posted
Get your head back up your arse now Benno, there's a good chap.
Riiight. Back to the topic of the thread.
The American position on Iran will start with showing an "united front" with an emphasis on "diplomacy" - but the united front will soon become unilateral action and the diplomacy will no doubt turn into yet another appeal by Bush for the so-called enemy to "bring it on".
If the ante does get upped by the Washington hawks, will Blair throw his weight behind it?
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
posted
So is anything Norton writes going to meet with this response? If a few more people had joined in with that stupid and repulsive slur that I was a paedophile, I suppose I could be subject to the same pariah status -- lucky escape. I don't think making vicious personal comments to an individual regardless of his contributions reflects very well on this community at all.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: So is anything Norton writes going to meet with this response?
I was thinking the same thing and was just about to quote what I wrote in your peado thread about Norton being attacked for merely being... But, it appears that thread has been trashed
Anyway, on topic, we all knew that the US would flex its 'muscles' over Iran/Syria... It really is a question of when, not if it would happen...
-------------------- Evil isn't what you've done, it's feeling bad about it afterwards... Yield to temptation. It may not pass your way again. Posts: 3793
| IP: Logged
posted
An irony is that it was Norton who recently posted up some ludicrous theories about how my research interest in Carroll combined with my praise for Emma "Hermione" Watson indicated that I should go to a shrink for my perversion towards kids.
So I am not writing from a position up his ass here by any means.
When people post whose contributions I have found stupid and offensive, such as Dervish, I don't respond with such personal hatred and death-wishes. If someone like Norton isn't allowed to say anything on TMO, that isn't a discussion board but a one-party monologue.
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: All I have to say on the matter is I find it hard to believe how seriously fucking ugly that Condoleezza Rice is....
She reminds me of that woman in The Devils Advocate. Charlize Theron is in the change room and as one of the women puts on a dress her face distorts into a demon (daemon?) which looks remarkably like 'Leezza.
and i've done this before where i've seen a rick post. jumped on him because, like a monkey seeing a snake i find his persona repulsive, then thought a little later "oh". and then apologised. but. the problem is i can see where this is going to go, it'll start off with a "USA vs IRAN" then it'll talk about the US global position, oil will get mentioned then it'll be the fucking jews. or words to that effect. and i thought i'd save the time and effort and just get to the point earlier.
but! yes the iran thing has been on the cards for a bit. however there are no more bodies on the ground to be doing the multiwarfare position. and there isn't enough "money in the bank" regarding voters etc for bush to spend his mandate from the people.
did you know rumsfeld offered his own head up twice? and still no one did the trump thing "you're fired"?
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: An irony is that it was Norton who recently posted up some ludicrous theories about how my research interest in Carroll combined with my praise for Emma "Hermione" Watson indicated that I should go to a shrink for my perversion towards kids.
It wasn't just your interest in Carroll and Hermoine, m8. Don't you recall your rather close to the bone remark about little girls' vulvas?
Damo - I've had it with talking about Jews, to be honest. I am however interested in what people think of the current US position towards Iran, and whether Blair might follow if the US ups the ante.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
posted
As it happens, it is the utterly repellant views expressed by kovacs (the genitalia of a prepubescent female child are lickable ??? ) and samuel norton (holocaust denier) that are the two main reasons I'm spending a lot less time on TMO than I used to. Whether you gentlemen intend to be provocative or whether you actually believe what you say is irrelevant. Your posts are odious beyond belief.
Posts: 362
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ally: As it happens, it is the utterly repellant views expressed by kovacs (the genitalia of a prepubescent female child are lickable ??? ) and samuel norton (holocaust denier) that are the two main reasons I'm spending a lot less time on TMO than I used to. Whether you gentlemen intend to be provocative or whether you actually believe what you say is irrelevant. Your posts are odious beyond belief.
Thank you for your opinion, now, what do you think of the topic at hand?
-------------------- Evil isn't what you've done, it's feeling bad about it afterwards... Yield to temptation. It may not pass your way again. Posts: 3793
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm sure Ally phoned me up asking for my professional advice after reading the thread in which I suggested, repulsively I'm sure, that we could conceivably see naked children as aesthetically attractive. Needs must I suppose!
Anyway, there is of course a massive difference. I'm not any kind of paedophile, but Norton is unashamed of his holocaust denial. I don't find children sexually appealing; he devotes much of his spare time to disproving the existence of gas chambers and rounding down the total of Jewish dead. He couldn't argue that he isn't fascinated with the SS and resentful of Jewish "whinging" if he wanted to; to repeatedly slur me as a nonce, on the other hand, would probably get somebody in legal trouble if this was real life.
quote:Don't you recall your rather close to the bone remark about little girls' vulvas?
quote:Originally posted by Kovacs: Norton is unashamed of his holocaust denial. ...he devotes much of his spare time to disproving the existence of gas chambers and rounding down the total of Jewish dead.
