@Skandalos - but one should remember that only a small group of prisoners were treated well - only those who agreed to co-operate. Only those labeled as "progressive". Even this propaganda movie cannot hide this fact completely.
Should I take that you are pro-Hitler then? or Why don't you call this off-topic? Because it isn't convenient for you. It is easy to reject it as an off-topic discussion then actually accept it and change your views
@efrancesco - I just wanted to say that the fact that a country does one thing good, does not mean that this country is good. Most countries censor child pornography. But you don't want to talk about the link I gave you and I accept that you have no arguments supporting your statement that there was nothing wrong with ideological courses.
@OlenkaWagner This statement of yours, "I just wanted to say that the fact that a country does one thing good, does not mean that this country is good."
This is also true for America, Poland, Iceland, Saudi Arabia and for that reason every country on this earth. Just because you are doing one thing right, doesn't make the other wrong a right as well. It simply makes that one specific thing right. Only if you think from this perspective can you achieve impartiality.
@efrancesco - so I should treat the same the idea that people have freedom of speach, expression, property rights etc. to the situation where people do not have these rights. Then I am impartial. No, If you mean such impartiality I am not impartial.
@OlenkaWagner And I just proved to you that no such rights were observed during G20 meetings, which is when they were supposed to be highlighted to China so that we can hold our head high and say, "Yes that is how you run a country". In the midst of public discourse we can continue to function but that didn't happen. You can intent on calling democracies which are cryptocracies and do not represent the will of the people.
@efrancesco - You cannot compare an incidental beating of protesters who refused to follow the regulations about the place of the protests (they would be allowed to protest, but in a different place, not very close to the place where the summit was) with pemanent denial people to express their opinion about the government. Of course people should not be beaten (unless in direct self-defence), but this cannot be compared with the situation in China.
@OlenkaWagner You are wrong, Olenka. At the every basic level, people are standing up against their government. The decisions that are being taken are against the will of the people. Democracy is run by the people for the people. If the government is setting up blockades to deter protesters and arresting them without probable cause, it is what, according to you, makes China an authoritarian state. By that definition, so US, as is Canada, Britain, Germany etc.
@efrancesco - And you still refuse to comment on the material I sent you about the treatment of POWs during the Korean War. You didn't comment the incident I quoted to you, because it does not fit your schema.
@OlenkaWagner Quote me a single war where there were no abuses of rights or people killed without a cause. Should I quote you the My Lai Massacre here? That falls on deaf ears because it doesn't fit your schema of how to make demonize China when its anything but that. What you are doing is you are pushing your unfounded theories and claimed on Chinese based on your presumed air of superiority.
@OlenkaWagner And I'm asking you to send me material on a war that haven't had these problems. How the you find me material on Iraq War or Afghan War? This further supports my points that wars are evil but US raised wars are the most pointless of all. What was the reason of Korean war again? What is the reason of Iraq war? What is the reason behind Afghan war?
@efrancesco - OK - the Falklands war - at least no problem of indoctrination from any of the sides. Only very incidental abuses, not approved by the commanders. You can look at the Red Cross reports from this conflict to find out if I am not lying.
@OlenkaWagner So when your mother wakes you up for school in morning and forces you to go to school whether you agree or not, and the schools force you to do your homework whether you like it or not, that is the very definition of 'indoctrination'? I like the sound of that and so would kids all over the world. Education systems be damned!
@efrancesco - Are you serious or kidding? Were the Chinese the "mothers" of the UN prisoners? The Geneva convention demands eqal treatment regardless political views. Those who liked communism and those who hated it should be treated eqally. They were not.
@OlenkaWagner Of course I am serious. Its not my fault that your definition of 'indoctrination' is the very way our 'education' system works. And in which war did you pointed that foes were treated well and there were no abuses?
@efrancesco - I mentioned the Falklands war. The problem with your argumentation is that you do not recognize differences in quantity. One incidental abuse is for you the same as systematic abuse being a part of the system. In the Korean war the forced "education" was a part of the system from the Chinese part. Other abuses were also so common that they look as a part of the system as well.
@OlenkaWagner First, Falkland wars were a limited war. London was never attacked and the 'war' was limited to a few desolate rocks in the middle of the ocean. And despite the limited nature of the war there were instances of abuses. So it is as bad an example as any. Now would you like to see the modern day Iraq invasion or Afghan invasion under the same light as Korean war?
@efrancesco - Another attempt to avoid my question: "Do you consider fine unequal treatment of prisoners, depending whether they agree or not agree with the ideology of their captors?"
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, you're simply not willing to accept the answer to this question. I have answered it time over time. And the answer is not is not limited to this specific war but all wars. That includes the wars raised by so-called democratic nations in the pursuit of what is perceived as 'good' or 'evil'.
@efrancesco - But my question is not how common such practice is/was (however so massive indoctrination is rather specific to communist countries or other totalitarian systems, democratic countries might priviledge prisoners who cooperate providing useful information, but they don't care about ideology). My question is whether it is right or wrong. As simple as that.
@OlenkaWagner Again what you are referring to indoctrination is simply education. Again your education or schema is indoctrinated by your religious and political beliefs and you feel self-assured enough to force it on other. I am against that. One should form of life is equal to another and no one entity is superior or supreme to another. That of course doesn't sit too well with you.
Education system in the society is something different. Parents should provide education for their children and they have right to provide the education according to their beliefs. But we are talking about POW, who should be treated eqally regardless their political views (will to be "educated or not). This was not the case (even in the previous part it was admitted 'no matter where we were hiding'). WAS IT RIGHT OR WRONG? Did it comply with equal treatment regardless political views?
@OlenkaWagner What the child sees as equal treatment is not how the mothers sees it. The child may wish to be an atheist and not believe in medieval gibberish but that doesn't deter the mother from 'educating' the child. Because the mother believes in her perceived superiority and wishes to impose her unfounded beliefs as traditions on the next generation. The same is the case in Wars.
Geneva Convention - Art 16. "Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be TREATED ALIKE by the Detaining Power, WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE DISTINCTION based on race, nationality, religious belief or POLITICAL OPINIONS, or ANY OTHER distinction founded on similar criteria."
@OlenkaWagner Art. 16 of Geneva convention is against torture and abuse and we have discussed that earlier. You are going in circles without a shred of evidence of your so called theory of Geneva convention being against 'indoctrination' or 'educating' prisoners.
@efrancesco - in the exmple I sent you the prisoner WAS tortured, because he criticized the ideological course. He died about three weeks later. The article does not only say about torture. It mentiones equal treatment: "WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE DISTINCTION based on race, nationality, religious belief or POLITICAL OPINIONS". Political opinions are mentioned and the courses were aimed to change the political opinions, but you fail to see that and make comparison to school children.
@OlenkaWagner If Art. 16 of Geneva convention is not about torture please show how it is against "indoctrination"? The only evidence I see is that you 'believe' it is so and just because you believe it is, doesn't make it.
@efrancesco - refusing indoctrination is showing different political views. If the prisoners whose political views are against indoctrination are punished, they are not treated equally as those who comply with indoctrination. Only if the indoctricantion was completely voluntary and going to the courses was not connected to any privilleges - the article would be obeyed.
@OlenkaWagner Again, you are not showing how Geneva convention is against 'indoctrination'. You are presenting me your view. Can you quote me a passage in Geneva convention that directly say anything against educating POWs?
@efrancesco - But this is your opinion that it was educating. In the EuroAtlantic civilization you are in minority (I hope). You prove that it was just mere education without ideological flavour.
@OlenkaWagner It is not an opinion, I'm simply presenting things at their most basic level. Problem is you are unhappy because you can't demonize what in your opinion is the evil in this world. You can only hope that I am in minority. Because in reality, I am in majority as far as Iceland is concerned.
@efrancesco - with the whole respect to your beautiful country, it is not very densily populated, so even if people like you were in majority, they would still be in minority even on a European scale.
@OlenkaWagner And you know for a fact that people in Europe are biased and believe in war mongering and unfounded fears? Can you quote me the poll that back your assertion?
@OlenkaWagner There we go again, Communism is similar to Nazism. Lady, one is a form of governance based Marxist theories and the other is an ideology based on racial beliefs. If your criteria is forced labour, social welfare, and aristocracy, you can include a dozen other ideologies. For example, Apartheid, they are a more close match to Nazism than Communism. Force labor, social welfare, racial beliefs etc. Poland, Iceland, US have social welfare, should we go on the list too?
@efrancesco "The child may wish to be an atheist and not believe in medieval gibberish " - so far your comments were only irrelevant, now they became offensive.
@OlenkaWagner It was intended to be offensive so that you can experience full well how persecuting oneself for his/her belief is unreasonable. How does your goal of persecuting communists makes you any better than Nazis who persecuted Jews just because they were Jews? And that's what you are doing persecuting and demonizing communist just because they are communist.
@efrancesco - Yes, I do believe that some ideologies are highly dangerous and should not have place in the society. These ideologies are those advocating creating totalitarian systems such as nazism or communism.
@OlenkaWagner Your beliefs are biased and hence why I disregard them. One evil isn't better than another, they are both evil. I, for one, do not wish to live in a world where everyone is similar to me or has the same ideas as me. We are creatures of diversity. The fear of unknown is only going to take us back to the age of unreason.
@efrancesco - it is both political and ideological. The same as communism. Polish constitution forbids both nazism and communism. Both systems were meant to create a "new human being". Both ignored the need of individuals putting the benefit of state or "society" in the first place. Both disrespected human life. Both were despising traditional values. Both disrespected private property (communism by definition, nazism confiscated the property of "subhumans").
@OlenkaWagner Rubbish. Nazism is an ideology not a political form of governance. If you believe otherwise you are brainwashed and I suggest you 'Google' it. Again, I simply do not care what polish constitution forbids and allows, I am not Polish. Just because Poland decides to brainwash its citizens doesn't mean you can impose that on the rest of the world.
@OlenkaWagner So when your country, Poland, brainwashes its citizen, you wish to give it a free pass? Because you believe your ideology is superior? You are sounding more and more Nazi. Are you sure you are not a Nazi?
@efrancesco I wouldn't however persecute people just because they are nazists or communists. If they just present their views they exercise their freedom of speach. If they however try to impose their views by force or if they cooperate with foreign powers to establish such systems - they should be persecuted.
@OlenkaWagner Moments ago you were calling all communism a dangerous ideology which has no place in society and now you are believe you are not persecuting communist just because of their beliefs? Are you even listening to yourself?
@efrancesco - it should not take place in the society, but I am talking about legal terms. If there are just political views without a real power it can be tolerated, in the same way as in many countries a possession of small amounts of drugs for their own use is allowed.
@OlenkaWagner You are doing precisely what Senator McCarthy did. He preached fear and hate on unfounded claims and those who disagreed with him he persecuted them. And when those voice of reason were shot down, he persecuted more people. You are engaging in fear mongering by calling out communism as the soul problem in an otherwise perfect equation. Disregarding the fact that others have done same under different banners.
@efrancesco - Maybe comparing me to Senator McCarthy was meant to be an insult. If so I must disappoint you. I do not feel insulted. Engaging in fear? When you introduce anti-fire regulations - do you engage in fear? No you make people prevent danger. Totalitarian systems such as nazism, communism do pose danger.
@OlenkaWagner Not at all, I compared your tactics to those of McCarthy. Anti-fire regulations are for 'safety' purposes and as based on scientific evidence. Where is your evidence? Without proof and evidence, its just an accusation. And that is what all your supposed beliefs are, accusations.
@efrancesco - 65 million of communism victims in the People's Republic of China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe, 1 million in Vietnam, 150,000 in Latin America and 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power - harmful enough?
@efrancesco - The figures include people executed directly, those who died in concentration camps, also the victims of artificially caused famine in Ukraine, victims who died during deportations. You can argue about the numbers, but they would still remain high. Communism allows violance to achieve the ideology.
@OlenkaWagner Your figures are based on propaganda just like your ideas on fear and hate mongering. In your opinion killing 2 million people is acceptable and morally justifiable. Hypocrisy and bias are only words that come to mind along with wicked.
@efrancesco - To sum up: 1) you believe that communism is just another system basically not harming anyone - I disagree, I think it is as harmful as Nazism, 2) You believe that it is OK to forcely indoctrinate POW to make them believe in the ideas of their captors - I think it is not 3) You (reluctantly) agree that Chinese sometimes mistreated prisoners, but in every war warring sides did (I think that the scale is imprortant, not only the occurrence of incidents).
1. You do know that Nazi's were anti-communist? So you comparison is only there to demonize Communist and yet you claim you are reason are compassionate. You are systematically brainwashed and you can't even recognize that.
2. Under Geneva convention, educating POWs is not illegal so I take you disapprove of Geneva convention then.
3. I only agreed that abuse is the by-product of war and no war in history has been without abuse and mistreatment of the civilians.
@efrancesco - You used to present different arguments, some were more valid and some less, nevertherss they were arguments, now you are either repeating the same thing totally ignoring what I said - for exmple you repeat "education" totally ignoring the fact that the treatment was differenciated according to the fact prisoners agreed to be "educated" or not - you ignore the fact that it was forced. The numbers you give are "facts" and "mine" are "propaganda".
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, all this while I have debated, you haven't been able to come up with one solid argument. The problem is you are wasting your energy on a perceived target based on unfounded fears. And where did I claim that my number are fact? Please by all means quote me. I challenged your propaganda by making my own and that is obviously not sitting too well with you. Its easy to lie and cheat your way rather than actually doing the ground work and understanding the issues.
2. it is not my fault that you cannot define indoctrination or your definition is how education system works. To draw parallels is how you achieve impartiality and you have no interests in that since you are openly biased.
3. Your argument that its against Geneva convention to educate POWs is a blatant lie. You simply fail to grasp the law. 4. I will gladly accept your so called numbers if you provide proper sources that document them. You can't expect me to believe gibberish.
@efrancesco - So please enlightem me: what is the difference between education and indoctrination. On what base you claim that the prisoners were just educated and not indoctinated?
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, your definition of indoctrination is so narrow that it only involves Communism. Whereas every country preaches a doctrine that makes it the good guys. Its like Germany where students are not taught about Nazi history. What is taught, is a pro-German ideology. Similarly, Argentine may choose to represent Falklands war in a different shades of gray. I understand you belong to different generation but the threats you talk about are no longer there. You can say otherwise.
@efrancesco - OK, I agree that every country presents their history in a different way. This is unavoidable and I do not object against that. Something I object to is forcing this ideology to the captured enemy soldiers.
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, I'm not sure what you're trying to debate here.
1. 1st, You had problems with communism but now since every country preaches a doctrine, you no longer have any problems with that.
2. 2nd, You had problem with educating POWs, since according to you it is against Geneva convention. That turned out to be a lie. Geneva convention does not even define 'indoctrination', let alone asserting it illegal.
3. Now you trying to discuss whether its right or wrong. Well, war is wrong!
@efrancesco 1- communism is a political system, but it is an ideology as well. The ideology that did a lot of harm to humanity. It is not as dangerous as it used to be, it collapsed in most of the countries, but it survived in some and is gaining popularity in some others, which is disturbing of course.
2. The Geneva convention was written in 1942. It did not define 'indoctrination', because such a problem was not so acute in previous conflicts.
1. I classify your answer as mumbo-jumbo. As I mentioned earlier, simply because Hitler and Stalin had mustaches doesn't imply that men with mustaches are evil.
2. Further supports my argument that you never bothered reading Geneva Convention treaties. Geneva Conventions have been amended 3 times since 1949, the most recent one in 2005. You have no clue of what you're talking about and you want me to believe that we went through WWI and WWII without even thinking about this issue.
@efrancesco - 1) OK, this is your opinion that nazism was totally different than communism, but my opinion is different and I think that both systems were ideologically based and both were equally criminal. But you can have a different opinion. There is no scientific proof for one or another, because I can pick up many similarities and you can discredit them as accidental and you can pick up differences and I can say they are not so important.
@OlenkaWagner 1. Let me state this clearly, I have no interest in knowing your opinions. And what I stated is not an opinion, it is a fact. Nazism and Communism are two completely different concepts, if you wish to prove me wrong show me a political paper that says otherwise. Else, I classify your gibberish rants as mumbo-jumbo.
@efrancesco - what do you mean by "modern". Hannah Arendt is classic. Modern theories might be right of wrong. They should be verified by the time. What authors you can quote to support your views?
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, what you are doing is the equivalent of walking into a biology conference and raising questions whether germ theory is plausible or not.
@efrancesco - and if you are not interested in my opinions why are you discussing with me? If I am discussing with someone I am interested in his/her opinions.
@OlenkaWagner I'm debating you because it is wrong to spread misinformation as you are doing. You're preaching intolerance based on unfounded fears and exagerated claims. Just because you have an incompatible schema, doesn't make others evil. You cannot demonize people based on their political beliefs.
@efrancesco - Oh, so you have a sense of mission ;) You want to convince the others that communism is just another system with all is advantages and disadvantages, that China is a normal country with a slightly different understanding of democracy and that things China did in the past were maybe a little difficult to understand for an European or American, but not that bad. I strongly disagree with your views and will always try to prove how wrong you are.
@efrancesco I suspect you have not got a great deal of expierence if you claim Nazism and Communism are completely different. They are both based on the same centrally planned economic model, both on dictatorship, both operate on censorship and oppression, both on worship of the leader, both on imperialist aggression against other states, both tend to use nationalism and racism to further their goals although one claims it does not etc etc etc.....
@alanheath I study public administration and public policy so I know full well what I am talking about. And based on your criteria you can lump a number of concepts together. For example Apartheid. It has almost everything you quoted.
@efrancesco - we have a beer advert where it is said that the word ALMOST makes a difference ;) Now, seriously - you have every right a argue, but you cannot treat your statement as scientifically proved (public administration and public policy is rather art than science) and discredit the statement of others (including Hannah Arendt) as "just opinions".
@OlenkaWagner Public policy is an art? I suggest you read how policy analysis is done because you may have to classify statistics as an art. And that may change biology a little. Or a lot.
@alanheath You do know we are talking about Geneva conventions here? Do tell how your experience of a non-legal background help you understand legal documents? Right, it doesn't.
@efrancesco - We were talking about totalitarianism, you said that communism and nazizm are totally different. Hannah Arendt claimed that these systems were similar and her judgement was based on her experience.
@OlenkaWagner And I asked you to produce a single 'analysis' paper of two concepts which ties them together based on modern political theory. Did you?
@efrancesco - Hannah Arendt did many analyses. Just google and look for her papers. Both nazism and communism are totalitarian systems. Or do you want to prove that communism is not totalitarian. If you have arguments - provide them.
@alanheath3 - I also experienced communism only. My parents and grandparents experienced both. It was difficult to compare. Nazism in Poland was experienced at the time of war. Communism was in the peacetime. Also Nazism lasted shorter time. I wouldn't say one or the other was better or worse as overall.
@alanheath3 I never called anyone silly but your interpretation of a legal document is not what it actually is. Words are defined in legal context because the meaning of a words changes over time but the legal definition remains same. Now if you are reading a utility bill sure there is no problem but if you want to discuss international or policies than you really need experience. Because its not all about reading the document.
@efrancesco - 2) Something I have is article 16. It mentions the reasons when POW can receive different treatment : "rank and sex", and be "subject to any privileged treatment"
@efrancesco - 2) cont. The reasons for priviledges can be: "state of health, age or professional qualifications" - participation is the courses provided by the Detaining Power is not mentioned as an acceptable reason. Also "any adverse distinction" based on "political opinions" is forbidden. The Chinese applied both preferential treatment to those who complied with their political views and adverse treatment to those who did not. Was is OK?
@efrancesco - 3 - when you are unable to say - "Yes - forcing POWs to participate in ideologically-based courses was wrong", but you are also unable to say "No, It was perfectly OK, they had their ideology and they were allowed to impose it on anyone they had in their hands" - you finally say "War is wrong", which I can classify "as mumbo-jumbo" (using your words, not mine), because it says the obvious true, which we are not discussing. The same way I can say "life is hard".
@OlenkaWagner 3. Sure I am the one debating Geneva convetions without ever bothering to read them. You're asking a philosophical question of whether it is Ok or not to educate a POW since it is clealy not illegal. Now instead of saying that the war itself is an evil you are asking whether educating a POWs is right or wrong? You have wars that are killing people for no reason and you don't ask any philosophical questions there. Why? Beacuse to you that is morally justifiable.
@efrancesco - Even if I made a mistake at the beginning and did not read the Geneva convention when I made my statement, now I have read it and showed exactly which points were violated - the fact that I was wrong at the beginning does not change it. Now I ask you: if preferencial treatment is allowed only because of sex, rank, health status, age or professional qualifications, can complying with the political views of the captors be classified in any of those?
@efrancesco - yes, I can answer straight forward - I do find wars morally justifiable in some cases, but only if the alternative of the lack of war is occupation, loss of independence, human rights violation etc. In the case of the Korean war I think that the attempt to impose communism over the whole Korea was wrong and the UN intervention was right in principle. I will not pretend I think otherwise. Now, can you answer my question about forcing POW to participate courses?
@efrancesco - Yes, Nazis were anti-communists in rhetorics, but this does not change the fact that the similarities were very strong (the idea of forced labour for example, the idea of social welfare as well, the hate to aristocracy, etc.). In the same way Iran was against the Taliban in Afghanistan and in both there was islamic fundamentalism. Sometimes similar ideologies more hate one another than not so similar.
@OlenkaWagner I hope you are kidding when you discuss Nazi & Communism and Talibans & Iranians? You know what was really similar between between all of them? Facial hairs. I think we should persecute people with facial hairs because they are the cause of all problems.
@OlenkaWagner You are classifying war time abuse as systemic abuse based on your assumption that only in this instance were such abuses predominant. Now I asked you in which 'war' such abuses did not take place at all? Soviet-Poles war? Iraq war? Afghan war? WWI? WWII? And going by the same logic the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan war are systemic abuses on the US end? I may agree on that.
@efrancesco - My question still unaswered... Maybe instead of comparing different wars, it would be better to compare the treatment of POWs by different sides in the same conflict? Doesn't look more logical?
@OlenkaWagner You are talking about abuses and that's what I am referring to here. You wish to shift the focus on Sino wars so you can discount the monstrosities of wars elsewhere. It fulfills your personal goal of demonizing China but it doesn't solve the underlying issues. As a matter of fact, you refuse to accept them, period. Biased aren't we?
@efrancesco - Yes, I am biased. I prefer democracy to totalitarianism, I prefer freedom of speech to locking people up for criticizing the government and I prefer respect to human life to executing people for political reasons.
@OlenkaWagner You do not prefer democracy. You prefer Kool-Aid. The kool-aid that assures you that you are living in democracy when it is anything but that. You get locked up for speaking against your government in democracies all the time, should I remind you of McCarthyism?
@efrancesco - McCarthy was looking for communist agents in US. Recent documents show that there were such agent in many professional groups. Some people were suspected of being Soviet spies. Some were wrongly suspected and some were duly suspected. Some were spies, but were not proven.
@OlenkaWagner I do need a description of McCarthyism. McCarthyism was political prosecution of opponents and it destroyed the life of citizens that simply wanted an intelligent debate, as is the right under a democratic country. That never happened and thousands of people were deposed without a probable cause. Right in the middle of so-called democratic country. Also can you produce the names of those 'duly suspected' according to you, since you seem to be in full knowledge of this.
@efrancesco - the difference is that these people might have lost their jobs and have their lifes "ruined", but not destroyed physically. In China or USSR people suspected of working for "American imperialists" were physically eliminated.
@OlenkaWagner And that makes one a saint and the other a demon? What you fail to take notice is that both turned out to be evil. Both deposed political opponents to hinder debate that would have paved way for rationality. Hence why impartiality is not only needed in debates but it is a requirement.
@OlenkaWagner Second, what you are ignoring is the nature of discourse in human behavior which is similar across all nations, despite of what war it is. We think with a schema, what fits that schema is absorbed, what doesn't is rejected. Even if that schema is detrimental to one's survival, one will not question it. Because this schema makes you self-assure. And when you are self-assured, you force your beliefs on others. This schema can be a religious beliefs, a political or financial belief.
@OlenkaWagner The difference is I know that China isn't perfect, just as any other country. I am of the view that the Chinese should decide for themselves rather than us forcing our 'self-assured' beliefs on them and then be in the middle of a mess. And there are people inside China who are making strides to make China a better place. You cannot make a difference by commenting on a video, however you can make a difference in your own community by fighting Islamophobia.
@OlenkaWagner I have never supported war. As far as I am concerned, wars are evil, no matter which way you cut it. They are mounted as a result of someone wanting to force their self-assured beliefs on others. I simply don't care who falls in this category but to disregard one and criticize other is hypocrisy. You cannot use a different set of standards for perceived foes and a different one for allies. That is a biased opinion, which I cannot accept. This is the difference between you and me.
Yes but Pedophile content, along with hardcore pornographic websites are also restricted in China. That doesn't register on you radar or you don't wish to talk about it because that would prove that Chinese are not exclusively targeting the material that concerns you. You see your double standards here?
Every single day of our childhood we were vaccinated mentally to accept every race and culture with open arms and to treat them as if they were us. And now no one gives us free language classes to keep up with the underground foreign mafias operating in the usa nor business loans in our own country! I guess the USA flag was captured. And now I am sick of the boohoo weak minded. I've been through electronic warfare hell. Boohoo! When weakness is encouraged your nation has lost!
OK. One more answer, I think you asked it indirectly but a person "silenced" by me asked it directly: Why do I believe American documentaries and papers rather than this documentary and the former POWs' words? The reasons are:
- There is a freedom of speech in US and not in China. If the stories about the mistreatment of UN POWs were not true, there would be a big debate on it. So far there is not.
- Former POWs (those less "progressive") say about strong ideological pressure - t.b.c.
cont.: Ideological pressure could have caused that some people started believing what they were told. The "progressive" were better treated, so it was an additional factor. Then people rationalize their choices.
- The very nature of manipulation is that a manipulated person is not aware of that. Otherwise it is blackmail, bribery, but not manipulation.
Of course the fact you believe A and not believe B is to certain extent arbitrary.
cont. So it so happens that I tend to believe e.g. that the Moon landing did happen rather than believe that it was faked, although I haven't been at the preparations for it. But theoretically it could have been faked. I think I now answered all your questions - if not - simply ask the unanswered q once again. There should not be more than 1-3.
2. Just like you have been 'brainwashed' into believing all sorts of things that aren't true to the point that you conveniently lie about Geneva Convention and you have no idea of how socialist Europe or the rest of the world really is.
3. Now, I consider you 'brainwashed' enough that you think of 'educating' people as manipulation whereas you yourself lied about Geneva convention to manipulate everyone and that to you is alright. Again, its arbitrary.
2, 3 - Don't you think that too much of our discussion is dealing with my personal features. I might feel proud that you are so interested in me, but even if I am a liar, racist, brainwashed, uneducated, unexperienced (you can add anything to your list), my statements can be correct or incorrect. If you think my statement is incorrect, just prove it, providing proper links, but do not resort to describing me in a negative way just to dismiss anything I am talking about.
Olenka, you don't have a problem calling others 'brainwashed people' and accusing them of something that they never done but when the same thing happens to you, you find it gross... why not think of it the other way around? Is that difficult?
1. You did lie about Geneva Convention and you won't accept that.
2. The documentary that you believe is 'fair' is actually American 'cool-aid' and you can't accept that.
Why should it be that you portray others negatively but like to be seen as a saint?
1. I did not lie. The only mistake I made is that I thought indoctrination is directly forbidden. It is not forbidden directly (but I was genuinly mistaken). There are indirect indications against such practices: 1) in this case it looks that the treatment depended on the progress of indoctination (the treatment should be equal regardless political views) t.b.c
2) There are regulations forbiding to make POWs serve in the military forces of the captors, here there were no military forces, but the idea was similar - forcing to work against their own country - so it was "against the idea of GC, which is against trying to draw POWs on the side of captors. But if you still prefer saying that I was lying that might mean you have no further arguments but discrediting your opponent from an ethical point of view.
2. You think just the opposite the documentary I believe is fair you call "cool-aid" and the document you believe is fair I believe is a propaganda c***. What is the difference? Why your point of view should be better?
I did not portrey any of YT-ers before you started saying that I was bullying people, so I just wanted to mention that there are far from "innocent victims", but I really don't think concentration on YT-ers's characters makes any sense.
@efrancesco To the great disappointment of the Chinese Government, some days ago Liu Xiaobo got the Nobel Prize for Peace. Therefore, in general, governments who violate the human rights of their own citizens violate the rights of POWs too. The treatment of POWs belongs at least to the humanitarian rights and is strongly connected to them. By the way, maybe you should read article 50 of the Geneva Convention from 1949 what work is allowed for POWs. In any case POWs should be treated equal
@15anachristina I never argued that POWs be water-boarded or be held in foreign camps without proper trials or be put in front of military tribunals. Art. 50 of 1949 Geneva Convention state nothing about the 'indoctrination' clause that Olenka stated is against Geneva Convention.
I admire Liu for taking the initiative to influence change in China but what you seems to be forgetting is that he is Chinese himself. So its not as black and white as you may precieve.
@efrancesco - I don't think anyone of us has anything againt the Chinese as a nation. We are talking about communist government only. As often in totalitarian regimes the largest number of victim are their own people.
@efrancesco - Do you think forced indoctrination is OK? Do you think differentianting treatment based on POW's will to participate in an indoctination process is OK? I have already explained to you that the Geneva Convention requires equal treatment regardless different things and political views are one of such things. In this case there was a discrimination based on political views.
@OlenkaWagner You lied about Geneva convention. You present yourself as an expert or someone who has read Geneva convention. The fact is you are clueless as to how law or even international law works. Yet, you continue to spew your message of hate.
You don't understand Chinese. Do tell how do you know whats going on in Chinese media? Is the Polish media translating it for you?
Do you think blatant disregard for international law is OK? Do you think Iraq war is OK? Now that's American Kool-Aid.
@efrancesco - It is only your interpretation that I was LYING. The only mistake I made was that there was no direct regulation, however it can be derived from other regulations that such courses were illegal, because those who participated them were treated better than those who were not. So YOU are LYING saying that I was lying. You try all the possible means to distruct from the topic. You will talk about me, Americans, Poland, islamophobia just to avoid answering inconvenient questions.
@OlenkaWagner You LIED, Olenka. You supported your argument with a LIE i.e. it is against Geneva Convention to educate POWs. That was a LIE. No matter how you cut it. There is no explanation for this gross behavior. As a matter of fact, you don't even know anything about public policy or international law and you're passing yourself off as a classic ignorant internet debater. You are spreading MISINFORMATION and LIES. Now that is the TRUTH. AND TRUTH HURTS!
@efrancesco -Now YOU ARE LYING - EDUCATE? Don't make me laugh!!! I was talking about INDOCTRINATION, the attemt to make prisoners take the side of their captors. Does international law allow such practices? You are an expert so you should know...
@OlenkaWagner What you define as INDOCTRINATION is nothing more than EDUCATING others in what one believe or may not believe in. Your narrow view of the world is stopping you from seeing that. I say get a wider vision.
@efrancesco - oh, EDUCATION - and what about the case I sent you about a man who expressed his criticism about this kind of EDUCATION? The way he was treated? Was it also OK?
@OlenkaWagner Are you saying the American treat those who do not believe in democracy, capitalism and free markets any differently? Absolutely not. American much rather invade the country and kill a few million then control their aggression. Too much power corrupts. Thats one reason why people voice concern against Google.
@efrancesco - You want to say that Iraq was attacked, because Saddam did not believe in free markets? As far as democracy is concerned - you cannot treat democracy and authoritarianism on the same level. Otherwise you could ask why the idea that all the races are equal is not treated in the same way as the idea that there are superior and inferior races. Absurd!
@OlenkaWagner Let me assure you Olenka, that is exactly the reason why Iraq was attacked. Saddam simply wasn't exporting as much oil as Americans wanted and now it is.
Right and its OK to treat Cryptocracies as Democracies? Sure we will all turn a blind eye and hope for the best because hey one form of propaganda is better than the other form.
@efrancesco - Sure and he did just this. He didn't persecute the opposition, he did not use chemical weapon against Kurds... He was a democratic leader, just refusing to export enough oil...
@OlenkaWagner So where were the American when the Kurds were being sent into Gas chambers? Do you think its a little too late to make amends with dead peoples? What do Nazis have to say to millions of dead? Sorry we didnt play nice? But hey you can buy a BMW and call it even.
@efrancesco - again the comment just meant to distruct from the video topic. Failing to prevent the crime is bad, but committing the crime is much worse.
@OlenkaWagner Why would you like me to give you a pass on Poland, American, and the islamophobia that I see? Why do you like to make it convenient for yourself? Oh rite, because you want people to accept your lies as facts. To be a true human rights activist, you should be impartial. You should give as much credibility to Moslems as you give to Chinese dissidents. But that's not the case because Catholic church say otherwise.
@efrancesco - You have no idea about the relationship between the Catholic Church (especially in Poland) and Islam. Poland finished their conflict with Islam more than 325 years ago. In the 18th century a group of very traditionalist Polish patriotes made a confederation against Russia (Bar Confederation) and the ally of Polish confererates was Turkey. So don't try to tell that the Catholic Church or most Polish people say anything against Moslems.
@OlenkaWagner Right because someone in Poland did something back 18th century and now that makes it okay to be Islamophobes and Xenophobes? I see how your logic works.
@OlenkaWagner Stop talking? Really? Thats how democratic you are? You can bear to hear an opposing view? I had a much different impression of the Poles.
@efrancesco - you can talk, of course you can, you are allowed to write off-topics, I have no even technical possiblity to prevent you from this. But I have right to assess your statements about islamophobia as expressing your lack of knowledge in this field.
How about the American's that were captured, rumored to be in China then later Russia. These people disappeared.
kueagle1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not propaganda, But truth. Look Chinese in China twon in NYC, they r the nicest people,
Chinese has more then 10,000 years old culture, they don't believed in agressiveness toward to other human been
Chinese soft power really rocks...Their strength will bring peace to z world, i knew them cz i am from Taiwan
energyalt56 1 month ago
What fucking obvious propaganda garbage...
Mujangga 6 months ago
@Mujangga Not propaganda, But truth. Foreigners were well treated in China all the time, even in the war time and even now.
zhangtianyucn 4 months ago
@zhangtianyucn indeed they were treated muuuch better than Chinese soldiers. Because they were brilliant propaganda material.
Skandalos 4 months ago
@Skandalos - but one should remember that only a small group of prisoners were treated well - only those who agreed to co-operate. Only those labeled as "progressive". Even this propaganda movie cannot hide this fact completely.
OlenkaWagner 1 month ago
There were also 'Olympics' in Colditz in 1941. Britain came last in everything - so they were pretty realistic.
alanheath 1 year ago
Should I take that you are pro-Hitler then? or Why don't you call this off-topic? Because it isn't convenient for you. It is easy to reject it as an off-topic discussion then actually accept it and change your views
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - I just wanted to say that the fact that a country does one thing good, does not mean that this country is good. Most countries censor child pornography. But you don't want to talk about the link I gave you and I accept that you have no arguments supporting your statement that there was nothing wrong with ideological courses.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner This statement of yours, "I just wanted to say that the fact that a country does one thing good, does not mean that this country is good."
This is also true for America, Poland, Iceland, Saudi Arabia and for that reason every country on this earth. Just because you are doing one thing right, doesn't make the other wrong a right as well. It simply makes that one specific thing right. Only if you think from this perspective can you achieve impartiality.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - so I should treat the same the idea that people have freedom of speach, expression, property rights etc. to the situation where people do not have these rights. Then I am impartial. No, If you mean such impartiality I am not impartial.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner And I just proved to you that no such rights were observed during G20 meetings, which is when they were supposed to be highlighted to China so that we can hold our head high and say, "Yes that is how you run a country". In the midst of public discourse we can continue to function but that didn't happen. You can intent on calling democracies which are cryptocracies and do not represent the will of the people.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - You cannot compare an incidental beating of protesters who refused to follow the regulations about the place of the protests (they would be allowed to protest, but in a different place, not very close to the place where the summit was) with pemanent denial people to express their opinion about the government. Of course people should not be beaten (unless in direct self-defence), but this cannot be compared with the situation in China.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner You are wrong, Olenka. At the every basic level, people are standing up against their government. The decisions that are being taken are against the will of the people. Democracy is run by the people for the people. If the government is setting up blockades to deter protesters and arresting them without probable cause, it is what, according to you, makes China an authoritarian state. By that definition, so US, as is Canada, Britain, Germany etc.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - And you still refuse to comment on the material I sent you about the treatment of POWs during the Korean War. You didn't comment the incident I quoted to you, because it does not fit your schema.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Quote me a single war where there were no abuses of rights or people killed without a cause. Should I quote you the My Lai Massacre here? That falls on deaf ears because it doesn't fit your schema of how to make demonize China when its anything but that. What you are doing is you are pushing your unfounded theories and claimed on Chinese based on your presumed air of superiority.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner And I'm asking you to send me material on a war that haven't had these problems. How the you find me material on Iraq War or Afghan War? This further supports my points that wars are evil but US raised wars are the most pointless of all. What was the reason of Korean war again? What is the reason of Iraq war? What is the reason behind Afghan war?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - OK - the Falklands war - at least no problem of indoctrination from any of the sides. Only very incidental abuses, not approved by the commanders. You can look at the Red Cross reports from this conflict to find out if I am not lying.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Wrong. What you are calling incidental abuses were actual abuses nevertheless. You are show bias once again.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - But definitely there was no indoctrination - not at all.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner And 'indoctrination' or 'educating' one isn't consider abuse under Geneva convention so do tell how that matters?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Even if it is forced and prisoners are treated differently according to the fact whether they agree or not agree to be "educated"?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner So when your mother wakes you up for school in morning and forces you to go to school whether you agree or not, and the schools force you to do your homework whether you like it or not, that is the very definition of 'indoctrination'? I like the sound of that and so would kids all over the world. Education systems be damned!
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Are you serious or kidding? Were the Chinese the "mothers" of the UN prisoners? The Geneva convention demands eqal treatment regardless political views. Those who liked communism and those who hated it should be treated eqally. They were not.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Of course I am serious. Its not my fault that your definition of 'indoctrination' is the very way our 'education' system works. And in which war did you pointed that foes were treated well and there were no abuses?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - I mentioned the Falklands war. The problem with your argumentation is that you do not recognize differences in quantity. One incidental abuse is for you the same as systematic abuse being a part of the system. In the Korean war the forced "education" was a part of the system from the Chinese part. Other abuses were also so common that they look as a part of the system as well.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner First, Falkland wars were a limited war. London was never attacked and the 'war' was limited to a few desolate rocks in the middle of the ocean. And despite the limited nature of the war there were instances of abuses. So it is as bad an example as any. Now would you like to see the modern day Iraq invasion or Afghan invasion under the same light as Korean war?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Another attempt to avoid my question: "Do you consider fine unequal treatment of prisoners, depending whether they agree or not agree with the ideology of their captors?"
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, you're simply not willing to accept the answer to this question. I have answered it time over time. And the answer is not is not limited to this specific war but all wars. That includes the wars raised by so-called democratic nations in the pursuit of what is perceived as 'good' or 'evil'.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - But my question is not how common such practice is/was (however so massive indoctrination is rather specific to communist countries or other totalitarian systems, democratic countries might priviledge prisoners who cooperate providing useful information, but they don't care about ideology). My question is whether it is right or wrong. As simple as that.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Again what you are referring to indoctrination is simply education. Again your education or schema is indoctrinated by your religious and political beliefs and you feel self-assured enough to force it on other. I am against that. One should form of life is equal to another and no one entity is superior or supreme to another. That of course doesn't sit too well with you.
efrancesco 1 year ago
Education system in the society is something different. Parents should provide education for their children and they have right to provide the education according to their beliefs. But we are talking about POW, who should be treated eqally regardless their political views (will to be "educated or not). This was not the case (even in the previous part it was admitted 'no matter where we were hiding'). WAS IT RIGHT OR WRONG? Did it comply with equal treatment regardless political views?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner What the child sees as equal treatment is not how the mothers sees it. The child may wish to be an atheist and not believe in medieval gibberish but that doesn't deter the mother from 'educating' the child. Because the mother believes in her perceived superiority and wishes to impose her unfounded beliefs as traditions on the next generation. The same is the case in Wars.
efrancesco 1 year ago
Geneva Convention - Art 16. "Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be TREATED ALIKE by the Detaining Power, WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE DISTINCTION based on race, nationality, religious belief or POLITICAL OPINIONS, or ANY OTHER distinction founded on similar criteria."
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Art. 16 of Geneva convention is against torture and abuse and we have discussed that earlier. You are going in circles without a shred of evidence of your so called theory of Geneva convention being against 'indoctrination' or 'educating' prisoners.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - in the exmple I sent you the prisoner WAS tortured, because he criticized the ideological course. He died about three weeks later. The article does not only say about torture. It mentiones equal treatment: "WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE DISTINCTION based on race, nationality, religious belief or POLITICAL OPINIONS". Political opinions are mentioned and the courses were aimed to change the political opinions, but you fail to see that and make comparison to school children.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner If Art. 16 of Geneva convention is not about torture please show how it is against "indoctrination"? The only evidence I see is that you 'believe' it is so and just because you believe it is, doesn't make it.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - refusing indoctrination is showing different political views. If the prisoners whose political views are against indoctrination are punished, they are not treated equally as those who comply with indoctrination. Only if the indoctricantion was completely voluntary and going to the courses was not connected to any privilleges - the article would be obeyed.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Again, you are not showing how Geneva convention is against 'indoctrination'. You are presenting me your view. Can you quote me a passage in Geneva convention that directly say anything against educating POWs?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - But this is your opinion that it was educating. In the EuroAtlantic civilization you are in minority (I hope). You prove that it was just mere education without ideological flavour.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner It is not an opinion, I'm simply presenting things at their most basic level. Problem is you are unhappy because you can't demonize what in your opinion is the evil in this world. You can only hope that I am in minority. Because in reality, I am in majority as far as Iceland is concerned.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - with the whole respect to your beautiful country, it is not very densily populated, so even if people like you were in majority, they would still be in minority even on a European scale.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner And you know for a fact that people in Europe are biased and believe in war mongering and unfounded fears? Can you quote me the poll that back your assertion?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - No, I just said I hope. I hope that there are enough people able to see that communism is as evil as nazism.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner There we go again, Communism is similar to Nazism. Lady, one is a form of governance based Marxist theories and the other is an ideology based on racial beliefs. If your criteria is forced labour, social welfare, and aristocracy, you can include a dozen other ideologies. For example, Apartheid, they are a more close match to Nazism than Communism. Force labor, social welfare, racial beliefs etc. Poland, Iceland, US have social welfare, should we go on the list too?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco "The child may wish to be an atheist and not believe in medieval gibberish " - so far your comments were only irrelevant, now they became offensive.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner It was intended to be offensive so that you can experience full well how persecuting oneself for his/her belief is unreasonable. How does your goal of persecuting communists makes you any better than Nazis who persecuted Jews just because they were Jews? And that's what you are doing persecuting and demonizing communist just because they are communist.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Yes, I do believe that some ideologies are highly dangerous and should not have place in the society. These ideologies are those advocating creating totalitarian systems such as nazism or communism.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Your beliefs are biased and hence why I disregard them. One evil isn't better than another, they are both evil. I, for one, do not wish to live in a world where everyone is similar to me or has the same ideas as me. We are creatures of diversity. The fear of unknown is only going to take us back to the age of unreason.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Are you open to nazism as well?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner And you do know that Nazism is not a political system?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - it is both political and ideological. The same as communism. Polish constitution forbids both nazism and communism. Both systems were meant to create a "new human being". Both ignored the need of individuals putting the benefit of state or "society" in the first place. Both disrespected human life. Both were despising traditional values. Both disrespected private property (communism by definition, nazism confiscated the property of "subhumans").
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Rubbish. Nazism is an ideology not a political form of governance. If you believe otherwise you are brainwashed and I suggest you 'Google' it. Again, I simply do not care what polish constitution forbids and allows, I am not Polish. Just because Poland decides to brainwash its citizens doesn't mean you can impose that on the rest of the world.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - and you insult my country...
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner So when your country, Poland, brainwashes its citizen, you wish to give it a free pass? Because you believe your ideology is superior? You are sounding more and more Nazi. Are you sure you are not a Nazi?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - communism is not ideology?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Communism is a form of government based on Marxist theory.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco I wouldn't however persecute people just because they are nazists or communists. If they just present their views they exercise their freedom of speach. If they however try to impose their views by force or if they cooperate with foreign powers to establish such systems - they should be persecuted.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Moments ago you were calling all communism a dangerous ideology which has no place in society and now you are believe you are not persecuting communist just because of their beliefs? Are you even listening to yourself?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - it should not take place in the society, but I am talking about legal terms. If there are just political views without a real power it can be tolerated, in the same way as in many countries a possession of small amounts of drugs for their own use is allowed.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner You are doing precisely what Senator McCarthy did. He preached fear and hate on unfounded claims and those who disagreed with him he persecuted them. And when those voice of reason were shot down, he persecuted more people. You are engaging in fear mongering by calling out communism as the soul problem in an otherwise perfect equation. Disregarding the fact that others have done same under different banners.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Maybe comparing me to Senator McCarthy was meant to be an insult. If so I must disappoint you. I do not feel insulted. Engaging in fear? When you introduce anti-fire regulations - do you engage in fear? No you make people prevent danger. Totalitarian systems such as nazism, communism do pose danger.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Not at all, I compared your tactics to those of McCarthy. Anti-fire regulations are for 'safety' purposes and as based on scientific evidence. Where is your evidence? Without proof and evidence, its just an accusation. And that is what all your supposed beliefs are, accusations.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - 65 million of communism victims in the People's Republic of China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe, 1 million in Vietnam, 150,000 in Latin America and 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power - harmful enough?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner These figures are idiotic. Why? I say democracies and the spread of them have killed 200million people. How do you say that isn't true?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - The figures include people executed directly, those who died in concentration camps, also the victims of artificially caused famine in Ukraine, victims who died during deportations. You can argue about the numbers, but they would still remain high. Communism allows violance to achieve the ideology.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Your figures are based on propaganda just like your ideas on fear and hate mongering. In your opinion killing 2 million people is acceptable and morally justifiable. Hypocrisy and bias are only words that come to mind along with wicked.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - To sum up: 1) you believe that communism is just another system basically not harming anyone - I disagree, I think it is as harmful as Nazism, 2) You believe that it is OK to forcely indoctrinate POW to make them believe in the ideas of their captors - I think it is not 3) You (reluctantly) agree that Chinese sometimes mistreated prisoners, but in every war warring sides did (I think that the scale is imprortant, not only the occurrence of incidents).
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner
1. You do know that Nazi's were anti-communist? So you comparison is only there to demonize Communist and yet you claim you are reason are compassionate. You are systematically brainwashed and you can't even recognize that.
2. Under Geneva convention, educating POWs is not illegal so I take you disapprove of Geneva convention then.
3. I only agreed that abuse is the by-product of war and no war in history has been without abuse and mistreatment of the civilians.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - You used to present different arguments, some were more valid and some less, nevertherss they were arguments, now you are either repeating the same thing totally ignoring what I said - for exmple you repeat "education" totally ignoring the fact that the treatment was differenciated according to the fact prisoners agreed to be "educated" or not - you ignore the fact that it was forced. The numbers you give are "facts" and "mine" are "propaganda".
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, all this while I have debated, you haven't been able to come up with one solid argument. The problem is you are wasting your energy on a perceived target based on unfounded fears. And where did I claim that my number are fact? Please by all means quote me. I challenged your propaganda by making my own and that is obviously not sitting too well with you. Its easy to lie and cheat your way rather than actually doing the ground work and understanding the issues.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner
2. it is not my fault that you cannot define indoctrination or your definition is how education system works. To draw parallels is how you achieve impartiality and you have no interests in that since you are openly biased.
3. Your argument that its against Geneva convention to educate POWs is a blatant lie. You simply fail to grasp the law. 4. I will gladly accept your so called numbers if you provide proper sources that document them. You can't expect me to believe gibberish.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - So please enlightem me: what is the difference between education and indoctrination. On what base you claim that the prisoners were just educated and not indoctinated?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, your definition of indoctrination is so narrow that it only involves Communism. Whereas every country preaches a doctrine that makes it the good guys. Its like Germany where students are not taught about Nazi history. What is taught, is a pro-German ideology. Similarly, Argentine may choose to represent Falklands war in a different shades of gray. I understand you belong to different generation but the threats you talk about are no longer there. You can say otherwise.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - OK, I agree that every country presents their history in a different way. This is unavoidable and I do not object against that. Something I object to is forcing this ideology to the captured enemy soldiers.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, I'm not sure what you're trying to debate here.
1. 1st, You had problems with communism but now since every country preaches a doctrine, you no longer have any problems with that.
2. 2nd, You had problem with educating POWs, since according to you it is against Geneva convention. That turned out to be a lie. Geneva convention does not even define 'indoctrination', let alone asserting it illegal.
3. Now you trying to discuss whether its right or wrong. Well, war is wrong!
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco 1- communism is a political system, but it is an ideology as well. The ideology that did a lot of harm to humanity. It is not as dangerous as it used to be, it collapsed in most of the countries, but it survived in some and is gaining popularity in some others, which is disturbing of course.
2. The Geneva convention was written in 1942. It did not define 'indoctrination', because such a problem was not so acute in previous conflicts.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner
1. I classify your answer as mumbo-jumbo. As I mentioned earlier, simply because Hitler and Stalin had mustaches doesn't imply that men with mustaches are evil.
2. Further supports my argument that you never bothered reading Geneva Convention treaties. Geneva Conventions have been amended 3 times since 1949, the most recent one in 2005. You have no clue of what you're talking about and you want me to believe that we went through WWI and WWII without even thinking about this issue.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - 1) OK, this is your opinion that nazism was totally different than communism, but my opinion is different and I think that both systems were ideologically based and both were equally criminal. But you can have a different opinion. There is no scientific proof for one or another, because I can pick up many similarities and you can discredit them as accidental and you can pick up differences and I can say they are not so important.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner 1. Let me state this clearly, I have no interest in knowing your opinions. And what I stated is not an opinion, it is a fact. Nazism and Communism are two completely different concepts, if you wish to prove me wrong show me a political paper that says otherwise. Else, I classify your gibberish rants as mumbo-jumbo.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - 1) Look at the papers of Hannah Arendt. Are they also 'gibberish rants as mumbo-jumbo'?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner 1. So you are telling me you don't have a single 'analysis' of two concepts which ties them together based on modern political theory?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - what do you mean by "modern". Hannah Arendt is classic. Modern theories might be right of wrong. They should be verified by the time. What authors you can quote to support your views?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Olenka, what you are doing is the equivalent of walking into a biology conference and raising questions whether germ theory is plausible or not.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - and if you are not interested in my opinions why are you discussing with me? If I am discussing with someone I am interested in his/her opinions.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner I'm debating you because it is wrong to spread misinformation as you are doing. You're preaching intolerance based on unfounded fears and exagerated claims. Just because you have an incompatible schema, doesn't make others evil. You cannot demonize people based on their political beliefs.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Oh, so you have a sense of mission ;) You want to convince the others that communism is just another system with all is advantages and disadvantages, that China is a normal country with a slightly different understanding of democracy and that things China did in the past were maybe a little difficult to understand for an European or American, but not that bad. I strongly disagree with your views and will always try to prove how wrong you are.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@efrancesco I suspect you have not got a great deal of expierence if you claim Nazism and Communism are completely different. They are both based on the same centrally planned economic model, both on dictatorship, both operate on censorship and oppression, both on worship of the leader, both on imperialist aggression against other states, both tend to use nationalism and racism to further their goals although one claims it does not etc etc etc.....
alanheath 1 year ago
@alanheath I study public administration and public policy so I know full well what I am talking about. And based on your criteria you can lump a number of concepts together. For example Apartheid. It has almost everything you quoted.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - we have a beer advert where it is said that the word ALMOST makes a difference ;) Now, seriously - you have every right a argue, but you cannot treat your statement as scientifically proved (public administration and public policy is rather art than science) and discredit the statement of others (including Hannah Arendt) as "just opinions".
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Public policy is an art? I suggest you read how policy analysis is done because you may have to classify statistics as an art. And that may change biology a little. Or a lot.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco Sure, yes. Students always know better than those that have first hand experience.
alanheath 1 year ago
@alanheath You do know we are talking about Geneva conventions here? Do tell how your experience of a non-legal background help you understand legal documents? Right, it doesn't.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - We were talking about totalitarianism, you said that communism and nazizm are totally different. Hannah Arendt claimed that these systems were similar and her judgement was based on her experience.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OlenkaWagner And I asked you to produce a single 'analysis' paper of two concepts which ties them together based on modern political theory. Did you?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Hannah Arendt did many analyses. Just google and look for her papers. Both nazism and communism are totalitarian systems. Or do you want to prove that communism is not totalitarian. If you have arguments - provide them.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner I asked for paper not Google. Can you or can you not produce a single 'analysis' paper?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Hanna Arendt - The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Rev. ed.; New York: Schocken, 2004.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner I only experienced communism. Is Nazism better or worse?
alanheath3 1 year ago
@alanheath3 - I also experienced communism only. My parents and grandparents experienced both. It was difficult to compare. Nazism in Poland was experienced at the time of war. Communism was in the peacetime. Also Nazism lasted shorter time. I wouldn't say one or the other was better or worse as overall.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@efrancesco Most people have no legal training yet they read legal documents all the time. Not everyone is as silly as you may believe.
alanheath3 1 year ago
@alanheath3 I never called anyone silly but your interpretation of a legal document is not what it actually is. Words are defined in legal context because the meaning of a words changes over time but the legal definition remains same. Now if you are reading a utility bill sure there is no problem but if you want to discuss international or policies than you really need experience. Because its not all about reading the document.
efrancesco 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@efrancesco I am sure you have far more experience than I have.
alanheath3 11 months ago
@efrancesco - 2) Something I have is article 16. It mentions the reasons when POW can receive different treatment : "rank and sex", and be "subject to any privileged treatment"
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@efrancesco - 2) cont. The reasons for priviledges can be: "state of health, age or professional qualifications" - participation is the courses provided by the Detaining Power is not mentioned as an acceptable reason. Also "any adverse distinction" based on "political opinions" is forbidden. The Chinese applied both preferential treatment to those who complied with their political views and adverse treatment to those who did not. Was is OK?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@efrancesco - 3 - when you are unable to say - "Yes - forcing POWs to participate in ideologically-based courses was wrong", but you are also unable to say "No, It was perfectly OK, they had their ideology and they were allowed to impose it on anyone they had in their hands" - you finally say "War is wrong", which I can classify "as mumbo-jumbo" (using your words, not mine), because it says the obvious true, which we are not discussing. The same way I can say "life is hard".
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner 3. Sure I am the one debating Geneva convetions without ever bothering to read them. You're asking a philosophical question of whether it is Ok or not to educate a POW since it is clealy not illegal. Now instead of saying that the war itself is an evil you are asking whether educating a POWs is right or wrong? You have wars that are killing people for no reason and you don't ask any philosophical questions there. Why? Beacuse to you that is morally justifiable.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Even if I made a mistake at the beginning and did not read the Geneva convention when I made my statement, now I have read it and showed exactly which points were violated - the fact that I was wrong at the beginning does not change it. Now I ask you: if preferencial treatment is allowed only because of sex, rank, health status, age or professional qualifications, can complying with the political views of the captors be classified in any of those?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@efrancesco - yes, I can answer straight forward - I do find wars morally justifiable in some cases, but only if the alternative of the lack of war is occupation, loss of independence, human rights violation etc. In the case of the Korean war I think that the attempt to impose communism over the whole Korea was wrong and the UN intervention was right in principle. I will not pretend I think otherwise. Now, can you answer my question about forcing POW to participate courses?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Yes, Nazis were anti-communists in rhetorics, but this does not change the fact that the similarities were very strong (the idea of forced labour for example, the idea of social welfare as well, the hate to aristocracy, etc.). In the same way Iran was against the Taliban in Afghanistan and in both there was islamic fundamentalism. Sometimes similar ideologies more hate one another than not so similar.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner I hope you are kidding when you discuss Nazi & Communism and Talibans & Iranians? You know what was really similar between between all of them? Facial hairs. I think we should persecute people with facial hairs because they are the cause of all problems.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner You are classifying war time abuse as systemic abuse based on your assumption that only in this instance were such abuses predominant. Now I asked you in which 'war' such abuses did not take place at all? Soviet-Poles war? Iraq war? Afghan war? WWI? WWII? And going by the same logic the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan war are systemic abuses on the US end? I may agree on that.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - My question still unaswered... Maybe instead of comparing different wars, it would be better to compare the treatment of POWs by different sides in the same conflict? Doesn't look more logical?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner You are talking about abuses and that's what I am referring to here. You wish to shift the focus on Sino wars so you can discount the monstrosities of wars elsewhere. It fulfills your personal goal of demonizing China but it doesn't solve the underlying issues. As a matter of fact, you refuse to accept them, period. Biased aren't we?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Yes, I am biased. I prefer democracy to totalitarianism, I prefer freedom of speech to locking people up for criticizing the government and I prefer respect to human life to executing people for political reasons.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner You do not prefer democracy. You prefer Kool-Aid. The kool-aid that assures you that you are living in democracy when it is anything but that. You get locked up for speaking against your government in democracies all the time, should I remind you of McCarthyism?
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - McCarthy was looking for communist agents in US. Recent documents show that there were such agent in many professional groups. Some people were suspected of being Soviet spies. Some were wrongly suspected and some were duly suspected. Some were spies, but were not proven.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner I do need a description of McCarthyism. McCarthyism was political prosecution of opponents and it destroyed the life of citizens that simply wanted an intelligent debate, as is the right under a democratic country. That never happened and thousands of people were deposed without a probable cause. Right in the middle of so-called democratic country. Also can you produce the names of those 'duly suspected' according to you, since you seem to be in full knowledge of this.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - the difference is that these people might have lost their jobs and have their lifes "ruined", but not destroyed physically. In China or USSR people suspected of working for "American imperialists" were physically eliminated.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner And that makes one a saint and the other a demon? What you fail to take notice is that both turned out to be evil. Both deposed political opponents to hinder debate that would have paved way for rationality. Hence why impartiality is not only needed in debates but it is a requirement.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Second, what you are ignoring is the nature of discourse in human behavior which is similar across all nations, despite of what war it is. We think with a schema, what fits that schema is absorbed, what doesn't is rejected. Even if that schema is detrimental to one's survival, one will not question it. Because this schema makes you self-assure. And when you are self-assured, you force your beliefs on others. This schema can be a religious beliefs, a political or financial belief.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - But in this case you are a human being as well and you also think according certain schemes. What's the difference between us then?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner The difference is I know that China isn't perfect, just as any other country. I am of the view that the Chinese should decide for themselves rather than us forcing our 'self-assured' beliefs on them and then be in the middle of a mess. And there are people inside China who are making strides to make China a better place. You cannot make a difference by commenting on a video, however you can make a difference in your own community by fighting Islamophobia.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner I have never supported war. As far as I am concerned, wars are evil, no matter which way you cut it. They are mounted as a result of someone wanting to force their self-assured beliefs on others. I simply don't care who falls in this category but to disregard one and criticize other is hypocrisy. You cannot use a different set of standards for perceived foes and a different one for allies. That is a biased opinion, which I cannot accept. This is the difference between you and me.
efrancesco 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes but Pedophile content, along with hardcore pornographic websites are also restricted in China. That doesn't register on you radar or you don't wish to talk about it because that would prove that Chinese are not exclusively targeting the material that concerns you. You see your double standards here?
efrancesco 1 year ago
Every single day of our childhood we were vaccinated mentally to accept every race and culture with open arms and to treat them as if they were us. And now no one gives us free language classes to keep up with the underground foreign mafias operating in the usa nor business loans in our own country! I guess the USA flag was captured. And now I am sick of the boohoo weak minded. I've been through electronic warfare hell. Boohoo! When weakness is encouraged your nation has lost!
Nueroactive 1 year ago
China's such a warm-hearted country ;)
FarewelI 1 year ago 8
i agree 110% no country should ever interfer in a civil war
LADORSEY 1 year ago
KOrean war is a civil war, No countries should interfere other country's civil war.
Thats damn right
pig19871225 1 year ago 2
If there wan`t any Korean war there would not be the rich and wealthy South Korean Republic.
MrLoceklis 1 year ago
the polish are finally leaving ireland.People were sick of signs in polish etc.[also were nasty drunks].
scorzeny45 2 years ago
I guess there were great expectations on both sides in 1950s.
