The Dems' Long and Current Ties to Terrorist Orgs and Ant-Semitism

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Is this what the GOP has become?

Look what you have become caswell. Grab a mirror pal. You're nothing but a liar and shill for the demonrats. 

In this thread you can't admit that the KKK functioned as a Dem militia, which is 100% understood by everyone in the free world. Even leftards point to a time 'when the Dems ended their affiliation with the kkk...' How could they have 'ended their affiliation with the KKK' if they weren't partnered up previously?

Of course the Dems are allied with Antifa and BLM: they regurgitated all of BLM's false narratives - which were disgusting - ignored all of BLM's own claims that they're trained marxists and that they oppose the nuclear family, pretended that BLM's riots were mostly peaceful, and refused to denounce BLM violence. They even painted BLM on the street after they had done billions of dollars in damage and incited assaults, killings and the murders of policemen. Still, no comment against BLM fro the Dems. Sorry but they OWN that. It's 100% on the Demonrats.

The Dems also support Antifa, and even pretend that they're not a real group. If you don't believe me, watch a video of Gerry Nadler saying those words himself: it's bizarre.

in another thread you're pretending that the FBI aren't court-documented liars and criminals. You can find proof from any news source that Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to falsifying evidence to provide to the FISA court. You just won't admit that you know. The FBI pretended to have evidence of collusion for years and in the end - they had n-o-t-h-i-n-g. 

It's ridiculous for you to sit there at your keyboard and try to throw shade on other people for their lack of decency. It's literally impossible for anyone to be more of a liar than you.

You're revolting, dude. You're a totally disgusting little liar. 

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

^^ this is what thinking people call a specious argument. If you want to claim that Trump did something specific for Black Americans, you're welcome to try. But the facts don't support it. Yes, Black unemployment was low, but not relatively better and through no action on the part of Trump. Just as he didn't change the economic trajectory, he didn't change the employment trajectory and didn't change the black employment gap. 

I've demonstrated this for you before with economic data, but that apparently didn't stick, so let me give you an easy metaphor. Imagine the economy as a long train. It's big, and heavy and takes a long time to change speed. Blacks have, for a litany of reasons, been largely pushed to the back of the bus--their economic progress generally tracks the whole economy, but always lags by about the same amount. 

Now, this train had been accelerating at a slow, steady rate during engineer Obama's shift. At shift change, engineer Trump took over. The train continued accelerating at the exact same rate. Nothing really changed. 

Then engineer Trump gets on the intercom and starts broadcasting to the passengers about how fast they're going, how awesome he is, and how Black people have made so much progress down the track! How he's done more for Black people than anyone except maybe engineer Lincoln. 

Again, yes it's true that the train continued to accelerate at the same rate. Yes, black people are further down the track. But he didn't do anything specifically for Blacks AND they are still lagging--still at the back of the train with the same gap to the front. No relative change.

How much credit do you think Black people should give that specific engineer? Did he really do anything for them?

And then a few hours later engineer Trump missed the warning signs and drove the whole damn train into Covid Canyon...

 

It was an empty, specious claim, meant to fool people who can't or won't look at economic data. You can be that person, or you can go check the facts for yourself.

Here's an observation for you.

You are captured by an idea that  convices you that you deserve punishment. A daily reminder of your guilt. Your captor keeps you in a state of constant fear and loathing. A sado-masacistic mentality that you've become comfortable with.

So comfortable that when someone comes along and shows you success in the face of this abhorrent idea...and you reject the evident success. You actually do your best to deny your own senses.

It's warped.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

^^ this is what thinking people call a specious argument.

^That's what people call "being an id10t.

Quote

If you want to claim that Trump did something specific for Black Americans, you're welcome to try. But the facts don't support it. Yes, Black unemployment was low, but not relatively better and through no action on the part of Trump.

It's not Trump's job to cater to a race of people. Trump is in charge of rising the tide, and to make sure that no boats are anchored too firmly to the bottom of the ocean when the tide does rise. 

Quote

Just as he didn't change the economic trajectory, he didn't change the employment trajectory and didn't change the black employment gap. 

Trump totally altered the economic trajectory. The economy was plateauing, and the Dow was stagnant for a long time before Trump came in.

Of course the economic gap changed, because black unemployment went down by a greater margin than white unemployment did. There were "employees wanted" signs everywhere from 2018-2020. Do you remember when McDonald's was giving out signing bonuses?

