0
   

The brutality by NAZI German against USSR prisoners of

 
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:25 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;159873 wrote:
you could get on and ignore the fact that some people like to discuss history if it irritates you. Or start a thread on US malfeasance if you like.

I'll not prevent it. Or even complain.
You are so sorely wrong, I don't complain about the topic itself so much as to the way it's promovated, it doesn't promote any discussion, you should be able to see it's only a whinepost.

Else pleeeaaaseee point out excatly what Alan McDougall wants to be discussed.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:32 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;159875 wrote:
You are so sorely wrong, I don't complain about the topic itself so much as to the way it's promovated, it doesn't promote any discussion, you should be able to see it's only a whinepost.

Else pleeeaaaseee point out excatly what Alan McDougall wants to be discussed.

Nine pages of discussion promoted so far. That Alan's post was weak doesn't make the topic in general uninteresting.

Alan's point was a whine - you are whining about a whine. If you want a certain level of debate you'd be better off starting your own topics of discussion rather than whining about how other posters don't meet your putative standards.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:33 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;159873 wrote:
Yup - I reckon all that was various shades of wrong too.

I'll not prevent it. Or even complain.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:36 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;159877 wrote:
Nine pages of discussion promoted so far. That Alan's post was weak doesn't make the topic in general uninteresting.

Alan's point was a whine - you are whining about a whine. If you want a certain level of debate you'd be better off starting your own topics of discussion rather than whining about how other posters don't meet your putative standards.
- it has caused 9 pages of promotion, that does not explain if it was whinepost or a discussion post.

- you look at me to biased, I have discussed plenty of WW2 things, but when it's only a 1 sided bashing it gets old ..really fast.

- now you only seek to bash me, so please don't sicken me with your double standards.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:44 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;159878 wrote:
Maybe selling back pieces of USA would bring some cash ? Alaska to the Russian Federation, or Canada and the Former French possesions to an European Bank Consortium. Beg China for some more credit, or the Japanese to buy the automobile-industry.

Well your most obvious mistake here is to assume that the US has any ability to sell Canada. It's part of the british commonwealth.

The Alaskans might have something to say about being sold to Russia. Why Russia would even want to buy is beyond me, unless it was as a strategic or economic asset, in which case the US would be even more reckless to let it go. I doubt the EU would be interested in former French possessions, and it has debt problems of it's own to contend with. Generating income this way would only be a quick fix even if it was possible or desirable to either party. Sell Alaska and you sell Alaska's resources and assets, which would make you money in return.

And this is ignoring how US citizens would react to such slash and burn asset stripping. Not well, I would wager.

China is extending credit. Presumably they think things won't always be so grim for the US economy.

Selling an industrial asset to Japan would be like selling a kidney - you get some cash in the short term but are debilitated in the long run. The US automobile industry is making great headway into greener cars. I hope they catch on and that it rejuvenates the industry.

So, in short, what a load of nonsense.
Quote:
USA lived above it's means and needs to tune down.

You could say exactly the same thing about most of Europe.

---------- Post added 05-04-2010 at 04:50 AM ----------

HexHammer;159880 wrote:
- it has caused 9 pages of promotion, that does not explain if it was whinepost or a discussion post.

Irrelevant really. He whined. You whined.

And?

Quote:
- now you only seek to bash me, so please don't sicken me with your double standards.

Awww. Diddums. Did nasty people not blithely agree with poor wee HexHammer?

Awww.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:56 am
@Alan McDougall,
Dave Allen as you have nothing relevant to say, I'll just put you on ignore.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:56 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;159888 wrote:
Dave Allen as you have nothing relevant to say, I'll just put you on ignore.

Is that a whinepost, or a point for further discussion?
William
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 06:30 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;159564 wrote:
While one can understand that feelings about this subject can be strong, I would hope that Members could find it possible to allow their feelings about personal courtesy to become strong enough to overcome such passion. We should learn from repeated examples in history that a lack of respect for the Other is the first step to a complete disregard for their being human beings at all.
John
Administrator


Well put John and why I posted what I did as to all that will come from that global hell will be propaganda as no one will offer culpability. Do we want to repeat the history? Threads such as this only tend stir the pot and bring it to a boil again. If a truth were known of it, no one will admit to it for the loss was too great, no atonement could be visualized. All we can do is learn from it as we all lay down out killing tools and our pointing fingers and our own ethnic puritanical stances and advance together as you say as human beings all respecting each and every Other. Then and only then will we eliminate the why to all things and the wonder of what is to come as we stop wandering around the so many battlefields we have created.

William
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 06:56 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;159889 wrote:
Is that a whinepost, or a point for further discussion?
Your so fortunate Dave. You wont be ignored but he just might whine to the mods that you have offended him. You rightly point out that this historic interest in Nazis Germany is very relevant to many and its genocide of 7 million Jews is not yet beyond debate.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 07:01 am
@Alan McDougall,
I hate to disagree when you're sticking up for me - but 6 million is the standard estimate.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 07:03 am
@xris,
xris;159937 wrote:
Your so fortunate Dave. You wont be ignored but he just might whine to the mods that you have offended him. You rightly point out that this historic interest in Nazis Germany is very relevant to many and its genocide of 7 million Jews is not yet beyond debate.


It is by now a cliche' but Santayana's dictum that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it is as true, and as relevant, as it ever was. Islamo-Fascists are always gearing up to kill Jews. It is what they like to do.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 07:13 am
@Alan McDougall,
Moreso than the IDF like to gear up to kill Palestinians?

I think repeating historic injustice is to be avoided - but ignoring present injustices in order to confront historic injustices is no better. HexHammer et al are wrong to suggest one shouldn't have a whine about the Nazis - but if he was to suggest that it can lead to a skewed perspective I wouldn't have argued. Is applying the term of Islamo-fascist to those who are angry at Isreal any better than applying the term of Zionist to Isrealis, or nepotist to a European Jew in the 1930s?

No - it's all part of the human tendancy to scapegoat 'the other' in order to create a monster for us to thwart, and excuse our own abuses whilst doing so.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 07:22 am
@Dave Allen,
Constant examination of mans inhumanity to humanity is essential , we ignore it at our peril. If its Palestine, Tasmania, the west indies it requires our attention. Who knows that we wiped out the indigenous tribes of Tasmania? Who knows the Spanish killed millions of Indians in the west Indies? It angers me that a genocide should be avoided in debate because it might cause embarrassment.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 09:35 am
@Alan McDougall,
There is a monument to Viet Nam Vets that has a list of all the names of those that perished in that war. They existed, then they didn't! Please anyone show me such a list of anyone in 'that" war. Those who existed before that no longer existed after. If there is no such list then there is no such number. I am not disputing, I am merely trying to equalize both sides of an impossible equation. Please, with the availability of the internet, show me any documentation with "names" that even comes close to the figures quoted. ANY!!!!!!!! Please!

These were nations who kept records of before surely with today's technology ascertain "those names". Where in the hell are they?
I have searched and searched and the only answer I get is "it's impossible to determine"? If so where in the hell did the numbers come from????????

Granted there was many lives killed in that war. But the 50 to 70 million just don't add up no matter how hard any one tries. 1 dead due to dispute is 1 too many. I think this "pity party" is just that.

Some of you are physics students; take the average height and weight of the average human being and calculate what it would take to get rid of 70,000,000 human beings in a not 4 year period, hell go with 10 years and see what you come up with? Imagine a football field with one person standing on one square yard.

William
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 09:46 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;159944 wrote:
Moreso than the IDF like to gear up to kill Palestinians?



Yes. Much more so, since the IDF does that in response to Palestinians murdering Jews. The IDF did not sling rockets at Gaza, and invaded Gaza only after the Hamas could not be stopped from slinging rocket at them. Let's not forget what happened, else we'll be doomed to repeat it.

---------- Post added 05-04-2010 at 11:49 AM ----------

xris;159947 wrote:
Constant examination of mans inhumanity to humanity is essential , we ignore it at our peril. If its Palestine, Tasmania, the west indies it requires our attention. Who knows that we wiped out the indigenous tribes of Tasmania? Who knows the Spanish killed millions of Indians in the west Indies? It angers me that a genocide should be avoided in debate because it might cause embarrassment.


When, did you you learn that the Jews committed genocide? So far as that goes, they can debate genocide without danger of embarrassment.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159990 wrote:
Yes. Much more so, since the IDF does that in response to Palestinians murdering Jews. The IDF did not sling rockets at Gaza, and invaded Gaza only after the Hamas could not be stopped from slinging rocket at them. Let's not forget what happened, else we'll be doomed to repeat it.
They've been illegally occupying Gaza since the 1940s, long before Hamas.

Yes, let's not forget the assassination of reformers such as Doctor Thabet Thabet or President Rabin, or the illegal occupation, or the bulldozing of water supplies, or the refusal to abide by more UN resolutions than any other Middle Eastern nation, or the shoot to injure policy regarding demonstrators, or collective punishments such as the chopping down of olive groves, or the refusal to allow for right of return to communities that were stolen during wars in which the Palestinians took no part, or the employment of military tactics that are far better at murdering civilians than most terrorist activity ever is, or the besiegement of Fatah that led to the rise of Hamas as a political power, or the deployment of weaponry internationally recognised as criminal, and many other things.

If we forgot those things we might swallow the propaganda that Israel is a put upon nation that responds to threats with a sense of due proportion.

kennethamy;159990 wrote:
When, did you you learn that the Jews committed genocide?

Depends on the weight you want to give Deutoronomy as an historical document I suppose.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:30 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;160009 wrote:
They've been illegally occupying Gaza since the 1940s, long before Hamas.

.


Oh please, not again! Since when has Gaza belonged to anyone for it to be legally occupied. And what has that to do with the fact that Hamas lobbed bombs into Israel from Gaza? Is the argument that since Gaza was illegally occupied by Israel, that makes it all right for Hamas to bomb Israel when Israel left Gaza? Just to state that argument is to ridicule it. What is that novel by Huxley, "Brainless in Gaza"? No, "Sightless in Gaza", but it might as well be, "Brainless in Gaza".
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:31 am
@William,
William;159985 wrote:
Granted there was many lives killed in that war. But the 50 to 70 million just don't add up no matter how hard any one tries. 1 dead due to dispute is 1 too many. I think this "pity party" is just that.

What are you talking about?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:32 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;160016 wrote:
What are you talking about?


The usual. Nothing.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:49 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160015 wrote:
Oh please, not again! Since when has Gaza belonged to anyone for it to be legally occupied. And what has that to do with the fact that Hamas lobbed bombs into Israel from Gaza? Is the argument that since Gaza was illegally occupied by Israel, that makes it all right for Hamas to bomb Israel when Israel left Gaza? Just to state that argument is to ridicule it. What is that novel by Huxley, "Brainless in Gaza"? No, "Sightless in Gaza", but it might as well be, "Brainless in Gaza".

After the 1948 Palestinian Civil War Israel was provided with a set of borders that were drawn up and did not include either Gaza or the West Bank. The Palestinians living in those areas administrated them as arab states and were forcibly disarmed. Gaza belongs to the Palestinians in the eyes of international agreements made at that time.

During the six day war Israel occupied Gaza and the Sinai in order to thwart the Egyptian army, both Israel and Jordan invaded the West Bank pretty much simultaneously, and Israel occupied the Golan Heights - probably in order to deny Syrian forces the high ground.

According to the internationally agreed rules of war to which Israel is a signatory, all these territories should have been given back. "To the victor the spoils" seemingly considered bad form after WW2.

In fact, the case could be made that Gaza and the West Bank deserved to be given back more than the Golan Heights or Sinai, seeing as the Palestinians didn't actually fight Israel during the six day war.

Instead, Israel kept a military presence in these areas and encouraged Isreali citizens to move there. This is almost certainly due to the law of return (any Jewish person being invited to immigrate) rendering Israel proper a rather cramped place to live.

Which conflicts with an article of international law called the right of return, which says you can't hand over a refugee's house or land to someone else if the refugees want to go back and live there.

In recent years Israel has restricted it's military presence to policing it's (illegal) settlements and "brown areas" (military assets such as firing ranges and so on).

This is sold as a "withdrawal from Gaza" - though it isn't really.

I don't think it's right for Hamas to attack Israel with rockets. I don't think it's right for Israel to treat the Palestinians the way they do. These are two peoples with a complex history of grievances - both of whom who have suffered and both of whom have caused suffering.

Huxley's novel is called "Eyeless in Gaza", by the way. What a book, a fiction at that, published before the creation of the modern state of Israel has to do with the current situation I'm not sure.

But thanks for the reading suggestion, in return I would point you to "Palestine" by Joe Sacco (for the human interest) or "Israel/Palestine : How to End the War of 1948" by Tanya Reinhart (though it is an unutterably depressing book).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/31/2023 at 09:02:19