Europe submits voluntarily

[untermensche]

Without knowing any specifics makes any judgement nothing but an expression of prejudice.

 

[Derec]

Without knowing any specifics makes any judgement nothing but an expression of prejudice.

What prejudice? The guy is an Afghan. He entered Germany illegally. He committed crimes. Afghanistan should take him back.

 

[untermensche]

In an article designed to raise the hackles of those worried about foreigners and crime....

Prejudice.

 

[Derec]

In an article designed to raise the hackles of those worried about foreigners and crime....

Prejudice.

Deutsche Welle is unfortunately prejudiced in favor of mass Afghan (and other Muslim) migration. Hence that unfortunate piece of editorializing.
The facts are clear: he is an illegal migrant from Afghanistan who committed 20 crimes while in Germany. He should go back. Germany needs to grow a pair and not take people Afghanistan rejects back.

 

[untermensche]

In an article designed to raise the hackles of those worried about foreigners and crime....

Prejudice.

Deutsche Welle is unfortunately prejudiced in favor of mass Afghan (and other Muslim) migration. Hence that unfortunate piece of editorializing.
The facts are clear: he is an illegal migrant from Afghanistan who committed 20 crimes while in Germany. He should go back. Germany needs to grow a pair and not take people Afghanistan rejects back.

It is about honoring agreements.

It is about civilization.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Show me one time I said nations cannot commit war crimes.

You have said over and over they can't commit terrorism.

They can do both.

Any human can do both.

None are miraculously unable.

But when one nation not under attack attacks another with the goal of changing the government that is a massive act of terrorism, not a war crime.

Aggressive war IS terrorism. It is state terrorism.

I can't keep up the mockery any more.

You don't see it, but I have been using exactly your style and depth of argument. You can't see it.

 

[untermensche]

Show me one time I said nations cannot commit war crimes.

You have said over and over they can't commit terrorism.

They can do both.

Any human can do both.

None are miraculously unable.

But when one nation not under attack attacks another with the goal of changing the government that is a massive act of terrorism, not a war crime.

Aggressive war IS terrorism. It is state terrorism.

I can't keep up the mockery any more.

You don't see it, but I have been using exactly your style and depth of argument. You can't see it.

I see a third rate mimic without any substance.

My positions flow from a moral outlook. From simple principles like moral rules apply to all equally.

That is why you can't understand them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you knew what moral rules were you'd know which of us has a moral outlook.

All you have is calling people stupid and immoral if they disagree with you.

So tell me, what is the foundational premise of your so-called morality?

 

[untermensche]

I call people who think nations can't commit terrorism stupid.

Because they are.

They are stupid naive children living in some dream world when calling yourself a nation also gives you magic powers.

Morality: Everybody has the same rules.

If one nation can attack another nation that is not attacking anybody and change it's government then anybody else can do the same.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Technically the definition of "terrorism" includes that it is performed by non-state actors. State actors commit war crimes instead.

I have no problem with calling it terrorism when it's state actors. His problem is he calls any attack against those who oppose the US terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

English and untermenscheish disagree with each other on the definitions of the words.

Justice and you disagree with one another.

A deliberate unprovoked attack to overturn a government is terrorism.

Just because it is a huge act of terrorism doesn't make it more than terrorism.

Massive terrorism is terrorism.

War crimes are when two nations are at war, not when one very powerful nation is attacking a much weaker nation at will.

You are the one disagreeing with common English.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Terrorism is the act not the actor.

Learn English.

But you are redefining it to be based on "legitimate". Terrorism is about attacks on non-combatants.

 

[untermensche]

I have the same definition of terrorism no matter who does it. The illegitimate use of force to achieve a political goal.

So if Iraq invades Kuwait that is terrorism.

And when the US launches an unprovoked attack of Iraq that is terrorism too.

Some people have different definitions for terrorism depending on who does the terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again and again you're insinuating that Israel has no right to defend itself. For the love of my lord and god Zoroaster, put a fucking sock in it!

Yes. Iraq did have the right to defend itself from the US terrorist attack.

But only a very stupid idiot could see the US terrorist attack of Iraq as self-defense.

The US was not being attacked by Iraq nor could Iraq attack the US.

Why don't you grow a brain?

You're forgetting Iraq's refusal to comply with the agreement that ended the first gulf war. Yes, it was based on phantom WMD but since Saddam believed it to be real the fact the weapons weren't real doesn't matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US did a whole hell of lot more than reach in and pluck out a dictator.

It killed thousands of the innocent. It terrorized millions. Millions fled their homes. The US rounded up innocent people in the middles of the night and tortured them.

But the US also was responsible for Hussein being there. The US gave Hussein a lot of support. Reagan took Iraq off the terrorist state list (yes nations can commit terrorism) after he gassed the Kurds with US helicopters and gas. The US supported Hussein in the war with Iran. The US also supported Iran so what does that tell you?

You realize Saddam was killing an awful lot of people every year by not providing what they needed (for example, selling food to get money for weapons so there wasn't enough food) to look like a victim in the eyes of those who didn't look carefully enough?

And the time we supported Saddam was before he went evil.

Communism did not kill anybody.

Hardline communist takeovers kill something around 10% of the population.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When a stronger nation invades a weaker nation that is not invading anyone it is state terrorism not war.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan it was terrorism.

When the US invaded South Vietnam it was terrorism.

When the US attacked Iraq it was terrorism.

You're batting 0 for 3.

Afghanistan: It was wrongful but it certainly wasn't terrorism. After the invasion they did quite a bit of terrorism in an attempt to suppress the resistance.

South Vietnam: No invasion. The terrorism was committed by the North Vietnamese. Things like cutting off the arms of anyone with a smallpox vaccination scar to make people afraid to accept anything from the West.

Iraq: Saddam tried to keep WMD that he had agreed to destroy. It doesn't matter that the weapons were actually phantoms, Saddam believed they were real and was trying to hide them.

 

[Derec]

It is about honoring agreements.

Sure. Pacta sunt servanda.
But
1. it is far from clear that the refusal to accept this 20x criminal is according to the agreement. More likely is that Afghanistan just doesn't want to deal with him.
2. if Germany made such a bad deal with Afghanistan, that would be yet another blunder of Frau Merkel's government. It's yet another reason why German (and European in general) migration policies are so disastrous. And Democrats want to make us more like Europe in that regard, with all this nonsense that Central American illegals are "asylum seekers".

It is about civilization.

Can you show me any feature of civilization that mandates that a civilized society take in criminals from all over the world? What's wrong with deporting criminal illegal aliens to where they came from?

By the way, another day, another stabbing committed by an Afghan so-called "asylum seeker" in Germany. Danke Merkel!
Attacke auf Schwangere in Krankenhaus - Ungeborenes stirbt

It's in German but you can use Google translate. Basically, a 25 year old Afghan "asylum seeker" stabbed a pregnant woman, killing the baby.

But, according to the German Left there should be no deportations to Afghanistan. No even of violent criminals.

Idiots with a death wish! Every single one of them!

 

[untermensche]

Again and again you're insinuating that Israel has no right to defend itself. For the love of my lord and god Zoroaster, put a fucking sock in it!

Yes. Iraq did have the right to defend itself from the US terrorist attack.

But only a very stupid idiot could see the US terrorist attack of Iraq as self-defense.

The US was not being attacked by Iraq nor could Iraq attack the US.

Why don't you grow a brain?

You're forgetting Iraq's refusal to comply with the agreement that ended the first gulf war. Yes, it was based on phantom WMD but since Saddam believed it to be real the fact the weapons weren't real doesn't matter.

That is a UN matter, not a US matter.

The UN Security Council heard Powell's pack of lies and said "NO".

When the US went anyway it was a violation of the UN Charter and a violation of international law.

And an act of state terrorism.

- - - Updated - - -

It is about honoring agreements.

Sure. Pacta sunt servanda.
But
1. it is far from clear that the refusal to accept this 20x criminal is according to the agreement. More likely is that Afghanistan just doesn't want to deal with him.
2. if Germany made such a bad deal with Afghanistan, that would be yet another blunder of Frau Merkel's government. It's yet another reason why German (and European in general) migration policies are so disastrous. And Democrats want to make us more like Europe in that regard, with all this nonsense that Central American illegals are "asylum seekers".

It is about civilization.

Can you show me any feature of civilization that mandates that a civilized society take in criminals from all over the world? What's wrong with deporting criminal illegal aliens to where they came from?

By the way, another day, another stabbing committed by an Afghan so-called "asylum seeker" in Germany. Danke Merkel!
Attacke auf Schwangere in Krankenhaus - Ungeborenes stirbt

It's in German but you can use Google translate. Basically, a 25 year old Afghan "asylum seeker" stabbed a pregnant woman, killing the baby.

But, according to the German Left there should be no deportations to Afghanistan. No even of violent criminals.

Idiots with a death wish! Every single one of them!

Civilization is about honoring your agreements.

It is not about shirking them when it get's a little difficult.

 

[4321lynx]

Unter said:

That is a UN matter, not a US matter.

The UN Security Council heard Powell's pack of lies and said "NO".

When the US went anyway it was a violation of the UN Charter and a violation of international law.

And an act of state terrorism.

and in this he is 100% correct.

 

[untermensche]

When a stronger nation invades a weaker nation that is not invading anyone it is state terrorism not war.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan it was terrorism.

When the US invaded South Vietnam it was terrorism.

When the US attacked Iraq it was terrorism.

You're batting 0 for 3.

Afghanistan: It was wrongful but it certainly wasn't terrorism. After the invasion they did quite a bit of terrorism in an attempt to suppress the resistance.

The Soviet invasion was an act of terrorism. It was not justified in any way. It was illegitimate violence for a political goal. Terrorism.

South Vietnam: No invasion. The terrorism was committed by the North Vietnamese. Things like cutting off the arms of anyone with a smallpox vaccination scar to make people afraid to accept anything from the West.

You need to learn a little history.

In the early 1960's the US invaded South Vietnam and killed South Vietnamese.

The US went to war against the South, not the North.

The US bombed the North. The US never invaded the North.

It bombed and invaded the South. because the people in the South wanted a united Vietnam as much as the people in the North.

The US also bombed Cambodia and Laos. More massive terrorism.

Iraq: Saddam tried to keep WMD that he had agreed to destroy. It doesn't matter that the weapons were actually phantoms, Saddam believed they were real and was trying to hide them.

No WMD were found in Iraq.

But of course only children could still believe the attack had anything to do with WMD.

The people, and it was a small group of people, who lied to the nation to drive the nation to war had wanted to invade Iraq for over a decade before 911.

They were psychopaths who talked about a US century.

Their sick plan included a lot of killing. Iraq was just the start.

That went so badly these scum have scattered.