The Dems hated that. Biden definitely fixed that. 

Quote

I've demonstrated this for you before with economic data, but that apparently didn't stick, so let me give you an easy metaphor. Imagine the economy as a long train. It's big, and heavy and takes a long time to change speed. Blacks have, for a litany of reasons, been largely pushed to the back of the bus--their economic progress generally tracks the whole economy, but always lags by about the same amount. 

Now, this train had been accelerating at a slow, steady rate during engineer Obama's shift. At shift change, engineer Trump took over. The train continued accelerating at the exact same rate. Nothing really changed. 

 That's just a total lie, and it's on par with Biden's lies about inflation. 

The last 3 years of Obama's presidency were a riot. 

Quote

It was an empty, specious claim, meant to fool people who can't or won't look at economic data. You can be that person, or you can go check the facts for yourself.

Obama took over when the economy was down, and he did a good job of getting it back on track - I'll grant him that much - but by your standards I could just say "Obama got the stimulus package approved that the Dems defeated while Bush was president". In fact, I could make the case that the dems sabotaged America by harpooning the 2nd Bush stimulus package just to make Bush look bad and make Obama look good. 

Obama put America back on the path to 'regular prosperity', but prosperity never reached the heights that Trump brought it to since maybe the '50s. Obama's path wasn't headed there. It's not normal. Obama was too busy inciting riots to 'help' blacks. 

[Caswell Thomas]

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Who cares? Look...whoever you think you are...the kkk was a stalwart of the Democrat Party. Then the Democrats realized they held an untenable position. This was the mid 50s. They made a plan. It involved vastly expanding welfare and softening moral fiber. Why? 'cause if you can't hate them openly, the next best thing is to befriend them and introduce rot to their society.

You can squirm and excuse all you like. But as they say...actions speak louder than words...and results happen to be the final word.

and you're so desperate you are digging back what...70 years now to find some scandal you can use? And yet during that time the Republicans have fielded 3 presidents who failed the country while lining their own pockets and trying to pin the blame on the Dems: Nixon, Reagan, Trump...all very happy to take their followers money while catering only to the uber wealthy. The Dems on the other hand have created the women's right to vote, social security, unemployment benefits, the first manned moon mission, Medicare, Medicaid , the Securities and Exchange Act, the Rural Ditto fixation act ( which brought electricity to all rural areas), the Fair Labor Standards Act ( prevention of the cruel use if children in factories and dangerous jobs such as coal mining), the Federal Home Loan Act, the G. I. Bill for Veterans, the National Industrial Recovery Act which forced companies to adhere to an 8 hour work day with scheduled breaks and lunch, the National School Lunch Act, the Voting Rights Act, the March of Dimes ( originally to cure infantile paralysis it went on to cover many  childhood diseases finding cures and treatments to save children), the Civil Rights Act, Family Medical and Family Leave Act, Guaranteed Student Loans, and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Compensation in Workplaces act which guarantees that everyone of the same skill level regardless of sex gets the same salary, and The Affordable Care Act which among many other benefits lowers prescription drug prices and guarantees that if you have a pre existing medical condition that insurance companies cannot ignore fare needs for it nor charge you more to treat it. The Democratic Party works to benefit the People. 

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Here's an observation for you.

You are captured by an idea that  convices you that you deserve punishment. A daily reminder of your guilt. Your captor keeps you in a state of constant fear and loathing. A sado-masacistic mentality that you've become comfortable with.

So comfortable that when someone comes along and shows you success in the face of this abhorrent idea...and you reject the evident success. You actually do your best to deny your own senses.

It's warped.

It's hard for a train to go over someone's head, but here we have it. Maybe try putting away your feelings and what Trump told you and check out the data for yourself. Though history tells me that's unlikely.

[Caswell Thomas]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Look what you have become caswell. Grab a mirror pal. You're nothing but a liar and shill for the demonrats. 

In this thread you can't admit that the KKK functioned as a Dem militia, which is 100% understood by everyone in the free world. Even leftards point to a time 'when the Dems ended their affiliation with the kkk...' How could they have 'ended their affiliation with the KKK' if they weren't partnered up previously?

