Politics & Stuff

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The nuclear bombs on Japan....How can you use such example? It was WW2. It was a war.

Yes, hence the term "war crime".

Hitler was elected and the people of Germany was able to take him out. This falls on the entire nation, in which the nation has vow to never forget.

It's a crime to negate that the Holocaust happened in Germany.

While in Turkey it's a crime to talk about the Armenian genocide...

So the Germany nation learned from this and moved on.

Can you say the same thing about a nation in the middle east your talking about?

Can't really comment on the France thing.

No really my point. My point was that democratically elected leaders commit as much massacres and war crimes and massacres as dictators if not more. So, at the very least, democracies aren't learning from each other. Not to mention democracies like the USA that don't seem to have learned from Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Lybia...etc.

Vietnam was a war. Can't reprobate such outcome on the leaders. Now War crimes do happen in war, no one side is perfect. But the nation that is truly democratic will punish those who commit war crimes after the dust is settled. Can you say the same for dictators?

Others get reelected like Bush or become "Peace ambassadors" like Blair.

[Fernando 6,376]

Yes, hence the term "war crime".

No really my point. My point was that democratically elected leaders commit as much massacres and war crimes and massacres as dictators if not more. So, at the very least, democracies aren't learning from each other. Not to mention democracies like the USA that don't seem to have learned from Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Lybia...etc.

Others get reelected like Bush or become "Peace ambassadors" like Blair.

Yeah but there's a big difference in deliberately using chemical weapons in your own people.

You are pretty much taking the role of the lesser two evils men.

And this is the exact view that Israel takes when kids and such get killed.

Like it was Hamas fault and they have to do it to save lives.

The lesser of two evils, every country does it!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yeah but there's a big difference in deliberately using chemical weapons in your own people.

You are pretty much taking the role of the lesser two evils men.

And this is the exact view that Israel takes when kids and such get killed.

Like it was Hamas fault and they have to do it to save lives.

The lesser of two evils, every country does it!

So, it's okay to massacre people as long as they are not your own? You're trying to prove that democracies are more moral than dictatorships which historically is incorrect.

In NO world is trying to wipe an entire people off the face of earth the "lesser evil" and in Palestine, the have many other options that they do not take while the Palestinians are the ones who have no choice. It's a bit more complicated than you're trying to make it be.

[Fernando 6,376]

So, it's okay to massacre people as long as they are not your own? You're trying to prove that democracies are more moral than dictatorships which historically is incorrect.

In NO world is trying to wipe an entire people off the face of earth the "lesser evil" and in Palestine, the have many other options that they do not take while the Palestinians are the ones who have no choice. It's a bit more complicated than you're trying to make it be.

Yes according to what you said.

Saddam tried to wipe certain people of the map but you said that's better then now.

So for you that's the lesser of two evils.

[Clevemayer 764]

Wow, I don't know if any words could express my sympathy. I guess you guys suffered a lot. I am sorry for your loses. It is more like ethnic cleansing which is barbaric. What was Saddam doing with you guys?

he was worst of all but couldnt fulfill his plan. we never came off the mountains because they are our place of safety. He paid the ppl millions to come down to the desert and not live in the mountains any more and they took the money, he didn't like sunis, so sunis hated us, it was like our enemys enemy is our enemy too. one of the biggest mistake we did. Saddam did al anfal and this was against all kurds not only us, if you remember if not google it

Your words mean very much to me mate...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yes according to what you said.

Saddam tried to wipe certain people of the map but you said that's better then now.

So for you that's the lesser of two evils.

No he didn't. If he wanted he wouldn't have "tried" he would have actually done it.

Comparing what Saddam did to the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people for over 60 years is beyond ridiculous and simplistic.

I will not defend Saddam, but what I said was that because he gave his people peace and security and a good economical life and stuff like free schools and universities, he is better option than what it is happening at the moment.

[Fernando 6,376]

No he didn't. If he wanted he wouldn't have "tried" he would have actually done it.

Comparing what Saddam did to the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people for over 60 years is beyond ridiculous and simplistic.

I will not defend Saddam, but what I said was that because he gave his people peace and security and a good economical life and stuff like free schools and universities, he is better option than what it is happening at the moment.

And likewise Israel will say the same thing.

Really men your being a hypocritical saying one thing is better while this other is wrong.

[The Skipper 20,593]

Thanks for the very detailed reply Mohammed. Very insightful. You're right though in saying that if you're not strong as a person in your faith, that it definitely is easy to get corrupted by them. If you don't know your Bible/Quran/Torah then yes, this is a real possibility.

It still really, really surprised me though, especially in regards to the previously anti-jihadist one. Many Muslims at school and college looked up to him because he seemed very knowledgeable about the Quran and all the Hadith teachings. Many of those immediately went to his Facebook page after the news broke out and started blasting him, complaining how they all looked up to him and how he's betrayed them and stuff, it was quite sad to see. I still find it very odd right now.

[lucio 5,403]

The nuclear bombs on Japan? How about the democratically elected Hitler? The million martyrs in Algeria at the hands of France? The over million dead Vietnamese?

i dont think hitler was elected democratically. loads of opposition parties were banned after the reichstag fire.

the Weimar Republic had in many ways ceased to be a democracy by the time that Hitler was appointed chancellor. After 1930, Hindenburg began sidelining parliament and largely ruling by emergency decree (under the notorious Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution) through a succession of chancellors (first Bruning, then Papen, then Schleicher, and finally Hitler). So I

don’t think it’s quite right to say that Hitler was appointed chancellor as part of parliamentary politics — by the time of his appointment parliamentary politics in Weimar was basically dead already and the government was being run on largely authoritarian lines.

http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/

[CHOULO19 24,332]

And likewise Israel will say the same thing.

Really men your being a hypocritical saying one thing is better while this other is wrong.

Israel will say what exactly?

You are being ridiculous to even try to compare the two. Let me put thin in simple terms:

The reason Saddam is better than the current situation is because apart from doing horrible things, he did do some good things for a lot of people who now no longer have those good things.

But more importantly, Saddam is a better choice because the alternative is the death of thousands of people and constant terror in the country and the undermining of the security of the while region and possibly the world.

Even attempting to compare this complex situation with a completely different and more complex situation is ridiculously simplistic.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Not having democracy in ones country doesn't suddenly make you a brute...

What does it make you? Backwards?

Democracy should be the aim but it's never achieved without bloodshed. Praising someone like Saddam as 'providing peace' when he disenfranchised 90% of the country is the worst form of logic.

The nuclear bombs on Japan?

A basic lack of knowledge of the second world war and in particular the Japanese notion of 'total war'.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

i dont think hitler was elected democratically. loads of opposition parties were banned after the reichstag fire.

the Weimar Republic had in many ways ceased to be a democracy by the time that Hitler was appointed chancellor. After 1930, Hindenburg began sidelining parliament and largely ruling by emergency decree (under the notorious Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution) through a succession of chancellors (first Bruning, then Papen, then Schleicher, and finally Hitler). So I

don’t think it’s quite right to say that Hitler was appointed chancellor as part of parliamentary politics — by the time of his appointment parliamentary politics in Weimar was basically dead already and the government was being run on largely authoritarian lines.

http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/

I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, so you might be right, but still you can't deny that he had the support of the majority of the people at first.

[Fernando 6,376]

CHOULO19, on 08 Aug 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Israel will say what exactly?

You are being ridiculous to even try to compare the two. Let me put thin in simple terms:

The reason Saddam is better than the current situation is because apart from doing horrible things, he did do some good things for a lot of people who now no longer have those good things.

But more importantly, Saddam is a better choice because the alternative is the death of thousands of people and constant terror in the country and the undermining of the security of the while region and possibly the world.

Even attempting to compare this complex situation with a completely different and more complex situation is ridiculously simplistic.

There's no comparison, I'm just saying your being a big hypocrite because you say one system of atrocities is better because of the benefits.

This is exactly what USA says what drug cartels say, what Israel says, pretty much every nation.

We provide peace, education and Why not.

Again I say to you, your just being hypocrite justifying one thing and condemning the other just to make your point.

Edit: And attempting to compare the complexity of the situation, you see it's mess up comparing Israel with Saddam. And I see your point of view here

BUT how do you think I feel when you compare Saddam atrocities to something that happened in WW2? Those two are completely different situation and calling leaders from a nation as criminals in the same light of Saddam is really going over board.

So who's being the hypocrite here?

[lucio 5,403]

I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, so you might be right, but still you can't deny that he had the support of the majority of the people at first.

can't remember if it was majority. certainly at least 35%, and more than other parties.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

A basic lack of knowledge of the second world war and in particular the Japanese notion of 'total war'.

Over 200000 people killed in hours. Regardless of the circumstances, that is a war crime.

There's no comparison, I'm just saying your being a big hypocrite because you say one system of atrocities is better because of the benefits.
This is exactly what USA says what drug cartels say, what Israel says, pretty much every nation.
We provide peace, education and Why not.

Again I say to you, your just being hypocrite justifying one thing and condemning the other just to make your point.

Because one is actually better and the other is actually worse. The similarities you are trying to draw between the two do not overwrite the glaring differences.

[Fernando 6,376]

Over 200000 people killed in hours. Regardless of the circumstances, that is a war crime.

Because one is actually better and the other is actually worse. The similarities you are trying to draw between the two do not overwrite the glaring differences.

That says it all what I been saying to you from beginning.

In your view light it's the lesser of two evils. Simple.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

That says it all what I been saying to you from beginning.

In your view light it's the lesser of two evils. Simple.

Yes, I've stated so. Saddam is the lesser evil while a genocide in Gaza certainly isn't the lesser evil. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[The Skipper 20,593]

What does it make you? Backwards?

Democracy should be the aim but it's never achieved without bloodshed. Praising someone like Saddam as 'providing peace' when he disenfranchised 90% of the country is the worst form of logic.

I agree that democracy should be the aim to work towards but then again, it's unfair to label a whole country as brutes.

I would never condone Saddam's actions at all, but what I do agree with is that the situation under Saddam is probably better than the situation right now, even if it is the lesser of two evils.