/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7249879]

Does anyone take Sam Harris seriously? Thoughts on the Chomsky correspondence?

www.alternet.org/belief/sam-harris-made-himself-look-idiot-email-exchange-chomsky-and-has-shared-it-world

[Anonymous No.7249901]

The exchange was cringe-worthy on both parts to be honest. Chomsky has simply made up his mind that Sam Harris is a Neo-con shill for the government, so he refuses to even talk to him, which is either a sign that Chomsky is getting old, or that he knows he can't argue with a lot of his points.

Which is sad actually, because I like Noam.

[Anonymous No.7249902]

>>7249879
nice bait

[Anonymous No.7249919]

>>7249879
>Does anyone take Sam Harris seriously?
Maybe dumb undergrads or edgy teens, if sam harris is the only "philosopher" whose youtube videos they've watched.

https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/

[Anonymous No.7249924]

>The popular atheist and torture-supporter Sam Harris

kek

[Anonymous No.7249926]

>>7249901
Noam broke down everything Sam said point by point, he seemed more than willing? He never ignored any part of what Sam said.

Sam on the otherhand seems to be completely delusioned, it is almost as if he actually believes we didn't know our actions would cause tens of thousands of deaths, even though we have proof that we were informed of the consequences. He insists that, even if we bombed the plant KNOWING it would cause tens of thousands of deaths, that is NOT AS BAD as intentionally causing 3,000 deaths. There has to be some part of this that Sam is unintentionally ignoring.

Chomksy seemed more than willing to talk, he just did so annoyed and with contempt and I don't blame him given the context

[Anonymous No.7249946]

>>7249879
>linking an article with a title like that rather than the actual conversation itself
oh look it's another "lets make sam harris a target because of his popularity and association with reddit and atheism because we're 4chan contrarians thread"

[Anonymous No.7249951]

>>7249926
Well, I disagree with Noam.

I think intentions do matter. Civilian deaths are guaranteed in a war scenario, and it would be fine if Noam argued that war by definition should not take place, but given the context of the war, and it's goals, one has to recognize that people who are not the primary target will die.

His insistence on the U.S being a terrorist state, almost makes me believe that he would not have agreed to let the U.S declare war on Hitler during WW2, simply because a lot of civilians might die.

[Anonymous No.7249980]

>>7249951
Without raising a lot of straw men and digressing from the actual (linked) discussion at hand, lets just review the situation of the US bombing Al-Shifa. Chomksy's argument is that if we KNEW tens of thousands of innocent people were going to die, and we decided to bomb Al-Shifa anyway, merely not caring about the human life, he proposes that that may actually be worse than bombing for the intent of killing them. Knowing you would be killing tens of thousands of innocent lifes but not caring is equating them to ants, in Chomksy's words, whereas doing it for the intent of murdering those people would raise the people's value to that of human.

[Anonymous No.7250002]

>>7249980
Well I agree with him on that.

But given the context of the war, you have a choice between killing your enemies, and having civilian deaths, or not killing your enemies.

It's clearly a matter of utility; at what cost are you prepared to be able to remove your enemies.

Noam says that since we know that thousands of people will die, then we shouldn't do it at all, which is basically like saying you should not go to war at all, because like I said, civilians might die, even when the war could be hypothetically speaking a necessity.

[Anonymous No.7250021]

Sam Harris is a naive fool because he believes that atheism and secular humanism is actually about reason and moral progress, and not a way to mobilize scientists and intellectuals for communist revolutionary purposes.

[Anonymous No.7250023]

>>7249901
This is just not true. He literally went through all Harris's points and refuted them all.

[Anonymous No.7250030]

>>7250002
We were not and have never been under existential danger from our conflicts. This was not a "kill or be killed" situation.

But besides that, this was not even the bombing of enemies at all. We did not have any proof of it being a weapons factory, before or after, and indeed refused to investigate it after the fact. We had just had our embassy bombed and the President needed to show how large the United State's dick is.

Now I understand that it is merely conjecture that we bombed the plant out of retaliation, and if that is the case, it is indeed with the intention of killing innocent people of that country. But while that is conjecture, it is not conjecture that we did not have reason to do it prior and refused to investigate it. Not only did we refuse to investigate the issue, but we did not even henceforth acknowlege or apologize for our error.

I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say exactly. Are you saying that we were justified ..?

[Anonymous No.7250032]

>>7249924
>sometimes it's ok to murder

[Anonymous No.7250034]

>>7249951
>almost makes me believe that he would not have agreed to let the U.S declare war on Hitler during WW2

Until 1941, he wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.7250040]

>>7250034
This is true considering we did not know the extent or nature of Hitler's human rights violations until after the war was over.

[Anonymous No.7250041]

>>7250023
He didn't "refute" them. He just disagreed with them.

[Anonymous No.7250049]

>>7250041
>so he refuses to even talk to him
thus showing that "so he refuses to even talk to him" is not true.

[Anonymous No.7250050]

>>7249901
I guess you are an even worse reader than Sam Harris.
Harris got BTFO by Noam.

>The idea of publishing personal correspondence is pretty weird, a strange form of exhibitionism – whatever the content. Personally, I can’t imagine doing it. However, if you want to do it, I won’t object.

[Anonymous No.7250053]

>>7250030
Well, I agree that the bombing of Al-Shifa was horrible, and the President should've been held accountable for it.

I'm speaking more to Chomsky's general insistence that it doesn't matter what your intentions are, when it clearly does.

Intentions are what makes it safe for the United Kingdom to have a nuclear weapon, but not Hezbollah.

[Anonymous No.7250064]

>>7250040
Actually, what I mean is that communist intellectuals were against what they called the "imperialist" war while Hitler was allied with the Soviet Union. After Operation Barbarossa, they did a 180º and became warmongers. Which lead to situations like Dalton Trumbo writing a pacifist book in 1939, and then denouncing to the FBI people who wrote him letters supporting the book two years later. Communists don't really treat ideals as absolute principles, like Sam Harris foolishly does, they just use as weapons whatever fit their purposes.

And all of that didn't had anything to do with "human rights".

[Anonymous No.7250067]

>>7250053
So, was genocide by China morally on higher ground than 9/11 because the intention was "paradise on earth for all people"?

Do you really think it's better when states commit genocide or mass murder because they have "other intentions than the direct murdering of people"? Do you think such things justify, for example, Stalin and his high executives?

[Anonymous No.7250071]

>>7250067
That's a funny argument to use concerning Chomsky, since he supported Mao.

[Anonymous No.7250073]

>there are people on /lit/ who regard Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, and Jared Diamond as "scholars/intellectuals"

this board is getting as bad as /tv/eddit

[Anonymous No.7250077]

>>7250071
I used it because it is the very argument Chomksy used in the linked discussion, if you bothered to read it.

[Anonymous No.7250084]

>>7250077
So he is a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.7250087]

>>7250067
>So, was genocide by China morally on higher ground than 9/11 because the intention was "paradise on earth for all people"?

No? I don't know where you get that from. I just think that statist violence, just like normal violence, the defense of an other person for example, can be absolutely justified, depending on the situation.

The bombing of Al-Shifa was obviously an incident in which the U.S is in the wrong though, but just because they did something wrong(in fact alot of things wrong historically), does not mean they can't ever do something right.

[Anonymous No.7250173]

>>7250071
Where did Chomksy ever support Mao? Here is a direct quote,

"Mao instituted polices that lead to famines in China. These killed tens of millions of people. Did Mao set out to starve people? No. What he did was he instituted polices that he knew would lead to massive death. But for him that was worth it. If he could have done it without killing so many he probably would have. But this *does not absolve him*. He is still guilty and justly condemned for this action."

asterisks added.

[Anonymous No.7250274]

>>7249879
harris was just trying to get publicity for his new book. chomsky was vitriolic, but overall he was just doing what he usually does, which is being reasonable.

[Anonymous No.7250293]

>>7250041
I agree with this. In a technical sense, he didn't "refute" all of Harris's claims. For the most part, Chomsky just disagreed, but in an informed way, and he provided his reasons for disagreeing. However, it's difficult to see how it wouldn't be accurate to call some of what he did say refutation, for example correcting Harris' misconceptions of his views.

[Anonymous No.7250543]

>>7249879

I take Sam Harris seriously as a peddler of nonsense; like creationists or far-righters we ignore his nonsense at our peril. Look at the scientism and Eurocentrism that infests some other internet spaces.

I disagree with both Harris and Chomsky, but the correspondence makes Harris look like an idiot. His argumentation is so poor. Him getting BTFO by William Lane Craig is better though.

[Anonymous No.7250585]

>>7249879
>Does anyone take Sam Harris seriously?
He is a pop-bubble gum author, more of a marketer than a thinker though. He banks on simplified entertainment to garner attention. Its just intelligent enough to get idiots excited, but too stupid for anyone who spends time reading.

>Thoughts on the Chomsky correspondence?
Chomsky has better things to do than debate entertainers, he shrugged him off.

I am not that big of a fan of Chomsky's perspective, however he has substance.

[Anonymous No.7252478]

>>7249946
It is the conversation.

>>7249951
Chomsky says he believes WW2 was justified.

>>7249980
>>7250002
I think what is being left unsaid by Noam is that Clinton put power over human life. Bombing Al-Shifa secured the perception that the US will retaliate for any attack, but at the cost of innocent lives. So those Sudanese died simply to show the world you do not fuck with America. Their lives didn't matter—we don't even have an accurate record of the people who died. How awful.

[Anonymous No.7252867]

>>7249901
>The exchange was cringe-worthy on both parts to be honest.
Chomsky is repeating the facts of the matter of the bombing
>Chomsky has simply made up his mind that Sam Harris is a Neo-con shill for the government,
He is
He tries to weasel out of the bombing with his ridiculous "muh intentions" and concocting elaborately fantastic what if scenarios rather than discuss the facts

[Anonymous No.7252926]

I like Harris, he is a realist.

Chomsky and other ivory tower progressives are fairyland retards who would be destroyed in seconds if given any real power.

The amount of aid the US gave and continues to give Sudan far outweighs whatever lives that one obviously mistaken bombing took. To equate stone-age Muslims with westerners morally or intellectually is beyond stupid. They are simply not as developed in either case. It is a thought only people completely gated off from reality could entertain.

[Anonymous No.7252961]

>>7252867
>Chomsky is repeating the facts of the matter of the bombing

No, he clearly made up his mind that it was done out of pure spite with no strategic goals. He had no evidence for that assumption. There is no fucking reason whatsoever that Clinton would have intentionally attacked a pharmacy while we were simultaneously sending aid to the Sudanese. It was very obviously a mistake, but Chomsky doesn't concede this because he has to stick to his moronic narrative that the US is just as evil as Islamic extremists.

[Anonymous No.7253168]

>>7250543
>Him getting BTFO by William Lane Craig is better though.

I can't believe people think Sam won that debate.

[Anonymous No.7253212]

>>7252926
While I agree that western morality is superior to the morality of 3rd world shitholes in most cases, this does not give us the authority to absolve our crimes.

The whole argument makes Harris seem as if he realizes the horrors of the bombings but does not want to come to terms with the moral consequences.

I don't mind if harris would say he doesn't give a shit about the sudanese, but him trying to soften the crime from his high horse comes off as extremely naïve.

While we may be morally superior, we still have a long ways to go, and every crime that we push under the rug is counter productive.

Bomb whatever shithole you like, but don't go around claiming that is was for their own good, or that its ok because we gave them some extra food.

[Anonymous No.7253242]

>"W-why are you being so mean to me, Noam?"
>"idiot"
>"N-Noam please. I beg you. Stop being a meanie!"
>"fuck off"

[Anonymous No.7253248]

>>7253212
Chomsky treats the bombing as morally equivalent to the 9/11 attacks, which is absurd, and what Harris was arguing against. No one is claiming either wasn't a tragedy.

[Anonymous No.7253270]

>>7253248
Gotta give it to Chomsky though, he's principled in his retarded anarchist ethics.

[Anonymous No.7253284]

why does sam harris use so many big words

[Anonymous No.7253297]

>>7253284
because he's the greatest intellectual in the world today or perhaps ever.

[Anonymous No.7253326]

>>7253297
please i dont have the patience for your juvenile sarcasm

just answer the question

[Anonymous No.7253403]

>>7253248
He is pointing out that they are both retaliations. One retaliation killed an order of magnitude more people.

[Anonymous No.7253420]

>>7253403
Harris's point is that if clinton did it in retialation, which he doesn't believe, then at least he had to mask his retaliation because the public will not approve. Whereas muslim extremists believe in everything they do.

[Anonymous No.7253432]

>>7253420
No anon, if you don't go burn down your state capitol right this very second you approve of everything your government does. Arguing with this makes you a namby-pamby fence-sitter who girls won't want to have sex with. You don't want to be a fence sitter, do you, anon?

[Anonymous No.7253437]

>>7253284
so that his uneducated followers will think he is smart

[Anonymous No.7253459]

>>7253420
Chomsky ignores professed intentions and Harris takes them at face value.

Chomsky ignores them because everyone justifies what they do, no matter how horrible.

Harris's point is that the intention of 9/11 was to kill and the intention of the Sudanese bombing was—? He doesn't say exactly. Since there was no evidence of it having been designing biological weapons, before or after, it would seem that the intention was something else. Logically as retaliation for the attack on the US embassy.

[Anonymous No.7253572]

>>7250053

Nowhere does Chomsky say that intentions don't matter. He simple points out that atrocities carried out by nation states are almost always under the pretext of good intentions.

Intentions aren't a black and white topic, people can have sincerity in completely different directions. Do you think that we should let ISIS establish a caliphate in Syria and Iraq because they have good intentions (in the context of their ideology)?

[Anonymous No.7253659]

>>7253168
people that agreed with harris before the debate will believe that he won regardless of everything

[Anonymous No.7253682]

>>7249919
Sam Harris is the pure embodiment of american neo-conservatism.

Which is essentially neo-enlightenent, which explains why he takes a Kantian approach to ethics and only regards intention

He's just such an idiot he probably doesn't even know that though.

[Anonymous No.7253687]

>>7249901

he's a senile old liberal

I don't know why anyone even bothers him anymore

Harris is just an autist

[Anonymous No.7253689]

>>7253572
>Do you think that we should let ISIS establish a caliphate in Syria and Iraq
Well, actually I do. This doesn't seem to be a bad outcome at all.

[Anonymous No.7253812]

>>7253284
He thinks that distracts from his lack of substance.

[Anonymous No.7253850]

>>7253687

> Chomsky
> liberal

2/10 fucking apply yourself you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.7253872]

>>7253242
Essentially this. Harris was trying to build rapport where Chomsky was just being belligerent autist.

[Anonymous No.7253929]

yawn

old loser can't get over someone saying bad things about him and younger euphoric retard puts his fingerless glived hands over his ears and screams "b-but muh intenshun!"

waste of time and this retardation should not have been made public

as much as I hate sam harris I think he came off looking better in this exchange, because that's all that matters. chomsky came into the conversation with a giant chip on his shoulder, bordering on outright hatred. sam harris refused to take the bait and apologize for chomskys perceived wronging, which is really all chomsky cared about. when you're an old academic nearing retirement, there's nothing left to do but defend defend defend everything you've said till the bitter end.

[Anonymous No.7253984]

Ol' Chomsky still packs a punch in his age - Harris just looks like a over-zealous nancy, yelling for his 'agenda' rather than his actual belief.

"Noam—

Unfortunately, you are now misreading both my “silences” and my statements—and I cannot help but feel that the peremptory and censorious attitude you have brought to what could, in fact, be a perfectly collegial exchange, is partly to blame. You appear to have begun this dialogue at (or very near) the end of your patience. If we were to publish it, I would strongly urge you to edit what you have already written, removing unfriendly flourishes such as “as you know”, “the usual procedure in work intended to be serious,” “ludicrous and embarrassing,” “total refusal,” etc. I trust that certain of your acolytes would love to see the master in high dudgeon—believing, as you seem to, that you are in the process of mopping the floor with me—but the truth is that your emotions are getting the better of you."

What an utter unruly cunt. I'm often on the opposite spectrum to Chomsky but Harris is just being disrespectful.

I would drop Harris tbh

[Anonymous No.7254181]

>>7252926
>obviously mistaken bombing

Unfortunatelyt here is where your entire argument is disregarded. How many times does it have to be repeated that the fact we would lose tens of thousands of Sundanese lives was never an unknown but an accepted compromise?

[Anonymous No.7254217]

They never even got to have the discussion that Harris wanted to have because Chomsky was just being a cunt.

[Anonymous No.7254252]

>>7249879
>Hear about Sam Harris
>Get a copy of Free Will
>Pedestrian writing, even for a PopSci book
>He claims Man has zero free will, that we can't even decide what we think
>Look up his other work
>He has a foundation that lobbies politicians
He's either a scam artist or a fucking moron

[Anonymous No.7254266]

>>7254252
>He has a foundation that lobbies politicians
>Therefore everything he says is wrong.
Justifications! Justifications for everyone i have!

[Anonymous No.7254282]

>>7254266
No, moron. You're an example of the sort of idiot that thinks Chomsky or Harris is clever.
1) Harris claims there is no free will. That means we can't change our minds; we just react as we must
2) Lobbying is about changing peoples' minds
Since you are fucking stupid enough to write what you did, let me phrase that another way:
If he really believed people have no free will he'd also believe lobbying can't work.

[Anonymous No.7254312]

>>7254282

You're stupid. "We" don't change our minds, our minds just change. Everything you experience is a state of the brain, the brain is a physical object, physical objects are subject to the law of physics, hence there is no free will.

[Anonymous No.7254323]

>>7254312
In other words, you're too dim to realize the inherent contradiction of someone who claims there is no free will trying to convince others of something.
I bet you vote, too

[Anonymous No.7254332]

>>7254323
if you aren't trolling and seriously don't understand the 'no free will' argument after a post as simple as
>>7254312
you are a special brand of stupid even for 4chan

[Anonymous No.7254349]

There are people who don't think Harris came off as a moron?

[Anonymous No.7254358]

>>7254332
Oh, I get the argument of 'no free will' What you don't seem to understand is what it means.
It means IQ is a myth, success is a myth, responsibility, loss, etc. - all just BS.
Remember! Sam Harris is a hard core 'we can't even control our thoughts' advocate of no free will!
That means if you are religious, it is because you must be.
You think you're an atheist because you figured something out?
Nope: no free will means you didn't decide, conclude, deduce, or figure out *anything*, *ever*.
The thoughts in your head, the words you utter, the things you do - all completely outside of your choice. Why?
No free will, chump.
So if
*IF*
you really, really believe that then you understand you can't convince, influence, or such anyone, ever. I mean, you can't even decide what YOU do.
Therefore, arguments, logic, lobbying - all illusions, all meaningless, none have any value AT ALL.
That is what "no free will" *MEANS*

[Anonymous No.7254360]

>>7254349

It was an attempt at a discussion, not a discussion. They didn't get into anything enough for either to come off as a moron. Only Chomsky came off as a cunt for being so pissy and defensive.

[Anonymous No.7254368]

>>7254358

That is not what 'no free will' means. 'No free will' means that all of those things take place, but they take place in a causally deterministic way. There is no "you" to control it.

Lacking free will is in no way incompatible with changing other people's minds.

[Anonymous No.7254372]

>>7254358

[Anonymous No.7254376]

>>7254358
>implying there is a 'you' separate from the physical processes of the body

nope, you really don't understand the argument at all

You're apparently super threatened by whatever you erroneously believe the argument to be, though, judging by that hysterical display of 'muh feels'

[Anonymous No.7254400]

>>7254376
>>7254372
>>7254368
Translation
>you didn't read Harris
Harris is a hard determinist who argues that we don't even choose our thoughts; they appear "out of the darkness" and we have no control over them.
The argument 'we choose/etc. is a causally deterministic way' simply reveals a profound misunderstanding of what causal determinism *means*.
Causal determinism is the argument that actions (and, in the case of Harris' arguments) and thoughts are determined by natural law and are thus fixed and immutable to an extent akin to a falling object's trajectory.
This is Philosophy 105, folks, and you getting it so wrong is indicative you don't have the education to get this

[Anonymous No.7254431]

>>7254400
>I hear a bunch of /lit/eraries scurrying off to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and realizing they have been using terms improperly
>again

[Anonymous No.7254449]

>>7254400
that's what we're saying you tremendous faggot

'thoughts' are a word describing states of chemicals and electricity. Those follow physical laws. As such, their trajectory is changed by other physical laws, rather than the spooky supernatural influence of this 'self' you're so hung up on.

[Anonymous No.7254451]

>>7254181
>fact

You have no evidence this was the case and neither does Chomsky. You just assume the absolute worst instead of the simple and obvious. Your "evil America" narrative is fucking retarded, you and him are naive dipshits.

[Anonymous No.7254457]

>>7253403
First of all, 9/11 wasn't a "retaliation" for anything, not in any conventional sense. Second of all, to assume the Sudan bombing was done out of pure spite doesn't add up in any way. No one involved has ever stated it was, and there is no logic in assuming that.

They aren't equivalent. You're dense as fuck for believing they are.

[Anonymous No.7254464]

>>7253572
>pretext of good intentions

ie, intentions don't matter. That's exactly what he's saying. Every action is secretly evil even though he has no evidence to assert that, because westerners who aid countries far more than they bomb them, are morally equivalent to radical jihadists.

[Anonymous No.7254491]

>>7254400

Nothing you've said indicates I got anything wrong. Brains changing other brains does not contradict no free will. And there is no "you" to chose thoughts or control anything.

[Anonymous No.7254496]

>>7253459
Why ignore intentions when the mountain of evidence supports them?

The Sudanese bombing:
- claimed to be a mistake
- was carried out while the US was concurrently giving millions of dollars of aid to the country
- was not against a military target, which is extremely rare for modern US strikes
- no one in America thinks the act was good

9/11:
- Muslims say they want to murder innocents
- Muslims have history of murdering innocents
- Muslims say they want to wipe out America and western values
- Muslims continue to celebrate 9/11 as a great day

Is it really that hard to tell the difference in intention?

[Anonymous No.7254509]

>>7254360
He was pissy and defensive because his position is untenable and really stupid under any scrutiny. It's western guilt garbage that makes certain pathetic people feel good, but is untied to reality.

[Anonymous No.7254510]

Intention is the difference between murder and manslaughter.You can make the argument that people can just lie about their intentions, but whatever a person's actual intentions are is almost everything when it comes to ethics. And intention includes negligence, in that if you intend to act, without having all the information you should have, then that is part of your intention.

Intention is the direct causal precedent to action. To understand a person's actions you need to understand their intentions.

[Anonymous No.7254526]

>>7250071

>i can't find something wrong with Chomsky's arguments so i'll slander him with untruths

I hate you right-wingers with a passion.

[Anonymous No.7254559]

>>7254449
>>7254491
>there is no free will
>Harris is trying to influence politicians
You geniuses think this is compatible

[Anonymous No.7254564]

>>7254526

Chomsky is a known forger.

[Anonymous No.7254567]

>>7253682

>Harris
>kantian

He's a utilitarian ffs.

[Anonymous No.7254574]

>>7254564

Nice sources you have there.

[Anonymous No.7254576]

>>7253459
exactly

[Anonymous No.7254598]

>>7254559
the collection of particles called 'harris' influences 'politicians' due to the circumstances that led harris-brain to act the way it does, and whether or not they act differently than they would have before is dependent on their own circumstances and brainstates

just like asteroids bouncing off each other, it's literally just physics

this is my last post on this matter, if you still don't understand I guess it's either literally 2deep4u or you're pretending to be retarded

[Anonymous No.7254630]

>>7254598
>Arguing there is no free will
>very possibly the definition of 'retarded'
-Harris can't choose
-Neither can the politicians
-'retarded' has no actual meaning (after all, you can't choose to study, or learn, or even what answers to put on a test)
-Murder isn't really a crime (you didn't choose to kill, after all, so manslaughter is the max crime possible)
-'my brain is just like an asteroid in space, I have no control over what I think, feel, say, or believe' is completely incompatible with saying someone else is retarded. The joke? You don't understand that *after* someone pointed it out to you.

[Anonymous No.7255425]

>>7250543
>>7253168
>imply a bad performance by Harris means a victory for Craig
Craig is a charlatan. He builds his debates like an equation and asks his opponent to solve it. He also, slyly and deliberately, misrpresents his opponents arguments so they are forced to waste precious time clarifying.

[Anonymous No.7255436]

>>7253850
He's an anarchist, or "left libertarian", which is functionally the same.

[Anonymous No.7255456]

ITT: No one actually listened to Harris or read any of his work.
You are daft if you think Chomsky was the reasonable player in this debate.

[Anonymous No.7255487]

>>7250064
Communists were the first to be sent to concentration camps in Germany, and the experiences of the Spanish Civil War, not only created the basis for the creation of the French Resistance but showed Communist all over Europe who the Germans were ready to do.
What they said publicly and the positions of their party, obviously aligned with the Soviet Union did not reflect the reality of their action during the War.

[Anonymous No.7256170]

>>7254496
>>7254451

Again the mistaken belief that the deaths of tens of thousands of lives was a "mistake".

Whether or not the factory was producing illegal chemicals, we still understood that the factory produced 50% of the pharmaceuticals for the country especially in regards to malaria. This was NEVER an unknown about the factory. Whether we were mistaken or not about the factory producing illegal chemicals is not the issue - either way we KNEW it would cause a lot of deaths, and did it anyway.

All of your arguments fall on "The US made a mistake!", however it was never a mistake to kill tens of thousands of innocent lives, regardless of intention, and furthermore we never offered any pharmaceutical relief to them after the bombing, never apologized, and REFUSED to investigate the bombing.

[Anonymous No.7256250]

>>7250064
>Hitler was allied with the Soviet Union
>allied
A non-aggression pact is not an alliance, anon. Part of the reason why it didn't last very long.