L
lerapt78
Guest
Well said, Ridgerunner.
- Status
F
Fairwinds
Guest
yes, the statute of limitations will have run and all the witnesses not already murdered will be dead.
man-o-manischewitz that was well said.
L
lerapt78
Guest
I wasn’t being snide. I only suggested it because it’s gotten to the point where you’re saying you’re ashamed to be Catholic over it, not simply because you disagreed with some posts. The shrug was just meant as a “take it or leave” regard to the advice. Sorry for any offense, though.
Thank you, but the article merely states that graves have been found dating to the “Franco era”, meaning they are dated to the time he was in power - *not *that they were illegitimate deaths, or that they died from cruel execution instead of as a natural consequence of war.
(Can’t say I was too surprised to see a reference to Paul Preston at the bottom of the article - that particular author is extremely anti-Franco and is often touted as an “expert” on Spanish history)
I’m really curious though, as to why the government sent people on a fishing expedition in the first place -it just makes me questions their motives. And if they *did *decide to launch this hunt for no apparent reason, it makes me think it is with a clear objective in mind, and therefore their complete honesty in reporting the facts is suspect.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
And have now attempted to identify as a “fallacy” something that isn’t a fallacy, properly speaking, even if that’s what I was saying, which I wasn’t. Might want to review “Logic 1” again.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Generally speaking, there’s no statute of limitations on murder. Perhaps there is in Spain. But since the accused you want to charge is long dead, it’s moot anyway. So is Dolores Ibarruri and most of the communists, whom you hold accountable for nothing.
But, going by the Russian record, there were perhaps as many as three or four million Spaniards who didn’t get murdered by Ibarruri and her Bolshevik cohorts. So nobody will have to charge them with those murders they were prevented from committing. At least they have Franco to thank for that much, ungrateful as they undoubtedly were for having lost the opportunity.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
no, its enough to know that you’re wrong. why quibble over labels? you know the POW shot by franco isn’t less dead than one shot by stalin.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Zapatero regime failed in just about every way a government can fail. Since Zapatero’s socialists won the office only by allying itself with the communists, spitting on Franco’s grave was about all it could offer anybody other than the abortionists, same sex marriage supporters and those who hate Catholic schools.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Of course, the 3 or 4 million that lived because Franco won the civil war knew the difference between being dead and being alive.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
it was just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils and making him a saint. totally understandable. who wouldn’t want to live under franco? (we’re not counting the executed POWs, murdered Catholic priests, kidnap and rape victims, slave laborers, refugees that franco tallied up). I understand you completely.
T
triumphguy
Guest
E
eyesopening
Guest
I sure am glad people on these forums are not responsible for determining if someone is canonized or not. 
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You understand your ideology, and I’ll grant that. Since you ignore everything anyone says, you have made that clear. I informed you that Francoists did, indeed, kill 16 priests allied with the republicans, but that Franco himself put a stop to it. Look it up. You’ll see that I’m right.
You have made a number of quips, and pretended that you understand the minds of people you don’t know a thing about. What you have not done is lay a foundation for a single thing you have asserted.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Who said he/she supported Franco?
What we know from examples in Russia, Cuba, China, Cambodia and elsewhere, is that communism is ruthless and murderous. We know that the outright Bolshevik members in the republican cause were of the same mindset as Stalin and Mao.
What we know from the extremely varied accounts of the Spanish Civil War is that Franco fought against them and probably prevented the deaths of millions in the purges to which communists seem to be given. We also know that anywhere from 100,000 upwards to a maximum estimate of 500,000 were killed. Nobody agrees on just who killed how many. Nobody agrees on how many of those were combatants, non-combatants, guerillas, sometime combatants, sometime opportunists.
What we don’t know is just what was ordered by Franco and what was the result of internecine chaos and vendettas. And we likely never will. Maybe he killed 100,000 innocent non-combatants, and maybe he didn’t. We don’t know.
None of that would justify the canonization of Franco and, in all likelihood, precludes it absolutely. But neither does it justify making assumptions when the “experts” agree on almost nothing, but are largely split along ideological lines.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Well, I don’t know. I don’t think Franco has gotten an “aye” vote yet. I don’t think I have even seen any hanging chads.I sure am glad people on these forums are not responsible for determining if someone is canonized or not.
T
triumphguy
Guest
I think I’m totally justified in saying that if a person supports what Franco did (no matter what the other side was like) then they certainly believe the ends justify the means.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
I sure am glad people on these forums are not responsible for determining if someone is canonized or not.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You’re leaping over three necessary ingredients here to reach the conclusion.I think I’m totally justified in saying that if a person supports what Franco did (no matter what the other side was like) then they certainly believe the ends justify the means.
- That the person supports everything Franco did.
- That Franco personally did or ordered everything that happened which is attributed to him, his forces, his supporters, like-minded people or just plain freelancers.
- That somehow the Spanish Civil War was unique; significantly different from other wars in quantity or kind.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Let’s use an abortion analogy:
- that’s like saying I only support 1st trimester abortion
- So Franco wasn’t in charge of the clinic then???
- An abortion is an abortion is an abortion - the baby dies.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
- No it isn’t. It’s like saying I support stem cell research, but draw the line at embryonic stem cell research.
- Was Robert E. Lee in control of Quantrill? Was Quantrill himself in control of “Bloody Bill Anderson”? Was Anderson in control of some man who killed his neighbor over a land dispute and pretended it was about the Civil War? No, no and no.
- War is war, and people die, and evils happen. But does that mean no war ever results in a better result than would otherwise have been the case? Should we condemn Britain for resisting Hitler? The brits killed a lot of Germans. Also a fair number of French, Belgians and Dutch, including civilians. Should we condemn Britain for executing German spies and for imprisoning Rudolf Hess for life?
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
Absolutely. And furthermore, most history books have been written by liberals and left-leaning historians who have been harsher on Franco than they have been on their own. In assessing him today, we should thus introduce some counter-bias in reading what they tell us.
I have travelled widely in Spain and spoken to many people, including people who remember or even fought in the Civil War. maybe it’s because the people I met were mostly rural Catholics, but many more spoke favourably of him than spoke against him. In claiming to speak for “the people” when condemning him, the government is clearly misrepresenting its mandate.
- Status