Black Lives Matter

[Letters]

PS. You forget how many posts you start by saying "You were arguing with someone on facebook"

And how, pray tell, do you get from that, that I ""run and hide from debate on Facebook"?

And yeah, maybe if I had a debate about whether slavery was genocide with people in Brixton it wouldn't go well. Doesn't make me wrong. Or right.
GP makes a more compelling point for considering it genocide. And that's all you have to do. Just argue the point.
And I'd be the first to admit I'm ignorant of a lot of this, but if you have a business model where your product is selling people is, I would suggest that trying to kill them is counter-productive.
I'm struggling to find stats around this. This page:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/s...a/page53.shtml

Says it's estimated at around 20%.

[The Wengerbabies]

Democrats have a torrid history they should be made to answer for.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't think people are criticising him for saying it wasn't a genocide, dude. Come on. Dont' argue in bad faith like that, you're not N_Q

I'm busy for a few days but the little bitch is still on here whining and pining. So sweet.

[Niall_Quinn]

Starkey is a very, very dangerous man that threatens the left with a horror they fear almost as much as full fat milk - history. Starkey knows about history that actually happened, rather than history that is being manufactured to make people feel virtuous or paint people as guilty. He knows that at the height of the trans-Atlantic slave trade there were an estimated 300,000 slaves in the United States, compared to roughly 40 million slaves under bondage and abuse in the world today - mostly Asian countries, as it happens, or in non-Asian countries run by Asians who have settled.

The left tells us the priority is the slaves that are long dead. So much so, they don't bother mentioning living slaves. In fact they make alliances with the virtue signalling corporations that profit most from modern day slavery.

The professionally offended on the left will eventually be able to remove every dissenting voice, and eventually every voice of reason, from the debate if rational people don't stand up to them. If they succeed, all that will be left in the history books future kids will have to read will be stories of white, and only white slavers. Even though blacks and Asians have (by far) longer and more egregious track records in the practice of slavery.

This is what communists do. The remove the past, probably because so much of it consists of rampaging thugs like them wrecking nations and committing the very worst atrocities. And committing genocide. Communists are very, very good at genocide. Very well practised.

The founders of BLM are, by their own admission, marxists. Their aim is to tear down the west and rebuild it as a socialist (marxist) "utopia." They make no secret of this. Their chopping list include the family, religion, private property, the scientific principle, recorded history, and Jews - to name a few.

Those who support these extreme fanatics are either ignorant to a dangerous degree or in complete denial of the facts. Or, they are too cowardly (for now) to admit their real aims so instead chip in to help sow race war while hiding behind equality struggles fought by those whose boots they aren't fit to lick. It's disgusting and deplorable.

[Niall_Quinn]

A very brief primer so those committed to the great struggle can remind themselves how potentially dangerous they are to society as a whole. We've seen all this before and we'll see it again. It rears its ugly head on far too regular a basis because many don't pay enough attention to history. And it will be even more dangerous if history can be erased.

[Niall_Quinn]

[The Wengerbabies]

Maybe people are waking up to the Marxist agenda of BLM https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/12031...e-kick-it-out/ Sky Sports going back to Kick it Out.

[Globalgunner]

David Starkey is currently not being given the flexibility of the definition of genocide that a few on here would like to give him.

He is rightly being hounded out of public life. Some of you should stop and listen and not append your names to stupid, indefensible canards of definition.


Definition of Genocide from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court circa 2002: Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So unless you think you are smarter than the lawyers who draft statutes for the UN. have at it with your own definitions

[Niall_Quinn]

Are you seriously (genuine question) stating there is a genocide of blacks occurring in the west? I haven't followed the whole thing with Letters, but the fact a definition is being given here makes me curious. Is that still the claim? Blacks are suffering genocide?

As for Starkey being hounded out of public life, anyone who believes that's a good thing has lost all perspective and fallen into a mob trance. Why can't people just look back at history to figure out why banning opinion is such a terrible abuse and so counterproductive?

[Letters]

Some of you should stop and listen

I'll listen if you start saying something. Up till now your posts in this threads have been ad hom attacks against me

Definition of Genocide from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court circa 2002: Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So unless you think you are smarter than the lawyers who draft statutes for the UN. have at it with your own definitions

I don't think I'm smarter than them, by parts of that definition then fine, I agree the slave trade could be considered a genocide.
And that's all you had to do. Argue the point. Had that been your first post in this discussion then it would have saved us both a lot of time.