A
Anonymous
Guest
Forostar said:
I'm with you here.
I'm with you here.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Perun said:
I'm sorry If I went a bit overboard Perun, all I was trying to say is that Germany will for me always mean "die Weiße Rose" and not "Großdeutsches Reich"
Forostar you are right Srebrenica was a terrible thing and the true body count could very easily be more then ten thousand people, and you know what, Serbs are not denying it, small extreme-right groups are doing that, just like in the US you have similar groups denying the holocaust.
By the way I'm a Serb do I make you sick?
A
Anonymous
Guest
prowler1980 said:
Hmm... that's quite funny. As I am German, German history will always be overshadowed by the years between 1933 and 1945- even though I know much about the rest of the country's history, and I know that it's actually unfair, but that's just how it is.
I know you asked Forostar, but in case I offended you with my post, I apologise. I stand by my opinion, but I admit I could have put it in a better way.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Perun said:
C'mon man I thought that "The White Rose" movement was a must know for anyone interested in history. They were a small WWII anti-nazi resistance group formed by students in Munich they printed leaflets and wrot anti-nazi graffiti's and got beheaded for it in 1943.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
SneakySneaky said:
Don't talk out of your ass, and try to stay on topic, in other words leave God out of it, it is not his problem nor his fault. It is OUR problem and OUR fault as a race. Stick to war and politics.
That depends. Most serial killers are mentally ill and prison SHOULD be punishment enough where they are withdrawn from society and rehabilitated so they can come back and serve society, or put away forever is punishment enough. they'll be beaten, raped and even killed by other inmates.
But then you have cases (very rare though) like Charles Manson. This man's home was prison, he was institutionalized, so merely putting him in prison wasn't going to do shit, he did deserve the death penalty, but California abolished it right after his trial.... so oh well.
prowler1980 said:
That is a stupid argument, to be cold and distant, yet honest, who gives a shit about the children? Children are used (like you just did) to guilt trip people on how can they harm or abuse the "innocent". Yet governments don't improve public education or health to actually help "the children". In wars people die, adults and children, and since armies no longer pick a battle field in the middle of nowhere to duke it out, many innocents, not just children die.
Quit personalizing and making yourself out to be mother teresa... Do you give to the poor? do you volunteer at a homeless shelter? Do you teach orphans to read and write? or are you critizing all of us comfortably from your comfortable middle class home, on a computer that most people can't afford and using education only afforded to people of your economic status? There is nothing wrong with elitism and calling people stupid, because that is exactly what they are, if you are not fine, most people are, only 33% of people in the U.S go to college, I GUARANTEE you the numbers are smaller or about the same in other nations. Generalizations are needed because the ridiculous demands you are making are impossible to meet (name out individuals guilty of aggressive/attrocious acts? WTF?).prowler1980 said:
I don't know what crawled up your ass, but you better crap it out because you are coming off very aggressive and critical yourself.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Hurray for mr. George Clooney (very recent and on-topic matter):
Clooney Urges U.N. to Act in Darfur
``... This genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy, your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz,'' Clooney said. ``We were brought up to believe that the U.N. was formed to ensure that the Holocaust could never happen again.''
More: http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story ... 65,00.html
----------------
So guys: rather a war to end a genocide than a genocide itself.
Clooney Urges U.N. to Act in Darfur
``... This genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy, your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz,'' Clooney said. ``We were brought up to believe that the U.N. was formed to ensure that the Holocaust could never happen again.''
More: http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story ... 65,00.html
----------------
So guys: rather a war to end a genocide than a genocide itself.
A
Anonymous
Guest
prowler1980 said:
I know what the White Rose was. Sophie Scholl is treated as a national hero here.
Anomica
Trooper
Imagine how much easier it would be for the UN to flex a few muscles if the larger countries with the most clout, i.e USA, were prepared to support it properly. As it is now, some right-wing politicians in Washington seem to do all they can to keep the UN impotent.Forostar said:
@ Onhell: When you put it that way, "we" meaning the collective thought in the western world, my problems with your arguments suddenly vanished
Also, I would never dream of defending atrocities with "cultural differencies". That would mean you could excuse just about any behaviour. The problem with some religious fanatics (of all religions, really, but here it's Islam) is that in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and others the analfabetism (?) is wide spread. Those few that can read also have the "right of interpretation" and thus can choose which parts they want to spread to the population. It's very much like Europe in the Middle ages - the church held it's sermons in Latin which nobody but the priests could understand, and since nobody but priests and monks could actually read the Bible themselves they were unable to form their own opinion. I believe the cause of the church's diminished influence in most western countries is the fact that those who are interested can read the Bible themselves and form their own opinion. When the people in some Arab nations get to where they can read the words of their prophet and interpret his words themselves, fanaticism will be reduced. Never disappear completely, since there will always be insane men and women around, but it will be reduced. That could lead us to a more peaceful world.
To be honest, I think the first step towards helping other nations to become democracies lies in education for boys and girls, men and women. Teach them to read and think and come to their own conclusions. I'm pretty sure we can afford that kind of help, just by reducing the amount we (The EU, the USA and others) spend on military technology by 0,5% or less. But then again, what do I know? Sweden hasn't been in a war for almost 300 years (the early 1700s)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Accidentally, the interior minister of my country said yesterday in a TV discussion: "Wars of today are surgeon-wars. They are fought with the greatest regard to civilians, because they are closely watched by the media a and thus connected to voters. And that's why they are not very effective."
Just a side note, gentlemen.
Just a side note, gentlemen.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Serratia said:
Technically, he is right. Carpet bombíng cities is an impossible strategy these days. The wars of today are "cleaner" than World War II, that is for certain. Nevertheless, the methods and weapons of war have become so destructive that it is simply impossible to avoid "collateral damage" (I, like most others, despise this word). It was different before the 20th century. Wars were fought on battlefields- battlefields that were outside of cities, and the civilians hardly ever got involved (unless it was a war for occupation, and even then, destruction of cities and massacres were rare). Of course, there are exceptions, but this used to be the rule, whereas it is now the exception.
The current war in Iraq is the first one that is fought inside of cities such as Baghdad, Karbala, Irbil, etc. Before, in the long history of Iraq, the involvement of cities was limited. There have been sieges, that is true, but they were rare and far apart.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Anomica said:
That's partially true, while analphabetism was widespread not only the monks and priest read the bible. The nobles and other elites knew how to read and write (obviously) and many like Valdez (the Waldensias) and St. Francis were inspired to leave everything and create their own movements. Valdez wasn't a priest and refused to acknowledge the Pope, thus he was branded as a heretic and persecuted but small pockets of waldensias still exist today. St. Francis wouldn't be saint today if he had done the same lol. Also, as far as I know (I could be wrong) while the Mass was given in Latin, the sermon was always given in the local language of the people, because they HAD TO understand, if not what was the point? Also their was a "vulgar Latin" spoken by the average person which the Academic elites HATED because they felt the people were butchering the pureness of the language and they were adimant about keeping it pure to the point where they killed it because they did not allow the language to evolve. While many documents within the church are still written in Latin, it is no longer obligatory in Universities and even the Church doesn't use it as much as they did prior to Vatican II.
What you say about the beauty of people being able to read the scriptures and form their own opinion is fine, but there is also great danger. The Church did it for two reasons (they'll say it was only one, but frankly I'm not THAT naive). One, obviously control, Two, they feared misinterpretation and people claiming to know what Jesus said and only leading people to Hell. (I'd appreciate if people refrained from comments to the liking of "that is exactly what the catholic church is doing anyway", thank you). Even thought that is exactly what happened, after the reformation sects and denominations spread like wildfire. I'm all for people being able to read the scriptures themselves but they should ask their Priest, Pastor or whatever spiritual leader for guidance, not say "Oh man, he's full of shit, I THINK (X)" and just because you feel like it or you get a power trip from controlling people, go off and form your own "religion".
A
Anonymous
Guest
Quite right... the trouble relies on the term "teach". What would you teach them? There are always so many ways of telling a story... so many points of views...Anomica said:
For many years, the japaneses' history school books didn't tell a word on the atrocities done in China during World War II. In French history school books, the Algerian war, as we called it (war of independance), with its panel of torture and atrocities is carefully omitted.
And sadly, you're right, there is no other way.
Obviously, most westerns countries allowed their boys and girls to be taught to read and think.
As Serratia and Perun are writing, these days, wars are "surgeon-wars" and "cleaner". And, as we (me, you, Perun, Serratia...) were taught to read and think, we listen to the news telling us that.
True, during the first gulf war, we discovered the first "surgeon-war", so "clean"... How come, then, that some newspaper were talking about B52s being sent over Irak? I'm not very interested in military weapon's names, but this one ring a bell, doesn't it? A surgeon-war with B52s? Let's think...
The question of teaching is the first problem. Sure it's important and we should do whatever we can to promote education for all. But then, the second problem arises: what are we going to teach and how are we going to make people think? Towards which path? And we're back with different points of view...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Le Hibou - The Owl said:
It gets even worse. In Europe the Americas or Australia, we are taught with Western (Christian) ethics in mind. That is what our whole system is based on, including our ideas of freedom, justice or democracy. Without wanting to provoke a discussion whether they are "better" or "worse", it's undeniable that, say, Muslim ideas of such topics are different. Although I firmly believe Christian and Muslim* cultures can coexist, and even blend, I don't think it is right to press Western ideas on the Muslim world or vice versa. It wouldn't be a problem if Western powers weren't trying to establish "their" ideas of a perfect state in Afghanistan or Iraq.
*This is, in my opinion, applicable to any cultures, I only used these two as an example.
Anomica
Trooper
You've got a point there, Perun, but on the other hand I don't think the ethics of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are so very different when it come to thoughts like "love thy neighbour" and "thou shalt not kill". The main issues don't differ very much which is why I don't see a very big problem in helping people that can't read to learn it. What they should then read is not my choice to make.Perun said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Anomica said:
The ethics are remarkably similar in almost all religions. But the fact is that a civilisation is defined by more than its religious ethics. The culture in most of the Muslim world is much different than in many countries of the European world. I don't want to go into definitions here, because I can only generalise in the given frame. And, as I said, such differences exist between any given culture. It's not better, it's not worse, it's just different.
Of course, some values exist that need to be taught to every person. Reading, writing, basic mathematics and all that kind of stuff. Likewise, critical thought is something that is independent of culture. But when it comes to the art of criticising, this again has to be taught differently in different countries. The same criticism can pass unnoticed in one society and provoke bloody clashes in others.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Anyone read my link on George Clooney? That was very on topic and actual. I was a bit disappointed that hardly anyone reacted. Instead of only talking and having own theories, let's also keep our eyes open and focus on what's going on right now. Let's not turn this topic into a "fundamentalism"-topic.
Anyone for a big army in Darfur to save millions from starving / killing ?
Anyone for a big army in Darfur to save millions from starving / killing ?
Anomica
Trooper
I think we at least started on topic, since we were discussing the power of the UN. I'm all for UN sending peace keeping troops into a place like Darfur to ensure people get at least a modicum of food/shelter/water and peace. The trouble is that the UN today is very un-powerful since a very select few have veto in the security council and don't support UN anyway. That blunts the UN instruments quite a bit.