Cyprus-Forum.com

[Schnauzer]

Gasman and Lit, contrary to the combustible nature suggested by BOTH your avatars, not a 'Spark' of intelligent discourse is forthcoming from either of you.

[Schnauzer]

President Obama recently addressed the Indian Parliament and, without wishing to ridicule his obvious desire to present his nation as something of an example for other nations to follow, I could not help but wonder just how the man had the 'Gall' to touch on two particular subjects.

The first of these (by no means original statements) was when he alluded to the proposal that,"No nation should ever try to impose it's 'Values' upon another nation", this of course is a play on words which earlier was put as "No nation should ever impose it's 'Will' upon other nations" and was uttered as something of a 'Get out clause' to excuse the excessive force being used throughout the Middle East, to quell that which was seen as 'Terrorism' but may well be interpreted as resistance to aggression by those accused of such.

As to Obama's reference to 'Values', one could easily interpret that to mean that he might secretly consider the culture of India to be superior to that back home.

A moot point which has been severally contested in the past.

The second subject he chose to address (and the one which I find quite astonishing)

Touched on the subject of 'Civilian casualties' when he actually stated that "Nothing ever justifies the slaughter of innocent men, women and children!".

I daresay that he was once again attempting to shift the onus of blame on 'Terrorism' (or resistance to aggression as 'I' prefer to view it IMHO) BUT. for THIS man, whose nation has been and is currently responsible for the slaughter of more innocents than Genghis and Kubla Khan put together, to have the audacity to even mention the 'Innocents of slaughter' is (in my humble opinion, as always) beyond belief.

The entire speech is available to anyone interested enough to read the weasel words of a President under considerable pressure to repair the damage of his predecessor, but, notwithstanding that fact, I think his speech writer should have recognized the possibility that somebody might notice the awful insincerity in such statements.

A lot of the rhetoric aired with Islamabad in mind, surely?

President Obama's primary reasons for his visit to India embrace many objectives.

Naturally, as President it is his duty to discuss matters of trade and unity between the two nations, it is also in the interests of both nations that he should emphasize whatever similarities he can find in political, military, commercial and other fields in order to cement a friendship with the host nation.

The address that Obama made to the Indian Parliament, prior to his engagement with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, dwelt more on subjects which could be interpreted (in my opinion) as a softening up exercise for the serious discussions that were sure to follow, whether they be at the time of the engagement and in full view of the world OR, more likely, behind closed doors (which is the usual format).

What I found surprising was, that among the many complimentary statements Obama made in praise of India and it's culture, he suddenly announced that "Nothing EVER justifies the slaughter of innocent men, women and children" without the slightest hint of irony.

For a nation whose very foundation is based upon the decimation of the indigenous population that once inhabited the territories it now occupies, that has slaughtered so many innocent civilians in the recent and distant past (and continues to do so), I merely thought it rather hypocritical and am surprised that others do not share my view.

No disrespect to the American public, they are as powerless to change the will of their political and military masters (after electing the former) as are ANY subjects of what we describe as 'Democratic' nations.

If one is to believe every word we are told through media channels, there is little need for debate and inquisitiveness, it will have all been taken care of for us.

That's all

Fer sure, but the bit about the slaughter of innocents was a probable reference to the terrorist attack on Mumbai for domestic consumption.

I am sure you could be right EricSeans, it just seems to me to be an unfortunate reference to the subject, particularly in the midst of the recent controversy about such events.

I cannot see that my observation is worthy of such negative responses from some members, perhaps they are contented to see 'Innocent Civilians' suffer, providing THEY are not among them.

[Schnauzer]

"Nothing EVER justifies the slaughter of innocent men, women and children".
You are damn right mate so why on earth are you supporting the suicide bombers justifying such barbaric acts with the usual " what else can they do " you make me sick plonker with your blatant stupidity.

Thank you for your 'Anticipated Response' miltiades, NOW, one small step forward.

How then (having accepted that Obama's words are correct) do you justify the savagery that was witnessed when the mighty forces of the U.S. rained down death and destruction upon the innocents of Iraq when they unlawfully attacked that nation?.

What evidence do you have that I 'Support' suicide bombers?.

Are you able to distinguish the difference between having the ability to 'Understand' the reasons for retaliation and the blind fury required to dismiss the reasons for it?.

Perfectly reasonable questions, worthy of an answer without resorting to insult and abuse. (IMHO).

The Snatching of a brief moment in my weekend schedule, afforded me the opportunity to peruse this thread.

I would like to draw attention to this particular exchange since direct questions remain unanswered.

Not surprising actually, since the easiest way to rid the abusive pestilence of he who attracted the questions, is to ask him for a civil and intelligent reply.

The gentleman in question has traduced my name severally on this forum, I really think he should desist since it merely exposes his own inadequacies in matters of sensible debate (IMHO)