Maurepas wrote:Well that just makes it practically a Commie rag of course,
American centre right = Commie nowadays?
Advertisement
by No Names Left Damn It » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:41 am
Maurepas wrote:Well that just makes it practically a Commie rag of course,
by New Mitanni » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:41 am
No Names Left Damn It wrote:Dyakovo wrote:Not sure what to make of this...
It's a arare occurence that I am in agreement with NM.
Didn't that already happen today? You've agreed with NM twice in one day lol.
by Maurepas » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:43 am
No Names Left Damn It wrote:Maurepas wrote:Well that just makes it practically a Commie rag of course,
American centre right = Commie nowadays?
by Dyakovo » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:44 am
New Mitanni wrote:No Names Left Damn It wrote:Dyakovo wrote:Not sure what to make of this...
It's a arare occurence that I am in agreement with NM.
Didn't that already happen today? You've agreed with NM twice in one day lol.
Houston, we have a problem.
by EvilDarkMagicians » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:44 am
Meaning US Soldiers who could easily buy a 15$ book, opt to buy instead this book which has the reputation by some to be "neo-nazi propaganda" at costs exceeding 100$. Well enough US Soldiers bought this book to catapult it into the top ten, and it's the only book dealing with war in the list of other top tens
by The Cat-Tribe » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:48 am
New Mitanni wrote:Cybach wrote:Anyone else disturbed by the fact that of all the books in the world. That in the most popular selection is a highly controversial book most book suppliers refuse to shelve?
Anyone else disturbed by the fact that most suppliers attempt to censor what people can read?Cybach wrote:I realize the article is a bit aged. However it is a bit of an interesting question, especially considering how rare the book is as well. Meaning US Soldiers who could easily buy a 15$ book, opt to buy instead this book which has the reputation by some to be "neo-nazi propaganda" at costs exceeding 100$. Well enough US Soldiers bought this book to catapult it into the top ten, and it's the only book dealing with war in the list of other top tens.
Could there be any psychological reasoning behind this?`With the unpopularity of the Iraq War, many Iraq soldiers start to liken themselves to another military unit that was very unpopular (Waffen SS) and take solace in literature that justifies their unpopular actions? Or is the army simply filled with so many literate neo-nazis/Waffen SS fans that they can land their cannon literature into the top ten in book orders?
Anyone else disturbed by certain ideologues trying to depict US troops as secret Nazi sympathizers?
Anyone else ready for a big "STFU" to slanderous psychobabblers?
by The Cat-Tribe » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:53 am
by Bears Armed » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:12 pm
by Brogavia » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:20 pm
Bears Armed wrote:My potential worry about the book isn't about any 'Nazi' content, it's about the possibility that some of its readers might try using some of the (brutal) counter-insurgency methods that its author claims to have employed: The terms "atrocities" and "war crimes" aren't ones that we want to see accurately applied to the allies' actions, are they?
by Maurepas » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:24 pm
Brogavia wrote:Bears Armed wrote:My potential worry about the book isn't about any 'Nazi' content, it's about the possibility that some of its readers might try using some of the (brutal) counter-insurgency methods that its author claims to have employed: The terms "atrocities" and "war crimes" aren't ones that we want to see accurately applied to the allies' actions, are they?
Thats the same logic as the "Harry Potter can turn your kids into witches!" crap.
by Brogavia » Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:25 pm
Maurepas wrote:Brogavia wrote:Bears Armed wrote:My potential worry about the book isn't about any 'Nazi' content, it's about the possibility that some of its readers might try using some of the (brutal) counter-insurgency methods that its author claims to have employed: The terms "atrocities" and "war crimes" aren't ones that we want to see accurately applied to the allies' actions, are they?
Thats the same logic as the "Harry Potter can turn your kids into witches!" crap.
To be fair, after reading it, I was introduced to Wicca...
Now, it may be just a coincidence that my Mother converted to it when I was in Highschool and I read Harry Potter in Middle School...
But Still,
by Greed and Death » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:04 pm
by Lunatic Goofballs » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:12 pm
No Names Left Damn It wrote:Chrobalta wrote:They have found worse. In Afghanistan a group of soldiers was getting copies of the bible in Dari. They were trying to convert the local Afghans to Christianity.
THAT is a major problem, that I think is far more questionable than Nazi material.
ZOMG PEOPLE TRYING TO CONVERT OTHERS TO THEIR OWN RELIGION! How totally unthinkable.
by Greed and Death » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:15 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:No Names Left Damn It wrote:Chrobalta wrote:They have found worse. In Afghanistan a group of soldiers was getting copies of the bible in Dari. They were trying to convert the local Afghans to Christianity.
THAT is a major problem, that I think is far more questionable than Nazi material.
ZOMG PEOPLE TRYING TO CONVERT OTHERS TO THEIR OWN RELIGION! How totally unthinkable.
No. American Soldiers in uniform trying to convert others to their own religion.
There's a reason why it's a blatant violation of the UCMJ. A very good reason.
by Lunarmanny » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:20 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:No Names Left Damn It wrote:Chrobalta wrote:They have found worse. In Afghanistan a group of soldiers was getting copies of the bible in Dari. They were trying to convert the local Afghans to Christianity.
THAT is a major problem, that I think is far more questionable than Nazi material.
ZOMG PEOPLE TRYING TO CONVERT OTHERS TO THEIR OWN RELIGION! How totally unthinkable.
No. American Soldiers in uniform trying to convert others to their own religion.
There's a reason why it's a blatant violation of the UCMJ. A very good reason.
by Katganistan » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:57 pm
by Laerod » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:00 pm
New Mitanni wrote:Anyone else disturbed by the fact that most suppliers attempt to censor what people can read?
New Mitanni wrote:Anyone else disturbed by certain ideologues trying to depict US troops as secret Nazi sympathizers?
Anyone else ready for a big "STFU" to slanderous psychobabblers?
by Ryadn » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:08 pm
Greater Americania wrote:While I'm not a Nazi, we shouldn't be banning Nazi materials for US troops to be reading because of their Nationalistic content. It sounds just like a liberal European to try and pressure the US into banning Nationalistic writings and groups. How hypocritical.
by Hebalobia » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:09 pm
by Ryadn » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:10 pm
Greater Americania wrote:Hamilay wrote:Are you people even reading the damn article? Nobody has advocated banning this book at all.
I skimmed through it and the mood seemed like that of the liberal European attitudes towards Nazism we see today: ban them. However, I see your point.
by Ryadn » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:14 pm
Hebalobia wrote:The LaHaye book concerns me much more than the Elford book.
by Ashmoria » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:17 pm
greed and death wrote:When I was in the service Devil's Guard was required reading by my General in 2 of the units I served in.
One of them required a written essay over how the book shows the military is the supreme protector and arbitrator of constitutional matters.
by Ostronopolis » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:23 pm
by Milks Empire » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:25 pm
by Christmahanikwanzikah » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:44 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Eahland, Google [Bot], Likhinia, Tungstan
Advertisement