• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Skinheads, Neo-Nazis Draw Fury at Dresden 1945 ‘Mourning March’

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just another weekend in Europe.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
“What impresses me is that these young people are organizing themselves, that they have ideals,” Gerd said.
Sounds like some community organizing going on.
 
god dammit, skinhead and nazi are not synonyms.

many of the original skinheads were in fact black.

why can't the media make the barest attempt to ****ing wiki skinhead and see what the subculture actually is.
 
There should be mourning over Dresden. The firebombing of the Florence of the Elbe killed as many as 100,000 people, making it the greatest loss of life until Hiroshima. Yes, Germany was our enemy, but even in war, such a loss of life must be remembered so that, hopefully, it can serve as a reminder of the horrors of war.

The problem is who ran the event - Nazis, who have desecrated the memories of all who died in that bombing.
 
There should be mourning over Dresden. The firebombing of the Florence of the Elbe killed as many as 100,000 people, making it the greatest loss of life until Hiroshima. Yes, Germany was our enemy, but even in war, such a loss of life must be remembered so that, hopefully, it can serve as a reminder of the horrors of war.
I'll agree, but I have a problem with the protesters of the fire bombing, or those that call this a war crime. The Germans asked for a war and they got one.

Too bad the pacifists didn't heed Churchill's years of warning.

The problem is who ran the event - Nazis, who have desecrated the memories of all who died in that bombing.
Si.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to somewhat agree with Danarhea here. This should be remembered as one of the horrors of war.

WWII and previous wars we were not oppossed to the concept of "total war". The civilian aspect was as much a part of a fighting country's war machine as its soldiers. Bomber Harris was in the right to have obliterated the city due to its critical wartime components. However, the fleeing refugees put it in a seriously bad light. I think the key here is "fleeing" as throughout the war various civilian infrastructure were fair game. We've since given up the "total war" concept and put laws in place to keep it from happening. Granted I think we are wrong to do so but thats another thread altogether.

I wonder if the Japanese have rememberance days for the firebombing of Tokyo? Those were much more effective firebombing campaigns.
 
There should be mourning over Dresden. The firebombing of the Florence of the Elbe killed as many as 100,000 people, making it the greatest loss of life until Hiroshima. Yes, Germany was our enemy, but even in war, such a loss of life must be remembered so that, hopefully, it can serve as a reminder of the horrors of war.

The problem is who ran the event - Nazis, who have desecrated the memories of all who died in that bombing.

Over 100,000 were killed in the firebombings of Tokyo.
 
Over 100,000 were killed in the firebombings of Tokyo.

Yep.
They wanted war too, and got it.

WWII and previous wars we were not oppossed to the concept of "total war". The civilian aspect was as much a part of a fighting country's war machine as its soldiers. Bomber Harris was in the right to have obliterated the city due to its critical wartime components. However, the fleeing refugees put it in a seriously bad light. I think the key here is "fleeing" as throughout the war various civilian infrastructure were fair game. We've since given up the "total war" concept and put laws in place to keep it from happening. Granted I think we are wrong to do so but thats another thread altogether.
We've become prisoners of "accurate war". Sometimes I think if we hadn't progressed so far with weapons development it would be easier for us to achieve "compliance" and victory.

Now a few civilians get killed, or what we are told by the press to be civilians, and the outcry from the pacifists and those who engaged in battle is plastered all over the tube.
 
Last edited:
Yep.
They wanted war too, and got it.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss. It was war and it was a horrible situation to be in. Certain things had to be done, but being so gleeful over what we would 100% call acts of terrorism now I'm not so sure is ok. It's definitely something we should learn from, it's a horrible thing to have had to do and we should work as hard as possible to avoid future problems which could lead to such actions. This was not one of the highlights of our country's distinguished existence. War or no, this is definitely a blight upon our record.
 
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss. It was war and it was a horrible situation to be in. Certain things had to be done, but being so gleeful over what we would 100% call acts of terrorism now I'm not so sure is ok.
No dismissal.
Just stating fact.

The lesson here is... if you're going to engage in war... play all out to win.
Make the enemy pay dearly and often until they submit.

It's definitely something we should learn from, it's a horrible thing to have had to do and we should work as hard as possible to avoid future problems which could lead to such actions.
Agree. Lessons of history should be learned in all their gore. Not to create a batch of pacifists, but to illustrate the cost of ignoring clear warnings.

This was not one of the highlights of our country's distinguished existence. War or no, this is definitely a blight upon our record.
Disagree. No blight. We saved lives, a mass of American lives with these actions.
 
god dammit, skinhead and nazi are not synonyms.

many of the original skinheads were in fact black.

why can't the media make the barest attempt to ****ing wiki skinhead and see what the subculture actually is.
Who thinks that Hitler would have tolerated skinheads? I assure you they would all be in labor camps.
 
No dismissal.
Just stating fact.

That's fine, but there doesn't seem to be any remorse on your part which I find sad considering the number of civilians we took out.

The lesson here is... if you're going to engage in war... play all out to win.
Make the enemy pay dearly and often until they submit.

So you agree with the terrorists, their actions, even 9/11 because if they're gonna fight us, they need to engage all out to win and do whatever they can to make us pay dearly and submit. K.

Agree. Lessons of history should be learned in all their gore. Not to create a batch of pacifists, but to illustrate the cost of ignoring clear warnings.

Should get us to understand the sanctity of human life. It should create a bunch of pacifists. We should look at this and say "wow, the loss of life and method of death was so grotesque, so inhuman that we should strive to avoid this at all costs in the future". If you're "lesson" from this is "my way or the highway", then you haven't learned a damned thing from this travesty against mankind.

Disagree. No blight. We saved lives, a mass of American lives with these actions.

This isn't a feather in our cap. You can make the point that maybe this horrible act had to be done. It doesn't make it just or right or a good thing or something to celebrate (as you seem to be doing). It's a blight, it's a horrible course of action taken against our fellow man and regardless of reason it was not a good thing to do. It doesn't matter how much we had to do it, it doesn't make it a good thing. It was still horrible, we killed well over 100,000 civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo and it is something we should do our damnedest not to have to repeat. This was certainly a black eye.
 
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss. It was war and it was a horrible situation to be in. Certain things had to be done, but being so gleeful over what we would 100% call acts of terrorism now I'm not so sure is ok. It's definitely something we should learn from, it's a horrible thing to have had to do and we should work as hard as possible to avoid future problems which could lead to such actions. This was not one of the highlights of our country's distinguished existence. War or no, this is definitely a blight upon our record.

I would not necessarily call it a blight on our record, since there were no conventions against bombing civilians at that time. I would like to think that, because of WWII, civilized nations, such as the US, took a step back and rethought how to fight a war. Naturally, you want to go after infrastructure so that war components cannot be manufactured by the enemy, but you want to try as best as possible to limit civilian casualties because that is the moral thing to do. I believe that America, for the most part, has done well. Nothing is perfect, and there are still civilian casualties, but nothing like the wanton death and destruction that occurred during WWII.

Some people might bring up Vietnam and Iraq to try and make a point that America has not abided by what it preaches, but I believe those are exceptions. When you occupy a nation, and there is resistance, it is difficult to tell the difference between civilians and the enemy. In spite of the problems in Iraq, I still believe that American forces, as a whole, have done their best in trying to limit civilian casualties. As for the Iraq War itself, and whether or not it was right to go wage a war that resulted in civilian deaths, that is a topic for another thread, and does not belong in this one.
 
no, seriously what did they have for breakfast. Their march is not nearly as important.

I just would like to know what kind of breakfast one has when they decide that they are going to go stand-outside in support of racism.
 
I would not necessarily call it a blight on our record, since there were no conventions against bombing civilians at that time. I would like to think that, because of WWII, civilized nations, such as the US, took a step back and rethought how to fight a war. Naturally, you want to go after infrastructure so that war components cannot be manufactured by the enemy, but you want to try as best as possible to limit civilian casualties because that is the moral thing to do. I believe that America, for the most part, has done well. Nothing is perfect, and there are still civilian casualties, but nothing like the wanton death and destruction that occurred during WWII.

This is exactly my point though. This is the lesson which needs to be learned. When I call it a blight, I'm not saying there wasn't reason for the action or that it was something we absolutely shouldn't have done. I do so because while there are a lot of gray's in morality, there is a base which is solid rock. Killing is at that base, we need to understand the severity of taking another human's life. What that means and the consequences thereof. Maybe you're forced to, maybe you have no other choice; but that doesn't make the action good.

All you can do is learn from that situation and try to avoid it in the future. We firebombed a lot of cities and it wasn't good, we should do our best to avoid those situations in the future. This isn't a "my way or the highway" sort of thing. A "you'd better listen to us or we'll find horrible ways to kill you and do it!" sort of thing. This is an "OMG, I can't believe we had to do that! Let's try to avoid doing that again" sort of thing. There are certain morals which are absolute, you may find yourself in a situation in which you must violate them, but if you do then you should learn from the situation enough to do your best from having to do so again.
 
I would not necessarily call it a blight on our record, since there were no conventions against bombing civilians at that time.
Except common decency. There have always been unspoken laws which promote a bit of honor within the troops (however, I must admit that some [like the Crusader's "when the enemy drops his blade, let him pick it up] are a bit silly, and a good way to lose to [Saladin's] armies). I do understand though that when gloves are off, gloves are off. However, I do believe it is better to hold decency and honor as a standard for all soldiers, regardless of how the enemy is fighting.

I would like to think that, because of WWII, civilized nations, such as the US, took a step back and rethought how to fight a war.
Of course! WWI showed the world what gases could do. They were immediately barred from use. I am not sure if it was international legislation or just a common agreement.

Naturally, you want to go after infrastructure so that war components cannot be manufactured by the enemy, but you want to try as best as possible to limit civilian casualties because that is the moral thing to do.
One of the problems with this is that the citizens of Nazi Germany were the infrastructure, well, them and the captives. If you are going to destroy the infrastructure, with some military exceptions like the Luftwaffe (Hitler, would not allow ordinaries to tinker with their bells).
I believe that America, for the most part, has done well. Nothing is perfect, and there are still civilian casualties, but nothing like the wanton death and destruction that occurred during WWII.