What really pisses me off is that I've never been able to find out what exactly it is that Rick believes about the Holocaust.
Other than a vague memory of him disputing numbers on account of how they weren't technically possible, I don't remember him ever making a definitive statement of his beliefs.
It's probably too late now, perhaps it happened before I turned up or when I wasn't paying attention, it's not like I haven't asked him myself, but you know how he manages to miss the point or not even acknowledge the most pertinent part of a post. I'm not suggesting Kovacs, or Ben, or whoever else is lying when they make statements about Rick's beliefs, I just wish he'd state them, plainly and simply, once and for all.
RICK, WHAT ARE YOUR BELIEFS RE THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST IN NAZI GERMANY 1933-45?
(and don't come back pointing out i got the dates wrong, you twat)
ETA (or that technically, a lot of it didn't happen in germany anyway)
quote:Originally posted by Gail: RICK, WHAT ARE YOUR BELIEFS RE THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST IN NAZI GERMANY 1933-45?
I said I am not talking about this any more. There have been too many threads on here about it, and frankly I have had enough of trying to conduct reasonable debate with people who are simply unreasonable.
This is not a getout on my part, more resignation after my being banned from Handbag for the most ridiculous reason they could unearth. If you want to get some idea of what I think about the Holocaust story, you can have a look at the thread on Handbag; as far as I am aware it is still there, all forty pages of it.
My purpose in posting this thread was to ask what people thought about the US turning towards Iran; I would rather the thread follow the topic than turn into yet another tedious thread on the Holocaust story.
Thanks, and goodnight.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
posted
I realise the instant jumping on the Norton after he posted a topical and succinct political debate-opener (in the right forum) looks playground-ish, but, like damo said, it is kind of cutting to the chase.
I suspect a lot of people have reached something called the Steelgate Impasse with regards to Snorty. This is the equivalent to two people standing either side of the Grand Canyon and shouting at each other. Then they try and use semaphore but one of them is blind and the other has no arms.
Essentially, debating with him is like wading through setting tar; tiring, pointless and smelly. Once you input certain keywords into the Robo-Snort, and the mechanism is wound up, it whirs away predictably, spitting out set phrases at certain points in a Stephen Hawking monotone.
The US' position re Iran is interesting and worth debating. But what's the point of debating it with the Robo-Snort? Why the righteous anti-war stance? Does he really care about poor brown people getting bombed?
Re The Robo-Snort view of the "Holocau$t"; I seem to recall he proved the gas chambers didn't exist by consulting a GCSE Chemistry textbook and triumphantly revealing that the constituents of Zyklon B couldn't have worked in such a confined space. Or something.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Gail: Other than a vague memory of him disputing numbers on account of how they weren't technically possible, I don't remember him ever making a definitive statement of his beliefs.
His 'beliefs' are a pose meant to mark him out as a daring provocateur. He is clearly aware that a definitive statement along the lines of saying that 'the Final Solution as it's commonly understood is a myth concocted by the Jews and maintained by millions of people - including the governments of every country remotely involved, from 1945 to the present day - who have some vague interest in perpetuating this myth' would leave him (even more) open to ridicule, so he prefers to "leave people to draw their own conclusions" having dealt out his latest batch of motheaten, plagiarised sophistry.
Demanding honesty or straightforwardness from Rick is like expecting an incontinent whippet to use the toilet, wipe after going, freshen itself with the bidet and round this all off by washing its paws with soap and water.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: An irony is that it was Norton who recently posted up some ludicrous theories about how my research interest in Carroll combined with my praise for Emma "Hermione" Watson indicated that I should go to a shrink for my perversion towards kids.
You seem to be mentioning this rather a lot for someone who claims to want to put this all behind you and forget about it. I don't think you can make a provocative statement, whine when people pull you up on it, and then mention it every time you want to seem like you're unfairly put upon. I can think of many reasons why you get treated unfairly, most of which you haven't actually brought upon yourself, so why you keep dragging this up, I'm not sure.
I do realise I may seem rather hypocritical here, but I do like to think I have the decency simply to admit when I've said something wrong, and not to bring it up again after claiming I wanted to forget about it.
Posts: 12211
| IP: Logged
posted
I suppose that the problem being faced by Rick is that people are offended by him personally, regardless of what he says, because there is a fundamental flaw within his sense of morality. Regardless of how sophisticated he may appear in his arguments on matters of international relations and socio-political theory(although, it should be remembered that his constant use of hackneyed language and tired cliches also betrays his innately inelastic imagination and powers of reasoning), we know that his belief systems, world views and attitudes are rooted in a weird kind of retarded megalomania that twists everything beyond logic or sense. An obsession with torture, brutality and bullying; Proclaimed anti-semitism, the desire to re-write history. This is not a balanced, normal person, and it is dangerous to make comparison between your own opinion and those of such a warped mind. We all saw what happened when the policeman tried to 'get in' to the mind of the killer in Mann's stylish and not over-rated thriler 'Manhunter'. I'm happy to listen to Rick, but there's no point in assuming that you can have a gainful exchange with him.
