Was the Woolwich killing terrorism?

For stuff that can only sensibly reside here. You have been warned. HERE LIVETH TROLLS!

Moderators: nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R, Virginia_R

Post Reply
User avatar
Lee Gib
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007
Posts: 2144
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: Gibraltar

Post by Lee Gib » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:08 pm

This article was supposed to be about the death of a soldier and misuse of the label 'terrorism'. This could have been done in a few sentences, but what do we get instead? Lines and paragraphs about illegal war, dead muslims, air strikes, drones, killing children, more dead muslims... nothing but talk about UK/US actions against muslims (notice how much that word is mentioned) in the middle east.

 I don't how people, so aggrieved at media misinformation, can themselves be so blantantly manipulated as to think that this article was anything but an excuse for a rant at UK foreign policy under the guise of 'let's ask a simple question about the definition of terrorism'. If you want the evidence you only need look at this thread and how it has developed. Israel, the Guardians labour of love, didn't take long to come up. This article was not designed to talk about terrorism, it was designed to excuse terrorism whilst criticising our role in the middle east. You think you're free from the clutches or main stream media influence? Don't make me laugh. That article was used to dilute the horror one might ordinarily feel about a brutal murder and in your case it has clearly worked. I'm surpirised it didn't end with, 'He probably had it coming'.

But of course I'm sure you wont see it that way, or you can't see it .... or refuse to. I think you've put yourselves upon an imaginary intellectual pedestal so high you have you heads in the clouds. But it's OK fellas, you can continue going on about how this has nothing to do with justification, call opposing comments stupid and give yourselves a collective pat on the back for not being duped like lesser folks. Now this may come as a shock to some, but please know that all media outlets are guilty of manipulation and they all have an agenda. Your precious paper and this article is no different.

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm pro war or anything. I'm not. I am aware that our actions abroad has consequences at home. All our forces should come home yesterday, we should never initiate problems with other countries and certain personalities should be put in front of a firing squad. However I would really appreciate if some people could get out from up their own arses so we could make some common ground.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:05 pm

Lee Gib wrote:I'm surpirised it didn't end with, 'He probably had it coming'.
Hyperbolic nonsense - usually a sign when someone is talking trash, as you are in this case.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:08 pm

Lee Gib wrote:But it's OK fellas, you can continue going on about how this has nothing to do with justification, call opposing comments stupid and give yourselves a collective pat on the back for not being duped like lesser folks. Now this may come as a shock to some, but please know that all media outlets are guilty of manipulation and they all have an agenda. Your precious paper and this article is no different.
Actually, Cif at Guardian is open for everyone to post articles at.

This is why in the past, the Israeli Foreign Minister (or Defence Minister, I forget which) has posted comments on Guardian at Cif.

This is why, on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War, John Bolton posted an article on the Guardian at Cif saying how he has been proved right that the war was justified.

So that just rubbishes your nonsensical insinuation that GG is somehow being asked to write this article by the Guardian to further their agenda.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:16 pm

It doesn't really. CIF is notoriously anti & GG is amongst the most notorious of contributors.. The comments section is filled with left wing bigots. To me CIF is about the comments much more than the articles.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Lee Gib
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007
Posts: 2144
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: Gibraltar

Post by Lee Gib » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:26 pm

Marshy wrote:
Lee Gib wrote:I'm surpirised it didn't end with, 'He probably had it coming'.
Hyperbolic nonsense - usually a sign when someone is talking trash, as you are in this case.
Translation: I have not much to say really but I'll pick up on this one tongue in cheek, throw away line and add an intelligent sounding word out of context.

You know the real difference between us Marshy? I accept that the media have lied to me and that occasionally I have been duped. I have no shame and am honest enough to accept my short sightedness. As a result I am very concious of it and usually will take even the articles I like with a pinch of salt.

You think you're too smart for that so you will fail more often than those you look down on. Enjoy your life.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:10 pm

Lee Gib wrote:
Marshy wrote:
Lee Gib wrote:I'm surpirised it didn't end with, 'He probably had it coming'.
Hyperbolic nonsense - usually a sign when someone is talking trash, as you are in this case.
Translation: I have not much to say really but I'll pick up on this one tongue in cheek, throw away line and add an intelligent sounding word out of context.

You know the real difference between us Marshy? I accept that the media have lied to me and that occasionally I have been duped. I have no shame and am honest enough to accept my short sightedness. As a result I am very concious of it and usually will take even the articles I like with a pinch of salt.

You think you're too smart for that so you will fail more often than those you look down on. Enjoy your life.
I am sure there are smarter people out there, and I am sure I am sometimes wrong. But I am willing to change my opinion, and have done so before, if someone provides a well-reasoned, logical argument. You won't, you have a view of the world, and you will not change it if it might make the side you support look lesser, and portray the side you don't as differently to the evil you want to believe they are. That is why when someone writes an article that argues something, very logically, that destroys your little view of the world, instead of attacking the article logically and with reason, you start jumping up and down, accusing the author of being a lefty who is defending terrorists. THAT is the real difference between us.
Last edited by Marshy on Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:10 pm

Stan wrote:It doesn't really. CIF is notoriously anti & GG is amongst the most notorious of contributors.. The comments section is filled with left wing bigots. To me CIF is about the comments much more than the articles.
Doesn't really what?

User avatar
Lee Gib
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007
Posts: 2144
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: Gibraltar

Post by Lee Gib » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:06 pm

Massive irony alert.
Marshy wrote:I am sure there are smarter people out there, and I am sure I am sometimes wrong. But I am willing to change my opinion, and have done so before, if someone provides a well-reasoned, logical argument. You won't, you have a view of the world, and you will not change it if it might make the side you support look lesser, and portray the side you don't as differently to the evil you want to believe they are. That is why when someone writes an article that argues something, very logically, that destroys your little view of the world, instead of attacking the article logically and with reason, you start jumping up and down, accusing the author of being a lefty who is defending terrorists. THAT is the real difference between us.


There's another difference between us, I read what I'm responding to. It's blatantly obvious you haven't read a single thing I have posted, you're just seeing words and responding to them without thought. Answering the pieces you want to and pretending the rest doesn't exist. If you had you'd realise where I stand all all these issues and realise they aren't so far away from your own (far too many similarities to our previous warrior to be a coincidence surely?). I only take issue with your attitude of looking down towards others who don't see things the way you do.

You are more interested in being seen to win an argument then actually responding to what the other person is saying. It's pure arrogance and if this is how you debated on WATRB I'm not surprised they gave you a hard time. Trying to shoot down a position the person you're talking to hasn't actually made is called a strawman and despite your best efforts makes you look intellectually bankrupt.

Perhaps you haven't noticed because you're having trouble seeing through the smug. I do find it amusing that you have defended your rag so fervently after telling us all not to believe media lies. Anyway, you crack on son. Enjoy defending your newspaper (that would never mislead) and arguing with yourself.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:16 pm

Marshy wrote:
Lee Gib wrote:
Marshy wrote: Hyperbolic nonsense - usually a sign when someone is talking trash, as you are in this case.
Translation: I have not much to say really but I'll pick up on this one tongue in cheek, throw away line and add an intelligent sounding word out of context.

You know the real difference between us Marshy? I accept that the media have lied to me and that occasionally I have been duped. I have no shame and am honest enough to accept my short sightedness. As a result I am very concious of it and usually will take even the articles I like with a pinch of salt.

You think you're too smart for that so you will fail more often than those you look down on. Enjoy your life.
I am sure there are smarter people out there, and I am sure I am sometimes wrong. But I am willing to change my opinion, and have done so before, if someone provides a well-reasoned, logical argument. You won't, you have a view of the world, and you will not change it if it might make the side you support look lesser, and portray the side you don't as differently to the evil you want to believe they are. That is why when someone writes an article that argues something, very logically, that destroys your little view of the world, instead of attacking the article logically and with reason, you start jumping up and down, accusing the author of being a lefty who is defending terrorists. THAT is the real difference between us.
The thing is there are articles out there written about that article you posted offering a polar opposite viewpoint & taking GG's article to pieces, aswell as putting it into the context of his well know world view. Have you even looked for a counter view?
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:26 pm

Lee Gib wrote: There's another difference between us, I read what I'm responding to. It's blatantly obvious you haven't read a single thing I have posted,


More hyperbolic nonsnese?
Lee Gib wrote: you're just seeing words and responding to them without thought.


Pot. Kettle. Black - as that is exactly what you did with GG's article.
Lee Gib wrote:
Trying to shoot down a position the person you're talking to hasn't actually made is called a strawman and despite your best efforts makes you look intellectually bankrupt.
Again, the best is saved till last. MASSIVE irony alert, because nowhere did GG try to justify the killing of the British soldier, yet you accused him of doing so, and so dismissed his article - dude, you're a hypocrite.

GG tried to explain why they might have did what they did. And surely that is the normal thing to do, yes? Because if you don't know the reason someone did something bad, how can you stop it from happening in the future, yes?
If a black guy goes on the rampage and kills 20 people with his truck, surely you would want to find out why he did it, yes? Especially if there are people saying "Oh, he did it because blacks are violent, they have different cultural values". Or would you rather say "no, we shouldn't try and find out what his motives might have been because that means we're justifying the killing"?

So, yes, you're a hypocrite. You accuse others of only reading what they want to, but that is exactly what you do. You accuse others of using straw men arguments, but that's exactly what you do - attack GG for a position that he never took.

Or maybe you just have difficulty reading. Maybe you can't appreciate that there is a difference between trying to explain why someone might have done something and justifying it - maybe to you they're both the same. Maybe you have difficulty seeing that the point GG was making was simply that if we call this terrorism, then we must also call what we do in Muslim countries terrorism, because this meets the same criteria as a lot of what we do (killing unarmed people who we consider to be at war with).

But, yeah, if you want to be dishonest and make up things about GG, and when someone points out your mistake to you, accuse them of being arrogant and thinking they're superior, then feel free to do so, but I'm not really interested in furthering this discussion with you.
Last edited by Marshy on Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:27 pm

Stan wrote: The thing is there are articles out there written about that article you posted offering a polar opposite viewpoint & taking GG's article to pieces, aswell as putting it into the context of his well know world view. Have you even looked for a counter view?
Provide a link. I have been busy and haven't read all the counter arguments, I follow GG on Twitter and he usually replies to criticisms about him, so provide links to these articles that you have read.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:29 pm

search CIF Watch.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:31 pm

Stan wrote:search CIF Watch.
Why should I search? You have read the articles, so provide a link to them

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:39 pm

for someone so open minded as you profess to be, & considering it would have taken you the same amount of time to google the term I told you to as it did for you to reply to me, forgive me for disbelieving your claims to be open minded :)
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:39 pm

Stan wrote:search CIF Watch.
OK, just read one article - a pathetic attempt to smear GG

http://cifwatch.com/2013/05/27/guardian ... ted-posts/

GG has absolutely nothing to do with the moderation of commenting on Guardian, in fact, he has publicly stated in the past that the comments are beyond his control.

Post Reply