BruceVC

Thank goodness for a DA that isn't corrupt to the point they won't ever prosecute cops for murder, no matter how much evidence there is. Yeah this does seem like a real case of a policeman abusing his power and committing a crime, its good that there were legal consequences

Third time'll the charm for you, keep at it. Despite all the wonderful posts you guys have put up about this stuff, I still have no desire to delve into the buttcrack of the internet and get involved in your movement. Then why are you continuously posting in a thread about it? Excellent question, I find this thread most of the time utterly irrelevant but there are certain interesting topics you guys raise and I like to debate certain topics that are aligned with SJ issues

Why do you feel the need to insult my intelligence? Disregarding that you know far too little about me to judge this, its rude and most importantly it derails the conversation. I am not spewing hate-speech, I have been the one name-called and threatened in the thread to this point. I will not go in to you with how no transgendered person was involved or accentuating that it was the man who got hurt (And you do not know if he was white or not), becuase that is also derailing and I think you know whats up. I find it strange how so much anger can stem from a group of people, who are evidently already suppressed, expressing feelings of hurt. 1. Because your opening statement was moronic and racist. 2. You are spewing hate speech and aligning with genocide advocates and Neo Nazi's, and no transgendered person was mentioned or even hinted at in that poem, that's objective fact, no lies will change that. 3. You are being ridiculed because you're stating ridiculous things. @Bruce: The hypocrite abuser of women argues for honesty, try some yourself. More importantly we call it Black Pudding not Blood Pudding in England. Personally I prefer a nice Toad in the Hole, Lincolnshire or Cumberland sausage, cooked into a nice big Yorkshire Pudding with a rich, thick onion gravy. Nonek please...I thought we agreed you would save the soapbox lectures about me for the GG thread? All I was saying is quit the innuendo and say what you want. You can't make a post suggesting that the Op doesn't have the intelligence to deserve a response and then make several posts...it makes you look silly, And thats my area of expertise ...its not normally yours

Well, you are trolling, what did you expect? You really think he is trolling? I don't, I think he is making a point he feels strongly about but its just not been very well received. Often when people make unpopular posts they are accused of Trolling but that isn't always the case

That's strange, you say the Op isn't intelligent enough to warrant a response...yet you make a post which is exactly a response ...your comment is just indirectly addressed towards him. You do see the contradiction in your post right Nonek? You clearly want to comment so just comment and be honest about it

No of course not, the West has its faults and has made many mistakes in the past But as I have tried to highlight Western countries offer there citizens the best quality of life...and that is by far the most important benchmark when we ask " what makes a good government " .Its not factors like military might or GDP, even though these are relevant to overall happiness, but rather a much simpler question that determines what forms of government in the world are to be admired and emulated ...and that question is " are the citizens of a particular country happy " So when we look at the various governments and ideologies around the world Western ideology should be seen as superior but not because its intrinsically superior but because of the quality of life of citizens in those countries. Why deny this? Lets give Western governments some credit and recognition

I guess he needed to point out the obvious for some reason, to you ? Nah not the obvious, just Zora looking to undermine and blame the West for all ills in the world. I am still waiting for him to let us know that " Western sanctions have had no impact on the Russian economy" ...that always makes for a good laugh

No I don't agree with that, we should all be entitled to our opinions. But we should also be sensitive to what we say and how it impacts others that are traditionally victims of systemic abuse, like the LGBT community

Well maybe if KP wrote his post in English it wouldn't be so unintelligible ?

I don't disagree with you on all your points raised White heterosexual males are the least most discriminated group in the world, its obvious and irrefutable to anyone who wants to have this debate in a rational and reasonable way. I have raised this several times But if you read the GG thread people will have you believe that white heterosexual male face this terrible social onslaught from ....society? I'm not sure who is attacking my demographic but I don't feel discriminated against at all So good post and worth discussing further

Excellent post! You make some great points and I highly suggest everyone read this post Cheeky

Well my advice is stop raising the same issues if you don't want people to dispute the same points? Its not rocket science If a new forum member who is unfamiliar with what has been discussed says " no one cares about violence towards men" I will obviously dispute that Also stop trying to be the center of attention, if McMayhem has this concern then let us discuss it...you keep thinking you are judge and jury of what is acceptable content. And you not, sorry

My opinion is not shaped just by the media but by my personal experiences and what I have seen, probably same as you But Luj1 you are new to these forums and I hope you continue to be active. Its good to see new members, please don't take these discussions personally. Its good we all have different views and perspectives ..that's the nature of debate

No offense but this post seems like a rant to me and a justification to enforce the status quo...which is a lack of inclusivity in games So I want to keep this simple because if you know me you will know I firmly believe in SJ issues but we have also discussed this type of topic to death and still don't have consensus Who said its okay to have violence perpetuated against men and yet violence against women is unacceptable ? Lets just focus on that statement from you ..because that's a serious comment and one that needs to be addressed and debated

If that's true, the individual behind the accounts is a very mentally disturbed person. Also likely a paid troll. The mods likely can confirm or deny with an IP comparison check. It's doubtful the individual is smart enough to use a proxy. Good website metrics software also could confirm/deny, though I wouldn't necessarily expect mods to have access to that info, if Obsidian is even keeping track. Just for the record Oby is many things but stupid is not one of them Firstly I don't believe he is a Troll, I have been on these forums for 3 years and he has never really changed his persona. He clearly speaks Russian and only once or twice has his posts suddenly been in better English.,..but any decent translation software can do that So then if you really believe he is a troll ask yourself how much effort it must take to constantly pretend you are someone else, to have to remember how you post and what you " believe " in previous posts. This would take someone of considerable intelligence ..and I would be surprised if he was that clever and devious So for me he is not a troll but someone who is really just anti-Western and blatantly pushes the anti-Western agenda I don't dislike him or really get annoyed by him, you cant really dislike someone who you can't debate with because thats how you get to know how someone thinks and what motivates them. Through debate ..and Oby basically avoids any serious debate So I read his posts sometimes but mostly I don't

Non intervention would have been great, wouldn't it? Imagine if the dear old Hutus hadn't have had french help and aid in escaping post genocide.... ah yes, such a nice daydream, at least some of those million murdered people would likely still be alive if the french hadn't 'intervened'. Funny isn't it, how people forget about who was propping up, arming and supporting the government and its militias at the time- and established 'safe zones', post genocide, to allow those militia to escape when it became clear they'd lose- in their rush to use the 'never again' (unless it's inconvenient, they're our enemies, their friends are too powerful, we're bored, there's no advantage in it, there's no money in it, the french are helping the perpetrators, the US is helping the perpetrators, the brits are starving them and helping the perpetrators etc) justification for everything, ain't it. Praise god though, lessons were learned! the french intervened in the CAR! and... well, they 'solved' muslim militias killing christians by getting christian militia killing muslims instead. Y'know, I'm not sure they actually did learn, did they? Except maybe that most people will ignore their complicity if it's convenient, of course. ..and more generally NATO turned Libya into a asteriskhole, stuffed up Iraq, broke up a sovereign state arbitrarily (funny how when Russia does it it's terrible though) stabbing the idea of international law (stupid idea as it is, but anyway) straight through the eye socket while creating an organ stealing klepto/ narco/ criminocratic statelet wholly dependent on NATO etc etc. Please tell me you didn't just exploit the Rwandan genocide to make a rather feeble (if true) point about French policy. Yes he did, its normal Zora posting etiquette This is his style, instead of acknowledging that Rwanda was a genocide perpetuated by Rwandans he attempts to obfuscate the issue by blaming the West and therefore deflecting attention. Now its " the French who are to blame because they helped Hutu's to escape " And if you seriously think I am Oby then you are more delusional than him

So knowing what you we know now you would be fine with another Rwanda, in other words you would support non-intervention in Rwanda and be fine with the genocide of 1 million people or so?

Yes, consideration based on one side's interests, sorry, human rights. Libya is fine ? A bunch of rebels get up and have the USAF and others act as their lackeys for what end ? The West doesn't seem to look down the road well at the results from their bombings (then again, assuming they want stable peaceful democratic nations) based on that and other misadventures. Am not too sure they get to wash their hands out of what comes out of a situation they helped create, after all. So what would you prefer? Either the West should not have intervened at all in Libya and when Gaddafi had won and there were tens of thousands of dead Libyans who opposed Gaddafi, there would have been that number of dead as he controlled the Libyan army, then its too late to be concerned about the humanitarian aspect and that would have been on the conscience of the world..also we would have heard the end of criticism ..." The West did nothing while tens of thousands were massacred in Misrata" Or do you prefer that the West is now responsible for being directly involved in the running of Libya once Gaddafi was defeated ? Or do you support intervention but once the ruler is removed the destiny and running of country is left to its own citizens? Because in the case of Libya there were only those three choices There were not tens of thousands of dead Libyans who opposed Gaddafi. You're just making **** up. The official propagandists who inflate numbers whenever they can don't even try and say that. The uprising against Gaddafi was actually quite small and limited to a couple areas of the nation for the most part. NATO decided to protect those areas, arm the protesters, and ultimately militarily involve themselves to make sure Gaddafi was overthrown. The result: thousands of dead that would not have been dead had NATO not gotten involved, and a nation in ruins. No Vals you don't understand, there weren't tens of thousands dead exactly because the West intervened to break the siege of Misrata and overthrow Gaddafi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata Gaddafi's forces had surrounded the town of Misrata and they would have happily razed the town to the ground as a message to the forces opposing Gaddafi So there would have been thousands of civilians killed if the West hadn't intervened, plus all the dead amongst the people directly opposed to Gaddafi So once again the Western intervention to break the siege of Misrata was justified due to the humanitarian precedent, even the UNSC supported this Your argument is flawed in the same way that people stated " the Syrian civil war won't lead to the deaths of tens of thousands " ..." there is no reason for the West to get involved, it will sort itself out " How many have died in Syria? 200 thousand and the death toll is still climbing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Yes, consideration based on one side's interests, sorry, human rights. Libya is fine ? A bunch of rebels get up and have the USAF and others act as their lackeys for what end ? The West doesn't seem to look down the road well at the results from their bombings (then again, assuming they want stable peaceful democratic nations) based on that and other misadventures. Am not too sure they get to wash their hands out of what comes out of a situation they helped create, after all. So what would you prefer? Either the West should not have intervened at all in Libya and when Gaddafi had won and there were tens of thousands of dead Libyans who opposed Gaddafi, there would have been that number of dead as he controlled the Libyan army, then its too late to be concerned about the humanitarian aspect and that would have been on the conscience of the world..also we would have heard the end of criticism ..." The West did nothing while tens of thousands were massacred in Misrata" Or do you prefer that the West is now responsible for being directly involved in the running of Libya once Gaddafi was defeated ? Or do you support intervention but once the ruler is removed the destiny and running of country is left to its own citizens? Because in the case of Libya there were only those three choices

So the US invented something to bypass the UNSC, how convenient.... In other words, when US kills its completely fine. OK for me but not for thee. Biggest load of BS ever... Its no different from American athletes exempted from steroid tests at the Olympics PS you should know the words "Clinton" and "humanitarian" just don't work in the same sentence . xD No thats not how the Clinton doctrine can or should be implemented, as I mentioned it can be used when it comes to prevent the systemic abuse of human rights, like the NATO intervention against the Serbs to prevent them from continuing to commit genocide in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Sometimes the humanitarian precedent becomes more important than the UNSC..but I am not suggesting the West should just ignore the UNSC. Despite sometimes leading to situations getting worse, like the protracted war in Syria caused by the veto of Russia and China, the UNSC needs to be respected for good or worse but not to when it leads to genocide...like Rwanda if intervention was based on UNSC. The West should intervene in those examples irrespective of the UNSC Yes because there is such a thing as the The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions which justifies USA intervention to prevent things like genocide even if the UNSC doesn't agree to it..which is not uncommon when you consider veto power of the permanent members http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Doctrine Oh phew, thank goodness there's a doctrine written by the US, better than some biased justification. US would be a better argument than NATO, though, think they acted outside the UN in Kosovo and stretched the resolution when they had the Libyan adventure (that paid off well). US on the other hand, you can bring in a whole host of "interventions". Once again certain military decisions need to be make outside the UNSC but only under special consideration..like Kosovo And yes Libya was fine, as I have said many times its not the West fault that the new government in Libya failed to run the country properly. The West cannot be also expected to govern countries once they intervene militarily. We know this doesn't really work, look at Iraq after the invasion

Yes because there is such a thing as the The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions which justifies USA intervention to prevent things like genocide even if the UNSC doesn't agree to it..which is not uncommon when you consider veto power of the permanent members http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Doctrine

True, it works both ways. However the biggest threat to world peace is clearly NATO. It lives off civil wars and third-world warzones Russia is no global threat, get real. 1,800 operational nukes in the hands of a textbook sociopath say otherwise. Who is this "textbook sociopath" you are talking about ? That would be Putin of course You say NATO is the biggest threat to world peace that the global community faces, I assume you are being serious so can you post links highlighting examples of where NATO has created wars or conflicts that weren't justified or supported by the UNSC? Because that's a serious accusation you are making

Guys seriously, 8/10 is an excellent score. Lets not see it in a negative light or a bad reflection on Gamespot who I personally like

Can you share some details because I am aware of some West involvement in those areas but I wasn't aware this was being done secretly or that the West was denying its involvement like Russia has been doing for months in Ukraine ?

I can't comment definitively, but a lot of educated Africans I've spoken to blame the whole Famine Industry for this. decades of portraying Africans as starving stray dogs hasn't helped. I just find it interesting, because 147 is history book level casualties. Maybe not headlines, but you'd find it written down. A battalion might lose that many in a single fight, and earn a mention. But these weren't soldiers in a war zone. These weren't flyblown kids in a parched land. These were students. Sorry for the late response, I have been really busy socializing over the Easter weekend Anyway people throughout Africa have been commenting and are very concerned about this brutal attack. But this is really a problem that the AU is suppose to resolve and as usual there is no real political will from the AU to resolve its own issues so why should the world be too concerned if the majority of African leaders aren't ? The AU is basically an impotent organisation that lacks real economic and political consensus, for example we still don't have a AU self-funded reactionary force that can be used to address military conflicts on the continent ...like Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram. We rely on funding and support from the UN The issue in Africa is not the people but the lack of leaders who truly want the continent to be transformed economically. We have blocks of countries that are aligned through financial imperative and trade agreements but they are more loyal to there own groups of countries than the continent That's why these types of appalling attacks will continue, the AU doesn't really have the real desire or will to address these problems