After Palmyra ISIS Targets Monuments on U.S. Soil

And Jon, there are many more parallel cases that are equally shocking. For example, after the fall of Communism many statues of Lenin were taken down. As were all those flags with hammers and sickles on them. I'm sure you were passionately against that.Something very similar happened at the end of the Third Reich. You go to Germany today and you'll hardly see a swastika anywhere. Doubtless with your customary intellectual rigor you will blame the absence of Nazi symbols on "fascists", though thinkers inferior to your good self obstinately aver that it was in fact fascists who put them up. And doubtless you have been relentless in your campaign for the restoration of these historically important swastikas.And how well you must remember the pernicious events that took place in Firdos Square, Iraq, when American vandals pulled down a statue of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps if ISIS had existed at that time, you would have described the U.S. soldiers in question as "our in-house ISIS ally"; but that little rhetorical flourish being denied to you, I am sure that at least you were loud and vehement in denouncing the American servicemen who committed this atrocity as being fascists.No. No you weren't. Which leaves us with two options. Either you are a vicious, stupid little troll simulating a concern you don't feel so that you can whine with factitious anger about black people (a.k.a. "the U.S. Fascist Left") doing something which in fact doesn't bother you in the slightest; or although it's not something that bothers you in general, you are so passionately attached to slavery, racism, and treason that you are genuinely upset by the removal of Confederate flags and statues in particular.I am mildly curious to know which. And may I return your wishes for a happy Easter.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, apparently you personally do not draw the line at taking down the statues of the defeated leaders of a discredited regime. Unless the regime waged war on the United States in defense of slavery, in which case moving their statues is tantamount to Fascism and Islamic terrorism rolled into one.I am merely urging a little consistency upon you, and suggesting that in that case you should adopt it as a general rule, while someone else, more tender-hearted than you towards historical iconography, might indeed denounce the American military as fascists and call for the restoration of all the statues of Saddam Hussein. While I would not go so far as to prescribe one rule for all men, I do feel entitled to suggest that, if he wishes to avoid charges of hypocrisy, each man should have just one rule.

Well, if you think that I have misunderstood you, the floor is yours. You have had two opportunities, and now you have a third, to denounce the American soldiers who pulled down Saddam Hussein's statue as being fascists and "our in-house ISIS ally". You have a third opportunity to call for the restoration of Nazi symbols in Germany, and a third opportunity to say that the former Communist bloc, having freed themselves from tyranny, should nonetheless have continued indefinitely in the public commemoration of Lenin and Stalin as heroes. And if you do so then I for my part will freely confess that I have completely misjudged you.Otherwise, yes, I do know your position, because sometimes silence speaks even louder than words.

We have a giant bronze headless statue of Lenin in one of the casinos here in Vegas. I'm sure people can have them if they want them, but equally they can not have them if they don't.

We redistribute more wealth than Lenin ever saw.Anyway, my point is that in a free country having a giant statue of Lenin is optional. (Unless for some reason you're too poor to afford one, yay capitalism.)

For example, when they're taken down because the message is:(a) Hooray for Saddam Hussein!
(b) Hooray for Fascism! Heil Hitler!
(c) Hooray for Communism! Long live Stalin!Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? So, just to be clear. You do think that the American soldiers who took down the statue of Saddam Hussein are "fascists by definition" and "no better than the folks of ISIS"?

I do perceive certain distinctions between them: distinctions which I ignored because your post, to which I was replying, also ignored them. However, since you wish to bring it up, let's look at the differences. The people of New Orleans, through their democratically elected representatives, decided which of the statues that they themselves owned they would like to have in their own public places. Whereas the invading American soldiers, like ISIS, were fighting a war, as you remind us, and, like ISIS, destroyed monuments that did not, in point of fact, belong to them, on land that was in no way theirs, and like ISIS they were not elected by anyone with a legitimate interest in the monument.It would follow that if the people of New Orleans are like ISIS in their approach to statues, those American soldiers must be more so.So, let's ask you again. Do you consider these soldiers to be "no better than the folks of ISIS"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

P.S: Just to remind you, here's what you wrote: You complain that I did not take into account the fact that the Americans soldiers were at war, but this is not a distinction that you yourself made. For some reason you did not qualify your post by adding "Unless the people involved are fighting a war, because no-one fighting a war could be a fascist or resemble ISIS". Had you written that, my reply to your post might have been quite different, though no more flattering to your intellect.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You could at least try to answer my questions. Here's another one: what about people who are not soldiers in time of war? Is it OK if "civilized people in a peaceable setting" take down symbols of Communism and Fascism? Or does that make them fascists? Your latest shifty blather only allows you to weasel out of one of my examples, but I gave others.And could you please clarify this "time of war" exemption? It appears that by this loophole, the people of New Orleans are like ISIS, but ISIS is not like ISIS, since although they are vandalizing important historical monuments they are also concurrently fighting a war and so are innocent of the charge of being like themselves.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The Confederates honestly believed that that's why the Civil war was fought. If they didn't know, who does?

Actually, the fascists and communists put up the symbols of fascism and communism. Taking them down is the exact opposite. So. To clarify. You do think that the American soldiers who took down the statue of Saddam Hussein are "fascists by definition" and "no better than the folks of ISIS"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why? It was possible to put them up without irreparably damaging them. It should be possible to reverse the process. To irreparably damage a statue, you have to do something like this:

No. I seriously think it is possible to move statues without damaging them. As evidence for this proposition, I would cite the fact that it is possible to move statues without damaging them.

It's illogical to say that taking something down is the opposite of putting it up?Y'know, the longer this thread goes on, the less convinced I am that you're any judge of what's illogical. If they were fascists, they wouldn't have wanted to take them down. Fascists like fascist symbols.How about you answer my question now? Do you think that the American soldiers who took down the statue of Saddam Hussein are "fascists by definition" and "no better than the folks of ISIS"?

But statues commemorating racism, slavery, and treason are particularly brittle. Apparently.