[Snake Logan]

Youre comparing blowing up stone statues of Budha to the holocaust? No. Just no.

There are many forms of genocide. You were the one comparing the holocaust to the cultural genocide in Afghanistan.

No the navy bombed pearl harbor. That's what we're talking about if you can manage to keep your mind on one thing for five minutes.

The navy couldn’t have bombed Pearl Harbour without the permission of the army because it was the army that had to see the war through.

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....on_Pearl_Harbor

And yet, I see no evidence that the Japanese were planning on attacking Pearl Harbour.

Do you have any understanding of just how fucked Russia was? The Germans were on the outskirts of moscow and you're saying we should have let the Japanese invade Eastern Russia? The Eastern front would have crumbled under the double pressure and it's almost certain the Nazis would have either won or attained a stalemate. Come on, use some basic strategy.

The USSR had one quarter of its forces in the east. At that point the Japanese military was outnumbered in China and could barely spare 500,000 men needed for the Pacific. The amount of USSR soldiers in the east is much bigger then the amount of Japanese soldiers. The USSR and Japan had a non-aggression pact.

Basic strategy dictates that Japan could not afford a war with the USSR and would be cut down pretty quickly had they entered a war with the USSR.

Japan had proven able to beat the crap out of the Russians in the Russo Japanese war where they destroyed a good chunk of Russia's fleet.

The Russo-Japanese war? 1941 is not 1903. At that time the Russian fleet consisted of a few Ironclads and mostly of old wooden ships. The Japanese had submarines. Even then the Russians managed to inflict a higher casualty on the enemy then was inflicted on them.

Germans were wandering around Stalingrad and Moscow's suburbs. And your belief is that on a global scale or for the US it would have been better to let Japan join the assault on Russia and wait to enter the war while the last vestiges of red resistance were shredded?

I don’t remember saying anything like that.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 09 February 2008 - 04:03 PM

[J m HofMarN]

You don’t want to show everyone the extremist bullshit you read. It is understandable

Ok, now let me start out by answering one of your old contentions, namely this new obsession with my sources. I pointed to the wikipedia article on chechnya that pointed out Russian abuses and so forth but you weren't satisfied and demanded my sources on "EVERYTHING[!!!111]" in your Tim Curryish fashion. And so I agree. Here is a list of the "extremist bullshit" I've read.

Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life
Evita, First Lady
Fidel, an intimate portrait
The State and Revolution
The Communist Manifesto
Walden, or Life In The Woods
The constitution of the communist party USA
For Whom The Bell Tolls
The Viking Portable Library of Karl Marx
Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre
The Grapes of Wrath
Heart of Darkness
The Road to Socialism
On The Road
Allen Ginsberg's Journals, mid fifties
The Vietnam War
World History, The Human Experience
The Roman Empire
Guerilla Warfare
Steal This Book
Howl and other poems
The Panthers Speak
Leaves of Grass
Of Men and Mice
1984
Animal Farm
The Lorax

In addition I'm currently shopping for a book on communist economic theorem and a biography of Roosevelt. Now here's a special bonus.

Books that Snake Logan has read:

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11
George Lucas, Fascism, and Anti-Semitism: A Manifesto

[Snake Logan]

Ok, now let me start out by answering one of your old contentions, namely this new obsession with my sources. I pointed to the wikipedia article on chechnya that pointed out Russian abuses and so forth but you weren't satisfied and demanded my sources on "EVERYTHING[!!!111]" in your Tim Curryish fashion. And so I agree. Here is a list of the "extremist bullshit" I've read.

Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life
Evita, First Lady
Fidel, an intimate portrait
The State and Revolution
The Communist Manifesto
Walden, or Life In The Woods
The constitution of the communist party USA
For Whom The Bell Tolls
The Viking Portable Library of Karl Marx
Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre
The Grapes of Wrath
Heart of Darkness
The Road to Socialism
On The Roa
Allen Ginsberg's Journals, mid fifties
The Vietnam War
World History, The Human Experience
The Roman Empire
Guerilla Warfare
Steal This Book
Howl and other poems
The Panthers Speak
Leaves of Grass
Of Men and Mice
1984
Animal Farm
The Lorax

In addition I'm currently shopping for a book on communist economic theorem and a biography of Roosevelt. Now here's a special bonus.

