EVIL WORDS

[Svengoolie 3]

He's not a major issue for me but it looks like his rehab began to fail in 1981. I honestly don't know if the stuff that cam out about him in later ears was true or just a desire on some people's parts to tear down he idea of one good nazi. I believe the fact the warcri es  court,  which dealt out death sentences quite copiously, gave him 20 years must be considered in his favor.

[RCMerchant]

Speer was a man motivated by personal greed, and he was no idiot. If Hitler had won the war, he would have been a rich man. But he knew when the s**t hit the fan he wanted to make brownie points with the winners. So he put on the humble act at Nuremberg so he could avoid the hangman. He was a coward and a scumbag.

EDIT

I can't believe I'm debating the worth of a Nazi with Sven. 

[Allhallowsday]

Speer was a man motivated by personal greed, and he was no idiot. If Hitler had won the war, he would have been a rich man. But he knew when the s**t hit the fan he wanted to make brownie points with the winners. So he put on the humble act at Nuremberg so he could avoid the hangman. He was a coward and a scumbag.
...

Here!  Here! 

[Svengoolie 3]

Back to evil words,  here's Winston churchill's position on using poison gas on rebellious tribes in africa.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

[Allhallowsday]

Back to evil words,  here's Winston churchill's position on using poison gas on rebellious tribes in africa.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

If that's true, those are EVIL WORDS. 

[RCMerchant]

That's his reason for killing people. He took his personal pain and lashed out at people because they ignored him. He was a selfish basterd.
I don't give a flying f**k how bad your childhood is- boo f**king hoo- you don't go around killing people.

[Svengoolie 3]

Back to evil words,  here's Winston churchill's position on using poison gas on rebellious tribes in africa.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

If that's true, those are EVIL WORDS.  

It's true.  Ol' winny actually liked poison gas. He wanted to use it in the Boer war but thankfully was stopped. He did use it in ww1 in large amounts and considered using it on germany in ww2 BuT america forbade it.

https://archives.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

As to evil words today,  how about an Alabama mayor advocating exterminating gays and democrats?

https://amredeemed.com/end-times-news/alabama-mayor-says-the-only-way-to-deal-with-homosexuals-is-to-kill-them-out/

How about a priest praying for survivors of a nightclub shooting to be murdered by his god and tortured by him in hell fir eternity?
 
Pastor Donnie Romero of Stedfast Baptist Church, who Raw Story reports told his congregation he agrees “100 percent” with Roger Jimenez, the Baptist pastor whose recent sermon suggests taking the survivors out to a firing squad to “blow their brains out.”

Impossibly, Romero has added horrific new depths to this already inhuman sentiment:

“These 50 sodomites are all perverts and pedophiles, and they are the scum of the earth, and the earth is a little bit better place now,” Romero said on Sunday.

“And I’ll take it a step further, because I heard on the news today, that there are still several dozen of these queers in ICU and intensive care. And I will pray to God like I did this morning, I will do it tonight, I’ll pray that God will finish the job that that man started, and he will end their life, and by tomorrow morning they will all be burning in hell, just like the rest of them, so that they don’t get any more opportunity to go out and hurt little children.”

[RCMerchant]

Sven- yup that's evil.

But I know where your heading with this-and it's the usual Christian-bashing s**t you seem to enjoy doing. Because some band of nuts call themselves 'Christians', don't make it so! Get a grip!

[Svengoolie 3]

People we're talking about evil words said decades ago in other countries by men lng dead.  What abiut evil words being said in our country today? Shouldn't we be more concerned about that?

[RCMerchant]

People we're talking about evil words said decades ago in other countries by men lng dead.  What abiut evil words being said in our country today? Shouldn't we be more concerned about that?

Because things said by dead men are being echoed today. And to remember that may help avoid it in the future.
 "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
And I'm a chronic drunk and it has caused me nothing but trouble. I remember the past- I just don't learn from it.

[Alex]

Back to evil words,  here's Winston churchill's position on using poison gas on rebellious tribes in africa.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

If that's true, those are EVIL WORDS.  

It's true.  Ol' winny actually liked poison gas. He wanted to use it in the Boer war but thankfully was stopped. He did use it in ww1 in large amounts and considered using it on germany in ww2 BuT america forbade it.

https://archives.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

And yet despite Britain having larger stocks of poison gas than anyone else in World War 2, he never authorised its use. The poison gases he advocated using again the uncivilised tribes, were actually non lethal versions designed to temporarily incapacitate people rather than kill them. He thought this was a more merciful option than the use of high explosive shells. Let me give you the full version of the quote you have misused above.

