HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is worse than I had anticipated.

We are witnessing the rebirth of Huey P Newton. Everyone go get your weapons and get ready for a revolution.


The blackman's emancipation from mental slavery is at hand.

Our messiah has arrived. All hail Cap28!!



   

YOUR B.I.T.CH A.R. SE. have given up and laid down in the fetal position already.

you might as well turn over and give up that nasty a, rse  to the      white man.  coward

MandingoII:

YOUR B.I.T.CH A.R. SE. have given up and laid down in the fetal position already.

you might as well turn over and give up that nasty a, rse to the white man. coward

cap28:

^^^^^

I prefer to read the works of noam chomsky and michael engdahl - these are REAL intellectuals, people who  actually understand whats going on not half baked wanna bes like you, word of advice try and broaden your horizons try reading something by one of those authors - it might help you  start understanding the world you live in
a bit more.

I prefer books by Authors such as
Nelson mandela's "A long walk to freedom,"
Huey P newtons "a radical theorist"
Miton friedman's "Capitalism and freedom"
Malcom x's "By any means necessary"
Max stirner's "the Ego and its own"
Thomas pakenhams : the scramble for Africa"

Notice how broad those authors are up there in terms of subject matter and scope.

maybe "broadening your horizons" will help in understanding that everything in this world is not always "black' or 'white" instead of sticking to books that make you angry!

MandingoII:

YOUR B.I.T.CH A.R. SE. have given up and laid down in the fetal position already.

you might as well turn over and give up that nasty a, rse  to the      white man.  coward

Dingo Dingo

How's your airconditioned apartment and cable t.v. with 300 hundred channels fairing for you or your 22's on your oversized SUV doing with gas prices

They spinning "N*#+GA, THey spinning!!

morpheus24:

Dingo Dingo

How's your airconditioned apartment and cable t.v. with 300 hundred channels fairing for you or your 22's on your oversized SUV doing with gas prices

They spinning "N*#+GA, THey spinning!!

Whats wrong with you dude? why are you so passionate about defending the west, even at the expense of your African brothers? its quite disgusting really. I mean, I understand why you would be gratefull seeing as all the "_{wonderful things}" the west has done for Africa and Africans but you really are taking it too far.
Just stop its ridiculous now.

pleep:

Whats wrong with you dude? why are you so passionate about defending the west, even at the expense of your African brothers? its quite disgusting really. I mean, I understand why you would be gratefull seeing as all the "_{wonderful things}" the west has done for Africa and Africans but you really are taking it too far.
Just stop its ridiculous now.

Show me one statement through all my threads that defends the west or any body in particular.

wake up and pay attention!!

@ morpheus,

The fact is that they only see whats wrong, or at least what they think is wrong without offering any form of workable solution.

^^^ its a difficult situation, but the only expectable solution would be for people in or from the Third World to recognize that western neo-colonialsim exists, and then try not to buy into it. Tt sounds like an extreamly modest result but think, for example, if The government of Niger was aware of neo-colonialism, and thus didnt blindly trust France, they wouldnt have let the french multinational companies only give them 5% of the money earned from selling Nigeren Uranium. And that is far from a modest result.

shotster50:

@ morpheus,

The fact is that they only see whats wrong, or at least what they think is wrong without offering any form of workable solution.

Precisely my point

pleep:

^^^ its a difficult situation, but the only expectable solution would be for people in or from the Third World to recognize that western neo-colonialsim exists, and then try not to buy into it. Tt sounds like an extreamly modest result but think, for example, if The government of Niger was aware of neo-colonialism, and thus didnt blindly trust France, they wouldnt have let the french multinational companies only give them 5% of the money earned from selling Nigeren Uranium. And that is far from a modest result.

The solution has to do a lot less with telling us tales about how the CIA attempted to assasinate Lumumba or information that "neo colonialism' exists or is perpetuated by the West in Africa today. THATS A GIVEN. If your  rational is correct and all that needs to be done is inform "us" of this,  then why have other nations who were at starting points with African countries post independence  FULLY AWARE OF SIMILAR ATROCITIES metted out on them, been able to negotiate better deals with the West. How did they surpass most African countries in terms of development and GDP per capita given the fact that some of them have less resources or even lesser number of "intellectuals" than many African countries.?

