Trump’s Remarks on Charlottesville Violence Are Criticized as Insufficient

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,318
9,513
113
Washington DC
I rest my case. You are bs artist and troll, t-bone.. who really has no coherent opinion whatsoever.. just a rootless misanthropy against th world in general.
Even if true, it'd be better than being a white supremacist like you.

Almost none of the monuments were put up right after the Civil War. Some were erected during the civil rights era in the early 1960s, which coincided with the war’s centennial, but the vast majority of monuments date to between 1895 and World War I. They were part of a campaign to paint the Southern cause in the Civil War as just and slavery as a benevolent institution, and their installation came against a backdrop of Jim Crow violence and oppression of African Americans. The monuments were put up as explicit symbols of white supremacy.
The group responsible for the majority of these memorials was the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the most influential white women’s organization in the South in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Honoring Confederate heroes, generals and soldiers alike, was one of the group’s primary objectives, and the hundreds of monuments throughout the South — and beyond — serve as testimony to the Daughters’ aggressive agenda to vindicate the Confederacy. That lasting power of the mythology they made is still evident today in the raging battles over the fate of the memorials: While Baltimore officials acted quickly to take down four Confederate monuments in that city Tuesday night, laws prevent the removal of such memorials in some of the states that seceded from the Union during the Civil War. Most of those laws were passed only recently, in reaction to calls to remove the monuments or change street names honoring Confederate generals.
The 1890s, when the UDC was founded and monument building began in earnest, represented a decade of virulent racism across the South. Not content to disenfranchise black men, Southern whites went on a lynching spree. Ida B. Wells, the African American journalist and anti-lynching crusader, documented 186 lynchings of black people in 1893 alone — mostly men but women and children, too. As she wrote in her account “The Red Record,” these “scenes of unusual brutality failed to have any visible effect upon the humane sentiments of the people of our land.”
Violence against blacks only increased in the early decades of the 20th century. In addition to continued lynching across the South, the Atlanta Race Riot of 1906 demonstrated how seriously white men took their supremacy over African Americans: An estimated 10,000 white men and boys in the city went after black men, beating dozens to death and injuring hundreds more.
Amid that brutality, the pace of Confederate monument construction increased. The UDC and other like-minded heritage organizations were intent on honoring the Confederate generation, establishing a revisionist history of what they called “The War Between the States.” According to this Lost Cause mythology, the South went to war to defend states’ rights, slavery was essentially a benevolent institution that imparted Christianity to African “savages,” and, while the Confederacy was defeated, theirs was a just cause and those who fought were heroes. The Daughters regarded the Ku Klux Klan, which had been founded to resist Reconstruction, as a heroic organization, necessary to return order to the South. Order, of course, meant the use of violence to subdue newly freed blacks.
During the era of Jim Crow, Confederate monuments could be placed most anywhere. Some were in a cemetery or a park, but far more were placed on the grounds of local and state courthouses. These monuments, then, represented not only reverence for soldiers who fought in a war to defend slavery; they also made a very pointed statement about the rule of white supremacy. All who enter the courthouse are subject to the laws of white men.
Monument building, and the suppression of African Americans, did not occur in a Southern Jim Crow vacuum. White Northerners were complicit, either through their silence or via the process of sectional reconciliation. They shared white Southerners’ beliefs about what was then called “Anglo Saxon” supremacy. Northerners likened the issue of immigration from southern and eastern Europe to the South’s “Negro problem,” and essentially turned a blind eye to the violence used to subdue African Americans.
That reconciliation, of course, took many forms during the era of Jim Crow. White audiences across the nation showed their appreciation for the South in popular culture. During the early decades of the 20th century, they bought the sheet music of “Dixie songs,” whose words glorified the Old South, by the millions. The most successful film of the silent era, “The Birth of a Nation” (1915), and the most successful book of the modern age, “Gone With the Wind” (1936), which also became an international film sensation, were essentially popular celebrations of white supremacy and Southern civilization.
Monuments, though, were much more tangible signs of reconciliation. The ultimate such symbol was the Confederate memorial unveiled in Arlington National Cemetery in the summer of 1914. On June 3, Jefferson Davis’s birthday, Union veterans joined Confederate veterans, and members of the Daughters of the American Revolution joined members of the UDC, for the unveiling of what was billed as a “peace monument.” The “peace” may have been about ending hostility between the regions, but the monument itself honors a Lost Cause narrative that met the white South’s litmus test, as it contains images of heroic Confederate soldiers, faithful slaves and wording that vindicates their cause.
While Confederate monuments did honor their white heroes, they did not always rely on the true history of what took place between 1861 and 1865. Nor was that their intent. Rather, they served to rehabilitate white manhood — not as the losers of a war, but, as the monument in Charlotte, states, preservers of “the Anglo Saxon civilization of the South.”
Today’s defenders of Confederate monuments are either unaware of the historical context or do not care. Like generations of whites before them, they are more invested in the mythology that has attached itself to these sentinels of white supremacy, because it serves their cause.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...am accusing others of historical revisionism.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
sounds like you found some well vetted politically correct source of historical revisionism, t-bone. I've travelled in the South and i see these memorials that do not expound any political ideology, they are simple memorials to the 'glorious dead'.. young soldiers who died in war.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
sounds like you found some well vetted politically correct source of historical revisionism, t-bone. I've travelled in the South and i see these memorials that do not expound any political ideology, they are simple memorials to the 'glorious dead'.. young soldiers who died in war.

