this post is like a reucurring nightmare. the same crap gets spoken everytime..why dont we talk about the INDPENDANTS HEADLINE last wednesday and what i said on TUESDAY now that would be lot more interesting and it would probably save a lot of innocent british lifes
*or are we all cowards here*
and why dont we mention the fact that stragely enough it turns out Stephen d was right on a lot of things and not just things that where in the paper. Lets talk about all the belittling of me on this site last year when it turns out i was right all along..lets discuss that..thats more important for british people to discuss..lets start the disc ussion again about self harm...
this time using the same level of passion we are putting in to this insignificant crap..lets talk openly about the human rights abuses happening in the Uk at the mo that are seeing innocent people dying...
oh and cellar scene what do you think of the british peoples murdering policy of those involved in self harm and what happens to them when they approach hospitals for help and all the people that have been practically murdered in the Uk over the last ten years. What do you think of the UK general public view of leave them to die and how the UK public done absoloutley nothing when they wher being told for YEARS before hand AND IF THEY HAD LISTENED THEN many innocent lifes would have been saved INCLUDING childrens lifes. What do you think of that cellar scene ? Who carse about all that insignificat crap about cubA. YOU CLOWNS who call yourself writers are meant to have social conscious *do you know what that is*
WHERES THE APOLOGY GUYS WHERES THE RECOGNITION FOR WHAT I WAS SAYING ON THIS SITE FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN THE HEADLINE LAST WEEK
You guys belittled me to such a point i nearly lost my life...
soon guys very soon...
I'm not sure you were addressing me viz a viz the US Patriot Act, but assuming you were, I can only say I haven't bothered to read the whole 1016 sections! Have you?
1leg said:
"Can you envision a society where:
Every second of everyday you have to keep your guard on you... in case you say the wrong thing... and a person close to State overhears (the beauty is, this could be anybody)... and the wrong thing can have consequences such as how much food quota you get next time, whether you have access to luxuries such as soap and toothpaste... the education your children will get (notice I am not even getting to the imprisonment and torture yet... and even if that is propaganda... the reality of upsetting petty officials that run the State when it is the State that supplies EVERYTHING is just too horrible to contemplate...
Self- Initiative... such as selling stuff, renting a family room.. any kind of entreprenuerial activity that is not directly licensed by the State is frowned on...
A society where from birth you are fed ONE version of events... wherever you turn... at school, all papers, all news, all TV... the official version...."
Isn't this basically what conservatives and manic old people think England is becoming?
Missi said:
"How strange that weak leadership has the proletariat screaming for a saviour and yet strong leadership has them screaming 'megalomania'!"
Isn't it more likely that in the case of any 'strong leader' (ie. one with strong opinions, who acts on them,) most people, in a diverse society, are likely to disagree with their opinions, and make a noise, while the people who agree with them never feel the need to say anything? And that we see compromising leaders, who try to represent everyone's wishes, as 'weak' because we have a romantic idea of a leader who stands for ideals? Lord Liverpool was arguably the most successful PM of the 19th century, but the blundering Disreali is the one we all remember.
Some academic is at the moment writing a book around the subject 'does the bully mentality make for good generalship?' The raw reality *might* be that only forceful and opinionated pricks make for strong leaders, and its pot luck whether their opinions run with the arc of success. I mean, when it comes down to it, Hitler was a very strong leader, wasn't he?
I suppose trying to engage you in any kind of debate is pointless, since you get by on soundbites, but someone else might find these points interesting.
No, I haven't read the whole act, M, only bits of it. That doesn't mean I can't have an informed opinion, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge.
I think it's the duty of every citizen of a democracy to use his/her freedom of speech for constructive criticism of his/her government when so moved, otherwise what is it worth?
Anyway, I'm bowing out now. Nothing I can usefully add.
So was Margaret Thatcher, the darling of Britain for many years.
>> I suppose trying to engage you in any kind of debate is pointless, since you get by on soundbites, but someone else might find these points interesting. <<
>> ...opinionated pricks make for strong leaders... <<
Yes John, you'd be wasting your time on me, and with 'soundbites' like yours I wouldn't want to debate anything with you anyway. Save your insightful experience for those that look up to you.
Eric, I don't disagree with your view regarding the right to criticise one's government, in fact I applaud it, rather I was challenging your view of Cuba and the American government. But seeing as how the member for Scotland and Einstein have descended on the thread I guess you're right, it's time to pull the plug.
Its a hard one isn't it. Intevention ultimately means more innocent lifes are lost but non intervenevtion also means innocent lifes will be lost. Whats the call then ? It would also be interseting to know if the US had been suplying them with there weapons and if they where, well, WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING supplying all these dicpot genociders with american weapons and then when they use them on there own people america & the UN stand up as some kind of human rights army. Don't get me wrong its not a dig at the US & its people, far from it but bthere seems to be a lot of hypocracy if they us are supplying these guys with weapons ???
