claiming your being picked on and don't have to answer to anyone, by the way)

Its clear to me that you are entirely full of shit because you refuse to see my point.

Its you thinking out loud and your inability to understand my argument and your inability to argue against it properly.

You obviously cant read either since i have listed them in previous comments so go back and read them.You obviously cannot read because just above your comment i stated that i dont advocate funding and arming the IRA.Dont advocate means i dont support.Its very simple so go back and read it.As for demanding i didnt demand anything as i suggested that others could look them up for themselves.

As for storming off in a faux huff that is utter nonsense as i didnt storm off in a faux huff as i signed off and went to bed as it was late.

You are a complete arse sometimes like now when you argue in these threads.

Now i hyave to sign off and go and do some work so you can think that i am storming off in a faux huff as well if you like.

[very]

No, Peter. The upshot is that you said that you support a man who is directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. If you can't see why some would have a problem with that, then there's something very, very wrong with the way you think.

The upshot of this argument is just what i said it was.

I said very very clearly that i supported the positive aspects of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime but NOT the negative aspects which means that i dont support the deaths of innocent people.

Its not my problem that you are thick or that you cant read plain English or that you can only see things in simplified black and white polarised terms.You are not even interested in the subject other than to criticise my comments with your simplistic sanctomonious view of things and you havent bothered to look any of it up as you reiterated my points without adding anything to the argument.

Boring timewaster.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron - all directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. I'm not defending Gadaffi on this point - but I wouldn't defend any of the first three either.

To be honest, I don't think any of our leaders deserve our complete respect.

They all vote for them as well but thats alright because they are different but they do it in your name.The only way any of you dont sanction the murder of innocents abroad is if you dont vote for any of the 3 mainstream political parties so you can all go away and think about that.Anyone who pays taxes which is all of you in one way or another pays for the murder of innocent people.

Thats reality.





Not so whiter than white now are you ?

So the positives are that he's friends with his neighbours, good with money and doesn't like people that you don't like?

What about decades of backing international terrorist groups, including the IRA?  I presume you don't advocate that either?

You presumed correctly.

The upshot of this fucking pointless conversation that is a waste of my time is that you can only condemn or focus on the negative or else you are met with a chorus of disapproval.

As for dictators i wouldnt support any dictator by default like i didnt support Saddam Hussein and if it was North Korea i wouldnt support KimJungIl but because Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime have positive aspects i support them on that basis but not on the basis of abuses of power.

Okay... What are the positive aspects?

Why dont you go and look them up for yourself apart from those that i have already listed in this thread like the issuance of debt free currency or the funding of overseas students or the investment back into Libya and its people or the irrigation project or the possible introduction of a gold backed currency or the goodwill extended towards the rest of Africa etc etc etc

I am not an advocate of dictatorships or dictators as all i am doing is pointing out some facts.As for the negatives of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime i have read up on it and i waiting to talk to my friend as it were who has first hand insight into the goings on inside the Gadaffi regime and the prisons etc etc but my friend is presently unavailable so that will have to wait.

I also said that i support Gadaffi because he is standing up to the western Plutocrats that want to take over Libya and i like the fact that he spoke his mind to the UN and told them some home truths.

Someone else could always post some of the negative aspects that are factual in the meantime befiore i do.

Thats not very condusive for intelligent chat and debate.

I wasn't chatting or debating, just telling you what I think.

There are degrees of tyranny

Are there? I suppose there are degrees of murder too? Degrees of rape? Degrees of racism?

I didnt say you were chatting or debating as i said that your comment was not condusive to chat and debate.Hopefully i wont have to explain that again.

Also there are degrees of murder recognised by law as you can look them up.There are degrees of racism as well which is obvious.I dont know about rape but thats probably more cut and dried but its not something i have ever read up on.

Degrees are like a sliding scale and there are degrees of tyranny as there are various regimes past and present that have very different ways of enforcing tyranny and in how people are treated and some dictatorships are very harsh while others are milder or more benevolent but they all have one thing in common which is zero tolerance for dissent.

Do you sympathise with Libya or with Gadaffi?

Both under the circumstances.If was any other country i would be supportive of them if they were being bombed and invaded by the US/NATO.As for dictators i wouldnt support any dictator by default like i didnt support Saddam Hussein and if it was North Korea i wouldnt support KimJungIl but because Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime have positive aspects i support them on that basis but not on the basis of abuses of power.

I would blame the US/UN/NATO for my support of Gadaffi and i am expected to support the US/NATO/UN but i chose to talk up Gadaffi instead of falling in line with the evil brutal dictator rhetoric as obviously i dont support for what falls under the description of the US/NATO /UN and their plan for Libya.I dont support Gadaffi wholesale as i was just pointing out the positive aspects rather then the negatives and i wont condemn outright purely on the basis that you pointed out although i am aware of all that.As i am an outsider of Libya then i have the luxury of being objective about Gadaffi  and i am not an apologist.

I don't understand why you feel the need to choose a side, there is no logic in your thinking other than what you choose to ignore and leave out, it's a very reactionary/typical response from a propangadised individual -thought to take a side, doesn't matter which one, as long as it's not understood- who reponds in terms of reflex and feelings but without depth or degree of pragmatic thought.

Cut-to-the-chase, they are both bad for Libya.

You must be talking to someone else.Keep your condescending BS about being propagandised thanks and the rest of it.I have already explained that i am aware of the negatives of Gadaffi as i chose to talk up Gadaffi/the Gadaffi regime so thats hardly responding in terms of reflex.

The flipside to this is if i had chosen to demonise and talk about the negative aspects of the Gadaffi regime and Gadaffi then i would not have been criticised and if i said that i supported NATO etc bombing the murdering dictator i would not have been criticised or it would have been a lot less likely.

"I dont understand why you feel the need to choose a side"

Its because i sympathise with their predicament and because of the nature of those that are bombing their country and i am not looking for yours or anyones approval.

Problem with that anyone ?

Is the huge alien spacecraft/construct/mothership towering over a city type scenario getting just a little tired and overdone now ?

I think the problem is largely that, after seven issues, CLiNT still doesn't seem to have a clear direction or ethos. It's hard to define what it's actually about, other than just "cool shit" in general. The constantly changing line-up and features doesn't really help. I seem to remember that it was launched on a mandate of getting new talent published, but so far we've seen very little of that, with the majority of pages still being given over to the editor's mates. And himself.

Ditching the articles step in the right direction, as on the whole they were the kind of Nuts-lite filler that is already catered for elsewhere. But I also can't help thinking smacks of desperation.

With you there completely.I am surprised it has lasted as long as it has and its tempting to think that it has lost its direction but i dont think it has because it was always MMs vanity project and it always was about MM and Co and the recruiting of new talent and the publicity around it was always just publicity and advertising/marketing and a carrot on a stick type situation.