You said the allies were defending people. The purpose of the U.S. in the war was offense, not defense. I’m not sure why you being incorrect about that part of your comment should be ignored just because you wrote other things.
Because it’s not incorrect when you read the rest of my comment, specifically the quoted and emboldened part? They were defending other’s lives, not their own.
They were not defending anyone’s lives. They were not there to defend lives. They were there to kill Nazis. That they were able to save lives while doing it is good, but that wasn’t the plan. They didn’t say “well we could attack the Wehrmacht, but instead maybe we’ll stop them from running their tanks through that town with a blockade.” They just bombed the shit out of them.
If their goal was not to protect people but to kill nazis, maybe they were doing something wrong. Anyway, it’s different in wartime. We are not in wartime, and modern day people who believe in Nazism are not killing people, so no violent means to convert them will be more effective. Anyway, you’re not even killing them, but expressing your desire to kill them, which if they saw it, all that would happen is you would antagonise them, and make non violent methods less productive, as they would scream ‘Radical Liberals wanttto kill us for our beliefs’ and develop a (rightful) persecution complex, ignoring that they are persecuting other people, or would, if they could.
But they won’t see this, as you posted this in a far left echo chamber, and they are stuck in their own far right echo chamber. All these sorts of comments (‘all nazis should be killed’) do is drive people apart and make them less susceptible to argument.
I have responded to what people are saying in their whole comments. Just because I read their whole comment doesn’t mean I agree with them, and I think I have explained why I don’t agree in my reply. I replied thinking the replyer has a short attention span, as they hadn’t seem to have read the quoted section of my comment, that would have answered their question I thought.
Did you even read beyond the first sentence of my comment?
I know attention spans are short these days, but 4 sentences?
You said the allies were defending people. The purpose of the U.S. in the war was offense, not defense. I’m not sure why you being incorrect about that part of your comment should be ignored just because you wrote other things.
Because it’s not incorrect when you read the rest of my comment, specifically the quoted and emboldened part? They were defending other’s lives, not their own.
They were not defending anyone’s lives. They were not there to defend lives. They were there to kill Nazis. That they were able to save lives while doing it is good, but that wasn’t the plan. They didn’t say “well we could attack the Wehrmacht, but instead maybe we’ll stop them from running their tanks through that town with a blockade.” They just bombed the shit out of them.
If their goal was not to protect people but to kill nazis, maybe they were doing something wrong. Anyway, it’s different in wartime. We are not in wartime, and modern day people who believe in Nazism are not killing people, so no violent means to convert them will be more effective. Anyway, you’re not even killing them, but expressing your desire to kill them, which if they saw it, all that would happen is you would antagonise them, and make non violent methods less productive, as they would scream ‘Radical Liberals wanttto kill us for our beliefs’ and develop a (rightful) persecution complex, ignoring that they are persecuting other people, or would, if they could.
But they won’t see this, as you posted this in a far left echo chamber, and they are stuck in their own far right echo chamber. All these sorts of comments (‘all nazis should be killed’) do is drive people apart and make them less susceptible to argument.
Are you seriously saying prioritizing stopping a genocidal maniac from destroying the world is wrong? Seriously?
Not for lack of trying. Or have you not noticed all the mass shootings? They need to be stopped before it gets worse.
Now you’re saying they are defending people, which I would advocate.
Rich coming from the person who’s been told the same thing 10 times by as many different people and still can’t clue on.
I have responded to what people are saying in their whole comments. Just because I read their whole comment doesn’t mean I agree with them, and I think I have explained why I don’t agree in my reply. I replied thinking the replyer has a short attention span, as they hadn’t seem to have read the quoted section of my comment, that would have answered their question I thought.
deleted by creator