There is a reason why so called "puppet governments" in Africa are helpless when it comes to negotiating favorable deals with multi nationals and US strategic interests in Africa. There is a reason why a country would allow itself to be coerced into accepting IMF loan packages to restructure its economy. I dare say, that neo colonialism is but a fraction of the problem and not presenting the problem in its entirety in giving the reader the ability to understand the issue from all sides is doing a diservice to the end goal.  Exarcebating a problem has nothing to do with educating people or attempting  to make them any smarter than they were.

morpheus24:

Show me one statement through all my threads that defends the west or any body in particular.

wake up and pay attention!!

how about this:

morpheus24:

Nothing new as usual. Just the normal Imperialist propagand.The evil Western powers are at it again huh?

The real discussion should be centered on Globilization aspirations vs Protectionist socio-political economies _Benefits, Flaws and dangers there of;

The US needs the Arab world to be destabilized, perfectly good strategy as far as I am concerned. If there is an opposition that exists within a country and their grievances are not addressed in a political manner then by all means they are free to take up arms regardless of who is supplying them those arms with the rewards that come with economic allliances that may exist after the aftermath.

If a leader is not intuned with the times he is living in . he is a relic and needs to make way for a new age of things regardless of how much we think he is keeping is country "STABLE".

My 2 cents

the words of a supposed "intellectual" i laugh i wan die 

pathetic, desperate attempt using unintelligible, meaningless grammar  to defend the indefensible

cap28:

how about this:

the words of a supposed "intellectual" i laugh i wan die 

pathetic, desperate attempt using unintelligible, meaningless grammar  to defend the indefensible

ha ha ha ha!

How can the statement you posted be in support of the US. Look at the second line of the post again and read the entire post in context, dummy!

If Cap 28 visited a prostitution house on a weekly basis because he had HIV and couldn't 'get it" from regular girls and I stated that I understand the reason he does that. Does that constitute "in support of"

To "CONDONE" an action and to "UNDERSTAND" it are two different things

TRY again PUNK!

In defense of white supremacy by morpheus:

morpheus24:

People who use buzz words like agents, imperialist and the likes are so called antagonistic "revolutionist thinkers" who are able to revel up sentimentality and steer up mobs in their self endowed missions of changing the world for the better.

The sad story behind to all  this is that they believe they are rendereing a unique service to their fellowman kind and cast opposing view points or criticisms as agents or slaves to the systems in operation without realizing that they are simply a part of the same EVOLVING flux of SYSTEMS that demands balance and shifts in power structures that will continue to be unevenly distributed till the end of time as a natural state of human kind.


Cap28. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

TO INFORM OR TO INCITE!!

here again is morpheus JUSTIFYING and DEFENDING the atrocious and racist foreign policy of the US:

morpheus24:

Right right! a response attempt to legitimize your premise which is flawed at best. Your premise proposes that the West have hidden agendas regarding their interests in the middle east with particular emphasis on controlling economic activities within these countries that benefit them. Whats new about that?

What  new strategies are you presenting that have not been used already and continue to be used only in different formats. You supporters call this enlightenment. I call it Hollow and a waste of time. 

Here again he agrees that the US are embarking on a neo colonial annexation of libya  BUT in his book it is justified because:

Because it furthers their agenda of penetrating and destabilizing the region as a means of effecting change they wish to see in those regions that would further their grip on economic control of resources they deem necessary to their survival and continued power status.( is that hard to deduce even by a comon uneducated man?)

Because oppositions(which exist by the way within countries) are willing participants in these unholy alliances as a necessary evil to gaining ground in the furtherance of their fight for power rights within their nations. You fail to mention nor analyze this relevant factor( is this harder to deduce?)

He even goes as far as justifying the USs failure to intervene in Rwanda shamelessly defending a group of racists who did not think 1 million african lives were worthy of protection, but strangely enough now think  libyan lives are (could it be the oil reserves located out in the desert):

Because Rwanda had nothing of economic interest to the US that would warrant a speedy intervention in saving the lifes of black Africans who PLEASE NOTE started the war by their own making in the same pursuit of power. ( Much hardest to deduce I am guessing)

the delusional tom then continues on his boot licking mission:

National interest dictates primary targets who are not allies of a nation. Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US as the US provides indirect protection to the mornachy from external regional aggression despite the Kingdoms atrocities. Whats new about that. ?

