• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Respect

Didn't take long for the thread to descend into bitching.

Interesting result though earlier, not so much due to Labour losing a seat they've held for more than most people have been living in Bradford, but simply due to the scale of voters dismissing the big three parties.

Yes, the large ethnic minority in the area no doubt played a part, but it's not like the area has only recently seen large scale migration. Not to mention the war began over ten years ago. Labour consistently won the seat during the ongoing conflict in the Middle East with large majorities.

The result last night was an absolute rejection of the mainstream parties and neo-liberal economic policies in general. The public are utterly sick of being told it's either austerity or austerity-lite to solve our problems whilst the rich get richer and the not-so-rich have their public services dismantled. THAT is the reason voters are rejecting Labour, Tory and Lib Dems and such 'shocking' results will be replicated across the country.

Labour are of course the big losers here, but lets not forget Tory lost 22% of the vote share too. Labour need to sit down and realise they lost to a proper, albeit small, left wing party. They need to realise that the middle ground vote winning soundbites is shifting away from the centre-right toward the centre-left. People have had four years of austerity for no return. No more.

Let's see if Galloway can bring some hope back to the area. £20 says he doesn't, but hopefully Labour will kick on from here and begin to appeal to their core voters again. If not, prepare for hung parliament round two in 2015, with an even smaller Tory minority than 2010.

On a side note, Lib Dem candidate lost their £500 deposit for not gaining 5%. Funny shit.
 
Right, despite saying I wasn't coming back, I couldn't resist. SHM you said the following:

You do know the Brits invented concentration camps don't you? Better leave now.

1. This has fuck all to do with the Palestinians taking part in rounding up Jews for the incinerator with the Nazis.

2. You did not qualify this statement in any way. You didn't say "the Brits invented concentration camps as we know them", "the Brits invented the first large concentration camp", you just said the Brits invented them. Which is thoroughly disproven by the fact concentration camps existed before the Boer war.

3. Do you think with the British making internment camps in the Boer war, Hitler couldn't have figured out all on his own that he could round up people he didn't like into one place to treat them like shit?

Further to this, this is what qualifies as a source for you:

rucially while the idiots in the mosques urged a Labour vote the Muslim youth and in particular the Muslim female youth vote won 3 huge crucial Muslim wards for George.

http://www.therevival.co.uk/aggregator

Written by muslims. I'd dismiss it if I were you.

This is entirely conjecture taken from someone's blog who is based in London, as I said... So where as I apparently have a problem with facts you:
-Selectively quote people, quite often only taking 5 words out of paragraphs and paragraphs you can't contend
-Use a blog to try and disprove me, as if that is a 'fact'
-Cry like a little girl because someone uses a turn of phrase you feel is inappropriate in that circumstance i.e. "give their right arm for"
-Bring down the tone entirely by telling other people to kill themselves, to die etc.
-Obfuscate the point completely 9/10 times

O wise elder, please do teach me how to debate and use facts like a pro. I bow down to your superior abilities LOL. It's ok, you can take solice in the fact that on a forum full of lefty pinkos everyone agrees with you. Congratulations :) It should now be obvious to anyone who isn't biased in your favour (i.e. almost everyone) that you are wrong, and being a total dick. So my job here is done. Like George kindly pointed out I will never sway opinions here because they aren't based on logic, they are based on upbringing, emotion and personal experience.
 
Last edited:
O wise elder, please do teach me how to debate and use facts like a pro. I bow down to your superior abilities LOL. It's ok, you can take solice in the fact that on a forum full of lefty pinkos everyone agrees with you. Congratulations :)

1310566609761.jpg
 
The Islamic Empire was almost exclusively Arab back then, yes. However, the non-Hebrew inhabitants of Canaan / The Levant / Israel-Judea were not considered 'Arabs' until they were subsumed into the Islamic Empire. The very definition of 'Arab' as a race / ethnicity rather than a culture is an extremely flawed one.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the varying shades of Arab, but that has nothing to do with the point. Arabs/Palestinians/Levants all came to inhabit those lands via force. Either it was wrong that they did that, or it was right. Which is it? Because either way it is right that the Israelis are on that land, and it will be right when they are eventually booted off and the circle of life completes itself.
 
I don't pretend to be an expert on the varying shades of Arab, but that has nothing to do with the point. Arabs/Palestinians/Levants all came to inhabit those lands via force. Either it was wrong that they did that, or it was right. Which is it? Because either way it is right that the Israelis are on that land, and it will be right when they are eventually booted off and the circle of life completes itself.

I'm no expert on the israel / palestine situation, but I don't understand this point you're trying to make.

You seem to be saying: either it is right to take land by force, or it is wrong, and whichever applies, applies to everyone at all times.

You make it seem black and white, but I don't see why there shouldn't be shades of gray (or "shades of Arab" 8o). Why do you not allow that the moral status of the appropriation of land depends on the situation?
 
This is the first I've heard of the "Respect Party"..... George-fucking-Galloway????? :?

I suppose I'll just have to wait and see what they're about etc. I could look it up but politics is not on the top of my list for "things to be involved this" :|
 
I'm no expert on the israel / palestine situation, but I don't understand this point you're trying to make.

You seem to be saying: either it is right to take land by force, or it is wrong, and whichever applies, applies to everyone at all times.

You make it seem black and white, but I don't see why there shouldn't be shades of gray (or "shades of Arab" 8o). Why do you not allow that the moral status of the appropriation of land depends on the situation?

Because I don't see much grey here really - aside from the fact that when the Arabs took it they had lots of land, and when the Israelis took it they had none? I think people are just looking at the most recent instance of the land changing hands, and they are saying that's wrong, without taking into account the historical context at all.
 
I suspect MSB is really a Respect plant[...] with his brilliant Borat-style take off of a right-wing bigot. Good work, conrade!

fuckin ace. I refuse to comment on any of the content of this thread cos MSB has once again declared any contribution other than his to be null and void.
 
Because I don't see much grey here really - aside from the fact that when the Arabs took it they had lots of land, and when the Israelis took it they had none? I think people are just looking at the most recent instance of the land changing hands, and they are saying that's wrong, without taking into account the historical context at all.

In two sentences you've gone from "there is no grey area" to "it depends on historical context". Which is it?
 
fuckin ace. I refuse to comment on any of the content of this thread cos MSB has once again declared any contribution other than his to be null and void.

Pray tell, where did I do that? This is at least the 10th time you've said the exact same thing, i'm beginning to think you don't have a point other than to get on my case. Have you actually seen a thread where SHM isn't a prick to me within the first page or two? Not that you could give a fuck about that...
 
Last edited:
In two sentences you've gone from "there is no grey area" to "it depends on historical context". Which is it?

The historical context is that this land has changed hands several times in the last 2000 years... that is why there is little grey area.
 
^^^

What land hasn't changed hands in the last 2000 years, there's quite a list.I dispute you can actually own land any way, you may occupy it and claim right to dwell there other wise there would be chaos...well even more chaos than there is now.

If I stand on "my" land and jump am I still "on my land"...do own it all the way down to the core of the planet, or indeed all the way up to the outer reaches of the atmosphere it may be a little off topic but the idea is flawed to the bone.

Rant over ..as you were
 
^^^

What land hasn't changed hands in the last 2000 years, there's quite a list.I dispute you can actually own land any way, you may occupy it and claim right to dwell there other wise there would be chaos...well even more chaos than there is now.

If I stand on "my" land and jump am I still "on my land"...do own it all the way down to the core of the planet, or indeed all the way up to the outer reaches of the atmosphere it may be a little off topic but the idea is flawed to the bone.

Rant over ..as you were

Legally speaking you own the mineral rights below, and the country owns the air space above (as a state). We don't personally own the air space above our houses privately though, that's why reporters can fly over celebrities houses in hot air balloons. The borders of most countries have changed hands significantly over the last 2000 years, such as Alsace Lorraine, but say we as the British of today wanted to take over Spain, we would have no historical right in my opinion.
 
You're wriggling about. Let's just agree - it depends on historical context.

I think I wasn't clear enough. It does depend on the historical conext, but the historical conext of this piece of land means that the historical context makes both parties have an eqaul right to the land. Therefore the historical context voids itself and is inconsequential, correct?
 
I think I wasn't clear enough. It does depend on the historical conext, but the historical conext of this piece of land means that the historical context makes both parties have an eqaul right to the land. Therefore the historical context voids itself and is inconsequential, correct?

I don't claim to know the historical context so I'm not making that judgement. I'm trying to understand your rationalisation for Israel's right to land claimed by Palestine. Your argument seems to be:

Premise: Taking land is either always right or always wrong.

If it is always right, then it was right when Israel took it.

It if is always wrong, then it would be wrong for Palestine to take it from Israel

Therefore Israel are entitled to the land.


This seems entirely specious to me. Firstly, the premise is false - in actual fact the morality of land appropriation depends on historical context. Secondly, and you allude to this in #126 with the "circle of life" completing itself, you can swap Israel and Palestine around and end up with "Therefore Palestine are entitled to the land". All you're really saying is, "shit happens".
 
Legally speaking you own the mineral rights below, and the country owns the air space above (as a state). We don't personally own the air space above our houses privately though, that's why reporters can fly over celebrities houses in hot air balloons. The borders of most countries have changed hands significantly over the last 2000 years, such as Alsace Lorraine, but say we as the British of today wanted to take over Spain, we would have no historical right in my opinion.

So if I'm on your land without your consent and I jump, Am I trespassing whilst I'm in the air ? It's not occupation I have an issue with, we all have to live somewhere its the very idea that you can own land. It make no sense to me at all we are merely short term landlords at best but the idea that an individual can own land especially the landed gentry who own vast tracts of land and think that others have no right of entry, I have an issue with.
 
Last edited:
Pray tell, where did I do that? This is at least the 10th time you've said the exact same thing, i'm beginning to think you don't have a point other than to get on my case. Have you actually seen a thread where SHM isn't a prick to me within the first page or two? Not that you could give a fuck about that...

As I've said to you before, I got no problem with you believing what you want to believe, but your style is so fucking overly didactic it's awful, and impossible to make any sensible points, you are so convinced that you are right, just because you have different ideas to many (probably most ;) ) of us here.
 
Top