Nelson Mandela
-
Nicely spoken from a non-citizen. Don't really care about your viewpoints on 2nd amendment.
I don't care about your viewpoints on anything, really, but I'm not going to stop you posting them.
I don't care about your viewpoints on anything, really, but I'm not going to stop you posting them.
Well, you don't have the power to stop anything I post do you? And whether you care about my viewpoints or not I could give a rats ass, so to speak. And by the way, fuck the Queen.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Oh man. We got a Badass over hear
-
Back to your point Osiris, I agree with you. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Still I don't necessarily agree with likening him to Arafat but not bin Laden. It's not that I disagree with the Arafat reference but I can understand how a certain group of people might think Osama bin Laden was a hero. I wonder how the British feel about George Washington. Or the southerners about Abraham Lincoln. We all like to pretend that our guys are the good guys and it when they go to war it's clean and above board. But we all know that's bullshit. War is disgusting brutal nasty and just chock full of rape pillage and plunder torture, all that good shit from both sides. But I freely admit my hypocrisy and root for my circle of guys. One of the overused catch phrases in the media is lustung whatever atrocities a dictator commits and then add, against his own people! How many of Lincoln's own people did he kill? Washington?
But Nelson Mandela is a hero or because he murdered white people. There are plenty of African nations a lot shittier than South Africa but their dictators and victims are black so nobody gives a shit.
WSS
Back to your point Osiris, I agree with you. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Still I don't necessarily agree with likening him to Arafat but not bin Laden. It's not that I disagree with the Arafat reference but I can understand how a certain group of people might think Osama bin Laden was a hero.
I'm sure some think of bin Laden as a hero too, but the scope of people who do is much narrower than for Mandela. No foreign dignitaries are flocking to bin Laden's grave to celebrate his life, and no American soccer moms are sighing and saying its too bad about bin Laden. So that's what I mean when I say they aren't comparable.
I wonder how the British feel about George Washington. Or the southerners about Abraham Lincoln. We all like to pretend that our guys are the good guys and it when they go to war it's clean and above board. But we all know that's bullshit. War is disgusting brutal nasty and just chock full of rape pillage and plunder torture, all that good shit from both sides. But I freely admit my hypocrisy and root for my circle of guys.
Yes, with you on that 100%, war sucks and all this 'war glory' crap and acting like one side is more noble than the other is BS. That's the hard lesson wide-eyed recruits learn when they go to war, I imagine.
-
Of course Nelson Mandela and Arafat had a lot better press agents than Osama bin Laden...
WSS
-
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:20 AM"Nelson Mandelais a leader whoBarackObamashould try to emulate.""He could start by spending 27 years in prison."Don Imus
-
I didn't realize anyone gave a shit what Don Imus said
-
Did you realize he had a nationally aired radio show? Not that you should give a shit or not just wondering how much you realize.I didn't realize anyone gave a shit what Don Imus said
Edit: even though I don't listen to the show he has 2.25 million listeners per week.
WSS
-
Well, you don't have the power to stop anything I post do you? And whether you care about my viewpoints or not I could give a rats ass, so to speak. And by the way, fuck the Queen.
Zing, you found my one weakness...
"Nelson Mandela is a leader who Barack Obama should try to emulate."
"He could start by spending 27 years in prison."Love it!
Back to your point Osiris, I agree with you. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Still I don't necessarily agree with likening him to Arafat but not bin Laden. It's not that I disagree with the Arafat reference but I can understand how a certain group of people might think Osama bin Laden was a hero. I wonder how the British feel about George Washington.
The British generally don't care about George Washington, FWIW.
-
NO, no, no.
Terrorists are not oppressed. They are just fine, except they demand
that things be changed to be their way. It isn't a lack of freedom, or tyranny.
They want themselves, and their ideology to be supreme. And the way they try
to implement it, is via extreme, horrific violence, to force everyone to be oppressed
by their ideology.
A true freedom fighter, is the one who is oppressed by an ideolgoy - being denied his
freedom, his safety, his rights to life in peace and safety and freedom.
Terrorists don't want freedom, they actually want slavery, and they want themselves
and the rest of their ilk, to be the slave masters.
Freedom fighters never want to be oppressors - that's what they are fighting against.
One man's "cute" turnabout saying, is another mans really stupid crap he heard.
A freedom fighter is the opposite of a terrorist. Someone who fights/shoots in self-defense
against armed violence is the opposite of someone who initiates the armed aggression.
This all started with liberals in schools trying to convince students that they shouldn't believe
in anything but what they are told in class, because words can be redefined to twist reality
and common sense into confusion and garbage.
