Should non-whites be given equal rights to whites

[Ivan the Red]

Invoking Godwins so early is probably a bad idea, but the original example of a liberal democratic intervention to liberate the population and reinstate democracy and freedom and so on was WW2. I understand that few people would argue that Iraq or Afghanistan were ideal democracies, or particularly great on the human rights front. However it is indisputable that both are more democratic and more liberal with more enforcement of human rights than was true under previous governments. These things take time. I'm playing devil's advocate here, I personally don't believe that anything positive comes from forcing views onto others that way.

Germany in WWII didn't get invaded and occupied to liberate the germans from the Nazi Regime. It got beaten to shit and occupated because the nazis had invaded most of Europe.

 

Nobody cared about Hitler while he kept his army mostly inside his own borders. He even got to organize the Olympic Games.

 

There is seldom an historical example of an agressive invasion of a country to "liberate" it's people that was not fueled by selfish material interest on the attacker and that did not end in more misery for the target population.

 

(Except perhaps when the vietcong invaded Cambodia and put an end to the khmer rouge. But even then, the vietnamese did it because the khmer rouge were raiding their border, not out of altruism).

Edited June 23, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[Marcus Dewinter]

I think this topic misses the problem. The examples shown here have little to nothing to do with race and more so about religion. The attacks against the US, UK, and France were all done in the name of Islam/Muslim faith, not because of the color of skin.

 

As for equal rights, all races should be given equal rights, but it is not one race that keeps the other races down...look at Africa around Johannesburg after the removal of the "white leadership" there are many claiming now the nation is worse off, not to mention the fact that those living there of "white color" are said to be harassed and mistreated.

[Odin]

 

Would you say so? 

 

A non-white can think and feel up to a high level, quite like a child, but yet if somebody kills an Iraqi. It is seen as ok, when a French or American is killed, it's pure evil.

 

Should human rights be expanded and bombing third-world countries banned? If the right want to claim that it's wrong to kill Americans and the French, why don't they feel the same on the browns being murdered? 

 

 

You base that on western media. I'm sure ISIS media is finds it ok when somebody kills a westerner, but it's pure evil when a bro'slim gets killed. 

If a non ISIS Iraqi gets killed for example by either ISIS or NATO, you know what? I honestly don't have much !@#$ to give away here.

 

And it's not that third world bombing needs to be allowed, banned or whatever. It's mostly just 1 country which even does this shit every decade. With all the follow-up problems.

Look, 10 years of constant bombing Afghanistan had only 1 major reason: To kill Osama...  He was removed in another country by some small elite unit in one day.

 

Different countries have a reason that they're different (History, Religion, Language). 

If some deny womens rights then it's their choice. If they don't rebell and remove it, then it's their choice. If the people can't change the system and thus emigrate, then it's their choice.

But if they start bringing the culture they fled from and demand special rights over the native people, then, of course, one has all the rights to bomb them.

 

Sometimes Bombing Rights > Human Rights

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You base that on western media. I'm sure ISIS media is finds it ok when somebody kills a westerner, but it's pure evil when a bro'slim gets killed. 

If a non ISIS Iraqi gets killed for example by either ISIS or NATO, you know what? I honestly don't have much !@#$ to give away here.

 

And it's not that third world bombing needs to be allowed, banned or whatever. It's mostly just 1 country which even does this shit every decade. With all the follow-up problems.

Look, 10 years of constant bombing Afghanistan had only 1 major reason: To kill Osama...  He was removed in another country by some small elite unit in one day.

 

Different countries have a reason that they're different (History, Religion, Language). 

If some deny womens rights then it's their choice. If they don't rebell and remove it, then it's their choice. If the people can't change the system and thus emigrate, then it's their choice.

But if they start bringing the culture they fled from and demand special rights over the native people, then, of course, one has all the rights to bomb them.

 

Sometimes Bombing Rights > Human Rights

 

wtf did I just read.

 

By your logic, the main country who does shit every decade is the United States, so it should be bombed? Congrats for agreeing with ISIS buddy.

[naTia]

I think it's true that in Western media, foreign people aren't given the same coverage that Western citizens are, but what we have to keep in mind is that ISIS, only as an example, is an institution with an even lower value of human life than ourselves. Anyone who does not agree with their message must be slaughtered, as is the case with the many fighters they have "made an example" out of. As a result, ISIS is treated as a terrorist organization, meant to incite fear and target people who they do not agree with (So yes Moreau, we can call them terrorists). Just as this definition applies abroad, so does it apply in the Western World. Granted, I have a US-centric view, but I assume most of the Western World considers attacks on specific people as a means of furthering a cause to be terrorism (Oklahoma City Bombing, Boston Marathon Bombing). These people are treated in the harshest of manners (Death penalty, maybe an appeal in the Tsarnaev case but you get the idea). So when bombings occur in the Middle East, the highest of precautions are taken. Keep in mind, most of these countries are still an active warzone. Just as many murders in large cities such as Chicago go unreported, so too will murders in an active warzone. Just as murders in an active warzone not caused by Western influence go unreported, so too will murders caused by Western influence go unreported. We bomb these places not because we don't care about lives, but because the threat posed by appeasement-like neutrality to lives around the world is greater than the threat posed by targeted bombings. Places like France and the United States are not active warzones, so bombings targeted at civilians, and not combatants, are particularly heinous. In WWII, civilians died when bombings occurred all over occupied nations, but that is the nature of war. The problem is, our new threat is an idea, not a state. We have employed our best method of fighting such a threat, but this is a different war. Terrorists do not declare sides, and they do not differentiate themselves from the civilian population. They simply do not care who dies when we attack them, and what we call civilian deaths are their version of propaganda. This is an age of new warfare, and as sad and tragic as the deaths around the world are, they do not occur because we 'don't care'. They do not occur because 'browns are treated differently'. They occur because they are necessary in fighting the evil that plague them. Nobody claims that it is any more wrong to kill a 'white' than a 'brown', but it is very fair to claim it is more wrong to target non-combatants than combatants.

[Dindu]

Should non-whites stop raping and murdering white people in their own countries while living off of government welfare?

[Peacity Peace]

Should non-whites stop raping and murdering white people in their own countries while living off of government welfare?

 

FIND OUT ON THE NEXT EPISODE OF

 

DRAGON BALL Z

[Rameses]

[Rameses]

trash.

 

you're right

 

 

 

Warn point issued, please remain on topic