REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Muslim Holocaust

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9697
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, January 8, 2011 5:50 AM

DREAMTROVE


I was looking at an anti-war slogan today "Iraq War - Wrong Way" and it struck me as off. I thought, okay, I know what they mean, approximately, War is Wrong, or maybe Preemptive War is Wrong, but that's not what they said. It could be interpreted many ways, and maybe they meant it one of those ways. Iraq War is being done wrong? Iraq is the wrong place to go to war with? We should have gone to war with someone else?

But also, it struck me as not strong enough. Wrong Way is a minor prohibition, and usually for your own protection, don't head into oncoming traffic, not, "you're not allowed here" and certainly isn't as strong a prohibition as "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Then I thought, how would I react if someone said "Holocaust - Wrong Way." It would definitely seem too weak to me.

I realized as I was thinking that I had just compared in my mind, the war, to the holocaust. So I started counting. Okay, the civilian deaths in Iraq are likely higher than Auschwitz, but they're not the holocaust. But then I added in Afghanistan and thought, okay, again, maybe those equal the other camps, Treblinka et al, but not 6 million. Then I thought, but if you add the attacks in Pakistan, Somalia and Eritrea, you probably get there, just using direct western and pro-western forces against muslim civilians and nominal resistance fighters.

I mentioned here before that my own research has quibbled with the holocaust not in the 6 million figure, which I agree with, but in the "all jews are sheep who walked helplessly to their deaths" analysis, which I don't think the data bears out. Many died in resistance to being captured by the Nazis, but outside of the Soviets, there really weren't uniformed Jews resisting, and there wasn't a "Jewish Army." But then that too is a parallel. We often call our opponents "resistance" or "insurgents" and they sometimes represent small govts. of townships or provinces, but mostly are disorganized groups opposed to our agenda, which they see as "Killing them."

So, I see no reason not to include these resistance fighters in the figures in either case. If we go further, and include bombings in Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Gaza by western or pro-western forces against Islamic resistance and civilians, we certainly reach 6 million. So at this point, I think it would be quibbling if one was to make a comparison to say this one or that one is larger in death toll and so is more important.

The next comparison that occurred was "But the holocaust was all the jews." It was curious that this was my first thought, because I knew very well that it wasn't. The holocaust was almost exclusively against the Ashkenazim and Khazar jews, and if you view the judeo-christian tradition with a billion or so members, then, no, this was a very, very specific slice of that.

So, is there a comparison to that? Well, we keep saying "Radical Islam," not Islam in general, "Muslim Extremists" like clearly not the extremists of Indonesia, specific extremists right? Yes. "Wahabists" and "Taliban" and something we have vaguely named "Al Qaeda" and a few other groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

Okay, now we've narrowed it down to a very specific subset of Islam. The holocaust killed about 1/3 of the world's jews, but it wasn't really aiming to kill all of them, it was aiming to kill specific subgroups. Of this I'm really fairly certain. Sure, the Nazis would kill Jews outside of their target groups, but mostly if they represented resistance to Nazis (why wouldn't they?) or just for sport, like shooting farmers in Afghanistan.


So I thought I would pose this question to the board:

Is this the Muslim Holocaust?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 6:24 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Wow. What an eye opening analysis. Moments like these are why I come here.

If it isn't, it surely is approaching a Muslim Holocaust.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 9:47 AM

DREAMTROVE


Thanks. You make a good point. I am comparing a completed event with an uncompleted one, even less reason to bicker about numbers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 10:18 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Interesting thought, but there are too many differences to really label it as a holocaust. For starters, we aren't killing Muslims in our own country, seizing their property, sending them to camps, etc... I know this sounds childish, but "they started it" and perhaps we've taken it way too far. Far as I know, we have no intentions of annexing Iraq or Afghanistan.

By your logic, Vietnam and Korea would have been holocausts too right? Weren't the soldiers/insurgents/people our military killed there all of the same general race and religion?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 10:53 AM

DREAMTROVE


Happy

No, I wouldn't. Vietnam and Korea were wars. We were fighting with armies, which had the backing of a govt., China, and claimed to be the govts. of Vietnam and Korea, which they became (sort of, N/ Korea anyway). We entered into these wars at the request of the legitimate recognized govts. of those countries, who were trying to defend them. We went in, and attacked primarily military targets, and sure, there were civilian casualties, as there always are in war, but they fell on both govts. as usually happens, IOW, this was war, in its classic sense.

There is no way that the United States of America, with a million men, 10s of thousands of nukes, planes, millions of missiles bombs and guns attacking, uninvited by anyone, the free state of Kandahar can be considered a confict of comparable powers, or in any way comparable to our defense of the legitimate govt. of S. Korea or Vietnam.

Now, sure, you can take the position "War is bad" and I would agree. But after the war is over, you have to ask "Would you rather live in South Korea, or North Korea?" So, obviously, the war was about something.

Now back to the start of this conflict. What evidence do you have that "they" attacked us, and could you define "they"?

Conspiracy theories on both sides are likely to lie unproven for a long time, and will remain the subject of historical debate long beyond the direct relevance of the event. To wit:

Did the Nazis start the Reichstag Fire themselves? This is still a hotly debated question. Were they really under attack, and did it call for the passing of the emergency powers act, or had, in fact, the emergency powers act been written ahead of time, and then the Reichstag fire was either used or created for the purpose of passing it?

We might never know for sure, but I suspect the majority of western historians would say "yes, it was an inside job." What do you think the majority of muslim historians will say about 9.11 in 2087? What do you suspect they say about it now?

Also, Muslims have not been rounded up into camps? This is news to me. Have you been to Bagram lately?

Billions in muslim assets were not seized in this country? Of course they were. We admitted openly to doing it, and we are still doing it. Obama admits openly to doing it. We call it "Seizing assets" and then we say "of people with suspected links to organizations that may be connected with terrorism."

Well, a) That's pretty vague; and b) suspected by whom? Convicted in a court of law? Suspected by police? Oh, on the say-so of the US govt. in an unquestioned and unaccountable manner. Okay. Now I understand.

Were you aware that when the Nazis seized Jewish assets, which in the case of my family amounted to several billion dollars, they used basically the exact same pretenses to do so?

Also, Germany didn't technically kill the jews *in* Germany. The holocaust happened elsewhere. Auschwitz was in Poland, as was Treblinka. The camp where the last of my relatives were killed was Terezin in then Czechoslovakia.

600,000 German Jews wer placed on a list. Many fled the country, including some of my relatives, though primarily they were Czechs, some lived in Germany, and were on the list. Many of the jews were en route to Israel, supposedly. Most even. Some had done so voluntarily. Others had been forced to emigrate, ergo, they were deported.

Surely, no one in the US has suggested deporting anyone based on any sort of ethnic profiling here.

Or in Europe.

In fact, European nations forcibly deport tens of thousands of people each year based on ethnic profiling, as do we, including muslims. Some of the muslims we deport end up in our prison camps. But, like Germany, our primary target is not our own muslim population.

Of 600,000 German Jews, how many escaped? Probably about half. At least some actually made it to Israel, before the holocaust really got started, many fled for Sweden or Russia. But of the 11 million civilian casualties of the Germans, roughly half were jewish, and those jews were overwhelmingly Russian, Polish or some other form of Eastern European.

I made the point in an earlier thread that actually, being slavic is a more unifying factor, statistically, than being jewish, in holocaust deaths, but the Nazis killed many more slavic jews by % than anyone else, because that was their specific target.

Our specific target, I contend, is perhaps similar: We are targeting muslims. Not so much our muslims, someone else's muslims. Just like Germany was targeting someone else's Jews.

Finally, it's worth noting that German and the US will never be direct parallels, there are too many differences, not the least of which being that we do not neighbor any muslim countries or target populations. Germany was surrounded by hostile nations, many of them slavic.

As for annexation, we have already done so. Our value for these nations is different from the Germans: We have no interest in depopulating them to repopulate them with Americans. Rather, we're interested in setting up military bases to secure the natural resources of those countries and to strategically prepare for a potential war with Iran, as a simple map of the layout of those military bases betrays.

So, sure, it's not identical, but then it never is, is it. Rwanda is not identical, and neither is Armenia, but neither case would be called a legal war by anyone.

ETA: Oh, and no, there was no unifying factor of our enemies in Korea and Vietnam other than that they opposed us, and were supported by communists. But we weren't out to kill communists, we weren't exterminating communist civilian targets intentionally. Sure, they were asians, but then again, so were the people we were helping and defending. You'd be hard pressed to say that we were aiding and defending Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone radical Islam.


ETA: Holocaust camp casualty figures
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blchart.htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 4:27 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I know this sounds childish, but "they started it" and perhaps we've taken it way too far.

But they didn't. WE started it. I mean, even if Al Qaeda really did perpetrate 9/11, they didn't just do it for the sheer evil joy of it, did they? Why did they do it?

Who started it depends on the point of view, doesn't it? Someone else always starts it, and the "good" guys are just retaliating. Each response escalates, people point fingers to the last escalation and say, "They started it."

That is why the "they started it" argument doesn't serve any purpose but to rationalize our own evil.



Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 4:33 PM

CANTTAKESKY


To Happy:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Also, Muslims have not been rounded up into camps? This is news to me. Have you been to Bagram lately?

Or Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib? What percentage of the prisoners there are Muslim, do you think?

Quote:

Billions in muslim assets were not seized in this country?
Rense is not my favorite source, but it will give you a jumpstart on the type of seizures to google for, if you were interested in learning more.

http://www.rense.com/general88/targ.htm

Quote:

In a December 2008 article, this writer explained that the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) was the largest American Muslim charity until the Bush administration bogusly declared it an enemy of the state and shut it down.

On December 4, 2001, the Treasury Department declared HLF a terrorist group, froze its assets, and falsely claimed they were being used to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas. HLF's appeal was denied.

It provided vital relief to Palestinian refugees in Occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan as well as aid for the needy in Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya, Turkey, America, and elsewhere.

Its activities included:

-- financial aid to needy and impoverished families;

-- a sponsorship program for orphaned children;

-- numerous social services;

-- educational ones;

-- medical and other emergency work; and

-- community development, including helping Palestinians rebuild homes that Israel maliciously destroyed.

HLF described its work as follows. "We gave:

-- books, not bombs;

-- bread, not bullets;

-- smiles, not scars;

-- toys, not tanks;

-- liberty, not poverty;

-- hope, not despair;

-- love, not hate; (and)

-- life, not death.

Yet a July 27, 2004 press release accompanying a Department of Justice (DOJ) indictment headlined: "HOLY LAND FOUNDATION, LEADERS, ACCUSED OF PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO HAMAS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION."

Hamas IS NOT a terrorist organization. It's the democratically elected Palestinian government that's been maliciously maligned, targeted, sanctioned, isolated, boycotted, attacked, and held under a devastating Gaza siege since mid-2007.

Five HLF leaders were arrested, indicted, tried, and on November 24, 2008 convicted on 108 counts, including supporting a terrorist organization, money laundering, and tax fraud - all bogus charges. On May 27, 2009, sentences ranged from 15 - 65 years for the two main principles, Ghassan Elashi and Shukri Abu Baker. Their crime - being Muslims at the wrong time in America and providing charity to the most needy.

An ACLU Report on Targeting Muslim Charities

In June 2009, the ACLU published a report titled, "Blocking Faith, Freezing Charity: Chilling Muslim Charitable Giving in the 'War on Terrorism Financing' "

It explained that:

"The government's actions have created a climate of fear that chills American Muslims' free and full exercise of their religion through charitable giving, or Zakat, one of the 'five pillars' of Islam and a religious obligation for all observant Muslims." Since 9/11, fulfilling it in America is a crime.





Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2011 6:08 PM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

you make a good point, whether orno, playground rules aside, who started it counts, it would as depend on when it started.

Long before kristallnacht, the gears of a potential holocaust were turning. I need to switch devices.

Okay, now from the iPad

Quote:


Among those expelled was the family of Zindel and Rivka Grynszpan, Polish Jews who had emigrated to Germany in 1911 and settled in Hanover. At the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, Zindel Grynszpan recounted the events of their deportation from Hanover on the night of 27 October 1938: “Then they took us in police trucks, in prisoners’ lorries, about 20 men in each truck, and they took us to the railway station. The streets were full of people shouting: ’Juden raus! Auf nach Palästina!’ ” ("Jews out, out to Palestine!").[17]
Their seventeen-year-old son Herschel was living in Paris with an uncle.[5] His sister, Berta, sent him a postcard from the Polish border describing the family's expulsion: "No one told us what was up, but we realised this was going to be the end… We haven't a penny. Could you send us something?"[18] He received the postcard on November 3. On the morning of Monday, November 7, he purchased a revolver and a box of bullets, then went to the German embassy and asked to see an embassy official. After he was taken to the office of Ernst vom Rath, Herschel shot him three times in the abdomen. He made no attempt to escape the French police and freely confessed to the shooting. In his pocket, he carried a postcard to his parents with the message "May God forgive me… I must protest so that the whole world hears my protest, and that I will do."



No, your God will not forgive you. This was the incident which led to the riots which led to Kristallnacht. Which in turn, led to the holocaust.

But the situation was bad. The killer was being deported, he was not a German, but a Pole, one of 12,000 deported. Every nation in Europe as well as the US has made deportations like this, the French just did a massive deportation of Romani.

The result was a massive seizing and forced deportations and detainment of 30,000 Jews, and event we call Kristallnacht, or the night of broken glass. This is often considered the turning point for Nazi Germany, when it crossed the line from a bad govt, into evil.

My question, I guess, in part, is have we crossed that line?

At this point in 1938, there had been no exterminations. jews had been encouraged to emigrate, and many had chosen to do so simply because the situation was bad, and the Jewish population of Germany was already under 300,000. The remaining jews who could flee, did so.

Now to make a parallel, I would argue that the coalition powers, which is what we are, include three states that can be seen as "policy makers" those being the US, Great Britain, and Israel. The domestic muslim populations of the US have suffered some deportations and seizures, as have the Muslim populations of Great Britain. The Muslim populations of Israel have actually been under attack.

The situation seems similar to me when I read the reports in Haretz of Muslim attacks on Israelis, it seems that they are individual crimes, brought on by tense situations and at least perceived injustices, but the govt. Treats them as acts of war, and takes it out on much larger populations, perhaps using these incidents as excuses to do what they wanted to do anyway.

In this regard, I see the stone throwing Muslim who kills an Israeli soldier as being in a similar position to Grynszpan. Wrong, undeniably, but tragically so, much like the lunatic in Arizona. (imagine if he had been a Muslim, or even a Latino)

He perceives an injustice, like Grynszpan, the deportation of his parents, any similar thing might happen in Palestine, and a Palestinian attacks an Israeli who symbolizes the wrong. The govt. Takes this as an opportunity to launch a larger action, such as the invasion of gaza, or Lebanon.

This larger action is met with more resistance and more attacks, which the govt. Uses to upscale the conflict.

But in krystallnacht, when the dust is settled, the crimes and deaths taking place in the homeland are small. 91 jews were killed.

In Germany.

As it would be in Israel. Could happen here, or Britain, doesn't matter. The point is that this is not the holocaust. It is the ripple effects that happen in foreign lands, where the conflict spills over and expands.

Because of a perceived threat to Israel, radical Muslims may be detained, tortured, or even killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Somalia.

Before we know it, the extermination of radical Islam is policy. Even official policy. The president has said as much, tribalism and radical islam, extremism, these are things which must be destroyed. Well, these are a subset of Islam similar in size to Judaism. The Nazis would have accepted the conversion of the Jews, not always as Germans, but for many, they did, and many became loyal Germans. Some of the hatred was racial, but largely it was the idea of Judaism they wanted destroyed, more than the race. And a particular sort of Judaism.

BTW, death camp figures showed a total of 3+ million, the accepted estimate is 4 million camp deaths, but I would say based in the statistical sampling that that was out of the 11 million overall civilians, not just the Jews, leaving pen of room for other forms of hebrewcide?

No situations will ever be identical, but the parallels here are eerie to me, the nature of the exaggeration of the importance of the initial crimes, the collective punishment of an enic group for those crimes rather than the individuals responsible, and the snowballing effect in foreign occupied territories that ratchet up the scale to something which could be termed genocide.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 9, 2011 7:10 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My question, I guess, in part, is have we crossed that line?

DT, you finally answered your own question, "What changed in 1938?" Interesting, very interesting.

My answer, nah. We haven't crossed that line yet. Next terrorist attack--that will be the line. That is when our govt will go from bad to evil.

Just my uneducated guess.

Yes, I find the parallels you have drawn to be eerie as well. Thank you for your thoughts on this.


Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 1:59 AM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

I'm not sure. I think something happened at a high level in the advisory capacity or the power structure of Germany that caused the German media to respond that way, that caused the German govt. To respond that way. A way more similar to the way the current govt. Of Israel would, or our occupation govts., but yes, perhaps not yet the US.

I figure the Nazis with about 40% of seats argued in the manner of "what are we going to do about the Jewish problem" as that guy in the video Chris posted said, and the rest of the parliament said "Gee that's a good question," not catching the framed debate. Speaking of which, where is Chris?

