Extremism & Radicalization

[fuzic]

Suicidesoldier#1

chubsy wubsy

Suicidesoldier#1

chubsy wubsy

Suicidesoldier#1

Well actually, a key reason for the 1991 invasion of Iraq was the stated reasons that he used chemical weapons against his own people.

The U.S. never supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. Allegations are that he reverse engineered vaccines to create biological weapons, from the flu and anthrax, however these were never actually used in any conflict. And we never gave him weaponized versions.

Furthermore, the U.S. provided little equipment to Iraq's military. Primarily, his equipment came from three sources, Russia, China,and France, as he predominately used Soviet style equipment. Ak-47's, T-72 tanks ,that sort of thing, which are distinctly not American.



Actually, smart weapons were used to reduce collateral damage. Because of their precision, they could avoid large scale carpet bombing, and instead focused on key military targets. By most accounts, our use of smart weapons was fairly surgical. Although some disagree, even if the U.S. killed as many as claimed, that would still be 1/100th the amount Saddam had killed, and likely would continue to kill if we had not intervened.

The terrorists existed in Iraq long before the U.S. got involved (1999). Al-Qaeda existed long before the U.S. got involved in Iraq. The idea that somehow the Iraq invasion created the terrorists is mind boggling. Furthermore, ISIS's momentum has picked up in the Syrian war, not the Iraq one. That's where most of their power base has come from.

Wikipedia is your source? Really? sweatdrop

There's no such thing as "surgical"

Are you studying critical security studies? No. You're not. sweatdrop

The source's in wikipedia are my sources, but considering that you have no sources I'd say that puts me a step above. xp

Surgical is a euphemism, a play on word's to say how accurate they are. Smart bombs have the ability to hit a target within 10 meters, or 30 feet, which means they don't miss that much. Instead of needing to carpet bomb say, an entire city to take out one building, you can drop one well placed bomb. Back in WWII, it wasn't uncommon for bombs to land a mile away from the target. Today, something like this is nearly unheard of, given that they have gliding system that allows them to be guided to target, using the air resistance as they fall and inertial guidance and GPS to direct them to the target. They are also consequently, very cheap, since a rocket like in a cruise missile may be half a million dollars, these are about 5,000. They also can be added to almost any dumb bomb, since the gliding system itself is designed to take in to account a wide variety of circumstances, and doesn't rely on propulsion systems. In fact, most dumb bombs have similiar shapes so that only reduces the difficulty of determining the aerodynamics of them.


What do I need to be studying "critical security studies" for? O.o

Because "smart" and "surgical" do not mean anything at all. They are called this in order to legitimize their use. In order to make it seem as though they are "precise" and "humane" when in fact they are anything but that. This kind of wording is utilized by defense ministers in order to make it seem OK to bomb countries and use this on populations; much the same when Churchill found it OK to use massive chemical air raids on "savages" in Iraq in the mid 1920's so that it was easier to dominate new Iraq.

The use of the word "surgical" is also another way that defense intellectuals can dominate ideologically.... because who can say no to a surgical strike right? Despite the fact that it has a massive amount of non-depleted uranium, that strikes used in the 1990s were not at all "precise"; because some did not detonate, missiles were left in the ground system damaging the water, the food resources, the people in Iraq and leading to massive deformations in regions where a lot was used.

Wat. Besides the fact that I gave you specifics of the bomb's operations and their ability to hit a target within 10 meters even under extreme environmental or weather conditions, known as JDAM's. They are pretty darn accurate.

Also, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that none of these bombs have depleted uranium in them. Depleted uranium was used in a select number of weapons, notably the M1 abram's 120mm cannon with the M829 series of weapons, as kinetic energy penetrator's, that is a non-explosive round relying inherently on the raw energy of the round to physically penetrate through a target. So, no, these rounds were never designed to explode, as are no other depleted uranium rounds. As for the depleted uranium causing horrible side effects, this has been proposed, but never proven by anyone. These are also unguided munitions, since they aren't bombs and are fired out of a tank like a traditional cannon would be. Even if a percentage of the DU rounds contained serious radioactive substances, there'd likely be nowhere enough to cause serious radiological problems through ground leakage or by getting in to the local water supply, on a national scale. More likely the trauma of war with the stress and inadequate medicine combined with the fact that Saddam dumped and used a lot of chemical weapons is more or less what's responsible for the health problems. For a guy who had a secret chemical weapon's program and then improperly disposed of these weapons, enough to garner international attention, nobody really seems to consider that a possibility for the high rates of cancer among select groups of gassed individuals.

Quote:

As for "terrorism"; I've done enough research (in GRADUATE STUDIES); not in undergrad and in policy papers that demonstrate terrorist related fatalities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria were practically NON-EXISTENT before 2001 and before 2003.

Why do you put terrorism in quotations? O.o Do you not believe it exists, or liek...

Anyways, your argument *might* make sense if it wasn't predicated on a number of issues. First of all, you said they were created because of the invasion, not that they started attacking after the invasion. There's a pretty big distinction between the incident of attacks increasing, and the creation of a terrorist organization, their belief system, ideology etc. which has been entrenched for decades, and has it's roots to hundred year old conflicts. Secondly, I think you mean Iraq, since Afghanistan was dominated by the Taliban, an organization made by Pakistan in 1994 (6 years after the soviet-Afghanistan war was even over), known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, so uh, they're a terrorist organization that took over a government by killing off the original government so, a lot of terrorist attacks there. Syria has had terrorist problems for years.

Saddam Hussein had been regularly fighting the Peshmerga, the Kurds, the Iranians and a lot of other organizations in the region for decades, many of whom are widely considered to be terrorists (though not all these groups). Terrorism existed in these countries before that, but if you mean by Al-Qaeda and their affiliates, they were fairly small before the war. Nonetheless, Saddam Hussein killed more than 500,000 innocent people and had continued to try and eradicate various populations, stepping up his game just a few years before the invasion. He threatened Kuwait and Israel again, and around this time is when the U.S. invaded. While the death toll of what would have occurred is certainly up to debate, we know there were at least 4 million refugees at the time who would have starved or dehydrated to death so, it would have been pretty huge. If the cost was increased terrorism in the region, it's a pretty small potatoes issue, although terrorism in and of itself didn't really increase, so much as local groups signed on to work with Al-Qaeda, then broke off again like we see with ISIS.

Quote:

There are many sources to give you. But first start with a book: Justifying Ballistic Missile Defence : Technology, Security and Culture (Peoples and Columba); then start with a concept (revolution in military affairs, critical security studies).

Because what you give me is something that is not at all critical of how language is used to "dominate" the political field xp If the language is powerful, it is hard to challenge if you are not critical and easy to fall prey to.

I'm giving you exact specifics on weapon details and how they operate, who actually made them, what they actually do. You seem to be mixing up a lot of crap, such as guided munitions having DU in them or the soviet backed, Socialist Baathist government of Iraq largely being equipped by the U.S. Not only have you failed to produce any evidence supporting this, but what little you did "know" seemed to be pretty mixed up, or just flat out wrong. I actually know what the weapon's are capable of and have shown you records of how many buildings were actually destroyed. Tests that were done for DU use, even. So, given that they are fairly accurate and are widely used, it's safe to assume that when they said smart munitions avoided a large amount of civilian casualties, it's probably true. People who have projected otherwise either have little to substantiate their claims or, equally awkward evidence.

Your knowledge is predicated on non-Scholarly research. this is my actual field of study. Yours is based on Wikipedia.

Your specifics on Weapons have been proven wrong, look up Marshall Beier he's a scholar that deals directly with defense ministers in the United States regarding the use of weapons AND their inability to do as they are labelled. May I ask what your educational background is ?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

chubsy wubsy

Suicidesoldier#1

chubsy wubsy

Suicidesoldier#1

chubsy wubsy

Wikipedia is your source? Really? sweatdrop

There's no such thing as "surgical"

Are you studying critical security studies? No. You're not. sweatdrop

The source's in wikipedia are my sources, but considering that you have no sources I'd say that puts me a step above. xp

Surgical is a euphemism, a play on word's to say how accurate they are. Smart bombs have the ability to hit a target within 10 meters, or 30 feet, which means they don't miss that much. Instead of needing to carpet bomb say, an entire city to take out one building, you can drop one well placed bomb. Back in WWII, it wasn't uncommon for bombs to land a mile away from the target. Today, something like this is nearly unheard of, given that they have gliding system that allows them to be guided to target, using the air resistance as they fall and inertial guidance and GPS to direct them to the target. They are also consequently, very cheap, since a rocket like in a cruise missile may be half a million dollars, these are about 5,000. They also can be added to almost any dumb bomb, since the gliding system itself is designed to take in to account a wide variety of circumstances, and doesn't rely on propulsion systems. In fact, most dumb bombs have similiar shapes so that only reduces the difficulty of determining the aerodynamics of them.


What do I need to be studying "critical security studies" for? O.o

Because "smart" and "surgical" do not mean anything at all. They are called this in order to legitimize their use. In order to make it seem as though they are "precise" and "humane" when in fact they are anything but that. This kind of wording is utilized by defense ministers in order to make it seem OK to bomb countries and use this on populations; much the same when Churchill found it OK to use massive chemical air raids on "savages" in Iraq in the mid 1920's so that it was easier to dominate new Iraq.

The use of the word "surgical" is also another way that defense intellectuals can dominate ideologically.... because who can say no to a surgical strike right? Despite the fact that it has a massive amount of non-depleted uranium, that strikes used in the 1990s were not at all "precise"; because some did not detonate, missiles were left in the ground system damaging the water, the food resources, the people in Iraq and leading to massive deformations in regions where a lot was used.