Critical thinking, that's my critical thinking lecture for December. It's my birthday present to myself. GGG
-
Is today your birthday? Well break out the root beer! But I don't agree with you with your separation of the definitions. Terrorism in itself is merely a tactic which includes targeting innocent people to, well, terrorize the opposition. It doesn't necessarily mean that your cause wouldn't be seen as just by many people it is a means to an end. Most terrorists that we can think of today use the banner of justice freedom blah blah blah to justify their acts of violence. If Arafat kills innocent peoplein the guise of freedom for the Palestinians then some will consider him a freedom fighter.
WSS
-
And Chris, I wouldn't expect you to care about George Washington today. It's tough to get worked up over 18th century politics. I kind of meant at the time. How do the English feel about the struggles in Ireland these days? It seems that has exited the front page for quite a while.
WSS
-
Is today your birthday? Well break out the root beer! But I don't agree with you with your separation of the definitions. Terrorism in itself is merely a tactic which includes targeting innocent people to, well, terrorize the opposition. It doesn't necessarily mean that your cause wouldn't be seen as just by many people it is a means to an end. Most terrorists that we can think of today use the banner of justice freedom blah blah blah to justify their acts of violence. If Arafat kills innocent peoplein the guise of freedom for the Palestinians then some will consider him a freedom fighter.
WSS********************************************
Not really, it's the 18th. I understand what you're saying, but freeedom fighters don't target innocent people
as a tactic. Never.
Sure, folks of the same, sick and twisted ideology, support terrorism. I'm sure they probably want some justification
for carrying out their hideous, unwarranted violence.
But I disagree that you are correct about disagreeing with me.... Some extremely hateful Arabic people think
of Israelis as not human. The nazis did the same thing. That they thought that doesn't change the definitions of
words, to infer that they were correct in any way. Freedom fighters fight against tyrants, ...terrorists fight
against the helpless and innocent.
-
Well let's make the nazis our example, everybody hates them and they are universal e known as the worlds bad guys.
Do you believe we firebombed Dresden because we truly believed it was a military target? Do you believe that the British bombed residential neighborhoods in order to eliminate the workers at German defense plants? Do you think General Sherman contained his reign of terror to military targets only?
You I think that the revolutionary war rebels abstained from killing civilians for no other reason than being loyal to the crown?
Its one thing to claim all is fair in love and war but quite another to deny that both sides have bloody hands.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
So let me ask this. Do you believe Nelson Mandela's cause was justified?
And do you think he targeted innocent people?
WSS
-
I know little of that history....was just going on Mandela's reputation in his later years.
Beats me.
But you are talking about collateral damage. Let's talk about Hiroshima. That wasn't
civilian deaths terrorism.
That was all out self defense to stop the hideous terrorism against Pearl Harbor and
our people and all those soldiers.
The war against the nazis was all in the world's self-defense against terror and oppression.
Unwarranted hideous violence reaps warranted violence, even if it has to be hideous.
A terrorist murders innocent people on purpose. A freedom fighter kills terrorists, sometimes
with collateral damage, deaths to civilians, regrettably.
To freedom fighters, there is no point to unwarranted killing. That's murder. They are the oppressed.
To terrorists, unwarranted murders are the whole idea for power and rise of their twisted ideology.
-
I know little of that history....was just going on Mandela's reputation in his later years.
Beats me.
But you are talking about collateral damage. Let's talk about Hiroshima. That wasn't
civilian deaths terrorism.
That was all out self defense to stop the hideous terrorism against Pearl Harbor and
our people and all those soldiers.
The war against the nazis was all in the world's self-defense against terror and oppression.
Unwarranted hideous violence reaps warranted violence, even if it has to be hideous.
A terrorist murders innocent people on purpose. A freedom fighter kills terrorists, sometimes
with collateral damage, deaths to civilians, regrettably.
To freedom fighters, there is no point to unwarranted killing. That's murder. They are the oppressed.
To terrorists, unwarranted murders are the whole idea for power and rise of their twisted ideology.
I know little of that history....was just going on Mandela's reputation in his later years.
Beats me.
But you are talking about collateral damage. Let's talk about Hiroshima. That wasn't
civilian deaths terrorism.
That was all out self defense to stop the hideous terrorism against Pearl Harbor and
our people and all those soldiers.
The war against the nazis was all in the world's self-defense against terror and oppression.
Unwarranted hideous violence reaps warranted violence, even if it has to be hideous.
A terrorist murders innocent people on purpose. A freedom fighter kills terrorists, sometimes
with collateral damage, deaths to civilians, regrettably.
To freedom fighters, there is no point to unwarranted killing. That's murder. They are the oppressed.
To terrorists, unwarranted murders are the whole idea for power and rise of their twisted ideology.
To play devil's advocate a bit here - because I agree with you in general but not on this point - you can't drop an atomic bomb on a city and unintentionally kill innocent people. It's not a discriminate weapon, you can't just target military sites. And on top of that, you do something like that, you're basically saying "stop what you're doing or we'll kill all of you" - one could make an argument that that's terrorism, scaring people in to submission.
-
Lest we forget exactly why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor... Japan was in the midst of a war with China and the United States actively came in to that conflict on the side of China. We helped the Chinese with the blockade. Japan, probably correctly, assumed we were looking for a reason to after the battle in full stride and would soon.
in the minds of the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike. Just saying.
WSS
-
Well let's make the nazis our example, everybody hates them and they are universal e known as the worlds bad guys.
Do you believe we firebombed Dresden because we truly believed it was a military target? Do you believe that the British bombed residential neighborhoods in order to eliminate the workers at German defense plants? Do you think General Sherman contained his reign of terror to military targets only?
You I think that the revolutionary war rebels abstained from killing civilians for no other reason than being loyal to the crown?
Its one thing to claim all is fair in love and war but quite another to deny that both sides have bloody hands.
WSS
Do you think General Sherman contained his reign of terror to military targets only?
Yes, Sherman targeted "civilian resources" in the Savannah Campaign foreshadowing the "total war" approach that would become fashionable in the 20th century. Not the nicest way to be ahead of your time but there it is, American's have always been innovators.
Grant's orginal plan had called for a massive (read "biggest ever") cavalry incursion into the deep south to destroy the same resources. It was going to happen one way or another, the South could not stop it and may even be grateful that Sherman exercised some restraint. A massive calvary raid would have been too fast-moving and wide-ranging to exercise that same level of restraint, and might be why Grant decided against it ultimately.
Reign of terror is just a poor comparison though. You might be aware that the original "reign of terror" (where we get the name today, also simply known as "the terror") actually happened in France and was accompanied by about 35,000 executions through guillotine and firing squads alone. Nothing Sherman ever did comes close to that and you my friend are doing the good General a serious disservice with the comparision. I get your point, sure, however you have no evidence of any reign of terror on his part, no matter how many southern legends say otherwise.
Talk like the following is nonsense: The troops, she said, had been commanded by a man "more evil than Ivan the Terrible or Genghis Khan." Pure hyperbole. If that were true he would have tortured their southern accents out of them...if any survived. Genghis would burn your city and kill everyone just to make a point, it's on record.
That said, bonus points for using "reign" correctly. Many folks just type whatever works (rain, rein, reign). And yes, bloody hands were everywhere during the US Civil War....then we took what we learned and went after the Natives...
-
I don't think you measure the brutality scale on numbers alone. Sherman certainly didn't butcher as many people as Khan but those he did probably weren't thinking they got off easy.
My point, however, is that terrorism is killing innocent people whether it be 10 in a cafe or 3000 in an office building or 500 in a civilian neighborhood or...
WSS
-
I don't think you measure the brutality scale on numbers alone. Sherman certainly didn't butcher as many people as Khan but those he did probably weren't thinking they got off easy.
My point, however, is that terrorism is killing innocent people whether it be 10 in a cafe or 3000 in an office building or 500 in a civilian neighborhood or...
WSS
I don't think you measure the brutality scale on numbers alone. Sherman certainly didn't butcher as many people as Khan but those he did probably weren't thinking they got off easy.
My point, however, is that terrorism is killing innocent people whether it be 10 in a cafe or 3000 in an office building or 500 in a civilian neighborhood or...
WSS
Here's some butchery for you.
It's curious that someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest never makes anyone's list, while Sherman is painted as a ghoul. Perhaps you've heard of Forrest's butchering prisoners and civilians at Fort Pillow, "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history" says Military Historian David Eicher. Historian Andrew Ward reached the conclusion that an atrocity in the modern sense occurred at Fort Pillow, including the murders of fleeing black civilians. THAT is butchering people under a military flag. Sherman was a General, Forrest, once a General, became a butcher at Fort Pillow.
More butchery in this next example. Ever heard of the Moro Massacre? Mark Twain did, here is what he thought about it.
Again, granted, Sherman butchered natives, lots of them, his real acts of terrorism, which are never discussed, because then we would have to feel bad for the natives, and we can't do that in the US because, after all, the natives have a legitimate claim to the land here. The southerners, on the other hand, lined up to fight and die for their country and took the first shots at Fort Sumpter. Sherman merely outgeneraled them and obliged them.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login