Terrakinetic 2 years ago
Comment removed
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
Comment removed
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
OK. One more answer, I think you asked it indirectly but a person "silenced" by me asked it directly: Why do I believe American documentaries and papers rather than this documentary and the former POWs' words? The reasons are:
- There is a freedom of speech in US and not in China. If the stories about the mistreatment of UN POWs were not true, there would be a big debate on it. So far there is not.
- Former POWs (those less "progressive") say about strong ideological pressure - t.b.c.
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
cont.: Ideological pressure could have caused that some people started believing what they were told. The "progressive" were better treated, so it was an additional factor. Then people rationalize their choices.
- The very nature of manipulation is that a manipulated person is not aware of that. Otherwise it is blackmail, bribery, but not manipulation.
Of course the fact you believe A and not believe B is to certain extent arbitrary.
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
cont. So it so happens that I tend to believe e.g. that the Moon landing did happen rather than believe that it was faked, although I haven't been at the preparations for it. But theoretically it could have been faked. I think I now answered all your questions - if not - simply ask the unanswered q once again. There should not be more than 1-3.
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
2. Just like you have been 'brainwashed' into believing all sorts of things that aren't true to the point that you conveniently lie about Geneva Convention and you have no idea of how socialist Europe or the rest of the world really is.
3. Now, I consider you 'brainwashed' enough that you think of 'educating' people as manipulation whereas you yourself lied about Geneva convention to manipulate everyone and that to you is alright. Again, its arbitrary.
efrancesco 2 years ago
2, 3 - Don't you think that too much of our discussion is dealing with my personal features. I might feel proud that you are so interested in me, but even if I am a liar, racist, brainwashed, uneducated, unexperienced (you can add anything to your list), my statements can be correct or incorrect. If you think my statement is incorrect, just prove it, providing proper links, but do not resort to describing me in a negative way just to dismiss anything I am talking about.
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
Olenka, you don't have a problem calling others 'brainwashed people' and accusing them of something that they never done but when the same thing happens to you, you find it gross... why not think of it the other way around? Is that difficult?
1. You did lie about Geneva Convention and you won't accept that.
2. The documentary that you believe is 'fair' is actually American 'cool-aid' and you can't accept that.
Why should it be that you portray others negatively but like to be seen as a saint?
efrancesco 2 years ago
1. I did not lie. The only mistake I made is that I thought indoctrination is directly forbidden. It is not forbidden directly (but I was genuinly mistaken). There are indirect indications against such practices: 1) in this case it looks that the treatment depended on the progress of indoctination (the treatment should be equal regardless political views) t.b.c
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
2) There are regulations forbiding to make POWs serve in the military forces of the captors, here there were no military forces, but the idea was similar - forcing to work against their own country - so it was "against the idea of GC, which is against trying to draw POWs on the side of captors. But if you still prefer saying that I was lying that might mean you have no further arguments but discrediting your opponent from an ethical point of view.
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
2. You think just the opposite the documentary I believe is fair you call "cool-aid" and the document you believe is fair I believe is a propaganda c***. What is the difference? Why your point of view should be better?
I did not portrey any of YT-ers before you started saying that I was bullying people, so I just wanted to mention that there are far from "innocent victims", but I really don't think concentration on YT-ers's characters makes any sense.
OlenkaWagner 2 years ago
@efrancesco To the great disappointment of the Chinese Government, some days ago Liu Xiaobo got the Nobel Prize for Peace. Therefore, in general, governments who violate the human rights of their own citizens violate the rights of POWs too. The treatment of POWs belongs at least to the humanitarian rights and is strongly connected to them. By the way, maybe you should read article 50 of the Geneva Convention from 1949 what work is allowed for POWs. In any case POWs should be treated equal
15anachristina 1 year ago
Comment removed
efrancesco 1 year ago
@15anachristina I never argued that POWs be water-boarded or be held in foreign camps without proper trials or be put in front of military tribunals. Art. 50 of 1949 Geneva Convention state nothing about the 'indoctrination' clause that Olenka stated is against Geneva Convention.
I admire Liu for taking the initiative to influence change in China but what you seems to be forgetting is that he is Chinese himself. So its not as black and white as you may precieve.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - I don't think anyone of us has anything againt the Chinese as a nation. We are talking about communist government only. As often in totalitarian regimes the largest number of victim are their own people.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Do you think forced indoctrination is OK? Do you think differentianting treatment based on POW's will to participate in an indoctination process is OK? I have already explained to you that the Geneva Convention requires equal treatment regardless different things and political views are one of such things. In this case there was a discrimination based on political views.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner You lied about Geneva convention. You present yourself as an expert or someone who has read Geneva convention. The fact is you are clueless as to how law or even international law works. Yet, you continue to spew your message of hate.
You don't understand Chinese. Do tell how do you know whats going on in Chinese media? Is the Polish media translating it for you?
Do you think blatant disregard for international law is OK? Do you think Iraq war is OK? Now that's American Kool-Aid.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - It is only your interpretation that I was LYING. The only mistake I made was that there was no direct regulation, however it can be derived from other regulations that such courses were illegal, because those who participated them were treated better than those who were not. So YOU are LYING saying that I was lying. You try all the possible means to distruct from the topic. You will talk about me, Americans, Poland, islamophobia just to avoid answering inconvenient questions.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner You LIED, Olenka. You supported your argument with a LIE i.e. it is against Geneva Convention to educate POWs. That was a LIE. No matter how you cut it. There is no explanation for this gross behavior. As a matter of fact, you don't even know anything about public policy or international law and you're passing yourself off as a classic ignorant internet debater. You are spreading MISINFORMATION and LIES. Now that is the TRUTH. AND TRUTH HURTS!
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco -Now YOU ARE LYING - EDUCATE? Don't make me laugh!!! I was talking about INDOCTRINATION, the attemt to make prisoners take the side of their captors. Does international law allow such practices? You are an expert so you should know...
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner What you define as INDOCTRINATION is nothing more than EDUCATING others in what one believe or may not believe in. Your narrow view of the world is stopping you from seeing that. I say get a wider vision.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - oh, EDUCATION - and what about the case I sent you about a man who expressed his criticism about this kind of EDUCATION? The way he was treated? Was it also OK?
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Are you saying the American treat those who do not believe in democracy, capitalism and free markets any differently? Absolutely not. American much rather invade the country and kill a few million then control their aggression. Too much power corrupts. Thats one reason why people voice concern against Google.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - You want to say that Iraq was attacked, because Saddam did not believe in free markets? As far as democracy is concerned - you cannot treat democracy and authoritarianism on the same level. Otherwise you could ask why the idea that all the races are equal is not treated in the same way as the idea that there are superior and inferior races. Absurd!
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Let me assure you Olenka, that is exactly the reason why Iraq was attacked. Saddam simply wasn't exporting as much oil as Americans wanted and now it is.
Right and its OK to treat Cryptocracies as Democracies? Sure we will all turn a blind eye and hope for the best because hey one form of propaganda is better than the other form.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Sure and he did just this. He didn't persecute the opposition, he did not use chemical weapon against Kurds... He was a democratic leader, just refusing to export enough oil...
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner So where were the American when the Kurds were being sent into Gas chambers? Do you think its a little too late to make amends with dead peoples? What do Nazis have to say to millions of dead? Sorry we didnt play nice? But hey you can buy a BMW and call it even.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - Yes, it was late, but still better than never. Nazism was condemned and main Nazi leaders executed or put to jail.. Off-topic again...
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner I am sure the Jews and Kurds are happy hearing this in their graves.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - again the comment just meant to distruct from the video topic. Failing to prevent the crime is bad, but committing the crime is much worse.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Why would you like me to give you a pass on Poland, American, and the islamophobia that I see? Why do you like to make it convenient for yourself? Oh rite, because you want people to accept your lies as facts. To be a true human rights activist, you should be impartial. You should give as much credibility to Moslems as you give to Chinese dissidents. But that's not the case because Catholic church say otherwise.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - You have no idea about the relationship between the Catholic Church (especially in Poland) and Islam. Poland finished their conflict with Islam more than 325 years ago. In the 18th century a group of very traditionalist Polish patriotes made a confederation against Russia (Bar Confederation) and the ally of Polish confererates was Turkey. So don't try to tell that the Catholic Church or most Polish people say anything against Moslems.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Right because someone in Poland did something back 18th century and now that makes it okay to be Islamophobes and Xenophobes? I see how your logic works.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - But I am not islamophobic, so either provide evidence of my islamophobia or stop talking about things you have no idea about.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Stop talking? Really? Thats how democratic you are? You can bear to hear an opposing view? I had a much different impression of the Poles.
efrancesco 1 year ago
@efrancesco - you can talk, of course you can, you are allowed to write off-topics, I have no even technical possiblity to prevent you from this. But I have right to assess your statements about islamophobia as expressing your lack of knowledge in this field.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago