Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Does Zachums think he's being bullied? Hahahahaha!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Bullies always have their lackeys.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Yes, of course, you are absolutely right. If only we had been pacifists, it would have saved all that hassle trying to get one's head round pesky German grammar. It would have all come so naturally to us.
I say it again, justifying war EVER in ANY circumstance denies Christ by definition.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:What would you have done in 1st century Judea that was pacifistic that would have prevented Rome from winning? Please be specific.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Well what would you have done in WW2 that was pacifistic that would have prevented Germany from winning? Please be specific.
quote:But those who witness to Christ are often incoherent, as they have seen through the purposes of the world, and have been struck dumb by the risen Christ, and war-mongers are often polished and articulate, as they are seduced by the purposes of the world.
Originally posted by Spike:
Am I reading this correctly? Is Martin accusing others of being incoherent?
This has to be the funniest thing I've seen in ages!
quote:I think this is kind of off topic, but the serious answer would have to do something about the British-German arms race in the 1910s, the lack of forethought and simply thinking at all, and the British wish to keep the Germans less powerful than them, and the German pigheadedness about their superiority that originated probably in the 1830s or something.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Well what would you have done in WW2 that was pacifistic that would have prevented Germany from winning? Please be specific.
quote:As someone who once called Martin down here in frustration at his incoherence, I feel duty-bound to point out that in my view he has improved markedly since that time. Being ordered to comply with a readability index did wonders for him.
Originally posted by Spike:
Am I reading this correctly? Is Martin accusing others of being incoherent?
This has to be the funniest thing I've seen in ages!
quote:From winning what?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:What would you have done in 1st century Judea that was pacifistic that would have prevented Rome from winning? Please be specific.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Well what would you have done in WW2 that was pacifistic that would have prevented Germany from winning? Please be specific.
quote:Where were you when Martin was warmongering incoherently?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But those who witness to Christ are often incoherent, as they have seen through the purposes of the world, and have been struck dumb by the risen Christ, and war-mongers are often polished and articulate, as they are seduced by the purposes of the world.
Originally posted by Spike:
Am I reading this correctly? Is Martin accusing others of being incoherent?
This has to be the funniest thing I've seen in ages!
quote:Well, yes, but we have to start from where we are. I mean, if you were asked what would be a pacifist solution to the present-day Middle East, you couldn't just say "Well, we shouldn't have had thousands of years of ethnic rivalries and Western colonialism". Of course it would make it a lot easier if we hadn't. But we have.
Originally posted by RooK:
I think your question misses the point, Nicolemr. Asking how pacifism could have achieved a violence-oriented goal in a short timeframe lures you into misunderstanding the philosophy. Essentially, it is the same as asking what possible studying could a student do minutes before an exam to accomplish the same kind of "success" that cheating could.
quote:Oh good, it's not just me.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't even [know] what that second sentence means.
quote:This. Or, what could a heavy smoker do after being diagnosed with inoperable cancer that would be just as effective as having quit 20 years ago...
Originally posted by RooK:
I think your question misses the point, Nicolemr. Asking how pacifism could have achieved a violence-oriented goal in a short timeframe lures you into misunderstanding the philosophy. Essentially, it is the same as asking what possible studying could a student do minutes before an exam to accomplish the same kind of "success" that cheating could.
quote:Which is fair enough. There are coherent and rational approaches to reducing the problems of the world that don't involve using guns. There are approaches that seek to increase justice, reduce poverty and hence bring true peace. They involve sacrifice. They aren't easy. Thay may seem to be unrealistic. They certainly aren't going to work overnight. But, are worthy of our respect.
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
we have to start from where we are.
quote:Or to put it another way, the world would be a very different place if firing the second shot was not seen as justified.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed
Pacifism would work swimmingly if everybody was a Pacifist.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
No war is ever a good thing
quote:No. I don't believe this. I believe I am called to be in relationship with God, with human kind and all of creation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Christians, are you not called upon to do what is right?
quote:No, it is a "what if people in 1910 onwards were a wee bit nicer such that the macho attitudes in Europe at the time were softened to the point of not marching young men to the slaughter house at the first opportunity". Not nice, just a bit nicer.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But your version requires people being nice from 1910 down to today. The 1939 version is the opposite; it admits people aren't nice, and is thus far more realistic.
quote:Surely war is an almost total breakdown in relationships between groups of people. Therefore, if you consider yourself called to be in relationship with humankind that calling must result in some form of position on war. Surely?
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:No. I don't believe this. I believe I am called to be in relationship with God, with human kind and all of creation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Christians, are you not called upon to do what is right?
This does not speak to a single Christian position on war.
quote:Or you could say, we'll have nothing to do with it. In fact, that is what I believe we should do.
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:Well, yes, but we have to start from where we are. I mean, if you were asked what would be a pacifist solution to the present-day Middle East, you couldn't just say "Well, we shouldn't have had thousands of years of ethnic rivalries and Western colonialism". Of course it would make it a lot easier if we hadn't. But we have.
Originally posted by RooK:
I think your question misses the point, Nicolemr. Asking how pacifism could have achieved a violence-oriented goal in a short timeframe lures you into misunderstanding the philosophy. Essentially, it is the same as asking what possible studying could a student do minutes before an exam to accomplish the same kind of "success" that cheating could.
quote:Thank you for your erudite remarks.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But those who witness to Christ are often incoherent, as they have seen through the purposes of the world, and have been struck dumb by the risen Christ, and war-mongers are often polished and articulate, as they are seduced by the purposes of the world.
Originally posted by Spike:
Am I reading this correctly? Is Martin accusing others of being incoherent?
This has to be the funniest thing I've seen in ages!
quote:I've always maintained that winning 2 World wars has done this country a shitload of no good .
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'd be very happy to be German and speak German now - my son has moved there permanently and, to me, it is a far better place to live than the UK.
quote:So Alan. Someone physically attacks your wife or child. What do you do?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Surely war is an almost total breakdown in relationships between groups of people. Therefore, if you consider yourself called to be in relationship with humankind that calling must result in some form of position on war. Surely?
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:No. I don't believe this. I believe I am called to be in relationship with God, with human kind and all of creation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Christians, are you not called upon to do what is right?
This does not speak to a single Christian position on war.
quote:This always strikes me as an odd question.
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So Alan. Someone physically attacks your wife or child. What do you do?
quote:Who knows?
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
So Alan. Someone physically attacks your wife or child. What do you do?
quote:I don't think this helps, to be honest. Though it's a fair enough place to start from. You appear to be saying it's not right to keep people from harm?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Christians, are you not called upon to do what is right?
Not what is easy, sensible or practical, not what keeps your family or country from harm; but what is right.
Hard to picture Jesus with a machine gun, no matter the cause.
quote:I think this is perfectly legitimate, Alan. And I, for one, would certainly concede that this stance takes a lot of courage and strength. And I would support the right of those wishing to exercise it. But it doesn't, in my opinion, acquit the pacifist from their shared responsibility in the wrong that is permitted to happen, because of their insistence in doing the right thing about refraining from violence in defence of others.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Pacificism at it's best is not just a refusal to fight. It's a positive commitment to work for true peace, justice and reconciliation such that no one has to fight. And, IMO, that's an awful lot harder and takes a good deal more courage and strength of character than many people want to give pacifists credit for.
quote:The part I cannot understand is where war is seen as the lesser evil. Even World War 2, possibly the best example of a "just war" in history, killed far more people than the evil it was ostensibly fought to prevent. So was it really the lesser evil? Is the death of one innocent really more important than the deaths of ten conscripts?
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I personally believe that war is evil, end of. But I also believe that as crapped up human beings in a crapped up world we sometimes have to make the choice between allowing the big fucking evil that threatens what is good or innocent or right; and implementing the lesser evil to stop that happening.
quote:Rightly so. The slaughter had we fought against Stalin would have been far greater than the one he managed to cause on his own.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And somehow *not* fighting Stalin directly was seen as the lesser evil compared with letting him get on with his own slaughter...
Etymological Evangelical why do you ask such an brickwall absurd brickwall third brickwall rate brickwall rhetorical brickwall question ? quote:Yeah, it would be ruled entirely by those willing to fire the first shot.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Or to put it another way, the world would be a very different place if firing the second shot was not seen as justified.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed
Pacifism would work swimmingly if everybody was a Pacifist.
(PS I gather I'm allowed to continue belching greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere as well, so long as I can point the finger at enough other people who are still doing it. It's a kind of reverse, negative form of Keeping Up With The Joneses.)
quote:Do you not think there might be other ways of countering and condemning a first shot, besides firing a second?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah, it would be ruled entirely by those willing to fire the first shot.
quote:Threat of punishment is not equal to threat of retaliation though, is it?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Those methods we teach children on playgrounds are silly and every kid knows it. We maintain the myth as adults because it's what we are supposed to do. Only the threat of punishment truly limits bullies.
quote:If society means world, it is statement I would make.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I should be proactive in changing society for the better,
quote:I do not see it so simply. I see it as we need to work to minimise the potential for conflict. Instead, we tend to focus on maximising our short term benefit regardless of the cost. Then pretend this attitude;
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:I don't think this helps, to be honest. Though it's a fair enough place to start from. You appear to be saying it's not right to keep people from harm?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Christians, are you not called upon to do what is right?
Not what is easy, sensible or practical, not what keeps your family or country from harm; but what is right.
Hard to picture Jesus with a machine gun, no matter the cause.
quote:and so, grind on, the gears of war.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Only the threat of punishment truly limits bullies.
quote:What you are saying here endorses Al Qaeda.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Only the threat of punishment truly limits bullies.
quote:Well, when I was on playground duty, it wasn't the done thing to punch the kid who'd just punched another kid.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Those methods we teach children on playgrounds are silly and every kid knows it. We maintain the myth as adults because it's what we are supposed to do. Only the threat of punishment truly limits bullies.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nations style themselves as true followers of Christ?
I don't even no what that second sentence means.
quote:Please see RooK's response.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Oh good, it's not just me.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't even [know] what that second sentence means.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Indeed.
If adherents of nominally peaceful religions cannot even pretend to adhere to their own philosophies, it does not speak well for humans achieving peace. Just listen to the weasel words flow when you point out the commandment "Thou shalt no kill." or the verse “If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”
Pacifism is a laudable philosophy. Just not, seemingly, feasible for humans.
quote:Stalin killed 50 million people. Do you really think a war with him would have killed more?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Rightly so. The slaughter had we fought against Stalin would have been far greater than the one he managed to cause on his own.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And somehow *not* fighting Stalin directly was seen as the lesser evil compared with letting him get on with his own slaughter...
Isn't that what "lesser evil" means? If there's going to be a slaughter either way, choose the one that costs fewer lives?
quote:So would I (although the lingo's a bit rusty at the moment, but I do enjoy speaking it once I get going). I have been to Germany many times, and I love the country and people.
Originally posted by Boogie
I'd be very happy to be German and speak German now - my son has moved there permanently and, to me, it is a far better place to live than the UK.
quote:If you don't want people to say that the sources you cite are wacky nonsense, then don't cite wacky nonsense. Grow a thicker skin you pathetic, easily offended dumbass.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Considering I posted two sets of information - one which you ignored because it has a list of about 20 early Christian writers on war and violence,
AND that two other posters have come in to provide supportive texts on my side of things
YOU are just being nasty and picking on me for God knows what reason.
So I came to hell to moan about you. That's what hell is for.
quote:Are you saying that the debate hinged on my source, my link, from one post out of several that I made, let alone others.
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you don't want people to say that the sources you cite are wacky nonsense, then don't cite wacky nonsense. Grow a thicker skin you pathetic, easily offended dumbass.
quote:I didn't even see your other post. I just saw you cite the one document, found it was wacky, and said so.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Are you saying that the debate hinged on my source, my link, from one post out of several that I made, let alone others.
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you don't want people to say that the sources you cite are wacky nonsense, then don't cite wacky nonsense. Grow a thicker skin you pathetic, easily offended dumbass.
Maybe you picked on my "wacky source" because it was the only legitimate thing you could pull apart on the pacifist side of the argument.
There was LOTS of other content for you to chime in on.
Says quite a bit about your level of debate Zach. Aim higher next time.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
Grow a thicker skin you pathetic, easily offended dumbass.
quote:I know, silly me!
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Did you expect anything else?!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:If you can't withstand someone looking up a source you cited, then stay out of purgatory.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So you admit that you didn't read through the thread and just jumped in to nitpick on one comment, rather than to add to the debate.
Got it.
quote:Or what, you're gonna beat me up with you and all your bad non-pacifist friends?
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you can't withstand someone looking up a source you cited, then stay out of purgatory.
quote:But descending from Heaven, with a flaming sword, at the head of a host of angels to kick Satan's ass--that's another matter.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hard to picture Jesus with a machine gun, no matter the cause.
quote:Yes, I do. World War 2 killed more than that, and that was a conflict where the two biggest and best-resourced countries (USA and USSR) were on the same side. Had those two countries gone toe-to-toe in the fifties there would have been unimaginable bloodshed on both sides, with the battleground (Europe, mostly) being utterly destroyed.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Stalin killed 50 million people. Do you really think a war with him would have killed more?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Oooh noo. Of course you didn't feel insulted by anything I wrote on that thread.
Originally posted by Zach82
I didn't say I found you insulting, EE. I said I found you boring.
quote:Oh, I don't know about that. These days I hear teachers telling the quick fisted little kids, "Use your words." Isn't that what men like President Carter do when they attend peace talks? Doesn't it work sometimes?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Those methods we teach children on playgrounds are silly and every kid knows it. We maintain the myth as adults because it's what we are supposed to do. Only the threat of punishment truly limits bullies.
quote:I think you're projecting.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Teachers actually tend to unconsciously sympathize with the bullies, and tell the bullied children that it's their own fault for making themselves targets by reacting to teasing.
quote:This teacher most certainly doesn't!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Teachers actually tend to unconsciously sympathize with the bullies, and tell the bullied children that it's their own fault for making themselves targets by reacting to teasing.
quote:Again, you are confusing pacifism with passivism. Pacifists wouldn't 'stand by and watch'. That was what the majority of occupied Europe did, while the Danes, the Norwegians, the Italians and the Bulgarians did much better at protecting the minorities in their populations.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Such as...how many more million (tens of millions in all likelihood) jews/roma/gays/slavs would you have stood by and watched die in death camps? And...so the bombs are raining down on the cities of Britain in a prolonged blitzkreig...are you cool with not attempting to prevent the deaths of millions of innocent people? Remember that in the case of the UK, this was a defensive war, not a war of aggression or a war anyone sought.
John
quote:! I'm not quite sure what denying Christ involves, but whether I do it or not will not make me a different or better person, nor will it alter the fact that Christ was possibly/probably a charismatic wise man who livedand died about 2000 years ago. . (I have always learnt that the stories of the birth
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
justifying war EVER in ANY circumstance denies Christ by definition.
quote:Source
The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.
quote:I think he lies awake nights, thinking up inane and nasty things to say.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I think you're projecting.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Teachers actually tend to unconsciously sympathize with the bullies, and tell the bullied children that it's their own fault for making themselves targets by reacting to teasing.
quote:My reading on the Great War, which is not slight, suggests the British at least greeted it with grim determination, not euphoria. The German generals may have been giddy, and the French may have sought revenge for 1870, but the British said, "Oh shit."
Originally posted by rolyn:
The euphoria with which that war was greeted suggests that all those Christians, at that time, were completely united in their desire to have a bloody good fight.
quote:Aha! This explains why he lists Hell as his favourite board. He can say nasty things. Not that he understands one should also be prepared deal with return fire.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think he lies awake nights, thinking up inane and nasty things to say.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I think you're projecting.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Teachers actually tend to unconsciously sympathize with the bullies, and tell the bullied children that it's their own fault for making themselves targets by reacting to teasing.
quote:I was actually speaking form personal experience and studies which, it won't help my case, I cannot find now.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think he lies awake nights, thinking up inane and nasty things to say.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I think you're projecting.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Teachers actually tend to unconsciously sympathize with the bullies, and tell the bullied children that it's their own fault for making themselves targets by reacting to teasing.
quote:Bullies always have their lackeys.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Aha! This explains why he lists Hell as his favourite board. He can say nasty things. Not that he understands one should also be prepared deal with return fire.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think he lies awake nights, thinking up inane and nasty things to say.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I think you're projecting.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Teachers actually tend to unconsciously sympathize with the bullies, and tell the bullied children that it's their own fault for making themselves targets by reacting to teasing.
quote:You might want to google "we want 8 and we won't wait" with regard to the pre-war arms race. Euphoria may be too strong a word but the rush to join up speaks more of excitement than "grim determination".
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:My reading on the Great War, which is not slight, suggests the British at least greeted it with grim determination, not euphoria. The German generals may have been giddy, and the French may have sought revenge for 1870, but the British said, "Oh shit."
Originally posted by rolyn:
The euphoria with which that war was greeted suggests that all those Christians, at that time, were completely united in their desire to have a bloody good fight.
quote:Some teachers are better at being aware of bullying than others, bless them.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This teacher most certainly doesn't!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Teachers actually tend to unconsciously sympathize with the bullies, and tell the bullied children that it's their own fault for making themselves targets by reacting to teasing.
quote:I shoot the idiot attempting to make me participate in their little game in the face. And since we're in Ridiculous World, next I grab Kat Dennings and make out with her while I'm unanimously declared President of Earth and I ride around on a sedan chair carried by the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and Donald Trump while eating chicken fried bacon.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Someone says they will shoot your wife/child unless you shoot an innocent third party. What do you do?
quote:I have to admit that my mental response to that was that presumably my husband would have the good sense to call the police and grab said child while I used my training to deal with the attacker all by myself instead of fainting helplessly into the arms of the nearest penis-owner.
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:I shoot the idiot attempting to make me participate in their little game in the face.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Someone says they will shoot your wife/child unless you shoot an innocent third party. What do you do?
quote:Does Zachums think he's being bullied? Hahahahaha!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Bullies always have their lackeys.
quote:I know about the arms race run-up to WW1 and I will wager I have read more books and done more thinking about it than three of you. Fear <> Euphoria.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You might want to google "we want 8 and we won't wait" with regard to the pre-war arms race. Euphoria may be too strong a word but the rush to join up speaks more of excitement than "grim determination".
quote:You've been called to hell for bullying enough times over the years, MT, and your post here sure doesn't betray much change of heart.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Does Zachums think he's being bullied? Hahahahaha!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Bullies always have their lackeys.
quote:Dearheart, this is HELL. One doesn't get called to Hell for bullying in Hell. You are not being bullied. You are having your assholity thrown back in your teeth. You don't get to cry "oh poor me, they are picking on me" when you're being an asshole. It doesn't work that way. That's not what "bullying" means.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:You've been called to hell for bullying enough times over the years, MT, and your post here sure doesn't betray much change of heart.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Does Zachums think he's being bullied? Hahahahaha!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Bullies always have their lackeys.
quote:And I can say you're being a pwecious widdle diddums, because you are.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeah, those are both bullying behaviors, even in hell. Thing is, you can do it in hell, and I can complain about it in hell.
quote:Mommm! He's bullying me!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh well. It's not like it fucking matters with you, MT.
quote:Ridiculing a hypocritical crybaby. You could think of it as related to satire.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm actually curious now. If you do not define your behavior at the moment as petty bullying, how do you frame it?
quote:With large thick pieces of plywood.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm actually curious now. If you do not define your behavior at the moment as petty bullying, how do you frame it?
quote:And you're taking it upon yourself to do this because I cited an opinion with insufficient evidence?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Ridiculing a hypocritical crybaby. You could think of it as related to satire.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm actually curious now. If you do not define your behavior at the moment as petty bullying, how do you frame it?
quote:I think the record will show you called me a bully and lilBuddha my lackey before either of us had a chance to respond to your later claim that you had studies.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:And you're taking it upon yourself to do this because I cited an opinion with insufficient evidence?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Ridiculing a hypocritical crybaby. You could think of it as related to satire.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm actually curious now. If you do not define your behavior at the moment as petty bullying, how do you frame it?
quote:And by saying so, you are still a hypocrite.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I can't find the studies I read, so I suppose I don't have any way to argue with your objections to my post.
But even if your objections are 100% correct, you are still a bully.
quote:No, your bullying people in purg, then whining about people "bullying" you in hell, makes you a hypocrite. Not wasting my time trying to convince you of anything of course, since you haven't changed your mind since the last time your mother changed your diaper.
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's possible. I just don't think an inability to find articles I read years ago makes me a hypocrite. Maybe unwise for offering an opinion I could no longer substantiate, but not a hypocrite. Though, a hypocrite would say so, I suppose.
Not wasting my time to convince you otherwise, just remarking out loud is all.
quote:I was called to this thread for looking up a poster's source and pointing out that it was highly dubious.
No, your bullying people in purg, then whining about people "bullying" you in hell, makes you a hypocrite.
quote:Now you're being hypocritical.
Not wasting my time trying to convince you of anything of course, since you haven't changed your mind since the last time your mother changed your diaper.
quote:I'm cool with not preventing their deaths by causing millions of other innocent people's deaths. Which set of people's lives matter more?
Originally posted by John Holding:
...are you cool with not attempting to prevent the deaths of millions of innocent people?
quote:No, not really. I have changed my mind many, many times, even (perhaps especially) on the Ship. But valiant try at a tu quoque.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Now you're being hypocritical.
Not wasting my time trying to convince you of anything of course, since you haven't changed your mind since the last time your mother changed your diaper.
quote:Surely the liberators of Auschwitz & other camps would have told the Brits what they found?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Remember John Holding that no one in Britain apart from Churchill, who repressed it, knew about the Holocaust until about 1962.
quote:With you've reached the level of "I know you are, but what am I," I suppose I'll just concede defeat. Congratulations.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:No, not really. I have changed my mind many, many times, even (perhaps especially) on the Ship. But valiant try at a tu quoque.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Now you're being hypocritical.
Not wasting my time trying to convince you of anything of course, since you haven't changed your mind since the last time your mother changed your diaper.
quote:Had enough? You walked away without supporting your assertions.
Originally posted by Zach82:
When I had enough on another thread and mustered the will to just walk away, lilBuddha decided to follow me to another thread so he could pick it up again. Which is pretty pathetic behavior, even in hell.
quote:Do you have anything to add that you didn't already say on that other thread?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Had enough? You walked away without supporting your assertions.
Originally posted by Zach82:
When I had enough on another thread and mustered the will to just walk away, lilBuddha decided to follow me to another thread so he could pick it up again. Which is pretty pathetic behavior, even in hell.
And my comment here is not specifically about that thread but your general behaviour. When your mouth issues statement which your intellect and information cannot back, you resort to "I know you are but what am I" and "Help, help, I'm being repressed"
As for your not being able to find a link, it does happen. But given your past MO, one wonders.
quote:I am not sure what you think "I had enough and walked away" means, but following me around picking fights isn't going to draw me back in.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Go back there and answer the questions. I will gladly discuss them. I will no further disrupt this thread with discussion of that one.
quote:Once one has turned around and walked away it isn't usually a great idea to hurl further smartass remarks behind you. Still if you *must* have the final word I'm not here to stop you.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I am not sure what you think "I had enough and walked away" means, but following me around picking fights isn't going to draw me back in.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Go back there and answer the questions. I will gladly discuss them. I will no further disrupt this thread with discussion of that one.
Which means you win too, on that other thread. Congratulations.
quote:In Caglavica, a case I quoted on the pacifism thread, UN peacekeepers killed 39 people and wounded a couple of hundred people in order to stop an uprising that could have reignited the wars on the Balkans. Is that case justified?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'm cool with not preventing their deaths by causing millions of other innocent people's deaths. Which set of people's lives matter more?
Originally posted by John Holding:
...are you cool with not attempting to prevent the deaths of millions of innocent people?
quote:I can only find a couple of blog posts about this story, translated into a number of languages. Are there any major news outlets or other impartial sources that confirm this killing of 39 people by UN troups?
JFH: In Caglavica, a case I quoted on the pacifism thread, UN peacekeepers killed 39 people and wounded a couple of hundred people in order to stop an uprising that could have reignited the wars on the Balkans. Is that case justified?
quote:It's rather different if I walked out on the thread, then lilBuddha followed me to another thread to pick up the fight again. But I suppose even then I can't escape culpability in it altogether. I did respond when he did it.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Once one has turned around and walked away it isn't usually a great idea to hurl further smartass remarks behind you. Still if you *must* have the final word I'm not here to stop you.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I am not sure what you think "I had enough and walked away" means, but following me around picking fights isn't going to draw me back in.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Go back there and answer the questions. I will gladly discuss them. I will no further disrupt this thread with discussion of that one.
Which means you win too, on that other thread. Congratulations.
[edit: grammatical]
quote:Um, no, sorry, you went there first. Nice try. I think that's called "projection." The Republicans are ace at it.
Originally posted by Zach82:
With you've reached the level of "I know you are, but what am I," I suppose I'll just concede defeat. Congratulations.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Ironically, a sprinkling of pacifism would make several people on this thread look less like assholes.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:"No one knew..."
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, the Russians (in the case of Auschwitz and the most efficient murder factory of them all, Treblinka)? It wasn't common knowledge until well in to the 60's EmmTee. Newsreel of Bergen-Belsen wasn't seen as part of industrialized genocide lasting three years gainfully employing one million Germans.
And NOBODY knew about the persecution of homosexuals and other minorities until then. It just wasn't on our culture's radar.
Nobody knew until a generation yet later than the 60's about the Nazis pre-war mass murder of the mentally damaged and ill, maladjusted children, the senile, all of those in residential care basically, with the full co-operation of the medical and scientific community. And the rest of Christian society.
Nobody went to war for any of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm actually curious now. If you do not define your behavior at the moment as petty bullying, how do you frame it?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ridiculing a hypocritical crybaby. You could think of it as related to satire.
quote:and;
Originally posted by Zach82:
And you're taking it upon yourself to do this because I cited an opinion with insufficient evidence?
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you saying that the debate hinged on my source, my link, from one post out of several that I made, let alone others.
quote:to go unremarked on. Especially because I like un-nesting quotes.
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you don't want people to say that the sources you cite are wacky nonsense, then don't cite wacky nonsense. Grow a thicker skin you pathetic, easily offended dumbass.
quote:You character is as deep as the water in a sun-baked mudflat of a desert amidst a drought.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I comprehend that you feel you have deep insights into my character because we had an argument, lilBuddha.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Swatting gnats is not anti-pacifist is it?
quote:BULLshit. You kept lobbing piss grenades at me. It's plain as day what mdijon is on about. Your rank, vile, stinking-to-high-heaven hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called MT a bully for calling me inane and nasty for no reason at all. When MT got around to explaining what the hell he was on about, I admitted that I couldn't find the source any more, and that was that.
quote:Your really can't be that stupid and still manage to type.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called MT a bully for calling me inane and nasty for no reason at all. When MT got around to explaining what the hell he was on about, I admitted that I couldn't find the source any more, and that was that.
So what do you think you are remarking on, mdijon?
quote:The only thing I said to you before you called me inane and nasty was a comment about US backed dictators which you haven't remarked on at all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:BULLshit. You kept lobbing piss grenades at me. It's plain as day what mdijon is on about. Your rank, vile, stinking-to-high-heaven hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called MT a bully for calling me inane and nasty for no reason at all. When MT got around to explaining what the hell he was on about, I admitted that I couldn't find the source any more, and that was that.
quote:It's really quite simple.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Your really can't be that stupid and still manage to type.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called MT a bully for calling me inane and nasty for no reason at all. When MT got around to explaining what the hell he was on about, I admitted that I couldn't find the source any more, and that was that.
So what do you think you are remarking on, mdijon?
quote:I made a mistake—that comment was to marvin. I didn't say anything at all to you before you called me inane and nasty.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:The only thing I said to you before you called me inane and nasty was a comment about US backed dictators which you haven't remarked on at all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:BULLshit. You kept lobbing piss grenades at me. It's plain as day what mdijon is on about. Your rank, vile, stinking-to-high-heaven hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I called MT a bully for calling me inane and nasty for no reason at all. When MT got around to explaining what the hell he was on about, I admitted that I couldn't find the source any more, and that was that.
quote:You don't have to say something inane and nasty TO ME for me to see that you've said something inane and nasty. Don't be stupid. And at any rate you are changing the subject. What I was responding to was what you said happened AFTER you responded to me, not before I responded to you. You're being totally disingenuous, trying to make it look like I was calling you out on something you did at noon when it it is clear as day I'm referring to something you did at nightfall.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The only thing I said to you before you called me inane and nasty was a comment about US backed dictators which you haven't remarked on at all.
quote:A mixed martini of metaphor if ever I saw one.
Originally posted by mousethief:
trying to make it look like I was calling you out on something you did at noon when it it is clear as day I'm referring to something you did at nightfall.
quote:We don't have a scoring system. If we did have a scoring system, it would be in the hands of the Hellhosts. You should be glad we don't have a scoring system.
Originally posted by Evensong:
We have been deprived of a good hell thread recently have we not?
quote:I look forward to receiving a link to your thread review blog. Will you be using 5 stars or 4 as the maximum rating? 5 is more traditional in Australia, but consider the large North American audience.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I couldn't care less about anybody's scoring system. Mine is the only one that matters.
quote:I was thinking that. The most verbally aggressive person I know is a pacifist. People avoid them as they are very poor company.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Glad this thread opened up. Things re pacifism were definitely getting Hellish in Purg. Funny how talking about that theme brings out aggression and conflict. Must be in the genes ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:The article I linked on the other page, this one, is published by the Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's largest broadsheet. It's usually on par with the Guardian. Re-reading it I realize the death figure was lower, at 19 dead.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I can only find a couple of blog posts about this story, translated into a number of languages. Are there any major news outlets or other impartial sources that confirm this killing of 39 people by UN troups?
JFH: In Caglavica, a case I quoted on the pacifism thread, UN peacekeepers killed 39 people and wounded a couple of hundred people in order to stop an uprising that could have reignited the wars on the Balkans. Is that case justified?
quote:Perhaps that's why s/he needs to be a pacifist. Not sure being verbally aggressive to others is doing the cause of pacifism any good though.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I was thinking that. The most verbally aggressive person I know is a pacifist. People avoid them as they are very poor company.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Glad this thread opened up. Things re pacifism were definitely getting Hellish in Purg. Funny how talking about that theme brings out aggression and conflict. Must be in the genes ...
quote:Surely the whole stooshie around the founding of the state of Israel would have brought the reason so many Jews were leaving Europe to general attention?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I learned about it in 1965 and had no idea before that.
quote:The thing is, this is more or less the only thing in English language I have found mentioning the incident. It isn't a journalistic article, but the translation of some kind of blog post (presumably from the Serbocroatian language), and it's very clearly biased.
JFH: The article I linked on the other page, this one, is published by the Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's largest broadsheet. It's usually on par with the Guardian. Re-reading it I realize the death figure was lower, at 19 dead.
quote:Like I said, the piece isn't very journalistic. And the thing is, if the story were true, if UN troups really had killed 19 rioters who wanted to burn a monastery, it would have had major impact. People around the world would have been discussing all sides of it. Yet, there are almost no English (or German, or French...) language sources describing the incident, except some translations into German or Swedish of the same blog post.
JFH: However, at no time were the details of the battle of Caglavica questioned, which would have been an easy and brutal way to question the journalist's legitimacy if he had been wrong.
quote:Is he? I hadn't noticed. Thought it was the usual dick waving.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Zach82 is getting a good and well-deserved arse-kicking
quote:I'm quoting from a private message I sent you:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The thing is, this is more or less the only thing in English language I have found mentioning the incident. It isn't a journalistic article, but the translation of some kind of blog post (presumably from the Serbocroatian language), and it's very clearly biased.
JFH: The article I linked on the other page, this one, is published by the Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's largest broadsheet. It's usually on par with the Guardian. Re-reading it I realize the death figure was lower, at 19 dead.
I have found some English language books describing the events in Caglavica between 15–25 March of 2004. Clearly, it was a time of turmoil and a lot of things happened, but none of these sources mention the burning of monasteries or the killing of rioters by UN troups.
quote:Like I said, the piece isn't very journalistic. And the thing is, if the story were true, if UN troups really had killed 19 rioters who wanted to burn a monastery, it would have had major impact. People around the world would have been discussing all sides of it. Yet, there are almost no English (or German, or French...) language sources describing the incident, except some translations into German or Swedish of the same blog post.
JFH: However, at no time were the details of the battle of Caglavica questioned, which would have been an easy and brutal way to question the journalist's legitimacy if he had been wrong.
As it stands, I am having a hard time believing the story is true.
quote:I think HRW and the Daily Telegraph could be considered reasonable sources. Heck, even Socialist World writes about it, quoting 28 dead!
I realized you didn't ask whether that source was credible, but for other sources as well. The Daily Telegraph writes about "at least 11 dead". The Centre for Peace in the Balkans writes about 8 dead (6 Alb + 2 Serbs) in violence with KFOR forces involved. Paul Polansky recounts the battle on that same day, but quotes the KFOR CO at "at least 10". Lastly, Human Rights Watch (those known crooked source-foul-uppers!) quotes figures at 4 dead (use ctrl+F and look for Caglavica and it's easy to find).
So yeah, neither source puts it at 39 dead. Sorry, that was me misremembering. However, several articles from the day after the battle put the death toll at at least 10, meaning the figure in the article, 19, is likely to be realistic.
quote:The only review blogs I'm interested in are theological ones.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I look forward to receiving a link to your thread review blog. Will you be using 5 stars or 4 as the maximum rating? 5 is more traditional in Australia, but consider the large North American audience.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I couldn't care less about anybody's scoring system. Mine is the only one that matters.
quote:My mum learned of the Holocaust in 1945 from the BBC (growing up in Wales, evacuated from Liverpool). It was widely reported from April 1945 onward, and this was deliberate policy.
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:Surely the whole stooshie around the founding of the state of Israel would have brought the reason so many Jews were leaving Europe to general attention?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I learned about it in 1965 and had no idea before that.
I can't remember what history we were being taught at the time -1950s - (though where I was, 1690 was all you needed to know), but I do remember if the Sunday papers wanted a bit of lurid copy, they'd run an account of the horrors of the concentration camps. Ditto in war books and comics. Below the age of 10, my entire knowledge of Jews would have been as a category to whom the Nazis did especially bad things.
quote:No, though the ABC website has been busily spruiking the whole thing with extracts. Consequently I know he's a big fan of Chopin's Barcarolle, so I know the man has taste.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Didn't happen to catch Paul Keating last night on telly did you? Interesting thoughts on the arts as crucial to civilisation. Spoke of music too.
quote:I understand that Aussie Parliamentary language is a bit broader than that at Westminster. Was it Keating who argued that "bastard" should be allowed? I believe "ratbag" is.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:To bring this post at least vaguely back on topic, Keating would bloody love Hell. He could be patron of this board.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Didn't happen to catch Paul Keating last night on telly did you? Interesting thoughts on the arts as crucial to civilisation. Spoke of music too.
quote:Essentially, Keating's Parliamentary language is a bit broader than almost anyone else has ever gotten away with, because he did it with such flair.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I understand that Aussie Parliamentary language is a bit broader than that at Westminster.
quote:The holocaust was not repressed "due to the Cold War." It just wasn't. In fact, both the USSR and NATO spent much of the 50s using it in their propoganda. See also the excellent newsreel film The True Glory: From D-Day to the Fall of Berlin (introduced by Eisenhower) which was garlanded with awards. To say that most people, in Britain especially, had no idea about the extent of the holocaust when it was being run on newsreels in every cinema in the country - to the extent that my grandmother, who worked in the Croydon Gaumont at the time in 1945, was physically sick - is just not true.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The extent of the holocaust in April 1945 was not known by a fraction, let alone disseminated and it was rapidly repressed due to the Cold War in two years.
Nobody fought for the Jews except the Jews.
Only one country did the only Christian response: Denmark which saved 99% of its Jews.
quote:Bullshit. Ever heard of Raoul Wallenberg? Ever heard of Folke Bernadotte and the white buses? Ever heard of the Nobel prize winning writer Eyvind Johnson who had a Jewish woman express "fear for her race" in an allegorical trilogy in 1941?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Excellent link Pottage, thanks.
No gas chambers were ever used on German soil.
The extent of the holocaust in April 1945 was not known by a fraction, let alone disseminated and it was rapidly repressed due to the Cold War in two years.
Nobody fought for the Jews except the Jews.
Only one country did the only Christian response: Denmark which saved 99% of its Jews.
There is NO excuse for the rest of us Christians.
quote:Our natural reaction to being challenged is part if it. Right or wrong, we tend to react strongly.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Glad this thread opened up. Things re pacifism were definitely getting Hellish in Purg. Funny how talking about that theme brings out aggression and conflict. Must be in the genes ...
quote:Martin, Martin, Martin.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What was being taught John? In what syallabus? I learned about it in 1965 and had no idea before that. It completely and permanently traumatized me. That was due to my father's reading at the time. Your experience with Holocaust survivor children means North London. Not typical at all.
Nobody knew and like the German Christians that did it they didn't want to.
quote:He was living on an alternate reality, as was I. The reality in the UK is that word of the holocaust was suppressed by the government until the 1960s.
Originally posted by John Holding:
]Martin, Martin, Martin.
If I was being taught about it in Canada in the mid-1950s, then you really have to be living in some alternative reality to claim that no-one in the UK or anywhere else in the world knew about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No gas chambers were ever used on German soil.
quote:Dachau had no gas chambers - it wasn't used for mass extermination.
Originally posted by JFH: Also, ever heard of Dachau, Sachsenhausen and Bernburg? All were concentration camps with gas chambers, now on German soil.
quote:Utter rubbish - here's Richard Dimbleby *on the BBC* in 1945:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:He was living on an alternate reality, as was I. The reality in the UK is that word of the holocaust was suppressed by the government until the 1960s.
Originally posted by John Holding:
]Martin, Martin, Martin.
If I was being taught about it in Canada in the mid-1950s, then you really have to be living in some alternative reality to claim that no-one in the UK or anywhere else in the world knew about it.
quote:Newsreel films were made in liberated camps and widely shown in cinemas before the end of the war. I have met people, including family members, who saw them. They have been shown on British TV often (at least since the 1960s, I don't remember 1950s TV)
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Surely the liberators of Auschwitz & other camps would have told the Brits what they found?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Remember John Holding that no one in Britain apart from Churchill, who repressed it, knew about the Holocaust until about 1962.
quote:The only thing I ever came across that could remotely back up that statement, and it was in the pathetically little literature about "female relational bullying", a much worse problem than boys' physical sort, was an observation that, in secondary schools, some teachers would not take on the queen bees because if they did, those girls would make the class unteachable, and bully the staff member.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Teachers actually tend to unconsciously sympathize with the bullies, and tell the bullied children that it's their own fault for making themselves targets by reacting to teasing.
quote:Sorry, I got that wrong, I'm too young to remember that.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Utter rubbish - here's Richard Dimbleby *on the BBC* in 1945:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:He was living on an alternate reality, as was I. The reality in the UK is that word of the holocaust was suppressed by the government until the 1960s.