These are the websites you visit regularly? Don’t think so.

Books that Snake Logan has read:

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11
George Lucas, Fascism, and Anti-Semitism: A Manifesto

Never read any of those, if they exist at all. I am more into non-fiction.

The Communist Manifesto
Heart of Darkness
Guerilla Warfare
1984
Animal Farm

I have read these, though.

[J m HofMarN]

(as to the main debate I;m going to post to that tonight, but for now I'm happy to mess about with this crap)

You want a list of all the websites I visit? Is this a debate or an internet survey youre forwarding? Well may as well

Chefelf forums
MSNBC
ctrl alt del
wikipedia
nuklear power
scary go round
pokey the penguin
ebay
uncyclopedia
civfanatics

Now would you like to tell me how your questions about sites I visit have any relevance to this or anything, or are you going to ask me what I plan to have for lunch next (peanut butter and jelly)

And hte last one on the list assuredly exists and reminds me a lot of your obsession with calling anything which you dont approve of fascism

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 10 February 2008 - 05:45 PM

[Snake Logan]

And hte last one on the list assuredly exists and reminds me a lot of your obsession with calling anything which you dont approve of fascism

This is kind of hypocritical considering your declaration of “you’re either with us or you are with Bush”.

[J m HofMarN]

You stated that people are either Westernised or Warmongers. I was parodying you. Such was evidenced by the statement "you like Dichotomies..." which preceded my own dichotomy. Now would you like to tell me why a list of the sites I visit is at all relevant to this "debate"?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 10 February 2008 - 07:11 PM

[Snake Logan]

You stated that people are either Westernised or Warmongers.

Looking back, it should be liberal and conservative. But since those things mean something completely different in America then in other places, westerner and warmonger will do just fine.

Now would you like to tell me why a list of the sites I visit is at all relevant to this "debate"?

Where you get your non-biased political views.

[Snake Logan]

And hte last one on the list assuredly exists and reminds me a lot of your obsession with calling anything which you dont approve of fascism

No. I use ‘Fascist’ as a label, not as an insult. Clerical/Islamic Fascist is the most correct term to describe the Taliban. Before, I called the government of North Vietnam a Fascist government, that was incorrect. After thinking about it for a while, I think National Socialist would be a better term for them. As for the Crusaders; they were Feudalistic Theocrats.

[J m HofMarN]

I use it when I see a supremacist organization that believes in strict social and economic control and would prefer dictatorship. Sorry but the Taliban are Fascists. If you don’t want to accept that then fine.

They're not really supremacist in the true sense of the word. And those who would prefer dictatorship are generally called would be dictators, not fascists. Not every fascist is a dictator. You've offered to apply the term to Jefferson Davis (elected) Le Duan (A general with the Viet Cong) and King Richard (A monarch) Two of these people lived before fascism even existed. Fascism, as a political ideology, came up in reaction to communism. People didnt want a government that glorified little more than toil. The rich and religious leaders didnt want to lose power. So they glorified the present order of things. It wasnt the socialists who could raise up the poor, it was the common man himself through service to his nation (and those who ruled it)

Fascism could not exist before communism, and the simple fact that you tried to apply it as a label shows that you have no understanding of what fascism is and are using it as just another dirty word because you saw the monkey in a suit we call our president use it.

Wait wait... Muslims are fascists because they will do bad things when they're desperate, but I can't accuse you of thinking like Bush because you use a term him and his handlers coined? You like dichotomies so here's one:

Did I say Muslims? No. I said Taliban. Your mind is really falling apart. Smoke less shrooms.

Ok so the taliban are fascists because they will do bad things when desperate? If any one who will do things they wouldnt normally do when desperate is a fascist than it stands to reason that 100 percent of people and movements are fascists.

They did declare war. Unfortunately, for the Japanese, the message/ultimatum was sent by telegram and it came an hour after the attack instead of just before the attack.

No, no they didnt. You can call it declaring war, you can call it dancing a jig, but what they did was a sneak attack. I could come up to you, mutter soemthing about challenging you to a duel, and then stab you in the face, but that doesnt make my actions any more honorable.

Different stuff. The Atlantic required battleships, artillery, tanks, etc. And it would have been on the ATLANTIC coast.l The Pacific required fighters, bombers, carriers, marines and mortars. And those would have been on the PACIFIC coast. I think Japan can tell the difference if the buildup was 2000 miles in the wrong direction for Europe.

America could have sneaked in troops to the Philippines through Australia.

...

Wow. I can see no fault in that. It would be easy to move an invasion flotilla over thousands of miles of open ocean patrolled by Japanese submarines, land them in a foreign country, reorganize, and send them north over ocean peppered with inhabited and sometimes occupied islands. Yes, simplest thing in the world that.

[J m HofMarN]

Looking back, it should be liberal and conservative. But since those things mean something completely different in America then in other places, westerner and warmonger will do just fine.

Wait wait... I'm confused. When you began to use your western/warmonger dichotomy it was here that you explained when questioned by Civ:

Do you mean she's "Western" because she doesn't fit a stereotype you hold of the radical terrorist? Or do simply mean that moderation in religious ritual and worship is unique to the West? I'm confused, but my first guess is you should travel more.

Snake: No, westernized means a self loathing, radically secularized capitalist that only is looking to be apart of the current trend. If you are two or more of the things mentioned above then you are a westerner.

Civ asked "is my friend Western because she is not a radical terrorist" You replied that westernised people are self loathing secularized capitalists only looking to be part of the current trend.

Now you're changing your meanings and saying that you understood Civ's statement to be, vaguely, asking whether his friend was conservative, to which you replied that she was liberal?

Now I'm willing to accept that, but this poses a problem. Unless you're lumping George Bush into the same category as Mullah Omar and Saddam, this means that you are saying that George Bush is a liberal, which everyone knows is insane. So what the hell are you saying?

Where you get your non-biased political views.

HAHAHAHA! Brilliant. I say "what non biased political views" and then you're all like "exactly". It would be witty if it wasnt so simplistic. You see the problem is that someones political views will always be biased. Facts can be unbiased. Knowledge can be unbiased. Views are biased. And I didnt get my political views from any particular place, they developed as surely as I have as a person. I cannot cite sources for my political ideology and you're burgeoning on absurdity to demand that I do so. The world is the source of my views. I don't know where yours come from.

No. I use ‘Fascist’ as a label, not as an insult. Clerical/Islamic Fascist is the most correct term to describe the Taliban. Before, I called the government of North Vietnam a Fascist government, that was incorrect. After thinking about it for a while, I think National Socialist would be a better term for them. As for the Crusaders; they were Feudalistic Theocrats.

Thats nice. I use dick as a label too. But silly people have put negative connotations to our innocent, harmless labels. Dreadful business, I know. Also national socialism is the most well known kind of fascism so you're STILL wondering in the woods calling people nazis (Nationalsozialismus). And yes, the crucader rulers practiced feudalism, not fascism or commun[al]ism. You get a gold star even if you did figure this one out late.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 11 February 2008 - 03:19 AM

[Snake Logan]

They're not really supremacist in the true sense of the word. And those who would prefer dictatorship are generally called would be dictators, not fascists. Not every fascist is a dictator. You've offered to apply the term to Jefferson Davis (elected) Le Duan (A general with the Viet Cong) and King Richard (A monarch) Two of these people lived before fascism even existed. Fascism, as a political ideology, came up in reaction to communism. People didnt want a government that glorified little more than toil. The rich and religious leaders didnt want to lose power. So they glorified the present order of things. It wasnt the socialists who could raise up the poor, it was the common man himself through service to his nation (and those who ruled it)

Fascism could not exist before communism, and the simple fact that you tried to apply it as a label shows that you have no understanding of what fascism is and are using it as just another dirty word because you saw the monkey in a suit we call our president use it.

Ok so the taliban are fascists because they will do bad things when desperate? If any one who will do things they wouldnt normally do when desperate is a fascist than it stands to reason that 100 percent of people and movements are fascists.

Taliban are fascists because they are rightwing people who believe in very strict social and economic control as well as having a supremacist ideology.

No, no they didnt. You can call it declaring war, you can call it dancing a jig, but what they did was a sneak attack. I could come up to you, mutter soemthing about challenging you to a duel, and then stab you in the face, but that doesnt make my actions any more honorable.

Very well old chap. I shall now tell the most powerful economy on the earth that we are going to bomb their bases in the Pacific. Just so we start this war on the right foot.

Wow. I can see no fault in that. It would be easy to move an invasion flotilla over thousands of miles of open ocean patrolled by Japanese submarines, land them in a foreign country, reorganize, and send them north over ocean peppered with inhabited and sometimes occupied islands. Yes, simplest thing in the world that.

Because Japanese subs were everywhere in the Pacific before WW2. Just like Soviet spies were everywhere in America during the Cold War.

[Snake Logan]

Now I'm willing to accept that, but this poses a problem. Unless you're lumping George Bush into the same category as Mullah Omar and Saddam, this means that you are saying that George Bush is a liberal, which everyone knows is insane. So what the hell are you saying?

In every culture and society, you have two people, one a liberal and the other a conservative. I think, if you break down a conservative in Afghanistan and a conservative in America, they are fundamentally the same with only a few cultural differences. Now replace conservative with warmonger and you have my original point.

HAHAHAHA! Brilliant. I say "what non biased political views" and then you're all like "exactly". It would be witty if it wasnt so simplistic. You see the problem is that someones political views will always be biased. Facts can be unbiased. Knowledge can be unbiased. Views are biased. And I didnt get my political views from any particular place, they developed as surely as I have as a person. I cannot cite sources for my political ideology and you're burgeoning on absurdity to demand that I do so. The world is the source of my views. I don't know where yours come from.

So your opinions are based on fact and therefore can never be wrong… interesting. Sounds like crap to me. Perhaps your opinions are based on your (wrong?) interpretation of the world.

Thats nice. I use dick as a label too. But silly people have put negative connotations to our innocent, harmless labels. Dreadful business, I know. Also national socialism is the most well known kind of fascism so you're STILL wondering in the woods calling people nazis (Nationalsozialismus). And yes, the crucader rulers practiced feudalism, not fascism or commun[al]ism. You get a gold star even if you did figure this one out late.

Democrat, Communist, Fascist, Feudalist, etc are used as labels, only a bigoted idiot would find or use any of them as an insult.

[J m HofMarN]

Youre comparing blowing up stone statues of Budha to the holocaust? No. Just no.

There are many forms of genocide. You were the one comparing the holocaust to the cultural genocide in Afghanistan.

No, no there are not. You could get the taliban for trying to destroy a peoples culture, but there arent any budhists living in Afghanistan so it wasnt really an assault on a people or a peoples culture (as there were no indiginous people present to claim the cultural items.) Am I saying it was ok? No. Am I saying the Taliban were ok? No. But I'm saying they were not fascists, and theres no comparison between what they did adn the holocaust.

I brought up this difference to show you yet another reason why they're not fascists. You pointed out this incident as a reason they were fascists, and I pointed to the fact that it appears to be small scale stuff when compared to even Hitler's (comparatively) less malignant operations against Jews such as Kristalnacht.

No the navy bombed pearl harbor. That's what we're talking about if you can manage to keep your mind on one thing for five minutes.

The navy couldn’t have bombed Pearl Harbour without the permission of the army because it was the army that had to see the war through.

You claimed that the Japanese army couldnt spare troops to attack pearl harbor. This was false as the army wasnt involved in the attack.

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....on_Pearl_Harbor

And yet, I see no evidence that the Japanese were planning on attacking Pearl Harbour

They had been contingency planning for a war with the US for at least ten or twenty years according to that article. I imagine those plans would have had to involve attacks on the Aleutians and on the US's main naval base that was within range of Japan, namely Pearl Harbor.

The USSR had one quarter of its forces in the east. At that point the Japanese military was outnumbered in China and could barely spare 500,000 men needed for the Pacific. The amount of USSR soldiers in the east is much bigger then the amount of Japanese soldiers. The USSR and Japan had a non-aggression pact.

The US and Japan also had a non agression pact. So did Germany and the USSR. If Japan hadnt attacked the US it would have gone after the USSR, you yourself stated they were more interested in Russia than the US. And Russia did indeed have a lot of troops, but they were inexperienced, poorly led, poorly supplied, etc. Hence Germany's swift advances. And an attack by Japan would have been catastrophic for Russian morale even if it wasnt a problem on a strategic basis which it almost certainly would have been.

Basic strategy dictates that Japan could not afford a war with the USSR and would be cut down pretty quickly had they entered a war with the USSR.

Ah dictation on strategy from the man who suggests secretly moving an army over the pacific ocean and then north from australia. Strategy is about more than numbers, regretably.

The Japanese had submarines.

No they didnt. Also the date was 1904. And about 20000 Japanese deaths were due to disease, so the Russians lost more troops due to combat related reasons. It was regardless a sweeping Japanese victory and, get this, is cited as one of the reasons the Czars government fell. So if a few enemy victories far from St Petersburg helped topple the Czar (and drop Russia out of world war 1) what might a series of enemy victories, the surrounding of St. Petersburg (or Leningrad) and an invasion in the East do?

Germans were wandering around Stalingrad and Moscow's suburbs. And your belief is that on a global scale or for the US it would have been better to let Japan join the assault on Russia and wait to enter the war while the last vestiges of red resistance were shredded?

I don’t remember saying anything like that.

You said it was a mistake to "force" Japan to enter the war with the embargo.

But you also say it would not have been better to wait .

So are you now saying that Roosevelt didnt make a mistake there?

[J m HofMarN]

Taliban are fascists because they are rightwing people who believe in very strict social and economic control as well as having a supremacist ideology.

Silly me, and all the time I thought this was the definition of fascism.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

Very well old chap. I shall now tell the most powerful economy on the earth that we are going to bomb their bases in the Pacific. Just so we start this war on the right foot.

Strategicly that would make no sense. But it was dishonorable and not "declaring war" in its proper form. Thus I pointed that out. I didnt imply that Japan would have benefited strategicly if they'd played by the rules, though PH had little strategic impactm, though a large impact on American morale which is why it came up in a debate about 9/11

Because Japanese subs were everywhere in the Pacific before WW2. Just like Soviet spies were everywhere in America during the Cold War.

I think if the Japanese had noticed a military buildup or, I dunno, heard about a MASSIVE FUCK INVASION FLEET, they might have patrolled more heavily. Your strategy relies too much on your enemies being wholly incompetent.

[J m HofMarN]

In every culture and society, you have two people, one a liberal and the other a conservative. I think, if you break down a conservative in Afghanistan and a conservative in America, they are fundamentally the same with only a few cultural differences. Now replace conservative with warmonger and you have my original point.

... So while Civ challenged you to defend your statements abotu Muslims being terrorists using his friend as an example, you were calling her a liberal and asumed that by Muslim terrorist he meant "conservative" I have a hard time believing that. And you know the two sides of Rossiter's spectrum are left and right, not liberal and conservative. All political views can be placed on that spectrum, but they dont all fall under liberal or conservative. Sorry, try again.

So your opinions are based on fact and therefore can never be wrong… interesting. Sounds like crap to me. Perhaps your opinions are based on your (wrong?) interpretation of the world.

My opinions are based on how I see the world and the facts I've consumed, as are everyones. And you just gave me my new quote.

Democrat, Communist, Fascist, Feudalist, etc are used as labels, only a bigoted idiot would find or use any of them as an insult.

You seemed pretty passionate about this so-called label in times past. And you've thus far attached it only to people you view negatively (terrorists, slave holders, crucaders, Viet cong, etc) so I'm going to say you're just trying to cover your ass with this neutral label talk. You know very well that fascism is a negative term in modern society.