I'm not saying that Rick is some kind of monster, or inhuman - honestly. You can't go bestowing or removing degrees of humanity on or from other humans. Those of us who haven't suffered the kind of damage that Rick has have the ability to rationalise and control emotion, express and display compassion, and feel empathy for the suffering of others. We should employ these when dealing with somebody like him, as really, he just needs the right kind of love. The kind that he has probably always been denied.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: You might have they'd have learned something by now, but then again...
we might have, they might have, it seems everyone but you and the bush administration might have learned something... As yet though we are all bemused as to what this new pearl of wisdom may be.
Whatever it is, by the looks of it its not to do with leaving the oil/nukes/religious fanatics in countries in the middle east alone, admittedly something needs to be done but what? Shock and Awe? Forgive my skeptasism but it didnt seem the most effective tactic last time it was tried.
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: You seem to be mentioning this rather a lot for someone who claims to want to put this all behind you and forget about it.
lol. It's true. Now whenever a thread starts and people are talking about something completely different I keep expecting kovacs to wander in and go "For God's sake! I'm not a paedophile, I don't know why everyone keeps bringing it up", and then wandering out again leaving everyone exchanging bemused glances.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
My favourite thing about that original thread was how Kovacs's initial contributions contained a deliberate provocation ('lickable parts') and a fabricated episode about a shaven-fannied ex of his, and the bounder then spent the next four pages going on about how 'thoughtful' and 'honest' he was being.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: You seem to be mentioning this rather a lot for someone who claims to want to put this all behind you and forget about it.
lol. It's true. Now whenever a thread starts and people are talking about something completely different I keep expecting kovacs to wander in and go "For God's sake! I'm not a paedophile, I don't know why everyone keeps bringing it up", and then wandering out again leaving everyone exchanging bemused glances.
Quite. And it's becoming quite tedious.
Re: Iran, there is a sense of terrifying inevitability about it. Certainly from the point of view of the US's intentions. I've not read anything that gives a clear idea of President Blair's response to this, but I fear that the UK witholding support would do nothing to stall the juggernaut of American imperialism/intervention/call it what you will.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I've not read anything that gives a clear idea of President Blair's response to this, but I fear that the UK witholding support would do nothing to stall the juggernaut of American imperialism/intervention/call it what you will.
But it would show the world, if not opposition of the americans, at least a lack of participation may be viewed as the US's biggest ally withdrawing support from their hairbrained powerhungry schemes.
posted
Perhaps Tom Boy - or it could just attract a new epithet: chip-eating surrender monkeys for example.
But seriously, I don't know how realistic it is that the current British government (let alone any future prospective Tory government) would dare to risk the unholy alliance with the US. I mean special relationship obviously. It seems that Blair has been moving further and further from being pro-Europe throughout Labour's term in office. So where else would a small country look for a strategic alliance in order to punch above its weight?
eta: If the UN's lack of support for recent invasions wasn't enough of a "message", what was? I hate to say it, but surely to the rest of the world the UK is just another compliant component of the US war machine. Would the lack of support mean any more than Hawaii or Alaska withdrawing their support?
quote:Originally posted by OJ: ...it could just attract a new epithet: chip-eating surrender monkeys for example.
But seriously, I don't know how realistic it is that the current British government (let alone any future prospective Tory government) would dare to risk the unholy alliance with the US. I mean special relationship obviously. It seems that Blair has been moving further and further from being pro-Europe throughout Labour's term in office. So where else would a small country look for a strategic alliance in order to punch above its weight?
This had crossed my mind. It really comes down to how important Blair's belief in his being a 'world leader' are. With his arm around Bush's waist life is pretty easy, but if he were to have an attack of common sense his (sense of) prestige across the Atlantic may well plummet.
quote:Would the lack of support mean any more than Hawaii or Alaska withdrawing their support?
Or the pacific powerhouse of Palau - don't forget them.
-------
Off-topic:
Benway: interesting read, but you are no doctor, pal. Only in your vivid imagination.
Ben: please fuck off, for you are just as tiresome as you would suggest I am. This thread was posted up with honest and reasonable intent, and your comeback was both childish and pathetic. You need to have your nappy changed.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Ben, you're next post is going to have to really fucking rock. I hope you've been working on it for years. Honing, refining, delicately chipping away and polishing prose designed to make us all weep.
Because if you of all people waste a 6,000th post with a smilie or a lollol I shall sob.
Fo Fucking Sheez!!
quote:Originally posted by ben: The sheer witlessness of the above couplet beggars commentary. Aside from which, I was responding to Gail's post not yours.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic