Are all soldiers like the Nazis?

[S.A.M.]

I'm sure there are "heated discussions" on Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan too.

For all the good that does when it comes to boots on the ground.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm sure there are "heated discussions" on Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan too.
For all the good that does when it comes to boots on the ground.

Hmm. They're a start, aren't they?
IMO better to have heated discussion and hopefully resolve something (along the lines of "never again" maybe) than to just say "It happened. Forget about it".

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm. They're a start, aren't they?
IMO better to have heated discussion and hopefully resolve something (along the lines of "never again" maybe) than to just say "It happened. Forget about it".

Discussions don't mean much when the underlying philosophy is, we have the right to use force, to impose ourselves violently on them, to invade, occupy, make puppets who will rule them as we wish. They have no right to defend themselves.

In all the discussions you will hear, you will never hear about the right of the victims to defend themselves.

You will never hear a single voice that speaks for them.

Notice how it always has to be a white man speaking on their behalf, presenting what he thinks should be their point of view.

Its become so ridiculous that being of Iraqi/Afghani/Palestinian origin [or even a Muslim of any origin] is considered a bias.

In some cases, even quoting the opinion of some white man is considered as bigotry

 

[Dywyddyr]

Discussions don't mean much when the underlying philosophy is, we have the right to use force, to impose ourselves violently on them, to invade, occupy, make puppets who will rule them as we wish. They have no right to defend themselves.

Pfft again.
The discussion was/ is about the morality of/ necessity for/ reason for doing it.
Is that not questioning the underlying philosophy?

In all the discussions you will hear, you will never hear about the right of the victims to defend themselves.

Oops wrong again.
Not even the "the Germans started it" excuse gets any real air time.

You will never hear a single voice that speaks for them.

Um, that would be WHY the discussions kicked off.

Notice how it always has to be a white man speaking on their behalf, presenting what he thinks should be their point of view.

Er, the discussion I'm talking about was over Dresden. AFAIK the Germans are usually classed as "white men".

Although re: Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan we do have a number of spokesmen that make numerous pointed comments about those, and they're not always English, or white, if you get my meaning...

 

[I Push Wood]

Discussions don't mean much when the underlying philosophy is, we have the right to use force, to impose ourselves violently on them, to invade, occupy, make puppets who will rule them as we wish. They have no right to defend themselves.

In all the discussions you will hear, you will never hear about the right of the victims to defend themselves.

You will never hear a single voice that speaks for them.

Notice how it always has to be a white man speaking on their behalf, presenting what he thinks should be their point of view.

Its become so ridiculous that being of Iraqi/Afghani/Palestinian origin [or even a Muslim of any origin] is considered a bias.

In some cases, even quoting the opinion of some white man is considered as bigotry

I think you assume that because you cannot hear something, that it must not exist. YOU are a voice that speaks for the "victims", however ass-backwards you go about it. And no, it does not always have to be a white man. And of course the "victims" have the right to defend themselves. In fact, they exercise this right quite frequently, they even go on the offensive on occasion. Rights are not real, they are subjective ideas imposed on humanity by humanity itself. It is what you are physically able to do, and what you are not. And those living in Afghanistan have shown time and time again that they are physically capable of shooting back.

 

[sniffy]

It is what you are physically able to do, and what you are not. And those living in Afghanistan have shown time and time again that they are physically capable of shooting back.

One does have to wonder though why the people of Afganistan find it necessary, time and time again, to shoot back...... what is it about Afganistan...?

Could it be that there has been so much interference and invasion by external imperialsitic/resource hungry powers and that this has had a detrimental effect upon Afganistan's ability to concentrate on internal affairs? So much so that processes which might have evolved naturally over a period of decades has been interupted by this almost constant invasion and meddling. It may well be the latter that has left the door open to exploitation by those with agendas which are of no long term benefit to Afganis?

Wasn't so long ago that the 'Taliban' were the 'Mujahadin freedom fighters' repelling the Russian commies who were armed and funded by the US administration at the time.

Short term memories....


And yes SAM many soldiers are like nazis in the sense that yes they do tend to claim 'they were only following orders'..... whatever moral high or low ground you take regarding the following of orders.

The cannon fodder tend to be made up of young, poor and working class people; the officers and commanders from a different set of people. Who issues the orders and who follows them?

Huh?

