Donald Trump

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Bloody hell, Goo! Yes, BF are far right without a shadow of a doubt. They may be smaller in number and less organised but that's who they are. Their leading members are mostly ex-BNP or do you not think they count as far right either?

Look. I'm merely trying to seek some clarity and balance here. I'm not saying they're not racist or idiots. But if you and others consider them Far Right. Then what were the Nazis?.

Nazis were the most barbaric, violent and destructive organisation Europe had ever seen, and not only plunged Europe into the world’s deadliest war, but also murdered people in the millions purely because of their ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or just cos they felt like it.

So murderous were they they had to industrialise the killing.

Just because you aren’t that doesn’t mean you’re not totally sh!t.

I understand this. And thank you for your potted history. I had completely forgotten how bad the Nazis were !

But my point which nobody on here has addressed is that the Nazis were and are labelled as Far Right. Therefore I fail to see how idiotic fringe groups like BF or BNP can be given the same label. There is no way any of these would ever gain power, as has been proven in recent years, where their momentum has faltered dramatically and they have reverted to shouting on the sidelines.

BTW. Many on here seem to forget that Uncle Joseph, murdered at least 3 times as many people than Herr Adolf. But because they were his own citizens, it seems to be ok and is forgotten. Politicians and most people just get worked up over the Nazis but not the Communists.

I don't forget that.

I for one have studied and written about Russian Gulags, and spent days and weeks deep underground in archives, looking for 70s translations of gulag bureaucracy papers that were smuggled out.

But just because a group isn't wholey murderous doesn't mean they don't occupy a similar ideological space.

Well that makes 2 of us then. I would imagine that your research has been both interesting and harrowing.

Shame that the majority of UK, European, Western world and rest of world politicians, press and populations have forgotten about Soviet atrocities. One that I find particularly disgusting is the brutalisation and raping/gang raping of German girls and women by Soviet forces as they pushed through Germany and into Berlin. This was actually sanctioned by Joseph Stalin. I find it very troubling that one never sees anything about it in WW2 documentaries. Is this because the Soviets were seen as allies in the fight against fascism. And therefore their barbarism is accepted in the face of another factions barbarism. Just another example of the imbalanced view of right wing versus left wing.

I'm pretty sure I have seen that in documentaries and I thought it was widely acknowledged? And like you seem to think, I think communism gets an easy ride. In every country it's been tried in people have been less free and respect for human rights has been minimal.

So does Western colonialism of Africa, but then that doesn't help you defend your own anti-Muslim views does it?

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Bloody hell, Goo! Yes, BF are far right without a shadow of a doubt. They may be smaller in number and less organised but that's who they are. Their leading members are mostly ex-BNP or do you not think they count as far right either?

Look. I'm merely trying to seek some clarity and balance here. I'm not saying they're not racist or idiots. But if you and others consider them Far Right. Then what were the Nazis?.

Nazis were the most barbaric, violent and destructive organisation Europe had ever seen, and not only plunged Europe into the world’s deadliest war, but also murdered people in the millions purely because of their ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or just cos they felt like it.

So murderous were they they had to industrialise the killing.

Just because you aren’t that doesn’t mean you’re not totally sh!t.

I understand this. And thank you for your potted history. I had completely forgotten how bad the Nazis were !

But my point which nobody on here has addressed is that the Nazis were and are labelled as Far Right. Therefore I fail to see how idiotic fringe groups like BF or BNP can be given the same label. There is no way any of these would ever gain power, as has been proven in recent years, where their momentum has faltered dramatically and they have reverted to shouting on the sidelines.

BTW. Many on here seem to forget that Uncle Joseph, murdered at least 3 times as many people than Herr Adolf. But because they were his own citizens, it seems to be ok and is forgotten. Politicians and most people just get worked up over the Nazis but not the Communists.

I don't forget that.

I for one have studied and written about Russian Gulags, and spent days and weeks deep underground in archives, looking for 70s translations of gulag bureaucracy papers that were smuggled out.

But just because a group isn't wholey murderous doesn't mean they don't occupy a similar ideological space.

Well that makes 2 of us then. I would imagine that your research has been both interesting and harrowing.

Shame that the majority of UK, European, Western world and rest of world politicians, press and populations have forgotten about Soviet atrocities. One that I find particularly disgusting is the brutalisation and raping/gang raping of German girls and women by Soviet forces as they pushed through Germany and into Berlin. This was actually sanctioned by Joseph Stalin. I find it very troubling that one never sees anything about it in WW2 documentaries. Is this because the Soviets were seen as allies in the fight against fascism. And therefore their barbarism is accepted in the face of another factions barbarism. Just another example of the imbalanced view of right wing versus left wing.

I'm pretty sure I have seen that in documentaries and I thought it was widely acknowledged? And like you seem to think, I think communism gets an easy ride. In every country it's been tried in people have been less free and respect for human rights has been minimal.

So does Western colonialism of Africa, but then that doesn't help you defend your own anti-Muslim views does it?

Does anybody advocate colonialism of Africa? As for the 'anti-Muslim views', we've done that before and you embarrassed yourself.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Bloody hell, Goo! Yes, BF are far right without a shadow of a doubt. They may be smaller in number and less organised but that's who they are. Their leading members are mostly ex-BNP or do you not think they count as far right either?

Look. I'm merely trying to seek some clarity and balance here. I'm not saying they're not racist or idiots. But if you and others consider them Far Right. Then what were the Nazis?.

Nazis were the most barbaric, violent and destructive organisation Europe had ever seen, and not only plunged Europe into the world’s deadliest war, but also murdered people in the millions purely because of their ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or just cos they felt like it.

So murderous were they they had to industrialise the killing.

Just because you aren’t that doesn’t mean you’re not totally sh!t.

I understand this. And thank you for your potted history. I had completely forgotten how bad the Nazis were !

But my point which nobody on here has addressed is that the Nazis were and are labelled as Far Right. Therefore I fail to see how idiotic fringe groups like BF or BNP can be given the same label. There is no way any of these would ever gain power, as has been proven in recent years, where their momentum has faltered dramatically and they have reverted to shouting on the sidelines.

BTW. Many on here seem to forget that Uncle Joseph, murdered at least 3 times as many people than Herr Adolf. But because they were his own citizens, it seems to be ok and is forgotten. Politicians and most people just get worked up over the Nazis but not the Communists.

I don't forget that.

I for one have studied and written about Russian Gulags, and spent days and weeks deep underground in archives, looking for 70s translations of gulag bureaucracy papers that were smuggled out.

But just because a group isn't wholey murderous doesn't mean they don't occupy a similar ideological space.

Well that makes 2 of us then. I would imagine that your research has been both interesting and harrowing.

Shame that the majority of UK, European, Western world and rest of world politicians, press and populations have forgotten about Soviet atrocities. One that I find particularly disgusting is the brutalisation and raping/gang raping of German girls and women by Soviet forces as they pushed through Germany and into Berlin. This was actually sanctioned by Joseph Stalin. I find it very troubling that one never sees anything about it in WW2 documentaries. Is this because the Soviets were seen as allies in the fight against fascism. And therefore their barbarism is accepted in the face of another factions barbarism. Just another example of the imbalanced view of right wing versus left wing.

Really not sure why you think the bit in bold is the case. Sure there are people who promote a very rose-tinted view of the Soviet Russia just as there are Holocaust deniers, but they are generally viewed as the fringe crackpots and sh*tstirrers that they are. That people from the extremes of the political spectrum also wish to impose their views by equally extreme methods is perhaps unsurprising. At some point it stops being about the politics and just becomes about maintaining a grip on power at any cost. By the way, the use of systematic rape as a weapon of war has a very long and continuing history, so sadly the Red Army are not unusual in this respect.

Pross

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable"

A quote from the UN General assembly condemnation of terrorist acts.

Some definitions require politics others don't. You could say Daesh are religious not political so are they not terrorists?

I think this forum has discussed what is and isn't terrorism before. I'm pretty sure this not political = not terrorism point has been discussed too. Perhaps any ism could pretty much result in terrorism if there's ppl that bothered by it.

ISIS believe in political Islam so, yes, it is political. The UN General Assembly statement above does talk about politics.

Sorry wrong quote but I can't find it again. Mind you there are so many versions of terrorism you can pretty much pick your own. One source I saw identified over 200 definitions from national or supranational bodies, think tanks and academic bodies.

How about this quote from the FBI report on terrorism from a few years ago.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Restricting it to political is one way of letting the right kind of terrorists off the hook of course.

Again, that quote talks about politics... You seem to want to invent a new meaning of the word terrorism.

Alternatively you are ignoring the word 'or' and commas acting as delineators. When you put those back in it talks about politics but there's nothing in the definition to say the has to be a political angle for an act to be determined as terrorism.

As Lenin put it, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise and terrorising people can be an aim for all sorts of reasons.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Does anybody advocate colonialism of Africa?

There's a pretty strong tradition of apologists for colonialism, so yes. The kind of person that thinks that Africa's problems are down to the lack of colonial governance.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

Does anybody advocate colonialism of Africa?

There's a pretty strong tradition of apologists for colonialism, so yes. The kind of person that thinks that Africa's problems are down to the lack of colonial governance.

Does anybody right now advocate recolonizing Africa in the same way that people still support the far left/communism.

nickice

Pross wrote:

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable"

A quote from the UN General assembly condemnation of terrorist acts.

Some definitions require politics others don't. You could say Daesh are religious not political so are they not terrorists?

I think this forum has discussed what is and isn't terrorism before. I'm pretty sure this not political = not terrorism point has been discussed too. Perhaps any ism could pretty much result in terrorism if there's ppl that bothered by it.

ISIS believe in political Islam so, yes, it is political. The UN General Assembly statement above does talk about politics.

Sorry wrong quote but I can't find it again. Mind you there are so many versions of terrorism you can pretty much pick your own. One source I saw identified over 200 definitions from national or supranational bodies, think tanks and academic bodies.

How about this quote from the FBI report on terrorism from a few years ago.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Restricting it to political is one way of letting the right kind of terrorists off the hook of course.

Again, that quote talks about politics... You seem to want to invent a new meaning of the word terrorism.

Alternatively you are ignoring the word 'or' and commas acting as delineators. When you put those back in it talks about politics but there's nothing in the definition to say the has to be a political angle for an act to be determined as terrorism.

As Lenin put it, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise and terrorising people can be an aim for all sorts of reasons.

Fair point BUT what would you class as a social aim? (adding in that social is not a common word in the definition of terrorism not that used in the UK).

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

Does anybody advocate colonialism of Africa?

There's a pretty strong tradition of apologists for colonialism, so yes. The kind of person that thinks that Africa's problems are down to the lack of colonial governance.

Does anybody right now advocate recolonizing Africa in the same way that people still support the far left/communism.

Yes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4251 ... ation.html

On a forum...
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showth ... ?t=1859000

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

Does anybody advocate colonialism of Africa?

There's a pretty strong tradition of apologists for colonialism, so yes. The kind of person that thinks that Africa's problems are down to the lack of colonial governance.

Does anybody right now advocate recolonizing Africa in the same way that people still support the far left/communism.

Yes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4251 ... ation.html

On a forum...
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showth ... ?t=1859000

A seventeen-year-old article and a post from an internet forum??? Though I suppose I did say 'anybody'!

Pross

nickice wrote:

Fair point BUT what would you class as a social aim? (adding in that social is not a common word in the definition of terrorism not that used in the UK).

Any attack looking to cause fear and panic (which may be the aim of many mass shootings) could be deemed a social aim. Likewise, bombing a gay club as you don't like gays.

The problem is in many cases no-one knows why the act was carried out.

nickice

Pross wrote:

nickice wrote:

Fair point BUT what would you class as a social aim? (adding in that social is not a common word in the definition of terrorism not that used in the UK).

Any attack looking to cause fear and panic (which may be the aim of many mass shootings) could be deemed a social aim. Likewise, bombing a gay club as you don't like gays.

The problem is in many cases no-one knows why the act was carried out.

So a mass shooting with no clear aim cannot be terrorism. I'd take a guess that anyone who hates gays enough to bomb a gay club would, most of the time, have the poltical aim of homosexual acts being banned.

Pross

The UK definition is here http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/terrorism/

nickice

Pross wrote:

The UK definition is here http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/terrorism/

" political, religious, racial or ideological cause."

