What should we have done with the Tamil ship?

[eyeball]

...

Edited August 26, 2010 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Show me precisely where I said "Canada has an empire".

Eyeball, sometimes you sound like Bill Clinton: "It depends on how you define the word 'is'."

[eyeball]

Eyeball, sometimes you sound like Bill Clinton: "It depends on how you define the word 'is'."

You don't see any difference between having an empire and simply being apart of one either?

[Battletoads]

Send em back.

The people on these ships payed vast sums of money to criminals to be sent herein squalid conditions. Letting them enter is just going to encourage the practice.

[M.Dancer]

You don't see any difference between having an empire and simply being apart of one either?

When was Canada part of the Chola Empire? Given it collapsed in the 13th century, like a lot of things you comment on, your chronology is nonsense.

[g_bambino]

You don't see any difference between having an empire and simply being apart of one either?

More selective picking and choosing along racial lines on your part. You ignore the difference between having an empire and being part of one when it comes to Sri Lanka's past as a part of the British Empire, but lay the blame for conflict in Sri Lanka at Canada's feet because for Canada there's no difference between having an empire and being part of one.

No doubt that analysis will fly right over your head as well.

[c/e]

Edited August 26, 2010 by g_bambino

[Wild Bill]

You don't see any difference between having an empire and simply being apart of one either?

No, I'm saying that you make strong statements only they are phrased as strong inferences. Anyone initially takes your meaning as quite plain but when challenged you pull out some loophole as an alibi.

You'd make a good lawyer! Unfortunately, it also means that we can't take your statements at face value. They become more political than debatable.

[eyeball]

More selective picking and choosing along racial lines on your part. You ignore the difference between having an empire and being part of one when it comes to Sri Lanka's past as a part of the British Empire, but lay the blame for conflict in Sri Lanka at Canada's feet because for Canada there's no difference between having an empire and being part of one.

No doubt that analysis will fly right over your head as well.

[c/e]

Well considering it flew right out your butt...

I didn't lay any blame on us for the conflict in Sri Lanka. I simply said, conscientious folks will point out how much of the differences people are fighting over are rooted in colonial diddling by an empire we're also quite proud to be apart of.

We picked sides in a conflict that had nothing to do with us but the fact remains our progenitor empire did play a prominent role in causing much of today's conflict. It does need to be pointed out that immediately prior to this period starting in 1815 there was little if anything even remotely close to the acrimony that exists between Sinhalese and Tamils today. Britain's machinations, in typically colonial fashion, exacerbated the natural tensions that existed in Sri Lanka which eventually escalated into the conflict we see today. It should also come as no surprise that U.S. interests were also fanning the flames of tension at the same time the British colonized the place. If you seen one super-rogue you've seen them all.

Our choosing sides is no better than standing around and shouting "fight, fight, fight" while a bully punches the crap out of someone. This didn't help the situation one little bit and now we are reaping what was sown, refugees from a bully that was created by our parent empire and like any doting sycophantic child we love our parent, hence my reference to our pride. Karma seems an appropriate term to describe the moral dilemma that is now dividing and or hardening Canadian sentiments.

Edited August 26, 2010 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

Your words, not selectively edited as you just did when quoting yourself:

[M]uch of the differences people are fighting over are rooted in colonial diddling by an empire we're also quite proud to be apart of.

It's our karma. In a way we have been begging for it.

"Our" karma; "we" have been begging for it. Translation: it's our fault. Why? Because we once belonged to an empire. Yet, oddly, the people involved in the conflict we're supposedly at fault for were also a part of the very same empire. In your thinking, the void where logic should be is filled with contradictions and historical revisionism; of no matter to you is, amongst other things, the fact that Dancer raised: the Tamil/Sinhalese conflict long predates Sri Lanka's absorption into the British Empire. No, instead you turn to your usual refuges:

Well considering it flew right out your butt...

I didn't lay any blame on us for the conflict in Sri Lanka.

Juvenile slurs and a denial of having said what you said whenever what you said is brought out and displayed for what it is: asinine.

[reworded]

Edited August 26, 2010 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

Your words, not selectively edited as you just did when quoting yourself:

Speaking of selective editing, when you first quoted me you selectively edited out my words we're also quite proud to be apart of. You selectively quoted me here to presumably facilitate the implication that what I meant was a Canadian empire. You even put in a series of periods after words an empire to indicate your edit of my words. From there you promptly launched yourself off the deep end.

