Americans

[unriggable]

[civver]

[GustavusAdolphus]

TANGENT!!!

*ducks*

So, you managed to avoid me eh? Clever, very clever... but I will have my revenge.

[steve-O]

not that much effort. its just that i dont care. im too used to only typing to send an instant message

So in other words......

lazy

I'm one of the laziest people I know, but I still spell out my words. He's just goofy.

why thank YOU very much

[gingis khan]

WHAT THE F..C IS WHRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????? Brits and YANKIES can NOT debate over moral and eticks!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!! "WTF"'S,"LAZYS", "BAD EDUCATION"'s.....all aside.! IMMORAL PEOPLE CANNOT DEBATE OVER MORAL! PERIOD!!!!!!!

[Dancing Mustard]

WHAT THE F..C IS WHRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????? Brits and YANKIES can NOT debate over moral and eticks!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!! "WTF"'S,"LAZYS", "BAD EDUCATION"'s.....all aside.! IMMORAL PEOPLE CANNOT DEBATE OVER MORAL! PERIOD!!!!!!!

Illiterate people can't debate over anything...

Ok, piss-taking aside, let's try to respond to your 'post':

We've been over the spelling thing before; I know English isn't your first language, but when you're speaking on an international site where the dominant mode of communication is through written English, it's considered polite to check your posts a little more thorougly than you would if you were speaking your native tongue. It's just rude to expect everybody else to spend time figuring out what the hell you're trying to say, when you ought to have spent the time to make your post semi-legible in the first place.
As a side note, you don't find me posting on Spanish websites, because I realise my mediocre Spanish would just be annoying to other users. Just a thought...

Your assertion seems to be that 'because you consider the actions taken by the British and American states to be immoral, all of their citizens are automatically disqualified from discussing ethics'.
That's complete rubbish. The actions of a state do not deprive its citizens of the right to have a legitimate viewpoint on the matter.
Furthermore, you haven't actually demonstrated why the actions of the UK and US are 'immoral'. And you certainly haven't proved that as a UK citizen I'm somehow implicit in that immorality. Am I pro-war? You don't know. Therefore how can you be so bold as to imagine I am disqualified from debating morality with you?
Even if you could prove I was immoral, you wouldn't have a cause for stopping me debating morals. My arguments might transpire to be perverse and untenable, but I would still have the right to debate my opinions with you. Unless of course you're one of these people who isn't into free-speech?

As for your poor epithets about US and UK citizens being 'lazy' and poorly educated; that's rubbish. It looks particularly stupid because your own post is barely legible, is riddled with hideous 'net-grammar', and can't have taken you more than 30 seconds to type, and you certainly took less time than that to think what you were about to write.

Basically, I think you're an uneducated little internet troll, of meagre mental capacity, arguing over a topic you have little knowledge of, and in a language of which you have a poor command.
Perhaps in a few years time you'll be ready to debate things here. But up till then, I wash my hands of you, and your utterly ridiculous arguments.

Have a nice life.

[D.IsleRealBrown]

WHRONG....eticks!...."BAD EDUCATION"'s.

[gingis khan]

WHAT THE F..C IS WHRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????? Brits and YANKIES can NOT debate over moral and eticks!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!! "WTF"'S,"LAZYS", "BAD EDUCATION"'s.....all aside.! IMMORAL PEOPLE CANNOT DEBATE OVER MORAL! PERIOD!!!!!!!

Illiterate people can't debate over anything...

Ok, piss-taking aside, let's try to respond to your 'post':

We've been over the spelling thing before; I know English isn't your first language, but when you're speaking on an international site where the dominant mode of communication is through written English, it's considered polite to check your posts a little more thorougly than you would if you were speaking your native tongue. It's just rude to expect everybody else to spend time figuring out what the hell you're trying to say, when you ought to have spent the time to make your post semi-legible in the first place.
As a side note, you don't find me posting on Spanish websites, because I realise my mediocre Spanish would just be annoying to other users. Just a thought...

