Is genocide okay, as long as you are polite about it?

[Billo_Really]

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

 

[Hossfly]

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

That's why we love ya, Billo, because you're so honest, loving and caring.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's why we love ya, Billo, because you're so honest, loving and caring.

That's what my mommy tells me!

 

[westwall]

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

How come you didn't mention the USSR, or Mao's China? They killed WAY more people than Hitler ever did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

Ok, you made a specific claim that Israel has killed millions, back it up.

 

[Nosmo King]

War does not always rise to the threshold of genocide as genocide does not always rise to the threshold of war. While Nazi Germany was at war with the Allies, they also had a state mandated policy of genocide. Not every warring nation does that, and I suggest you rethink your conflation of genocide and war vis-a-vis American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We do not now, nor have we ever had a state mandated policy to carry out the atrocities that are genocide in either theater of war. It is wholly irresponsible to claim genocide. It is not merely a lie, but it dilutes the meaning of genocide, a word which should never be misunderstood.

 

[Billo_Really]

War does not always rise to the threshold of genocide as genocide does not always rise to the threshold of war. While Nazi Germany was at war with the Allies, they also had a state mandated policy of genocide. Not every warring nation does that, and I suggest you rethink your conflation of genocide and war vis-a-vis American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We do not now, nor have we ever had a state mandated policy to carry out the atrocities that are genocide in either theater of war. It is wholly irresponsible to claim genocide. It is not merely a lie, but it dilutes the meaning of genocide, a word which should never be misunderstood.

We are responsible for over million innocent men, women and children deaths, in Iraq. In Fallujah, we destroyed 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, California. Over a million Palestinian's have died as a result of Zionist aggression.

Don't even talk to me about being "misunderstood".


What's the difference between this and Nazi Germany?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogFZlRiTHuw]Wikileaks - Collateral murder in Iraq by US helicopter (short video) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ScienceRocks]

White genocide seems to always be right. Hell, it is praised!

 

[Sally]

War does not always rise to the threshold of genocide as genocide does not always rise to the threshold of war. While Nazi Germany was at war with the Allies, they also had a state mandated policy of genocide. Not every warring nation does that, and I suggest you rethink your conflation of genocide and war vis-a-vis American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We do not now, nor have we ever had a state mandated policy to carry out the atrocities that are genocide in either theater of war. It is wholly irresponsible to claim genocide. It is not merely a lie, but it dilutes the meaning of genocide, a word which should never be misunderstood.

We are responsible for over million innocent men, women and children deaths, in Iraq. In Fallujah, we destroyed 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, California. Over a million Palestinian's have died as a result of Zionist aggression.

Don't even talk to me about being "misunderstood".


What's the difference between this and Nazi Germany?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogFZlRiTHuw]Wikileaks - Collateral murder in Iraq by US helicopter (short video) - YouTube[/ame]

Say, you forgot to mention the three million (mainly Hindus) killed by the Pakistani Army in Bangladesh, nor the millions and millions of Christians murdered in Nigeria in the seventies. How about the over 2 millioin Christians killed in the Sudan, and the president of that country is saying he doesn't want any more Christians or Black tribes in his country.

I guess if you can't drag in the U.S. or Israel, you are not interested in the above.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry to burst your bubble but a million Iraq's did not die. Cite with a link to a site that supports this claim. Also cite with a link to a source that provides the supposed million dead Palestinians. You are aware of course that the Pals have actually GAINED massively in population?

 

[Billo_Really]

Ok, you made a specific claim that Israel has killed millions, back it up.

Although that is not the topic of the thread, you asked a question and I feel obligated to answer.

2 million dead since 1936, 0.1 million from violence, 1,9 million from war-, expulsion- and occupation-derived deprivation;

 

[Billo_Really]

Sorry to burst your bubble but a million Iraq's did not die. Cite with a link to a site that supports this claim. Also cite with a link to a source that provides the supposed million dead Palestinians. You are aware of course that the Pals have actually GAINED massively in population?

Here you go!

Iraq conflict has killed a million Iraqis:

(Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.

The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.

The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.

 

[Billo_Really]

How come you didn't mention the USSR, or Mao's China? They killed WAY more people than Hitler ever did.

I know that. But this thread isn't about who killed more.

It's about "what is worse?"

profanity?

or

defending the actions of those country's?​

 

[Billo_Really]

Say, you forgot to mention the three million (mainly Hindus) killed by the Pakistani Army in Bangladesh, nor the millions and millions of Christians murdered in Nigeria in the seventies. How about the over 2 millioin Christians killed in the Sudan, and the president of that country is saying he doesn't want any more Christians or Black tribes in his country.

I guess if you can't drag in the U.S. or Israel, you are not interested in the above.

Well, in this thread we are. And that includes all the Native American's that lost their lives in the New World at the hands of European insurgents.

Now the question remains, is all that worse than the f-word?

 

[Billo_Really]

Obviously it is profanity...or upsetting Gunny and his crew...he will report you!

Gunny's alright. We have our moments. I just view the world a little differently than he does. So be nice and don't cuss.

And thanks for actually answering the question!

 

[AntiParty]

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

Let me break down #1 for you and everyone.

Tell me who decided certain words were not ok to say when other words that have the same meaning are ok to say. Who selected the words we are not supposed to use in our culture? Tell me who stated not to say a specific curse word and perhaps I won't say it. Until then, poop and shit mean the same thing and shouldn't be categorized differently.

I'm guessing a power hungry control freak came in somewhere along the way and decided to challenge the people on terms. "You can't say XXXX, but you can say poop" ETC

All words can have a dark side over time and some try to make new words for them. I say embrace the word and what it is instead of running from it's dark side.

I took a XXXX today.

Or maybe someone can show in the bible where it says we can't say specific words.

 

[AntiParty]

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

How come you didn't mention the USSR, or Mao's China? They killed WAY more people than Hitler ever did.

Westwall with another attempt to derail the topic at hand. Never has anything to say but wants to derail always. Classic Westwall.

 

[AntiParty]

War does not always rise to the threshold of genocide as genocide does not always rise to the threshold of war. While Nazi Germany was at war with the Allies, they also had a state mandated policy of genocide. Not every warring nation does that, and I suggest you rethink your conflation of genocide and war vis-a-vis American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We do not now, nor have we ever had a state mandated policy to carry out the atrocities that are genocide in either theater of war. It is wholly irresponsible to claim genocide. It is not merely a lie, but it dilutes the meaning of genocide, a word which should never be misunderstood.

We are responsible for over million innocent men, women and children deaths, in Iraq. In Fallujah, we destroyed 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, California. Over a million Palestinian's have died as a result of Zionist aggression.

Don't even talk to me about being "misunderstood".


What's the difference between this and Nazi Germany?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogFZlRiTHuw]Wikileaks - Collateral murder in Iraq by US helicopter (short video) - YouTube[/ame]

That's the Military Industrial Complex at work for you.

Iraq had no WMD's. We attacked them and set off lot's of families who lost family members. We call them "terrorists"

If Lockheed Martin donates millions to the President and congress, Lockheed martins weapons will be used. Just look at Halliburton. Halliburton is rebuilding Iraq right now, yes, VP Cheney's corporate business, Halliburton.

People need to wake up and follow the money.

 

[westwall]

War does not always rise to the threshold of genocide as genocide does not always rise to the threshold of war. While Nazi Germany was at war with the Allies, they also had a state mandated policy of genocide. Not every warring nation does that, and I suggest you rethink your conflation of genocide and war vis-a-vis American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We do not now, nor have we ever had a state mandated policy to carry out the atrocities that are genocide in either theater of war. It is wholly irresponsible to claim genocide. It is not merely a lie, but it dilutes the meaning of genocide, a word which should never be misunderstood.

We are responsible for over million innocent men, women and children deaths, in Iraq. In Fallujah, we destroyed 75% of a city the size of Long Beach, California. Over a million Palestinian's have died as a result of Zionist aggression.

Don't even talk to me about being "misunderstood".


What's the difference between this and Nazi Germany?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogFZlRiTHuw]Wikileaks - Collateral murder in Iraq by US helicopter (short video) - YouTube[/ame]

There has never been evidence presented to corroborate that claim. Ever. Nor will there be. The most liberal estimates of the actual number of Iraqi civilians killed is 130,000 which is a terrible thing for sure. However, Saddam was killing them at the rate of 35,000 per year so in the total picture of things there are MORE Iraqi's alive today, than would be under Saddam.

Your claim is specious.

 

[westwall]

I'd like to have an intelligent, flame-free, discussion over which is worse between the following two paradigms:

1) someone using profanity

2) someone being polite about supporting policies, that have
killed millions of innocent people, who have committed no crimes​

A brief background on this subject:

Many people from time to time, object to my use of profanity, which BTW, is just how I talk and is mostly used to show emphasis, nothing more. I am fine with people who don't care for that kind of language. That's their call, not mine.

However, I do take exception to some people taking issue with my use of profanity, who in post after post, thread after thread, year after year, defend the policies and actions of governments, that have killed millions of innocent men, women and children.

3 examples:

1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
2. US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Israeli aggression and the occupied territories

Those are 3 extreme cases of genocide.

Some people, either support example #1 (as in the skinheads, KKK and Aryan Brotherhood), or support examples #2 or #3. In the case of the Israeli right, they support example #3. The American right, supports both #2 and #3. I have never supported any of them. I have consistently condemned all 3.

But I'm the bad guy, because I use profanity?

There seems to be a certain disconnect from reality (or humanity) with this paradox.

And that leads me to ponder...

..."Is genocide okay, as long as you're polite about it?"

How come you didn't mention the USSR, or Mao's China? They killed WAY more people than Hitler ever did.

Westwall with another attempt to derail the topic at hand. Never has anything to say but wants to derail always. Classic Westwall.

Ahhhh, yes, thank you....I am starting to figure out which sock you are. Keep it up silly boy...I'll figure you out. And I am not contributing merely because I don't want to play your rigged game? For shame little one for shame. I'm asking why you don't compare apples to apples.