But saying that they shoudl probably go in beacsue innocent wee people getting hurt turns my gut. Or maybe for the good of mankind they shoudl send a nuclear bomb towarsd them and eradicte the whole coun try of the earth. Alot of innocent lifes would be lost, but theyre probably going to be lost anyway, but, by doing this it would show these dictators that they can't start genociding people for nothing. Infact by doing what is aid with the nucelear wepaon might actually bring about world peace, OR, ina worst case scenario start a nuclear war..
and radio denver sfew things. You tried to instigate after my post something about scarface. Let me tell you something my friend if you look closely at my face you see a lot of scars, they whers elf inflicted afte how i was treated in British hospitals after i approached them to deal with self harm. They wher kicking me back out on the street homless while i was depressed and cutting myself to pices and they wher at laughing at me and belittling me. That was over about a period of four years, right across britain. These people wher doiu gt his right through the ninties and cost thousands of people ther lifes. The general public of the UK, the middle class, who have no spirit, can not fight, are generally a bunch of cowards who are scared to face up to the problems in there own country let it go on. Recently it has started to become public what has being going on and people are not happy, the people who matter.
You ried ti instigate that i might be a gangster when in fact i have been practically homeless since 16 to 30 years old or hostels or there abouts. Recently i started a charity to help bring people aware of this. Maybe it was becasue my new europe post when i linked chicago with glasgow and belfast that was in a purely architectural way. I live in a flat with not much infact i haven't even got a couch just now nor a television. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. I try and put my time and energy and spare cash in to my charity and the forms it takes including writing film scripts and other stuff. Its not because i have mental health problems like i have seen some of the big mouths on here say before. The system can't cope hundreds of people are dying because of this ( as the English broadsheet newspaper mentioned last week it was the same evidence i put on this site last year that mark brown said SHOW US THE PROOF STEPHEN or fk off, he said that in not so many words and others). I showed them the proof and sent the proof around the media for 1 year including world in action, panorama and every english broadsheet.
BASICALLY WHAT I AM SAYING YOU BIG MOUTHED AMERICAN PIECE OF SHIT IS DON'T EVER ASSOCIATE ME WITH THAT AGAIN. Don't answer and beliitle me like so many on this site. Just look at my site and know i am a hard working man.I work for self harm awareness and that involves human life. I know about it i help in this field. On an independant level but nevertheless i know what i am doing.
Its not about me having problems like some say its far from about that. Sometimes i use comedy to get away from it all. I amn just about finished and have two feature film scripts which i am publishing and sending away. They where alll written while i was lying in a crumby bedsit WITH NOTHING HARMING MYSELF WHILE EVERYONE TOLD ME TO FUCK OF AND die. So don't ever associate me with gangsters again. I talk to everyone and am quite well known in someplaces. I dont judge people for what they do in life. I try and see the good side of everyone even if they are gangsters but i am not.
DONT EVER CALL ME A GANGSTER AGAIN..
Yes. I would entirely agree with military intervention. To not do anything, is an outrage.
However, I suspect it wont happen, because as you say leg, there is no economic reason to intervene.
The political benefits however, are quite compelling for a pm or a president with disenchanted electorate, so you never know. As so called Christians, I dont know how bushblair could not agree its a humanitarian necessity to intervene immediately.
but there you go ha?
Ok
Its a hard one isn't it. Intervention ultimately means more innocent lifes are lost but non intervention also means innocent lifes will be lost. Whats the call then ? It would also be interseting to know if the US had been suplying them with weapons and if they where then surely the States & the UN hold some kind of responsibility.
I agree with Liana they should go in and soon.
We shall see Liana... the jury is till out on this... military intervention on the scale required is not to be countenanced lightly.
Signs are that the Americans are leading this (despite the ongoing troubles in Iraq)... The latest UN resolution which was tabled by the US had to be toned down due to other parties objections....
I too supported the removal of Hussein and wasn't one of those that kept banging on about it being over oil. I believe that every human on this planet has a right, no a DUTY, to intervene on behalf of others that are being abused. I don't think any other reason is necessary, though the mode and degree of intervention would vary according to necessity. I also believe the free world should remove evil Mugabe too. I know that sooner or later SOMEONE will come on here and start gobbing off about Bush/Blair (where IS Mykle these days?), but conditions in their countries are light-years removed from some of the third world places suffering under these monsters. I don't pretend everything is wonderful in the west but it ain't a bad place to start from.
So, yes, I think we should intervene.
BUT it's no use intervening, removing a despot and then walking away from the carnage with a self-satisfied look on our faces. With high ideals comes responsibility.
It will be close, but Bush will win... I think he will make a better leader (thinking foreign policy here) in his second term than he did in the first.... with some of the arrogance shorn off his regime...
On another note the day will arrive when other 'super powers' take offence at all the hypocracy and see themselfs underthreat, its probably worth remembering this...
I actually listened to something very interesting last year on the radio. It was about the triggering effects of war and how ulitmately the world was triggering in to a nuclear war unless world peace was achieved within the next few years. You can see this to be true if closley look at the nature of war. Every act and word in life has a triggering effect including world leaders and acts of war, and of course with the invention of nuclear weapons, a whole new type of war is on the horizon. Ultimately new wars are starting which shows that war is not declining but indeed increasing. I firmly belive that world peace has to be found in the next few years if the West is to survive intact in to the next fifty years. Maybe i am wrong and i hope i am. I light a candle (((i)))
Pages