Renaming PWI

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
killing is killing. [/quote]

No, it’s not. This kind of moral equivalency is for soft thinkers.

Let’s bring it back to WWII, which unless you are a Quisling, the Nazis were the bad guys. They burned up people, stole shit, and invaded countries unproked.

Now, the SS rounding up and killing people because they were undersirable is BAD.

Finding the SS, killing them to keep them from killing more people is GOOD.

Mushheads who just say “war is bad” are silly people.

Yes, war is bad. I’ve been in wars. It sucks. But sometimes it is justified and necessary.

So, no, killing is not killing.
[/quote]

sorry dude but the american occupation of iraq and afganistan is not even close to para-military action against the nazi occupation. the para-military action against the american occupation is closer, guess why: both groups defended themself from a occupant.

102

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

from your link :

"Recent event :
Wednesday 10 November: 12 killed

Baghdad: 5 killed in attacks against Christians."

i won’t call someone who attack Christians in Baghdad a civilian…

[/quote]

Apparently, liberals think it is OK to kill Christians and Jews. We’re not allowed to fight back, and must march off to our deaths.

No wonder muslims are taking over Europe. There are no men left to stop them.[/quote]

maybe the killed ones where christians. I did not find any link to an article about the specific on that massacre.

but I read in the paper today that 40 christian civilian iraqis where killed then days ago in a church in bagdad. maybe its the same story.

the papers name is:

sorry but the paper is in norwegian.

103

[quote]florelius wrote:

sorry but the paper is in norwegian.[/quote]

That wont help him, his google is kaputt.

104

[quote]rageradios wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Terrorists operate in a grand scale (WMDs, 9/11, whatever) pretty much only when they have: (1) a safe haven to train and (2) best of all, a state sponsor.
[/quote]

You mean like mossad? or the Israeli Defense Forces?[/quote]

Yeah, it’s certainly horrid to kill or capture people who blow up schools, or the like. Evil Jooooos must die.

105

are you really comparing what the americans are doing in Irak now and what the Nazi were doing in France in 39-45 ?

and who are you comparing to my resistant grandfather ?
the last Ba’athists ? The salafi insurgents ? the Badr Organization ? the Mahdi Army ?

106

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]rageradios wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Terrorists operate in a grand scale (WMDs, 9/11, whatever) pretty much only when they have: (1) a safe haven to train and (2) best of all, a state sponsor.
[/quote]

You mean like mossad? or the Israeli Defense Forces?[/quote]

Yeah, it’s certainly horrid to kill or capture people who blow up schools, or the like. Evil Jooooos must die.

[/quote]

Maybe he is referring to the “terrorists” trained and equipped by the Mossad and the US that are operating in Iran?

You know, the Kurdish ones?

107

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
killing is killing. [/quote]

No, it’s not. This kind of moral equivalency is for soft thinkers.

Let’s bring it back to WWII, which unless you are a Quisling, the Nazis were the bad guys. They burned up people, stole shit, and invaded countries unproked.

Now, the SS rounding up and killing people because they were undersirable is BAD.

Finding the SS, killing them to keep them from killing more people is GOOD.

Mushheads who just say “war is bad” are silly people.

Yes, war is bad. I’ve been in wars. It sucks. But sometimes it is justified and necessary.

So, no, killing is not killing.
[/quote]

sorry dude but the american occupation of iraq and afganistan is not even close to para-military action against the nazi occupation. the para-military action against the american occupation is closer, guess why: both groups defended themself from a occupant.
[/quote]

By your logic, the Americans should have stayed home and let the Germans continue to have their way with the oh-so-willing tyskert0sers.

108

That will happen when you decide that because thousands of year old papers say thats where you used to live means that you get to kick out and oppress the former inhabitants.

109

[quote]kamui wrote:

are you really comparing what the americans are doing in Irak now and what the Nazi were doing in France in 39-45 ?

and who are you comparing to my resistant grandfather ?
the last Ba’athists ? The salafi insurgents ? the Badr Organization ? the Mahdi Army ? [/quote]

I`m talking about those iraqi and afgani men who took up arms to defend theire country when they where invaded. dont you agree that it legit to defend your country/family/life from a invader and an occupant regardless if you are french, norwegian, arab or persian?

110

[quote]orion wrote:

Maybe he is referring to the “terrorists” trained and equipped by the Mossad and the US that are operating in Iran?

You know, the Kurdish ones?

[/quote]

Wow, I need some of the shit you smoke. I could totaly get rich.

111

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]rageradios wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Terrorists operate in a grand scale (WMDs, 9/11, whatever) pretty much only when they have: (1) a safe haven to train and (2) best of all, a state sponsor.
[/quote]

You mean like mossad? or the Israeli Defense Forces?[/quote]

Yeah, it’s certainly horrid to kill or capture people who blow up schools, or the like. Evil Jooooos must die.

[/quote]

Maybe he is referring to the “terrorists” trained and equipped by the Mossad and the US that are operating in Iran?

You know, the Kurdish ones?

[/quote]

No no, i’m referring to the terrorist occupying force, commonly known as Israel. and Mossad which finds it perfectly okay to kill and capture sovereign citizens of other countries for their supposed crimes against the state.

112

[quote]
I`m talking about those iraqi and afgani men who took up arms to defend theire country when they where invaded. dont you agree that it legit to defend your country/family/life from a invader and an occupant regardless if you are french, norwegian, arab or persian? [/quote]

to make it clear :

i do NOT support this war.
but
i do not feel compelled to say or think manichean bullshit about it either.

  • the “iraqi resistance” is a diverse movement, but all its components have one thing in common : they do not only want to stop american presence in Iraq, they want the power for themselves, and they pursue hegemonic and/or separatists agenda.

  • the US may be occupants, but they are not invaders. that’s not the same thing.

there is no black and white here. only shades of gray.
and the darker shades are probably not american here.

113

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
killing is killing. [/quote]

No, it’s not. This kind of moral equivalency is for soft thinkers.

Let’s bring it back to WWII, which unless you are a Quisling, the Nazis were the bad guys. They burned up people, stole shit, and invaded countries unproked.

Now, the SS rounding up and killing people because they were undersirable is BAD.

Finding the SS, killing them to keep them from killing more people is GOOD.

Mushheads who just say “war is bad” are silly people.

Yes, war is bad. I’ve been in wars. It sucks. But sometimes it is justified and necessary.

So, no, killing is not killing.
[/quote]

sorry dude but the american occupation of iraq and afganistan is not even close to para-military action against the nazi occupation. the para-military action against the american occupation is closer, guess why: both groups defended themself from a occupant.
[/quote]

By your logic, the Americans should have stayed home and let the Germans continue to have their way with the oh-so-willing tyskert0sers.[/quote]

About world war two: Germany started with invading and occupy alot of europa. its clearly a different scenario than 9/11. you are comparing one horrible attack against thousands horrible attacks that germany committed during the WW2. you are on thin ice here.

about the “tyskertoesene”: they where young girls who fell in love with german soldiers. after the war the norwegians committed a horrible crime against this girls and theire kids( they where called “tyskerunger” ). norwegians shaved theire head and theire kids where bullied many years after. all of this happend outside the law. its one of the most shamefull actions in modern norwegian history. other shamfull actions in our history.

114

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I dont support people who send people over sea to kill others.
[/quote]

You mean, like the Taliban/Al-quadi flying planes into buildings in NYC? Or Iran sending proxies to Gaza to shell elementary schools in Israel? Or Iraq sending assasins to try to kill George Bush, the Elder?

Your one-sided non-interventionists crap is a transparent lie to everyone but youself.

The real truth is you (and most Europeans) hate America, hate Americans, look down on them, and yet are jealous of them and their success, and so revel in the USA getting put in its place.[/quote]

So if we don’t support America in every single policy it enacts, we support the Taliban.

Good to know. All hail Osama!
[/quote]

Quoted to show a rather silly attempt at creating a strawman.

I love how all those Scots and Brits are having a temper tantrum about paying for college.

It’s a perfect example of the welfare state gone amuck, and how pathetic and useless people become under a socialist regime.[/quote]

I actually didn’t complain. The new system will have a much better bursary system for the poorer off, like the american system. I think it’s a good idea. Not very popular with my student friends at the minute but you take the rough with the smooth

And i retracted that statement actually

115

[quote]rageradios wrote:
That will happen when you decide that because thousands of year old papers say thats where you used to live means that you get to kick out and oppress the former inhabitants.[/quote]

You really need to read a history book. OK, Israel in brief:

  1. For roughly the last 500 years, Jerusalem has been about 1/2 Haredi Jewish, 1/4 muslim, 1/4 Christian.

  2. The influx of returning Jewish people started in the mid-1800s, largely with Russian pogroms.

  3. The land at issue was empty by ALL accounts. The best for the American reader is Mark Twain’s “Innocents Abroad.” He explored the whole country.

  4. All land that is “Jewish” was bought from willing land owners from willing sellers, largely Turks who were absentee landowners, but also local bedoins (who, btw, have no issue with Israel).

  5. What-is-now Israel began to prosper (it was then part of the Ottoman Empire) come the late 1800s. Arabs who discriminated against in what-is-now Jordan (Hashemite), Eqypt, and Syria IMMIGRATED because the Jewish people welcomed them.

  6. The problems started with the Hashemites in Jordan, but really got going when the Nazis decided to use arab troops against the English and the Jewish population — filling them with anti-Jewish crap and hate that exists today.

  7. The Nazis lost, but the arab Waffen SS persited. starting in the mid-1940s, throughout muslim countries arab governments systemtically began to kill or expell Jewish people.

  8. In 1948, the Jordanians attacked the religiously and ethncally mixed Jerusalme to ethnicially cleanse (kill) the Jews. A rag tag group of Jews (largely ex soldiers) stopped them about 1/2 way through the old city. This area where the Jews were killed or expelled became “arab East Jerusalem” and “Gaza.”

  9. The alleged “settlements” are areas of land or building bought from the private owners of the land and sold. The only issue is arabs don’t want Jews to live on the land they bought.

  10. Israel is happy for the arabs to have their own country. Indeed, this was agreed in 1948 and has been agreed to since. The only condition is that the government of that land agree that Israel has the right to exist and to not attack us. The arabs have refused this condition.

116

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

are you really comparing what the americans are doing in Irak now and what the Nazi were doing in France in 39-45 ?

and who are you comparing to my resistant grandfather ?
the last Ba’athists ? The salafi insurgents ? the Badr Organization ? the Mahdi Army ? [/quote]

I`m talking about those iraqi and afgani men who took up arms to defend theire country when they where invaded. dont you agree that it legit to defend your country/family/life from a invader and an occupant regardless if you are french, norwegian, arab or persian?[/quote]

I thought “killing was killing.” Make up your mind.

117

…

118

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

are you really comparing what the americans are doing in Irak now and what the Nazi were doing in France in 39-45 ?

and who are you comparing to my resistant grandfather ?
the last Ba’athists ? The salafi insurgents ? the Badr Organization ? the Mahdi Army ? [/quote]

I`m talking about those iraqi and afgani men who took up arms to defend theire country when they where invaded. dont you agree that it legit to defend your country/family/life from a invader and an occupant regardless if you are french, norwegian, arab or persian?[/quote]

I thought “killing was killing.” Make up your mind.[/quote]

ok I see now that my statement where simplistic. I will give you that.

anyhow, invasion, occupation and terror attacks are wrong. defending yourself and your country is not wrong, its legit from my perspective. are my opinion clearer know sir?

119

[quote]kamui wrote:

So did the opposition in the nazi occupied countrys have to. Some did actually come to power, like Tito in jugoslavia. In norway you had two para-military groups: company Linge and the communist front. You dont think they wanted to gain power after the war was ended.

Or lets take spanish civil war.
on the republican side: stalinist, liberals and anarcho-socialist had different fractions, sometimes they even fought among eachother.

So this is not something new about para-military groups and it doesnt make theire cause any lesser. They fight a occupant and therefor they have my support. I am no chatolic or irish nationalist, but I have sympathy with the irish revolutionarys who freed themself from british colonialism. The same with the americans in the 1700`s, theire cause against the british empire was just.

Lets take an example: If one of the states in America wanted to separate themself from the federation, I would support them.

120

yes, it’s clearer, but it doesn’t apply here.

to defend your country, you need to actually have a country. and that’s not really the case here.

Iraq is not a country, or at least, it’s not a country like norway or France were in 1940.

it’s a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state plagued by extreme tensions which was only united by the authoritarian regime of Hussein.

the insurgents are not trying to defend their country, they are trying to advance political, ideological and religious agenda.

the Ba’athist were in power under Saddam, and they want to take it again
the Kurds are trying to get a Kurdistan out of this mess
the Turks are trying to extend their borders
the Salafi are trying to impose their vision of the “Pure Islam”
and various Shi’ites groups are trying to enforce Sharia Law nationwide

the current situation in Iraq has nothing to do with a romantic resistance. it’s comparable to Yugoslavia just after Tito’s death. a programmed implosion.