Tamil Protesters Sacrifice Children In Toronto
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
This is funny. You never asked me to support a claim but now claim I didn't support it!!! LMAO..
Now that is a tactic I've seen a hundred times... on FOX. :laughing9:
Correction: exposing you as a liar.
You're hysterical. You fired the opening shot. If you can't handle the heat stay out of the fire.
I suggest next time that you try acting as you would demand others act when posting. If you initiate the conversation then you also set the tone... :lol:
I don't have a TV and I avoid media. Where I get my version from is from the native people I know.
No, I'd say it does matter very much but what matters even more is culture.
Muslim extremists have enough guns and power to take control of parts of Pakistan and run the area without the Pakistani government's interference. Are they a state? Rebel groups in some African countries trade territory back and forth so often it's insane. Does it make their territory a new state? Maybe, but it's a meaningless word in that case. Either way.... whether they are a terrorist state, a state sponsor of terrorism or just a bunch of terrorists the way the government of Sri Lanka dealt with them would not have changed much. Negotiations were attempted several times. Sometimes two groups are too far apart to solve their differences peacefully.
No ... I did.... The TV news reaffirmed it. There is more than just a "nasty terrorist" angle in this tragic tale ... and war crimes/crimes against humanity are part of it.
Certainly they're part of it, but it doesn't change what happened. You can't excuse ethnic cleansing and recruiting child soldiers and targetting civilians because your enemy does it. One side being bad doesn't mean the other is automatically good. Painting the Tamils as simply beneficent freedom fighters is crazy just because you don't like their enemy.
Where is anything excused? Are you deflecting something? When BOTH sides are bad and you have to make a choice, which one will YOU make?
In this case neither. Sometimes there is a third option. Many Tamils figured that out as well.
lol
For me it would depend on which side I saw as being less corrupt and had more potential to be best for citizens' interests.
For me it would depend on which side I saw as being less corrupt and had more potential to be best for citizens' interests.
No, that wouldn't be my choice. My choice also wouldn't be to strap on a suicide vest and blow up a bunch of innocent people. There is a lot of room between those two extremes.
We all know space between extremes. Unfortunately, patience isn't always gift. It can be a high price to pay for people who believe they're oppressed. My choice would be to complain - make waves - which might just make me an insurgent to a people who jealously guard their grasp on power.
Or a traitor to a group who feels you aren't radical enough.... Either can make you a target, but at least you'd be living according to your beliefs.
So ... the only reason Tigers are deemed terrorist is they aren't the ones sanctioned to crack the whips. Where do you draw the line between right and wrong when caught between a rock and a hard place?.
No and I've never said that's why they were terrorists. They were terrorists because they committed terrorism. I don't recall saying anyone should be sanctioned to crack the whips. My only point is you can't always defend bad behavior by saying someone else started it.
I do it the same way you do I imagine. Sometimes you do have to make bad choices because they are better than the alternatives. Sometimes there are better alternatives and people still just make bad choices. I try to see the difference.
How does one determine the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter? When does being at home with the wife and kiddies or walking free among the community at large become hiding behind human shields? Is it pure luck of the draw that it is Sinhalese who rule all Sri Lankans. Neither of us have lived the reality so neither of us can have the luxury of standing in judgement.
I need to live their reality before I can judge whether or not suicide bombings that kill civilians are wrong? I don't think so. I think that's ludicrous. The problem with moral relativism like that is that it can be used to excuse anything.
I think it's ludicrous to be forced to live as a subhuman because a rival majority deems me as such. Until you've been there, how can you profess to know? You are applying your own measure on a way of life not yours to understand - not will you if you are stumbling over a catchphrase called terrorism. The problem with idealism is there is no room for reality's shades.
Where did I say I know what it's like to live as an oppressed minority? I would NEVER profess to know that. I will reserve the right to judge butchers, murderers and child abusers despite that. Your argument is that oppression absolves anything. I wonder if you'd feel the same way should native groups in Canada start blowing up commuter trains in Toronto.
I'm not an idealist, btw. I believe in common sense though.
I'm not an idealist, btw. I believe in common sense though.
Will you quit reading between lines for things that aren't there? If we continued to treat native groups in the ways we once did, I believe we could expect that sooner or later their patience would wear thin.
The way you twist words and fill in your own situations, I hardly think common sense is the term for it.