Wat. Besides the fact that I gave you specifics of the bomb's operations and their ability to hit a target within 10 meters even under extreme environmental or weather conditions, known as JDAM's. They are pretty darn accurate.

Also, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that none of these bombs have depleted uranium in them. Depleted uranium was used in a select number of weapons, notably the M1 abram's 120mm cannon with the M829 series of weapons, as kinetic energy penetrator's, that is a non-explosive round relying inherently on the raw energy of the round to physically penetrate through a target. So, no, these rounds were never designed to explode, as are no other depleted uranium rounds. As for the depleted uranium causing horrible side effects, this has been proposed, but never proven by anyone. These are also unguided munitions, since they aren't bombs and are fired out of a tank like a traditional cannon would be. Even if a percentage of the DU rounds contained serious radioactive substances, there'd likely be nowhere enough to cause serious radiological problems through ground leakage or by getting in to the local water supply, on a national scale. More likely the trauma of war with the stress and inadequate medicine combined with the fact that Saddam dumped and used a lot of chemical weapons is more or less what's responsible for the health problems. For a guy who had a secret chemical weapon's program and then improperly disposed of these weapons, enough to garner international attention, nobody really seems to consider that a possibility for the high rates of cancer among select groups of gassed individuals.

Quote:

As for "terrorism"; I've done enough research (in GRADUATE STUDIES); not in undergrad and in policy papers that demonstrate terrorist related fatalities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria were practically NON-EXISTENT before 2001 and before 2003.

Why do you put terrorism in quotations? O.o Do you not believe it exists, or liek...

Anyways, your argument *might* make sense if it wasn't predicated on a number of issues. First of all, you said they were created because of the invasion, not that they started attacking after the invasion. There's a pretty big distinction between the incident of attacks increasing, and the creation of a terrorist organization, their belief system, ideology etc. which has been entrenched for decades, and has it's roots to hundred year old conflicts. Secondly, I think you mean Iraq, since Afghanistan was dominated by the Taliban, an organization made by Pakistan in 1994 (6 years after the soviet-Afghanistan war was even over), known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, so uh, they're a terrorist organization that took over a government by killing off the original government so, a lot of terrorist attacks there. Syria has had terrorist problems for years.

Saddam Hussein had been regularly fighting the Peshmerga, the Kurds, the Iranians and a lot of other organizations in the region for decades, many of whom are widely considered to be terrorists (though not all these groups). Terrorism existed in these countries before that, but if you mean by Al-Qaeda and their affiliates, they were fairly small before the war. Nonetheless, Saddam Hussein killed more than 500,000 innocent people and had continued to try and eradicate various populations, stepping up his game just a few years before the invasion. He threatened Kuwait and Israel again, and around this time is when the U.S. invaded. While the death toll of what would have occurred is certainly up to debate, we know there were at least 4 million refugees at the time who would have starved or dehydrated to death so, it would have been pretty huge. If the cost was increased terrorism in the region, it's a pretty small potatoes issue, although terrorism in and of itself didn't really increase, so much as local groups signed on to work with Al-Qaeda, then broke off again like we see with ISIS.

Quote:

There are many sources to give you. But first start with a book: Justifying Ballistic Missile Defence : Technology, Security and Culture (Peoples and Columba); then start with a concept (revolution in military affairs, critical security studies).

Because what you give me is something that is not at all critical of how language is used to "dominate" the political field xp If the language is powerful, it is hard to challenge if you are not critical and easy to fall prey to.

I'm giving you exact specifics on weapon details and how they operate, who actually made them, what they actually do. You seem to be mixing up a lot of crap, such as guided munitions having DU in them or the soviet backed, Socialist Baathist government of Iraq largely being equipped by the U.S. Not only have you failed to produce any evidence supporting this, but what little you did "know" seemed to be pretty mixed up, or just flat out wrong. I actually know what the weapon's are capable of and have shown you records of how many buildings were actually destroyed. Tests that were done for DU use, even. So, given that they are fairly accurate and are widely used, it's safe to assume that when they said smart munitions avoided a large amount of civilian casualties, it's probably true. People who have projected otherwise either have little to substantiate their claims or, equally awkward evidence.

Your knowledge is predicated on non-Scholarly research. this is my actual field of study. Yours is based on Wikipedia.

Your specifics on Weapons have been proven wrong, look up Marshall Beier he's a scholar that deals directly with defense ministers in the United States regarding the use of weapons AND their inability to do as they are labelled. May I ask what your educational background is ?

You have yet to provide a single source. xp

Wikipedia is a nice aggregate source, but you can check the source's sources. For instance, one of them was national geographic and individuals who actually were there while the war took place, the United Nation's and other internationally respected organizations.

The specifics on my weapons have not been proven wrong xD


Depleted uranium is not a bomb, it doesn't explode. It's used to penetrate through armor due to it's high hardness and strength. To say that some depleted uranium missiles "did not detonate" is to imply that, there are depleted uranium missiles, and that they detonate at all. Depleted uranium is used because of it's mechanical properties, not it's chemical one's. It's extremely hard and strong.

I understand you may not be up on military technology, but you can't say I'm wrong, especially if you haven't really done any research yourself. What your college professor told you isn't necessarily fact. You claim to be educated yet you clearly don't know the first thing you are talking about. If you want scholarly articles, you go ahead and ask. If you can't figure out how to use wikipedia, I'll just show you their sources.

Depleted uranium, JDAM guided bombs etc., from the Federation of American Scientists. Further, it's kind of obvious that Iraq got most it's weapons from the soviet union as, Iraq was socialist at the time and, most of their equipment is soviet and such. There's a list here, compiled from SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. If that's not doing it for you, here's a list of weapons imported by country of origin around the world. [1] Type in Iraq, imports, by country of origin, for between 1969 to 2001 to get the full picture. It's all confirmed, there. The U.S. had very little involvement.


What you're looking at is essentially a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". You're basically saying you're right because you studied it. There's not a chance you're wrong, getting facts or information mixed up, or even potentially were just taught or remembered it wrong? You're just perfect and I should accept your word for it? Even Einstein was wrong about the universe expanding, instead of shrinking, like he thought it was. People are wrong about things at time, Doctors, experts, everyone makes mistakes. It's silly to assume that you're just right without any facts backing up your side. xp

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Suicidesoldier#1

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Procurements

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did it in the name of communism, and atheism is a pillar of communist ideology.


The death toll committed by atheist regimes says otherwise.

Source source source aaaand source. Please show me where atheism is a tenant of communism other than having absolute power concentrated in the state.

Nope. If you're blaming atheism for those acts, then you're counting every act of violence committed by any religious person. And in that case it's child play for me to win this argument.

Nobody's blaming Atheism, the argument is that religion isn't responsible for it anymore than atheism. It's a pretty simple argument to comprehend.

Secondly, the worst genocides in history were done by people who were atheist or espoused atheism. This includes the Nazis, The communists, and the Imperial Japanese.


Hitler's death toll in the concentration camps alone was 13 million, and at least 60 million people died in the war itself. Stalin killed at least 20 million (3 million in the gulags alone), and countless more if the mismanagement and fabrication of famines are counted (at least 40 million), where as Mao killed 40-70 million and enslaved at least 300 million.

Hitler and the Nazi party were widely opposed to religion in general, even going so far as rewriting the 10 commandments (Writing 12). He was particularly opposed to Abrahamic religions, and disliked Christianity since they came from the Jews. Hitler emphasised that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. In a diary entry of 28 December 1939, Joseph Goebbels wrote that "the Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole exclusive role is that of a politician." In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes." He can be quoted as saying "“The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”

The communists were also atheist. Particularly the Marxist-Lenin forms, which is how the USSR was run. "These forms of cooperation and tolerance by no means meant that religion did not need to be eliminated ultimately. Militant atheism was a profound and fundamental philosophical commitment of the ideology, and not simply the personal convictions of those who ran the regime". Fundamentally, Marx and Lenin reject religion and the supernatural, since they believed it was the greatest threat to understanding the material world, and that it clouds their minds of making the "rational decision" to join communism. Marxist–Leninist atheism (Russian: Марксистско-ленинский атеизм) is a part of the wider Marxist–Leninist philosophy (the type of Marxist philosophy found in the Soviet Union), which rejects religion and clergymen, while at the same time advocating a materialist understanding of nature.Marxism–Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism–Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism.

Where as the communist regime tolerated religion albeit trying to annihilate it and given that they controlled whether or not buildings could be built, all the companies were ran by the government etc. it was much harder to practice the religion, such as getting churches built, community centers for this purpose and the like. It was seen as competition for their views, like with the Nazis. The Chinese government is said to be an atheist institution and prohibits party members from belonging to a religion. During Mao Zedong's rule, religious movements were oppressed. Religious leaders were killed, and religious individuals were often denied or had their food reduced. Under Communism, foreign missionaries were expelled, most churches closed and their schools, hospitals and orphanages seized. During the Cultural Revolution, many priests were imprisoned.



Really common knowledge. No-one is arguing that atheism was the cause, just that atheist members committed these acts. The same holds true with religion; "religion" is not culpable for the heinous acts, just fanatic members who happened to hold that particular brand. The argument is that, if you think religious groups have killed more, the worst massacres in recorded history were not done for religious purposes at all. In fact they were done by many in part to eradicate certain religions, Hitler being the most famous example.

Yeah, no. Hitler was raised Christian, cited God continously in his speech and explicitly said his government was based on Christian values. Try again.

The imperialist Japanese were also explicitly not atheist. They revered their emperor as a god, strike one. Their ideology was based explicitly off Japanese nationalism, a huge part of which was Buddhism. Strike two. They also mixed their Shinto beliefs in with their Buddhism and Japanese Nationalism. Not even remotely atheist. Try again.

And as for the broad brush communist regimes, as I've already stated; none of them did what they did in the name of atheism, which IS the actual argument. Please try and keep up. Stop posting explicitly incorrect nonsense.

You might be the one that needs to try again.

Hitler was, at best, an agnosic, and more likely an opportunistic atheist who knew to use all the 'tools' at his disposal to accomplish his desired goals.
But attempting to claim he did what he did as a 'Christian' is beyond a stretch.

Yeah, no, sorry. While it can be argued his religious views were tentatively Christian at best, arguing he was anything remotely close to an atheist is just patent bullshit.

Ignoring all the outward references to god in his speeches and the whole gott mit uns s**t, he wrote explicitly in Mein Kampf that he believed in god and jesus. But nice try.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Old Blue Collar Joe

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Suicidesoldier#1

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Procurements

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did it in the name of communism, and atheism is a pillar of communist ideology.


The death toll committed by atheist regimes says otherwise.

Source source source aaaand source. Please show me where atheism is a tenant of communism other than having absolute power concentrated in the state.

Nope. If you're blaming atheism for those acts, then you're counting every act of violence committed by any religious person. And in that case it's child play for me to win this argument.

Nobody's blaming Atheism, the argument is that religion isn't responsible for it anymore than atheism. It's a pretty simple argument to comprehend.

Secondly, the worst genocides in history were done by people who were atheist or espoused atheism. This includes the Nazis, The communists, and the Imperial Japanese.


Hitler's death toll in the concentration camps alone was 13 million, and at least 60 million people died in the war itself. Stalin killed at least 20 million (3 million in the gulags alone), and countless more if the mismanagement and fabrication of famines are counted (at least 40 million), where as Mao killed 40-70 million and enslaved at least 300 million.

Hitler and the Nazi party were widely opposed to religion in general, even going so far as rewriting the 10 commandments (Writing 12). He was particularly opposed to Abrahamic religions, and disliked Christianity since they came from the Jews. Hitler emphasised that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. In a diary entry of 28 December 1939, Joseph Goebbels wrote that "the Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole exclusive role is that of a politician." In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes." He can be quoted as saying "“The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”

The communists were also atheist. Particularly the Marxist-Lenin forms, which is how the USSR was run. "These forms of cooperation and tolerance by no means meant that religion did not need to be eliminated ultimately. Militant atheism was a profound and fundamental philosophical commitment of the ideology, and not simply the personal convictions of those who ran the regime". Fundamentally, Marx and Lenin reject religion and the supernatural, since they believed it was the greatest threat to understanding the material world, and that it clouds their minds of making the "rational decision" to join communism. Marxist–Leninist atheism (Russian: Марксистско-ленинский атеизм) is a part of the wider Marxist–Leninist philosophy (the type of Marxist philosophy found in the Soviet Union), which rejects religion and clergymen, while at the same time advocating a materialist understanding of nature.Marxism–Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism–Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism.

Where as the communist regime tolerated religion albeit trying to annihilate it and given that they controlled whether or not buildings could be built, all the companies were ran by the government etc. it was much harder to practice the religion, such as getting churches built, community centers for this purpose and the like. It was seen as competition for their views, like with the Nazis. The Chinese government is said to be an atheist institution and prohibits party members from belonging to a religion. During Mao Zedong's rule, religious movements were oppressed. Religious leaders were killed, and religious individuals were often denied or had their food reduced. Under Communism, foreign missionaries were expelled, most churches closed and their schools, hospitals and orphanages seized. During the Cultural Revolution, many priests were imprisoned.



Really common knowledge. No-one is arguing that atheism was the cause, just that atheist members committed these acts. The same holds true with religion; "religion" is not culpable for the heinous acts, just fanatic members who happened to hold that particular brand. The argument is that, if you think religious groups have killed more, the worst massacres in recorded history were not done for religious purposes at all. In fact they were done by many in part to eradicate certain religions, Hitler being the most famous example.

Yeah, no. Hitler was raised Christian, cited God continously in his speech and explicitly said his government was based on Christian values. Try again.

The imperialist Japanese were also explicitly not atheist. They revered their emperor as a god, strike one. Their ideology was based explicitly off Japanese nationalism, a huge part of which was Buddhism. Strike two. They also mixed their Shinto beliefs in with their Buddhism and Japanese Nationalism. Not even remotely atheist. Try again.

And as for the broad brush communist regimes, as I've already stated; none of them did what they did in the name of atheism, which IS the actual argument. Please try and keep up. Stop posting explicitly incorrect nonsense.

You might be the one that needs to try again.

Hitler was, at best, an agnosic, and more likely an opportunistic atheist who knew to use all the 'tools' at his disposal to accomplish his desired goals.
But attempting to claim he did what he did as a 'Christian' is beyond a stretch.

Yeah, no, sorry. While it can be argued his religious views were tentatively Christian at best, arguing he was anything remotely close to an atheist is just patent bullshit.

Ignoring all the outward references to god in his speeches and the whole gott mit uns s**t, he wrote explicitly in Mein Kampf that he believed in god and jesus. But nice try.

Horseshit. You're ignoring is own words. And, just like the politicians of today, they'd say they worshipped the Great ******** Pumpkin if it meant ten votes and would sway the weak to their side.
You can attampt to argue and dispute it, but that's nothing more than you attempting to pin a walrus tail on a penguin. It just won't hold up in water to the known facts and information.

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Old Blue Collar Joe

Plata Plomo y Sangre

Suicidesoldier#1

Nobody's blaming Atheism, the argument is that religion isn't responsible for it anymore than atheism. It's a pretty simple argument to comprehend.

Secondly, the worst genocides in history were done by people who were atheist or espoused atheism. This includes the Nazis, The communists, and the Imperial Japanese.


Hitler's death toll in the concentration camps alone was 13 million, and at least 60 million people died in the war itself. Stalin killed at least 20 million (3 million in the gulags alone), and countless more if the mismanagement and fabrication of famines are counted (at least 40 million), where as Mao killed 40-70 million and enslaved at least 300 million.

Hitler and the Nazi party were widely opposed to religion in general, even going so far as rewriting the 10 commandments (Writing 12). He was particularly opposed to Abrahamic religions, and disliked Christianity since they came from the Jews. Hitler emphasised that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. In a diary entry of 28 December 1939, Joseph Goebbels wrote that "the Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole exclusive role is that of a politician." In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes." He can be quoted as saying "“The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”

The communists were also atheist. Particularly the Marxist-Lenin forms, which is how the USSR was run. "These forms of cooperation and tolerance by no means meant that religion did not need to be eliminated ultimately. Militant atheism was a profound and fundamental philosophical commitment of the ideology, and not simply the personal convictions of those who ran the regime". Fundamentally, Marx and Lenin reject religion and the supernatural, since they believed it was the greatest threat to understanding the material world, and that it clouds their minds of making the "rational decision" to join communism. Marxist–Leninist atheism (Russian: Марксистско-ленинский атеизм) is a part of the wider Marxist–Leninist philosophy (the type of Marxist philosophy found in the Soviet Union), which rejects religion and clergymen, while at the same time advocating a materialist understanding of nature.Marxism–Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism–Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism.

Where as the communist regime tolerated religion albeit trying to annihilate it and given that they controlled whether or not buildings could be built, all the companies were ran by the government etc. it was much harder to practice the religion, such as getting churches built, community centers for this purpose and the like. It was seen as competition for their views, like with the Nazis. The Chinese government is said to be an atheist institution and prohibits party members from belonging to a religion. During Mao Zedong's rule, religious movements were oppressed. Religious leaders were killed, and religious individuals were often denied or had their food reduced. Under Communism, foreign missionaries were expelled, most churches closed and their schools, hospitals and orphanages seized. During the Cultural Revolution, many priests were imprisoned.



Really common knowledge. No-one is arguing that atheism was the cause, just that atheist members committed these acts. The same holds true with religion; "religion" is not culpable for the heinous acts, just fanatic members who happened to hold that particular brand. The argument is that, if you think religious groups have killed more, the worst massacres in recorded history were not done for religious purposes at all. In fact they were done by many in part to eradicate certain religions, Hitler being the most famous example.

Yeah, no. Hitler was raised Christian, cited God continously in his speech and explicitly said his government was based on Christian values. Try again.

The imperialist Japanese were also explicitly not atheist. They revered their emperor as a god, strike one. Their ideology was based explicitly off Japanese nationalism, a huge part of which was Buddhism. Strike two. They also mixed their Shinto beliefs in with their Buddhism and Japanese Nationalism. Not even remotely atheist. Try again.

And as for the broad brush communist regimes, as I've already stated; none of them did what they did in the name of atheism, which IS the actual argument. Please try and keep up. Stop posting explicitly incorrect nonsense.

You might be the one that needs to try again.

Hitler was, at best, an agnosic, and more likely an opportunistic atheist who knew to use all the 'tools' at his disposal to accomplish his desired goals.
But attempting to claim he did what he did as a 'Christian' is beyond a stretch.

Yeah, no, sorry. While it can be argued his religious views were tentatively Christian at best, arguing he was anything remotely close to an atheist is just patent bullshit.

Ignoring all the outward references to god in his speeches and the whole gott mit uns s**t, he wrote explicitly in Mein Kampf that he believed in god and jesus. But nice try.

Horseshit. You're ignoring is own words. And, just like the politicians of today, they'd say they worshipped the Great ******** Pumpkin if it meant ten votes and would sway the weak to their side.
You can attampt to argue and dispute it, but that's nothing more than you attempting to pin a walrus tail on a penguin. It just won't hold up in water to the known facts and information.

His own words, huh?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
--Mein Kampf

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Want me to keep going? Or is here where you do the "but nuh uh he didn't mean it" shuffle, with nothing to back you.

Not only that, but the anti sentisim latent in German and European culture, the hundreds of years of fulmination against the Jews as a people, can ONLY be laid at the feet of Christianity. So even if you had something to back your nonsense about him being an atheist which he expressly was ******** not, you'd still be full of s**t because what enabled Hitler was a sentiment of anti Semitic fervor drummed into Europeans on mother's knee for hundreds of years. So yeah there's some ******** afoot alright, but it isn't from me.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Yad Yippah

I usually joke and people find my humor offensive because I joke about serious issues.

For example:

Saudi women be like, "My God, I just found out my BFF is a Shia. ********!"

You call what you do humor? My, you have given yourself quite the generous compliment.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

I blame a lot of the polarization on the internet.

The internet is not a great cultivator of genuine dialog, and genuine dialog is a per-requisite for moderate discourse and the give-and-take that is needed to make society and relationships work best.

[nitznitz]

Riviera de la Mancha

I blame a lot of the polarization on the internet.

The internet is not a great cultivator of genuine dialog, and genuine dialog is a per-requisite for moderate discourse and the give-and-take that is needed to make society and relationships work best.

Honestly, I agree with you there.

[Anouska]

We live in a tough socio-economic climate and sadly radicalisation is a reflection of the general malaise people are feeling about contempary society. Under these conditions people have a tendency to become attracted to alternate ideologies that offer up explanations and solutions regarding the messed up reality we live in.
However I have to say that radicalisation like feminazi, militant atheism aren't exactly real for,s of radicalisation. They're just derogatory slurs made by people who don't like either atheism or feminism. The OP needs to be careful not to conflate what is real with what is made up. For example the rise of the far right is real, whereas the rise of the femnazis is completely fabricated by anti-feminists, usually men's rights activists. Aside from that, interesting thread!

[nitznitz]

Anouska

We live in a tough socio-economic climate and sadly radicalisation is a reflection of the general malaise people are feeling about contempary society. Under these conditions people have a tendency to become attracted to alternate ideologies that offer up explanations and solutions regarding the messed up reality we live in.
However I have to say that radicalisation like feminazi, militant atheism aren't exactly real for,s of radicalisation. They're just derogatory slurs made by people who don't like either atheism or feminism. The OP needs to be careful not to conflate what is real with what is made up. For example the rise of the far right is real, whereas the rise of the femnazis is completely fabricated by anti-feminists, usually men's rights activists. Aside from that, interesting thread!

I used those to make a point. The other sides' names(in this case 'sexist worm') were also derogatory to show how we see the other side as a one-dimensional creature in need of conversion and unworthy of being listened to.

[Valthier Twilight Shadow]

Anouska

We live in a tough socio-economic climate and sadly radicalisation is a reflection of the general malaise people are feeling about contempary society. Under these conditions people have a tendency to become attracted to alternate ideologies that offer up explanations and solutions regarding the messed up reality we live in.
However I have to say that radicalisation like feminazi, militant atheism aren't exactly real for,s of radicalisation. They're just derogatory slurs made by people who don't like either atheism or feminism. The OP needs to be careful not to conflate what is real with what is made up. For example the rise of the far right is real, whereas the rise of the femnazis is completely fabricated by anti-feminists, usually men's rights activists. Aside from that, interesting thread!

ehh.... "feminazi" isn't real -- though their are misandrists who would fit the bill of feminazi. they may claim to be Feminists, but are not.

but militant atheism is a real thing. it has been for a long time.

[Anouska]

Valthier Twilight Shadow

Anouska

We live in a tough socio-economic climate and sadly radicalisation is a reflection of the general malaise people are feeling about contempary society. Under these conditions people have a tendency to become attracted to alternate ideologies that offer up explanations and solutions regarding the messed up reality we live in.
However I have to say that radicalisation like feminazi, militant atheism aren't exactly real for,s of radicalisation. They're just derogatory slurs made by people who don't like either atheism or feminism. The OP needs to be careful not to conflate what is real with what is made up. For example the rise of the far right is real, whereas the rise of the femnazis is completely fabricated by anti-feminists, usually men's rights activists. Aside from that, interesting thread!

ehh.... "feminazi" isn't real -- though their are misandrists who would fit the bill of feminazi. they may claim to be Feminists, but are not.

but militant atheism is a real thing. it has been for a long time.

People who are anti-feminist claim they are real, but when their claims are scrutinised it's normally a case of them calling some poor sod that word because she did something or said something they didn't like. Misandry really has nothing to do with it. Again these terms are slurs and they are not labels that people actually use for themselves to describe their ideological beliefs.

And militant atheism is not a thing. People have just been throwing that term around for a long time, militant is just a prefix that is slapped in front of any ideological label to make it sound unreasonable I.e. Militant feminist, militant Christian, militant socialist, militant whatever. They're not actual groups or organisations with their own distinct philosophy.

[Valthier Twilight Shadow]

Anouska

Valthier Twilight Shadow

Anouska

We live in a tough socio-economic climate and sadly radicalisation is a reflection of the general malaise people are feeling about contempary society. Under these conditions people have a tendency to become attracted to alternate ideologies that offer up explanations and solutions regarding the messed up reality we live in.
However I have to say that radicalisation like feminazi, militant atheism aren't exactly real for,s of radicalisation. They're just derogatory slurs made by people who don't like either atheism or feminism. The OP needs to be careful not to conflate what is real with what is made up. For example the rise of the far right is real, whereas the rise of the femnazis is completely fabricated by anti-feminists, usually men's rights activists. Aside from that, interesting thread!

ehh.... "feminazi" isn't real -- though their are misandrists who would fit the bill of feminazi. they may claim to be Feminists, but are not.

but militant atheism is a real thing. it has been for a long time.

People who are anti-feminist claim they are real, but when their claims are scrutinised it's normally a case of them calling some poor sod that word because she did something or said something they didn't like. Misandry really has nothing to do with it. Again these terms are slurs and they are not labels that people actually use for themselves to describe their ideological beliefs.

And militant atheism is not a thing. People have just been throwing that term around for a long time, militant is just a prefix that is slapped in front of any ideological label to make it sound unreasonable I.e. Militant feminist, militant Christian, militant socialist, militant whatever. They're not actual groups or organisations with their own distinct philosophy.

I agree with you on the first point, absolutely. 100% solidarity there.

but militant atheism IS a thing. it has been ever since joseph stalin and mao zedong.

[Anouska]

Valthier Twilight Shadow

Anouska

Valthier Twilight Shadow

Anouska

We live in a tough socio-economic climate and sadly radicalisation is a reflection of the general malaise people are feeling about contempary society. Under these conditions people have a tendency to become attracted to alternate ideologies that offer up explanations and solutions regarding the messed up reality we live in.
However I have to say that radicalisation like feminazi, militant atheism aren't exactly real for,s of radicalisation. They're just derogatory slurs made by people who don't like either atheism or feminism. The OP needs to be careful not to conflate what is real with what is made up. For example the rise of the far right is real, whereas the rise of the femnazis is completely fabricated by anti-feminists, usually men's rights activists. Aside from that, interesting thread!

ehh.... "feminazi" isn't real -- though their are misandrists who would fit the bill of feminazi. they may claim to be Feminists, but are not.

but militant atheism is a real thing. it has been for a long time.

People who are anti-feminist claim they are real, but when their claims are scrutinised it's normally a case of them calling some poor sod that word because she did something or said something they didn't like. Misandry really has nothing to do with it. Again these terms are slurs and they are not labels that people actually use for themselves to describe their ideological beliefs.

And militant atheism is not a thing. People have just been throwing that term around for a long time, militant is just a prefix that is slapped in front of any ideological label to make it sound unreasonable I.e. Militant feminist, militant Christian, militant socialist, militant whatever. They're not actual groups or organisations with their own distinct philosophy.

I agree with you on the first point, absolutely. 100% solidarity there.

but militant atheism IS a thing. it has been ever since joseph stalin and mao zedong.

Yay for first point <3

Second point, still don't agree and I'll explain why and you can tell me what you think smile

To me it's not a real thing because it has no ideological foundation or unifying quality that would make me believe that this was an actual group of people who existed in the world. There is no prominent group that lays claim to the label.

People like Stalin and Mao are described by others as militant atheists because of their political suppression of religion, however they probably didn't describe themselves as such. Here the militant is chosen purely as an adjective to subjectively describe a situation perceived by an outside party, rather than a reference to a specific ideology. For example, I could use the term militant chritianity to describe the reformation by King Henry VIII, or the several hundred years of Spanish Inquisition by various Spanish monarchs as militant Christianity.

Equally, the examples you use of militant atheism, is not equatable with 'militant atheism' we see on the Internet. There is a massive difference between an atheist dictator with actual political power, to some atheist kid pissing off a group of creationists in forum and ending up being called a militant atheist because someone doesn't like his opinions.