Sam III
Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 3:18 pm
"He then tries to equate my calling him disingenuous and 'slimy' to his implication of me not caring about 96 people dying. Like they're equateable insults. Unbelievable."
On the subject of not caring about people dying, a misinterpretation of what I posted which resulted in you losing your rag as I have explained in Sam II, here's some more posts for you.
Re. Syrian intervention by the UK I posted
"Here we go again. Choosing which side is the goodies and which side is the baddies when in many ways we haven't got a clue. If the rebels end up in power, will it be any better for Syrian civilians? God knows. "
You replied to me
"As for Syria......we've -up to now- not been involved at all yet the death toll in the last 2 years of civilians surpasses the civilian death toll in Iraq in it's first two years. Children are being tortured and raped in their thousands making the Catholic Church seem like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory in comparison. We know with Iraq that trade embargos don't work as only the poorest suffer anyway, so what do we do - pull out the popcorn, put our feet up and see how it pans out?"
"Pull out the popcorn, put our feet up and see how it pans out" Implying that people like me that did not believe in Syrian intervention, do not care at all about the deaths in Syria. Implying that people like me just view stories about rape and torture as "entertainment" with popcorn.
What I do care about is the law of unintended consequences which in my view has meant that the lot of the Iraqis is worse now than it was under Saddam. And you would be hard pressed to argue that the Afghan intervention has been a success and the same for Libya. If we had intervened in Syria and supported the rebels with armaments we would have ended up arming militant Islamists who are a key component of the rebel forces.
If I had suggested to you that your views meant that you viewed rape and torture stories as entertainment to go with your popcorn, you would have gone absolutely ballistic. Eh?
On the subject of not caring about people dying, a misinterpretation of what I posted which resulted in you losing your rag as I have explained in Sam II, here's some more posts for you.
Re. Syrian intervention by the UK I posted
"Here we go again. Choosing which side is the goodies and which side is the baddies when in many ways we haven't got a clue. If the rebels end up in power, will it be any better for Syrian civilians? God knows. "
You replied to me
"As for Syria......we've -up to now- not been involved at all yet the death toll in the last 2 years of civilians surpasses the civilian death toll in Iraq in it's first two years. Children are being tortured and raped in their thousands making the Catholic Church seem like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory in comparison. We know with Iraq that trade embargos don't work as only the poorest suffer anyway, so what do we do - pull out the popcorn, put our feet up and see how it pans out?"
"Pull out the popcorn, put our feet up and see how it pans out" Implying that people like me that did not believe in Syrian intervention, do not care at all about the deaths in Syria. Implying that people like me just view stories about rape and torture as "entertainment" with popcorn.
What I do care about is the law of unintended consequences which in my view has meant that the lot of the Iraqis is worse now than it was under Saddam. And you would be hard pressed to argue that the Afghan intervention has been a success and the same for Libya. If we had intervened in Syria and supported the rebels with armaments we would have ended up arming militant Islamists who are a key component of the rebel forces.
If I had suggested to you that your views meant that you viewed rape and torture stories as entertainment to go with your popcorn, you would have gone absolutely ballistic. Eh?