http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-Jd_gV_oQ
Hard to top that.
Excellent quote from Congressman Jim Moran
-
the difference is, while still racist, marines comments are prompted by the (bigotted) and ignorant position that all muslims (and probably all arabs) are terrorists. doesnt make the comments any more acceptable, but i think its prompted more by ignorance than by racism. if we did like you said, and he called for the extermination of all the blacks, that would be pure racism. w/e. thats the way i see it. hes still ignorant, and the comments are still inflammatory.
-
Janus, but it seems like you were not that inflamed by his comments.
Just imagine i would replace the set “muslims” and the subset “terrorists” by “USamericans” and the subset “KKK”… then the thread would have looked like this:
- some comments on the KKK
with the reply: - USamericans? Kill the fuckers!
Maybe you now understand why i wrote the oterh lines in the other thread: These lines inflamed you quite a lot.
I ask myself: Is that chauvinism or nationalism on your part, that you get excited when someone is critical against your nation, while your countrymen can “cry havok” and your reaction at a maximum is a desinterested shrug? I bet you just want to honour your board-name.…
If you (like I) have a problem with their opinion, then meet them on their own grounds and refute their words with civil discourse.They have left the grounds of civil discourse long ago. How can i then be civil and meet them on their own grounds?
I decide to meet them on their own grounds: They are not tolerating others, i do not tolerate that kind of behavior. To “tolerate” intolerance is actually being indifferent. And we had the poem of the german pastor not long ago about where indifference can lead you. - some comments on the KKK
-
F_alk, you tossing up a straw man here. It’s not as if they are saying “Yeah, taxes really are too high. Oh, and by the way, kill all the Muslims”.
You’ve been around long enough F_alk to know what I feel about this issue. But my view does not matter in this case. Their language is harsh, and I would ask for marine and others to tune down the verbiage, but their viewpoint in the context of the terrorism issue is valid for discussion. People who argue in favor of intelligent design are doing a similar thing. They are ignorant and stupid, but their viewpoint is neccessary to the debate on this message board.
-
F_alk, you tossing up a straw man here. It’s not as if they are saying “Yeah, taxes really are too high. Oh, and by the way, kill all the Muslims”.
I don’t think that i created a strawman. My example was meant as a “psosible other thread that you now have to allow as well as you created a precedent here”.
You’ve been around long enough F_alk to know what I feel about this issue. But my view does not matter in this case. Their language is harsh, and I would ask for marine and others to tune down the verbiage, but their viewpoint in the context of the terrorism issue is valid for discussion. People who argue in favor of intelligent design are doing a similar thing. They are ignorant and stupid, but their viewpoint is neccessary to the debate on this message board.
@ “I would ask … to tune down the verbiage.”
Why don’t you?
What is hindering you to enforce the rules that you already have?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=1393.0
Some people here regularly break rule (2),
and as racists jokes are only allowed in Mod Forum, there is a whole thread that should be deleted, and the occasional “french joke” should be instantly moved as well.
What hinders you to edit rule (2) so that it includes no discrimination of religion? Mind you, you are “god” (rule 6).Even if their viewpoint is “all terrorists should be sentenced to death” then that is of a different quality than “kill the (muslim) fuckers”.
It would be non-discriminating and it would adhere to basic rules of a nation of law. If you think that especially the second is somehow not rulable/enforcable, then i truely do not undestand your reasoning.@ Intelligent Design: I think i do understand what you mean … but find it funny that you complain about my “creation of a strawman” in the first line of your post while you take the last two to do the same (in creating or not creating a strawman, if you don’t think that i created one).
-
People who argue in favor of intelligent design are doing a similar thing. They are ignorant and stupid, but their viewpoint is neccessary to the debate on this message board.
Do you know the kinds of people arguing for intelligent design?? I mean i think i’m smart, but the intellect of some of the people on THIS bandwagon dwarfs mine.
And you are forgiven. -
Janus, but it seems like you were not that inflamed by his comments.
Just imagine i would replace the set “muslims” and the subset “terrorists” by “USamericans” and the subset “KKK”… then the thread would have looked like this:
- some comments on the KKK
with the reply: - USamericans? Kill the fuckers!
Maybe you now understand why i wrote the oterh lines in the other thread: These lines inflamed you quite a lot.
