CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4097
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:13 pm
 


Donny_Brasco wrote:
Why would I want to hate a Muslum or an Iranian when not one of them ever accused me of being on welfare just beacuse of the color of my skin?


They'd rather cut off your head because you're the wrong religion.

Donny_Brasco wrote:
Why the fuck would I wan to go fight for the likes of you overseas when you won't even stand up for me here in Canada?


You seem to be the one fixated on us vs them. We are all Canadians except those who are hyphenated or dual citizens.

Donny_Brasco wrote:
Are you standing up for those Brits just because they are white, or because you know all the facts? Bush and Blair sure convinced you there were WMD's in Iraq. Are you ready to believe them again just because they "said so"?


Are you ready to believe Iran on its word instead? Hell, these idiots accused Canada of sending Canadian suicide bombers to attack their cities and just finished claiming that the Brits stormed and shot up the Iranian embassy In Iraq.

Donny_Brasco wrote:
Bring on the racial taunts. I'm so far beyond letting the likes of you bother me with your insecurity and ignorant behaviour.


Ke”kwa'n to taman, kiki'skwepa'n :roll:


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4097
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:17 pm
 


Arctic_Menace wrote:
Quote:
Getting something called an Error 171 everytime I press submit. Is that some kinda new Liberal sensitivity PC filter?


We're all getting it, jackass. :roll:


I've been pretty patient with your constant insults and name calling but if you keep acting like a Liberal I'm going to start treating you as one.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29158
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:18 pm
 


Donny_Brasco wrote:
Why the fuck would I wan to go fight for the likes of you overseas when you won't even stand up for me here in Canada?


Cause & effect.

You ask for loyalty when you've never given any yourself.

Try a different philosophy, Donny, and you may find a different effect.

JFK wrote:
..ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17114
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:56 pm
 


Quote:
I've been pretty patient with your constant insults and name calling but if you keep acting like a Liberal I'm going to start treating you as one.


And I(along with many Liberals on CKA) am getting really pissed off at your condescending attitude towards Liberals. :roll:

I rarely take shit sitting down... :roll:


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4097
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:09 pm
 


Arctic_Menace wrote:
Quote:
I've been pretty patient with your constant insults and name calling but if you keep acting like a Liberal I'm going to start treating you as one.


And I(along with many Liberals on CKA) am getting really pissed off at your condescending attitude towards Liberals. :roll:

I rarely take shit sitting down... :roll:


Boo fucking hoo. Does not justify or excuse being an asshole.

If you don't like that I really really really dislike Liberal politics then you can:

1. Ignore me.

2. Petition my suspension

3. Try to rationally engage me.

4. Play yet another round of tit for tat to assuage your bruised sensitivities.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3171
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:35 am
 


Iran crisis is Blair's true legacy

By MAX HASTINGS

30th March 2007


Image
The Royal Navy wouldn't have put up with any crap from the Iranians in the 1840s when Lord Palmerston was Foreign Secretary (and much better than the soppy Margaret Beckett we have today)



One day in 1848, the Royal Navy warship HMS Fantome dropped anchor off the Greek port of Patras, and dispatched a boat to the shore to take on water.

Greek relations with Britain were then poor, following several incidents in which British subjects had allegedly been mistreated.

Local police in Patras detained the midshipman in command of the boat. He was held overnight before being grudgingly released.

Palmerston, Britain's Foreign Secretary of the day, professed outrage. It was he who invented what became known as '"gunboat diplomacy".



Image


At first, the Greek government refused either redress to the British subjects - a pretty disreputable lot, as it happened - or an apology for the insult to Fantome's midshipman.

A powerful British fleet was cruising off the Dardanelles. Palmerston dispatched the Royal Navy to blockade first Piraeus, then every Greek port, and to seize any ship which attempted passage.

After a few weeks under siege, the Greeks caved in. The injured British subjects received handsome compensation. The little midshipman got his apology.

Compare and contrast that episode with the experience of 15 British service personnel, illegally seized by the Iranians, held prisoner and threatened with a show trial.

The US and Britain deploy hundreds of thousands of men, hundreds of combat aircraft and the most powerful fleet in the world in Iraq and its surrounding waters.

Yet all this might can contribute nothing to retrieving the hostages - for hostages are, of course, what the British prisoners have become.

There is no credible military option. Nobody who remembers President Jimmy Carter's disastrous 1980 attempt to rescue the 52 Americans taken hostage in the Tehran Embassy would contemplate a repeat performance.

A major military operation would be needed, dependent on American planes and helicopters.

No matter how brilliant is the SAS, nor what intelligence can be gathered about the British prisoners' place of detention, the risk of failure is far too great. It could precipitate open conflict between Iran, Britain and America.

The captives' freedom must turn, therefore, on diplomacy. What is the United Nations for, if not for this? Here we have a case in which European solidarity should be assured, an outrage against international law and basic standards of civilised behaviour.

The seizure happened eight days ago. Yet it took almost a week for Europe's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, to denounce it, and for the French government to be persuaded to join calls for the servicemen's release. So much for all Blair's wasted wooing of the EU.

At the United Nations - and remember that the Royal Navy's patrol was acting under a UN mandate - Britain has struggled to achieve an agreed wording for a Security Council resolution condemning the Iranian action.

The Russians baulked at accepting that the British party was in Iraqi waters, despite the satnav evidence presented by the Navy.


Many other countries simply don't want to know. Publicly or privately, they think the British have no business to be in Iraq or its offshore waters.

They shun the American and British involvement in the country as if it was some contagious disease, which in a sense it is. Fearful of infection, third parties keep their distance and their silence.

More than a few nations are frankly frightened of the Iranians. The Tehran regime is one of the most ruthless in the world, the foremost sponsor of global terror. Iran is widely admired in Islamic societies for its defiance of the West.

To states with no desire to posture internationally, it seems most prudent to avoid words or gestures which might antagonise Iran's wild men.

Anything for a quiet life, and to persuade terrorists to pitch their camps elsewhere.

That leaves British diplomats forced into urging, cajoling, pleading with governments around the world to give support in the political offensive to regain the sailors and marines.

On Thursday night, the UN Security Council expressed "grave concern" over the detention of the Britons and called for the crisis to be resolved as soon as possible.

But the statement, agreed by all 15 members after more than three hours of negotiations, was a setback for Britain because it fell short of "deploring" Tehran's actions and demanding the detainees' immediate release.

As predicted, the statement was weasel words. How they must be enjoying themselves in Tehran today! Once again they have flaunted their contempt for Western power, once again they have demonstrated the impotence of their foes.

Days, even weeks, of pleasure lie ahead for them, playing on the emotions of the British people as if they were strumming some devil's lute.

The prisoners, bewildered and frightened by the uncertainty of their fate, can be paraded on television to apologise and 'assisted' to write letters home as often as their captors choose.

Do you remember how, in 1975, Britain's then Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan, was obliged to pay a personal visit to the monstrous Idi Amin of Uganda to secure the release of his former acolyte, Major Bob Astles? That humiliation may seem trifling, by comparison, with the dance that Tehran will lead the Blair government, before we get back our sailors.

The truth is that Iran is emerging as one of the big winners of the US and Britain's disaster in Iraq.
The country is run by one of the nastiest governments on earth.

Its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a fanatic who proclaims that Hitler's Holocaust was a fantasy, invented by Jews to justify creating their state.

He denies Israel's right to exist, supports Palestinian and Iraqi terrorism, and is of course committed to building an Iranian atomic bomb.

Once upon a time, the United States could have expected to build a global coalition to contain Iran, perhaps even to take military action against it, which would have commanded overwhelming support.

Yet, so low has respect fallen for the US, and especially for its president, that the international community prefers to stand back, to let Washington and London take the strain.

Iran brilliantly exploits its dual status as part-Islamic crusader, part-victim of Western imperialism. There is talk of economic sanctions, if Tehran persists with its nuclear programme in defiance of UN resolutions.

If Iran's government was rational, it would fear an international blockade. Its economy is in chaos. Its huge oil industry is capable of meeting only 60 per cent of the country's own fuel needs.

Yet so strongly is the tide of Islamic fervour flowing, that it seems doubtful that sanctions would bring down the militants. It is hard to punish a masochist.

President Ahmad-inejad and his supporters relish every Western threat. Their power and influence feed on enemies.

George Bush's extravagant rhetoric over the past six years has fed matchwood onto the flames of Iranian defiance.

A state of siege is just what the mullahs and militants need to massage their nation's paranoia.

It is a fine mess. In Iraq, Bush and Blair have inflicted such crippling damage upon the US and Britain's standing in the world that we find it hard to muster a quorum of support against a murderous rogue state which has kidnapped 15 of our sailors.

Tony, however, wants us to look on the bright side.

Amid a national humiliation, he has tried to give us something to laugh about, to bring comfort to those poor young men and one woman confined in an Iranian jail. He has placed British policy in the hands of Margaret Beckett.

Ms Beckett, you will remember, was the minister who proved incapable of administering subsidy payments to Britain's farmers in her last job as Secretary for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Only this week, a House of Commons Committee delivered a devastating report on her performance.

It is plain that she should have been sacked.

But Tony loves to tease. Instead, he made Beckett Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Here was a woman who knew less about abroad than the average booze-cruiser. Her idea of travelling to broaden the mind is to take her benighted caravan to Bognor. Yet Blair made her responsible for Britain's foreign policy.

The only rational argument for the appointment was that, since our foreign policy was shipwrecked by slavish support of Bush and by the Iraq engagement, it scarcely mattered who was in charge of the flotsam that was left.


But now, suddenly, foreign policy seems important again.

Diplomacy, and only diplomacy, can retrieve the captives from the Iranians. It is a scandal that it should be placed in the hands of a minister who is the stuff of satire.

Yet there is worse. A glance at any of the British internet websites which invite comment on the sailors' seizure reveals a significant number of respondents who doubt the truth of the Royal Navy's report about the boat's position on the Shatt al-Arab waterway where the incident took place.

However critical many of us are about Blair's lies, it seems unthinkable that the Navy could lie on this issue.

Yet here we see people in our own country, who now have so little trust in our leaders that they prefer to believe the mad regime in Tehran.

If such doubts are being expressed within Britain, who can be surprised by scepticism abroad?

Here are the bitterest fruits of Blair's years of lies and dodgy dossiers; some British people are prepared to believe the word of the mullahs in preference to that of their own leaders.

So far, in the face of humiliation, the Government has done just one sensible thing. It has persuaded the Bush administration to say as little as possible. The only certainty in this drama is that, if the U.S. seeks to escalate the confrontation, come Christmas we shall still be waiting to get our people back.

The way forward lies in patient, low-key diplomacy - a chance to exploit the fact that some of the warring factions inside Iran's government do not want to push this incident too far. The more Iran perceives this episode as a trial of strength with the West, the less likely is an early resolution.

WE HAVE to keep hoping that, once the Iranians have had their propaganda banquet, they will see an advantage in behaving 'mercifully'. Like all delinquents, the Tehran leadership yearns for respect.

Having demonstrated its muscle by kidnapping the sailors, it can show its 'generosity' by releasing them.

That, of course, is the best-case scenario.

The alternative is that the Iranians perceive advantage in keeping this awful game going. If that proves the case, only sustained pressure from the international community will eventually get our people back again.

When this business is over, hard questions should be asked in Britain. Who was responsible for exposing the sailors within reach of one of the most reckless nations in the world? This was a kidnapping waiting to happen.

It has laid bare the bankruptcy of British foreign policy, shackled to America's Iraq calamity. Blair has forfeited respect in the Muslim world, where a decade ago our influence remained substantial. He has lost not only the battle to turn the British people into Euro-enthusiasts, but also his campaign to make this country a major force in Europe.

Many governments around the world will forgive a nation for abusing its power, but not for failing in the attempt to do so. By Blair's blind support for George Bush even into the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, he has identified Britain with defeat as well as with disrepute.

It will take years to repair the damage which he has inflicted on our reputation for prudence and honest dealing.

On this 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, he may even claim to have thrown away the great name Britain's forces gained there, by their battlefield triumphs. We no longer look like winners.

As Gordon Brown returned last night from a day cavorting in Afghanistan, playing out his pigeon-chested photo-call as prime minister-in-waiting, there is only one question to which we need an answer from him: what will he do differently, to rescue this country from the international shambles which Blair will soon bequeath to us?

dailymail.co.uk


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3171
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:51 am
 


Image
Safavi ... hates West
Picture: REX




Ga-ga Yahya out for revenge


By TOM NEWTON DUNN
Defence Editor

THE SUN
March 31, 2007


THIS is the crazed Iranian godfather of terror who ordered the kidnap of 15 British sailors and Marines.

Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi is the all-powerful chief of the Revolutionary Guards, the military fanatics holding our Royal Navy heroes.

Intelligence sources believe the kidnapping of 14 men and one woman last week could be Safavi’s revenge for a series of blows recently inflicted on him by the West.

His identity is revealed by The Sun amid outrage over further parading of the Brits on TV.

General Safavi, in his 50s, is answerable only to himself and is a religious zealot who hates Britain and America.

His Guards train and fund Shiite Muslim insurgents to kill British and US soldiers in Iraq.

But Safavi’s evil campaign received a setback in December, when a UN resolution froze all his foreign assets over his role in Iran’s quest for a nuclear arsenal.

Then in January US special forces arrested five of his top lieutenants in Iraq. And last month one of his key intelligence colonels defected.

Furious Safavi — an ally of hardline President Mahmood Ahmadinejad — is keeping the hostages at a Guards barracks in Tehran, while coordinating the propaganda broadcasts, and refusing to give anyone else access.

A Whitehall source said yesterday: “The Iranian Foreign Ministry is unable to answer any of our ambassador’s questions about the captives because they simply don’t know themselves. It shows who’s running the show.”

Another source added: “Safavi and the Guards have their own agenda for taking the Navy crew.

“They’ve taken some big hits, so it could well be revenge.”

Image
Paraded heroes ... Summers, left, Turney and Sperry on Iran TV last night
Picture: REUTERS



Significantly, a week before the Britons were grabbed, the Guards’ newspaper bragged they could “capture a bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks”.

Tony Blair showed his revulsion yesterday as Iran again twisted the knife into the worried families of our sailors and Royal Marines.

TV footage was aired of another forced “confession”, this time from frightened young sailor Nathan Summers, 21. The video showed signs of editing, suggesting his words had been manipulated.

The PM said: “I really don’t know why the Iranian regime keep doing this. All it does is enhance people’s sense of disgust.

“Captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way doesn’t fool anyone.”

Image
Crazed ... Safavi, left, with Iran's President


Iran claims the Brits, seized on two small boats on March 23 during a patrol from frigate HMS Cornwall, were in its territorial waters. Britain has proved they were in Iraqi waters.

Gordon Brown, on a visit to troops in Afghanistan, called the treatment of our sailors and Marines “inhuman and callous”.

The UN Security Council agreed a statement voicing “grave concern” at Iran’s actions.
And the EU warned of “appropriate measures”.

A third hostage paraded on TV was Royal Marine Adam Sperry, 22, from Leicester.

After seeing him in the footage his relieved uncle Ray Cooper, 49, said: “We’ve been really worried, but there was no mistaking that cocky grin. We feel better.”

Another hostage was named as Royal Marine Corporal Dean Harris, 24, of Carmarthen, Wales.

Three others have been named as Royal Marines Paul Barton, 21, of Southport, Merseyside, Danny Masterton, 26, from Muirkirk, Ayrshire, Scotland and Joe Tindell, 21, from South London

thesun.co.uk


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 373
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:20 am
 


Donny_Brasco wrote:
Why would I want to hate a Muslum or an Iranian when not one of them ever accused me of being on welfare just beacuse of the color of my skin?

Why the fuck would I wan to go fight for the likes of you overseas when you won't even stand up for me here in Canada?

Are you standing up for those Brits just because they are white, or because you know all the facts? Bush and Blair sure convinced you there were WMD's in Iraq. Are you ready to believe them again just because they "said so"?

Bring on the racial taunts. I'm so far beyond letting the likes of you bother me with your insecurity and ignorant behaviour.
Oh brother!!!

Ever given much thought to telling people you aren't native bud.

You're giving us a bad name.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3171
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:30 am
 


The FO and the UN won't protect Britain


By Simon Heffer

31/03/2007


Why must Britain listen to the weak UN?



Image



I start to wonder whether it might not be time for us to get as nasty with other countries as they do with us. As we wait anxiously to see what will happen to our 15 hostages - for that is what they are - in Teheran, we should feel undiluted rage at the behaviour of other countries and institutions towards us. Mind you, when those third parties witness the drivelling weakness of the Foreign Office over the past week, and in particular the pathetic show put up by our Foreign Secretary - who must surely be just about the worst in our history - who can blame them?

There is no doubt the 15 were in international waters when captured, or that they were undertaking a United Nations mission in pursuit of upholding UN resolutions.

Yet the best the UN can do is pass a weak-kneed resolution describing its "grave concern", rather than a tougher one calling upon all nations to "deplore" Iran's behaviour. This is all the fault of Russia, to whom Mr Blair routinely cosies up, and whom the civilised world invites to its annual G8 summits. Russia seems to think it isn't worth "deploring" the kidnap of our sailors, so we had better start to show Russia what we think of it: by uninviting it from the G8 this year, and every year until it learns some manners. When not busy allegedly ordering the murders of his opponents, Vladimir Putin seems to enjoy hobnobbing with the leaders of civilised countries, so such a sanction would hurt.

We don't have the means to engage in gunboat diplomacy with Iran, and any special forces operation would be fraught with risks both for the hostages and their rescuers. For the moment, ever-stricter sanctions on Iran seems the only answer.

America is resolute about this: so too, oddly, is the world's greatest sanction-busting nation, France. So the scope for tightening the economic ratchet on Iran, and the means to do so, look healthy. However, we should be under no illusions about the effectiveness of such weapons.

Saddam Hussein, after all, was put under sanctions for years. Real hardship was caused to his people, but almost none to him and his ruling clique. President Ahmadinejad of Iran has already threatened Britain about our involvement of "third parties" - that is, the UN - in the present dispute, showing his utter contempt for that organisation. He would treat sanctions with similar disdain, happily cutting off the noses of his own people to spite their faces. And all the time, the threat he and his inherent instability pose to us all would never cease growing.

Whatever the immediate outcome of this crisis, Britain has some hard decisions to make. Is it worthwhile, any longer, to work through the United Nations? So long as a morally warped nation like Putin's Russia calls the shots in the Security Council, no. We can make debating points about how odd it is that Putin deplores Islamic nutters when they attack his forces but is relaxed about them attacking ours, but in the end there is no point in bothering. The UN showed itself to be weak with Saddam Hussein. It is no better now. If we are going to continue to try to be a player in the Middle East, then we have to throw in our lot with the Americans, for no one else makes the blindest bit of difference there.

The capricious, and indeed downright wicked, behaviour of the Iranians towards our sailors confirms one other thing: that the civilised world cannot let the Ahmadinejad regime develop nuclear weapons. It is not just his oft-repeated enthusiasm for wiping Israel off the face of the earth that should worry us: it is what this madman might decide he wants to do to anyone else within range.

This is no time for our clueless Government to be mothballing the Navy and cutting down the other services. For, at some stage, Iran's lethal contempt for the rule of international law is going to mean war.


telegraph.co.uk


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25510

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:26 am
 


Quote:
I rarely take shit sitting down...


I always take a shit sitting down, otherwise it gets messy and you end up smelling like one of Brasco's opinions.

or his breath.





PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:36 am
 


grainfedprairieboy wrote:
Donny_Brasco wrote:
Why would I want to hate a Muslum or an Iranian when not one of them ever accused me of being on welfare just beacuse of the color of my skin?


They'd rather cut off your head because you're the wrong religion.


As opposed to the hundereds of thousands of Iraqis who are now dead because the west thinks it knows whats best for Iraqis? Give me a break. The minute minority of radical muslums who would actually be cutting peoples heads off would have to be very busy to match that.

grainfedprairieboy wrote:
Donny_Brasco wrote:
Are you standing up for those Brits just because they are white, or because you know all the facts? Bush and Blair sure convinced you there were WMD's in Iraq. Are you ready to believe them again just because they "said so"?


Are you ready to believe Iran on its word instead? Hell, these idiots accused Canada of sending Canadian suicide bombers to attack their cities and just finished claiming that the Brits stormed and shot up the Iranian embassy In Iraq.


It must be frightening when you have all the power in the world to make people conform and people would still rather stand against the West and not conform. And no, I don't trust the Iranian government. But they have every right to enforce their own laws in their own land AND the Americans and Brits have both shown they have little respect for foreigh territories (i.e illegal war, CIA flights etc...). So ya, like I said, if you can't do the time in an Iranian prision stay the fuck out of Iran. [/quote]





PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:41 am
 


CDNBear wrote:
Donny_Brasco wrote:
Why would I want to hate a Muslum or an Iranian when not one of them ever accused me of being on welfare just beacuse of the color of my skin?

Why the fuck would I wan to go fight for the likes of you overseas when you won't even stand up for me here in Canada?

Are you standing up for those Brits just because they are white, or because you know all the facts? Bush and Blair sure convinced you there were WMD's in Iraq. Are you ready to believe them again just because they "said so"?

Bring on the racial taunts. I'm so far beyond letting the likes of you bother me with your insecurity and ignorant behaviour.
Oh brother!!!

Ever given much thought to telling people you aren't native bud.

You're giving us a bad name.


Ever thought to read the thread and post comments relating to the topic? Didn't think so. I think Michael Jackson has a special tanning booth that will make you look white too, boy.





PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:47 am
 


ShepherdsDog wrote:
Quote:
I rarely take shit sitting down...


I always take a shit sitting down, otherwise it gets messy and you end up smelling like one of Brasco's opinions.

or his breath.


Don;t you find it more interesting to debate with people with other opinions, or is this right-wing circle-jerk of a forum working for you?

Trevor, why has this forum turned from such a good place to debate to such a gross mess of right-wing fagotty mess? When I joined this forum there were people who threw around insults but atleast they were attached to logical arguements and worthy viewpoints.

Have the maggots scared away anyone willing to put forth alternate views?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4097
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:54 am
 


GreatBriton wrote:
Paraded heroes


Heroes? They surrendered to an oppossing force without firing a shot. This may make them French but hardly makes them hereos.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25510

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:08 am
 


Once again, Donny proves that everything is about skin pigmentation to him. British and Americans are seen as white and therefore eeevil and the darker Iranians ........ wait........ Donny, Iranians are Indo Aryans, not just caucasian, but actually Indo Europeans just like the American, British and Canadians you demonize.

Now he'll really have a conumndrum about who to villify and which group to cheer for when whitey is killing whitey. Interesting that your Asian brothers discriminate based on how dark someone is here. They go as far as bleaching their skin. Were your ancestors the ones chased out of eastern Asia in an early Mongoloid helter skelter? Sounds pretty silly doesn't it, just like your persistent racist bullshit. But hey, if you had an education or tried to get one , left the Rez once in awhile, maybe just maybe, you'd see the world differently in a more positive white.... sorry, I meant light.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 491 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 29  30  31  32  33  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.