I look forward to the day when you can correctly identify an actual national security threat instead of labeling all of them "bullshit." That makes for a striking contrast to your positions on the 2nd Amendment where to tend to have good positions.
They could have smart people that would make talented hackers. But good luck finding them because they most likely don't even own a computer.
So you don't think that the North Korean state is able to identify people with strong STEM skill and potential, provide them with access to computers, and train them in hacking over a period of years?
That leaves me with just one question..... where can I find the smart people here?
I think your notion about the "spurious counter terrorist raids" is peculiar. The way to protest against anti-terrorism raids is to actually engage in terrorism? Your notion about grieving parents also seems off.
Might be referring to the numerous sting operations bordering on entrapment where the prime impetus for a group of would-be terrorists turns out to be an undercover federal agent encouraging them to cause trouble.
How much "encouragement" would it take to convince you to: - Walk into a building with a suicide bomb vest and attempt to detonate it - Park a van full of explosives at a public event and push the detonator in the middle of the ceremony
The stings offered them the opportunity to engage in terrorism, nothing more. They had the intent.
So where are all of the officially sanctioned Christian slaves and sex slaves? That's kind of the way these discussions go. On one hand is the active and widespread activity of Isis, al Qaida, and other actors in the Muslim world, and on the other is someone pointing to a Bible verse and says, "See! See! Christians and Jews could do something like that hundreds or thousands of years ago too!" The problem at hand is what they are doing now.
I'm not trying to defend them, they're as ridiculous a caricature of villainy as you can get, but they're a product of the east west dynamic much more than a product of Islam.
One of the biggest problems the West has is recognizing them for what they are based on their actions and who they say they are as opposed to what the politically correct nonsense being published in the West says about them.
Unfortunately it isn't just ISIS, Al Qaida, and company.
If that is what you believe then you believe a lot of nonsense.
Iran considers itself at war with the US, and you may recall that it is ruled by Shia Islam clerics.
Radical Islam has been at war with the West and Israel for decades. Invidual factions have had tens of thousands of members. Something on the order of 100,000 Jihadis are believed to have gone through al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan alone. You would think that by now if there was going to be a "Christian extremist" splinter group take up arms against Islam you would have seen that by now. Do you have any canidates?
The claim that "Christian extremists" are fire bombing paediatrician offices as a practical matter is nonsense. There are few incidents over decades, and one of the most prolific and dangerous attackers, Eric Rudolf, wasn't even a Christian, he was an atheist.
The KKK isn't a Christian organization despite its propaganda, and it is a tiny threat today that is still watched by law enforcement. I doubt it would go after Muslims since they both hate the Jews.
Clarifying question: To what degree do you fear that the Pope will declare a new Holy War and call upon Christendom to launch armies against some opponent?
How many Soviets fought in the Pacific campaigns, such as Okinawa, Tarawa, the Philippines, and Iwo Jima? Were any Soviet warships present at Midway or Coral Sea? Did the Soviets contribute any warships to defeat the U-boats in the Atlantic to keep the supply lines open? Did any Soviet armies fight in Africa, the Middle East, or Italy? Did they help liberate France? How big was their strategic bombing campaign against Germany? How million tons of war material, food, and other supplies did the USSR ship to the US and UK?*
The answer to all of the above is either zero, or close enought to zero that it doesn't matter. The reverse is certainly not true.
The Soviets then, and Russians now, don't seem shy at all about claiming credit for the defeat of the Axis. They still hold a rather large military parade each year to celebrate it. (I trust nothing is said about Italy since.... you know.)
* Did you know that 30-40% of the heavy tanks helping to defend Moscow at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 were Lend Lease material?
Your argument doesn't hold water. You state roughly that the Nazis are leftist because all totalitarians are leftist. And as Nazis are totalitarians they must be leftist.
No, that ithe AC stated. The AC stated that the National Socialists (Nazis) were leftists because they are socialists.
Quoting the AC:
Of course the Nazis were leftists. There were a progressive socialist party, that actually implemented a bunch of progressive ideals, often the first in Europe to do so: universal health care, minimum wage, social security...
The Left has more than one branch of socialism having both the communists (international socialists) that exterminate classes and the Nationional Socialists that exterminate races. Marx and Engles called for both.
The US "democrat and republican party" being one example of such an authoritarian right wing faction.
That is just silly. The Democrats aren't right wing, and the Republicans aren't authoritarian.
The rest of the AC's argument is as stupid and ill-informed.
As is yours for trying to claim that the German National Socialist party wasn't socialist. The National Socialists took the other path Marx outlined. The Communists created socialism and exterminated various economic classes, the National Socialists created socialism and exterminated various social/ethnic groups or nationalities. Marx and Engles call for both.
So yes, the National Socialists were in fact socialists.
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.
Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.
So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.
Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.
Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.” -- Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism
Anyone who counts the Nazis as leftists has just invalidated everything they have to say, much like seriously supporting the tooth fairy. News from the real world - Hitler lied! Guess you didn't know that.
There may be a gap or two in your knowledge. Maybe three .
The reference is Americans of that era, not to every person of that era across the globe. So no, itdoesn't apply logically to the Axis powers. Great as good isn't an unwarranted flavor of meaning in this case.
Oh, I see. You're confused, you think that the Germans, Japanese, and Italians are part of the greatest generation. No, the reference is to Americans of that era that took of the burden of defeating the Axis powers, among other things. Or did I get your point of confusion wrong?
To be fair, the BP disaster wasn't an accident, it was the result of negligence - they ignored well-established safety protocols in the name of (marginally) bigger profits.
So really, both acts were malicious.
Accidents often occur due to negligence. "Malicious" implies willful intent, "negligence" doesn't. BP's actions were not malicious.
Slashdot Mirror
I await your documentation that Marx and Engels called for racial extermination.
As requested. I suggest watching the whole thing, it is very informative.
I look forward to the day when you can correctly identify an actual national security threat instead of labeling all of them "bullshit." That makes for a striking contrast to your positions on the 2nd Amendment where to tend to have good positions.
They could have smart people that would make talented hackers. But good luck finding them because they most likely don't even own a computer.
So you don't think that the North Korean state is able to identify people with strong STEM skill and potential, provide them with access to computers, and train them in hacking over a period of years?
That leaves me with just one question ..... where can I find the smart people here?
Are you in Spain?
Is it your thinking that a reasonable way to register your discontent with anti-terrorism raids is to engage in terrorism?
Were it possible, I'd be willing to bet money against that.
"Were it possible"? You must not follow the news much.
Australia Is The Largest Per Capita Contributor Of Foreign Fighters To ISIS
I think your notion about the "spurious counter terrorist raids" is peculiar. The way to protest against anti-terrorism raids is to actually engage in terrorism? Your notion about grieving parents also seems off.
Might be referring to the numerous sting operations bordering on entrapment where the prime impetus for a group of would-be terrorists turns out to be an undercover federal agent encouraging them to cause trouble.
How much "encouragement" would it take to convince you to:
- Walk into a building with a suicide bomb vest and attempt to detonate it
- Park a van full of explosives at a public event and push the detonator in the middle of the ceremony
The stings offered them the opportunity to engage in terrorism, nothing more. They had the intent.
So where are all of the officially sanctioned Christian slaves and sex slaves? That's kind of the way these discussions go. On one hand is the active and widespread activity of Isis, al Qaida, and other actors in the Muslim world, and on the other is someone pointing to a Bible verse and says, "See! See! Christians and Jews could do something like that hundreds or thousands of years ago too!" The problem at hand is what they are doing now.
You've got the wrong country. The topic is Australia.
I'm not trying to defend them, they're as ridiculous a caricature of villainy as you can get, but they're a product of the east west dynamic much more than a product of Islam.
Right .....
ISIS Jihadis Get ‘Slavery for Dummies’
One of the biggest problems the West has is recognizing them for what they are based on their actions and who they say they are as opposed to what the politically correct nonsense being published in the West says about them.
Unfortunately it isn't just ISIS, Al Qaida, and company.
Russian Blondes Wanted for Islamic Sexual Slavery
“I hope that Kuwait will enact the law forsex slaves”
The US has a secular government, and US government actions aren't in support of the Christian religion. Your claim is nonsense.
Can we still color you if the gunman turns out to be an Australian that went to fight with ISIS and has now returned to bring the Jihad home?
Are all people that have different values from you "deranged" too?
If that is what you believe then you believe a lot of nonsense.
Iran considers itself at war with the US, and you may recall that it is ruled by Shia Islam clerics.
Radical Islam has been at war with the West and Israel for decades. Invidual factions have had tens of thousands of members. Something on the order of 100,000 Jihadis are believed to have gone through al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan alone. You would think that by now if there was going to be a "Christian extremist" splinter group take up arms against Islam you would have seen that by now. Do you have any canidates?
The claim that "Christian extremists" are fire bombing paediatrician offices as a practical matter is nonsense. There are few incidents over decades, and one of the most prolific and dangerous attackers, Eric Rudolf, wasn't even a Christian, he was an atheist.
The KKK isn't a Christian organization despite its propaganda, and it is a tiny threat today that is still watched by law enforcement. I doubt it would go after Muslims since they both hate the Jews.
Your imagination is running away with you.
There are about 500,000 Muslims in Australia.
1 of them is committing this crime.
The latest one.
Clarifying question: To what degree do you fear that the Pope will declare a new Holy War and call upon Christendom to launch armies against some opponent?
Zero?
How many Soviets fought in the Pacific campaigns, such as Okinawa, Tarawa, the Philippines, and Iwo Jima? Were any Soviet warships present at Midway or Coral Sea? Did the Soviets contribute any warships to defeat the U-boats in the Atlantic to keep the supply lines open? Did any Soviet armies fight in Africa, the Middle East, or Italy? Did they help liberate France? How big was their strategic bombing campaign against Germany? How million tons of war material, food, and other supplies did the USSR ship to the US and UK?*
The answer to all of the above is either zero, or close enought to zero that it doesn't matter. The reverse is certainly not true.
The Soviets then, and Russians now, don't seem shy at all about claiming credit for the defeat of the Axis. They still hold a rather large military parade each year to celebrate it. (I trust nothing is said about Italy since .... you know.)
* Did you know that 30-40% of the heavy tanks helping to defend Moscow at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 were Lend Lease material?
Your argument doesn't hold water. You state roughly that the Nazis are leftist because all totalitarians are leftist. And as Nazis are totalitarians they must be leftist.
No, that ithe AC stated. The AC stated that the National Socialists (Nazis) were leftists because they are socialists.
Quoting the AC:
Of course the Nazis were leftists. There were a progressive socialist party, that actually implemented a bunch of progressive ideals, often the first in Europe to do so: universal health care, minimum wage, social security ...
The Left has more than one branch of socialism having both the communists (international socialists) that exterminate classes and the Nationional Socialists that exterminate races. Marx and Engles called for both.
The US "democrat and republican party" being one example of such an authoritarian right wing faction.
That is just silly. The Democrats aren't right wing, and the Republicans aren't authoritarian.
I expect there are plenty of places you don't go that maybe you should.
The rest of the AC's argument is as stupid and ill-informed.
As is yours for trying to claim that the German National Socialist party wasn't socialist. The National Socialists took the other path Marx outlined. The Communists created socialism and exterminated various economic classes, the National Socialists created socialism and exterminated various social/ethnic groups or nationalities. Marx and Engles call for both.
So yes, the National Socialists were in fact socialists.
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.
Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.
So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.
Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.
Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.” -- Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism
Anyone who counts the Nazis as leftists has just invalidated everything they have to say, much like seriously supporting the tooth fairy. News from the real world - Hitler lied! Guess you didn't know that.
There may be a gap or two in your knowledge. Maybe three .
Fiber. You should give it a try. It's also helpful if you are pursuing a strategy of dinner cost averaging.
"Greatest generation" only applies to Americans. Or is this a troll based on your .sig "Semper Absurda"?
The reference is Americans of that era, not to every person of that era across the globe. So no, itdoesn't apply logically to the Axis powers. Great as good isn't an unwarranted flavor of meaning in this case.
Oh, I see. You're confused, you think that the Germans, Japanese, and Italians are part of the greatest generation. No, the reference is to Americans of that era that took of the burden of defeating the Axis powers, among other things. Or did I get your point of confusion wrong?
To be fair, the BP disaster wasn't an accident, it was the result of negligence - they ignored well-established safety protocols in the name of (marginally) bigger profits.
So really, both acts were malicious.
Accidents often occur due to negligence. "Malicious" implies willful intent, "negligence" doesn't. BP's actions were not malicious.
But hey, you got a +5 out of it.