CDZ Imperialism and mass murder or noninterventionism and virtue?

[Kalki]

Liminal, in order to understand the American psyche which condones mass murder of babies and children when the U.S. government does this, let us work through this a bit through some examination: 1) What is your opinion of the holocaust? 2) What is your opinion of individuals who kill children on their own in non-government sponsored murder, such as serial killers?

Protectionist, those two questions to Liminal, are for you also.

Incidentally, the past is very relevant to the future and the present.

I note you both have avatars promoting militarism which is state sponsored murder.

 

[Liminal]

Liminal, in order to understand the American psyche which condones mass murder of babies and children when the U.S. government does this, let us work through this a bit through some examination: 1) What is your opinion of the holocaust? 2) What is your opinion of individuals who kill children on their own in non-government sponsored murder, such as serial killers?

Protectionist, those two questions to Liminal, are for you also.

Incidentally, the past is very relevant to the future and the present.

I note you both have avatars promoting militarism which is state sponsored murder.

Do you need glasses or what? Put on your monocle and look at the avatar a little closer.

 

[Kalki]

Please answer the two questions above? Of course, I see who is inside the suit, but the questions above are more pertinent to understanding the American psyche that condones mass murder. This is very disturbing to be conversing with two people who advocate the mass murder of children and babies, but we must work through this to understand the American psyche.

 

[Liminal]

Please answer the two questions above? Of course, I see who is inside the suit, but the questions above are more pertinent to understanding the American psyche that condones mass murder. This is very disturbing to be conversing with two people who advocate the mass murder of children and babies, but we must work through this to understand the American psyche.

I haven't advocated for anything. You are evidently having some difficulty understanding your own psyche.

 

[Kalki]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing the concept of mass murder?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because either you know where they are leading, or you are trolling. Which is it?

 

[Liminal]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing them?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because you know where they are leading and now you are caught.

XXXX - getting testy in here.. --- FCT People who can only think in terms of right and wrong, black and white, us or them seem to rationalize their superficial reasoning by indulging themselves in moral absolutes.

 

[Kalki]

Liminal, so answer the two questions at the top of this page, which I restated below, and show me your wisdom. XXXXXX ---- More personal stuff -- FCT

1) What is your opinion of the holocaust?

2) What is your opinion of individuals who kill children on their own in non-government sponsored murder, such as serial killers?

Before you answer these two questions, ponder what you just wrote to me: XXXXX People who can only think in terms of right and wrong, black and white, us or them seem to rationalize their superficial reasoning by indulging themselves in moral absolutes."

Answer those two questions in regards to your latest response to me which I quoted above. I will await your adult and sophisticated and nonsuperficial reasoning and view, in relation to the two questions I put to you. Now it is your turn to show me your wisdom, since you claim to have it. Prove it or admit you are not wise.

 

[protectionist]

I'm sorry you feel so guilty about your part in genocide.

Ridiculous Pretense only magnifies your inability to debate. And I have no need to be "sorry" about that. Not my problem.

 

[flacaltenn]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing the concept of mass murder?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because either you know where they are leading, or you are trolling. Which is it?

I think FIRST -- you need to explain why American intervention in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo are American Imperialism? What did we take? Do we have demands on those countries? Are we taxing them? Installing governors there in the style of the 18th Century Britain?

Might have been misguided to bomb a European capital for 40 days and 40 nights. But it AIN'T "imperialism"..

why do you avoid defending your initial assertions? Can't waste time arguing about American Imperialism as YOU defined it... I think maybe "too much Noam Chomsky" is part of the problem here..

 

[Kalki]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing the concept of mass murder?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because either you know where they are leading, or you are trolling. Which is it?

I think FIRST -- you need to explain why American intervention in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo are American Imperialism? What did we take? Do we have demands on those countries? Are we taxing them? Installing governors there in the style of the 18th Century Britain?

Might have been misguided to bomb a European capital for 40 days and 40 nights. But it AIN'T "imperialism"..

why do you avoid defending your initial assertions? Can't waste time arguing about American Imperialism as YOU defined it... I think maybe "too much Noam Chomsky" is part of the problem here..

I defended my initial assertions right here:

On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism or imperialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).

However, the 700 or more military bases in other nations, are still physical Imperialism.

For those who are interested in understanding, Read:
'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins
'A Republic, Not An Empire' by Pat Buchanan
'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' by Gary Allen
'Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq' by Stephen Kinzer

 

[Liminal]

I'm sorry you feel so guilty about your part in genocide.

Ridiculous Pretense only magnifies your inability to debate. And I have no need to be "sorry" about that. Not my problem.

You seem to have a whole lot to be sorry about; way too much to cover here tonight.

 

[Kalki]

flacaltenn,

What would you call it if Vietnam or Korea or Iraq or Germany or any other nation the U.S. has invaded and committed mass murder, had done this to the U.S.?

What would you call it if Vietnam or Korea or Iraq or Germany had over 700 military bases outside of their national boundaries?

What would you call it if Vietnam or Korea or Iraq or Germany were patrolling the U.S. shorelines in their warships, and building military bases in the U.S.?

What would you call if if Vietnam or Iran or Russia or Iraq or anyone else were sanctioning the U.S. economy and financial system?

Would you not call it imperialism? Yes or No? Simple questions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing the concept of mass murder?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because either you know where they are leading, or you are trolling. Which is it?

I think FIRST -- you need to explain why American intervention in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo are American Imperialism? What did we take? Do we have demands on those countries? Are we taxing them? Installing governors there in the style of the 18th Century Britain?

Might have been misguided to bomb a European capital for 40 days and 40 nights. But it AIN'T "imperialism"..

why do you avoid defending your initial assertions? Can't waste time arguing about American Imperialism as YOU defined it... I think maybe "too much Noam Chomsky" is part of the problem here..

I defended my initial assertions right here:

On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism or imperialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).

However, the 700 or more military bases in other nations, are still physical Imperialism.

For those who are interested in understanding, Read:
'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins
'A Republic, Not An Empire' by Pat Buchanan
'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' by Gary Allen
'Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq' by Stephen Kinzer

Well that's a sketchy definition. Apply that to Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia interventions.

 

[protectionist]

Liminal, in order to understand the American psyche which condones mass murder of babies and children when the U.S. government does this, let us work through this a bit through some examination: 1) What is your opinion of the holocaust? 2) What is your opinion of individuals who kill children on their own in non-government sponsored murder, such as serial killers?

Protectionist, those two questions to Liminal, are for you also.

Incidentally, the past is very relevant to the future and the present.

I note you both have avatars promoting militarism which is state sponsored murder.

As usual, you make ridiculous statements Militarism is not state sponsored murder.

The following are definitions of militarism.

Militarism - 1 military spirit; attitudes of professional soldiers 2 the glorification or prevalence of such a spirit, attitudes, etc. in a nation, or the predominance of the military caste in government 3 the policy of maintaining a strong military organization in aggressive preparedness for war

All GOOD things, having nothing to do with murder (except in your distorted mind)

Answers to your questions are: 1) holocaust was terrible genocide 2) serial killers are vicious criminals who should be tried convicted and executed, ASAP.

 

[Kalki]

flacaltenn, please answer the questions in post #92?

 

[Liminal]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing the concept of mass murder?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because either you know where they are leading, or you are trolling. Which is it?

I think FIRST -- you need to explain why American intervention in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo are American Imperialism? What did we take? Do we have demands on those countries? Are we taxing them? Installing governors there in the style of the 18th Century Britain?

Might have been misguided to bomb a European capital for 40 days and 40 nights. But it AIN'T "imperialism"..

why do you avoid defending your initial assertions? Can't waste time arguing about American Imperialism as YOU defined it... I think maybe "too much Noam Chomsky" is part of the problem here..

I defended my initial assertions right here:

On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism or imperialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).

However, the 700 or more military bases in other nations, are still physical Imperialism.

For those who are interested in understanding, Read:
'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins
'A Republic, Not An Empire' by Pat Buchanan
'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' by Gary Allen
'Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq' by Stephen Kinzer

Is it imperialism when the government of the host country invites the US to station forces there? Or is that too fine a distinction to sort out with nothing but dogmatic rhetoric?

 

[Kalki]

Liminal, in order to understand the American psyche which condones mass murder of babies and children when the U.S. government does this, let us work through this a bit through some examination: 1) What is your opinion of the holocaust? 2) What is your opinion of individuals who kill children on their own in non-government sponsored murder, such as serial killers?

Protectionist, those two questions to Liminal, are for you also.

Incidentally, the past is very relevant to the future and the present.

I note you both have avatars promoting militarism which is state sponsored murder.

As usual, you make ridiculous statements Militarism is not state sponsored murder.

The following are definitions of militarism.

Militarism - 1 military spirit; attitudes of professional soldiers 2 the glorification or prevalence of such a spirit, attitudes, etc. in a nation, or the predominance of the military caste in government 3 the policy of maintaining a strong military organization in aggressive preparedness for war

All GOOD things, having nothing to do with murder (except in your distorted mind)

Answers to your questions are: 1) holocaust was terrible genocide 2) serial killers are vicious criminals who should be tried convicted and executed, ASAP.

Imperialism and mass murder go hand in hand. Now since you call the holocaust genocide and serial killers evil. Why do you not call the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc., genocide committed by vicious criminals?

 

[Kalki]

Liminal, answer the questions I asked previously and prove how wise you are. If you think those nations all invited the U.S. you are using absolutist factually incorrect statements.

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn,

What would you call it if Vietnam or Korea or Iraq or Germany or any other nation the U.S. has invaded and committed mass murder, had done this to the U.S.?

What would you call it if Vietnam or Korea or Iraq or Germany had over 700 military bases outside of their national boundaries?

What would you call it if Vietnam or Korea or Iraq or Germany were patrolling the U.S. shorelines in their warships, and building military bases in the U.S.?

Would you not call it imperialism? Yes or No? Simple questions.

Vietnam and Korea were CONTINUATIONS of WW2. Lines were drawn very badly partitioning those countries. Initially the FRENCH got their asses whooped in Vietnam before we ever got there. We didn't INVADE -- we were ASKED to participate. And had STANDING TREATIES with both those countries for military aid..

Basically we were there to defend the bad decisions of Churchill, Stalin and FDR..

700 military bases are a LOT LESS than our embassies. Since we are a target for abuse by so many militant groups around the world -- we need to protect our citizens and allies.

If Germany WANTED us out -- they would send us packing. Think the South Koreans want us to LEAVE right now? What about Taiwan -- abandon our allies to REAL IMPERIALISM??

Answer that last question for me. Do we project power in the China Sea for OUR BENEFIT? -- Or because we defend our allies in that region against CHINESE or NORTH KOREAN imperialism??

 

[Liminal]

Liminal, answer the questions I asked previously and prove how wise you are. If you think those nations all invited the U.S. you are using absolutist factually incorrect statements.

Again you seem to be attributing statements to me that were never made.