It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

And from a missive dated 10 days later than that one.

Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war. The moral effect is also very great. There can be no conceivable reason why it should not be resorted to. We have definitely taken the position of maintaining gas as a weapon in future warfare, and it is only ignorance on the part of the Indian military authorities which interposes any obstacle.

Almost always absent from quotations alleging Churchill’s penchant for the use of gas is the above paragraph, and certainly the first part of it. It testifies that Churchill was thinking more broadly, and more humanely, than most: He was thinking of sparing serving soldiers, most of them not volunteers, from ugly deaths by the most grisly and barbarous methods.

Let me give another quote from Churchill on the subject, this time speaking in 1932.

Nothing could be more repugnant to our feelings than the use of poison gas, but there is no logic at all behind the argument that it is quite proper in war to lay a man low with high-explosive shell, fragments of which inflict poisonous and festering wounds, and altogether immoral to give him a burn with corrosive gas or make him cough and sneeze or otherwise suffer through his respiratory organs. There is no logical distinction.…The attitude of the British Government has always been to abhor the employment of poison gas. As I understand it, our only procedure is to keep alive such means of studying this subject as shall not put us at a hopeless disadvantage if, by any chance, it were used against us by other people.

Churchill may have authorised the use of poison gas in 1919 against the Bolsheviks (I have been unable to confirm if he was involved in the order for its use or not), but it had been used against British troops previously when the Soviets recovered German weapon stocks.

[Svengoolie 3]

And do you know why it was being used, alex?  It's because the Russian people over threw the czars and replaced them with a givernemtn of the Russian peolle that Churchill didn't like. He wanted to say "Xxxx the Russian people's choice!  We're going to impose the givernemtn we wanton them! "

  Britain, france and other western nations sought to override the Russian people's wishes to be free from a monarchy and reimpose in on them. Western nations invaded russia after ww1 and tried to override the will of he Russian peolle.  They fought back.  If england had not been invading russia in an attempt to forcibly interfere in it's internal matters they would not have had poison gas used on them.

[Alex]

Ok, so lets look at your post.

And there was me thinking the Tzar had abdicated and the Russian Empire was being ruled by a democratically elected Duma before that was overthrown by the Bolsheviks. This then caused a big civil war to rage in Russia. There were plenty of people who did not want to be under Communist rule and shock horror, troops were sent in to support the will of those people. The Tzar wasn't actually popular in the west (he was denied refuge in the west following the first revolution against him), and the allied forces sent in were not nessicarily sent in to restore them to power as much as the Duma. I guess the choice of those people who didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union doesn't matter though. Or those of the around 40,000,000 people who went on to die under one of history's most oppressive government after all they were not in the majority. The fact that the Bolsheviks held the highly industrialised parts of the country had a lot more to do with their victory than being popular (which isn't to say there weren't popular, they had managed to get 40% of the vote in the lower house, but only 17% of the vote for the upper legisator). They were better able to equip their armies and better organised.

Just as a note, it took the 'popular choice' until 1934 to defeat the armed resistance against them. That's right the Soviets were so popular, and so represented the choice of the Russian people that it took them 15 years to crush the armies ranged against them and these areas had to be violently forced into the USSR. The popular choice actually lay with the countries that managed to break away from Russian domination (Russia is actually made up of lots of smaller countries who generally were absorbed in wars) and even today parts still keep trying to break away from it.

Let's not forget that for example both Hitler and Mussolini were elected leaders, so by your logic they should also have been left in power. After all that was the expressed will of the people in those countries too. How dare the west go interfere with that!

I also note that you completely failed to address your misuse of quotes to try and frame Churchill as a bad guy.

[Svengoolie 3]

Alex,  there is no context  that makes using poison gas in warfare or anywhere else alright. Taking things out of context is not  a valid  argument when there is no context it's  good in.

[Alex]

So you admit that your original post where you used a quote from Churchill out of context is not a valid argument.

And if you are seriously telling us all that you are dumb enough to believe that having a non-lethal incapacitating agent dropped on you is the good option compared to a high explosive shell then there really is no hope for you. Believe me I'll take exposure to CS gas every time over being present when someone drops a thousand pound bomb on you.