 

[iceaura]

In all the discussions you will hear, you will never hear about the right of the victims to defend themselves.

You will never hear a single voice that speaks for them.

That's not true, in fact. The lack of apparent influence of such voices is not the same thing as a failure to exist, one one hand. One the other, the large amount of attention given to denying the existence or nature of the victimhood, stepping on those voices, is proof that such denial is absolutely necessary - that if the victim status were ever acknowledged, the consequences would be serious within the culture and among the people currently doing the evil. You are not dealing with depraved people deliberately doing evil, for the most part. They have been conned.


To some extent, not complete but completely unrecognized by you, you are blaming the successfully propagandized for the propaganda. You are blaming victims. And they don't like it.

For example: How much allowance do you expect, from the outsider, for the context of the butchery and oppression of women among the Islamic poor? That is their culture, what they grew up with, the unfortunate aspects of a working and complete and in some respects necessary way of life, a way of life pursued by good people, kind people, warm and happy people - good, kind, warm, and happy as a consequence of the benefits of that way of life, right?

The lack of a voice for the victims is quite obvious, to the outsiders.

Discussions don't mean much when the underlying philosophy is, we have the right to use force, to impose ourselves violently on them, to invade, occupy, make puppets who will rule them as we wish. They have no right to defend themselves.

The situations have two major differences: the first is power. The Western propagandized have the power to impose the consequences of their delusions beyond the borders of their own little world. The second is power: the Western propagandized have the power to acquire better information, more knowledge, a wider field of view; they have more resources with which to oppose the propaganda, as individuals and as group. Further: Their cooperation is not enforced with such dire threats, their rebellion would not involve such extreme risk and sacrifice. They have it easy.

And, as those speaking in moral judgment can rightfully say, with greater power comes greater moral responsibility. Captains go down with ships, even, in the final crisis, in systems of great integrity.

But there is no gain in confusing the moral judgment with the power evaluations. The victims are not victims because they are morally superior themselves, the perps are not morally inferior because they have power.

 

[GeoffP]

can i see some evidence of white phosphorus /flechette use by germans?

ok.

incendiary bombs were used extensively by the german, british and us air forces against civilian populations and targets of military significance in civilian areas (london, hamburg, dresden, area bombing etc). Late in the war, some of these bombs used white phosphorus (about 1-200 grams) in place of magnesium as the igniter for their flammable mixtures. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians was banned (by signatory countries) in the 1980 convention on certain conventional weapons protocol iii. The usa signed protocols i and ii on march 24, 1995 (and the amended article ii on may 24, 1999) and later protocols iii, iv, and v, on january 21, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/white_phosphorus#world_war_i_and_ii

 

[iceaura]

I'm always surprised when people are "shocked, shocked" at veterans going nuts and doing what they were trained to do to their own civlians. Its like training a dog to attack and then being surprised when he has your kid by the throat

Since dogs have a moral nature that's a usable comparison - and yes, it is very surprising and unusual when a dog trained to attack breaks its training so flagrantly. Dogs that take their own people by the throat are dogs that have not been trained at all, usually - either they haven't been raised to know right from wrong, or they have been betrayed somehow, or they are mentally ill.

Mental illness in dogs, as in people, can be from abuse, or disease, or genetic flaw - among Scottish border collies, as among people, the genetics of unusual and creative intelligence are often associated with crazy: the bloodlines of the best collies include dogs that "snapped", just went out one night and killed as many sheep as they could catch.

Adhering to morality against the backdrop of killing is a strange kind of cognitive dissonance.

Not at all. It's when a solid moral foundation is most crucial.

Do you think the victims appreciate this moral high ground? I should ask one of the holocaust survivors if they would prefer being morally killed by a missile rather than immorally gassed

You should. And listen to the answer.

IIRC, the nazis decided waterboarding was too inhumane and they did not use nuclear bombs, flechettes and DIME or white phosphorus.

You confuse capability with morality, once again.

I deliberately used the word Nazi because it is somehow implied that German soldiers were "different". My point is, they were just like any other soldiers.

The ordinary German soldiers were. The NAZIs in command, and their specialty trained elite corps, were not.

Washington was clearly a Nazi. He burned down the Iroqouis villages because they would not accept his divine right to impose his rule over them.

That kind of a sendup, or displayed ignorance, whichever it is, casts doubt on all your evaluations - tip: desist from employing examples of which you are ignorant, starting with anything involving American Indians, and including anything involving the technicalities or history of weaponry, such as this folly on stilts:

I asked because I too have come across thermite and had not found any evidence of white phosphorus or flechette use when comparing the Allied and German weapon use. [Did the Germans use poison gas as the British did?] I wondered if the Germans considered themselves too "civilised" for such weapons [they too had delusions of grandeur]

- - - - -

The fact that you need a warrant from a judge to drag out women and children from their own homes is as valid an argument as the Germans allowing the Vichy government to round up French Jews.

Unless you think the French participation in the incarceration and murder of their own civilians excuses the actions of the Germans. Do you?
”
You're welcome to research the bullshit you're spewing at any point in this conversation.

That wasn't bullshit, rick. The moral situation of the US soldier in Iraq is pretty "difficult", to put it mildly.

So did your local news say that the taliban wasn't responsible for invading america and american airspace and killing thousands in a matter of hours?

Mine did. Everybody's local news says that, unless they are lying.

We will do this until there are no more bombings in the US, Europe and Pakistan.

The West will not tolerate any Islamist threat.

Then you are committing the US to a worldwide campaign of genocide, including the carpet bombing of Pakistan's major cities (to save them from the terrorists). You will not be absolutely safe from all "threat" until all possible threateners are dead - how do you propose to arrange that?

 

[RickyH]

I guess thats proof of how stupid soldiers can be.

Really? But you know so much more? Because avoiding questions doesn't warrent endless knowledge.
Do you still think I am justifying the war, or soldiers actions that should be charged as criminal?

Why wasn't the taliban responsible for 9/11 then? Well no, don't tell me unless it's a fact.


For the record WP was used in the WOT against the al queda and the taliban. The method was called shake and bake by many cannoneers. 3 rounds HE, 3 rounds WP2. WP1 and WP2 can be used as a cover as illumination and continous smoke also. If it so happens to kill people they didn't see before hand, then that's another matter. I disagree with that myself. But then again, that's why I didn't go artillary.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Then you are committing the US to a worldwide campaign of genocide, including the carpet bombing of Pakistan's major cities (to save them from the terrorists). You will not be absolutely safe from all "threat" until all possible threateners are dead - how do you propose to arrange that?

Why a worldwide campaign of genocide? Are you suggesting that all muslims are terrorists and warrant a genocide? :bugeye:

There are ways to address islamic extremism without engaging in a full blown war. The West is not going to put up with an ongoing bombings in their cities. Or maybe you suggest that the West shouldn't address it at all? Been overseas via air-flight lately? Ever know a foreigner who tried to get a US tourist visa in the past few years? Islamic extremism has changed everything. I'm in Cambodia right now and though they have only a small muslim minority the government has discouraged any financing of mosques or charitable organizations from muslim countries. Wonder why

As for Pakistan they are fighting this themselves with guidance from the US.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

All warlords are Nazis? They are all racists who see extermination of other races as not simply ethical but de rigeur? Were Native American war leaders Nazis?
Was George Washington?

Its her equation Doreen. 'ALL soldiers are nazis' remember? In this kind of reasoning George Washington and the Cherokees and yes Mohammed also are all nazi's.

Mohammed did have this habit of taking his marauding followers and threatening people with conversion, second class status or death. So yeah he too was a nazi.

 

[RickyH]

That wasn't bullshit, rick. The moral situation of the US soldier in Iraq is pretty "difficult", to put it mildly.
Mine did. Everybody's local news says that, unless they are lying.

You honestly don't know what the moral situation of a deployed soldier is because you haven't deployed. I would know just as well as any soldier right now. Believe me. I'd love to be home right now.

But it has nothing to do with our mission in Iraq. We are a police force in Iraq. Our soldiers only leave for specific missions or presence patrols. The specific missions are what the iraqi government needs help with so to say.


Presence patrols are a common thing, to help keep us from getting mortared. We are supposed to treat iraqis with respect. If an Iraqi shoots at us, and runs into a crowd and we lose positive i.d. we cannot engage or chase the man. We have to file a warrent, and hope it's signed by the judge.

So, yes what she said is bullshit. What you're saying has nothing to do with what's going on. Unless I didn't understand your post. Please clarify if I did.


Mind showing me when the new reports stopped saying the taliban weren't responsible for 9/11 and if they did, who did they say is claiming responsibility or they believe to be

 

[I Push Wood]

One does have to wonder though why the people of Afganistan find it necessary, time and time again, to shoot back...... what is it about Afganistan...?

Wasn't so long ago that the 'Taliban' were the 'Mujahadin freedom fighters' repelling the Russian commies who were armed and funded by the US administration at the time.

Short term memories....

One DOESN'T have to wonder though, I'm coping just fine without wondering... Maybe I base my thoughts on empirical knowledge too much, but nowhere did I say I care why they are capable of shooting back, I simply said that they do.

Also, since I wasn't alive when the Taliban were the 'Mujahadin freedom fighters', it's not a matter of short term memory, rather no recollection at all.

 

[iceaura]

But it has nothing to do with our mission in Iraq. We are a police force in Iraq.

You are a military occupation. If you were a police force you would be accountable to Iraqi law.

There is a reason the US government is forbidden from employing the military, which by training and mission is devoted to destroying order and breaking law, as police in the US.

Mind showing me when the new reports stopped saying the taliban weren't responsible for 9/11 and if they did, who did they say is claiming responsibility or they believe to be

Most reports I have heard named Al Qaida, an international terrorist organization, as responsible for 9/11. Some responsibility is occasionally ascribed to the financing and manpower provisioning by Saudi Arabia. Those who focus on pilot training and the like implicate Pakistan (some of the finance, also). Some fringe or less sober reports have put responsibility on Israel, or even the US government. No reports I have ever heard, outside of wartime agitprop among the sillier US drumbeaters, ascribe responsibility to the Taliban.

 

[sniffy]

One DOESN'T have to wonder though, I'm coping just fine without wondering... Maybe I base my thoughts on empirical knowledge too much, but nowhere did I say I care why they are capable of shooting back, I simply said that they do.

Also, since I wasn't alive when the Taliban were the 'Mujahadin freedom fighters', it's not a matter of short term memory, rather no recollection at all.

Why am I not surprised that you are incapable of 'wondering'?

I wasn't alive in World War II but that doesn't stop me having an interest in it.. and finding out more about it aside from what appears at first to be obvious. Not that I care you understand but that I know there are usually at least two sides to any war story...

Btw I was referring to 'collective' short term memory not necessarily your own but you let your ego do the talking for you and that's just fine. You see empirical knowledge from the past is empirical knowledge. Evidence. Sometimes evidence is a little disconcerting to those who don't like to face it. Funny that? I don't just accept what I'm spoon feed even though in the long run some of it may actually turn out to be true.

Anyway:

Supposing I and my army invaded the USA. Should I be surprised that the natives fire back 'time and time' again? Should I care? Hmm maybe...

 

[RickyH]

You are a military occupation. If you were a police force you would be accountable to Iraqi law.

There is a reason the US government is forbidden from employing the military, which by training and mission is devoted to destroying order and breaking law, as police in the US.

Most reports I have heard named Al Qaida, an international terrorist organization, as responsible for 9/11. Some responsibility is occasionally ascribed to the financing and manpower provisioning by Saudi Arabia. Those who focus on pilot training and the like implicate Pakistan (some of the finance, also). Some fringe or less sober reports have put responsibility on Israel, or even the US government. No reports I have ever heard, outside of wartime agitprop among the sillier US drumbeaters, ascribe responsibility to the Taliban.

The new mission in iraq is to hand over power to the iraqi officials. In term we have to follow the iraqi laws, and enforce them. We have to do everything from follow the speed limit, to handing over detainees to the IPs. We can be pulled over by Iraqi police if you believe it.

https://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/CGs_Messages/security_agreement.pdf



Let me see these reports.

 

[Gustav]

incredible

 

[mike47]

Its her equation Doreen. 'ALL soldiers are Nazis' remember? In this kind of reasoning George Washington and the Cherokees and yes Mohammed also are all Nazis.

Mohammed did have this habit of taking his marauding followers and threatening people with conversion, second class status or death. So yeah he too was a nazi.

Did you forget G.W. Bush and his twin in deception Tony Blair ?!.

 

[TSchmee]

Sam, it's obvious that you're not going to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. It's pointless to continue the discussion.

Godwin's Law: As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Godwin's Corollary: Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.