How irresponsible is this. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tamaka -> How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:00:43 PM)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-says-bloodshed-might-be-165058821.html



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:03:41 PM)

Very, but not really all that surprising given the blatant ignorance of so much of the American right.



tamaka -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:08:25 PM)

To me, honestly, a speech like this could constitute inciting terrorism. It almost equates to the jihadist philosophy of bloodshed (and suicide) for religious ideological beliefs.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:28:41 PM)

quote:

It almost equates to the jihadist philosophy of bloodshed (and suicide) for religious ideological beliefs.

It's just the American mythology, the brave patriots battling the tyrants, bloodshed for "freedom".
It's the line they use regrading their wars, the soldiers are always "defending our freedoms". When did Iraq ever threaten America's freedoms? Or Afghanistan for that matter? Or Vietnam? How did the events in any of these 3rd world backwaters ever threaten America's freedoms?



DesideriScuri -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:36:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-says-bloodshed-might-be-165058821.html


He quoted Jefferson in his speech, too. That's where his comments were derived. He also said, what?
    quote:

    Bevin encouraged young conservatives to speak up, be bold, sound the alarm and wake up others. He told the conference attendees to not keep what they’ve learned from speakers and their books to themselves.


Might not have been the most PC comments, but hardly a call to jihad.



RottenJohnny -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:41:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
It's just the American mythology, the brave patriots battling the tyrants, bloodshed for "freedom".
It's the line they use regrading their wars, the soldiers are always "defending our freedoms". When did Iraq ever threaten America's freedoms? Or Afghanistan for that matter? Or Vietnam? How did the events in any of these 3rd world backwaters ever threaten America's freedoms?

American mythology? Since when has that kind of talk been limited to America?



Nnanji -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:47:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Very, but not really all that surprising given the blatant ignorance of so much of the American right.

Lol



DesideriScuri -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:52:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

It almost equates to the jihadist philosophy of bloodshed (and suicide) for religious ideological beliefs.

It's just the American mythology, the brave patriots battling the tyrants, bloodshed for "freedom".
It's the line they use regrading their wars, the soldiers are always "defending our freedoms". When did Iraq ever threaten America's freedoms? Or Afghanistan for that matter? Or Vietnam? How did the events in any of these 3rd world backwaters ever threaten America's freedoms?


Afghanistan wasn't attacked, exactly. The Taliban regime was attacked because it wouldn't give up bin Laden and al Qaeda. American troops were striking back after being attacked, aka defending the US.

Iraq.... which time? The first time, we weren't "defending our freedoms" and it wasn't cast in that light. The second time was partially in response to Saddam not following the peace agreement from the first time, part retaliation for the al Qaeda attacks (not that there was really any strong link between Iraq and al Qaeda), and partially because Saddam wasn't cowing to US dictates anymore.

Vietnam? We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms. Probably was neither right nor worth it, but that's why we went in. It definitely wasn't in response to an imminent threat to the US, nor an attack on the US.



Nnanji -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 4:58:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Very, but not really all that surprising given the blatant ignorance of so much of the American right.

We've discussed before your problems communicating. Here's a lesson for you. Audience. When you sit in your small apartment surrounded by sycophants you can all agree on what your small group will think and bolster that in each other. But when you take that pablum into a public place you just show how small your mind actually is.



mnottertail -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 5:00:57 PM)

*snicker*. Yeah, no.



RottenJohnny -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 5:01:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Very, but not really all that surprising given the blatant ignorance of so much of the American right.

We've discussed before your problems communicating. Here's a lesson for you. Audience. When you sit in your small apartment surrounded by sycophants you can all agree on what your small group will think and bolster that in each other. But when you take that pablum into a public place you just show how small your mind actually is.

Remember, according to her, she's not even the average bimbo.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 5:02:23 PM)

quote:

The Taliban regime was attacked because it wouldn't give up bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Not quite true. They offered to give him up several times
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/09/20/newly-disclosed-documents-shed-more-light-on-early-taliban-offers-pakistan-role/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 5:06:31 PM)

quote:

We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms.

Bullshit. Ho Chi Minh offered to make Vietnam a US protectorate to get the French out but the US declined and backed the French, which drove him into turning to the Soviets for help in liberating his country.
Hell Ho approched Wilson in 1919 to try get his country's freedom from colonialism but was shut down.



Nnanji -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 5:56:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms.

Bullshit. Ho Chi Minh offered to make Vietnam a US protectorate to get the French out but the US declined and backed the French, which drove him into turning to the Soviets for help in liberating his country.
Hell Ho approched Wilson in 1919 to try get his country's freedom from colonialism but was shut down.

You're forgetting that during WWII Ho was fully funded and equipped by the U.S. and decided to turn commie after. You're also, obviously, not capable of understanding context of the statement you've commented on. That's pretty much because you an the two sycophants don't understand it.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 7:15:07 PM)

Actually I'm not forgetting anything



MrRodgers -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 7:28:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
quote:

It almost equates to the jihadist philosophy of bloodshed (and suicide) for religious ideological beliefs.

It's just the American mythology, the brave patriots battling the tyrants, bloodshed for "freedom".
It's the line they use regrading their wars, the soldiers are always "defending our freedoms". When did Iraq ever threaten America's freedoms? Or Afghanistan for that matter? Or Vietnam? How did the events in any of these 3rd world backwaters ever threaten America's freedoms?


Afghanistan wasn't attacked, exactly. The Taliban regime was attacked because it wouldn't give up bin Laden and al Qaeda. American troops were striking back after being attacked, aka defending the US.

Iraq.... which time? The first time, we weren't "defending our freedoms" and it wasn't cast in that light. The second time was partially in response to Saddam not following the peace agreement from the first time, part retaliation for the al Qaeda attacks (not that there was really any strong link between Iraq and al Qaeda), and partially because Saddam wasn't cowing to US dictates anymore.

Vietnam? We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms. Probably was neither right nor worth it, but that's why we went in. It definitely wasn't in response to an imminent threat to the US, nor an attack on the US.


Not quite. Actually the US did invade Afghanistan to wipe out Al Qeuada and its supporters to 'win the war against terrorism.' And.....

.....it was illegal under all international law and under treaty we signed with the UN.

The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary is false.

This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.

Then after we attacked... Bush eventually calls on the Taliban regime to "deliver to the United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaeda who hide in your land," or share in their fate. Thus changing the rational for the war as then the Taliban could 'suffer their fate.'

HERE

Oh and the gov. was very typically irresponsible as hell. It is incitment to violence, even riot IF HRC is elected. Verging on traitorous.



Nnanji -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 7:36:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Actually I'm not forgetting anything

Well, I do understand not knowing anything allows you not to forget. But, the statement was not literal. Again...poor thing...audiance.



Nnanji -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 7:38:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

*snicker*. Yeah, no.

You know when you snicker and have your hand down your pants you freak people out. Make a point or just sit in your corner and enjoy your dementia.



Aylee -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 7:49:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-says-bloodshed-might-be-165058821.html


Exactly which part freaked you out?

It is classic: soap box, ballot box, jury box, and if those all fail, cartridge box.



MrRodgers -> RE: How irresponsible is this. (9/13/2016 7:50:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

We had to halt the scourge of Communism to protect our freedoms.

Bullshit. Ho Chi Minh offered to make Vietnam a US protectorate to get the French out but the US declined and backed the French, which drove him into turning to the Soviets for help in liberating his country.
Hell Ho approched Wilson in 1919 to try get his country's freedom from colonialism but was shut down.

You're forgetting that during WWII Ho was fully funded and equipped by the U.S. and decided to turn commie after. You're also, obviously, not capable of understanding context of the statement you've commented on. That's pretty much because you an the two sycophants don't understand it.

Well aside from the 'scourge of Communism' in French Indochina having a far lesser chance of threatening anyone in the west than say...Moscow, Nnanji is correct.

As U.S. Army Major Allison Thomas sat down to dinner with Ho Chi Minh and General Vo Nguyen Giap on September 15, 1945, he had one vexing question on his mind. Ho had secured power a few weeks earlier, and Thomas was preparing to leave Hanoi the next day and return stateside, his mission complete. He and a small team of Americans had been in French Indochina with Ho and Giap for two months, as part of an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) mission to train Viet Minh guerrillas and gather intelligence to use against the Japanese in the waning days of World War II.

But now, after Ho’s declaration of independence and Japan’s surrender the previous month, the war in the Pacific was over. So was the OSS mission in Indochina. At this last dinner with his gracious hosts, Thomas decided to get right to the heart of it. So many of the reports he had filed with the OSS touched on Ho’s ambiguous allegiances and intents, and Thomas had had enough. He asked Ho point-blank: Was he a Communist? Ho replied: “Yes. But we can still be friends, can’t we?”

Ho continued to try and gain support from the US but was ignored by Truman. This Ho Ho didn’t break with the United States until the Americans gradually became involved with the French in working against the Vietnamese in the 1950s.

.....the failure to identify Ho Chi Minh as Soviet-trained and a Communist ideologue was a major American intelligence shortcoming that smoothed the way for Ho’s emergence as a national leader and in the end, an enemy of the United States.

The OSS leaving VN and the US administration's disregard for Ho, led improbably to 30 years of off and on conflict between the west (France & US) Vietnam.

HERE



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875