Look Out Great Britain, Your Appeasement Is Showing!!

Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 32

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Look Out Great Britain, Your Appeasement Is Showing!!

2008-01-20 13:30:14

#351

jord: Member; +2,382|6721|The North, beyond the wall.

lowing wrote:
jord wrote:
lowing wrote:

LOL.......and am I the only one that sees the difference??
Both are wrong mate. Though yes I can see the difference.
Sorry pal, but when we are TALKING about ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, in an ISLAMIC TERRORIST thread. I will assume when I speak of ISLAMIC TERRORISM that those I speak of, are MOSTLY MUSLIMS. I am not going to split hairs with you, when you know damn well what this thread is about.

Well then all Muslim terrorists will be Islamic terrorists... So what's the point in stating that?

I thought you were stating that most terrorists are Muslims. Which would of give room to debate. Stating all Muslims terrorists are Islamic terrorists if clearly a fact.

2008-01-20 13:35:46

#352

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6853|Nårvei

lowing wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
lowing wrote:

I can not help it if you can't keep up.

Try reading slower
His arguments make sense to me...

If old Irish women start blowing up buildings or killing people in the name of a religion they have perverted.... I will call them old Irish lady Terrorists too... lol
But if it turns out that old Irish women have a history of violent reactions and can and will burn down a city, I am sure measures will be taken not to get them stirred up. In other words, we can appease them.

If you throw a mad dog a steak to divert his attention so he does not bite you, it may be smart, but you still appeased the dog with the steak.

Are you really that sure a steak is the dogs main goal ? ... that really is called a diversion, not appeasement ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2008-01-20 14:32:50

#353

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6599

lowing wrote:
Ok, so, the British govt. is not concerned about pissing off the muslim community huh. Then why the change in the first place if all was well with the way it was and no one hada problem?

Possibly because they want to avert the kind of discrimination that led to people thinking it was 'okay' to pack Jews into container carts and send them to incinerators. Using the term 'Islamic Terror' puts an association in peoples minds that this is the kind of behaviour you can expect to find out of your average Muslim, which it isn't. In the same way the Jews weren't by and large bent on global domination through a network of Freemasons and rotary club members, Muslims are not by and large bent on blowing themselves up at the earliest opportunity as close as possible to a McDonalds or Starbucks.

Misguided anti-Muslim sentiment is at an all time high and it's because of poor phraseology like this. You may not think words are that important lowing but just remember it was words that facilitated the murder of 6 million Jews.

lowing wrote:
The Muslim community has already established what they are capable of if they are not appeased. They have proven it. GB just wants to be sure it doesn't happen there.

Why, what did they do? And who are 'The Muslim Community'? Is it some kind of club? What is 'appeasement' in your book? I don't see any appeasement of Muslims. All I see is the west standing fully behind their arch enemy - Israel - not exactly 'appeasement' now I think you'll agree... and propping up brutal dictators for a couple of barrels of cheap oil.

PS Wtf is going on with serge and gs??!!!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-20 14:39:17)

2008-01-20 14:40:35

#354

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6715|UK

CameronPoe wrote:
lowing wrote:
Ok, so, the British govt. is not concerned about pissing off the muslim community huh. Then why the change in the first place if all was well with the way it was and no one hada problem?
Possibly because they want to avert the kind of discrimination that led to people thinking it was 'okay' to pack Jews into container carts and send them to incinerators. Using the term 'Islamic Terror' puts an association in peoples minds that this is the kind of behaviour you can expect to find out of your average Muslim, which it isn't. In the same way the Jews weren't by and large bent on global domination through a network of Freemasons and rotary club members, Muslims are not by and large bent on blowing themselves up at the earliest opportunity as close as possible to a McDonalds or Starbucks.

Misguided anti-Muslim sentiment is at an all time high and it's because of poor phraseology like this. You may not think words are that important lowing but just remember it was words that facilitated the murder of 6 million Jews.

lowing wrote:
The Muslim community has already established what they are capable of if they are not appeased. They have proven it. GB just wants to be sure it doesn't happen there.
Why, what did they do? And who are 'The Muslim Community'? Is it some kind of club? What is 'appeasement' in your book? I don't see any appeasement of Muslims. All I see is the west standing fully behind their arch enemy - Israel - not exactly 'appeasement' now I think you'll agree... and propping up brutal dictators for a couple of barrels of cheap oil.

