OT: Free speech?

[primitive]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
.
.
To whoever pointed out that neither Hitler nor Stalin came from their own countires: Keep your eye on Schwarzenegger.
.

[mottlee]

Originally posted by orm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randallw:
Stalin murdered many more of his own people* than Hitler yet Hitler is considered worse... Truely History is written by the victor.

*strangely enough neither Stalin or Hitler was actually from the country he ran.

I think you are right. It is the precicion and efficiency that makes germans to the worst criminals in this time (and the fact that they loose the conflict). But i don't understand why and how my generation of german adults is responsible for this crime. To criticise Israelian politics brings you automaticaly near to the position of Antisemitism, even though many of israelian doings are not so far from what Stalin has do with ethnical minorities in russia. And why do the USA protect this behaviour?

---

I for one do not "Blame" Germany or the German people for what a few did, the German army was like ours, protecting their home (in the end) would we all not do that? for a people to take the "Blame" for someone else is wrong,look what we Americans have done to the native Americans here!

[sachmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

Within limits, yes. However it is perfectly possible for a nation to defend itself against an attack without resorting to the kind of methods outlawed by the geneva convention.

I have not read the articles of the Geneva convention, so I cannot comment on each of them in particualar. However, with just my passing knowledge of them, I think I'd have to disagree with your statement.

Just taking as an example a war where one country has a tremendous military advantage over the other. The conventional war will be over in days, but the guerilla conflict could Last for a long time. The weaker force would have to break the will of the larger force, as they cannot hope to win a military victory. To break their will, they would almost assuredly have to commit atrocities against the soldiers of the invading army before the invading army can break the will of the people.

[Gandalf Parker]

Interesting notes about Germany: Nazism was voted into power with less than 50% of the votes. The stance was rebuilding the economy and protection from things outside of the country. Early changes were in defense of national security. It was only later when they discovered that "temporary actions" werent being removed that many started getting nervous.

[dogscoff]

To break their will, they would almost assuredly have to commit atrocities against the soldiers of the invading army before the invading army can break the will of the people.

Then it's better to die or just give up the fight. If my country were invaded and I were fighting a guerilla resistance, I would kill enemy soldiers at every opportunity and using whatever sneaky methods were available to me, but to commit human rights abuses beyond that..?

Well, if I were to win by such methods then I would no longer be the same person at the end of it and the country would no longer be the same country I had tried to defend. It would not be a worthwhile victory.

Maybe I would feel differently if I were in that situation, but that wouldn't make it right.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
DELURKING

You can fire off your counter points, I won't be reading them.

RE-LURKING

That's hypocritical. 'You listen to me, but I won't listen to you.'

[ May 19, 2004, 20:15: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[dogscoff]

good point narf. unfortunately, he's not listening...