I guess that depends on how you define "doing well during war". In retrospect, we are the only nation to ever use an atomic weapon-- twice.
I do agree that all gloves were off, and it was the most sane move; Imperial Japan would have taken millions of lives before it gave up due to attrition.

Some people might bring up Vietnam and Iraq to try and make a point that America has not abided by what it preaches, but I believe those are exceptions. When you occupy a nation, and there is resistance, it is difficult to tell the difference between civilians and the enemy. In spite of the problems in Iraq, I still believe that American forces, as a whole, have done their best in trying to limit civilian casualties. As for the Iraq War itself, and whether or not it was right to go wage a war that resulted in civilian deaths, that is a topic for another thread, and does not belong in this one.

My problem is not with the military in Iraq having a hard time distinguishing between civilian and insurgents, mine lies with contractors given the responsibility to distinguish; Mercenaries should not comprise any amount oProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

the American
 
Last edited:
That's fine, but there doesn't seem to be any remorse on your part which I find sad considering the number of civilians we took out.
I can't say no remorse for the vanquished, but there isn't a lot.
Their leaders brought it unto their countries.
Feelings about these pages of history come in waves concerning the vanquished. Sometimes anger, sometimes sympathy.

My Grandfather lead men into battle and lost some friends.
These people secured my freedom. If they hadn't, I'd be speaking fluent Russian.
My sympathies are high for the Allied Troops and their families that died in a second European war... hell... all wars. Seeing the oceans of crosses in France reaches deep. Tremendously deep. Hearing the stories of vets reaches deep.

So you agree with the terrorists, their actions, even 9/11 because if they're gonna fight us, they need to engage all out to win and do whatever they can to make us pay dearly and submit. K.
I agree, and believe the terrorists are going all out. Like ducks in the water, you can't see their orange-red legs moving, but the are swimming along... towards their goals.

It's why I believe the behavior of democrats is treasonous in many instances. Aiding and abetting our enemies while at war.

We don't have a clue what threats we faced down, except to know they are active because we've seen them London. Madrid. Tunisia. Bali. Africa. NY.
Just to list a few.

Iran is getting the Ultimate Weapon, and will be able to create all manner of havoc. I don't expect a bomb on a missile, but dirty stuff. They have an ample supply of delivery systems to get the job done too.

We should look at this and say "wow, the loss of life and method of death was so grotesque, so inhuman that we should strive to avoid this at all costs in the future".
It would be nice to avoid it, but reality says otherwise.
I don't live in the fantasy world... thank God.

All of human history we've been at war... somewhere.
To date we've cleaned up most of Europe and Japan.
Now it looks like our next battle is with Islamofascists that hide amongst civilians.

How do you engage an opponent that sees glory in death?
Kill them by the ocean liner full.
Then when they see no point, can you civilize them.


This isn't a feather in our cap.
It is and in many ways.
We had the weaponry to make the whole world kneel before us and beg for mercy.
We're not that kind of people though.
We instead helped those we vanquished rebuild their societies.
It's a huge feather.
We are magnanimous victors.

You can make the point that maybe this horrible act had to be done. It doesn't make it just or right or a good thing
It was right. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It ended the war, saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

It's a blight, it's a horrible course of action taken against our fellow man and regardless of reason it was not a good thing to do.
War is horrible, but...
...Sorry... It was the right action to take.

Not doing it would have been scandalous.
I have no proof but I believe its horrors illustrated to our enemies they don't want to engage us or our Japanese, Korean or European allies.
 
Last edited:
I can't say no remorse for the vanquished, but there isn't a lot.
Their leaders brought it unto their countries.
Feelings about these pages of history come in waves concerning the vanquished. Sometimes anger, sometimes sympathy.

My Grandfather lead men into battle and lost some friends.
These people secured my freedom. If they hadn't, I'd be speaking fluent Russian.
My sympathies are high for the Allied Troops and their families that died in a second European war... hell... all wars. Seeing the oceans of crosses in France reaches deep. Tremendously deep. Hearing the stories of vets reaches deep.

Human is human. While humanity is no stranger to war and hatred, we're also not a static race. We change and we learn and we grow; and we should be moving into a more inclusive race. People may be different, but they're still people in the end. My sympathy is for all humans. If our government did something stupid and horrible and got us into something in which the enemy bombed civilians and tried to kill as many of us as possible and create an air of fear; I would mourn those on our side that died. I wouldn't think it a good situation or that we as civilians should be targeted. It would break my heart to see my friends and family murdered by another group pissed at something my government did. Those families in Japan and Germany...they felt the same way. Heartbroken and torn, nothing but pain and suffering. Our goal shouldn't be to spread that, but to alleviate it. If we learned nothing from these atrocities, then we are doomed to repeat them as nothing more than ignorant monkeys unable to see the world around them. Might as well climb back into the trees and start eating bananas; for ignorance spits in the face of this intellect we've gained through nature. It's a slap in the face to your god as well if you actually believe in one.


I agree, and believe the terrorists are going all out. Like ducks in the water, you can't see their orange-red legs moving, but the are swimming along... towards their goals.

It's why I believe the behavior of democrats is treasonous in many instances. Aiding and abetting our enemies while at war.

Why is it treasonous? You think that what the terrorists are doing is just and right.

We don't have a clue what threats we faced down, except to know they are active because we've seen them London. Madrid. Tunisia. Bali. Africa. NY.
Just to list a few.

Iran is getting the Ultimate Weapon, and will be able to create all manner of havoc. I don't expect a bomb on a missile, but dirty stuff. They have an ample supply of delivery systems to get the job done too.

Yet your solution seems to be "prod them into action, then kill them all". I'm sure you make your god proud.

It would be nice to avoid it, but reality says otherwise.
I don't live in the fantasy world... thank God.

I find it interesting you invoke your god in excuse for war and murder. It was my understanding that the Christian god was not a god of war, but one of peace and forgiveness; to faults if need be. Jesus accepted death, he had the power to do something about it, he could have saved his own skin; he didn't. Instead of making excuses for killing, maybe you should pray to that god of yours for strength, patience, and understanding to deal with other people and do your best to stay away from killing.

Humans have a long history of war, but that doesn't mean we have to continue to engage in it or that we can't learn from it.

All of human history we've been at war... somewhere.
To date we've cleaned up most of Europe and Japan.
Now it looks like our next battle is with Islamofascists that hide amongst civilians.

Humanity is not stagnant, we always move forward. Your thought process is one that can only bring more war. You seem happy about it as well. Death and destruction, pain and suffering, bring it to your enemy and rejoice in their cries and screams of pain and terror. You continue a cycle and use history as an excuse, thank your god that you are willing to engage in war at a drop of a hat...even provoke it if necessary. While we may not be able to avoid war, I don't believe that we should so happily bound into it. It may be a necessity from time to time, but it's never a good thing.

How do you engage an opponent that sees glory in death?
Kill them by the ocean liner full.
Then when they see no point, can you civilize them.

Nice, I believe we used that "logic" in the dark ages as well. Way to advance.

It is and in many ways.
We had the weaponry to make the whole world kneel before us and beg for mercy.
We're not that kind of people though.
We instead helped those we vanquished rebuild their societies.
It's a huge feather.
We are magnanimous victors.

Defining morality through victory...really? Wow. These things are not right. Inevitable, unavoidable and right aren't necessarily the same things. Just because you may have to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. You really don't understand this concept, but it's a base concept of morality. There is no feather in the death of 100,000's; that is just base fact. It's an atrocity, not something that we should jump up and down for joy about. Happy about death, happy about killing, happy about pain and suffering...what sort of moral code do you really live by? You can say that maybe we were forced and had to do these horrible acts, but to be jubilant about them is a whole different ballgame. There's nothing beautiful in war, it is an unfortunate reality which we engage in. We should learn from it, do our best to avoid it. There is nothing moral in bringing suffering into the world. If you have to do so, do so with a heavy heart and conviction to learn from these mistakes and do your best to avoid them in the future.

It was right. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It ended the war, saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Saved hundred of thousands of lives by taking hundred of thousands of lives. Doesn't sound like we netted out any. What may have to be done isn't always right. You confuse this principle. You think because we were forced that it is right and it is just, you can be forced to do evil and partake in immoral acts. War is such an evil.

War is horrible, but...
...Sorry... It was the right action to take.

War is horrible, war is evil.

Not doing it would have been scandalous.
I have no proof but I believe its horrors illustrated to our enemies they don't want to engage us or our Japanese, Korean or European allies.

Perhaps my moral code is a little more steadfast than your own.
 
Human is human. While humanity is no stranger to war and hatred, we're also not a static race.
Utopian flim-flam.
What we can hope for are nations run by governments elected by the people. Freedom. Looking at Africa alone, that's a lot of work. A few centuries worth, though a domino effect throughout that vast, diverse continent would be nice... also Utopian.

Heartbroken and torn, nothing but pain and suffering. Our goal shouldn't be to spread that, but to alleviate it. If we learned nothing from these atrocities, then we are doomed to repeat them as nothing more than ignorant monkeys unable to see the world around them.
Right.
Sometimes war is necessary.
Cleaning up the USSR after riding ourselves of The Axis might have saved us a lot of future problems.
We would have saved tens of millions of lives from Vladivostok to St. Petersburg and all over the Far East.




Why is it treasonous? You think that what the terrorists are doing is just and right.
I think some actions by members of Congress would have had Lincoln sending them to the brig. Obama's "terrorizing civilians" was among the crap, but certainly not the most vile. Durban and Murtha top the lists and should have been sharing a cell.


Yet your solution seems to be "prod them into action, then kill them all". I'm sure you make your god proud.
It's not done for God.
When someone declares war, then crush them into submission.
Win.
Make them submit to civilized society.
I find it interesting you invoke your god in excuse for war and murder.
I don't.
I am not particularly religious.

It was my understanding that the Christian god was not a god of war,
He did say something about not being a coward. I think you'd find he would believe killing to defend yourself was just. I'm no religious scholar, it just makes sense, as does torture in a last ditch, dire, long bomb.

Humans have a long history of war, but that doesn't mean we have to continue to engage in it or that we can't learn from it.
We have to engage so long as there are those that seek our demise.
We can learn from it by identifying threats, being prepared.
Actually we should be more than prepared.
We should be armed to the teeth as a deterrent and so we can fight a multifaceted battle. You know, like the one we face against the cowards.

Your thought process is one that can only bring more war.
I agree. But it is also the solution for turning one time foes into allies. Iraq. Afghanistan. Germany. Japan. Italy. All brought to freedom through the sword.

You seem happy about it as well.
Well, that's perverse.
I'm a realist.
People aim to kill and maim Americans. Westerners.
Because of who we are and how we live.

Nice, I believe we used that "logic" in the dark ages as well. Way to advance.
Are we so far removed?
People aim to kill and maim people because of their beliefs and way of life.
People with a mentality from the 7th century.
Did you know the first battle of the 21st century was lead on horseback?
Know where?


Defining morality through victory...really?
I defined morality by being benevolent to the vanquished.
That couldn;t have been too difficult to grasp? Non?


Saved hundred of thousands of lives by taking hundred of thousands of lives. Doesn't sound like we netted out any.
Come, come.
The math equation isn't that difficult.
Johnny sends 800,000 men to fight the Japs.
175,000 are KIA.
85,000 are injured.
Millions are spent daily.

OR

Johnny sends two bombs and kills the inhabitants of two small cities.
Cities which are not central to the functioning of the country.
They're used as examples of what awaits Tokyo and Osaka.

The enemy capitulates without one American GI of the 800,000 getting a scratch.

How many American families have a father they would otherwise be missing?

How many did the US net in saved lives and prevented injuries?


What may have to be done isn't always right. You confuse this principle.
You live in some fantasy society that awaits people in 1,000 years if they are lucky.
You think because we were forced that it is right and it is just, you can be forced to do evil and partake in immoral acts. War is such an evil.

War is horrible, war is evil.
And sometimes necessary.
Unless you like getting on your knees five times a day.
You might have made a terrific member of the NSDAP.
You seem willing to succumb to evil.

Perhaps my moral code is a little more steadfast than your own.
No.
I think it's immoral to have an enemy roll your family, friends and neighbors.
I think it's immoral not to fight an enemy that wants to tear your heart out.
OK, they wouldn't do that. They'd only cut off your head.

Very moral of you.
 
Last edited:
Utopian flim-flam.
What we can hope for are nations run by governments elected by the people. Freedom. Looking at Africa alone, that's a lot of work. A few centuries worth, though a domino effect throughout that vast, diverse continent would be nice... also Utopian.

That's not utopian anything, it's measured fact. Human is human, and humanity is not a static race. There's nothing "utopian" about that, it's just the way nature programed us.

Right.
Sometimes war is necessary.
Cleaning up the USSR after riding ourselves of The Axis might have saved us a lot of future problems.
We would have saved tens of millions of lives from Vladivostok to St. Petersburg and all over the Far East.

Sometimes war is necessary, but that doesn't make war right. War is still an evil. Again, you seem to have a hard time with this concept. Just because you're forced into something doesn't make your actions right or just. You can be forced into evil. War is evil, there is no bones about it. Maybe it is necessary, but don't pretend it to be something else, and don't sit there and think we're so awesome for being able to kill another side better. The true measure of our worth is not in destruction, but in creation.

I think some actions by members of Congress would have had Lincoln sending them to the brig. Obama's "terrorizing civilians" was among the crap, but certainly not the most vile. Durban and Murtha top the lists and should have been sharing a cell.

So basically people who disagree with you.

It's not done for God.
When someone declares war, then crush them into submission.
Win.
Make them submit to civilized society.

Yet your actions are not quite civilized, so who is submitting to who?

I don't.
I am not particularly religious.

Nor am I, but I do know right from wrong.

He did say something about not being a coward. I think you'd find he would believe killing to defend yourself was just. I'm no religious scholar, it just makes sense, as does torture in a last ditch, dire, long bomb.

Pretty sure he said to not judge, to love thy neighbor, to turn the other cheek. Y'all have pretty interesting interpretations and you make your gods fit whatever you want at the time. IMO, on the base of religious lesson Christianity is one of the hardest to live up to and I believe many really fail at it. It's a religion of peace, forgiveness, and pacifism at heart; and those qualities are hard to live up to when you fill your heart with hate.

We have to engage so long as there are those that seek our demise.
We can learn from it by identifying threats, being prepared.
Actually we should be more than prepared.
We should be armed to the teeth as a deterrent and so we can fight a multifaceted battle. You know, like the one we face against the cowards.

Then you only perpetuate a cycle. I don't know if you can see that you are engaging in behavior you are rallying against. The other side does X, so you have to do X. We are right in doing X because the other side is doing X. You're doing the same thing, you're going to seek the demise of the other side because they seek your demise. We should be armed to the teeth because the other side is armed to the teeth. It's a morality of hypocrisy and one that will only cause the circle to keep going. It's short sighted tomfoolery and nothing more.

I agree. But it is also the solution for turning one time foes into allies. Iraq. Afghanistan. Germany. Japan. Italy. All brought to freedom through the sword.

Bzzt. Germany had democracy before, it would have had it again regardless. Same with Italy. The people of Japan had to accept the government they created otherwise that government wouldn't have stood. So it's more their power than ours.

Well, that's perverse.
I'm a realist.
People aim to kill and maim Americans. Westerners.
Because of who we are and how we live.

BS. This is the point. You are so blind in your hatred that you won't look at the whole problem. "I'm from Buenos Aires and I say 'Kill them all' ". All tough guy like. But you've started a circle of death and destruction and happily keep that circle going and in the end you breed exactly what you are fighting against. It's idiotic in the end, a pointless and never ending endeavor. They don'thate us because of who we are. They hate us because we've ****ed with their **** for 50+ years. You think we can go anywhere we want, do whatever we want, take whatever we want without consequence? Foolishness. The people over there didn't wake up one day and say "Hey, Akbar, you know who sucks....America!". You only get that when people mess with your ****, and the West as a whole has been doing it for quite some time. It's pure idiocy to say they hate us for who we are and how we live. They hate us for our freedom! That's government propaganda BS eaten up by those whom love war and death. We are not isolated, we do not live in vacuum. Our actions have consequence, but damn if anyone brings that up if they aren't a traitor that needs to be thrown in jail. Pretend we ain't ever done nothing wrong or given cause to be hated. But your mentality would bring you to war against the US had you been born in the Middle East. That's the irony, hypocrisy, and waffling of your moral compass.

Are we so far removed?
People aim to kill and maim people because of their beliefs and way of life.
People with a mentality from the 7th century.
Did you know the first battle of the 21st century was lead on horseback?
Know where?

People kill and maim because that's what they've been taught. Or because others mess with their stuff. But what we've done in the past does not define in full our future. Humans learn and grow, our base knowledge grows, our societies grow. We are not a stagnate race, in the past we were primitive and stupid and fought a lot like all primitive and stupid things. While we may not be able to fully do away with war for it's near impossible to do away with in total stupid, we can certainly learn how to break your cycle; to decrease war and focus more on creation than destruction. Humanity has that potential, we just need the resolve to do it.

I defined morality by being benevolent to the vanquished.
That couldn;t have been too difficult to grasp? Non?

You define your morality by victor and by what's being done to you. It's a very childish sense of morality. If something is done to you it's wrong, if you do the same thing to someone else it's right. It's a position with zero empathy. and while it's blazingly obvious to others that if X is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it; you don't see it that way. You are X is wrong if done to me but right if I do it to others.

Come, come.
The math equation isn't that difficult.
Johnny sends 800,000 men to fight the Japs.
175,000 are KIA.
85,000 are injured.
Millions are spent daily.

OR

Johnny sends two bombs and kills the inhabitants of two small cities.
Cities which are not central to the functioning of the country.
They're used as examples of what awaits Tokyo and Osaka.

Tokyo was already destroyed at that point. Have you not been paying attention? The firebombing of Tokyo that killed more that 100,000 civilians. They aren't examples to either Tokyo and Osaka, we'd already taken care of most of that.

The enemy capitulates without one American GI of the 800,000 getting a scratch.

How many American families have a father they would otherwise be missing?

How many did the US net in saved lives and prevented injuries?

How many others did you kill, how many Japanese families are destroyed IN TOTAL? How much pain and suffering did you inflict upon a people. Governments come and go, and they make decisions and the people pay for them. But this is the point. You think the pain and suffering of others is ok so long as you aren't the on in pain or suffering. Against us bad, by us good. Wishy washy, useless morals. I say maybe we were forced to do what we did and had to do so to end this war. But what we did wasn't good and we should understand that it was a bad thing to do and we should look for ways to avoid it. You're looking for ways to do it again, you don't learn and you don't see. Nature gave us complex brain capable of all sorts of abstract thought, engage it.

You live in some fantasy society that awaits people in 1,000 years if they are lucky.

I live in no fantasy world. I want to build something different, one that doesn't necessarily go to war as first response. That's your world and nothing gets accomplished in such a hell hole. You can't understand my point because you are blind to it. You make it as if I am saying never war, but those aren't my words. I am a pacifist in that I think war is a last resort. It doesn't say no war, it says war is bad and thus should be used when all other options are dry. War is evil, you should be drug kicking and screaming into it and crawling and clawing your way out of it as soon as possible. It brings nothing but pain and suffering to all who engage in it regardless of side.

And sometimes necessary.
Unless you like getting on your knees five times a day.
You might have made a terrific member of the NSDAP.
You seem willing to succumb to evil.

