Murdering b@$+@&ds...

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
On the Hitler issue, I was merely stating that many of the reforms instituted in the early years of Hitler's rule were considered popular by the German people. There was nothing obviously sinister about improved working conditions, more jobs and a revitalised economy. What he did later, of course, was utterly inhuman.

ANd you weren't trying at all to smear Bush with the Hitler brush? Not even a teensy bit? Then why mention the Little Corporal at all?

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by ComaBoy
One comment:

In my opinion, a professional military does not indiscriminately fire missiles into buildings possibly containing civilians. All it proves is that Israelis who advocate such violence are better organized and equipped than the Palestinians who likewise advocate violence.

I see little moral difference.

Who said anything about it being indiscriminate? You'll note that when the Israeli's do such a strike, they generally get the terrorist leader they were after. And instead of dancing in the streets when bystanders are killed in the process, they appologize, and do what they can for the wounded. If you can see little moral difference, you might want to get your eyes checked.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Was Mein Kampf published en masse prior to his coming to power? I can't recall. Also, I strongly doubt it mentioned gassing millions of Jews, just making them less of a force in the country (and if you don't think that view could happen, take a look at general opinion about immigrant workers in Britain).

Although it was publically available since the mid 20's it was actually no bestseller - it was not that all Germans owned one at that time. And mind you, that ordinary workers certainly had the time to read philosophical stuff ( how much crap it may be ) in their low freetime. However Hitlers plans were known, but he was simply underestimated. Those who brought him into power ( no not the electing people ), the industrial leaders and head of government, i.e. President Hindenburg and Mr. von Papen had the plan to use him until the present economical situation was overcome. Papen said: "Let's squeeze him till he queaks." which was what they planned, but never were able to do.
Concerning the resistance thing, it was not that Hitler had the majority in government, his power was only secured by the Enabling Act ( and similiar laws ). however if not the SPD had voted for him, his possibilites would have been restricted far more. But the SPd people werre intimidated by the SA, who treahtened them.
Morally and logically speaking, one has to agree, those who do not oppose deserve the consequences. But the problem is, that humans are no solely logic people, and the feeling of fear and the instinct of self-preservance is very strong. Additionally humans are 'herd-animals'.
It is the same effect how all watch the car accidant, but few dare to intervene and help. It is psychologically proven, that people have the feeling not to stick out of the mass out of fear of the consequences. It is the same in larger scale.
What if I say, the government is bad - I am an outsider than? While not neccessarily the actual thoughts, people have the instinct to stay in the group - its simply safer.
Maybe a more intense ethnical education could oppose that adn strengthen the feel of duty for intervention in larger issues, like a wrong government.


BTW: Hitler stated in his book about Germans superiority, the destruction of other people and how to end the 'Jew-Problem'. It was more or less publically known what would happen if he comes into power.

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos

Lets take the example of Eastern Europe. There was Soviet misinformation, but so what? Its not as if no one why there wasn't enough food in the stores and where political prisoners were disposed of. But the people of Poland, Slovakia, Romanian, etc... rose up and overthrew the communists and in some cases killed them.

Part of living in states is that the civilians under it are responsible for their government. If their afraid for their lives or are too old to stand up then that is THEIR problem. I mean that. My father was one of the organizers of Solidarnosc in Poland, he damn knew what was going to happen if the Soviets clamped down. Fact is he continued. My grandfather fought in the resistance during WW2, people do stand up against inavders and dictators.

People can also resist in non-lethal methods. I don't understand this, First of Two specifically mentioned this in his posts. Say the Palestinians don't want Arafat no more, then organize a new group

As you said, there is always the possibility of non-violence. The GDR dissovled peacefully without one shot ever fired - thanks to the deeds of Mr. Gorbatshev. The question is is it desirable to kill people to achieve peace.
And mind you, that if you stick the scale to high, there is no human left
You cannot regard heroes as the standard-scale. And actually the Palastinians form into groups against Arafat - although only rarely shown in the public. There are demonstrations against the attacks and also Israeli's protest against Israel politics. But it takes courage and hope, which many do not have, to stand up and resist. Because if there's no hope left, there is no motivation, but apathy.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
ANd you weren't trying at all to smear Bush with the Hitler brush? Not even a teensy bit? Then why mention the Little Corporal at all?

We have a saying here in Germany: "Hit dogs do bark."

Assuming something like this, raises the question, fi you do not actually think so yourself. Maybe you should not expect an insult where none is.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Posted by Capt.Hunter:

Cybrludite, read my post again - I was talking about the people who would oppose Arafat not having any weapons - do you honestly think he gives those shipments of guns to people who don't agree with him?

They can buy them from Israeli arms dealers. Get money from U.S. sources, from Turkey or from Israel. Its not impossible, just difficult, but then life is complicated.

Posted by Evan Van Eyk:

As you said, there is always the possibility of non-violence. The GDR dissovled peacefully without one shot ever fired - thanks to the deeds of Mr. Gorbatshev. The question is is it desirable to kill people to achieve peace.
You cannot regard heroes as the standard-scale. And actually the Palastinians form into groups against Arafat - although only rarely shown in the public. There are demonstrations against the attacks and also Israeli's protest against Israel politics. But it takes courage and hope, which many do not have, to stand up and resist. Because if there's no hope left, there is no motivation, but apathy.

Absolutely true.

Heroes are rare indeed. But even the simplest person can rise up to the occassion, its just a matter of being pushed so far against a wall that one has no choice.
I still don't believe it has reached that point in Palestine. IMO the silent majority is still content enough not to do anything about Arafat.
I also believe that the Palestinians and the Cubans have a similar situation. Both leaders are old and will keel over soon, many may think that waiting is a better option.

[marty4286]

How can he not be an extreme-right wing idiot? He gave asylum to Marcos and praised his "democratic ideals". He supported Marcos because he was afraid that anyone else would be "too soft on communism". He armed and funded him.

Marcos had no democratic ideals, his country was brutally repressed. When he announced martial law, thousands of opposition leaders and intellectuals were imprisoned and tortured. Sure he was tough on communism on the outside, but his brutality was the reason communism even rose up in the Philippines. The Huks were long dead, and his "crusade" was a sham to distract everyone. People started sympathizing with the few people who were truly communist just to spite him. The NPA, New People's Army, which numbered only 20 or so radical students at the start of his 20 year reign ended up being a 40,000 strong guerilla fighting force, poised to capture Manila. And what makes it worse, is that he wasn't a very good capitalist either. He practiced crony-capitalism, where black-mail and threats landed him and his buddies control of 90% of the nation's business.

He had this control for so long because people were afraid of his soldiers. Guess who trained and armed the soldiers? The United States. In the end, it was Reagan supporting Marcos to the end (Bush Sr. even toasted him for making the Philippines the beacon of hope an freedom in asia...)

You say people make ignorant and stupid statements. You've just made one.

*cough*

Who said anything about it being indiscriminate? You'll note that when the Israeli's do such a strike, they generally get the terrorist leader they were after. And instead of dancing in the streets when bystanders are killed in the process, they appologize, and do what they can for the wounded. If you can see little moral difference, you might want to get your eyes checked.

Oh my... I remember seeing footage of Israelis shelling a TV news building. It had the viewpoint of the people outside shelling and the inside being shelled. It seemed to me all a big misunderstanding, the journalists inside trying hard to keep showing the world what was happening to them without getting killed, and the Israeli soldiers outside truly believing they were doing something right. I also don't remember any apology.

They can buy them from Israeli arms dealers. Get money from U.S. sources, from Turkey or from Israel. Its not impossible, just difficult, but then life is complicated.

You act as if its just an easy soloution. "Those pussies won't stand up for the right thing, why don't they just get these weapons and fight!"

Reagan was many things... But he was not an idiot. Just remember as you sit in front of your computer that the current crop of computer technology is an outgrowth of his SDI plan...

Whee! I love speculation! Did you know there were computers BEFORE his SDI plan?

Lets take the example of Eastern Europe. There was Soviet misinformation, but so what? Its not as if no one knew why there wasn't enough food in the stores and where political prisoners were disposed of. People are not dumb sheep. There are informal ties people share where information is dispersed. The people of Poland, Slovakia, Romanian, etc... rose up and overthrew the communists and in some cases killed them.

Remember the story about my mom participating in a peaceful revoloution (which occured a few months before anything similar happened in Eastern Europe, and a couple of years before Tiananmen Square)? She rose up all right, but she didn't pass judgement on the people who were afraid to do anything about it.

No civillians were killed during those few days of the revoloution, but just a little bit before, during the fake elections, a lot were being killed. Gunmen would visit voting precincts, watch who you voted for, and either bribed you or shot you. Even though the outcome was fixed, there was brutality in the voting process. How could you not be paralyzed by fear? Although I can imagine some young reactionary sitting on his ass in the Philippines somewhere right now posting on a message board about how the people who were living in fear at the time were "pussies" that deserved to live that way.

You could call me stupid or ignorant for calling Reagan an idiot, but I actually have facts to back it up, not blind party ideology (Damn, that marty must be a pinko commie f*g/n****r lover!) or speculation (WITHOUT SDI THERE WOULD BE NO INTERNET! HE WAS BRILLIANT EVEN WITH ALZHEIMERS!)

Let me quote from a book Bush Dyslexicon, by Mark Crispin Miller (which is not a collection of out-of-context quotations and political satire which the title implies)

The next chief executive to put on the impenetrable mantle was Ronald Reagan, our Teflon President, who never once appeared to peek out from behind his happy mask. The camera failed to glorify him only at tose moments when it mercilessly showed that there was no one there (because of Alzheimer's, perhaps), his ruddy and anachronistic visage standing empty, like an old brick high school soon to be converted to loft apartments. This happened at his first debate with Walter Mondale-"I'm all confused now"-and again when, having been asked out at his ranch what was being done to free the hostages in Lebanon, he just stood there, beaming vacantly, with Nancy tensed up next to him. "We're doing everything we can," she muttered at the ground through gritted teeth, and he, uncomprehendingly, repeated it, still smiling.

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by marty4286
A lot of people's one sided (and sometimes outright racist) views disgust me.

Originally posted by marty4286
How can he [Reagan] not be an extreme-right wing idiot?

Question: Are you allowed to have one-sided views?

You condemn others for "not having studied the issues enough". Yet it is ok for you to call Reagan an idiot.

What study is that idiocy based on? Beyond a disagreement with his politics. It would be possible, for example, for me to disagree with everything Bill Clinton stood for yet still see him as intelligent.

Heck, I disagree with some of what Reagan did, including with regard to Marcos. But the broad-brush being used could easily be applied to others of opposing political views for similar reasons.

How could Jimmy Carter not be an extreme left-wing IDIOT, for giving sanctuary to a dictator like the Shah of Iran.

How could JFK not be an exteme left-wing [b]IDIOT[/b, for launching the Bay of Pigs invasion?

Every president has made decisions which history reveals as poor, foolish, and even unprincipled.


I'd really like to be able to disagree with people without being disagreeable. Sometimes things get a little heated here in the political debates here. If you look enough I'm certain you'll find statements I regret saying. But I always try to be objective, considerate, and have some understanding of other viewpoints, especially those I disagree with (how better to debate them) - and every once in a while a "pinko left-wing commie" has made a compelling enough case to sway my opinion to their side. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. But they use far more compelling arguments than broad brushes like the ones being used here.

[marty4286]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
[B]Question: Are you allowed to have one-sided views?

You condemn others for "not having studied the issues enough". Yet it is ok for you to call Reagan an idiot.

What study is that idiocy based on? Beyond a disagreement with his politics. It would be possible, for example, for me to disagree with everything Bill Clinton stood for yet still see him as intelligent.

Heck, I disagree with some of what Reagan did, including with regard to Marcos. But the broad-brush being used could easily be applied to others of opposing political views for similar reasons.

How could Jimmy Carter not be an extreme left-wing IDIOT, for giving sanctuary to a dictator like the Shah of Iran.

How could JFK not be an exteme left-wing IDIOT[/b, for launching the Bay of Pigs invasion?

Every president has made decisions which history reveals as poor, foolish, and even unprincipled.


I'd really like to be able to disagree with people without being disagreeable. Sometimes things get a little heated here in the political debates here. If you look enough I'm certain you'll find statements I regret saying. But I always try to be objective, considerate, and have some understanding of other viewpoints, especially those I disagree with (how better to debate them) - and every once in a while a "pinko left-wing commie" has made a compelling enough case to sway my opinion to their side. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. But they use far more compelling arguments than broad brushes like the ones being used here.

I don't have a one sided view about Reagan, I've studied as much of the things he has done. I DO think that Carter did idiotic things during his term as president, and that JFK was very much overrated. I don't have a double standard, I don't care what party someone is or what ideology they cling to, if I think someone is stupid, I try study that person to make sure I'm correct in my view. If I find out he wasn't stupid after all, I change my mind.

Well, at least you're reading my posts, I notice a couple of people seem to read to the middle then say something that has nothing to do with whatever was said.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Posted by marty4286

You act as if its just an easy soloution. "Those pussies won't stand up for the right thing, why don't they just get these weapons and fight!"

Don't put word into my mouth. I didn't say they were pussies, you did. And I never said it was easy. LOOK at the quote. I said its not impossible, just difficult. Chalk up another dumb comment.

Posted by marty4286:

You could call me stupid or ignorant for calling Reagan an idiot, but I actually have facts to back it up, not blind party ideology or speculation (WITHOUT SDI THERE WOULD BE NO INTERNET! HE WAS BRILLIANT EVEN WITH ALZHEIMERS!)

I could, but I'll refrain from that.

How nice that you assumed that I'm somehow part of the Republican party or even American.


Posted by marty4286:

(Damn, that marty must be a pinko commie f*g/n****r lover!)

And where the hell did this come from?

Posted by marty4286:

How could you not be paralyzed by fear? Although I can imagine some young reactionary sitting on his ass in the Philippines somewhere right now posting on a message board about how the people who were living in fear at the time were "pussies" that deserved to live that way.

And if you are paralyzed by fear and not able to stand up, then you are still responsible for what happens. If you don't stand up, then you are part of the silent majority/minority.

As an American saying goes;
-"Live free, or die."

I'm willing to accept people who don't want to fight for their freedoms. Its their choice.

[marty4286]

Oy, this has been sidetracked too much. At first, I was just trying to correct a mistaken view that because a vocal minority of Palestinians are doing extremely horrible things, doesn't mean every Palestinian is evil or barbaric. We all know we've reached a point where we can't convince each other of our individual views and that we're off topic. Lets just agree to let this thread die, because It's a waste of time and energy anyway... let's just get back to the purpose of the forums: Star Trek RPGing (or General Chat... whatever )

[Capt.Hunter]

Cybrludite, no I was not trying to smear Bush with the Hitler tar. I may consider Bush a hawkish moron milking the support for the War on Terror as much as he can, but he's no Nazi. And at least he's been shown to actually listen to more moderate viewpoints.

For those of our American friends who've claimed that a populace should rise up and fight against a corrupt government, it would be interesting to see just how many would if the US admininstration went nutso. Sure, you have a gun. They have stealth bombers and smart missiles. Would you? Would you really? If you can look deep in side, consider the matter extensively and say unequivocally "yes", then maybe - just maybe - you have the right to judge others of lesser moral fibre. I suspect the best most of us would manage would be "maybe".

Oh, and First of Two - on the right to bear arms, not everyone wants (or feels they need) it.

[Aldaron]

I'm still desperately...pathetically...beggingly...hoping against hope that this "Those who don't rise up against their oppressors deserve everything they get" mindset is a joke of some sort.

It has to be.

I mean, surely nobody could seriously think the Iraqis could just 'rise up' and overthrow Hussein. What are they supposed to do, fling used coffee grounds at the Republican Guard's T-72 tanks?

It's interesting someone brought up the Maquis (no, not the anti-Cardassian one; the French one). Yes, they fought against the Germans very well.
Unfortunately, the German policy was 10 French citizens executed for every German soldier killed by the Resistance.

I wonder if these armchair revolutionaries would be as eager to storm the Bastille if they knew their spouses and children were going to be executed as a result.

Hell, at least the suicide bombers know their families will be well looked-after.

And, of course, the biggest joke of all: "If they rose up against Arafat, they would get arms support from the US and Israel."

Yeah, right.

Just like the Kurds were supported after they were encouraged to "rise up" against Hussein in 1991.

Nope...has to be a joke.

Nobody could be so narrow-minded as to think everyone else should think the same as them, that a glorious revolution against the oppressor is anything other than a pipe-dream in most cases - especially when the government has the trained soldiers, the armoured vehicles, the attack helicopters, strike aircraft, artillery, biological/chemical weapons, secret police, surveillance of civilian activity, restrictions on travel, government-controlled media and communications, identification which must carried at all times, curfews, prisons overflowing with political prisoners, daily executions of dissidents and their families...need I go on?

What's happening to the Palestinians at the moment is a good example of what I'm talking about - and they're already pretty well-armed, and the Israelis are pretty much holding back from what they could do.

Oh, yeah. "Rise Up!"

I'm waiting for someone to start chanting "Do You Hear the People Sing?".

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ some people need to wake up and smell the coffee - and perhaps try to open their eyes and see it from the other side for once!

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by Aldaron
I'm still desperately...pathetically...beggingly...hoping against hope that this "Those who don't rise up against their oppressors deserve everything they get" mindset is a joke of some sort.

"Joke"? No.

"Deserve what they get?" Not the words I use, but close to the intent.

Let me reiterate it for the 1000th time. Whether they deserve what they get is a moot point, the people always wind up bearing the consequences of their leadership, deservedly or not.

When the Allies invaded Germany,the German people bore the consequences. Would the Allies have invaded Germany had not, under Nazi leadership, the Germans conquered all of Europe.

Does this mean everything bad that happens to someone is a result of their leadership? No that trivializes things too much.

What I am saying is that govermnents cannot make distinictions when setting foreign policy. "Gee, the leaders of the Soviet Communist Party swear our grandchildren will be communists, but I bet the people there are ok. Lets not do everything we can to destroy the Soviet Union, as ordinary people would be hurt."

[Capt.Hunter]

Dan, your message is clear and (gasp!) I agree with you. What I was trying to address with my posts is that certain people here have taken it to mean that a person who does not act to change their leaders out of fear is automatically just as evil as those leaders.

I should also point out that it's a lot easier to say you'd fight to change the government if they're oppressing you - but would you fight to stop them oppressing someone else? The British Empire performed horrible acts of oppression abroad, as did the Romans. Did their citizens rise up to change the leadership? Not so easy to risk your life fighting the state on behalf of people you have no personal connection to, is it? (remember, the vast majority of Palestinians have never even met an Israeli).

[Kevin]

For those of our American friends who've claimed that a populace should rise up and fight against a corrupt government, it would be interesting to see just how many would if the US admininstration went nutso. Sure, you have a gun. They have stealth bombers and smart missiles. Would you? Would you really? If you can look deep in side, consider the matter extensively and say unequivocally "yes", then maybe - just maybe - you have the right to judge others of lesser moral fibre. I suspect the best most of us would manage would be "maybe".

If the Government went nutso as you say which would mean going against hte Constitution. Then a great majority of those who control the stealth fighters and smart missiles will end up fighting that nutso government.

We int the US militaryr aren't mindnum robots (not even the marines ). We don't blindly follow our leaders. We are not yes man. We swear allegiance to the Constitution not to the president, not to congress, not even to the land. We fight for the Ideals that are on that peice of paper and don't ever think we don't know whats written on it.

I know you were not saying otherwise. I just wanted to illustrate why I believe this scenario isn't going to be accepted as plausable by us Yanks.