Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 168 of 168
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: Why Did Hitler Fail?

  1. #101  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The Jews were always strongly associated with the concept of what we now call "Wall Street". It was just as easy to blame them then as it is to blame Wall Street for America's problems today. The only difference is that now we don't extend a profession to being only one race's profession.

    Are you saying the Jews are a race of people?


    So that's a race of people some of whome are blond and blue eyed, some are dark haired and dark eyed, who knows some are probably black.

    And thats a race you say? Like a distinguishable varient of the species? I'd like to know the scientific reason for calling Judaism a race...?

    It seems like a religion, or a cult, not a race.
    I'm saying Hitler considered them to be a race. This is a thread about Hitler, remember?

    I don't think science even acknowledges the concept of "race" as being real, no matter what group it is applied to. Unfortunately Hitler wasn't much of a scientist.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zundap View Post
    . Adolph Hitler was mistaken, the inflation was caused by the Zionists as a weapon to cripple and destroy Germany financially.
    It is good to see a clear signature statement that lets us know how much attention to pay to any future posts you make.
    I don't see what's wrong with this post. Can you elaborate?

    Is it racist against Italians to say that there is an Italian Mafia? Clearly when one refers to the Italian Mafia the intention is not to imply that all Italians are Mafia.

    Certainly there have been over the last couple of centuries a number of groups, mostly composed of Jewish people, who put a great deal of effort into trying their best to establish a Jewish state in Israel. What? Do you think it happened by accident? Just on a whim? British Parliament was just bored one day after the war and said "Hey. The Jews had it pretty rough in this last war. Let's give them that Palestinian parcel we got in World War I to have as a homeland! Cheereo!" No way. Land was being purchased in that area for a long time before the decision was finally made. No shortage of back room talks, deals, and handshakes behind that one.

    You needn't become so afraid of conspiracy theories that you actually convince yourself that nobody ever conspires. Or do you also doubt the existence of the Mafia or Yakuza as well? Are those also myths?
    question for you and Zundap like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    You are correct that anti-semitism was rampant in Germany. You need to add that it was a powerful force in the rest of Europe and in the Americas too. One of the reasons six milliion Jews died in WWII was that the rest of the world was disinclined to accept refugees.

    question for you, keep in mind the warning of George Santayana: ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Studying how Hitler evolved his thinking and rose to power is a good thing.
    Though thoroughly shameful that so many Jewish refugees were denied sanctuary during the second world war I would like to believe that it was because the leaders of the major countries did not know the true extent of the 'final solution', rather that it was thought that most Jews ended up as part of the Nazi's slave labour force. Evidence exists that suggests anti-semitism did indeed exist in both the US and Europe leading up to the war and during it. But it should also be noted that from the moment the Nazi's came to power they led a propaganda campaign to blame the Jews for all of Germany's problems. They were very good at disseminating this propaganda and naturally it spread well beyond Germany's borders. So it could well be said that the levels of anti-semitism were artifically high, not just a product of the economic problems of the era. Also it wasn't just jews that were attracting ill feeling, it was a time of general discontent and anger towards anyone seen as different across many countries.
    The Jews were always strongly associated with the concept of what we now call "Wall Street". It was just as easy to blame them then as it is to blame Wall Street for America's problems today. The only difference is that now we don't extend a profession to being only one race's profession.

    Germany lost most of its best scientists because it stereotyped them as though they were bankers.


    So again I would certainly like to believe that the leaderships of the major countries had no real hatred towards Jews and simply misunderstood the sheer magnitude and gravity of what was actually taking place, also bearing in mind that countries like Britain were struggling to survive the war and feed it's own population, being very dependant on food and supplies from the Atlantic convoys which were dwindling from U boat attacks. As for the US it was only in 1943 that U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, presented a report to President Roosevelt in 1943 providing details about the Final Solution, after which the President established the War Refugee Board as an independent agency to rescue the civilian victims of the Nazis. It was not really until the actual liberation of the Nazi concentration camps that the sheer horror of what had gone on was revealed and even then it took time for to sink in and for people to believe that anyone could treat other human beings so horrifically. So again I think this is further evidence against anti-semitism being the real motivation behind refugees being denied sanctuary.
    How many people from Bosnia did we allow into the USA during the Bosnian holocausts? How many Tootsie or Hutu from Rwanda?
    I wasn't aware the the Balkan War or Rwandan atrocities had anything to do with anti-semitism, perhaps you'll have to explain that one to me.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    kojax, the fact that you think the existence of a Zionist movement is the exact equivalent of a Zionist plot to use inflation as a weapon to cripple and destroy Germany financially, does not surprise me at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    kojax, the fact that you think the existence of a Zionist movement is the exact equivalent of a Zionist plot to use inflation as a weapon to cripple and destroy Germany financially, does not surprise me at all.
    I'm leaning more toward a Communist faction in Germany. Hitler won his position in a very close race against the Communist Party of Germany. That's why America liked him so much early on. He was the anti-communist. However, it did just so happen that quite a many leaders of the Communist party were in fact, of Jewish ethnicity.

    If I may be granted to suggest that Zionist factions existed, which had mostly Jewish membership, then may I perchance go one step further and suggest that cross over groups that were both Communist and Zionist, might also exist?

    Anyway, the goal of Communist revolutionaries is quite often the breaking down or destruction of the existing Capitalist system, in the hopes that widespread malcontent will lead to a change of leadership (a change in their favor.) A number of disturbingly violent Communist coups had occurred in Europe in recent history at the time in question. It's not unlikely that Germany was an intended target for this also. The only question is whether powerful bankers would involve themselves.

    This link may bother you. Don't read it immediately after a meal. You might end up heading toward the bathroom in a hurry.

    Jews and Communism


    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    You are correct that anti-semitism was rampant in Germany. You need to add that it was a powerful force in the rest of Europe and in the Americas too. One of the reasons six milliion Jews died in WWII was that the rest of the world was disinclined to accept refugees.

    question for you, keep in mind the warning of George Santayana: ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Studying how Hitler evolved his thinking and rose to power is a good thing.
    Though thoroughly shameful that so many Jewish refugees were denied sanctuary during the second world war I would like to believe that it was because the leaders of the major countries did not know the true extent of the 'final solution', rather that it was thought that most Jews ended up as part of the Nazi's slave labour force. Evidence exists that suggests anti-semitism did indeed exist in both the US and Europe leading up to the war and during it. But it should also be noted that from the moment the Nazi's came to power they led a propaganda campaign to blame the Jews for all of Germany's problems. They were very good at disseminating this propaganda and naturally it spread well beyond Germany's borders. So it could well be said that the levels of anti-semitism were artifically high, not just a product of the economic problems of the era. Also it wasn't just jews that were attracting ill feeling, it was a time of general discontent and anger towards anyone seen as different across many countries.
    The Jews were always strongly associated with the concept of what we now call "Wall Street". It was just as easy to blame them then as it is to blame Wall Street for America's problems today. The only difference is that now we don't extend a profession to being only one race's profession.

    Germany lost most of its best scientists because it stereotyped them as though they were bankers.


    So again I would certainly like to believe that the leaderships of the major countries had no real hatred towards Jews and simply misunderstood the sheer magnitude and gravity of what was actually taking place, also bearing in mind that countries like Britain were struggling to survive the war and feed it's own population, being very dependant on food and supplies from the Atlantic convoys which were dwindling from U boat attacks. As for the US it was only in 1943 that U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, presented a report to President Roosevelt in 1943 providing details about the Final Solution, after which the President established the War Refugee Board as an independent agency to rescue the civilian victims of the Nazis. It was not really until the actual liberation of the Nazi concentration camps that the sheer horror of what had gone on was revealed and even then it took time for to sink in and for people to believe that anyone could treat other human beings so horrifically. So again I think this is further evidence against anti-semitism being the real motivation behind refugees being denied sanctuary.
    How many people from Bosnia did we allow into the USA during the Bosnian holocausts? How many Tootsie or Hutu from Rwanda?
    I wasn't aware the the Balkan War or Rwandan atrocities had anything to do with anti-semitism, perhaps you'll have to explain that one to me.
    You were arguing that the USA ought to have admitted Jews who were fleeing Nazi terror as refugees. I thought it might be prudent to point out that, in two more recent cases of genocide, both approximately equal in magnitude to the Nazi holocaust, we made the same decision again. I don't think our reasons were racist in either of the more recent cases, so what makes you think our motives were racist in the case you're discussing?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    You are correct that anti-semitism was rampant in Germany. You need to add that it was a powerful force in the rest of Europe and in the Americas too. One of the reasons six milliion Jews died in WWII was that the rest of the world was disinclined to accept refugees.

    question for you, keep in mind the warning of George Santayana: ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Studying how Hitler evolved his thinking and rose to power is a good thing.
    Though thoroughly shameful that so many Jewish refugees were denied sanctuary during the second world war I would like to believe that it was because the leaders of the major countries did not know the true extent of the 'final solution', rather that it was thought that most Jews ended up as part of the Nazi's slave labour force. Evidence exists that suggests anti-semitism did indeed exist in both the US and Europe leading up to the war and during it. But it should also be noted that from the moment the Nazi's came to power they led a propaganda campaign to blame the Jews for all of Germany's problems. They were very good at disseminating this propaganda and naturally it spread well beyond Germany's borders. So it could well be said that the levels of anti-semitism were artifically high, not just a product of the economic problems of the era. Also it wasn't just jews that were attracting ill feeling, it was a time of general discontent and anger towards anyone seen as different across many countries.
    The Jews were always strongly associated with the concept of what we now call "Wall Street". It was just as easy to blame them then as it is to blame Wall Street for America's problems today. The only difference is that now we don't extend a profession to being only one race's profession.

    Germany lost most of its best scientists because it stereotyped them as though they were bankers.


    So again I would certainly like to believe that the leaderships of the major countries had no real hatred towards Jews and simply misunderstood the sheer magnitude and gravity of what was actually taking place, also bearing in mind that countries like Britain were struggling to survive the war and feed it's own population, being very dependant on food and supplies from the Atlantic convoys which were dwindling from U boat attacks. As for the US it was only in 1943 that U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, presented a report to President Roosevelt in 1943 providing details about the Final Solution, after which the President established the War Refugee Board as an independent agency to rescue the civilian victims of the Nazis. It was not really until the actual liberation of the Nazi concentration camps that the sheer horror of what had gone on was revealed and even then it took time for to sink in and for people to believe that anyone could treat other human beings so horrifically. So again I think this is further evidence against anti-semitism being the real motivation behind refugees being denied sanctuary.
    How many people from Bosnia did we allow into the USA during the Bosnian holocausts? How many Tootsie or Hutu from Rwanda?
    In regards to Rwanda, that was a whole other type of situation. The US was still a little sore over the whole Somalia incident, and Somalia is in Africa, and Rwanda is also in Africa. Therefore Rwanda is Somalia - at least many have argued that was the type of mentality at the time. Western Nations, were not interested in getting involved in another Somalia, the death of ten Belgians only strengthened that type of apprehension.

    This was on top of the other major issue - the media coverage was awful, and sources were giving Journalists the wrong idea about what was going on. You've got to remember something else was going in Africa at that time, something huge: the end of Apartheid, and the first democratic elections in South Africa - and that's where the world's eyes were being focused as far as Africa is concerned. A lot of people believed they were going to see one of the biggest massacres ever with the election of the ANC. Journalists were focusing on South Africa because they believed the ANC was going to go back on its word (reconciliation), so the media was under the impression that South Africa was going to be the hard hitting story of 1994.

    When the genocide began, there weren't many journalists in Rwanda, or Burundi - and they were being told that civil war was starting back up because of the assassination, by the time reports that it was actually the slaughter of civillians came out, hundreds of thousands had already been killed. Richard Dowden commented that while he was covering the Rwanda story, he had nothing to say about it - this was a feeling he would later find that many journalists had been experiencing during their reports on the genocide. Most of the first-string journalists hardly recall what they wrote about the genocide, what they reported was hardly memorable.

    The situation was too confusing, too horrible, and too difficult to write about - especially when the actual facts are only starting to get out, and everywhere you turn you're looking at dead bodies. The real news coverage of the event only came around with the second and third wave of journalists. I might add that getting into the country was incredibly difficult, airports were closed, borders were closed, borders that weren't closed were too dangerous.

    All of that is even on top of another problem: Peoples' mentality about Africa at the time. It took about a week before anyone started scoping the event as a genocide, as a opposed to a civil war - but journalists had trouble understanding the gravity of the situation. People simply did not think Africans were capable of that kind of organized killing. Even though reports were beginning to shift towards a portrayal of genocide, phrases like "Tribal hatred" or "chaotic, ethnic, random killings" where being used. That's what journalists were sending home - and that's that kind of descriptions the security council was being given in regards to the question of Peace Keeping.

    So, in regards to Rwanda, I don't think you can chalk it up to anything but a situation that was underestimated, under-reported, and one that blew-up far too quickly. Plus, in retrospect, immediately after the genocide, and up to this day, the government of Rwanda uses the genocide as a way to accomplish its agendas. Anyone who is critical of related Rwandan policies is immediately branded a divisionist, revisionist, and genocide denier/hutu war criminal sympathizer. Shaming the West only works for so long and after it stops works, well, who wants anything to do with that kind of government, and therefore country?

    Edit:

    Source is Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles by: Richard Dowden pgs. 223 - 254
    Last edited by stander-j; November 18th, 2012 at 11:16 PM.
    Ascended likes this.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    You are correct that anti-semitism was rampant in Germany. You need to add that it was a powerful force in the rest of Europe and in the Americas too. One of the reasons six milliion Jews died in WWII was that the rest of the world was disinclined to accept refugees.

    question for you, keep in mind the warning of George Santayana: ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Studying how Hitler evolved his thinking and rose to power is a good thing.
    You were arguing that the USA ought to have admitted Jews who were fleeing Nazi terror as refugees. I thought it might be prudent to point out that, in two more recent cases of genocide, both approximately equal in magnitude to the Nazi holocaust, we made the same decision again. I don't think our reasons were racist in either of the more recent cases, so what makes you think our motives were racist in the case you're discussing?
    I think what you will find is that I was actually explaining that although when looking back at the events with hindsight it does seem shameful, and that if we had all really known then the true fate that these people were suffering, then I would like to believe we would have certainly acted differently, indeed I gave a clear example of how and when President Roosevelt found out about what was really happening to the Jews and the steps he took to get them to safety. The fact is that anti-semitism was suggested as a reason why many refugees were denied entry to America and Europe, I was just trying to place this in context with some of the other reasons to show that IMHO it only played a minor part and that there was never any culture of Anti-semitism within western governments that lead to millions of Jews to failing to escape the Nazi gas chambers.

    Your other examples of genocide didn't have any suggestion of anti-semitism ever being a causal factor therefore I was questioning their relevance.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post

    So, in regards to Rwanda, I don't think you can chalk it up to anything but a situation that was underestimated, under-reported, and one that blew-up far too quickly. Plus, in retrospect, immediately after the genocide, and up to this day, the government of Rwanda uses the genocide as a way to accomplish its agendas. Anyone who is critical of related Rwandan policies is immediately branded a divisionist, revisionist, and genocide denier/hutu war criminal sympathizer. Shaming the West only works for so long and after it stops works, well, who wants anything to do with that kind of government, and therefore country?

    Edit:

    Source is Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles by: Richard Dowden pgs. 223 - 254

    All very good points. And very relevant to the discussion at hand. Thank you.

    As you have well pointed out: our motive for not intervening in Rwanda was certainly not racism. In the case of World War II, the holocaust of the Jews was similarly under-reported. Even many of the Jewish people in the Ghettos who hadn't been carted off to a concentration camp yet didn't know about it. Heck, many Jews working in the camps themselves didn't even know about it. At least not the extent of it.

    It wasn't until allied soldiers started marching in and finding the mass graves that the truth really emerged, and even then probably if all the photographs hadn't been taken immediately after, while the graves were still fresh and visible, the world might not fully believe it even today.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    How many people from Bosnia did we allow into the USA during the Bosnian holocausts? How many Tootsie or Hutu from Rwanda?
    Those wanting to get out for the most part would have gone to places much cheaper to get to than the US.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    @Zundap

    The reason Hitler kicked off WW2 was mainly because of the finacial shinanigins of the capitaists in Germany, if you check it out, you will find that Gremany at that time was ravaged by not just inflation but by hyper inflation which he believed was caused by Jewish Capitalists.
    -
    The claim that the Zionistic Movement (which was very small and not supported by most jews at that time anyway) is just wrong.
    Jews have been an important and productive part of german economy. They founded many big german-companies and created many jobs in Germany. They (nor the jews in america) haven't been responsible for the world wide financial-crises. Especially not to somehow harm Germany...the crises hit most european countries plus north america, including jewish businesses.
    That some Wall-Street guys as well as some speculators have been jews.but they did what they did not because of there cultural background or a secrete jewish organisation but because they have been greedy capitalists like all the greedy capitalists from other people.
    And what we musn't forget is, that Hitler may have never seen himself as capitalist, but that his regime did everything that we usually dislike about capitalism.
    Including:
    exploiting the workers,
    give unnecessary power to the industry and bankers,
    making debts in an totally irresponsible way,
    doing tricks on the financial markets,
    steal money from other nations,
    steal money from your own people,
    fuck with the unions
    make live easier for employers and harder for employees
    destroy small businesses
    give tax cuts and all kind of advantages to big businesses
    live in luxury while others starve.
    So...the Anti-capitalistic Nazis are nothing but a wet dream of people who never understood the nature of the Third-Empire.


