Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
surveyor
Participant[quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
Participant[quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
Participant[quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
Participantlandfill
Also consider that there is a landfill north of the property. That may play some part in lowering the price of the property.
Participantlandfill
Also consider that there is a landfill north of the property. That may play some part in lowering the price of the property.
Participantlandfill
Also consider that there is a landfill north of the property. That may play some part in lowering the price of the property.
Participantlandfill
Also consider that there is a landfill north of the property. That may play some part in lowering the price of the property.
Participantlandfill
Also consider that there is a landfill north of the property. That may play some part in lowering the price of the property.
ParticipantConcho:
Ok, first you said the actions of Europe and the dumping of toxic waste “in no way excuses the behavior” of the pirates, and then you use the word “however”. The way you phrase it, you are implying that the pirates have less responsibility and more excuses due to the actions of the Europeans.
So which is it? Because your words are honestly contradicting each other.
ParticipantConcho:
Ok, first you said the actions of Europe and the dumping of toxic waste “in no way excuses the behavior” of the pirates, and then you use the word “however”. The way you phrase it, you are implying that the pirates have less responsibility and more excuses due to the actions of the Europeans.
So which is it? Because your words are honestly contradicting each other.
ParticipantConcho:
Ok, first you said the actions of Europe and the dumping of toxic waste “in no way excuses the behavior” of the pirates, and then you use the word “however”. The way you phrase it, you are implying that the pirates have less responsibility and more excuses due to the actions of the Europeans.
So which is it? Because your words are honestly contradicting each other.
ParticipantConcho:
Ok, first you said the actions of Europe and the dumping of toxic waste “in no way excuses the behavior” of the pirates, and then you use the word “however”. The way you phrase it, you are implying that the pirates have less responsibility and more excuses due to the actions of the Europeans.
So which is it? Because your words are honestly contradicting each other.
ParticipantConcho:
Ok, first you said the actions of Europe and the dumping of toxic waste “in no way excuses the behavior” of the pirates, and then you use the word “however”. The way you phrase it, you are implying that the pirates have less responsibility and more excuses due to the actions of the Europeans.
So which is it? Because your words are honestly contradicting each other.
Participantliberal think
Sorry Concho, you are clearly excusing the action of the pirate criminals by putting up an example of a provocation for these criminals, using the example as a means to equate the crime of the perpetrator and the victim, or to describe extenuating circumstances that relieve the responsibility of the perpetrators. It is classic misdirection.
You say that you’re not excusing the behavior of the pirates, but two sentences later, you actually mention that the criminality “started” with Europe.
-
AuthorPosts