I ask myself: Is that chauvinism or nationalism on your part, that you get excited when someone is critical against your nation, while your countrymen can “cry havok” and your reaction at a maximum is a desinterested shrug? I bet you just want to honour your board-name.dont presume to understand me because i refuse to engage ignorant people in ignorant discussions based on ignorant opinions. i dont support or approve of their opinions. tolerance. they are allowed to hold any opinion they want, no matter how ignorant or ridiculous it may be, as long as it is just an opinion, fine. i hate it, and i dont like it any more than you do. i choose to ignore the comments. dont sit there and tell me im as bad as them because i choose not to validate their opinion by engaging it, or loudly taking offense to it.
- some comments on the KKK
-
You cant compare Americans to wackos that hide grenades under their own babies Falk.
-
@M36:
You cant compare Americans to wackos that hide grenades under their own babies Falk.
And you can’t compare wackos to the US Armed Forces that turned entire cities into infernos; or gunned down every man, woman and child in a village because they were there.
The exception proves the rule Marine. We have as much “wacko” blood on our own hands as we accuse others of. The difference is, when we do it, we call it collateral damage, when others do it we call it terrorism.
-
Thanks NCS.
-
Switch, killing civilians is never our objective, it is usually an accident.
-
Oh, is that how it was at Mi Lei? Or Dresden? Just “an accident”?
And how do you pass off Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The United States has ADMITTED that we DELIBERATELY hit CIVILIANS with 2 nuclear weapons (the only nation to ever use them, and we did it on civies!). How do you call THAT an “accident”?
-
True, we usually do what we can do minimize civilian casualties while terrorists tend to do their best to maximize them.
An interesting situation although is in Israel/Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah do not just kill people. They kill Israelies, and try to avoid damage to Palestinians. But they also provide services like ambulances, food, and education.
And NCSC, we did a lot more city bombing in WWII (everyone did) besides the two big bombs. And those bombs probably saved both civilian and military lives on both sides of the war.
-
And NCSC, we did a lot more city bombing in WWII (everyone did) besides the two big bombs. And those bombs probably saved both civilian and military lives on both sides of the war.
True, but Marine mis-stated as fact we only “accidentally” kill civilians, which flat out is not true.
He uses deliberate civilian deaths to distinguish the US from terrorists, yet we have deliberately killed more civilians than the terrorists ever did.
And even just looking in Iraq… Shock and Awe… how many civies did we kill that night? Bush a few weeks ago admitted to 35,000 Iraqi’s dead. VERY few of those were during the “war” and the terrorists certainly have not killed that many. So, the rest of them are OURS… we did it, dropping bombs, firing machine guns and artillery. We knew civies were there, we fired anyway.
And um… just this thought also…
The terrorists only recently started heavy attacks on civies. For a year, they were aimed at our troops and civilian casualties were an “accident”.
So again, how are the terrorists different from us in THAT regard?
No, I am not saying that WE are terrorists. I am still trying to get Marine to actually DEFINE terrorist, because the methods he is using to identify them so far cut BOTH ways.
-
The actions by the terrorists indicate their narrow view of civilians:
Someone I can trust to actively support “my” side, but without the use of weapons.
-
I meant present times of course. Back in ww2 we didnt have to worry about the commie media freaking out if we killed some enemy civilians.
-
Linkon, i think M36 proves that his view is as narrow.
-
@M36:
I meant present times of course. Back in ww2 we didnt have to worry about the commie media freaking out if we killed some enemy civilians.
And of all the civilians we have killed in Iraq? You negelected to mention those…
Or is 3 years ago ancient history too? -
how do you define terrorist nc?
-
As a sociopath with no regard for life with a minority agenda who trades their life to kill others in order to scare the majority into giving others who share the sociopath’s view a victory of policy/leadership.
-
@ncscswitch:
As a sociopath with no regard for life with a minority agenda who trades their life to kill others in order to scare the majority into giving others who share the sociopath’s view a victory of policy/leadership.
So by your definition, the Nazis were not terrorists because they were the majority in Germany from 1933 to 1945? Also they generally did not like to trade their life. Perhaps the Nazis belong in a different catagory … what would you call them then?
There are many different varieties of evil, I suppose.
Suggested Topics
