A cartoon
-
digital man wrote:
Yes, they'll deny it and say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel so we won't be offended by their ignorance.
Did you know that "semite" actually denotes a family of peoples, including israelis and arabs? And by the way, you're wrong. But then again, you were just trolling.
Indeed I did: thank you for reminding me. Sadly it only appears to be applied when referring to Jews these days. BTW, I'm not a troll: couldn't be bothered: I really like a good argument, fought well. As it is I'm liek an addict today. Every time I close my browser I get a nagging feeling that I should go back in, just take a wee peek; see if anyone has flamed me or written a damn good reply. Maybe I need CP Rehab!:laugh:
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next door -
Roger J wrote:
Killing civilians in ww2 did not produce terrorists.
Yes it did. Bombing Germany increased their resolve, but screwed their military economy towards producing interceptors and AA guns. The Russians who invaded Berlin were killing 13 year old girls armed with panzerfausts.
Roger J wrote:
Nor did germany have that many allies in the end to aid them.
Other than hungary, slovakia, italy, japan, romania, austria, bulgaria etc, no.
Roger J wrote:
Palestina might possibly have the entire arab world on their side.
Not if we are clever and forment a Sunni/Shi'a war no.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Yes it did. Bombing Germany increased their resolve, but screwed their military economy towards producing interceptors and AA guns. The Russians who invaded Berlin were killing 13 year old girls armed with panzerfausts.
Not only armed. My father-in-law was in a group of some unarmed women and children when the red-army came hiding in a barn. They started to execute every single person they saw, until some of the "Wehrmacht" came and they left to fight against them. Many who saw that wanted to protect themselves with weapons But I think in every war there are war criminals and you can't judge the everyone because there were some slayers among them and - of course - Germans did the same earlier.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Other than hungary, slovakia, italy, japan, romania, austria, bulgaria etc, no.
At the end? When the US-Army came, italy changed the sides and some other countries, too. Did you ever noticed that Germany was the only country that was blamened? Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
that explains the difference[^] The thread below by fat_kid is rife with pissing and moaning about what Israel is doing in self defense. The complaints about civilian deaths are a by product of the way the ***heads choose to fight. They obviously have no respect for life: putting civilians at risk for their own protection, storing rockets in homes, etc. Fuck'em. The problem wouldn't exist had they simply stayed on the other side of the border. Yes, the Bush administration has no doubt given Israel the green light - and that is a good thing as long as they carry through and eliminate the vermin.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That isn't the question. The question is, could we have won if we had been unwilling to kill innocent civilians to get to him.
I think: yes, you could. You were already marching against the German troups, and Germany didn't had any resources left. Hitler didn't mind those bombing. But even though I think that it wasn't really right, I won't blame you for that. On the other hand I'm not a strategist, so perhaps war would have last two or three weeks longer... Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Germany didn't had any resources left
Because we had been bombing them. By your reasoning, he would have just hidden all his resources behind civilians and kept them perfectly safe.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Don't waste your time. If you don't join in their choir, you're just another terrorist lover. Remember, it's either "with us or against us".
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
If you don't join in their choir
feel free to sit on the side lines.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
If I'm not mistaken, the bombing of german civilians was just a retaliation on an "eye for an eye"-basis for what Hitler did to London. Did it really have that much of an impact on the outcome?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Bombing innocent civilians was certainly the solution when it came to getting him.
That is interesting, isn't it? The "civilized world" is supposed to adhere to some sort of politically correct warfare whilst the primitive vermin can whale away indiscriminately - lobbing uncontrollable rockets into population centers (without international criticism).
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
vermin
From a dictionary definition ... "an offensive term for a person or group considered to be extremely unpleasant or undesirable" ---- Option 1 : If you were an Israeli or a supporter of Israel (eg USA) you obviously consider Islamic followers as "vermin" Option 2 :If you were an Islamic follower or a supporter of Islam you obviously consider Israel and its supports as "vermin" Which is correct, the first option, the second option, neither option, or both options. Now answer again if your are NEITHER Israeli, Israeli supporter, Islamic nor Islamic supporter. Then properly JUSTIFY your answers
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Yes it did. Bombing Germany increased their resolve, but screwed their military economy towards producing interceptors and AA guns. The Russians who invaded Berlin were killing 13 year old girls armed with panzerfausts.
