My Beliefs revisited

Quote:

My thinking is that it is safer to learn to live with the status quo, since during times of upheavel certain groups are targeted as having been too loyal to the prior king. Get it?

Your admission that it's best to align oneself to the toughest group of gangsters speaks to your sense of survival, Foof, but it doesn't say much about you as a human being.

I do not take advice, nor opinions, from foreigners.

Part of my being a [____] American Jew.

Have you ever actually met anyone who would rather see someone starve to death than part with a couple of hundred bucks?

If the taxes I pay help someone who really needs help, that's fine.

Quote:

Have you ever actually met anyone who would rather see someone starve to death than part with a couple of hundred bucks?

Being bombed into oblivion, being affected by chemical weapons, being tortured being tortured to death, having one's breasts cutoff, having an electric prod stuck up your rear are only a few of the things that these anyones seemingly are content to see and know of and remain silent, Finn.

Well, first of all they don't really believe these things have been perpetrated by the US government (at least not all of them), so it's a stretch to say they see and know of them and respond in any given way.

I'm afraid that you don't appreciate at all that, assuming for arguments sake you are correct about all of this and actually have irrefutable proof of it, the manner in which you deliver your message obliterates the message.

You consistently avoid answer the question I have repeatedly posed to you: "What are you doing to relieve the suffering of all of the victims of US atrocities?" I suspect that you think you are doing your part by confronting people like me and rabel with "the truth." Now this might be a worthy contribution to the cause if you had even the slightest chance of actually "educating" someone, but your hectoring, and insulting manner eliminates any such chance.

I'm not sure I would buy that 1 + 1 = 2 if my math teacher screamed at me every day that it was so and that I was morally reprehensible for not believing him. It wouldn't take very long for me to totally shut him off and completely disregard "the truth" he was delivering.

You seem to think that direct and flagrant confrontation is the only way to deliver a message, and it seems as if you might believe that you are somehow compromising your principles if you don't shove your version of "the truth" down everyone's throat. The reality is, I'm afraid, that you are doing your cause far more harm than good. There are quite a few people in this forum who are more than willing to believe that the US has been and is the monster you claim, and yet you've driven even them into ignoring you and in some childish comments refering to you as "it."

At some point a rational person would come to the conclusion that his mission has utterly failed, and a different approach is necessary. That you can't seem to see this makes me question just how rational you are.

Believe me, these comments are predicated on a presumption that you are truly concerned about this issue, that it means very much to you and that you are not just some nasty, crazy **** that get's off screaming on a soapbox at the corner of Crazy and Mental streets.

Of course if I'm wrong you'll continue in the current vein, and maybe you can't recalculate your approach and so I may be right and you will remain the subject of scorn and ridicule in this forum, but I am serious when I say that you have no hope in achieving anything productive in this manner.

None.

I really don't care much whether or not anyone believes what I contend, but you do (or at least it seems you do).

I'm not trying to educate anyone, you are.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that their assumptions are terribly flawed, but you are.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Your ability to rationally communicate was demonstrated by your exchanges with gracie. You're capable of communicating in a way that doesn't make you seem like an obsessive scold. Maybe you should try more of that.

Quote:

If the taxes I pay help someone who really needs help, that's fine.

If the taxes you pay also contribute to the above, is that fine too?

Well, first of all they don't really believe these things have been perpetrated by the US government (at least not all of them), so it's a stretch to say they see and know of them and respond in any given way.

You consistently avoid answer the question I have repeatedly posed to you: "What are you doing to relieve the suffering of all of the victims of US atrocities?"

I read your articles and I wasn't persuaded.

Even assuming the US motivations for involvement in Korea were utterly depraved, it is assanine to suggest that Korea would be thriving if North Korea had won the war they started against South Korea.

It is equally assanine to suggest that given China's involvement (which you can't seem to be bothered with) that anything other than a North Korean victory would have been the result.

Finally, while South Korea, clearly went through a less then glorious procession to democracy, their "crimes" were nothing in comparison to what the North Korean regime has perpetrated on it's citizens and would have perpertrated on South Koreans had it won.

Cumings said he was able to draw upon a lot of South Korean research that has come out since the nation democratized in the 1990s about the massacres of Korean civilians. This has been the subject of painstaking research by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Seoul and Cumings describes the results as “horrific.” Atrocities by “our side, the South Koreans (ran) six to one ahead of the North Koreans in terms of killing civilians, whereas most Americans would think North Koreans would just as soon kill a civilian to look at him.” The numbers of civilians killed in South Korea by the government, Cumings said, even dwarfed Spaniards murdered by dictator Francisco Franco, the general who overthrew the Madrid government in the 1936-1939 civil war. Cumings said about 100,000 South Koreans were killed in political violence between 1945 and 1950 and perhaps as many as 200,000 more were killed during the early months of the war. This compares to about 200,000 civilians put to death in Spain in Franco’s political massacres. In all, Korea suffered 3 million civilian dead during the 1950-53 war, more killed than the 2.7 million Japan suffered during all of World War II.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-korean-war-the-unknown-war-the-coverup-of-us-war-crimes

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-war-against-the-people-of-korea-the-historical-record-of-us-war-crimes/5350591

America’s War against the People of Korea: The Historical Record of US War Crimes
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 22, 2013

...

There was no “Liberation” of Korea following the entry of US forces. Quite the opposite.

As we recall, a US military government was established in South Korea on September 8, 1945, three weeks after the surrender of Japan on August 15th 1945. Moreover, Japanese officials in South Korea assisted the US Army Military Government (USAMG) (1945-48) led by General Hodge in ensuring this transition. Japanese colonial administrators in Seoul as well as their Korean police officials worked hand in glove with the new colonial masters.

From the outset, the US military government refused to recognize the provisional government of the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK), which was committed to major social reforms including land distribution, laws protecting the rights of workers, minimum wage legislation and the reunification of North and South Korea.

The PRK was non-aligned with an anti-colonial mandate, calling for the “establishment of close relations with the United States, USSR, England, and China, and positive opposition to any foreign influences interfering with the domestic affairs of the state.”2

The PRK was abolished by military decree in September 1945 by the USAMG. There was no democracy, no liberation no independence.

While Japan was treated as a defeated Empire, South Korea was identified as a colonial territory to be administered under US military rule and US occupation forces.

America’s handpicked appointee Sygman Rhee [left] was flown into Seoul in October 1945, in General Douglas MacArthur’s personal airplane.

What underlies the 1953 Armistice Agreement is that one of the warring parties, namely the US has consistently threatened to wage war on the DPRK for the last 60 years.

The US has on countless occasions violated the Armistice Agreement. It has remained on a war footing. Casually ignored by the Western media and the international community, the US has actively deployed nuclear weapons targeted at North Korea for more than half a century in violation of article 13b) of the Armistice agreement.

The armistice remains in force. The US is still at war with Korea. It is not a peace treaty, a peace agreement was never signed.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Foofie...

...your posts reminded me that there always have been people out in the street who supported the right of the king and his barons to rule over them...and to have, by far, the lion's share of what was available.

It is pathetic that there always have been...

...it is much more pathetic that there still is.

Well, "pathetic" is your choice of words. My thinking is that it is safer to learn to live with the status quo, since during times of upheavel certain groups are targeted as having been too loyal to the prior king. Get it?

I prefer not to. You can remain ignorant regarding my thinking.

.although I prefer to suppose you simply cannot explain it.

Below you will find a description of Crimes Against Humanity. The US has done all of those things myriad times for over two centuries.

That looks like circumstantial evidence to me,

and Islam has us beat by 12 centuries.

That's a ludicrous comparison. The US has only been around for a short time. A comparison to Christianity would be more apt.

I realize just how difficult it is for you to think given how much crap has been jammed into your brain but to discuss these issues rationally you have to think.