Oooooh, yeah! Is it free?
Ah, Chumpsky.
Providing balance to a universe that includes Wildest Bill.
[Horshack waving hand in air frantically]
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!
[/Horshack]
Oh. My. God. The Hiroshima Day Guy is back! Run for your lives! 
“Would Are Ecosystem Be Affected if Communists Were Extincted?”
Uh, Halo13, are you saying that Chumpskyis not, in point of fact, an ass? Would you care to argue in favor of his non-assedness?
Count me in, Fenris. It’s gotta be more interesting than my company newsletter.
And you added exacty what to this debate?
Comic relief. And of course it’s always invaluable to be reminded that no matter how much larger one’s hat size is than one’s IQ, there’s always a bigger idiot.
I don’t know about Stalin, but he just described Chumpsky to a “T”.
And it’s the Hirsoshima Day guy! I remember him! Look, he’s finally mastered basic English skills! Way to go, Halo13! Hope you’ll start on those critical thinking skills next.
Yes, obviously a monster. Just as bad as Stalin, and therefore worse than Hitler… and so it goes.
I love how the defenders of capitalism love to take quotes from Trotsky and Lenin out of context to make it appear as if they were just these power-hungry demons without any compunctions of mass murder. There is even this scene in Dr. Zhivago where the Lenin character leans over to the Trotsky character and sort of whispers, “It’s all about power!”
Well, this is nothing that surprising. The Bolshevik Revolution was the first time ever that workers had revolted against the ruling class and taken power themselves. This struck a real terror in the hearts of capitalists the world over, and the consequent effort to demonize the leaders of the revolution has been ongoing ever since.
Did Lenin and Trotsky do some brutal things? Of course they did! Should they have! ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY! When the Bolsheviks took power, the revolution was immediately attacked by reactionary forces, and later by 14 capitalist states. A civil war ensued. Perhaps you know of a nice way to fight a civil war, but I don’t know of one. Maybe all sides should have just played a game of poker to see who prevailed.
What is interesting, though, is that the exact same people who love to rail about Trotsky will also defend U.S. actions such as dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While Trotsky, et.a. were fighting a civil war, fighting for the life of the revolution, the people who dropped the bombs on Japan did it for no military purpose. No serious historian believes any more that these were necessary to end the war. Yet, the heroic acts of Trotsky and the Red Army saved the revolution!
Anyway, if you are interested in these types of moral questions regarding actions in war time, etc., I highly recommend you check out Trotsky’s essay Their Morals and Ours
:rolleyes: (6.02 • 10[sup]23[/sup])
No serious historian believes any more that these were necessary to end the war.
Well according to this site : “Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II.”
So while I’m sure plenty of historians don’t think it was necessary, plenty do. Seeing as merely one “serious historian” approving the usage of the bombs renders your statement false, I won’t be bothered to find any more cites. Rather I’ll use your style and say : “Many serious historians believe that these were necessary to win the war”. Prove me wrong.
Sure, but what are you going to call it? It needs a catchy title.
Fenris’ Frothings?
The Fenris Thesis?
From Fen’s Pen?
What?
And to add to what Skip has said: the real issue isn’t whether, years after the fact, we can objectively look at all the data (including data we did not have access to during the war) and determine that dropping the bomb was unnecessary. The real issue is whether, given the data available at the time, Truman et al reasonably believed that the war would drag on interminably and that dropping the bomb would avoid that result.
O shit.
NOW you’ve done it, Skip.
You’re about to get a stern talking-to from Halo13 the "Hiroshima Day" guy.
I suspect he’ll be pretty angry about the fact that you DARED to to violate the unwritten metaphor of his deeply-held world-view with your fact-based theology.
Then he may cry.
Fenris
Happened so far:
- There is an OP. (Quite Ok in its contexts, with some mud-slinging).
- There is a discussion about Chumsky and his person.
- Chumsky answers the OP.
- Next quotes one sentence of Chumsky.
-
Chumsky answers.
The thread goes on: - Chumsky speaks about how many are executed.
- Most of the others speaks about how many has died.
- Some shit is flung around by people that are able to write one line or two.
- The other quotes the earlier etc.
- Chumsky gets some cites that are related to the OP.
- Chumsky answers.
Summa Summarum: There is 3 - 4 guys that can read the original OP, understand it and write something related to it and Chumsky answers to ditto.
The rest seem to have some orgasms every time they see their own texts, or even better, have a mental ejaculation when they see their own texts quoted.
If they would go to a public library, they would easily count that the exact deaths caused by the Caucasian monster, Josef Stalin is counted thus:
All the different assumed figures in all the different books in the library, divided with the amount of books.
That gives the exact data: 24.978.001 persons.
If You are not satisfied with my answer, give me a %$@% cite that is more reliable than mine.
P.S. I answer only to posts that are longer than three sentences and are polite in their tone.
This does not exclude the word “fuckwit”.
According to my Collins, it means:
Fuck to have sexual intercourse with (someone)
wit n 1. the ability to use words or ideas in a clever, amusing, and imaginative way
2. a person possessing this ability
3. practical intelligence; Example: do credit me with some wit;
See also wits
I interpret it as not being sexually nor literally impotent.
Someone has already given me credit for this, in the same manner as You have been addressed in the original OP Chumsky.
Thank You!, (whoever it was).
These are really nice guys.
Henry, it is truly unfortunate that your soul brothers (Naxox, Chumpsky et al) are not getting the respect you think they deserve, and even more unfortunate that you cannot recognize the evasiveness of Chumpsky on the subject matter of the OP; further it is sad that you refuse to acknowledge that Chumpsky’s failure to address substantive arguments in GD is what gets him the honor of multiple pit slammings - additionally it is pitiful that his tactics and yours often bear such similarities.
Since this post is only two sentences in length you needn’t feel any compunction to respond.
You’re so fucking inhuman. The Red Terror cannot be justified, you monster.
And don’t hijack this thread with your nuclear bombing shit, either.
Yeah. I think it’s pretty clear by now that Chumpsky feels that his revolution will never succeed unless all the the “reactionaries” are silenced, by whatever means are most expedient. If that happens to mean mass starvation, torture or murder, well, you’ve gotta break few eggs to make an omelet, don’t you? And who are the reactionaries? Why, anyone who disagrees with him, silly.
Interesting. Especially in light of your support for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
Please, explain to me why the Red Terror cannot be justified, but the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings can be.