FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > This is what genocide looks like
This is what genocide looks like
Jump to: Newest in thread
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/aug/07/genocide-sudan-zamzam-camp-timeline
(Link to major news source, permitted under Fab ToS)
Whenever anyone brings up the topic of atrocities around the world, specifically Sudan & Yemen (where famine has killed over 150k children), there is a tendency on here to discuss the relative silence with "yes, but we're not supplying arms to them". Perhaps that's technically true. However we (the UK) do actually have a very direct and solemn responsibility in this regard: we are a penholder for both Sudan and Yemen.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/78/foreign-affairs-committee/news/205726/new-inquiry-using-our-penholder-position-to-reduce-global-conflict-the-uk-at-the-united-nations-security-council/
(UK government information website, permitted under Fab ToS).
This means, in short, we're responsible for drafting resolutions in the Security Council specifically for these countries. And, as the Guardian article points out, we don't really do much, or as much as we should, when we should.
The implication of those who point out that we don't arm these countries is that protesting would be useless, since we (the UK) cannot do anything to better their situation. This is patently untrue. Protest to get the UK to take its role in the Security Council seriously, for Lammy to actually turn up to conferences on Sudan, to actually attempt to make things better, rather than ignore the issues. If Sudan had oil, this would be resolved by now. If "Israelis" were belligerents in Sudan, there would be uproar. Instead, it's tumble as usual, because we really don't care about genocide or suffering if it isn't a bandwagon where we have to invent it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/aug/07/genocide-sudan-zamzam-camp-timeline
(Link to major news source, permitted under Fab ToS)
Whenever anyone brings up the topic of atrocities around the world, specifically Sudan & Yemen (where famine has killed over 150k children), there is a tendency on here to discuss the relative silence with "yes, but we're not supplying arms to them". Perhaps that's technically true. However we (the UK) do actually have a very direct and solemn responsibility in this regard: we are a penholder for both Sudan and Yemen.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/78/foreign-affairs-committee/news/205726/new-inquiry-using-our-penholder-position-to-reduce-global-conflict-the-uk-at-the-united-nations-security-council/
(UK government information website, permitted under Fab ToS).
This means, in short, we're responsible for drafting resolutions in the Security Council specifically for these countries. And, as the Guardian article points out, we don't really do much, or as much as we should, when we should.
The implication of those who point out that we don't arm these countries is that protesting would be useless, since we (the UK) cannot do anything to better their situation. This is patently untrue. Protest to get the UK to take its role in the Security Council seriously, for Lammy to actually turn up to conferences on Sudan, to actually attempt to make things better, rather than ignore the issues. If Sudan had oil, this would be resolved by now. If "Israelis" were belligerents in Sudan, there would be uproar. Instead, it's tumble as usual, because we really don't care about genocide or suffering if it isn't a bandwagon where we have to invent it."
As much as you are spot on here, I think you'd be better off replacing the word "Israelis" with "Jews" because thats the biggest driver of sentiment in the different approaches to these separate "bandwagons".
I'll take loads of stick for saying this but the hatred and persecution of one particular group fuels all the attention it receives over other similar situations.
Nothing new been going on for millennial,
Mrsxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There won't be much discussion from the left on Sudan because
- There is massive funding behind the media coverage of Palestine, something that Sudan's victims don't have. Lack of coverage means not enough popularity in social media for people to latch on to this issue.
- Not for everyone, but for some people, the type of people that commits the killing also matters.
The excuse about "supplying arms" is just lame, considering the fact that Israel produces lots of weapons internally and UK contributes to less than 1% of Israel's imports. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the world at large cared about these events they would airlift the victims out of harms way.
Two million Palestinians used for target practice while queuing for food is equivalent to 10,000 relocated to each country/territory on the globe.
If it was done for the Jews in 1948 it can be done for the Gazans now.
If you’ve got money to kill people then you’ve got money to save people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The presence of oil or other natural resources certainly seems to affect the decision making process of western governments. But i personally think getting involved in another countries civil war is different to picking a side when one country attacks another.
Ukraine was part of the USSR but got “independence” when the Soviet Union collapsed. They have wanted to align themselves more with the west since that happened but Putin doesn’t want that to happen. He wants his buffer zone amongst other things. Him invading with a 20:1 military superiority in numbers at least, is an easy one to pick sides. He's a bully trying to steal lunch money. It’s a no brainer.
That’s very different to a tribal nation where different tribes want to battle it out for control. It’s not so clear who might have moral high ground.
The Isreal/Gaza situation is different to both of those. The two sides have been fighting under different banners for hundreds if not thousands of years. Control of both areas of land has swapped more times over history than a big cock at a swingers party. To define a line in the sand where you can clearly state who started it all is all but impossible.
In all three types of conflict there’s humanitarian disasters. But the humanitarian aid very often helps one side more then the other in a civil war, purely because of who controls the ports etc. is that any different to supplying one side with arms?
UN peacekeepers can only keep the peace in situations where both sides want peace. Would you want your son/daughter trying to keep the peace and fairly distribute humanitarian air, in a conflict where neither side wants the fighting to end? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The conflict in Sudan is not well covered in the media. I only know a little about it, so don't take the following as definitive.
Although superficially it looks like a civil war that started in 2023 between the SAF and RSF, the roots go way back to at least when it was taken over by Egypt in 1820 something. The British Empire was involved too, no surprise there.
It's an extremely poor country and one of the world's worst fault lines. There's been so much turmoil there that most of us can't keep up. Military coups happened in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1966, 1969, 1971, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1992, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2019, 2021 and 2023.
UK involvement since independence in 1956 has been minimal. The government condemns the violence and appeals for peace but that's about it.
There aren't large numbers of people in the UK cheering on either the SAF or the RSF so we don't see much debated about the conflict on internet forums.
Organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are campaigning. The International Criminal Court think that war crimes and crimes against humanity are probably being committed. The UN is observing but not really doing anything as Russia can't decide which side to back.
The worst offenders seem to be the RSF but the SAF are also accused of atrocities.
So having said all that what should the UK be doing that it's not already doing?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
“Worst” is very subjective. There’s little media coverage because the BBC haven’t decided which side to support. And of course because it’s a very dangerous and volatile situation. Where is Kate Adey when you need her? And of course, how many people are genuinely interested.
It’s hard to intervene and remain totally neutral. Whilst the humanitarian impacts are of course deplorable, that’s not going to change until the fighting stop and I don’t see how outside countries can impact that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Worst” is very subjective. There’s little media coverage because the BBC haven’t decided which side to support. And of course because it’s a very dangerous and volatile situation. Where is Kate Adey when you need her? And of course, how many people are genuinely interested.
It’s hard to intervene and remain totally neutral. Whilst the humanitarian impacts are of course deplorable, that’s not going to change until the fighting stop and I don’t see how outside countries can impact that."
Yes, I agree "worst" is subjective.
BBC news coverage is rubbish, unless you listen to Radio 4 and most people don't.
Even if there wasn't a civil war going on, Sudan would be in trouble with GDP per capita at $624, inflation around 80%, unemployment at 25% etc.
Sudanese trade is mostly with the UAE and China, we don't send them any weapons, the UK doesn't seem to have any levers to pull.
The only time Sudan gets brought up here seems to be in reference to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you follow the links in the original post, and still think we have no real job to do, that perhaps we are derelict in doing?"
Yes, I did.
Maybe I missed something, what did you read there that I didn't process?
What do you think the UK should do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you follow the links in the original post, and still think we have no real job to do, that perhaps we are derelict in doing?
Yes, I did.
Maybe I missed something, what did you read there that I didn't process?
What do you think the UK should do?"
Great question. From the article linked:
"
“Lammy could have used his leverage to tell his Emirati counterpart to cancel the outrageous attack on a displacement camp: ‘If you don’t, you are not invited to London,’” says a UN expert.
"
Perhaps this?
"
Back in London, as night fell, the mood among humanitarians was febrile. Attempts to cajole FCDO officials into making a statement on Zamzam ahead of the conference had foundered. “Everybody was raging, asking: ‘Where’s Lammy?’” recalls a prominent human rights expert.
"
Or perhaps a statement as above, given that they're the "pen holder"?
"
As the hours ticked by, and the litany of RSF brutalities grew ever longer, a decision was seemingly made by the UK government to say nothing. No emergency meeting was convened; no face-to-face with groups collating evidence of war crimes from Zamzam.
"
Perhaps done something other than nothing?
"
On 17 April, as the enormity of the massacre started to become clear, the UN security council condemned “repeated attacks” on Zamzam.
A week later, Lammy issued a statement, saying the attack carried the “hallmarks of ethnic cleansing”. He has released no official statement on Sudan since then.
"
This pen holder thing at the UN Security council isn't really being taken very seriously, is it? It's literally the UK's responsibility to weigh in, advocate and promote action, or at least draft some resolutions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I asked what the UK should do, not what it should have done in the past.
I agree the UK response was terrible. But in reality the diplomatic moves you are saying should have been made wouldn't have made any difference on the ground.
In the context of Sudan the UK really doesn't have any levers, but in the context of I/P it does. The UK is providing politcal, military and intelligence support to Israel. Our involvement with Sudan as a penholder is purely diplomatic.
If we are talking about UN SC resolutions Russia and China would probably use their vetos, just like the US uses its veto against anything to do with Israel.
And what would you want a UN SC resolution to say about Sudan?
Even when a UN SC resolution is passed they get ignored as the UN has no "teeth".
You brought this up in the context of I/P and it's pretty much the same sh*t. The UK government expresses a desire for peace but doesn't do anything concrete about it. And in the case of Israel has so far helped make things worse.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You brought this up in the context of I/P and it's pretty much the same sh*t.
"
The government apathy, yes. The popular response, no.
And the popular response is nothing to do with the UK government's leverage - anyone who says that is either stupid or lying. How is this evident? The same protests happen in countries that do not help Israel at all, have no leverage and, in some cases, already hate Israel. You say Yemen and Sudan only get brought up in the context of Israel/Palestine. You know what else only gets brought up in that context? The word genocide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can’t help everyone "
I believe we can, and that we should.
America and many other nations / people might be facing inwards and sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la, not our problem."
And up to a point, they are right.
.
Except it becomes a BIGGER problem further down the line. Why ? Soft power and projection.
.
Because a nation hostile to us WILL see the abandonment, and recognise future opportunity. They sweep in and assist, and this empowers that nation 25, 50, longer years down the line.
.
It's short-sighted not to be planning 25+ years in to the future. That's the page which established and also emergent superpowers are working on.
.
Our disinclination to help will create opportunity for our enemies and strengthen their board. Geopolitics is a long game of chess played over decades, if not centuries. The Chinese know this only too well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can’t help everyone I believe we can, and that we should.
America and many other nations / people might be facing inwards and sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la, not our problem."
And up to a point, they are right.
.
Except it becomes a BIGGER problem further down the line. Why ? Soft power and projection.
.
Because a nation hostile to us WILL see the abandonment, and recognise future opportunity. They sweep in and assist, and this empowers that nation 25, 50, longer years down the line.
.
It's short-sighted not to be planning 25+ years in to the future. That's the page which established and also emergent superpowers are working on.
.
Our disinclination to help will create opportunity for our enemies and strengthen their board. Geopolitics is a long game of chess played over decades, if not centuries. The Chinese know this only too well."
Stepping in also creates enemies, unless you think we should help wipe out every man, woman and child on one side in every civil war across the globe? I know that’s not what you’re suggesting but the US involvement in a relatively peaceful ‘70s Iran is partly what’s triggered the current situation between Islamic fundamentalists and the west.
Thinking we have to right to interfere in the politics or wars in other countries is one of the reasons half the world hates the brits.
It’s close to impossible to helps civilians during a civil war while the fighting continues unless you’re gonna pick a side. And picking sides is what brings bombs to our home territory.
I sympathise with the plight of many people caught up in these types of conflicts but it’s not our fight. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can’t help everyone I believe we can, and that we should.
America and many other nations / people might be facing inwards and sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la, not our problem."
And up to a point, they are right.
.
Except it becomes a BIGGER problem further down the line. Why ? Soft power and projection.
.
Because a nation hostile to us WILL see the abandonment, and recognise future opportunity. They sweep in and assist, and this empowers that nation 25, 50, longer years down the line.
.
It's short-sighted not to be planning 25+ years in to the future. That's the page which established and also emergent superpowers are working on.
.
Our disinclination to help will create opportunity for our enemies and strengthen their board. Geopolitics is a long game of chess played over decades, if not centuries. The Chinese know this only too well.
Stepping in also creates enemies, unless you think we should help wipe out every man, woman and child on one side in every civil war across the globe? I know that’s not what you’re suggesting but the US involvement in a relatively peaceful ‘70s Iran is partly what’s triggered the current situation between Islamic fundamentalists and the west.
Thinking we have to right to interfere in the politics or wars in other countries is one of the reasons half the world hates the brits.
It’s close to impossible to helps civilians during a civil war while the fighting continues unless you’re gonna pick a side. And picking sides is what brings bombs to our home territory.
I sympathise with the plight of many people caught up in these types of conflicts but it’s not our fight. "
Of course stepping in creates enemies. If there are 2 parties in the street fighting each other, stepping in turns you in to a 3rd conflictee, whether you are a law enforcement officer, a neutral 3rd party, or a friend of the one of the 2 combatants.
.
Inaction however is harmful. Walking away only helps the opressor. It certainly doesn't help the one being oppressed. And people have long memories.
.
I feel there is a loaded statement in "Thinking we have to right to interfere in the politics or wars in other countries is one of the reasons half the world hates the brits."
.
I agree, picking sides is never easy. And sometimes the side you pick doesn't turn out to be wise choice in the long run. But should that prevent us from at least trying ? I don't think so.
.
I have found that using compassion as the primary lens to filter all situations, and then inform you of your actions, one rarely makes a poor choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can’t help everyone I believe we can, and that we should.
America and many other nations / people might be facing inwards and sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "la la la, not our problem."
And up to a point, they are right.
.
Except it becomes a BIGGER problem further down the line. Why ? Soft power and projection.
.
Because a nation hostile to us WILL see the abandonment, and recognise future opportunity. They sweep in and assist, and this empowers that nation 25, 50, longer years down the line.
.
It's short-sighted not to be planning 25+ years in to the future. That's the page which established and also emergent superpowers are working on.
.
Our disinclination to help will create opportunity for our enemies and strengthen their board. Geopolitics is a long game of chess played over decades, if not centuries. The Chinese know this only too well.
Stepping in also creates enemies, unless you think we should help wipe out every man, woman and child on one side in every civil war across the globe? I know that’s not what you’re suggesting but the US involvement in a relatively peaceful ‘70s Iran is partly what’s triggered the current situation between Islamic fundamentalists and the west.
Thinking we have to right to interfere in the politics or wars in other countries is one of the reasons half the world hates the brits.
It’s close to impossible to helps civilians during a civil war while the fighting continues unless you’re gonna pick a side. And picking sides is what brings bombs to our home territory.
I sympathise with the plight of many people caught up in these types of conflicts but it’s not our fight.
Of course stepping in creates enemies. If there are 2 parties in the street fighting each other, stepping in turns you in to a 3rd conflictee, whether you are a law enforcement officer, a neutral 3rd party, or a friend of the one of the 2 combatants.
.
Inaction however is harmful. Walking away only helps the opressor. It certainly doesn't help the one being oppressed. And people have long memories.
.
I feel there is a loaded statement in "Thinking we have to right to interfere in the politics or wars in other countries is one of the reasons half the world hates the brits."
.
I agree, picking sides is never easy. And sometimes the side you pick doesn't turn out to be wise choice in the long run. But should that prevent us from at least trying ? I don't think so.
.
I have found that using compassion as the primary lens to filter all situations, and then inform you of your actions, one rarely makes a poor choice. "
So tell me which side your compassion is telling you to choose in Sudan? And what military aid and how many troops you would send them to help them win.
Then we can move on to Yemen, Syria, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo. There’s probably others but if we just give these half a dozen the same each as we’ve given Ukraine that’s £125 billion we need to dig from down the back of the sofa.
To generate that we’d need to raise the basic rate of income tax to around 38%. I’m sorry but I don’t think you’ll find many people who want to pay 38% income tax to help settle a handful of civil wars that we have no business getting involved in. And even if you did, the economy would collapse within weeks.
I have to say again, we can’t help everyone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID…. "
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation."
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks.."
Or he's explaining it factually in the very simplest way and you have no answer so you attack instead of debating.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks.."
I could point out a million problems in the world that could be alleviated if you could make some personal sacrifices to support them but you haven't. What you do is totally fine because charity isn't an obligation. Not helping someone doesn't make you a bad person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks.."
Sudan made the US rich?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 38 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation."
You are right… but what the us were doing via USAID for example was giving wheat grain that there was an overproduction of, they were giving nutritional biscuits specifically made for malnourished children made from peanuts that again there was an excess of
Those 2 products for example saved thousands |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
You are right… but what the us were doing via USAID for example was giving wheat grain that there was an overproduction of, they were giving nutritional biscuits specifically made for malnourished children made from peanuts that again there was an excess of
Those 2 products for example saved thousands "
Current US national debt is $36,996,205,967,149.22.
Borrowing money to prance around the globe virtue signalling your beneficence is not only dumb but also completely immoral given that the financial burden passes to future generations.
Maybe the UK should pick up the US Aid slack?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks..
Or he's explaining it factually in the very simplest way and you have no answer so you attack instead of debating.."
An example is not an attack.
But it all depends on the outlook one has on certain comments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks..
I could point out a million problems in the world that could be alleviated if you could make some personal sacrifices to support them but you haven't. What you do is totally fine because charity isn't an obligation. Not helping someone doesn't make you a bad person."
What makes you think I haven't made personal sacrifices to help others?
I am not selfish I do not only think of myself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *l_xxxMan 38 weeks ago
South leeds |
"We are not intelligent, just the least stupid animal on our rock."
Even that is questionable sometimes. A dumb animal doesn't know its destroying the planet Humans do, but continue to do it anyway. Mainly in a quest for greed rather than survival. Bonkers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks..
I could point out a million problems in the world that could be alleviated if you could make some personal sacrifices to support them but you haven't. What you do is totally fine because charity isn't an obligation. Not helping someone doesn't make you a bad person.
What makes you think I haven't made personal sacrifices to help others?
I am not selfish I do not only think of myself."
You are on a swingers site with a paid account. That money could have been used to pay the meal for some poor homeless person. You obviously prioritise your need to have sex over someone else's need to eat. So yeah you are selfish, just like everyone of us.
We all can accommodate some homeless person in our living room just for the night to protect them from the winters. But we don't do that because we want our homes to ourselves. It's easy to point finger at others and say, "It's the government's responsibility to help them" or "It's the person richer than me who should help them"
We all do this in our lives. Some people are honest enough to accept the truth as it is and don't blame others for not helping. As long as you aren't deliberately harming others with your actions, you are still a good person. Performing actions to help others makes you a better person. But inaction doesn't make you a bad person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks..
I could point out a million problems in the world that could be alleviated if you could make some personal sacrifices to support them but you haven't. What you do is totally fine because charity isn't an obligation. Not helping someone doesn't make you a bad person.
What makes you think I haven't made personal sacrifices to help others?
I am not selfish I do not only think of myself.
You are on a swingers site with a paid account. That money could have been used to pay the meal for some poor homeless person. You obviously prioritise your need to have sex over someone else's need to eat. So yeah you are selfish, just like everyone of us.
We all can accommodate some homeless person in our living room just for the night to protect them from the winters. But we don't do that because we want our homes to ourselves. It's easy to point finger at others and say, "It's the government's responsibility to help them" or "It's the person richer than me who should help them"
We all do this in our lives. Some people are honest enough to accept the truth as it is and don't blame others for not helping. As long as you aren't deliberately harming others with your actions, you are still a good person. Performing actions to help others makes you a better person. But inaction doesn't make you a bad person."
Ho my dear you should call yourself mr assume as you have assumed wrong.
Firstly I wouldn't waste my cash on this site I am not a site supporter.
I have worked for charities, and the private sector wait for it... yes with the homeless, you are a stupid, stupid person who assumes things to suit your narrative like you most who assume are wrong, and really it is the assumer voicing themselves and there own opinions it is called transferance. showing emotions or opinions that are your own towards another who didn't start the opinion or emotion.
As for sex I get my lot, and I do not need a swingers site to have sex again it is all about you remember that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks..
I could point out a million problems in the world that could be alleviated if you could make some personal sacrifices to support them but you haven't. What you do is totally fine because charity isn't an obligation. Not helping someone doesn't make you a bad person.
What makes you think I haven't made personal sacrifices to help others?
I am not selfish I do not only think of myself.
You are on a swingers site with a paid account. That money could have been used to pay the meal for some poor homeless person. You obviously prioritise your need to have sex over someone else's need to eat. So yeah you are selfish, just like everyone of us.
We all can accommodate some homeless person in our living room just for the night to protect them from the winters. But we don't do that because we want our homes to ourselves. It's easy to point finger at others and say, "It's the government's responsibility to help them" or "It's the person richer than me who should help them"
We all do this in our lives. Some people are honest enough to accept the truth as it is and don't blame others for not helping. As long as you aren't deliberately harming others with your actions, you are still a good person. Performing actions to help others makes you a better person. But inaction doesn't make you a bad person.
Ho my dear you should call yourself mr assume as you have assumed wrong.
Firstly I wouldn't waste my cash on this site I am not a site supporter.
I have worked for charities, and the private sector wait for it... yes with the homeless, you are a stupid, stupid person who assumes things to suit your narrative like you most who assume are wrong, and really it is the assumer voicing themselves and there own opinions it is called transferance. showing emotions or opinions that are your own towards another who didn't start the opinion or emotion.
As for sex I get my lot, and I do not need a swingers site to have sex again it is all about you remember that."
That's a lot of incoherent rambling to process.
If you don't need the swingers site, why are you even here?
It's very easy to have a hidden profile on the internet and claim that you are spending a lot on charity.
I am not projecting myself. It's called doing a honest self reflection. There are causes I care about and I help where possible. You don't have to believe that I do anyway because I didn't do it to get applause from randos on the internet. I am not going around lecturing other people about how they have to spend their money on causes I care about. What they want to do with their money and time is their wish. I prefer to keep my sanctimonious bullshit to myself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *winga2Man 38 weeks ago
Stranraer |
"
That's a lot of incoherent rambling to process.
If you don't need the swingers site, why are you even here?
It's very easy to have a hidden profile on the internet and claim that you are spending a lot on charity.
I am not projecting myself. It's called doing a honest self reflection. There are causes I care about and I help where possible. You don't have to believe that I do anyway because I didn't do it to get applause from randos on the internet. I am not going around lecturing other people about how they have to spend their money on causes I care about. What they want to do with their money and time is their wish. I prefer to keep my sanctimonious bullshit to myself. "
From an outside perspective it looks quite personal against the other poster |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
That's a lot of incoherent rambling to process.
If you don't need the swingers site, why are you even here?
It's very easy to have a hidden profile on the internet and claim that you are spending a lot on charity.
I am not projecting myself. It's called doing a honest self reflection. There are causes I care about and I help where possible. You don't have to believe that I do anyway because I didn't do it to get applause from randos on the internet. I am not going around lecturing other people about how they have to spend their money on causes I care about. What they want to do with their money and time is their wish. I prefer to keep my sanctimonious bullshit to myself.
From an outside perspective it looks quite personal against the other poster "
As opposed to saying "you are a stupid, stupid person who assumes things to suit your narrative"?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sudan is actually also a huge victim of the trump/ musk decision to get rid of USAID….
Someone not giving money to help someone else doesn't mean them responsible for the misery of the other person. Charity is not an obligation.
A person who takes the rich mans excuse for not giving support to his fellow man who made him rich in the first place here it is folks..
Or he's explaining it factually in the very simplest way and you have no answer so you attack instead of debating..
An example is not an attack.
But it all depends on the outlook one has on certain comments."
You seem to lack the ability to disagree on an open forum with others who hold different views from your own without calling them stupid etc and telling them to fu4k off..
Sometimes we all get a bit frustrated about certain issues or events of course but there's no need to call others stupid, it only reflects upon yourself unfavorably..
  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *winga2Man 38 weeks ago
Stranraer |
"
That's a lot of incoherent rambling to process.
If you don't need the swingers site, why are you even here?
It's very easy to have a hidden profile on the internet and claim that you are spending a lot on charity.
I am not projecting myself. It's called doing a honest self reflection. There are causes I care about and I help where possible. You don't have to believe that I do anyway because I didn't do it to get applause from randos on the internet. I am not going around lecturing other people about how they have to spend their money on causes I care about. What they want to do with their money and time is their wish. I prefer to keep my sanctimonious bullshit to myself.
From an outside perspective it looks quite personal against the other poster
As opposed to saying "you are a stupid, stupid person who assumes things to suit your narrative"? "
From an outside perspective it looks quite personal against the other poster |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
That's a lot of incoherent rambling to process.
If you don't need the swingers site, why are you even here?
It's very easy to have a hidden profile on the internet and claim that you are spending a lot on charity.
I am not projecting myself. It's called doing a honest self reflection. There are causes I care about and I help where possible. You don't have to believe that I do anyway because I didn't do it to get applause from randos on the internet. I am not going around lecturing other people about how they have to spend their money on causes I care about. What they want to do with their money and time is their wish. I prefer to keep my sanctimonious bullshit to myself.
From an outside perspective it looks quite personal against the other poster
As opposed to saying "you are a stupid, stupid person who assumes things to suit your narrative"?
From an outside perspective it looks quite personal against the other poster "
From *your* perspective |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
