It’s functionally the same logic as… [check notes] American civilians deserving to die in 9/11 for being complicit in American imperialism. Would asking Bin Laden not to attack the WTC count as “civility politics”?
“Disrespecting the graves of soldiers who literally fought and died in a war for slavery is the exact same thing as killing civilians in a terrorist attack because a rich Saudi kid was assmad that infidels were on holy land in the early 90s”
I’m assuming you’re thinking every single soldier in the Confederacy fights because they want their precious slavery.
not everyone who served had much of a choice. Many were expected to serve on one side or the other merely because of where they lived. This is true of much of history
I’m pointing to this comment made by someone in this post. Feel free to piss on the grave of Jefferson Davis or soldiers who thought like him. Also, Bin Laden thought every American civilian is just as guilty as the soldiers.
From Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, as quoted in the guy’s Wikipedia page:
“Furthermore, he argued that all Americans were complicit in the crimes of their government due to majority of them electing it to power and paying taxes that fund the US military.”
Assuming you’re American, what do you think if someone you don’t like uses the same logic against you?
I’m assuming you’re thinking every single soldier in the Confederacy fights because they want their precious slavery.
The war is literally about slavery. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the calculus is the same as people who fought for the fucking Nazis - if you’re ‘brave’ enough to die for slavers, but not for slaves, you deserve to be cast in with the slavers.
Also, Bin Laden thought every American civilian is just as guilty as the soldiers.
Okay…? Why does the rich Saudi kid’s opinion on how civilians are totally okay to murder matter here?
Assuming you’re American, what do you think if someone you don’t like uses the same logic against you?
… how is that the same logic? Please, explain to me how “It’s okay to disrespect people who served in the armed forces of a revolt whose sole purpose was slavery” and “It’s okay to murder civilians because they pay taxes” is the same logic?
Okay…? Why does the rich Saudi kid’s opinion on how civilians are totally okay to murder matter here?
Probability-wise, you’re mad that Bin Laden even thought of murdering civilians in the first place. Bin Laden didn’t care because in his view, they’re virtually combatants i.e. valid targets for a struggle that you disagree with, to put it mildly.
… how is that the same logic? Please, explain to me how “It’s okay to disrespect people who served in the armed forces of a revolt whose sole purpose was slavery” and “It’s okay to murder civilians because they pay taxes” is the same logic?
The intensity of the desired action (mere disrespect vs. murder) is very different, but its logic is the same from my perspective: I want to do X on Y because I don’t like that Y does Z. Let’s take the “okay to murder civilians because they pay taxes” hypothetical sentiment. Though very remote, it’s not impossible for an unhinged enough anarchist to believe this and actually act on it.
Probability-wise, you’re mad that Bin Laden even thought of murdering civilians in the first place. Bin Laden didn’t care because in his view, they’re virtually combatants i.e. valid targets for a struggle that you disagree with, to put it mildly.
I can say infants are virtually combatants, and it doesn’t make it so. Why is his insane argument at all valid?
The intensity of the desired action (mere disrespect vs. murder) is very different, but its logic is the same from my perspective: I want to do X on Y because I don’t like that Y does Z.
… what
“I want to put murderers in jail because I don’t like that murderers kill people”
is thus the same logic as
“I want to murder gay people because I don’t like that gay people have sex with the same gender”
I’m thinking that by your logic, you would also urinate on the graves of Vietnam veterans, many of whom had no choice, because they were conscripted, and either lacked the means to avoid conscription or were unable to flee the US.
He wasn’t old enough or educated enough to even realize slavery was one of the causes of the war. At the end of the video he blames the wealthy/politicians for getting them into it, and celebrates the end of slavery.
It’s functionally the same logic as… [check notes] American civilians deserving to die in 9/11 for being complicit in American imperialism. Would asking Bin Laden not to attack the WTC count as “civility politics”?
“Disrespecting the graves of soldiers who literally fought and died in a war for slavery is the exact same thing as killing civilians in a terrorist attack because a rich Saudi kid was assmad that infidels were on holy land in the early 90s”
10/10
I’m assuming you’re thinking every single soldier in the Confederacy fights because they want their precious slavery.
I’m pointing to this comment made by someone in this post. Feel free to piss on the grave of Jefferson Davis or soldiers who thought like him. Also, Bin Laden thought every American civilian is just as guilty as the soldiers.
From Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, as quoted in the guy’s Wikipedia page:
Assuming you’re American, what do you think if someone you don’t like uses the same logic against you?
The war is literally about slavery. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the calculus is the same as people who fought for the fucking Nazis - if you’re ‘brave’ enough to die for slavers, but not for slaves, you deserve to be cast in with the slavers.
Okay…? Why does the rich Saudi kid’s opinion on how civilians are totally okay to murder matter here?
… how is that the same logic? Please, explain to me how “It’s okay to disrespect people who served in the armed forces of a revolt whose sole purpose was slavery” and “It’s okay to murder civilians because they pay taxes” is the same logic?
Probability-wise, you’re mad that Bin Laden even thought of murdering civilians in the first place. Bin Laden didn’t care because in his view, they’re virtually combatants i.e. valid targets for a struggle that you disagree with, to put it mildly.
The intensity of the desired action (mere disrespect vs. murder) is very different, but its logic is the same from my perspective: I want to do X on Y because I don’t like that Y does Z. Let’s take the “okay to murder civilians because they pay taxes” hypothetical sentiment. Though very remote, it’s not impossible for an unhinged enough anarchist to believe this and actually act on it.
I can say infants are virtually combatants, and it doesn’t make it so. Why is his insane argument at all valid?
… what
“I want to put murderers in jail because I don’t like that murderers kill people”
is thus the same logic as
“I want to murder gay people because I don’t like that gay people have sex with the same gender”
are you fucking shitting me right now
No. It’s really the same logic. Otherwise, homophobia would not be even a thing anywhere in the world.
I’m thinking that by your logic, you would also urinate on the graves of Vietnam veterans, many of whom had no choice, because they were conscripted, and either lacked the means to avoid conscription or were unable to flee the US.
Take a few minutes to hear from a man who fought in the Civil War as a 16 year old boy for the 26th Virginia Cavalry.
https://youtu.be/IBMcYCb9NDA
He wasn’t old enough or educated enough to even realize slavery was one of the causes of the war. At the end of the video he blames the wealthy/politicians for getting them into it, and celebrates the end of slavery.
Makes you wonder what his story would have been if the south had won