He then puts the finishing touch to his infinite self hatred here, by castigating me for higlighting the racist, tyrannical behaviour of the US govt towards weaker third world nations and again rushes to their defence by makign the ludicrous claim that the US IS NOT AN IMPERIALIST NATION:

This holier than though attitude you take in terms of governments and societies is what is baffling to me. I suggest running a country of your own and see how you would fair. I bet the world would be a utopia to you where we all shake hands and greet "Salam' to each other while we wipe each others azzes. You like to sit on the side lines and B.I.T.C.H. don't ya. What organization are you a member of? What issues to you address and on what platforms apart from opinionated forums.?


to continue to misguide people into perceptions that paint the US as some IMPERIALIST machine that covertly tramples on the free choice of soverign nations to choose their destiny is FOOLISH and uneducated thinking for one who appoints themselves as truth tellers.[/b]

more excuses in defence of his slave masters- the US govt:

There are several larger factors that contirbute to the overall problem each of these countries face and even if you remove the "intervention" of the US in terms of its national interests these countries problems still remain unsolvable and before you know it they are calling BIGBROTHER to come help them out in the name of HUMANITY.

Again what are you saying that is new information and WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

In addition not only does he himself not offer up any solutions he accuses anyone who dares to highlight the evils of white supremacy as stirring up emotional sentiments and even goes as far as stating that such endeavours serve no purpose.

His recommendations are that africa remain economically and politcally enslaved to the global capitalist economic systems of the IMF, the multinational predators and the world bank - wow thanks morpheus with friends like you does africa really need enemies?

morpheus24:

ha ha ha ha!

How can the statement you posted be in support of the US. Look at the second line of the post again and read the entire post in context, dummy!

If Cap 28 visited a prostitution house on a weekly basis because he had HIV and couldn't 'get it" from regular girls and I stated that I understand the reason he does that. Does that constitute "in support of"

To "CONDONE" an action and to "UNDERSTAND" it are two different things

TRY again PUNK!

i know you are an educated illiterate and therefore use words whose meaning you do not understand, but if you dismiss a person's argument as "imperialist propaganda" does that indicate that you are for or against the west?

also if you describe the west/US stragegy of the destabilisation of the a sovereign state as a "perfectly good strategy as far as you are concerned" does that indicate that you are for or against the west/US's foreign policy?

if you endorse the west/US defence manufacturers policy of supplying arms to BOTH sides in a war - are you for or against western foreign policy?

never have i come across anyone as dumb as you in my life.

cap28:

In defense of white supremacy by morpheus:

here again is morpheus JUSTIFYING and DEFENDING the atrocious and racist foreign policy of the US:

State the specifics i.e the specific line "in defense of"

TO CONDONE and to UNDERSTAND an action are two different things

cap28:


Here again he agrees that the US are embarking on a neo colonial annexation of libya  BUT in his book it is justified because:

Stating that a restatement of a "problem" is old news as regurgitated by angry black supremacist youngsters does not consititute "condoning it"

Again TO CONDONE and to UNDERSTAND a subject matter are two different things

cap28:


He even goes as far as justifying the USs failure to intervene in Rwanda shamelessly defending a group of racists who did not think 1 million african lives were worthy of protection, but strangely enough now think  libyan lives are (could it be the oil reserves located out in the desert):

Trying to garrner support by appealing to the emotions of the reader in refuting US foreign policy action in Africa "Rwanda vs Libya" is disingenious to the  audience.  The attempt to stare emotions by recallling gruesome massacres is the easiest way to sway a readers opinion. Cap28 believes that acknowledging the fact that the US did not intervene in Rwanda's ordeal and did in Libya's case constitutes "FULL SUPPORT OF THE ACTION"

Elementary thinking!

TO CONDONE an action and to UNDERSTAND a subject matter are two different things.

cap28:


He then puts the finishing touch to his infinite self hatred here, by castigating me for higlighting the racist, tyrannical behaviour of the US govt towards weaker third world nations and again rushes to their defence by makign the ludicrous claim that the US IS NOT AN IMPERIALIST NATION:

I urge the readers to cast away sentimentality in employing arguementative premises regarding this subject matter. It clouds judgment and is nothing more than an exercise in machismosim. The person who barks the loudest and tells the most gruesome of tales is not the more intelligent.

Unequivocably stating that the "US IS AN IMPERIALIST" country has nothing to do with educating African people.

cap28:


In addition not only does he himself not offer up any solutions he accuses anyone who dares to highlight the evils of white supremacy as stirring up emotional sentiments and even goes as far as stating that such endeavours serve no purpose.

I further urge the audience not to entertain frivolous discussions about "white supremacy" in the guise of US foreign policy actions. The poster lacks insight into his cognitive limitations

cap28:


His recommendations are that africa remain economically and politcally enslaved to the global capitalist economic systems of the IMF, the multinational predators and the world bank - wow thanks morpheus with friends like you does africa really need enemies?

This is coming from an individual who has never been inside a UN building in his entire life,
Can't name one deparment that exists with its body, what its function is, how decisions are made, what information goes into making those decisions , who is involved,
Never commanded a group of soldiers in defence of anything, never stepped on a battle field to wage war against an opponent, Isn't a member of any Humanitarian NGO's doing anything in Africa, never participated in any volunteer missions to save any African lives.  

Yet we are to believe this individual cares for the lifes of the Rwandans that were killed and truly knows all the facts consistent with insinuations of PUPPET MASTERS

Expose yourself for what you are. A disgruntles black supremacist angry youngster who sits powerless in his UK aparment, paying taxes to an imperialist goverment that he points fingers at. Making a living under the same IMPERIALIST protections, putting his money into the same institutions that are blamed for destroying the economies of Africa and buying products from the same multinationals that he accuses of atrocities

This is not an exercise in support of anyting. Its an exercise in HYPROCRISY. Read between the lines

TRY AGAIN PUNK!

cap28:

i know you are an educated illiterate and therefore use words whose meaning you do not understand, but if you dismiss a person's argument as "imperialist propaganda" does that indicate that you are for or against the west?

You left out the Logic in comparison:

"If Cap 28 visited a prostitution house on a weekly basis because he had HIV and couldn't 'get it" from regular girls and I stated that I understand the reason he does that. Does that constitute "in support of"

cap28:


also if you describe the west/US stragegy of the destabilisation of the a sovereign state as a "perfectly good strategy as far as you are concerned" does that indicate that you are for or against the west/US's foreign policy?

Logic:

"If Cap 28 visited a prostitution house on a weekly basis because he had HIV and couldn't 'get it" from regular girls and I stated that I understand the reason he does that. Does that constitute "in support of"

cap28:


if you endorse the west/US defence manufacturers policy of supplying arms to BOTH sides in a war - are you for or against western foreign policy?

never have i come across anyone as dumb as you in my life.

ENDORSE: to approve openly especially : to express "support or approval of publicly and definitely" 

Logic:

"If Cap 28 visited a prostitution house on a weekly basis because he had HIV and couldn't 'get it" from regular girls and I stated that I "understand" the reason he does that. Does that constitute "in support of"

keeping trying PUNK!

^^^^^^^^
i now know for a FACT that you are CRIMINALLY INSANE  

I will not even attempt to tap into that crazy twisted sociopathic mind of yours - instead to save my own sanity i will now officially resolve to NEVER EVER again entertain your totally unhinged mind in anything resembling debate, goodbye and goodluck  

cap28:

^^^^^^^^
i now know for a FACT that you are CRIMINALLY INSANE 

I will not even attempt to tap into that crazy twisted sociopathic mind of yours - instead to save my own sanity i will now officially resolve to NEVER EVER again entertain your totally unhinged mind in anything resembling debate, goodbye and goodluck 

HA HA hA!

You haven't answered the question. its a YES or a NO

"If Cap 28 visited a prostitution house on a weekly basis because he had HIV and couldn't 'get it" from regular girls and I stated that I understand the reason he does that. Does that constitute "in support of"


Too rigorous for your mind huh?  YOU LACK THE COGNITIVE ABILLITY TO INTERPRET COMPLEX INFORMATION. Keep to your simple rantings and ravings. It suites you fine.

For all others: compare the definition with referene to the logic involved:

TO CONDONE:

to regard or treat something bad or blameworthy as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless  e.g a government accused of condoning racism

TO UNDERSTAND: to grasp the meaning of
to grasp the reasonableness (reason)
to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of 
to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of
to interpret in one of a number of possible ways
to have the power of comprehension
to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something

morpheus24:

HA HA hA!

You haven't answered the question. its a YES or a NO

"If Cap 28 visited a prostitution house on a weekly basis because he had HIV and couldn't 'get it" from regular girls and I stated that I understand the reason he does that. Does that constitute "in support of"


Too rigorous for your mind huh? Keep to your simple rantings and ravings. It suites you fine.

For all others: definition:

TO CONDONE:

to regard or treat something bad or blameworthy as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless  e.g a government accused of condoning racism

TO UNDERSTAND: to grasp the meaning of
to grasp the reasonableness (reason)
to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of 
to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of
to interpret in one of a number of possible ways
to have the power of comprehension
to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something

hahahahahaha i know i said i would ignore you but your craziness totally cracks me up-

so you acknowledge that western imperialism is "bad" and YET you regard it as "forgiveable and harmless"

oh and you also  belieive that the selling of arms to both sides in a war is "bad" yet you beleive it is REASONABLE, you beleive the destabilisation of a sovereign state is "bad" and yet by the same token you beleive it is REASONABLE, you beleive leaving 1 million people to die when you could have intervened to save their lives is "bad" yet to you it is REASONABLE

you're doing a very good job of digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself without my help dont you think

HAHAHAHHAHAHA - MORPHEUS THANKS SO MUCH FOR PROVIDING ME WITH ALL THIS UNPAID ENTERTAINMENT - I OWE YOU ONE DUDE - YOU'RE THE BEST

cap28:

hahahahahaha i know i said i would ignore you but your craziness totally cracks me up-

Couldn't resist could you. Too predictable.

cap28:


so you acknowledge that western imperialism is "bad" and YET you regard it as "forgiveable and harmless".

Now now, slow down and read through again youngster. To regard as "forgivealble and harmless" would mean to condone. Point lost

cap28:


oh and you also  belieive that the selling of arms to both sides in a war is "bad" yet you beleive it is REASONABLE, you beleive the destabilisation of a sovereign state is "bad" and yet by the same token you beleive it is REASONABLE, you beleive leaving 1 million people to die when you could have intervened to save their lives is "bad" yet to you it is REASONABLE

you're doing a very good job of digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself without my help dont you think

You won't win this Cap28. Give up and stop trying to pin me into a corner. You won't win

I have posed this dilemma for you before as usual you seem to dodge the question quite well in putting matters into perspective.

If understanding an action within "reason" to you constitutes codoning that action then you need to go back to school and take a few more classess to stimulate your brain.



I will repeat the dilemma stated to you in previous posts you somehow seem to dodge responding to:

If 4 men are stuck on a ship wrecked boat and one of them falls seriously ill from drinking bad sea water. This sick man is eventually going to die and the remaining three individuals decide amongst themselves that in order to get back to their loved ones they will kill the sick man and eat his remains to survive and make it until they are discovered.
Is this action bad?
if it is on what moral grounds?
Who sets this mora high ground. Society or nature?
Is the action within "reason"

If the action is bad, is understanding the complexities of the situation a condonement of the action?

"If Cap 28 visited a prostitution house on a weekly basis because he had HIV and couldn't 'get it" from regular girls and I stated that I understand the reason he does that. Does that constitute "in support of

Is this action bad?
if it is on what moral grounds?
Who sets this mora high ground. Society or nature?
Is the action within "reason"

If the action is bad, is understanding the complexities of the situation a condonement of the action?


Listen youngster. You are better off never responding to me again. its like trying to make  small child understand that santa claus aint real before his brain can fully grasp the concept.

morpheus24:


This is coming from an individual who has never been inside a UN building in his entire life,
Can't name one deparment that exists with its body, what its function is, how decisions are made, what information goes into making those decisions , who is involved,
Never commanded a group of soldiers in defence of anything, never stepped on a battle field to wage war against an opponent, Isn't a member of any Humanitarian NGO's doing anything in Africa, never participated in any volunteer missions to save any African lives.

I didnt know i had to physically gain entry into a UN building, command a group of soldiers, step on to a battlefield and wage a war before i could be permitted to criticise the UNs failure to come to the rescue of 1 million africans?
So according to your unhinged mind, despite overwhelming evidence which is now in the public domain PROVING THAT BILL CLINTON BLUNTLY REFUSED TO AUTHORISE TROOPS TO BE SENT TO RWANDA TO SAVE 1 MILLION AFRICAN LIVES i should keep quiet because the right honorable morpheus says so -  hahahahhaahha 

I am very sure you have never had access to any of the top echelons of the US govt but yet you feel you are qualified to endorse, support and DEFEND the atrocities committed by their govt WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED  - why is that??

cap28:

I didnt know i had to physically gain entry into a UN building, command a group of soldiers, step on to a battlefield and wage a war before i could be permitted to criticise the UNs failure to come to the rescue of 1 million africans?
So according to your unhinged mind, despite overwhelming evidence which is now in the public domain[b] PROVING THAT BILL CLINTON BLUNTLY REFUSED TO AUTHORISE TROOPS TO BE SENT TO RWANDA TO SAVE 1 MILLION AFRICAN LIVES i should keep quiet because the right honorable morpheus says so -  hahahahhaahha  [/b]

I am very sure you have never had access to any of the top echelons of the US govt but yet you feel you are qualified to endorse, support and DEFEND the atrocities committed by their govt WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED  - why is that??

The bolded should be taken into context in regards to THE US INVOLVEMENT In SOMALI 1992-94 which caused an uproar domestically regarding sending troops to sub saharan African countries.

Bill Clinton was the incoming president at that time which coincided with the massacres that began in Rwanda. Present the information in context!

Keep it coming!

Ps don't call me the "right honorable" I know where you are getting that from. Thats insulting

THESE COUNTRIES NEVER NEEDED THE IMG & WORLD BANK for NOTHING!!!!
THERE is a reason the U.S and Europe calls these countries,

Iraq
Iran
Lybia
Venezuela
Sudan

ROUGE COUNTRIES

and the ONLY reason is because they have OIL an the West wants to GANGSTER IT. and these countries says FUC. K NO!!!

these countries nationalize THEIR OIL and give the MONEY to the people, But the Capitalistic Countries in the U.S an Europe says NO, we want to make money off YOUR resources for OUR rich investors and thus the puppet government of the U.S. sends in air planes to kill little kids and pregnant women WHILE lying to the American public about WMD';s or a humananitarian crisis.    Straight Bull Sh.!t!!!!!


All the media outlets gets their marching orders from CORPORATIONS with a vested interest in DELUDING the american fat and lazy public.

MandingoII:

THESE COUNTRIES NEVER NEEDED THE IMG & WORLD BANK for NOTHING!!!!
THERE is a reason the U.S and Europe calls these countries,

Iraq
Iran
Lybia
Venezuela
Sudan

ROUGE COUNTRIES

and the ONLY reason is because they have OIL an the West wants to GANGSTER IT. and these countries says FUC. K NO!!!

these countries nationalize THEIR OIL and give the MONEY to the people, But the Capitalistic Countries in the U.S an Europe says NO, we want to make money off YOUR resources for OUR rich investors and thus the puppet government of the U.S. sends in air planes to kill little kids and pregnant women WHILE lying to the American public about WMD';s or a humananitarian crisis. Straight Bull Sh.!t!!!!!


All the media outlets gets their marching orders from CORPORATIONS with a vested interest in DELUDING the american fat and lazy public.

Hip Hip hooray . We have all the information we need.

morpheus24:

Couldn't resist could you. Too predictable.

Now now, slow down and read through again youngster. To regard as "forgivealble and harmless" would mean to condone. Point lost
You won't win this Cap28. Give up and stop trying to pin me into a corner. You won't win

what is forgiveable and harmless about western imperialism morpheus?

why would an african man regard as forgiveable and harmless the genocide of his own people morpheus?

I have posed this dilemma for you before as usual you seem to dodge the question quite well in putting matters into perspective.

If understanding an action within "reason" to you constitutes codoning that action then you need to go back to school and take a few more classess to stimulate your brain.

what is understandable about leaving 1 million people to die morpheus?

I will repeat the dilemma stated to you in previous posts you somehow seem to dodge responding to:

If 4 men are stuck on a ship wrecked boat and one of them falls seriously ill from drinking bad sea water. This sick man is eventually going to die and the remaining three individuals decide amongst themselves that in order to get back to their loved ones they will kill the sick man and eat his remains to survive and make it until they are discovered.
Is this action bad?
if it is on what moral grounds?
Who sets this mora high ground. Society or nature?
Is the action within "reason"

If the action is bad, is understanding the complexities of the situation a condonement of the action?

Listen youngster. You are better off never responding to me again. its like trying to make  small child understand that santa claus aint real before his brain can fully grasp the concept.

morpheus you have used the above scenario in order to divert attention away from your morally bankrupt mindset, but i will respond all the same - in the above scenario you have 3 people who have resorted to carrying out an unnatural act of murder and cannibalism IN ORDER TO SURVIVE which is JUSTIFIABLE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY ARE  SHIPWRECKED and are trying to stay alive at all costs, in the case of the US govt what was the justification for leaving 1 million people to face a gruesome death which could very easily have been averted by sending troops to protect these people.

why do you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole  

MandingoII:

THESE COUNTRIES NEVER NEEDED THE IMG & WORLD BANK for NOTHING!!!!
THERE is a reason the U.S and Europe calls these countries,

Iraq
Iran
Lybia
Venezuela
Sudan

ROUGE COUNTRIES

and the ONLY reason is because they have OIL an the West wants to GANGSTER IT. and these countries says FUC. K NO!!!

these countries nationalize THEIR OIL and give the MONEY to the people, But the Capitalistic Countries in the U.S an Europe says NO, we want to make money off YOUR resources for OUR rich investors and thus the puppet government of the U.S. sends in air planes to kill little kids and pregnant women WHILE lying to the American public about WMD';s or a humananitarian crisis. Straight Bull Sh.!t!!!!!


All the media outlets gets their marching orders from CORPORATIONS with a vested interest in DELUDING the american fat and lazy public.

amen, bro

cap28:

what is forgiveable and harmless about western imperialism morpheus?

Nothing.

That would imply "condoning the action"

Read the definitions again for in depth clarity.

cap28:


why would an african man regard as forgiveable and harmless the genocide of his own people morpheus?

He wouldn't. That would imply "condoning the action". Again read with clarity the definitions.

cap28:


what is understandable about leaving 1 million people to die morpheus?

CONTEXT is a very important issue in reading into situations.

You didn't help those people,haven't sent a cent to help any of them thus far. Are you not in the position to do so? What then gives you the moral high ground I may ask.

can't stand the sufferings of the Africans huh?

or you seek justice yet you agree that an unatural act is justifiable given the context of the situation.

Did you therefore condone the shipwreck dilemma or did you understand it in responding to the 'reason' for the justification of the act?

cap28:


morpheus you have used the above scenario in order to divert attention away from your morally bankrupt mindset, but i will respond all the same - in the above scenario you have 3 people who have resorted to carrying out an unnatural act of murder and cannibalism IN ORDER TO SURVIVE which is JUSTIFIABLE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY ARE  SHIPWRECKED and are trying to stay alive at all costs, in the case of the US govt what was the justification for leaving 1 million people to face a gruesome death which could very easily have been averted by sending troops to protect these people.

You therefore agree that an "unnatural act" is justifiable within the context of the shipwreck situation. Hmmmm?

You understood the scenario above with clarity in being presented with the entire story in context. Hmmmm?

In the case of the US's non intervention in Rwanda. The self interest scenario played out in the ship wreck situation plays out within this context. difference being only in terms of one being a defilement of the "law of nature" versus "laws established by men to govern action".

if the US refused to intervene in Rwanda on grounds of self interest and utility. You accuse that this is unjust in what moral context?. man's inhumanity to man?

The Rwandans that killed their own brothers comitted the atrocities against their own fellow "African brothers' without hesitation or moral thought in the same pursuit of self interest much as their fellow US government.

The arguement then becomes. Is the US justified in intervening in Foreign countries on the grounds of moral high grounds, spread of democratic principles and freedoms. No, they are not and I don't think they are fooling anyone into thinking such.

Is the US justificed in intervening in foreign countries on the grounds of self interest in regards to controlllig resources for its own use and power.

You answered the above question already in your response to the shipwreck dilemma presented to you. I think you are at least bright enough to correlate the two.

cap28:


why do you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole 

Come with me and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

morpheus24:

Did you therefore condone the shipwreck dilemma or did you understand it in responding to the 'reason' for the justification of the act?
You therefore agree that an "unnatural act" is justifiable within the context of the shipwreck situation. Hmmmm?

You understood the scenario above with clarity in being presented with the entire story in context. Hmmmm?

In the case of the US's non intervention in Rwanda. The self interest scenario played out in the ship wreck situation plays out within this context. difference being only in terms of one being a defilement of the "law of nature" versus "laws established by men to govern action".

if the US refused to intervene in Rwanda on grounds of self interest and utility. You accuse that this is unjust in what moral context?. man's inhumanity to man?

let me get this straight you are comparing an act of murder and cannibalism in order for 3 people to survive a shipwreck incident with the decision to leave 1 million people to die - can you clarify for me how these two scenarios can be compared? are these two scenarios of equal merit and even capable of being evaluated alongside each other 

the justification or reasonableness of a matter is determined by examining the context in which those decisions were made - ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SAYING THAT GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION IN RWANDA IT WAS JUSTIFIABLE AND REASONABLE FOR AMERICA TO REFUSE TO SAVE 1 MILLION LIVES BECAUSE THEY STOOD TO GAIN NOTHING FROM DOING SO!!!!!

cap28:

let me get this straight you are comparing an act of murder and cannibalism in order for 3 people to survive a shipwreck incident with the decision to leave 1 million people to die - can you clarify for me how these two scenarios can be compared? are these two scenarios of equal merit and even capable of being evaluated alongside each other 

the justification or reasonableness of a matter is determined by examining the context in which those decisions were made - ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SAYING THAT GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION IN RWANDA IT WAS JUSTIFIABLE AND REASONABLE FOR AMERICA TO REFUSE TO SAVE 1 MILLION LIVES BECAUSE THEY STOOD TO GAIN NOTHING FROM DOING SO!!!!!