What were they fighting for?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,318
9,513
113
Washington DC
sounds like you found some well vetted politically correct source of historical revisionism, t-bone. I've travelled in the South and i see these memorials that do not expound any political ideology, they are simple memorials to the 'glorious dead'.. young soldiers who died in war.
Now THAT's not a lie. I have no doubt whatsoever that's what you saw.

What were they fighting for?
The cause of human slavery.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Now THAT's not a lie. I have no doubt whatsoever that's what you saw.


The cause of human slavery.

Details. I'm sure they were honourable men when dealing with other whites who thought like they did.

Some probably even thought fighting for slavery was the Christian thing to do.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,318
9,513
113
Washington DC
Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the CSA

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
This is a photo of #HeatherHeyer being treated by street medics... moments after she was plowed down by a white supremacist in Charlottesville, Virginia.
What makes this photo particularly heartbreaking for me, is the fact that these medics were forced away from Heather by a state trooper…a state trooper who did absolutely nothing to save Heather's life. In the following article, you can read one street medic's account of the moments leading up to Heather's death: https://itsgoingdown.org/state-trooper-try-stop-medics-per…/
I'm so angry. Why did the state trooper stop medics from treating Heather? Why was law enforcement allowed to use deadly and ever so slightly less than lethal weaponry against water protectors at Standing Rock? Why were Nazis and white supremacists allowed to stand with semi automatic weapons and full body armor while receiving the protection of law enforcement in Charlottesville? - Linda Black Elk.



 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
And what would the "good reason" be, besides a bunch of Nervous Nellies with nothing else to occupy their feeble minds getting their shorts in a knot? :) :) :)

By all means, remove knot from your ass and feel free to ignore the thread.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
What were they fighting for?

The right to keep slaves.

Although most of the rank and file were sold on the rallying cry of defending their homes (states).

But in the end, and there is ample enough evidence to prove it, it was indeed a war over slavery.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;

As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free!

While God is marching on.

 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,539
8,145
113
B.C.
Even if true, it'd be better than being a white supremacist like you.

