• Moose

LexusInfernus

Member
  • Content Count

    2,920
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

1 Follower

About LexusInfernus

  • Rank
    Lobbyist

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

914 Profile Views
  1. I'm not trying to argue that people should just ignore the Constitution or that the Constitution has no value or something. Certainly its the foundation on which all other laws are build on. Legally its one of the most important set of laws in the United States. But like any set of laws, it should not be something immutable. Times change and laws need to be updated to account for technological advances, changing social attitudes and the challenges that come with modernity. And sure, some of the rights that stem from the constitution are as close to timeless as one can get, but certain amendements need to be added or scrapped now and then. But this almost mythical power the Tea Party and other 'lets go back to the Constitution' conservatives assing to it does show that it has also become a sort of social construct. One that has nothing to do with the actual document or its legal implication, but rather with the idea that 'back when' the constitution was basically the only law in America, things where at their best. To these people, 'the Constitution' does not so much refer to a legal document but rather a whole set of ideas and assorted identities of what a 'great' America looks like. In a lot of ways, this form of constitutionalism looks a whole lot like a religion, with the founding fathers as its prophets, the constitution its holy text, Tea Party politicians its priests and Conservative media outlets its church.
  2. No, I wasn't trying to imply that you thought people in the armed services are mentally unstable or something. I apologize if thats what you took from it. What I meant was that the statement I highlighted in bold could be turned around and applied to the armed forces. Soldiers killing, be it other soldiers or innocent civilians that are hurt accidentally, as an individual act accomplishes nothing. Only the combined killing done by a lot of soldiers at the same time maybe does something. But as you said, if individual acts accomplish nothing by themselves, they are unjustifiable. Oh and lets not kid ourselves. Drone operators knowingly shoot missiles at people knowing full well they also kill innocent people, even children. They see it happening on camera. And fighter pilots might not see the results of their actions directly live, they too must realize that given the civilian casualty reports as a result of airstrikes, they probably ended up killing civilians as well. I'd say that wanting to hurt people for some taken up cause is pretty much the very definition of radicalization. Also, technically everyone who strikes at civilians or civilian infrastructure with violence to achieve a political goal falls under the definition of terrorist. I know, thats pretty wide, but the definition for terrorist is pretty wide. Nah, but the risk is that we start treating it like some medical deficiency when really its not. Its the problem we see with spree shooters in the US, if its a white guy its because he has some kind of mental disorder, if its anyone else its a criminal or a terrorist. While I'm not arguing that a mental problem can't be the cause for becoming a spree shooter or indeed, a terrorist, going for a medical issue as the default option is not good. Its a cop out that ignores the abundant socio-economic, cultural and political factors that are far bigger contributors to someone going on a shooting spree than whatever mental health disorder they can find. What is rational isn't determined by popular vote, it is by definition objective. And its not up for consideration either. It either is, or it is not. Also, I agree, it is sane to believe human life has value. I believe human life has value. But I do not pretend that this particular view is the result of some rational conclusion. It is something I believe because believing it pleases me and forms the basis of many arguments that I can build on to inform and justify some of the other views I hold. It is what most people do. But, its important to remember that it is possible for otherwise sane and rational people to take on absolutely abhorrent starting points. For example, slave holders. Somewhere at the start of their chain of moral and ethical logic, they had decided that white people were superior to black people. If you believe in that proposition, than slavery logically follows from it. Nazis (I know) took it even further. They had decided that the root cause of their problems were Jews. From there they implemented a policy of systemically rooting out the problem by killing all Jews. This is in my opinion the true horror of the holocaust. Mass murder resulting from some kind of psychosis or what happens in a fit of rage most people can understand. They don't approve, but its understandable or in a sense relatable. But what the Nazis did was mass murder while treating it the same way governments treat things like city planning or economic development programs. Bureaucrats sat in offices discussing the best cost effective ways of exterminating millions of human beings. They drew up time tables, policy proposals, budgets, they build a whole bureaucracy around killing human beings. Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that if you take up a messed up starting position, rational and logical thinking can get you to conclude absolutely horrible acts are necessary to achieve your goals. Terrorists have a messed up starting position and that allows them to conclude it makes total logical sense to bomb a bunch of children. You say that because you believe human life has a special value, something that makes it inherently more worthy than the lives of cows. But what is the objective basis for that? Well, do you think our motives matter to the dad who just lost his child in an allied air strike? You think he will think 'but the Americans just try to depose of IS, so my son's death is all for the greater good'. Also, everyone who is currently bombing Syria is bombing cities or otherwise urban areas. We may claim that we just want to kill evil terrorists, but once you start dropping a lot of bombs on cities civilian deaths become inevitable. How long can we act innocent by claiming we weren't targeting civilians when we kill about 300-400 civilians a month? When we deliberately drop bombs over cities? Look, I get it, we really do need to take out IS and Assad. And yes that unfortunately means civilians are going to die. But if we do that we should accept the consequence that our actions will create terrorists on our own soils who will strike out at us. Civilians deaths are collateral damage in war, but that also applies to our own civilians.
  3. If you would just go by rational data, you'd be little more than a pocket calculator. How good is your pocket calculator at making moral and ethical decisions? Consider this, one of the most closely and widely held beliefs is that human life is somehow special. Every religion says it and even most Atheists say it. But the objective facts tell us that no, human life is not special at all. Now consider what this should mean to your decision making proces if human life has no special value? Mass murder of humans becomes as ethical as the mass murder of cows in a slaughterhouse. That is of course, if you count every living organism as being on an equal basis. And thats where you run into your second problem, if human life isn't special how do you measure its worth when making a decision. You could, as I said, count it on a one on one basis. But you could also count it in terms of weight basis. Which organism weighs more and is therefor worth more. Or you could look at it from a scarcity point of view. The more there are of a certain organism, the less it becomes worth. But which counting mechanism do you use, because none of these is objectively false. Pure rationality is overrated, our morality and ethics come from our ability to be irrational at times.
  4. Careful there, you just called our soldiers, fighterbomber pilots and drone operators mentally deficient. I'm pretty sure that joining the armed forces is not a sign of mental deficiency. Terrorists aren't mentally defect. And why would they have to be? Rational thinking people can have a messed up world view just as well. Besides, I don't believe for a second that this terrorist actually 'desires' to kill children, as in I don't believe he gets excited about it. More likely he just views it as a necessary act to further a certain goal. The goal being to drive a further wedge between Muslims and Non Muslims in the West. Prolong the conflict in Syria. And possibly taking revenge for what the West does in Syria. And that last 'goal' might also be our weakest point in any further discussion concerning terrorism in the West. I mean, we all think this guy bombing a bunch of children is terribly evil. But how many of you spend even a second thinking about children in Syria that get bombed by us? Not saying that this guy is right or not evil, but we do have a massive blind spot towards our own actions and how they affect people thousands of miles away.
  5. I said those types of conflicts would still have happened if there wasn't any Islam in the Middle East. How is the Shia vs Sunni conflict any different than the other thousands of tribal conflicts humanity has seen over the ages? They all fundamentally boil down to access to wealth, power and resources. Its jealousy and the inability of humans to share their wealth with people that belong to a different group. Whether that group is based on skin color, blood ties, political conviction or religious affiliation is just a minor detail. If there hadn't been a schism in Islam, Muslims still would have butchered each other over resources, they would have just found another justification for it. Also, any type of conflict that involves 'empires' is per definition fought over non religious reasons. Thats states clashing with each other, meaning the decision to go to war is an inherently political decision. And religion doesn't come into play with politics, even if politicians dress it up as such. Its without exception always about access to wealth, territory/resources or simply power. Alright, but the issue here is not religion, its conservatism which in this case takes the form of religious conservatism. But really, how does Wahhabism differ from say American political conservatism as found in groups like the tea party? Both groups advocate a return to a supposedly 'pure' form of society. Wahhabism wants to achieve this through a 'pure' form of Islam, American conservatives by 'returning' to the constitution. Really, Wahhabism is no different than any other form of Conservative ideology ever thought up by man. The only difference is the social construct it hitches its sales pitch on. For Wahhabism its religion, for the Tea Party its the founding document of the United States, for German Romanticists it were the Middle Ages, etc. Unlikely given that Wahhabism is a Sunni sect and Iran is a Shia country. The Iranian revolution had nothing to do with Wahhabists taking over the country. The reason why Saudi Arabia became more orthodox was because the Iranian revolution did show that extremists within Islam could be a powerful political force. Placate them and they would be less likely to stage their own little revolution. In countries like Egypt and Tunisia making overtures to religious political groups was a way for those dictators to legitimize their own rule. After all, they only do all that dictating to protect the Islamic community from harmful outside influence. In Afghanistan, it were the Soviets that demolished the much more modern government with their little invasion stunt. Then the Americans funded and armed what would become the religious extremists who took over after they kicked the Soviets out. And in Syria, Assad literally gave shelter to the precursor of ISIS so he could claim there were extremists operating in his country and he needed Western aid to destroy them. Also it allowed him to clamp down on dissent under the guise of stopping terrorists. He never actually went after the real terrorists except once in a while if he needed to show the West some little form of progress. Then the problem is again not religion, but rather the totalitarian/autocratic governments that enforce certain policies and use religion to justify those policies. Do you really think that if tomorrow all of a sudden everyone in the Middle East, including the governments, convert to Buddhism, women are suddenly allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia? And people won't be lashed anymore for adultery? Or hanged because they are gay? Of course not, those things will continue for as long as the governments in power are totalitarian or autocratic in nature. Oh, and a side note, Turkey follows its own particular sect within Islam. If it were up to Wahhabists/Salafists, Turks would be forcibly converted or killed as heretics. So I doubt that what you see there is Wahhabism, all the more strengthening my point that religion isn't the cause of whats happening over there. Oh please. The supposed influx of crime in Sweden is right wing talking heads not understanding statistics or downright making up statistics. And when they do happen and are committed by actual refugees, there is no evidence whatsoever that they are Wahhabis (mostly because no one asks what sect within Islam you belong to) or that they commit their crimes because thats what Wahhabism wants them to do. Those 'crimes' are more the result of failing integration policies than anything else. Yeah, crime does happen a lot more if you pack a bunch of people in a low income neighborhood and don't ensure they have good access to education, jobs and a social support structure. Same thing would have happened if all those people were Swedes. How do I know that? Because violent crime happened before the first Muslim immigrant ever set foot on Swedish soil as well. Probably more often than it does today.
  6. Good, I have certainly enjoyed it so far as well First, religion has always had a special status in a lot of places. Second, the church of England is more open to women, but the church of England is not a very representative church for Christianity, certainly not in the West. In that sense, Islam isn't very different from the average churches in Europe or the United States. Its not like those equality laws are the reason for the Church of England to be more open to women. Its a decision they made for themselves, not something that was forced in order to comply to some type of law. If by 'harmony' you mean brutally suppress dissent then yeah, Russia is a great example. Religion is never the reason for a war. Its windowdressing that some people use to justify a war, but its not the reason. If people in the Middle East were all Buddhists or Atheists or Christians or whatever you like, we would still see the same types of conflicts as we see right now. Nothing would have been different. The problem therefor is not that Islam is stuck in the past and the solution to these conflicts is not that Islam needs to change. Ignore religion, its a non issue, a distraction used by certain people to divert your attention from the real issues. A way to emphasize differences that keep people from seeing the overwhelming amount of similarities. Thats a logical fallacy. Just because you have one enemy that hates you to your very core doesn't mean you can't have more enemies that also hate you, albeit slightly less than the first enemy. And I very much doubt it that people don't like it when other people want to stand by their side and support them. Even if they supposedly don't need it. But thats of course false. Yeah, ISIS and other extremists groups are responsible for a lot of dead Muslims. In the Middle East. But they don't really operate in Europe all that much and when they do they don't target Muslims. Muslims in Europe don't have to fear ISIS, or else they wouldn't be fleeing to Europe. But right wing xenophobic groups? Europe has plenty of those.
  7. I'm not the one saying that every woman who wears a Hijab is automatically being 'oppressed'. I'm saying that for Muslim women, it can be something they choose for themselves. How do I know that? Because they told me that it was their choice and that for them it was a way to connect with their religion. While I know of plenty of others who choose not to wear a Hijab or only wear it at specific moments and they did not get into any particular trouble because of it. Evidence enough that it can be a personal choice for women. Is it a choice for everyone? No, obviously not. But for those that have a choice, its worth something to stand with them against those who would take the choice from them. Be it racist xenophobes that claim Europe or America has no room for Muslims, or religious extremists that want everyone to conform to their narrow and nihilistic definition of Islam. Feminism has not curtailed anyones religious freedom. If you don't want to get a divorce or an abortion on religious grounds, you can. No one is forced to get an abortion, no one is forced to get a divorce. If anything, it has enhanced religious freedom by giving people more options to choose from and more options on how one can experience their religion. If thats true, literally everyone on the planet is oppressed by someone or something. Do your parents have expectations for you? Oppression. If you behave like an idiots and someone tells you they no longer want to be associated to you? Oppression. Disagreeing with someone that respects you? Oppressing. Trying to convince people you're right in an argument? Oppressing. And really? Muslim men all dictate how their women should dress? Sure... No one is arguing that Islam isn't a sexist religion. But I fail to see how that makes it any worse than all the other religions which are equally dominated by men? Yet when they do that, you're one of the first to come in claim that radical feminists are going to ruin everything. You have done so on several occasions in previous discussions broaching the topic of feminism. Why are you suddenly so concerned about feminism not doing enough to combat sexism in Islam. And what place would that be? Is Islam the dominant religion in the West? No, its not. Are women not allowed in the UK? No, they are allowed to drive. Are UK doctors performing FGM surgeries on those that ask for one? No, they don't. Are Muslims judged by Islamic courts? No, they are not (well, I think in some countries its optional to go to a Sharia court for a divorce). So what exactly should Western feminist do to put Islam in its place? Force women not to wear a Hijab? Deny women the choice of what they wear because they should dress according to 'liberated western standards'? Yeah, thats just telling people how to dress, denying them a crucial freedom. Yeah, I got a coworker that only wears a Hijab on specific occasions (around Ramadan). But sure, go tell her that according to you shes not a real Muslim because she doesn't follow the rules closely enough. Seriously, this is like telling a Christian its impossible to be a Christian unless you believe in creationism. What a bleak and dreadful world you must live in. Well, at least I now do understand where you are coming from.
  8. Of course not. Fundamentally it just means people make choices by going for the most broadly acceptable option. You can have a perfectly good, functional democracy without a free market in sight. Point in case, ancient Greece. You think they ever heard of the wonders of the free market in Athens? You can have an entirely state run economy and also be a democracy. As long as people get to vote on who runs their town councils and the national government, you are a democracy. International law are everyones rules. The rules decided upon by all the nations who choose to adopt them, and thats basically all of them. And yes, some military actions are altruistic or have altruistic aspects to them. Of course, the United States does mess up from time to time, sometimes they are just plain wrong and I'm certainly not saying that they were in the right in each and every military intervention. Well, even if there are selfish reasons to it, if it helps out people, whats the problem? Sure, the US benefits from a stable world, but so does everyone else and especially the people who don't have to end up fleeing their homes because otherwise they might get killed. And I'm not saying the US is always in the moral right. But sometimes, they really just are. Well, if every alternative causes more harm, then yes, just calling him out makes you better.
  9. So in an effort to stop derailing the Donald Trump topic, I've made this topic. First, you are in no position to judge any of that, seeing how you are neither a Muslim or a woman. Undoubtedly there is significantly more pressure in the more orthodox communities for women to wear a hijab. However, a lot of Muslims are not actually part of any orthodox community, they are moderates who believe people should be allowed to make their own choices in life, including whether you want to wear a hijab or not. And even in Orthodox communities, it can still be a choice. Just one that has more negative consequences to someone who chooses not to conform. However, those negative consequences apply to every member that refuses to conform, not just women. The standards of conformity are different for men and women though, which is why yes, those orthodox communities do have a problem with sexism. It only becomes actual oppression when choosing not to conform results in violence directed at the person who doesn't want to conform. So, losing friends as a result of your choices, not oppression, getting physically hurt or killed because of your choices, oppression. Finally, I find this hijab talk a little ironic. I mean really, the people that make this type of argument are usually also the ones that complain about Feminazis and how Feminism is ruining everything. But when they can use it to rag on Muslims, they are suddenly oh so concerned with the well being of Muslim women. If you actually gave a damn, you would have realized that telling women not to wear a hijab because it supposedly oppresses them is still you, a guy, telling women how they should dress. Honor killings, arranged marriages and FGM's are not widely accepted or practiced Islamic cultural tennets. Yes, in some Islamic countries these things happen, but that doesn't mean its somehow the entire Muslim community that does all of these things. Also, we are a bit biased in these things. For example, we find it perfectly okay that boys have their foreskins removed for religious or even no reason at all. And while we don't call them honor killings, how often don't you read a story about some jealous ex boyfriend who murders his ex because they broke up? And being stuck in a marriage you don't want happens everywhere for all kinds of reasons. That said, yes the state does have every right to consider these practices undesirable and take steps to ensure that they don't happen within the state's territory. No one is arguing that this should not be the case. *Sigh* They aren't supporting Islam, they are supporting religious freedom. You know, the ability of people to chose to live by a set of religious standards if they so desire. And that includes their right to wear a hijab. But yeah, do keep mansplaining feminism to feminists. And you can't see a second wave feminists teaming up with unlikely allies? Well, how about that time they teamed up with hardcore conservatives to ban porn? Because that was totally a thing. And you have completely missed the point of both protests. Are women in Iran demanding that the hijab be banned completely? No, they are not. And are Feminists in the west arguing every woman should wear a hijab? No they are not. Both are protesting for the ability to choose. They want a choice. Either the choice to not wear a hijab and not get punished for it, or the choice to wear a hijab and also not get punished for it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be able to choose. Because thats what freedom is supposed to be about, having the ability to choose for yourself how you live your life.
  10. We were talking about an insurgency. Not every German had to be a Nazi for an insurgency to take place. Its also irrelevant whether the SS is the same as the Wehrmacht (and I never said it was). The fact is that Germany was led by ideological extremists that had total control over the state and the area, and their ideology had plenty of popular support. They then got beaten by an international coalition with a radically different ideologies that were wholly incompatible with Nazi ideology. These conquerers then proceeded to occupy and instituted a regime change. So far, the conditions are ideal for an insurgency formed by the remnant of extremists to form, indeed the conditions are even better than they were in Iraq or Afghanistan. I've already pointed out that the supposed differences in German culture and historical background are not that different from what we can find in the Middle East today (lack of democratic tradition, religious divisions, German 'unity' being a historically newly invented concept). So German cultural and historical background are not useful concepts to use to explain why no insurgency formed after the allied victory. That means that the actions of the allies are the next best possible explanation for why it didn't form there. Judging from the lack of insurgency and the succes of Germany after the war, we can conclude that the allies were very successful indeed in their approach towards Germany after the war. That means that the best military intervention ever was the Second World War and its success depends for the most part on the actions and policies of the allies. Every moderate ideology is compatible with democracy, be it democracy with a few tweaks here and there. And most people in the Middle East are moderates. Sure, you are right that the absolute basis for a democracy is that all sides respect each other's differences. But respecting other peoples differences is not something that is culturally determined. Its not like civil wars have never happened in Western nations, yet I don't hear you concluding that Democracy is also incompatible with American values. The very fact that there are so many 'extra' texts with interpretations of the Koran written by prominent Islamic scholars which are required readings, disproves the assertion that Muslims all believe that the Koran is the true and literal word of God. Yeah, its the true word of God, but they need a life time of studying to understand its meaning. Only the extremists radicals believe the words in the Koran mean just what they say. Its also why even across the Islamic world, you encounter a wide variety of cultures with different types of modern states and not just one big monoculture that looks the same everywhere. Well again, you could argue the same points in occupied Nazi Germany and occupied Imperial Japan. In both cases the allies forced a fundamentally different viewpoint on the people of the nations they occupied. If you really want to argue that Democracy is a Western Christian viewpoint you could say thats why it worked in Germany, but then you only make it more difficult to explain in Japan since you've added a level of different the Japanese would have to overcome. Still, it worked in both countries thereby proving that cultural and historical background are not determining factors. You can get entire nations to adopt a new and fundamentally different viewpoint. Well then by your own admission having a religious limit on government intervention or murder is irrelevant since when its there it can easily get ignored. Also, there are most definitely limits on both in Islam. It is just people ignore them for various reasons. Yes, there are, at least to some extend. But again, that doesn't mean democracy can't work in those places. It can, with some adjustments here and there to account for some of those differences. One is a cop that follows the rules, at least for the most part (ignoring the potential danger of Trump for a moment there). The other is a cop that does what it wants when it wants purely for selfish reasons. Hence, the first cop is objectively better suited to act as a cop than the second cop. Even in a morally gray era, this one is pretty black and white. I suggest you read up on what the Frankfurt school actually studies and what its basic premises and assumptions are. Displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what any of these movements are actually saying or what they stand for. Feminism stands for the ability of women to choose the direction of their own lives. If a woman chooses to wear a hijab because it puts her more in touch with her religious and cultural roots, why would a feminist object? And if a woman who chooses to wear a hijab subsequently gets attacked by people for wearing a hijab, why would feminists not stand with her? Your assumption that every woman who wears a hijab somehow must have been forced by her father/man and has no agency over her choice of clothes is itself incredibly condescending, sexist and racist. You seem to believe that all Muslim women who do not dress according to what you view as acceptable are oppressed creatures with no agency. You pay lip service to diversity of thought, but right here you clearly demonstrate for all to see that said diversity only applies to whatever you think is acceptable thought, because a Muslim woman choosing to wear a Hijab? Impossible! No one pretends only white people took slaves, except in the projections of conservatives on liberals. And no one is pretending only white people ever committed a genocide. Really, who is doing the distorting here? The people that have taken a perfectly good, albeit relatively small, school of thought within sociology and turned it into this sinister ideology filled with imaginary people who want to blame everything on white people. And yes, these are imaginary people because there is literally no one saying only white people took slaves or white people committed genocide. So basically someone took a bunch of people, grouped them together based on whatever they are projecting on them and slapped a scary sounding label on them. Never mind that it makes no sense whatsoever.
  11. Oh hey, remember how Hillary Clinton was totally unfit to lead because of how she handled sensitive information? And how Trump would surely never be so careless with the information he receives? Except in cases where said information make for good bragging material. Because really, someone risks his life passing extremely sensitive information along in the fight against ISIS, someone who could easily get killed should the people around him find out that that he/she leaked the information. So it makes total sense to brag about it to the Russians. Because really, the president of the United States apparently feels he needs to brag about how awesome his intelligence is to the Russians. And I get it, the president can decide when to share such information and with whom. But I would hope that someone with as much power as the president of the United States uses a bit more common sense when deciding when and to whom he divulges such information.
  12. Really? No healthcare reforms? Except they just passed Trumpcare. No regulation reforms? Except all the executive orders striking down (mostly environmental) regulations. NAFTA renegotiations are on the table. Yes, he isn't going to get his wall, because its a stupid idea and he won't get the budget for it, he is however rounding up immigrants like crazy and kicking them out. He also tried that idiotic travel ban thing that turned out to be utterly unconstitutional. He won't be able to renew poor inner city areas or adres gang violence because those are problems that are not within the scope of the presidency to really adres. And improved relations with Russia are never gonna happen as long as Putin profits from being to conveniently blame the Americans for everything that goes wrong in Russia. So yeah, he has done enough damage already. Stop. I hate the use of that word, 'cultural Marxism'. I've seen it be abused by far to many people on the internet who think it means all kinds of things except the thing it really is. So lets get this straight, cultural Marxism refers to the 'Frankfurt school' within sociology/philosophy. Its only tangibly related to Marxism (as in the people within this school are looking at all the theoretical shortcomings of traditional Marxism). And unlike what Reddit seems to believe, its not part of a plot to destroy America/the West by imposing god knows what on people in order for ultra liberals to win the culture war. In fact, cultural Marxism as used by conservatives/right wing pundits is a conjured up enemy they use in their own attempts at influencing the direction of the culture war. No, but it is bad form for a president to fire the guy leading an investigation into yourself. Its from the dictator playbook and it creates the impression that you are trying to hide something. If Trump is innocent, like he constantly claims, then the FBI won't find anything. What part? If that were true, then we would expect Germany to take a lot more time to democratize. Do remember that before WW2 and the Allied occupation, Germany only had about 15 years of democratic experience and the Weimar state was a pretty deeply dysfunctional democracy throughout those 15 years. If people really go by what they know from their background and their historic political traditions, then Germany would not be a functional democracy but rather a militaristic state by another Kaiser or Fuhrer. You mean like the Jews in Germany? 1) The idea that people were 'German' was less than a 100 years old at the end of WW2. Being German is a modern invention, a nationalist fairy tale and an idea that is only true as long as enough people believe it. Either way, its not something that you can take for granted. 2) Germans are Christians, but depending on where you are, they can be Catholic or Protestant. How is that so different from what you see in the Middle East? The only difference is that in most of Europe we have learned to live and let live. 3) The fact that they had a common enemy is only a reason for why their should be an insurgency, at least in the parts occupied by the Soviets. 4) That rests on a complete misunderstanding of Fascist and Nazi ideology. The lack of weapons or equipment is not a reason not to fight, especially not for fascists. Besides, a good insurgency doesn't need much in the way of equipment. That is clearly demonstrated by every other insurgency ever which is basically always under equipped compared to their enemies. Further evidence is that after WW1 there actually were several (albeit relatively minor) insurgencies in Germany. And those happened at a time when Germany wasn't even occupied by a common enemy, but simply because they hated the government and the outcome of the war. So what is the big difference between the aftermaths of both wars? Well, one ended in humiliation, political dysfunction and economic disaster. Two ended with total occupation replacing politics and therefor not giving it the chance to be dysfunctional. The occupier also spend significant time and effort into rebuilding the political system and supporting figures within the German political system that aspired to liberal democracy. Two also didn't end in the same type of humiliation. For one, it was objectively clear to just about everyone that Germany really perpetuated some of the worst war crimes in human history. That wasn't propaganda, that was undeniable fact. But pretty soon afterwards, the allies did everything they could to rehabilitate Germany again, by making it part of NATO, by letting it join the EU and investing significant resources into rebuilding the German economy. And that also averted the economic disaster that happened after WW1. More importantly, everyone benefited from it, not just a few elites or some non German companies. These factors contributed to making peace the preferable option. An insurgency didn't happen because there would be no support for it and it would fail instantly. You assume that Muslims all have fundamentalist beliefs. Most don't, only a tiny fraction does. What most people want is not that different from what we want. To have a roof over their heads, provide food for their family, raise their children safely and be able to walk the streets without having to worry some sniper blows your head off. America has fundamentally failed to provide these things to the majority of people in countries they staged a military intervention. Simply because its cheaper to just pay for a military operation and leave the rebuilding to the locals. Except when American construction companies can come in, pick up some sweet high paid contracts and make absurd profits. Remember that in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US had months of good will. People were cheering on the streets when coalition forces pushed out the Taliban and the Iraqi army. That was all squandered when afterwards the US let the warlords run free and do their thing in Afghanistan, and it showed obvious favoritism towards the Shias at the expense of the Sunni's in Iraq. That presumes that the Nazi's werent fully on board with the ideology of Hitler or Himmler. The SS definitely was and no, its not because they were all dead is why no insurgency happened.
  13. So remember how Clinton was supposedly a bad leader because she supposedly supported arms deals with Saudi Arabia and other countries that 'support terrorists'. And how Trump would never do those things? Except of course that he totally does since he's about to sign an arms deal worth 100 billion dollars with Saudi Arabia. Guess those terrorists don't have to worry running out of American made weaponry any time soon. And of course that little gem taken right from every dictators rulebook where he tried to get the head of the FBI to swear loyalty to him personally. And then fires him because the director politely told him to go screw himself and probably gets a little to close for comfort with his investigation into his alleged ties to Russia. So Trump supporters, any doubts yet? Perhaps a little nagging feeling in the back of your head that whispers at an unguarded moment that you voted for the wrong guy?
  14. Aren't they part of the standard Maxis agriculture fields?
  15. I recently finished the first three books in the Shadow Campaign series (The Thousand Names, The Shadow Throne and The Price of Valor). Military fantasy books set in a Napoleonic war setting, that isn't something I've seen done before.