Your audacity in trying to spin my entire post as though it were entirely derived from the right-wing rumour mill NewsMax is admirable but doomed to failure, since i describe the source myself as 'noensense' (sic). Not one fact in my post is derived from NewsMax.
What part of 'noensense' don't you understand?
Of course the facts in my post, as you might notice if you re-read it, were derived from the CIA World Factbook. Presumably you trust the CIA.
Perhaps you missed those quotations because you don't seem to have noticed them.
My post showed the following:
1) You did not know that Sudan is a significant oil exporter.
2)It follows logically that you did not know that China is a major investor and principal trading partner in Sudan's oil industry.
Control of strategic resources is the real reason for intervention in Sudan.
The evidence for this is that similar conflicts, arguably genocide, continue in Nigeria and Columbia. Yet we are not interested in those conflicts because in those countries U.S. and British oil companies are the ones who benefit from the repression of the local people.
Does this mean that an intervention should not take place? No, but let's be clear what the real reasons are. And let's ask why it's ok for carnage and repression to take place in some countries but not in others.
Posts: 50
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Kuang: Your audacity in trying to spin my entire post as though it were entirely derived from the right-wing rumour mill NewsMax is admirable but doomed to failure, since i describe the source myself as 'noensense' (sic). Not one fact in my post is derived from NewsMax.
What part of 'noensense' don't you understand?
Well, the part that impelled you to include you to include the reference in your post?
If your position is as firm, even self-evident, as you claim, what was the need for even mentioning the reports of a 'right-wing rumour mill' peddling 'noensense'? The tactic of mentioning a startling factoid, only to discount it a line later is more reminiscent of a Louisiana divorce lawyer than someone of integrity and intelligence.
quote:Originally posted by Kuang: 1) You did not know that Sudan is a significant oil exporter.
Well, you know, well done there. Revealing the extent of my ignorance about the world could probably be a full-time job - if it helps I could provide you with a reference and everything.
What you seem to have missed was that I was making a sneery point about how someone who opposed the Iraq war might rationalise a lack of intervention in Sudan by the US: ie. "no oil = US doesn't care. How typical." Even if - in the aftermath of your devastating findings - we amend that to "lack of strategically pivotal oil supplies = US doesn't care. How typical" the original point I was making stands.
quote:Originally posted by Kuang: 2)It follows logically that you did not know that China is a major investor and principal trading partner in Sudan's oil industry.
Control of strategic resources is the real reason for intervention in Sudan.
The evidence for which is so strong you resort to the only "noensense" you could find on Google that even vaguely supports your point?
quote:Originally posted by Kuang: Does this mean that an intervention should not take place? No, but let's be clear what the real reasons are.
EH?? Intervention for what you claim are utterly base motives and you're still in favour of it? As for being 'clear about what the real reasons are' - get ye back to Google, indymedia and all the other usual sources and at least make a cursory effort to flesh out your wacky theories.
Lucid
It's six o'clock somewhere, I'm having crisps !
posted
quote:Originally posted by ben: We now 'know' that such stocks have been either destroyed or, more worryingly, dispersed - even though Saddam carried on for 12 years as though he had the most terrific secret to hide. You may scoff at an al-Queda connection being "far fetched", but - at the time - it would have taken a rather blase Western leader to dismiss the possibility entirely.
Experts in the field did actually say that the technology-infrastructure no longer existed to maintain biological/chemical weapons manufactured during the Iran/Iraq war. The mustard gases and anthrax manufacturered by Saddam in the early 90's were all "harmless goo" 5 years later and this was well known within inner circles.
Additionally IIRC it's very difficult to use either chemical or biological weapons as weapons of mass destruction - for example the Sarin attack on crowded tokyo tube only killed 12 people. Dispersion is problematic. Nuclear capabilities are the only real WMD - and we all know now about the forged Niger docs (exposed by my 'source's PhD student)
Concurrent with Iraq's perceived threat was the sabre rattling of North Korea - with proven nuclear capabilities and threatening to use them, but here there was none of this 'sending the boys round' malarky. To my mind this sends a clear message - far from 'making the world a safer place' - if you want to avoid being invaded by the US then don't sit on oil and get well tooled up.
Also, ironically, there is now a connection between Iraq and the catch-all-disenfranchised-fragmented-goatherder-cells-Al Queda..but that's cos we live in a safer world, right? hey eight million quids worth of leaflets can't be wrong.. methinks neutral countries aren't having to send out similiar leaflets.
[ 28.07.2004, 05:17: Message edited by: Lucid ]
-------------------- It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing... Posts: 773
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: Look back to the slogans, chants and opinions of the time...
The "Blair's in Bush's pocket" formula - pretty much received wisdom among anti-war acquaintances...
...the overwhelming majority of people opposing the war expressed sentiments along the lines of "it's all about oil"...
...As I hope has been clear from my earliest posts on the subject, the clinching argument in favour of destroying the Baath regime was - and remains - the removal of a ghastly dictatorship...
...So far as WMD is concerned, there's really been utter orgy of hindsightery since Saddam's removal...
Sorry to snip, but just getting the general gist of your post. As someone who has been passionately against the Iraq invasion since the first signs that the US/UK intended to override the UN, and who has been against clumsy retaliation from long before that, I find it irritating and patronising that you should put the above comments into my mouth.
My concern, and I think the concern of many others, was that the US had picked a soft, juicy target to cross off its list of Axis of Terr'r nations following Afghanistan, but that all they would do would be to stir up the hornets' nest even more and simply increase the terrorist attacks and the no go areas for Westerners and the mistrust in the West of anyone that might be a Muslim or any other kind of citizen of the Middle East.
On 12 Sept 2001 I posted the following message to a mailing list I moderate:
-------------------------------------
I know that everyone on this mailing list will want to offer their sympathy to those affected by the terrorism yesterday.
Personally, I would also pray that the US response is carefully considered and that those with the power stand back a little and consider just how many enemies America has, and how far this could escalate. These attacks were off-the-scale of previous attrocities and they must have been done in extreme desperation. Many Arab leaders have expressed personal disgust at the killing while simultaneously stating the cold fact that 'America had it coming to them'.
The West may simply not realise how desperate and truly dangerous their enemies are. Whoever did this (there's even suggestions of domestic American terrorism) [this was the day after 9/11 - ed], sees what we think of as disgusting violence against innocent people as their only option for effective action against their oppressors. A fucking vicious circle, indeed.
-------------------------------------
The vicious circle shows absolutely no sign of breaking. Was it Bill Clinton that said in his speech a couple of days ago about George Bush having been given, with 9/11, the most fantastic opportunity anyone could possibly wish for for setting off a genuine movement towards peace an reconciliation. Almost everyone in the fucking World was in shock and in sympathy with the United States at that time. What a chance to hold out a hand and say, OK, let's work this lot out and get sanctions lifted and peace exchanges arranged instead of weapons trades and treat each other with some fucking respect instead of bombing the ragheads back to the Stone Age from a warship anchored 250 miles away.
That whole opportunity has been thrown away. Gone. And now we have to stock up on UHT milk and tinned apricots and carry ID cards and suspect our neighbours at all times. We didn't have to do that before 9/11. We didn't have to do that before Iraq was invaded and occupied.
How the fuck is anyone better off in any way? And don't cite the Iraqi people, because they could fucking do something about it for themselves if they wanted, as oppressed people have done throughout history. Instead, their 'freedom' has been forced upon them by their nation's biggest external oppressors (who spent years imposing punitive sanctions), and that kind of liberation is often as degrading as being oppressed in the first place (e.g. Poland being liberated from the Nazis by the Russians instead of their own forces). It's not for us to intervene, beyond offering asylum to those that make their own escape, and we should not do it, however much chain smoking French medicins sans frontiers doctors tell us we should.
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Sorry to snip, but just getting the general gist of your post. As someone who has been passionately against the Iraq invasion since the first signs that the US/UK intended to override the UN, and who has been against clumsy retaliation from long before that, I find it irritating and patronising that you should put the above comments into my mouth.
I'd never presume to put words into your mouth - and I don't think my characterisation of anti-war arguments was caricatured or unfair.
Of course, individuals are always going to have their own particular take on a situation, but given that just about everyone I've debated with set a huge amount by the numbers of people who went on marches etc, it's hardly underhand to revisit what was actually being said at those events. I've not set out to build some sort of straw man to savage - people were banging on about oil, oil, oil.
Howling that you personally have been villainously maligned on this point is kind of silly and beside the point.
quote:Originally posted by dang65: My concern, and I think the concern of many others, was that the US had picked a soft, juicy target to cross off its list of Axis of Terr'r nations following Afghanistan, but that all they would do would be to stir up the hornets' nest even more and simply increase the terrorist attacks and the no go areas for Westerners and the mistrust in the West of anyone that might be a Muslim or any other kind of citizen of the Middle East.
Well, fine. We clearly differ on this. As I say though, I vividly recall much less nuanced and much more hysterical and contradictory views being advanced the spring before last. All that can't be wished away.
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Personally, I would also pray that the US response is carefully considered and that those with the power stand back a little and consider just how many enemies America has, and how far this could escalate. These attacks were off-the-scale of previous attrocities and they must have been done in extreme desperation. Many Arab leaders have expressed personal disgust at the killing while simultaneously stating the cold fact that 'America had it coming to them'.
The West may simply not realise how desperate and truly dangerous their enemies are. Whoever did this (there's even suggestions of domestic American terrorism) [this was the day after 9/11 - ed], sees what we think of as disgusting violence against innocent people as their only option for effective action against their oppressors. A fucking vicious circle, indeed.
Of course, the passage quoted came from the immediate aftermath of 9/11 - but a lot more of it than you allow has become problematic.
For a start, making out that bin Laden and those who actually carried out the attacks are/were 'desperate' and 'oppressed' is tremendously contentious. These aren't talking about brutalised Palestinians but middle-class-to-super-wealthy Saudis with a completely separate agenda from the slingshot-wielding Gaza youth. Unless we're honest about the threat we face (and I'm including in this 'non-aligned' countries and the poor bastard locals who tend to bear the brunt of such attacks) there's no hope of neutralising it.
quote:Originally posted by dang65: The vicious circle shows absolutely no sign of breaking. Was it Bill Clinton that said in his speech a couple of days ago about George Bush having been given, with 9/11, the most fantastic opportunity anyone could possibly wish for for setting off a genuine movement towards peace an reconciliation.
Clinton has a fucking short memory. The militants who flooded into the training camps in Afghanistan did so at exactly the time when the US was making more effort than ever before to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians - the 9/11 attacks were conceived way before Bush got anywhere near the White House.
The notion that a peace deal in Is/Pal would lead to al-Queda somehow being "stood down" is fanciful to say the least. As happened after the defeat of the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan, the militants would seek new targets and causes. As such, I think the "whole opportunity" you speak of was always a bit of a mirage.
quote:Originally posted by dang65: How the fuck is anyone better off in any way? And don't cite the Iraqi people, because they could fucking do something about it for themselves if they wanted, as oppressed people have done throughout history. Instead, their 'freedom' has been forced upon them by their nation's biggest external oppressors (who spent years imposing punitive sanctions), and that kind of liberation is often as degrading as being oppressed in the first place (e.g. Poland being liberated from the Nazis by the Russians instead of their own forces).
So, any benefit the Iraqis, not forgetting minority groups within Iraq, may feel from the removal of Saddam 'don't count'?
Also: "oppressed peoples of the world: SORT IT OUT FOR YOURSELVES, YOU LAZY CAHUNTZ."
There is one mention of oil, and that is a rationally asked question and not an Oil! Oil! Oil! rant.
There is constant and repeated statement of doubt of the existence of WMDs in Iraq, and of the confusion about the UN inspectors being pulled out/thrown out (which was it?) before they could finish their job.
There is also a clear fear that Blair and Bush will override any UN veto, despite Blair constantly saying he won't, er, except for if he doesn't agree with the veto.
There are a number of references to Blair being in Bush's pocket, but those accusations are reasonable and clearly evident and a great worry to people. Perhaps they egged each other on?
Blair consistently emphasises the WMD issue over the Bad Saddam issue. It is WMDs that were the main point of 'persuasion' of the British people, and we were not persuaded at the time. No Orgy of Hindsightery. We didn't believe it then, and we were not shocked and surprised when no WMDs were found subsequently.
There are fears expressed of stirring up of racial hatred and distrust in this country, and of support being given to Saddam by other Middle East countries. This may not have officially happened, but we do regularly hear references to foreign insurgents fighting in Iraq. Where did they come from? People knew full well that this was going to happen. It has not only been said in hindsight.
Bin Laden may be a wealthy and educated man, and so may others in his organisation, but that does not mean that he and other less well off citizens of that part of the world are not desperate and oppressed. They clearly and blatantly are and they are using time tested methods of fighting back, methods we used ourselves sixty or so years ago and are very proud of having used. We just don't like being on the receiving end.
Clinton had nothing like the opportunity offered by 9/11. I'm not saying he was some sort of super-pres whom we should all bow down to, but he was heading in a far more rational and reasonable direction than Bush and Blair. This was a chance to get governments and populations onto the side of peace, and that opportunity was blown completely. The psychos would always find a new vacancy? Like the IRA? What do they do nowadays, except beat up naughty teenagers? Where are all the other freedom fighters/terrorists of the post war years? What new targets and causes are they fighting for now?
The "oppressed peoples of the world: SORT IT OUT FOR YOURSELVES, YOU LAZY CAHUNTZ" thing is controversial, I know, but it's one way of looking at it. After all, would we want to be invaded and occupied by the Dutch because our government doesn't let us open special coffee shops and legitimise porn and prostitution? Free the British People from their oppression! They'll always be grateful.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:In 1999, Sudan began exporting crude oil and in the last quarter of 1999 recorded its first trade surplus, which, along with monetary policy, has stabilized the exchange rate. Increased oil production, revived light industry, and expanded export processing zones helped sustain GDP growth at 6.1% in 2003.
quote:OIL As of January 2004, Sudan's estimated proven reserves of crude oil stood at 563 million barrels, more than twice the 262 million barrels estimated in 2001. As of June 2004, crude oil production was averaging about 345,000 barrels per day (bbl/d), up from 270,000 bbl/d during 2003. Crude oil production has been rising steadily since the completion of a major export pipeline in July 1999 and is expected by Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz to surpass 500,000 bbl/d by the end of 2005. It is possible that Sudanese production could reach 750,000 bbl/d by the end of 2006 if planned production increases at new and existing fields progress as planned. In August 2001, in recognition of Sudan's growing significance as an oil exporter, OPEC granted the country observer status at OPEC meetings.
quote:Development of Sudan's oil resources has been highly controversial. Numerous international human rights organizations have accused the Sudanese government of financing wide-scale human rights abuses with oil revenues, including the mass displacement of civilians living near the oil fields. The SPLA has declared that it considers oil installations a "legitimate military target," as oil development has provided the Sudanese government the financial resources to expand its war effort. The SPLA says it destroyed the main oil well on the Heglig oil field in September 2002. In November 2001, southern rebels claimed to have ambushed an army convoy traveling near GNPOC facilities, and stated that such attacks would continue until "oil exploration, exploitation and development come to a halt."
quote:Sudanese rebels have said they will continue to attack oil installations in the country, despite an agreement brokered by the US to protect civilians and civilian targets. The leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and Army (SPLM/SPLA) John Garang said the attacks were within the terms of the agreement signed earlier this month.
"We will shut down these oil installations, because they are a weapon of war ... This is blood oil. It is being used against our people," Mr Garang said.
quote:In the oilfields of Sudan, civilians are being killed and raped, their villages burnt to the ground. They are caught in a war for oil, part of the wider civil war between northern and southern Sudan that has been waged for decades. Since large-scale production began two years ago, oil has moved the war into a new league. Across the oil-rich regions of Sudan, the government is pursuing a ‘scorched earth’ policy to clear the land of civilians and to make way for the exploration and exploitation of oil by foreign oil companies.
quote:SUDAN: Oil companies linked with counterinsurgency NAIROBI, 19 October (IRIN) - International oil companies in Sudan are "knowingly or unknowingly" involved in a government counterinsurgency strategy in the country, according to the report of an independent fact-finding mission released this week.
posted
Oh for heaven's sake. The conflict between government forces and the SPLA in the south of the country is - as I mentioned earlier - a completely different issue from the crisis in Darfur. The former was on the brink of a lasting settlement just as the latter broke out. This is why you are having to quote articles from two or three years ago to "support" your point.