Originally posted by John Holding:
]Martin, Martin, Martin.
If I was being taught about it in Canada in the mid-1950s, then you really have to be living in some alternative reality to claim that no-one in the UK or anywhere else in the world knew about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/holocaust/5115.shtml
quote:I can't help noting that in the first link we have "The [disbelieving] BBC initially refused to broadcast until he [Dimbaldy] threatened to resign" and not a vast amount of coverage linked (about an hour in 1945 and then one report till 1977). Granted it's a selection and so forth but it's still a conspicuous gap.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Utter rubbish - here's Richard Dimbleby *on the BBC* in 1945:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:He was living on an alternate reality, as was I. The reality in the UK is that word of the holocaust was suppressed by the government until the 1960s.
Originally posted by John Holding:
]Martin, Martin, Martin.
If I was being taught about it in Canada in the mid-1950s, then you really have to be living in some alternative reality to claim that no-one in the UK or anywhere else in the world knew about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/holocaust/5115.shtml
This is an awesome book which I highly recommend if you've got $85 or can order it through your public library:
link
Look, there are others, this is Hell so find your own sources.... It was all over the BBC.
quote:Which on the one hand isn't quite the suppression of Martin's claims, but on the other...
PART III: FROM SUFFERING TO SILENCE: THE PRESS AND HOLOCAUST DISCOURSES, 1946-1950
The Problem of Displaced Jews and the Holocaust
The Holocaust, the Founding of Israel and the Arab-Israeli War in the British, Swedish and Finnish Press
Forgetting to Remember. The Press Discourse, the Cold War and Conjunctures of Remembrance
Conclusions
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
for admitting mistakes. I was wrong about Bernburg and Dachau, so that makes it 2-1 to you.quote:My relatives in Berlin, including my grandparents, father, aunt, among others. The lived just off the Tiergarten. My father (almost 90) was talking just this October how he recalls his mother talking to Jewish neighbours, that they should get out of Berlin and out of Germany, with the usual minimization talk from the neighbours. This was after the Olympics and before Kristallnacht. But the signs were there. Thing is, just like today but with more limits today, countries claim the right to do what they want within their borders. In my youth, my father compared what he saw as young person in Berlin in then 1930s to what he saw in the American south in the 1950s when he went to graduate school. His observations were that the violence in the USA was less frequent and less officially organized, with the signage less insulting. Reminding us that the restrictive laws for Indians in Canada remained in place until nearly 1970s.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hearing about the Holocaust after the war is entirely irrelevant to the question of the reasons for going to war in the first place, so I don't know why you're all blathering on about it.
What matters for these purposes is whether things like Kristallnacht were talked about in 1938-9, not whether places like Auschwitz were talked about in 1946.
quote:With the Soviet POWs we have an estimated total of around 50,000. As has been said, there was a gas chamber in Sachsenhausen, no longer in existence (though the foundations are still there) where Zyklon B was, uniquely, tested as a liquid, not as crystals.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
200,000 went through Sachsenhausen, 30,000 died and from 1943 the gas chamber was used.
quote:(not picking up on what you've said particularly but this seemed relevant) I don't actually think many people are pro-war, are they, barring a few nutcases? Most people just see it as sometimes being the least worst option.
I'm against war and suspicious of armies
quote:Munitions manufacturers and the congressmen they own are pro-war.
Originally posted by M.:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:(not picking up on what you've said particularly but this seemed relevant) I don't actually think many people are pro-war, are they, barring a few nutcases? Most people just see it as sometimes being the least worst option.
I'm against war and suspicious of armies
quote:I'm not seeing much sense of tragedy and failure in all the gung-ho, bash-the-bosh, it's-your-moral-duty-to-get-out-there-and-die-if-we-say-the-enemy-is-evil-enough, anyone-who-doesn't-want-to-fight-is-an-evil-gutless-collaborator crap that's been posted on various threads over the last week.
Originally posted by M.:
Most people (or perhaps I'm being naïve again) regard war as a tragedy and failure, don't they?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:They are more than "a few nutcases" and far, far more deadly. They are in large part the reason we can't have nice things. Well, that and the fact that We The People won't stand up to them.
Originally posted by balaam:
That still doesn't add up to many does it?
quote:They do just that and in many jurisdictions they are encouraged to do so. If it isn't governments being advised by civil servants and their own political advisors or taking a lead from the press, it's limited libility companies acting as distinct entities that allow their owners to benefit from taking risks that could get sole traders and partners sent to jail.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And what should a government comprised of disciples do? It's a false distinction. Institutions don't have a separate set of morals from the people who run them.
quote:An interesting person to research with regard to World War II, and long before that, is George Bell, Bishop of Chichester.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's worth much Rosa Winkel. Everything you say is. I stand corrected on the details of gassings in Germany. Thank you.
Until very recently I would have argued for the complete carpet bombing of Germany rather than D-Day. THEY started it, WE finish it. If it had gone on long enough, with nuclear weapons.
But in the hindsight of confrontation with Jesus, even 'simple' humanitarian pacifism emerges for me, as it does on this and the Pacifism and Remembrance threads, independent of His example.
I bought in to total war. To unconditional surrender. It is easily arguable that they on OUR part precipitated the Holocaust and the atomic bombings, through the prolonging and intensification of the war.
