Time to ban A_Nony_Mouse?

FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Time to ban A_Nony_Mouse?

Greets,

As I've said a number of times, my primary interest in this site is the science posts.  The number of high quality references to recent scientific discoveries is very high and I enjoy reading links about various discoveries.  I read about the pending announcement of the Higg's boson here before any other non-news websites I visit, and the recently announced ability to view the inside of living cells hasn't made it to any other website I visit.

During a number of conversations about purchasing a new web server, I also mentioned that I felt that the "secular humanism" mission of this website was an admirable goal, and I've offered publicly and privately to provide some amount of financial support, provided various conditions are met, to that end.  In my experience, when people of widely divergent world-views agree on something, it seems to have a much better chance of being a "good idea" (assuming all parties agree it is a "good idea&quotEye-wink than not.

It's also been my observation that when people of divergent opinions think that something is a "bad idea", or a person is a "bad person", there's a very good chance that others would likewise agree than not.

That seems to be the case with A_Nony_Mouse -- the number of people who are decrying his naked bigotry isn't small.  His willingness to attack people as puppets of Jews simply because they call him out on his bigotry is evidence that his bigotry knows no bounds.  If he just attacked Jews, I'd be fine with that -- Jews seem to get used to it after a while -- but anyone who doesn't cower to his repeated attacks is labeled a sympathizer and a puppet of the Jews.  His willingness to make absurd claims that are not, in any way, based on Scientific evidence is inconsistent with what seems to be the approach this website takes: presenting clearly supported scientific evidence as a way of combating ignorance.

Between his bigotry and anti-Science stances on the subject of his bigotry, his attitudes seem to be completely inconsistent with two key goals: present clearly supported scientific evidence about the nature of reality, and creating a society that's free from the types of hatred that he spews on a regular basis.

For these reasons, I would like to suggest that he be banned, or at the very minimum given a nice long vacation.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

was right upstream. This thread is getting really weird... 

 

       Perhaps Furry could refrain from her efforts at trying to discipline me long enough to refocus her rage on that awful, nasty Nony.  I mean, she started this whole Nony is a hate monger thread.

 

 

                                                                     But I doubt that she's through flinging poo at me just yet. She's pissed at me. 

 

                                               Furry, please issue your final assessments of my alleged moral shortcomings.  You'll feel better about yourself after you do.     Bye !

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1575
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is onlineOnline
U want to throw down, then throw down .. (Whatever)

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Perhaps Furry could refrain from her efforts at trying to discipline me long enough to refocus her rage on that awful, nasty Nony

I wish to hell you hadn't left in such a huff.  ProzacDeathWish  Your question is perfectly legitimate.    His or her's insane over-reaction.  PRICELESS.

 

 

  YOU ONLY GET ONE FIRST IMPRESSION, REMEMBER NOW.

Sage_Override wrote:

Sage-Override wrote (in another part of the forum),  "Man, it's funny when Furry goes into self-righteous mode and resorts to direct insults for NO REASON other than to appease her own morals and feel all tingly in blatantly bullshiting. . . .  In either case,  ..  you dig your own grave!  *grabs popcorn*.."

 

 

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

(Hey, this is interesting -- I can only edit the first and second multiple post.)


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

(Say buh-bye #2!)


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, I'm totally and completely serious, and that's not including the way you seem fixated on something that supposedly doesn't matter.  You crossed the line from being duplicitous to a pervert a long time ago.  And I don't mean "pervert" in the sense of being tickled with a feather duster, or dressing up like a French Maid, I mean it in the sense of a drooling old man in a trench coat asking children if they'd like some candy.

Or do you =really= just not get it?  Because I get the sense that you have no concept at all of boundaries.

You're a classic narcissist.  Your ego doesn't allow you to tolerate criticism so like a chimp in a zoo you must resort to flinging poo.  You can't help yourself.  It's your weakness and I bet I could keep you on this thread forever if I wanted to.

Oh, is that ever the classic reversal -- I'm a narcissist because I won't tell you all about my body?

And no, you can't keep me on this thread forever -- my goal was finding out how far you'd go to find out something you claim doesn't matter.  The answer is "all the way".  If it didn't really matter, you could have said something like, "Okay, I guess that's a bit private" or "Yeah, it really doesn't matter -- sorry."

You think you can control me, and because I've repeatedly refused to answer what has to be =the= most rude question imaginable, you've cranked up the stupid, only to finally boast

Quote:
I bet I could keep you on this thread forever if I wanted to.

tipping your hand that this is about =control= for you.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, I'm totally and completely serious, and that's not including the way you seem fixated on something that supposedly doesn't matter.  You crossed the line from being duplicitous to a pervert a long time ago.  And I don't mean "pervert" in the sense of being tickled with a feather duster, or dressing up like a French Maid, I mean it in the sense of a drooling old man in a trench coat asking children if they'd like some candy.

Or do you =really= just not get it?  Because I get the sense that you have no concept at all of boundaries.

You're a classic narcissist.  Your ego doesn't allow you to tolerate criticism so like a chimp in a zoo you must resort to flinging poo.  You can't help yourself.  It's your weakness and I bet I could keep you on this thread forever if I wanted to.

Oh, is that ever the classic reversal -- I'm a narcissist because I won't tell you all about my body?

And no, you can't keep me on this thread forever -- my goal was finding out how far you'd go to find out something you claim doesn't matter.  The answer is "all the way".  If it didn't really matter, you could have said something like, "Okay, I guess that's a bit private" or "Yeah, it really doesn't matter -- sorry."

You think you can control me, and because I've repeatedly refused to answer what has to be =the= most rude question imaginable, you've cranked up the stupid, only to finally boast

Quote:
I bet I could keep you on this thread forever if I wanted to.

tipping your hand that this is about =control= for you.

 

                                            Hello, again Miss Predictable...  ( judging by your triple posts your "mouse" finger must be trembling with rage. )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ Furry, re: pg 2. Sorry,

@ Furry, re: pg 2.
Sorry, lost net for a couple days.

Yes, Germany (and Japan) dropped the policies that many would argue led to war in the first place after their defeat, but that's part of my point. Right now both Germany and Japan are amongst the most advanced nations in the world because they dropped that shit. But Israel and the US were quick to replace them, and every decade since has lead to them making more enemies because they now use the same policies, they just changed the focus. For Israel it's the arabs. For the US it's everyone.

Nony wrote:

So if 30 asses say there is a god you are on the wrong website. Did you forget how to reason?

Categorical error. Look in the mirror. Twice now.

Nony wrote:

You continue to refuse to tell me your examples

Blatant lies prove even further that you are a bigot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
As to dominating Europe, you will recall the invasion of France was a premptive strike because the British Expeditionary Force was in France preparing to invade Germany. Given all the voluntary alliances east of France the claim of rule was exactly Poland and the three Baltics and nothing more. You appear to have swallowed the line the Brit gov put in the childrens' history books or have been watching way too much Dr. Who.

To repeat Britain fought the war to maintain its hegemony over Europe. Germany had incorporated Austria and was allied with Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania. It had effectively reconstituted the Austro-Hungarian Empire but with the addition of Germany making it stronger than ever. Add to that the alliance with Italy which Austria had bungled royalling in the 19th century. That was the threat Britain chose to fight.

 

I am well aware the western allies catatonic during the phony war were Britain and France. I already said the USA didn't get in for two and half years. You are the lord of straw men.

You may retroactively attempt to correct your post but in the same breath as western allies you mentioned the US. As B&F were anything but catatonic that cannot have been your intent. France almost immediately invaded the Ruhr and Germany retreated for example.

Quote:
And your comprehension of Polish history appears oddly biased in favour of Germany and Russia. Are you saying the Polish Lithuanian Commonweath, established in the 1560s, had no historical legitimacy?

Rather that by Brest-Litvosk it had been a dead issue for nearly two centuries. Historicity has no legitimacy per se else France should have submitted to Musolini as it had to Caesar.

Quote:
On what basis? Prussia and Austria were invaders of Polish territory in the 18th century and the Poles resisted with armed uprisings. Ignore the word Pole. Some people were locals and some were from Prussia, Austria and Russia. Was it moral to insist tens of millions of 'Poles' be under German or Russian dictatorship when they did not want to be? If you are going to argue Poland did not exist, let's unstitch Germany as well. Germany did not exist till unified as an empire in 1871.

I merely pointed out that the Poland which the British ruling class committed its peasantry to defend to the death was not not the choice of the citizens of Poland being a dictatorship like Russia and Germany. The rest had been Germans and Russians for centuries and happily returned to being so. As you know the part of Poland Russia reclaimed in 1939 remained part of Russia after the war and does to this day. If memory serves correctly Putin comes from there. If there is an interest in uniting with Poland they have certainly been silent at this the most opportune time.

The only Poles that existed before Brest-Litvosk lived in what was called the General Government of Poland and adminstered by Germany during the war.

Germany was a voluntary unification under Bismarck although for a few years Bavaria had second thoughts and did attempt to leave. Voluntary unifications are not to be taken apart save by the members themselves not be meddling Brits who know what is best for everyone else.

Quote:
And the BEF was in France preparing to invade Germany? All 250,000 of them?

I only gave you the name. Is it important to look up the number?

Quote:
You must be joking, Nony.

There were at least as many there who were evacuated at Dunkirk, no? Add to that the dead even though they were ordered to retreat without notifying the French. Or did you never notice Dunkirk is never put in historical context? They were running away from the German invasion of France.

I have suggested several times they should have been captured, treated to best beer and sausages, and a peace for POWs campaign started.

Quote:
The brits and french had nearly a year's opportunity to invade Germany and still they did nothing at all.

You do realize that once you declare war you open yourself to attack at any time and at any manner do you not?

Quote:
Their military efforts were utterly pathetic. Neither wanted to fight. Neither was prepared to fight. They were bowled over like ninepins. Rifles against tanks. They were a complete joke. You seem to ignore the Atlantic Treaty, the total unpreparedness of the Western Allies. The suggestion they were doing the sabre-rattling is farcical.
 

I ignore? You have said there were only two western allies. Both of them declared war on Germany. Did they not know they were totally unprepared for war? Do you expect sympathy for people so dumb as to know they were unprepared?

BTW: NATO would not cause the US to side with Britain if it declares the war. It only covers defense if attacked.

Quote:
It's beyond me why you think it odd Britain would fight with France. I still think if a nation invaded France today, Britain would fight. Australia would do the same for NZ, the USA for Canada. War on your nearest ally is war on you. Even though the French and British dislike each other, they remain allies. After all colonialism is gone, Britain's closest European alliance is with France.

Back around 1908 or so Britain and France signed an agreement that resulted in your current mess. Myself I would have thought it OBE. Would a country may or may not do is by treaty obligation. I am unaware of any treaty the US has signed which obligates it to support a country which starts a war. You declare a war you live with the consequences of your own free choice. Rota Ruck.

If Germany had initiated war on Britain instead of vice versa things might have looked different.

Quote:
Rather than bothering to argue further about this as we are never going to agree, is there a single nation in the world today righteous enough to defend itself, defend its interests, neighbours and allies, from the actions of an aggressor? Which country is it? 

And do you think Britain should have made peace with Germany after the Battle of France? Turned its back on Europe entirely?

Britain was the aggressor against Germany. Germany had attacked no British asset at the time Britain declared war. As stupid as it was, as unprepared as it was the guy dying of a brain tumor lead the declaration of war. Or did you miss his medical condition? How did it affect his judgement? Can you find a biopsy as to they type of tumor it was? A while back I googled it was barely found a word on cause of death much less details of the autopsy or even if there was one.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
...The lesson of the Holocaust WAS because a certain group of people were singled out. A lesson lost on you, not me. You piss on the deaths of those innocent people by taking up the same attitude Germans had in thinking you are chosen.
Which single people? Slavs? Gypsies? Homosexuals? 7th Day Adventists? Mennonites? Or is it just the group that whines so much these days that all the other groups who were well known after the war are no longer mentioned? It is as though there were no other groups.

Believers in the holy holocaust know nothing about the real events. They have nothing but the side of the incessant whiners and they have elevated to myth with no connection to reality.

Noony, that was not lost on me. Before the "final solution" Hitler picked off weaker minorities at the beginning of the war, But the human death toll was not just 6 million Jews, that IS lost on Furry. 50 million people in that war on all sides lost their lives because of the Kool Aid homogeneous attitude of Hitler and the German people.

Doesn't look like the war was a problem for the Jews at all to me. Their world population appears to have risen slightly between 1938 and 1948. Of course I am interested in other official sources as long as they are world wide only. What sources have you investigated to validate the number you use? Is it cheating to count the loaves and fishes before and after?

Is that what you are saying? Just clarify for me...

I said I would only discuss millions of deaths in gas chambers. The population data shows in increase in world population. Do you have autopsy reports showing cause of death?

You can call the Shoah, the Nakbah, the Disaster by any name you want. If you wish to define it beyond its name, Ha'Shoah please do so. As I said I will only discuss it in terms of the central claim of millions of dead by gassing.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
danatemporary wrote: 

danatemporary wrote:

 


 

 

Sage_Override wrote:

Sage-Override wrote (in another part of the forum),  "Man, it's funny when Furry goes into self-righteous mode and resorts to direct insults for NO REASON other than to appease her own morals and feel all tingly in blatantly bullshiting. . . .  In either case,  ..  you dig your own grave!  *grabs popcorn*.."

 

 

 

 

 

 Don't criticize her dana or she'll also accuse you of being a "sociopath" and a "child molester" and start talking about how good she is with her 9mm....    

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
...The lesson of the Holocaust WAS because a certain group of people were singled out. A lesson lost on you, not me. You piss on the deaths of those innocent people by taking up the same attitude Germans had in thinking you are chosen.
Which single people? Slavs? Gypsies? Homosexuals? 7th Day Adventists? Mennonites? Or is it just the group that whines so much these days that all the other groups who were well known after the war are no longer mentioned? It is as though there were no other groups.

Believers in the holy holocaust know nothing about the real events. They have nothing but the side of the incessant whiners and they have elevated to myth with no connection to reality.

Noony, that was not lost on me. Before the "final solution" Hitler picked off weaker minorities at the beginning of the war, But the human death toll was not just 6 million Jews, that IS lost on Furry. 50 million people in that war on all sides lost their lives because of the Kool Aid homogeneous attitude of Hitler and the German people.

Doesn't look like the war was a problem for the Jews at all to me. Their world population appears to have risen slightly between 1938 and 1948. Of course I am interested in other official sources as long as they are world wide only. What sources have you investigated to validate the number you use? Is it cheating to count the loaves and fishes before and after?

Is that what you are saying? Just clarify for me...

I said I would only discuss millions of deaths in gas chambers. The population data shows in increase in world population. Do you have autopsy reports showing cause of death?

You can call the Shoah, the Nakbah, the Disaster by any name you want. If you wish to define it beyond its name, Ha'Shoah please do so. As I said I will only discuss it in terms of the central claim of millions of dead by gassing.

 

Really? So all those films of dead bodies piled up in pits, on the backs of trucks and public executions were all faked because there were no autopsies? Please tell me you are NOT claiming that the Holocaust was faked? PLEASE tell me that is NOT what you are arguing, because if it is Noony, here is my reaction. I really hope I am reading you wrong.

You are such a deluded nut.

When are you AND Furry going to get it through your thick sculls that our evolution and our future as a species IS NOT dependent on a fucking label. Genocide existed before the invention of either myth and has been inflicted by many different cultures upon other cultures THROUGHOUT our history.

I am with you in only in the sense that she needs to get off her high horse. But denying the suffering OF any group of people simply because of current events is insane.

If you value the suffering of Palestinians then you should value the suffering of the Jews of Germany during WW2. Just as we value the suffering of blacks under slavery or the Native Americans being driven off their land. If you cannot value the suffering of humans because of label, you are no better than those you accuse.

A HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN! PERIOD!

Jews were targeted and murdered. It doesn't make them special because 50 million people died as a result of Hitler's insanity. But it HAPPENED!

You cannot expect her, or me for that matter to have any fucking sympathy for you as a fellow human if you cannot extend that empathy you say you want for your struggle, to your fellow human.

Our planet as 7 billion people. None of us are special and until both sides of that conflict realize that, neither of you are going to reach the peace both say they want.

If Palestinians or Jews want peace it cannot be Palestinian peace or Jewish peace, it has to be a collective effort of humans wanting peace. Not "only if I get my way".

A morgue in any country is still a morgue. Tribalism and credulity keeps filling them up.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:@ Furry, re: pg

Vastet wrote:
@ Furry, re: pg 2. Sorry, lost net for a couple days. Yes, Germany (and Japan) dropped the policies that many would argue led to war in the first place after their defeat, but that's part of my point. Right now both Germany and Japan are amongst the most advanced nations in the world because they dropped that shit. But Israel and the US were quick to replace them, and every decade since has lead to them making more enemies because they now use the same policies, they just changed the focus. For Israel it's the arabs. For the US it's everyone.

Germany is advanced, the Japanese have a nice photocopier.  Just wanted to get that one out of the way -- the Japanese technology situation isn't nearly as impressive to me as it seems to be to many others.

Germany did more than just "drop that shit", they bent over backwards to make restitution, which many assert was a major cause of WWII in the first place (excessive war reparations payments, which was nonsense -- reparations payments were reduced repeatedly, and then just not paid, followed by Germany re-arming).

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I never said the US was part of the initial stoush

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
As to dominating Europe, you will recall the invasion of France was a premptive strike because the British Expeditionary Force was in France preparing to invade Germany. Given all the voluntary alliances east of France the claim of rule was exactly Poland and the three Baltics and nothing more. You appear to have swallowed the line the Brit gov put in the childrens' history books or have been watching way too much Dr. Who.

To repeat Britain fought the war to maintain its hegemony over Europe. Germany had incorporated Austria and was allied with Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania. It had effectively reconstituted the Austro-Hungarian Empire but with the addition of Germany making it stronger than ever. Add to that the alliance with Italy which Austria had bungled royalling in the 19th century. That was the threat Britain chose to fight.

 

I am well aware the western allies catatonic during the phony war were Britain and France. I already said the USA didn't get in for two and half years. You are the lord of straw men.

You may retroactively attempt to correct your post but in the same breath as western allies you mentioned the US. As B&F were anything but catatonic that cannot have been your intent. France almost immediately invaded the Ruhr and Germany retreated for example.

Quote:
And your comprehension of Polish history appears oddly biased in favour of Germany and Russia. Are you saying the Polish Lithuanian Commonweath, established in the 1560s, had no historical legitimacy?

Rather that by Brest-Litvosk it had been a dead issue for nearly two centuries. Historicity has no legitimacy per se else France should have submitted to Musolini as it had to Caesar.

Quote:
On what basis? Prussia and Austria were invaders of Polish territory in the 18th century and the Poles resisted with armed uprisings. Ignore the word Pole. Some people were locals and some were from Prussia, Austria and Russia. Was it moral to insist tens of millions of 'Poles' be under German or Russian dictatorship when they did not want to be? If you are going to argue Poland did not exist, let's unstitch Germany as well. Germany did not exist till unified as an empire in 1871.

I merely pointed out that the Poland which the British ruling class committed its peasantry to defend to the death was not not the choice of the citizens of Poland being a dictatorship like Russia and Germany. The rest had been Germans and Russians for centuries and happily returned to being so. As you know the part of Poland Russia reclaimed in 1939 remained part of Russia after the war and does to this day. If memory serves correctly Putin comes from there. If there is an interest in uniting with Poland they have certainly been silent at this the most opportune time.

The only Poles that existed before Brest-Litvosk lived in what was called the General Government of Poland and adminstered by Germany during the war.

Germany was a voluntary unification under Bismarck although for a few years Bavaria had second thoughts and did attempt to leave. Voluntary unifications are not to be taken apart save by the members themselves not be meddling Brits who know what is best for everyone else.

Quote:
And the BEF was in France preparing to invade Germany? All 250,000 of them?

I only gave you the name. Is it important to look up the number?

Quote:
You must be joking, Nony.

There were at least as many there who were evacuated at Dunkirk, no? Add to that the dead even though they were ordered to retreat without notifying the French. Or did you never notice Dunkirk is never put in historical context? They were running away from the German invasion of France.

I have suggested several times they should have been captured, treated to best beer and sausages, and a peace for POWs campaign started.

Quote:
The brits and french had nearly a year's opportunity to invade Germany and still they did nothing at all.

You do realize that once you declare war you open yourself to attack at any time and at any manner do you not?

Quote:
Their military efforts were utterly pathetic. Neither wanted to fight. Neither was prepared to fight. They were bowled over like ninepins. Rifles against tanks. They were a complete joke. You seem to ignore the Atlantic Treaty, the total unpreparedness of the Western Allies. The suggestion they were doing the sabre-rattling is farcical.
 

I ignore? You have said there were only two western allies. Both of them declared war on Germany. Did they not know they were totally unprepared for war? Do you expect sympathy for people so dumb as to know they were unprepared?

BTW: NATO would not cause the US to side with Britain if it declares the war. It only covers defense if attacked.

Quote:
It's beyond me why you think it odd Britain would fight with France. I still think if a nation invaded France today, Britain would fight. Australia would do the same for NZ, the USA for Canada. War on your nearest ally is war on you. Even though the French and British dislike each other, they remain allies. After all colonialism is gone, Britain's closest European alliance is with France.

Back around 1908 or so Britain and France signed an agreement that resulted in your current mess. Myself I would have thought it OBE. Would a country may or may not do is by treaty obligation. I am unaware of any treaty the US has signed which obligates it to support a country which starts a war. You declare a war you live with the consequences of your own free choice. Rota Ruck.

If Germany had initiated war on Britain instead of vice versa things might have looked different.

Quote:
Rather than bothering to argue further about this as we are never going to agree, is there a single nation in the world today righteous enough to defend itself, defend its interests, neighbours and allies, from the actions of an aggressor? Which country is it? 

And do you think Britain should have made peace with Germany after the Battle of France? Turned its back on Europe entirely?

Britain was the aggressor against Germany. Germany had attacked no British asset at the time Britain declared war. As stupid as it was, as unprepared as it was the guy dying of a brain tumor lead the declaration of war. Or did you miss his medical condition? How did it affect his judgement? Can you find a biopsy as to they type of tumor it was? A while back I googled it was barely found a word on cause of death much less details of the autopsy or even if there was one.

 

and you know that perfectly well. 

No, I don't need to look up the basic numbers of WW2. It's not rocket science. People in this country all have a pretty good grasp of our military history and we relate to Britain a lot more closely than you do. 

I'm from a military family, anyway. This stuff is always interesting to me. 

In 1939 Britain had say, 10 divisions, while Germany had 130 divisions and 2.5 million men. How can you suggest Britain was the aggressor in WW2? They thought they could beat Germany with 10 divisions?

It had taken vast allied armies 4 years to drive Germany out of northern France in WW1 and they still had not completely beaten them. Did they have the shortest memories of all time?

After Dunkirk Britain did not even have rifles for the survivors of its army. Where was the preparation for aggression? Where were the ships, the tanks, the planes, the men, the war machine? Where? 

Your comments about Chamberlain are irrelevant. His policy of appeasement was a failure and he lost power well before he died. Are you saying he was confused into a declaration, bullied into it?

Did he declare war without support from his cabinet? Without bipartisan discussions in the lower house? Without talking with the King? Without reference to leaders of the Commonwealth? 

Leaving all else aside as meaningless noise, what is the historical proof that Britain was the sole cause of the second world war? Point me to the notable historian who contends that without provocation, Britain started WW2 by herself.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Brian37 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
...The lesson of the Holocaust WAS because a certain group of people were singled out. A lesson lost on you, not me. You piss on the deaths of those innocent people by taking up the same attitude Germans had in thinking you are chosen.
Which single people? Slavs? Gypsies? Homosexuals? 7th Day Adventists? Mennonites? Or is it just the group that whines so much these days that all the other groups who were well known after the war are no longer mentioned? It is as though there were no other groups.

Believers in the holy holocaust know nothing about the real events. They have nothing but the side of the incessant whiners and they have elevated to myth with no connection to reality.

Noony, that was not lost on me. Before the "final solution" Hitler picked off weaker minorities at the beginning of the war, But the human death toll was not just 6 million Jews, that IS lost on Furry. 50 million people in that war on all sides lost their lives because of the Kool Aid homogeneous attitude of Hitler and the German people.

Doesn't look like the war was a problem for the Jews at all to me. Their world population appears to have risen slightly between 1938 and 1948. Of course I am interested in other official sources as long as they are world wide only. What sources have you investigated to validate the number you use? Is it cheating to count the loaves and fishes before and after?

Is that what you are saying? Just clarify for me...

I said I would only discuss millions of deaths in gas chambers. The population data shows in increase in world population. Do you have autopsy reports showing cause of death?

You can call the Shoah, the Nakbah, the Disaster by any name you want. If you wish to define it beyond its name, Ha'Shoah please do so. As I said I will only discuss it in terms of the central claim of millions of dead by gassing.

Really? So all those films of dead bodies piled up in pits, on the backs of trucks and public executions were all faked because there were no autopsies? Please tell me you are NOT claiming that the Holocaust was faked? PLEASE tell me that is NOT what you are arguing, because if it is Noony, here is my reaction. I really hope I am reading you wrong.

You are such a deluded nut.

When are you AND Furry going to get it through your thick sculls that our evolution and our future as a species IS NOT dependent on a fucking label. Genocide existed before the invention of either myth and has been inflicted by many different cultures upon other cultures THROUGHOUT our history.

I am with you in only in the sense that she needs to get off her high horse. But denying the suffering OF any group of people simply because of current events is insane.

If you value the suffering of Palestinians then you should value the suffering of the Jews of Germany during WW2. Just as we value the suffering of blacks under slavery or the Native Americans being driven off their land. If you cannot value the suffering of humans because of label, you are no better than those you accuse.

A HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN IS A HUMAN! PERIOD!

Jews were targeted and murdered. It doesn't make them special because 50 million people died as a result of Hitler's insanity. But it HAPPENED!

You cannot expect her, or me for that matter to have any fucking sympathy for you as a fellow human if you cannot extend that empathy you say you want for your struggle, to your fellow human.

Our planet as 7 billion people. None of us are special and until both sides of that conflict realize that, neither of you are going to reach the peace both say they want.

If Palestinians or Jews want peace it cannot be Palestinian peace or Jewish peace, it has to be a collective effort of humans wanting peace. Not "only if I get my way".

A morgue in any country is still a morgue. Tribalism and credulity keeps filling them up.

Regardless of the captions on the pictures here is the world population data.

1933: 15.3

1938: 15.7

1948: 15.8

Is it not reasonable to count the loaves and the fishes both before and after the miracle?

As I said I am looking for world population data that will support the assertion millions of dead in gas chambers. If you know of any be certain to post it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
As to dominating Europe, you will recall the invasion of France was a premptive strike because the British Expeditionary Force was in France preparing to invade Germany. Given all the voluntary alliances east of France the claim of rule was exactly Poland and the three Baltics and nothing more. You appear to have swallowed the line the Brit gov put in the childrens' history books or have been watching way too much Dr. Who.

To repeat Britain fought the war to maintain its hegemony over Europe. Germany had incorporated Austria and was allied with Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania. It had effectively reconstituted the Austro-Hungarian Empire but with the addition of Germany making it stronger than ever. Add to that the alliance with Italy which Austria had bungled royalling in the 19th century. That was the threat Britain chose to fight.

 

I am well aware the western allies catatonic during the phony war were Britain and France. I already said the USA didn't get in for two and half years. You are the lord of straw men.

You may retroactively attempt to correct your post but in the same breath as western allies you mentioned the US. As B&F were anything but catatonic that cannot have been your intent. France almost immediately invaded the Ruhr and Germany retreated for example.

Quote:
And your comprehension of Polish history appears oddly biased in favour of Germany and Russia. Are you saying the Polish Lithuanian Commonweath, established in the 1560s, had no historical legitimacy?

Rather that by Brest-Litvosk it had been a dead issue for nearly two centuries. Historicity has no legitimacy per se else France should have submitted to Musolini as it had to Caesar.

Quote:
On what basis? Prussia and Austria were invaders of Polish territory in the 18th century and the Poles resisted with armed uprisings. Ignore the word Pole. Some people were locals and some were from Prussia, Austria and Russia. Was it moral to insist tens of millions of 'Poles' be under German or Russian dictatorship when they did not want to be? If you are going to argue Poland did not exist, let's unstitch Germany as well. Germany did not exist till unified as an empire in 1871.

I merely pointed out that the Poland which the British ruling class committed its peasantry to defend to the death was not not the choice of the citizens of Poland being a dictatorship like Russia and Germany. The rest had been Germans and Russians for centuries and happily returned to being so. As you know the part of Poland Russia reclaimed in 1939 remained part of Russia after the war and does to this day. If memory serves correctly Putin comes from there. If there is an interest in uniting with Poland they have certainly been silent at this the most opportune time.

The only Poles that existed before Brest-Litvosk lived in what was called the General Government of Poland and adminstered by Germany during the war.

Germany was a voluntary unification under Bismarck although for a few years Bavaria had second thoughts and did attempt to leave. Voluntary unifications are not to be taken apart save by the members themselves not be meddling Brits who know what is best for everyone else.

Quote:
And the BEF was in France preparing to invade Germany? All 250,000 of them?

I only gave you the name. Is it important to look up the number?

Quote:
You must be joking, Nony.

There were at least as many there who were evacuated at Dunkirk, no? Add to that the dead even though they were ordered to retreat without notifying the French. Or did you never notice Dunkirk is never put in historical context? They were running away from the German invasion of France.

I have suggested several times they should have been captured, treated to best beer and sausages, and a peace for POWs campaign started.

Quote:
The brits and french had nearly a year's opportunity to invade Germany and still they did nothing at all.

You do realize that once you declare war you open yourself to attack at any time and at any manner do you not?

Quote:
Their military efforts were utterly pathetic. Neither wanted to fight. Neither was prepared to fight. They were bowled over like ninepins. Rifles against tanks. They were a complete joke. You seem to ignore the Atlantic Treaty, the total unpreparedness of the Western Allies. The suggestion they were doing the sabre-rattling is farcical.
 

I ignore? You have said there were only two western allies. Both of them declared war on Germany. Did they not know they were totally unprepared for war? Do you expect sympathy for people so dumb as to know they were unprepared?

BTW: NATO would not cause the US to side with Britain if it declares the war. It only covers defense if attacked.

Quote:
It's beyond me why you think it odd Britain would fight with France. I still think if a nation invaded France today, Britain would fight. Australia would do the same for NZ, the USA for Canada. War on your nearest ally is war on you. Even though the French and British dislike each other, they remain allies. After all colonialism is gone, Britain's closest European alliance is with France.

Back around 1908 or so Britain and France signed an agreement that resulted in your current mess. Myself I would have thought it OBE. Would a country may or may not do is by treaty obligation. I am unaware of any treaty the US has signed which obligates it to support a country which starts a war. You declare a war you live with the consequences of your own free choice. Rotsa Ruck.

If Germany had initiated war on Britain instead of vice versa things might have looked different.

Quote:
Rather than bothering to argue further about this as we are never going to agree, is there a single nation in the world today righteous enough to defend itself, defend its interests, neighbours and allies, from the actions of an aggressor? Which country is it? 

And do you think Britain should have made peace with Germany after the Battle of France? Turned its back on Europe entirely?

Britain was the aggressor against Germany. Germany had attacked no British asset at the time Britain declared war. As stupid as it was, as unprepared as it was the guy dying of a brain tumor lead the declaration of war. Or did you miss his medical condition? How did it affect his judgement? Can you find a biopsy as to they type of tumor it was? A while back I googled it was barely found a word on cause of death much less details of the autopsy or even if there was one.

and you know that perfectly well.

Whatever.

Quote:
No, I don't need to look up the basic numbers of WW2. It's not rocket science. People in this country all have a pretty good grasp of our military history and we relate to Britain a lot more closely than you do.

I am modestly aware of the Brit view of its history. That is why I have made several pointed observations on the reasons the ruling class gave to the peasants. I might add believing that BS is also a Brit tradition. But please do not expect me to go along with it.

Quote:
I'm from a military family, anyway. This stuff is always interesting to me. 

In 1939 Britain had say, 10 divisions, while Germany had 130 divisions and 2.5 million men. How can you suggest Britain was the aggressor in WW2? They thought they could beat Germany with 10 divisions?

I said very correctly and without fear of contradiction that Britain declared war on Germany. Declaring war is by definition being the aggressor, a very stupid aggressor in this case but an aggressor nevertheless. Whatever you folks got from Germany you asked for by starting a war with Germany.

Quote:
It had taken vast allied armies 4 years to drive Germany out of northern France in WW1 and they still had not completely beaten them. Did they have the shortest memories of all time?

In which reality was the German army out of France when the armistice was declared?

Quote:
After Dunkirk Britain did not even have rifles for the survivors of its army. Where was the preparation for aggression? Where were the ships, the tanks, the planes, the men, the war machine? Where?

What does that have to do with choosing to start of war with Germany? Suing for peace was the rational move at that point. It is really dumb to start a war without being prepared to even put up a good fight.

Quote:
Your comments about Chamberlain are irrelevant. His policy of appeasement was a failure and he lost power well before he died. Are you saying he was confused into a declaration, bullied into it?

The tumor could account for both the appeasement and the declaration of war by reason of mental impairment. It would depend upon which parts of the brain were impaired and to what extent and how fast that type of tumor would be expected to grow. It would all depend upon the autopsy of which I can find no indication was ever conducted. Without seeing an autopsy report it is impossible to rule out anything.

Don't get excited. Most of them do not affect cognitive functions but it certainly needs be considered.

Quote:
Did he declare war without support from his cabinet? Without bipartisan discussions in the lower house? Without talking with the King? Without reference to leaders of the Commonwealth?

Are are you telling me Blair took Britain into Iraq in 2003 with full support of the cabinet and bipartisan agreement in parliament and full support of the Commonwealth? That is contrary to everything I have read and heard from the Brit media. Is there some reason what happened in 2003 could not have happened in 1939?

Quote:
Leaving all else aside as meaningless noise, what is the historical proof that Britain was the sole cause of the second world war? Point me to the notable historian who contends that without provocation, Britain started WW2 by herself.

As we are in agreement Britain declared war on Germany and before that it was merely the Russian and German allies reclaiming territory lost in the aftermath of WWI I fail to see how Britain escapes responsibility for making it a wider war, dragging along France thus precipitating the German invasion of France and attacks upon Britain.

As those are the facts and as it is impossible to know an alternate history, that is, no "what would have happened if?" nonsense permitted, I have no idea how Britain can avoid responsibility at least for the war in Europe.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3189
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The meaning of a theocracy is rule by priests. Priests just think they are gods.

Incorrect on both counts.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The meaning of a theocracy is rule by priests. Priests just think they are gods.
Incorrect on both counts.

And your definition is ... [a drumroll please]

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1575
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is onlineOnline
????????????

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Don't criticize her dana or she'll also accuse you of being a "sociopath" and a "child molester" and start talking about how good she is with her 9mm....    

 ????????????      That was my knee-jerk reaction to the masturbation fantasies  quote


  The holocaust is not the suffering of others but a stain on the whole of humanity, that will NEVER wash out,. I wouldnt worry about blatant lies or manufactured non-sense.  To my mind,   however, I'd  be both alarmed and concerned about  losing our living memory  of the events with the dying out of the WWII generation . . . What's my point,? Cannot seem to have a point because at last count there are  four  separate  topics to this thread.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Don't criticize her dana or she'll also accuse you of being a "sociopath" and a "child molester" and start talking about how good she is with her 9mm....    

 ????????????      That was my knee-jerk reaction to the masturbation fantasies  quote


  The holocaust is not the suffering of others but a stain on the whole of humanity, that will NEVER wash out,. I wouldnt worry about blatant lies or manufactured non-sense.  To my mind,   however, I'd  be both alarmed and concerned about  losing our living memory  of the events with the dying out of the WWII generation . . . What's my point,? Cannot seem to have a point because at last count there are  four  separate  topics to this thread.

 

I am getting crap from both Noony and Furry for this very reason. This is the unfortunate side of human evolution. We have to feel special to drive ourselves to continue otherwise evolution would not take place. But that necessity of self preservation which IS a real part of evolution, gets anthropomorphic through human projection. It is merely making a label magic and forgetting our common evolution. It was understandable when humans didn't know how nature worked. But we collectively as a species have less of an excuse now that we know what evolution is.

The Holocaust IS a stain on humanity, IT DID HAPPEN and should not be forgotten. But that does not make Jews above the behavior of evolution. Our species history has always displayed the nurture we are capable of and the cruelty we are capable of.

The Holocaust was a stain. But so was the slavery of blacks. So is the current genocide in Darfur(sp). So was the cruelty of Stalin. So was the cruelty of 9/11. Until a majority of the world's population stops thinking in terms of labels, and starts thinking in terms of our common condition, our species will continue to set up roadblocks to the problems our entire planet faces.

Labels do not determine if an individual will do good or bad. No one is special on a planet of 7 billion. We are special to ourselves as individuals, and those we personally know. But in the history of our species and our species future, we are a mere blip.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Don't criticize her dana or she'll also accuse you of being a "sociopath" and a "child molester" and start talking about how good she is with her 9mm....    

 ????????????      That was my knee-jerk reaction to the masturbation fantasies  quote

He wants to know what's in my undies.  I mean, REALLY wants to know.  And I just have to tell him because he REALLY wants to know.  BADLY.

And I don't own a 9mm at the moment.  But I am pretty good with both pistols and long guns

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

danatemporary wrote:
The holocaust is not the suffering of others but a stain on the whole of humanity, that will NEVER wash out,. I wouldnt worry about blatant lies or manufactured non-sense.  To my mind,   however, I'd  be both alarmed and concerned about  losing our living memory  of the events with the dying out of the WWII generation . . . What's my point,? Cannot seem to have a point because at last count there are  four  separate  topics to this thread.

Please let us not while carrying on the fight to dispell theistic dogma permit the continuation of secular dogma. The claims of the holy holocaust are not the greatest Jews have claimed as losses. Of course all the Jews in the past were exaggerating but not today's Jews.

No. Today's believers dismiss all the factual problems such as a population increase between 1938 and 1948 rather than a 6 million decrease as beyond human comprehension, a miracle, that is irrational and stupid. (Whatever you do, don't count the loaves and fishes before and after. It ruins the illusion.)

Holocaust, Greek, a wholly burnt sacrifice to a god, the title of a TV miniseries. There was no sacrifice to any god involved, period, unless you go all irrational on it. As to the miniseries, that is the origin of the usage of the word to translate the Israeli Ha'Shoah, the Disaster. The only WWII usage of holocaust was as in "the Nazi holocaust burning its way across Europe" as the clinically depressed, self-medicating with alcohol, i.e. chronically intoxicated at all decision making meetings, Churchill was fond of saying.

Sorry folks but the Genocide Treaty defines the event, even at its worst by anyone's belief system, as an attempted genocide. Anyone want to ask the Flathead Indians about successful genocides? The Druids? I mean get over the popular nonsense and start to think like rational people again.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Don't criticize her dana or she'll also accuse you of being a "sociopath" and a "child molester" and start talking about how good she is with her 9mm....    

Kurz or Parabellum?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
The holocaust is not the suffering of others but a stain on the whole of humanity, that will NEVER wash out,. I wouldnt worry about blatant lies or manufactured non-sense.  To my mind,   however, I'd  be both alarmed and concerned about  losing our living memory  of the events with the dying out of the WWII generation . . . What's my point,? Cannot seem to have a point because at last count there are  four  separate  topics to this thread.

Please let us not while carrying on the fight to dispell theistic dogma permit the continuation of secular dogma. The claims of the holy holocaust are not the greatest Jews have claimed as losses. Of course all the Jews in the past were exaggerating but not today's Jews.

No. Today's believers dismiss all the factual problems such as a population increase between 1938 and 1948 rather than a 6 million decrease as beyond human comprehension, a miracle, that is irrational and stupid. (Whatever you do, don't count the loaves and fishes before and after. It ruins the illusion.)

Holocaust, Greek, a wholly burnt sacrifice to a god, the title of a TV miniseries. There was no sacrifice to any god involved, period, unless you go all irrational on it. As to the miniseries, that is the origin of the usage of the word to translate the Israeli Ha'Shoah, the Disaster. The only WWII usage of holocaust was as in "the Nazi holocaust burning its way across Europe" as the clinically depressed, self-medicating with alcohol, i.e. chronically intoxicated at all decision making meetings, Churchill was fond of saying.

Sorry folks but the Genocide Treaty defines the event, even at its worst by anyone's belief system, as an attempted genocide. Anyone want to ask the Flathead Indians about successful genocides? The Druids? I mean get over the popular nonsense and start to think like rational people again.

 

Noony, you have been here longer than Furry and have been selling your crap for years. Genocide is genocide. Furry and Jews and Israel have no right to claim their victims of genocide are more special than the genocide that has happened and is currently happening. But you are a hypocrite to rightfully claim suffering exists outside Jews, and then ignore that it did happen to Jews.

BOTH of you are pissing in the same fucking sandbox crying "poor me".

You both suffer the delusion that labels make your side above the cruelty that has always existed in human evolution.

REMEMBER THE PAST , but don't cherry pick it to suit your own desires.

No label, not atheist, not Jew, not Palestinian, not Muslim, not Hindu, not Buddhist makes any human above the evolution that produced our entire species and the living today. Humans have always displayed cruelty to others. Humans also fall for the "virtue of the oppressed". Humans far too often repeat the cycle of abuse. They go from victim to abuser just like a child gets away from an abusive parent and then goes on to abuse the kids they have.

There is no magic to this conflict. LABELS are why you are locking horns. She is human and you are human. She will die and you will die. Now like most humans, I suspect that both of you would prefer to die from natural old age. As long as both of you insist on the pissing contest, you make it harder for your respective sides to do that.

Both of you need to get off your high horses.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
The holocaust is not the suffering of others but a stain on the whole of humanity, that will NEVER wash out,. I wouldnt worry about blatant lies or manufactured non-sense.  To my mind,   however, I'd  be both alarmed and concerned about  losing our living memory  of the events with the dying out of the WWII generation . . . What's my point,? Cannot seem to have a point because at last count there are  four  separate  topics to this thread.

Please let us not while carrying on the fight to dispell theistic dogma permit the continuation of secular dogma. The claims of the holy holocaust are not the greatest Jews have claimed as losses. Of course all the Jews in the past were exaggerating but not today's Jews.

No. Today's believers dismiss all the factual problems such as a population increase between 1938 and 1948 rather than a 6 million decrease as beyond human comprehension, a miracle, that is irrational and stupid. (Whatever you do, don't count the loaves and fishes before and after. It ruins the illusion.)

Holocaust, Greek, a wholly burnt sacrifice to a god, the title of a TV miniseries. There was no sacrifice to any god involved, period, unless you go all irrational on it. As to the miniseries, that is the origin of the usage of the word to translate the Israeli Ha'Shoah, the Disaster. The only WWII usage of holocaust was as in "the Nazi holocaust burning its way across Europe" as the clinically depressed, self-medicating with alcohol, i.e. chronically intoxicated at all decision making meetings, Churchill was fond of saying.

Sorry folks but the Genocide Treaty defines the event, even at its worst by anyone's belief system, as an attempted genocide. Anyone want to ask the Flathead Indians about successful genocides? The Druids? I mean get over the popular nonsense and start to think like rational people again.

 

Noony, you have been here longer than Furry and have been selling your crap for years. Genocide is genocide. Furry and Jews and Israel have no right to claim their victims of genocide are more special than the genocide that has happened and is currently happening. But you are a hypocrite to rightfully claim suffering exists outside Jews, and then ignore that it did happen to Jews.

BOTH of you are pissing in the same fucking sandbox crying "poor me".

You both suffer the delusion that labels make your side above the cruelty that has always existed in human evolution.

REMEMBER THE PAST , but don't cherry pick it to suit your own desires.

No label, not atheist, not Jew, not Palestinian, not Muslim, not Hindu, not Buddhist makes any human above the evolution that produced our entire species and the living today. Humans have always displayed cruelty to others. Humans also fall for the "virtue of the oppressed". Humans far too often repeat the cycle of abuse. They go from victim to abuser just like a child gets away from an abusive parent and then goes on to abuse the kids they have.

There is no magic to this conflict. LABELS are why you are locking horns. She is human and you are human. She will die and you will die. Now like most humans, I suspect that both of you would prefer to die from natural old age. As long as both of you insist on the pissing contest, you make it harder for your respective sides to do that.

Both of you need to get off your high horses.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Don't criticize her dana or she'll also accuse you of being a "sociopath" and a "child molester" and start talking about how good she is with her 9mm....    

Kurz or Parabellum?

Parabellum.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Brian37 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
The holocaust is not the suffering of others but a stain on the whole of humanity, that will NEVER wash out,. I wouldnt worry about blatant lies or manufactured non-sense.  To my mind,   however, I'd  be both alarmed and concerned about  losing our living memory  of the events with the dying out of the WWII generation . . . What's my point,? Cannot seem to have a point because at last count there are  four  separate  topics to this thread.

Please let us not while carrying on the fight to dispell theistic dogma permit the continuation of secular dogma. The claims of the holy holocaust are not the greatest Jews have claimed as losses. Of course all the Jews in the past were exaggerating but not today's Jews.

No. Today's believers dismiss all the factual problems such as a population increase between 1938 and 1948 rather than a 6 million decrease as beyond human comprehension, a miracle, that is irrational and stupid. (Whatever you do, don't count the loaves and fishes before and after. It ruins the illusion.)

Holocaust, Greek, a wholly burnt sacrifice to a god, the title of a TV miniseries. There was no sacrifice to any god involved, period, unless you go all irrational on it. As to the miniseries, that is the origin of the usage of the word to translate the Israeli Ha'Shoah, the Disaster. The only WWII usage of holocaust was as in "the Nazi holocaust burning its way across Europe" as the clinically depressed, self-medicating with alcohol, i.e. chronically intoxicated at all decision making meetings, Churchill was fond of saying.

Sorry folks but the Genocide Treaty defines the event, even at its worst by anyone's belief system, as an attempted genocide. Anyone want to ask the Flathead Indians about successful genocides? The Druids? I mean get over the popular nonsense and start to think like rational people again.

Noony, you have been here longer than Furry and have been selling your crap for years. Genocide is genocide.

And having been here so long the inability of so many participants to grasp the difference between murder and attempted murder leads me to conclude the atheism is emotional rather than rational. The fundamental difference of the victim still being alive schwangs right over the heads of so many emoters. You keep right on believing Jimmy Carter was murdered every time you see his ghost on TV. 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Germany

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Germany did more than just "drop that shit", they bent over backwards to make restitution

Israel will be forced to do the same one day. Unless it pushes too far and is obliterated.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:He

FurryCatHerder wrote:

He wants to know what's in....

{ snip}

...... with both pistols and long guns

                                                    

              Hello again darling ....shall we dance ?    ( I know what's in your bloomers Annie Oakley       ...and your "genitalia" doesn't matter enough to me to waste any more time discussing ...it. )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:FurryCatHerder

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Germany did more than just "drop that shit", they bent over backwards to make restitution
Israel will be forced to do the same one day. Unless it pushes too far and is obliterated.

Very unlikely.

The people who make the decisions know the facts.  It's the average Arab who's kept in the dark by their leadership and a lot of those leaders aren't in power so much anymore.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3189
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The meaning of a theocracy is rule by priests. Priests just think they are gods.
Incorrect on both counts.

And your definition is ... [a drumroll please]

1 - Theocracy is a government ruled by god

2 - Your statement "Priests just think they are gods" is a loose-ended statement. I think you need to clarify it.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Oh, I'm

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Oh, I'm sure he's not going to admit he's Matt Giwer.  If you put google to the task you'd find that Giwer is really not nice person ("in my opinion&quotEye-wink and seems to have very little interest in Atheism or Atheists and likely is only here to thump Jews from time to time.

I was always under the impression he was "Matt Giwer."  

 

I think Sage and Prozac are on to something in the last two pages.  FWIW

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Vastet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Germany did more than just "drop that shit", they bent over backwards to make restitution
Israel will be forced to do the same one day. Unless it pushes too far and is obliterated.

Very unlikely.

The people who make the decisions know the facts.  It's the average Arab who's kept in the dark by their leadership and a lot of those leaders aren't in power so much anymore.

I don't know or particularly care if the average Israeli is as ignorant of their surroundings as the average American. It is irrelevant to the fact that the entire nation and all who reside within will one day get the bill for the actions of the Israeli government.

The only question is whether the bill will be a demand for payment, or if it come in the form of the routing of Israel.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote: It is

Vastet wrote:
It is irrelevant to the fact that the entire nation and all who reside within will one day get the bill for the actions of the Israeli government. The only question is whether the bill will be a demand for payment, or if it come in the form of the routing of Israel.

 

            

                                                                                    

                                                  Didn't you mean to say the "roasting" of Israel ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Prozacdeathwish,  I just

 Prozacdeathwish,  I just visited your ihatepeople.com link and found a thread about us. (kind of)

http://www.whyihatepeople.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2299

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:FurryCatHerder

Sapient wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Oh, I'm sure he's not going to admit he's Matt Giwer.  If you put google to the task you'd find that Giwer is really not nice person ("in my opinion&quotEye-wink and seems to have very little interest in Atheism or Atheists and likely is only here to thump Jews from time to time.

I was always under the impression he was "Matt Giwer."

It didn't dawn on me because most people say "This is my website" more frequently when referencing their own website.

Sapient wrote:
I think Sage and Prozac are on to something in the last two pages.  FWIW

Well ... let me put it this way -- if he hadn't said "It doesn't matter", the discussion would have been different, but I get the "It doesn't matter to me that you're a (insert group here)" all the time and it sometimes means that it matters A LOT.  If I "prevaricate", most reasonable people take that as a sign that it's a private matter and let the issue drop.  But every now and again, someone decides to push it.

Most of the time when that happens, the person who starts the "It doesn't matter if you're a (insert whatever)" conversation is trying to blackmail or manipulate me somehow.  My automatic reaction is to figure out how much it matters and how many boundaries they'll cross.  I like to think of it as a survival skill.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The meaning of a theocracy is rule by priests. Priests just think they are gods.
Incorrect on both counts.

And your definition is ... [a drumroll please]

1 - Theocracy is a government ruled by god

2 - Your statement "Priests just think they are gods" is a loose-ended statement. I think you need to clarify it.

The word was invented to mean rule by priests despite a literal translation. It may be rule by gods in theory but in practice gods are notably mute relying upon the profitable intercession of priests to make their desires/commands/demands known to the peasants.

There have been precious few of them, the Judea of the Maccabes and the Papal States, now only Vatican City, being the most prominent.

The usual civil order was for the civil ruler to be the head of the local religions but the powers of the priests derived solely from him. In ancient Rome the highest religious authority was the Pontifex Maximus. That title was held by the emperors. It was a similar to the eastern rite Catholic Churches and the Church of England where the civil ruler is the supreme authority. These are not necessarily theocracies.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Sapient wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Oh, I'm sure he's not going to admit he's Matt Giwer.  If you put google to the task you'd find that Giwer is really not nice person ("in my opinion&quotEye-wink and seems to have very little interest in Atheism or Atheists and likely is only here to thump Jews from time to time.
I was always under the impression he was "Matt Giwer."  

I think Sage and Prozac are on to something in the last two pages.  FWIW

I sort of thought all the links which I said were to my website such as www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html were a real big hint as to who I am. It has never been a secret.

But when the strange start thinking they have discovered something crap like this starts appearing in other forums I frequent such as soc.history.ancient. When I make them public as I am now I get nothing but protestations of complete innocense from the pussys who start making an issue of it. It is all nothing more than coincidence when it happens. There cannot possibly be any communication or coordination of activities because the pitifully self-righteous could not possibly do such things.

Quote:
Quote:

Path: unlimited.newshosting.com!dartmaster!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net
From: "Fred Hall" <fkhall@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: ba.broadcast,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.comedy.standup,soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Giwer You Cunt
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:47:09 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: ApostatesRus
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <xn0hswn8kc6h4500cRustySeanBowtieTavek@this.is.a.hoot>
References: <2d357f02-6a90-462b-835e-edac86545cf1@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <xn0hswh8s42vd8002RustySeanBowtieTavek@this.is.a.hoot> <jegg19$tek$4@dont-email.me> <xn0hswlyfagv3900aRustySeanBowtieTavek@this.is.a.hoot> <jegho5$7d2$1@dont-email.me>
X-No-Archive: User Defined
X-AOL-Abuser: Yes
X-CompuServe-Customer: Yes
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.19.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.3 Safari/533.19.4,gzip(gfe)
X-Newreader: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v3.00.11.18 BETA/60
X-WebTv-Abuser: Yes
X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=black; TextColor=black
Xref: unlimited.newshosting.com ba.broadcast:194991 alt.usenet.kooks:1684737 alt.comedy.standup:234763 soc.history.ancient:314673 sci.archaeology:253935

bit rot wrote on 1/9/2012 in <jegho5$7d2$1@dont-email.me>:

> This just in from Fred Hall
> > bit rot wrote on 1/9/2012 in <jegg19$tek$4@dont-email.me>:
> >
> >> This just in from Fred Hall
> >> > bozo wrote on 1/9/2012 in
> >> > <183cf013-b24a-4b1e-b13d-06d08ef527ab@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> On Jan 8, 10:32 pm, % <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > bozo wrote:
> >> >> > > Oh yes ---> "my Own Investigation" Into The Whys and Wherefores of
> >> >> > > enoch mccarty goes a long way to explain why the moustachioed little
> >> >> > > troll can't leave his property in Pescadero and has to have his
> >> >> > > homosexual Man Friday pick up Provisions, namely because Jews put
> the >> >> > > little worthless Pedophile Pest Pervert under house arrest,
> where he >> >> > > can't really move about, which explains why the 50-year
> old self- >> >> > > styled little nazi pervert troll with his little Hitler
> moustache let >> >> > > it grow out into a Jesus beard to better express his
> contempt for Jews >> >> > > for locking him up under house arrest on his own
> property or in a >> >> > > county jail as Bubbas wife.  We Jews gave you a
> choice, didn't we, >> >> > > enoch, put you away under house arrest on rental
> property where you >> >> > > are now in Pescadero or in a real jail cell as
> Bubbas wife ---> he-he, >> >> > > ho-ho, ha-ha, we Jews put you away behind
> bars and removed you from >> >> > > society, enoch, you pathetic naked
> pervert, you can't hide now, can >> >> > > you, you're a transparent freak,
> and to quote the pretentious piece-o- >> >> > > shit spamming troll who said
> it first here, I'm happy to report that >> >> > > "My Own Investigation" Into
> enoch mccarty is now complete.  >> >> >
> >> >> > > -bdn-
> >> >> >
> >> >> > hi i'm fat dave the cocksucking felching assworm
> >> >> > i have a chick with a dick for a girlfriend
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Fat Dave, I'm confused, did you say that Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
> >> >> is a chick with a dick AND a felching assworm, or just your
> >> >> cocksucking girlfriend?
> >> >>
> >> >> -bdn-
> >> >
> >> > You seem to be very perceptive, Bozo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> grr what's worth than one of these on e-s I ask ?
> >> "Article not accepted by server; not posted: 437 Too many newsgroups
> (meow)" >> if auk is in the ng field
> >
> > Exactly why I don't use ES (Love ya, Ray!) or aioe.
>
> aioe no deal for sure - x-privat I can't remember if it was better.
> I'll be checking it next. 

> >> I was going to say I don't think his buddy Ras is even worth an X-post to
> >> McVay's froups. Either that or he's already had the McV "treatment".
> >> It's a beautiful thing seeing Ken smack 'em down.
> >
> > lol...Speaking of McV:
> >
> > Remember Doc Tavish?
> >
> > And Tracy?  And Giwer?
>
> > NIZKOR!!!!!!!
>
> Talk  about mad libel. Sub'd to a.r for a while until it just got too much
> to read it all.
>
> Doc Tavish yes, those other names I vaguely remember.

Tracy morphed like a schizophrenic, so you probably remember *it* by some other
name.  Matt Giwer won an award or two once upon a time.

I just did a Google search on Giwer, and the cunt is still posting!

[soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology added for Giwer]

http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml


--

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Germany did more than just "drop that shit", they bent over backwards to make restitution
Israel will be forced to do the same one day. Unless it pushes too far and is obliterated.

Very unlikely.

The people who make the decisions know the facts.  It's the average Arab who's kept in the dark by their leadership and a lot of those leaders aren't in power so much anymore.

I don't know or particularly care if the average Israeli is as ignorant of their surroundings as the average American. It is irrelevant to the fact that the entire nation and all who reside within will one day get the bill for the actions of the Israeli government. The only question is whether the bill will be a demand for payment, or if it come in the form of the routing of Israel.

On his first trip away from home a jewish boy is going off to fight in the Crimean War. His mother gives him some good advice.

"Every time you shoot a Turk you take a rest. Shoot a Turk and rest. Alway shoot a Turk and rest."

Then the boy asks his mother, "But what if the Turk shoots me?"

To which his mother replies, "Why would he do that? What have you ever done to him?"

And the son says, "You know how antisemitic the Turks are."

Feel free to substitute Palestinian for Turk. Feel free to substitute anything for Turk.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:

 Prozacdeathwish,  I just visited your ihatepeople.com link and found a thread about us. (kind of)

http://www.whyihatepeople.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2299

 

  Yeah, those poor, conflicted ass holes.  So, they're admitted misanthropes who hate other people but they get all defensive concerning the very god who supposedly made those disgusting people in the first place ?  That whole line of reasoning just makes me feel so MISANTHROPIC !!!  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Sapient wrote:

 Prozacdeathwish,  I just visited your ihatepeople.com link and found a thread about us. (kind of)

http://www.whyihatepeople.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2299

 

  Yeah, those poor, conflicted ass holes.  So, they're admitted misanthropes who hate other people but they get all defensive concerning the very god who supposedly made those disgusting people in the first place ?  That whole line of reasoning just makes me feel so MISANTHROPIC !!!  

I read that thread too.  They're taking a laissez-faire approach to people's beliefs -- hands off!  They probably don't advocate a complete no-conversion policy.  There are probably times when they want to influence people.  It's the abuse they don't like, and some of them probably are threatened by having their worldviews challenged -- even in a kind way. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
              

                                                                                                           

 

                                                                                         Sorry Nony.  Please continue.....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3189
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The word

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The word was invented to mean rule by priests despite a literal translation. It may be rule by gods in theory but in practice gods are notably mute relying upon the profitable intercession of priests to make their desires/commands/demands known to the peasants.

There have been precious few of them, the Judea of the Maccabes and the Papal States, now only Vatican City, being the most prominent.

The usual civil order was for the civil ruler to be the head of the local religions but the powers of the priests derived solely from him. In ancient Rome the highest religious authority was the Pontifex Maximus. That title was held by the emperors. It was a similar to the eastern rite Catholic Churches and the Church of England where the civil ruler is the supreme authority. These are not necessarily theocracies.

I don't see this as being a word "invented". It was two Greek words put together "rule" and "god", or "rule of god".  Those two words did not come about specifically because of the christian religion or society. These words existed long before the christians.

The word (theocracy) came in to use because one person (who happened to be a Roman/Jewish historian) who coined it for a specific group of people and it got used so much that it eventually became what it is today; and also associated with the christian religion.

Words like "football", "sometimes" or "parkway" are good examples of how two words are used together so much that eventually the society which uses them combines them together to make a single word.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You are simply being obtuse

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

I said very correctly and without fear of contradiction that Britain declared war on Germany. Declaring war is by definition being the aggressor, a very stupid aggressor in this case but an aggressor nevertheless. Whatever you folks got from Germany you asked for by starting a war with Germany.

As we are in agreement Britain declared war on Germany and before that it was merely the Russian and German allies reclaiming territory lost in the aftermath of WWI I fail to see how Britain escapes responsibility for making it a wider war, dragging along France thus precipitating the German invasion of France and attacks upon Britain.

As those are the facts and as it is impossible to know an alternate history, that is, no "what would have happened if?" nonsense permitted, I have no idea how Britain can avoid responsibility at least for the war in Europe.

 

Explain how the then sovereign nation of Poland was wrong to request help from the western allies. What about the Czechs? They asked for help, too. Hitler denied he wanted to take over Czechoslovakia but we know that he was the soul of integrity so let's pretend that never happened, shall we. 

At the root of this you are suggesting that Germany was free to undertake any operations she liked in Europe and that only Britain is to be judged by your bizarre standard of morality. I assume Britain was the sole reason Norway was invaded, Denmark was invaded, Holland was invaded, Belgium was invaded. And throughout Hitler prepared for war while saying he was not doing so. 

Here are some quotes that might help you unterstand, Nony, ze German mindset. Pay special attention to the dates. 

 

 

"The assertion that it is the intention of the German Reich to coerce the Austrian State is absurd"... 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (January 30, 1934)

"The battle we are now approaching demands a colossal measure of production capacity. No limit on rearmament can be visualized. The only alternatives are victory or destruction... We live in a time when the final battle is in sight. We are ready on the threshold of mobilization and we are already at war. All that is lacking is the actual shooting." 
- Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe (1936)

"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even moderate resistance." 
- Dr. Paul Schmidt, Hitler's interpreter

"Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to conclude an Anschluss." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"I have no further interest in the Czecho-Slovakian State, that is guaranteed. We want no Czechs"... 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (September 26, 1938)

"Germany has concluded a Non-Aggression Pact with Poland... We shall adhere to it unconditionally... we recognize Poland as the home of a great and nationally conscious people." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression, because she does not think of attacking but only acquiring security." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (1933)

"We have concluded a non-aggression pact with Denmark." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (before the conquest of Denmark)

"Germany never had any conflict with the Northern States and has none today." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (before the conquest of Norway)

"Ther German government has further given the assurance to Belgium and Holland that it is prepared to recognize and to guarantee the inviolability and neutrality of these territories." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (1937)

"National Socialist Germany wants peace because of its fundamental convictions. And it wants peace also owing to the realization of the simple primitive fact that no war would be likely essentially to alter the distress in Europe... The principal effect of every war is to destroy the flower of the nation... Germany needs peace and desires peace!" 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"Germany has solemnly recognized and guaranteed France her frontiers as determined after te Saar plebiscite... We thereby finally renounced all claims to Alsace-Lorraine, a land for which we have fought two great wars." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"I speak in the name of the entire German people when I assure the world that we all share the honest wish to eliminate the enmity that brings far more costs than any possible benefits... It would be a wonderful thing for all of humanity if both peoples would renounce force against each other forever. The German people are ready to make such a pledge." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (October 14, 1933)

"First, we swear to yield to no force whatever in restoration of the honor of our people... Secondly, we pledge that now, more than ever, we shall strive for an understanding between the European peoples, especially for one with our Western neighbor nations... We have no territorial demands to make in Europe!... Germany will never break the peace!" 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (after Nazi troops had marched in the Rhinelandin 1936)

"There are two possibilities for me: To win through with all my plans, or to fail. If I win, I shall be one of the greatest men in history. If I fail, I shall be condemned, despised and damned." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator

 

 

 

And here's the furiously aggressively British War declaration from Neville Chamberlain, which takes the form of a note saying that if the German government did not concede to withdraw their illegal invasion forces from Poland, a state of war would exist between Britain and Germany.

 

 

"I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10, Downing Street.

This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed.

Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different I could have done and that would have been more successful.

Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler would not have it.

He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened; and although he now says he has put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement.

The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us; and although they were announced in a German broadcast on Thursday night, Hitler did not wait to make comment on them, but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier.

His actions show convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.

We and France are today, in fulfilment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack on her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. The

situation in which no word given to Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe has become intolerable."

 

 

Britain has made a lot of mistakes over the past 300 years - standing up to Germany was not one of them. Chamberlain may have failed to stamp on Hitler when he re-took the Rhineland but his nation and her allies did not want war. The simple honesty of his speeches show he was a better man that Hitler ever was.  

And what's with your false dichotomy that people either agree with your strange interpretation of world affairs or are branded as 'peasants'. Perhaps this sneaky ad hominem expresses your true mind set towards the human race. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The word was invented to mean rule by priests despite a literal translation. It may be rule by gods in theory but in practice gods are notably mute relying upon the profitable intercession of priests to make their desires/commands/demands known to the peasants.

There have been precious few of them, the Judea of the Maccabes and the Papal States, now only Vatican City, being the most prominent.

The usual civil order was for the civil ruler to be the head of the local religions but the powers of the priests derived solely from him. In ancient Rome the highest religious authority was the Pontifex Maximus. That title was held by the emperors. It was a similar to the eastern rite Catholic Churches and the Church of England where the civil ruler is the supreme authority. These are not necessarily theocracies.

I don't see this as being a word "invented".

www.etymonline.com/

Search the above for theocracy and get

Quote:

theocracy Look up theocracy at Dictionary.com
1620s, "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as that of Israel before the rise of kings), from Gk. theokratia "the rule of God" (Josephus), from theos "god" (see Thea) + kratos "a rule, regime, strength" (see -cracy). Meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825.
How do you imagine it could ever possibly mean rule by god(s)?

Quote:
It was two Greek words put together "rule" and "god", or "rule of god".  Those two words did not come about specifically because of the christian religion or society. These words existed long before the christians.

And as you can see so also was the meaning.

Quote:
The word (theocracy) came in to use because one person (who happened to be a Roman/Jewish historian) who coined it for a specific group of people and it got used so much that it eventually became what it is today; and also associated with the christian religion.

Would you please define both coined and invented so the difference between the two is clear? I do not see what you can mean by coined other than invented.

Quote:
Words like "football", "sometimes" or "parkway" are good examples of how two words are used together so much that eventually the society which uses them combines them together to make a single word.

Do you think the folks in the US should take on the rest of the world on the "obvious" meaning of football?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
And here's the furiously aggressively British War declaration from Neville Chamberlain, which takes the form of a note saying that if the German government did not concede to withdraw their illegal invasion forces from Poland, a state of war would exist between Britain and Germany.

I am unaware of any law involved which BOTH Russia and Germany violated. Nor am I aware of Britain being judge, jury and executioner in the matter.

Quote:
"I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10, Downing Street.

This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed.

Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different I could have done and that would have been more successful.

Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler would not have it.

He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened; and although he now says he has put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement.

The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us; and although they were announced in a German broadcast on Thursday night, Hitler did not wait to make comment on them, but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier.

His actions show convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.

We and France are today, in fulfilment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack on her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. The

situation in which no word given to Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe has become intolerable."

Yes, that is what we call a declaration of war. Shall I take this as a concession on the issue of Britain's culpability in starting the war in Europe or is there another point you are trying to make?

Quote:
Britain has made a lot of mistakes over the past 300 years - standing up to Germany was not one of them. Chamberlain may have failed to stamp on Hitler when he re-took the Rhineland but his nation and her allies did not want war. The simple honesty of his speeches show he was a better man that Hitler ever was.  

And what's with your false dichotomy that people either agree with your strange interpretation of world affairs or are branded as 'peasants'. Perhaps this sneaky ad hominem expresses your true mind set towards the human race.

You cite Britain's DoW rather than requiring me to look it up and quote it and then claim the fact that it is a declaration of war is a strange interpretation of a fact you have not only demonstrated by apparently conceded.

As to a mistake, had not Germany made the mistake of declaring war on the US just how long do you think the US could have continued to support Britain's chosen misadverture when the entire voting public demanding war on Japan?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:

"The assertion that it is the intention of the German Reich to coerce the Austrian State is absurd"... 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (January 30, 1934)

Are you claiming the Anschluss referendum did not get 80% in favor in Austria? Are you claiming the vote was rigged? I don't see your point otherwise. If you have evidence against either of those please post it.

Quote:
"The battle we are now approaching demands a colossal measure of production capacity. No limit on rearmament can be visualized. The only alternatives are victory or destruction... We live in a time when the final battle is in sight. We are ready on the threshold of mobilization and we are already at war. All that is lacking is the actual shooting." 
- Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe (1936)

Are you suggesting prudent preparation for British agression was wrong?

Quote:
"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even moderate resistance." 
- Dr. Paul Schmidt, Hitler's interpreter

Another reclamation of part of Germany from foreign military occupation by the cheese-eating frogs. What problem do you see with that?

Quote:
"Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to conclude an Anschluss." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

Repeat same question on the referendum. Looks like self-determination to me.

Quote:
"I have no further interest in the Czecho-Slovakian State, that is guaranteed. We want no Czechs"... 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (September 26, 1938)

Are you saying the Rhineland contained Czechs? The Germans forced to live under Czech rule were by all accounts very happy to became German citizens once again. Do you Brittiehuggers always have such a problem with self-determination?

Quote:
"Germany has concluded a Non-Aggression Pact with Poland... We shall adhere to it unconditionally... we recognize Poland as the home of a great and nationally conscious people." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

Are you saying he lied? I am shocked, I tell you, Shocked! I have never heard of such a thing. It has never happened before in all history. What is this world coming to? Of course should I find a single example something similar by Britain and as Tu Quoque is now back in action at your initiative ... maybe I can point to the lie about the freedom of India that cause Gandhi to abandon his business suits for robes. After all, that was only 760,000,000 million people, acceptable because they were not White.

Quote:
"Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression, because she does not think of attacking but only acquiring security." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (1933)

"We have concluded a non-aggression pact with Denmark." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (before the conquest of Denmark)

And if Britain had not started landing troops in Denmark, security would not have required invasion.

Quote:
"Germany never had any conflict with the Northern States and has none today." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (before the conquest of Norway)

Yes it is true. Germany got to Norway before Britain did. Britain got to Iceland before Germany did. No difference. Neither country invited military occupation by foreigners.

Quote:
"Ther German government has further given the assurance to Belgium and Holland that it is prepared to recognize and to guarantee the inviolability and neutrality of these territories." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (1937)

But then Belgium agreed to provide safe passage for British and French troops for their invasion of Germany and you know security trumps non-aggression as you were so kind as to quote.

Quote:
"National Socialist Germany wants peace because of its fundamental convictions. And it wants peace also owing to the realization of the simple primitive fact that no war would be likely essentially to alter the distress in Europe... The principal effect of every war is to destroy the flower of the nation... Germany needs peace and desires peace!" 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"Germany has solemnly recognized and guaranteed France her frontiers as determined after te Saar plebiscite... We thereby finally renounced all claims to Alsace-Lorraine, a land for which we have fought two great wars." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"I speak in the name of the entire German people when I assure the world that we all share the honest wish to eliminate the enmity that brings far more costs than any possible benefits... It would be a wonderful thing for all of humanity if both peoples would renounce force against each other forever. The German people are ready to make such a pledge." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (October 14, 1933)

"First, we swear to yield to no force whatever in restoration of the honor of our people... Secondly, we pledge that now, more than ever, we shall strive for an understanding between the European peoples, especially for one with our Western neighbor nations... We have no territorial demands to make in Europe!... Germany will never break the peace!" 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (after Nazi troops had marched in the Rhinelandin 1936)

"There are two possibilities for me: To win through with all my plans, or to fail. If I win, I shall be one of the greatest men in history. If I fail, I shall be condemned, despised and damned." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator

Yes and all nullified by Britain's and France's declarations of war upon Germany. You pretend Germany was supposed to roll over and play dead in the face of British and French agression.

=====

Let me make something clear here. All of your sanctimony about WWII may play well in the ears of children and senile veterans. Unjustified aggression upon non-threatening countries against the wishes of the people of any of the countries involved was thoroughly vindicated when the US and Britain invaded and conquered Iraq killing at many as a million innocent Iraqis in the process. By that I include all the innocent Iraqis who were killed defending their country from foreign aggression. It has always been this way.

Wherever you found that list the fact that you would post it shows schoolboy innocence as well as an ignorance of history and a videogame world view of noble heroes going off to slay the evil. World leaders lie and it surprises you. It some how justifies Britain declaring was ONLY only Germany not on Russia and plunging all of Europe into war. That the war Britain chose against Germany was one of rational self-interest in maintaining hegemony over Europe is not in question to non-senile adults. There was no nobility. It was national interest just as the actions of Germany were in its national interest.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3189
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Please post actual data or

Please post actual data or sources on where Joseph "invented" the word Theocracy.

I didn't say "god(s)" you did.

Your definition is the same as mine. Please post different or stop copying me

Sure, since you can't differentiate between "coined" and "invented" I'll substitute the word "coined" for "influenced".

Oh. HAHAHAHA. You mean like Fútbol? Egad you are simple minded.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
These quotes clearly show

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

"The assertion that it is the intention of the German Reich to coerce the Austrian State is absurd"... 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (January 30, 1934)

Are you claiming the Anschluss referendum did not get 80% in favor in Austria? Are you claiming the vote was rigged? I don't see your point otherwise. If you have evidence against either of those please post it.

Quote:
"The battle we are now approaching demands a colossal measure of production capacity. No limit on rearmament can be visualized. The only alternatives are victory or destruction... We live in a time when the final battle is in sight. We are ready on the threshold of mobilization and we are already at war. All that is lacking is the actual shooting." 
- Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe (1936)

Are you suggesting prudent preparation for British agression was wrong?

Quote:
"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even moderate resistance." 
- Dr. Paul Schmidt, Hitler's interpreter

Another reclamation of part of Germany from foreign military occupation by the cheese-eating frogs. What problem do you see with that?

Quote:
"Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to conclude an Anschluss." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

Repeat same question on the referendum. Looks like self-determination to me.

Quote:
"I have no further interest in the Czecho-Slovakian State, that is guaranteed. We want no Czechs"... 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (September 26, 1938)

Are you saying the Rhineland contained Czechs? The Germans forced to live under Czech rule were by all accounts very happy to became German citizens once again. Do you Brittiehuggers always have such a problem with self-determination?

Quote:
"Germany has concluded a Non-Aggression Pact with Poland... We shall adhere to it unconditionally... we recognize Poland as the home of a great and nationally conscious people." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

Are you saying he lied? I am shocked, I tell you, Shocked! I have never heard of such a thing. It has never happened before in all history. What is this world coming to? Of course should I find a single example something similar by Britain and as Tu Quoque is now back in action at your initiative ... maybe I can point to the lie about the freedom of India that cause Gandhi to abandon his business suits for robes. After all, that was only 760,000,000 million people, acceptable because they were not White.

Quote:
"Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression, because she does not think of attacking but only acquiring security." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (1933)

"We have concluded a non-aggression pact with Denmark." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (before the conquest of Denmark)

And if Britain had not started landing troops in Denmark, security would not have required invasion.

Quote:
"Germany never had any conflict with the Northern States and has none today." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (before the conquest of Norway)

Yes it is true. Germany got to Norway before Britain did. Britain got to Iceland before Germany did. No difference. Neither country invited military occupation by foreigners.

Quote:
"Ther German government has further given the assurance to Belgium and Holland that it is prepared to recognize and to guarantee the inviolability and neutrality of these territories." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (1937)

But then Belgium agreed to provide safe passage for British and French troops for their invasion of Germany and you know security trumps non-aggression as you were so kind as to quote.

Quote:
"National Socialist Germany wants peace because of its fundamental convictions. And it wants peace also owing to the realization of the simple primitive fact that no war would be likely essentially to alter the distress in Europe... The principal effect of every war is to destroy the flower of the nation... Germany needs peace and desires peace!" 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"Germany has solemnly recognized and guaranteed France her frontiers as determined after te Saar plebiscite... We thereby finally renounced all claims to Alsace-Lorraine, a land for which we have fought two great wars." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (May 21, 1935)

"I speak in the name of the entire German people when I assure the world that we all share the honest wish to eliminate the enmity that brings far more costs than any possible benefits... It would be a wonderful thing for all of humanity if both peoples would renounce force against each other forever. The German people are ready to make such a pledge." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (October 14, 1933)

"First, we swear to yield to no force whatever in restoration of the honor of our people... Secondly, we pledge that now, more than ever, we shall strive for an understanding between the European peoples, especially for one with our Western neighbor nations... We have no territorial demands to make in Europe!... Germany will never break the peace!" 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator (after Nazi troops had marched in the Rhinelandin 1936)

"There are two possibilities for me: To win through with all my plans, or to fail. If I win, I shall be one of the greatest men in history. If I fail, I shall be condemned, despised and damned." 
- Adolf Hitler, Nazi Dictator

Yes and all nullified by Britain's and France's declarations of war upon Germany. You pretend Germany was supposed to roll over and play dead in the face of British and French agression.

=====

Let me make something clear here. All of your sanctimony about WWII may play well in the ears of children and senile veterans. Unjustified aggression upon non-threatening countries against the wishes of the people of any of the countries involved was thoroughly vindicated when the US and Britain invaded and conquered Iraq killing at many as a million innocent Iraqis in the process. By that I include all the innocent Iraqis who were killed defending their country from foreign aggression. It has always been this way.

Wherever you found that list the fact that you would post it shows schoolboy innocence as well as an ignorance of history and a videogame world view of noble heroes going off to slay the evil. World leaders lie and it surprises you. It some how justifies Britain declaring was ONLY only Germany not on Russia and plunging all of Europe into war. That the war Britain chose against Germany was one of rational self-interest in maintaining hegemony over Europe is not in question to non-senile adults. There was no nobility. It was national interest just as the actions of Germany were in its national interest.

 

 

that Hitler said one thing and did another, that he claimed to be non aggressive but in domestic and foreign policy, he acted in a highly aggressive manner. Again, you ignore the words the man and his followers actually said, and rely on ad hominem to support your interpretation. Agree with me says Nony, or you are a peasant, a schoolboy, a drooling imbecile of another stripe. I assume you've never read Mein Kampf and if you had you'd probably interpret the book in some benign way? Lebensraum anyone? You are operating without context. You seem oblivious to German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. You pretend they were not 'tooling up' for the big one. You ignore the way in which Hitler ran over the top of the German constitution. The way he slaughtered innocent citizens of his own nation pre-war in the tens of thousands. Were all these poor folk English spies?

The general position of historians is not that Britain was the aggressor in the lead up to world war 2 but practised, along with the rest of Europe, the League of Nations and the United States of America, a policy of appeasement that in Britain's weakened state was pretty much the only available option. Britain was not the great leader. She was simply the last man standing. If not for the channel she would have be utterly crushed. Britain had no military power to speak of after the Depression years and no appreciable war industry. She was almost completely disarmed. Only a person operating with the most vigorous confirmation bias could possibly claim Britain actively sought war with Germany or pretended to have hegemony over any part of Europe in the 1930s. Modern Britain has never had hegemony over any significant part of Europe and the idea she could force the issue with France or Germany in this period is unsupported.

Reading your comments - which seem to justify all German actions in the lead up to world war 2 - I wonder if you support all german actions throughout WW2. Is there anything about german behaviour pre-war with which you are uncomfortable? Anything during the war that bothers you? Apparently you feel Hitler was not a psychopath but merely very nervous about all the nasty English with their ten divisions of gap-toothed redcoats. Gee, I'd hate the Germans to come looking for territory anywhere near me. No doubt the invasion of Australia in 1788 would justify any atrocity against the current incumbent population all the while hostile German actions were completely unquestioned by the peculiar simultaneous extreme left/extreme right Pilger-ism of Nony. 

Just because the business of Iraq was wrong you are not free to conclude somehow the lead up to WW2 was a perfect parallel.  The facts do not support your bald assertion. I hardly need point out that the only part of Denmark occupied by Britain was the Faroe Islands, with a population of 11 seagulls and 1 jelly fish, and this move was made after the German invasion of the mainland. Norway in the meantime, actively supported the western allies throughout the war of her own volition and at her own risk, as did the neutral Swedes. 

I'm glad you agree security trumps non aggression - this means Britain was right to ask Germany to lay off Poland. Right to feeling Germany's coshing her neighbours was ultimately a threat to her own sovereignty. Evidently, France thought so, too. As did Stalin, who immediately began to prepare for war with Germany after Poland. You are, rightly, outspoken in support of the sovereignty of India. But do you support the sovereignty of the low countries, of Poland? France? Russia? Greece? Or were all these nations deserving recipients of the Nazi anal probe? 

And don't call me a Brittie-hugger you great nong. I'm a highland Scot, so I'm bloody British in the same way Chinese outside of China are ethnically Chinese, and Africans OS are ethnically African. My family's 150 years in the antipodes doesn't cancel out 18,000 years of genetic history. And I'm not insulted by my support of the facts. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

that Hitler said one thing and did another, that he claimed to be non aggressive but in domestic and foreign policy, he acted in a highly aggressive manner. Again, you ignore the words the man and his followers actually said, and rely on ad hominem to support your interpretation. Agree with me says Nony, or you are a peasant, a schoolboy, a drooling imbecile of another stripe. I assume you've never read Mein Kampf and if you had you'd probably interpret the book in some benign way? Lebensraum anyone? You are operating without context. You seem oblivious to German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. You pretend they were not 'tooling up' for the big one. You ignore the way in which Hitler ran over the top of the German constitution. The way he slaughtered innocent citizens of his own nation pre-war in the tens of thousands. Were all these poor folk English spies?

Let me repeat. Britain CHOSE to declare war on Germany. You have confirmed that fact.

I stipulate the Nazis were not nice people. They were socialists. Socialists are only one cut above communists on the better dead list.

Quote:
The general position of historians is not that Britain was the aggressor in the lead up to world war 2

I am not responsible for people who do not understand what a declaration of war means.

but practised, along with the rest of Europe, the League of Nations and the United States of America, a policy of appeasement that in Britain's weakened state was pretty much the only available option. Britain was not the great leader. She was simply the last man standing. If not for the channel she would have be utterly crushed. Britain had no military power to speak of after the Depression years and no appreciable war industry. She was almost completely disarmed. Only a person operating with the most vigorous confirmation bias could possibly claim Britain actively sought war with Germany or pretended to have hegemony over any part of Europe in the 1930s. Modern Britain has never had hegemony over any significant part of Europe and the idea she could force the issue with France or Germany in this period is unsupported.

Where did I say Britain sought the war with Germany. I said what you were do kind to quote, Britain DECLARED war on Germany. It did not seek it nor promote it. Britain declared it.

Quote:
Reading your comments - which seem to justify all German actions in the lead up to world war 2 - I wonder if you support all german actions throughout WW2.

If that is the case you obviously are ignorant of when Britain declared war and what it did as you cited only statements BEFORE the war and actions responding to Britain AFTER it declared war.

Quote:
Is there anything about german behaviour pre-war with which you are uncomfortable?

You did not cite any actions. You implied sort of that Austria did not overwhelmingly vote to unite with Germany. If that is a problem, blame the Austrians.

Quote:
Anything during the war that bothers you? Apparently you feel Hitler was not a psychopath but merely very nervous about all the nasty English with their ten divisions of gap-toothed redcoats. Gee, I'd hate the Germans to come looking for territory anywhere near me. No doubt the invasion of Australia in 1788 would justify any atrocity against the current incumbent population all the while hostile German actions were completely unquestioned by the peculiar simultaneous extreme left/extreme right Pilger-ism of Nony. 

Just because the business of Iraq was wrong you are not free to conclude somehow the lead up to WW2 was a perfect parallel.  The facts do not support your bald assertion. I hardly need point out that the only part of Denmark occupied by Britain was the Faroe Islands, with a population of 11 seagulls and 1 jelly fish, and this move was made after the German invasion of the mainland. Norway in the meantime, actively supported the western allies throughout the war of her own volition and at her own risk, as did the neutral Swedes.

I did not say occupied Denmark. I said occupied Iceland. That Iceland was a territory of Denmark at the time will be taken any any way that absolves the Brits of all but the most altruistic motives. The king of Denmark was kind enough to wish the Icelandics good luck with the Brits. I know Americans later relieved them.

Are you talking about the same Norway that supplied Germany with most of its iron ore during the war? That being the reason the Brits planned to save them by invading them.

Quote:
I'm glad you agree security trumps non aggression - this means Britain was right to ask Germany to lay off Poland. Right to feeling Germany's coshing her neighbours was ultimately a threat to her own sovereignty. Evidently, France thought so, too. As did Stalin, who immediately began to prepare for war with Germany after Poland. You are, rightly, outspoken in support of the sovereignty of India. But do you support the sovereignty of the low countries, of Poland? France? Russia? Greece? Or were all these nations deserving recipients of the Nazi anal probe? 

And don't call me a Brittie-hugger you great nong. I'm a highland Scot, so I'm bloody British in the same way Chinese outside of China are ethnically Chinese, and Africans OS are ethnically African. My family's 150 years in the antipodes doesn't cancel out 18,000 years of genetic history. And I'm not insulted by my support of the facts.

A scot with a love of being forced into war by the English. Has Scotland ever formally thanked the English for their war dead? How are they doing on your independence? Still off in the indefinite future? Or do you still have to worry about the faction trying to abolish your parliament again?

Of course Britian had a right to ask and of course Britain had a right to declare war both of which it exercised. And it had a right to suffer the consequences of doing so which it did. We agree Britain started the war. That is what a declaration of same does.

Britain's right to ask after Poland does not justify claiming it was exerting any other force on any other country. The Anti Communist International Pact has been signed by its neighbors years before. Of course this is different than Russia which not only attacked Poland but the three Baltics and Finnland which was just fine with Britain. Germany one country. Russia five countries. Maybe the Brits took only one as a sign of weakness. It must have been something like that because that drunken, clinically depressed Churchill covered up for Russia in the Katyn Woods massacre.

Speaking of mental problems, Churchill is about as low as you could get when his depression was so bad he couldn't get out of bed at times and kept himself perpetually drunk and never made a sober decision during the entire war that has been documented. Would a sober man have ordered bombing civilians (Hamburg and others) knowing for a fact Hitler would eventually have to respond? Yes, I know the British planes only had a series of misfortunate events while Germany did it deliberately. Don't bother with the silly litany of drunken excuses. I've heard them all.

A war started an ass with a brain tumor and run by a drunk. Gotta hand it to the indoctrination abilities of your grade schools. Their methods last a lifetime.

Just don't whine about stupid decisions by a country unprepared for war. Don't whine that they landed troops in Denmark and made Denmark a legitimate target. Did the Danes actually agree or were they threatened of the consequences of resisting like having their shipping blockaded? That is another act of war by Britain.

When Britain was assembling a fleet to take over Norway it is only children who will accuse Germany of being evil for doing the same thing first. Only evil people did not let the Brits take over any country it wished like Iceland.

The fact that Britain did NOT declare war on Russia for the same invasion of Poland for the same reason is positive evidence it did not give a damn about Poland but rather wanted a war against Germany which it then proceeded to declare. Only peasants are dumb enough to believe the excuses.

To hear you say it, Germany could have ordered Britain to abandon India and if it refused war would have been justified. What a strange position.

As to any view of mental state that of Chamberlain is still in question until the obvoius questions regarding the tumor are satisfactorily addressed -- unless of course you are still saying Chamberlain could not have done what Blair did in regard to Iraq.

I know you were raised on this crap, right from the pen of Winston from Airstrip One. The fifteen minutes of hate were directed towards Hitler when he was creating the propaganda. You were taught that a declaration of war meant seeking peace. But you are an adult now. You should not still be hating Big Brother even if his name is Big Adolf. You should start thinking for yourself. You are anonymous here. No one is going to report you to your neighbours.

It became a war to preserve the British and French empires while both preserving and expanding the Soviet empire. That is what it did. The US was drawn into because Germany declared war on the US. FDR may be excused for supporting Russia if it was to kill off the Communists instead of Americans. Maybe if he had lived he would have drafted the German POWs and smashed communism. But saving American lives was the only excuse.

If I must look it up I will find the name of the treaty between Britain and France from 1906 or 1910 that formed the alliance to dominate Europe. Credit is usually given to one of your kings for creating the treaty. Your history should have covered it.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
that Hitler said one thing and did another, that he claimed to be non aggressive but in domestic and foreign policy, he acted in a highly aggressive manner.

For the record over the years I have learned from the most important political leaders of the world that Hitler was no worse than Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat, Milosevic, or Amadinejad. From Israel I have learned assimilation and women praying at the Wailing Wall are worse than Hitler.


 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml