Bananiot wrote:When the crazy woman of the forum wants to insult anyone, the first word that comes into her mouth is "turk". She has a cheek to lecture us on namecalling and the "innocent" way these terms are used in England or France.
So who are your trying to insult by calling me "crazy"? Me or mental patients? I take it you mean
me as it would be unfair to all those mental patients who have
no choice. So, when someone calls another "Turk" why isn't the insult intended for that person, specifically? Do
you believe
all Turks have
no choice in their negative behaviour?
But let's see who these "innocents" of England are that call the French, Spanish, Scots, Jews, Pakis derogatory names. They are the people who are
oblivious to the fact none of these people have attacked their country, killing thousands and racially segregating their country, at least for thousands of years. Are they "innocent" to
still feel the need to call French people "Frogs" after thousands of years of
no threat?
And you as a "biologist", do you not describe behavioural traits in groups of animals; docile, aggressive etc. The problem does not lie in
classification but whether there are erroneous reasons for classifying in a particular way.
So, you say the Brits are "innocent" when they name-call; and yet the GCs who contend with the present occupiers of nearly half of Cyprus, gained by the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of, specifically, Greek Cypriots, recolonised by hundreds of thousands of settlers from Turkey and militarised by tens of thousands of Turkish troops ordered by Generals in Turkey and no doubt supported by millions of Turks in Turkey and worldwide, are "guilty" of racism?
What have the French or the Spanish done to the Brits
recently, that they can still call them derogatory names but
you label them as "innocent"; and yet any GC using the same principle, but with
ample reason, is labeled by you as the most racist in Europe?