Not only armed. My father-in-law was in a group of some unarmed women and children when the red-army came hiding in a barn. They started to execute every single person they saw, until some of the "Wehrmacht" came and they left to fight against them. Many who saw that wanted to protect themselves with weapons But I think in every war there are war criminals and you can't judge the everyone because there were some slayers among them and - of course - Germans did the same earlier.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Other than hungary, slovakia, italy, japan, romania, austria, bulgaria etc, no.
At the end? When the US-Army came, italy changed the sides and some other countries, too. Did you ever noticed that Germany was the only country that was blamened? Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Did you ever noticed that Germany was the only country that was blamened?
Its odd that Italy got away with it, possibly because they didn't fight until the bitter end and commit anywhere near the number of atrocities. I know that many Chzecs still dislike the Slovaks ostensibly because of WW2. The Japanese also had a pretty deserved bad rap from their neighbours. Still quite a lot of hostility towards them in South Korea apparently.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
I got 4.6 off 12 votes, you got 2.8 off 14. The world does not agree with you.
Tronché pas ma miche!
fat_boy wrote:
I got 4.6 off 12 votes, you got 2.8 off 14.
That's your problem. You care too much what everyone else thinks. I'm sure if you polled Germany in the late 30's they would have been for at least expelling the Jews. Does that make it right?
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If you are going to defeat the bad guys, you are going to have to go through the innocent civilians to get to them.
I just hope that people you love are never those innocent civilians. Or would you consider the deaths of your own parents, wife, children etc to be a price worth paying? Maybe if you do you'd be willing to let them swap places with some of the civilians of Southern Lebanon for a few months, perhaps driving ambulances with a nice red target cross on the top?
"He's got a lot on his mind, and it's not a load-bearing structure." - John Weak
viaduct wrote:
I just hope that people you love are never those innocent civilians
So do I. Fortunantly for my children, they live in a civilized nation that doesn't let itself become overrun with evil, murderous madmen.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Indeed I did: thank you for reminding me. Sadly it only appears to be applied when referring to Jews these days. BTW, I'm not a troll: couldn't be bothered: I really like a good argument, fought well. As it is I'm liek an addict today. Every time I close my browser I get a nagging feeling that I should go back in, just take a wee peek; see if anyone has flamed me or written a damn good reply. Maybe I need CP Rehab!:laugh:
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doordigital man wrote:
Sadly it only appears to be applied when referring to Jews these days.
I don't know who came up with that idea: the jews, israelis or gentiles. It's annoying either way.
digital man wrote:
BTW, I'm not a troll: couldn't be bothered: I really like a good argument, fought well.
Well, I didn't see it as an argument. I saw it as an opinionated statement, backed up by nothing but your word. If that "argument" holds, it could also be argued that I'm against humanity. Which is of course not true - I'm just against the majority of humanity. ;P
digital man wrote:
see if anyone has flamed me or written a damn good reply
If you want damn good replies to which you can laugh for hours, you're not in the right "camp". You need to be in the camp of free thinkers (i.e., not bound by grand delusions about your specific purpose here on earth, or bound by the holy church). Beware of having fluids in your mouth while reading responses from espeir (or his fanboy ahz - have you ever noticed that he never engages in arguments unless espeir isn't around? Talk about low selfesteem...)
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
If you don't join in their choir
feel free to sit on the side lines.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
I don't think I have what it takes to be murderous and cold blooded, so I might just as well be on the side lines. :)
-
Hmm, actually, a German bomber accidentally dropped its load on a British city. The British then targeted German civilians on purpose, esallating the situation, so I am affraid that we started it (I am British)
Tronché pas ma miche!
An eye for an eye for an eye. Lovely. :)
-
Very well put. Problem is it won't matter what Israel does the anti-Semites will always find fault. Yes, they'll deny it and say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel so we won't be offended by their ignorance. Nothing will ever change so we're wasting our breath and energy to try to persaude people whose minds are closed. It might be better (for whatever reason) in the US but Europe is now and always has been rife with anti-semitism and as Europe slides inexroably towards becoming a muslim state it will only get worse. The strange thing is I think most people see it but no one will do anything about it. Now, fat_punk, that is bizarre and it's happening now.
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doorSo, Europe is chronically anti-semitic (before anyone answers look up the definition of chronic). But our opinions do not affect the actions of Israel, which have been and now are boardering on, the criminal. And stupid. So a lion has big teeth and sharp claws. Dont goad him, understand and manipulate him, but no, the US/Israeli frontal assult mentality wont alow for that. They've gotta be butch they've gotta be macho about it. So they keep on digging the hole deeper and deeper, and get in more and more shit. Well, welcome to your shit pit, I for one am not going to climb in it with anyone.
Tronché pas ma miche!
-
That's not what I said. In my experience of all the people I have met or spoken to that have expressed an anti-Israel stance in circumstances such as those that Israel now finds herself in have also been anti-Semitic in tone as the conversation/discussion goes on or gets a little heated. Many people are unable to see Israel as a discreet political entity populated by Jews, Christains, Muslims, atheists, etc, etc. They just see her as the Jewish state, populated and run by Jews who also run the rest of the world, epecially the US or the UK, blah, blah, etc, etc. It's a fact of life. If you are not a Jew you will never have heard or suffered this in the same way. Much like I can never truly understand the prejudice that black people have suffered.
viaduct wrote:
Do you want Israel to have carte blanche to do whatever they like against their neighbours
Why not? Syria and Iran and the rest of the world appear to be giving that to Hamas and Hexzbollah by their inaction and cowardice and if Israel doesn't finish the job it'll go on and on and draw in other countries. Do you want that? No? Then stand up for freedom and self-determination and say no to terrorism, say no to missiles into cities, to kidnappings, murder, suicide bombers, blown up trains and night clubs and passenger planes. Stand up for a country that is pretty much fighting a battle for all of us on their own.
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doordigital man wrote:
viaduct wrote: Do you want Israel to have carte blanche to do whatever they like against their neighbours Why not?
If we who consider ourselves civilised do the same as those we consider terrorists, what does that say about us? Of course countries need to defend themselves, but with moderation. Blowing up a UN post with a precision guided missile after they had contacted you TEN TIMES asking you to stop shelling them isn't going to win Israel many friends, is it? Israel's disproportionate response here risks making life in Israel far less safe by making it easier for Hamas, Hezbollah etc to recruit suicide bombers and other terrorists (as in Iraq).
"He's got a lot on his mind, and it's not a load-bearing structure." - John Weak
-
Hmm, actually, a German bomber accidentally dropped its load on a British city. The British then targeted German civilians on purpose, esallating the situation, so I am affraid that we started it (I am British)
Tronché pas ma miche!
Aye, the whole early phase of the war the Germans were going easy on us, figuring (very reasonably) that we would sign an armistice. Good job we had that war mongering asshole Churchill.. -- modified at 10:44 Wednesday 26th July, 2006
-
that explains the difference[^] The thread below by fat_kid is rife with pissing and moaning about what Israel is doing in self defense. The complaints about civilian deaths are a by product of the way the ***heads choose to fight. They obviously have no respect for life: putting civilians at risk for their own protection, storing rockets in homes, etc. Fuck'em. The problem wouldn't exist had they simply stayed on the other side of the border. Yes, the Bush administration has no doubt given Israel the green light - and that is a good thing as long as they carry through and eliminate the vermin.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Yes, the Bush administration has no doubt given Israel the green light
Yeah, right. Like we would do something substantial to stop them.
"I'm happier than a tornado in a trailer park"--Cars
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Which is correct, the first option, the second option, neither option, or both options.
I'm gonna puke
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
viaduct wrote:
I just hope that people you love are never those innocent civilians
So do I. Fortunantly for my children, they live in a civilized nation that doesn't let itself become overrun with evil, murderous madmen.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fortunantly for my children, they live in a civilized nation
Precisely - it's easy to say that it's fine to gun down innocent civilians when there is no chance of it happening to you.
"He's got a lot on his mind, and it's not a load-bearing structure." - John Weak