Author Topic: Die Hitllary Jugend! Unbelivable!!!! (Read 824 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #30 on:** November 18, 2002, 09:50:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep Sandman and those who dont support USA President Bush's war on terrorism show their anti terrorist leanings by supporting which other active campaign against terror? The UN? Bah, bunch of gutless frenchmen... The Al Qaeda war on US terror perhaps? I guess those are the ones holding "Bush is a Terrorist" signs at US anti war rallys... Who do they support to battle terror if not the USA? Everyone else would be doing squat without the USA a focusing power.

And by not supporting our governments attempts to punish the 911 attackers and their organization you are at least making moral excuses for those attacks...

Imagine:

"Yep I was all aginst the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but I sure as hell opposed Roosevelt's war!!!!"

Right sandman, thats the argument you are making?

Once again... I can simply sit back and watch while you argue both sides of a discussion or place boundaries on a dissenting opinion so that it fits within your black and white perception of the world.

-tronski- · « **Reply #31 on:** November 18, 2002, 11:40:16 PM »

I agree with Grun....5 year olds should indoctrinated to Support the War against . That way when they join the Hitlerjugend they're pro-govt not anti govt, like all good HJ's were

of course 5 yr old would've had to wait till their 10 and join the Jungvolk first...hmmmmm maybe we should indoctrinate them with something else first?

Tronsky

StSanta · « **Reply #32 on:** November 19, 2002, 12:06:48 AM »

Hey Grun, almost done. Final exam is tomorrow.

squeak is that the two other group members really know toejame about the project. And I've had to make their presentations for them. naturally, they've stolen the juicy bits with the excuse that "you'll get by anyway". Frtunately the presentation is just part of the exam.

Am squeaking now. Graduation is the 27th

.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #33 on:** November 19, 2002, 07:51:09 AM »

trotski

I dont dont understand where you get the idea that I think 5 year olds should be indoctorinated to support any specific political cause.

I clearly said:

"it is not a good idea to indoctorinate kids as political tool"

"Really sad that somebody in your position would in ANY WAY support the brainwashing of children for any political cause."

"THAT IS VERY DANGEROUS"

"But to make it into political indoctrorination and trot them out to a pre planned demonstratration and force them to comment on international politics which can in no way undrstand? Thats bizzare, inappropriate and the tool of propagandists! Its wrong"

"Maybe I'm wierd but I find that idea shocking no matter what cause is being championed."

Little kids should be taught to read, write, count add, multiply etc. There is no reason to use 5 year old kids in in any political demonstration or ralley. It is immoral to brainwash ignorant mentally undeveloped kids with any specific political agenda or cause. I know you are able to read trotski, so please find anywhere where I said kids should be indoctorinated for any specific political cause. Go ahead....

Sandman while I fully appreciate the purely intellectual and hypothetical subtleties of what you said the practical reality is that only the USA is leading the anti-terror war, which makes sense since we were attacked in an unprecedented way, so to oppose our governemts efforts to battle the terrorists is tantamount to letting them off. Otherwise tell us how the terrorist should be combated, and who would do the fighting, if you dont think our war against them is something you can support?

bounder · « **Reply #34 on:** November 19, 2002, 08:25:25 AM »

Quote

the practical reality is that only the USA is leading the anti-terror war, which makes sense since we were attacked in an unprecedented way, so to oppose our governemts efforts to battle the terrorists is tantamount to letting them off.

may I briefly interject? I would like to offer an analysis of the paragraph quoted above:

In this small part of his post Grunherz asserts that opposing the government's actions against terrorism amounts to allowing those responsible to go unpunished.

Leaving aside whether there can even be such a thing as The War Against Terrorism, this is plainly wrong.

The question is whether Grunherz would support any efforts in the The War Against Terrorism.

Does he have a threshold of repulsion and disgust that his government must cross, in their efforts to crush terrorism, before he starts to protest? I would suggest that he does; even Grunherz would stop short of supporting carpet neutron bombing. Or maybe not.

This argument is in the same category of fallacious slogans like

"If you're not with me, you're against me"
"If you're not part of the solution then you are part of the problem"

It is based on some rather narrow reasoning; it presupposes that there are always only two options, and that they are always in diametrical opposition.

It's an oversimplification to say the least

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #35 on:** November 19, 2002, 11:32:16 AM »

There is room for disagreement on tactics and such. Thats fine. But if anyone says they are against us fighting back alltogether, against our eternal basic human right to persecute this war of self defense then they are wrong and are garbage amazinhunk USA haters, plain and simple... They are worse in fact than the terrorists, at least the Al Qaeda have the guts to put their lives on the line (yes of course I know they want to die in jihad, but they are still human) and try and fight us somewhat openly...

Sandman · « **Reply #36 on:** November 19, 2002, 08:35:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
There is room for disagreement on tactics and such. Thats fine. But if anyone says they are against us fighting back alltogether, against our eternal basic human right to persecute this war of self defense then they are wrong and are garbage amazinhunk USA haters, plain and simple... They are worse in fact than the terrorists, at least the Al Qaeda have the guts to put their lives on the line (yes of course I know they want to die in jihad, but they are still human) and try and fight us somewhat openly...

You're not listening.

...and you did it again:

Quote

then they are wrong and are garbage amazinhunk USA haters, plain and simple...

To be against Bush's "War on Terrorism" is not to be pro-terrorism nor is it to be against any and all war against terrorist organizations.

Nevertheless... IMNSHO, Bush's "War on Terrorism" is silly. There is no clearly defined enemy and no clearly defined exit strategy. It is simply a war without end... ever.

War on Al-Qaeda... I'm all for that.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #37 on:** November 19, 2002, 10:43:32 PM »

You are not reading what I said.

I clearly said it was OK to disagree on on tactics.

I clearly defined the group of people who I think are:

"then they are wrong and are garbage amazinhunk USA haters, plain and simple..."

It's a very specific criticism I have towards a specific group of far far left radicals who genuinley think the USA has no right to defend itself and attack the people responsible for 911.

OK?

Sandman · « **Reply #38 on:** November 19, 2002, 10:55:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

It's a very specific criticism I have towards a specific group of far far left radicals who genuinley think the USA has no right to defend itself and attack the people responsible for 911.

OK?

Fine. Who are we speaking of? I'm pretty sure this far far left radical doesn't swim in these waters.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #39 on:** November 19, 2002, 11:07:17 PM »

You want it to be directed at somebody on this board, dont ya?

But its not, not really anyway untill I see somebody come out and say we dont have the right to strike back and defend ourselves at all.

Actually the only reason I brought the far far leftists up was to make a clear distinction between my personal concern about those who are not supporting our efforts to my liking (we disagree) and my utter hatred and contempt to those who oppose them outright ( I want them dead) - because you went ahead and just made up your mind that both were the same group and that I was lumping everyone who I disagree with in that USA hating category.

OK?

Sandman · « **Reply #40 on:** November 20, 2002, 02:19:21 AM »

Alrighty then... just let us know when the left you're talking about and or arguing with is the same left that posts here.

-tronski- · « **Reply #41 on:** November 20, 2002, 06:24:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
trotski

I dont dont understand where you get the idea that I think 5 year olds should be indoctorinated to support any specific political cause.

I clearly said:

"it is not a good idea to indoctorinate kids as political tool"

"Really sad that somebody in your position would in ANY WAY support the brainwashing of children for any political cause."

"THAT IS VERY DANGEROUS"

"But to make it into political indoctrorination and trot them out to a pre planned demonstratration and force them to comment on international politics which can in no way undrstand? Thats bizzare, inappropriate and the tool of propagandists! Its wrong"

"Maybe I'm wierd but I find that idea shocking no matter what cause is being championed."

Little kids should be taught to read, write, count add, multiply etc. There is no reason to use 5 year old kids in in any political demonstration or ralley. It is immoral to brainwash ignorant mentally undeveloped kids with any specific political agenda or cause. I know you are able to read trotski, so please find anywhere where I said kids should be indoctorinated for any specific political cause. Go ahead....

Ahhhh sometimes sarcasm is so wasted on some.....perhaps I should be a little less subtle next time Gunherpes

Tronsky

bounder · « **Reply #42 on:** November 20, 2002, 06:29:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
There is room for disagreement on tactics and such. Thats fine. But if anyone says they are against us fighting back alltogether, against our eternal basic human right to persecute this war of self defense then they are wrong and are garbage amazinhunk USA haters, plain and simple... They are worse in fact than the terrorists, at least the Al Qaeda have the guts to put their lives on the line (yes of course I know they want to die in jihad, but they are still human) and try and fight us somewhat openly...

Now I'm no analyst, but wouldn't the above (in bold) qualify as a Freudian Slip?

batdog · « **Reply #43 on:** November 20, 2002, 06:35:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You're not listening.

...and you did it again:

To be against Bush's "War on Terrorism" is not to be pro-terrorism nor is it to be against any and all war against terrorist organizations.

Nevertheless... IMNSHO, Bush's "War on Terrorism" is silly. There is no clearly defined enemy and no clearly defined exit strategy. It is simply a war without end... ever.

War on Al-Qaeda... I'm all for that.

Howdy Sandman.

No acutaly I think the "War On Terrorism" is a valid discription. Why? Well... Terrorism is now something seen as nation/civilization threatening. This "War" is basicly an attempt to find a method of combating ALL terrorism of this type and elimnating it as well. Basicly its a war on "INTERNATIONAL" terrorism.

xBAT

Sandman · « **Reply #44 on:** November 20, 2002, 09:09:56 AM »

Rephrase it and see if it sounds like a good sound bite for the nightly news...

The War Against Asymmetric Warfare