Of course the Dems are allied with Antifa and BLM: they regurgitated all of BLM's false narratives - which were disgusting - ignored all of BLM's own claims that they're trained marxists and that they oppose the nuclear family, pretended that BLM's riots were mostly peaceful, and refused to denounce BLM violence. They even painted BLM on the street after they had done billions of dollars in damage and incited assaults, killings and the murders of policemen. Still, no comment against BLM fro the Dems. Sorry but they OWN that. It's 100% on the Demonrats.

The Dems also support Antifa, and even pretend that they're not a real group. If you don't believe me, watch a video of Gerry Nadler saying those words himself: it's bizarre.

in another thread you're pretending that the FBI aren't court-documented liars and criminals. You can find proof from any news source that Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to falsifying evidence to provide to the FISA court. You just won't admit that you know. The FBI pretended to have evidence of collusion for years and in the end - they had n-o-t-h-i-n-g. 

It's ridiculous for you to sit there at your keyboard and try to throw shade on other people for their lack of decency. It's literally impossible for anyone to be more of a liar than you.

You're revolting, dude. You're a totally disgusting little liar. 

and yet Trump and all his would be kings men are the ones on trial, the ones recanting in U. S. District Court's that THEY and TRUMP are the actual liars while the MAGA's shell out their hard earned money to a trigger pulling the biggest con job in history..on them, taking them for every penny they can get, then using the money to pay off personal debt, buy themselves luxury and when confronted on their lies by even their own self act members, lie some more and throw them under the " who are they?" bus.  Oh yes, you go ahead and rant and rave...the days of wine and glory for Trumpians are fading fast. 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

^That's what people call "being an id10t.

It's not Trump's job to cater to a race of people. Trump is in charge of rising the tide, and to make sure that no boats are anchored too firmly to the bottom of the ocean when the tide does rise. 

Trump totally altered the economic trajectory. The economy was plateauing, and the Dow was stagnant for a long time before Trump came in.

Of course the economic gap changed, because black unemployment went down by a greater margin than white unemployment did. There were "employees wanted" signs everywhere from 2018-2020. Do you remember when McDonald's was giving out signing bonuses?

The Dems hated that. Biden definitely fixed that. 

 That's just a total lie, and it's on par with Biden's lies about inflation. 

The last 3 years of Obama's presidency were a riot. 

Obama took over when the economy was down, and he did a good job of getting it back on track - I'll grant him that much - but by your standards I could just say "Obama got the stimulus package approved that the Dems defeated while Bush was president". In fact, I could make the case that the dems sabotaged America by harpooning the 2nd Bush stimulus package just to make Bush look bad and make Obama look good. 

Obama put America back on the path to 'regular prosperity', but prosperity never reached the heights that Trump brought it to since maybe the '50s. Obama's path wasn't headed there. It's not normal. Obama was too busy inciting riots to 'help' blacks. 

GDP? Noooope.

Despite running huge elective deficits.

Unemployment? Noooope.

 

The DOW (which is not the economy, but bets on the economy) DID accelerate. People bet that the tax cuts/deficit spending would stimulate the economy. But it didn't. 

 

And the Black unemployment gap? Noooope. It's nearly always roughly double the white unemployment rate, just as it was under Trump 

 

And if you're still bamboozled and starry eyed about the"lowest Black unemployment" claim as an absolute number, Biden already beat that.

 

 

I swear, Trump could tell you people the sky was green and you'd just nod along instead of checking the facts.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Hodad

[Caswell Thomas]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Here's an observation for you.

You are captured by an idea that  convices you that you deserve punishment. A daily reminder of your guilt. Your captor keeps you in a state of constant fear and loathing. A sado-masacistic mentality that you've become comfortable with.

So comfortable that when someone comes along and shows you success in the face of this abhorrent idea...and you reject the evident success. You actually do your best to deny your own senses.

It's warped.

According to the Dow Jones Trump inherited an elevating economy which was due largely to the growth caused by George W. Bush and Obama after the Great Recession ended in about 2009. The market Dyck d rise a little on speculation that Corporate America was going to benefit when Trump " drained the swamp and in so doing, remove many of the " obstructive rules" that kept corporations from keeping all their profits instead of reinvesting a percentage in observance of safety laws. Example: Trump said Americas meat packing industries were overburdened with USDA meat inspectors which slowed down how many chickens or hogs ( in their respective industries) could be processed which, in turn, cut meat packer profits. Trump removed those laws and meat packing combined industries sped up their inspection lines  by putting their own, often untrained, meat inspectors in instead. This lead to more food borne illnesses and a much higher workers compensation rate of injuries in the cutters and packers lines. In the oil refineries, big oil complained of expensive filters for genre were cutting their profits, Trump obliged his wealthy friends and removed the laws requiring them. Result much more smog and heavy metals escaping into the air. But..big industrialist billionaires were happy. 

