Does Gun Control Prove Liberalism To Be Fundamentally EVIL??

I don 't understand how it was good for any German to vote for the Nazis,

Another inane OmSig tangent. But let's run with it for a bit, Dave.

It was "good" in the sense that the Nazis promised to restore Germany to her rightful place.
The Nazis only had less than a ten year run [January 1933 thru April 1945 is a 1O year run,
according to JTT's INANE math] and in that time they certainly did do a lot of grave damage.

Compare that to the US, which has been inflicting this same grave damage upon the innocents of the world for well over a century. The citizens of the US who have voted, time and again, for governments that have been every bit as brutal, every bit as murderous in volume as the Nazis were, are no different than the average German citizen.

I reject that out of hand, as foolishness.

Pol Pot's Death
In The Propaganda System

by Edward S. Herman

The death of Pol Pot on April 15, 1998 unleashed a media barrage of indignation and sanitized history that illustrates well their role as agents in a system of propaganda. While Pol Pot was undoubtedly a mass killer and evil force, and deserves angry condemnation, the U.S. media's indignation ebbs and flows in accord with the demands of U.S. foreign policy. In the cases of both Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, periods of U. S. support of these criminals were accompanied by virtual silence on their misbehavior, whereas in times of official hostility the media have shifted to furious but hypocritical indignation, along with carefully modulated history. Today, no longer useful in punishing Vietnam, and with no economic interests anxious to protect his image (as with Indonesia's president Suharto), Pol Pot has resumed his role as an object lesson in the dangers of communism and attempts to create a "utopia of equality."

Media Problems

There are, however, three problems that the media have had to confront in assailing Pol Pot for committing genocide in Cambodia. One is that the Cambodian genocide-a "decade of genocide" according to a Finnish government research inquiry-had two phases, in the first of which-19691975-the U.S. was the genocidist.

In that period, the U.S. Air Force dropped over 500,000 tons of bombs on rural Cambodia, killing scores of thousands, creating a huge refugee population, and radicalizing the countryside. The number of U.S.-caused deaths in the first phase is comparable to, or greater than, CIA and other serious estimates of Pol Pot killings by execution (50,000-400,000). Cambodia experts like Milton Osborne and David Chandler have contended that the devastation hardened Khmer Rouge attitudes and made for vengeful and violent behavior. Furthermore, when the Khmer Rouge took over in April 1975, the country was shattered, starvation and disease were already rampant-8,000 people a day were dying in Phnom Penh alone-and these residual effects of phase one were certain to take a toll in the years to follow. In short, focusing solely on Pol Pot and making the U.S. an innocent bystander in the Cambodian genocide requires well-constructed blinders.

A second problem for the media is that following the ouster of Pol Pot by the Vietnamese in December 1978, Pol Pot's forces found a safe haven in Thailand, a U.S. client state, and for the next 15 years or more were aided and protected there by Thai, Chinese, British, and U.S. authorities. The U.S. backed Pol Pot's retention of Cambodia's seat in the UN after his ouster (which was greeted with outrage in the West and was the grounds for intensified economic and political warfare against Vietnam). This support was designed to hurt Vietnam, which had occupied Cambodia and installed friendly Hun Sen government in place of Pol Pot. When Vietnam sought a settlement in the late 1980s, the U.S. insisted strenuously that Pol Pot be included in the "peace process" with "the same rights, freedoms and opportunities" as any other party. In anticipation of a settlement, in the early l990s the U.S. and its allies not only protected Pol Pot's forces from defeat by the Cambodian army, they helped him rebuild his strength and standing. During this period, the U.S. (and UN) refused to allow the Pol Pot regime to be referred to as genocidal. In order to oust the Vietnam-supported government, the U.S. strove to preserve Pol Pot and make him a significant force in the political struggle in Cambodia.

It is obvious that its long, active support of Pol Pot, as well as its role in the first phase of the genocide, makes the U.S. sponsorship of a Cambodia Documentation Center to assemble evidence solely on Pol Pot's crimes, and its recent alleged interest in bringing him to trial, dishonest, hypocritical, and problematic. Wasn't the U.S. support from 1979-1995 legitimizing? Isn't the U.S. implicated in his numerous crimes in cross-border raids, 1979-1998, which killed large numbers of Cambodians?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/PolPotDeath_Propaganda.html

[January 1933 thru April 1945 is a 1O year run,

JTT does not like it, when I bring up arithmetic.

January 1933 thru April 1945 is a 1O year run,

I was referring to the activities that would have led to him being on the docket at Nuremberg, Dave.
That's the only fair way to compare him to the actions of the US.

The Nazis only had less than a ten year run and in that time they certainly did do a lot of grave damage.

JTT does not like it, when I bring up arithmetic.

No, I do like it that you seem able to do simple mathematics, Dave.

It's your great failings in most other areas that trouble
me - ex lawyer, Mensan, thick as a brick, makes and breaks promises
as easily as he breathes, which, as you know, Om, is simply lying.

ex-lawyer--that's the best type.

Rap

What u wrote is FALSE. Lying is intentional deception.

What u wrote is FALSE. Lying is intentional deception.

So you didn't mean to lie,

you lied because you're as thick as mince.

I did not deceive anyone, nor did I intend to do so.

You did deceive someone, you deceived yourself.

That is unintelligible.

So you didn't mean to lie, you lied because you're as thick as mince...

That is unintelligible.

To you, maybe.

Anti-gunners are evil

If the wolves are devouring the sheep,
the answer of the victim disarmament people
is to pull the teeth from the mouths of the SHEEP.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

If the wolves are devouring the sheep,
the answer of the victim disarmament people
is to pull the teeth from the mouths of the SHEEP.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

That must be Mensan type "logic".

Well, you've shown us your "logic", Om. It's been sadly wanting.