frannkzappa's forum posts

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

Without even looking at the article I know what's within it, and know that it contains information contrary to your false premise of nationalism and fascism being necessarily related. Nationalism is as connected to fascism as it is to capitalism, which is to say that nationalism can exist within any economic framework. Anyways, this is above your head and a waste of my time. CorpsesInCairo


coming from someone who doesn't know the definition of nationalism...


and refuses to support arguments beyond "trust me i'm right"



excuse me if i don't take you seriously.

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="CorpsesInCairo"]Nationalism has virtually nothing to do with economics, either.CorpsesInCairo

might want to do some research buddy.


here i will even pull out a wiki link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


economic nationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_nationalism

Cool. Another Wikipedia political science expert with fake terms. Nationalism in simple terms - a sense of solidarity with one perceives to be one's nation. It doesn't prescribe economic policy. How that solidarity manifests itself is something else entirely (buy American, perhaps?). "Economic nationalism". Wikipedia's got an article for everything. I wonder how many contradictions are in that article - national communism, nationalism fascism, national capitalism, national socialism, national anarchsim, etc.... but of course, nationalism is related to fascism, right?



yep anything you disagree with is wrong and you refuse to verify sources yourself and do outside research.


quite the conversationalist.



you've done nothing to support your argument, my wikipedia articles were merely a gate way I.E you might want to check out the refrences at the bottom of each page before going "der wikipedia".

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Amvis"]

NATO fears Pakistan? Is that why we fly loops around in their airspace, and killed Bin Laden in their nation without their permission? lol, seriously, best bet Pakistan has is nukes. And believe me, I don't give two shits about that because the USA has had nukes forever, and we've used them. India's military would roll Pakistan.

Anyways, I would hardly call Saudi Arabia a puppet of the USA. No doubt we have tremendous influence in the region. Influence we should probably let go. But if they were a puppet, then their women would be rolling down the beaches half-naked, and driving like women once did under the Shah of Iran. That doesn't happen though.

CorpsesInCairo

Sniper is an ANTI-West, Pro-Muslim Brotherhood, troll. It's best to ignore such people.

In other words, he's a standard issue Muslim?

you are quite the bigot.

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

Nationalism has virtually nothing to do with economics, either.CorpsesInCairo

might want to do some research buddy.


here i will even pull out a wiki link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


economic nationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_nationalism

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="Endusticle"]Is fascism just a natural evolution of nationalist thought? And by nationalist, I mean the recognition of a "nation"CorpsesInCairo
Nationalism and fascism aren't related.



yes they are, economically and socially...

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

this is why militaristic revolutions are a bad idea.

CorpsesInCairo

If you want real freedom (or tyranny, in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood's ambitions), oftentimes you need to shed the blood of your opponents. Thank God those that came before me made that decision and didn't follow your attitude. You're one of those that'd rather live on your knees than die on your feet, right?



lol, you obviously don't follow my posting history. i'm about as militaristic as you can get.


however true freedom is more often than not far worse than tyranny.

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]]right now the taliban does seem to busy killing muslims to bother with westerners to be fair.Ace6301
Generally speaking when you go somewhere and kill the vast majority of a group they tend to lose a lot of their capability. Playing both sides didn't get that result, blowing the hell out of them did. I don't support that sort of thing but it's a tried and true method. Even then it has a downside though, blowing up innocent civilians on the side gives them a good recruiting tool. You have to also keep in mind I don't care about the average innocent westerner anymore than I care about the average innocent person in the middle east. So the end result to me is still innocents getting dead.
i would argue that it has worked more often than not, the conflicts today came about due to this being done incompetently.
the ancient Chinese, sengoku era Japanese and Hellenistic Greeks used it to great affect.


also i don't see where making money enters the picture. the idea is to SAVE money by having a local force(now called terrorists) do some or all of the work for you. said supporting group turning into a problem later is not a given, i fear you have let recent events cloud your judgment on that one.frannkzappa
Never expect something to be done competently and you'll never be let down. The exception is incompetence, expect us to do that competently. Your ancient examples would require you to gloss over a lot of the finer notes in those as well which is part of the problem with looking at history that far back. I fear I wasn't alive for the events I'm referring to so I don't think they're clouding my judgement.


you don't seem to get my point, i'm saying the problem lies in the execution not in the idea itself. failure is not inherent to this strategy as past successes have shown.

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

No, i do not (considering i work for them).

what i fear is the cult of hate aimed at it.

Ace6301

I would argue that "the cult of hate" is well deserved. After so much hard work in making the world turn against America, you guys have earned it...

Although, Obama has certainly improved America's image after the terrible Bush era, but the damage control is too little, too late.

The days of Obama improving Americans image are quite far gone now. Right now it's Snowden this, why are you spying on us we're allies that. Hate is something that should always be feared though, no matter who is getting it.



i couldn't agree more.

hate is a byproduct of ignorance. And ignorance IS NOT a good thing.

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] They shouldn't. That doesn't change that for a very long time it has been the case. Ace6301


probably because historically it works.

inciting infighting within the enemy is strategist trick #1.

Historically it has temporarily solved one problem while making the other problem worse. A great deal of the conflicts today are fought because of previous confrontations that were solved using such a method. If you're more concerned about making money off the military industrial complex than the lives of innocents then yes it has worked out quite well.



i would argue that it has worked more often than not, the conflicts today came about due to this being done incompetently.
the ancient Chinese, sengoku era Japanese and Hellenistic Greeks used it to great affect.


also i don't see where making money enters the picture. the idea is to SAVE money by having a local force(now called terrorists) do some or all of the work for you. said supporting group turning into a problem later is not a given, i fear you have let recent events cloud your judgment on that one.