Hissene Habre convicted

Rowanbi wrote:So you're out of arguments, in other words.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Wonder what racist mugs like Rowanbi have to do to get a ban around here....

Rowanbi wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

Now you're just being silly. Sure, the U.S.S.R. was an instrumental part, but they were only one part and had no/little part in the wider global parts of WWII. Also, minor point, but Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people at home.

The Soviets won the war at a cost of 20 million lives and the British and Americans scrambled to take all the credit for it themselves. No, Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people, they murdered millions of people in other countries instead. So that's alright then  

Churchill a war criminal because he was a 'privileged white christian', we'll ignore how he inspired a nation against the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Not everyone involved in war is guilty of crimes against humanity,

I don't regard him as a war criminal because he was a white Christian at all. I regard him as a war criminal because he machine-gunned the Sudanese, threw the ANZACs at the Turks, gassed the Kurds and Arabs, firebombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis, professed to hatred of Indians, and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government, among many other horrific crimes against humanity. Due to his race and religion, however, he is revered in his homeland as a 'hero.'

& the greatest evil the world has ever seen was the British Empire, very clearly.

Done with you. I gave you the benefit originally, but clearly Tino(?) was correct, above. You're a fool. You're doing the usual cr@p and applying 21st century ethics to 19th/early 20th century conflicts.

The Soviets didn't "win" the war, anymore than the British, Americans etc did. If you can actually read what I said, instead of twist to fit your own agenda, I said that it was a team effort and the Soviets were a part of that. They had stuff all to do with the war in the Pacific, stuff all to do with Africa and Italy etc. Britain actually helped the Soviets stay afloat before the tide turned against Hitler's Barbarossa campaign with all those lovely selfish jaunts up the North Atlantic coast and via the Barents Sea, supplying the Soviet Union with arms and food etc. All the while being hunted by German U-Boats etc.

Re. Dresden - well, again, by today's standards, doesn't look that pleasant, but that's what you get for prosecuting a war the way the Nazis did I'm afraid. Grow up.

Re. ANZACs, I think I'm right in saying that more British were killed there than ANZACs, but you go on and make up the facts to suit your own narrative. Churchill didn't, as you imply, use the ANZACs as shock troops so British forces were spared what happened there.

Gas was used by many in the past. I seriously doubt Churchill would advocate or accept its use today.

As for the Kurds, don't make me laugh. How dare you raise that when Turkey's vindictive and murderous behaviour towards the Kurds is still going on today. Talk about a hypocrite!

Re. India, again, you're applying 21st century morals to 1950s, at the latest, behaviour. Frankly, your hatred of 'white, Christians' IN the 21st century (i.e. now) says a lot more to me than Churchill et als behaviour in the past and your last line re. the British Empire shows you for what you really are. At least we're clear now on your position and mindset. Enjoy your increasingly radical Theocracy in Turkey .

Dresden was revenge, pure and simple. Have you read Slaughterhouse 5, by any chance? Like Hiroshima & Nagasaki it was totally unnecessary and entirely symbolic, designed to send a message and ward off the USSR and the post-war era. To that end, many millions of innocent children, women and men died most horrific deaths.

Yes, more British and French died at Gallipoli than Anzacs. Congratulations. Invading other countries isn't always as easy as the British would like it to be, and they well and truly beaten there, at the cost of many young men's lives. Incidentally, the Turks lost more than the allied forces collectively, and they were only defending their homeland.

If you don't know that Churchill used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, then you don't know much at all. He also used them against the Russians, according to one of Britain's own leading newspapers: http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

As for applying 21st century principles to the 1950s, that's a fine cop-out, but I'm not the one applying 21st century principles to the 1910s, as are those so gleefully bringing up the Armenian massacres (which I'm probably far better informed on than anyone else here).

The desire to have wars and to win them are, I'm afraid, proof of evolution.  

So you're an apologist for genocidal warfare then? Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, but this perhaps the wrong thread for you.

Basically Turkey is as bad, if not worse, than anyone else.

Not white Christian though so escape Rowan's ire.....

Sorry to so gravely disappoint you, but I've already commented a number of times that you are preaching to the converted on this issue. Is there some part of that sentence you don't understand?

You feel the need to point out certain skin colours but not the others = racist in my book

& then he brings up Zimbabwe.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Wonder what racist mugs like Rowanbi have to do to get a ban around here....

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Wonder what racist mugs like Rowanbi have to do to get a ban around here....

Be a little more open with it I suspect...

Derbymanc wrote:Just a note to Rowanbi then no more responses as I don't want the section closed again:- I never mentioned skin colour or religion with Zimbabwe you brought that up.

Derbymanc wrote:Just a note to Rowanbi then no more responses as I don't want the section closed again:- I never mentioned skin colour or religion with Zimbabwe you brought that up.

It's a tough one SF as it's generally the winners that tell you who the war criminal is and such i'm sure many slip under the net, especially if they can be useful (a'la scientists who can help etc). As such each country has a different culture and upsetting that can change the whole dynamics of a region (Middle East),

If anyone know's where 4L's is, i'd be interested in his view on this as he's very worldly travelled and normally has some cracking input (even if i don't agree with it all :-)

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Perhaps you should use a few more emoticons?       Really drive that point home.

Look princess, you've been exposed for what you are.  Not just on this thread but on the others I mentioned way back when.

You are what you are and enough of us spotted it early.  You're not smart enough to hide it.

Take this as a lesson, come back under a different name, and try harder.

You can thank me some other time.

Rowanbi wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

Now you're just being silly. Sure, the U.S.S.R. was an instrumental part, but they were only one part and had no/little part in the wider global parts of WWII. Also, minor point, but Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people at home.

The Soviets won the war at a cost of 20 million lives and the British and Americans scrambled to take all the credit for it themselves. No, Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people, they murdered millions of people in other countries instead. So that's alright then  

Churchill a war criminal because he was a 'privileged white christian', we'll ignore how he inspired a nation against the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Not everyone involved in war is guilty of crimes against humanity,

I don't regard him as a war criminal because he was a white Christian at all. I regard him as a war criminal because he machine-gunned the Sudanese, threw the ANZACs at the Turks, gassed the Kurds and Arabs, firebombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis, professed to hatred of Indians, and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government, among many other horrific crimes against humanity. Due to his race and religion, however, he is revered in his homeland as a 'hero.'

& the greatest evil the world has ever seen was the British Empire, very clearly.

Done with you. I gave you the benefit originally, but clearly Tino(?) was correct, above. You're a fool. You're doing the usual cr@p and applying 21st century ethics to 19th/early 20th century conflicts.

The Soviets didn't "win" the war, anymore than the British, Americans etc did. If you can actually read what I said, instead of twist to fit your own agenda, I said that it was a team effort and the Soviets were a part of that. They had stuff all to do with the war in the Pacific, stuff all to do with Africa and Italy etc. Britain actually helped the Soviets stay afloat before the tide turned against Hitler's Barbarossa campaign with all those lovely selfish jaunts up the North Atlantic coast and via the Barents Sea, supplying the Soviet Union with arms and food etc. All the while being hunted by German U-Boats etc.

Re. Dresden - well, again, by today's standards, doesn't look that pleasant, but that's what you get for prosecuting a war the way the Nazis did I'm afraid. Grow up.

Re. ANZACs, I think I'm right in saying that more British were killed there than ANZACs, but you go on and make up the facts to suit your own narrative. Churchill didn't, as you imply, use the ANZACs as shock troops so British forces were spared what happened there.

Gas was used by many in the past. I seriously doubt Churchill would advocate or accept its use today.

As for the Kurds, don't make me laugh. How dare you raise that when Turkey's vindictive and murderous behaviour towards the Kurds is still going on today. Talk about a hypocrite!

Re. India, again, you're applying 21st century morals to 1950s, at the latest, behaviour. Frankly, your hatred of 'white, Christians' IN the 21st century (i.e. now) says a lot more to me than Churchill et als behaviour in the past and your last line re. the British Empire shows you for what you really are. At least we're clear now on your position and mindset. Enjoy your increasingly radical Theocracy in Turkey .

Dresden was revenge, pure and simple. Have you read Slaughterhouse 5, by any chance? Like Hiroshima & Nagasaki it was totally unnecessary and entirely symbolic, designed to send a message and ward off the USSR and the post-war era. To that end, many millions of innocent children, women and men died most horrific deaths.

Yes, more British and French died at Gallipoli than Anzacs. Congratulations. Invading other countries isn't always as easy as the British would like it to be, and they well and truly beaten there, at the cost of many young men's lives. Incidentally, the Turks lost more than the allied forces collectively, and they were only defending their homeland.

If you don't know that Churchill used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, then you don't know much at all. He also used them against the Russians, according to one of Britain's own leading newspapers: http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

As for applying 21st century principles to the 1950s, that's a fine cop-out, but I'm not the one applying 21st century principles to the 1910s, as are those so gleefully bringing up the Armenian massacres (which I'm probably far better informed on than anyone else here).

The desire to have wars and to win them are, I'm afraid, proof of evolution.  

So you're an apologist for genocidal warfare then? Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, but this perhaps the wrong thread for you.

Basically Turkey is as bad, if not worse, than anyone else.

Not white Christian though so escape Rowan's ire.....

Sorry to so gravely disappoint you, but I've already commented a number of times that you are preaching to the converted on this issue. Is there some part of that sentence you don't understand?

You feel the need to point out certain skin colours but not the others = racist in my book

& then he brings up Zimbabwe.

What part of this post was racist? Or is "racist" simply your scare word to condemn those who do not think as you do - ie not apologists for US-UK war crimes, from the rapacious British Empire to the genocidal invasion of Iraq?