The gay horse

Post Reply New Topic

That's true, and one reason that all the publicity AS is getting worries me, and why I generally don't tell people I've got it. That's not to say I necessarily think the publicity is a bad thing, and if it's part of a path to better understanding, then that's great; it's just what happens in the interim. I don't want people to think I'm looking for sympathy; I don't want them to think that I look on myself as a victim. That would create even more problems than there are at present.

spoken like a true zombie!

by the way, that is not a personal attack; i am only suggesting that yourself and others who support the current american government have a blind faith mentality that is zombie-like.



why are you telling me this? i have already stated above that i am against the criminalisation of free speach.



ROFLMTO!

"must..... kill..... muslims."

oh and, by the way, i used to proof-read my ex-boyfriend's history degree essays. so, although i haven't done my homework, i have done someone else's homework. there is nothing that you can tell me about the crusades that i don't know already.

Quite right ascan.

that's just a town and gown thing if he'd have said "do you realise your horse is a quadruped" he'd still have been arrested and charged with something else they could dig up.

but if joe average oxford resident says "do you realise your horse is a gay towel-head n****r" the policeman would compliment him on making such a funny joke

the oxford police really have an atitude problem toward oxford students, they just see them as a rich captive supply of income for their on-the-spot-fines revenue stream

Is being drunk in public illegal there? They could've easily arrested him for that.

I'm not a mindless zombie/drone/pawn/whatever of the Bush administraion. I voted for Bush based on what is important to me and how I want those things done. There are some things that I disagree wth the Bush administration on, but I rarely bother talking about that publicly since there's usually large flocks of sheeople screaming about every little thing that Bush says or does. Considering how many of them aren't even very well informed about politics and current events, who are the real zombies now?

Number one, how do you know a horse is gay, and number two, why do you get arrested for saying so?

I'm surprised this didn't come from The Sun. Or The Onion.

Sean why don't You explain what You do agree with Bush and disagree with Bush. Then people could understand You what You truly believe in then. Then maybe understand why You believe as You do in the end.

it's not suprising that people aren't very well informed about politics and current events when people like bush manipulate the media.

"ignorance..... is...... strength."

and please stop "winking" at me, sean- it's giving me the creeps.

No one gets arrested in the UK for "promoting anti-western beliefs". Or, at least, that is never the reason given for anyone's arrest. And quite right. Of course people should be free to stand up and slag off the West.
But if they're advocating terrorism and murder, then something should be done about it.

Plus, many of the most vociferous anti-Western voices in the UK are from the immigrant population. I think that it would have been better for the UK if these people had never been let into the country, and that it would be better if we could prevent people with similar beliefs from entering the country in the future.

the gay horse is back from the dead!

all it needs is a headless horseman to go with it! or should that be "a headless horseperson"?

why is that any worse than the government recruiting soldiers to take part in an illegal war?

The war in Iraq was not illegal. And our army are different to terrorists because we don't deliberately target civilians, whereas terrorists do.

Anyway, even if you want to find some sort of moral equivalence between the British army and terrorists, the Iraq war is irrelevant to what I was talking about.
Why did you bring it up? Our government decided to join the Iraq war effort because they thought it was in Britain's best interests. It doesn't mean the government should tolerate people calling for the mass murder of British civilians (or anyone else) just to satisfy some lefty notion of fairness. Our government is supposed to guarantee the security of the British people after all.

we must just have a really bad aim, then, because we have the blood of 30,000 iraqi civilians on our hands. whether their deaths were intentional, or not, does not change the fact that they are dead.

and, let's face it, 30,000 deaths makes the amount of british civilians that have been killed on british soil look pretty f**king feeble, doesn't it?


because i thought that we were talking about free speach and the way that language is manipulated to suit different political agendas (in this case, "murder" becomes "fatalities" or, even, "statistics").


well, i'm not going to defend one group of vile right-wingers against another group of vile right-wingers, so it's entirely up to you who you believe has the moral high-ground in this situation.


and how successfully they have accomplished this! i was never particuarly keen on traveling on tube trains before the iraq war- i certainly wouldn't want to travel on one now, unless it was absolutely necessary.

30,000? The last time I checked, the WrongPlanet consensus seemed to be a figure of 100,000.

Meanwhile, at http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm they put the figure at about 1,000.



You expressed surprise that I seemed to support free speech. I am surprised at your surprise, because I don't think I've expressed anti-free-speech sentiments anywhere on this website, unless people think free speech includes the freedom to incite terrorism, and that's the point I was making.

Supporting the war in Iraq is not the same as inciting terrorism, because our army are not terrorists, and our army don't take orders from any old nutcase on a soapbox.

And people who didn't support the war in Iraq at least had the chance to have their voices heard at the election. (I support the war in Iraq, but I didn't vote Labour.)
Beyond that ... I dunno. Maybe you could write to the UN and ask them to try Tony Blair for war crimes.



Are you saying the Labour government is right-wing? If you are, I have to disagree with you on that.
Is this the old "war = bad & bad = right wing" argument?



I have to admit, I sometimes think that the US could have won the war in Iraq just as easily without Britain's help.
The Iraq war has also inspired some British-born Muslims to travel to Iraq and fight on the side of the "insurgency". I'd rather these losers were blowing themselves up a thousand miles away than in my home city. Let's just hope their bombs go off before they leave their bases.
The 9/11 hijackers brought the war to the West. Now we're taking it to the Middle East.

Now who brought the Iraq war into this thread.
It wasn't me

He has a point, liberal anti-war factions are pinning every death from a stray NATO .223 bullet (inevitable at some point) to terrorists blowing up mosques and driving car bombs into hospitals on Bush and allied leaders. Less than 2600 civilian causalties since the invasion sounds about right. The western militaries have the ability to be very precise, though not always 100% perfect (thus the 2600 dead). Now the terrorists hiding out among the civilian population is a matter that only the Iraqi people can sort out properly and we can only help them do so if they want it, and thus only they can take the burden of responsibility for whatever the body count is from the terrorists.

So who's really creating the propaganda on Iraq?

30,000 was my conservative figure because i just knew that you wouldn't be able to resist haggling over the total! although, i didn't expect you to go as far as 1,000.

get your links out (please note that this is dated 29/10/04): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

maybe i confused you with someone else..... all you bloody right-wingers look the same to me!

to me, murder is murder- whichever way you choose to phrase it. the civilians that died in the iraq war aren't any more alive than those that died in the "terrorist" attacks in the west.

yes, i am. although, obviously, they are less right-wing than others. labour is a quasi-left wing party. i'm not sure if they have ever been genuinely left-wing.

nope. i love all people of all political persuasions equally. although, trying to avoid robertn and ascan from finding out about each other has been tricky.....!

it goes back much further than 2001.

it wasn't me, either! i just innocently made a vague reference to an "illegal war." you assumed that i was talking about iraq.....


oh god, it's the bloody coalition!

watch out, Klytus. i wouldn't want you to become a "friendly-fire" statistic.

i'm sure that our governments will eventually decide for us what the "official" casualties / fatalities are. as you quoted, earlier in this thread, "he who controls the present, also controls the past....."

i don't stand to gain anything by creating propaganda about the iraq war- apart from embarrassment for voting for the current british government five years ago. on the other hand, our governments stand to lose everything if they don't generate propaganda about the war in iraq.

yuck! you're not going to put that back in your mouth, are you?!

Last edited by hecate on 03 Feb 2006, 5:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.