HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sibelian » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 28 Next »

sibelian

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Sep 4, 2007, 07:36 AM
Number of posts: 6,157

Journal Archives

I don't have to carry a gun. I live in the UK.

There's basically no guns. Well, there are some, but not in anything like significant numbers.

I suppose I just take it for granted that I can wander about without thinking "has that guy got a gun" or "oh no, another gun massacre".



Nobody where I live is bothered about protecting themselves. There's nothing in particular to protect ourselves against, really. Apart from the occasional drunken moron.

I'm incredibly traumatised psychologically, in almost innumerable ways.

Don't you understand that you are all responsible for my emotional well-being?

How can I feel good about myself and the world I'm living in when I am surrounded by so many upsetting people?

Can't you see that my belief system only has any integrity if you all agree with it?

Sometimes I think you people and I simply aren't on the same page at all.

Don't you realise that when you disagree with me it's because you have a deep and unconscious personality flaw that distorts your thinking, a flaw that I can understand and you can't?

You must understand - I excel in standing on a sort of psychologically internal pedestal, from which I can make pithy observations about our conversation as a whole, whereas when you appear to attempt something similar you're just ignoring me.

Don't you realise that if you leave me with no way of contradicting what you've posted then it makes me look bad and consequently feel bad? That's kind of a jerky thing to do, isn't it? You're kind of a jerk.

There's one thing I'd like to draw particular attention to - when I make generalisations I do it properly because of the special vantage point from which I make them, but when you do it, the special vantage point from which you make them means you're in the wrong.



WP: "This is the speech Obama would give on Syria if he were brutally honest"

"My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria, why it matters and where we go from here.

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of President Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled to neighboring countries, risking greater instability and sectarian conflict in the region.

The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. The answer is: not very much..."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/11/this-is-the-speech-obama-would-give-on-syria-if-he-were-brutally-honest/

It's a sort of conspiracy theory in reverse.


Instead of shadowy, manipulative, super-powerful, super-clever forces carefully controlling your every thought for deeply nefarious reasons, Mr super-powerful, super-clever Wonderguy is carefully controlling everybody's thoughts for ultra-lovely reasons.

So, those preferring a diplomatic soution were wrong when they wanted it


AND wrong when Obama wanted it?

So... first the "position" is "bomb Syria"... the opposing position is "no....


....there needs to be a diplomatic solution...."

Then there IS a diplomatic solution...

And the same people who were originally supporting the bombing point at those who preferred the diplomatic solution and accuse them of not admitting that they were in the wrong.

That's actually very strange behaviour, isn't it?

There's never been an American president that didn't fuck some stuff up.


Sorry. It's just true.

So why weren't you all saying "Russia should take responsibility" two days ago?



Why were you all saying: "waaaaaah, we need to bomb Syria?"


Do you understand that your position changes with the wind? That it's blatantly tarnsparent that your position changes with the wind? That you don't really HAVE a position?


That you can't be trusted any more than he can?


That you know he can't be trusted, and neither can you? Which is why you have colossal "trust" thing in every single one of your silly "Won't somebody please think of the president" posts?

So... no troops, no war. Can someone tell me what the London Blitz was?


I'd really like to know what the right word for it is because she grew up in it in a bomb shelter and she's always called it war, but obviously she's wrong and I'd like to point this out to her and tell her to use the appropriate terminology.

Thanks.

What a sickly, neurotic game this all is.


All image and flummery.

"Credibility".

It's IDIOTIC. The United States has a military presence that utterly dwarfs that of any other nation and they want CREDIBILITY.

Launching missiles at tiny nations isn't going to make you look big and tough. It's going to make you look like someone who wants to look big and tough. In particular it is very VERY much going to make you look like someone who wants to look big and tough when you can't keep your mouth shut for long enough to avoid SAYING that you're doing it because you want to look big and tough.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 28 Next »