posted
Free advice for Kuang: every Sunday night I'll spend a couple of hours in the bath, sloughing off the weekend filth and catching up on the newses of the week. This was what I read this weekend and I recommend it wholeheartedly if you wish get a reasonable idea of how silly you're making yourself look.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
Frank
moon-chain-silver-mother-breakfast-fry-up-sausage
posted
Goodness, you're busy today. I turn my back for five minutes ....
quote:Originally posted by ben: No. The forum is about debate and discussion and recrimination. The "Well If It Bothers You So Much Why Aren't You Out There Lying Under An Israeli Tank / Curing The Blind Of Mali / Wanking Bullets Out Of A Helicopter Gunship? Eh? Eh? EH?" pose has no place here.
That's fair, and the point I made about about doing practicals things about Sudan, UN etc came out of my being tired and cranky when I was posting. They weren't intended to be directed at the anyone on here. However, we rereading it, it is awfully cnutish, so sorry about that.
I'll try and write something about the rest of your points later.
[ 28.07.2004, 13:55: Message edited by: Frank ]
-------------------- Or not sure. Or not important Posts: 733
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dang65: And don't cite the Iraqi people, because they could fucking do something about it for themselves if they wanted, as oppressed people have done throughout history.
They did. In 1991. The West left them to be slaughtered.
What about the Kurds, Dang? They wanted this war. They fought alongside the Yanks. And now they are reviled by all decent people everywhere. Why has the so-called Left betrayed this once favoured cause?
quote:that kind of liberation is often as degrading as being oppressed in the first place (e.g. Poland being liberated from the Nazis by the Russians instead of their own forces).
France. Holland. Belgium. Denmark. Germany.
quote:It's not for us to intervene, beyond offering asylum to those that make their own escape, and we should not do it, however much chain smoking French medicins sans frontiers doctors tell us we should.
Damn those pesky aid workers. It's the New Imperialism. Freedom or Death. Think Global Act Local. etcetera.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.Posts: 5190
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: Free advice for Kuang: every Sunday night I'll spend a couple of hours in the bath, sloughing off the weekend filth and catching up on the newses of the week. This was what I read this weekend and I recommend it wholeheartedly if you wish get a reasonable idea of how silly you're making yourself look.
The Guardian John Laughland Monday August 2, 2004
The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war
Oil will be the driving factor for military intervention in Sudan
quote:Originally posted by vikram: ...and? i really don't see the point of that article.
The only aim of the post was to back up my view that oil is the motivating factor behind any possible intervention in Sudan.
Ben's approach is to characterise such a view as beyond the lunatic fringe since he prefers to believe that U.S. and British armed forces perform something akin to the role of social workers, 'helping people' around the world out of the goodness of their hearts.
Clearly i am not the only person who thinks otherwise.
As an economic proposition, if nothing else, it must be clear that we cannot go around throwing away billions we do not have on operations abroad where there is no benefit to Britain.
Of course we expect to benefit from military operations. And we will benefit by controlling the most important resource in the modern economy.
Posts: 50
| IP: Logged
posted
The guy who wrote that travesty seems to me to be the worst kind of pacifist. i.e full on non-intervention. and check out his disgustingly apologist stance on milosevic! what a twat.
Posts: 5190
| IP: Logged
posted
didn't i used to write well about politics and stuff? maybe not, but better than i do now. what the fuck happened? i blame heat magazine and, also, being relatively happy.
you know what i love about that article? it's anti-human nihilism dressed up as sensible peaceloving liberalism. that guy is so full of shit.
Posts: 5190
| IP: Logged
An opinion piece that arrives at the same conclusion as yourself through a process of airy speculation and playing fast and loose with the facts.
quote:Laughland: The prime minister has repeatedly said that 300,000 or 400,000 bodies have been found there, but the truth is that almost no bodies have been exhumed in Iraq, and consequently the total number of such bodies, still less the cause of their deaths, is simply unknown.
"Almost no bodies"?
quote:It is nearly 15 months since the discovery of Iraq's biggest mass grave near Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad. More than 2,000 locals were rounded up into a series of ready-dug pits and then machinegunned to death as part of the Ba'ath party reprisals against the 1991 Shia uprising that followed the first Gulf war. Forensic experts have identified 260 suspected mass graves in Iraq. Some contain more than 1,000 bodies; others a dozen or fewer.
While the initial estimates now seem exaggerated, it's hard to regard someone who writes off atrocities such as the above as anything other than an apologist for the previous regime.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
quote:The Milosevic trial has shown that genocide never occurred in Kosovo - although Blair told us that the events there were worse than anything that had happened since the second world war, even the political activists who staff the prosecutor's office at the international criminal tribunal in The Hague never included genocide in their Kosovo indictment. And two years of prosecution have failed to produce one single witness to testify that the former Yugoslav president ordered any attacks on Albanian civilians in the province. Indeed, army documents produced from Belgrade show the contrary.
Beautiful, just beautiful.
"political activists"
Milosevic was trying to keep the peace. Some of his best friends are Muslims. He loved his Mum.
Posts: 5190
| IP: Logged
posted
In other news, the imperialist states Gondor and Rohan, led by the arch-racist Gandalf, launched a brutal attack on the defenceless Mordor, which has suffered under a horrific regime of trade sanctions for the past 500 years.
Many civilian Orcs have been killed, some of them apparently female. Trolls and giant spiders are also among the dead.
A spokesman for the Elvish/Men Alliance claimed that the reason for the war was an alleged Ring of Power created by Sauron, President of Mordor.
No such Ring has yet been found.
Other commentators point to the geothermal resources of Mount Doom and the valuable mineral ores of the Mountains of Shadow as the real explanation for the conflict.
Posts: 50
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Kuang: In other news, the imperialist states Gondor and Rohan, led by the arch-racist Gandalf, launched a brutal attack on the defenceless Mordor, which has suffered under a horrific regime of trade sanctions for the past 500 years.
Many civilian Orcs have been killed, some of them apparently female. Trolls and giant spiders are also among the dead.
A spokesman for the Elvish/Men Alliance claimed that the reason for the war was an alleged Ring of Power created by Sauron, President of Mordor.
No such Ring has yet been found.
Other commentators point to the geothermal resources of Mount Doom and the valuable mineral ores of the Mountains of Shadow as the real explanation for the conflict.
That's possibly the worst thing I've ever read on the internet, including the Wedding section on Handbag, Mart's alphabet thread and some slash fiction about Frodo and Gwaihir.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
Frank
moon-chain-silver-mother-breakfast-fry-up-sausage
posted
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: That's possibly the worst thing I've ever read on the internet, including the Wedding section on Handbag, Mart's alphabet thread and some slash fiction about Frodo and Gwaihir.
Here is a better version of the same general premise.
Frodo and Gwaihir? *shudder* And I thought the Frodo-Sam-Smeagol threeway represented the bottom of the barrel.
Obviously I was wrong.
-------------------- Or not sure. Or not important Posts: 733
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: That's possibly the worst thing I've ever read on the internet, including the Wedding section on Handbag, Mart's alphabet thread and some slash fiction about Frodo and Gwaihir.
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: That's possibly the worst thing I've ever read on the internet, including the Wedding section on Handbag, Mart's alphabet thread and some slash fiction about Frodo and Gwaihir.
Fuck it - it made me laugh...
We could start an entire thread premised on translating news stories, especially stories of atrocities, into the LOTR idiom...
-------------------- Give 'em .0139 fathoms and they'll take 80 chains. Posts: 3202
| IP: Logged
Frank
moon-chain-silver-mother-breakfast-fry-up-sausage
posted
quote:Originally posted by froopyscot: We could start an entire thread premised on translating news stories, especially stories of atrocities, into the LOTR idiom...
We could ...
but wouldn't it be rather thundergeek?
-------------------- Or not sure. Or not important Posts: 733
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by froopyscot: We could start an entire thread premised on translating news stories, especially stories of atrocities, into the LOTR idiom...
We could ...
but wouldn't it be rather thundergeek?
Probably. I was just speculating it might be the ultimate bad thread idea, eclipsing even the fabled and legendary alphabet thread.
-------------------- Give 'em .0139 fathoms and they'll take 80 chains. Posts: 3202
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ooh you're so sharp you'll cut yourself!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
erm...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic