You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Patriotism, an Abomination
The vast majority of people that died for this country did so for oil, conquest, political gain. Get a grip, your nothing more then a slave to the oligarchy. An oligarchy that clothes itself in the garments of patriotism and nationalism
that's really not true at all. the people that want oil conquest and political gain aren't the ones dying for it. they're manipulating people into doing it. I do not blame soldiers for war or anything, and I do think they kill bad guys sometimes, but the ones to blame are the ones at the top that send those people over seas.
Every unlawful order followed is the soldiers fault. Each and every time. Each unlawful order an officer follows is the officer's fault, each and every time. It's not the people at the top that kill anyone, it's those that are pulling the trigger who's doing the killing, and a lot of them know it, that's why they signed up, to be killers.
you have a good point, I was typing something like "it's not their fault they're easily manipulated" but stopped haha, because when you put that into other scenarios and what not it doesn't seem right and I realized I was giving people more credit because America is where I'm from.
but I also think about terrosists, those are bad people, killing them is a good thing, but whats not easily factored in is that our own government created those terrorist groups and stuff so idk
it's a hard line for me to define, I hope that doesnt make me seem blind but rather cautious about the views I form. i'm thinking things out in a very similar way to you
If someone forces you to blow yourself up or they murder all of your relatives in a slow torturous way, and you believe this, or know this, then are you a bad person?
If someone is mentally weak, if someone is implanted behavioral programing or even worse remote controlled, are they a bad person?
If someone blows scopalnamine in someone's face or inhibits someone's judgement and self control through drugs/alcohol, and they do some horrible thing, are they a bad person?
If someone actively fights the state and it's aggressors, of all ranks and files, are they a bad person?
are you just stating scenarios to encourage my mind to work through and find insight?
that's how it feels
definitely following you, it's great to come across a person that thinks.
In basic training in 1989, we had a whole class on following illegal orders and Nuremburg was heavily discussed. It is the soldier's responsibility to disobey if he believes an order is illegal.
If I get conned, it's partly my fault. I am responsible for my ignorance and my mistaken decisions. When the invasion of 'Nam was seen by enough people to be a mistake, the war ended. As long as enough people blindly support their rulers (so-called reps) their will be blood.
Although I disagree with the American foreign policy proceeding the Korean War(i.e. Vietnam, Iraq) the US did play a crucial role in preventing a further holocaust in WW2 and also keeping the people of South Korea free. Many great men have committed the ultimate sacrifice for something they believe in. For you to say the vast majority died for oil or conquest is entirely inaccurate. I would also argue that patriotism and nationalism is a rebellion against oligarchy. The true oligarchy is the United Nations, the Counsel on Foreign Relations, the international monetary fund, Bilderberg etc.....They want a one world government which people that post things against things such as nationalism seem to support.
1 - Before you cheer too proudly about Hitler being defeated (which was mostly accomplished by Russia, not the U.S.), you might want to keep in mind that World War II ended with the Allies basically giving the second worst mass murder in history (Stalin) half of Europe.
2 - To argue about nationalism versus globalism is only arguing over the SIZE of the save plantation. Either way you are not arguing for freedom.
What is freedom for you?
American imperialism is at least 120 years old. Ask people in the Philippines - they too fought a war of independence.
I mark the beginning of the US Empire at the invasion by the Northern states into the Confederacy. This was a denial of state sovereignty and their right to secede. Lincoln justified this aggression with his imperialistic ambition for control of all states, all the time, as if "Union" was more important than anything else. He didn't say why. He just proclaimed it. He assumed the power to do so, just as he assumed the power to free the slaves. If the president is vested with such power, the president can one day reverse it. How is that power less than a king's? Doesn't freedom come from our humanity, not from the dictate of a ruler? If so, no dictate is needed or necessary to free slaves. They only need to exercise that freedom, if they chose. Freedom/slavery begin in the mind, not with some dictate.
There is no right to secede.
100% agreed!
"Freedom/slavery begin in the mind, not some dictate."..........Tell that to the women and children being trafficked in third world countries. No matter how hard they try in their mind to be free, they are still slaves. Mind power only gets you so far. Freedom and slavery are a paradox. If freedom equals sexual liberty than you are a slave to your sexual desires. If freedom to you equals financial freedeom(money) than you are a slave to money. If freedom to you means being able to say whatever/whenever than you are a slave to pride. To me true freedom is not being able to do whatever you want whenever you want. True freedom is living in accordance with the Creator.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/20/all-wars-are-bankers-wars/
A true sign of an awakened soul. Yes yes it's all a banker wars racket.
And you're a buffoon who spews talking points.
Get over yourself.
You nailed it Mr Horne; See the ranking of such idiotic dogma? Is it reasonable? Absolutely not, but profitable maybe. Best not to feed pearls to the swine who have no appreciation in what real value truly is... For many it is just a job...
Pearls to swine is Two Time Medal of Honor, most decorated Marine General Smedley Butler, who wrote about his experience: War Is A Racket.
It would be kind of narrow minded to think that all of anything can be categorized in one way or the other don't you think Mr baah?
"war is a racket" as in every war fo every kind? I doubt that...
Instead of putting words into my mouth, the person that jumped onto the Ad Hominem to gang up with the first attacker and defend the attacker (despicable acts, from despicable narrow minded assholes), read what it says again: WAR IS A RACKET. Does it say "Every kind of war is a racket". I doubt that...
The mark of a truly critical self thinker is OMITTING using or relying on ellipsis/omison and instead of the fallacious "Draw your own conclusion" the ... begs, they chose to make a complete thought, a critical argument, and make it SHARP, and not blunt and dumb bell like, but swift and to the point, like sWords, practicing precise, and specifics instead of TALKING POINTS (lolololol).
Ah so you expect everyone to be able to read between the lines of what you write? I thought you might be a man who means what he says, sorry...
No, I expect people to read what I wrote, and not read into what I wrote, or in between what I wrote, which is the definition of meaning what you say.
I have no doubt that you meant to say I am not a man by your ... Omission and Draw your own conclusion fallacy, there's no reading in between the lines, it's an ad hominem seeking to divert the conversation from War Is A Racket being pearls before the swine, exactly as demonstrated by your inability to swallow one mans experience without seeking to pull it apart or distort it somehow, and otherwise inability to appreciate it.
Pearls before swine. (Which is another ad hominem, responding with support to a previous one, except here and now it's not, because it has been demonstrated as true, and the subject of discussion as well)
You did not differentiate from the "all" when you said "War Is A Racket" and your ad hominem excuse is most armature.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and your Hero has his, however I'm sure there were other men in that same war who would not concur...
Question: Why did your hero participate in a war that was a racket?
No why or how, just agreement that the ad hominem was justified, the lowest scum of the lowest scum.
Complex question fallacy, best responded with a question questioning the premise of the loaded question fallacy: So what's your point?
Rhetorical device which doesn't answer how or why, instead it only begs the question which it answers without critical thought, devoid of reason or method for concluding it's not reasonable (ironic).
"..." or ellipsis is an Omission. Because of that it intentionally foregoes the formation of a complete thought, and simply implies one and only conclusion, effectively forcing people to read between the lines instead of expressing what it omits, such argument is always begging for a certain conclusion and because of that function it's the equivalent of draw your own conclusion fallacy, regardless that the thought itself is a sweeping remark about people, thus the fallacy of stereotyping/pigeonholing.
Indeed, turn all that around and direct it at the original post of deformation in "Patriotism" and you will have a very conclusive point...
The subject isn't the article itself, I brought up that to exemplify your actions, to weigh your words and question your conclusion, the subject is your actions in response to the actions of others.
The use of ellipsis/omission was used to say the conversation is not closed...
By the way was your reply about war in general being a racket somewhat a fallacy in stereotyping?
Nobody said anything about War In General Being A Racket. Do you have a problem with the phrase War is a racket, I mentioned that you're swine and I'm pelting you with pearls, you cannot appreciate it, just as you cannot close a sentence or finish a thought, and so to answer your question, you can stereotype people, but not events, or objects, you can only typecast and pigeonhole individuals.
Omission is used to NOT SAY something. Instead of relying on people interpreting your omissions and effectively CLOSING THE CONVERSATION, maybe make your thought clear, concise, and conclusive, or COMPLETE.
That wasn't hard, it takes a little effort to be specific and correct, to mean what you say, and say what you mean.
Why do you need to say/imply that the conversation is not closed, ever? Are you saying that if someone replies back you will reply back to them or what is the motive for saying that, and how does that communicate that the conversation isn't over?
That's an amusing comment, since your entire original comment was a recitation of self-contradictory, emotional nationalistic mythology you've been taught all your life.
Your cognitive dissonance is noted.