BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 09:28 AM

Nor indeed the harsh reality it describes.

No.
It was written by a couple of comics for a sitcom.
It does not describe reality. It is a joke.

Hastings is just one historian.
I have hardly used him as a source. All the others say essentially the same anyway.
That is where my knowledge comes from.

Yours comes from a sitcom, a half remembered comment by a non-historian on a quiz show, and what you think you remember from your school history.

In your ignorant stupidity you put that up against the life's work of professional historians.

You are a sniggering, giggling buffoon, pontificating about something you know nothing about.

Oh no!
I have made a cunt of you again.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 09:06 AM

There's a good poem recited on the BBC iPlayer website, all about WW1.

I assume it is the same BBC as Keith bows at the altar of?

It goes,

Well you know how it goes, silly!


Boom Boom a Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom a Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom a Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom a Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom a Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom a Boom Boom Boom Boom


The a was added by me for artistic effect, though I don't think I match the pathos of the original.

Nor indeed the harsh reality it describes.

As far as Keith is concerned, the only concession to reality he proposes is that "mistakes were made." This, by the way is the legal wording politicians utter when they mean they were caught fiddling.

In the meantime, I gave a link to his beloved Max Hastings defending the idea of firing squads for those realised the reality wasn't what they had been told, and in the same article, if he couldn't sink any lower, said that it was right to castrate Alan Turing, possibly the most important man in ending WW2 for being gay. Keith chose to ignore it. Funny that. It was from the website of The Daily M* il! the only British newspaper to support Herr Hitler in the '30s. Hastings feels comfortable writing his views there these days.

Hastings shows himself to be a Nasty lying twisting little shit.

Are you sure you still support him Keith? I didn't have to get that view of him from any eminent historian, I judged him by his outpu
To same as I judge the events of WW1 by reading lots of accounts, not just those I am politically comfortable with. Even then, revisionist ones.

I know his politics are a bit right wing but you don't need to lionise the creep and his revisionist bullshit just for being comfortable with his outlook.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 08:43 AM

If any one of your "historians", publishing their revision of someone else's revision of jingoistic government propagandists revisions, had stood in the trenches with the like of Owen and Sassoon, they might be more credible.

They would now be dead silly!
Why put historians in quotes.
That is their profession, and they rely on contemporary sources from the men who did stand in the trenches.
They find that Sassoon and Owen were very unrepresentative of them.

Why not do some reading and find this out for yourself.
You could start with the BBC site I linked to.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 08:00 AM

"So arrogant in you ignorance that you put your knowledge (!) above that of all those professional historians for whom this is their life's work."

If any one of your "historians", publishing their revision of someone else's revision of jingoistic government propagandists revisions, had stood in the trenches with the like of Owen and Sassoon, they might be more credible.

But they get their experience of trench warfare second or third hand and their opinions are barely more acceptable than Shakespeare's Tudor inspired hunchback Richard III.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 07:36 AM

"If that was not the point being made in response to the post of mine copied & purportedly being answered, then what was, please?"

The point was, and is, that viewed from the point of view of Muslims, the UK is no less a Christian country than Iran is an Islamic one.

Context is everything, and the Western context is one of vociferous and often fundamental Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 06:04 AM

How could you join in Musket?
You do not know anything, and you can find no-one with any knowledge to back up your made up claims because they are shit.

My knowledge comes from studying History.
You have to make up shit.
Just an ignorant buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket giggling
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 05:36 AM

His contributions are similar to yours. The difference being I put his in a small bag and carry them for him.

Thus I hold them in fine reverence.

Dream on and enjoy your military nostalgia. You don't mind if decent people don't join in eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 05:25 AM

Consensus is not subjective.
There is a consensus among historians that I share.

Eminent is subjective.
I use it to mean those selected by the BBC to write their History of the war. Chosen for their eminence and because they are representative of the historical consensus.

And then there is you, the giggling, sniggering know-nothing.
So arrogant in you ignorance that you put your knowledge (!) above that of all those professional historians for whom this is their life's work.

A pity your dog can't post.
He could hardly have less to contribute than you Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 04:34 AM

You'd get on fine with my dog. He has religion.

No, , it's true.

His faith extends to licking his balls but they were lopped off three years ago. Doesn't stop him licking them though.

That's faith that is.



Of course, I reckon faith is subjective.

So is "eminent"

So is "consensus"

I might add the word "Keith" to that list.

Anyway, my dog was born in Kilkenny. His narratives of the period are more concerned with the failures of achieving home rule. He wrote a wonderful essay on the politics of Oliver St John Gogerty.   I prefer to drink in it when I am over. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 02:03 AM

Fair point.
I only have a consensus of the most eminent and representative historians.
Against that Musket, and his dog who has a comparable knowledge and understanding of that period of History.

I have the Historians.
You have your dog.
Woof.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 07:03 PM

Otherwise yes, it is a consensus Musket.

A consensus of six, out of thousands. Of such stuff is Fox News and the U.S. "Tea Party" arseholes made.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 06:32 PM

It isn't because I don't agree.



And I have been paid for writing in a newspaper, just like the retired tabloid editor you swoon over.   I too had a brief about the slant to put on my piece. *

My dog doesn't agree either.

Have you actually checked in a dictionary what consensus actually means?

Look up Butcher of The Somme if you wish. The consensus hacks you mention are recently trying to Bury the title. Revisionism in action.






*Ok. Trade magazines but the "political" brief was there. Playing to the crowd.

If I wrote science fiction I wouldn't have a main character who loved reading science fiction but couldn't get a girlfriend. Likewise I would write military history for those who get their rocks off from reading it, not to shatter their delusion.

Black propaganda anyone?


Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:21 PM

Keith. A consensus of a few military historians reflecting a military view is not a consensus of reality.

It is if there are none who do not have that view.
How many are there Musket?
Give us their names.
Perhaps Jim, or Troubadour, or Greg, or Grishka can supply some?

Otherwise yes, it is a consensus Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:17 PM

Oh, well, Ian: as my late first wife used always to enjoin me when a bit out of patience ~~

PLAY YOUR GAMES...

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 04:30 PM

Easy Michael. Nothing to do with the subject.

Whenever I point at Keith and laugh you come as a knight in shining armour to defend him. Ok, your sword is somewhat wonky and your horse is knackered. Oh, and most knights don't need the nurse etc etc (insert insult as appropriate. )

I am merely preempting your disdain, saving you the trouble.




Keith. A consensus of a few military historians reflecting a military view is not a consensus of reality. If I wrote a book on military history, I'd aim it at people who want to read military history.

There. A grown up answer and didn't call you poo pants once. Or a fucking idiot. Or question your use of brain cells or laugh at your pick n mix interpretation of faith.

I must be getting soft.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 03:07 PM

Musket, the consensus has yet to be broken by any of you.
Jim, the historians have studied the letters and diaries and reported their findings.
I reported them here.
Your list of 14 does not come from any historian, or have you identified a source?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 02:36 PM

Sorry, Ian. But I have no recollection of asking any question on that topic, or even referring to that journal. So why was the remark at end of your penultimate post addressed to me?

More & more puzzled...!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket Adding to list
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 02:29 PM

Don't forget Keith's favourite read, The Daily M*il.





That's what I meant Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 02:24 PM

In he case of WWII, though Hitler was out of hand and psychopathic, there were too many institutions, banks, agencies that supported him in the early days in both the US and Britain.
Bank of America is one.

& George Dumbya Bush's grandpa is another.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 01:56 PM

Yes you are what? Sorry, but you have lost me.

Oh woe -- lost o lost. Lost beyond recall!

usw

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket paging Keith
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 01:32 PM

Here Keith, that consensus word is getting a bit stretched isn't it?

Hello?

Keith?





Oh. I suppose keeping quiet is a honourable way of apologising.





Dear Michael,

Yes I am. But it serves a purpose as well as being somewhat cathartic.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 01:13 PM

Im the absence of a reply, these are extracts from the sleeve blurb, introduction and an autobiographical account of his taking part in and being wounded at The Battle of Loos in 1915, by the great Irish poet and writer
More lies, no doubt
Jim Carroll

THE GREAT PUSH
Written from the trenches of Flanders, this book is MacGill's great war classic, and rivals in stature his well-known and brilliant socialist novel, CHILDREN OF THE DEAD END. Hailed as a minor masterpiece of war writing when it was first published in 1916, THE GREAT PUSH is a ferocious and passionate tour-de-force rivalling in its power the greatest of all war literature. Nowhere has everyman ever found a more compelling voice to describe his experience of war — the fear, the total destructiveness, the humour, and the profound existential sense of life lived bloodily on the edge of death in one of the most terrifying wars ever to have been waged.
THE GREAT PUSH is the sequel to THE RED HORIZON and ends with MacGill being wounded and returned to England, marking his permanent exit from the war. The book will not only interest war historians but all those who wish to understand human behaviour and endeavour in one of the most extreme situations ever known to man.
THE justice of the cause which endeavours to achieve its object by the murdering and maiming of mankind is apt to be doubted by a man who has come through a bayonet charge. The dead lying on the fields seem to ask, " Why has this been done to us ? Why have you done it, brothers ? What purpose has it served ? " The battle- line is a secret world, a world of curses. The guilty secrecy of war is shrouded in lies, and shielded by bloodstained swords; to know it you must be one of those who wage it, a party to dark and mysterious orgies of carnage. War is the purge of repleted kingdoms, needing a close place for its operations.
I have tried in this book to give, as far as I am allowed, an account of an attack in which I took part. Practically the whole book was written in the scene of action, and the chapter dealing with our night at Les Brebis, prior to the Big Push, was written in the trench between midnight and dawn of September the 25th; the concluding chapter in the hospital at Versailles two days after I had been wounded at Loos.
PATRICK MACGILL.

..............
there. . . . The line of wounded stretches from Lens to Victoria Station on this side, and from Lens to Berlin on the other side. . . . How many thousand dead are there in the fields round there ? . . . There will be many more, for the battle of Loos is still proceeding. . . . Who is going to benefit by the carnage, save the rats which feed now as they have never fed before ? . . . What has brought about this turmoil, this tragedy that cuts the heart of friend and foe alike ? . . . Why have millions of men come here from all corners of Europe to hack and slay one
another ? What mysterious impulse guided them to this maiming, murdering, gouging, gassing, and filled them with such hatred ? Why do we use the years of peace in preparation for war ? Why do men well over the military age hate the Germans more than the younger and more sober souls in the trenches ? Who has profited by this carnage ? Who will profit ? Why have some men joined in the war for freedom ? "
Suddenly I was overcome with a fit of laughter, and old Mac woke up.
" What the devil are you kicking up such a row for ? " he grumbled.
,f Do you remember B , the fellow
whose wound you dressed one night a week ago ? Bald as a trout, double chin and a shrapnel wound in his leg. He belonged to
the          Regiment."
" I remember him," said Mac.
" I knew him in civil life," I said. " He
kept a house of some repute in         . The
sons of the rich came there secretly at night; the poor couldn't afford to. Do you believe
that B joined the Army in order to
redress the wrongs of violated Belgium ? " Mac sat up on the floor, his Balaclava helmet pulled down over his ears, and winked at me.
" Ye're drunk, ye bounder, ye're drunk," he said. " Just like all the rest, mon. We'll have no teetotallers after the war."

……………pitiful lying there, His face close to the wires, a thousand bullets in his head. Unable to resist the impulse I endeavoured to turn His face upward, but was unable ; a barb had pierced His eye and stuck there, rusting in the socket from which sight was gone. I turned and ran away from the thing into the bay of the trench. The glory of the dawn had vanished, my soul no longer swooned in the ecstasy of it; the Pleiades had risen, sick of that which they decorated, the glorious disarray of jewelled dew-drops was no more, that which endured the full light of day was the naked and torturing contraption of war. Was not the dawn buoyant, like the dawn of patriotism ? Were not the dew-decked wires war seen from far off ? Was not He in wreath of Pleiades glorious death in action ? But a ray of light more, and what is He and all with Him but the monstrous futility of war. . . „ Mac tugged at my shoulder and I awoke.
" Has the shelling begun ? " I asked.
" It's over, mon," he said. " It's four o'clock now. You'll be goin' awa' from here in a minute or twa."
" And these wounded ? " I asked, looking round. Groaning and swearing they lay on their stretchers and in bloodstained blankets, their ghastly eyes fixed upon the roof. They had not been in when I fell asleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 01:11 PM

Soldiers never really analyze in detail why they go to war. They are induced to do so by pressures due to their upbringing, their families and some misguided morality that says they have to fight for the country otherwise they are not good people.

Wars can be alleviated through diplomatic means. The point being is that these means are never really tried, despite the Chamberlain illusions about Hitler.

The reason that they're never tried is because of the armament industry which capitalizes
on war and has too much power in the US.

In he case of WWII, though Hitler was out of hand and psychopathic, there were too many institutions, banks, agencies that supported him in the early days in both the US and Britain.
Bank of America is one.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 12:58 PM

It is certainly relevant.

Cultural ties are a two way street. The "enlightened" agnostic majority are crap at looking after their old, letting the state do it instead, yet those we almost accuse of being drawn into cultural communities consume their own smoke as it were.

Religion has a part to play in the solution and yet religion is a huge part of the problem. But try telling BNP members that St George was a Turk and see how far you get.... Likewise, try telling a joke about the Prophet in front of some.. (I once innocently asked, when on a course about using pictorial inspection reports so service users with learning disabilities could easily understand them, how we would depict the Prophet should it be pertinent to the report? Took me weeks to wriggle out of the issues that raised....

Social mobility and increasing / redistributing wealth is as good an answer as any. Better than the UKIP apologists amongst us can come up with anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 12:41 PM

"over 94% of British Muslims were born here so have as much right..."
.,,.
Yes; but that hasn't prevented most of the Islamist attackers of Fusilier Rigby, 7/7, &c, from being drawn from precisely that demographic.

Honestly not trying to start a fight here; but just saying as seems relevant...

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 12:26 PM

Not me.

I'm not a Christian, neither is my mate Tahir, in fact neither are you, as you say. Yet you and I are seen by many as at the very least culturally Christian. I resent such titles, although Tahir wouldn't mind being seen as a Muslim. Especially as whenever you want to catch him on a Friday, he is usually down at prayers.

It is a fact that legally speaking, we are a theocracy. Constitutionally, that puts us in a club with Iran and unless someone knows better, no other place. Even Saudi Arabia aren't daft enough to give the theocrats total control.

Our legal status has two problems. First we are a multicultural society and have had Muslims, Jews, Hindu etc British citizens for hundreds of years. I read one statistic recently that over 94% of British Muslims were born here so have as much right as the right, as it were.

Second, it gives Church of England senior staff thinking they have the right to address all people, not just their members. There's a bloke who stands outside the hospital entrance I see most mornings who rants at the moon, people walking past and the pavement, poor sod. Technically, he has as much right to influence me as any Bishop. And yet.... The Lords Spiritual can vote in the Lords and therefore influence parliament. Rather more loudly than the ineffectual backbencher in the commons in my case. And don't get me started about our EuroMP. Keith's ex mate, Godfrey soddin' Bloom.

I like the word disestablishmentarianism on two levels, both as a word that Apple don't understand (see the red underlining for details) and for the fact that the church they represent has no mandate other than to the 1% or so who go in for a warm on a Sunday morning.... And then only at their behest...



Hey Keith! Have you looked up consensus yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 11:39 AM

Not quite clear to me what point is being made by 'Guest' [is it you, Musket?] at 1112. The fact that the Church of England is 'Established' doesn't mean that all English people are members of it, or subscribe to its doctrines, or are even 'Church people' [Christians] at all.

If that was not the point being made in response to the post of mine copied & purportedly being answered, then what was, please?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 11:26 AM

Some Brits look down their noses and denigrate Islamic theocracies, using the foulest of pejoratives ("rag heads", etc. etc.)

At the same time they ignore, or are too stupid to recognise that their own country is a theocracy, with an established Church which plays a significant part in its government.

The only difference is that UK Ayatollahs aren't very good at their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 11:12 AM

"I fear you miss my point, Ian. The press campaign persecutors who were being complained of on that Muslim website were indeed UK-ers; but nowhere in the link you provided does the word "Christian" appear, nor any attempt at identification of the persecutors' beliefs or religious practices; and it was tendentiously & provocatively disingenuous of you to call the link "Christian persecution..."."

Did we miss the disestablishment of the C of E, or is the above just another spin job.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 10:57 AM

"Jim, we know why men volunteered because we have their letters and diaries."
You have not produced any here, nor have you produced a single reference why the majority joined nor the feelings of the survivors who returned.
You have been given a fully documented and referenced list of 14 reasons why men enlisted, the moral blackmail of the white feather, the pretended romance of army life (dealt with in full in several accounts) the glamour of the uniform, unemployment, being forced to enlist by employers...... all fully documented and historically accepted facts.
From the outset you were aware that these soldiers diaries were extremely as far as the general public are concerned - the oral account you have had described you referred to as "lies" - so much for the veracity of the accounts from veterans as far as you are concerned, unless they fit in with your bigoted jingoistic agenda of course.
None of your so-called historians have made any claim whatever on why the majority, or any particular portion of soldiers enlisted - the nearest you have come to any sort of conclusion is "I do not accept that those reasons were significant for many people" - doesn't hack it as evidence, just bigoted agenda chasing.
Debunking genuine historians as 'revisionist' (a term you have fallen foul of before) because they don't toe your flag-waving line doesn't do great deal for your case either.
You want to show that the majority enlisted to defend a genocidal Imperial power (another fact you have tiptoed around) show us your evidence (before you say it - no you most certainly haven't).
You want us to believe your 'historians' back up your anachronistic claims - show us their evidence (before you say it - no you most certainly haven't).
Otherwise are the same extremist froth they have always been
(Have I kept this brief enough for you?)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 10:29 AM

Totally agree. Never said anything different. I would add, as I have done that whilst the thugs carrying out the dirty work perceive them as Christian, and the media allow for the extra shock value of having you mentally compare them to sweet old ladies organising a beetle drive in the church hall.....

The ones ordering the persecution invariably use the time honoured political stance of finding a large but not too large minority to let people blame for their ills, rather than the blame laying at the door of the ones in charge.

You see Putin with gay people, Eastern European governments with the Romany, Israelis with Palestinians, Palestinians with Israelis, UK governments with unions and in general, holy war has to be against other ideologies..

Nothing deep or meaningful, just happens, we all know it happens.

Of course, try telling Keith it is anything but because they are Christians. Go on, it's alright. I can get the posts up easily enough if he wriggles out of his own stupidity.

As I said, dragging it back to this thread. You use propaganda to fire up your soldiers to think their cause is noble. Snag is, the other side do too....

Oh shit, Musket had a song coming on, where's my earplugs?

The Second World War boys, it came and it went.
We forgave the Germans and now we are friends.
Though they murdered six million,
In the ovens they fried.
The Germans now too have,
God on their side.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 10:10 AM

The point you are missing, Ian, is that those referred to as being 'persecuted' are being so because those persecuting perceive them as being "Christian". Whether they are actually so in any practising/practical sense, or how they came to be so perceived [documentation &c], beside the point. The intention of the persecutors is to "get" the Xtns.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 09:59 AM

But, you can't actually find a single dissenting historian.
Funny that Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 09:51 AM

More than the majority view, it is unanimous!

As I said - pure delusion. And absolute horseshit into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 09:41 AM

I could have said playing to the crowd Michael.. The effect is the same.

Take Keith's last post as an excellent example. If Clapton forbid, you are I had our houses burnt down by a mob of young men of Pakistani origin, a newspaper in any given country, should it be bizarrely newsworthy, refer to it as Christian persecution.

He however only refers to actual Christians being persecuted. A surgeon friend of mine got out of Iraq during the Sadam years, as his house had been bulldozed and him detained for six months as part of what was reported as a concerted persecution campaign against Christians. He managed to drive with family into Kuwait and eventually secured a consultant post here.

Funnily enough, his family and most of the people in his part of town who had been set upon were seen as Christians and had been told on their identity papers that if they weren't Sunni or S'hia they had to put Christian. Turns out he is about as religious as me, whilst his wife has become a Christian since getting here.

One story in millions of course, but Keith's view that everybody being persecuted as a Christian is actually under a god delusion whilst Somehow saying you can't identify thugs by inferring a religion based on stereotyping their background is laughable. Or would be if the reality wasn't so brutal.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 08:39 AM

From: GUEST,Musket dumbing down - PM
.,,.
Well, you said it, matey!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 08:02 AM

But, we only call the victims Christians when they are Christians.

How is that "stupidity" but calling perpetrators Christians when they are not is not "stupidity"???

