[EyeBrock]

andyt andyt:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Hey, on gas, it was a weapon of it's time. Lots of white boys died gassed in the trenches of France.

No different than nuking Nagasaki if you look at moral justification. Death is death.

Using modern day morals on past events is an exercise in futility. What is interesting is that Churchill called it as was then and really, that assessment still stands.

I agree he called it - in fact maybe the ideas we're all repeating are his.

But as for moral justification, to me there's a big diff between being in all out war, fighting for survival of a country and in colonial adventures. I agree that judging the past by our standards is a mugs game. But the Brits screamed bloody murder when the Germans first used gas in WW1 and still bring it up now. And, his opinions on using gas on pretty defenseless people certainly adds to the lens thru which to view his comments on Muslims.

His calls for gassing the Kurds etc came out of tactical necessity.

The Brits had few ground forces in the area and the RAF were the visible presence. He wanted the RAF to drop chemical munitions despite any outrage and from a purely military viewpoint, it was a sound idea.

Unfortunately "war is an expression of politics by other means" and how war is conducted is as important as the military outcome.

Churchill had a hard time grasping that concept until he got into the total war of WW2.

In other ways, Churchill displayed clarity of thought and a level of articulation that could convey those thoughts.
He really just saw what needed to be done and public opinion be damned.

But the public did and do care, and that’s why he got kicked out of office as soon as his job of saving the UK from tyranny was over.

[andyt]

Seems like a good summation. And good that he did get kicked out - a leader who doesn't care about the public can be a big problem, at least as much as a leader that's always bending in the wind. But he was certainly the right man for the job during the war.

But I think he exemplifies some of the problems we've inherited from British colonialism. While I've certainly swallowed the idea that the Brits were the best colonizers out there, and am glad to live in a country with a British colonial history, a lot of the current troubles also seem to arise from the British legacy - Pakistan, Astan, Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, etc. (Iran, were they British ruled?)

And of course the Brits ripped us off in Canada - we should have had the land up to the 45th parallel, but the Brits were more interested in securing Guyana or something for the rum.

[EyeBrock]

I think the Brits did what they thought was best for the Brits.

That's the way it used to be andy. Before them the Spanish and the Dutch did what they thought was best for them until the Limey's sussed out that a big fuck-off navy gets your point across rather well.

If it hadn't been the Brits carving up the globe, the French wouldn't have had anybody to get beaten by and the Germans would have had all of Africa.

My point is that's way we used to do business.

Capitalism built on the premise of superior fire power.

We come in peace, shoot to kill and we now own everything. Those were real 'hostile takeovers'.

Now we just sell shit to people and invading countries is purely for non-business related reasons, although people still make money when an army marches.

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

You failed to mentioned how long it took them to do that, and it wan't actually ended, more like there wern't any more indians left to convert

No, you are wrong. The Inquisition in the New World was ended by King Charles III of Spain with the Jesuit Expulsion of 1767. There were plenty of non-Catholic Indians in South America at the time. There still are, for that matter.

desertdude desertdude:

and what atrocity has been started by "us" that we should be ending ?

Stoning people to death for adultery.
Beheading people for adultery.
Hanging and beheading homosexuals.
Female genital mutilation.
Enslavement of non-Muslims.
The jizyah tax on non-Muslims.
Open oppression of non-Muslims.
Forced marriages of underage girls.
Prosecuting and executing rape victims for 'committing adultery'.

I can go on but why don't we start with those. Or is it your contention that Islam is not in need of any reforms?

[desertdude]

andyt andyt:

desertdude desertdude:

You failed to mentioned how long it took them to do that, and it wan't actually ended, more like there wern't any more indians left to convert and what atrocity has been started by "us" that we should be ending ?

So since Islam started 600 years after Christianity, we can look forward to your reformation any time now.

For atrocities I'd go with honor killings, stoning and beheading and female circumcision for 1000 Alex. Also rape as judicial punishment. Charging women that are raped with adultery. Making women wear burkas etc and denying them education. Boy Thursdays in Astan. 911 and other terrorist acts. The list seems endless, really.

You really wanna play that game man, or did you forget what I said, what ever you can throw at me and I can throw back at you two fold. I don't even need to try too hard to come up with much more done by christians in the name of christianity with in just the last few years.

Judicial punishments, if I just go back a little back in time I will have a party telling what kind of punishment your judicial system and society handed out and for what crimes.

Terrorist attackst ! fine I'll talk to you using your own logic. All Christians are evil ! Timothy Mcveigh, Unabomber, Jim jones, Hell the biggest murderer in all recorded history Hitler ! Damyum you guys are all nuts ! See how illogical you that sounds, like I said that's you talking to most of the same world.

I've gotten quite a few PM's excusing behaviour of what can be described as "eccentric" people like without having to sound insulting. Sadly not many are willing to voice their opinions publicly, perhaps not wanting to ostracize themselves from this online community. Its alright altleast its comforting to know than this kind of "eccentricity" is not the norm.

Cheers

[desertdude]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

desertdude desertdude:

You failed to mentioned how long it took them to do that, and it wan't actually ended, more like there wern't any more indians left to convert

No, you are wrong. The Inquisition in the New World was ended by King Charles III of Spain with the Jesuit Expulsion of 1767. There were plenty of non-Catholic Indians in South America at the time. There still are, for that matter.

desertdude desertdude:

and what atrocity has been started by "us" that we should be ending ?

Stoning people to death for adultery.
Beheading people for adultery.
Hanging and beheading homosexuals.
Female genital mutilation.
Enslavement of non-Muslims.
The jizyah tax on non-Muslims.
Open oppression of non-Muslims.
Forced marriages of underage girls.
Prosecuting and executing rape victims for 'committing adultery'.

I can go on but why don't we start with those. Or is it your contention that Islam is not in need of any reforms?

Refer to my above post. Although I wish that you spare me the effort for not having to list them. Its getting really tiring on CKA having to handle people like you, andy T, ken etc etc on an individual basis again and again and mostly over the same subject matter.

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

Refer to my above post. Although I wish that you spare me the effort for not having to list them. Its getting really tiring on CKA having to handle people like you, andy T, ken etc etc on an individual basis again and again and mostly over the same subject matter.

كنت تعرف شيئا عن الناس مثلي

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

desertdude desertdude:

You failed to mentioned how long it took them to do that, and it wan't actually ended, more like there wern't any more indians left to convert

No, you are wrong. The Inquisition in the New World was ended by King Charles III of Spain with the Jesuit Expulsion of 1767. There were plenty of non-Catholic Indians in South America at the time. There still are, for that matter.

desertdude desertdude:

and what atrocity has been started by "us" that we should be ending ?

Stoning people to death for adultery.
Beheading people for adultery.
Hanging and beheading homosexuals.
Female genital mutilation.
Enslavement of non-Muslims.
The jizyah tax on non-Muslims.
Open oppression of non-Muslims.
Forced marriages of underage girls.
Prosecuting and executing rape victims for 'committing adultery'.

I can go on but why don't we start with those. Or is it your contention that Islam is not in need of any reforms?

Refer to my above post. Although I wish that you spare me the effort for not having to list them. Its getting really tiring on CKA having to handle people like you, andy T, ken etc etc on an individual basis again and again and mostly over the same subject matter.

I answered a question you asked.

[andyt]

desertdude desertdude:

andyt andyt:

desertdude desertdude:

You failed to mentioned how long it took them to do that, and it wan't actually ended, more like there wern't any more indians left to convert and what atrocity has been started by "us" that we should be ending ?

So since Islam started 600 years after Christianity, we can look forward to your reformation any time now.

For atrocities I'd go with honor killings, stoning and beheading and female circumcision for 1000 Alex. Also rape as judicial punishment. Charging women that are raped with adultery. Making women wear burkas etc and denying them education. Boy Thursdays in Astan. 911 and other terrorist acts. The list seems endless, really.

You really wanna play that game man, or did you forget what I said, what ever you can throw at me and I can throw back at you two fold. I don't even need to try too hard to come up with much more done by christians in the name of christianity with in just the last few years.

Judicial punishments, if I just go back a little back in time I will have a party telling what kind of punishment your judicial system and society handed out and for what crimes.

Terrorist attackst ! fine I'll talk to you using your own logic. All Christians are evil ! Timothy Mcveigh, Unabomber, Jim jones, Hell the biggest murderer in all recorded history Hitler ! Damyum you guys are all nuts ! See how illogical you that sounds, like I said that's you talking to most of the same world.

I've gotten quite a few PM's excusing behaviour of what can be described as "eccentric" people like without having to sound insulting. Sadly not many are willing to voice their opinions publicly, perhaps not wanting to ostracize themselves from this online community. Its alright altleast its comforting to know than this kind of "eccentricity" is not the norm.

Cheers

Fair enough, we certainly have our skeletons in our closet. But we fought Hitler, the west didn't all bow down to him, the way so many Muslims these days do. This whole post is about a man who wants to emulate Hitler - a Muslim man. In fact all the people you mentioned attacked the western world, and the western world fought back. You should bring up something like Iraq, I would have a hard time refuting that one. But that's the thing, in this country you're allowed to speak out against the govt, you don't have to blow yourself up to do so.

But as I say, whatever you guys do in your countries is really your business. Just don't come over here and expect things to be the same, scream like stuck pigs when somebody insults the prophet but spew all sorts of hate yourself.

None of my friends are Muslim. But there's a Muslim man I work with who's like a little Buddha - calm, serene, kind to every one. Very proud that one of his family married a Jew. Doesn't seem particularly observant, certainly not fervent about it. I'm sure there are many Muslims in Canada like him. But even him, when I suggest he speak out against what fellow Muslims are doing in his name, doesn't want to go there. Just duck his head and hope it all goes away. That's how Muslims get to be all tarred with the same brush.

Sorta like all the people pm ing you. If they feel you're right, I'm wrong, they should speak out here. It's a free forum, nobody can get them for what they say. It would carry a lot more force. Doesn't mean you or they are right tho.

[desertdude]

andyt andyt:

But we fought Hitler, the west didn't all bow down to him, the way so many Muslims these days do

I dunno what you mean by this ?

andyt andyt:

But as I say, whatever you guys do in your countries is really your business. Just don't come over here and expect things to be the same.

Totally and 100% agree with you on that, people are totally misguided when they expect the natives to bend to your whims. On the flip side and a little off topic though, you should see the amount of moaning western expats do complaning how this place isn't like home and expect special treatment and claim laws of the land should not apply to them or somehow adjusted to suit their morality and o. You'd think your one of those twilight zone episodes where one day you wake and and everything has turned upside down.

The relevant side of this argument would be how the west is trying to shove its way of life down the Arab and muslim throat, and majority of the rift between the east and west comes from this in the current world. But that's another thread for another day.

andyt andyt:

Doesn't mean you or they are right tho.

Correct again, but this also applies to you as well, does't mean your right too.

Glad to see your starting to see the face of reason, big up from my side.

Cheers

[andyt]

desertdude desertdude:

andyt andyt:

But we fought Hitler, the west didn't all bow down to him, the way so many Muslims these days do

I dunno what you mean by this ?

Well the infidel media tells me there is a lot of admiration for Hitler among Muslims, they approve of the holocaust, etc. I've read statements to that effect reported. I doubt those statements get the same condemnation in those countries that they get here.

But, Muslims don't seem to be alone in this. I've had a Sikh guy tell me, out of the blue, that Hitler had to kill all the Jews because they owned all the grocery stores and raised prices. Not the first antisemitic statement I've heard from a Sikh, just the most drastic. In fact the infidel media tells me that that sort of sentiment is quite common in India, and Hitler is celebrated as India's friend because he supported it's independence.

[BartSimpson]

Hating the Jews is still a popular pastime for far too many people in the world.

The Mexicans do it, too.

www.aztlan.net/

[desertdude]

andyt andyt:

desertdude desertdude:

andyt andyt:

But we fought Hitler, the west didn't all bow down to him, the way so many Muslims these days do

I dunno what you mean by this ?

Well the infidel media tells me there is a lot of admiration for Hitler among Muslims, they approve of the holocaust, etc. I've read statements to that effect reported. I doubt those statements get the same condemnation in those countries that they get here.

But, Muslims don't seem to be alone in this. I've had a Sikh guy tell me, out of the blue, that Hitler had to kill all the Jews because they owned all the grocery stores and raised prices. Not the first antisemitic statement I've heard from a Sikh, just the most drastic. In fact the infidel media tells me that that sort of sentiment is quite common in India, and Hitler is celebrated as India's friend because he supported it's independence.

I won't lie and admit I have also heard a few people say that, but its not a generally agreed upon thing. Most people who say it, say it out of flustration and anger over the Israel Palestenian conflict, and wrongly associate the zionist israeli regime with the jews.

I really don't know the deal with hitlers involement with India's independence. If there is any truth to I'm guessing its because it was ruled by the British and germany was at war with England. So an enemy of the enemy is a friend kinda situation. I'll look it up.

If that really is the case then I'll curse him even more. If the Indian subcontinent was still under UK control it would be in much better shape, certainly wouldn't have all this taliban bullshit in north pakistan atleast and besides everyone wants to move out to the UK anyways, !

[EyeBrock]

More Indians fought with and for the British than against. The Indians and Brits got on better than most modern views discuss.

I think if we fast-forwarded Brit views 50 years, India would have gained independence when the Statute of Westminster was enacted in 1931. At that time though, it was plainly obvious that Hindu-Muslim tensions would have resulted in a bloodbath at least comparable to the slaughter suffered during the partition in 1947.

There are renewed links between the UK and India and the similarities between the two countries and cultures outweigh the differences.

The same cannot be said of Pakistan. There Churchill's observations gained in the Afghanistan/NW Frontier of the 1890's ring true today.