It's the opposite of what you say, I'm willing to fight evil. Killing isn't right, it's not a good action, it is an evil action. Regardless of what justification you think you have, even if you have no choice, it's still immoral. If forced to do immoral things, one should question what got them to that point and to try to avoid that in the future. Learn from the mistakes and move forward, that is the human way. Muslims don't hate us because we are who we are. They hate us because they too have people like you, and the lot of you keep this cycle of hate and destruction rolling. Somewhere in the past this circle started up, and we haven't learned enough to let it go.

No.
I think it's immoral to have an enemy roll your family, friends and neighbors.
I think it's immoral not to fight an enemy that wants to tear your heart out.
OK, they wouldn't do that. They'd only cut off your head.

Yet you think it's perfectly moral to do this to others. Kill and destroy. Roll over other's family and friends and neighbors. Fight them and tear their heart out. So long as we're doing it it's moral, if they're doing it then it's immoral. That is why your morality is useless.

Very moral of you.

It is, I understand evil and its uses and why it's not ok to kill people. That we are all people in the end. If we have to kill, it's not a jubilant time, it's not something to brag about; it's done with heavy heart and resolve to avoid as much as possible repeating it in the future.
 
Ikari, let me start with a bit that's down towards the bottom of the thread
It's pure idiocy to say they hate us for who we are and how we live.
Maybe idiocy for you, but it's true.

People kill and maim because that's what they've been taught.
Damn, I missed that class in school. Was it before lunch or after?

Or because others mess with their stuff.
Yeah, Carlin warned me about this.
I musta smoked one too many.
Sorry.
I forgot.
I'll be sure not to touch their "stuff" next time.
YouTube - George Carlin Talks About "Stuff"


That's not utopian anything, it's measured fact. Human is human, and humanity is not a static race. There's nothing "utopian" about that, it's just the way nature programed us.
We are programmed for peace? Then why all the war?
Some are programmed for peace, some for murder, some for compassion, and all to different degrees.
We are individuals, not some form of ameobic collective.


Sometimes war is necessary, but that doesn't make war right. War is still an evil. Again, you seem to have a hard time with this concept.
War is right when it is necessary. Otherwise you have the masses either enslaved or dead. Like what happened when we pulled out of Vietnam.

Just because you're forced into something doesn't make your actions right or just.
Oh yes it does. Not only just but noble.

War is evil, there is no bones about it.
War is hell. Evil?

Maybe it is necessary, but don't pretend it to be something else, and don't sit there and think we're so awesome for being able to kill another side better.
I don't sit in awe, but thinking about what we can do is pretty awesome. Yet we are benevolent.

Nor am I, but I do know right from wrong.
Perhaps. But it seems you are challenged with moral and amoral.

Pretty sure he said to not judge, to love thy neighbor, to turn the other cheek.
Pretty sure isn't good enough. I do believe there is something in there about not being a coward.

Christianity is one of the hardest to live up to and I believe many really fail at it.
We all fail at it as we are human. Mere flesh and blood.

It's a religion of peace, forgiveness, and pacifism at heart; and those qualities are hard to live up to when you fill your heart with hate.
I'm not a guy filled with "hate". But when we are attacked, when our way of life and our close friends are in jeopardy, then we should beat the aggressor into submission.

The go home.

We did something along these lines in Afghanistan. We supplied arms, let the locals do the heavy lifting, and then left them alone afterwards. The we get smacked for not doing more. In other areas we stick around and people want us to leave.

Then you only perpetuate a cycle.
Appeasement is what perpetuates the cycle. Only when someone dominates the other is there peace. Japan, Germany, Italy all come to mind. Iraq and Afghanistan too.

I don't know if you can see that you are engaging in behavior you are rallying against. The other side does X, so you have to do X. We are right in doing X because the other side is doing X.
No, no, no. If the other side is doing "x", I want our side to do "x" to the power of 10.

We should be armed to the teeth because the other side is armed to the teeth. It's a morality of hypocrisy and one that will only cause the circle to keep going. It's short sighted tomfoolery and nothing more.
Yes. We should be prepared to avenge any and all enemies that think they can take us on.

Your philosophy is one of pacifism. It ensures you will be ripe for the picking. In a world of Nature, the weak get it in the neck first.

Bzzt. Germany had democracy before, it would have had it again regardless. Same with Italy.
Perhaps, but at what cost? Slavery, oppression, control, loss of free speech, and cultural decay.

As I stated earlier, you could have been a model brown shirt. A Peace Keeper for the Third Reich.

The people of Japan had to accept the government they created otherwise that government wouldn't have stood. So it's more their power than ours.
They were defeated, denounced a God and got a government. Through submission to a greater military power did this occur.

BS. This is the point. You are so blind in your hatred that you won't look at the whole problem.
I have no hate.
I don't walk around hating.
I dislike socialism with a passion, but I don't hate the people. I think they're morons that's all.

But you've started a circle of death and destruction and happily keep that circle going and in the end you breed exactly what you are fighting against.
I've started nothing.
I support defensive measures.
If it requires our best men and women engaging in battle, they and the president can usually count on my full support.

