Was Communism really as dangerous to pro-NAP Americans as Zionism is today?

[Macamus Prime]

Communism was made into a villian, by capitalists, in fear of their money being shared. So, the witch hunts began. And then, millions were sent to their death in Vietnam.

Zionism hasn't done anything close to that. They are oppressing people and defying the world. But, they don't care - much like the capitalists didn't care about the death and destruction they caused to "save" their money. In this case, the Zionists are out to save Israel,... even if it means everything is destroyed around it, and itself. There is no option or consideration for peace.

I know, I know; teh muzlimz tru teh rockz frist!! {:*-( ,... ok, so Israel responds by invading other countries and killing anything that is within the area of a terrorist. Even innocent children. Which they dismiss as an evil, because the terrorists shouldn't have attacked 1st. They have thrown their regard for human life out the window. Even their own, since they are hiding nuclear warheads. Who the fuck are they going to bomb and NOT get fallout, which would result in Israel being an unlivable wasteland?! And, shut the fuck up if you view that as just saber rattling. Israel is just as evil as it's enemies.

I doubt they will ever invade the rests of the world - unless this whole "save Israel" is just the 1st step to world domination. And, if you believe that,... well, you must be wearing a hat made of lead, because the mind control waves haven't gotten to you yet, like they have to me.

 

[QuantumPion]

So, in essence, Palestinians must pay the price for european
evil actions..??...
Logicaly, a tiny part of germany would have been the decision....

Kind of paradoxal to brand someone moronic and then start
your own twisted logic monologue...

The only price the palestinians are paying is for their multiple declarations of war against Israel and attempted genocide.

And since the arabs were on the side of the Nazi's during WW2, I think Palestine technically qualifies as "a tiny part of Germany".

 

[QuantumPion]

Communism was made into a villian, by capitalists, in fear of their money being shared. So, the witch hunts began. And then, millions were sent to their death in Vietnam.

Zionism hasn't done anything close to that. They are oppressing people and defying the world. But, they don't care - much like the capitalists didn't care about the death and destruction they caused to "save" their money. In this case, the Zionists are out to save Israel,... even if it means everything is destroyed around it, and itself. There is no option or consideration for peace.

I know, I know; teh muzlimz tru teh rockz frist!! {:*-( ,... ok, so Israel responds by invading other countries and killing anything that is within the area of a terrorist. Even innocent children. Which they dismiss as an evil, because the terrorists shouldn't have attacked 1st. They have thrown their regard for human life out the window. Even their own, since they are hiding nuclear warheads. Who the fuck are they going to bomb and NOT get fallout, which would result in Israel being an unlivable wasteland?! And, shut the fuck up if you view that as just saber rattling. Israel is just as evil as it's enemies.

I doubt they will ever invade the rests of the world - unless this whole "save Israel" is just the 1st step to world domination. And, if you believe that,... well, you must be wearing a hat made of lead, because the mind control waves haven't gotten to you yet, like they have to me.

Communism made itself the villain of humanity when it murdered roughly one hundred million people, an order of magnitude larger than any war over religion or land.

 

[piasabird]

What is a pro-nap ?

 

[Genx87]

Communism was made into a villian, by capitalists, in fear of their money being shared. So, the witch hunts began. And then, millions were sent to their death in Vietnam.

You cant be serious. Open up a history book. Capitalists didnt build walls around communist countries to keep their people in.

 

[Anarchist420]

What is a pro-nap ?

NAP=Non-aggression principle. The state violates it by nature of being a state, although some states violate it more than others. The Military State of Israel is very anti-NAP, just as the Federal government is.

The Articles of Confederation could only minimally violate the NAP and that would only be if it declared war against a country and invaded the country it declared war on. But that would be unlikely to happen without a standing army anyway. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I could live happily if I was governed by the Articles of Confederation as it really didn't violate the NAP.

 

[QuantumPion]

NAP=Non-aggression principle. The state violates it by nature of being a state, although some states violate it more than others. The Military State of Israel is very anti-NAP, just as the Federal government is.

The Articles of Confederation could only minimally violate the NAP and that would only be if it declared war against a country and invaded the country it declared war on. But that would be unlikely to happen without a standing army anyway. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I could live happily if I was governed by the Articles of Confederation as it really didn't violate the NAP.

Why do you have such a boner for the articles of the confederation? I don't think you really know anything about it and why it failed.

 

[Anarchist420]

Why do you have such a boner for the articles of the confederation? I don't think you really know anything about it and why it failed.

I know a lot about the Articles of Confederation and why it didn't fail.

The sovereignty rested completely with the states, they could control their own trade policies, there was no standing military, 9/13 of the States were required to declare war, receive ambassadors or for a treaty, it required unanimity to amend, it had few enumerated powers (mainly the ones I listed above). There was no compulsory taxation, and that works better anyway.

It worked fine, people need to get over that. If it hadn't worked fine, then why were Adams and even Washington so unpopular if the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Why was Jefferson so popular if the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Why wouldn't the Constitution have been ratified if it had been up for national popular referendum if the Articles of Confederation was such a failure? Why couldn't they get all 13 states to ratify the Constitution without using force if the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Why did Washington and the Federalists force Rhode Island into accepting the Constitution, if the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Shay's rebellion was able to be suppressed without a national standing army, even though it should not have been suppressed. It was a tax revolt mainly (the state of massachusetts was taking 1/3 of peoples' income from property taxes), not mainly a debtor's revolt as your government textbooks would have you believe. 8 years isn't enough time to give a law before getting rid of it and the 222 years we've had the Constitution, it's clear it has been a failure for most people, regardless if few realize it. The Confederation was becoming stable anyway by the time the Constitution was ratified.

Further, just because some oppurtunistic NE merchants and nationalists had some Convention in secret because they knew it could never pass legally, doesn't mean that the Articles of Confederation failed. The Antifederalists were on average, 10 years older and much wiser than the Federalists, and the Federalists got the Constitution ratified illegally and through lies. For example, madison said in the Federalist paper that the powers of the states would be numerous and indefinite. Then, he refused to have a stronger states' rights amendment when he was in the House and wrote the bill of rights, because he said the government should have implied powers. So, that should smash anyones' argument that the Constitution was not intended to be a living document.

Things have sucked under the Constitution. There has been perpetual debt, perpetual war, perpetual democratic plutocracy, perpetual tyranny, and basically, perpetual chaos under the Constitution, which is everything the framers intended for. Madison and Hamilton were exactly the same and they were the makers of the Constitution, not Jefferson.

 

[QuantumPion]

I know a lot about the Articles of Confederation and why it didn't fail.

The sovereignty rested completely with the states, they could control their own trade policies, there was no standing military, 9/13 of the States were required to declare war, receive ambassadors or for a treaty, it required unanimity to amend, it had few enumerated powers (mainly the ones I listed above). There was no compulsory taxation, and that works better anyway.

It worked fine, people need to get over that. If it hadn't worked fine, then why were Adams and even Washington so unpopular if the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Why was Jefferson so popular if the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Why wouldn't the Constitution have been ratified if it had been up for national popular referendum if the Articles of Confederation was such a failure? Why couldn't they get all 13 states to ratify the Constitution without using force if the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Why did Washington and the Federalists force Rhode Island into accepting the Constitution, if the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Shay's rebellion was able to be suppressed without a national standing army, even though it should not have been suppressed. It was a tax revolt mainly (the state of massachusetts was taking 1/3 of peoples' income from property taxes), not mainly a debtor's revolt as your government textbooks would have you believe. 8 years isn't enough time to give a law before getting rid of it and the 222 years we've had the Constitution, it's clear it has been a failure for most people, regardless if few realize it. The Confederation was becoming stable anyway by the time the Constitution was ratified.

Further, just because some oppurtunistic NE merchants and nationalists had some Convention in secret because they knew it could never pass legally, doesn't mean that the Articles of Confederation failed. The Antifederalists were on average, 10 years older and much wiser than the Federalists, and the Federalists got the Constitution ratified illegally and through lies. For example, madison said in the Federalist paper that the powers of the states would be numerous and indefinite. Then, he refused to have a stronger states' rights amendment when he was in the House and wrote the bill of rights, because he said the government should have implied powers. So, that should smash anyones' argument that the Constitution was not intended to be a living document.

Things have sucked under the Constitution. There has been perpetual debt, perpetual war, perpetual democratic plutocracy, perpetual tyranny, and basically, perpetual chaos under the Constitution, which is everything the framers intended for. Madison and Hamilton were exactly the same and they were the makers of the Constitution, not Jefferson.

Ok look dude, you have a seriously one-sided and romanticized version of events here. You may want to read up about the articles and the constitution from sources other than your anarchist blogs to get a second opinion. It's not a good idea to get all your information from a single source, your entire ideology and world view will become skewed in group-think mentality.

 

[wuliheron]

Ok look dude, you have a seriously one-sided and romanticized version of events here. You may want to read up about the articles and the constitution from sources other than your anarchist blogs to get a second opinion. It's not a good idea to get all your information from a single source, your entire ideology and world view will become skewed in group-think mentality.

His problem isn't group-think and you're wasting your breath. You might as well try convincing someone in a psych ward that UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, and Loch Ness monster are not real. The lights are on, but nobody is home.

 

[Freshgeardude]

So, in essence, Palestinians must pay the price for european
evil actions..??...
Logicaly, a tiny part of germany would have been the decision....

Kind of paradoxal to brand someone moronic and then start
your own twisted logic monologue...

revisionist history.


The holocaust was NOT the the deciding factor on zionism. it existed 50 years (aprox) before the holocaust.

google the word Pogrom.

that wasnt in germany alone.



and guess what? World War One.

the ottoman empire fell, british mandate ruled.

so in essence, a world war changed the playing field.

now the UN, UNRWA, and the arab league keeps the palestinians where they are to make israel look like the bad guys.


the people of israel did not blindly enter the british mandate, killed thousands and made its home israel.

they legally immigrated from the ottoman empire times to the british mandate times and legally bought land.

then, the UN decided to give them a home.

so point the finger at the UN if anyone, they created the mess, and they keep it a mess with the UNRWA.

and land seriously is not a problem.

if the palestinians wanted to resettle, they have had plenty of time to, just like the jews who were displaced because of the 1948 war and 1967 war in arab countries, where they were expelled simply because they were jewish

 

[Freshgeardude]

Zionism hasn't done anything close to that. They are oppressing people and defying the world. But, they don't care - much like the capitalists didn't care about the death and destruction they caused to "save" their money. In this case, the Zionists are out to save Israel,... even if it means everything is destroyed around it, and itself. There is no option or consideration for peace.

really, asking for peace in its declaration, making peace treaties with few of its neighbors, and continuously asking for peace since its existance truely means they want to kill everyone.

I know, I know; teh muzlimz tru teh rockz frist!! {:*-( ,... ok, so Israel responds by invading other countries and killing anything that is within the area of a terrorist. Even innocent children. Which they dismiss as an evil, because the terrorists shouldn't have attacked 1st. They have thrown their regard for human life out the window. Even their own, since they are hiding nuclear warheads. Who the fuck are they going to bomb and NOT get fallout, which would result in Israel being an unlivable wasteland?! And, shut the fuck up if you view that as just saber rattling. Israel is just as evil as it's enemies.

no, israel doesnt blindly invade a country for shits and giggles and then gets off on killing hundreds of civilians.

for the recent lebanon war: israel dropped thousands of pamphlets warning people to leave, they put up warnings in towns days before the tanks rolled in. Almost guaranteeing the enemy will flee. all to protect civilians.

for gaza: israel again dropped thousands of pamphlets warning people to leave. they also called thousands of phones across gaza and warned people in arabic to leave if there are weapons in their homes.

Israel goes well beyond any other countries efforts to avoid civilian casualties.

when the day comes that a single terrorist, hiding in the basement of an apartment building with thousands of weapons by his side can be killed without the threat to others, that day israel would use that weapon.

Israel fights a war where anyone can be a terrorist hiding among civilians.

there is documented proof that seemingly harmless civilians including women and children, will turn around holding an gun or suicide vest.

when your enemy stores and launches rockets from apartments, schools, mosques, cemeteries, and hospitals, it comes a time to decide. do we protect our own citizens?, or do we let those who ignore all the warnings to leave and stay in their homes while a missile is being launched from their balcony live, just so more of our people can be in danger.


Israel has nukes as a method of deterrence, just as we, the United States, with our large arsenal use, to avoid invasion of our country.

Iran is no where near close to israel, and if israel were to ever be attacked by them on a large scale, you can almost guarantee nukes will be falling over iran.

its exactly why iran isnt going to attack first.


I doubt they will ever invade the rests of the world - unless this whole "save Israel" is just the 1st step to world domination. And, if you believe that,... well, you must be wearing a hat made of lead, because the mind control waves haven't gotten to you yet, like they have to me.

Hamas, the ruling party of gaza, has its headquarters in the basement of largest hospital there.

who does that, other than to guarantee israel wont shoot them?

hamas wants to wage war against israel, its in their very doctrine.