No way that's politically palatable to anyone. Will either have to be the UN or some force similar to what has been used in the Sinai
Israel under attack from Hamas
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
No way that's politically palatable to anyone. Will either have to be the UN or some force similar to what has been used in the Sinai
That is an unknown. Japan had been going to Russia to try and have a negotiated peace with us, something we had ruled out. But Russia only pretended to take the matter to us, they wanted Japanese territory and didn't believe they would get it if we reached a deal without Russia.
Honestly, unconditional surrender makes anything hard. It was always going to require Japan to be beaten to a pulp to get that. Even then we allowed the condition of the Emperor staying on. But the more we wanted unconditional surrender to be the watch word, and the more Russia wanted to attack Japan to grab as much as it could, Japan was going to be hard pressed to get anything.
Hamas shares their rule over 'Palestine' with Hezbollah in The West Bank.
Because it ended up so well after Israel created Hamas to counter the MB and Fatah...
Again, wholly funded by the American taxpayer's ability to pay a $Trillion annually of interest.
*See UKRAINE*
15 to 20 thousand monthly since February, 2022.
The US taxpayer has gone $115 Billion++ further in debt paying Ukrainians to jump into a woodchipper, and funding the Uniparty grift.
When one of our aircraft carriers(targets) is struck by some munition, the death toll will be catastrophic.
Thanks! You saved me some time because I was going to explain it too. That is correct.
The USSR declared war on Japan the day after Hiroshima. I don’t recall reading that we urged them to do that. They wanted in on the spoils.
It was prearranged at Yalta. The timing worked out very well. They jumped in right when we needed them to. Icing on the cake.
I don’t think we needed them to. I don’t recall ever reading that we wanted them to, but maybe.
By the time it actually happened, maybe we didn't really care, anymore, but getting the Soviets to enter the war against Japan was one of FDR's goals. I think during Yalta, we might still have been expecting to invade the Japanese home islands? Not 100% sure on that.
Y
Yalta was in Feb, we didn't know for certain the bombs would be ready/work. If we knew, we would have been happy not to let them have the land they took
Yeah, the Oppenheimer authors deal with this by agreeing with you; one of the conditions we agreed to was a continuation of Japan's emperor-based form of government. That was actually contemplated prior to the Hiroshima bomb being dropped.
There is this passage, on page 339 of the Vintage first edition, 2006:
By 1945, Blackett [a former Oppenheimer instructor] argued, the Japanese were virtually defeated; the atomic bombs had been used to forestall a Soviet share in the occupation of postwar Japan. One can hardly imagine," Blackett wrote, "the hurry with which the two bombs - the only two existing - were whisked across the Pacific go be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just in time, but only just, to insure that the Japanese Government surrendered to American forces alone." The atomic bombings were "not so much as the last military act of the Second World War," he concluded, "as the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia now in progress."
Perhaps the plan was for Russia to declare war on Japan on August 10. I don't know.
I can commend Oppenheimer to you. It won a Pulitzer Prize and inspired the recent movie. It's exceedingly well researched.
The atomic bomb was developed to counter Germany's atomic scientists, according to Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was Jewish and he wanted to do what he could to help the cause of defeating Germany.
We didn't test the atomic bomb until July 11, 1945. I think it was Nils Bohr who was taking bets that the testing of the bomb would ignite the atmosphere. We didn't know what the effect would be until after the test.
White House rules out US peacekeepers.
www.theguardian.com
Israel-Hamas war live: 195 killed in two days of strikes on Jabalia camp, says Hamas; Biden calls for ‘pause’ in Gaza to get hostages out
Hamas says hundreds injured after refugee camp strikes; the US president responded to an anti-war protestor saying he supports a humanitarian ‘pause’
I don't think we've changed. We just fight limited wars now. If we were to go in and try to really win Korea and Vietnam, you'd see the same kind of savagery.
That and the media broadcasts everything in real time. In the past, all that stuff happened without notice
I don't think the Roman public cared that the Roman legions completely annihilated Carthage.And I think they would have loved seeing it live.
The Christian ethic really changed how people view the world.
Looks like a micro-aggression to me. Shouldn't they be kicked out of Harvard for that?
OK, I'll give you the fact Christianity changed a lot of views. However, most of the world isn't Christian.
'Christians' fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo, too. Christianity works in a civilized society - not so well in war.