The US I guess will cross that line when it responds the same way to an incident like this. Like that tea partier who killed the 9 year old girl, and the judge, and four others. He was someone who believed as probably many Americans now believe, that the federal reserve was evil, and his govt was evil, and did the wrong thing. He also had the wrong idea that his enemy was democrats, but more, he had the wrong idea that violence was a solution. As I said before, even if your target list were accurate, the people who do violence are always the villain.

This incident is very similar to the German incident above. I suppose a US that had crossed that line would round up tea partiers into camps or deport them. But at the moment, while FOX news views the Tea Party as charming, the nation views it negatively, but now as the Germans viewed Jews. More like the Germans viewed Communists, though both would hate that parallel, I think it's a pretty sound one.

And yes, first they came for the Communists, but I don't necessarily see that happening. What if it had been a Muslim or a Latino who did that shooting, and what if in doing so, had made it clear that it was politically targeted in opposition to the US policies towards those groups. Would we have a mass deportation., or detention?

We have certainly set up the situation. The political climate is there, the govt. And media attitude. We already have built the camps, and we have already built the secret govt. Police force of a million police.

A point I always like to remind people of, because everyone always forgets: it wasn't the *military* that perpetrated the holocaust, it was the police. Last time I posted this I asked for people to post other examples of situations out of control so we could see if this was a pattern or an exception, I haven't dug into it that much myself. Who did the killing in the cultural revolution, un bulk, or in the Ukraine, the wild west, leopold's Congo, and the other genocides of the 19th and 20th centuries.

I also found myself wondering why people are avoiding this thread. Is it because they're afraid of where they would have to place the US in this parallel if they considered it seriously?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:37 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Speaking of which, where is Chris?

He has a life. Good for him.

Quote:

What if it had been a Muslim or a Latino who did that shooting, and what if in doing so, had made it clear that it was politically targeted in opposition to the US policies towards those groups. Would we have a mass deportation., or detention?
I don't think we're there yet. I don't think the "Merchants of Death" are ready to cross that line yet.

Quote:

A point I always like to remind people of, because everyone always forgets: it wasn't the *military* that perpetrated the holocaust, it was the police.
Except when the military becomes the police. This is true in many, many countries around the world, where the military and the police are exactly the same thing. They don't make the distinction Americans do.

Cmdr Adama nails the problem on the head: "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

It's not like they haven't tried to blur the lines before.

Remember this? Sea Smurfs?

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/381348_amyonline02.html
Quote:

A little-noticed story surfaced a couple of weeks ago in the Army Times newspaper about the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team. "Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months," reported Army Times staff writer Gina Cavallaro, "the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." Disturbingly, she writes that "they may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control" as well.

The force will be called the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive Consequence Management Response Force. Its acronym, CCMRF, is pronounced "sea-smurf." These "sea-smurfs," Cavallaro reports, have "spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle," in a combat zone, and now will spend their 20-month "dwell time" -- time troops are required to spend to "reset and regenerate after a deployment" -- armed and ready to hit the U.S. streets.



Remember HR 1585? WND highlights some of the concerns (not my fav source, but quick).

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44590
Quote:

Yet, provisions such as Section 1806 of H.R. 1585 emphasize again the Bush administration determination to establish new ground in articulating a primary role for a federalized National Guard or the U.S. military in domestic emergency situations.


Disturbing that it passed both the House and Senate. Strangely vetoed by Bush.

However, he did sign this:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/National_Security_and_H
omeland_Security_Presidential_Directive


Anyway, yes, I agree the climate is ripening for the Line to be crossed. We'll see if it actually happens, or if they continue this mid-level detention and torture indefinitely.

Quote:

I also found myself wondering why people are avoiding this thread. Is it because they're afraid of where they would have to place the US in this parallel if they considered it seriously?
Maybe they agree and find it too depressing to comment. I almost have nothing to say about it myself. Or maybe they disagree but don't care argue about it.


Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:25 AM

BYTEMITE


This is the first I've had a chance to look at this thread. I agree, and really just don't have much to say. At the risk of Godwin-ing, it makes sense that globalist/imperialist authoritarians are going to look like socio-fascists with eugenics agendas. It's basically the same ideas repackaged with different buzzwords. Sometimes Godwins are justified.

My guess is they're all descended from the same crowd, just using different surface rationale and explanations to hide their origins and make their policies more acceptable. The saddest part of all of it is probably most of them are well-meaning and just want to do what they see as right to reduce suffering; the problem is they believe in Ends Justify The Means.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:28 AM

DREAMTROVE


Good points.

A few caveats

1) The Merchants of Death aren't ready to implement that policy *here* in the US. They have already implemented it elsewhere under coalition contol.

2) In the early days, the holocaust, or what would become it, *was* the regular police, and they thought they *were* protecting the people. It depends on who you consider the people and what you consider protection.

3) you make a good point about the transformation of police, and we are doing that here with homeland security, the thought has occurred to me that the SS was needed not just for the actions that it took, but for where it took them. The German police would be out of their jurisdiction in Poland.

So far I have been unable to find RWED's upper limit on "depressing" I'm not convinced it exists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:32 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So far I have been unable to find RWED's upper limit on "depressing" I'm not convinced it exists.

I once posted a very graphic article on genital mutilation in the Congo, and the one genital reconstruction clinic that was overwhelmed by thousands of women waiting in line.

People told me they didn't want to post on that thread because it was too depressing.

A holocaust, funded by our own tax dollars, might be up there too.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

So I thought I would pose this question to the board:

Is this the Muslim Holocaust?



It's a tragic waste of humanity, to be sure. But I'd not 'go there', w/ the holocaust terminology, as there isn't any overt, stated intent to wipe out Muslims from the face of the Earth. Or even a part of the Earth, as Hitler wanted to rid Europe of the Jews, and other 'inferior' peoples.

Also, it's Muslims ( radical, brain washed zealots ) who are doing MOST of the murdering of Muslims.

Yes, it's a large loss of life, but so is the slaughter that's gone on in Africa. That's far more a 'holocaust', as the term is often used, w/ regards to the Jews in WW2.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:16 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yes, it's a large loss of life, but so is the slaughter that's gone on in Africa. That's far more a 'holocaust', as the term is often used, w/ regards to the Jews in WW2.

Actually, that's a good point.

6-7 million and counting? 45,000 a month?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:32 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

as there isn't any overt, stated intent to wipe out Muslims from the face of the Earth. Or even a part of the Earth, as Hitler wanted to rid Europe of the Jews, and other 'inferior' peoples.


I don't recall that the Final Solution was overtly broadcast at the time, though. The only way we might be able to figure out if someone somewhere has a document in their desk called "The Grand Plan" is to compare and contrast.

On Africa, I'm not sure the ethnic infighting on a grand scale is exactly like the Holocaust, though it is very bad. There's gangs of East Africa versus West Africa that transcend borders, some of which are supported by some governments, but I don't see so much governments invading other countries in order to genocide there. Maybe I'm wrong.

On a large scale, depending on whether or not certain conspiracy theories are true, there might be genocides or even Holocausts. In the very least there's some gross negligence from the world community going on.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:11 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

as there isn't any overt, stated intent to wipe out Muslims from the face of the Earth. Or even a part of the Earth, as Hitler wanted to rid Europe of the Jews, and other 'inferior' peoples.


I don't recall that the Final Solution was overtly broadcast at the time, though. The only way we might be able to figure out if someone somewhere has a document in their desk called "The Grand Plan" is to compare and contrast.



Huh? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. I'll pass, for now, until things are made more clear.

Quote:


On Africa, I'm not sure the ethnic infighting on a grand scale is exactly like the Holocaust, though it is very bad. There's gangs of East Africa versus West Africa that transcend borders, some of which are supported by some governments, but I don't see so much governments invading other countries in order to genocide there. Maybe I'm wrong.



I don't know if you're joking about E.Africa vs W.Africa, as some sort of tongue in cheek reference to the E coast/ W coast rapper wars , but yeah, you're wrong. I was talking in part of the Hutu / Tutsis war, where there' been the most horrific acts of savagery , and the intent is solely to wipe out the other side. That,imo, is the definition of a holocaust.



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

as there isn't any overt, stated intent to wipe out Muslims from the face of the Earth. Or even a part of the Earth, as Hitler wanted to rid Europe of the Jews, and other 'inferior' peoples.

Uhhh, obviously you've never been to an Erik Prince speech up here with his slimy cronies like DeVos and the rest of them... he's got this little shindig they do over in Holland MI and we've wired the place a time or two, and watched it more than a few times - while the Gov might be debateable, there are quite a few factions within our military with Christian-Crusade intentions, and Blackwater/Xe's agenda is not whatever in any doubt at all.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:39 AM

DREAMTROVE


Rap

1) I doubt that it is radical muslims doing most of the killing. I think it's coalition forces, and probably increasingly, automated weaponry of the coalition.

2) There *is* and *has* been a stated goal to eradicate "radical" islam. Read my post above on "targeted" subsets of religious groups.

3) I agree with you about Africa, I posted a thread on that a while ago. I just found myself comparing mentally the war to the holocaust without realizing it, as I detailed above.


Byte

As I've said in past threads, as someone who has researched the holocaust extensively, I remain unconvinced that there was in fact ever a Final Solution order. I don't think it's essential, it's just part of the story that was spun at the time. I'm not sure it's relevant.

The very clear connection is that it was the intent of the German govt. to either kill jews, or destroy the jewish sects in question, and as a result of policies of the German govt., many many jews were killed. Given this, we would have to make a parallel question:

Was it the intent of the US govt. to either kill radical muslim or destroy the radical Islamic sects in question?


Note to all:

In this parallel, Judaism has to be compared to Radical Islam, as Judaism is a specific subset of a religious tradition of a billion people, it is not the entire group. "Islam" would refer to an entire group of a billion people. That's not an even comparison.

Even among Radical Islam, there is more precising targeting here, just as there had been in the holocaust.

We don't know what the death toll of American Concentration Camps in the middle east which we *admit* to running, and where many muslims have been killed, *including* children, which, again, we admit to... whether this makes up as large a % of the total deaths as in the holocaust, is probably also not the point.

I posted official camp casualty estimates. Remember, that figure, 3+ million is of all German camp victims. Roughly 1/2, statistically, of camp victims were jewish. That means the only thing we know for a fact is that at least 1.5 million jews died in camps, and by the end, 6 million jews were killed. All of teh research I've done to date supports this profile. This means that 25% or more of the jewish casualties of the holocaust were camp deaths resulting from forced labor camp conditions and exterminations. that means as many as 75% of jews killed were killed in unofficial conflict, capture, forced movements, and targeted attacks by Nazis on Jewish civilian communities and villages, something which we know for a fact took place, and we know for a fact represented a substantial portion of all jewish deaths. Possibly a larger portion than camp deaths, but it's impossible to say.

That said, have there been extensive attacks by coalition forces on radical islamic communities and villages of entirely or primary civilian populations? Of course there have. Have there been coalition attacks on radical islamic resistance forces that posed no direct threat to the states of coalition members? Of course there have. Have these corresponded with a substantial portion of overall casualties? I would say definitely.


Rap,

You can argue whether or not Tutsis are genetically East African, but they were certainly Nilo-Saharans. Most target groups of exterminations have been Nilo-Saharans, or central african pygmy groups, and the attackers are generally West African Bantu groups, so I think Byte is basically correct. Sometimes both sides are East Africa, but one has foreign backing, like in the case of Christian Ethiopia vs. East African Muslims, or Nigerian Muslim militias against the Christian populations in Nigeria.

But to deny that there's an element of race war to the conflicts of Africa seems naive to me.


Frem.

Thanks for weighing in., there's obvious that feeling on certain parts of coalition forces. Got a take on the overall parallel?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:47 AM

BYTEMITE


You said there isn't an overt, broadcast plan to wipe out Muslims. Agreed.

But when I wikipedia searched the Final Solution, what I read was that the Final Solution was a plan talked about among the Nazi leadership, and the only evidence for it, found too late to be entered into the Nuremburg Trials, were the minutes of a meeting between Hitler, Himmler, and some other subordinates that made reference to it.

Jews were discriminated against for a long time, and actively encouraged to leave to Palestine, and speeches were made about that policy. These policies were not the Final Solution, the Final Solution was rounding them up into concentration camps and killing them, either when they were too weak to work anymore or to later hide the activities of the concentration camps when the Nazis were collapsing and would face international justice.

There were no big speeches I can find about the Final Solution. Kristallnacht would have seemed like a very sudden change of Nazi policy to the people dragged off that night, who hadn't had the foresight to flee during all the other discrimination and vitriol tossed their way.

As such, I say that the Final Solution wasn't overtly broadcast either.

Which is why I then said that we might not know if there is any such plan to kill Muslim civilians, and the only way we might find out is to compare the current deaths and official and unofficial policies we know about with a known genocide plan.

The hope is that the combination thereof does not resemble The Final Solution.

Quote:

I was talking in part of the Hutu / Tutsis war, where there' been the most horrific acts of savagery , and the intent is solely to wipe out the other side. That,imo, is the definition of a holocaust.


I'm not joking, no, this isn't something I'd joke about. We were merely operating under different definitions.

Your definition is actually correct. The Holocaust is considered a genocide, so by definition a holocaust is the same as a genocide.

I was working based off the definition DT has been developing in this thread, where a Holocaust specifically is a genocide like the Jewish/slavic genocide in WW2, where a government invaded other countries to try to kill off target populations there.

My understanding is that in Rwanda the Hutu and Tutsis periodically take control of the government to kill each other, and that there have been many genocides in the long history of the conflict. But there isn't just one genocidal group and their victims (as with the Nazis and the Jews), and the government of Rwanda, while changing hands a lot, they have not actually invaded other countries to kill off the target population there that I can see.

Tutsis in the Congo MAY look like this, but I don't know that they specifically target Hutu there, rather it seems to be just a big power struggle between a bunch of different ethnic groups.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

as there isn't any overt, stated intent to wipe out Muslims from the face of the Earth. Or even a part of the Earth, as Hitler wanted to rid Europe of the Jews, and other 'inferior' peoples.


Uhhh, obviously you've never been to an Erik Prince speech up here with his slimy cronies like DeVos and the rest of them... he's got this little shindig they do over in Holland MI and we've wired the place a time or two, and watched it more than a few times - while the Gov might be debateable, there are quite a few factions within our military with Christian-Crusade intentions, and Blackwater/Xe's agenda is not whatever in any doubt at all.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.




Uhhh..who the hell is Erik Prince ? And what are you even talking about ? " Holland, MI "? Can you get even MORE obscure for me? How about Lame Deer, Montana ? Christ!

The NAZIS had a final solution, which involved incarceration Jews, shipping them off in box cars, while liquidating their property. They sent them to camps, to be executed, or be worked to death.

I'm not talking about some kook fringe zealots, who hand out pamphlets and yammer about on the need to eradicate this or that 'inferior' race. I'm talking about those in control of a government, who have intent and means to carry out something on the scale like we saw with the Holocaust in WW2.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Good heavens, Rappy, could you possibly BE more ignorant ?
*shaking head*
Someone else explain it to this twerp, cause I'd just lose my cool and verbally flense him, which is all but pointless.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 9:27 AM

BYTEMITE


AU: Erik Prince founded Blackwater/Xe. He's stepped down as CEO, but my guess is he's still heavily involved on the side. He also was once CIA, but my guess is you never technically really LEAVE the CIA.

Frem and his people go frontline with him and his types because they're both in private security, though I hear they're also trying to get into prisons in America (yaaaaay /snark).

>_> To be fair to AU, I had to look it up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 9:51 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Tutsis in the Congo MAY look like this, but I don't know that they specifically target Hutu there, rather it seems to be just a big power struggle between a bunch of different ethnic groups.

That is the conventional portrayal in our history books and in the news.

I have a different viewpoint from talking to people from the Congo and Rwanda, and others who have been there. I can't reference or prove it, but I will briefly explain my POV, just to throw it out there.

1. There is no real ethnic difference between the Tutsis and Hutus. Maybe once upon a time, they were from different tribes, but centuries of intermarriage has rendered any racial differences moot. The conflicts are about class, not race. Any racial differences are artifacts of politics and ID cards.

2. Museveni of Uganda is the African Hitler. He controls everything. The Rwandan genocide was politically orchestrated to put Kagame in charge of Rwanda, have Rwandan land and resources redistributed to cronies, and serve as his puppet. There is some very subtle suggestion that members of the UN Security council, particularly the USA and France, were part of this political orchestration.

3. Museveni and Kagame lent some help to the rebel Kabila to overthrow Mobutu of Zaire, presumably to extend the Museveni empire to resource-rich Congo. This is known as the First Congo War, which overthrew Mobutu. Kagame began to exterminate his opposition and Hutu refugees hiding in the Congo. The problem was Kabila thought the Congo could be independent after overthrowing Mobutu and asked the Rwandans and Ugandans to leave. Museveni and Kagame didn't take that lying down.

4. Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi (with help from USA) then invaded the Congo on the pretext of helping local "rebels." After all, it worked before. What they really did was continue to exterminate the hundreds of thousands of Hutus and Kagame dissidents who fled into the Congo after the Rwandan genocide. This is partially to consolidate their power in Rwanda and Burundi, and partially to destroy and destabilize the region to cripple Kabila's defiance.

5. Kabila then got his own allies: Zimbabwe, Angola, Chad, Namibia, Sudan, and Libya. The is the Second Congo War, or Africa's World War.

6. In 2001, Kabila was assassinated. His son Kabila II took his father's place. He was much more amenable to being a Museveni and Western puppet than his father. "Peace" treaties were signed shortly thereafter, with the last one finalized in 2003.

7. The Congo has been an all-you-can-rape-and- pillage buffet by all the nations involved in the African World War ever since. The Congolese people are being terrorized and exterminated to carve up their land.

8. It's all about money/resources. Genocide, in my opinion, is actually very rarely about race or ethnicity, and almost always about economics and power.

For more reading:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Second_Congo_War

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:30 AM

BYTEMITE


Possible. The first incidence of European contact with the Tutsi and Hutu were that the only difference they could see between the two was that the Tutsi were considered rich compared to Hutu and generally referred to someone who owned more then ten cows. They considered them both bantu descended.

Of course, this is Europeans, whose impressions on first contact are rife with incorrect assumptions about origins.

In any case, the suggestion is here, that the Hutu and Tutsi are engaged in eternal class warfare. And that I'll agree with.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:55 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
In any case, the suggestion is here, that the Hutu and Tutsi are engaged in eternal class warfare.

That I can agree with. Though, IMHO, the warfare/holocaust in the Congo is much, much larger than Tutsi v Hutu. It's about gold, copper, coltan, etc.

See, they want to portray it as "local tribal warfare," because Westerners will gloss that over and go, "They've been fighting forever. What can we do about it?"

If they told the truth, and said, "All the killing to destabilize the region to make it easier for all of us to rob the people blind," Westerners might sit up and wonder what they can do to stand up for those poor people.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 11:01 AM

BYTEMITE


Example: Blood Diamonds.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:28 PM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

1) yes in part, but I disagree, for a couple reasons:

A) I watched footage of the war, and had seen them before that, and I had no difference telling them apart. Also, in Rwanda, the two were intermixed, and you're correct that there were centuries of mixing there, but probably less elsewhere. Still, when the Europeans first came to Rwanda, they had absolutely no trouble telling the two races apart. The cow based definition of Tutsi and Hutu was just a western imposition. The most important part of this is that *they* had no trouble telling each other apart. If they had, they could never have carried out a genocide like this. Also, bear in mind that by the time of the holocaust, jews had been living in Europe for longer than Hutus had been living in Rwanda. The first settlements of Jews that I know of moved to Europe around the second Century, and the first Hutus to rwanda around the eighth century, so the situations are comparable. A jew in 1938 was 95% European genetically, but a Teutonic German would have no trouble telling that this person was a Jew.

2-7) correct. I agree completely.

8) I disagree again. Genocide is driven by evolution. It is genetic supremacy which drives economics, politics and religion, not the other way around. Sorry, I came to the study of humans via the study of animals, an angle which has not failed me yet. I have Hank to thank for that.

Rap, you cannot possibly be this ignorant. I have to assume you're faking it.


Byte,

There are two holocausts.
One a faerie tale told in the dark of night to scare little girls and boys
The other is a real event that happened because normal humans who could not communicate were manipulated by greed fear and power.

He Final Solution belongs to one of these stories, but I'm afraid it does not belong to the other.

My perspective of the holocaust is one as a descendent of holocaust survivors, and victims, non-survivors, I have watched this happen again and again to people around the world.

Watching the responses to the Giffords shooting, someone, I think it was the mother of the little girl born on 9.11.01 said "never again" or words to that effect. I recall people saying that on 9.11 and it always brings me back to the Buffy episode "Gingerbread."

The fact is that it will happen again, and again, and again, unless we learn to see e world as it truly is, and we must continually quest for this truth, or we will never see it, we will be blinded by our own illusions.

The first thing I realized taking apart the holocaust and trying to understand it was that we needed to decanonize the Nazis. They were not a magical underworld creature never seen before or since possessing supernatural evil unparalleled in the human realm. They were men, ordinary men, possessed of all the flaws and vices, and all of the thoughts cares and hopes that make us human.

This is not a touchy feely look at Nazis, but a simple realistic reaction by someone trying to get at the heart of this tragedy, and the second thing that struck me was this:

Monsters are made, not born.

The transition from a people trying to save their country from a downward spiral into a self sufficient state into an aggressive genocidal empire sewing the seeds of it's own destruction, is a human tale filled with everything we see in every political situation that has spun dangerously out of control.

Conspiracies are small, some group wants this, another group wants that, and they all tug on strings. There is no master illuminati, and there is no master plan.

This is a story of politics, economics, corporate corruption, racial and ethnic hatred and bigotry, fear, greed, hope and betrayal.

When Adolph Eichmann, architect of the holocaust, went to Israel to secure housing, transit and citizenship for the Jews, he was sincere. He was earnest in his negotiations with the English, German and Israeli(Zionist if you will) officials, and travelled three times to the holy land to make sure that his Jewish relocation program would work.

The solution that they reached was that they had a mutual goal, a common interest. It was a moment of hope. The Germans viewed the Jews as parasites, draining and infecting the German state with their usury and corrupting the German gene pool with their Semitic blood. The Israelis viewed them as God's chosen, and a possibility to boost the numbers of their meager colony of 30,000 ish to something that could be self sustaining, and could fend off the attempts by Palestinians to reclaim the land taken from them in WWI by Britain.

How many Jews actually got to Israel under the Jewish relocation program is unclear. The original intent was that the list, as many as could be convinced, of 600,000 would be encouraged to go, as they were. By kristallnacht, half of the Jews had fled for one country or another, and we know that some thousands of Jews actually did make it on the planned route, but something evil, and altogether human, happened.

Once the trains crossed the German border they were no longer under German law. Or any law. International corporations serving the axis (and also the allies in some cases, under the USSR) were running munitions factories and mining raw materials for the war machine. They were largely under contract by axis govts, and wanted to fill those as cheaply as possible. They were hungry for slave labor.

The Nazi SS, having no love of Jews, or any desire to help Israel, transferred them from holding camps where they might have continued on their journeys, to labor camps. Camps often killed those who could not work, and worked others to death, with the SS as their guards. But even at the beginning, not all camps were Jewish. The Germans had already set up labor camps for Poles, as had the Russians. The pope worked as an SS guard at such a camp early in the war. It was supposedly a labor camp, not an extermination camp.

As the war grew on, the damned for slaves grew, and the slave populations grew thin. There was a need for more slaves, hunger, corporate greed. The prejudices of the Germans that Slavs were inferior was not new, the word Slave is actually derived from the word Slav. It was also a position widely held in western Europe, Britain, and the US. The definition of Jew widened, and then became completely bogus, with Germans calling any captured workers "Jews" or part-Jew, or even pro-Jew which was considered enough, and eventually, all pretense was lost, and no one knows how many were Jewish. 11 million people in all were killed, 3-4 million in camps.

Prejudice, greed, slavery, the lawlessness of war, the abuses of a police force that thought of itself as omnipotent, little gods in a sea of savages, a police force taking a new regimen of steroids and amphetamines, delusional to the core, in an environment of total cooperation with a lunatic authoritarian govt. Run by a madman with a deteriorating mind, and international corporations driven by greed with no more sympathy for either Jews or slavs in their western partners than their nazi counterparts.

And the final piece of this puzzle is the end. When you live like petty gods squashing your slaves like bugs under your feet, in a lawless warzone, you start to think that this is the world, and then one day, the word comes that you are losing the war. Suddenly everything that you have done to enslave, abuse, torture and kill your workers is going to be told by every survivor to the whole world. Only a world in which no one knows your name or your face has a place for you. kill them all? Flee to south America?

This was the reality for everyone but Hitler, who was insane, and did not believe in his own defeat. Goering, who had never wanted the war in the first place was finally driven to do what he had probably wanted to do for a decade, and assassinate his own leader, really to do one thing: to surrender. And the point of that was to surrender while there still *was* a Germany, before it had been completely overrun by the Soviet Union, to have it's people subjugated, enslave or exterminated, as they had been in Czechoslovakia.

It's govt gone wrong. It has loads of parallels, Mao, Stalin, Saloth Sar.

It's always struck me as odd that only those who believe in God can believe in Satan, and that if your religion has this duality of good and evil, you must grant evil equal power, or else it would never explain why evil was able to accomplish so much.

So, to use a cliche, the holocaust is a perfect storm of bad govt. and corporate corruption. And this, this realization that the holocaust is not a special and unique event, that the Nazis are not demons and Antichrists, but that this is a natural human failing, leads to the conclusion that it can, and does, happen again, and again, and again, and will until we are able to see the world for what it is, and ourselves for what we are.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:32 PM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

You know more about the Congolese war than I do, though I followed it closely at the time.

The one thing I do recall is that the Congo represented a no mans land for the various african powers to hide large armies to use to attack their neighbors. This often sparked conflicts in the DRC itself, as armies ran into one another. This is similar to what happened in southeast Asia during the vietnamese war,


Byte

If that were true, at the europeans could not tell them apart, then why did they draw this illustration and others like it upon meating the tribes of Rwanda at the time?



Also, why all the interest in the Watusi, their culture, and their infamous appearance in King Solomon's mines?

Also, why was the CIA detailing this as an ethnic tension with race war and genocide holocaust potential and had been since the 1950s.

And most sobering. Given that they were, why did no one do anything?


I tend to think that the downplaying of the racial differences serves the new Rwanda's holocaust denial story, which is essentially their official story.

Even if it were for the massive sex slave camps of Tutsi women by Hutu men, and the horrific infanticides that mothers perpetrated on their rape children, by now, I would grant, anyone calling themselves Tutsi in Rwanda is probably more or less an ethnic Hutu. But here's no question that the Tutsis were, at some point, Nilo-Saharans, and related to the other black african groups, almost all of which have had a genocide against them recently.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:39 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I have no opinion as I haven't considered it and have no assembled set of facts and analyses to address it (it would take some time to come to some initial thoughts), but I like the freeform thinking.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


Beja warrior girl of the Souther Sudan


Somali nomad girls


Eritrean girl


Rwandan Tutsi girl

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM

DREAMTROVE


Hutu woman in rwanda


Nigerian girls


Bantu girl of the Congo


I just don't want the world, or people, to lose sight of the fact that there are different races in Africa. In fact, 80% of all of the genetic diversity in the human race exists in subsaharan Africa.

So I suppose you could say that to them, we're all the same.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:57 PM

DREAMTROVE


Oh, and not to be left out, a Group of Twa women singing.

Around one million Twa were killed in the war in what they are asking to be recognized by the UN as a genocide.

A Somali pirate




Bantu man, part of a Somali minority


Darfuri rebels



Bantu man of Cameroon


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 3:16 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I watched footage of the war, and had seen them before that, and I had no difference telling them apart.

I have no defense for my position. I've never been to Africa, nor have I ever seen a Tutsi or Hutu person. Everything I said is because of complete trust in persons I've talked to who are from there or have been there. The conversations were extensive and not brief. It is possible they are wrong, though my trust in their judgments is pretty strong. My position is completely an appeal-to-"authority" position--I don't expect anyone to buy it for that reason. I just wanted to toss it out, for what it's worth.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM

DREAMTROVE


West African Bantu Migrations.




Sorry for the excessive jpgs, I know CTS is on a slow connection, but I thought all this arguing was getting to be silly. One can use ones eyes,

Particularly thought that Rap could use this information since he seemed least aware that there was more than one black african race,

American slaves were about 80% Niger river valley Bantu, and most of the rest were from Senegal, a west african group related to the berbers, though not closely. Today, american blacks are generally a mixture of 80% these west african groups, and about 20% European, but of course, that's an average, american blacks vary widely in their % just as american whites do.

For reference, the nilo saharans of ancient Egypt had reached Rwanda in the third millennium BC, But of course, they don't win the "we were here first" aware, because the Twa were already there.

At any rate, all of those groups have been in the area far longer than white people or black people have been in the united states.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 3:35 PM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

I got that, from our personal emails, and when they were in Rwanda matters, or other parts of Africa. Also, the individuals many vary a great deal. These were the first pictures to come up for me on google, but they reflect what I've seen in the past,

I know the statistical breakdown the genetic variation if the human genome, which is overwhelmingly variants of subsaharan Africa. I also know the rough dates of migrations and the ages of various ethnic groups and the genetic difference between them in terms of years.

However, though I have known many Africans, I have never been to Africa. My experience has been that Nilo Saharans, inluding the one Tutsi I met, are very tall, thin, and distinctive looking. Nigerians and Eeitreans look most different of any that I've met, and they are both so distinctive that I have never failed to guess their nationality on the first try,

However, I also know that ethnic lines can be very very vague.

The people of argentina consider themselves to be Latino, as do the people of neighboring Bolivia. At times he genetic crossover seems close to zero. I took a look at some pictures from Peru, and found the people I found online to look nothing kike the people of Chile, but then you told me there were maybe 3 ethnic groups in Peru?

I know in south Africa there are tribal groups that are overwhelmingly Bantu by blood, that mitt kill you if you called them bantus, so it can get very vague indeed,

Think about the european conflicts we were just talking about. The English consider themselves generally to be Germanic, but this is mostly due to the language they speak. By blood, many of them are celts, and still others are Danes or Italians, or any mix thereof.

Nilo-Saharan is also a language group, and though anyone could look at he Darfuri above and peg them as nilo saharan, a good number of them speak french.

I find it entirely conceivable that you could go to central Africa and encounter entire Nilo-Saharan soaking ethnic groups who were almost pure Bantu ancestry.


One of the great ironies of Nazi Germany is that Germans are not in fact Aryans, and yet, Gypsies, whom they exterminated roughly a million of, are.

Also worth noting: the Germans acting may not have known that. Sometimes *belief* in an ethnic group is stronger than reality.

That said I could find in my holocaust research a great number of German Scholars, even high up in the social order, making very strong arguments that the Germans were not Aryans, but I suspect, for political reasons, the German govt. Did not want to hear it, because they had a much larger agenda, which led them to choose the swastika as a symbol: they wanted India as an axis power.

And they damn near succeeded, they did manage to confuse loyalties enough that they made India useless to the British Empire as an Allied possession.

The Indians of course knew damn well that *they* were Aryans, and they were not about to be conscripted by an imperial British army to fight something calling itself the Aryan nation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 3:39 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I have no opinion as I haven't considered it and have no assembled set of facts and analyses to address it (it would take some time to come to some initial thoughts), but I like the freeform thinking.



Kiki

Thanks, I assume you mean the original premise, and not the digression knot Africa, I actually concur with CTS who knows much more about Africa than I do.

But also, thanks for the reminder, as I get wrapped up in these things that this is in fact a random spot conjecture of mine, made on the spur of the moment re:our mission in the middle east, and not a deep seeded conviction. I just caught myself making the parallel subconsciously, and wondered if others had notice it, or whether it made sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:42 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I tend to think that the downplaying of the racial differences serves the new Rwanda's holocaust denial story, which is essentially their official story.


I was quoting what I read on wikipedia, though wikipedia did also say that Europeans believed that the reason the Tutsis were on top at the time was because they had European blood in them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Prejudice, greed, slavery, the lawlessness of war, the abuses of a police force that thought of itself as omnipotent, little gods in a sea of savages, a police force taking a new regimen of steroids and amphetamines, delusional to the core, in an environment of total cooperation with a lunatic authoritarian govt. Run by a madman with a deteriorating mind, and international corporations driven by greed with no more sympathy for either Jews or slavs in their western partners than their nazi counterparts.


You know, I could change but a few words in there and that is a perfect description of the Bush years.
Mind you, I do not believe we've turned that completely around, cause it can still go there, but I think we've stemmed the bleeding a bit.
Still not good enough, but it does leave one to wonder how it COULD have gone if we left those nutters in power - too bad we replaced them with a kinder, gentler face of the same agenda, just handled incompetently.

Of course, my concern ever was and always will be the systems which produce people broken enough to voluntarily take orders from such monsters.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:50 PM

DREAMTROVE


Frem

I don't see a lot of change. Maybe in the contracting, but if anything, the abuses of power have increased, not decreased. We are now using armed predator drones and the like with abandon, we've toppled the govt. Of Pakistan, invaded twice as many afghan provinces as before... And the abuses of homeland security at home have increased dramatically.

Obama has shown much less respect for democracy, where Bush accepted the elections of Hamas, Talibani, Maliki and Ahmadinejad as legit, though they were not our preferred choices, Obama has refused to recognize Hamas or Ahmadinejad as elected leaders, and claimed a victory for Karzai with about 23% support.

I don't actually think that Obama is worse than Bush, just no better. I actually think bush is no better or worse than Clinton.

My take on it is that the abuse of power steadily increases over time under neocon/neolib globalist domination.

The first neocon admin was Ford, and the worst sin of that admin was *not* helping the VC overthrow Saloth Sar. I have to say that it took some serious guts for the Viet Cong to come to *us* after the war, and ask for help. But they did, and Ford turned them down. In the political climate of the time it was perfectly understandable, from a political position, if not a human one. In reality, the neocons wanted the US military for Mideast campaigns, not southeast Asian ones. Of course, the result we all know is that three million people were killed, so it's not like I'm going to forgive Ford.

But if you follow forward, Carter was in bed with Opec and *tried* to get us into a war with Iran, launching some pathetic attacks, and he did install Saddam Hussein, or rather his CIA chief, GHW Bush did, (okay, I know you know all this but not everyone does)

Then Reagan funded the Iran Iraq war, bush 41 sent the troops and bombs, Clinton fought many small wars and laid siege to the country, bush invaded, and Obama has radically increased the theater of war.

If you count the population of the theater of war, it has gone from the size of Taiwan to the size of the US. This is all to complete the plan to surround Iran.

So, no, I see no improvements. I really don't care that much about the structural changes of whose doing the killing, but I'll put two on Obama.

Okay, he's scaled back the xe input, etc. But he's added a shift of JSOCs secret army which was shuffled over to hillarys command, and second, in the overthrow of Pakistan, he's given us a new proxy army. Oh, and robots. More robots.

But enough ranting. What improvements do you see?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, first imma offer you some background material, so you understand where I am coming from with Blackwater and Prince...
http://open.salon.com/blog/kevin_gosztola/2009/08/05/blackwater_founde
rs_visions_of_christian_supremacy_in_iraq

Also remember that fucker is hardcore Opus Dei (this isn't an allegation, but by his own admission) and his top flunkies are Knights of Malta.
That of itself is enough to send the PN types into a foaming frenzy, mind you.
Besides which I have ANOTHER whole host of reasons both personal and professional, to dislike that bastard and his cronies, especially what with them now involved in human trafficking.

But if you think that neo-crusade bullshit is limited to just the contractors, think again.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488

I found myself up against it several times myself, any of which could have lead to bloodshed - seriously, Kunkle had my knife against his throat, and that pushy, threatening chaplain had my service pistol jammed between his eyes, and I *was* cranking back the trigger, he had his own pistol half out of the holster and his actions had given me an opportunity I damn well meant to take, the RO saved his ass when he tackled that bastard though.
Stupid fucker had come up on the firing range with fire and brimstone and then directly threatened to send the pagan scum to hell where he belongs while drawing his weapon, and despite the snarl on my face the back of my mind was singing "OMG, Xmas just came early!" - I really *did* wanna kill him, being somewhat borked in the head and very nihilistic at the time, on top of my well-known severe antipathy towards christians in general...

Anyhow, suffice it to say that our military elements are ENTIRELY on-board with the notion of a deliberate holocaust and if anything, pissed that they're being in any way held back from one.
So add that factor to your calculations here.


Now, as to "better", that might be an overstatement, let's put it as "not-way-worse" in order to be more accurate, although I firmly disagree with you in that the right wing jackboots always push it further and harder, something you refuse to admit and blind yourself to because of what you WANT to believe, rather than what you actually know - this tends to catch up with you the worst when you are under stress, and I think you still have some old-programming housecleaning to do, which might be crass to mention, but to me it's bloody *obvious* you have lingering issues from *somebodys* intentional attempts at conditioning, so you really should re-examine some of the automatic assumptions you make when stress causes obvious stuff to start slipping through your logic filters.

As far as not-way-worse goes, we're not, CURRENTLY at open war with Iran, nor have we managed to piss off Pakistan and/or India to declare against us, although the latter would take it via the UN rather than direct action as Pakistan would - sending another complete fucking zealot-moron like Bolton to make demands would have done it, especially overtop their former leader (who yes, I do agree WE probably killed) while he lay dying, that woulda done it, and had we suffered the final indignity of McCain-Palin, that absolutely would have happened.

Of course, I think the motivations behind not pushing so hard or far under Obama are not particularly noble, on one hand you have a sort of fear of committment, and on the other you have bloody obvious realities which right leaning folk never seem to take into account, and left leaning folk often tend to give too much credence.

Plus he's tried to throw a few bones to the masses, as he seems to understand when you offer bread and circuses, it's a good idea not to forget the fuckin bread...
And of course his detractors look like complete gits for blocking such measures, even if they ARE just thin fictions for giveaways to big pharma and the medical establishment, doesn't change public perception THAT much.
A smoother front *does* count for something, as does not doing stuff that's outright bloody obviously evil - someone send a memo to Holder about that, cause he sure as shit didn't get the last one!

One thing it looks like I might get out of this, especially given recent events, public and private - They *did* make the incendiary devices mailings public, even if no one noticed, and Wheeler, of course... but that is not the entire scope of incidents against the powers that be, most of them completely halfassed, but with a little spin....

See, you KNOW I hate your tea-party rightwingnut fascist jackboot licking so-called allies, and I flat TOLD you I was gonna spin a fucking purge if I could, so you really shouldn't be surprised at my complete reluctance to stem the lefties attempt to use this to purge, smear, and wreck the shit out of the righties - I do not whatever think it is just, but maybe watching JUST HOW FAST their so-called leaders throw them to the fucking wolves might have some impact on just how willing they'll be to take stormtrooper orders from those hacks, eh ?

Without the goons to take the orders, pull the triggers, those bastards got nothing, and when the left authoritarians stick their necks wayyyy out going all out to finish em off good and proper, which is, IMHO - not one whit more than they deserve...

Imma be there, with an axe.

So yeah, for ME, it's all going according to plan, bing bang boom, hell, I told y'all this chapter and verse, have BEEN telling ya, for years now, watchin it happen, over and over, just the way I said... you'd *think* folk might start to listen, wouldn't you ?

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:33 PM

DREAMTROVE


Frem

I actually knew that about Eric Prince and co. but thanks for the link. Also, yeah, I knew about the crusaders too. I'll add to that Carbone's boys back at the nuke lab think they're designing the arsenal of God for Armageddon, literally, and what scares me about that, or would if I could feel fear*, is that these guys think that *and* they are capable of designing nuclear weapons.

*side effect of guinea pig experimentation, argh. I got annoyed at a post recently that said "You're really afraid aren't you DT? I think it was Wulf. Someone who I felt like socking anyway.

Back to the topic.

We're not at war with Iran not because of any change in plan, but because of a change in information. Yours truly sabotaged their first attack plan by collecting all the data on their first strike plan to supposedly take out their "nuclear sites" by doing a lot of digging online, and it was pretty easy to come up with the make and model of planes and missiles, their maximum payload, the blast radius, the targets, what was in range, overlay it over a map of Iran's industry, and then comparing that to the good old fashion cold war first strike plan to say "Hey look, guys, it's the exact same plan," with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, and then sent it to every member of the house and senate, which caused some people to ask some questions, and I got some real thank you notes from a few of them. So I like to think I helped out in that regard, which is to say, helped delay that plan until someone could actually get over there to inspect the nuclear sites and find out "oh, look, these labs are 600 feet under ground. We don't actually have anything that can hit that."

So, they're back to the old McCain plan, which *is* what we are doing right now. Back before Mr. Incompetent "I personally lost us the Vietnam War" had the hairbrained idea to run for president he came up with this hairbrained scheme (undoubtedly with his own military think tank, whoever owns him) that we would surround Iran with a ring of military bases, and try to cut off all supply roads, which is exactly what we're doing.

The fact is, we don't have what it takes to go toe to toe with them right now, because we have lots of bombs, but they can sink our fleet, bomb israel, and arm a reserve army of 14 million men which would cause a little bit of a problem for our regional plans.

As for Pakistan, bah. It's our puppet govt. that the CIA installed, which is why they sacrificed Bhutto, so I can't take anything that govt. says as in anyway representing Pakistan. Sure, every once in a while Zardari will pretend to be a Pakistani because he thinks it will stop them from shooting him. It won't, it will just delay it a little bit.

Now as for what one of us *wants* to believe, it ain't me. I've lost any hope for our GOP, it's a dead duck. I just see the dems for what they really are: A less rabid version of the same beast, but one which caves to any sort of pressure. Putting the neocons/neolibs behind a democrat is probable *more* likely to lead to war simply because they're weak and will cave (as in look at history) Doesn't mean that the republicans of today would stop it, because, hell, they actually *want* to do it. No plying necessary. But if you're still betting or hoping that democrats are going to evolve a backbone, forget it.

I assume the bloody obvious realities are that so far we've gotten our heads handed to us, as sort of, well, everyone does in Afghanistan, and also there's the small detail that we have NOT yet secured any kind of guarantee that if we launch this into a full scale war from Russia and China that they would NOT be backing the other side, which they would if they saw any advantage, and China has already said they think that Iranian oil runs Chinese industry very nicely, and the Russians aren't averse to a little themselves, for sale of course, to China and Europe, but also the Russians are much more concerned about US having a military presence in Central Asia which they've made it quite plain that they have no intention of letting us have.

And yeah, I get that the republicans might have done it anyway, not because Bush is a moron, Bush is a monkey who never made a decision in his life above "I can haz cheeseburger?" But because Cheney is a moron, due in part to his stroke, and half his brain being dead, and he's dumb enough to listen to Kristol who is dumb enough by himself to start world war three because that smug smarmy fothermucker thinks that he's so smart that he will outwit planet earth, and it's doesn't help that the hyper zionist imperialist crowd thinks that jews are infinitely smarter than muslims, not realizing the simple science of the matter that humans are equipped with very similar brains all around, and the muslims outnumber them, but they really haven't thought that one through...

The detractors of the healthcare bill are making a scene in a dumb way, as republicans do when they oppose welfare and the like, but the dems did fuck it up, partly by making it obvious corporate welware, and partly by making it enough of a boost to the eugenics plan to give the detractors some meat to gnaw on, but this is really a side issue. Back to the WWIII...

Holder? No one responded to my last update on his little problem in that dept.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=47081

Funny, I don't often use that word. Part of my main problem with this administration is not Obama himself, but an administration is a team, and there are a bunch of people I can't stand. Ken Salazar is high on my list, because you know environment comes first for me as an issue, and there's a guy willing to sell the planet at half price. (Not that Gail Norton *wasn't*)

The Tea Party is an army of Wulfies, but they're the only thing that opposes the FED, and aside from the environment, fiscal is very important to me as an issue. Anything that screws the finance of the machine, I'm for. Lower taxes, higher interest rates, kill the fed, the banks, the trade. This is because this is where the real power is. Govt. can't lift a its pinky if the FED doesn't tell it to because they completely control the financial system.

See, I don't like your "Kill the GOP" Plan not because I like the GOP, but because I think if you do, killing the Dems becomes impossible, because they just become our new Communist Party, not by moving to the left, but by moving to absolute center and then going authoritarian to the wall and seizing absolute power.

Not that the GOP wouldn't do the exact same thing if you got rid of the Dems, they would. But no one has proposed doing that.

My ideal political state of these two parties is to keep them in a total gridlock forever so they can never do anything. Finance is so much more important than govt, that when we secede from this union which, face it, is nothing but a big killing machine and has never been anything better than that, right after killing the brits, they turned on the indians, and then the blacks, the western indians, mexico, europe, asia, asia, asia, and now the middle east, and central asia. Because killing is just what it does. But the real secession from it will not be political but economic.

This is why I said if we had a candidate like Boris Yeltsin I'd probably campaign for him, because I don't *want* the job to be done better, I don't want it done at all. I get that Obama is a lot smarter than Cheney, plus he has Biden helping him, and that means that they can actually achieve some measure of success at their goal, about which, see the subject line of this thread.

Also, I think that the left tactic of attacking the Tea Party was the wrong thing to do. They should have joined it, back when it was still Ron Paul's movement, and he said "every one from the socialist left to the christian right" who opposes the way things are run should join.

Here's what I think happened:

The dems, and their fellow travelers are so terrified that someone who does not support their precious wedge issues will get elected, that they joined their leaders in opening fire on the independents, and the GOP just gobbled them up with FOX news because they said "Hey, look, a big voting block that the democrats don't want" and that's how they won the midterm elections, and they were Michael Steele when they did it.

The thing is, sure, lots of the Ron Paul crowd, who, going into this, were really split, left and right, split again, but not the way people think:
This is my anecdotal observation of Ron Paulers that I knew: if they were older, when the tea party marched right, they went back to their old political position, D or R. But if they were young, they followed it. So, yes, mostly it's an older movement now, but that's because most of the movement isn't the movement at all, but the republicans that they picked up who were going to vote republican anyway. All this did was make some conservative republicans vote for tea party candidates instead of regular republicans, like my uncle now does. But that's not really the tea party's doing, that's the GOP's own doing by fucking up for 8 years and never following any of their own credos, and instead creating a monster bureaucracy of Homeland Security, and giant unsustainable budgets with things big govt spending programs, not to mention being fucking incompetent at everything they did for the whole 8 years, the neocon suck up republicans lost their support, but their support was far right, so those guys didn't become democrats, they became tea party.

My interest in the tea party is not in those guys. I'm interested in the former ron paul younger members, who are getting informed about TPTB. At the moment, those people are all following the GOP primaries because the dems have done nothing to counter it, they've just opposed it.

This is another flawed tactic of the dems: They oppose things universally. No one will ever compromise with you or cross the line to your side if you just completely and utterly oppose them. This is true across the board, but take the Tea Partiers as an example. They started out, the ron paulers, as somewhat neutral or bipartisan independents. The republicans tried to woo them, and they were a little creeped out by that. But then the democrats said "You guys are stupid and evil" so guess which side they opted for?

But I don't see the team blue and team red as ideological opposites at all. The ideologies are just what they spout. They are different sets of tactics, and at the moment the gop is attracting members, but what else it is doing is opening itself up to take over, which I think is what should happen.

See, I am convinced that you cannot kill the beast, either one. Not only because the effect of doing so would be that the other would instant assume absolute power, can the constitution and start shooting anyone who disagreed, and not just because that power vaccuum if you got them both would be potentially filled with something equally nasty; but because they're just too tough. It's easier to invade and take over.

I'll tell you the dumbest thing the GOP has done. The whole latino thing. In 2000, Latinos were a split voting block. I think it was 44% GOP, and a little more than that Dem, but <50%. That's more split than any swing vote in America. You could target one demographic and if you got the whole thing, you win. "Yes We Can" was probably enough, but hell, anyone in politics in the last ten years could have learned Spanish and won an election.

Now the republicans have screwed that. So if you want to take over the Dems, there's your chance. They're not as powerful a voting block in a primary as they would be as a swing vote, but it's powerful enough. The trick is you don't go at it all obvious like the Tea Party.

You take two seemingly meaningless candidates. Or more. And then you make it look like they're equal, and you set it up so most of the population doesn't know the dif, and the powers that be back their candidates, and a couple weeks before the election, all of sudden your guys start speaking spanish all over in debates and interviews, and the globalist neolib dems are screwed, because no way are they going to learn spanish in two weeks. I mean, enough to say their own campaign ads, but not enough to go on Oprah, or the spanish language equivalent.

I'm pro-take over, and anti-destruction, because I think one is possible and the other is impossible.

And yes, I hold some views that are conservative, and some that aren't, according to the current model, but I get that the GOP is never ever going to deliver on conservative values, at all.

We have a two headed beast, and the way I see it, it's a two headed beast that can't be killed, so the best we can do is to get it arguing with itself so intensely that it doesn't notice us at all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 4, 2019 11:24 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Making Islamophobia a Crime?
https://icevikings.blogspot.com/2019/02/bill-warner-phd-making-islamop
hobia.html

Dr. Bill Warner is a prominent and highly respected expert on Political Islam. He holds a PhD in Physics & Applied Mathematics from North Carolina State University. He has held positions as a research scientist, business owner and University Professor.
Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history. He has studied the source texts of the major religions for decades. Even before the destruction of the World Trade Center he had predicted the war between Islam and America. The day after 9/11 he decided to make the source texts of Islam available for the average person.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Mueller Investagation Is Over
Sun, May 26, 2019 15:02 - 756 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sun, May 26, 2019 14:54 - 1957 posts
Man's house is broken into because Barack Obama is gay
Sun, May 26, 2019 14:36 - 16 posts
Get Woke, Go Broke
Sun, May 26, 2019 14:11 - 19 posts
Army Virtue-Tweet Backfires: 1000s Expose "Heartbreaking" Horrors Of War
Sun, May 26, 2019 12:09 - 1 posts
How to betray democracy (Brexit)
Sun, May 26, 2019 12:00 - 34 posts
The truth: It's too late. We will go extinct, very soon. Enjoy the time you have left.
Sat, May 25, 2019 17:27 - 336 posts
The Unemployment Rate Facts
Sat, May 25, 2019 16:50 - 345 posts
NYT prints fake news about Trump EPA, then stealth edits error.
Sat, May 25, 2019 04:29 - 23 posts
No collusion* between Trump and Russia. Do you feel better now?
Sat, May 25, 2019 01:46 - 12 posts
The secret plot to depose Trump
Fri, May 24, 2019 17:49 - 115 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Fri, May 24, 2019 15:40 - 2432 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL