FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Steven Gerrard
Steven Gerrard
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? " do you stick petrol in your car? | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? " As _estival said... | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? " Do you think Saudi could become less of a human rights horror story if they start to encourage more people from outside in? | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? " Irony? | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said..." Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread" we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread" Have you ever travelled by car, bus, train or plane? | |||
| |||
"Sporting and political post but it's reported that he's just agreed to manage a Saudi football team...why, if not just for the money? And if the latter, how much money do you need?" Btw, he is definitely going for the money  | |||
| |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life" We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. | |||
"Sporting and political post but it's reported that he's just agreed to manage a Saudi football team...why, if not just for the money? And if the latter, how much money do you need?" I guess it is a problem if he has been a public critic of Saudi and there human rights issues but then gone on to benefit from a lucrative offer. If he has not been such a critic then I don't see so much of a problem. Didn't Ronaldo go to play for a club in that part of the world recently? | |||
"I’m thinking of chasing the Saudi Dollar when retire. Some nice consultancy work in the kingdom would pay well. They are trying to re market themselves as a holiday destination. I enjoyed my time in Qatar. The Saudi League is going big on premiership players. Be exciting to watch. " I'd urge everyone to boycott watching it. This is blatant sportswashing by the Saudis. They are trying to buy their way into global football. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. " hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade | |||
"I’m thinking of chasing the Saudi Dollar when retire. Some nice consultancy work in the kingdom would pay well. They are trying to re market themselves as a holiday destination. I enjoyed my time in Qatar. The Saudi League is going big on premiership players. Be exciting to watch. I'd urge everyone to boycott watching it. This is blatant sportswashing by the Saudis. They are trying to buy their way into global football." That's because we buy their oil. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade" Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals." Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. " Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want?" Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though" What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. " We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject?" We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up." The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round." I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. " I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate." We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry." I didn't at any point say those things didn't happen. You should learn to read. What I've been arguing is clear, maybe not clear enough for you, but clear nonetheless. | |||
"I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. " ************************************* Playing the 'victim'...... yet again. THIS..... Is why we can't have nice things..... Like adult debates. | |||
"I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. ************************************* Playing the 'victim'...... yet again. THIS..... Is why we can't have nice things..... Like adult debates." Maybe stop posting constant personal attacks. Then some discussion could take place. Just an idea. | |||
"I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. ************************************* Playing the 'victim'...... yet again. THIS..... Is why we can't have nice things..... Like adult debates. Maybe stop posting constant personal attacks. Then some discussion could take place. Just an idea." I rest my case. | |||
"Sporting and political post but it's reported that he's just agreed to manage a Saudi football team...why, if not just for the money? And if the latter, how much money do you need?" Why not just for the money? It is a pretty claustrophobic society to live in as a Westerner though, but that's the trade-off I guess. Is this part of the greenwashing of a questionable human rights record? Probably. That's between him and his conscience and bank account. He doesn't appear to have commented on Saudi Arabia's record before. I would also be amazed of they hadn't spent a lot of time making sure of that... | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. I didn't at any point say those things didn't happen. You should learn to read. What I've been arguing is clear, maybe not clear enough for you, but clear nonetheless." I've seen this before. Policing what someone can or cannot post and obsessing over the minutiae of a turn of phrase. It amazes me how some people are unable to read the intent of something when it perfectly adequately reflects a position or point of view. Even more amazing when a phrase is strictly correct too. Perhaps they just want an argument? | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. I didn't at any point say those things didn't happen. You should learn to read. What I've been arguing is clear, maybe not clear enough for you, but clear nonetheless. I've seen this before. Policing what someone can or cannot post and obsessing over the minutiae of a turn of phrase. It amazes me how some people are unable to read the intent of something when it perfectly adequately reflects a position or point of view. Even more amazing when a phrase is strictly correct too. Perhaps they just want an argument?" Of course you've seen it before. You regularly accuse me of this. Other than trying have said 'argument', I'm not really sure what you're saying. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. I didn't at any point say those things didn't happen. You should learn to read. What I've been arguing is clear, maybe not clear enough for you, but clear nonetheless. I've seen this before. Policing what someone can or cannot post and obsessing over the minutiae of a turn of phrase. It amazes me how some people are unable to read the intent of something when it perfectly adequately reflects a position or point of view. Even more amazing when a phrase is strictly correct too. Perhaps they just want an argument?" | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. I didn't at any point say those things didn't happen. You should learn to read. What I've been arguing is clear, maybe not clear enough for you, but clear nonetheless. I've seen this before. Policing what someone can or cannot post and obsessing over the minutiae of a turn of phrase. It amazes me how some people are unable to read the intent of something when it perfectly adequately reflects a position or point of view. Even more amazing when a phrase is strictly correct too. Perhaps they just want an argument? Of course you've seen it before. You regularly accuse me of this. Other than trying have said 'argument', I'm not really sure what you're saying." You usually prefer "call you out" rather than "accuse" when you do the same thing  | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. I didn't at any point say those things didn't happen. You should learn to read. What I've been arguing is clear, maybe not clear enough for you, but clear nonetheless. I've seen this before. Policing what someone can or cannot post and obsessing over the minutiae of a turn of phrase. It amazes me how some people are unable to read the intent of something when it perfectly adequately reflects a position or point of view. Even more amazing when a phrase is strictly correct too. Perhaps they just want an argument? Of course you've seen it before. You regularly accuse me of this. Other than trying have said 'argument', I'm not really sure what you're saying. You usually prefer "call you out" rather than "accuse" when you do the same thing "I see you've joined the rest of the petty posters here. You're usually better than that. You used 'call out' and 'accuse' in the wrong context there but I'm sure you'll see that on reflection, enjoy. | |||
| |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry." Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change." Nailed it | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change." Exactly what I was saying, really didn't think it was too hard to work out  | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change." The purpose of the kitchen knife is to cut things in the kitchen. The purpose of bombs is to bomb stuff and people. We sold bombs, they used them to drop on kids and people at funerals, then we sold them more bombs. I ducked out of the endless semantic nonsense earlier. But I see what you're saying. We sold the bombs for them to drop on stuff and on people. But not specifically kids and funeral goers. Which is a very minor difference in my opinion, and not one that is pertinent to the topic. In anycase, personally I don't think this is great. Which is the post I made to the chap who started talking about trade with Saudi Arabia before the semantic police derailed everything. | |||
| |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if an arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change." That is a bit of a false analogy . Maybe the bombs were not sold to kill people on buses or at funerals but they are solely made to destroy property and/or kill people. Kitchen knives are made for cutting food | |||
| |||
"What a weird fucking thread. The number of times we get taken down these odd cul-de-sacs is unreal. It was obvious what point Johnny was making, however uncomfortable that might make us feel. Kitchen knives are made for food preparation. Yes they can be used as weapons but that is not remotely their primary or intended purpose. Weapons (bombs, missiles, guns etc) are armaments whose primary purpose is to kill. How they are used and on whom is irrelevant. They are specifically designed to kill. WTF has this whole discussion been about? " You say it was obvious what point Johnny was making. Of course it was obvious, he was going for shock value. Here's the thing though, I gave him opportunity to amend his statement, he refused and refused, only to then say 'not specifically on children and funerals' in his very first reply to another person. If he hadn't been Johnny and just done that in his first reply to me, we would've avoided all that bollocks | |||
"What a weird fucking thread. The number of times we get taken down these odd cul-de-sacs is unreal. It was obvious what point Johnny was making, however uncomfortable that might make us feel. Kitchen knives are made for food preparation. Yes they can be used as weapons but that is not remotely their primary or intended purpose. Weapons (bombs, missiles, guns etc) are armaments whose primary purpose is to kill. How they are used and on whom is irrelevant. They are specifically designed to kill. WTF has this whole discussion been about? You say it was obvious what point Johnny was making. Of course it was obvious, he was going for shock value. Here's the thing though, I gave him opportunity to amend his statement, he refused and refused, only to then say 'not specifically on children and funerals' in his very first reply to another person. If he hadn't been Johnny and just done that in his first reply to me, we would've avoided all that bollocks "There's your answer. The thread was about the morality of working in Saudi Arabia, then briefly about trading with the Saudis. Then back to the standard endless semantic nonsense and people having a go at those they don't like. | |||
"What a weird fucking thread. The number of times we get taken down these odd cul-de-sacs is unreal. It was obvious what point Johnny was making, however uncomfortable that might make us feel. Kitchen knives are made for food preparation. Yes they can be used as weapons but that is not remotely their primary or intended purpose. Weapons (bombs, missiles, guns etc) are armaments whose primary purpose is to kill. How they are used and on whom is irrelevant. They are specifically designed to kill. WTF has this whole discussion been about? You say it was obvious what point Johnny was making. Of course it was obvious, he was going for shock value. Here's the thing though, I gave him opportunity to amend his statement, he refused and refused, only to then say 'not specifically on children and funerals' in his very first reply to another person. If he hadn't been Johnny and just done that in his first reply to me, we would've avoided all that bollocks
There's your answer. The thread was about the morality of working in Saudi Arabia, then briefly about trading with the Saudis. Then back to the standard endless semantic nonsense and people having a go at those they don't like."What? I've told you previously, it's got nothing to do with me not liking you. If you could tell someone else 'not specifically on children and funerals' you could've told me. As I said, we could've avoided it but you chose to keep with it, maybe because you don't like me? | |||
"What a weird fucking thread. The number of times we get taken down these odd cul-de-sacs is unreal. It was obvious what point Johnny was making, however uncomfortable that might make us feel. Kitchen knives are made for food preparation. Yes they can be used as weapons but that is not remotely their primary or intended purpose. Weapons (bombs, missiles, guns etc) are armaments whose primary purpose is to kill. How they are used and on whom is irrelevant. They are specifically designed to kill. WTF has this whole discussion been about? You say it was obvious what point Johnny was making. Of course it was obvious, he was going for shock value. Here's the thing though, I gave him opportunity to amend his statement, he refused and refused, only to then say 'not specifically on children and funerals' in his very first reply to another person. If he hadn't been Johnny and just done that in his first reply to me, we would've avoided all that bollocks
There's your answer. The thread was about the morality of working in Saudi Arabia, then briefly about trading with the Saudis. Then back to the standard endless semantic nonsense and people having a go at those they don't like.
What? I've told you previously, it's got nothing to do with me not liking you. If you could tell someone else 'not specifically on children and funerals' you could've told me.
As I said, we could've avoided it but you chose to keep with it, maybe because you don't like me?"You didn't articulate that point. Just kept saying I was wrong, which i wasn't. You just didn't like the specific wording and engaged in the standard semantic crap. Which is why I bowed out. I don't especially like the irrelevant, semantic arguments that drag the conversation away from the points being discussed, but that's not a reflection of any opinion on you as a person. I don't know anything about you, and have no opinion either way. However you definitely target certain people on here, so it's an assumption that some of us you activity don't like. Which is fair enough if that's the case. | |||
"What a weird fucking thread. The number of times we get taken down these odd cul-de-sacs is unreal. It was obvious what point Johnny was making, however uncomfortable that might make us feel. Kitchen knives are made for food preparation. Yes they can be used as weapons but that is not remotely their primary or intended purpose. Weapons (bombs, missiles, guns etc) are armaments whose primary purpose is to kill. How they are used and on whom is irrelevant. They are specifically designed to kill. WTF has this whole discussion been about? You say it was obvious what point Johnny was making. Of course it was obvious, he was going for shock value. Here's the thing though, I gave him opportunity to amend his statement, he refused and refused, only to then say 'not specifically on children and funerals' in his very first reply to another person. If he hadn't been Johnny and just done that in his first reply to me, we would've avoided all that bollocks
There's your answer. The thread was about the morality of working in Saudi Arabia, then briefly about trading with the Saudis. Then back to the standard endless semantic nonsense and people having a go at those they don't like.
What? I've told you previously, it's got nothing to do with me not liking you. If you could tell someone else 'not specifically on children and funerals' you could've told me.
As I said, we could've avoided it but you chose to keep with it, maybe because you don't like me?
You didn't articulate that point. Just kept saying I was wrong, which i wasn't. You just didn't like the specific wording and engaged in the standard semantic crap. Which is why I bowed out.
I don't especially like the irrelevant, semantic arguments that drag the conversation away from the points being discussed, but that's not a reflection of any opinion on you as a person. I don't know anything about you, and have no opinion either way. However you definitely target certain people on here, so it's an assumption that some of us you activity don't like. Which is fair enough if that's the case."I said in my very first statement to you that is was an unfair statement. Now you wanna play 'you didn't articulate properly', I see how it is, as do others. I do not 'target certain people', I target statements, it's not my fault if it's the same people who make false statements. If you continue to make 'shock factor' untrue or unfair statements, I'll continue to ask for corrections. I'll say it again, as I have in the past, it's got nothing to do with 'me not liking you'. | |||
"What a weird fucking thread. The number of times we get taken down these odd cul-de-sacs is unreal. It was obvious what point Johnny was making, however uncomfortable that might make us feel. Kitchen knives are made for food preparation. Yes they can be used as weapons but that is not remotely their primary or intended purpose. Weapons (bombs, missiles, guns etc) are armaments whose primary purpose is to kill. How they are used and on whom is irrelevant. They are specifically designed to kill. WTF has this whole discussion been about? You say it was obvious what point Johnny was making. Of course it was obvious, he was going for shock value. Here's the thing though, I gave him opportunity to amend his statement, he refused and refused, only to then say 'not specifically on children and funerals' in his very first reply to another person. If he hadn't been Johnny and just done that in his first reply to me, we would've avoided all that bollocks
There's your answer. The thread was about the morality of working in Saudi Arabia, then briefly about trading with the Saudis. Then back to the standard endless semantic nonsense and people having a go at those they don't like.
What? I've told you previously, it's got nothing to do with me not liking you. If you could tell someone else 'not specifically on children and funerals' you could've told me.
As I said, we could've avoided it but you chose to keep with it, maybe because you don't like me?
You didn't articulate that point. Just kept saying I was wrong, which i wasn't. You just didn't like the specific wording and engaged in the standard semantic crap. Which is why I bowed out.
I don't especially like the irrelevant, semantic arguments that drag the conversation away from the points being discussed, but that's not a reflection of any opinion on you as a person. I don't know anything about you, and have no opinion either way. However you definitely target certain people on here, so it's an assumption that some of us you activity don't like. Which is fair enough if that's the case.
I said in my very first statement to you that is was an unfair statement. Now you wanna play 'you didn't articulate properly', I see how it is, as do others.
I do not 'target certain people', I target statements, it's not my fault if it's the same people who make false statements. If you continue to make 'shock factor' untrue or unfair statements, I'll continue to ask for corrections.
I'll say it again, as I have in the past, it's got nothing to do with 'me not liking you'.
" | |||
"What a weird fucking thread. The number of times we get taken down these odd cul-de-sacs is unreal. It was obvious what point Johnny was making, however uncomfortable that might make us feel. Kitchen knives are made for food preparation. Yes they can be used as weapons but that is not remotely their primary or intended purpose. Weapons (bombs, missiles, guns etc) are armaments whose primary purpose is to kill. How they are used and on whom is irrelevant. They are specifically designed to kill. WTF has this whole discussion been about? You say it was obvious what point Johnny was making. Of course it was obvious, he was going for shock value. Here's the thing though, I gave him opportunity to amend his statement, he refused and refused, only to then say 'not specifically on children and funerals' in his very first reply to another person. If he hadn't been Johnny and just done that in his first reply to me, we would've avoided all that bollocks
There's your answer. The thread was about the morality of working in Saudi Arabia, then briefly about trading with the Saudis. Then back to the standard endless semantic nonsense and people having a go at those they don't like.
What? I've told you previously, it's got nothing to do with me not liking you. If you could tell someone else 'not specifically on children and funerals' you could've told me.
As I said, we could've avoided it but you chose to keep with it, maybe because you don't like me?
You didn't articulate that point. Just kept saying I was wrong, which i wasn't. You just didn't like the specific wording and engaged in the standard semantic crap. Which is why I bowed out.
I don't especially like the irrelevant, semantic arguments that drag the conversation away from the points being discussed, but that's not a reflection of any opinion on you as a person. I don't know anything about you, and have no opinion either way. However you definitely target certain people on here, so it's an assumption that some of us you activity don't like. Which is fair enough if that's the case."I’ve never seen anyone attack you personally but you offer up opinion that is often challenged due to your political views. Is that personal, only if you believe your views are not to be challenged? I believe you offer an alternative view, I would like you to be maybe a tad less defensive so we can really have a descent conversation because you are probably one of a small handful of people who can offer alternatives and keep it civil. | |||
"What a weird fucking thread. The number of times we get taken down these odd cul-de-sacs is unreal. It was obvious what point Johnny was making, however uncomfortable that might make us feel. Kitchen knives are made for food preparation. Yes they can be used as weapons but that is not remotely their primary or intended purpose. Weapons (bombs, missiles, guns etc) are armaments whose primary purpose is to kill. How they are used and on whom is irrelevant. They are specifically designed to kill. WTF has this whole discussion been about? You say it was obvious what point Johnny was making. Of course it was obvious, he was going for shock value. Here's the thing though, I gave him opportunity to amend his statement, he refused and refused, only to then say 'not specifically on children and funerals' in his very first reply to another person. If he hadn't been Johnny and just done that in his first reply to me, we would've avoided all that bollocks
There's your answer. The thread was about the morality of working in Saudi Arabia, then briefly about trading with the Saudis. Then back to the standard endless semantic nonsense and people having a go at those they don't like.
What? I've told you previously, it's got nothing to do with me not liking you. If you could tell someone else 'not specifically on children and funerals' you could've told me.
As I said, we could've avoided it but you chose to keep with it, maybe because you don't like me?
You didn't articulate that point. Just kept saying I was wrong, which i wasn't. You just didn't like the specific wording and engaged in the standard semantic crap. Which is why I bowed out.
I don't especially like the irrelevant, semantic arguments that drag the conversation away from the points being discussed, but that's not a reflection of any opinion on you as a person. I don't know anything about you, and have no opinion either way. However you definitely target certain people on here, so it's an assumption that some of us you activity don't like. Which is fair enough if that's the case.
I’ve never seen anyone attack you personally
"Happens all the time, happened on this thread by someone else, one of the usual 'personal-attacker' contributors. " but you offer up opinion that is often challenged due to your political views. " I didn't offer opinion here. " Is that personal, only if you believe your views are not to be challenged? " Of course opinions can be challenged " I believe you offer an alternative view, I would like you to be maybe a tad less defensive so we can really have a descent conversation because you are probably one of a small handful of people who can offer alternatives and keep it civil. " Well thank you. I genuinely like it when there is debate, the morality of working in or trading with Saudi Arabia is something that is genuinely interesting to debate. | |||
| |||
"Still a fucking weird thread. Would any arms manufacturer say their weapons are produced to specifically kill innocent people? Of course not. Do their weapons often kill innocent people? Of course they do! Are the Saudi’s guilty of killing innocent people or supporting Yemeni forces to kill innocent people? Have they sometimes used British produced weapons to do it?" All of those things are correct, no argument from me on them. Do me a favour and read this statement: We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. That to me is a purposely inflammatory statement. For me a fair statement would be: We sell bombs to the Saudis and they've used them to drop on innocent people. As I said to Johnny before, the left continually have a moan and whinge about inflammatory language used by the right whilst doing the same thing themselves. It's only fair and right that those are called out. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change. The purpose of the kitchen knife is to cut things in the kitchen. The purpose of bombs is to bomb stuff and people. We sold bombs, they used them to drop on kids and people at funerals, then we sold them more bombs. I ducked out of the endless semantic nonsense earlier. But I see what you're saying. We sold the bombs for them to drop on stuff and on people. But not specifically kids and funeral goers. Which is a very minor difference in my opinion, and not one that is pertinent to the topic. In anycase, personally I don't think this is great. Which is the post I made to the chap who started talking about trade with Saudi Arabia before the semantic police derailed everything. " The kitchen knife example is to show that regardless of purpose it is the user that decides how to use the object and not the supplier. To me the UK sold weapons to Saudi and people in Saudi decided both if to use the weapons and how to use the weapons. To my knowledge these weapons are not designed to attack either buses or funerals but, just like the knife can be misused to devastating effect. As I mentioned before I think tighter controls should be applied if weapons buyers use them for such things | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. I didn't at any point say those things didn't happen. You should learn to read. What I've been arguing is clear, maybe not clear enough for you, but clear nonetheless. I've seen this before. Policing what someone can or cannot post and obsessing over the minutiae of a turn of phrase. It amazes me how some people are unable to read the intent of something when it perfectly adequately reflects a position or point of view. Even more amazing when a phrase is strictly correct too. Perhaps they just want an argument? Of course you've seen it before. You regularly accuse me of this. Other than trying have said 'argument', I'm not really sure what you're saying. You usually prefer "call you out" rather than "accuse" when you do the same thing
I see you've joined the rest of the petty posters here. You're usually better than that.
You used 'call out' and 'accuse' in the wrong context there but I'm sure you'll see that on reflection, enjoy."Your self awareness forcefield turned up to 11, I see | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change. The purpose of the kitchen knife is to cut things in the kitchen. The purpose of bombs is to bomb stuff and people. We sold bombs, they used them to drop on kids and people at funerals, then we sold them more bombs. I ducked out of the endless semantic nonsense earlier. But I see what you're saying. We sold the bombs for them to drop on stuff and on people. But not specifically kids and funeral goers. Which is a very minor difference in my opinion, and not one that is pertinent to the topic. In anycase, personally I don't think this is great. Which is the post I made to the chap who started talking about trade with Saudi Arabia before the semantic police derailed everything. The kitchen knife example is to show that regardless of purpose it is the user that decides how to use the object and not the supplier. To me the UK sold weapons to Saudi and people in Saudi decided both if to use the weapons and how to use the weapons. To my knowledge these weapons are not designed to attack either buses or funerals but, just like the knife can be misused to devastating effect. As I mentioned before I think tighter controls should be applied if weapons buyers use them for such things" Bombs are specifically designed to destroy property and kill people. I don't think the kitchen knife analogy works. The bombs were used for their intended purpose. My opinion is that as soon as they were used for such things as dropping on kids and people at a funeral. The UK should have stopped selling them to the Saudis. And should probably consider the ethics of trading with them, which has been my point all along. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change. The purpose of the kitchen knife is to cut things in the kitchen. The purpose of bombs is to bomb stuff and people. We sold bombs, they used them to drop on kids and people at funerals, then we sold them more bombs. I ducked out of the endless semantic nonsense earlier. But I see what you're saying. We sold the bombs for them to drop on stuff and on people. But not specifically kids and funeral goers. Which is a very minor difference in my opinion, and not one that is pertinent to the topic. In anycase, personally I don't think this is great. Which is the post I made to the chap who started talking about trade with Saudi Arabia before the semantic police derailed everything. The kitchen knife example is to show that regardless of purpose it is the user that decides how to use the object and not the supplier. To me the UK sold weapons to Saudi and people in Saudi decided both if to use the weapons and how to use the weapons. To my knowledge these weapons are not designed to attack either buses or funerals but, just like the knife can be misused to devastating effect. As I mentioned before I think tighter controls should be applied if weapons buyers use them for such things" Bombs are designed to kill anybody and blow up anything. We sold the Saudis bombs. They were used to blow up buses and children. Are buses and children "anything"? Did we sell them some more afterwards? The point actually being made is that it is immoral to do what they did and we were complicit as a country. So, why is Gerrard going to coach a football team a big issue? | |||
| |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change. The purpose of the kitchen knife is to cut things in the kitchen. The purpose of bombs is to bomb stuff and people. We sold bombs, they used them to drop on kids and people at funerals, then we sold them more bombs. I ducked out of the endless semantic nonsense earlier. But I see what you're saying. We sold the bombs for them to drop on stuff and on people. But not specifically kids and funeral goers. Which is a very minor difference in my opinion, and not one that is pertinent to the topic. In anycase, personally I don't think this is great. Which is the post I made to the chap who started talking about trade with Saudi Arabia before the semantic police derailed everything. The kitchen knife example is to show that regardless of purpose it is the user that decides how to use the object and not the supplier. To me the UK sold weapons to Saudi and people in Saudi decided both if to use the weapons and how to use the weapons. To my knowledge these weapons are not designed to attack either buses or funerals but, just like the knife can be misused to devastating effect. As I mentioned before I think tighter controls should be applied if weapons buyers use them for such things Bombs are specifically designed to destroy property and kill people. I don't think the kitchen knife analogy works. The bombs were used for their intended purpose. My opinion is that as soon as they were used for such things as dropping on kids and people at a funeral. The UK should have stopped selling them to the Saudis. And should probably consider the ethics of trading with them, which has been my point all along." I was trying (badly it would appear) to point out that it is the user that decides if or how to use them as opposed to the supplier. Many countries have lots of weapons but choose not to drop them on buses and funerals. It's the users choice to use military weapons against civilians regardless of if they were UK supplied or US supplied | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change. The purpose of the kitchen knife is to cut things in the kitchen. The purpose of bombs is to bomb stuff and people. We sold bombs, they used them to drop on kids and people at funerals, then we sold them more bombs. I ducked out of the endless semantic nonsense earlier. But I see what you're saying. We sold the bombs for them to drop on stuff and on people. But not specifically kids and funeral goers. Which is a very minor difference in my opinion, and not one that is pertinent to the topic. In anycase, personally I don't think this is great. Which is the post I made to the chap who started talking about trade with Saudi Arabia before the semantic police derailed everything. The kitchen knife example is to show that regardless of purpose it is the user that decides how to use the object and not the supplier. To me the UK sold weapons to Saudi and people in Saudi decided both if to use the weapons and how to use the weapons. To my knowledge these weapons are not designed to attack either buses or funerals but, just like the knife can be misused to devastating effect. As I mentioned before I think tighter controls should be applied if weapons buyers use them for such things Bombs are specifically designed to destroy property and kill people. I don't think the kitchen knife analogy works. The bombs were used for their intended purpose. My opinion is that as soon as they were used for such things as dropping on kids and people at a funeral. The UK should have stopped selling them to the Saudis. And should probably consider the ethics of trading with them, which has been my point all along. I was trying (badly it would appear) to point out that it is the user that decides if or how to use them as opposed to the supplier. Many countries have lots of weapons but choose not to drop them on buses and funerals. It's the users choice to use military weapons against civilians regardless of if they were UK supplied or US supplied" I understand exactly your point, others here have strong feelings about bombs which they are vocalising over the analogy. | |||
"I was trying (badly it would appear) to point out that it is the user that decides if or how to use them as opposed to the supplier. Many countries have lots of weapons but choose not to drop them on buses and funerals. It's the users choice to use military weapons against civilians regardless of if they were UK supplied or US supplied" I know you try very hard to take an objective neutral view on most (if not all) topics. It is admirable and does enable (or should) more sensible, and less emotional, discussion. However, at times it can come across as being an apologist for what can clearly be seen as bad practice or immoral activity. The kitchen knife analogy is false equivalence with military weapons due to the original intent of the product’s design and intent. It is kind of the same as people saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people (with guns)”. That statement is objectively true but clearly if the gun wasn’t there the people would not have been killed and the killer would not have been emboldened to commit murder. The gun is the enabler. The only purpose of weapons is to kill people. That is certainly not the intention of a kitchen knife. | |||
"Still a fucking weird thread. Would any arms manufacturer say their weapons are produced to specifically kill innocent people? Of course not. Do their weapons often kill innocent people? Of course they do! Are the Saudi’s guilty of killing innocent people or supporting Yemeni forces to kill innocent people? Have they sometimes used British produced weapons to do it? All of those things are correct, no argument from me on them. Do me a favour and read this statement: We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. That to me is a purposely inflammatory statement. For me a fair statement would be: We sell bombs to the Saudis and they've used them to drop on innocent people. As I said to Johnny before, the left continually have a moan and whinge about inflammatory language used by the right whilst doing the same thing themselves. It's only fair and right that those are called out. " You and Johnny can sort out your own semantics argument. My comment was more generally about this thread (you two are not the only ones debating weapons and their use). The point that was relevant to the OP was that the Saudi’s have a poor record on human rights etc. So should high profile sports people (or anyone for that matter) be seen to condone (or at least conveniently ignore) that Saudi record? Has Gerrard ever been political? I have no idea. Is it more or less topical because he is from Liverpool which is generally seen as a left wing heartland in the UK? Is there a counter argument that the more people from the West with Western sensibilities that live/work in Saudi, the more that can have a positive impact on their culture? Or is that Western arrogance as who are we today their ways are wrong? Is this just a guy trying to earn a very big crust? Should we care? | |||
| |||
"Until Saudi, and other Arab states, decide to come into the 21st Century, then I want nothing to do with their involvement in sport. Suppression of women's rights lgbtq+ rights and freedom of free speech are simply not compatible with modern global sports." The counter argument is that by taking events to the region, a light can be shone upon them - of course that’s upto the sporting bodies to then encourage participants to do so, rather than banning or fining sportspeople for making statements. | |||
"Is no one going to point out that it wasn't British weapons used in the funeral strike, it was US weaponry? And that the UK did stop all weapons exports to Saudi Arabia after a legal case in which the High Court ruled that the government's decision making process was flawed? And that the subsequent re-start of weapons exports has been deemed in compliance with international laws by the High Court after a second legal challenge?" A useful detail this time about this specific incident. UK weapons still used to deliberately target civilians. Neither the UK Government nor the arms industry unilaterally curtailed supply until forced to buy Judicial Review. Something that they have wanted to remove. The point still stands as to how Gerrard going to coach football for lots of money compares to the supply of weapons for a conflict like this making us all complicit? | |||
"Is no one going to point out that it wasn't British weapons used in the funeral strike, it was US weaponry? And that the UK did stop all weapons exports to Saudi Arabia after a legal case in which the High Court ruled that the government's decision making process was flawed? And that the subsequent re-start of weapons exports has been deemed in compliance with international laws by the High Court after a second legal challenge?" Just the school kids then. Still not great. I didn't know we restarted selling bombs to them after the initial high court ruling. In my opinion, in response to the person who mentioned we trade with the Saudis, this is morally questionable. As is Gerrards decision to work over there. However I don't think he gives a crap what anyone thinks as the money is presumably enough to compensate. Plus he's not the only footballer/manager to take the high wages and move out there. | |||
"Is no one going to point out that it wasn't British weapons used in the funeral strike, it was US weaponry? And that the UK did stop all weapons exports to Saudi Arabia after a legal case in which the High Court ruled that the government's decision making process was flawed? And that the subsequent re-start of weapons exports has been deemed in compliance with international laws by the High Court after a second legal challenge? Just the school kids then. Still not great. I didn't know we restarted selling bombs to them after the initial high court ruling. In my opinion, in response to the person who mentioned we trade with the Saudis, this is morally questionable. As is Gerrards decision to work over there. However I don't think he gives a crap what anyone thinks as the money is presumably enough to compensate. Plus he's not the only footballer/manager to take the high wages and move out there." From what I've read, the bomb dropped on the school bus was American made. I know this thread is about Gerrard but as you said, there are plenty others. Not to mention anyone who works directly or indirectly for Saudis, that's quite a portion of the UK. | |||
 | |||
"Anyone know if there's much of a Swinging scene out in Saudi? Any Clubs? "Dubai (not Saudi) does but it is VERY behind closed doors. Even kissing on the beach could land you in trouble with the police I believe. | |||
"Until Saudi, and other Arab states, decide to come into the 21st Century, then I want nothing to do with their involvement in sport. Suppression of women's rights lgbtq+ rights and freedom of free speech are simply not compatible with modern global sports. The counter argument is that by taking events to the region, a light can be shone upon them - of course that’s upto the sporting bodies to then encourage participants to do so, rather than banning or fining sportspeople for making statements." There is that argument but the rate of change is far too slow. Just look at the way that FiFA caved in at the last World Cup...rainbow armbands and no alcohol sales. The sums of money being thrown about will, without question, impact on our own domestic leagues. | |||
| |||
"Saudi has a plan far bigger than football… their oil is not an exhaustive supply and demand will also drop. They are planning for the future, building a city housing 9 million people that will sit in the desert, have clean air, clean living and the idea is to be a power player in tech, and future commodities. It needs to attract westerners and this is all part of that plan, they have merged with PGA, now they will start bringing high profile players and managers into their football leagues. This won’t be the last thing they do to attract westerners to NEOM and The Line. They are going big while they can afford to if they don’t they will become a barren landmass by the end of the century. " You pointed me in the direction of NEOM. Very interesting, very ambitious and quite exciting! I am struggling to square that ambition with their current human rights and cultural challenges though? | |||
| |||
"Saudi has a plan far bigger than football… their oil is not an exhaustive supply and demand will also drop. They are planning for the future, building a city housing 9 million people that will sit in the desert, have clean air, clean living and the idea is to be a power player in tech, and future commodities. It needs to attract westerners and this is all part of that plan, they have merged with PGA, now they will start bringing high profile players and managers into their football leagues. This won’t be the last thing they do to attract westerners to NEOM and The Line. They are going big while they can afford to if they don’t they will become a barren landmass by the end of the century. You pointed me in the direction of NEOM. Very interesting, very ambitious and quite exciting! I am struggling to square that ambition with their current human rights and cultural challenges though?" NEOM and The Line fits in to the culture more than an open city would. It’s controlled down to who is in the city and what people are doing. It seems a higher version of places like Dubai who allow things in hotels for foreigners. | |||
"A couple of why nots...the human rights issues? As _estival said... Nope, I've never driven a car in my life but if that's the extent of your justification I won't bother revisiting the thread we trade with the saudis so why shouldnt people go work there if given the chance, china has terrible human rights aswell but we buy all our shit from them aswell and to be honest with you out in that part of the world thats just every day life We sell lots of bombs to the Saudi's to drop onto school kids on busses and people at funerals. Probably isn't really a good thing though. hey ho if we didnt sell them someone else would,i thought you would be ok with global trade Can confirm, I'm definitely against selling bombs to the Saudi's to drop on kids and funerals. Fancy correcting 'we sell bombs to the Saudis to drop bombs on schopl kids and funerals'? That's not a fair and true statement, it's just more inflammatory language to create a shock value. Why? This happened. Anyway, we could go on for ages with any excuse to have a pop at me instead of the discussion points. We can skip to that part if you want? Read your statement and tell me its a true statement. We both know it isn't, I won't be surprised if you choose shock value over truth though What's not true about it? Why are you never interested in discussing the topic and just having a go at people you don't like? Makes any kind of attempted discussion boring and pointless. We did not sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to 'drop on school children and funerals'. On the subject of discussing the topic, the topic is Steven Gerrard, not bombs. Is it only you who is allowed to talk about things other than the subject? We did. We sold bombs to the Saudis who used them to drop on a school bus and then a funeral. Then we carried on selling them more bombs. Unless there is some semantic argument going on, that the bus wasn't going to school or some such. In which case, you can chalk that down as a victory. I responded to someone else who brought up trade with Saudi Arabia. Am I not allowed to respond to things others bring up. The Saudis used bombs to drop on a bus and a funeral, much better. We did not sell them for that purpose. They are 2 very different statements. One is true and one is inflammatory. Of course you can speak about UK/Saudi trade, you tried to stop me, not the other way round. I didn't try to stop you. I asked why you always just have a pop at people you don't like. Anyway, well done on your bizarre semantic micro victory. Meanwhile the rest of us can choose to either think it's cool, or not cool that we sold bombs to the Saudi's that they dropped on kids and funerals, then continued to sell them more bombs. I'm not having a go at 'someone I dislike', I'm having a go at the information you're providing, there's a difference. I gave you the opportunity to change the information, you're choosing not to, that's your prerogative. You know that we DID NOT sell bombs to the Saudis to 'drop on kids and funerals'. I'd imagine most other people do too. You along with plenty of others continually doing it whilst taking aim at the right for doing the very same thing. Isn't it funny that you are what you hate. We did sell bombs to the Saudi's. They did drop them on a school bus and a funeral. You can say it didn't happen all day long. Doesn't change what happened. In anycase. I'll leave you to whatever you're doing because it's significantly less interesting than watching paint dry. Just a personal view, I would say that is not a fair statement and implies that the bombs were sold for the sole purpose of dropping on buses and funerals. Even the follow-up sales as far as I know we're not sold for that purpose. If a terrorist buys a kitchen knife from Tesco and kills people with it, do we then say that Tesco sells knives to kill people? That said, it does highlight that maybe stricter rules need to be brought in if a arms customer repeatedly uses weapons in this way. Of course they will simply purchase them from elsewhere so sadly the outcome will not change. The purpose of the kitchen knife is to cut things in the kitchen. The purpose of bombs is to bomb stuff and people. We sold bombs, they used them to drop on kids and people at funerals, then we sold them more bombs. I ducked out of the endless semantic nonsense earlier. But I see what you're saying. We sold the bombs for them to drop on stuff and on people. But not specifically kids and funeral goers. Which is a very minor difference in my opinion, and not one that is pertinent to the topic. In anycase, personally I don't think this is great. Which is the post I made to the chap who started talking about trade with Saudi Arabia before the semantic police derailed everything. The kitchen knife example is to show that regardless of purpose it is the user that decides how to use the object and not the supplier. To me the UK sold weapons to Saudi and people in Saudi decided both if to use the weapons and how to use the weapons. To my knowledge these weapons are not designed to attack either buses or funerals but, just like the knife can be misused to devastating effect. As I mentioned before I think tighter controls should be applied if weapons buyers use them for such things Bombs are specifically designed to destroy property and kill people. I don't think the kitchen knife analogy works. The bombs were used for their intended purpose. My opinion is that as soon as they were used for such things as dropping on kids and people at a funeral. The UK should have stopped selling them to the Saudis. And should probably consider the ethics of trading with them, which has been my point all along. I was trying (badly it would appear) to point out that it is the user that decides if or how to use them as opposed to the supplier. Many countries have lots of weapons but choose not to drop them on buses and funerals. It's the users choice to use military weapons against civilians regardless of if they were UK supplied or US supplied I understand exactly your point, others here have strong feelings about bombs which they are vocalising over the analogy. " I'm glad I got my thoughts across especially after using what is considered a poor example | |||