Or am I being stupid?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket dumbing down
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 07:47 AM

Of course it didn't say Christian. I said Christian...

If you would just read what I put, it isn't difficult, unless I accidentally got it right and you are waiting for nurse to call.

I was pointing out the stupidity of calling victims Christians. By calling perpetrators Christians by the same logic, I was exposing the absurdity for what it is.

But you knew that.

I suggest a sprinkle of Demerara sugar on the mashed banana, it adds crunch and a complimentary texture to the dish. Watching Masterchef has it's uses.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 06:11 AM

I fear you miss my point, Ian. The press campaign persecutors who were being complained of on that Muslim website were indeed UK-ers; but nowhere in the link you provided does the word "Christian" appear, nor any attempt at identification of the persecutors' beliefs or religious practices; and it was tendentiously & provocatively disingenuous of you to call the link "Christian persecution...".

You cocked up: not all that seriously, but making an unjustified accusation nonetheless. You would appear in much better light, it seems to me, to man up & admit to this. Matters are scarcely mended by the facetious tone of your replies to my pointing out of this simple fact, which I think merits a more serious admission on your part.

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Muskety wuskety
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:33 AM

Ok poppet.

I posted on the persecuting Christians thread the other day. I referred to a BBC report where UK Muslims were being persecuted, such as violence, threats and vandalism of mosques which were not being investigated or, even sadder, not being reported as people don't have faith in the police.

I pointed out that Christians were attacking Muslims.

If anybody has an issue with that, and I do for one, then it is illogical not to have an issue with grouping victims as Christians. Keith tries telling us that all the ones he refers to are being persecuted for their belief in their particular God. That is putting Christianity on a pedestal it doesn't deserve. It also glosses over being the perceived largest minority grouping in some countries or the played on association with western military interventions. The grunts at the front may have been told that their Belief and way of life is being threatened, but the reasons are far more temporal.

A bit like WW1 come to think of it....




Now, back to your mashed banana. Nurse will be along shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:07 AM

OK, Popgun-Flower -- so how about an answer to the point I made about your - ah - equivocal invention of any "Christian" element on the Persecution thread then? ~~ if you're awake enough by now, my pwetty ickle Popsicle!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 02:43 AM

" discredited "historical" writers"

Discredited by who Greg?
That is a libellous lie.

"ignoring the majority view"

Another lie Greg.
More than the majority view, it is unanimous!

"and the facts of the situation."

Established facts is what I provide.
You people make all your stuff up.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 02:43 AM

You're the one with the hyper bollocks, petal.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 02:00 AM

Greg, my views derive from a lifetime of reading everything I could find on this subject but, if more than six of the most eminent and representative historians is not enough form an opinion, why no criticism of those who have found NONE AT ALL?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 11:54 PM

There there, Musky-me-darlin': I know you are a bit niggled with me for showing up your hyperbolical hypocritical evasiveness on the 'persecution' thread!. Now go back to sleepy-byes...

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 07:59 PM

I formed a view based on reported historical fact.
That is why historians have the same view.

No, you formed your bias on the basis of the minority view of a half-dozen discredited "historical" writers, ignoring the majority view and the facts of the situation.

But that's your right. Everyone has a right to their own delusion.

\Asalong as they don't attempt to present it as fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 06:14 PM

Is a knockdown the same as a put down?

You know, like for instance belittling someone for spelling errors instead of the meat of what they say?

Keith is perfectly capable of showing us what a complete prat he is without you assuming he is your apprentice.

Shouldn't you be tucked up with Horlicks by this time? Hang on, I spelt that wrong. Should have been bollocks not Horlicks.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:57 PM

'Good thing for Kieth's "argument", eh? Otherwise he might have to face reality.'
.,,.

My, what a valuable & convincing knockdown post - er - Gerg.

~Mcihela~

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:49 PM

I do not have an argument in this one Greg.

I formed a view based on reported historical fact.
That is why historians have the same view.
That is why you can not find one that disagrees with me.
What does that tell you Greg?

You people make up a narrative that suits your preconceptions but has no basis in fact.
Lies actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 04:28 PM

The dead don't get to complain, do they?

Good thing for Kieth's "argument", eh? Otherwise he might have to face reality.