"Our" karma; "we" have been begging for it. Translation: it's our fault. Why? Because we once belonged to an empire.

No, I quite clearly said it's for having picked sides in the conflict in Sri Lanka. A conflict that was rooted in colonial diddling. Diddling by the way is the word you should be really be reading a lot more into. It is depraved inhumane thing for any powerful country to divide and conquer a weaker one in the manner our parent country did. We should not be proud of that aspect of our heritage at all.

Yet, oddly, the people involved in the conflict we're supposedly at fault for were also a part of the very same empire. In your thinking, the void where logic should be is filled with contradictions and historical revisionism; of no matter to you is, amongst other things, the fact that Dancer raised: the Tamil/Sinhalese conflict long predates Sri Lanka's absorption into the British Empire. No, instead you turn to your usual refuges:

This is all a bunch nonsense that's rooted in your own illogic. As for Morris, he's just being an asshole. I clearly acknowledged the fact there were tensions existing between the Sinhalese and Tamils. It seems fairly clear however these were nowhere near as acrimonious before the super-rogues deliberately stirred up the shit to further their own aims.

Juvenile slurs and a denial of having said what you said whenever what you said is brought out and displayed for what it is: asinine.

Excuse me but you're the one who's full of crap here.

[reworded]

There, that size better captures the truth of what you've done in your last few posts. You're not quite as bad as Morris yet but you're fast getting there.

Edited August 26, 2010 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

Speaking of selective editing, when you first quoted me you selectively edited out my words we're also quite proud to be apart of.

I did. Irrelevant, though, given that those additional words were redundant. Of course the mother country of an empire would be "a part of" that empire. Besides, I went on in that post to say that the intent behind your choice of words was never to communicate their literal meaning; I knew you were making badly worded, sideways references to the British Empire, and hence I deducted that your ultimate purpose was to (as always) lay blame for the ruination of the world at the feet of Caucasians of British extraction. As Wild Bill already astutely pointed out: "you make strong statements only they are phrased as strong inferences."

As for Morris, he's just being an asshole... Excuse me but you're the one who's full of crap here...

Yes, yes; we've all already been through this predictable routine with you: "My own sense of moral superiority makes whatever I say right; everyone else is just a moronic jackass." As I said, these insults and diversions are merely your last (and tellingly quickly sought) place of refuge.

There, that size better captures the truth of what you've done in your last few posts.

No, it captures the truth just the same. (And here's something for you to ponder: I wouldn't always add those little post-scripts if I was trying to cover up the fact I'd edited my own words. Ensuring one's point is properly communicated is not a crime.)

[c/e] Oh no, eyeball!

Edited August 26, 2010 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

(And here's something for you to ponder: I wouldn't always add those little post-scripts if I was trying to cover up the fact I'd edited my own words. Ensuring one's point is properly communicated is not a crime.)

It's your edits to other people's words that's at side issue here. How these edits mangle your own point is your business.

[g_bambino]

It's your edits to other people's words that's at side issue here. How these edits mangle your own point is your business.

Look, I know full well you can't even follow your own arguments (you already demonstrated this talent in another thread); so, I'm certainly not expecting you to ever take responsibility for them.

[M.Dancer]

The only culpability the British have concerning Sri Lanka is giving them a framework for modern democracy. The Tamils wanted a panel of experts while the British gave them universal suffrage.

Bad British! Bad British!

Eyeball would have preferred Tamil Hegemony over the Island.

[capricorn]

The only culpability the British have concerning Sri Lanka is giving them a framework for modern democracy. The Tamils wanted a panel of experts while the British gave them universal suffrage.

If individuals were still being persecuted for their political beliefs in Sri Lanka, how is it that even anti-Government Tamil or Sinhala groups have been contesting elections and winning parliamentary and Provincial Council seats, and also addressing those august forums?

http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/opinion1/19313.html

But that's Sri Lanka, where there is no democracy.

[eyeball]

The only culpability the British have concerning Sri Lanka is giving them a framework for modern democracy. The Tamils wanted a panel of experts while the British gave them universal suffrage.

Bad British! Bad British!

It wasn't the framework that was at issue, it was the way representation and power sharing within it was set up that caused the problems. I fully suspect this was set up to benefit the same colonial cocksuckers you're now suck-holing to, the British - who coincidently imported indentured servants, Tamils from southern India, to work their plantations in Sri Lanka. It's not just ironic or hypocritical how you buttsniffs hyper-ventilate about modern day snakeheads in the context of Tamils, it's disgusting.

