Why do a large number of anti war people whine about...

Originally posted by slackerwire
killing "brown people"?

Is it a pathetic attempt to show the U.S. as a nation that discriminates in deciding who we go to war with?

Your excuse for WW2 would be?

Seriously, are you just starting an argument?
Can you show me where anyone on this site has said just that?

You're race baiting right?

What a joke.

- Lee

Originally posted by hannamtong
1) America has a rather disturbing history of enslavement, murder, bigotry, oppression,

The American people also have a history of fighting to stop these violations of human rights. I can't change the crimes of my ancestors, or the color of my skin.

Don't get so defensive. Someone asked a question, I answered it. I'm a white American male myself and I had nothing do to with the previous situation either. It's just the way it is.

No problem.

In part due to childhood influences, I personally find myself resisting temptation constantly.

Here's something that might help get this thread back on track:
www.navy.mil...

Navy Earns Corporate Diversity Recognition

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Readers of Diversity/Careers in Engineering and Information Technology magazine helped the U.S. Navy earn honors as a Best Diversity Company for 2008.

The Navy was one of nine government agencies in a group of 100 honorees selected from a field of more than 600 companies, government agencies and other organizations that employ technical professionals. These groups were selected by readers of Diversity/Careers and visitors to its Web site: www.diversitycareers.com.

It is not always 2 steps forward and 3 back.

Though granddad said that was the way to place you're bets.

Originally posted by kerontehe
Are you implying that a poster must have an educated grasp of the english language, or a college education, or have some innate talent for independent investigation before you will recognize a valid counterpoint?

Not at all. I'm interested why you might say that. The two points I made about the original post was that it lacked intellectual content, which is to say that it was light in the defense or support of his argument (which is clear to see in my mind) and that the approach lends itself to partisanship and disdain. People don't normally say that mature people whine, considering that is normally the act of a child.

That seems a little on the bigoted side to me.

Again, I'd be interested in why you might think so.

Deflection is a high art; and it's not easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys when they all wear nondescript avatars or 3 piece Brooks Brothers.

What is your point with this statement? Honest question.

I try instead of affixing labels to take each post as though I could acquire a new enlightenment through becoming as one with the poster; but that occurs only if my meds are working.

OK. Duly noted.

Are you suggesting that I am one who labels? If so, why?

reply to post by lee anoma


example 1

example 2

example 3

Need more?

"Don't get so defensive."

it may detract from my sunny disposition, but I tend to get worked up......

Originally posted by slackerwire


When I used the term "whining", I was in fact referring to people who tend to act like children, aka leftist retards.

Well I'm glad to find out that the tone you projected was exactly as it was meant to be.

I tire of this kind of foolishness. You may have a point, but the sword cuts both ways my friend. If you feel like you've been subjected to something unfair, get used to it.

The venom really gets old. Can't we put it down for a little while?

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Well... this for one:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
big·ot Audio Help /ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1590–1600; < MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. < OE bī God by God]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

It was just my personal take that you were debating the poster as opposed to the post. IE bigoted.

Honest answer: i saw you're response as an attempt at moving attention toward the OP as opposed to the thread topic. Deflection. The rest is just old school rhetoric to confuse the unaware. Like: "Shoot low boys the're ridin' Shetlands".

The labels comment was directed toward you're intimation that the OP lacked intellutual content and therefore was underserving of a thoughtful erudite response. Semantic content does not always imply it is not "intellectual"; whatever that means.

The real topic seems to be anti-war protesters using the race or bigot argument to deflect from the rationale of waging war.

To me rationale and war are opposing theories anyway.

What do you think?


[edit on 7/21/2008 by kerontehe]

reply to post by slackerwire


They are just pacifist hippie slime, haven't you noticed the stench they leave on ATS. We should take care of them first, then go after a more worthy enemy.

Lets just say that we are not dicriminating agienst the arabics. Now right now if we were in war with France or Russia you would say the same thing but a different color. We are in war with "brown people" as yous say because the have attacked us, weather or not 9 11 is a conspirisy or not a lot of people died that day, so we are in war with them because they want to casue harm to us.

To finish it off we are not in war with them because they are brown, or sand people we are in war with them because or other reasons weather revenge or for money, what ever the reason its not because they are brown its just by chance that they are who they are.

Originally posted by kerontehe

And yes, I was personally involved in a few of these foreign diplomatic missions. Some of them no further away than Sonora.

I believe what you call "foreign diplomatic missions" is a severe understatement in the name of political correctness. I would call them "bloody wars" or "slaughter-fest".

reply to post by mrfreehugs

That seems a bit inflammatory.

Some of them were in fact quite peaceful.

I still maintain contact with many former friends and adversaries that reflect with wry albeit oft macabre humor on our days of errant youthful enthusiasims.

But you're efforts are welcome nonetheless.
And I rather enjoyed the years I spent in Manchester TN provoking the hillwilliams.

[edit on 7/21/2008 by kerontehe]

Originally posted by kerontehe
reply to post by mrfreehugs

 

That seems a bit inflammatory.

Apologies, I did not intend for it to be "inflammatory". I meant for it to be funny. I guess not everyone shares my sense of humor. I do often wonder why people call acts of war "international diplomatic missions". There is nothing diplomatic about war. Unless you consider signing a peace treaty a part of war. In general there is nothing diplomatic about war. How is killing another human being diplomatic?

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Southbound]

yes usa has always involved or poked into 'brown' people countries or matters as opposed to the rest. Similar to the Iran nuclear situation they once had opposed and meddled when Indians where involved testing weapons in their own soil. During the indo-pak war it was Us who played in the middle by supplying weapons to Pakistan. There were lots of talks about how the gulf war broke lose (when iraq invaded kuwait), iraq got weapons from US and then double crossed them and used it to invade kuwait. Well there is no proof to that but i wouldnt be surprised!. Then there is Japan, Iraq, Iran and yes then there is the ongoing mass civilians killed mistaking them for taliban/al qaeda..situation going on almost everyday in Afghan. Us dont they value brown life at all? Its all easy to say that there people opposing it but it hasnt stopped anything (ofcourse not that they dont mean well!if they didnt exist..then i dont know what would happen) but unfortunately they are the minority few who doesnt have the power and authorise anything because the other side does the ruling bit. But brown people care about brown life..so if they are being treated badly they have right speak out..so the OP who is comfy and cozy in his chair and doesnt care or want to get up will find it whining!

I can't believe this. In America the 1st Amendment is both a blessing AND a curse for you guys...

Looks like the womb Nazism came out from is still productive. That freaks me out.
Tell me one thing. If you need to feed your SUV with oil and that the black dude next door owns a huge barrel in his yard, will you take it from him by force using a bunch of hoaxes? No you won't. Think about that, and maybe you'll sleep less ignorant tonight

Being a conspiracy website and all, I think I'll throw out a few hypotheses.

(1) The Thule Society has successfully infiltrated the elite hierarchy of the United States to the point where they are capable of influencing foreign policy.

(2) Brown people are inherently evil and as a result, nations which they occupy naturally oppose themselves against the righteous western nations.

(3) A predominantly 'white' nation is typically a highly developed nation, as a result it will require resources from external sources. Most nations populated by 'brown' people have a tendency to be lesser developed nations, and as a result they do not utilize all available resources. So when the white nation wants the brown nation's resources but they cannot come to an agreement, conflict ensues.

(4) A level a racism persists in highly developed nations, a hierarchy exists as a result. Non whites are not perceived to be as 'valuable' as whites. Nationalism leads the populace to believe that foreigners are not as valuable as fellow citizens. Mix these two factors together and it becomes easier to pass off the casualties of a far off conflict as sub human.


--------------------------

I don't know the rational of the psychopaths who rule over governments. The primary motive appears to be power and profit, if a white nation had something they wanted and if the public would buy into it I don't feel like they would hesitate to attack.

It is true that the United States has been attacking brown nations predominantly since the end of the second world war.

I don't label myself a 'leftest', but I don't understand what good it does anybody to emphasize race. We're all humans, is being against killing humans satisfactory?

[edit on 21-7-2008 by wingman77]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by slackerwire


When I used the term "whining", I was in fact referring to people who tend to act like children, aka leftist retards.

Well I'm glad to find out that the tone you projected was exactly as it was meant to be.

I tire of this kind of foolishness. You may have a point, but the sword cuts both ways my friend. If you feel like you've been subjected to something unfair, get used to it.

The venom really gets old. Can't we put it down for a little while?

Slackerwire, not to mention your constant trotting out of the term "retarded leftist" [or some other derivative] for anyone who says anything you disagree with. Using that terminology offers nothing to the "debate" you are trying to have but certainly gets people riled up and angry [which instantly ends debate and begins fighting] so could you lay off the name calling there... wingnut (ok, that was joke but you see my point!)

You're sick of all the whining retarded hippie slime leftists, and I'm sick of being called those names because of my views. However I don't make inflammatory threads about it.

No, the war is not about race. The race plays no part whatsoever in this war. But this war plays a huge part in the racist attitude of many against muslims/arabians.

Edited to add "retarded" to my resume.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Wallachian]