Almost none of the monuments were put up right after the Civil War. Some were erected during the civil rights era in the early 1960s, which coincided with the war’s centennial, but the vast majority of monuments date to between 1895 and World War I. They were part of a campaign to paint the Southern cause in the Civil War as just and slavery as a benevolent institution, and their installation came against a backdrop of Jim Crow violence and oppression of African Americans. The monuments were put up as explicit symbols of white supremacy.
The group responsible for the majority of these memorials was the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the most influential white women’s organization in the South in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Honoring Confederate heroes, generals and soldiers alike, was one of the group’s primary objectives, and the hundreds of monuments throughout the South — and beyond — serve as testimony to the Daughters’ aggressive agenda to vindicate the Confederacy. That lasting power of the mythology they made is still evident today in the raging battles over the fate of the memorials: While Baltimore officials acted quickly to take down four Confederate monuments in that city Tuesday night, laws prevent the removal of such memorials in some of the states that seceded from the Union during the Civil War. Most of those laws were passed only recently, in reaction to calls to remove the monuments or change street names honoring Confederate generals.
The 1890s, when the UDC was founded and monument building began in earnest, represented a decade of virulent racism across the South. Not content to disenfranchise black men, Southern whites went on a lynching spree. Ida B. Wells, the African American journalist and anti-lynching crusader, documented 186 lynchings of black people in 1893 alone — mostly men but women and children, too. As she wrote in her account “The Red Record,” these “scenes of unusual brutality failed to have any visible effect upon the humane sentiments of the people of our land.”
Violence against blacks only increased in the early decades of the 20th century. In addition to continued lynching across the South, the Atlanta Race Riot of 1906 demonstrated how seriously white men took their supremacy over African Americans: An estimated 10,000 white men and boys in the city went after black men, beating dozens to death and injuring hundreds more.
Amid that brutality, the pace of Confederate monument construction increased. The UDC and other like-minded heritage organizations were intent on honoring the Confederate generation, establishing a revisionist history of what they called “The War Between the States.” According to this Lost Cause mythology, the South went to war to defend states’ rights, slavery was essentially a benevolent institution that imparted Christianity to African “savages,” and, while the Confederacy was defeated, theirs was a just cause and those who fought were heroes. The Daughters regarded the Ku Klux Klan, which had been founded to resist Reconstruction, as a heroic organization, necessary to return order to the South. Order, of course, meant the use of violence to subdue newly freed blacks.
During the era of Jim Crow, Confederate monuments could be placed most anywhere. Some were in a cemetery or a park, but far more were placed on the grounds of local and state courthouses. These monuments, then, represented not only reverence for soldiers who fought in a war to defend slavery; they also made a very pointed statement about the rule of white supremacy. All who enter the courthouse are subject to the laws of white men.
Monument building, and the suppression of African Americans, did not occur in a Southern Jim Crow vacuum. White Northerners were complicit, either through their silence or via the process of sectional reconciliation. They shared white Southerners’ beliefs about what was then called “Anglo Saxon” supremacy. Northerners likened the issue of immigration from southern and eastern Europe to the South’s “Negro problem,” and essentially turned a blind eye to the violence used to subdue African Americans.
That reconciliation, of course, took many forms during the era of Jim Crow. White audiences across the nation showed their appreciation for the South in popular culture. During the early decades of the 20th century, they bought the sheet music of “Dixie songs,” whose words glorified the Old South, by the millions. The most successful film of the silent era, “The Birth of a Nation” (1915), and the most successful book of the modern age, “Gone With the Wind” (1936), which also became an international film sensation, were essentially popular celebrations of white supremacy and Southern civilization.
Monuments, though, were much more tangible signs of reconciliation. The ultimate such symbol was the Confederate memorial unveiled in Arlington National Cemetery in the summer of 1914. On June 3, Jefferson Davis’s birthday, Union veterans joined Confederate veterans, and members of the Daughters of the American Revolution joined members of the UDC, for the unveiling of what was billed as a “peace monument.” The “peace” may have been about ending hostility between the regions, but the monument itself honors a Lost Cause narrative that met the white South’s litmus test, as it contains images of heroic Confederate soldiers, faithful slaves and wording that vindicates their cause.
While Confederate monuments did honor their white heroes, they did not always rely on the true history of what took place between 1861 and 1865. Nor was that their intent. Rather, they served to rehabilitate white manhood — not as the losers of a war, but, as the monument in Charlotte, states, preservers of “the Anglo Saxon civilization of the South.”
Today’s defenders of Confederate monuments are either unaware of the historical context or do not care. Like generations of whites before them, they are more invested in the mythology that has attached itself to these sentinels of white supremacy, because it serves their cause.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...text&story_id=1574493769279973"]#HeatherHeyer being treated by street medics... moments after she was plowed down by a white supremacist in Charlottesville, Virginia.
What makes this photo particularly heartbreaking for me, is the fact that these medics were forced away from Heather by a state trooper…a state trooper who did absolutely nothing to save Heather's life. In the following article, you can read one street medic's account of the moments leading up to Heather's death: https://itsgoingdown.org/state-trooper-try-stop-medics-per…/
I'm so angry. Why did the state trooper stop medics from treating Heather? Why was law enforcement allowed to use deadly and ever so slightly less than lethal weaponry against water protectors at Standing Rock? Why were Nazis and white supremacists allowed to stand with semi automatic weapons and full body armor while receiving the protection of law enforcement in Charlottesville? - Linda Black Elk.



Why did these peaceful counter protesters bring medics to their peaceful counter protest ?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,539
8,145
113
B.C.
Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the CSA

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.
So Jackie Robinson couldn't even play in Liberal New York before the 60's . And even in Liberal Los Angeles a person of specific colour could not play quarterback for the Rams until the 70's .
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,539
8,145
113
B.C.
You probably think you cracked the case there, don't you? durr why would you bring medics to counter protest Nazis?

**** this forum is stupid.
Did the Nazis have medics also ?
Hey lets go put on out camo , bring out the bats and chains , cover up our identities and go fight Nazis , this should be fun , we will bring medics along as some of us might sustain injuries . Counter protest much ?
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Did the Nazis have medics also ?

Probably not because Nazis are idiots.

Hey lets go put on out camo , bring out the bats and chains , cover up our identities and go fight Nazis , this should be fun , we will bring medics along as some of us might sustain injuries . Counter protest much ?

Sounds like a good idea if you're fighting Nazis, you ****ing nitwit.
 

Vbeacher

Electoral Member
Sep 9, 2013
651
36
28
Ottawa
"Far left?" How the hell do you know? And what a pathetic response to justify murder. BTW the Freedom Riders of the 1960s were also accused of being far left.

I wasn't justifying murder. I wasn't even talking about murder. I was talking about the street fighting.

So, you have no sympathy for a murderer (appropriate), and no sympathy for his victim?

I have really never seen a lamer, or more vile, attempt to shift the blame for a murder off the murderer. You are every bit as ****ed up as the morons who blamed the cops for the murders of cops in Dallas, Baton Rouge, and New York.

I understand from reading you that you're generally not very well educated and have a very low intellect. So I'll try to explain in single syllable words.

Me not speak of kook in car. Me speak of guys with shields and clubs and gas who scream and curse and throw stuff and swing clubs and kick people.

Actually, I really don't have any sympathy either to be honest. The right-wing extremists protesting the
As far as I'm concerned, law enforcement in general screwed the pooch big time. They should have moved between the protesters and counter-protesters and told the counter protesters to go back home. They already got to protest for the statue's removal, others have the right protest the actual removal. That's how America is supposed to work.

Watching those street brawls, the question that kept popping up in my mind was "Where the hell are the cops?"
Look, Klukkers and Nazis holding marches and demos is not a new thing. They've been at it for decades. It rarely erupts into violence for a plain and simple reason that every time they do their little march thing the cops are there to keep them and the inevitable counter-protestors away from each other.

You see the same thing since Trump rose with Trump supporters holding demos. Any time they do the ANTIFA and black block types show up screaming and howling and swinging their fists and trying to stop them. As long as the police are there to stand between them there's not much violence, other than the lefty types getting tear gassed from time to time.

Why were there no cops standing between these groups? It's not like they didn't know what was coming.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Probably not because Nazis are idiots.



Sounds like a good idea if you're fighting Nazis, you ****ing nitwit.

I think medics accompanied allied troops in WWII too.

I must really tick those Nazis off. I speak a few languages including Esperanto, am in a second-generation linguistically and religiously and first-generation racially exogamous family, and eat vegan teetotaler.

OK, they might appreciate the last two parts seeing how Hitler was too. But I can cook Indian and Chinese. That must drive them right up the friggin' wall.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
I think medics accompanied allied troops in WWII too.

And why do cops have body armor and weapons when they're supposed to be keeping the peace? The idea that taking precautions is somehow an ulterior motive is so mind-bogglingly stupid. It's like asking why you would bring sunscreen to the beach if you don't want to get burned. Honestly, I just can't believe how stupid that was.