Megyn Kelly slams Washington Post columnist as ‘rabid antisemite’ for liking pro-Hamas tweet
Megyn Kelly slammed a Washington Post columnist as a “rabid antisemite” after the opinion writer liked a tweet that shrugged off Hamas’ horrifying displays of violence in its bid …
nypost.com
“What did y’all think decolonization meant? vibes? papers? essays? losers”
They want to kill Jews and they want some to go along with it.
Sonderkommando - Wikipedia
"We have free speech, not freedom from the consequences of that speech."
I seem to remember being told that a whole host of times on this site and seeing it elsewhere when complaints about this very thing were brought up. We didn't want it this way, the Progressives did. So I fully support them being judged by the measure they used.
ETA: I would also like to revisit that whole "Antifa" punch a Nazi thing again as well. Seems to me like Jews should be waiting at street posts that have flyers on them with bear spray, clubs, and their faces covered to knock a few Nazis into next week, no? I mean wearing a red hat was seen as reason to take a fist to the face just a few years ago, I think chanting "From the River to the Sea" is not far off from Horst Wessel Lied so to me there are a whole bunch of people who 3 years ago were all "It isn't wrong to punch a Nazi" who got some coming.
Last edited:
You want to call out the people being hypocrites, I endorse your actions. I'm calling out the sudden supporters of cancel culture myself. What I'm not doing, and want I encourage you to avoid, is changing what you support and then dismissing it as a response to someone else's hypocrisy.
If someone argued that free speech has consequences back then, they should stick with that now. But if you argued the opposite then, you need to stay consistent. Point out hypocrisy; don't join it.
The world is much more nuanced than this. I’m a strong free expression advocate but I also recognize time and place restrictions, and consequences for noncompliance. In some cases, cancelling something is appropriate. The problem with cancel culture is that it has become a substitute for a responsive argument or speech. That will almost always be inappropriate, not to mention its obviously mental weakness.
If your nuance results in you supporting the cancelling of only those you disagree with, then you can intellectualize it all you want, but it's just hypocrisy.
Last edited:
You are still only a millimeter deep here. I might cancel somebody i disagree with, but disagreement wouldn’t be the reason. Even the supreme court has opined about this distinction.
"Oh, but that's different" has never been anything but bullshit. If you can't own up to your own hypocrisy, that doesn't make you any less if a hypocrite. It just makes you a cowardly hypocrite.
Wasn't the woman who flipped off Trump's motorcade fired from her job? I wonder, if I search the threads if I will find conservatives complaining about her being fired.
For me there are two distinct questions on all this, one can the employer fire someone. That answer is almost always yes. #2 is should they. The answer for me is also simple, is it going to cost them business? Universities are quasi state agencies, so it is tricky for students at a public school. But if a lawyer goes out and campaigns for Hamas and clients threaten to leave, sure. Same if they flip off a presidential motorcade, join the Nazi party, cheer for Purdue, etc. No one has ever said that speech should never have consequences. But I don't support firing someone solely on political disagreement.
Oh my. You sure love the hypocrisy word this morning. If you know a modicum of free expression law for government employees, you know you are being silly here.
It isn’t always yes. Knowing how being employed by a public institution affects free expression is what we are talking about.
I agree. But the fact that we even question those tactics like you just did proves that we think about it differently than ancient, pre-Christian societies. I can't think of an ancient text that questions what we would now think of as crimes of war.
For example, Caesar committed genocide on a massive scale in Gaul--killing up to a million people (1/6 the estimated population) and enslaving about an equal amount. Yet, I think most historians believe the only questioning of Caesar's actions were from jealous Senators and elites who didn't want him hogging the glory or the riches and were afraid of how popular he was becoming among the plebs. But even they only questioned the legality of his authority to push so far, not the wiping out of entire tribes, etc.
DANC, let me recommend Dominion to you, by Tom Holland. It's an interesting work of history, comparing the various ideas of the ancient world to Christianity and showing just how radically different they are. And Holland is not a Christian apologist, by any means.
It is long, though. If you want something shorter, you can just listen to a bunch of his interviews (because podcasts rock!). Here's one (ignore Holland's clothes; he's smart and very educated, but a terrible dresser):
Ultimately I would like to see cancel culture dismantled. I think in order to actually do that, those who promoted that culture will necessarily need to feel some pain resulting from that which they created. They have no incentive to stop if the ill effects from canceling people all flow in one direction, nor will they cease and desist if they are able to call truce and escape the consequences whenever they get blowback.
No. They pooped on the floor. In order to avoid future clean up efforts I want their faces rubbed in it to make an example. When they see that ruining lives for opinions is really harmful, then we can all come back to the table and set things right.
TL/DR Some Progressive scalps need to be taken to show them the error of their ways so we can get back to normal.
Yes, I allude to that with my comment about public universities.
But private companies/universities are different.
And as I said, I am not sure I heard a lot of complaints when Juli Briskman was fired for flipping off the motorcade. I'm not defending her, her employer has ever right to fire her if they viewed it as a negative to their business.
I agree that if you're only complaining or defending people you agree with, you are probably engaging in inconsistency. But I think there are lines that can be drawn. They are tough to ferret out, and they will always be subject to disagreement, but that doesn't mean one is a hypocrite or inconsistent.
Re First Amendment issues, I'm an absolutist. The govt should not censor or fine you for any opinion expressed based on the merits (even this has a fuzzy line with incitement and I recognize that).
Re private citizens "cancelling" each other through social pressure, someone posted a tweet from a DC area lawyer and I think she got it right: normally, we should want to have free speech and debate with people who disagree with us. But some opinions are so far outside the norms of a civilized society, that debate isn't helpful and those people should be shunned (socially by those who care about that issue).
Defining exactly where that line is, is difficult, maybe impossible. But I don't think it's difficult to say that (1) defending the butchering and burning alive of babies and raping innocent young girls is one the wrong side of the line, and (2) aligning oneself with a Trump-era policy (wanting a border wall built, or fewer immigrants) is on the debate-side of the line. (I also think BudLite is on this side of the line).
You're right that a lot of gamesmanship can be played in moving these lines. But I think those worried about cancel culture before were complaining about where the line was being drawn, not that there might be a line at all.
Have you discovered Christ? It seems not long ago you were arguing that the Christian ethic could be maintained in a secular society.
That is the world we live in though. There are a whole host of people who believe that political disagreement is a fireable offense. COVID "deniers" were fired. Republicans were denied service at restaurants. Conservative speakers face mini riots for having the temerity to show up on college campuses to talk. Why? Because mostly "Progressives" (a subset of liberals) have unilaterally declared that their politics are human rights, our words are violence, and their violence is righteous. Well now they are giving the Charlottesville Tiki Torchers a run for their money and are facing some consequences and now all of the sudden we need to be able to freely disagree in this country. Because an equal exchange of ideas is how we arrive at consensus? Nah. Not that. It is because these little fascist ----- are finally getting a healthy dose of what they have been serving up for years.
Being openly or borderline antisemitic doesn't fly with a bunch of adults in this country. When they publically let that freak flag fly, people are going to take notice. After hopefully many of them receive the public shaming and ostracization they have so gleefully handed out to their political opponents in the past, we can come back and have a talk about if this is really how we want to do discourse in the country.
I think you're being too generous. Those complaining before were complaining because conservatives were taking it in the mouth. Same reason the other side was spiking the ball.
I like your reasoning, Brad, but most of this is just obviously tribalism.
I've argued that secular Western societies have a Christian ethic inscribed within them. Again, I'm just stealing from Tom Holland here. But his book convinced me:
Tom Holland’s Dominion: How the West and Christianity Became Inseparable
Tom Holland, the British author argues in his book, Dominion, that even the most fervent Western secular humanists are deeply influenced by Christian values, perhaps more so than they might be willing to acknowledge.
www.hungarianconservative.com
If by "discovered Christ" you mean do I believe in the supernatural nature of Jesus of Nazareth, then no. If you mean do I broadly agree with the Christian ethic, then yes, as every person on this board does.
How long does belief in the a Christian ethic last without broad societal adherence to Christianity?
I've argued that secular Western societies have a Christian ethic inscribed within them. Again, I'm just stealing from Tom Holland here. But his book convinced me:
Tom Holland’s Dominion: How the West and Christianity Became Inseparable
Tom Holland, the British author argues in his book, Dominion, that even the most fervent Western secular humanists are deeply influenced by Christian values, perhaps more so than they might be willing to acknowledge.
If by "discovered Christ" you mean do I believe in the supernatural nature of Jesus of Nazareth, then no. If you mean do I broadly agree with the Christian ethic, then yes, as every person on this board does.
Not long.
I guess it depends on how we define the ethic. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, did he maintain a belief in the ethic as a non-Christian?