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Hodad said:

GDP? Noooope.

Despite running huge elective deficits.

Unemployment? Noooope.

 

The DOW (which is not the economy, but bets on the economy) DID accelerate. People bet that the tax cuts/deficit spending would stimulate the economy. But it didn't. 

 

And the Black unemployment gap? Noooope. It's nearly always roughly double the white unemployment rate, just as it was under Trump 

 

And if you're still bamboozled and starry eyed about the"lowest Black unemployment" claim as an absolute number, Biden already beat that.

 

 

I swear, Trump could tell you people the sky was green and you'd just nod along instead of checking the facts.

All of that has been addressed here before.

You compare a second term to trumps first term -  why don't you compare both first terms? Ohhhh - because then obama looks bad ,

And - you include the covid portion of his first term - which is pretty fair right? I mean - all presidents face covid or something like it right?

Trump not only did better with unemployment - PEOPLE GOT PAID MORE

https://archive.ph/H3M6V

The article points out the rest of the reasons.

Sorry kiddo - but in reality the economy did MUCH better under trump - despite your sad attempts to cherry pick your stats.

I know you won't reply because i intimidate the hell out of you - but now everyone else can see you're once again wrong as hell.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Caswell Thomas said:

and yet Trump and all his would be kings men are the ones on trial, the ones recanting in U. S. District Court's that THEY and TRUMP are the actual liars while the MAGA's shell out their hard earned money to a trigger pulling the biggest con job in history..on them, taking them for every penny they can get, then using the money to pay off personal debt, buy themselves luxury and when confronted on their lies by even their own self act members, lie some more and throw them under the " who are they?" bus.  Oh yes, you go ahead and rant and rave...the days of wine and glory for Trumpians are fading fast. 

Blah, blah, blah, all you do is talk out of your ass. 

So repugnant. 

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I know you won't reply because i intimidate the hell out of you - but now everyone else can see you're once again wrong as hell.

Never underestimate their ability to ignore facts and keep on lying. 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

and you're so desperate you are digging back what...70 years now to find some scandal you can use? And yet during that time the Republicans have fielded 3 presidents who failed the country while lining their own pockets and trying to pin the blame on the Dems: Nixon, Reagan, Trump...all very happy to take their followers money while catering only to the uber wealthy. The Dems on the other hand have created the women's right to vote, social security, unemployment benefits, the first manned moon mission, Medicare, Medicaid , the Securities and Exchange Act, the Rural Ditto fixation act ( which brought electricity to all rural areas), the Fair Labor Standards Act ( prevention of the cruel use if children in factories and dangerous jobs such as coal mining), the Federal Home Loan Act, the G. I. Bill for Veterans, the National Industrial Recovery Act which forced companies to adhere to an 8 hour work day with scheduled breaks and lunch, the National School Lunch Act, the Voting Rights Act, the March of Dimes ( originally to cure infantile paralysis it went on to cover many  childhood diseases finding cures and treatments to save children), the Civil Rights Act, Family Medical and Family Leave Act, Guaranteed Student Loans, and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Compensation in Workplaces act which guarantees that everyone of the same skill level regardless of sex gets the same salary, and The Affordable Care Act which among many other benefits lowers prescription drug prices and guarantees that if you have a pre existing medical condition that insurance companies cannot ignore fare needs for it nor charge you more to treat it. The Democratic Party works to benefit the People. 

The Democrat party has enslaved the black American.!

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's hard for a train to go over someone's head, but here we have it. Maybe try putting away your feelings and what Trump told you and check out the data for yourself. Though history tells me that's unlikely.

Maybe try trusting your own senses.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

According to the Dow Jones Trump inherited an elevating economy which was due largely to the growth caused by George W. Bush and Obama after the Great Recession ended in about 2009. The market Dyck d rise a little on speculation that Corporate America was going to benefit when Trump " drained the swamp and in so doing, remove many of the " obstructive rules" that kept corporations from keeping all their profits instead of reinvesting a percentage in observance of safety laws. Example: Trump said Americas meat packing industries were overburdened with USDA meat inspectors which slowed down how many chickens or hogs ( in their respective industries) could be processed which, in turn, cut meat packer profits. Trump removed those laws and meat packing combined industries sped up their inspection lines  by putting their own, often untrained, meat inspectors in instead. This lead to more food borne illnesses and a much higher workers compensation rate of injuries in the cutters and packers lines. In the oil refineries, big oil complained of expensive filters for genre were cutting their profits, Trump obliged his wealthy friends and removed the laws requiring them. Result much more smog and heavy metals escaping into the air. But..big industrialist billionaires were happy. 

Lol...

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:09 PM, WestCanMan said:

Nope.

Hamas:

Intentionally targets women and children.

Hamas intentionally puts women and children in harm's way to protect themselves. 

 

Israel:

Only targets terrorists.

Does everything they can to avoid harming women and children. The only time they get hurt is when Hamas has placed them in the line of fire.

 

By my logic, decency matters. Intent matters. 

I don't understand why you and so many Demonrats feel like burning children and women alive is the right thing to do. I don't know how Hamas has raised so many people to be hateful enough to do that sort of thing.  

I condemn Hamas without reservation. However a burnt child looks the same no matter what military conduct brought about that atrocity and there are lots of burnt kids in Gaza today. Determining what collateral damage means and how many innocent victims can be killed for every legitimate target is not a simple affair and we rarely get to see those calculations. If we are ever subjected to aerial bombing ourselves, we may think on these matters a little more closely. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

What are racism and anti-Semitism? Do they preclude ALL hostility to other groups? I don’t think so. Over the past five centuries, many indigenous people would be justified in hating and fearing white people. South Asians in South Africa would have good reasons to resent both the former white govt and the current black one. Similarly, if I was a West Bank Palestinian facing Israeli guns every day at endless checkpoints I don’t think I’d be too keen on those Israelis. By contrast, European anti-Semitism was and is deeply irrational, based as it is on all sorts of delusions about all Jewish people. 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I condemn Hamas without reservation. However a burnt child looks the same no matter what military conduct brought about that atrocity

First off - you can't say "but" and still mean the first part of the sentance. Either you condemn what they did or you don't, there's no "but".' There's no excuse and there's no mitigation.

As to the second part -it's not a question of how they look.  It's a question of why they look that way.

For the israeli babies they look that way because Hamas decided to launch an unprovoked attack on civilians specifically with the intent of killing them and making them look that way.

In the case of the palestinian babies THEY look that way because Hamas decided to launch an unprovoked attack on israel knowing israel would have to declare war and then surrounded themselves with those babies as human meat shields.

Do you see the common factor here?

ALL of the deaths are a direct result of hamas's actions. Hamas who to this very minute is firing rockets at israel trying to kill civilians.

And there's no butts about it

[SpankyMcFarland]

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

First off - you can't say "but" and still mean the first part of the sentance. Either you condemn what they did or you don't, there's no "but".' There's no excuse and there's no mitigation.

As to the second part -it's not a question of how they look.  It's a question of why they look that way.

For the israeli babies they look that way because Hamas decided to launch an unprovoked attack on civilians specifically with the intent of killing them and making them look that way.

In the case of the palestinian babies THEY look that way because Hamas decided to launch an unprovoked attack on israel knowing israel would have to declare war and then surrounded themselves with those babies as human meat shields.

Do you see the common factor here?

ALL of the deaths are a direct result of hamas's actions. Hamas who to this very minute is firing rockets at israel trying to kill civilians.

And there's no butts about it

I have condemned Hamas for starting this war. I don’t think I can be clearer on that aspect.

As somebody who spent a career looking at dead bodies, I am merely struck by their broadly similar appearance after massive trauma. Dismemberment has a common look.

Another question is the assessment of intent: how does one do it? If a govt says it seeks to minimize collateral casualties, can we really test that hypothesis? In other words is it a scientific, falsifiable statement or something less than that? It’s a complex retrospective business and I’m not sure it can be done.  

 

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I have condemned Hamas for starting this war. I don’t think I can be clearer on that aspect.
 

