TheWetNurse

I'm sorry but this is weasel talk. Madlibs version: Do you support _gangs and gang activity_ like _the libs_ or do you want _crime_ to disappear forever like _the conservatives_ do? Surely you and _whatever movement you're associated with_ are against _the continuing rape and murder of innocent civilians_, right?

But surely you see that these were not the options he was given to choose from? Are you familiar with the Judenrate? The head Nazi in every ghetto, camp, etc would take a bunch of prominent Jews, and form a committee out of them that would sort the prisoners according to their usefulness (who can do skilled labour, who'll be useful breaking rocks, who's going straight to the showers - you know, the standards) as well as micro-manage them. Naturally, as soon as each community was done with, its' Judenrat went right along with it. The point here is a quote from one Judenrat member that I'd read 20 years ago in elementary and can't shake off since: "The man in the shining uniform came into our home. He brought with him cake when none of us had seen bread in two weeks. He told me that I could take the position, or that someone else will". In all years I've dwelt on the subject, I could not find a rationale to condemn that man.

My great-grandfather volunteered to be cannon fodder for the human mass that drowned Berlin in blood (both its own and Berlins'). Another volunteered to liberate the fine peoples of Finland all the way back in '39. Back in those days, in that place, you were given the freedom to volunteer where you were told, or suffer the consequences. This was the situation in Denamjuk's homeland. A homeland under a dictatorship so horrible that people had actually welcomed the Nazis as liberators at first, and it took a lot of effort on the Nazis' behalf for that perception to change. That homeland had declared him and all those like him to be traitors for not dying, and for that had condemned him and his relatives to death and enslavement. Actual experience may vary. Maybe he deserted his ranks and ran towards the German lines with a white flag screaming on how killing and torturing people has been his lifelong dream? Maybe he was nailing babies to poles, opening the gas valves in the showers and making a jewskin rug in his spare time? Maybe he is, in fact, Ivan the Terrible and the American, Israeli, German, and Ukrainian authorities had simply missed it somehow? Maybe. And the day that is proven, he is to be hung whether 91, 120 or on his deathbed, because some people should not be allowed to die on their own terms. But until that day, condemning him is nothing more than a ritual sacrifice which, while fitting contextually, is not how we do things anymore.

You want Brook to go on the Russian Al Jazeera? Why?

According to wiki he was a Red Army soldier captured by the Germans. Wasn't there a thread here a couple of months back about morality being irrelevant when no legitimate choice is presented? I mean, I'd like to think I would have went through Door A when presented with the fine choices of "sit in a hole in a field until you starve" and "do bad things" (or rather "continue doing bad things" - Red Army soldier, after all), but for some reason I have no desire to find out. Could have been interesting had the same collaboration logic were applied in Russia after the USSR finally imploded. Would have wound up looking like an Aztec festival, I imagine.

Thanks. It's a Soviet prisoner saying (at least it was popularized by "The GULAG Archipelago" as such).

"Style is character" "Don't trust, don't beg, don't fear"

It's been messed with, but it seems to have been for cosmetic purposes - the original seems to be taken from a book of some sorts, and they put it over a background (same one as the original certificate from snopes.com - speaking of, the first pdf (black and white), even has the link to the original pic at the bottom of the page). Honestly, it looks like they're intentionally fanning the flames. I doubt there are conspirators smart enough to run a guy for president (of the US, no less), but stupid enough to not take such things into account - especially since the other side tried running Arnie just a few years before. Now on the other hand, making up and spreading a stupid conspiracy theory, maintaining the heat for a while, getting most of your opposition to focus on that, then refute it in an absolute manner at the right moment? That would just be brilliant. I'll bet Trump's behind all of this!

All three directly benefited the USSR and resulted in massive territorial gain for it. 1. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact gave the USSR Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, half of Poland, parts of Romania and a piece of Finland (would've been all of it, but goddamn nazi capitalist counter-revolutionaries had somehow disguised themselves as the entire Finnish people and brutally cut off the iron hand of peace we've extended to them). 2. The Atlantic Charter was the US and UK effectively telling Stalin "do whatever you want, won't hear a peep from us, and we'll pay you for it, too!". American trucks handled the Red Army's logistics at a time when the Germans used horse-drawn carts. American food, British engine schematics, parts, materials and everything in between, that one Allied Flying Fortress that crash landed in Soviet territory that we simply didn't give back... So on, so forth. 3. The Yalta Conference gave Eastern Europe to Stalin. All the countries that I have listed before, a bunch of the stuff that Hitler took, oh and half of Germany on top of that. For fun, try digging up the points agreed upon in the pacts and comparing them to what actually happened. Good times, good times...

Points 2, 4 and 5 seem irrelevant as proof of anything to me. People in power switching sides, some winning, some losing? Zealots dying for their beliefs? Kind of an everyday affair, is it not? Points 1 & 3 are more "factual". Except that we have no contemporary description of Jesus or his crucifiction, and they seem to find a new Jesus' tomb every other thursday 'round here in Israel. I think someone even dug up a couple around Nazareth, just for the hell of it. Possible alternative: guy sees a preacher dude get nailed by the Romans (Jews?). Waits a few years, starts telling amazing stories about him to anyone willing to listen. Maybe steals his corpse, dumps it somewhere, maybe not. Starts a cult and away we go. There's a Chasidic sect that hailed its head as the messiah. Dude's been dead for over 20 years now - an act that for all intents and purposes prevents him from being the messiah (the torah's pretty specific about it: son of David, born in Bethlehem, not dead. I'm almost quoting it verbatim). Doesn't stop 'em one bit. The guys at the top are raking in the dough and the ones at the bottom are conditioned to obey the top. Get confrontational with them on a large scale, and I'm sure you'll encounter a whole bunch of willing martyrs.

Thanks. For what it's worth, I'm sure there's at least a couple of Israelis that are profiting off of Libya one way or the other. That third link was weird, I can't keep track of what side supports who anymore.

I was trying to filter the crazy in the articles down to a statement I could reasonably accept as a possibility, but the more I try, the wackier the whole thing seems. First question that pops in my head: Where will these soldiers come from? Certainly not Israel. No one's gonna send 50 thousand (or a thousand or even 50) IDF soldiers to fight anywhere, publicly (obviously) or in secret (can't keep something like this a secret here, it's too big) and there are no private armies here. An Israeli security company is what, 50 people tops? Hell, let's say a hundred - it's a big company. These are not the people who will do the fighting. They will fix up operations or do the training. This is a process that takes years. Suppose that all the equipment is there, all facilities have been built, the recruits are sufficient and willing, all trainers are motivated and capable and everything else resolves itself in the most optimal fashion (meaning that Libya already is the most efficient country on earth and therefore should have no need in foreign advisors), we're still talking about at least two months before you can use those recruits for the most basic of tasks, and I'm not even talking about combat. They (the company) could have a pre-trained army of course, formed from your usual pick of outlaws, scalawags and rapscallions gathered from all across the great Middle East or Africa or the Caribbean or whatever, but how large can such an army realisticly be before it pops on everyone's radars? What kind of equipment could they have and how would they transport it? And themselves? Suppose it's just a modest thousand people, each armed with just an assault rifle and a few magazines (the all-powerful wizard Qaddafi has already conjured up everything else that they would require on site: the vehicles, the gear, the facilities, service staff, etc). How do you get them to Libya? A wing of cargo planes? A cruise ship? A hundred tour buses? The Marakesh express? And what good is a professional soldier against a civil uprising anyway? A thousand thugs with guns would be times more efficient and cheap (see: Iran - these fellows seem to get by without the aid of the Zionist Entity and its dark servants). You don't need a doctorate in soldiering to mow down a crowd with a machine gun. You can trust me on this - I'm Russian. I wiki'd Blackwater to see how many people they employ. Naturally I couldn't find even a ballpark figure, but some quote from 5 years ago claims that one of their guys claimed to be able to offer up to a brigade (3,000-5,000 people, apparently). Even if we assume that the quote is true and further, that in the time that has passed business was so good that they're grown to twice the size, it would still mean 10,000 troops at a time. Tops. So: Would it be likely for an Israeli security company (even one backed by the Israeli gov't) to have five (or ten) times the resources of Blackwater? Would it be likely for Qaddafi to hire someone - anyone - to begin forming or reforming his army right the hell now? Would I have started writing this post had I known how long it would turn out to be? I guess we will never know. But if I'll have to take I guess, I know what I would answer to all three.

I don't know about moral, but how about pointless? Politicians are mostly mouthpieces for someone else, whatever the act they're carrying out it's unlikely to stop after their deaths. Lincoln getting shot didn't affect the results of the civil war. The commies assassinating the Czar didn't bring about the revolution. I don't know much about JFK but I'm assuming that his death did little to hamper his legacy. Rabin's death did not stop the oslo agreements. So on, so forth. The probable result of such an assassination is the majority uniting behind whatever the dead person was promoting, with the benefit of the assassination serving as the ultimate argument against any and all opposition. Even within a dictatorship you're likely to lose. Caesar's death didn't bring the Roman Republic back. The USSR didn't exactly turn into a bastion of freedom when they offed Stalin, did it? If those officers had managed to kill Hitler, would it bring about the end of the third reich or would some other high-ranking member take over? In fact, Stalin had only publicly displayed his powers after Kirov was assassinated in '34 - that's well over a decade of unopposed rule. Hitler was the head of a minority party until someone torched the Reichstag. All in all, it would appear that the assassination of a person you're opposed to serves the exact opposite of your purposes. Unless of course you kill someone you agree with.

The guy claims to like "We The Living" (not the Fountainhead or Atlas, something shorter), "The Communist Manifesto" (a bloody pamphlet) and "Mein Kampf" (a load of gibberish that no one has ever read start to finish, ever). I mean really, he might as well list "catcher in the rye" and get a middle name. But hey, using crazy people to do your dirty work has been a fine, long tradition. Anyone care to enlighten a foreigner as to what makes this congresswoman so murder-worthy? Because to me, for now, she seems rather grey from both left and right points of view. P.S Capitalist countries erect walls to keep people out. Socialist countries erect walls to keep people in. If that's not an indication of one systems' superiority over the other, I don't know what is.

I think that suicide is every person's inherent right. You didn't come here on your own, you didn't get to choose what family/country/society to be born into - there are a lot of factors that can make a persons' life 'unpleasant' to live even before he's out to face the world. And even beyond that, how can man claim to live a free life if he's not free to end it at will? As far as I can see, the problem in this case are the children. These children presumably were born with his direct involvement and are therefore under his direct responsibility. They will suffer the consequence of his action despite not being at fault. So... I guess your guy is kind of wrong. Not because he killed himself, but because of the circumstances under which he did it. But even then it's murky - I mean, what's worse: growing up without a father or growing up with one that has no desire to live (which will probably reflect in his attitude)? Of course, the Japanese have a solution for that - kill yourself, your wife AND your children. IIRC there was even a case like that with an immigrant family in the USA sometime in the early 80's. Disclaimer: my nick reflects my grasp over objectivity, so take all of this with a big bunch of salt.