In any case it was clearly the majority Sinhalese that initiated the violence against a variety of minorities in Sri Lanka including the Tamils in a series of riots that started in the 1950's and that eventually escalated into the modern conflict.

Eyeball would have preferred Tamil Hegemony over the Island.

That's a flat out lie, I would never wish any hegemony over anyone and you do not have a shred of proof that indicates otherwise. You on the other hand have amply demonstrated you have no better morals or ethics than a snake-head.

[g_bambino]

It wasn't the framework that was at issue, it was the way representation and power sharing within it was set up that caused the problems.

Yes, a system that worked for centuries over a set of islands that are home to at least five ethnicities was obviously doomed to failure on an island with two ethnic groups.

[T]he British - who coincidently imported indentured servants, Tamils from southern India, to work their plantations in Sri Lanka.

Why would they import any Tamils to Sri Lanka when there had been Tamils on Sri Lanka since at least the 10th century? Oh, right; you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict predates the British Empire.

[M.Dancer]

That's a flat out lie, I would never wish any hegemony over anyone and you do not have a shred of proof that indicates otherwise. You on the other hand have amply demonstrated you have no better morals or ethics than a snake-head.

I have tons of proof. Your words.

You deride the colonials (the portuguese) who ended the Tamil hegemony over the island...you think the british who gave the island democracy are the problem....

Maybe I overspoke, maybe you are just too naive to see that people choose their course, and in the case of Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese and Tamils made their beds....The Sinhalese for wanting universal suffrage, The Sinhalese for using their majority oppressively, the Tamils for rejecting democracy and taking up terrorism...

Byb the way, plantation tamils were never a signifigant number to begin with and most went back to india...

[M.Dancer]

You on the other hand have amply demonstrated you have no better morals or ethics than a snake-head.

So says the huckster who flogs sea weed packaged to look like medicine...

Care to explain how proportional democracy has failed the Sri Lankans?

And what yor alternative is?

[eyeball]

So says the huckster who flogs sea weed packaged to look like medicine...

You're lying again, it was sold as food in grocery stores.

Care to explain how proportional democracy has failed the Sri Lankans?

Probably for the same reason you always say proportional democracy would fail if we adopted it. But the fact is Sri Lanka didn't adopt anything on their own, the perverted version of democracy that was forced on them by the British back in the colonial period originally put the minority Tamils in charge of administering the country. It was a classic divide and conquer tactic of colonialism everywhere. Predictably, the Sinhalese chafed at this and eventually revolted and began attacking and killing Tamils starting in 1956. The rest as they say is history.

Gal Oya riots

And what yor alternative is?

Don't colonize countries that don't belong to you, disavow any connections to empires that do, and don't pick sides in the conflicts they create. Why? Karma, in a word.

[M.Dancer]

Don't colonize countries that don't belong to you, disavow any connections to empires that do, and don't pick sides in the conflicts they create. Why? Karma, in a word.

So you prefer the Tamil hegemony...as I said.

[M.Dancer]

the perverted version of democracy that was forced on them by the British back in the colonial period originally put the minority Tamils in charge of administering the country.

In Eyeballs own words, universal suffrage is a perverted form of democracy

[capricorn]

Don't colonize countries that don't belong to you,

Actually, immigrants to Canada are colonizing her. The proof is all around us in the ethnic enclaves immigrants have built for themselves, mostly in our large urban cities. Our heritage and traditions are being eroded away oh so slowly, we hardly notice it. Trudeau's grand experiment has taken an unexpected turn.

Almost two generations ago, in the 1960s, Canada’s charismatic, intellectually curious Pierre Elliott Trudeau decided to emulate the then fashionable immigration policies of former colonial powers. France and Britain allowed large-scale immigration from their defunct empires. Viewing Algeria as “metropolitan France” was all the rage. Something of a sorcerer’s apprentice, Trudeau wanted to know what would happen if Canada invited immigrants from “non-traditional” — that is, non-European and non-Christian — sources in large numbers over a short period of time.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/18/george-jonas-beware-the-colonizers/

[M.Dancer]

You're lying again, it was sold as food in grocery stores.

Me bad..you only wanted to sell it as if it was drugs...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=11573&view=findpost&p=327049

[g_bambino]

In Eyeballs own words, universal suffrage is a perverted form of democracy

Of course it is: where are the citizens' assemblies guided by experts?