Supremecist group to march in Jena, La. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1425474
The kids who beat up the white kid were responding to the white kid threatening them with a noose or something along those lines.


So its ok to beat some one to a pulp for a threat?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1425594
So its ok to beat some one to a pulp for a threat?

It depends what the threat was, and how serious it was. If you threaten to kill someone, then they have every right to beat you up, and the beating would not be out of proportion to the offence.
User avatar
By Grunch
#1425604
So its ok to beat some one to a pulp for a threat?

According to the Castle Doctrine, yes.
User avatar
By Todd D.
#1425608
The whole situation is idiots responding to idiots for being idiots, and the entire idiotic situation keeps escalating.

Here's the way that I understand the entire situation:
1) Racist idiot does something racist.
2) Idiotic school board does nothing to nip racist kid and responses in the bud, racist idiot with authority makes situation worse at school assembly (beyond idiotic)
3) In what has now been known to be completely unrelated, the motherfucking school catches on fire. Both sides of idiots blame each other for burning down the school.
4) A bunch of drunk idiots get in to a fight at a party because one group of idiots tried to get in when they weren't invited. One idiot is arrested and charged with battery.
5) Conflicting reports, but either one group of racist idiots threatened to assault some minorities, or some idiots were harassing racist idiot and stole his gun. Racist police idiotically err on the side of white.
6) Unrelated kid is assaulted by a group of idiots and is severely beaten to the point of unconsciousness and requiring medical attention.
7) The idiotic police, apparently forgetting the incident like a week before, idiotically throw the book at the group of idiots compared to the way that he treated the previous idiot.

And in response to all this, the group of racist idiots that think your worth can be determined by the level of melanin in your skin and who your great-grandpappy fucked decide that this is a good time for them to protest the actions of only one side of idiots.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1425625
If you threaten to kill someone, then they have every right to beat you up, and the beating would not be out of proportion to the offence
.

It is against the law.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1425668
So is threatening someone.
User avatar
By Rancid
#1425670
and some of you guys think i'm an animal for supporting gun rights... :lol:
By Zyx
#1425857
OMFG I was talking about the American Revolution . . . I think . . . or it was WWI not counting Russia, like bullets on the Western Front.

It may have been the American Revolution, now that i think back to creating a thread to something of this effect.

I forget which war, but golly who cares, the point is that the French won the war and not the Nazis.
User avatar
By Rancid
#1425858
Kumatto..

yes, the French helped tremendously during the revolution
By Zyx
#1425860
Finally, but I think it was like 90% of the bullets or so . . . definitely majority . . . but I guess that is irrelevant.

But let's get it straight, France did horrible in WWII's inception mostly because England was a douche with appeasement.

Calling the French weak is silly, one should call the English retarded . . . and jerks . . . and dicks. France could have easily pwned Germany if England was not like "Hitler will stop." England sucks.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1425863
So is threatening someone


So let the law handle it, the black teens took the law into their hands and could have killed the kid, they were convicted and deserve the time they got.
By keso
#1425881
So let the law handle it


You can't trust the law to protect you, they might not be there when you need them...Carry a gun.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1425909
Calling the French weak is silly, one should call the English retarded . . . and jerks . . . and dicks. France could have easily pwned Germany if England was not like "Hitler will stop." England sucks.


...

England had nothing to do with the state of the French military, its outdated doctrine, and the lack of domestic preparedness. I have no qualms with the French, but they completely botched their own defense, and saying otherwise and shifting the blame onto England is very back-handed and De Gaulle-esque, in my opinion.
User avatar
By Noelnada
#1425921
Nobody could resist the mighty Nazi army except maybe.. the mighty soviet army. So that's just pointless to blame the French.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1425940
Nobody could resist the mighty Nazi army except maybe.. the mighty soviet army. So that's just pointless to blame the French.


Actually, while France's options were indeed limited in 1940, after hardly any adequate preperation for a mobile war on the part of the French military establishment, France could have taken the initiative to crush the Wehrmacht in its early stages, which would have been a simple task. Such a move would not have had English support, but Pilsudski, as well as many other Polish officials, were quite favorable to such a pre-emptive strike, and it would have been at least somewhat appropriate if Paris actually honored its treaty of alliance with Poland, rather than wait until 1939, when Warsaw was being bombed into flaming rubble, to launch a joke of an offensive in the Saar.
By Zyx
#1426405
Far-Right Sage wrote:England had nothing to do with the state of the French military, its outdated doctrine, and the lack of domestic preparedness. I have no qualms with the French, but they completely botched their own defense, and saying otherwise and shifting the blame onto England is very back-handed and De Gaulle-esque, in my opinion.


No, war basics would highlight that strategic zones are key to winning at warfare. The Rhineland is such a strategic zone that Germany reoccupied at France's displeasure and at England's behest. Therefore, by the time Germany invaded France it was already in France [the Rhineland.]

We cover this in basic history, had Germany not been placed there then France would have had a border military capable of handling Hitler's aggression.

Appeasement is the cause of WWII, that's common knowledge in the states.

What did De Gaulle say on the matter?

Ibid. wrote:Actually, while France's options were indeed limited in 1940, after hardly any adequate preperation for a mobile war on the part of the French military establishment, France could have taken the initiative to crush the Wehrmacht in its early stages, which would have been a simple task. Such a move would not have had English support, but Pilsudski, as well as many other Polish officials, were quite favorable to such a pre-emptive strike, and it would have been at least somewhat appropriate if Paris actually honored its treaty of alliance with Poland, rather than wait until 1939, when Warsaw was being bombed into flaming rubble, to launch a joke of an offensive in the Saar.


Oh, this is what you mean?

I do not know, that is saying a lot. I think France wanted to trust England . . . I guess it was foolish on that part and I guess one can cry against international institutions for that reason, but I still think appeasement was the main reason why France failed so much against Germany.

Interesting interpretation of history there Sage.

I wonder if France actually did have an option to attack Germany pre-emptively . . . I suppose this is a Bush-esque reread of history, eh? ;)
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1426595
No, war basics would highlight that strategic zones are key to winning at warfare. The Rhineland is such a strategic zone that Germany reoccupied at France's displeasure and at England's behest. Therefore, by the time Germany invaded France it was already in France [the Rhineland.]


How do you take the leap of logic that the Wehrmacht taking back what was theirs(the Rheinland) was the same as being "in France"?

We cover this in basic history, had Germany not been placed there then France would have had a border military capable of handling Hitler's aggression.


1. With the doctrine and planning that the French military had prepared, it had no chance of winning the war in 1940. Launching a pre-emptive strike a few years earlier would have been quite different, but there was virtually no domestic support for such an action.

2. France was kicked out of the Rheinland, which was never rightfully French territory. It had the opportunity to use force to take it back at a time when the Wehrmacht was in its infancy - It chose not to. Please explain how this is the fault of England.

Appeasement is the cause of WWII, that's common knowledge in the states.


Appeasement is what led to a large European conflict, yes. You seem to think though that this was a policy guided solely by London, when that simply isn't the case. The French chose to ignore German animosity toward their country, and they chose not to stand by their European allies, such as Poland.

What did De Gaulle say on the matter?


I was observing your common flaw - Anglophobia.
By Zyx
#1426801
Far-Right Sage wrote:How do you take the leap of logic that the Wehrmacht taking back what was theirs(the Rheinland) was the same as being "in France"?


France won it in the war.

Ibid. wrote:2. France was kicked out of the Rheinland, which was never rightfully French territory. It had the opportunity to use force to take it back at a time when the Wehrmacht was in its infancy - It chose not to. Please explain how this is the fault of England.


It turns out that I now have to look into this, thanks a lot . . .

Wikipedia, unreliably, wrote:In violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the spirit of the Locarno Pact, Nazi Germany remilitarized the Rhineland on Saturday, March 7, 1936. The occupation was done with very little military force, the troops entering on bicycles, and no effort was made to stop it (See Appeasement of Hitler). France could not act due to political instability at the time, and, since the remilitarisation occurred on a weekend, the British Government could not find out or discuss actions to be taken until the following Monday. As a result of this, the governments were inclined to see the remilitarisation as a fait accompli.

Hitler took a risk when he sent his troops to the Rhineland. He told them to 'turn back and not to resist' if they were stopped by the French Army. The French did not try to stop them because they were currently holding elections and no president wanted to start a war with Germany.

The British government agreed with the act in principle, "The Germans are after all only going into their own back garden" Lord Lothian, but rejected the Nazi manner of accomplishing said act. Winston Churchill, however, advocated military action through cooperation by the British and the French.


Well, hmm, I guess you have a point if Wikipedia were any bit reliable. I guess it is not that important, but certainly England was too nice to Hitler and this had an effect on France. I find it hard to believe that were appeasement smaller, France would have simply ceded the Rhineland.

Either way, let us not stray. I had said, like you have, that France could have taken Germany were it not for a few complications.

I suppose you are of the influence that the Rhineland had nothing to do with England, but I beg to differ and cite that internationalism was quite a political philosophy at that time and thus England, being at the forefront of the ideology along with France, may have had undue influence. But I guess this is a matter that's highly metaphysical, rather than substantial. After all, I could not answer what France would have done if there were no England. I would think that it would defend the territory, however.

What reason do you account that France had not attacked then?

Ibid. wrote:Appeasement is what led to a large European conflict, yes. You seem to think though that this was a policy guided solely by London, when that simply isn't the case. The French chose to ignore German animosity toward their country, and they chose not to stand by their European allies, such as Poland.


I think Chamberlain was shamed as a result of the policy and Chamerblain was at the head of London. Perhaps there were a Frenchman but I do believe Chamberlain the highest ranking advocate of the idea and the leader of it at that. As to Poland, I think it was the Czech that held an eastern front against Germany that England allowed for Germany to consume without a battle . . . this empowered the Germans and was likely a diplomatic message to the western World. Now, it may happen that this happened at a later time, but overall, England's diplomacy was likely symbolic if nothing else.

You can say that France had the opportunity to war, but it ignores the psychology of the world at that time.

Not even @wat0n denies that the IDF and Israeli […]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]