It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uh Ho: Obama Says Vietnamese Dictator Inspired by Founding Fathers

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
[

Look at that long list of travel....I bet he was financed by the Rothschilds



Actually, I think he was funded by the Jesuits in France. Most of the communist revolutionary leaders have been educated by the Jesuits; Castro, Pol Pot and Uncle Ho.

That is the agenda - communism. They learned their trade in the communes in Latin America.




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Some one already posted the fact that Ho Chi Minh was indeed inspired by the founding fathers,the problem is he first turned to us Americans for support we rejected him in favor of our longtime ally France who wanted their colony back so he looked to China and Russia,I think there may have been a brief window of opportunity concerning Castro's Cuba before he became commie but again we were tight with the former corrupt Batista regime.
edit on 27-7-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
One thing that strikes me strange about Ho is WHY he even asked for help from the U.S. against France in the first place.

Obviously, The U.S. and France were allies and WW2 had just ended.


edit on Jul-27-2013 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)


It may be obvious today but at the time most would believe that the US would return to it's normal isolationist stance in the World. Our relationship with France has always been strained. I believe it's from good ole Anglo Saxon Protestant 'self-reliance' guilt because France was instrumental in funding and supporting our revolution.

The French has dubious alliances during world war II with both Japan and Germany (remember Vichy France).

Stark colonialist was on the way out - to be replaced by economic colonisalism (defined by me as All the Profit none of the Responsibility).



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


It is a fact that the Vietnam War was based on a total lie. Anyone who buys into the "Commie Dictator" nonsense is still under the control of the propaganda machine that sold us that war.

This whole article is written to outrage the reader- but the truth is not being told.


It may come as some unwelcome news to the families of the nearly 60,000 Americans who died in the Vietnam War that the whole thing was just a misunderstanding.


Umm well it was a "misunderstanding" wasn't it? The act that drew us into the war was the Gulf of Tonkin incident.


I am no Obama fan, but I do not take issue with anything he said here when you consider what the truth actually is. If I take issue with anything at all, it is that not one of these leaders came right out and said, "It was all based on a lie".



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I appreciate that. In fact, you might find it interesting to read about that with the other letters Ho sent out to nations at or around that same time. To relink The Pentagon Papers, the letters are referenced in Part I (1945-1950) across roughly pages A-28 - A-30. In surrounding pages, it also references direct conversations and quotes with Ho and other world leaders/officials around that period. The degree of context added by the full report there is priceless.

History is certainly a source of endless interest vs. the media or 'cultural' version, isn't it?


Thanks for the link to the Pentagon Papers. Wonderful resource on this subject.

The following quote is interesting:




From the autumn of 1945 through'the autumn of 1946, the United
States received a series of·communications from Ho Chi Minh depicting
calamitous conditions in Vietnam, invoking the principles proclaimed
in the Atlantic Charter and in the Charter of the United Nations,
and pleading for U.S. recognrciu1 of the independence of the DRV, or __
as a last resort -- trusteeship for Vietnam under the United Nations.
But while the U!S. took no action on Ho's requests, it was also unwilling
to aid the French. On January 15, 1946, the Secretary of War was
advised by the Department of State that it was contrary to U.S. policy
to "employ American flag vessels or aircraft to transport troops of
any nationality to or from the Netherlands East Indies or French Indo-
china, nor to permit use of such craft to carry arms, ammunition or
military equipment to these areas." 27/ However, the British arranged
for the transport of additional French troops to Indochina, bilaterally
agreed "lith the French for the latter to assume British occupation
responsibilities, and signed a pact on 9 October, 1945, giving "full
recognition to French rights" in Indochina. 28/ French troops began
arriving in Saigon that month, and subsequently the British turned
over to them some 800 U.S. Lend-Lease jeeps and trucks. President
Truman approved the latter transaction on the grounds that removing the
equipment would be impracticable. 29/



Note the dates Autumn 1945 - 1946. During the last stages of WWII on both fronts - Vietnam was not of primary importance - the French were maneurveing for Post War Status.

I'm still getting to your referenced pages haveing to do with Ho's communications of the time.

I've covered the pages you referenced. What I see is an internal US memo with a lot of speculation and a bit of "Commie" under the bed thinking.

Stating that at the time the Vietnamise people had little food, the French were - well doing who knows what - of course he would appeal to any and all possiblities and I don't see how writing to others for help in any way negates his appeal to President Truman.

And yes - it was truly a mess. Ho was looking for freedom for his people. Their idea of freedom was different then ours as was their right. Commies under the Bed.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Little O.T or perhaps not since this thread involves economics but for those into the currency market pay special attention to the Vietnamese Dồng many think it's about to take off.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


what a jerk move .. to stir the hornets nest on this well known past false flag operation..

yet not do a bleep'in thing about the false flag crap going on right this minute that he as pres could stop..


weapons of mass destruction anyone?

Bin Laden not wanted for 911 anyone?

guarding poppy fields while ramping up a war on drugs?

youve got to be kidding me..




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


Many? For the last 7 years the Dong has devalued. There is rampant State corruption, along with the incompetance of State-run enterprises. Although, the Asia Development is going in to try to sort things out. So, maybe, however, I doubt it.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
UNDER GOD,,see the difference?,,can u tell the difference??,,
The words are important as the very ideas presented,, but the only part that mao,,and Ho, and Stalin ,,didn't like was the,,,UNDER GOD,,part for as well all know,, Communists are fine, people,, just dont believe in God. Dont think much has changed.
oh and parently President Obama dosen't either.as too being all that important.
edit on 27-7-2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by deessell
reply to post by Spider879
 


Many? For the last 7 years the Dong has devalued. There is rampant State corruption, along with the incompetance of State-run enterprises. Although, the Asia Development is going in to try to sort things out. So, maybe, however, I doubt it.


Just going by the rumor mill as I do when taking a look at the Iraqi Dinar buzzed to be set for revalue,in light of Obama's visit many are reading what they can from that cozy photo ops and nice talks and pats on the back..this I got from this site that deals in IQDs



7-24-2013 Intel Guru TerryK Word I got tonight, is that this was all signed off this afternoon and we are to see it between 9:30 tonight [Wednesday] and 3:00 am when the CBI opens in Iraq. This is coming from multiple sources that this is going down tonight. It's all done. I am still hearing the dong is at $.47 and the dinar is over $4.00. I know it will be a free float and will rise quickly. The dinar and the dong are in basket 1.
www.dinarguru.com...

Off-course these are guys who claim they have their ears pinned to the door so buyer be where but they do seemed excited even a financially astute hard nosed buddy advised me to at least pay attention.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
There are laws and there are T&C against what I most want to say to this.

My Father didn't fight and lose a good % of his best parts to that hell hole so a UNITED STATES PRESIDENT could say this while Veterans of that war are still VERY much alive and VERY much enraged at the friggin nerve it took to spit right in their eyes like this. Did this HAVE to be said? Even if there IS some truth to it ...and as a HALF truth, he isn't entirely off base in history before the U.S. entered the war formally ...but that's the problem. It's a half truth and perhaps the Government is calling the wrong man a traitor after all, as they wrap up the Manning trial for verdict.


So you are evidently for conveniently ignoring facts. It's well known that Ho Chi Minh contacted Harry Truman and asked for help in kicking the colonialist French forces out of Indochina. He had lived in the US and was an admirer of the US founding fathers, having quoted Thomas Jefferson in a public ceremony in 1945.


In September 1945, Ho Chi Minh delivered the Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi to a crowd of nearly a million Vietnamese. Not only was the "The Star-Spangled Banner" played by a Vietnamese band during his address, but he opens his speech by quoting Thomas Jefferson. Here's the excerpt:

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.


Mother Jones -- Ho Chi Minh quotes Thomas Jefferson

Why shouldn't we talk about the facts of the history of the Viet Nam War? Because it is disrespectful to veterans? What's disrespectful to veterans is to continue to lie about the background and causes of that war, and the fact that Domino Theory was just a lie to give the US an excuse to protect business interests around the world, including Vietnam.

Why get mad at Obama over this? He is just stating some facts while doing some diplomatic brown-nosing with the current Viet Nam government. Politicians say these sorts of things all the time. Did Ronald Reagan dis or insult still living US WWII veterans when he went to that Nazi SS cemetery in Germany and said some nice words about the foot soldiers in the Waffen SS? That seems a lot ruder than what Obama did.

If the Vietnam war bothers you still -- and I can certainly see why it would -- get mad at LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Frank MacNamara, General Westmoreland, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger for their various responsibilities in starting or continuing that unnecessary and immoral war. Kissinger is the lone jackal of this crowd still alive. Why not raise righteous indignation towards him?

But I understand how conservatives like to find any specious reason to get mad at Obama. For some reason conservatives and Republicans get a lot more hot and bothered about non-issues involving Obama than real issues involving him -- and boy, are there a lot of real issues involving him, but Fox news and the usual gang of right-wing media suspects want to point conservatives to these non-issues rather than address actual ones.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Most of us understand the false-flag that 'started' the war and most of us know about the big money involved.

The point is why Obama decided to sharpen this thorn.


Ho Chi Minh was a commie all the way with sante fe.

Big money on his end too it seems.

here's some examples of Ho's 'dreams of democracy';


The North Vietnamese Terror "More than 172,000 people died during the North Vietnam land reform campaign after being classified as landowners and wealthy farmers, official records of the time show. But official figures leave out summary executions of those accused of membership of the National People’s Party, however. Unofficial estimates of those killed by Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam Labor Party, which later become the Vietnamese Communist Party, range from 200,000 to 900,000. ...“The land reform campaign was a crime of genocide like that of Pol Pot,” Hao said."

"The Massacre of Hue", Time Magazine, 1969 South Vietnamese skulls stacked on top of one another in dozens of mass graves reveal a gruesome slaughter of thousands by the Viet Cong.

"The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam," US Government Report estimates that at least half a million were killed in the north and that up to one million will be killed in the south following the Communist victory. See the rest here,here, and here. Communist Lt. Col. Chuyen states that 5 million South Vietnamese are targets for persecution and that about 500,000 will be killed--which is almost exactly what happened. When asked if fears of a bloodbath are exaggerated, he says "they could not be exaggerated. It will happen." It did happen.

Ho Chi Minh’s Land Reform: Mistake or Crime? Lam Thanh Liem, a major authority on land issues in Vietnam, concludes that the communists perpetrated a huge bloodbath and that the death toll was in the hundreds of thousands.

The Vietnamese Gulag Chilling reports of the utter despair and mass suicides that followed Communist victory in South Vietnam.


source

and that doesn't include the 1.1 million deaths of NVA and VietCong military personnel.

what a guy eh ?



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Oh dearie me... five seconds search on Wikipedia discovered this - en.wikipedia.org...
Obama was in other words just stating facts.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Yea he may have been inspired at some point but chose Marx, Stalin, Mao ect. So I don't think he fully understood american revolutionary philosophy or the centuries of political philosophy behind it. Ho was probably about as much of a megalomaniacal communist as Mao or even Pol Pot even though many have tried to sell him as some sort of Vietnamese version of Gandhi....even though he promoted terrorism and did it while hiding behind the "Vietcong" bogie man.
edit on 28-7-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


France made a deal with Ho and associates that if they would fight against the Japanese, France would turn them loose after the war. Ho planned a parliamentary form of government patterned on European governments. France chose not to honor its promise and whined about it to the Allies who gave in to de Gaulle's plea. Ho tried until 1949 to get what he was promised by lobbying the French politicians. Michelin won and Ho lost.
That is when the French found out how tough the rice farmers really were. The US was dragged into the conflict during the Eisenhower administration with advisors being sent to help out. This was at a time of great paranoia about the 'Communist menace' after the Korean war and was based on the idea that Communists would try to acquire territory through military action [they did] and that the US had to defend the world from this menace.
The Tonkin incident did occur; the first conflict was real the second reported event was probably not. www.history.navy.mil...
I received my draft notice in 1968 and had no idea of this history. Viet-Nam was a green jungle that ate Americans and those who were there tried to leave as soon as possible. Some found drugs to help them through the madness. Dolts like McNamara ran the war from DC and handcuffed field commanders while providing the troops with unreliable rifles in the jungle environment. Hanoi Jane did her tour because she had no talent and needed the PR. Turning the public gave hope to the VC or they would have sued for peace after Tet went bad for them. This was a giant Charlie Foxtrot in the parlance of the day. Those who went when called were vilified on return by those who disagreed with the leaders. Many of them were merely paralyzed with fear at the prospect of being part of the military so they went on about the 'Vietnamese people' who they really didn't care about at all. One of my acquaintances went to med school and claimed that he would help them when he got out. I bet him $100 he'd never do it. He still owes me.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Having read the article the following can be stated:

Before we go into what the man did or did not say, lets look at the person who he was talking about Ho Chi Minh.

Ho Chi Minh, was the fomer dictator of Vietnam. He was backed by the communist, and ultimately went on to fight to free his country from the control of France. France had interest and control of colonies in South East Asia, up until the end of World War II. A majority of the European countries had colonies in that part of the world.

As a child he was educated, though left school and traveled the world, to France, was denied a scholarship there to attend school, traveled and stayed in the USA. He returned to France, and talked with and joined the political path with the Socialist party in Paris.

Now following World War I, there was talked about civil rights in Vietnam. They used the language and the Spirit of the US. Declaration of Independence, and hoped that the US would help in aiding them in removing France from ruling over Vietnam. As Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were admired and looked to in France, it it not unreasonable that Ho Chi Minh, would have been given lessons in such, in order to build a case for the US invovlement and to rally the people of France to agree to this.

As the US did not agree, then HO turned to the newly formed Soviet Union and China to assist him, in this endevor. He then attended classes and given an education in Canton.

World War II, broke out and the focus was no longer on independance, but in fighting the Japanese, that had occupied the country. Later on after the war, as the US was encouraging many of the European powers to give up their powers, HO did indeed approach and ask for assistance, but was once again turned down. It was then that he started more of open violence and warfare in the country of Vietnam to free it from the controls of France.

Now if you read the letters that he sent to the USA, the language is pretty much similar to what Jefferson and is in the Declaration of Independence, along with the French Declaration of Independence.

The sad part is that the US foriegn policies do not always work. And ultimately with the way that the econimics being, the USA is looking for new markets, so right now it is a means to slowly normallize relations with a country that the Chinese do not like, making overtures towards that end.

As to why, we will not know, but if you are trying to make friends, with former enemies, you have to give some ground and reference, and unfortunately, the sad truth, as Jeffereson would tell some of his friends in France, that revolutions are not peaceful things and people will die.

While I may not agree with the sentiment of such, what would have been better, the President saying what he did, or apologizing that the US so many years ago, did not assist them in their persuit of being free from the French?



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Good post, sdcigarpig. I'm sure there are some more good posts in here that I've not yet read or starred.... just catching up. Vietnam is a very confusing thing for many here in the US but it is key to understanding this ongoing global power struggle of West against East. It's interesting that you point out that the US may have been trying to encourage European countries to let go of some of that expanding power and I do believe in some cases that is true, but as I am always saying- there is division in government and unfortunately there are those in our country that are right along with the colonizing expansion and toppling of leaderships so what we say must be compared to what we do... because the most aggressive tend to have the final say and they tend to make very bad decisions.

All the more reason to think that when it comes to the possibility of widespread global conflict, that scale needs to be tipped and those truths need to surface. If we care enough to read it and try to understand, then who else is going to speak up? We need to find a way to look closely at what has been said by the president, analyze it and reflect while comparing it to what motives there may be for saying it in the first place. How does this correspond with world news at this very hour? We need to keep looking at this. If this is supposed to be some kind of PR for things that are happening we need to watch and speak out if it is some kind of ploy for cooperation in fueling conflict.

I'm not saying it is yet, but it's a curious topic.

Is he just trying to raise that awareness? If so, good... but I doubt he will outright condemn our missions in Vietnam no matter how wrong they were. Even if he truly condemns it in his mind and wants to indirectly point things out. A big problem I see in politics is the inability for powerful men who may have somewhat of a conscience to be able to speak their minds. The effort of trying to read those minds is kind of like a hobby for us and it's a shame because these complications only add to the problems of the world, discontent, tensions, paranoia, misinterpretations etc... and as a global community we need to learn how to effectively communicate better.

If this is another spin, though, to buddy up with a geo-strategic country for an ulterior purpose... somebody needs to keep their eye on the ball before things start getting stirred up over there more than what they are. That may sound paranoid to some but this pattern has become all too familiar.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Yea he may have been inspired at some point but chose Marx, Stalin, Mao ect. So I don't think he fully understood american revolutionary philosophy or the centuries of political philosophy behind it. Ho was probably about as much of a megalomaniacal communist as Mao or even Pol Pot even though many have tried to sell him as some sort of Vietnamese version of Gandhi....even though he promoted terrorism and did it while hiding behind the "Vietcong" bogie man.
edit on 28-7-2013 by Logarock because: n


Watching your people die and your country fall apart will turn anyone into a ruthless defender of their cause.

This is exactly why this game needs to stop.

You see the extent he tried to go to for cooperation which did not earn him peace in his country, only disappointment. People who refuse to listen to reason are easy to hate.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


France made a deal with Ho and associates that if they would fight against the Japanese, France would turn them loose after the war. Ho planned a parliamentary form of government patterned on European governments. France chose not to honor its promise and whined about it to the Allies who gave in to de Gaulle's plea. Ho tried until 1949 to get what he was promised by lobbying the French politicians. Michelin won and Ho lost.
That is when the French found out how tough the rice farmers really were. The US was dragged into the conflict during the Eisenhower administration with advisors being sent to help out. This was at a time of great paranoia about the 'Communist menace' after the Korean war and was based on the idea that Communists would try to acquire territory through military action [they did] and that the US had to defend the world from this menace.
The Tonkin incident did occur; the first conflict was real the second reported event was probably not. www.history.navy.mil...
I received my draft notice in 1968 and had no idea of this history. Viet-Nam was a green jungle that ate Americans and those who were there tried to leave as soon as possible. Some found drugs to help them through the madness. Dolts like McNamara ran the war from DC and handcuffed field commanders while providing the troops with unreliable rifles in the jungle environment. Hanoi Jane did her tour because she had no talent and needed the PR. Turning the public gave hope to the VC or they would have sued for peace after Tet went bad for them. This was a giant Charlie Foxtrot in the parlance of the day. Those who went when called were vilified on return by those who disagreed with the leaders.


I agree with much of what you say and you seem to know a lot about this but when you say communism is guilty of expansion... can we look at the context?

You can say that communists took over all of China and this is technically true but this started as a people's revolution against imperialism and they had that right. The goal was to take BACK their territory from the ruling classes, not really take the territory of others outside it's borders. The reason it had to be communism was that the government body of this revolution could take control of everything and keep wealthy influence of foreigners from buying it out piece by piece and corrupting the wealthy against the poor. With the Soviet ruling class and the Empires gone corrupt in Asia, both causing a great imbalance and a lot of waste we see a similar pattern that lead to this huge movement. They have actually lost territory. The Soviet Union lost territory. China lost territory. Tibet had historically always been a part of China as was Manchuria which is no longer manchuria and mongolia is now seperated from China...Hong Kong, Taiwan... that goes without saying. Korea and Vietnam had every right to side with that movement against Imperial Japan who once had suspicious treaties with imperial West and it was incriminatingly inappropriate for the West to intervene and is STILL trying to intervene. Why they did was not the fear of communism itself, but the fear of ANY large cohesive movement in all of Asia. They wanted to see it broken apart as it would be less of a threat to their global economic control. Yes, it was a harsh way to unify territories, but it succeeded against a very real threat of corrupt and inefficient imperialism. That imperialism has the people and governments pitted against each other and tied up with red tape, where as communism is a sweeping movement trying to establish a unified order. Communism does not have to be as harsh as it has been in the past... but only without the constant threat of expanding Western imperialism.

The deals the West made to fight Japanese presence were not what they seem to be in my opinion. It's easier to get two sides to fight and kill each other off and rack up the plunder afterward, then to do the fighting yourself. The whole issue with Japan invading all of these territories that the west then racked up and took control of is obviously suspicious to anyone who thinks about it and takes a look at those old Western/Japanese treaties of "see no evil, speak no evil" type of cooperation. Europe turned it's head while Japan did these things.... when they were done, we turned our backs on them and went right into those territories and tried to establish control right where they left off. This is no coincidence. We burned and scarred their people for generations and made deals with their leaders and gave them Chinese territory as a reward.
edit on 28-7-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Most of us understand the false-flag that 'started' the war and most of us know about the big money involved.

The point is why Obama decided to sharpen this thorn.


Ho Chi Minh was a commie all the way with sante fe.

Big money on his end too it seems.

here's some examples of Ho's 'dreams of democracy';


The North Vietnamese Terror "More than 172,000 people died during the North Vietnam land reform campaign after being classified as landowners and wealthy farmers, official records of the time show. But official figures leave out summary executions of those accused of membership of the National People’s Party, however. Unofficial estimates of those killed by Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam Labor Party, which later become the Vietnamese Communist Party, range from 200,000 to 900,000. ...“The land reform campaign was a crime of genocide like that of Pol Pot,” Hao said."

"The Massacre of Hue", Time Magazine, 1969 South Vietnamese skulls stacked on top of one another in dozens of mass graves reveal a gruesome slaughter of thousands by the Viet Cong.

"The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam," US Government Report estimates that at least half a million were killed in the north and that up to one million will be killed in the south following the Communist victory. See the rest here,here, and here. Communist Lt. Col. Chuyen states that 5 million South Vietnamese are targets for persecution and that about 500,000 will be killed--which is almost exactly what happened. When asked if fears of a bloodbath are exaggerated, he says "they could not be exaggerated. It will happen." It did happen.

Ho Chi Minh’s Land Reform: Mistake or Crime? Lam Thanh Liem, a major authority on land issues in Vietnam, concludes that the communists perpetrated a huge bloodbath and that the death toll was in the hundreds of thousands.

The Vietnamese Gulag Chilling reports of the utter despair and mass suicides that followed Communist victory in South Vietnam.


source

and that doesn't include the 1.1 million deaths of NVA and VietCong military personnel.

what a guy eh ?



Sorry - the "they killed XXXXX number of people and that makes them evil" argument to justify an opinion on why "they" are "EVIL" and should be killed to the last man, woman, and child is a feeble last attempt to justify an opinion that is unsupportable.

It is irrelevant to any discussion because 1) your side (in this I'm thinking anti-commies - can we call them cappies) have KILLED JUST, IF NOT MORE, INOCENT PEOPLE and 2) It never has anything (or I've never really seen it be relevant) to the argument at hand.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join