Europe submits voluntarily

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Morality: Everybody has the same rules.

So far so good, but you failed to tell me WHAT the morality is.

Moreover you contradicted yourself, which surprises absolutely nobody.

You used, as your "proof" that nations commit terrorism, a state department document used by Neocons to justify their aggression. They didn't include the US on a list of nations that commit terrorism. You say that list say nations do so therefore the US did. But the US isn't on the list.

So your "evidence" is authoritative except it isn't except it is except it isn't. As usual.

 

[angelo]

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.

There wouldn't have been any necessity to invade Iraq a second time if the first Iraq war continued on to Baghdad once the Iraqis were dislodged from Kuwait and kept going after them and had the chance overthrow Saddam's regime then. That was the blunder that cost so many lives and left a brutal dictator and his armed forces practically intact.

 

[angelo]

Meanwhile in the real world of the ever present islamic threat...............................................http://www.etravelalerts.com/security/

 

[untermensche]

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


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.



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.

There wouldn't have been any necessity to invade Iraq a second time if the first Iraq war continued on to Baghdad once the Iraqis were dislodged from Kuwait and kept going after them and had the chance overthrow Saddam's regime then. That was the blunder that cost so many lives and left a brutal dictator and his armed forces practically intact.

That is only miles away from justifying the US terrorist attack of 2003. (The root cause of all this immigration into Europe)

Nothing justifies a cold blooded terrorist attack like that.

It was not some surgical removal of a dictator.

It was massive terrorism to remove a dictator.

 

[untermensche]

Morality: Everybody has the same rules.

So far so good, but you failed to tell me WHAT the morality is.

Moreover you contradicted yourself, which surprises absolutely nobody.

You used, as your "proof" that nations commit terrorism, a state department document used by Neocons to justify their aggression. They didn't include the US on a list of nations that commit terrorism. You say that list say nations do so therefore the US did. But the US isn't on the list.

So your "evidence" is authoritative except it isn't except it is except it isn't. As usual.

What a bunch of worthless gibberish.

You are a child crying that your beloved nation can't possibly commit terrorism.

You think the apes that run it are very special.

 

[ruby sparks]

Only a fool would suggest that the USA does not or has not committed terrorism.

So US neocons did not include their own country on a list of those that do. Oh what a surprise.

 

[untermensche]

In the year 2000 when the Supreme Court refused to allow democracy to work itself out and appointed GW Bush president a group of "neocons" that had wanted to rearrange the ME in the favor of the US and thought it would be so easy also took power. Cheney and Rumsfeld and many more who had already asked Bill Clinton to invade Iraq took power.

Then they ignored warnings of bin Laden and the use of commercial jets for acts of terrorism.

Then immediately after 911, before anyone knows what happened, Rumsfeld asks for plans to invade Iraq.

They take their pack of lies to the UN with Powell as the spokesman for their sick plan.

When the UN does not buy their bullshit as easily as the American public they invade anyway, in direct violation of the UN Charter which the US wrote and signed.

Terrorists can wear shirts and ties and be clean shaven and they can be slick con men that do not rant.

 

[angelo]

I suppose it's because of US terrorism that millions of Sub Saharan Africans are flooding into Europe, and further Central and Southern Americans are flooding into the US itself?

 

[untermensche]

I suppose it's because of US terrorism that millions of Sub Saharan Africans are flooding into Europe, and further Central and Southern Americans are flooding into the US itself?

It was European terrorism that tore apart Africa. And probably people are fleeing other people with either US or Russian weapons.

South America has been a US capitalist feeding zone for decades.

Corrupt governments that sell out their people so the US can come in and exploit labor and resources.

If you resisted you were attacked.

In Chile the US removed the elected government. In Nicaragua they created a terrorist proxy Army to do the same. The US attacked Cuba over and over. It invaded Guatemala and Haiti over and over.

Resist and you will be attacked. And all we will allow you are corrupt governments that serve the US.

Why has capitalism not saved South and Central America from massive poverty and deprivation?

Because US capitalism is the cause.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Morality: Everybody has the same rules.

So far so good, but you failed to tell me WHAT the morality is.

Moreover you contradicted yourself, which surprises absolutely nobody.

You used, as your "proof" that nations commit terrorism, a state department document used by Neocons to justify their aggression. They didn't include the US on a list of nations that commit terrorism. You say that list say nations do so therefore the US did. But the US isn't on the list.

So your "evidence" is authoritative except it isn't except it is except it isn't. As usual.

What a bunch of worthless gibberish.

So far so good, but you failed to tell me WHAT the morality is.

You are a child crying that your beloved nation can't possibly commit war crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Only a fool would suggest that the USA does not or has not committed terrorism.

So US neocons did not include their own country on a list of those that do. Oh what a surprise.

He calls me a fool because I say that the same act has a different label depending on the actor, that individual non-state actors commit terrorism while countries commit war crimes. He can't stand that someone might say his beloved government has committed a crime.

 

[untermensche]

The nature of an act does not by magic change depending on who does it.

Apes don't become angels by saying the magic word "nation".

Same rules for everyone. Morality 101.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Same rules for everyone. Morality 101.

Okay, one of your moral premises is "Same rules for everyone." That's a start, and I'm sure that your answering my question "what is your moral premise" was more of an accident than intention.

But my question was more "what are the rules" than "who do they apply to", and more "what is the single premise behind the rules" than "what are the rules." I'm pretty sure you don't actually understand the question, and if you do answer it your doing so would be quite accidental.

Still, your "same rules apply to everyone" is not as adequate as you think. That's why I asked if you believe a 3 year old who grabs a candy bar from a shop shelf should go to adult jail for shoplifting. Even though you barfed out "I never said that", it is a logical conclusion from what little of your premises you have accidentally stated clearly.

 

[untermensche]

Same rules for everyone means the same rules for all three year olds.

If one goes to jail for stealing a candy bar then morality says they all should go to jail.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Same rules for everyone means the same rules for all three year olds.

If one goes to jail for stealing a candy bar then morality says they all should go to jail.

So if a 30 year old goes to jail for stealing a candy bar then a 3 year old goes to jail for stealing a candy bar? After all they are both people.

 

[untermensche]

Same rules for everyone means the same rules for all three year olds.

If one goes to jail for stealing a candy bar then morality says they all should go to jail.

So if a 30 year old goes to jail for stealing a candy bar then a 3 year old goes to jail for stealing a candy bar? After all they are both people.

Morality is the same rules for all adults. It is a given when you are talking about morality you are discussing adult behavior.

We are talking about war and torture. Not lollipops.

Morality is a topic for adults.

Talking about children is just showing how little you should be taken seriously.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Same rules for everyone means the same rules for all three year olds.

If one goes to jail for stealing a candy bar then morality says they all should go to jail.

So if a 30 year old goes to jail for stealing a candy bar then a 3 year old goes to jail for stealing a candy bar? After all they are both people.

Morality is the same rules for all adults. It is a given when you are talking about morality you are discussing adult behavior.

Ah, so now it is no longer true that "Same rules for everyone. Morality 101." You have made an exception.

Actually I'm glad you made this exception, the logical conclusion of your statement would have made you an immoral monster had you not made that exception.

So, now that we've gotten that you don't actually believe "Same rules for everyone. Morality 101." as your foundational moral premise, perhaps you can tell us what actually IS your foundational moral premise.

I know this is a tough question for you. You're used to simply saying "you're stupid, you're immoral" to any question that you don't understand, but deep down you actually see that answer doesn't work for this question.

 

[untermensche]

Is this the first time you've discussed morality?

It is not my exception.

It is a well established exception.

This is not a discussion about lollipops.

You are not really worth discussing this with.

It is like talking to a child.

There is nothing for an adult in it.

Morality means if you can do something so can I. If I can do something so can you.

If the US can attack a nation not attacking anyone and change it's government so can anyone.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is this the first time you've discussed morality?

The first time I've seriously discussed your morality. That means that one of us is now seriously discussing it. I'm still waiting for you.

You are having a very hard time with this question. What is the basic premise upon which your morality rests?

You've said "what applies to one applies to all", but then said "I didn't mean kids too". Okay. But that is the "what applies to one" that also applies to all?

Apparently your morality is to call people names if they ask you hard questions.

 

[untermensche]

The premise is still the same.

Morality begins with: If you can do something then all can do the same thing and if you are forbidden then all are forbidden.

The rules are the same for all.

Adults.

Which usually doesn't have to be said in serious discussion.

So if it is moral for one nation to attack another nation, that is not attacking anyone, to change it's government, then all nations can do the same without penalty.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The premise is still the same.

Morality begins with: If you can do something then all can do the same thing and if you are forbidden then all are forbidden.

Interesting beginning. It doesn't actually restrict much, as much as it gives others permission to do the same. For instance, it means that slavery is acceptable as long as anyone could own a slave. Technically it means anyone could be free to commit murder as long as everyone could be free to commit murder. Is your standard nothing more than sharing equally whether it be shared joy or shared misery?

Which usually doesn't have to be said in serious discussion.

However you are part of the discussion so it does have to be said.

So if it is moral for one nation to attack another nation, that is not attacking anyone, to change it's government, then all nations can do the same without penalty.

Technically they do, but I'm moving on to abstractions here. We'll bring it back to the material where you are more comfortable in a moment.