1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNot even the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny was violent (some sympathetic rioting aside), although it constituted much more of a threat to British power than the Quit India movement. But as to the importance of the various strands in the Indian independence tapestry, the scholars disagree.
Nonviolence didn't "work" in India. Without violent resistance, there would never have been Indian independence.
Did violent resistance to the Third Reich cause more or less suffering in the long run?
As for your question -- is there any way of answering it?
I still can't believe you're on the same page as Dick Cheney with 'collateral damage'.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe idea that noncombatants sometimes get hurt in war didn't originate with Dick Cheney.
Not even the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny was violent (some sympathetic rioting aside), although it constituted much more of a threat to British power than the Quit India movement. But as to the importance of the various strands in the Indian independence tapestry, the scholars disagree.
As for your question -- is there any way of answering it?
I still can't believe you're on the same page as Dick Cheney with 'collateral damage'.
Yes, there is a way to answer the question though it's rather unsurprising that you refuse to.
Originally posted by FMFI'm trying to figure out what your clunking retort means. Are you denying that there are insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Afghans v U.S. puppet regime
Iraqis v U.S. puppet regime
Originally posted by generalissimo
FMF vs Every reasonable human being in the world.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, but he was the one who coined the euphemism that you so glibly trot out. You've fallen into Nietszche's monster trap, grandpa, from the comfort of your rocking chair.
The idea that noncombatants sometimes get hurt in war didn't originate with Dick Cheney.
Yes, there is a way to answer the question though it's rather unsurprising that you refuse to.
Answering the question the way you require, requires the worldview of a simpleton. It's taken me a long time to realise that you are that simpleton.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou are misinformed as usual. The term "collateral damage" has been in use in the US military for at least four decades, probably longer.
No, but he was the one who coined the euphemism that you so glibly trot out. You've fallen into Nietszche's monster trap, grandpa, from the comfort of your rocking chair.
Answering the question the way you require, requires the worldview of a simpleton. It's taken me a long time to realise that you are that simpleton.
I see you'd dropped down to childish name calling because of your refusal to deal with a rather stark question that challenges your asserted pacifism. So be it; you've reached the level of debate of the right wingers here.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI believe you've said before that South Africa might have to "do something about him". I could be mistaken.
I can identify his policies as being illegal according to the law of his own country, but it's not my place to advise people on whether to rise up and fight him or not.
Originally posted by no1marauderthe usage by LeMay is unsourced but maybe google would turn it up.
You are misinformed as usual. The term "collateral damage" has been in use in the US military for at least four decades, probably longer.
I see you'd dropped down to childish name calling because of your refusal to deal with a rather stark question that challenges your asserted pacifism. So be it; you've reached the level of debate of the right wingers here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
At least one source claims that the term "collateral damage" originated as a euphemism during the Vietnam War and can refer to friendly fire, or the killing of non-combatants and the destruction of their property.[3]. Curtis Le May used the term in describing the bombing of Japanese cities in the Second World War.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI stand corrected on the origin of collateral damage. Still, your using it puts you on the same level as Cheney -- and Timothy McVeigh.
You are misinformed as usual. The term "collateral damage" has been in use in the US military for at least four decades, probably longer.
I see you'd dropped down to childish name calling because of your refusal to deal with a rather stark question that challenges your asserted pacifism. So be it; you've reached the level of debate of the right wingers here.
"In an interview before his execution, convicted U.S. bomber (and Gulf War veteran) Timothy McVeigh referred to the deaths of 19 children killed in the government office building during the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as "collateral damage".' (wiki)
I guess his conscience was just fine with his actions because he hadn't murdered anyone -- he'd just caused a little collateral damage.
Second-guessing the past is about as useful as gazing into a crystal ball. But I'll give it a go.
Had Hitler not been opposed, 20 million Russians, 11 million Germans, and God knows how many others would not have died. More Jews would have been killed, but the sum total of human suffering may well have been less. In addition, Israel would probably not have been created, so the Palestinean situation would be radically different. There's no way of checking that this is wrong, because you can't second-guess the past.
I should just have said: Godwin's law! You fail!