Khun_Kong Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 In Amerika' date=' our guests at Gitmo absolutely do NOT share the same constitutional rights as, say, the guests at Leavenworth Federal Pen. Hell, they're not even covered by the Geneva Conventions. [/quote'] Gee, maybe that's why GITMO is in effing CUBA! Damn that Bush was clever ... You're not trying to seriously say that Gitmo is not US territory, are ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted October 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Castro claims it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallenda Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Hitler lost. That apparently makes him the worst. The Khmer Rouge also lost, so they are unquestionably bad guys. Stalin killed more people than Hitler and permanently changed the map of Europe, moving people around by the millions to fit his borders. But Stalin won, so he isn't so bad. Mao is claimed to be the world's biggest mass murderer, but he also won and no one much talks about him. The message seems to be that you can get away with genocide as long as you don't get defeated. It never occurred to me until this moment, but I've spent time in Berlin, Beijing and Phnom Penh (not Moscow though). In Berlin you still see the bombed out shells of certain landmarks, the Gedachnichtskirche most famously. Is the Anhalter Banhhof still there? When I was there it had NIE WIEDER spraypainted prominently on it. Old WW2 machine gun bulletholes still visible on some old buildings. In Beijing of course you have Mao's face on the Forbidden City at Tiannamen Square, I remember passing some building (trainstation?) where the sign for the name was in Mao's own handwriting, a very long line waiting to get in to see his mausoleum. Of course in Phnom Penh the most vivid reminders are the Killing Fields on the outskirts of town and the S-21 prison. The main difference between them is that Mao's government survived, and he was their demagogue. Forgetting about what kind of reputation they have, Hitler's killing was deliberate and extremely well planned. Even Mao wouldn't just herd people into gas chambers, or start to treat the corpses like a natural resource. Most of the people who died under Mao were due to his power hunger, ineptitude, arrogance and basically not caring very much if lots of people died as a result of his choices. Did he ever choose an ethnic minority and try to wipe them out a la Adolf? Stalin's were mostly for the same kind of reasons as Mao's. Hitler's were based on some twisted ideas about racial inferiority. Why does Hitler's way seem worse to me? (listening to Eddie here) I'm not sure exactly. But it does. I meant to buy that book on Mao that came out a few yrs ago, didn't though. Was that Dress to Kill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Frankly' date='it's none of their bloody business what adverts are displayed in a foreign country,the same as it's none of our business how other countries deal with their own internal affairs,if you get my jist![/quote'] I think I get your gist. You seem to be saying that visitors from other countries should have no right to say what they think in the countries they visit. In my country, people are protected by the same laws and rights, we don't have a different constitution that covers people visiting from other countries. Freedom of speech is one of them. Kind of an important one too. It's more the way you think it should be in countries like North Korea or Myanmar. So it's a free speech issue? Foreigners should be free to criticise Thais but Thais shouldn't be free to stick up whatever billboards they fancy. Do I detect a contradiction here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted October 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 He is a naughty boy, isn't he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Naughty? Me? I think what's going on here is Thais getting educated about the Holocaust. Which not many of them give a toss about. Also of course the promoters probably knew they'd get a knee-jerk reaction. Lots of free publicity. Hitler sells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallenda Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 So it's a free speech issue? Foreigners should be free to criticise Thais but Thais shouldn't be free to stick up whatever billboards they fancy. Do I detect a contradiction here? Yes I agree completely. Had I said that, there would be a contradiction; but since I didn't, there's not. But thanks for summarising what I said by inserting something I didn't say into the middle of it. For the record, I am not the Ambassador from Germany, nor did I organize the Hitler gnome expo in Stadling Germany (or wherever it was). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Yes of course. Both the Thais and the foreigners are within their rights. Speech is either free or it isn't. What's good for the goose etc...See also 'cognitive dissonance'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyfon Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Stalin's grandson is currently suing a Russian newspaper for calling his gramps a "bloodthirsty cannibal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.