Don't ge hung up on the numbers. Its the concepts that are being examined here. The justification for the shipwreck act which you have agreed upon is "reasonable" therefore justifiable you based on the circumstances involved to the best of your knowlede. You made 'judgment" without the pre- consent of the sick man. You didn't ask him how he felt or if he wanted to live or die to rescue the rest of the shipwrecked individuals. How is this disimilar from what the US does? You weighed the justifcation on the remaining shipwreckers because to you they are still alive even if one life was lost.

In further examination, if the case was represented to you after the "fact" and it was discovered that the sick man had a wife and 10 children, a leper uncle whom he took care of, a paralyzed mother whom he paid medical expenses for, 7 nieces and nephews he was sending through school ,4 adopted children who lived with him and two grandparents that relied on him would that have changed your frame of reference. Would the killing of the sick man still 'EQUATE" the act as justifiable under your frame of reference.  Was it only one person that was truly hurt ? How different was your frame of reference from that of the US government?

You reasoned that the act was justifiable because of the percieved idea that only one person would be hurt and the rest of the people involved were secondary to the situation, therefore the magnitude of the offence could be considered reasonable and thus justifiable.  Why?


In making complex decisions without having all the facts in place forces countries like the US to take decisions that ultimately are percieved to be justifiable in their "frame of reference" but which may proof detrimental to others lives be it 10,000,  100,000 or 1 million people who perish.

Many individuals who like you justified the act on the shipwreck boat as an act of survival have committed the same grievous crime that they saw strongly point out that others committ.

The 1 million slaughtered was an after figure of the ethnic massacre that took place. The governments that did not intervene did not consider all the facts"same as you" when making their judgement calls on complex situations

If they did their justifications for not intervening might have been different as yours might have been or maybe would stay the same irregardless.

People die and are tortured every single day in this world facilitated by ruthless governments, dictators, hench men and the likes. You seem to turn a blind eye to these actions in the reasoning that 'black people" are somehow the only people the recieving end of these actions and US government is the sole source of such atrocities when in using a simple analogy to make a point, You fail the same test of standing upt to morality and ultimate goodness. You point out the act is evil and un-natural yet in the same vain find a way to JUSTIFY the act.


Wonder who is diggin holes for themselves, better stop now. You ego is getting the best of you. If you so wish though

Keep it coming!

I LIVE FOR THIS ISH!!


[quote][/quote]

^^^^^^

pray that you never find yourself in the same terrible situation as those unfortunate rwandan tutsis, pray that if ever you find yourself in a position where your life lies in the hands of someone else , you will be man enough to apply the same argument about self interest and utility as you have been applying over the course of 4 pages here.

pray that you will be able to accpet the fact that the same self interest and utility analysis that you glibly refer to had to be made in order to determine whether or not your life was worth saving and pray that you will be able to come to terms with the fact that the decision to leave you to die was based on the fact that your life was simply not worth saving, not important enough to be bothered with and of no importance to anyone.

pray that you will face your demise like the man you wish you could be but never will be.
only a sociopath reasons and thinks like you - you have no iota of empathy for your fellow human beings, god help you.

cap28:

^^^^^^

pray that you never find yourself in the same terrible situation as those unfortunate rwandan tutsis, pray that if ever you find yourself in a position where your life lies in the hands of someone else , you will be man enough to apply the same argument about self interest and utility as you have been applying over the course of 4 pages here.

pray that you will be able to accpet the fact that the same self interest and utility analysis that you glibly refer to had to be made in order to determine whether or not your life was worth saving and pray that you will be able to come to terms with the fact that the decision to leave you to die was based on the fact that your life was simply not worth saving, not important enough to be bothered with and of no importance to anyone.

pray that you will face your demise like the man you wish you could be but never will be.
only a sociopath reasons and thinks like you - you have no iota of empathy for your fellow human beings, god help you.

let me reveal this much to you in case you think this is just classroom "intellectual" mumbo jumbo.

My antics are not subject to mere "theoretical philosophies" and classroom debates. I have experienced sentimentality at its fullest and at the end was still helpless to help anyone which is why I am able to seperate "sentimentality" from "reason"

Trust me on this one Cap28

I am definitely no coward by any means!!