Bringing Jobs Back To America

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Bringing Jobs Back To America

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3661
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I never said

Vastet wrote:
I never said otherwise. But we'd make it hurt more than you've been hurt since Vietnam, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

 

           Of course we would suffer casualties, that's the nature of warfare isn't it ?    People die.

 

Vastet wrote:
And how well could you defend yourself against us with more than half your military overseas? 

 

  Because....

               

1.)  We are a nation that now exceeds 300,000,000 total population.

               

2.)  We are a nation like no other on Earth in that millions of civilians own personal firearms which themselves number in the tens of millions.  That's not an insignificant threat to an exposed enemy.

               

3.)  A civilian militia has long been a historical and vital supplement to our regular military.  If you think that a few million American partisans couldn't effectively

      reduce the number of Canadian military personnel then you should go and read up on how Russian civilians ( partisans ) using only small arms slaughtered German soldiers by using stealth

      and cunning.  Guerrilla warfare practiced by the Vietnamese communists is what defeated American military might and caused our government to completely abandon its mission.   It works, bro.

          

 

Vastet wrote:
The fact is we went from practically no military to having one of the ten biggest armies in the world in less than a year. It took 3 months to get troops into Europe. What did the US do for four years?

 

      The more important question is what could your government do now ?  This isn't the 1940's.

The trend in warfare in the 21'st century has moved away from large battlefield engagements.  It has been replaced by small scale urban warfare ( MOUT = military operations in urban terrain ) which is a tactic that tends to favor the defenders over the aggressors.   The use of booby traps, ambushes etc, against the aggressors tend to produce frequent KIA's.  

  Besides, Canadian military doctrine is well known to US military personnel since your entire military right down to the choice of weapons is modeled upon our own military.  Know thy enemy, right ?

http://theatheistconservative.com/

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.


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

Vastet wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The simplest answer is, it has to be some place. That is not facetious. Government employee retirement is budgeted under the Civil Service Commission. If money is going to be spent it has to be accounted for some place. It is elementary accounting.
That neither answers nor addresses my question. Pensions are not a military function, so why are pensions part of the military budget? All government pensions should be budgeted separately from other spending programmes.

The obvious answer is, that is the way it has always been. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

If it misleads the public on defense spending, rest assured you have never heard a single thing about defense spending that isn't misleading. I had an odious job requirement to understand something of the DOD budgeting process and everything I have ever heard in the media is misleading.

As to it not being a military function, when DOD goes to Congress with an increase in man-power to meet a requirement it wants to know the total out-year costs which includes pensions. There is going to be a mix of pay grades and a distribution of those who stay to minimum pension age and beyond which is different by rank and nature of the specializations needed. The less time it takes to qualify for maintenance and operation the less likely to stay long enough for a pension. BUT that leads to a higher turnover which increases training costs. So what is the optimum training time to minimum the total cost of a new weapon system? Who better than the military to answer such questions? (The more complex the system the longer it takes to train. The longer it takes to train the more likely people are to stay to retirement. The longer they stay the higher the pay and thus the higher the pension. Then let a recession come along so people stay longer and screw up all the cost projections.)

Can DOD make a spreadsheet so complex even god cannot understand it? Yes.

When Apple screws up the trade mags note it. When DOD screws up, You wasted our tax dollars. It is a different environment.

As to misleading, what does a new fighter cost? Gee, that's a lot. Do you want weapons and electronics with that? WHAT! How about spare parts and test and maintenance equipment? Your kidding! Do you want to fly and maintain it yourself or would like pilots and mechanics for it? ... And then we get around to how many total and how many per year as the basic cost drivers for everything including man power leading to pensions. Which leads to fobbing them off on our allies to get the costs down.

Meaning you never heard a number that had much of anything to do with the actual cost of a plane or anything else and thus everything you have heard is misleading.

Quote:
Quote:
There has been a law in effect since the late 1940s that the US be prepared to fight two and half WWII style wars.
Holy fuck. That's insane. No nation who is not an ally in some form or another is currently a threat to world peace. Certainly not on the level of the axis.

But look at the other side where Brits are still pissed at the US not being ready to save its sorry ass from the war it started. If the US had had this policy and were in the present state in 1939 it could have ended the U-boats in a few months and staged Normandy in a year, maybe ending the war before Russia got into it. With that there is no Cold War and no atom bomb and all the rest. Certainly no Pearl Harbor.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

I agree there is no present threat. It is not clear how long it would take Putin to restart the Cold War if he wanted to. Russia has enough of a military left to make a lot of trouble and nukes to keep it a conventional confrontation. Personally I don't it can be reconstructed but that is just one opinion.

But that is still a one front war so with some spare capacity a 1 1/2 front war would cut costs in half in the long term which seems more than adequate. That would put the barrier for serious military competition too high to attempt. It is a simple business model for a monopoly. Control the steel industry from top to bottom once and no one can afford to start from scratch to become competition.

Quote:
Quote:
As to these Canada/US wargames do you have a URL or two? It is difficult to see how you folks can win against 50:1 odds.
It's not 50:1 odds. That wouldn't be very useful for training excercises.

One should not brag when the other guy is playing fair. Seriously, the Cold War was a huge US gamble that quality could overcome the Soviet quantitative advantage. As there was no war we will never know. Some unanswered questions I can live with.

 

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:
Frankly, the world would probably be more respectful and thankful for the American role in WWII if your people didn't walk around like you won it all by yourself. Canada, Russia, Britain, France, Australia, and a number of other nations were at least as, if not more, critical to the allied victory as the US, but listening to an American you'd think they did it all by themselves, which is patently ridiculous.

So it boils down to having a bad attitude. Just stop listening to our internal propaganda. I heard enough of the Brit propaganda to know the US was of only modest assistance in Britain's victory over Germany. I don't take theirs seriously. I put it down to the Whovian view of the world.

We have multiples of the population and resources of any country in Europe and ten times Canada's. As in another post, the US never seriously considered it possible to lose regardless of the wartime propaganda. War money was squandered. War bonds were sold to have more money to squander. A bad attitude is normal.

Quote:
And don't be so proud of how quickly you flipped over into a war economy either. Canada did exactly the same thing four years faster. We had one of the strongest militaries on Earth during WWII and we built it in a few months. The American version was impressive, but hardly unprecedented. And the world NEVER suggested you save them. The very idea is insulting. You had no way to end the war. No troops to turn the tide. No bomb to make Hitler shit himself. The allies said you should help us because if we lose, you're next. Which was true.

The war was before my time. I don't have a stake in it. I find it amusing so many people much younger than I defend it like they fought in it. You appear to be one of them.

What I find amusing about Canada is it let itself be dragged into a European war by a government it did not vote for and in whose decisions it had no say. And then coming to the defense of the country that declared the war was down right stupid. The US fought Germany because Germany declared war on the US.

As to the insult, the fictionalization is A Man Called Intrepid. The fact is Churchill had agents in the US using bribery and blackmail as its most savory methods to get the US into the war to save its sorry ass. The world may not have suggested it. Churchill certainly did everything he could to make it happen. Pardon if I take that as more than a suggestion.

As to being next the plan was for Britain's government to evacuate to Canada to be a government in exile and thus be under the direct shield of the US. Which "us" are you talking about?

 

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:
Quote:
Here is a dirty little secret.
There is a nugget of truth in that, but none of us were prepared for WWI or WWII, and we still won.

Britain and France thought they were prepared. The surprise for ALL involved including Germany is that mobile warfare was so effective. Before WWII no one knew if it would work or go down as disastrous idea. If it had not been effective the BEF and France would have successfully invaded Germany and fought the war in Germany. If the new Wehrmacht tactics had not been effective there would have been no Battle of Britain -- and with a succcessful invasion never close enough to try out. As with the US v Soviet Union, quality against quantity, we do not know which is best because there was no war. Because of WWII we learned Germany's ideas worked.

Quote:
You don't need to have first hand experience to be combat capable.

Pardon if I observe that statement would be laughed at by every military thinker who ever existed. Alexander got his foothold in the Persian empire because their idiot general LET HIM bring all his troops to it would be a fair fight. The king brought his entire court and harem along with him slowing him down and cutting his options at every turn while Alexander had only troops. That is called not having fought a war in two centuries. Egypt fell to the first serious attack since the kingdoms were unified some 2500 years earlier. The Hyksos took as much as they had the manpower to control.

Or perhaps the most obvious European example, professional armies beat citizen armies almost every time. The failures are so few they are legendary.