You completely obscure the 'clarity' the moment you say 'but'.

I think they're guilty...  BUUUUT,,,,,

In english "but" is the word used in that situation to mitigate or nullify what came before.

For example -  I want to go exercise 'but' it's raining,    Vs "it's raining BUT i want to go exercise.  Same words - but the first means you're not going becuase and the second means you are going anyway.

So saying it and following with a 'but' is meaingless.  Period. It's what people do to PRETEND they're condemning something.

So yes - you CAN be MUCH more clear -  Condemn them, period. Don't condemn them and add a 'but'.

6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

As somebody who spent a career looking at dead bodies, I am struck by the common appearance in trauma cases. Dismemberment has a common look.

If that's all you spent your career doing, you wasted your life and your opinion here is worthless

You SHOULD have been looking at them and saying 'how did this happen. What lead to this. Who is responsible and how do we stop it happening again".

It's a same that's not how you spent your career.

I spent my career looking  at exactly that kind of thing for all kinds of situations. The cause here is easy to identify. A terrorist gov't group that refuses any discussion of peace and a population that backs them.

Don't like dead bodies? Then that's the two things you need to permanently sort out. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You completely obscure the 'clarity' the moment you say 'but'.

I think they're guilty...  BUUUUT,,,,,

In english "but" is the word used in that situation to mitigate or nullify what came before.

For example -  I want to go exercise 'but' it's raining,    Vs "it's raining BUT i want to go exercise.  Same words - but the first means you're not going becuase and the second means you are going anyway.

So saying it and following with a 'but' is meaingless.  Period. It's what people do to PRETEND they're condemning something.

So yes - you CAN be MUCH more clear -  Condemn them, period. Don't condemn them and add a 'but'.

If that's all you spent your career doing, you wasted your life and your opinion here is worthless

You SHOULD have been looking at them and saying 'how did this happen. What lead to this. Who is responsible and how do we stop it happening again".

It's a same that's not how you spent your career.

I spent my career looking  at exactly that kind of thing for all kinds of situations. The cause here is easy to identify. A terrorist gov't group that refuses any discussion of peace and a population that backs them.

Don't like dead bodies? Then that's the two things you need to permanently sort out. 

What a silly post. Why do you get yourself so worked up? You’re going to burst something at this rate. Of course I did all that. Let’s talk about something less abstruse - intent. I don’t know the answers to these questions BTW. How do we determine that the intent of a party in a war is to keep civilian casualties to an absolute minimum? Is there a rigorous mathematical model we can apply to test this hypothesis or do we end up having to take a country’s word for it? And what is the maximum ‘collateral damage’ (what a grotesque euphemism, ie civilian injuries and deaths) that is  justified to kill one ‘legitimate target’? 

Edited November 5, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

54 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Over the past five centuries, many indigenous people would be justified in hating and fearing white people.

So you support them attacking our women and children?

Actually that was the frog lake massacre i suppose. Riel was a hero to you I take it?  Are you going to say "no, BUT..."

[SpankyMcFarland]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you support them attacking our women and children?

Actually that was the frog lake massacre i suppose. Riel was a hero to you I take it?  Are you going to say "no, BUT..."

No. Let’s go up, way up and look at the globe through time. What do we see since hom sap appeared? Constant wars. Constant fear and loathing. IMO it’s part of our condition, how we are wired. I know Poles who, fifty years after WWII, would panic when they’d hear German. That’s a reasonable fear to have given what they went through. Unfirtunately, tribalism is part of our birthright. All we can do in each generation is recognize it and try to control it. 

I would say that racism is irrational hatred of other groups. We shouldn’t be too PC on this. After all, I’m supposed to be the lefty here. Those who have suffered at the hands of other groups may have a reasonable dislike of them. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

What a silly post. Why do you get yourself so worked up?

Ahhh yes  - the common left wing tactic - when you have no intelligent response and you've been called out, instead try to downplay what was said and pretend they're "worked up" over nothing.

Kid - I'm sure that kid of cheezy trick just slays them on the elementary school recess playground. Not so much here.

 

Quote

Of course I did all that.

You obviously did not.

But hey - don't get so worked u up about it.

Quote

Let’s talk about something less abstruse - intent. I don’t know the answers to these questions BTW.

I do.

Quote

How do we determine that the intent of a party in a war is to keep civilian casualties to an absolute minimum?

It's pretty easy.  Determine if they had plausable reason to believe they were attacking a military target regardless of the presence of humans, determine if the means of the attack was reasonable given the assets they have on hand at that moment and the nature of the target, and determine if they stopped attacking once the target appeared neutralized.

That's all actually fairly easy to do.

 

Quote

Is there a rigorous mathematical model we can apply to test this hypothesis

Pretty much.

Quote

or do we end up having to take a country’s word for it?

There is always going to be evidence.  "Show me why you thought an enemy general might have been in that hospital".  If they can't, then there's a problem.  If they had a reason there must be recon, photos, satellite, SOMETHING to say "this is the info we got, this is where it came from and this is why we came to our conclusion.

Quote

And what is the maximum ‘collateral damage’ (what a grotesque euphemism, ie civilian injuries and deaths) that is  justified to kill one ‘legitimate target’? 

Wrong question. "what is necessary to take out the target? How many died as a result of doing what was necessary?"  - That much.

Nagasaki and hiroshima killed 200k or there abouts but it ended a war that  would have lead to millions more deaths. Mission accomplished.

Edited November 5, 2023 by CdnFox

[SpankyMcFarland]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhh yes  - the common left wing tactic - when you have no intelligent response and you've been called out, instead try to downplay what was said and pretend they're "worked up" over nothing.

Kid - I'm sure that kid of cheezy trick just slays them on the elementary school recess playground. Not so much here.

 

You obviously did not.

But hey - don't get so worked u up about it.

I do.

It's pretty easy.  Determine if they had plausable reason to believe they were attacking a military target regardless of the presence of humans, determine if the means of the attack was reasonable given the assets they have on hand at that moment and the nature of the target, and determine if they stopped attacking once the target appeared neutralized.

That's all actually fairly easy to do.

 

Pretty much.

There is always going to be evidence.  "Show me why you thought an enemy general might have been in that hospital".  If they can't, then there's a problem.  If they had a reason there must be recon, photos, satellite, SOMETHING to say "this is the info we got, this is where it came from and this is why we came to our conclusion.

Wrong question. "what is necessary to take out the target? How many died as a result of doing what was necessary?"  - That much.

I think it’s fair to say that minimizing collateral damage is more an art than a science. 

What about the simple question on collateral deaths: what is the maximum number for one target? I have no idea.  

In terms of evidence, I think we are getting to a point with AI where it will be very difficult to assess the veracity of same. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The Democrat party has enslaved the black American.!

Maybe try trusting your own senses.

I guess that's the sort of inane thing one says when the numbers prove you wrong? 

"But I feel it was the best economy ever! The numbers don't matter!"

Edited November 5, 2023 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

27 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I guess that's the sort of inane thing one says when the days proves you wrong? 

"But I feel it was the best economy ever! The numbers don't matter!"

You haven't proven anything but your own blindness...or is it just stubbornness?

The US spends about 20% of gdp on welfare. Look at the results. Ghettos in all major cities. Homelessness in all major cities. Drug epidemics...gang wars...a baby making career...the majority of marriages end in divorce...way sub-standard education levels.

You feed children garbage...create fat, self-centered, illiterate gangstas. 

The results grossly contradict the narrative you try to sell. But alas...snake oil is not a healthy product.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think it’s fair to say that minimizing collateral damage is more an art than a science. 

 

Not really.  It's as simple as "don't aim for them, aim for the military target".   Whoever happens to get hit is collateral damage. 

It's a simple principle. Attack the enemy target as if there were no people there. If there happens to be people there then that's unfortunate.  But it's very easy to say if someone's got a legit reason to think something was a target or not, and if the way they attacked it is what someone might expect.

This is VERY FREAKIN' Simple.

The israelis just shot an ambulence.  The world authorities went to them and said "why?"  And they said 'they were transporting soldiers here's the evidence. 

Pretty straight forward.  They believed they were using it to transport combatants, they shot one missile at the ambulance, they didn't carpet bomb the place or anything .

Contrast that with the attack on the 7th from Gaza.

You're taking something very simple and trying to complicate it and it isn't.

 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I guess that's the sort of inane thing one says when the days proves you wrong? 

"But I feel it was the best economy ever! The numbers don't matter!"

The numbers proved you wrong chuckles.