I would say all of the above are essentially political.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

Does anybody advocate colonialism of Africa?

There's a pretty strong tradition of apologists for colonialism, so yes. The kind of person that thinks that Africa's problems are down to the lack of colonial governance.

Does anybody right now advocate recolonizing Africa in the same way that people still support the far left/communism.

Yes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4251 ... ation.html

On a forum...
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showth ... ?t=1859000

A seventeen-year-old article and a post from an internet forum??? Though I suppose I did say 'anybody'!

I wasn't trying very hard. Granted its a fringe view, but there were plenty of hits on Google.

darkhairedlord

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

Does anybody advocate colonialism of Africa?

There's a pretty strong tradition of apologists for colonialism, so yes. The kind of person that thinks that Africa's problems are down to the lack of colonial governance.

Does anybody right now advocate recolonizing Africa in the same way that people still support the far left/communism.

Yes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4251 ... ation.html

On a forum...
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showth ... ?t=1859000

A seventeen-year-old article and a post from an internet forum??? Though I suppose I did say 'anybody'!

Pretty much any white older-middle aged middle class male or female that has family or friends that farm, live, work in Africa or have done so in the past. They all think it terrible they have share with the natives and it was better in the old days.

darkhairedlord

nickice wrote:

Pross wrote:

nickice wrote:

Fair point BUT what would you class as a social aim? (adding in that social is not a common word in the definition of terrorism not that used in the UK).

Any attack looking to cause fear and panic (which may be the aim of many mass shootings) could be deemed a social aim. Likewise, bombing a gay club as you don't like gays.

The problem is in many cases no-one knows why the act was carried out.

So a mass shooting with no clear aim cannot be terrorism.

I reckon you need a pretty good for this sort of thing.

bianchimoon

nickice wrote:

Pross wrote:

nickice wrote:

Fair point BUT what would you class as a social aim? (adding in that social is not a common word in the definition of terrorism not that used in the UK).

Any attack looking to cause fear and panic (which may be the aim of many mass shootings) could be deemed a social aim. Likewise, bombing a gay club as you don't like gays.

The problem is in many cases no-one knows why the act was carried out.

So a mass shooting with no clear aim cannot be terrorism. I'd take a guess that anyone who hates gays enough to bomb a gay club would, most of the time, have the poltical aim of homosexual acts being banned.

I'd take a guess that they wouldn't, as anybody sick enough to do that would have no faith and therefor take no part in a political solution

nickice

bianchimoon wrote:

nickice wrote:

Pross wrote:

nickice wrote:

Fair point BUT what would you class as a social aim? (adding in that social is not a common word in the definition of terrorism not that used in the UK).

Any attack looking to cause fear and panic (which may be the aim of many mass shootings) could be deemed a social aim. Likewise, bombing a gay club as you don't like gays.

The problem is in many cases no-one knows why the act was carried out.

So a mass shooting with no clear aim cannot be terrorism. I'd take a guess that anyone who hates gays enough to bomb a gay club would, most of the time, have the poltical aim of homosexual acts being banned.

I'd take a guess that they wouldn't, as anybody sick enough to do that would have no faith and therefor take no part in a political solution

Actually, I think most people are capable of extreme violence in certain circumstances. The Germans executing Jews in WW2 were largely normal people. The Manchester bomber thought he was doing God's work.

Lookyhere

Mr Goo wrote:

Shame that the majority of UK, European, Western world and rest of world politicians, press and populations have forgotten about Soviet atrocities. One that I find particularly disgusting is the brutalisation and raping/gang raping of German girls and women by Soviet forces as they pushed through Germany and into Berlin. This was actually sanctioned by Joseph Stalin. I find it very troubling that one never sees anything about it in WW2 documentaries. Is this because the Soviets were seen as allies in the fight against fascism. And therefore their barbarism is accepted in the face of another factions barbarism. Just another example of the imbalanced view of right wing versus left wing.

I m no student of history but even i knew of the Russian atrocities against German women, however, it must be seen in the light of the barbarous Nazi treatment of the Russian population from 1941 on-wards.

Also, i would say that just as the fire bombing of German cities in the dying days of WW2 by UK and USA bombers is somehow justified because "they started the war" or the millions killed by the US dropping 2 nuclear war heads on japan.... it is all too easy to start doing what you are doing and apportioning blame.... we werent there and who knows how you d behave aftr years of conflict?

rape has long been a tactic of war, seen in modern conflicts in Syria and Bosnia, in both conflicts tha west stood by and did absolutely nothing, even the UK has sent back Yazidi women to Iraq who ve escaped from ISiL after being sold as sex slaves.

To counter what the Soviets did, my GF's gran lived in Latvia in WW2, when the Germans came, the russians there told her to be a hair dresser! (Germans like their heir cuts) when the russians came, they told her to say she is a nurse (russians will kill and rape hair dressers) so she said she was a nurse and looked after injured russians!
I only found this out last year after visiting her where she lives nr Wembley and having a long chat with her, my GF had no idea about her stories under first the Germans then the Russians.

rick_chasey

Lookyhere wrote:

[WW2 Russian stuff.

Think he means during the entire communist reign, not just WW2.

Lookyhere

Mr Goo does seem to draw particular attention to the end of WW2 Russian atrocities, Stalin was a monster, no doubt! i just dont agree he was the only monster of WW2, sending back an Yazidi woman to almost certain sexual slavery is just as bad as stalins orders on German rape, its just a matter of scale, as he once said "1 death is a tragedy, 100,000 is a statistic"

nickice

Lookyhere wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Shame that the majority of UK, European, Western world and rest of world politicians, press and populations have forgotten about Soviet atrocities. One that I find particularly disgusting is the brutalisation and raping/gang raping of German girls and women by Soviet forces as they pushed through Germany and into Berlin. This was actually sanctioned by Joseph Stalin. I find it very troubling that one never sees anything about it in WW2 documentaries. Is this because the Soviets were seen as allies in the fight against fascism. And therefore their barbarism is accepted in the face of another factions barbarism. Just another example of the imbalanced view of right wing versus left wing.

I m no student of history but even i knew of the Russian atrocities against German women, however, it must be seen in the light of the barbarous Nazi treatment of the Russian population from 1941 on-wards.

Also, i would say that just as the fire bombing of German cities in the dying days of WW2 by UK and USA bombers is somehow justified because "they started the war" or the millions killed by the US dropping 2 nuclear war heads on japan.... it is all too easy to start doing what you are doing and apportioning blame.... we werent there and who knows how you d behave aftr years of conflict?

rape has long been a tactic of war, seen in modern conflicts in Syria and Bosnia, in both conflicts tha west stood by and did absolutely nothing, even the UK has sent back Yazidi women to Iraq who ve escaped from ISiL after being sold as sex slaves.

To counter what the Soviets did, my GF's gran lived in Latvia in WW2, when the Germans came, the russians there told her to be a hair dresser! (Germans like their heir cuts) when the russians came, they told her to say she is a nurse (russians will kill and rape hair dressers) so she said she was a nurse and looked after injured russians!
I only found this out last year after visiting her where she lives nr Wembley and having a long chat with her, my GF had no idea about her stories under first the Germans then the Russians.

I think you've made some good points, but I'd disagree with one, Though the fire-bombings were a war crime (I believe many of the allies admitted that they should have been on trial if the standards applied to the Germans at Nuremberg) they did have a war aim (I believe they thought it was easier to bomb a worker's home than hit the factory) whereas, the rapes in Berlin continued after the war had ended (and I remember seeing a television interview with a German woman who said it was the rear-echelon troops who did it or were the worst). Weren't the female survivors of Auschwitz also subjected to mass rapes by the Russians (though I only vaguely remember watching that)?

bendertherobot

A plea hearing has been scheduled for Michael Flynn

bendertherobot

A guilty plea, by all accounts. To a single charge. So, either, that's all he's done, or he's plea bargained.

dinyull

Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up...

bianchimoon

It was a Plea hearing, so i guess he's bargained

mfin

It says he's pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI back in January.

Just waiting on details of what that statement was.

lostboysaint

"Flynn? Barely knew him, am I expected to know every low-level staffer? He brought me coffee once."

bianchimoon

You get the impression that Flynn is doing this to protect his son!

dinyull

lostboysaint wrote:

"Flynn? He got his clearance from the Obama administration."

FTFY