Quote:
You would've rolled over Hussein without Vietnam. The Gulf war was a joke. 956,600 to 650,000 soldiers. Approx 3,000 casualties to 100,000. That's not a war, that's shooting fish in a barrel with a cannon.

Pardon if I remind you the substance of your complaint is US military expenditures which is what paid for all those soldiers. I might also point out the land engagement was preceded by 44 days of 2200 air sorties per day softening them up mainly destroying the comand and control capability but also their resupply ability for things like food and water and fuel. 2000 of those 2200 were US planes. To bad our military is so much larger than all the rest and costs so much more that it invites criticism as unnecessary.

However the exchange ratio was due to the tactics of Gen. Schwartzkopf whose combat experience was in Vietnam. If I might humbly say I saw what he was doing before he sprang the trap. The troop ratio was insufficient for victory with a frontal attack. To successfully attack a fixed position requires at least a three to one superiority. However that does not apply to a hungry, dehydrated army that has been baking in the day and freezing at night for weeks. 2200 sorties a day for 44 days does wonders to improve the odds.

Quote:
The last real war the US participated in was Vietnam. Approx 1.8 million casualties on both sides. And even that war was overseas. You haven't faced an enemy on your own soil in more than a century.

In 1812 you folks never ventured south and the Brits screwed up royally in New Orleans. The Mexicans were always on the run. The Spanish didn't land. You must be referring to the Civil War. But I do not see where it is fought has anything to do with combat experience. For the record it was in Cuba where the citizen armies kept getting their asses kicked, Teddy Roosevelt notwithstanding.

Quote:
A real threat to the US would be capable of actually seizing territory. How are the puny wars since Vietnam preparing the US for a real threat? The fact is that these wars have been the result of destabilising influences that the US often introduced in the first place. Some were thanks to the previous world powers (Britain, France, etc.), but most of the conflict in the last 40 years has a distinct

Maintaining a decent military in a constant state of readiness prevents anyone from thinking of invading. But you Canadians keep winning war games so perhaps we should militarize the border. What do you think? Maybe just demilitarize you folks before it is too late.

If all Canadians exhibited your knowledge of war there would be nothing to be concerned about. I am thinking of those who have had military experience. They might constitute a future problem.

 

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:
...American flavour.
Quote:
Another factor is if the US stops covering for the military needs of other countries they will do it themselves. Like Canada always screwing its military because it could hide behind the US
Canada has never hidden behind the US. That's American bullshit propoganda designed to infiltrate foreign military influences into my country. We're perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves. We neither need nor want your troops on our soil or in our waters. Push comes to shove and your country will remember just how capable we are. We don't currently have an army capable of conquering other countries because there's no threat. We didn't have one before WW1 or WW2 either, but we sure as hell built one quick. You can be damn sure we won't be sitting on our asses if WW3 starts.

Did you ever read, The Mouse that Roared?

 

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:
the most powerful nation in NATO is a hypocrite. You're all over the Middle East because of oil and all over South and Central America because of drugs, and you really don't need to be doing either. You could lessen your dependence on oil and decriminalise drugs and shut out any need to care about foreign powers influencing and profiting off your population. You'll never see an effective global coalition against aggression when the biggest member is also the most aggressive.

Your issue was cooperation. I gave the largest example of cooperation that is related to this discussion. I gave the reason why it has not worked. That hypocrite has always carried most of the weight. But NATO did go into Afghanistan with us in a belated repayment for cutting Bosnia and Serbia out of Yugoslavia which for some reason was a big thing for the EU. I guess they were showing they didn't really hate Muslims. The US is still facing off with Russia on recognizing Bosnia. Should we drop that and let the FRY reclaim it? Like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia was another capricious creation of Brest-Litvosk.

Something like 80% of US oil comes from the western hemisphere. Keeping mideast oil flowing is for the benefit of Europe and Asia. Not selfless. We have to keep our customers prosperous enough to buy. Watch the EU v Iran oil dance over the next couple weeks.

I must have missed the wars over drugs. The Afghanistan invasion was facilitated by supporting opium dealers whom the Taliban had put out of business. Russia is rightly pissed.

As to decriminalization, let Canada decriminalize heroin and cocaine first so we can see how it works out for you. I'm willing to take notes.

We are self-sufficient in grass if that is what you mean. It is our largest cash crop. You folks can't grow your own? I'm sure we export a lot of amphetamines to you folks. You don't like the quality?

Please stop pretending it only means grass.

 

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
.

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There has been a law in effect since the late 1940s that the US be prepared to fight two and half WWII style wars.

Wait, what is this law called? Or, rather, do you know where I could find a copy of the text?

Back in 1978 I was in the premier course for up and coming hot shits in DOD. That is where I was told it existed and from the lecture that followed I had no reason to doubt it. There was probably a footnote in the handout citing it but that is long gone. I doubt strongly it was a separate law. I expect it was part of what today we would call a Defense Authorization Act. I have no idea what an equivalent bill was called back then. And it was probably nor more than a paragraph in a foot thick law. They were a lot thinner back then.

Wish I could help. Should you ever find someone who can cite it, let me know. Now that I think about it, I was "promised" career long support from the college. Let me see if I can figure who to contact and see if it applies to folks who bailed before becoming an official hot shit. Defense Systems Management College at Ft. Belvoir Virginia if you want to see if they will respond to civilians.

Quote:
At the college I go to, I'm part of a libertarian political group that, among other things, is quite anti-war. I'm sure everyone in the group would be quite interested in this law (if they don't already know about it) and they may even be able to do something to change it. Of course, even if they can't, the more people aware of this law, the better.

Remember anti-war is not a goal. Anti-aggressive war is the right thing. If you would have peace prepare for war is as true today as it was in Rome. The issue is stopping politicians from treating the military as a poltiical instrument save as a last resort which is what Bismarck meant by that line about war being an extension of diplomacy. The Afghan war was an exercise in domestic politics not a matter of 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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3661
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: For some

Tapey wrote:

 

For some reason  I cannot take that page too seriously, South Africas military is nothing more than an employment agency for people with aids. And we are rank 31? I believe over 50% have aids. Which makes no sense because it is against policy to put people with aids in the field.

 

    That's a shame.  Due to the arms embargo the South African arms industry dramatically improved the standards for weapons quality and innovation from everything from shoulder fired weapons up to artillery. APC's, etc.  SA military hardware is top notch and with few exceptions I would prefer it over American equivalents any day of the week.  

The Apartheid era SADF was a force to be reckoned with, ( despite racial inequities ) and trained their multi-racial military to a much higher standard than today's examples.  What the f**k happened ?

http://theatheistconservative.com/

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.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Tapey

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Tapey wrote:

 

For some reason  I cannot take that page too seriously, South Africas military is nothing more than an employment agency for people with aids. And we are rank 31? I believe over 50% have aids. Which makes no sense because it is against policy to put people with aids in the field.

 

    That's a shame.  Due to the arms embargo the South African arms industry dramatically improved the standards for weapons quality and innovation from everything from shoulder fired weapons up to artillery. APC's, etc.  SA military hardware is top notch and with few exceptions I would prefer it over American equivalents any day of the week.  

The Apartheid era SADF was a force to be reckoned with, ( despite racial inequities ) and trained their multi-racial military to a much higher standard than today's examples.  What the f**k happened ?

The SADF was merged with "umkhonto we sizwe" the ANC's armed wing during apartheid. Untrained people were put in command positions. One day the SADF was fighting umkhonto we sizwe (ok it was more Angola we were fighting at the time, that is an interesting war, the Angolan bush war btw) the next they were merged into one force, a lot of people didn't like it understandably. Pretty much everyone who knew what they were doing left (either because they didn't like answering to blacks or because they didn't like how the military was being handled or whatever). At least this is what I have heard, never researched the matter much. Why do you think a lot of these mercenary groups have lots of south Africas in them.

 

On our hardware, yes some is very good, not tanks and things like that we are basically still using WW2 era tanks (centurian modified called the olifant). But even the good stuff is becoming a little dated but still effective. What most of it would have been designed pre 1980s, its a long time. Also a lot of it is apparently not in very good condition anymore. But it is good enough to deal with our neighbours should someone go insane.

 

I can sit and say its a pity the we don't have the military we once did but I cannot help but think so what? Who are we going to fight anyway? Zimbabwe? Namibia? Botswana? Mozambique? None of the countries around us are even slightly a threat and any country that can afford to fight a war from across the sea is going to roll over us anyway. Besides our government is to useless to actually stand for anything. Look how long we have let the Zimbabwe situation spiral out of control when it was in our power to prevent that. Hell we could have stopped that without military intervention. But no we don't want to go against our old friend uncle bob.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


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

Vastet wrote:
I wouldn't have thought we were so high on the list. 25 out of 200 is pretty damn high.

Ability to project naval force beyond territorial waters, negligible.

Ability to project land forces against any country but the US, only if it gets a lift.

Conclusion, even Iceland is safe.

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
.

NMCP wrote:

 I have a question for you guys regarding the subject, I found it interesting because I find reasonable and honorable points on both sides.  The issue and argument came up on "Shark Tank" last night.  One entrepneur created a fold down truck rack that fits 95% of pickup trucks, a clearly well built and designed product.  His goal was to manufacture the product locally in his economically strained town somewhere in North Carolina.   It was clear his goal was more to bring jobs to "his" people, than to make a succesfull business.  It was pointed out that at his current price point of $250 cost per unit was too high, distributors could only buy the product for $320 if they were to resell at a competetive price and still profit themselves.  So for the business to succeed (atleast at first) he MUST outsource the manufacturing, and get the price per unit cost down to $150, just under half of what they would be sold for, a mark all investors look for in a company (if you cant sell your product for atleast double of what it costs to make, your business will most likely fail, or just stay stagnant).  This man refused to outsource the work as he found his venture to be honorable only if he brought jobs to "his" people, this certainly seems like an honorable position. 

   But it was pointed out by one of the investors, that all people should be "his" people, and he needs to think of the world more as a global economy, and that the people who would manufacture his product overseas all have children to feed and mortgages to pay aswell, and we are all ofcourse immigrants from other countries down the line.  Also it was pointed out "who can you help if your business fails with your current model, imagine how many you could help if your business was doing 5 million a year."  And also "you help the business first, grow it and make it successful, then with the new influence and resources you have find a way to bring jobs to your locals.  Marketing, accounting, sales, etc... You would need to hire a lot of locals for such a large company, and maybe in the future with enough buying power you could find a way to maybe one day bring the manufacturing home now that you are producing tens of thousands of units."

So what are your opigions, who is correct and who is not?  The investors were all out although they loved the guy, his passion, and his product, they could not get past the fact he was so stubborn on the outsourcing part in the business' startup.   He would not budge, and they simply would not invest in a company that manufactures a product for $250 and sells it for $320, because they know it is a doomed model.  And just to clarify, they were ofcourse talking about getting product manufactured ethically from reputable overseas companies that aren't paying 7 year olds 50c a day, they were not talking about slave labour here, just a company that can simply produce a product for less but are not local. 

Why is there a question? He does not have investors. His "people" still have nothing. A $70 spread would not cover shipping, shelf space, sales commission, profit and a mess of little things that add up.

It is also what I said about China manufacture. Even if made here it is near entry level assembly. He could not have paid much. As I also said, with a successful company and foreign manufacture well paid workers would be needed to manage the company. He passed up the well-paid workers too.

He could have proposed selling through Amazon or something like it direct from the factory but that would only work if priced well under the competition, in this case something like selling at cost.

 

 

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: 3661
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:  Why do you

Tapey wrote:

 

 Why do you think a lot of these mercenary groups have lots of south Africas in them.

 

 You mean like the former Executive Outcomes ?  ( now Sandline International )  Incidentally the much maligned mercs were a racially integrated fighting force whose main requirements were that volunteers possessed courage under fire and battlefield proficiency.  Of course the majority were from elite units to begin with and as such were already a cut above the average soldier.

 

http://theatheistconservative.com/

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.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wrong

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Britain and France thought they were prepared. 

 

Britain and France knew they were not prepared. They made no serious attempt to invade Germany at all. They bickered, they prevaricated. The RAF dedicated the first 9 months to dropping incendiaries onto Germany which read as follows: 

 

 

Warning!

 

England to the German people

 

The Nazi regime has, in spite of the endeavours of the leading great Powers, plunged the world into war.

This war is a crime. The German people must quite clearly distinguish between the pretexts employed by its government so as to unleash war and the principles which have forced England and France to defend Poland.

From the very beginning the English government has made it clear that the Polish question is not one which can justify a European war with all its tragic consequences.

Five months after the Munich Agreement the independence of Czecho-Slovakia was brutally trodden underfoot. So that Poland shall not also suffer the same fate, we must insist that peaceful methods of negotiation shall not be rendered impossible through threats of force, and that in the negotiations which are requisite the Poles right to live must be guaranteed and honourably kept. We cannot accept or admit a Diktat.

If Herr Hitler believes that the English government, out of fear of war, will allow the Poles to be left in the lurch, then he has been deceiving himself. In the first place England will not break her pledged word. Furthermore, it is high time that the brutal force whit which the Nazi regime strives to dominate the World should be halted.

Through this war the German Chancellor places himself against the unbending resolution of the English government, a resolution which has behind it not only the resources and means of the whole English Commonwealth, but also a union of other great Powers. It is a question of the salvation of human freedom and the right of peoples to live free.

Up to the very last moment the Pope, the President of the United States and the King of the Belgians, in the name of Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, made fruitless appeals to your Nazi government, urgently requesting that negotiations should be chosen in the place of war.

Now a catastrophe has broken out upon you in that the Reich finds itself isolated from the community of civilised peoples, without any support save that of Communist Russia.

You cannot win this war. Against you are arrayed resources and materials far greater than your own.

For years you have been subjected to the most stringent censorship, and by means of an incredible system of secret police and informers the truth has been withheld from you.

Against you stands the united strength of the free peoples, who with open eyes will fight for freedom to the last.

This war is as repulsive to us as it is to you, but do not forget that England, once forced into war, will wage it unwaveringly to the end. England's nerves are strong, her resources inexhaustible. We will not relent.

Pass on (this leaflet)

 

This pithy prose could hardly be called a ferocious military assault but it does show a clear consistency of feeling. The Western Allies felt right at the start about the war the way they feel about it still. Ultimately they were right. The free peoples did unite and they did defeat Hitler's Germany, a version of Germany that was not supported by all her citizens, whatever you may believe. 

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

The surprise for ALL involved including Germany is that mobile warfare was so effective. Before WWII no one knew if it would work or go down as disastrous idea. If it had not been effective the BEF and France would have successfully invaded Germany and fought the war in Germany. If the new Wehrmacht tactics had not been effective there would have been no Battle of Britain -- and with a succcessful invasion never close enough to try out. As with the US v Soviet Union, quality against quantity, we do not know which is best because there was no war. Because of WWII we learned Germany's ideas worked.

 

 

 

Here's the thing, Nony. The first leader to combine aircraft, tanks, artillery and infantry into blitzkrieg was Australia's Sir John Monash at the Battle of Hamel in July 1918

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hamel

 

Monash's Hamel fight has been described thus:

"The battle of Hamel of 4 July—'all over in ninety-three minutes…the perfection of teamwork'. The Americans participated, and Monash had to withstand, by extraordinary force of personality, a last-minute attempt by General Pershing to withdraw them. Military historians have acclaimed it as 'the first modern battle', 'the perfect battle'. 'A war-winning combination had been found: a corps commander of genius, the Australian infantry, the Tank Corps, the Royal Artillery and the RAF'.

 

His successful tactics were adopted by Sir Douglas Haig at the Battle of Amiens later that year. Amiens was the single most successful battle of the First World War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918)

 

His Hamel and Amiens tactics were an extension of his brilliant work at Broodseinde, the most successful battle of the Passchendale campaign which saw the ANZACS shatter the best German defenses by combined effort.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Broodseinde

 

My great uncle Frank was at Broodseinde, as a subaltern in the Silent Division.

 

In WW2 the Germans came up with a new name for Monash's tactics but they were essentially the same thing taken to a higher degree of co-operation by the proliferation of reliable wireless comms. Guderian and Rommel's tactics which involved moving tanks in columns in advance of artillery, infantry and air support worked because the entire front had been broken. Against an organised defense with proper air capability they would have failed completely as they did at Al Alamein. 

 

Monash is considered technically the best general to fight on the Western Front and his tactics were responsible for Germany's defeat on the field and her ultimate capitulation.

And I forgot to mention something, Nony. Australia's favourite son and her greatest soldier, Lt General Sir John Monash, was German Jewish

 

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/monash-sir-john-7618

 

Under Monash the Australian Corps with the NZ First (Silent) Division attached, though comprising only 9.5% of the BEF, captured 18.5% of the German prisoners, 21.5% of the territory and 14% of the guns. This represented an effectiveness 1.95, 2.23 and 1.47 times that of the British Army average. Monash's Corps recaptured 623 square kilometres of France from Germany.

 

The meandering point of all this is that in 1939 Britain and France had forgotten the tactics they invented to win WW1, were not equipped to fight using those tactics, were not equipped to defend against these tactics. They had no new tanks, no new guns, too few new planes. Not enough troops and not enough equipment. Nor, in the event, did they choose the battlefield. Those poor passive Germans knocked them on the head as they sat behind their static defences, built oddly enough given how law abiding the Germans are, to keep the Germans from invading a second time. Funny that isn't it? Building defenses instead of technologies of assault. You'd think the Germans would have done that, them being so passive and all.  

 

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


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Tapey

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Tapey wrote:

 

 Why do you think a lot of these mercenary groups have lots of south Africas in them.

 

 You mean like the former Executive Outcomes ?  ( now Sandline International )  Incidentally the much maligned mercs were a racially integrated fighting force whose main requirements were that volunteers possessed courage under fire and battlefield proficiency.  Of course the majority were from elite units to begin with and as such were already a cut above the average soldier.

 

I really don't know much about this topic but I know for example the Merc's Gadafi used to try escape (When he was killed) were South African. I know a lot of the "Private Security" In Iraq has many South African Members (ex army and  ex special task force(south africa elite cops that fell apart in ?2002?)). But yeah I imagine there would be many in Companies like the one you mentioned. Not surprising at all, Third world nation, very little prospect of employment extensive combat history and top of the line military training. There was not much a lot of these people could do but join up with companies like that, great pay compared to staying in our army.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Wish I

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Wish I could help. Should you ever find someone who can cite it, let me know. Now that I think about it, I was "promised" career long support from the college. Let me see if I can figure who to contact and see if it applies to folks who bailed before becoming an official hot shit. Defense Systems Management College at Ft. Belvoir Virginia if you want to see if they will respond to civilians.

All right, thanks. Once I'm finished with my math test on Thursday, I'll see what I can find on the internet about it.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Remember anti-war is not a goal. Anti-aggressive war is the right thing. If you would have peace prepare for war is as true today as it was in Rome. The issue is stopping politicians from treating the military as a poltiical instrument save as a last resort which is what Bismarck meant by that line about war being an extension of diplomacy. The Afghan war was an exercise in domestic politics not a matter of national interest.

True, I can't rightly condemn a defensive war...  But, how could anyone think of war as a political tool? Do they not realize what war is, what it involves? Do they not realize they're effectively stating "because your government isn't doing what our government wants it to, we're going to send our citizens over to attack it and to kill any of your citizens that get in the way". Or that "it is an honor to fight for your country" really means "it is an honor for your government to use you as a tool to further its own interests".

 


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

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Britain and France thought they were prepared. 

Britain and France knew they were not prepared. They made no serious attempt to invade Germany at all.

IF I accept that THEN I must conclude both Britain and France marshalled their armies for the purpose of sending them to their certain deaths. Talk about inhuman savages, that describes the governments of both countries. 

It also puts the average IQ of their citizens well below room temperature, roughly at the same level as anyone who accepts that nonsense assertion.

It is the height of deliberate evasion of facts to pretend not to know Germany did not respond until AFTER Britain and France began the attack on Germany by invading Belgium. Now tell me Germany should have done nothing until the invasion force actually set foot on German soil. So we have the invasion of neutral Belgium starting it all. For the record I have run across some perhaps apocryphal notes on Belgium assisting the Germans after the invasion started.

Give me some more anonymous citations from wikepedia when you have the time. You continue to demonstrate your non-existent standards of scholarship.

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
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:
...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Remember anti-war is not a goal. Anti-aggressive war is the right thing. If you would have peace prepare for war is as true today as it was in Rome. The issue is stopping politicians from treating the military as a poltiical instrument save as a last resort which is what Bismarck meant by that line about war being an extension of diplomacy. The Afghan war was an exercise in domestic politics not a matter of national interest.

True, I can't rightly condemn a defensive war...  But, how could anyone think of war as a political tool? Do they not realize what war is, what it involves? Do they not realize they're effectively stating "because your government isn't doing what our government wants it to, we're going to send our citizens over to attack it and to kill any of your citizens that get in the way". Or that "it is an honor to fight for your country" really means "it is an honor for your government to use you as a tool to further its own interests".

It is probably asking a bit much at your age to expect you to have paid attention ten years ago to the pack of lies that lead up to the Iraq war. So let me talk about today.

EVERY intelligence assessment by the US says flat out Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. EVERY IAEA inspection report concludes there is no evidence Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Every known Israeli report says Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. Given the massive amount of NO EVIDENCE domestic politics in the US and Israel insists Iran is working on nuclear weapons. This is no different from the claims of ten years ago Iraq was working on nuclear weapons. The claims about Iran are leading to war.

Look at the politicians who are doing it right now and try to explain it. Right now you can study it. Figure out a way to stop it and make a name for yourself.

Quote:
Quote:
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy
and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.


Maybe if we prohibit our fearless leaders from studying the great political philosopher Hermann Goring ...

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:It is

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is probably asking a bit much at your age to expect you to have paid attention ten years ago to the pack of lies that lead up to the Iraq war. So let me talk about today.

Yea, I was only 12 back then...

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

EVERY intelligence assessment by the US says flat out Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. EVERY IAEA inspection report concludes there is no evidence Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Every known Israeli report says Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. Given the massive amount of NO EVIDENCE domestic politics in the US and Israel insists Iran is working on nuclear weapons. This is no different from the claims of ten years ago Iraq was working on nuclear weapons. The claims about Iran are leading to war.

Look at the politicians who are doing it right now and try to explain it. Right now you can study it. Figure out a way to stop it and make a name for yourself.

Well, I can think of a number of possible reasons why:

1. US politicians pay very little attention to US intelligence-gathering agencies.

2. They only pay attention when the information gathered agrees with their preconceptions.

3. They pay attention but have ulterior motives which they deem more important.

The reasons are likely different for each politician, but my best guess would be a combination of 2 and 3: they pay attention but tend to denounce evidence contradictory to their preconceptions because they're convinced they are right and/or they stand to benefit somehow if the US invades Iran.

What I find strange is that even people who most deem "evil" almost always have a justification for their actions that they see as legitimate.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
[cynical_jadedism=Kapkao]I

[cynical_jadedism=Kapkao]

I have soundbite for ya, Ex-m.

 

COMPLETE repeal of NAFTA and all other WTO-esque trade agreements, add a 50% tariff on all imports, and make legal immigration impossible for a whole year. Everyone but Canada declares vendetta on you and everyone suddenly sympathizes with Islamics who want America erased. The defense industry magnifies itself overnight, jobs are created, and nearly everything is produced domestically by natives. Russia launches some nukes on you. If you're lucky, you get to take them out before they reach an angle of maximum domestic territory EMP.

Defense industry peaks, everyone becomes a factory worker or soldier, and WE develop a new, likely perpetual "us vs them" attitude for generations to come.

This one of the reasons George Orwell completely fucking rocks. [/cynical_jadedism]

 

So, what else is new? No politician has a plan for the future that they are willing to discuss openly. It's the same everywhere else, yes?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sure, Nony.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Give me some more anonymous citations from wikepedia when you have the time. You continue to demonstrate your non-existent standards of scholarship.

 

Everything on the Internet is a conspiracy against Germany and wiki is a total lie. You again chose to ignore evidence that undermines your claim to intellectual hegemony. Your position that Germany was best by the aggression of the western allies marks you out as a person for whom evidence has no actual meaning at all - unless it's some gratuitous cherry picking that supports your pathetic argument there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2. Your claims Germany had invented some new form of warfare are proven utterly false. 

The only form of aggression you accept is a declaration of war - I'm assuming you also consider Japan was innocent with regards to its attack on Pearl Harbour. After all, they did not declare war until after the attack had started. Gee, that makes all sorts of sense. Even Germans aren't silly enough to argue their nation was innocent of aggression in the 1930s. There seems nothing you will not twist or completely ignore to support your peculiar positions. 

 

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

unless it's some gratuitous cherry picking that supports your pathetic argument there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2

Wow, um, what?  Is he serious?  World War 2 was a WAR--BOTH sides are guilty of mass murder.

Wait a second... I bet Nony is making some distinction between "murder" and "killing".

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:It is the

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is the height of deliberate evasion of facts to pretend not to know Germany did not respond until AFTER Britain and France began the attack on Germany by invading Belgium. Now tell me Germany should have done nothing until the invasion force actually set foot on German soil. So we have the invasion of neutral Belgium starting it all. For the record I have run across some perhaps apocryphal notes on Belgium assisting the Germans after the invasion started.

Wait, what? The fact that the Nazi regime was, at first, able to annex the countries around it with little opposition does not make said regime passive--it just means Germany had clever diplomats. I mean, if you're trying to build an empire, it makes sense to first take the land you can get with little effort and little risk of retaliation. The Nazi regime was not trying to improve the lives of the people it conquered--it was trying to build an empire.

 


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

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
It is probably asking a bit much at your age to expect you to have paid attention ten years ago to the pack of lies that lead up to the Iraq war. So let me talk about today.

Yea, I was only 12 back then...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

EVERY intelligence assessment by the US says flat out Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. EVERY IAEA inspection report concludes there is no evidence Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Every known Israeli report says Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. Given the massive amount of NO EVIDENCE domestic politics in the US and Israel insists Iran is working on nuclear weapons. This is no different from the claims of ten years ago Iraq was working on nuclear weapons. The claims about Iran are leading to war.

Look at the politicians who are doing it right now and try to explain it. Right now you can study it. Figure out a way to stop it and make a name for yourself.

Well, I can think of a number of possible reasons why:

1. US politicians pay very little attention to US intelligence-gathering agencies.

2. They only pay attention when the information gathered agrees with their preconceptions.

3. They pay attention but have ulterior motives which they deem more important.

The reasons are likely different for each politician, but my best guess would be a combination of 2 and 3: they pay attention but tend to denounce evidence contradictory to their preconceptions because they're convinced they are right and/or they stand to benefit somehow if the US invades Iran.

What I find strange is that even people who most deem "evil" almost always have a justification for their actions that they see as legitimate.

The simplest explanation is they are fomenting war. Anything other than the simplest explanation is only because one cannot believe the simplest explanation.

On top of that we know the Iraq war was deliberately fomented based upon the same lies. Failure to equate the two as the same thing is based upon not being able to believe the simplest explanation and upon not being able to accept it happened in the past.

 

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:
Give me some more anonymous citations from wikepedia when you have the time. You continue to demonstrate your non-existent standards of scholarship.

Everything on the Internet is a conspiracy against Germany and wiki is a total lie. You again chose to ignore evidence that undermines your claim to intellectual hegemony. Your position that Germany was best by the aggression of the western allies marks you out as a person for whom evidence has no actual meaning at all - unless it's some gratuitous cherry picking that supports your pathetic argument there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2. Your claims Germany had invented some new form of warfare are proven utterly false.

You are incredibly ignorant. The Brits called it Blitzkrieg even though the term did not exist in Germany. Are you now claiming you never heard of Blitzkrieg? Of course you are you ignorant clod.

Quote:
The only form of aggression you accept is a declaration of war - I'm assuming you also consider Japan was innocent with regards to its attack on Pearl Harbour. After all, they did not declare war until after the attack had started. Gee, that makes all sorts of sense. Even Germans aren't silly enough to argue their nation was innocent of aggression in the 1930s. There seems nothing you will not twist or completely ignore to support your peculiar positions. 

And your conspiratorial delusions give credibility to anonymous sources?

I regret you are the horrible example of a failed educational system.

An education is supposed to teach the ability to reason based upon facts not to indoctrinate opinions regardless of facts.

To know the facts and then use the word retaliation is one of the following, unfamiliar with English, stupid or lying.

Given your constant attacks upon things I have not said, I tend to assume you have yet to develop a working knowledge of English. Should you deny that there are only the other two options.

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
.

blacklight915 wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

unless it's some gratuitous cherry picking that supports your pathetic argument there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2

Wow, um, what?  Is he serious?  World War 2 was a WAR--BOTH sides are guilty of mass murder.

Wait a second... I bet Nony is making some distinction between "murder" and "killing".

He is the kind of clown who gets his rocks off with vicarious virtue. Anything I say goes through his filter to make him feel virtuous.

I hope he gets a life some day soon.

 

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
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is the height of deliberate evasion of facts to pretend not to know Germany did not respond until AFTER Britain and France began the attack on Germany by invading Belgium. Now tell me Germany should have done nothing until the invasion force actually set foot on German soil. So we have the invasion of neutral Belgium starting it all. For the record I have run across some perhaps apocryphal notes on Belgium assisting the Germans after the invasion started.

Wait, what? The fact that the Nazi regime was, at first, able to annex the countries around it with little opposition does not make said regime passive--it just means Germany had clever diplomats. I mean, if you're trying to build an empire, it makes sense to first take the land you can get with little effort and little risk of retaliation. The Nazi regime was not trying to improve the lives of the people it conquered--it was trying to build an empire.

You might need to read a lot of the facts I have previously posted if you want to save me repeating them. After WWI Poland was expanded from a small, land-locked country to what it was in 1939 by giving it control over millions of Germans and Russians. It was a military dictatorship. In 1939 both Russia and Germany reclaimed the territory lost after WWI via the Brest-Litvosk treaty.

The funny thing here is the Germans relieved of their Polish dictators did get a better life. Those reclaimed by Russia came to live under a worse dictatorship. As a consequence of the war all of the Poles and parts of eastern Germany came under the worse dictatorship of communism.

The worst empire Germany could have been accused of intending was reconstituting the Austro-Hungarian empire out of business for roughly 20 years. As to empires the good guys, Brits, French and Russians had empires which in 1939 enslaved about 1/3 of the world's population. It was bad to conquer the Poles because the Poles were white.

In any event I know of no excuse to use force even if it is to "improve" their lives. As I have posted if empire and conquest is a problem with Germany Britain should be reminded of the "he who is without sin" and "the mote in thy brother's eye" before pretending to find fault with Germany.

And in line with Iraq, if the US should not be policeman to the world today, why should Britain have been policeman to Europe back then and declare war on Germany for maybe intending what Britain had accomplished many times over at the time?

I would find it amazing if you have yet found the time to look into the facts of WWII. I was much older when I found the time to look into the factual basis for what I had been told about WWII. I have found essentially no facts supporting the opinions I was taught.

 

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


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

 

 

adept at shifting the goal posts. You have claimed Germany was passive in the 1930s and unprepared for war. That she was attacked without provocation by the Western Allies who invaded Germany and would have completely subjugated Germany had the Germans not invented some new sort of warfare the label for which is irrelevant but which was developed by Sir John Monash, the corps commander of the AIF in 1917 and perfected in 1918. When called on your false assertion of German invention you suggest I am incredibly ignorant as if your lazy ad hominem will save you from an argument that consists of a grab bag of assumptions.

The fact is Germany was well prepared for war in 1939, not as well as Hitler's generals and admirals would have liked but far better than the allies (Britain and France). She had a united leadership with a single goal. That is the material point of this element of our discussion. You say Germany was the victim of British aggression and used some miracle new tactic to win. I say the allies' Atlantic Treaty mentality was so entrenched they had forgotten how to fight a modern war. To wit, they were so passive they relied on appeasement alone. 

I can't believe you rationalise the treatement of poland, the destruction of Warsaw, and deny the destruction of Polish jewry. 2.6 million dead from a population of 3 million. All the testimony of survivors and poles who witnessed the events. Instead you insist the first aggression was the declaration of war by Britain and France and that the only evidence of the holocaust you will accept is a form of statistics that shows the jewish population in the entire world did not fall between 1939 and 1945. Everything else does not count and any one who believes it does is the product of a failed education system.

I was talking about you with a group of mates last night, one of the guys is aussie/polish jewish. His old man was the youngest in a family of 8 - his oldies gave him away to the poles on the farm next door. None of his family survived Auschwitz. Nor did any of the extended family. But according to you this did not actually happen. Motivated reasoning is the only driver that would cause you to pretend Germany was innocent of these war crimes. The issue is not that Germany was the only nation that committed crimes in the war, nor is it that Israel has not committed and does not continue to commit crimes against humanity in Palestine. It's that you deny the bloody holocaust. And you deny any German aggression in the lead up to WW2.

Australia's education system may be one-sided but by my reckoning only one of us is taking a one sided position. I say all the nations we are discussing have committed crimes. All have made mistakes. All are culpable. And you say one has not.

 

 

 

 

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The simplest explanation is they are fomenting war. Anything other than the simplest explanation is only because one cannot believe the simplest explanation.

On top of that we know the Iraq war was deliberately fomented based upon the same lies. Failure to equate the two as the same thing is based upon not being able to believe the simplest explanation and upon not being able to accept it happened in the past.

I was not attempting to explain what they are doing but why they are doing it. In your initial statement, you already informed me of what is happening now with Iran, what happened in the past with Iraq, and how the two are linked. Based on the statement "[look] at the politicians who are doing it right now and try to explain it", I assumed you wanted me to attempt to explain exactly why they are fomenting war.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

unless it's some gratuitous cherry picking that supports your pathetic argument there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2

I suppose I should ask first. A_Nony_Mouse, do you and/or did you make the claim that "there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2"?

If yes, I am certain you are making a distinction between "killing" and "murder", and I'd like to know what it is.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

The worst empire Germany could have been accused of intending was reconstituting the Austro-Hungarian empire out of business for roughly 20 years. As to empires the good guys, Brits, French and Russians had empires which in 1939 enslaved about 1/3 of the world's population. It was bad to conquer the Poles because the Poles were white.

In any event I know of no excuse to use force even if it is to "improve" their lives. As I have posted if empire and conquest is a problem with Germany Britain should be reminded of the "he who is without sin" and "the mote in thy brother's eye" before pretending to find fault with Germany.

And in line with Iraq, if the US should not be policeman to the world today, why should Britain have been policeman to Europe back then and declare war on Germany for maybe intending what Britain had accomplished many times over at the time?

I agree, empire and conquest is a problem, regardless of the country doing it. However, the fact that Britain and France had huge empires that caused lots of suffering does not mean Germany should have the same. But yes, you're correct: for an empire to condemn another nation for empire-building is incredibly hypocritical.

As for Britain being the "policeman to Europe", I was taught that the countries Germany annexed asked for assistance. Of course, I could have been taught wrongly.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I would find it amazing if you have yet found the time to look into the facts of WWII. I was much older when I found the time to look into the factual basis for what I had been told about WWII. I have found essentially no facts supporting the opinions I was taught.

You're correct, I have not verified much of what I've been told about WWII. However, I assume the following things that I was taught are valid: the names of the countries on each side, the dates on which these countries declared war and/or surrendered, the dates of the major battles, the listed number of vehicles and troops each country possessed, the listed numbers of dead and wounded, that what is commonly described as "the Holocaust" did happen, that the facist governments of Italy and Germany treated their citizens very poorly, that the Russian government under Joseph Stalin also treated its citizens very poorly, that the "Allies" turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Stalin because he was on their side, that the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and probably a few other things I haven't thought of yet.

 

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
edit: double postIs there a

edit: double post

Is there a way to delete a post?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There's no question that

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

unless it's some gratuitous cherry picking that supports your pathetic argument there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2

I suppose I should ask first. A_Nony_Mouse, do you and/or did you make the claim that "there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2"?

If yes, I am certain you are making a distinction between "killing" and "murder", and I'd like to know what it is.

 

 

Nony does say there were no mass murders in Germany during World War 2. He insists there is no material evidence such things ever took place. The mass murders in Poland he says were perpetrated by the Russians - I assume he only recognises the murder of those unfortunate Polish officers in the woods at Katyn. The 2.6 million polish jews capable researchers like Raul Hilberg chronicle on the basis of the best possible evidence - including the names of the victims taken from Germany's own Hollerith census system - don't count because these people were burned to ashes and so they do not constitute material evidence. Hilberg was jewish so he's a nothing but a liar and can be entirely discounted, anyway.

Nony's position of denial applies to all the Jews who died in WW2. None of it ever happened. I assume the same applies to gay people, the disabled, communists, pacifists, brave churchmen, the Roma...the people of Oradour-Sur-Glane...oops, sorry. These folks were French, so the fact all the men were machine gunned and the women and children burned to death in the church is the fault of the British for forcing the French into declaring war in the first place. Though in point of fact, you'd have to prove the numbers of french people declined globally for Nony to accept such an atrocity ever took place. And even if you proved it, the atrocity would be offset by some RAF carpet bombing or other so that at no time would German war crimes ever actually exist. 

Clearly, Nony says, World War Two was caused by British aggression. Britain wanted to establish total control over Europe and cast the continent into a new darkness lit by endless re-runs of Jam and Jerusalem. The fact its empire was disbanded without a fight in the 10 years after the war, India gaining independence in 1947, and that all its empire's constituents still remain willing and engaged parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations, except perhaps, Zimbabwe, is irrelevant to our Nony.

All these empire subjects were actually slaves, says he, despite the fact Britain outlawed slavery one hundred years before anyone else did and prosecuted war against slavery's proponents. Workers hired by British businesses or landowners were ill-paid, manipulated and mis-managed resulting in deaths through famine but they were demonstrably not enslaved. Paradoxically, Nony is unlikely to admit any jews were enslaved in Germany during WW2. In fact it's probably fair to say Nony thinks Germany never actually had any jews living in it, given there were virtually none after the war and he says none had been killed, which casts Hitler's juden paranoia in a decidedly peculiar light. How could Hitler have railed fiercely so against a non existent threat?

And of course, everything I say here amounts to a fabrication because Nony has never said any of these things, ever. He's just cross about the relentless massacres in Palestine where jews are constantly shooting locals in the backs of their heads, driving them around in mercedes benz buses with hoses through the windows while the bitter smoke of burning palestinian corpses rises over Jerusalem. 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I'm serious

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

unless it's some gratuitous cherry picking that supports your pathetic argument there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2

Wow, um, what?  Is he serious?  World War 2 was a WAR--BOTH sides are guilty of mass murder.

Wait a second... I bet Nony is making some distinction between "murder" and "killing".

He is the kind of clown who gets his rocks off with vicarious virtue. Anything I say goes through his filter to make him feel virtuous.

I hope he gets a life some day soon.

 

 

Nony says there were no mass murders perpetrated by Germany. I say all sides were guilty. Nony replies with feeble ad hominem and no facts. I seem to be alone here in resisting Nony's efforts to equate his anti-semitism with atheism, for surely that is what he is trying to do. Jews are a religion not a people, says Nony. Religious people are idiots, say we. Therefore all jews are idiots, says he. This is from memory, Nony. Do tell me if I got it right... 

 

 

 

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Wow, um,

blacklight915 wrote:

Wow, um, what?  Is he serious?  World War 2 was a WAR--BOTH sides are guilty of mass murder.

I probably worded the above statement badly; I'll try to clarify:

When I asked "Is he serious?", I was asking Atheistextremist if A_Nony_Mouse actually made the claim that Germany was innocent of mass murder during World War 2. It seemed like a ridiculous assertion, since, after all, the armies of both sides killed huge numbers of people. Since I've never heard of anyone denying that vast numbers of people were killed during WWII, I reasoned that A_Nony_Mouse was likely making some distinction between "killing" and "murder".

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Religious people are idiots, say we. Therefore all jews are idiots, says he.

Well, I don't say religious people are idiots. I may think their belief in god is in error, but I do not think they're stupid. Even for the hardcore fundamentalists, I think "deluded" is a far more accurate term.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nony specifically asserts

blacklight915 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Wow, um, what?  Is he serious?  World War 2 was a WAR--BOTH sides are guilty of mass murder.

I probably worded the above statement badly; I'll try to clarify:

When I asked "Is he serious?", I was asking Atheistextremist if A_Nony_Mouse actually made the claim that Germany was innocent of mass murder during World War 2. It seemed like a ridiculous assertion, since, after all, the armies of both sides killed huge numbers of people. Since I've never heard of anyone denying that vast numbers of people were killed during WWII, I reasoned that A_Nony_Mouse was likely making some distinction between "killing" and "murder".

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Religious people are idiots, say we. Therefore all jews are idiots, says he.

Well, I don't say religious people are idiots. I may think their belief in god is in error, but I do not think they're stupid. Even for the hardcore fundamentalists, I think "deluded" is a far more accurate term.

 

 

no Jews were killed by Germans between 1939 and 1945. To put it another way, he implies the holocaust is a fabrication unsupported by material evidence. 

 

 

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:no

Atheistextremist wrote:

no Jews were killed by Germans between 1939 and 1945. To put it another way, he implies the holocaust is a fabrication unsupported by material evidence.

I have a very difficult time believing anyone would make such a claim; can you show me where he makes it?

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3661
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I have a

blacklight915 wrote:

I have a very difficult time believing anyone would make such a claim; can you show me where he makes it?

 

  I can't speak for Nony but I once was friends with a guy who was Christian Identity and he was also a Holocaust denier.  He was not a dim wit, he had a degree in electrical engineering and was quite intelligent.   I used to go to machine gun shoots with him but he was just too weird so I kind of wrote him off.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

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.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I can't speak for Nony but I once was friends with a guy who was Christian Identity and he was also a Holocaust denier.  He was not a dim wit, he had a degree in electrical engineering and was quite intelligent.   I used to go to machine gun shoots with him but he was just too weird so I kind of wrote him off.

It's weird that someone can be intelligent and a Holocaust denier...  Of course, the fair number of intelligent and well-educated Christian apologists shows that education and intelligence don't make one safe from error or delusion...

Wait, what's "Christian Identity"?

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I can't speak for Nony but I once was friends with a guy who was Christian Identity and he was also a Holocaust denier.  He was not a dim wit, he had a degree in electrical engineering and was quite intelligent.   I used to go to machine gun shoots with him but he was just too weird so I kind of wrote him off.

It's weird that someone can be intelligent and a Holocaust denier...  Of course, the fair number of intelligent and well-educated Christian apologists shows that education and intelligence don't make one safe from error or delusion...

Wait, what's "Christian Identity"?

 

"Admit it... your expected Charles Manson at the very least"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


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

Atheistextremist wrote:
blacklight915 wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:

unless it's some gratuitous cherry picking that supports your pathetic argument there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2

I suppose I should ask first. A_Nony_Mouse, do you and/or did you make the claim that "there were no mass murders undertaken by Germany during World War 2"?

If yes, I am certain you are making a distinction between "killing" and "murder", and I'd like to know what it is.

Nony does say there were no mass murders in Germany during World War 2. He insists there is no material evidence such things ever took place. The mass murders in Poland he says were perpetrated by the Russians - I assume he only recognises the murder of those unfortunate Polish officers in the woods at Katyn. The 2.6 million polish jews capable researchers like Raul Hilberg chronicle on the basis of the best possible evidence - including the names of the victims taken from Germany's own Hollerith census system - don't count because these people were burned to ashes and so they do not constitute material evidence. Hilberg was jewish so he's a nothing but a liar and can be entirely discounted, anyway.

 

I said CORRECTLY that there is no evidence of a decline in the world Jewish population over the war years. I note for the umpteenth time you have produced NONE. I note again you continue to believe without physical evidence. That is what theists do.

But if you wish to cite Hilberg who does not produce world population figures either how does it differ from citing thousands of Christian theologians to establish the existence of their god?

One can only marvel at believers in a loving god who explain away all the evidence their god is anything but loving. But it is no greater marvel that people like Hiberg can declare 15 - 2.6 = 15 and find so many willing idiots to believe him. The willing suspension of rational thought particularly when it is a matter of learned science is one thing. When it is a matter of arithmetic it is something else entirely. Believers need only take off one shoe and cut off two and a half toes to discover there is a problem walking.

 

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
.

blacklight915 wrote:
blacklight915 wrote:
Wow, um, what?  Is he serious?  World War 2 was a WAR--BOTH sides are guilty of mass murder.

I probably worded the above statement badly; I'll try to clarify:

When I asked "Is he serious?", I was asking Atheistextremist if A_Nony_Mouse actually made the claim that Germany was innocent of mass murder during World War 2. It seemed like a ridiculous assertion, since, after all, the armies of both sides killed huge numbers of people. Since I've never heard of anyone denying that vast numbers of people were killed during WWII, I reasoned that A_Nony_Mouse was likely making some distinction between "killing" and "murder".

I simply point out the world population data for Jews shows a slight increase between 1938 and 1948.

Seems to me as the number 6,000,000 was introduced in late 1945 that there must have been world population data at that time to establish that number. Yet searches since then have failed to find an actuarial basis for that number at that time.

When people make claims I find ti completely reasonable to ask them for the physical evidence in support of their claims regardless of the subject. When I have evidence which contradicts their claims I see no problem presenting it regardless of the subject.

The rock is the 1948 world pop data. The hard place is the 1945 6 million. If there was no 1945 world population data the 6M was pulled out of someone's ass and still smells of it origin.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Religious people are idiots, say we.
Quote:
JEWS are only a religion.
Therefore all jews are idiots, says he.

He loves to misquote me. I can only consider it deliberate as the misquote is always tailored to his lame reply and the reply would not work with a correct quote. IOW, he is deliberately lying.

Well, I don't say religious people are idiots. I may think their belief in god is in error, but I do not think they're stupid. Even for the hardcore fundamentalists, I think "deluded" is a far more accurate term.

You are being too kind to believers. What have they ever done to deserve your kindness?

If the word still had a technical meaning it would be in line with the admonition to be as little children. Christian believers should be proud of it. Today the word is an all purpose pejorative.

What does one call a person who is unable to reason based upon physical evidence? I am open to suggestions.

 

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:
blacklight915 wrote:
I have a very difficult time believing anyone would make such a claim; can you show me where he makes it?

I can't speak for Nony but I once was friends with a guy who was Christian Identity and he was also a Holocaust denier.  He was not a dim wit, he had a degree in electrical engineering and was quite intelligent.   I used to go to machine gun shoots with him but he was just too weird so I kind of wrote him off.

Why would you write someone off unless you could produce the pre and post war world population figures to show he was error? You HAD TO HAVE that physical evidence else you had no reason to disagree. If you still disagree with him then you MUST TODAY HAVE the world population data to show what you believe happened.

As you HAVE it I ask you to produce the URL(s) to the world population data which established the -6M number at the time it was first adopted.

If you do not have it, why do you believe contrary to the physical evidence?

Calling people names does not produce physical evidence any more than calling evolutionists godless atheists produce physical evidence for creationism.

The guy in the ski mask is frothing and name-calling because he has no physical evidence.

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
.

Kapkao wrote:
blacklight915 wrote:
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I can't speak for Nony but I once was friends with a guy who was Christian Identity and he was also a Holocaust denier.  He was not a dim wit, he had a degree in electrical engineering and was quite intelligent.   I used to go to machine gun shoots with him but he was just too weird so I kind of wrote him off.

It's weird that someone can be intelligent and a Holocaust denier...  Of course, the fair number of intelligent and well-educated Christian apologists shows that education and intelligence don't make one safe from error or delusion...

Wait, what's "Christian Identity"?

"Admit it... your expected Charles Manson at the very least"

When I was a kid I enjoyed the power to send ants into a frenzy by kicking over their little hills. Call it Schadenfreude but it is still a bit fun to point out there is no basis for cherished beliefs and watching the believers scurry around vigorously.

Since about the first month I started participating in this group I have had a standing offer to everyone including you to discuss the issue based solely upon the physical evidence with rules of evidence as applicable in science and within reason in a western criminal court of law. The latter means testimony can only be to the physical evidence and is not itself evidence. That is, an expert witness can present the physical evidence and then give his explanation of it.

As this is obviously a very serious criminal charge the standard of judgement is beyond a reasonable doubt. In simpler terms, treat it as though it were common murder. Greater crimes do not have a lesser standard.

If you KNOW it is true then you must KNOW the physical evidence upon which your knowledge is based. It is unreasonable to ask you to present what you know?

 

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I said

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I said CORRECTLY that there is no evidence of a decline in the world Jewish population over the war years.

World population statistics are not the only valid evidence for what is known as "the Holocaust". What about all the pictures of the concentration camps and of the people held there?

Besides, it wasn't just Jews that were exterminated: the Nazi regime also targeted homosexuals and the physically and/or mentally handicapped.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I simply point out the world population data for Jews shows a slight increase between 1938 and 1948.

I am very interested in seeing this world population data, could you tell me where you found it?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You are being too kind to believers. What have they ever done to deserve your kindness?

They exist. I am rarely unkind to anyone.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nony

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

But if you wish to cite Hilberg who does not produce world population figures either how does it differ from citing thousands of Christian theologians to establish the existence of their god?

 

stop trying to equate atheism and empiricism with holocaust denial. These two things do not go together. The holocaust occurred in this material reality and had tens of thousands of witnesses whose testimony is consistent with the stated policy of the german leadership and it is supported by a large amount of photographic evidence, evidence from the sites of death camps, from the sites of hundreds of mass murders in occupied territories.

The holocaust was not a supernatural event. No one did anything that has not happened before and can never happen again. It did not defy the nature of physics. Some people killed some other people. It's happening again in Sudan right now. Your attempted conflation is dysfunctional. How can you suggest Hilberg's gigantic encyclopedia of the holocaust, which details all possible evidence from all sides of the event, is as unsupported by actual evidence as christ rising from the dead? 

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sure

blacklight915 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

no Jews were killed by Germans between 1939 and 1945. To put it another way, he implies the holocaust is a fabrication unsupported by material evidence.

I have a very difficult time believing anyone would make such a claim; can you show me where he makes it?

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
He says it right here

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

Why would you write someone off unless you could produce the pre and post war world population figures to show he was error? You HAD TO HAVE that physical evidence else you had no reason to disagree. If you still disagree with him then you MUST TODAY HAVE the world population data to show what you believe happened.

 

 

And again he says it here...

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

Since about the first month I started participating in this group I have had a standing offer to everyone including you to discuss the issue based solely upon the physical evidence with rules of evidence as applicable in science and within reason in a western criminal court of law. The latter means testimony can only be to the physical evidence and is not itself evidence. That is, an expert witness can present the physical evidence and then give his explanation of it.

As this is obviously a very serious criminal charge the standard of judgement is beyond a reasonable doubt. In simpler terms, treat it as though it were common murder. Greater crimes do not have a lesser standard. If you KNOW it is true then you must KNOW the physical evidence upon which your knowledge is based. It is unreasonable to ask you to present what you know?

 

 

And there's a good chance he gets his world population data from the wholly independent research organisation right here:

 

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-holocaust-lies-hoax-frauds-blackflagops-hoaxarchive.html

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well Nony

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The guy in the ski mask is frothing and name-calling because he has no physical evidence.

 

You say Israelis all deserve to die. You must believe Jews concocted the holocaust as part of some strange plan to attain or strengthen their alleged control of the world. You are an avowed holocaust denier who insists none of the evidence of the mass murder of European Jewry can be considered legitimate. None of these observations involves name calling on my part, just the application of factual observations based entirely on the things you say you believe. Personally, I don't think either of us is much given to frothing. Generally, we both make our points without hysteria. I do feel, however, that you have a magnetic attraction to fallacious ad hominem as the statement you make above quite clearly attests. 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
World Almanac Accuracy

 

 

Here I'm quoting the Nizkor Project site which talks about the World Almanac Gambit thus: 

 

 

"When citing the World Almanac as a source for data "proving" that there was no Jewish population decline during World War II, Holocaust deniers are simply propagating one of the standard denier myths that has recurred regularly for more than a decade.

The problem has nothing whatever to do with rates of population increase, it has to do with how frequently the World Almanac's sources had access to fresh estimates of religious populations.

Whoever first started propagating World Almanac figures neglected to mention that all figures before 1949 were from 1938 estimates. Since the year of estimate is given at the top of the chart it is difficult to believe that the originator did not intentionally mean to decieve by negelecting this key piece of information. I have posted the following correction several times.

 

The University of Alberta library has the World Almanac issues for the pertinent period for 1941, 1944, 1947, 1948, and 1949. The figures listed for total world Jewish population are as follows:

 

1941 15,748,091 

1944 15,192,089 

1947 15,688,259 

1948 15,688,259 

1949 11,266,600

 

Now you may be wondering what happened to all those Jews in 1948-49. The fact is that no fresh estimates were made between 1938 and 1947. The figures listed for 1941, 1947, and 1948 are identified by the World Almanac as estimates made in 1938. The source for the estimate for 1944 is not given, and the numbers are listed differently than in other years. In 1944, the numbers are given as a part of a list of various world religions rather than standing on their own with a country-by-country breakdown as in the other years.

Only in 1949 are postwar estimates employed, the figures given are for estimates made in 1948. A year or two lag seems to be common for various other population estimates given by the World Almanac. The difference between the 1938 and 1948 figures is thus 4,481,491. 

In 1949, however, the World Almanac gives a revised 1939 population of 16,643,120 giving a difference of between 1938 and 1947 of 5,376,520. Where the extra population between 1938 and 1939 came from is not cited, though one might speculate that it was based upon the Nazi estimates made in 1942 for the Wannsee Conference. Despite the apparent exactness of the numbers listed, the World Almanac warns that all numbers listed are estimates."

 

Here's the link...

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/worldalmanac.html

 

 

 

And here is a copy of the Wannsee estimate. Europe's current Jewish population is about 1.6 million...including Russia.

 

WannseeList.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

"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
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I said CORRECTLY that there is no evidence of a decline in the world Jewish population over the war years.

World population statistics are not the only valid evidence for what is known as "the Holocaust".

The existing physical evidence makes the claims absurd. The population data shows an INCREASE in world population of Jews over the war years. How does a 40% reduction, which was KNOWN in late 1945, not show up in 1948 world population data? Where is the 1945 world population data upon which the 6 million HAD TO have been based?  Without significant deaths what is meant by Holocaust other than the title of a TV miniseries and the FIRST application of the word to The Disaster? Google The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein if you have the time. It's a money maker for a lot of Jews. Letting go of it would be a financial disaster.

I know, why do governments talk about it if it is nonsense? The same reason they talk about god. It is useful to do so.

Quote:
What about all the pictures of the concentration camps and of the people held there?

How can you tell the cause of death and religion of bodies? How can you tell when and where and by who pictures were taken? Do you believe creative captioning or what is intrinsic to the picture?

Quote:
Besides, it wasn't just Jews that were exterminated: the Nazi regime also targeted homosexuals and the physically and/or mentally handicapped.

Some day some one is going to have to give me a definition of "exterminated" which includes the exterminated being around to whine about it. Something like, just a little bit exterminated. "She turned me into a newt!" "Hmmm, I got better." Monty Python, Holy Grail Hyperbole makes for good comedy and religion.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I simply point out the world population data for Jews shows a slight increase between 1938 and 1948.

I am very interested in seeing this world population data, could you tell me where you found it?

I have posted the images of the newspaper reports of the data which contains the sources several times. That is why holohuggers are so desperate to introduce something other than world population data. Their faith is on the line.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You are being too kind to believers. What have they ever done to deserve your kindness?

They exist. I am rarely unkind to anyone.

Cynics have learned it is never requited.

Now what would you suggest they be called?

How about Yahu yahoos?

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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Where is

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Where is the 1945 world population data upon which the 6 million HAD TO have been based?  Without significant deaths what is meant by Holocaust other than the title of a TV miniseries and the FIRST application of the word to The Disaster? Google The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein if you have the time. It's a money maker for a lot of Jews. Letting go of it would be a financial disaster.

Even if the 6 million number is completely made up, all the other evidence isn't invalidated. Furthermore, the fact people make lots of money off "the Holocaust" doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How can you tell the cause of death and religion of bodies? How can you tell when and where and by who pictures were taken? Do you believe creative captioning or what is intrinsic to the picture?

Religion is irrelevant, I can tell they're people. As for cause of death, I'm sure a medical doctor would be able to do that. Most of them looked like they died from malnutrition and overwork. I imagine a fair number died from gunshot wounds.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Some day some one is going to have to give me a definition of "exterminated" which includes the exterminated being around to whine about it. Something like, just a little bit exterminated. "She turned me into a newt!" "Hmmm, I got better." Monty Python, Holy Grail Hyperbole makes for good comedy and religion.

I fail to see how this is relevant to my statement.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have posted the images of the newspaper reports of the data which contains the sources several times. That is why holohuggers are so desperate to introduce something other than world population data. Their faith is on the line.

Could you point me to where you posted this information?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

Cynics have learned it is never requited.

Kindness is repaid with kindness upon occasion. More importantly, being kind to people significantly reduces the chances of them treating you poorly.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What does one call a person who is unable to reason based upon physical evidence?

One calls such a person "a person who is unable to reason based upon physical evidence".

 

 


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

Who and what is a nizkook and why do you choose to believe it? Since you are such an ignorant little shit I will enlighten you.

For the record Nizkook Zentral is financed by Larry Shiff of Canada, the pissant Jew who phoned death threats to my son. 

Ken McVay who at one time claimed to run the nizkooks phoned a death threat to my parents.

Canadians think they can get away with anything. Are you on Shiff's payroll too? Should I tell me son to expect the phone calls to start again? Should I have the FBI back on the case? Schiff was last questioned by the FBI about his death threats in Hawaii.

One has to be on the payroll to believe animals like those two.

 

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