PS Wtf is going on with serge and gs??!!!

Serge: Apologies
GS: Stick your apologies
Serge: FU asshole
GS: Anti Semite
Alpha: Holiday time!
m3th: Kick em out of the HOF and install me and davy p(oofter)!

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-01-20 14:42:10

#355

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6664|London, England

m3thod, you missed it all. You cock. That thread was made for the shit that you guys do.

2008-01-20 14:43:31

#356

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6715|UK

Mek-Izzle wrote:
m3thod, you missed it all. You cock. That thread was made for the shit that you guys do.

no no i was lurking right there. I like Sergy and GS so i am not going to get involved in their handbags at dawn duel.

Anyway Alpha has cleaned it all up.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-01-20 14:45:40

#357

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6853|Nårvei

The HOF is a joke anyways m3thod, and DST have definately seen better days - it's no longer a debate over interesting issues, it's two camps throwing rocks at eachother ... it's really depressing how low the standard of arguments have gotten with the apology thread and the two appeasement threads as the latest examples

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2008-01-20 14:54:34

#358

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6664|London, England

The HoF is a relic of a bygone era. It's been more or less the same people arguing since the site was made. Eventually they're gonna get pissed off at each other to different levels. Shit happens. DAST probably won't be how it was, but it ain't that bad.

You still have relatively normal posters like Turkwise, Kmarion, FEOS, 'Egg, Jennings, Poe, IG Calibre, lowing etc..

2008-01-20 14:55:39

#359

jord: Member; +2,382|6721|The North, beyond the wall.

Mek-Izzle wrote:
The HoF is a relic of a bygone era. It's been more or less the same people arguing since the site was made. Eventually they're gonna get pissed off at each other to different levels. Shit happens. DAST probably won't be how it was, but it ain't that bad.

You still have relatively normal posters like Turkwise, Kmarion, FEOS, 'Egg, Jennings, Poe, IG Calibre, lowing etc..

Whilst I don't agree with what you say sir I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

2008-01-20 14:57:39

#360

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6664|London, England

jord wrote:
Mek-Izzle wrote:
The HoF is a relic of a bygone era. It's been more or less the same people arguing since the site was made. Eventually they're gonna get pissed off at each other to different levels. Shit happens. DAST probably won't be how it was, but it ain't that bad.

You still have relatively normal posters like Turkwise, Kmarion, FEOS, 'Egg, Jennings, Poe, IG Calibre, lowing etc..
Whilst I don't agree with what you say sir I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

no u

2008-01-20 16:03:05

#361

David.P: Banned; +649|6317

m3thod wrote:
Serge: Apologies
GS: Stick your apologies
Serge: FU asshole
GS: Anti Semite
Alpha: Holiday time!
m3th: Kick em out of the HOF and install me and davy p(oofter)!

Well if there was one for Trolls and Anti-Trolls, then maybe.

2008-01-20 16:19:45

#362

mikkel: Member; +383|6644

Varegg wrote:
lowing wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:

His arguments make sense to me...

If old Irish women start blowing up buildings or killing people in the name of a religion they have perverted.... I will call them old Irish lady Terrorists too... lol
But if it turns out that old Irish women have a history of violent reactions and can and will burn down a city, I am sure measures will be taken not to get them stirred up. In other words, we can appease them.

If you throw a mad dog a steak to divert his attention so he does not bite you, it may be smart, but you still appeased the dog with the steak.
Are you really that sure a steak is the dogs main goal ? ... that really is called a diversion, not appeasement ...

It's not really diversion. It's meant to create longer term stability, not short term distraction.

In my opinion, a democracy is built on appeasement. The entire concept of public demonstration is centered around the idea of the government appeasing the electorate, and the notion of any open democracy must build on making it acceptable to everyone as best as possible.

Concession and appeasement. Without it, you couldn't run a democracy. In that aspect, it becomes a question of your fondness of immigration, not whether or not appeasement is a bad thing.

2008-01-20 17:13:20

#363

PureFodder: Member; +225|6329

Ok, I'm not reading all 15 pages so if this came up already, sorry.

Look out USA your appeasement is showing!

2008-01-20 17:27:17

#364

adam1503: Member; +85|6431|Manchester, UK

PureFodder wrote:
Ok, I'm not reading all 15 pages so if this came up already, sorry.

Look out USA your appeasement is showing!

Nope that hasnt come up yet: now THAT is appeasement.

2008-01-20 17:40:30

#365

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6715|UK

mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm appeasement mmmmmmmmm

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-01-20 18:29:00

#366

=OBS= EstebanRey: Member; +256|6594|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Does the OP realise what the word "appeasement" means?

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe

....and that's a bad thing how?

2008-01-20 18:32:36

#367

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6690

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Does the OP realise what the word "appeasement" means?

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe

....and that's a bad thing how?

You must be a muslim. Good for you.

2008-01-20 18:34:00

#368

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6718|Canberra, AUS

Peace, bad?

Idunno.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-01-20 18:39:45

#369

=OBS= EstebanRey: Member; +256|6594|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Does the OP realise what the word "appeasement" means?

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe

....and that's a bad thing how?
You must be a muslim. Good for you.

White athiest actually but thanks anyway. So only Muslims believe peace is a good idea?

2008-01-20 18:48:33

#370

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6173|North Tonawanda, NY

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Does the OP realise what the word "appeasement" means?

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe

....and that's a bad thing how?

There was an entire thread already on the definition of appeasement. Yours is just one of the accepted definitions of the word. Lowing's usage is also correct.

2008-01-20 18:53:50

#371

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6690

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Does the OP realise what the word "appeasement" means?

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe

....and that's a bad thing how?
You must be a muslim. Good for you.
White athiest actually but thanks anyway. So only Muslims believe peace is a good idea?

No, apparently muslims are the only people who aren't allowed to be offended.

2008-01-20 18:59:01

#372

=OBS= EstebanRey: Member; +256|6594|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

SenorToenails wrote:
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Does the OP realise what the word "appeasement" means?

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe

....and that's a bad thing how?
There was an entire thread already on the definition of appeasement. Yours is just one of the accepted definitions of the word. Lowing's usage is also correct.

Sorry, there's me thinking that word definitions were decided by lexicographers in Oxford but actually DST members are the authority on semantics[/sarcasm]

I suggest if lowing wants to use a more accurate word in the future he uses "panderism", "cajolement" or just straight forward "brown nosing".

2008-01-20 18:59:48

#373

adam1503: Member; +85|6431|Manchester, UK

SenorToenails wrote:
There was an entire thread already on the definition of appeasement. Yours is just one of the accepted definitions of the word. Lowing's usage is also correct.

Actually, this was the thread that sparked the debate. And while Lowing's definitions of the term "appeasement" are correct, his use of the word is not, as it doesnt apply to the situation.

No demands were made
We are already in conflict with radical Islam

Therefore this does not constitute appeasement.

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-20 19:01:12)

2008-01-20 19:04:20

#374

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6695|USA

Basically, this is the same argument that Clinton used when he got caught lying.... Ummmm "define IS". A lame attempt at stalling the truth.

The bottom line is, we all know what the definition of appeasement is, and this lame attempt to dissect it, is an attempt at distracting us from the meat and potatoes of this thread. Nothing more

Hell, I even have people that normally do not agree with calling bullshit on this attempt.

2008-01-20 19:07:58

#375

adam1503: Member; +85|6431|Manchester, UK

What am i trying to distract you from in this thread Lowing? You make it sound like there is some kind of big conspiracy or cover-up going on here. Why not explain yourself instead of hiding behind anti-EU, anti-Islam rhetoric?

Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 32

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Look Out Great Britain, Your Appeasement Is Showing!!

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Look Out Great Britain, Your Appeasement Is Showing!!

lowing wrote:

jord wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

jord wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Board footer