The ignorance of some people

Sykk · 24-05-2010 4:54pm #1

I was having an argument with my father the other day about the war in Afghanistan. The only thing he had to say was "How would you like it if the fúcking yanks landed over here with tanks and machine guns." "Leave the poor farmers alone."

Then you've got the good oul' Lisbon treaty. I remember arguing with people voting yes as I asked them if they had any idea what it meant or what impact it would have on the country.. One guy in particular said to me "If we don't sign it, this country will hit another dark age."

There's so many things I could list. But what I'm saying is, a lot of people feel so strongly about something they know nothing about. It's everywhere.

/Discuss

TheZohanS · 24-05-2010 4:57pm

Your father seems sound.

Biggins · 24-05-2010 4:58pm

Aaa... ok!

Smart Bug · 24-05-2010 4:58pm

That's because people are stoopid.

Scarydoll · 24-05-2010 5:00pm

Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them ignorant.

Indubitable · 24-05-2010 5:00pm

your da is my new hero. Leave the farmers alone. lol

ItsAWindUp · 24-05-2010 5:01pm

Pity the Yanks wouldn't come over and sort out the farmers....

stupidusername · 24-05-2010 5:04pm

Sykk wrote: »

I was having an argument with my father the other day about the war in Afghanistan. The only thing he had to say was "How would you like it if the fúcking yanks landed over here with tanks and machine guns." "Leave the poor farmers alone."

Then you've got the good oul' Lisbon treaty. I remember arguing with people voting yes as I asked them if they had any idea what it meant or what impact it would have on the country.. One guy in particular said to me "If we don't sign it, this country will hit another dark age."

There's so many things I could list. But what I'm saying is, a lot of people feel so strongly about something they know nothing about. It's everywhere.

/Discuss

Tell your 'da' they're all opium farmers! That'll set him straight!

Seriously though, just because your dad disagrees with the yanks landin themselves over there without having a grasp on what it's actually about doesn't make him stupid, maybe ignorant though. But why not explain it to him rather than calling him ignorant. Or do you actually agree with the yanks??

questionmark? · 24-05-2010 5:04pm

Smart Bug wrote: »

That's because people are stoopid.

Yep.

If proof was needed

http://kpswa.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jhr2.jpg

partyatmygaff · 24-05-2010 5:05pm

scareydoll wrote: »

Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them ignorant.

Well...

If someone made comments like that about the Afghanistan war then they definitley do not understand the reasons for the war. That's ignorance, not having a different opinion.

Scarydoll · 24-05-2010 5:09pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well...

If someone made comments like that about the Afghanistan war then they definitley do not understand the reasons for the war. That's ignorance, not having a different opinion.

We all know about the war in Afghanistan. Who are the casualties? Every day people, thats who. Maybe that's what he meant.

sherdydan · 24-05-2010 5:12pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well...

If someone made comments like that about the Afghanistan war then they definitley do not understand the reasons for the war. That's ignorance, not having a different opinion.

so tell us, what are the reasons for the war, in your opinion?

brummytom · 24-05-2010 5:16pm

sherdydan wrote: »

so tell us, what are the reasons for the war, in your opinion?

Oil.

Oh, we're not meant to say that are we?

sherdydan · 24-05-2010 5:17pm

brummytom wrote: »

Oil.

Oh, we're not meant to say that are we?

no brummy i agree with you!!! i just think it sounds like some people around believe that the U.S really went hunting for an old man in some caves on dialysis.....

El Siglo · 24-05-2010 5:18pm

I remember when I had just finished the first semester of first year in UCD and I got a call from my mother, whom was pretty angry with me over a wrong bus time or something equally petty. I, being the burgeoning academic that I was at the time told her to stop being "belligerent", with which she responded with; "I'm not ignorant", I said; "I didn't say ignorant, I said belligerent!". Then promptly hung up the phone.

Found out over that Christmas that she had rang my sister to find out what "belligerent" meant, she wasn't too impressed.:pac:

Merch · 24-05-2010 5:18pm

what are you trying to suggest about Afghanistan? you agree that its ok for NATO to be there and your DAD disagrees

On the whole I'd agree with your Dad, you think he's ignorant because he has a different opinion, maybe you are ignorant of the facts/real issues? what part of NATO being there do you think is right? a puppet Govt, killing innocent people and explaining it away as collateral damage? Maybe what the Taleban had as a Govt was no better in ways that we wouldn't agree with but who are we to impose our values?

