In article <UM_eO.92828$G9_a.19916@fx13.iad>,
Raymond Hall <raymond.hallbear1@gmail.com> wrote:

dk hasn't got the smarts of an earthworm, and is nowhere as near
as useful.

I've wondered at other points over the past few years what's happened
to him.... Or did he always come off as a raving lunatic, incapable
even of parsing what other people are saying? I paid very little
attention to the ubiquitous flame threads back in the day -- as
they were just as boring then... -- so maybe I didn't have the full
picture. I thought, as you seemingly imply in the contrary...,
that Koren was at least once an intelligent person, but particularly
given his choice of sources these days, not to mention his performance
here, one has to wonder....

Simply the notion that one is fighting a war here in this newsgroup
is crazy enough! But then, I guess that's fairly typical Usenet
craziness: As if whatever gets said here is going to change the
actual war....

Beyond those thoughts though, the emphasis on ethnic stereotypes &
superiority certainly isn't new. For years, others have complained
about Koren's frequent use of national & ethnic stereotypes to
dismiss music & musicians. It's basically lazy thinking, but also
implies a broad way of looking at the world, and especially at
people, i.e. according to categories & stereotypes. So of course
his latest activity -- while still rejecting/projecting phantasms
such as "political correctness" -- is just an argument about
reshuffling the deck of prejudice & stereotype, i.e. to continue
to view humanity through the same lens, but with different groups
in the "good" & "bad" slots. In other words, it's the same
exploitative structure, only shuffling who's in what role.

(And how is all the nonsense & violence justified in the end? By
pointing to someone in some time & place who has done worse! So
as soon as some jerk does something awful, Koren is convinced he's
entitled to do the same -- & orders of magnitude worse, if desired
-- and to someone else entirely(!), if desired -- and forever. I
think that sums up the supersized "two wrongs make a right" argument
being thrown around here: It's ultimately a "might makes right"
argument.)

Either way, the only ones who win when someone gets angry here are
Koren & his Zionazi. And yes, I do think that art & music can help
with these kinds of human relational problems.... Although,
unfortunately, they also seem to be no guarantee....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jun 29, 2024 at 2:23:56 AM EDT, "ermintrudethecat" <ermintrudethecat> wrote:

Thanks for that information from a German source which is unusual. My
main point is that if the Dresden raid was a war crime, the UK and the
USA are equally guilty, as both participated.
It's worth mentioning too that in 1940 during the German invasion of
France and the Low Countries, it remained British policy to fly by day
using light/medium bombers and to attack only military targets. The
result was an absolute slaughter of Blenheims, Hampdens, Wellingtons and Battles, with little or no damage to the Wehrmacht.

Nazi Germany led the way with aerial attacks on civilian population at
Guernica in 1937. After that, since "Germany started it," most of the WWII nations not only matched the effort, but turned it into a science. Coventry in England got burned to a crisp by Germany during the raid on 14 November 1940 using incendiary bombs. Dresden followed on 13-14 February 1945, which some have suggested it was Churchill's revenge for Coventry. All this rapidly pales before the non-nuclear firebombing of Japan by the US between 1942 and 1945, killing between 210,000 and 900,000 people, which dwarfs the atomic bomb attacks of 35,000 to 50,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 100,000 in Nagasaki.

As to morality, from Wikipedia comes this quote: "According to Robert
McNamara, who served as an officer in the Army Air Forces under General Curtis LeMay during the bombings of Japan, LeMay once said that had the United States lost the war they would have been tried for war crimes, McNamara agrees with this assessment. McNamara believed that, "He (LeMay), and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals." and that "LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if
you lose and not immoral if you win?"

-Owen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Jun 30, 2024 at 3:13:15 AM EDT, "Zionazi" <marcs12212@gmail.com> wrote:

Owen Hartnett wrote:

Nazi Germany led the way with aerial attacks on civilian population at
Guernica in 1937. After that, since "Germany started it," most of the
WWII
nations not only matched the effort, but turned it into a science.
Coventry in
England got burned to a crisp by Germany during the raid on 14 November
1940
using incendiary bombs. Dresden followed on 13-14 February 1945, which
some
have suggested it was Churchill's revenge for Coventry. All this rapidly
pales
before the non-nuclear firebombing of Japan by the US between 1942 and
1945,
killing between 210,000 and 900,000 people, which dwarfs the atomic bomb
attacks of 35,000 to 50,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 100,000 in Nagasaki.

Interesting info. Thanks. The numbers are a bit wrong wrt hiroshima, but
the rest seems correct.

Double the numbers and it's the same effect.

As to morality, from Wikipedia comes this quote: "According to Robert
McNamara, who served as an officer in the Army Air Forces under General
Curtis
LeMay during the bombings of Japan, LeMay once said that had the United
States
lost the war they would have been tried for war crimes, McNamara agrees
with
this assessment. McNamara believed that, "He (LeMay), and I'd say I,
were
behaving as war criminals." and that "LeMay recognized that what he was
doing
would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral
if
you lose and not immoral if you win?"

This is moral relativism, but moral, Owen, is something objective,
something universal — it is not dependent on who was victorious and who
was defeated.

You state that like morals are universally accepted as black or white.

Do you think the Nazis and WW2-Japanese had the moral superiority to
give you lectures on morality? Lol

No more than I think you have that moral superiority.

If morality is absolutely subjective, as you say, then lectures would be unnecessary.

According to the Nazis it was moral to genocide the Jews (subjective) - according to
Objective morality, the Nazis were immoral.

According to the US government, in the name of manifest destiny (a highly praised, at the time, moral attitude), killing of native Americans was a necessity. Slavery is also OK according to the Bible and the US Constitution.

eichmann was a hero to the Nazis, objectively he was a monster.
Harris was objectively a hero, subjectively - in the eyes of the Nazis -
he was a monster.

There is a right and there is a wrong — doesn’t depend on the side you are on.

The government is the moral arbitrator for its citizens. It decides who should and shouldn't have abortions, whose children should be send to war and killed, who deserves to starve to death and who should die for what crimes. Since we have several governments, somehow, strangely enough, they are not all
agreeing.

-Owen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)