PDA

View Full Version : Turkey Bans YouTube Over accusations that it is gay.



Dark Helmet
7th March 07, 05:15 PM
Boy, those Turkish do take their history seriously. They've banned YouTube after some Greek jokesters made a video implying Turkey's founding president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, likes boys. Making fun of Ataturk's strictly forbidden in Turkey. Refusing to rise above, a Turkish citizen suggested that homosexuality started in Greek - a somewhat valid point, actually.:lame:

A Turkish spokesperson at the London Embassy said the government has nothing to say about the matter:

The videos included parts which insulted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, our founding father. There is no explanation from the Turkish government, it was a court verdict. English profanities were placed on top of the Turkish flag and pictures of Ataturk.
Wait, the profanities were in English? Uh-oh...

This story got us to thinking - we wonder if we're banned in Turkey. We have a feeling we probably are...hey, any Turks out there??


http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/turkey-bans-youtube-over-gay-jibe-20070307.php

GuiltySpark
7th March 07, 05:19 PM
Atleast they didn't start riots and cut peoples heads off.

Dark Helmet
7th March 07, 05:21 PM
I wonder if it's this one.Who here has access?
SGxkJukpJy4

Stick
7th March 07, 05:31 PM
Astounding, for being such ancient civilizations, those two are behaving like middle schoolers.

Also, how pitiful is that the government of Turkey is banning Youtube over a video likely made by some dorky teenagers or college students?

sochin101
7th March 07, 05:38 PM
Aren't the Turks and the Greeks still officially at war?

polishillusion
7th March 07, 05:47 PM
Can a Polack weigh in and say that we are totally and utterly superior to you fucks?

I still like gyros though.

Dark Helmet
7th March 07, 05:47 PM
They were willing to start one over one tiny rock a few years ago.

polishillusion
7th March 07, 06:01 PM
I actually prefer Turkey's gyros.

nihilist
7th March 07, 06:08 PM
Aren't the Turks gay?

Dark Helmet
7th March 07, 06:29 PM
We should ask our gay Turk friends?

bob
7th March 07, 06:35 PM
Aren't the Turks gay?

I can't imagine what would give you that impression.

http://www.geocities.com/istanbulgayguide/Turkish_oil_wrestling.jpg

Question!
7th March 07, 07:22 PM
Is that a legitimate grappling move? I know wrestlers use the 'oilcheck' but what kind of 'check' is that?

Or is that the infamous 'monkey steals peach'?

Or did his hand just 'slip' in there from all the oil?

billy sol hurok
7th March 07, 07:42 PM
I reckon it's a sop to their fundies, who seem to be gaining political clout. They've been throwing people in jail for the "unTurkishness" crime of acknowledging Turkey's genocide against Armenian Christians.

(Edit: Referring of course to teh ban, not to the unctious tomfoolery depicted above.)

Yiktin Voxbane
7th March 07, 07:43 PM
That's a variation of the banned-in-43-states *Vulgar Boatman* ....

True story .

AAAhmed46
7th March 07, 07:59 PM
I dont get it.

Im surprised a secular government reacted so strongly.

Though i have met many greeks who just despise turks because they are turks.

They still hate eachother.

But Turkey is responding a little....strong?

Do they really love thier leaders that much?



Fuckling wierd.

billy sol hurok
7th March 07, 08:11 PM
Im surprised a secular government reacted so strongly.


Secular/shmecular. How secular is China? And how tightly do they control the flow of information?

Robot Jesus
8th March 07, 03:27 AM
the problem with religion is not that its wrong, its that it’s a great motivator. Like national is, fascism, al the other –isms. These motivate people on mass. And on mass people are stupid shits. And thus it gives us pretty much the bulk of human evil. Selfishness gets a bad rap, in order for one to be selfish one must have a strong sense of self thus protecting them from this shit.

A secular state can be just as bad as a religious one if it has one of the great motivators.

bob
8th March 07, 04:32 AM
the problem with religion is not that its wrong, its that it’s a great motivator. Like national is, fascism, al the other –isms. These motivate people on mass. And on mass people are stupid shits. And thus it gives us pretty much the bulk of human evil. Selfishness gets a bad rap, in order for one to be selfish one must have a strong sense of self thus protecting them from this shit.

A secular state can be just as bad as a religious one if it has one of the great motivators.

Motivation en masse can be a negative but it can also be a positive. Many of the great achievements in human history came from motivating large sections of the population to work together.

DAYoung
8th March 07, 04:54 AM
Examples.

bob
8th March 07, 06:17 AM
Examples.

The great artistic and intellectual movements were essentially about a specific kind of individual from a variety of places being motivated by an idea or a group of ideas. They fed off each others' work as well as being inspired by the central tenets of the movement. They worked together without sacrificing individual creativity or reason.

Sure fascism is bad, but what about romanticism, surrealism, neo-classicism, neo-Darwinism etc?

It's also worth noting in the political context that, while concepts like nationalism can be viewed as less than ideal, in many ways they are better than the alternative (tribalism, parochialism). Perhaps nationalism is just a point on a continuum which will lead us to 'pan humanism' or the like.

The idea that we are destined to never evolve from the self regarding, selfishly striving Hobbesian organism that we supposedly are (and that's another argument in itself) is repugnant to me so perhaps that colours my viewpoint.

oh, and, umm, buttsecks. lol.

DAYoung
8th March 07, 06:30 AM
Nicely put, good sir.

As I've said elsewhere, nationalism comes in two important forms: political and cultural.

Cultural nationalism need not be chauvinistic, violent or imperialistic - it simply means a cultural people with an historical identity, which can contribute to the common cultural inheritance of humanity. As you've said, individual creators work in and with this inheritance. Shakespeare is an expression, and an inheritor, of English cultural nationalism. Most great artists in all mediums have done the same.

Political nationalism and the exigencies of the State are what often hinder this noble ideal.

bob
8th March 07, 06:39 AM
Nicely put, good sir.

As I've said elsewhere, nationalism comes in two important forms: political and cultural.

Cultural nationalism need not be chauvinistic, violent or imperialistic - it simply means a cultural people with an historical identity, which can contribute to the common cultural inheritance of humanity. As you've said, individual creators work in and with this inheritance. Shakespeare is an expression, and an inheritor, of English cultural nationalism. Most great artists in all mediums have done the same.

Political nationalism and the exigencies of the State are what often hinder this noble ideal.

Absolutely.

I will say that political nationalism has had its place in history, though; as a stabilising factor to reduce internecine conflict and allow widespread development of physical and social infrastructure. I think a lot of what we take for granted as being good about our lives would have been very difficult to achieve without nationalism.

It just so happens that we are (hopefully) on the cusp of an age where we can move past it.

Shawarma
8th March 07, 12:06 PM
Secular/shmecular. How secular is China? And how tightly do they control the flow of information?
Turkey is secular. According to my cousin who lived there for a few years, you can actually get away with insulting God in Turkey. JUST DON'T FUCK WITH ATATÜRK!

