It isn't exactly cool to use 'gay' in this context. Gay people may well think you're not very well informed and a bit narrow minded/juvenile.
Even Bush said he wished it had been more "dignified" ... A couple of members of the government have condemned the circumstances of the hanging as "barbaric", I don't have the quotes to hand.
OK- so do you think Maliki will break off relations with the US as a result? Or is this just more verbiage...like he's been told to say this to other Arab states by his american masters?
Hitler was not a known gay - he was actually a sexual cripple who was obsessed with young girls but coudn't get it together. i guess i shouldn't have levelled criticism at you L.A. - it's just that I don't like to hear people, some of whom I consider good friends, insulted. Just for the record, I am not gay....
Dunno - I can't recall my past lives, if I had any. I meant that I have friends who are gay, and I don't think it's at all productive to contintue to use terms of abuse for those we dislike which imply they are homosexual.
I call my gay friends gay all the time. They don't mind. I call them fags too, they don't mind that either.
That's true for me too - but in general it isn't really that clever if you can't think of a better insult for a mass murdering dictator. After all, there's no correlation between homosexual acts and acts of mass murder etc.
I never used it as an insult. I believe Hitler was gay. You're the one saying I used it as an insult. You should question yourself.
Same here and my black friends laugh at me calling em wogs and the jews at me calling them yids, and you should see the ladies piss themselves at being called bitches.
i found an interesting article in the ny times about the basic clusterfuck of the saddam hanging. it was all just so fucked up. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/w...&ex=1168750800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Thanks for posting the link KC, that's an enlightening article and well worth reading. Gives some insight into the relationship between the Iraqi administration and the Americans.
Those quotes from government ministers: Gordon Brown: 'Now that we know the full picture of what happened we can sum this up as a deplorable set of events. It has done nothing to lessen tensions between the Shia and Sunni communities. Even those people, unlike me, who are in favour of capital punishment found this completely unacceptable.' John Prescott: "I think the manner was quite deplorable, really. I don't think one can in any way endorse that, whatever your views about capital punishment" I think this quote sums it up well: Louis Michel, European Union commissioner: "I consider the death penalty a barbaric act. It is not a great day for democracy and democrats. Barbarity has to be fought by other means than barbarity. There were other ways to punish the abominable acts of Saddam Hussein."
Technically you're right - no evidence that the CIA themselves actually sold or supplied WMDs to Saddam, however the sale of controlled substances like nerve gas, anthrax and bubonic plague etc to Iraq could only take place under licence from the government, and as such the arming of Iraq with these WMDs was a deliberate policy decision of the governments of the US, UK and others. This was because until 1991, Iraq was perceived to be our ally against Iran. This is also why Saddam's atrocities did not receive the attention and condemnation from Western leaders they should have at the time - only when it suited us did we recognise how appalling a dictator Saddam was. Ironically, Saddam's atrocities took place when he was being supported and armed by the West, and the millions of deaths of Iraqis caused by the West since 1992 we do not regard as "atrocities" or "crimes against humanity". http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
If someone goes out and buys a gun and them shoots someone dead, the person who sold them the gun is also criminally responsible. This principle has been conveniently ignored in the case of Saddam. But there's also the other question - if we 'morally superior' westerners can't bear to see a dictator like Saddam get away with it, why don't we act in other cases too? Zimbabwe for instance? Could it be that it's because they don't have oil? And China - the human rights record is absolutely appalling, but we're happy not only to cosy up to them, but even to virtually ban protest when the Chinese premier visits Billy Liar....The yanks don't even acknowledge that human rights abuses do take place in Tibet.
Very informative, thank you. I did know a lot of that, it was nice to read it in one place. Also not within some lunatic conspiracy site [or not a bad one *cough*]. Taken out of context, and used and abused. I suspect, the web sites, only covered 45% of the actuality. I stll got a lot from it though, again thank you. ''If someone goes out and buys a gun and them shoots someone dead, the person who sold them the gun is also criminally responsible.'' I could blather on about this and that, but i think my major point is. I don't accept the above assumption.
