That's fine, but no one else here agrees with you.
Maybe you have a Arms Around the World attitude to life, but you'll just have to face up to the reality that most people don't. People lead their emotional lives through experience and interaction with the people in their family, friends, community... it expands from there.
Personally I was against the war but I was still a member of the Labour Party right up until I quit over the passing of the Religious Hatred Bill last month. And I didn't march against it because I refuse to be aligned with the Islamic totalitarians of the Free Palestine movement. The 100 000 figure, which is an estimate not an offical figure, is sad, but if you want me to be honest I'm not feeling any "connection" with this at all.
2 minute silence in London.
22Champion Rabbit wrote:salfordboysclub wrote:i agree... yes its moving but if as you point out people mourned the 9/11 in every country round the world then why no mourning for the 100,000 who have died in Iraq ?
I am just being honest..
I reckon you should start going to funerals around town, bursting-in and shouting "You people make me sick! Don't you know that people are dying every day!"
I'm not much of a 'smilie' user, but what the hell?
in other words you are too stupid to understand my point.. i am not saying anyone is wrong for mourning.. read it again.. it is a tragedy but get it in perspective....
2 minute silence in London.
23Your argument is stupid not the Rabbit's. Where does this universal love end, what time frame, do we take into account the past? Face it, emotional connection to most people relates to "closeness".
Last edited by Gramsci_Archive on Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
2 minute silence in London.
24salfordboysclub wrote:
in other words you are too stupid to understand my point
Yes!
That's exactly it!
Here, have an apple.
2 minute silence in London.
25Gramsci wrote:That's fine, but no one else here agrees with you.
Maybe you have a Arms Around the World attitude to life, but you'll just have to face up to the reality that most people don't. People lead their emotional lives through experience and interaction with the people in their family, friends, community... it expands from there.
Personally I was against the war but I was still a member of the Labour Party right up until I quit over the passing of the Religious Hatred Bill last month. And I didn't march against it because I refuse to be aligned with the Islamic totalitarians of the Free Palestine movement. The 100 000 figure, which is an estimate not an offical figure, is sad, but if you want me to be honest I'm not feeling any "connection" with this at all.
what crap... so you live your life as part of a community etc.. know the names of everyone within 100 yards of your house then ?? Give a shit about their lives ?? no but surely you must..
People are selfish.. i am slefish i have no problem with that ..people do what they do to get thru life.. as for the figure of 100,000 i'll believe that rather than an official made up figure.
2 minute silence in London.
26Gramsci wrote:Your argument is stupid not the Rabbit's. Where does this universal love end, what time frame, do we take into account the past? Face it, emotional connection to most people relates to "closeness".
ok so where does your community end ?? did you mourn 9/11 ?? many did.. do you have a border on your community ?? what if someone is killed two feet outside that ?? fuck em ??
2 minute silence in London.
28Can I suggest a hand-waving calm down here?
sbc, as the other's have said, our connection to this event is due to proximity and the element of "it could've been me." This does reflect an element of self-interest in us, but it doesn't mean we don't care about others further away. It's just natural to be less affected by something further away. The reaction against you here is against perceived sanctimony in your posts, which feel inappropriate in this thread.
Gramsci, btw - and I'm not picking a fight here, honest! - do you have a specific beef with pro-Palestinian supporters? Your repeated (ok, just twice) use of the phrase "Islamic totalitarians" makes me uneasy, partly because my mother is a Pakistani Muslim and I don't like those two words being married, and partly because I have no problem at all with supporting better rights for the Palestinians. Though not to the extent of supporting murderers. The issue is somewhat overegged in the media at the expense of many other injustices in the world, there's a degree of anti-semitism in many of the movements connected to the cause, but I still think it's an unfair situation. I've got a friend who's dad had a gun put against his head as a young child by a settler soldier, who told his father to clear out of their house and never come back if he didn't want his family massacred there and then. (If you do want to get in a debate on this, it might be an idea to start another thread and stop my corruption of Mr Rabbit's.)
EDIT: I should point out my friend's story does date back half a century, so I am as guilty of digging up old pain as the most vociferous voices in the debate... But it does go to illustrate the depth of pain there, on both sides. Israel is there now, its people have made a lot of the land, they should be applauded for that. But the current violence in the area and the associated severe restrictions on the Palestinians need an equitable solution with some degree of reparation.
sbc, as the other's have said, our connection to this event is due to proximity and the element of "it could've been me." This does reflect an element of self-interest in us, but it doesn't mean we don't care about others further away. It's just natural to be less affected by something further away. The reaction against you here is against perceived sanctimony in your posts, which feel inappropriate in this thread.
Gramsci, btw - and I'm not picking a fight here, honest! - do you have a specific beef with pro-Palestinian supporters? Your repeated (ok, just twice) use of the phrase "Islamic totalitarians" makes me uneasy, partly because my mother is a Pakistani Muslim and I don't like those two words being married, and partly because I have no problem at all with supporting better rights for the Palestinians. Though not to the extent of supporting murderers. The issue is somewhat overegged in the media at the expense of many other injustices in the world, there's a degree of anti-semitism in many of the movements connected to the cause, but I still think it's an unfair situation. I've got a friend who's dad had a gun put against his head as a young child by a settler soldier, who told his father to clear out of their house and never come back if he didn't want his family massacred there and then. (If you do want to get in a debate on this, it might be an idea to start another thread and stop my corruption of Mr Rabbit's.)
EDIT: I should point out my friend's story does date back half a century, so I am as guilty of digging up old pain as the most vociferous voices in the debate... But it does go to illustrate the depth of pain there, on both sides. Israel is there now, its people have made a lot of the land, they should be applauded for that. But the current violence in the area and the associated severe restrictions on the Palestinians need an equitable solution with some degree of reparation.
Last edited by sparky_Archive on Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
2 minute silence in London.
29sparky wrote:If you do want to get in a debate this, it might be an idea to start another thread and stop my corruption of Mr Rabbit's.
Ha!
Talk about bolting the gate after the horse has...er...through the eye of a camel.
Go ahead, corrupt my day, punk!
2 minute silence in London.
30Champion Rabbit wrote:sparky wrote:If you do want to get in a debate this, it might be an idea to start another thread and stop my corruption of Mr Rabbit's.
Ha!
Talk about bolting the gate after the horse has...er...through the eye of a camel.
Go ahead, corrupt my day, punk!
well that was fun.... ok whats next anyone up for then right or wrongs of hamster shagging ??