It's idiotic in the end, a pointless and never ending endeavor.
The point is survival.
The point is defending freedom.

You think we can go anywhere we want, do whatever we want, take whatever we want without consequence? Foolishness.
Did we invade Kanuckistan to the north? Are you one of the escapees?

The people over there didn't wake up one day and say "Hey, Akbar, you know who sucks....America!". You only get that when people mess with your ****, and the West as a whole has been doing it for quite some time.
Akbar & Co. (whoever he is) are as logical as Hitler and his followers.
It's pure idiocy to say they hate us for who we are and how we live.
Maybe idiocy for you, but it's true.

People kill and maim because that's what they've been taught.
Damn, I missed that class in school. Was it before lunch or after?

Or because others mess with their stuff.
Yeah, Carlin warned me about this.
I musta smoked one too many.
Sorry.
I forgot.
I'll be sure not to touch their "stuff" next time.
YouTube - George Carlin Talks About "Stuff"


But what we've done in the past does not define in full our future. Humans learn and grow, our base knowledge grows, our societies grow.
True.
That's how we got the A-bomb, the MOAB, the B1 bomber, patriot missile system.
I love knowledge, especially when our enemies are still trying to steal it 30-years after the fact.

We are not a stagnate race
That's good because I was thinking that smelly air was the next village.
in the past we were primitive and stupid and fought a lot like all primitive and stupid things. While we may not be able to fully do away with war for it's near impossible to do away with in total stupid, we can certainly learn how to break your cycle; to decrease war and focus more on creation than destruction. Humanity has that potential, we just need the resolve to do it.
I think Obama needs you.
Right now.
It sounds like you have the key to unleash World Peace, and deny us those great Miss America Pageant answers.
I think he could make you The Tzar of Peace.
You seem to have it all figured out.
Once you tell him what is what he'll send you over to talk with I'minaJihad, Hamas and Hezbollah.
BUT... before that, he'll have you go to Pakistan and Afghanistan to sort out the matters there.
I can see it now:

IKARI BRINGS WORLD PEACE

New and Improved System


You define your morality by victor and by what's being done to you.
I define victory by victory.
Evil men can and have won too.

It's a very childish sense of morality.
Did you know it's racist to speak about Obama's Foreign and Domestic Policy that way?

Tokyo was already destroyed at that point. Have you not been paying attention? The firebombing of Tokyo that killed more that 100,000 civilians.
There was still a lot of people to kill and infrastructure to destroy if so desired. Only half the city was destroyed.

How much pain and suffering did you inflict upon a people.
When it comes to ours or theirs... they can have all the pain and suffering. They asked for a war... they get it.

You think the pain and suffering of others is ok so long as you aren't the on in pain or suffering.
NO.
I wish nobody would have to endure pain, suffering or war.
That isn't the reality of life, and so long as there are people who seek the destruction of, or seek to dominate through militaristic force, then I want THEM to suffer until they submit.
I want Victory and then to get on with a peaceful life for the soldiers, and the nation... of both countries.


Against us bad, by us good. Wishy washy, useless morals.
?
Pardon?
I'm skating through this and it seems this is contradictory to previous posts, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Nature gave us complex brain capable of all sorts of abstract thought, engage it.
Then use it.
Self defense is not an exotic topic.
Neville Chamberlain wasn't that long ago.
Nor was Bill Clinton.

Feast on that for a few minutes.

I live in no fantasy world. I want to build something different, one that doesn't necessarily go to war as first response.
You world isn't fantasy, it's beyond fantasy.
Sorry. I call 'em as I see 'em.

You can't understand my point because you are blind to it.
I understand it loud and clear.
It's dangerous.
Naive.
Utopian.

You make it as if I am saying never war, but those aren't my words. I am a pacifist in that I think war is a last resort.
Well we agree on a few things here.

You are a pacifist.
And you entire posts are in defense of NO WAR/
Now this?

I think war should be a last resort.
(Now ask me about the "pre-emptive" strike in Iraq...)


It's the opposite of what you say, I'm willing to fight evil. Killing isn't right, it's not a good action, it is an evil action. Regardless of what justification you think you have, even if you have no choice, it's still immoral. If forced to do immoral things, one should question what got them to that point and to try to avoid that in the future. Learn from the mistakes and move forward, that is the human way. Muslims don't hate us because we are who we are. They hate us because they too have people like you, and the lot of you keep this cycle of hate and destruction rolling. Somewhere in the past this circle started up, and we haven't learned enough to let it go.



Yet you think it's perfectly moral to do this to others.
I've said America is a great country because it is BENEVOLENT.
We could control the world, or could have.
All it would take is the launch of a few nukes.


Kill and destroy. Roll over other's family and friends and neighbors.
Fight them and tear their heart out. So long as we're doing it it's moral, if they're doing it then it's immoral. That is why your morality is useless.
I think you're confused a lot.
War isn't immoral if an enemy has engaged you WHICH IS WHAT I'VE SAID ALL ALONG.

I've said it's immoral not to fight back.

And if you engage in war, then WIN.
The faster the better.

Ikari... I think you've got some thinking to do.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom