It's not, and don't you forget it. Without the people on the front line, fighting oppression, risking their lives, the freedom they do have, injury and embarassment we would not have the liberties that we so often enjoy or take for granted. People sacrificed for the rights and privileges you have, people are still sacrificing. People have been sacrificing and putting themselves at risk since the birth of this country to keep our freedoms free. And they've suffered, died, died in incredibly painful and drawn out ways. They've hurt their friends and families because of the sacrifices they have been willing to make and the sacrifices they have been forced to make. Try to remember that, next time you exercise your rights, and although it may not always be the best idea to thank them too publically, after all, their enemies are always out there watching, try to at least send a thought to the terrorists.
One of the best things about the American Legion is that they spend all day screaming about how mad they are that we exercise the freedoms they fought for.
This is the sort of thing that makes me support terrorism for its own sake.
Dok,
Has no ideology but terror itself.
I actually meant to refer specifically to domestic terrorists, John Brown, Edward Abbey, August Spies and so forth. I figured specifying would take away from the poetic flow of the piece though.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:44:51 PM
I actually meant to refer specifically to domestic terrorists, John Brown, Edward Abbey, August Spies and so forth. I figured specifying would take away from the poetic flow of the piece though.
"Nits make lice."
- John Brown
John Brown was a child murderer. If you want to associate yourself with the killing of children, go ahead. Just try to make sure you mention that you're only speaking for yourself.
Is he saying that domestic terrorists are freedom fighters?
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 08:50:10 PM
Is he saying that domestic terrorists are freedom fighters?
The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is that a freedom fighter is on my side.
(me referring to the person using the term, not me personally)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:46:51 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:44:51 PM
I actually meant to refer specifically to domestic terrorists, John Brown, Edward Abbey, August Spies and so forth. I figured specifying would take away from the poetic flow of the piece though.
"Nits make lice."
- John Brown
John Brown was a child murderer. If you want to associate yourself with the killing of children, go ahead. Just try to make sure you mention that you're only speaking for yourself.
A lot of our soldiers are also child murderers and John Brown played an important part in ending slavery. I'm not saying he was a good man. He was a terrorist, no doubt about it.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:55:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:46:51 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:44:51 PM
I actually meant to refer specifically to domestic terrorists, John Brown, Edward Abbey, August Spies and so forth. I figured specifying would take away from the poetic flow of the piece though.
"Nits make lice."
- John Brown
John Brown was a child murderer. If you want to associate yourself with the killing of children, go ahead. Just try to make sure you mention that you're only speaking for yourself.
A lot of our soldiers are also child murderers and John Brown played an important part in ending slavery. I'm not saying he was a good man. He was a terrorist, no doubt about it.
So the ends justify the means.
Thank you, Herr Goebbels.
I am starting to understand why people hate anarchists now.
The really amusing thing is the only difference between the petty terrorists whom a certain kind of anarchist will profess sympathy for and the states they despise is, well, scale.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:44:51 PM
August Spies
Not a domestic terrorist. Someone threw a pipebomb at what became the Haymarket Massacre (evidence suggests it might have been a cop who was a mole in the crowd) and he, and several others, were hung because they "didn't discourage the bomb throwing." Spies was in fact still on stage when the bomb was thrown and witnesses testified that none of the Haymarket Martyrs threw it.
Learn2history, ok?
Quote from: Hover Cat on September 20, 2010, 09:13:39 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:44:51 PM
August Spies
Not a domestic terrorist. Someone threw a pipebomb at what became the Haymarket Massacre (evidence suggests it might have been a cop who was a mole in the crowd) and he, and several others, were hung because they "didn't discourage the bomb throwing." Spies was in fact still on stage when the bomb was thrown and witnesses testified that none of the Haymarket Martyrs threw it.
Learn2history, ok?
Next you'll be pointing out that most domestic terrorists, when not unwitting pawns of the intelligence services (roughly 50% of the time, at an educated guess, throughout history)
still only serve to further the interests of the ruling class by justifying crackdowns and increased surveillance, whilst failing to create any sort of vanguardist movement from their actions.
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:12:56 PM
The really amusing thing is the only difference between the petty terrorists whom a certain kind of anarchist will profess sympathy for and the states they despise is, well, scale.
That's exactly my point. Except in reverse.
And to Hover Cat, he's a terrorist under the current definition by the US government. A definition that also includes the majority of activists that are any sort of effective.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 09:10:13 PM
I am starting to understand why people hate anarchists now.
Just now? :lulz:
Are you going by the PATRIOT act's definition?
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:20:10 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:12:56 PM
The really amusing thing is the only difference between the petty terrorists whom a certain kind of anarchist will profess sympathy for and the states they despise is, well, scale.
That's exactly my point. Except in reverse.
Not helping your case.
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:29:03 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:20:10 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:12:56 PM
The really amusing thing is the only difference between the petty terrorists whom a certain kind of anarchist will profess sympathy for and the states they despise is, well, scale.
That's exactly my point. Except in reverse.
Not helping your case.
Only if scale is considered irrelevent.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:42:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:29:03 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:20:10 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:12:56 PM
The really amusing thing is the only difference between the petty terrorists whom a certain kind of anarchist will profess sympathy for and the states they despise is, well, scale.
That's exactly my point. Except in reverse.
Not helping your case.
Only if scale is considered irrelevent.
Okay.
How many murdered children are too many? Please be specific.
If you murder less than 50 innocents for every generally-agreed upon Enemy of The People you too can qualify for this year's highly coveted Freedom Fighter of the Year Award.
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:44:57 PM
If you murder less than 50 innocents for every generally-agreed upon Enemy of The People you too can qualify for this year's highly coveted Freedom Fighter of the Year Award.
And if you exceed 3000 innocents/Enemy of the People, you qualify for the Robespierre Memorial Plaque.
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:44:57 PM
If you murder less than 50 innocents for every generally-agreed upon Enemy of The People you too can qualify for this year's highly coveted Freedom Fighter of the Year Award.
Define innocent.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:44:57 PM
If you murder less than 50 innocents for every generally-agreed upon Enemy of The People you too can qualify for this year's highly coveted Freedom Fighter of the Year Award.
Define innocent.
"Those who are not yet born."
- Uncle Joe "Anything for a Laugh" Stalin.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:04:44 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:44:57 PM
If you murder less than 50 innocents for every generally-agreed upon Enemy of The People you too can qualify for this year's highly coveted Freedom Fighter of the Year Award.
Define innocent.
"Those who are not yet born."
- Uncle Joe "Anything for a Laugh" Stalin.
This is justification enough to kill anyone now.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:08:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:04:44 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:44:57 PM
If you murder less than 50 innocents for every generally-agreed upon Enemy of The People you too can qualify for this year's highly coveted Freedom Fighter of the Year Award.
Define innocent.
"Those who are not yet born."
- Uncle Joe "Anything for a Laugh" Stalin.
This is justification enough to kill anyone now.
He was talking about Germans, but I prefer to expand it to all bipeds.
Quote from: dubious translation of Camus
The biggest crime is to be human.
So there, its all justified, because we all Deserved It.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 20, 2010, 10:19:17 PM
Quote from: dubious translation of Camus
The biggest crime is to be human.
So there, its all justified, because we all Deserved It.
Reminder to self: Do not use satire on PD.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:19:48 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 20, 2010, 10:19:17 PM
Quote from: dubious translation of Camus
The biggest crime is to be human.
So there, its all justified, because we all Deserved It.
Reminder to self: Do not use satire on PD.
No, you have to over use smilies to show it's a joke, even it would ruin the effect of the satire.
I understand it was satire, im just playing along.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 20, 2010, 10:22:20 PM
I understand it was satire, im just playing along.
My bad.
I just assume that if you post in the same thread as me, it's a shot at me.
Thats too bad.
Maybe I should avoid using "straight-faced" satire to avoid misunderstandings.
I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical. Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical. Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.
Um, do you know how many freedoms soldiers don't have just by virtue of being a soldier?
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical. Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.
:lulz:
I dont even know what to say to this. Care to elaborate while i reread the OP more carefully?
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:35:56 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical. Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.
Um, do you know how many freedoms soldiers don't have just by virtue of being a soldier?
Not specifically, but I do get the general idea. Soldier isn't a permanent thing though, soldiers re-enter the civilian lifestyle. They're also being protected (albeit ineffectively, we need more terrorists) from being deployed in unneeded ways by domestic terrorism.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 20, 2010, 10:37:39 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical. Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.
:lulz:
I dont even know what to say to this. Care to elaborate while i reread the OP more carefully?
Protesters, agitators, and activists are a vital part of preserving the freedoms of everyone.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:38:16 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:35:56 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical. Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.
Um, do you know how many freedoms soldiers don't have just by virtue of being a soldier?
Not specifically, but I do get the general idea. Soldier isn't a permanent thing though, soldiers re-enter the civilian lifestyle. They're also being protected (albeit ineffectively, we need more terrorists) from being deployed in unneeded ways by domestic terrorism.
I think you must be high.
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
yes. Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.
The only way i can make sense of what you are saying is that, you are not making an explicit distinction between "terrorism" and "terrorismtm"
I dont think its good to compare say, activists with federal building bombers.
I understand that in the government rhetoric they equate it as different degrees of the same thing, opposing their agenda that is - but you dont have an agenda aligned to the government *i hope* which is the only thing that would stop you from making that distinction of categories of "actions denounced as terrorism" and "real terrorism".
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
yes. Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.
So, John Brown would have been okay, if it weren't for the PATRIOT Act? :?
Dok,
Didn't realize murdering children was okay before that law was passed.
Ok, I definitely do not like anarchists now.
Peace out. Taking a short break from some people.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:50:00 PM
Ok, I definitely do not like anarchists now.
It was all done for God. Or Allah. Or The Perfect State™. Or communism. Or Capitalism and "free" markets. Or the superior tribe's right to expand. Or the superior race's need for cultural purity. It is the Holy Peoples' Will, and though unfortunate, these things must be done, do you understand? You can't make omelets without breaking eggs, and you can't make Big Things happen without breaking children.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 20, 2010, 10:46:32 PM
The only way i can make sense of what you are saying is that, you are not making an explicit distinction between "terrorism" and "terrorismtm"
I dont think its good to compare say, activists with federal building bombers.
I understand that in the government rhetoric they equate it as different degrees of the same thing, opposing their agenda that is - but you dont have an agenda aligned to the government *i hope* which is the only thing that would stop you from making that distinction of categories of "actions denounced as terrorism" and "real terrorism".
I don't personally have the same view of terrorism as the federal government's official line no. (which is different than their stance toward it, they support groups that use the exact same tactics as groups they condemn as terrorist against targets they want targeted) however the point of the rant was, partly, to use a ardent patriot military supporter thought tunnel and in that thought tunnel the official classification of protestors, activists, and dissidents as terrorists needs to be taken at face value.
I obviously stepped in it with John Brown, who has been dead long enough that I am not sure I am comfortable judging him by contemporary morals anyways.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
yes. Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.
So, John Brown would have been okay, if it weren't for the PATRIOT Act? :?
Dok,
Didn't realize murdering children was okay before that law was passed.
I wasn't arguing against the patriot act. I was using it's definitions.
And John Brown was definitely fighting for our freedoms (with our defined as humanity in General, his specific focus was black people) he was doing it in a bad way but yes, he was absolutely fighting for our freedoms.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:51:34 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:50:00 PM
Ok, I definitely do not like anarchists now.
It was all done for God. Or Allah. Or The Perfect State™. Or communism. Or Capitalism and "free" markets. Or the superior tribe's right to expand. Or the superior race's need for cultural purity. It is the Holy Peoples' Will, and though unfortunate, these things must be done, do you understand? You can't make omelets without breaking eggs, and you can't make Big Things happen without breaking children.
Higher purpose is what drives people to make sacrifices. Yes, most terrorists are ideological fanatics, they aren't going to be willing to take the risks necessary otherwise. That includes the best, Ghandi for instance
(yes, I just called Ghandi a terrorist, by the definitions I am using he absolutely was one. He wreaked economic terror on the colonial system in India)
By the definition of "fascist" I use, you most certainly are one.
Hey guys, did you know if you just make up your own definitions, you can define people however you like?
by the definition of "toolbox" I'm using, this thread absolutely is one.
That's true of every definition of the word.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 08:56:24 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 20, 2010, 10:46:32 PM
The only way i can make sense of what you are saying is that, you are not making an explicit distinction between "terrorism" and "terrorismtm"
I dont think its good to compare say, activists with federal building bombers.
I understand that in the government rhetoric they equate it as different degrees of the same thing, opposing their agenda that is - but you dont have an agenda aligned to the government *i hope* which is the only thing that would stop you from making that distinction of categories of "actions denounced as terrorism" and "real terrorism".
I don't personally have the same view of terrorism as the federal government's official line no. (which is different than their stance toward it, they support groups that use the exact same tactics as groups they condemn as terrorist against targets they want targeted) however the point of the rant was, partly, to use a ardent patriot military supporter thought tunnel and in that thought tunnel the official classification of protestors, activists, and dissidents as terrorists needs to be taken at face value.
I obviously stepped in it with John Brown, who has been dead long enough that I am not sure I am comfortable judging him by contemporary morals anyways.
So, what's the expiration date on child murder? Because I'm pretty sure it shocked his people, so it couldn't have been a cultural norm.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 09:00:25 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:51:34 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:50:00 PM
Ok, I definitely do not like anarchists now.
It was all done for God. Or Allah. Or The Perfect State™. Or communism. Or Capitalism and "free" markets. Or the superior tribe's right to expand. Or the superior race's need for cultural purity. It is the Holy Peoples' Will, and though unfortunate, these things must be done, do you understand? You can't make omelets without breaking eggs, and you can't make Big Things happen without breaking children.
Higher purpose is what drives people to make sacrifices. Yes, most terrorists are ideological fanatics, they aren't going to be willing to take the risks necessary otherwise. That includes the best, Ghandi for instance
(yes, I just called Ghandi a terrorist, by the definitions I am using he absolutely was one. He wreaked economic terror on the colonial system in India)
So, yeah, under the PATRIOT Act, which article makes Gandhi a terrorist?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:42:46 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:42:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:29:03 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:20:10 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:12:56 PM
The really amusing thing is the only difference between the petty terrorists whom a certain kind of anarchist will profess sympathy for and the states they despise is, well, scale.
That's exactly my point. Except in reverse.
Not helping your case.
Only if scale is considered irrelevent.
Okay.
How many murdered children are too many? Please be specific.
One.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 08:57:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
yes. Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.
So, John Brown would have been okay, if it weren't for the PATRIOT Act? :?
Dok,
Didn't realize murdering children was okay before that law was passed.
I wasn't arguing against the patriot act. I was using it's definitions.
And John Brown was definitely fighting for our freedoms (with our defined as humanity in General, his specific focus was black people) he was doing it in a bad way but yes, he was absolutely fighting for our freedoms.
Um, no he wasn't.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 09:00:25 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:51:34 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:50:00 PM
Ok, I definitely do not like anarchists now.
It was all done for God. Or Allah. Or The Perfect State™. Or communism. Or Capitalism and "free" markets. Or the superior tribe's right to expand. Or the superior race's need for cultural purity. It is the Holy Peoples' Will, and though unfortunate, these things must be done, do you understand? You can't make omelets without breaking eggs, and you can't make Big Things happen without breaking children.
Higher purpose is what drives people to make sacrifices. Yes, most terrorists are ideological fanatics, they aren't going to be willing to take the risks necessary otherwise. That includes the best, Ghandi for instance
(yes, I just called Ghandi a terrorist, by the definitions I am using he absolutely was one. He wreaked economic terror on the colonial system in India)
So, yeah, under the PATRIOT Act, which article makes Gandhi a terrorist?
You know, the paragraph about the terrorists. That one over there...
OP, really, who are you targeting with this? If what you're actually talking about activists and protestors and not people who blow up children and other innocent people because THAT'LL SURE SHOW THE GOVERNMENT!, then most people with a brain in their head aren't going to agree that these people should be considered terrorists despite what Mr. Government says and it'll just sound like you're supporting the blowing people up guys.
People who take the government's word at face value will likely just agree that these people are trouble-makers, and the word "terrorist" will just spark that knee-jerk reaction that brings to mind blowing-people-up guys.
And the government will just put you on the terrorist watch list for supporting terrorists.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 08:56:24 AM
I don't personally have the same view of terrorism as the federal government's official line no. (which is different than their stance toward it, they support groups that use the exact same tactics as groups they condemn as terrorist against targets they want targeted) however the point of the rant was, partly, to use a ardent patriot military supporter thought tunnel and in that thought tunnel the official classification of protestors, activists, and dissidents as terrorists needs to be taken at face value.
I obviously stepped in it with John Brown, who has been dead long enough that I am not sure I am comfortable judging him by contemporary morals anyways.
Ok, then the rant does make sense. Just a suggestion, remember who the target audience is, because an everyday person might just get confused (not necessarily in the good way) and persons in this board, well, you noticed, and it is a justified response, because without clarification you just seem to be trying to be edgy.
Now, concerning John Brown...
Quote from: wikipedia Pottawatomie Massacre
Late in the evening, they called at the house of James P. Doyle and ordered him and his two adult sons, William and Drury (all former slave catchers) to go with them as prisoners.... The three men were escorted by their captors out into the darkness, where Owen Brown and one of his brothers killed them with broadswords. John Brown, Sr. did not participate in the stabbing but fired a shot into the head of the fallen James Doyle to ensure he was dead.
...Brown and his band then went to the house of Allen Wilkinson and ordered him out. He was slashed and stabbed to death by Henry Thompson and Theodore Winer, possibly with help from Brown's sons...
...William Sherman was led to the edge of the creek and hacked to death with the swords by Winer, Thompson, and Brown's sons.
Not judging him by "contemporary morals", i perceive as a cop-out - do you not have morals of your own?
Even within the framework of a collective monkey fight (war), killing a prisoner of war is way beyond being an asshole.
Slavery at its core was a political-civil conflict, whereas in a political-militar conflict between, say, nations, with soldiers fighting, it is justifiable to kill all enemy soldiers (that dont surrender) because they will try to do the same.
But considering all civilian opposition as combatants, thats a cruel and retarded notion of total war - or are you the kind of person that would say that the nukes in japan during WWII that killed many civilians, was justifiable to end the war?
I think your answer will make everything else be easier to understand.
John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.
As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 08:06:32 PM
John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.
As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.
Yea, one could interpret he was just looking for an excuse, like most, if not all extremists.