Merch · 24-05-2010 5:20pm

El Siglo wrote: »

I remember when I had just finished the first semester of first year in UCD and I got a call from my mother, whom was pretty angry with me over a wrong bus time or something equally petty. I, being the burgeoning academic that I was at the time told her to stop being "belligerent", with which she responded with; "I'm not ignorant", I said; "I didn't say ignorant, I said belligerent!". Then promptly hung up the phone.

Found out over that Christmas that she had rang my sister to find out what "belligerent" meant, she wasn't too impressed.:pac:

?

Pyr0 · 24-05-2010 5:21pm

brummytom wrote: »

Oil.

Oh, we're not meant to say that are we?

I'm pretty sure there's no Oil in Afganistan.

partyatmygaff · 24-05-2010 5:23pm

sherdydan wrote: »

so tell us, what are the reasons for the war, in your opinion?

To rid it of the Taliban who were supporting a terrorist organisation and were oppressing and harming their own people?

Check the thread in Cool Vids and Pics "Photos that shook the world" and you'll see exactly why the Taliban were removed from power.

El Siglo · 24-05-2010 5:23pm

Merch wrote: »

?

A story about ignorance, and also it was my 1,740th post I didn't want it to be "Pics or GTFO"!:D

Nolanger · 24-05-2010 5:24pm

Sykk wrote: »

Then you've got the good oul' Lisbon treaty. I remember arguing with people voting yes as I asked them if they had any idea what it meant or what impact it would have on the country.. One guy in particular said to me "If we don't sign it, this country will hit another dark age."

They voted 'Yes' because of all those new jobs that will be created :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff · 24-05-2010 5:25pm

scareydoll wrote: »

We all know about the war in Afghanistan. Who are the casualties? Every day people, thats who. Maybe that's what he meant.

The casualties are people but that is war after all, it's not nice and it would have been better to not have to result to war but I doubt the Taliban would step down by any peaceful means. Would you rather the UN let the Taliban keep control of Afghanistan?

sherdydan · 24-05-2010 5:25pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To rid it of the Taliban who were supporting a terrorist organisation and were oppressing and harming their own people?

Check the thread in Cool Vids and Pics "Photos that shook the world" and you'll see exactly why the Taliban were removed from power.

bollix, the population of afghanistan didnt particularly care, if they did they would have put up there own resistance, and there would be a hell of a lot more support for coalition troops then there is.

El Siglo · 24-05-2010 5:26pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To rid it of the Taliban who were supporting a terrorist organisation and were oppressing and harming their own people?

Check the thread in Cool Vids and Pics "Photos that shook the world" and you'll see exactly why the Taliban were removed from power.

Yeh because Karzai and the Northern Alliance lads are sound out and don't rape, rob and murder their own people...

sherdydan · 24-05-2010 5:27pm

Nolanger wrote: »

They voted 'Yes' because of all those new jobs that will be created :rolleyes:

the no side were so right too!! The minimum wage is gonna drop to 2 euro an hour thanks to lisbon having been signed in/.... :rolleyes:

brummytom · 24-05-2010 5:29pm

Pyr0 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there's no Oil in Afganistan.

I didn't say there was any oil in Afghanistan.

There are both large oil and gas reserves directly north of Afghanistan.

In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11)

They also stated such a project would be impossible until there was a single leader in charge of the country.

And Bush had massive stakes in Oil companies. Now I'm not one to speculate...

stupidusername · 24-05-2010 5:29pm

Interesting article here

Merch · 24-05-2010 5:30pm

Pyr0 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there's no Oil in Afganistan.

Well, there may not be but there is around the Caspian sea, this was at one point touted as a reason for the US to control Afghanistan as a route that avoids Russia, Iran etc from what i read the oil/gas predicted to be in the Caspian didn't materialise, but who knows if this is true or not

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To rid it of the Taliban who were supporting a terrorist organisation and were oppressing and harming their own people?

