Death to all collaborators?

[Pasi Nurminen]

A happy medium...Hmmm...I got it! How about a trial?

Oh, I'm sorry, the correct answer was no. I'm sure a shack in the middle of nowhere would do. She wouldn't know where she is hopefully, but she'd still have positively identified a few people as resistance members and would have to be told to be kept mum about that. But then again, if she's been apprehended, we know she's a collaborator anyways as we wouldn't waste our time on someone we don't have dirt on, so the entire question is irrelevant and the whole thing is solved with 7.62 millimetres of cold hard lead.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Oh, I'm sorry, the correct answer was no. I'm sure a shack in the middle of nowhere would do. She wouldn't know where she is hopefully, but she'd still have positively identified a few people as resistance members and would have to be told to be kept mum about that. But then again, if she's been apprehended, we know she's a collaborator anyways as we wouldn't waste our time on someone we don't have dirt on, so the entire question is irrelevant and the whole thing is solved with 7.62 millimetres of cold hard lead.

(sigh) Bullets arent solutions in search of problems

 

[Sidhe]

Let me know when you're done trolling.

Let me know when you can back up your argument.

A) clarify this: should all collaberators die, regardless of the strength of their crimes
B) are there no mittigating circumstances, or is the decision one of guilt or non guilt not degree
C) If so what makes this different to how the Nazis dealt with collaborators?
D) How did the Allies deal with collaborators, during the war and or after? Do you think there actions were moral or that they were weak, and all collaborators, such as about say I don't know 25% of the French people who willingly collaborated should have been rounded up and shot.
E) have you actually got any justification for your brutality?
F) Trolling, flaming? You don't even know the definition, I'm asking you to clarify your argument?

If you feel that badly report me, I have not accused you personally of anything, only your words of being morally bankrupt. That is not trolling, that is discussion.

Just report me. See if I get warned, if I do then I'll acknowledge that I'm trolling and not actually asking you to back up this arbitrary drivel you seem intent on pursuing as reasoned behaviour, let alone moral behaviour.

I think that is the problem, your in a hole, and rather than answer my questions, your throwing out banalities to obfuscate the fact that your argument is immoral and arbitrary.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

This message is hidden because Sidhe is on your ignore list.

This happens when you do nothing but troll me. Say hello to rmsharpe, I'm sure he enjoys hanging out on my ignore list. You think you've backed me into a corner somehow?

Anyways, if I've learned one thing from this thread, it's that a good many CFC members suffer from a bad case of what some people call limousine liberalism. It's nice to be all high and mighty with your morals and ethics while you sit behind a computer with all your luxuries, but if you are stripped of those luxuries you would suddenly turn into what you all claim to revile. That in the real world, when real people are put in real situations, somehow morals that you claim to cherish go out the window in the name of survival. To be alive and able to feel guilty for the things you've done in a war is a thousand times better than to be dead and unable to feel anything. And in a war, if it's either me or him, he dies every time.

These are the same types of people who are upset when they find out that, in an effort to get information that could lead to the saving of many lives on both sides, certain people in captivity are coerced somehow.

That's right, some people are upset because people died, in a war. Some people are even upset because in the process of saving lives on both sides, a few peoples' self esteem was damaged, in a war.

That's not an endorsement of Guantanamo et al, by the way, as the war the United States is fighting is not a total war for survival.

Unbelievable how many people are just out of touch with the situation on the ground in the real world.

 

[Rik Meleet]

You don't voluntarily give them food. If you do, well you shouldn't be shot, but punished somehow. If it's after the war, maybe we can just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, that would be appropriate. If it's still the war and we find out about it, we can still go to your farmhouse and arrange some kind of a resistance tax.

You, sir, have a very twisted mind if you want to punish a person for giving a hungry person some food.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

This message is hidden because Sidhe is on your ignore list.

This happens when you do nothing but troll me. Say hello to rmsharpe, I'm sure he enjoys hanging out on my ignore list. You think you've backed me into a corner somehow?

Anyways, if I've learned one thing from this thread, it's that a good many CFC members suffer from a bad case of what some people call limousine liberalism. It's nice to be all high and mighty with your morals and ethics while you sit behind a computer with all your luxuries, but if you are stripped of those luxuries you would suddenly turn into what you all claim to revile. That in the real world, when real people are put in real situations, somehow morals that you claim to cherish go out the window in the name of survival. To be alive and able to feel guilty for the things you've done in a war is a thousand times better than to be dead and unable to feel anything. And in a war, if it's either me or him, he dies every time.

These are the same types of people who are upset when they find out that, in an effort to get information that could lead to the saving of many lives on both sides, certain people in captivity are coerced somehow.

That's right, some people are upset because people died, in a war. Some people are even upset because in the process of saving lives on both sides, a few peoples' self esteem was damaged, in a war.

That's not an endorsement of Guantanamo et al, by the way, as the war the United States is fighting is not a total war for survival.

Unbelievable how many people are just out of touch with the situation on the ground in the real world.

Well Pasi, the only conclusion one could draw then is that you comply with the law only because you have luxuries like a computer, and access to limousines. As long as youre being satisfied, everyone is safe from you.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

You, sir, have a very twisted mind if you want to punish a person for giving a hungry person some food.

A moderator trolling? Egads!

What's so hard to understand? Voluntarily helping the enemy is to be punished. If they're hungry, I'm assuming they're on the retreat, so just wait until they've passed and then start flying the national flag from a pole somewhere on your property.