|
#1
●
11-18-2013, 04:02 PM
|
|
Executions (1995) [FIXED AUDIO]
I know this has been posted here, but that version, and almost every other version I have found, have horrible [and often unintelligible] audio, which detracts severely from the film. I found a version with good audio, but the resolution was inferior and it had annoying watermarks. So, I took a video with good video quality, and replaced the audio, and voila. I had to split it into six parts, as it wouldn't properly upload as a single file [or even as three seperate files]. Part Two will be uploaded in the next post, it isn't making nice at the moment. |
|
#3
●
11-18-2013, 05:09 PM
|
|
Re: Executions (1995) [FIXED AUDIO]
Ah that chemical attack that everybody angry to Saddam, but nobody makes a comment about the man who gave all those chemical weapons to Saddam as gift. Name of the man? Ronald Reagan.. |
|
#4
●
11-18-2013, 07:16 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: MASTER SERGEANT Poster Rank:538 male Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,863 Mentioned: 2 Post(s) Quoted: 811 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Executions (1995) [FIXED AUDIO]
yeah, but no one told sad dam to use them on his own people. Ole ronnie told him to use them for medicinal purposes for himself.... |
|
#6
●
11-19-2013, 05:19 AM
|
|
Re: Executions (1995) [FIXED AUDIO]
Can anyone spot the common denominator in each of these instances? What do all the horrors and mass-murders have in common? What is the only thing that enables the sociopaths of our world the power to perform crualty on such a large scale? The state. Without the machinery and muscle of the state, no-one could be able to do such horrors. You need people to fear the state violence, to coerce them to pay taxes, and lure them to do the killing of the state. It's ordinary people on both sides, the killers and the killed. Only few men on top give orders, the rest just follow. These men rule over "the lesser folk" and see themselves almost divine, never questioning their means and motives for the ultimate goal of absolute power. It is not that the "wrong men were in charge". Whenever someone is in charge, he is more likely to be or become corrupt and violent than he is to be benevolent and peaceful. Good people start businesses, trade goods and services with other good people and want to live peaceful lives. Sociopaths don't care for these things, they want power. Power over other people, power to have what they want now, power to make their dreams and fantasies come true. To have that power, they need muscle. To have muscle, they need people to fear them. To build and maintain the fear, they need the state. Sociopaths have a vision of how the world is supposed to be. They see other people incapable of making their own decisions and see themselves being right on every subject, no matter what the truth is. For sociopaths, reality is something to mold, to fit the cast of their own views. Their reality is brittle, easily shattered, and they defend their reality to the bitter end. They are willing to sacrifice everything and everyone, as long as their fragile creation remains unspoiled. That is why regimes almost always end in a bloodbath between the desperate rulers not wanting to give up their thrones, and the desperate masses unable to take it anymore. What is the alternative for a state-society? In the ancient Ireland and in many places around the world societies have managed and maintained their existence without a formal state, people living in small communities and coming together only on important occasions, mainly to defend against an invader. The ancient Irish felt motivated to work together to defend what they had and needed no standing armies. When the English finally after hundreds of years conguered Ireland, they had a really tough time "keeping order" (read: collecting taxes), because the Irish had no tradition of central government. They followed clan chiefs and village elders, who answered to no single king. The point of the story is this: the root of evil is not money, it's the state. Humans are capable of living and thriving without a state, have done so before and could do so again. It is much easier to overthrow a despot clan chief than it is to overthrow a powerful central government that is running amok. Hitler ruling a town or a corporation would be a nuisance and propably quickly thrown out for ruining the town/corporate economy. Hitler on the helm of a German warmachine employing millions of people... well, you know the story. Phew! Now all that is written, I'm delighted to take any criticism for my views and hear the opposing opinions. |
|
#7
●
11-19-2013, 06:39 AM
|
|
Re: Executions (1995) [FIXED AUDIO]
What's amazing about this post is that not only are you about a decade or so behind the curve on the "ooohhh guess where Iraq got it's chemical weapons from ooohhh look how informed I am" tip, it's not even true anyway.
|
|
#8
●
11-19-2013, 06:57 AM
|
|
Re: Executions (1995) [FIXED AUDIO]
You make some decent points, but your thesis statement that the "common denominator" is "the state" just isn't true. Many of these killings, and many of the worst human on human atrocities in history are nothing more than tribal and ethnic conflicts, which are as hold as humanity itself, and predates "the state". Some of them are playing themselves out as being part of "the state" but are really just ethnic conflicts that haven't been resolved yet. Modern society/governments/foreign powers/whatever play a role in how those conflicts play out, but it's just not accurate to try and depict the scale of human suffering as being a direct result of power, governments, etc. The relationship is nowhere near 1:1 as much as people like to think it is. FWIW, try to believe me when I tell you that I can ascribe world issues as plagues of "modern society" with the best of them, and am usually the first to do so, it's just not as simple you're trying to make it here, IMO. |