dune

You're not very bright are you? That is not what i'm saying. I am saying that what we did in Kenya post 45 (that means after the war - are you still following?) was genocide. And i'm also saying that we did it in full knowledge of what happened in places like Auswitz after we'd condemned what the NAZI's did. With this is mind I think that what we did was equally as bad. Therefore I put it to you that you cannot say we were any better than them.

1) how can you say murdering a few thousand is worse than murdering a few million. That's like saying a serial killer that killed 20 is worse than a serial killer that killed 10. In terms terms of numbers there's a difference, but if you'd lost a family member in the "lesser" of the genocides i'm not sure you'd say the other was worse. The correct answer imo is that both genocides were as bad as each other, although you could argue that ours was worse because it was perpetrated after we all knew about the NAZI death camps. Basically we highlighted how bad places like Auswich were (ad they were) and then we went on to do the same thing. 2) It is relevent because you have made a point of highlighting the NAZI holocaust. You can't say one instance f genocide is relevent and another isn't simply to aid you win an argument. You're just contradicting yourself. 3) As i mentioned in point 1 we carried out our genocide in kenya post 45 after we had made a point of highlighting how bad the NAZI genocide was. You cannot consign our concentration camps to history as an irrelevence, and in the same breath cite the NAZI camps as rellevent.

That's a feeble response nowadays. History has no need to be like that anymore with a mine of information a few clicks away. I notice that no-body on the left has EVER had the balls to answer the question and that kind of shows them up for being fake.

rubbish

You're the one who's highlighted the NAZI genocide. So tell me why their genocide was worse than our genocide?

If the third goal goes in i'm switching this **** off.

Cheer us up Alpine.

Of course what happened in kenya has relevence and if you'd lost family then you wouldn't think it was an irrelevent chapter of history.

This is dreadful. We're gonna get hammered at this rate.

According to solent NA is experimenting. If it ain't broke don't fix it. This is NA's first mistake.

Having 1 man up front hardly makes it difficult for them to be adventurous.

BTW your term for gypsies is racist so don't get on your high horse.

Put two up front NOW!! This is brighton awaylast season all over again.

And we murdered/tortured thousands of Mau Mau's post WW2. Both events were wrong, but i'm not talking about what hapened then, i'm talking about the here and now. Read what is written.

good idea

They better play us music when we score.

Goal at the Silverlake. ho has scored?

I bet there's no empty seats in the home stands at fratton though. Great fans.

That's fair enough. Personally i'm unsure (which is the correct answer) whether Britain and the world would've been better off now had we sided with the axis powers then. You could argue that we'd still have our Empire (and you could argue whether that'd be a good or a bad thing) and that we would still govern Palestinians in Palestine. From that you could argue that half the problems in the middle east wouldn't exist today. I appreciate your sensible debating btw.

That's a shame. Mine's perfect. Are you happy for me?

Come on you reds they sing. We're playing in black.

I bet daves loving it up in gingerland.

ha ha, just got in from checking my cars oil (changed it earlier) at the time of the minutes silence and thought saints player had ****ed up.

look up

Correct. It would benefit British mining companies listed on the LSE and it'd benefit the people of Burma because the wealth they ammassed would be spent on the country - not in off shore accounts of corrupt generals.