Check the thread in Cool Vids and Pics "Photos that shook the world" and you'll see exactly why the Taliban were removed from power.

Hmmm, your Dad is ignorant?? you reckon? . The Taleban/Taliban were actually supported at one point by the US, they refused to hand over Bin Laden who was a guest, probably because they would lose face in the Muslim world (possibly), the US must have known this so it could have been a pretext to invade. So who was this terrorist organisation?? Al Quada? that name was coined by the US, Many Governments can be accused of oppressing and harming their own people??
I have to, need to ask really what age are you?

Pittens · 24-05-2010 5:32pm

The only thing he had to say was "How would you like it if the fúcking yanks landed over here with tanks and machine guns." "Leave the poor farmers alone."

Perfectly valid view.

Merch · 24-05-2010 5:39pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The casualties are people but that is war after all, it's not nice and it would have been better to not have to result to war but I doubt the Taliban would step down by any peaceful means. Would you rather the UN let the Taliban keep control of Afghanistan?

I'm interested to hear your reply? what or who an acceptable casualty?

stupidusername wrote: »

Interesting article here

Interesting

partyatmygaff · 24-05-2010 5:41pm

Merch wrote: »

Hmmm, your Dad is ignorant?? you reckon The Taleban/Taliban were actually supported at one point by the US, they refused to hand over Bin Laden who was a guest, probably because they would lose face in the Muslim world (possibly), the US must have known this so it could have been a pretext to invade. So who was this terrorist organisation?? Al Quada? that name was coined by the US, Many Governments can be accused of oppressing and harming their own people??
I have to, need to ask really what age are you?

What difference does it make? I made my point and that's all that matters.

Anyway, I never said anything about my Dad. This isn't my thread anyway. The mujhadeen were supported by the US to fight against the soviets, they did not support them for no reason. They refused to hand him over because they would lose face AND i'm fairly sure they were in full support of what he did. I have no idea where you heard that the US coined the name Al Qaeda but Osama Bin Laden himself was asked the origin of the name and as far as I remember it had something to do with a training camp early in the organisations beginnings. Many governments can be accused of oppressing their people, these governments must be removed from power to protect their people. What is wrong with that?

walshb · 24-05-2010 5:42pm

scareydoll wrote: »

Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them ignorant.

But not knowing why you have that opinion does.

partyatmygaff · 24-05-2010 5:43pm

Merch wrote: »

I'm interested to hear your reply? what or who an acceptable casualty?

I never said anything about casualties being acceptable so please don't put words into my mouth. It would have been far better if they could have overthrown the Taliban without any casualties but unfortunately I doubt it would have been possible.

Merch · 24-05-2010 5:43pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What difference does it make? I made my point and that's all that matters.

Anyway, I never said anything about my Dad. This isn't my thread anyway. The mujhadeen were supported by the US to fight against the soviets, they did not support them for no reason. They refused to hand him over because they would lose face AND i'm fairly sure they were in full support of what he did. I have no idea where you heard that the US coined the name Al Qaeda but Osama Bin Laden himself was asked the origin of the name and as far as I remember it had something to do with a training camp early in the organisations beginnings. Many governments can be accused of oppressing their people, these governments must be removed from power to protect their people. What is wrong with that?

Sorry my mistake re being your thread

ejmaztec · 24-05-2010 5:46pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To rid it of the Taliban who were supporting a terrorist organisation and were oppressing and harming their own people?

Check the thread in Cool Vids and Pics "Photos that shook the world" and you'll see exactly why the Taliban were removed from power.

The main reason was that they wouldn't let anyone watch the telly, and the US networks were a bit pissed off that they couldn't sell any programmes to them.

Merch · 24-05-2010 5:46pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The casualties are people but that is war after all, it's not nice and it would have been better to not have to result to war but I doubt the Taliban would step down by any peaceful means. Would you rather the UN let the Taliban keep control of Afghanistan?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I never said anything about casualties being acceptable so please don't put words into my mouth. It would have been far better if they could have overthrown the Taliban without any casualties but unfortunately I doubt it would have been possible.

But this bit confuses me, seems like you are saying it's acceptable

banquo · 24-05-2010 5:49pm

brummytom wrote: »

Oil.

Oh, we're not meant to say that are we?

This. Drives. Me. Crazy.

America needs oil. It buys oil from other places. When there's a protracted war in a country that produces oil then the price of oil tends to go up due to supply problems. It's not about oil.

Ann22 · 24-05-2010 5:51pm

This annoyes me big time too op:mad:. Some people spread an awful lot of garbage without knowing what they're talking about. The most recent one in my workplace was the swine flu jab..a girl was mouthing some serious amout of crap, she admitted to me she hadn't read up on the subject at all but was scaremongering and brainwashing workmates from getting their kids done, some of whom were asthmatic...

Then the Lisbon Treaty...more sh*te across the canteen table from people who were literally making stuff up making it sound dramatic then when I questioned each person on where they go their facts from they said stuff like 'I didn't read up on it and I don't know the details but I'd betcha that's what will happen':rolleyes:

People are entitled to have an opinion but people should know what they're talking about before they start trying to convince others to change their views.

Merch · 24-05-2010 5:51pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I have no idea where you heard that the US coined the name Al Qaeda but Osama Bin Laden himself was asked the origin of the name and as far as I remember it had something to do with a training camp early in the organisations beginnings. Many governments can be accused of oppressing their people, these governments must be removed from power to protect their people. What is wrong with that?

Hmm, you make it sound like you were standing beside him when he was asked? where did you hear that?
The first use of al-Qaida in western media was in 1996 in an American newspaper report which identified it as another name of the Islamic Salvation Foundation, one of Bin Laden's jihadi charities. The term only came into general usage after the group's bombing of the US embassies in East Africa in 1998, when the FBI and CIA fingered it as an umbrella organisation for various projects of Bin Laden and his associates - many of which grew out of ideas originally hatched by Abdullah Azzam, who'd been killed by a car-bomb in Peshawar in 1989. from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/aug/24/alqaida.sciencefictionfantasyandhorror

Holmer · 24-05-2010 5:51pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

The main reason was that they wouldn't let anyone watch the telly, and the US networks were a bit pissed off that they couldn't sell any programmes to them.

Ah yes, the notorious Telly Ban.

Merch · 24-05-2010 5:52pm

banquo wrote: »

This. Drives. Me. Crazy.

America needs oil. It buys oil from other places. When there's a protracted war in a country that produces oil then the price of oil tends to go up due to supply problems. It's not about oil.

You make it sound like that doesnt suit the people who control the oil business??

Dionysus · 24-05-2010 5:52pm

stupidusername wrote: »

Tell your 'da' they're all opium farmers! That'll set him straight!

It's reassuring that the Brits are now fighting against the opium farmers in Afghanistan rather than fighting for them as they were against China.

Who says there's no such thing as progress....

Hannibal Smith · 24-05-2010 5:53pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To rid it of the Taliban who were supporting a terrorist organisation and were oppressing and harming their own people?

Check the thread in Cool Vids and Pics "Photos that shook the world" and you'll see exactly why the Taliban were removed from power.

Well then why did the US fight alongside the Taliban against Russia then?

And there are far more countries with far worse civil rights atrocities, why don't the US go in there? Why chose Afghanistan?

partyatmygaff · 24-05-2010 5:53pm

Merch wrote: »

But this bit confuses me, seems like you are saying it's acceptable

Well i'm not. Casualties are inevitable in war. If there was any other way then it should have been taken but unfortunately I doubt the Taliban would have been overthrown any other way.

partyatmygaff · 24-05-2010 6:00pm

Merch wrote: »

Hmm, you make it sound like you were standing beside him when he was asked? where did you hear that?
The first use of al-Qaida in western media was in 1996 in an American newspaper report which identified it as another name of the Islamic Salvation Foundation, one of Bin Laden's jihadi charities. The term only came into general usage after the group's bombing of the US embassies in East Africa in 1998, when the FBI and CIA fingered it as an umbrella organisation for various projects of Bin Laden and his associates - many of which grew out of ideas originally hatched by Abdullah Azzam, who'd been killed by a car-bomb in Peshawar in 1989. from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/aug/24/alqaida.sciencefictionfantasyandhorror

I heard it on the news a few years back around the time of 9/11. In a tape released by Osama bin laden.

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Well then why did the US fight alongside the Taliban against Russia then?

And there are far more countries with far worse civil rights atrocities, why don't the US go in there? Why chose Afghanistan?

It was near the end of the cold war. Do I really need to tell you why America were assisting enemies of the soviet union?

There are countries with civil rights atrocities but as for why they chose Afghanistan i'd say it has to do with the fact that they were housing and supporting the group that cost their country billions if not trillions in money and claimed the lives of 3000 innocent people.

Merch · 24-05-2010 6:01pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well i'm not. Casualties are inevitable in war. If there was any other way then it should have been taken but unfortunately I doubt the Taliban would have been overthrown any other way.

Ok, thats your opinion, I'm not having a go at you but personally I think theat the Taleban were probably no worse than the puppets whoare in there now, at the very least their strict religious values makes me think they would be less corrupt, but just because we dissagree with their values? does that make it right to overthrow them? The war which has lasted nearly ten years has achieved what? deaths of US/Nato soldiers who probably mostly didnt want to even be there, poor innocent civilians who had no choice??
I see no reason why it was essential to overthrow them? seems like it was either for revenge or oil to me, would I rather some poor innocent farmer (even if it is opium, not his fault there isnt a market for pomegranates) gets killed, makes me wonder why people can listen to the bile of the Hawks from the US, what is it with that bloodlust? I hope they never discover oil here in quantity

PK2008 · 24-05-2010 6:05pm

Theres a war in Afghanistan you say??

Merch · 24-05-2010 6:06pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I heard it on the news a few years back around the time of 9/11. In a tape released by Osama bin laden.

It was near the end of the cold war. Do I really need to tell you why America were assisting enemies of the soviet union?

There are countries with civil rights atrocities but as for why they chose Afghanistan i'd say it has to do with the fact that they were housing and supporting the group that cost their country billions if not trillions in money and claimed the lives of 3000 innocent people.

Heard it on the news, must be true then, I was more certain it was coined by the US, some dept as opposed to a news agency (which I just found by a quick google)
You think it was revenge for 9-11, I think it was an excuse for a war, what has killing thousands more achieved? they were wrong to go into Afghanistan and certainly Iraq, there was more to this behind the scenes, people were war mongering for years, perhaps it was the hubris of post end of the Red monster? greed? but surely revenge for costing them thousands of lives and money were not the reasons? its sickening if it was but there is more to it

brummytom · 24-05-2010 6:07pm

banquo wrote: »

This. Drives. Me. Crazy.

America needs oil. It buys oil from other places. When there's a protracted war in a country that produces oil then the price of oil tends to go up due to supply problems. It's not about oil.

The war wasn't in a country that had oil. It was in a country, as I said, needed for an oil pipeline. To install the pipeline, the government stated the country needed a single party governing. Or maybe a foreign occupation. Led by the leader of one of the world's biggest oil consumers. With millions of dollars invested in oil...

The war wouldn't have hindered oil supplies in any way.

Merch · 24-05-2010 6:11pm

brummytom wrote: »

The war wasn't in a country that had oil. It was in a country, as I said, needed for an oil pipeline. To install the pipeline, the government stated the country needed a single party governing. Or maybe a foreign occupation. Led by the leader of one of the world's biggest oil consumers. With millions of dollars invested in oil...

The war wouldn't have hindered oil supplies in any way.

I agree with the first bit as certainly being a possibility, but I guess they never considered people would be running around with rpg's in the middle of no-where, as I recal Rove and Cheney just thought people would fall in line after they rolled in, regardless if their neighbours/family/friends were killed in the process

Merch · 24-05-2010 6:14pm

Sykk wrote: »

I was having an argument with my father the other day about the war in Afghanistan. The only thing he had to say was "How would you like it if the fúcking yanks landed over here with tanks and machine guns." "Leave the poor farmers alone."

There's so many things I could list. But what I'm saying is, a lot of people feel so strongly about something they know nothing about. It's everywhere.
/Discuss

1.Your Da is right
2.I agree

The ignorance of some people

Comments