Did you know that the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, actually said these things... "I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place." "This movement among the Jews is not new... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century." "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of poisonous gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisonous gas against uncivilized tribes." Actually, it was Adolph Hitler. Nope, wait, it was Winston Churchill. I got confused for some reason...
Did anyone read the last sentence of the OP? I was looking at Churchill quotes, and got things like this: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it" "I cannot pretend to feel impartial about colours. I rejoice with the brilliant ones and am genuinely sorry for the poor browns. "
Godwin's Law 456 up, 35 down A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
He was talking about tear gas, which was made clear by the rest of the quote you chose the leave out:
Is that the actual context of the quote in question or is that a separate quote used to justify the former? In either case, that quote is accompanied by a lot of other rather damaging quotes and historical references, frankly, to leave little room for escape for Mr. Churchill. But I've come to fnd that a lot of the demons and saints I once hated and liked had rather startling contrasts when viewed closer, speculatively. Ironically...history teaches you to not trust history
I agree with him, minus the 'racial' part - Jews aren't a race their an ethnicity, but it's better for the Middle East that they exist. Heck it would be better if they ruled the entire Middle East - the region would see it's first taste of 1st world civilization. The same with the Natives, the colonists did more with North America in 200 years than the Natives did in the 10,0000s of years that they lived here. Thanks to the Europeans we enjoy our cities, internet, football games, public transportation, etc rather than living in a teepee or a mut hut having to eat rotten buffalo meat just to survive. And the Natives enjoy their casinos and college credits. Evolution just played out in favor of the Israelis and colonists, just the way it goes. They might not be the superior 'race', but they were the superior culture.
It wasn't evolution. Israel was created by Europe and the US after WW2. Israel was defended by the US during all of it's major wars/battles. Israel is a country smaller than some islands, and could not maintain itself without foreign aid, which the US pours in yearly. Israel, in function, is the pet-nation of the US. The only reason they exist is to keep a definitive presence in the region. Or did. Since the US stormed the region and established a lot of bases, their card might not be as strong anymore. As for the Indians, the right to land is not based on how you can use it. I can't come in your home, slaughter your family, and claim ownership of you property simply because I can use it better than you. Aside from that, Native American's were appalled by European ways of living. So were Europeans. Also, "civilized" is not determined by wealth, weapons, and technology. Simply because the East had more technology than the west does not make the West "uncivilized". The greedy and callous have long used this to justify their past actions, which were anything but civil.
What's your point? You can if it's been 60-200 years in the past - no one's going to do anything about it because the statute of limitations has long expired so it's a dead horse - most of the Natives stole 'their land' from some other tribe they were at war with at some point, so that's just the reality of it. People aren't buying into the guilt-trip anymore. It's say the East is ahead of the west in a lot of ways.
Evolution didn't play a part in the formation or the success of the state of Israel. America's foreign policy is centered around the fact that what it does it does for the greater good. What I said was not so much can they get away with it. You can get away with anything if you are strong. It centers more on it's justification, especially since it is the founding act of the land of the free man. A nation that was built on the concept that all men are created free and all that. You're right, people do not buy that bull anymore. I'm not sure what you meant here.
