2010-05-10

compare one allowed vs. one censored

Allowed:

Voice of reason and realism :
10 May 2010 6:17:41pm
  «The pacifist strand in here is extraordinary.
It is ridiculous to compare WW2 and Vietnam, or to the present struggles.
...
Appeasement was a failure.
...
Soft hearted sentiment is soft minded. we're back on the path of appeasement now, hoping if we give the Mohammedan fascists respect, they'll stop demanding more. They won't.
Remember the 30s. Remember the whole of human history. We're still humans. Wake up and smell the napalm.»
 
[AusBC/unleashed, "Vietnam War Moratorium"]

Comment 1: Having said "ridiculous to compare," VoRR goes on to do exactly that, and *tries* to equate Islam-O-fascism (anyway an invalid construction/concept) to the WW2 fascist 'axis.'

Comment 2: Shrieking "Appeasement!" is always good - for the r-whingers, but I recall that 'the West' encouraged the Nazis in the early days, as a 'containable' counter to communism. Shrieking "Communism!" or "Socialism!" is another 'always' for erring ideologist r-whingers with totally irrational allergies against anything even slightly to 'the left' of Ayn Rand - say.

Comment 3: Since WW2 ended with a double BANG! - the dual war crime A-bombings killing about a ¼mio predominantly civilian Japanese, an act not so much to end WW2 (the Japs were pleading for surrender) as to initiate WW3, aka the so-called 'cold war' against Russia&Co, just about every war the US has initiated involved 100% aggressive invasion following a desire to push US hegemony, and usually with some pecuniary interest - like oil in Iraq, say.

Comment 4: Not 'just' the US, but its illegal Z-sprog continued/extended its alien invasion and immoral, illegal occupation of land not theirs, aka that (still!) belonging to the mostly Palestinian ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers), an obscene crime now 62+ bloody years old and no end in sight.

Now, to the disallowed:

Posted 10 May 2010 5:50pm [start of submit]

Re: Anon @ 09May'10,1:52pm
 Care to point those lies out?

Re: Haha @ 09May'10,2:07pm
 -And wanting your country to lose a war is traitorous.

Re: Haha @ 10May'10,11:19am
 Thank the peace protestors ... they forced their governments to lose.

Oooh-Kayee:

Look at 4 entities A, B, C & D.

Look at 4 wars (alpha-order) V (headline) then X, Y & Z.

Look at the assertion: "We are starting this war because ..."

Look at 4 'reasons' (time-order):

1) Some g*d promised it to us!

2) Gulf of Tonkin!

3) Al Qaeda did 9/11!

4) Saddam has WMDs!

IF anyone uses a lie as part of an argument, THEN that argument is fallacious.

IF anyone uses a lie to 'convince' a voter, THEN that voter is deceived.

IF any voter is asked Q: "War?" THEN s/he may answer "Y/n."

Q: How many (uncorrupted) voters were asked, when?

IF alternative ruling parties 'offer' the same (non!)choice, THEN that's called bipartisanship = unrepresentative = non- and anti-democratic.

IF a casus belli is 'contaminated' by lies, and the true purpose (theft) is 'concealed' behind lies THEN that war is both illegal and immoral.

IF a war is started by an aggressive alien invasion, THEN that is a Nuremberg-scale war crime.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. [POD]

deceit n. 1 deception, esp. by concealing the truth. 2 dishonest trick. [Latin capio take] [ibid.]

fallacy n. (pl. -ies) 1 mistaken belief. 2 faulty reasoning; misleading argument. fallacious adj. [Latin fallo deceive] [ibid.]

[end of submit]

You, dear reader, may ponder the 'wisdom' of the AusBC censors.

-=*end*=-

PS: And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." Alice's Restaurant, by Arlo Guthrie.

1 comment:

  1. Appeal for fairness, or just a waste of time? Recall that the unleashed title is "Vietnam War Moratorium: participatory democracy." Sooo, a resubmit @ 11May'10,12:41am:

    Anon @ 09May'10,1:52pm
    Care to point those lies out?

    Haha @ 09May'10,2:07pm
    -And wanting your country to lose a war is traitorous.

    Haha @ 10May'10,11:19am
    Thank the peace protestors ... they forced their governments to lose.

    Oooh-Kayee:

    If possible, complete the statement: "This war was 'justified' by claiming ..."

    .. any applicable, substantiated lie vis-à-vis:

    1) +/- '47 invasion of Palestine.

    2) +/- '64 invasion of Vietnam.

    3) 2001+ invasion of Afghanistan.

    4) 2003+ invasion of Iraq.

    IF anyone uses a lie as part of an argument, THEN that argument is fallacious.

    IF anyone uses a lie to 'convince' a voter, THEN that voter is deceived.

    IF any voter is asked Q: "War?" THEN s/he may answer "Y/n."

    Q: How many (uncorrupted) voters were asked, when?

    IF alternative ruling parties 'offer' the same (non!)choice, THEN that's called bipartisanship = unrepresentative = non- and anti-democratic.

    IF a claimed casus belli is 'contaminated' by lies and/or an actual intent is 'concealed' behind lies THEN that war is both illegal and immoral.

    IF a war is started with an aggressive alien invasion, THEN that is a Nuremberg-scale war crime.

    lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. [POD]

    deceit n. 1 deception, esp. by concealing the truth. 2 dishonest trick. [Latin capio take] [ibid.]

    fallacy n. (pl. -ies) 1 mistaken belief. 2 faulty reasoning; misleading argument. fallacious adj. [Latin fallo deceive] [ibid.]
     

    ReplyDelete