Turks are retardedly nationalistic.

billy sol hurok
8th March 07, 01:03 PM
Turkey is secular.
Yes, I understand that. (Though as I alluded in an earlier post, the government is starting to feel the pressure from Islamists who are pissed about the hijab ban, about the whole EU thing etc.) My "x/shmex" construction was meant more in the sense of Daffy Duck's "consequences/shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." As in: yeah they're "secular," but still obsessed with controlling speech, as is China. That wasn't as clear as it could have been.



According to my cousin who lived there for a few years, you can actually get away with insulting God in Turkey. JUST DON'T FUCK WITH ATATÜRK!

Turks are retardedly nationalistic.

How long ago was that? My understanding is that the wall between church and state is being undermined. In the 2002 election, a fundie party made great gains:


The Islamist-based Justice and Development Party (AK) has won a crushing victory in Turkey's general elections, enabling it to end 15 years of coalition government.

The recently-founded AK party secured a clear majority in parliament with 34.2% of the vote, the semi-official Anatolia news agency reported.

* * *

AK leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan has insisted that his party stands for democratic freedoms and human rights and will not impose Islam on anyone.

Erdogan: Stemming secular fears

He has also pledged to make the country's institutions work better and to speed up Turkey's drive to join the European Union.

"Our most urgent issue is the EU and I will send my colleagues to Europe without waiting to receive the mandate," he said. "We have no time to lose."

Many of Mr Erdogan's supporters, however, want the party to stay true to its Islamist roots. source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2392717.stm)

Some analysts say that Turks were just fed up with inept government; this is reminiscent of the argument that Hamas was voted into power not because of its dedication to the destruction of Israel, but as a protest against Fatah corruption.

This claim seems a bit more colorable, as the AK party is newish (unlike Hamas which, as a local franchise of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been unwaveringly on-record for years with their "Death to the Jooz" platform).


Although the AKP is an offshoot of the Islamist Welfare Party (RP), which was banned in 1997 for Islamist activities, the electorate sees the party as a new force and not necessarily Islamist. Various secular parties, courts, media outlets, and nongovernmental organizations view the party with suspicion due to its leaders’ past affiliation with RP. Yet, AKP’s moderate, non-confrontational rhetoric over the last year has made it attractive to a diverse array of voters ranging from Islamists to rural nationalists and moderate urban voters.

A second factor explaining AKP’s success is that the party has been able to channel some of the profound anger that characterized the November 3 elections. AKP appealed to middle and working class voters, who were unsatisfied with the economic plans of the outgoing government that were backed by the International Monetary Fund. Such anger in Turkey has traditionally been concentrated at the lower ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. After the February 2001 economic meltdown, however, even the middle classes became angry. source (http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a6.html)

Some suggest that the islamism of the Turks is more nationalistic in nature than religious per se; I believe this is your point.


On the other hand, the November elections were also very much about the personality of AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A lot of people indirectly voted for him, regardless of his controversial pedigree or the legal obstacles he faced. (Prior to the elections, a September 20 court decision barred Erdogan from taking political office due to his conviction in 1998, which sent him to jail briefly for inciting religious hatred after he publicly read a poem interpreted as advocating an Islamist revolution.) ibid.

In the past year or two, a number of writers have been jailed for mentioning the genocidal jihad waged upon the Armenian christians by the Turks. They've got some sort of reverse holocaust-denial law that makes it illegal to admit (or allude) to their country's genocide. Is it motivated by a desire to "fit in" with their Euro neighbors? Or is it islamofascist, Orwellian history-erasing?

In other words, nationalistic or religious? In China's case, clearly the former. Turkey? Probably depends on whom you ask, and on what day. But either way, when the Central Committee wants to control information . . .

ICY
8th March 07, 02:04 PM
Let's consider how old Turkish democracy is and how conservative a nation it is.

Now let us consider what would've been done to a publication in the USA in, say, 1935 that featured George Washington with a black dick up his ass on the cover...

Shawarma
8th March 07, 04:20 PM
My cousin lived there from 2004 to 2006, from what I recall. She is a journalist. Turkey is secular. Turks care more about Nation than God.

bob
8th March 07, 05:47 PM
Is that a legitimate grappling move? I know wrestlers use the 'oilcheck' but what kind of 'check' is that?



To perform an oil check you must first locate the dipstick.

Neildo
8th March 07, 06:30 PM
Turkey? Gay? NO WAI! LULZ.

http://www.geocities.com/istanbulgayguide/Turkish_oil_wrestling.jpg

AAAhmed46
8th March 07, 06:49 PM
Gobble, gobble, gobble,

*pecks at dirt*

Gobble gobble gobble

nihilist
8th March 07, 07:03 PM
I R GETTING THE AROUSED

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4049/1193048051lat3.jpg

billy sol hurok
9th March 07, 10:04 AM
My cousin lived there from 2004 to 2006, from what I recall. She is a journalist. Turkey is secular. Turks care more about Nation than God.
Well then she'd be in a better position to know.

Lessee, they've got the Greeks on one side, the Syrians on another -- no love lost there -- the EU demanding things that are offensive to their nationalistic jingoism, and the real prospect of a shawnuff Kurdistan (with buckets of oil revenue, and scores to settle) on their border. Interesting times for the Turks!

emboesso
9th March 07, 10:47 AM
Let's consider how old Turkish democracy is and how conservative a nation it is.

Now let us consider what would've been done to a publication in the USA in, say, 1935 that featured George Washington with a black dick up his ass on the cover...

Holy shit. *YOU* said something reasonable?

And yeah, Turks are gay. I know. I saw "Lawrence of Arabia."

Shawarma
9th March 07, 11:41 AM
I just want to say: The EU, the French in particular, are being titanic cocklickers when it comes to the entire "Turkey in EU" issue. They're demanding retarded shit that has no point to it besides pissing on the Turks, like demanding an "apology to the Armenians" and all sorts of other stupid bullshit. Be honest, you just don't want the fucking Turks in the union.

I don't either. Turkey has a long way to go regarding human rights (kurds) and free speech before it should be allowed into the fold.

emboesso
9th March 07, 12:15 PM
I just want to say: The EU, the French in particular, are being titanic cocklickers when it comes to the entire "Turkey in EU" issue. They're demanding retarded shit that has no point to it besides pissing on the Turks, like demanding an "apology to the Armenians" and all sorts of other stupid bullshit. Be honest, you just don't want the fucking Turks in the union.

I don't either. Turkey has a long way to go regarding human rights (kurds) and free speech before it should be allowed into the fold.

Demanding an apology for the Armenian genocide is not "retarded shit." The Turks would at least then be acknowledging there *was* an Armenian genocide. At the moment they are stuck in the same mode as the Japanese vis-a-vis Nanking.

Also, let us not forget we are into the 33rd year of the Turkish invasion and occupation of 1/3 of Cyprus, univerally (sans Pakistan) condemned by the United Nations. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not recognized by any nation in the world (except again, Pakistan).

So we have Armenians, Kurds, and Cypriots to consider before Turkey is accepted into the EU.

AAAhmed46
9th March 07, 05:14 PM
Demanding an apology for the Armenian genocide is not "retarded shit." The Turks would at least then be acknowledging there *was* an Armenian genocide. At the moment they are stuck in the same mode as the Japanese vis-a-vis Nanking.

Also, let us not forget we are into the 33rd year of the Turkish invasion and occupation of 1/3 of Cyprus, univerally (sans Pakistan) condemned by the United Nations. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not recognized by any nation in the world (except again, Pakistan).

So we have Armenians, Kurds, and Cypriots to consider before Turkey is accepted into the EU.

I must agree with Emboesso.

Shawarma
9th March 07, 06:29 PM
Demanding an apology for the Armenian genocide is not "retarded shit."
Oh, boohoo. I don't care what incredibly ghastly stuff they did to the Armenians. The fact remains that demanding, in all seriousness, that the modern nation of Turkey apologize for atrocities committed in ages past has absolutely no place in politics. Nobody even MEANS it or cares about the fate of Armenians. It's just a ruse to keep the Turks away from achieving EU membership. All of this reminds me of a bunch of children telling little Khemal that he has to say "I am a big stupidhead and smell like poo!" if he wants to join their secret pirate spaceman club. They should consider current political reality, not stuff that nobody alive can even remember. And the current political reality doesn't really qualify the Turks for membership either.

All this "apologizing for crimes comitted in the past" is bullshit and has no substance or real value. I laughed my ass off when the Pope came out and apologized for the witchburnings and the Inquisition. Too little, too late, old man.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 06:31 PM
Right. The Armenian people don't deserve an apology. I mean, the best thing you can do in case of a genocide, it just pretend it never happened, right?

Shawarma
9th March 07, 06:35 PM
Yawn. That's not what I was saying. I'm saying it's entirely irrelevant, politically speaking, whether the Turks "apologize" or not. It has absolutely no bearing on the suitability of Turkey for EU membership.

"Should" the Turks apologize to the Armenians? In my opinion, no, from a moral point of view. No living Turk participated in the massacres, and holding the sons responsible for the sins of the fathers is not something I agree with. It might be wise to do so for the sake of international relations, though. And they certainly do DESERVE an apology from somebody.

DAYoung
9th March 07, 06:39 PM
Shawarma. The people don't apologise, the State apologises (and let's not pretend the State is the people). States endure, even if individuals don't, and States pursue policies of slaughter, even if populations don't.

But of course, before Turkey does this, it has to acknowledge what happened (which it hasn't done).

Now, doing this wouldn't just be good for the Armenians - it'd be very good for Turkey. Strong States aren't afraid to look at their wrongs, and learn from them.

And believe me, Australians know all about this...

Shawarma
9th March 07, 06:42 PM
I disagree. States are made up of people. The Turkey of today is not like the Turkey 100 years ago. An "apology" is entirely pointless if made on the behalf of other people, who in this case are long dead.

Do you also find it fair that young Germans have to endure the "lol nazi" mockings everywhere? I don't.

DAYoung
9th March 07, 06:51 PM
I disagree. States are made up of people. The Turkey of today is not like the Turkey 100 years ago. An "apology" is entirely pointless if made on the behalf of other people, who in this case are long dead.

States are not nations - the polis is not the politeia. States are bureaucratic, administrative machines, operated by specialists and figureheads. Figureheads can apologise on behalf of States for the uses these States have been put to.


Do you also find it fair that young Germans have to endure the "lol nazi" mockings everywhere? I don't.


'lol Nazi' is not State-sanctioned reparation. Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant to this discussion.

Shawarma
9th March 07, 06:57 PM
I still disagree and think an apology would be pointless and of no use.

Where we disagree is most likely that I don't see "states" and "countries" as these mythical animals with lives of their own and histories that must be preserved at all costs. They're just chunks of dirt. The people who live on the dirt and love it I find far more significant. And none of the people living on the chunk of dirt known as Turkey had any stake in the Armenian genocide, just as little as 99% of the surviving German population had any state in the holocaust and yet still have to endure being called nazis.

Stick to current political reality.

Shawarma
9th March 07, 06:59 PM
If you believe that Turkey should be banned from the EU because of past transgressions against humanity, do you also believe that the French, Belgians, Dutch and British be banned? They enslaved, butchered and raped millions and millions of little brown people. No formal apology has ever been issued to any of the 3rd world nations. When Britain apologizes for the opium wars, MAYBE I will consider it to be fair demanding that Turkey apologizes for the murder of Armenians.

DAYoung
9th March 07, 07:04 PM
I'm not suggesting anything to do with EU membership.

I'm suggesting it'll be healthier for the State to apologise for what the State did to a people in the name of the nation.

Also, your notion of 'current political reality' is too simplistic - all human affairs are dynamic relations between past, present and future. Even this conversation can only be understood as the unfolding as an ongoing conversation, in relation to past events, future expectations, and the exigencies of the present. Trying to deny the past makes for a distorted present.

Shawarma
9th March 07, 07:12 PM
In that case, you most likely have a point. I was only talking in terms of EU membership, not morality.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 07:20 PM
I disagree. States are made up of people. The Turkey of today is not like the Turkey 100 years ago.

Hitler died right before the end of WW2. Why should Germany pay reparations to all the other countries and people? That's the Germany of 2 days ago, not the Germany of today!

Shawarma
9th March 07, 07:21 PM
Yawn again.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 07:25 PM
I've noticed a trend: I kick people's internet asses, and they respond with two-word replies, somehow implying that my argument is trivially provable to be false, but completely ignoring the fact that I just kicked their asses.

Shawarma
9th March 07, 07:29 PM
No, you made a really terrible historical comparison. It was emboesso-level terrible.

First of all, nobody is demanding reperations for the Armenians. They may be entitled to some, considering how badly they got hurt, but the EU only demands "an apology", which is ultra-gay for reasons already specified.

Secondly, it's almost a 100 years since the Turks committed genocide. In your example, it was 2 days ago. Do you not feel that there is a SLIGHT difference here?

If the Turks had stopped killing Armenians just last week, I'd say apologies, reperations, free blowjobs etc. would be perfectly in order. But it's 100 fucking years ago, and the only reason it's brought up now is as a bullshit excuse to exclude the Turks from the EU.

Make better posts, I will provide better counterarguments.

WarPhalange
9th March 07, 07:36 PM
No. There is absolutely no difference. The regime was changed in those two days, making it a completely different Germany. The new people in power had nothing to do with WW2. So much changed, that it might as well have been 100 years later.

Second, how the fuck can you even set an arbitrary cut-off date for apologies? It's like the fucking "too soon" crowd, but the opposite.

3rd, it's called CLOSURE. If there was a mass Polish genocide and people didn't apologize for it, I'd be pissed and wouldn't let them play in my club house, either.

I mean fuck, slavery ended years ago and Amerka is still apologizing. Why? Because it's STILL not right.

4th, if Turkey can't own up to slaughtering a race of people, then how can they be trusted with anything else? If a kid crashes your bike, are you going to let him borrow your car? Fuck no.

Shawarma
9th March 07, 08:16 PM
The government of Germany was most certainly not "completely changed" overnight as tons of officials just changed flag colours when it became obvious which side was winning. They were also still all alive and able to make all kinds of apologies for what they'd supported during the war. None of the original Turkish murderers are alive, neither are the people they wronged. An apology would not make anything different.

And yes, you can set a closing date for apologies when its not the same people doing the apologizing. Then it's just pointless. My son apologizing to your son for me wronging you is pointless. You can, of course, argue that "The State" (with capital S) can somehow apologize for stuff "The State" did 100 years ago. I disagree with that most strongly. You may not.

Keep in mind: I do not advocate Turkey's admission into the EU. I just call these demands that they "own up" to something their ancestors did what they are: Utmost faggotry.

You need to remember: People don't give a shit about Armenians. Most people can't pick out Armenia on a world map. What they DO give a shit about is Turkey being kept out of the EU. Armenian genocide is a convenient excuse.

I really wouldn't have such a stick up my ass about this if it wasn't so deeply dishonest.

ICY
9th March 07, 08:23 PM
[email protected] to apologize for kicking the ass of a bunch of whiny land-grabbing faggots who don't deserve their own country anyway.

Genocide, shmenocide.

billy sol hurok
9th March 07, 08:25 PM
Shawarma--

Okay, so water under the bridge, tomorrow's another day.

Except if you're a Turk, you can go to jail -- up to three years' worth per offense -- for "denigration of Turkishness.' A number of writers have in fact been tried under Article 301/1; this isn't just some law that sits on the books unused.

I'd say that goes far beyond "mistakes were made, but hell it was a long time ago so let's just move along." We're talking about institutional denial of otherwise-undisputed history, which continues today. Under criminal penalty.

Strikes me as indefensible.

Also gives some context to the French riposte, outlawing denial of the Turkish genocide against Armenia. Like you, I generally find the French pissy in the extreme, but for once I can sort of see what they're getting at. (No doubt France has a bunch of economic reasons to keep Turkey out, and this is just one more stick to beat them with. But it's a beating that they deserve, IMO.)

Shawarma
9th March 07, 08:30 PM
This falls under "limiting the freedom of speech" which is perhaps the most valid reason, along with death penalty, to keep Turkey out of the EU. WHAT kind of speech is being limited is besides the point.

I am also not defending anything. I am lambasting the stupid demands, not defending Turkey.

ICY
9th March 07, 08:41 PM
Whining faggots, all of you.

Shawarma
9th March 07, 08:43 PM
I get it. The Turks have by right of conquest earned the right to do whatever they want with their vanquished foes.

So, when does SirC come by your house and take your wallet, your PC and cornhole you? And will there be a video posted of the cornholing?

ICY
9th March 07, 08:54 PM
Why must you refer to past transgressions in the future tense!? IDONWANNATALKABOUTIT!!!!

billy sol hurok
9th March 07, 08:54 PM
I get it. The Turks have by right of conquest earned the right to do whatever they want with their vanquished foes.

So, when does SirC come by your house and take your wallet, your PC and cornhole you? And will there be a video posted of the cornholing?
Oooooh, it's ON.

RACE WAR!

Shawarma
9th March 07, 08:56 PM
Why must you refer to past transgressions in the future tense!? IDONWANNATALKABOUTIT!!!!
Well played.

emboesso
15th March 07, 07:28 AM
No, you made a really terrible historical comparison. It was emboesso-level terrible.

First of all, nobody is demanding reperations for the Armenians. They may be entitled to some, considering how badly they got hurt, but the EU only demands "an apology", which is ultra-gay for reasons already specified.

Secondly, it's almost a 100 years since the Turks committed genocide. In your example, it was 2 days ago. Do you not feel that there is a SLIGHT difference here?

If the Turks had stopped killing Armenians just last week, I'd say apologies, reperations, free blowjobs etc. would be perfectly in order. But it's 100 fucking years ago, and the only reason it's brought up now is as a bullshit excuse to exclude the Turks from the EU.

Make better posts, I will provide better counterarguments.

Moving along, I guess you're willing to overlook ethnic cleansing and seizure of private property in Northern Cyprus as well? Or is 33 years also beyond your "gay" statute of limitations?

If so, we also have the Kurds waiting on deck....

Granted these are not conditions placed on Turkey's entry into the EU. In their typical European fashion, the Europeans are deferring all action to the UN, who in turn is moving in their typically determined and frantic manner.

Shawarma
15th March 07, 10:36 AM
Ethnic cleansing my ass.

Shawarma
15th March 07, 10:56 AM
But to actually answer your question: Yes, I'd say that it would be viable and the right thing to do to apologize for something your country did a mere 30 years ago. Many of the violators would still be alive.

"Demanding apologies" as a condition for Turkish membership in the EU is still beyond gay. How much is an apology worth if it's forced out of you?

TM
16th March 07, 01:25 PM
For more reference to Greek and Turkish gayness see "300".

Shawarma
16th March 07, 01:36 PM
Those were Persians.

TM
16th March 07, 02:50 PM
I was refering to the spartans. Gay as your grandmother in her rocker.

Truculent Sheep
24th March 07, 10:18 AM
If you believe that Turkey should be banned from the EU because of past transgressions against humanity, do you also believe that the French, Belgians, Dutch and British be banned? They enslaved, butchered and raped millions and millions of little brown people. No formal apology has ever been issued to any of the 3rd world nations. When Britain apologizes for the opium wars, MAYBE I will consider it to be fair demanding that Turkey apologizes for the murder of Armenians.

To which I reply: bollocks. The Germans certainly committed genocide in what is now Namibia and the horrors of the Belgian Congo are well known. But France, the Netherlands and Britain didn't do anything as bad or 'enslaved millions and millions of little brown people'.

Plus, the Opium Wars wouldn't have happened if the Chinese didn't smoke so much damn opium, much in the same way that the West wouldn't have a cocaine problem if we didn't snort so much damn coke. All the Armenians did was be born Armenian.

ICY
24th March 07, 01:49 PM
...and have a revolutionary war of independence which was crushed.

Also, Britain had a policy of genocide in the New World before anyone else did. See the origin of scalping.

Shawarma
24th March 07, 06:25 PM
Does the term "Colonialism" mean anything to you, Sheep?

WarPhalange
24th March 07, 06:25 PM
Aren't you Christian?

ICY
24th March 07, 06:58 PM
Aren't you gay?

WarPhalange
24th March 07, 07:58 PM
Aren't I supposed to be asking you that?

bob
24th March 07, 08:19 PM
To which I reply: bollocks. The Germans certainly committed genocide in what is now Namibia and the horrors of the Belgian Congo are well known. But France, the Netherlands and Britain didn't do anything as bad or 'enslaved millions and millions of little brown people'.

Plus, the Opium Wars wouldn't have happened if the Chinese didn't smoke so much damn opium, much in the same way that the West wouldn't have a cocaine problem if we didn't snort so much damn coke. All the Armenians did was be born Armenian.

Britain didn't start the slave trade in Africa, and it didn't start the trans Atlantic trade but it ultimately became the biggest player in it, mainly due to its pre-eminence as a naval power. For over a century it was quite a respectable way for a British trader to make a fortune.

Now you could plausibly mount an argument that their subsequent diligence in using their navy to eliminate the trade went some way towards admitting culpability and trying to make amends but to state that Britain wasn't responsible for the enslaving of a lot of people is plain wrong.

And as for genocide - Tasmanian Aborigines.

Shawarma
24th March 07, 08:47 PM
And that's not even mentioning the fact that the Brits practically invented the concentration camp.

ICY
24th March 07, 09:02 PM
Not practically, literally.

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 06:29 AM
...and have a revolutionary war of independence which was crushed.

Also, Britain had a policy of genocide in the New World before anyone else did. See the origin of scalping.

Well, they were entitled to be free weren't they?

Also, there was no policy on scalping - indeed in the decades leading up to the American Revolution, the British government was trying to stop the colonists commiting massacres and was also trying to keep the peace with the tribes - it was the colonials that were keen to seize land and spill blood.

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 06:37 AM
Britain didn't start the slave trade in Africa, and it didn't start the trans Atlantic trade but it ultimately became the biggest player in it, mainly due to its pre-eminence as a naval power. For over a century it was quite a respectable way for a British trader to make a fortune.

But this was independent of the British state, which when it did get involved, stamped out the trade. And in terms of slavery or de facto slavery, bear in mind the tendency amongst some Africans to enslave other tribes, the booming Arab slave trade and the Belgian Congo.


Now you could plausibly mount an argument that their subsequent diligence in using their navy to eliminate the trade went some way towards admitting culpability and trying to make amends but to state that Britain wasn't responsible for the enslaving of a lot of people is plain wrong.

Did I say they didn't? But you forget the hard work of many British people in banning slavery - including the many labourers and factory workers who supported the ban in 1807 and signed a petition to Lincoln during the ACW supporting emancipation, even though it might have cost them their jobs. (The UK used a lot of Southern Cotton for its mills, you see.)


And as for genocide - Tasmanian Aborigines.

Which happened under the remit of a local governor rather than the British government, after the intial epidemics and native/colonial fighting had kicked off - again, I refer to the situation in the American colonies I mentioned above.

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 06:38 AM
Does the term "Colonialism" mean anything to you, Sheep?

Yes. Does complexity mean anything to you?

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 06:40 AM
And that's not even mentioning the fact that the Brits practically invented the concentration camp.

Which was condemned by the British public and which was then hauled back into line by the government. Compare and contrast to what happened in German South West Africa.

Shawarma
25th March 07, 06:53 AM
And when has the British government ever apologized for any of the intensively vile shit it's done over the years? When has anyone ever demanded that they apologize for political reasons?

Double standard. Unless you're just defending your great and noble Vaterland nobly carrying the White Man's Burden for the poor unwashed niggers of the world, which you're free to do, and not making some kind of point about Turkey being forced to "apologize" for shit that happened generations ago.

Lol at your conception of the opium wars. "It was all their fault!" indeed.

bob
25th March 07, 06:58 AM
But this was independent of the British state, which when it did get involved, stamped out the trade. And in terms of slavery or de facto slavery, bear in mind the tendency amongst some Africans to enslave other tribes, the booming Arab slave trade and the Belgian Congo.

Sorry, but it wasn't independent of the British state at all. It was legal for centuries and aided by the British navy, not to mention intrinsic to the economy of the Empire. How much more entwined in the state can you get?

I did in fact say that the British didn't start the trade and that many other countries were involved. That is not in any way an excuse, particularly as the British ultimately became the most successful at it.




Did I say they didn't? But you forget the hard work of many British people in banning slavery - including the many labourers and factory workers who supported the ban in 1807 and signed a petition to Lincoln during the ACW supporting emancipation, even though it might have cost them their jobs. (The UK used a lot of Southern Cotton for its mills, you see.)

You did say they didn't enslave countless people.

I fully acknowledge that the campaigning in Britain was central to the abolition of the trade - eventually, after centuries of highly lucrative slave trading. And it was the 1830s before slavery itself was abolished in British territories. 1807 was just when the trade was outlawed.



Which happened under the remit of a local governor rather than the British government, after the intial epidemics and native/colonial fighting had kicked off - again, I refer to the situation in the American colonies I mentioned above.


Genocide performed by British troops acting under the orders of British commanders in a British colony. Where does the buck stop?

Shawarma
25th March 07, 07:12 AM
Oh yeah, slavery was totally not condoned by the British government at any point. That's why the crest awarded to John Hawkins, notable early slaver, depicted a nigger in chains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/images/2007/02/26/hawkins_crest_150x180.jpg
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/images/early_times/hawkinscoatofarms.jpg

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 10:11 AM
And when has the British government ever apologized for any of the intensively vile shit it's done over the years? When has anyone ever demanded that they apologize for political reasons?

You can't stop the British government apologising about EVERYTHING. It's redundant though as all the guilty parties are now dead. It's instead a reflection of a culture whereby self-laceration is confused with virtue.


Double standard. Unless you're just defending your great and noble Vaterland nobly carrying the White Man's Burden for the poor unwashed niggers of the world, which you're free to do, and not making some kind of point about Turkey being forced to "apologize" for shit that happened generations ago.

Lol at your conception of the opium wars. "It was all their fault!" indeed.

As usual, your reading comprehension is either poor or you're wilfully twisting what I said.

Shawarma
25th March 07, 10:14 AM
That was me wilfully twisting what you said of the opium wars for laffs. The fact remains that they were deeply despicable wars perpetrated by the British government.

But I take it you're just speaking out in favour of your Vaterland then? I've no problem with that.

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 10:17 AM
Oh yeah, slavery was totally not condoned by the British government at any point. That's why the crest awarded to John Hawkins, notable early slaver, depicted a nigger in chains.


That shouldn't be confused with official acceptance - as a common law country, the British government's only official gesture towards slavery was to ban it.

Plus Heraldry was in effect granted by the government, but the design itself was agreed between the owner and the designer with the Crown serving as a rubber stamp. In fact, you can get a coat of arms simply by having a degree. There's not half as much thought going into it, at least on the part of officialdom, as you claim. Rather, the sin was that of just not caring or paying much attention.

Hence why there are families with dental equipment or quills or even brick walls in their coat of arms too - no one really looked at it apart from the parties involved.

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 10:20 AM
That was me wilfully twisting what you said of the opium wars for laffs. The fact remains that they were deeply despicable wars perpetrated by the British government.

But I take it you're just speaking out in favour of your Vaterland then? I've no problem with that.

Ah, the Godwin law has been invoked! Anyway, you keep twisting words and I'll keep pointing out that the Opium wars were more about a trade dispute where both sides were trying to protect their own interests than yet another evil plot by perfidious albion TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD!!! (Evil cackle...)

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 10:26 AM
Sorry, but it wasn't independent of the British state at all. It was legal for centuries and aided by the British navy, not to mention intrinsic to the economy of the Empire. How much more entwined in the state can you get?

I did in fact say that the British didn't start the trade and that many other countries were involved. That is not in any way an excuse, particularly as the British ultimately became the most successful at it.

Yes it is - and what the colonies got up to, as I said, was sometimes quite different from what the government in London wanted. Why else did Britain lose the American colonies and let Australia, Canada and New Zealand become dominions in the 19th century?






You did say they didn't enslave countless people.

No, I said they didn't enslave as many people as others did.


I fully acknowledge that the campaigning in Britain was central to the abolition of the trade - eventually, after centuries of highly lucrative slave trading. And it was the 1830s before slavery itself was abolished in British territories. 1807 was just when the trade was outlawed.

Nontheless, it was ended and the end of slavery in the 1830s - a major historical turning point - was a great achievement. Compare and contrast with the extra 30 years American slaves had to wait for freedom, the plight of Russian serfs and the human trafficking that goes on to this day.


Genocide performed by British troops acting under the orders of British commanders in a British colony. Where does the buck stop?

It stops with whoever is in local command - British troops weren't involved but colonists were. The buck therefore stops with the local government.

Shawarma
25th March 07, 10:31 AM
Elizabeth financed John Hawkins. She knew he was a slaver. That seems like condoning it if you ask me.

You are right about the opium wars, of course. The difference is what was being traded. The British military was riding shotgun for drugdealers wanting to force a sovereign nation into kowtowing. You may find this morally defensible. I do not.

Shawarma
25th March 07, 10:35 AM
And what exactly is so appaling to you about me saying that the British wanted to enslave the world? That's what they DID! Can't fault them for it either. They were big and strong, the niggers in faraway lands were small, weak and divided.

I fault them for ever pretending that it was anything other than robbery and slavery.

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 11:00 AM
Elizabeth financed John Hawkins. She knew he was a slaver. That seems like condoning it if you ask me.

No, she was condoning making money. Compare and contrast with the Spanish/Portugese approach to colonialism at the time, which was not just to cynically profit from, but to subjagate, convert and/or wipe out the natives of the Americas.


You are right about the opium wars, of course. The difference is what was being traded. The British military was riding shotgun for drugdealers wanting to force a sovereign nation into kowtowing. You may find this morally defensible. I do not.

It wasn't about morals, but rather the national interest of both nations. At the time, British trade was being impeded and Chinese society was being undermined by opium use and Brit. Both sides could argue they were justified in fighting as a result. Both could argue the other side was at fault: a black-and-white view of the matter here is misguided. And as I said, there wouldn't have been an Opium war if there weren't so many stupid people smoking opium.

Truculent Sheep
25th March 07, 11:04 AM
And what exactly is so appaling to you about me saying that the British wanted to enslave the world? That's what they DID! Can't fault them for it either. They were big and strong, the niggers in faraway lands were small, weak and divided.

Your argument is too emotive and uses the same over-dramatic rhetoric as anti-Americanism, albeit transplanted to the pre-WW1 era.


I fault them for ever pretending that it was anything other than robbery and slavery.

Britain never pretended the Empire was anything other than good news for Britain. Politicians tried to sell it as an ideological enterprise - look at Empire Day for example - but really it was all about the sovs. Do bear in mind, no one cares about not having colonies today - it's the loss of money and prestige that's a problem. Still, that's life.

Shawarma
25th March 07, 11:06 AM
Strange that you're even trying to defend the opium wars. Never seen anyone do that from a moral point of view before. Do you feel that Free Trade is of such titanic importance in itself that launching invasions into sovereign nations to force your goods upon them, however harmful to society they may be, is justified?

Shawarma
25th March 07, 11:10 AM
Your argument is too emotive and uses the same over-dramatic rhetoric as anti-Americanism, albeit transplanted to the pre-WW1 era
Aye, it is. It's also quite true. Saying the British weren't highly imperialistic is untrue, if that is what you're saying.


Britain never pretended the Empire was anything other than good news for Britain. Politicians tried to sell it as an ideological enterprise - look at Empire Day for example - but really it was all about the sovs. Do bear in mind, no one cares about not having colonies today - it's the loss of money and prestige that's a problem. Still, that's life.
Many people did. White Man's Burden and all, bringing Civilization to the pagan nigger, giving them the gift of Christianity and so on.

Shawarma
25th March 07, 11:14 AM
No, she was condoning making money. Compare and contrast with the Spanish/Portugese approach to colonialism at the time, which was not just to cynically profit from, but to subjagate, convert and/or wipe out the natives of the Americas.
So your argument is basically that it's OK to back incredibly immoral enterprises for as long as you don't get your hands dirty personally and make a tidy profit and that the UK was A-OK because they didn't rape little brown people nearly as hard in the ass as the Spaniards did?

No. Elizabeth condoned slavery, the public condoned slavery and the government condoned slavery. It was just trade in livestock, after all.

billy sol hurok
25th March 07, 11:53 AM
Oh yeah, slavery was totally not condoned by the British government at any point. That's why the crest awarded to John Hawkins, notable early slaver, depicted a nigger in chains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/images/2007/02/26/hawkins_crest_150x180.jpg
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/images/early_times/hawkinscoatofarms.jpg

Logowned!

ICY
25th March 07, 08:59 PM
[email protected] Sheep's sad troll.

Mr. Jones
26th March 07, 06:28 AM
The British are one of the main reasons why so many people hate white people.

ICY
26th March 07, 02:44 PM
The other main ones being the Germans, French, Spanish, Portugeuse, Russians...

Zendetta
26th March 07, 03:13 PM
LOL. Few things are funnier than Turks and Greeks arguing over who is the Bigger Buggerer.

Zendetta
26th March 07, 03:15 PM
Slavery existed amongst virtually all civilizations, thru virtually all of history.

The British Empire did more to end slavery worldwide than any other group of people, ever.

ICY
26th March 07, 04:01 PM
LOL, when they realized they could enslave their own peasants, they let the niggers go...

Zendetta
26th March 07, 05:48 PM
No, the long history of "enslaving" serfs ended in England first, and spread from there to eventually consitute just about everything that you know about democracy, freedom, and human rights.

You need to show some respect for Western Civilization, Kanuckistani!

ICY
26th March 07, 07:27 PM
That's ludicrous. Personal freedom is enshrined in the new testament. The seeds of liberalism were sown in ancient Greece and Rome and the Bible and the Reformation and the Renaissance. You have too short a view, by far.

When I speak of enslaving serfs, I mean funneling them into child labour in mines and factories setting an example the entire world followed, and continues to follow today. For unleashing man's most terrible scourge on the world. Industrialization.

You need to look at the impact western civilization has had on our health as a species and our ecosystem. It's the Shidas touch, everything we touch turns to shit. Every bit of "progress" we make is only in the empty pursuit of idle wealth and consumption.

Western civilization is a virus killing our planet and stunting the evolutionary advancement of our species, it is a plague that needs to be destroyed and wiped from collective memory entirely if it is not to prove fatal.

Truculent Sheep
27th March 07, 04:11 AM
Strange that you're even trying to defend the opium wars. Never seen anyone do that from a moral point of view before. Do you feel that Free Trade is of such titanic importance in itself that launching invasions into sovereign nations to force your goods upon them, however harmful to society they may be, is justified?

Spinning as usual. I was just putting it into a proper historical context rather than in a hysterical whinge.

DAYoung
27th March 07, 04:12 AM
The British Empire was a civilising Empire.

Truculent Sheep
27th March 07, 04:14 AM
Aye, it is. It's also quite true. Saying the British weren't highly imperialistic is untrue, if that is what you're saying.

No, I was saying they were in it for the money and weren't that evasive about it.



Many people did. White Man's Burden and all, bringing Civilization to the pagan nigger, giving them the gift of Christianity and so on.

Colonialism had both positive and negative results. If you want to get upset about something, consider the wasted opportunity that was Post-Colonialism, at least in the African sense.

Truculent Sheep
27th March 07, 04:16 AM
So your argument is basically that it's OK to back incredibly immoral enterprises for as long as you don't get your hands dirty personally and make a tidy profit and that the UK was A-OK because they didn't rape little brown people nearly as hard in the ass as the Spaniards did?

Back then, yes, and at least their enterprises were more honest than our own in that regard.


No. Elizabeth condoned slavery, the public condoned slavery and the government condoned slavery. It was just trade in livestock, after all.

No, they condoned profit - where it came from was irrelevant. Remember that the average life expectancy at the time was much lower than it is now, so life really was cheap.

Truculent Sheep
27th March 07, 04:16 AM
Logowned!

Not really, for reasons given earlier.

Truculent Sheep
27th March 07, 04:17 AM
[email protected] Sheep's sad troll.

Still can't spell 'truculent', can we? Where's that video, btw?

Truculent Sheep
27th March 07, 04:18 AM
The British are one of the main reasons why so many people hate white people.

No, I think you'll find that's down to an inferiority complex, self pity and a need to find a scapegoat.

Truculent Sheep
27th March 07, 04:23 AM
You need to look at the impact western civilization has had on our health as a species and our ecosystem. It's the Shidas touch, everything we touch turns to shit. Every bit of "progress" we make is only in the empty pursuit of idle wealth and consumption.

Western civilization is a virus killing our planet and stunting the evolutionary advancement of our species, it is a plague that needs to be destroyed and wiped from collective memory entirely if it is not to prove fatal.

Well, stop using the internet, stop using utilities, stop using modern medicine, stop using cars, planes and public transport, stop being literate, stop having relatively free speech and stop living past 45. There, living without Industrialisation is great, innit?

emboesso
27th March 07, 06:10 AM
You need to look at the impact western civilization has had on our health as a species and our ecosystem. It's the Shidas touch, everything we touch turns to shit. Every bit of "progress" we make is only in the empty pursuit of idle wealth and consumption.

Western civilization is a virus killing our planet and stunting the evolutionary advancement of our species, it is a plague that needs to be destroyed and wiped from collective memory entirely if it is not to prove fatal.

So spending your life taking alternating puffs on a reefer and a peeter is what, some kind of sub-Saharan lifestyle?

Shawarma
27th March 07, 07:44 AM
Spinning as usual. I was just putting it into a proper historical context rather than in a hysterical whinge.
I wasn't spinning shit in that post. Don't descend into Dr. X-ian condescending debate tactics. I was merely asking you what rationale you have for defending the opium wars as being correct or moral in any way? The Might Makes Right principle, that the Chinese were laying hindrance to the superior forces of the British empire and therefore had to be convinced by force?

ICY
27th March 07, 11:55 AM
Still can't spell 'truculent', can we? Where's that video, btw?

Faggots who I would fuck until they loved me do not get to ask that question.


Well, stop using the internet, stop using utilities, stop using modern medicine, stop using cars, planes and public transport, stop being literate, stop having relatively free speech and stop living past 45. There, living without Industrialisation is great, innit?

Free speech, literacy, and living past 45 do not require industrialization. I plan to stop the rest.


So spending your life taking alternating puffs on a reefer and a peeter is what, some kind of sub-Saharan lifestyle?

Spending your life being a self-loathing homophobe is some kind of desireable lifestyle?

emboesso
27th March 07, 06:47 PM
Spending your life being a homophobe is some kind of desireable lifestyle?

"Phobe" implies some kind of fear which without video would be a bit irrational.

I fail to see how you can square your aversion to western culture with your predilection for the cock. Where else on this globe will you find more tolerance than here?

DAYoung
27th March 07, 06:51 PM
"Phobe" implies some kind of fear which without video would be a bit irrational.

I fail to see how you can square your aversion to western culture with your predilection for the cock. Where else on this globe will you find more tolerance than here?

Kashmir.

http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/Indimini.jpg

ICY
27th March 07, 06:56 PM
I fail to see how you can square your aversion to western culture with your predilection for the cock. Where else on this globe will you find more tolerance than here?

I was going to say Asia, in general, but DAYoung made the point better.

You remain,
A Homophobe

emboesso
27th March 07, 07:48 PM
Kashmir.

http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/Indimini.jpg


I stand corrected.

And a bit nauseous.

emboesso
27th March 07, 07:50 PM
I was going to say Asia, in general, but DAYoung made the point better.

You remain,
A Homophobe

Actually I like a whole bunch of homosexuals.

Its just you I can't stand.

Ze German
27th March 07, 08:41 PM
Again we can see the greatness of a society with strong religious ties. Yes, yes, I know socio-cultural reasons blah blah...

Cracky, I love your posts but this:


Western civilization is a virus killing our planet and stunting the evolutionary advancement of our species, it is a plague that needs to be destroyed and wiped from collective memory entirely if it is not to prove fatal.

Well the evolution thing isn't quite right. Without going into details, evolution is a mathematical algorithm that just happens. The selection variables can change but it cannot be stunted. Remember that there is no purpose or goal in evolution, not even a general development tendency from high to low or simple to complex. I would advise against argumenting from evolution in political matters. It has bad connotations. Otherwise teh awesomeness.

@Truculent Sheep: Why do you Brits hate the Germans? No really, I want to know.

DAYoung
28th March 07, 12:34 AM
I stand corrected.

And a bit nauseous.

Yeah.

I don't like mustaches either.

ICY
28th March 07, 02:11 PM
Actually I like a whole bunch of homosexuals.


I'm sure you do. Very, very much.


Well the evolution thing isn't quite right. Without going into details, evolution is a mathematical algorithm that just happens. The selection variables can change but it cannot be stunted.

Western civilization changes the variables in a negative way, that's what I meant, I'm not retarded.

TM
28th March 07, 04:12 PM
Turkey. You're gay. Get over it. We don't really care.

Neildo
28th March 07, 05:18 PM
Yeah, Turkey. Just come out of the closet already.

Truculent Sheep
29th March 07, 06:12 PM
I wasn't spinning shit in that post. Don't descend into Dr. X-ian condescending debate tactics. I was merely asking you what rationale you have for defending the opium wars as being correct or moral in any way? The Might Makes Right principle, that the Chinese were laying hindrance to the superior forces of the British empire and therefore had to be convinced by force?

You're not even trying anymore.

Truculent Sheep
29th March 07, 06:43 PM
@Truculent Sheep: Why do you Brits hate the Germans? No really, I want to know.

I don't - I'm a German Thrash n' Beer lover. It's just the British just don't like foreigners and need to whinge about them all the time. On the other hand, Britain is quite fixated on Germany - our national identity since 1945 is based on 'the War', defeating Germany in football is our holy grail (preferably for the World Cup) and we just aren't happy if we don't have a rivalry or two.

Curiously, that most chauvinist of genres, the UK war comics, is full of sympathetic Germans, even leading characters (http://www.sevenpennynightmare.co.uk/wholestory/hellman/hammerforce/01.htm). This echoes the odd respect British soldiers developed for the Wehrmacht and vice versa.

DerAuslander108
30th March 07, 01:58 AM
Fear ze Germans.

Truculent Sheep
30th March 07, 04:19 AM
Fear ze Germans.

Yes, with their clean streets, commitment to recycling and discount supermarket chains, they may yet bring Europe to its knees!

Shawarma
30th March 07, 08:49 AM
You're not even trying anymore.
Right back at you. All you need is to sling about a couple of latin terms and you've descended to Dr. X's level of non-debate.

If you are interested in continuing this any further, I really am serious. How can you defend the opium wars, them being wars about the right to push drugs to Chinese against the will of their national government?

Shawarma
30th March 07, 08:58 AM
Furthermore, I am puzzled by you saying that Queen Elizabeth and others profiting from slavery and exploitation of foreign peoples didn't have to mean that they CONDONED it or could be said to be immoral because of it. So does this mean that I can make and distribute child porn and would still be morally pure? I mean, I'm no pedophile, I don't CONDONE child porn, I just make a lot of money off it.

emboesso
30th March 07, 09:56 AM
If you are interested in continuing this any further, I really am serious. How can you defend the opium wars, them being wars about the right to push drugs to Chinese against the will of their national government?

I don't think was a "right" side in the Opium Wars. Contemporary history naturally takes the PC stand against the colonial powers.

China's disjointed system of government, corrupt officials, the frequent ambivalence of the emperor, and warlordism, made them incapable of communicating a consistent national policy to the Europeans. On one hand the emperor outlawed opium, on the other hand he relied upon the military support of warlords who needed the funding of the opium trade to maintain power. Imperial edicts against opium were translated to the Europeans with a lot of winks and nods.

Morally, both sides were disastrous.

Truculent Sheep
30th March 07, 10:00 AM
Right back at you. All you need is to sling about a couple of latin terms and you've descended to Dr. X's level of non-debate.

Keep on spinning.


If you are interested in continuing this any further, I really am serious. How can you defend the opium wars, them being wars about the right to push drugs to Chinese against the will of their national government?

I've already given my answer. You're just too bigoted and morally simplistic to even bother with. Your idea of serious debates is knee-jerk right-on posturing and insults.

Truculent Sheep
30th March 07, 10:02 AM
Furthermore, I am puzzled by you saying that Queen Elizabeth and others profiting from slavery and exploitation of foreign peoples didn't have to mean that they CONDONED it or could be said to be immoral because of it. So does this mean that I can make and distribute child porn and would still be morally pure? I mean, I'm no pedophile, I don't CONDONE child porn, I just make a lot of money off it.

Ah, another strawman argument. Say you were running a web server and a kiddie porn site was hosted there. If you had no direct hand in running the site but did nothing, then you would be guilty of looking the other way or taking the money no-questions-asked, but that's not on the same level of immorality as actually running the site and profitting directly from it, as you well know.

Shawarma
30th March 07, 10:32 AM
But surely, that just prooves that the Chinese emperors were famously distasteful and corrupt. I never disputed that they were disgusting human beings. It doesn't really have much to do with GB invading a sovereign nation in the name of fair and just drug-dealing for all, does it?

Shawarma
30th March 07, 10:35 AM
Fine, then. I am apparently below your titanic intellect and must then submit. Dixie Biscuit, or whatever.

I really can't see whether you've made some important point that I miss or if you're just being evasive. Guess that's all there is to say to it, then.

emboesso
30th March 07, 11:20 AM
But surely, that just prooves that the Chinese emperors were famously distasteful and corrupt. I never disputed that they were disgusting human beings. It doesn't really have much to do with GB invading a sovereign nation in the name of fair and just drug-dealing for all, does it?

Britain invaded China to in retaliation for ships flying their flag being boarded by a foreign nation and their property being seized. I'm not saying the Brits had any moral superiority either, that property being opium.

In the interest of fairness I was just pointing out that the blame is not so one-sided as history currently likes to portray it.

Ultimately the emperor reached the correct decision although that decision was less a matter of morality than practicality. The damage opium was doing eventually outweighed the benefits he got from opium-funded warlords and corrupt government officials. He came to realize he was presiding over a nation of hopheads.

Chinese emperors had supreme governing power but the bulk of the Chinese military might lay with the warlords. It was a tenuous relationship. The warlords acknowledged the emperors' supremacy, but the emperor also knew that if the warlords united against him they could overthrow him.

Being the emperor required a lot of tact and manuevering. No emperor was ever successful in uniting China under a functioning central government. Chiang Kai-Shek came very close and Mao Zedung only finished the job after massive amounts of bloodshed.

The contemporary double-standard historians apply to the British vis-a-vis the Chinese is simply the soft racism of lower expectations.

Truculent Sheep
30th March 07, 01:34 PM
But surely, that just prooves that the Chinese emperors were famously distasteful and corrupt. I never disputed that they were disgusting human beings. It doesn't really have much to do with GB invading a sovereign nation in the name of fair and just drug-dealing for all, does it?

Sigh. Where's that 'flogging a dead horse' emoticon?

ICY
31st March 07, 12:19 AM
TS, your troll is showing.

Kiko
31st March 07, 06:27 AM
Sigh. Where's that 'flogging a dead horse' emoticon?
6373
Will that do?

Truculent Sheep
3rd April 07, 11:24 AM
TS, your troll is showing.

I know - you managed to gnaw through your bars again, didn't you?