And well, im not sure there was a majority consensus about fighting to the last man - like, in afghanistan and all those places, there have been civilians fighting, but i wouldnt consider it justifiable to kill civilians preemptively as a solution; even more so, im sure all those dead people of "collateral damage" or "misidentification" knew people that will develop a grudge and fight. Of course, unless you plan on killing everyone, but what does that make you?
I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa - because im sure a lot of afghans do.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 08:31:08 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 08:06:32 PM
John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.
As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.
Yea, one could interpret he was just looking for an excuse, like most, if not all extremists.
And well, im not sure there was a majority consensus about fighting to the last man - like, in afghanistan and all those places, there have been civilians fighting, but i wouldnt consider it justifiable to kill civilians preemptively as a solution; even more so, im sure all those dead people of "collateral damage" or "misidentification" knew people that will develop a grudge and fight. Of course, unless you plan on killing everyone, but what does that make you?
I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa - because im sure a lot of afghans do.
Your comparison of wars is epic fail. Afghanistan in no way resembles a world war and will never approach the number of dead. Even if the entire country was killed.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 08:31:08 PM
I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa -
To those particular Japanese, I can only say "Don't wage total war
and lose."
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 08:37:49 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 08:31:08 PM
I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa -
To those particular Japanese, I can only say "Don't wage total war and lose."
In the area of total war acts, i admit on my ignorance; but, werent the targets of Pearl Harbor just military vessels and aircraft? Or when did the japanese massacre american civilians?
And Charley, i think you are missing the point, im not talking about numbers and size of conflict, im talking about the types of interactions.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 08:44:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 08:37:49 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 08:31:08 PM
I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa -
To those particular Japanese, I can only say "Don't wage total war and lose."
In the area of total war acts, i admit on my ignorance; but, werent the targets of Pearl Harbor just military vessels and aircraft? Or when did the japanese massacre american civilians?
And Charley, i think you are missing the point, im not talking about numbers and size of conflict, im talking about the types of interactions.
Google "The Rape of Nanking".
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 08:44:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 08:37:49 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 08:31:08 PM
I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa -
To those particular Japanese, I can only say "Don't wage total war and lose."
In the area of total war acts, i admit on my ignorance; but, werent the targets of Pearl Harbor just military vessels and aircraft? Or when did the japanese massacre american civilians?
And Charley, i think you are missing the point, im not talking about numbers and size of conflict, im talking about the types of interactions.
You need to history. Seriously. Of course not ONE civilian was killed at Pearl. And no hospitals were bombed either. There were no civilian workers on the docks at all.
AS far as the bombs we dropped, after you study a bit, ask yourself how many lives, both American and Japanese, were saved.
I am done with you until after you study just a bit.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 08:06:32 PM
John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.
As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.
Japanese military documents reveal it was the Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria, and not nuclear weapons, that forced their surrender. Nuclear weapons were immaterial to their defeat. According to the Just War theory, this cannot be justified under either proportionality or hastening to end the war, since it was neither.
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:02:41 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 08:06:32 PM
John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.
As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.
Japanese military documents reveal it was the Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria, and not nuclear weapons, that forced their surrender. Nuclear weapons were immaterial to their defeat. According to the Just War theory, this cannot be justified under either proportionality or hastening to end the war, since it was neither.
It's my opinion that they had it coming, after Nanking (among other things).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 08:45:05 PM
Google "The Rape of Nanking".
I see.
I also checked wikipedia for Total War and it seems to happen more often than i can feel at ease with.
The worse part i think is that its the civilian's population fault for allowing its government to engage in it, while having little power to stop it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:03:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:02:41 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 08:06:32 PM
John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.
As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.
Japanese military documents reveal it was the Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria, and not nuclear weapons, that forced their surrender. Nuclear weapons were immaterial to their defeat. According to the Just War theory, this cannot be justified under either proportionality or hastening to end the war, since it was neither.
It's my opinion that they had it coming, after Nanking (among other things).
Japanese civilians had no say in the Rape of Nanking. Just like most Americans in the World Trade Centre having no say in American foreign policy in the Middle East. Should those soldiers and civilians responsible have been punished? Absolutely, and it would make little difference to me if it was done by courts and firing squads, or on a battlefield and with firebombs. The Japanese government was a military dictatorship in everything but name though, and it was about as representative of the wishes of the average Japanese citizen as the government of Nazi Germany. Speaking out against it was a good way to end up dead. I don't believe you can collectively punish entire cities nation for the actions of a group of runaway thugs.
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:02:41 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 08:06:32 PM
John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.
As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.
Japanese military documents reveal it was the Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria, and not nuclear weapons, that forced their surrender. Nuclear weapons were immaterial to their defeat. According to the Just War theory, this cannot be justified under either proportionality or hastening to end the war, since it was neither.
Well, Don't you think there really is something to it? Seriously, 2 cities were utterly destroyed on their homeland, which up until that time had been relatively untouched.
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:09:48 PM
Japanese civilians had no say in the Rape of Nanking. Just like most Americans in the World Trade Centre having no say in American foreign policy in the Middle East.
One of the neat things about tolerating dictators and wannabe-dictators is that your complacency makes you complicit in their acts.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 08:56:01 PM
You need to history. Seriously. Of course not ONE civilian was killed at Pearl. And no hospitals were bombed either. There were no civilian workers on the docks at all.
AS far as the bombs we dropped, after you study a bit, ask yourself how many lives, both American and Japanese, were saved.
I am done with you until after you study just a bit.
Im trying to have a conversation, and you are mostly being a condescending dick. It would be nice if you would share the things you know without resorting to insults.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:16:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 08:56:01 PM
You need to history. Seriously. Of course not ONE civilian was killed at Pearl. And no hospitals were bombed either. There were no civilian workers on the docks at all.
AS far as the bombs we dropped, after you study a bit, ask yourself how many lives, both American and Japanese, were saved.
I am done with you until after you study just a bit.
Im trying to have a conversation, and you are mostly being a condescending dick. It would be nice if you would share the things you know without resorting to insults.
But I am a dick. A condescending dick, to be more clear. It's also not my job to educate you on the things you post about, especially when so much information is available on the subject. And I haven't insulted you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:12:23 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:09:48 PM
Japanese civilians had no say in the Rape of Nanking. Just like most Americans in the World Trade Centre having no say in American foreign policy in the Middle East.
One of the neat things about tolerating dictators and wannabe-dictators is that your complacency makes you complicit in their acts.
is 'tolerating' dictators a cut and dried thing in your estimation?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:16:13 PM
Im trying to have a conversation, and you are mostly being a condescending dick.
Didn't seem to stop you, when you stated that I had no integrity...And as far as I've seen, that statement still stands.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:20:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:12:23 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:09:48 PM
Japanese civilians had no say in the Rape of Nanking. Just like most Americans in the World Trade Centre having no say in American foreign policy in the Middle East.
One of the neat things about tolerating dictators and wannabe-dictators is that your complacency makes you complicit in their acts.
is 'tolerating' dictators a cut and dried thing in your estimation?
Sure. And, yes, that includes you and I, over the last decade.
so, how do you handle the guilt then?
do you anguish over it?
accept it like water off a duck's back?
embrace it?
(i know it's not the latter...)
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:23:34 PM
so, how do you handle the guilt then?
do you anguish over it?
accept it like water off a duck's back?
embrace it?
(i know it's not the latter...)
Guilt?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:21:06 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:16:13 PM
Im trying to have a conversation, and you are mostly being a condescending dick.
Didn't seem to stop you, when you stated that I had no integrity...And as far as I've seen, that statement still stands.
We've had a good trade of personal insults in several occasions, and i cant say it was my fault each time.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:28:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:21:06 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:16:13 PM
Im trying to have a conversation, and you are mostly being a condescending dick.
Didn't seem to stop you, when you stated that I had no integrity...And as far as I've seen, that statement still stands.
We've had a good trade of personal insults in several occasions, and i cant say it was my fault each time.
Have we? I seem to remember you starting out with a direct attack on my integrity.
You've stood by that attack ever since.
So you have precisely zero sympathy when someone like Charley schools you in something that pretty much everyone should know.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:24:02 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:23:34 PM
so, how do you handle the guilt then?
do you anguish over it?
accept it like water off a duck's back?
embrace it?
(i know it's not the latter...)
Guilt?
well... if we're complicit in the sins of our govt.... ?
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:32:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:24:02 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:23:34 PM
so, how do you handle the guilt then?
do you anguish over it?
accept it like water off a duck's back?
embrace it?
(i know it's not the latter...)
Guilt?
well... if we're complicit in the sins of our govt.... ?
I fail to see how the two connect.
But I AM a misanthrope, particularly during the last 48 hours or so.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:30:17 PM
Have we? I seem to remember you starting out with a direct attack on my integrity.
You've stood by that attack ever since.
So you have precisely zero sympathy when someone like Charley schools you in something that pretty much everyone should know.
I dont recall in which situation that attack happened, you see, theres been several blowouts in which ive been piled on and those involved (including myself) acted like monkeys.
As for Charley, hes not "schooling me", i understand he might know more about history than me, but making condescending ambiguos remarks doesnt help anything but to boost his own ego, if im pointed out in which way im in the wrong i can concede a point. You pointed out the rape of Nanking and i respectively read about it and reevaluated my position.
And not everyone knows deeply about history, and seeing that Charley isnt pointing out where my argument was flawed, i still think that hes missing the point. According to wikipedia, there were 57 civilians killed and 37 wounded, which seems as disregarding a few collateral damage kills of civilians in lieu of destroying an entire fleet, which is not the same thing as actively or preemptively killing civilians.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:33:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:32:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:24:02 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:23:34 PM
so, how do you handle the guilt then?
do you anguish over it?
accept it like water off a duck's back?
embrace it?
(i know it's not the latter...)
Guilt?
well... if we're complicit in the sins of our govt.... ?
I fail to see how the two connect.
But I AM a misanthrope, particularly during the last 48 hours or so.
hmm... doesn't complicity in some misdeed confer some guilt? :?
i'm missing something i think...
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:52:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:33:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:32:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:24:02 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 21, 2010, 09:23:34 PM
so, how do you handle the guilt then?
do you anguish over it?
accept it like water off a duck's back?
embrace it?
(i know it's not the latter...)
Guilt?
well... if we're complicit in the sins of our govt.... ?
I fail to see how the two connect.
But I AM a misanthrope, particularly during the last 48 hours or so.
hmm... doesn't complicity in some misdeed confer some guilt? :?
i'm missing something i think...
For the last two days, I've wanted a meteor the size of Greenland to hit the Earth.
That should explain a thing or two.
Ask me again when I feel less homicidal.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:12:23 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:09:48 PM
Japanese civilians had no say in the Rape of Nanking. Just like most Americans in the World Trade Centre having no say in American foreign policy in the Middle East.
One of the neat things about tolerating dictators and wannabe-dictators is that your complacency makes you complicit in their acts.
I don't believe in that logic. People who spoke out against the military dictatorship in Japan were gunned down in the streets, their families often vanished along with them. What were they meant to do? And besides, it's not like nuclear weapons only kill Japanese citizens who aren't actively resisting their government, the few who were still alive at that point.
In fact, it is exactly that kind of logic which led to Bin Laden declaring that every American in the world is a legitimate target for Muslim jihadis. His exact point was that, as a democracy, American citizens were responsible for their government's policies in the Middle East, policies which have, directly and indirectly, led to a pile of corpses far bigger than the Rape of Nanking. And as such, they were legitimate targets, every last one of them.
In short, collective punishment is the logic of the terrorist. Or do you think no innocent civilians, children, were killed when the nuclear bombs were dropped?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:49:38 PM
I dont recall in which situation that attack happened,
My daughter's thread. You screamed something about me abusing admin powers by sticking up for a new ranter, "just because she was my daughter".
Oddly enough, I hadn't touched the admin button.
You've never retracted that. It's in fact the reason I hate you. I mean, other than for being a human, of course.
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:57:19 PM
In short, collective punishment is the logic of the terrorist. Or do you think no innocent civilians, children, were killed when the nuclear bombs were dropped?
So is it your opinion that no action should be taken if there are civilians in the area? After all, it's not like the nukes were the worst things we did.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 09:57:19 PM
In short, collective punishment is the logic of the terrorist. Or do you think no innocent civilians, children, were killed when the nuclear bombs were dropped?
So is it your opinion that no action should be taken if there are civilians in the area? After all, it's not like the nukes were the worst things we did.
No it is not. However there are weapons which are obviously going to kill civilians in large numbers and nuclear weapons are one of those. They are indisriminate, cause far more damage than any other individual bomb (small yields allowing for scaling an attack according to military worth versus potential collateral damage) and their secondary effects last after the end of any war.
And I believe your argument was that the Japanese people deserved it because they were insufficiently opposing their government. By that logic, you and I should be killed by Iraqis for not stopping the Iraq War. In fact, by that argument, pretty much everyone in the world bar the Swiss and New Zealand could be legitimately targeted.
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 10:03:55 PM
And I believe your argument was that the Japanese people deserved it because they were insufficiently opposing their government. By that logic, you and I should be killed by Iraqis for not stopping the Iraq War. In fact, by that argument, pretty much everyone in the world ...could be legitimately targeted.
but, this is true....
Cain, I see no flaw in your argument.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:49:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:30:17 PM
Have we? I seem to remember you starting out with a direct attack on my integrity.
You've stood by that attack ever since.
So you have precisely zero sympathy when someone like Charley schools you in something that pretty much everyone should know.
I dont recall in which situation that attack happened, you see, theres been several blowouts in which ive been piled on and those involved (including myself) acted like monkeys.
As for Charley, hes not "schooling me", i understand he might know more about history than me, but making condescending ambiguos remarks doesnt help anything but to boost his own ego, if im pointed out in which way im in the wrong i can concede a point. You pointed out the rape of Nanking and i respectively read about it and reevaluated my position.
And not everyone knows deeply about history, and seeing that Charley isnt pointing out where my argument was flawed, i still think that hes missing the point. According to wikipedia, there were 57 civilians killed and 37 wounded, which seems as disregarding a few collateral damage kills of civilians in lieu of destroying an entire fleet, which is not the same thing as actively or preemptively killing civilians.
Once again, I did not make condescending remarks.
Did your loss of civilian life search include the Islands the Japanese invaded? I mean, the Japanese were certainly the models of civility. And I will ask again, have you researched enough to ask how many lives were ultimately saved?
This is not a new subject and not recent history. It is something everybody should be at least familiar with.
I am not a history teacher. I simply don't have time in my life to do the research and provide all the links that you should be capable of finding on your own.
It is good to know however, that killing only 57 civilians (which I doubt is accurate) is acceptable.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:58:03 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:49:38 PM
I dont recall in which situation that attack happened,
My daughter's thread. You screamed something about me abusing admin powers by sticking up for a new ranter, "just because she was my daughter".
Oddly enough, I hadn't touched the admin button.
You've never retracted that. It's in fact the reason I hate you. I mean, other than for being a human, of course.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23784.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23784.0) This thread?
I picked apart her post, but it wasnt in an agressive manner, just giving my thoughts on different parts, the people you got in an argument with were cavehamster and Dot Ardella.
Ive never ever called "admin abuse" because i havent run into problems with that.
If you have the time, you should reread, its only 7 pages.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 10:38:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 09:58:03 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 09:49:38 PM
I dont recall in which situation that attack happened,
My daughter's thread. You screamed something about me abusing admin powers by sticking up for a new ranter, "just because she was my daughter".
Oddly enough, I hadn't touched the admin button.
You've never retracted that. It's in fact the reason I hate you. I mean, other than for being a human, of course.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23784.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23784.0) This thread?
I picked apart her post, but it wasnt in an agressive manner, just giving my thoughts on different parts, the people you got in an argument with were cavehamster and Dot Ardella.
Ive never ever called "admin abuse" because i havent run into problems with that.
If you have the time, you should reread, its only 7 pages.
No, not that thread. You were just a complete cockbite in that thread, which isn't quite the same thing.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 10:17:22 PM
Once again, I did not make condescending remarks.
Did your loss of civilian life search include the Islands the Japanese invaded? I mean, the Japanese were certainly the models of civility. And I will ask again, have you researched enough to ask how many lives were ultimately saved?
This is not a new subject and not recent history. It is something everybody should be at least familiar with.
I am not a history teacher. I simply don't have time in my life to do the research and provide all the links that you should be capable of finding on your own.
The conclusion im getting to is that in WWII all sides took liberties in slaughtering civilians, each one with different reasons - and i dont like the idea of them deserving it even do it was everyones fault.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 10:17:22 PM
It is good to know however, that killing only 57 civilians (which I doubt is accurate) is acceptable.
Well, i guess for you the 240,000 dead in nagasaki and hiroshima is acceptable?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/World_War_II_Casualties2.svg/500px-World_War_II_Casualties2.svg.png)
Although i think that the axis side really took the idea and ran with it.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 21, 2010, 11:01:35 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 10:17:22 PM
Once again, I did not make condescending remarks.
Did your loss of civilian life search include the Islands the Japanese invaded? I mean, the Japanese were certainly the models of civility. And I will ask again, have you researched enough to ask how many lives were ultimately saved?
This is not a new subject and not recent history. It is something everybody should be at least familiar with.
I am not a history teacher. I simply don't have time in my life to do the research and provide all the links that you should be capable of finding on your own.
The conclusion im getting to is that in WWII all sides took liberties in slaughtering civilians, each one with different reasons - and i dont like the idea of them deserving it even do it was everyones fault.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 10:17:22 PM
It is good to know however, that killing only 57 civilians (which I doubt is accurate) is acceptable.
Well, i guess for you the 240,000 dead in nagasaki and hiroshima is acceptable?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/World_War_II_Casualties2.svg/500px-World_War_II_Casualties2.svg.png)
Although i think that the axis side really took the idea and ran with it.
As opposed to a million on the fucking battlefield? Fuck yes, and twice on Sunday.
Remember, kids! Nanking doesn't count!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:07:04 AM
Remember, kids! Nanking doesn't count!
Revisionists deserve what is coming. Totally.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:10:00 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:07:04 AM
Remember, kids! Nanking doesn't count!
Revisionists deserve what is coming. Totally.
I accept Cain's version, and his argument, without reservation, but still think the Japanese deserved it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:11:17 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:10:00 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:07:04 AM
Remember, kids! Nanking doesn't count!
Revisionists deserve what is coming. Totally.
I accept Cain's version, and his argument, without reservation, but still think the Japanese deserved it.
I think they did too. How many world wars have we had since then?
Check. 0
QuoteI think they did too. How many world wars have we had since then?
Thanks to the Nuke, the next world war will be called the Reset Button.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:16:34 AM
QuoteI think they did too. How many world wars have we had since then?
Thanks to the Nuke, the next world war will be called the Reset Button.
So far, thanks to the nuke, we haven't had any global wars since.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:19:31 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:16:34 AM
QuoteI think they did too. How many world wars have we had since then?
Thanks to the Nuke, the next world war will be called the Reset Button.
So far, thanks to the nuke, we haven't had any global wars since.
Exactly.
QuoteSo far, thanks to the nuke, we haven't had any global wars since.
Because most folks realize that if we have another one, it will probably also be the last.
The Apocalypse is a lovely persuasive tool.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:21:43 AM
QuoteSo far, thanks to the nuke, we haven't had any global wars since.
Because most folks realize that if we have another one, it will probably also be the last.
The Apocalypse is a lovely persuasive tool.
Until the whackos in Pakistan take over their arsenal. :lulz:
Or until one of the nukes the Soviets misplaced end up in some crazy's hands.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:25:25 AM
Or until one of the nukes the Soviets misplaced end up in some crazy's hands.
I'd like to think it would be more like a half dozen.
There's no sense half-assing this shit.
Either way we have nothing to worry about.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:27:31 AM
Either way we have nothing to worry about.
India might have an issue, though.
QuoteI'd like to think it would be more like a half dozen.
There's no sense half-assing this shit.
If you're going to spend the money, might as well by in bulk.
Just smart shopping.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:30:00 AM
QuoteI'd like to think it would be more like a half dozen.
There's no sense half-assing this shit.
If you're going to spend the money, might as well by in bulk.
Just smart shopping.
Plus your threats are more credible.
"SURRENDER TO OUR CABAL OR WE'LL USE THIS ONE BITTY TACTICAL NUKE WE BOUGHT OFF A GUY NAMED YURI!" Just doesn't sound FRIGHTENING.
Plus one nuke isn't nearly enough to kill the planet. You could destroy an entire city well enough, but why settle for a city when you can annihilate a continent?
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:34:51 AM
Plus one nuke isn't nearly enough to kill the planet. You could destroy an entire city well enough, but why settle for a city when you can annihilate a continent?
Drop it on Yellowstone.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:34:51 AM
Plus one nuke isn't nearly enough to kill the planet. You could destroy an entire city well enough, but why settle for a city when you can annihilate a continent?
True. And ONE lousy nuke wouldn't inspire maniacal laughter in me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:36:08 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:34:51 AM
Plus one nuke isn't nearly enough to kill the planet. You could destroy an entire city well enough, but why settle for a city when you can annihilate a continent?
True. And ONE lousy nuke wouldn't inspire maniacal laughter in me.
Drop it on Yellowstone.
i thought that was debunked....
:?
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2010, 04:38:24 AM
i thought that was debunked....
:?
It was, but that's no reason not to do it.
I hate Yellowstone. It's full of nature and shit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:39:59 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2010, 04:38:24 AM
i thought that was debunked....
:?
It was, but that's no reason not to do it.
I hate Yellowstone. It's full of nature and shit.
Bullshit. Rupture the caldera with a nuke. Do it for SCIENCE.
Well, that is the only way to really debunk the notion...
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:40:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:39:59 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2010, 04:38:24 AM
i thought that was debunked....
:?
It was, but that's no reason not to do it.
I hate Yellowstone. It's full of nature and shit.
Bullshit. Rupture the caldera with a nuke. Do it for SCIENCE.
Won't actually do anything, other than maybe delay the next super-eruption, though that's not likely.
I'd rather hit Disneyland. I hate that shit.
One of the major "news" corporations, most likely Fox, though anyone of them would do.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:47:55 AM
One of the major "news" corporations, most likely Fox, though anyone of them would do.
THINK UP YOUR OWN SHIT!
\
:bomber:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:42:36 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:40:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:39:59 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2010, 04:38:24 AM
i thought that was debunked....
:?
It was, but that's no reason not to do it.
I hate Yellowstone. It's full of nature and shit.
Bullshit. Rupture the caldera with a nuke. Do it for SCIENCE.
Won't actually do anything, other than maybe delay the next super-eruption, though that's not likely.
I'd rather hit Disneyland. I hate that shit.
I disbelieve.
THINK UP YOUR OWN SHIT!
\
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/bomber.jpg)
Thanks, Dok. Now I have soda all over my homework.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:54:53 AM
THINK UP YOUR OWN SHIT!
\
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/bomber.jpg)
Thanks, Dok. Now I have soda all over my homework.
I think that means I win.
Dok,
Is reasonably sure that was that Cream Soda you Canuckistanis are always swilling.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:54:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:42:36 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:40:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:39:59 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2010, 04:38:24 AM
i thought that was debunked....
:?
It was, but that's no reason not to do it.
I hate Yellowstone. It's full of nature and shit.
Bullshit. Rupture the caldera with a nuke. Do it for SCIENCE.
Won't actually do anything, other than maybe delay the next super-eruption, though that's not likely.
I'd rather hit Disneyland. I hate that shit.
I disbelieve.
Which?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:55:57 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:54:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:42:36 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 04:40:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 04:39:59 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2010, 04:38:24 AM
i thought that was debunked....
:?
It was, but that's no reason not to do it.
I hate Yellowstone. It's full of nature and shit.
Bullshit. Rupture the caldera with a nuke. Do it for SCIENCE.
Won't actually do anything, other than maybe delay the next super-eruption, though that's not likely.
I'd rather hit Disneyland. I hate that shit.
I disbelieve.
Which?
The bolded part.
QuoteI think that means I win.
Dok,
Is reasonably sure that was that Cream Soda you Canuckistanis are always swilling.
Pepsi actually, and once again I'm not a Canadian.
Dr. James Semaj
Suspiciously fond of Maple products.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 04:58:12 AM
QuoteI think that means I win.
Dok,
Is reasonably sure that was that Cream Soda you Canuckistanis are always swilling.
Pepsi actually, and once again I'm not a Canadian.
Dr. James Semaj
Suspiciously fond of Maple products.
I wouldn't admit it if I was, either.
QuoteI wouldn't admit it if I was, either.
Don't test me Dok. I can have the mounties on this forum with one phone-
...You heard nothing.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 05:08:19 AM
QuoteI wouldn't admit it if I was, either.
Don't test me Dok. I can have the mounties on this forum with one phone-
...You heard nothing.
HAH! I fucking KNEW it. You're in cahoots with Remington.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 05:09:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 05:08:19 AM
QuoteI wouldn't admit it if I was, either.
Don't test me Dok. I can have the mounties on this forum with one phone-
...You heard nothing.
HAH! I fucking KNEW it. You're in cahoots with Remington.
DANDIES DRESSED IN BRIGHT RED. WHOFUCKING HOO.
QuoteHAH! I fucking KNEW it. You're in cahoots with Remington.
Lies! I don't know what you're talking aboot, eh!
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 05:11:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 05:09:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 05:08:19 AM
QuoteI wouldn't admit it if I was, either.
Don't test me Dok. I can have the mounties on this forum with one phone-
...You heard nothing.
HAH! I fucking KNEW it. You're in cahoots with Remington.
DANDIES DRESSED IN BRIGHT RED. WHOFUCKING HOO.
Actually, the Mounties are badasses. They killed ALL of the Beothuks in one raging gun battle, except for one chick they paraded around Europe like some grisly trophy, in a sack dress and bad shoes.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 05:13:52 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 05:11:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 05:09:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 05:08:19 AM
QuoteI wouldn't admit it if I was, either.
Don't test me Dok. I can have the mounties on this forum with one phone-
...You heard nothing.
HAH! I fucking KNEW it. You're in cahoots with Remington.
DANDIES DRESSED IN BRIGHT RED. WHOFUCKING HOO.
Actually, the Mounties are badasses. They killed ALL of the Beothuks in one raging gun battle, except for one chick they paraded around Europe like some grisly trophy, in a sack dress and bad shoes.
They still talk funny.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 05:18:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 05:13:52 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 05:11:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2010, 05:09:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 22, 2010, 05:08:19 AM
QuoteI wouldn't admit it if I was, either.
Don't test me Dok. I can have the mounties on this forum with one phone-
...You heard nothing.
HAH! I fucking KNEW it. You're in cahoots with Remington.
DANDIES DRESSED IN BRIGHT RED. WHOFUCKING HOO.
Actually, the Mounties are badasses. They killed ALL of the Beothuks in one raging gun battle, except for one chick they paraded around Europe like some grisly trophy, in a sack dress and bad shoes.
They still talk funny.
Who, the Beothuks? I'd hope so. They're all dead.
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2010, 12:30:46 PM
By the definition of "fascist" I use, you most certainly are one.
Hey guys, did you know if you just make up your own definitions, you can define people however you like?
I didn't make up the definition. A bunch of legislators did. It's the legal definition of the word Terrorist in the USA.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 05:55:18 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 08:57:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
yes. Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.
So, John Brown would have been okay, if it weren't for the PATRIOT Act? :?
Dok,
Didn't realize murdering children was okay before that law was passed.
I wasn't arguing against the patriot act. I was using it's definitions.
And John Brown was definitely fighting for our freedoms (with our defined as humanity in General, his specific focus was black people) he was doing it in a bad way but yes, he was absolutely fighting for our freedoms.
Um, no he wasn't.
Really? Why, in your opinion, did he kill those children?
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on September 21, 2010, 05:58:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 21, 2010, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 09:00:25 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:51:34 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:50:00 PM
Ok, I definitely do not like anarchists now.
It was all done for God. Or Allah. Or The Perfect State™. Or communism. Or Capitalism and "free" markets. Or the superior tribe's right to expand. Or the superior race's need for cultural purity. It is the Holy Peoples' Will, and though unfortunate, these things must be done, do you understand? You can't make omelets without breaking eggs, and you can't make Big Things happen without breaking children.
Higher purpose is what drives people to make sacrifices. Yes, most terrorists are ideological fanatics, they aren't going to be willing to take the risks necessary otherwise. That includes the best, Ghandi for instance
(yes, I just called Ghandi a terrorist, by the definitions I am using he absolutely was one. He wreaked economic terror on the colonial system in India)
So, yeah, under the PATRIOT Act, which article makes Gandhi a terrorist?
You know, the paragraph about the terrorists. That one over there...
OP, really, who are you targeting with this? If what you're actually talking about activists and protestors and not people who blow up children and other innocent people because THAT'LL SURE SHOW THE GOVERNMENT!, then most people with a brain in their head aren't going to agree that these people should be considered terrorists despite what Mr. Government says and it'll just sound like you're supporting the blowing people up guys.
People who take the government's word at face value will likely just agree that these people are trouble-makers, and the word "terrorist" will just spark that knee-jerk reaction that brings to mind blowing-people-up guys.
And the government will just put you on the terrorist watch list for supporting terrorists.
My point was not that activists and protestors are not terrorists. Nor was it about the over broad usage of the word as defined by the current government. It was about the fact that these people are vital defenders of our freedoms.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 22, 2010, 08:52:02 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 05:55:18 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 08:57:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
yes. Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.
So, John Brown would have been okay, if it weren't for the PATRIOT Act? :?
Dok,
Didn't realize murdering children was okay before that law was passed.
I wasn't arguing against the patriot act. I was using it's definitions.
And John Brown was definitely fighting for our freedoms (with our defined as humanity in General, his specific focus was black people) he was doing it in a bad way but yes, he was absolutely fighting for our freedoms.
Um, no he wasn't.
Really? Why, in your opinion, did he kill those children?
Because he was a rampaging murderer.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 22, 2010, 08:52:02 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 05:55:18 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 08:57:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
yes. Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.
So, John Brown would have been okay, if it weren't for the PATRIOT Act? :?
Dok,
Didn't realize murdering children was okay before that law was passed.
I wasn't arguing against the patriot act. I was using it's definitions.
And John Brown was definitely fighting for our freedoms (with our defined as humanity in General, his specific focus was black people) he was doing it in a bad way but yes, he was absolutely fighting for our freedoms.
Um, no he wasn't.
Really? Why, in your opinion, did he kill those children?
Because he was a rampaging murderer.
I have not seen any analysis of him that said he killed from some sort of pathological need to kill, like a serial killer.
His views were certainly rather distorted, he dehumanized his opponents and did things that are unacceptable even in a life or death conflict, but that doesn't mean he wasn't fighting on the right side. The fire bombing of Dresden was also an absolute monstrosity, doesn't change the fact that it was perpetrated against a nation which was pretty absolutely the bad guys. (I prefer the Dresden bombing because the Nazi's were certainly badguys, it included about as many innocent deaths as Nagasaki, and it was perpetrated as a part of an active war, not as a way to get a surrender from a mostly defeated nation.)
Did you even read all this thread?
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 22, 2010, 09:17:32 PM
Did you even read all this thread?
Of course I did. It's my thread. I didn't see anywhere any other plausible explanation of John Brown other than he was a fanatic and a terrorist. You assert that he was simply a killer, using his fanatacism as an excuse, but if this were the case why wouldn't he have chosen an easier and more socially acceptable way of expressing it? For instance, massacreing Indians, which was still being done by the US government at that point and was much less likely to be personally dangerous than massacreing supporters of slavery.
Is there a song about him that's something to do with his body "mouldering in his grave" or some shit or is that someone else?
American history is fail - most of it happened less than a week ago. :argh!:
I can no longer resist the impulse to post this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyAWvjLapJs
What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom?
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had?
Would you think about all them War Vets
And would you start to feel bad?
Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty in' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom?
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little ?
'Cause the only reason that you're here
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass
Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five
I don't know if I should :horrormirth: or :lulz:
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 22, 2010, 08:52:02 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 21, 2010, 05:55:18 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 21, 2010, 08:57:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:43:16 PM
Wait.
Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?
STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\
:bomber:
yes. Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.
So, John Brown would have been okay, if it weren't for the PATRIOT Act? :?
Dok,
Didn't realize murdering children was okay before that law was passed.
I wasn't arguing against the patriot act. I was using it's definitions.
And John Brown was definitely fighting for our freedoms (with our defined as humanity in General, his specific focus was black people) he was doing it in a bad way but yes, he was absolutely fighting for our freedoms.
Um, no he wasn't.
Really? Why, in your opinion, did he kill those children?
Why, in your opinion, does murdering children make anyone free?
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 22, 2010, 09:13:35 PM
I have not seen any analysis of him that said he killed from some sort of pathological need to kill, like a serial killer.
"Nits make lice."
That's as psychopathic as anyone has to be. To him, the children weren't even human, they were vermin...And certainly not as important as The Cause.
Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 05:15:28 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 22, 2010, 09:13:35 PM
I have not seen any analysis of him that said he killed from some sort of pathological need to kill, like a serial killer.
"Nits make lice."
That's as psychopathic as anyone has to be. To him, the children weren't even human, they were vermin...And certainly not as important as The Cause.
Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause.
There it is. But I think he wants to cannonize brown regardless.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 23, 2010, 03:02:21 PM
I can no longer resist the impulse to post this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyAWvjLapJs
What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom?
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had?
Would you think about all them War Vets
And would you start to feel bad?
Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty in' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom?
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little ?
'Cause the only reason that you're here
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass
Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five
Whee! Exactly the sort of thing I was satirizing.
Oh, now it was satire. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:51:31 PM
Oh, now it was satire. :lulz:
Well yeah. I said that like 5 times.
Doesn't mean I don't admire some of those labelled as terrorists, but I was intentionally trying to make it look like a pro-military bit up until the last sentence.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 09:42:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:51:31 PM
Oh, now it was satire. :lulz:
Well yeah. I said that like 5 times.
Doesn't mean I don't admire some of those labelled as terrorists, but I was intentionally trying to make it look like a pro-military bit up until the last sentence.
Right.
No, you said it like once. Unless you care to..nevermind. Just diaf.
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
I see, so one justifies the other. Check.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 11:46:18 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
I see, so one justifies the other. Check.
MMIX didn't say that at all. It seems more like pointing out a misquote, and the fact that he/she hasn't seen evidence.
Freeky,
a
liiiiiitle tired of people misreading things and then putting words in other posters' mouths.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 23, 2010, 11:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 11:46:18 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
I see, so one justifies the other. Check.
MMIX didn't say that at all. It seems more like pointing out a misquote, and the fact that he/she hasn't seen evidence.
Freeky,
a liiiiiitle tired of people misreading things and then putting words in other posters' mouths.
I read it the way I read it. I will no longer bother to defend myself.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 11:56:42 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 23, 2010, 11:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 11:46:18 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
I see, so one justifies the other. Check.
MMIX didn't say that at all. It seems more like pointing out a misquote, and the fact that he/she hasn't seen evidence.
Freeky,
a liiiiiitle tired of people misreading things and then putting words in other posters' mouths.
I read it the way I read it. I will no longer bother to defend myself.
Nothing personal Charley. I'm having a fucking awful day, and the various shitstorms are not helping things. :(
I hope we're still cool, cuz I like you.
We are kid, love ya.
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
The most famous quote is from Colonel John Chivington, who said "Kill and scalp all, little and big. Nits make lice" before the Sand Creek Massacre. It was a popular phrase to justify murdering indian children, and it may have been coined by the governor of Tennessee around 1810.
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
So, okay. When someone like Tojo comes along, we should just leave him be, so we don't hurt anyone?
And what the FUCK are you doing dragging Vietnam into this? Are you suggesting that Vietnam and WWII are morally equivalent, or are you suggesting that I am saying that?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 23, 2010, 11:50:56 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 11:46:18 PM
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
I see, so one justifies the other. Check.
MMIX didn't say that at all. It seems more like pointing out a misquote, and the fact that he/she hasn't seen evidence.
Freeky,
a liiiiiitle tired of people misreading things and then putting words in other posters' mouths.
No, Freeky, what MMIX
did say is that because I have defended the use of atomic weapons at the end of WWII, I must therefore support the napalming of children in Vietnam.
So, yeah, some people ARE putting words in other posters' mouths. MMIX is one of them.
Fuck me. That's my bad. :sad:
I need to stay out of these threads, because I can barely understand what's in any one post.
Don't feel bad, Freeky. I have, it seems, fallen victim to the truism beast again.
Nigel is of course correct, but there is a rather interesting connection between Chivington and Brown:
http://www.kclonewolf.com/History/SandCreek/sc-documents/soule-pioneer-martyr.html
Actually Freeky, what Dok Howl implied is that some children are more equal than others and some deserve to be fried because they are foreign and not our children and ENEMIES. I'm not sure that that is what he really meant, any more than his ridiculous implication that the US bombed the shit out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese had been nasty to the Chinese back in the 1930's, but that is what he actually said.
Dok Howl my response is to you having said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
Governments have causes too, you know, but since you object to my use of Vietnam as an example of an American cause murdering children I append the picture I was originally going to use
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/hiroshima.jpg)
Hiroshima in all its military glory.
The bombs were dropped not to end the war with Japan, Japan was already finished. The 140,000 almost entirely civilian deaths were not to prevent the loss of 500,000 American lives in the final assault as was the contemporary excuse/rationale, the PTB already knew that the final assault would not be necessary. Hiroshima was a massive political gambit to put one over on the Russians and by showing that America had The Bomb to scare the shit out of them, as well, in the rush to grab power in the post-war world. And, hell, they weren't our children were they?
It is bad enough that power hungry politicos thought that they would get away with it back then, because they were going to be on the winning side - {War crimes anyone} - but to still find such unquestioning enthusiasm for the mass murder of two whole cities in a generation which wasn't even born at the time makes me retch.
Oh and I love how you credit Nigel with the Brown/Chivington thing which I brought up. And I love the "connection" between them; Capt. Silas A. Soule the man who offered to break Brown out of jail was later attached to Chivington's Regt. I wonder how he managed to work with a boss who was such an anti indian racist when he was such a staunch anti-slavery supporter himself? Maybe he was brown/black colourblind?
Half this thread has been cut and thrust between lots of posters all trying to put their own spin on the whole Brown was a child murderer thing. Now if any of you had bothered to "history" this thread would have died long, long, ago because I'm not seeing any evidence that he was.
PS
" I have, it seems, fallen victim to the truism beast again."
what the hell does that even mean???
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 11:56:42 PM
[
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
I see, so one justifies the other. Check.
I don't object to your one-liners CB but this one is not self explanatory.
Quote from: MMIX on September 24, 2010, 12:20:59 PM
Actually Freeky, what Dok Howl implied is that some children are more equal than others and some deserve to be fried because they are foreign and not our children and ENEMIES.
No, that's not what I said, you lying sack of shit. Fuck off and die.
Quote from: MMIX on September 24, 2010, 12:20:59 PM
PS
" I have, it seems, fallen victim to the truism beast again."
what the hell does that even mean???
None of your fucking business. The people that was aimed at know what I'm talking about (Nigel & Freeky). It wasn't aimed at you, and neither will any civil comment I may make in the future.
You're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit, but I'm giving you a once in a lifetime chance to stop fucking talking to me - or about me - from this point forward.
Quote from: MMIX on September 24, 2010, 12:31:43 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 23, 2010, 11:56:42 PM
[
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2010, 11:32:30 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/vietnam.jpg)
All I can say is napalm, Little Boy and Fat Man, yeah and quote a wise man who said
"Protip: When The Cause leads you toward murdering children, find another cause."
NB John Brown's accomplices [not Brown himself] killed five adult slave trackers pro slavers and then later he and his men attacked the Harper's Ferry Armory. Where are all these dead children? Probably killed by the US army when it was putting down the Natives, because that seems to be where the "nits grow into lice" quote more likely comes from.
This thread is making my teeth itch.
I see, so one justifies the other. Check.
I don't object to your one-liners CB but this one is not self explanatory.
It means you made a completely retarded comparison. I also resent your implication in later posts that we old men are too stupid to 'history'.
America kills children in the pursuit of its Causes [ yes I realise its not just America that has dirty hands but that was the country which came up in the thread ] so where is the lie?
Except for the John Brown kills children thing?
Quote from: MMIX on September 24, 2010, 06:23:50 PM
America kills children in the pursuit of its Causes [ yes I realise its not just America that has dirty hands but that was the country which came up in the thread ] so where is the lie?
Except for the John Brown kills children thing?
I'm going to be nicer than normal, because several posters have put me in a better mood today, and ask you one more time:
Do you really intend to keep talking to me? Because the previous conversation is over, and the one that's about to begin will probably please you as much as your putting words in my mouth has pleased me.
Think carefully, and then either respond or don't.
This is a limited time offer, and will not be repeated again.
Quote from: mmixAmerica kills children in the pursuit of its Causes [ yes I realise its not just America that has dirty hands but that was the country which came up in the thread ] so where is the lie?
Except for the John Brown kills children thing?
America, as a rule, does not
kill children; children
get killed in the course of many military operations. The difference is subtle, but real. I realize that as a hot-shot know-it-all with more brains in your pinky than the entire succession of American Presidents combined, you have detected what you believe to be a flaw in the ideological armor of the USA; but your approach to exposing that flaw is all wrong.
In the first place,
war sucks. This is a foregone conclusion for most sane people, and it is the reason war is, for all but the most maniacal governments, a last resort. War sucks because people die and shit gets destroyed. The definition of war is violence and death and destruction. To go on about how war sucks
for children is to squawk about the obvious: war sucks, period, and no, children are not an exception to this rule. Everybody already knows that.
In the second place, it is a ridiculous proposition to assign blame to America for the nature of war. War has been a shitty deal for a much longer time than America has been around; no degree of ideological progression is going to change the basic nature of war. War is going to be terrible regardless of who engages in it or their motives or how justified they are in warring; it is just a fact of war: it sucks. Have I said that enough yet?
Now, one might try to focus on the fact that in the past 100 years, largely
because of the expansion of how terrible war
can be, many international agreements governing war have been put in place which have had an actual effect on the number of civilian casualties, including children. War, being what it is, can never follow these regulations cleanly; but it is in large part much more "civil" now than it was 200 years ago. Some of this is also attributable to America.
Of course, war is war, and murder is murder; they are two different things. They may share similar consequences and similar methods; but they are in fact not the same thing. That is why we have (at least) two different words for them. The fact that people die in war is completely irrelevant to the fact that John Brown murdered children. Furthermore, it's a wild tangent from the real direction of the original discussion, which was inevitably headed to the conclusion that you are a schmuck.
Boy, you sure avoided that.
Vex, you are forgetting that it's in style to blame America for everything, and to say that everything we do is shitty and wrong. Of course, America DOES have a history of some incredibly horrible shit, but to say that EVERYTHING we do is equally evil and bad - as MMIX did, by conflating WWII and Vietnam - is symptomatic of a generation raised to shout slogans instead of, you know, think (which is why she seemed to be incapable of recognizing my retraction concerning the John Brown truism).
An entire generation with loads of ideology and no brains. Horrible, horrible.
John Brown didn't kill anybody. The people working for him did it.
OH, NOW I SEE THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:12:19 PM
Vex, you are forgetting that it's in style to blame America for everything, and to say that everything we do is shitty and wrong. Of course, America DOES have a history of some incredibly horrible shit, but to say that EVERYTHING we do is equally evil and bad - as MMIX did, by conflating WWII and Vietnam - is symptomatic of a generation raised to shout slogans instead of, you know, think (which is why she seemed to be incapable of recognizing my retraction concerning the John Brown truism).
An entire generation with loads of ideology and no brains. Horrible, horrible.
We did worse things in WWII than we did in Vietnam. Rather than napalming small villages we firebombed Dresden.
The difference, in my opinion, is not what we did, but why we did it.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:41:23 PM
The difference, in my opinion, is not what we did, but why we did it.
Yes, that's my whole point.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:12:19 PM
Vex, you are forgetting that it's in style to blame America for everything, and to say that everything we do is shitty and wrong. Of course, America DOES have a history of some incredibly horrible shit, but to say that EVERYTHING we do is equally evil and bad - as MMIX did, by conflating WWII and Vietnam - is symptomatic of a generation raised to shout slogans instead of, you know, think (which is why she seemed to be incapable of recognizing my retraction concerning the John Brown truism).
An entire generation with loads of ideology and no brains. Horrible, horrible.
The really funny thing is that if MMIX was right, she wouldn't have a country to be posting from.
We could have just beat the Japanese back from the Pacific and let the Soviets and Germans fight each other until Europe was (even more of) a bloody wasteland while Britain took a demographic hit on the level of, say, Poland. IMO, saving their bacon was one of the most altruistic things we ever did, as a nation.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 10:19:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:12:19 PM
Vex, you are forgetting that it's in style to blame America for everything, and to say that everything we do is shitty and wrong. Of course, America DOES have a history of some incredibly horrible shit, but to say that EVERYTHING we do is equally evil and bad - as MMIX did, by conflating WWII and Vietnam - is symptomatic of a generation raised to shout slogans instead of, you know, think (which is why she seemed to be incapable of recognizing my retraction concerning the John Brown truism).
An entire generation with loads of ideology and no brains. Horrible, horrible.
The really funny thing is that if MMIX was right, she wouldn't have a country to be posting from.
We could have just beat the Japanese back from the Pacific and let the Soviets and Germans fight each other until Europe was (even more of) a bloody wasteland while Britain took a demographic hit on the level of, say, Poland. IMO, saving their bacon was one of the most altruistic things we ever did, as a nation.
More than anything else, the food we shipped over saved Britain, properly speaking. There was no serious invasion threat after the Battle of Britain.
But if we hadn't gotten involved, all of continental Europe probably would have been in the Soviet sphere when the shit finally stopped flying.
What rotten bastards we are.
Now boys, let's not be adding thorns to the roses.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 10:22:26 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 10:19:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:12:19 PM
Vex, you are forgetting that it's in style to blame America for everything, and to say that everything we do is shitty and wrong. Of course, America DOES have a history of some incredibly horrible shit, but to say that EVERYTHING we do is equally evil and bad - as MMIX did, by conflating WWII and Vietnam - is symptomatic of a generation raised to shout slogans instead of, you know, think (which is why she seemed to be incapable of recognizing my retraction concerning the John Brown truism).
An entire generation with loads of ideology and no brains. Horrible, horrible.
The really funny thing is that if MMIX was right, she wouldn't have a country to be posting from.
We could have just beat the Japanese back from the Pacific and let the Soviets and Germans fight each other until Europe was (even more of) a bloody wasteland while Britain took a demographic hit on the level of, say, Poland. IMO, saving their bacon was one of the most altruistic things we ever did, as a nation.
More than anything else, the food we shipped over saved Britain, properly speaking. There was no serious invasion threat after the Battle of Britain.
But if we hadn't gotten involved, all of continental Europe probably would have been in the Soviet sphere when the shit finally stopped flying.
What rotten bastards we are.
Not arguing, but I had recently seen a documentary on PBS called "Flying the Secret Sky" where it was revealed that we built war aircraft for Britain (and because the german U-boats were blowing them up during the ship crossings, and some legalese about how Canada was a neutral country that would not allow planes intended for the war to land there), so we then pulled them over the Canadian border via horse-drawn sled, fitted them out with huge gas tanks, and then had civilian pilots fly them over the North Atlantic IN WINTER.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1252484/plotsummary
Really interesting stuff that I was not aware of previously.
On September 10, 1939, the Parliament of Canada declared war against the German Reich, marking the beginning of Canada's participation in the Second World War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War
:|
To put it into perspective.
the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan triggered a declaration of war and the 'official' entry of the USA into the war December 1941
Two years AFTER Canada.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 10:22:26 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 10:19:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:12:19 PM
Vex, you are forgetting that it's in style to blame America for everything, and to say that everything we do is shitty and wrong. Of course, America DOES have a history of some incredibly horrible shit, but to say that EVERYTHING we do is equally evil and bad - as MMIX did, by conflating WWII and Vietnam - is symptomatic of a generation raised to shout slogans instead of, you know, think (which is why she seemed to be incapable of recognizing my retraction concerning the John Brown truism).
An entire generation with loads of ideology and no brains. Horrible, horrible.
The really funny thing is that if MMIX was right, she wouldn't have a country to be posting from.
We could have just beat the Japanese back from the Pacific and let the Soviets and Germans fight each other until Europe was (even more of) a bloody wasteland while Britain took a demographic hit on the level of, say, Poland. IMO, saving their bacon was one of the most altruistic things we ever did, as a nation.
More than anything else, the food we shipped over saved Britain, properly speaking. There was no serious invasion threat after the Battle of Britain.
But if we hadn't gotten involved, all of continental Europe probably would have been in the Soviet sphere when the shit finally stopped flying.
What rotten bastards we are.
and if I'm not mistaken, a fair amount of the pilots fighting for Britain during the battle of Britain were American pilots.
mind you, I think it was effort and lives well spent. Lone superpower or not, it's good to have friends in this world whether you;re a person or a nation, and relatively recent common culture/commitment to liberty and representative democracy is as good a bond as any I can think of. I'd like to think that if the situations were reversed, Britain would have done the same for us, no matter what trendy revisionist history some jackasses might buy into.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 25, 2010, 04:24:35 AM
mind you, I think it was effort and lives well spent. Lone superpower or not, it's good to have friends in this world whether you;re a person or a nation, and relatively recent common culture/commitment to liberty and representative democracy is as good a bond as any I can think of. I'd like to think that if the situations were reversed, Britain would have done the same for us, no matter what trendy revisionist history some jackasses might buy into.
This is ECH slicing and dicing bullshit.
QuoteBut but but!
Cultural Imperialism!
McDonalds! Bush! Halliburton! High School Musical, plus all the sequels and spinoffs!
Or something!
I GOT TO GET MY HATE ON! AND I HATE AMURCA!
I can do it too!
Anyway, as I see it, the major beef people have with Americans is that they "Have no sense of the history of their Foreign Policies" (line yoinked from a documentary I barely remember regarding the U.S. and the Middle East from years back). I find it funny. as. fuck. when people who themselves have no sense of the history themselves then try to use it as a stick to beat the American people. I mean shit, if you're gonna get pissy at anyone then surely it's the Government you'd want to ake it out on, but no. It's the average american who takes the fall, each and every time. I blame you man-on-main-street for all the horrible shit Nixon, Reagan and the Bush Dynasty got up to.
There is no perspective, there is no balanced opinion, and there is, ultimately, no basis in reality for the half baked and uninformed drivel that people think of as "history" when they use it as a stick to beat Americans.
Regarding the relationship between the UK and the US during and since WW2: The UK would have been doomed from the start if not for US assistance. (Actually, if you look back to the Versailles Treaty, there are a couple of American inspired articles that were not adopted that may well have lessened the liklihood of the Nazi state rising in the way it did). This involved; food, materiel, diplomatic channels and intelligence before the US even officially entered the war.
Then there was the visible and strong support in these things and also in strategic co-ordination, international deals (Stalin would never have sat down with Winston "The Soviet State Should Have Been Strangled At Birth" Churchill alone. And ultimately it was the Soviets who won the war.) and in helping to re-build Europe economically and morally after the war.
Vietnam is in no way equivilent. It was a pissing contest in an environment where the Americans were always going to lose out. It was more PR than a Righteous and Neccessary intervention.
The american Government has often got things wrong in the past. Hell sometimes they do things right and very well, but for the wrong reasons. But ultimately, until very recently they have been trying, at least, to Do The Right Thing. Why should this in anyway be a reason to castigate them?
~~~Payne: far prefers an active American State than an isolationist one. Wants his "side" to have the bigger guns, if it comes down to it.
Meh, nations only care about one thing: hegemony.
In WWII, American and Soviet interests mostly aligned with a common good. That good involved defeating the Axis powers. However it was not done because it was good, it was done because Nazi Germany and it's allies threatened to overturn the international system, one which America was emerging in as a successor to the British (this had been pretty clear since the Washington Naval Treaty, if not earlier) and in which the Soviet Union was also increasingly powerful. Had a leader other than Stalin had arisen in the USSR, meaning there were no military purges, had the USSR struck first in a global war and subsumed even just Eastern Europe, I am fairly sure the alliances of the second world war would have been reversed, and Hitler's holocaust been overlooked much in the same way Stalin's own atrocities suddenly became a non-problem after Hitler's invasion of the country in 1941. Churchill's own objections to Hitler were more based in his Germanphobic sentiment than anything else (that he and Vansittart were right was a matter of luck, not perception), certainly not his methods, and there were powerful lobbies in the USA bankrolled by Nazi Germany which were very vocally anti-Communist. Indeed, as late as 1939, many powerful politicians in the UK were still urging that the Soviet Union was the greater threat and the greater evil, and if anything the Empire should be considering going to war with them.
After the war, Europe needed to be kept strong (but not too strong) as to offset the chances of Soviet invasion or international subversion, the latter being more likely as most of the WWII partisans being rightly treated as heroes were in fact Communist party members (the various Communist Parties having been worried about Fascism since the 1920s, when mostly everyone else was still lauding it as a novel governmental approach). That was the explicit purpose of the Marshall Plan. Again, it was a good result, but it wasn't done with those kind of motives in mind, it was because a reconstructed and prosperous Europe would be less likely to listen to the Communist message of world revolution, whereas a Europe in ruins and still facing rationing in most places would no doubt have a greater interest. And of course other, less beneficial methods were used alongside the Marshall Plan to dissuade Europe from turning to Communism. I shall just say "Operation Gladio", since I don't want to discuss that in depth here and now.
Nations don't act out of altruism, ever. Except Canada and, well, look at them. Nations do things because it benefits them and, more usually in recent times, benefits a small subset of their population. Britain, for example, did not acquire the bomb for self-defense purposes (aside from when McNamara was in office, it was fairly clear the USA was committed to the defense of Europe), it did it because Cabinet ministers felt they were belittled by American officials and how they treated them after the war ended, and realised if they were to continue their attempted strategy of forming a third pole seperate from both American and Soviet spheres of influence, a plan that was popular in the early days of the Cold War, before it became clear how much damage had been done to British finances and it's military capacity, then they would need a nuclear bomb in order to compete with both. Britain later aligned with America because they had a level of cultural affinity to them they did not have with the Soviets and an alliance dating back to 1917, and could use both to influence world affairs through carefully controlling and guiding American policy. Indeed, there was a massive network of agents still in America dating back from WWII, when Britain had carried out a propaganda campaign to try and bring the Americans into the war, and given how the war had turned out, these agents were now highly influential within the corridors of power and shaping public opinion. If Britain had a similar kind of relationship with the Soviet Union, I have no doubt the country would have aligned with them against America.
International relations is a domain of manipulation, deceit, naked power politics, self-interest and murder, sometimes deserved but just as often not. When a nation does something that ends up being a moral good, it is almost certainly by accident, an unintended but welcome epiphenomenal event to the main purpose of why nations ever act on the international stage at all: which is to acquire, retain and further their power relative to other nations.
Any other explanation is crass sentimentalism, and any nation which acts contrary to this will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
:mittens: Cain
Cain that was pretty interesting.