The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Very good and powerful English

(See in situ)

Very good and powerful English

"It doesn't really matter in the time of bombardment - who bombs you. It matters after or prior."

If the message transfers intact, without miscommunication, then your use of the language is good, and in this case, in my opinion, the message is very powerful.

"Article itself, however politicized it may seem, never suggests an actual aggressive warfare. It's just not our way."

That is necessary, in my opinion. That is the power behind hope, and I think that is also the message offered by Solzhenitsyn, who is an authority, a true authority, and therefore one worthy of acknowledgement, recognition, note, and to heed the message, to employ the message, and do so effectively.

Again (worth repeating):

"Article itself, however politicized it may seem, never suggests an actual aggressive warfare. It's just not our way."

Too often those who exist well, in powerful positions, by their resort to crime, defined by them as they perpetrate crime, as they lie, and as they threaten, and as they resort to violence, tell a lie first, and the lie is such that their targets are demonized as violent monsters.

See, they say, all those violent monsters in the East, or West, or North, or South, see how those monsters are so eager to destroy us.

So what is necessary? Stop believing in those lies, and ask someone, and listen to the answer, and then find out the facts as the targets are allowed to speak for themselves. It can be known, for example, that Solzhenitsyn was a target, and if someone says, hey, look at all those Russians, they are monsters, they are wanting to destroy us, and so someone wanting to know the truth can pick up a book, written by a Russian, or pick up a Forum article, written by a Russian, and heed the warnings.

What warnings?

"Article itself, however politicized it may seem, never suggests an actual aggressive warfare. It's just not our way."

OK, well, if that is true, then who are the monsters, if not them, since bombs have fallen, many bombs, and bodies have piled up, many bodies, so who, then, is stretching the truth?

Well, seriously, who is making a lot of money from those wars that no one confesses to be wanting, those same wars that someone, somewhere, is pointing fighters at the monsters.

So, reasonably, OK, you say, they are monsters, you say that, Clinton H, Bernanke B, or whoever, you say so, and therefore let those monsters speak. Let's hear what those monsters have to say.

"Article itself, however politicized it may seem, never suggests an actual aggressive warfare. It's just not our way."

All of us can't be defending ourselves from no one. Who, exactly, are the monsters, and why not, as a possible valid idea, why not follow the money to the people who just so happen to be getting more and more powerful before, during, and after each war?



A few, very few, people in Russia?


When was the last profitable war fought by any Russian and how much money is in that Russians bank account, and how did that money actually get in that account, exactly?

I mean to say that if there is someone somewhere who is so ready to call someone else a monster then that someone, by definition, could prove the claim to be a fact, and not in theory, but by some accurate measure.

If the claim is true, hey, hey, hey, over there, is a monster, and there is another one too, if so, then by some means, that claim can be realized by someone else, as being true, before someone then rushes to get a bomb to drop on the target.

Yes or no?

"To change perspective,broaden it and thus acquire more tools for enhancing knowledge - it is important to break stereotypes once and for all."

I think the English word prejudice may be useful in this case.

If person A claims that person B is a monster, or group B are all monsters, and the claim is done in such a way as to further say, that we must destroy those monsters, then the claim can either be backed up as being a true fact or not, and if not then the claim is based upon a judgment made before the facts are known.

Previous to any effort to find, measure, and know the facts, in other words, previous to judgement, the targets are made targets by the person making the claim - prejudice.

Another useful English term, in this context, is collective punishment.

Hey, that person is caught red handed, that person is, as we speak, busy torturing and murdering innocent people, see, see how the bodies are piled up, hear the screams of the victims, as that person, right there, that person, see, that person is a monster, no doubt, and that person has a big nose.

So...everyone with a big nose is punished since that one person with the big nose is so busy torturing and murdering so many people.

So...the person with the smaller nose starts torturing and murdering all the people with big noses, for what?

Fun or profit?

Fun can be measured by following the laughter.

Profit can be measured more accurately.