Your assertion seems to be that 'because you consider the actions taken by the British and American states to be immoral, all of their citizens are automatically disqualified from discussing ethics'.
That's complete rubbish. The actions of a state do not deprive its citizens of the right to have a legitimate viewpoint on the matter.
Furthermore, you haven't actually demonstrated why the actions of the UK and US are 'immoral'. And you certainly haven't proved that as a UK citizen I'm somehow implicit in that immorality. Am I pro-war? You don't know. Therefore how can you be so bold as to imagine I am disqualified from debating morality with you?
Even if you could prove I was immoral, you wouldn't have a cause for stopping me debating morals. My arguments might transpire to be perverse and untenable, but I would still have the right to debate my opinions with you. Unless of course you're one of these people who isn't into free-speech?

As for your poor epithets about US and UK citizens being 'lazy' and poorly educated; that's rubbish. It looks particularly stupid because your own post is barely legible, is riddled with hideous 'net-grammar', and can't have taken you more than 30 seconds to type, and you certainly took less time than that to think what you were about to write.

Basically, I think you're an uneducated little internet troll, of meagre mental capacity, arguing over a topic you have little knowledge of, and in a language of which you have a poor command.
Perhaps in a few years time you'll be ready to debate things here. But up till then, I wash my hands of you, and your utterly ridiculous arguments.

Have a nice life.

define "polite"! define "rude"(i have my own deffinition), your spanish is bad (for "spit a spaniard" thread) - i accept,YES , 'because i consider the actions taken by the British and American states to be immoral, all of their citizens are automatically disqualified from discussing ethics'.(SORRY IF U DISAGREE!).as a pro tony blear - u are pro RAT!!!!! (thank God he is gone ).i DEMAND U ARE disqualified from debating morality with a yenkie!!!! "Basically, I think you're an uneducated little internet troll, of meagre mental capacity, arguing over a topic you have little knowledge of, and in a language of which you have a poor command. " I'M HONOURED MATHEMATICIAN , 40 YRS OLD, GENERAL MANAGER IN INTL. LOGISTIC COMPANY (SOUTH-EAST ERUPEAN COMPANY) , SNIPERIST BY VOCATION...WASTED 12 YANKIES DURIN THE AGGRESSION AGAINST MY COUTRY (WITH A BABY DOUGHTER AT HOUSE).....SO MY OVERSIZED DICK IS IN YOUR THROUGHT(DEEP) ... NOW WHAT? ... - regroup you silly clown!!!!

[Backglass]

I'M HONOURED MATHEMATICIAN , 40 YRS OLD, GENERAL MANAGER IN INTL. LOGISTIC COMPANY (SOUTH-EAST ERUPEAN COMPANY) , SNIPERIST BY VOCATION...WASTED 12 YANKIES DURIN THE AGGRESSION AGAINST MY COUTRY (WITH A BABY DOUGHTER AT HOUSE).....SO MY OVERSIZED DICK IS IN YOUR THROUGHT(DEEP) ... NOW WHAT? ... - regroup you silly clown!!!!

I wept a lemon! My Chinese gardener crossed the Cadillac to smoke a green hopscotch!

WHO can say it? Perhaps only cheese will skip the light and toast the wankel rotary engine.

[gingis khan]

weap some more

[Dancing Mustard]

Mmmm, garbled tosh.

define "polite"! define "rude"(i have my own deffinition),

How about you let the Oxford English Dictionary do your defining for you? If we're going to be discussing this in English, let's use the English definitions. Otherwise we're just using the same words to say different things; if you want to play that game, then you'll have to go find a different playground to do it in.

Some random babbling which might be trying to quote me, or might be trying to say something useful. Who cares? It's utter tripe and it doesn't contain any meaningful points

Do you know I'm pro-Blair? Even if I was would that mean I was pro-every-Blair-policy-choice? For a man who claims to be so educated, you sure are into dumb assumptions.
Good to see that you do 'demand' all UK and US citizens are disqualified from logical argument; y'know with all that logical argument that you didn't have to back the propostion up... I believe the moon is made from magical cheese. Ridiculous? I don't care, I don't need logic to prove ridiculous assertions! Welcome to Pixie Land!
Seriously, if you're here to debate, then debate. Right now you're just shouting your opinion and hoping we suddenly change our minds. That's what children do, not educated debating men. You're like Take2Out, but not amusing.

I'M HONOURED MATHEMATICIAN , 40 YRS OLD, GENERAL MANAGER IN INTL. LOGISTIC COMPANY (SOUTH-EAST ERUPEAN COMPANY) , SNIPERIST BY VOCATION...WASTED 12 YANKIES DURIN THE AGGRESSION AGAINST MY COUTRY (WITH A BABY DOUGHTER AT HOUSE).....SO MY OVERSIZED DICK IS IN YOUR THROUGHT(DEEP) ... NOW WHAT? ... - regroup you silly clown!!!!

Oh wow, did they not teach you how to spell 'European' while you were planning trans-national logistics? Some firm you got there...
Must have been a good uni too, to teach you such well honed debating skills... or not.
And what's this?! A man who served in the national army of a nation recently convicted of genocide; well now there is something to be proud of. You alledge to have shot several Americans acting to legally (yep, go check the UN resolutions and ICJ decisions. Legal) prevent sustained programmes of genocide and ethnic cleansing. We definitely respect you more now. Sarcasm? What's that?

So no. Your teeny tiny little pee-pee is nowhere near me. And I don't need to regroup yet.

Seriously, you're not a 40 year old man, you don't have a degree, and I doubt you served in any army whatsoever. You can't speak English, you can't debate; and you certainly don't have a clue about the international affairs of the last decade.
It's painfully obvious you're clueless. Shouting silly insults and making wild boasts isn't going to make you look clever. Actually coming up with a rational paragraph of logical debate might. I doubt you can do that, so I'm off for a coffee.

Once again: have a nice life, you loser.

[gingis khan]

Mmmm, garbled tosh.

define "polite"! define "rude"(i have my own deffinition),

How about you let the Oxford English Dictionary do your defining for you? If we're going to be discussing this in English, let's use the English definitions. Otherwise we're just using the same words to say different things; if you want to play that game, then you'll have to go find a different playground to do it in.

Some random babbling which might be trying to quote me, or might be trying to say something useful. Who cares? It's utter tripe and it doesn't contain any meaningful points

Do you know I'm pro-Blair? Even if I was would that mean I was pro-every-Blair-policy-choice? For a man who claims to be so educated, you sure are into dumb assumptions.
Good to see that you do 'demand' all UK and US citizens are disqualified from logical argument; y'know with all that logical argument that you didn't have to back the propostion up... I believe the moon is made from magical cheese. Ridiculous? I don't care, I don't need logic to prove ridiculous assertions! Welcome to Pixie Land!
Seriously, if you're here to debate, then debate. Right now you're just shouting your opinion and hoping we suddenly change our minds. That's what children do, not educated debating men. You're like Take2Out, but not amusing.

I'M HONOURED MATHEMATICIAN , 40 YRS OLD, GENERAL MANAGER IN INTL. LOGISTIC COMPANY (SOUTH-EAST ERUPEAN COMPANY) , SNIPERIST BY VOCATION...WASTED 12 YANKIES DURIN THE AGGRESSION AGAINST MY COUTRY (WITH A BABY DOUGHTER AT HOUSE).....SO MY OVERSIZED DICK IS IN YOUR THROUGHT(DEEP) ... NOW WHAT? ... - regroup you silly clown!!!!

Oh wow, did they not teach you how to spell 'European' while you were planning trans-national logistics? Some firm you got there...
Must have been a good uni too, to teach you such well honed debating skills... or not.
And what's this?! A man who served in the national army of a nation recently convicted of genocide; well now there is something to be proud of. You alledge to have shot several Americans acting to legally (yep, go check the UN resolutions and ICJ decisions. Legal) prevent sustained programmes of genocide and ethnic cleansing. We definitely respect you more now. Sarcasm? What's that?

So no. Your teeny tiny little pee-pee is nowhere near me. And I don't need to regroup yet.

Seriously, you're not a 40 year old man, you don't have a degree, and I doubt you served in any army whatsoever. You can't speak English, you can't debate; and you certainly don't have a clue about the international affairs of the last decade.
It's painfully obvious you're clueless. Shouting silly insults and making wild boasts isn't going to make you look clever. Actually coming up with a rational paragraph of logical debate might. I doubt you can do that, so I'm off for a coffee.

Once again: have a nice life, you loser.

last two nations convicted of GENOCIDE are usa + hitler's germany....no other nation can "brag" abouth that.last few "genocide and ethnic cleansing" were "shows" on PRIVATE global netnorks you people watch. STAGED ONES...YOU MIND!

[gingis khan]

and YES!!!!! They repetedlly tried their best to teach me......more then spelling!

[Dancing Mustard]

Oh look, here's the International Court of Justice's decision about Serbian Genocide, straight from their website.
If I'm not mistaken, their fith decision states this:

(5) by twelve votes to three,
Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred
in Srebrenica in July 1995;

So not just a staged genocide after all then? Sounds pretty real to me.
Still proud of being a 'sniperist', still proud of furthering that cause? Don't you look quite the fool now eh?

Here's the full judgement if you care to educate yourself further. I doubt somebody with a maths degree that they made up off the top of their head will have a problem with it. Still less a person who is employed by a 'Eurpen Logistics' company:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/91/ ... 396f2f11ee

Don't suppose you have the link to a judgement convicting the USA of genocide do you? I've never read one y'see. What, you don't? Well why is that I wonder? Perhaps it's because you're just making it up... Perhaps it's because no such thing exists, and once again you're just shouting random untruths in the hope that we believe you.

So bad luck again. You failed to logically respond to any of my previous points (apparently they were too much for you). Once again you just shouted made-up stuff with no logical or factual backing. Well done, that's how all the other 40 year olds I know act..... not.

Have fun in dream-land kiddo
Come back when you next feel like having your ass handed to you.

[gingis khan]

Oh look, here's the International Court of Justice's decision about Serbian Genocide, straight from their website.
If I'm not mistaken, their fith decision states this:

(5) by twelve votes to three,
Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred
in Srebrenica in July 1995;

So not just a staged genocide after all then? Sounds pretty real to me.
Still proud of being a 'sniperist', still proud of furthering that cause? Don't you look quite the fool now eh?

Here's the full judgement if you care to educate yourself further. I doubt somebody with a maths degree that they made up off the top of their head will have a problem with it. Still less a person who is employed by a 'Eurpen Logistics' company:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/91/ ... 396f2f11ee

Don't suppose you have the link to a judgement convicting the USA of genocide do you? I've never read one y'see. What, you don't? Well why is that I wonder? Perhaps it's because you're just making it up... Perhaps it's because no such thing exists, and once again you're just shouting random untruths in the hope that we believe you.

So bad luck again. You failed to logically respond to any of my previous points (apparently they were too much for you). Once again you just shouted made-up stuff with no logical or factual backing. Well done, that's how all the other 40 year olds I know act..... not.

Have fun in dream-land kiddo
Come back when you next feel like having your ass handed to you.

YOU TOOK OUT A PARAGRAPH OUT OF A 170 PAGE DOCUMENT.... U DANCIN' SOMETHING..... WHAT ABOUT NATIVE INDIANS( DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK)?

[Dancing Mustard]

Gingis, I think your caps-lock button is broken again. Good job I noticed that before you embarassed yourself eh?

It's not my fault that I found the piece of the document that succinctly stated the position of the court. Judgements are long things, especially in international cases. What did you expect?
I've read the whole document before (it took some time); I just went and picked out the bit that proves my point; you want me to paste the whole thing in here for you? Trust me, it'll tell you the same thing.

Still not seeing anything that convicts America of Genocide though. Wrong as the war against Native Americans was, you haven't found me anything that proves it as a legally recognised genocide. Come back when you do, until then you just have to accept you're wrong.

Have fun making stuff up to reply with Borat!

[Guiscard]

You're both a bit wrong really...

Serbia has actually had the genocide convictionoverturned (but there is still a conviction under international law for failing to prevent Srebrenica).

America, on the other hand, has never been tried or convicted of genocide under international law. Critics and scholars have suggested that various American actions should be considered genocide, but it has no basis in international law.

[civver]

America, on the other hand, has never been tried or convicted of genocide under international law. Critics and scholars have suggested that various American actions should be considered genocide, but it has no basis in international law.

And so has other nations.

[Dancing Mustard]

You're both a bit wrong really...

Serbia has actually had the genocide convictionoverturned (but there is still a conviction under international law for failing to prevent Srebrenica).

Heh, nearly Guis; but I'm afraid that this time, you're a bit wrong.
If you read the quote I put in, you'll find I was saying that Serbia has been convicted of 'failing to prevent genocide' (as you already know), not for actually perpetrating genocide directly. The issue turned on the degree of control that the Serbian government had over the forces perpetrating the 'cleansing'l and unfortuneatly a direct enough link couldn't be proved.
So you're a bit wrong. I never said Serbia had been convicted of directly perpetrating genocide. Sorry you didn't pick up on that.
The offence it was convicted of however, amounts to pretty much the same thing, but without a directly identifiable chain of command. It's very much a technical point; trust me, the judgement says as much.

[Guiscard]

You're both a bit wrong really...

Serbia has actually had the genocide convictionoverturned (but there is still a conviction under international law for failing to prevent Srebrenica).

Heh, nearly Guis; but I'm afraid that this time, you're a bit wrong.
If you read the quote I put in, you'll find I was saying that Serbia has been convicted of 'failing to prevent genocide' (as you already know), not for actually perpetrating genocide directly. The issue turned on the degree of control that the Serbian government had over the forces perpetrating the 'cleansing'l and unfortuneatly a direct enough link couldn't be proved.
So you're a bit wrong. I never said Serbia had been convicted of directly perpetrating genocide. Sorry you didn't pick up on that.
The offence it was convicted of however, amounts to pretty much the same thing, but without a directly identifiable chain of command. It's very much a technical point; trust me, the judgement says as much.

Fair enough then. I only read the post at the top of the page (did just say convicted of genocide)and then the response.

[Dancing Mustard]

Heh, no worries.

[gingis khan]

help me understand one thing , please (Guiscard). HYPOTETICALY , you and me "design" a crisis in order to occupy soverign (EUROPEAN , mind you) country. we occupy a big chunck (chatholic and muslim held) promising them their own countries ( gasp!!!!) we do not enter Serbia (of course) , nor ever will (meybe over their dead bodies....as usual) . we get stuck in bosnia with 40.000-50.000 of our supersonic soldiers ( in the middle of a civil war , that WE satarted) .after endles list of our ( yours and mine) f*ck ups , we , somehow acuse a sovering country ( one HARD border away!!!!!??????!!!!!) for "FAILING TO PREVENT" A HORIFIC EPISODE (one of many) in a civil war you and i started ON THE THERITORY YOU AND I OCCUPIED AND HOLD (TO THIS DAY , MIND YOU).SO....wtf (excuse mu french) lame conviction is 'failing to prevent genocide' .....who ....where....how?Just , hypoteticaly of course , what are we talkin about?

[Iliad]

help me understand one thing , please (Guiscard). HYPOTETICALY , you and me "design" a crisis in order to occupy soverign (EUROPEAN , mind you) country. we occupy a big chunck (chatholic and muslim held) promising them their own countries ( gasp!!!!) we do not enter Serbia (of course) , nor ever will (meybe over their dead bodies....as usual) . we get stuck in bosnia with 40.000-50.000 of our supersonic soldiers ( in the middle of a civil war , that WE satarted) .after endles list of our ( yours and mine) f*ck ups , we , somehow acuse a sovering country ( one HARD border away!!!!!??????!!!!!) for "FAILING TO PREVENT" A HORIFIC EPISODE (one of many) in a civil war you and i started ON THE THERITORY YOU AND I OCCUPIED AND HOLD (TO THIS DAY , MIND YOU).SO....wtf (excuse mu french) lame conviction is 'failing to prevent genocide' .....who ....where....how?Just , hypoteticaly of course , what are we talkin about?

Ginghis khan I introduce you to grammar

ginghis, grammar
Grammar, ginghis.
I don't believe you have met.

[gingis khan]

Also , ask Holland's government "who failed to do what" , please

[Iliad]

Also , ask Holland's government "who failed to do what" , please

I'm serious your grammar(I realize English might not be your first language) makes it very hard to read your post. Very hard.