    One important reason the crises hit Germany harder was that Germany needed american money to rebuilt it, and that amercans had been one of their most important trading-partners. (while many other europeans had serious problems with investing money in Germany...because of WW1 I guess) Exporting stuff is (still today) much more important for us than for France or Britain.
    Another reason why Germany suffered harder than others was the reparations and limitation from WW1. But that was mainly based on the ideas of Britain and France. (especially France!) So...if there would have been powerful jews sitting in the US, who wanted to harm Germany, why America opposed the reparations more than any other nation?
    And not to forget...Adi attacked poland 1939...a time where mass-unemployment or inflation wasn't the main problems in Germany.
    But one reason for the attack was the fact that Hitler only covered (not solved) those problems and Germany had big financial problems (that Hitler made invisible with his financial politics the best he could). So if you say:

    He attacked Russia becuaus he had to
    this is not wrong. He fixed finacial problems by A) ignoring them, B) making debts or C) stealing money from others.So he had a big need for money, even if Germany at least looked kind of wealthy at that time.
    Attacking russia was part of C).
    The main reason for Hitlers attack was not that he feared a russian attack the reason was that he thought that the germans need more space (and of course money and resources and slave-like workers)
    (which is btw idiotic...because today we have less space, more people and there is still enough space)
    He planned that over 10 years ago, so it was not a reaction to a possible russian threat.
    He called that plan "Lebensraum im Osten" (livingspace in the east) and mentioned that many times in his book "Mein Kampf" which was published 1925! He promised his readers to somehow get that space.
    So his plan to invade russia was not based on a counter-a-possible-invasion-scenario but on his wish to conquer land.
    IF russia has been a realistic thread or not is kind of hard to decide nowadays.
    But according to what I know about Stalin it isn't very probable.
    I know that sounds weird cause we all know Stalin was a paranoid-psycho who trusted nobody. But russian secret service notes show...that he was warned about Hitler attacking him many times and that he always refused to believe that and that he even defended Hitler.
    He was not even prepared to counter Hitlers attack...the russians where totally surprised...and absolutely not armed to fight Germany...not even as they invaded parts of Germany they sticked to some kind of plan that they stored in the drawer. All of that tells us that they wasn't preparing an attack at the moment.
    I think the area Stalin wanted to be top dog in was eastern europe (like his attack on poland shows) and maybe parts of the Balkan. But even if Stalin was a bloodhungry tyrant he wasn't a conquerer. He only showed interest in areas that russia claimed before him.
    Plus Hitler was the perfect shield for him, that guards him from attacks from central Europe (because Hitler won't let the french pass) and eastern Europe as well. Nobody would have ever dared to attack Stalin with Crazy-Hitler waiting in the back. Like Hitler used Stalin as a booger, to convince others to join him, Stalin used Hitler to scare other countries with him.
    Another thing that shows that Hitler was not attacking russia because it was necessary, not even because the russians where communists, is the simple fact that he attacked many other countries, too.
    I don't think that the Netherlands or Belgium had the plan to invade Germany.
    And like I said above...it was Hitlers hybris and his lack of competence as a military leader who was responsible for Germanys defeat.
    Not to talk about the braveness of it's opponents.
    Last edited by Headdresser; December 26th, 2012 at 09:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    I am not sure if it is too late for a post on this topic but as I noticed, there are some important points that were not taken into consideration in why Hitler lost the war. First I do not think that the powers that be helped Hitler for him to win the war. If you go back and read up on where Hitler got his inspiration, you will find he met a man in prison who got his inspiration from Africa and brought it back to Germany. let me cut a little into finer matter of the statement. The first war was not really a world war, which led to the second war left over from remnants of the first war. To compare the events to today, any war that involves more than two nations can develop into a real world war and the reasons are very evident.
    We are more connected through different means that ever before; one action involves almost the whole world.
    We could go into that later but I would like to give my reasons why I think Hitler and Germany lost the war.

    The main reasons for war is almost always the same, territorial, religion, economics, and in some cases women. In Hitler’s case it was also a question of demographics. He lost the war for more than on specific reason. Entering Stalingrad was really a desperate last effort attempt but the war was already lost. The effort to go into Stalingrad was made although Hitler knew that is was a risky project, he knew about the weather, he knew about the supply lines, he knew thousands of his army would be lost, but he did what he had to do as with all who thrive to attain power.

    However, although many people do not know that the swastika came from a symbol of the doogons, a tribe in Africa, and the importance of Hitler taking Africa do not know the depth of the second world war. The beginning of the end came in the decision to take Africa. Any economy who wants world power have to have the continent of Africa, especially the new western culture. Hitler realized that after coming to the understanding that his country was falling fast into or out of control, used the fact that the Jews controlled all the intellectual property rights for all or most of the wealth in Germany. The country was broken down and stagnation was staring them in the face. The money for the war was given to him by the now European union and the American elite. There were so much to be expected from a war because the Russians were growing in economic and military power and growing fast. Hitler already in a bind to find work for his people could not reject the proposal to move into Africa and take all its recourses. Nothing has really changed, even today the powers that be are still trying to take Africa for themselves. However call it a jinks if you like, the attempts are many but the successes are few. There is no precedence for such an action against Africa. There are some literature in Germany that many people are not privy to that explains the truth about Hitler and the third Reich. Again I think the fact that Hitler decided to invade Africa was the real reason why he lost the war. We can continue in the next post if interest arise.

    Just to mention, many nation still idolize Hitler today and would like to be called the new Hitler with a new name only a bit more successful. If Hitler had won the war he would be the talk of all nation just as he is today in the negative. he was not completely stupid in his thoughts because if you really look at the political world today every one is trying to be the leader of some conjured up name, like first world, third world. It all about power and mad military might.
    Last edited by Mother/father; December 28th, 2012 at 10:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    Again I think the fact that Hitler decided to invade Africa was the real reason why he lost the war.
    I think that is an interesting thesis that should be discussed.
    I really don't get why "Africa" should be the main reason for his defeat.
    Wasn't it much more harmful for him that he tried to invade russia or that america joined the war. Wasn't he much more focused on russia and it's recourses.
    Like I said above...Africa (better to say Ethopia) messed up hitlers timetable, and he may have lost troops in Africa...but he lost more troops elsewhere.
    And I really doubt that Hitler took the swastika because the dogoon had it. It was a sign in many cultures including in central europe. I think it makes much more sense that he took it from there or if we wanna discuss far-far-away origins, from Tibet, because the nazis had a lot of sympathy for theosophical studies which claimed that aryans came from there.
    I also disagree about how Hitler was financed. Yes...he got money from american bankers...but how was the "now European union" involved? Maybe other fascist parties....yes. But after all I discovered his main source of money (especially before he came to power) was Germany. There a endless lists of donators including industrials, nobles and above all middle class families that was the main money source for the NSDAP according to their own book-keeping.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Universalis Infinitis Devon Keogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dublin, Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    145
    Well, if Napoleon lost to the Russians, then why not Hitler.

    A great man once said "The two greatest mistakes in war are poor training and invading Russia."

    So I would say everything points to the invasion of Russia in the defeat of two great leaders.

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
    Sir Isaac Newton

    In my own opinion there is no greater mathematical Principle than that which is x - x = 0. This shows that matter can be created from nothing as long as the total product of the matter's mass & energy equal exactly zero.
    The only question is, "Where did all that antimatter go?"

    Favourite Elements: Sodium, Neodymium, Xenon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post


    The main reasons for war is almost always the same, territorial, religion, economics, and in some cases women. In Hitler’s case it was also a question of demographics. He lost the war for more than on specific reason. Entering Stalingrad was really a desperate last effort attempt but the war was already lost. The effort to go into Stalingrad was made although Hitler knew that is was a risky project, he knew about the weather, he knew about the supply lines, he knew thousands of his army would be lost, but he did what he had to do as with all who thrive to attain power.
    Good thinking on that. One of the big threats Hitler was constantly waving around in front of anyone who wasn't obedient enough in Germany was that he would draft them and send them to the Eastern Front. It was like prison only worse (in reality it was basically a death sentence), and he didn't have to put you through a trial to do it.

    Sometimes it's disturbing to try and get inside the head of a power hungry psychopath. Being chancellor is never enough for that kind of person. They must squash all dissent also. Their power must be absolute - but of course no ruler's power is ever absolute - so it becomes an endless quest.

    It's probably why Hitler wouldn't surrender when things started to turn. He preferred to remain absolute dictator of a nation - no matter how badly it may fail under him - rather than acquiesce his throne to save it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Didn't Hitler fail because he attempted to defeat the Zionist movement which has far to much power to be deafeated by one nation?

    Most of the russian communist leaders were apparently Jewish, many influencial germans were Jewish weren't they?, America is owned by the Zionists, Britain is owned by the zionists... The world is owned by people who want to live out the prophecies of the forfathers and gain control over the entire world.

    I wouldn't be at all suprised if Hitler was nothing but a Zionist puppet designed to strengthen the Zionist movement even further... I bet his doctor who sent him mad was either Jewish or educated by Zionist's, and the same for Hitler himself. The worlds media is Zionist, the worlds establishment is Zionist... and yet Hitler was apparently acting from his Christian beliefs which were ofcourse, Zionist.

    Hitler didn't fail... he acheived what he was desinged to achieve. More power for the global elite. Whether they be Zionist or Babylonians or both at the same time or neither but inventors of both. He was just a puppet on strings being pulled by people far more intelligent and powerful than himself. Silly Goy. I mean guy. He never stood a chance... of failing to fullfill his indoctrinated purpose. Mwahahahahaaaa.

    Though thats just my indoctrinated opinion, which could potentially be way of the mark... because I too am just a puppet.

    What we really need is a total irradiction of History and a fresh start... though that was probably a part of the plan all along.

    This subject is not good for my head. I am going to visit a hypnotist and request that hir wipes the history from my head...

    At school we were taught that Big nasty Hitler attacks the poor lil Jews and brave old Britain stood up for the poor Jews with all our might until eventually our good friends America came to the rescue and finished off Hitlers regime. At the time I resented being presented with what was quite clearly a biased simplistic version of events. Now that I've done a bit more reading between the lines, I thank my education system for not teaching me what really hapened... As I have a feeling it's a lot darker than it seems, and that is really saying something! Though I wish they could have gone further and just not mentioned the whole affair at all. Bloody history, give it a rest! I was so innocent minded pre education. It's a sin to spark an interest in history in such an innocent young mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    I wouldn't be at all suprised if Hitler was nothing but a Zionist puppet designed to strengthen the Zionist movement even further...
    Where did you study history?
    Oxford, Harvard, or some other institution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    I wouldn't be at all suprised if Hitler was nothing but a Zionist puppet designed to strengthen the Zionist movement even further...
    Where did you study history?
    Oxford, Harvard, or some other institution?


    Didn't I make it clear I didnt study history? It's just that I wouldn't be suprised, thats all.

    Are not Oxford and Harvard both Zionist institutions though? Or at least are they not a part of the established order of our societies which quite obviously seems to be following some old plan which revolves around or makes use of ancient biblical prophecies?

    I doubt the whole truth is taught to Harvard or Oxford students unless they happen to be part of some occult society building program... and even then I doubt the whole truth is taught.

    I made it clear, i'd rather delete all known history and concentrate on a bright future, rather than spend my life studying hearsay.

    The history I have come across, much of it contradictory, has all been recieved by my honest objectivity department and has been subjected to my incisive intuitive faculties. Though even still... i'm just a Human and trust my findings no more than I trust the findings of any other seemingly honest person.

    P.S... Sarcasm is speculated to be of the lowest variety of wit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    P.S... Sarcasm is speculated to be the lowest variety of wit.
    I always thought that sarcasm was considered to be the basic form of wit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    P.S... Sarcasm is speculated to be the lowest variety of wit.
    I always thought that sarcasm was considered to be the basic form of wit.
    No, not at all. The common expression is: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Lowly and basic have completely different connotations.

    "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit since its aim is to belittle or hurt someone, and to laugh at their expense; we associate the word "cutting" with it. On the other hand, true wit associates with the word "levity", and boosts everyone's spirits, being aimed at an action, a happening or an attitude."

    Others argue that sarcasm cannot even be considered wit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    P.S... Sarcasm is speculated to be the lowest variety of wit.
    I always thought that sarcasm was considered to be the basic form of wit.
    No, not at all. The common expression is: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Lowly and basic have completely different connotations.

    "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit since its aim is to belittle or hurt someone, and to laugh at their expense; we associate the word "cutting" with it. On the other hand, true wit associates with the word "levity", and boosts everyone's spirits, being aimed at an action, a happening or an attitude."

    Others argue that sarcasm cannot even be considered wit.
    According to my sources the phrase, "the lowest form of wit" is often used but its origin is obscure. It has been ascribed to Oscar Wilde who was a master of sarcasm himself; and a famous wit.
    An article from the Internet source "Science in Our World" states that the phrase is a shorter version, or corruption, of "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence."
    This has also been attributed to Wilde altho' the origin of each statement appears to be uncertain.
    To finish, I would find it impossible to accept the argument that "sarcasm cannot even be considered wit."
    Last edited by Halliday; January 4th, 2013 at 03:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    According to my sources.
    Yeah, yeah... with all have Google, babe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I would find it impossible to accept the argument that "sarcasm cannot even be considered wit."
    Wit is clever and funny... sarcasm isnt always so. Much of it is quite lame and not very bright at all, or funny. I geuss the argument is based on a philisophical concept that it is not clever to attempt to scold other people. Certainly sometimes it is not. I can see some merit in the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    An article from the Internet source "Science in Our World" states that the phrase is a shorter version, or corruption, of "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence."
    Based on the philosophical argument that it is not clever to scold people... I find it impossible to accept that sarcasm could ever be the highest form of intelligence. Though i'm sure it was not so much an argument, more a joke.

    To be honest I was being ironic... I didn't think you were sarcastic, merely attempting to be. Your question was neither clever nor funny so it wasn't wit. Nor did I find it cutting or sharp or scolding, so it wasn't sarcasm. In fact I highlighted the folly of your attempted sarcasm with my initial retort.

    If you were aware of the folly of asking me if I studied at and establishmentary institution, then you were being ironic, not sarcastic. Which would have been quite a clever and funny peice of wit.

    I think however that you genuinely wished to discredit my observations by attempting to highlight my lack of establishment training... Which rather highlights a lack of wit on your part and takes the sting out of your attempted sarcasm.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post


    Hitler didn't fail... he acheived what he was desinged to achieve. More power for the global elite. Whether they be Zionist or Babylonians or both at the same time or neither but inventors of both. He was just a puppet on strings being pulled by people far more intelligent and powerful than himself. Silly Goy. I mean guy. He never stood a chance... of failing to fullfill his indoctrinated purpose. Mwahahahahaaaa.
    Never occurred to me until you brought it up just now, but maybe Zionism itself is just a puppet. Ever since Cyrus of Persia got the idea to send the "captive" Jews living in his empire "back" to Israel to "rebuild" their nation, the Jewish people have been tools in the hands of every ruler who encountered them.

    Sure sometimes it worked out for them, but by and large the Jewish people have been kicked around, sometimes made rich, sometimes massacred, but always manipulated for some political objective or another.

    I would not be surprised if "The Zionists" are not really Jews. Or at least whoever is behind them. Clearly there is a Zionist movement, and clearly it draws participation from a good number of financially well off people (mostly of Jewish heritage). But just because it claims to be pro-Jewish, doesn't mean it actually is. Just like whoever was manipulating Hitler probably didn't really care about Aryanism.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Never occurred to me until you brought it up just now, but maybe Zionism itself is just a puppet. Ever since Cyrus of Persia got the idea to send the "captive" Jews living in his empire "back" to Israel to "rebuild" their nation, the Jewish people have been tools in the hands of every ruler who encountered them.

    Sure sometimes it worked out for them, but by and large the Jewish people have been kicked around, sometimes made rich, sometimes massacred, but always manipulated for some political objective or another.

    I would not be surprised if "The Zionists" are not really Jews. Or at least whoever is behind them. Clearly there is a Zionist movement, and clearly it draws participation from a good number of financially well off people (mostly of Jewish heritage). But just because it claims to be pro-Jewish, doesn't mean it actually is. Just like whoever was manipulating Hitler probably didn't really care about Aryanism.
    I agree absolutely. Zionism and the Jews the christians the masons the illuminati and all the rest of it... There all there to serve a purpose, it could all be called puppetry. All believers in anything which we do not know to be real are puppets. And the same goes for agressing anti beleivers.

    I hope I didnt come across as anti jew, I'm not anti anybody... but I think everybody who is part of an organisation of the nature of any of these things is a puppet on a string of manipulative people. Everybody, good bad and ugly. Including me, though because I am not a member of any of these groups or beleifs, i'm less so a puppet than them. But i'm still manipulated by the conditions I find myself in, just like we all are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    Wit is clever and funny... sarcasm isnt always so. Much of it is quite lame and not very bright at all, or funny. I geuss the argument is based on a philisophical concept that it is not clever to attempt to scold other people. Certainly sometimes it is not. I can see some merit in the argument.

    Based on the philosophical argument that it is not clever to scold people... I find it impossible to accept that sarcasm could ever be the highest form of intelligence. Though i'm sure it was not so much an argument, more a joke.

    I wasn't aware that the opinion given in the statement "it is not clever to scold people" could be termed a "philosophical concept" or a "philosophical argument".
    Clearly your knowledge of philosophy matches your ability in the sciences. I must remember not to cross swords with you again!
    I should add that the reason I first became involved, in this thread, was because you did come across as being anti-semitic.
    Last edited by Halliday; January 5th, 2013 at 08:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Didn't Hitler fail because he attempted to defeat the Zionist movement which has far to much power to be deafeated by one nation?

    Most of the russian communist leaders were apparently Jewish, many influencial germans were Jewish weren't they?, America is owned by the Zionists, Britain is owned by the zionists... The world is owned by people who want to live out the prophecies of the forfathers and gain control over the entire world.

    I wouldn't be at all suprised if Hitler was nothing but a Zionist puppet designed to strengthen the Zionist movement even further... I bet his doctor who sent him mad was either Jewish or educated by Zionist's, and the same for Hitler himself. The worlds media is Zionist, the worlds establishment is Zionist... and yet Hitler was apparently acting from his Christian beliefs which were ofcourse, Zionist.

    Hitler didn't fail... he acheived what he was desinged to achieve. More power for the global elite. Whether they be Zionist or Babylonians or both at the same time or neither but inventors of both. He was just a puppet on strings being pulled by people far more intelligent and powerful than himself. Silly Goy. I mean guy. He never stood a chance... of failing to fullfill his indoctrinated purpose. Mwahahahahaaaa.

    Though thats just my indoctrinated opinion, which could potentially be way of the mark... because I too am just a puppet.

    What we really need is a total irradiction of History and a fresh start... though that was probably a part of the plan all along.

    This subject is not good for my head. I am going to visit a hypnotist and request that hir wipes the history from my head...

    At school we were taught that Big nasty Hitler attacks the poor lil Jews and brave old Britain stood up for the poor Jews with all our might until eventually our good friends America came to the rescue and finished off Hitlers regime. At the time I resented being presented with what was quite clearly a biased simplistic version of events. Now that I've done a bit more reading between the lines, I thank my education system for not teaching me what really hapened... As I have a feeling it's a lot darker than it seems, and that is really saying something! Though I wish they could have gone further and just not mentioned the whole affair at all. Bloody history, give it a rest! I was so innocent minded pre education. It's a sin to spark an interest in history in such an innocent young mind.
    I wouldn't be at all suprised if Hitler was nothing but a Zionist puppet designed to strengthen the Zionist movement even further... I bet his doctor who sent him mad was either Jewish or educated by Zionist's, and the same for Hitler himself. The worlds media is Zionist, the worlds establishment is Zionist... and yet Hitler was apparently acting from his Christian beliefs which were ofcourse, Zionist.

    Hitler didn't fail... he acheived what he was desinged to achieve. More power for the global elite. Whether they be Zionist or Babylonians or both at the same time or neither but inventors of both. He was just a puppet on strings being pulled by people far more intelligent and powerful than himself. Silly Goy. I mean guy. He never stood a chance... of failing to fullfill his indoctrinated purpose. Mwahahahahaaaa.
    I consider your statement to be very interesting based on the fact that up until today the Zionist movement is still alive and well. I think I want to go with what you are saying at least for the moment until I hear something more striking. I also think Hitler did not loose but fulfilled the objectives of the Zionists. If I might say so there are lots of bits and pieces of information hidden all over the world some of it in the Vatican about the real reason why Hitler failed.

    Most of the information presented today does not reveal the role Africa played in the war game. However we can see from the after effects of WW2 how much the Zionist influence has dominated the world frontier. I have heard it said on the forum that any WW be it three or ten cannot happen unless Africa be top priority. The question has to be why? The answer is simply economics and demographics. Hitler was no fool, or one of the biggest fools, he has to be one of the most studied individual in the world with so many bandwagonist trying to hitch a ride.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    Wit is clever and funny... sarcasm isnt always so. Much of it is quite lame and not very bright at all, or funny. I geuss the argument is based on a philisophical concept that it is not clever to attempt to scold other people. Certainly sometimes it is not. I can see some merit in the argument.

    Based on the philosophical argument that it is not clever to scold people... I find it impossible to accept that sarcasm could ever be the highest form of intelligence. Though i'm sure it was not so much an argument, more a joke.

    I wasn't aware that the opinion reflected in the statement "it is not clever to scold people" could be termed a "philosophical concept" or a "philosophical argument".
    Clearly your knowledge of philosophy matches your ability in the sciences. I must remember not to cross swords with you again!
    I should add that the reason I first became involved, in this thread, was because you did come across as being anti-semitic.

    Ofcourse it's a thing that is subject to ones philosophical outlook Halliday... some people think it is clever to scold others, some disagree... this is called a philisophical outlook. It's quite simple and yes, I would advice you go play with those who have plastic swords like yourself.

    Seriously, why dont you just come out with it in the first place? and give me a chance to try and explain myself...

    If I criticise the pope, and call him corrupt, does that mean i'm prejudice against all catholics?

    I'm sorry that the Jews or the Zionists which I have been told are different cults cannot be criticised without sounding like an 'anti-semitic'.. what ever that means, anti arabic isnt it?

    Anti semitism, what ever it truely means, suggests i'm being prejudiced against all Jewish people. I am not. I quite like many Jews and treat each individual who calls him or herself a 'Jew', as I find them, no prejudgment.

    But who cares if I'm criticising this cult??? everyday on here people criticise religion, as soon as 'the Jews' are mentioned then everybodies like 'racist anti semite scum!'. I find it to be quite a pathetic and completely unitelligent, disgustingly dishonest double standards.

    The zionist movement, is causing a lot of trouble in the world. It's people living out prophecies written in the Bible... people who are nothing but puppets in some sick game of Global control. Ofcourse they think they are doing whats best, for themselves.

    I think everybody who buys into it, or allows this to dictate how they live their lives is a puppet living out the will of people long since dead. They probably think they are living out God's will, most of you sciency typpes would call that deluded wouldn't you?

    Common Jews, many of whome were sacrificed in the Holocaust, the poor souls. Are no better or worse than christians, or Islamist, or anybody else who plays a part in this ancient conspiracy against mankind, In my opinion. And ofcourse common people would have no idea what they are playing a part in, though most Jews I believe
    are well into this whole Isreal thing.

    Does that make me anti Christian? I dont see how it can, I have christian friends, the history I read about the man we call jesus, king of the Jews, he sounds like a character. I'm not anti him, I don't know him!

    I like and laugh at Jewish comedians, I still think they are pawns in a game and that the game has got out of hand. I'm entitled to that opinion without it being suggested i'm a racist prejudiced 'anti semite'... It's a pathetic stratergy to silence those who disagree with this ancient global conspiracy over mankind, my brothers and sisters.

    I was told that semite is a word for somebody who comes from arabia, zionists dont come from arabia, they just want to invade the place. Isreal is the biggest enemy of the middle east, it's attacking all the semites. It's far, far more 'Anti-semite' than i am, why don't you go pick on them instead of me? get some back bone huh?

    Makes me angry to hear this same old crap, you got anything new to say in that head of yours or what?

    Or are you going to just go around prejuding me and my whole philosophy purely because I mention the Jewish or the zionist cult in less than Idylic terms?
    I never heard you come out of the wood work to defend anybody else that I have criticised, you never called me anti christian, anti islamic, anti illuminati... only anti jew. Do you know why that is? ofcourse you dont! I will tell you... It's called ' you are being a daft racist!' enough with your prejudice already.

    Don't be a puppet, speak the truth, tackle the hard issues... don't just go around being sarcastic to people who you cannot use intelligent arguments against, it's not clever it's sick and manipulative. It's affective, and in that sense it's clever, but it just causes more trouble and in that sense it's stupid... It's a matter of philosophical outlook.
    If you've been to Harvard or Oxford or you beleive you know better, then share you honest insights into the situation... That would be clever, or at least it would show some back bone and integrity on your part. I'm always happy to learn when people are presenting what they know and what they believe in, but caustic sarcasm and avoiding the issue isn't impressive at all, and it isnt clever, it's kinda sick in the head and will cause even more tension and animosity on this planet than we've already got and had since monotheism began! and these dark sinister fairy tales about chosen people and promised lands are clearly a mental illness. Yes I think everybody who lives out the will of another person, or allows ancient stories to affect the way they act, is a puppet.

    But I never realised criticing an ancient conspiracy against mankind was 'anti-Arabic'... .

    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    I have always understood that the term "anti-semitism" referred to the Jews.
    Of course you have the right to criticise the Jews, Zionists or the state of Israel without being considered guilty of anti-semitism.
    I do start to feel concerned, however, when I read moronic stuff like "It's a pathetic strategy to silence those who disagree with this ancient global conspiracy over mankind, my brothers and sisters".
    I have also noted, with some disappointment, that one of your latest posts, starting a thread, was immediately transferred to the pseudoscience sub forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I have always understood that the term "anti-semitism" referred to the Jews.
    Haven't we all! type semite into Google, go to the wiki page... it's latin word meaning arabic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Of course you have the right to criticise the Jews, Zionists or the state of Israel without being considered guilty of anti-semitism.
    Then why do you accuse me off it? it's not necesary, it's a cause for concern for me, and disapointment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I do start to feel concerned, however, when I read moronic stuff like "It's a pathetic strategy to silence those who disagree with this ancient global conspiracy over mankind, my brothers and sisters".
    Well it is a pathetic stratergy used by zionists... just have a think about it. Nobody made up a name to call anti christians racists, or anti islamists.
    It does in effect stop people from feeling free to discuss any of this subject, unfortunately. That is nothing but a stratergy... and in my opinion it is pathetic in every sense, a bit like sarcasm.
    I end the sentence with brothers and sisters because I have been taught by science that all Homo Sapiens are one big family within the Animal Kingdom, it's how I feel about people, like they are my brothers, and sisters. I feel the need to iterate this belief I have whenever somebody uses the racism card against me.

    I dont see whats moronic about any of it and I will thank you to keep your opinions on the level of my intelligence to yourself. It is quite offensive if you didn't realise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I have also noted, with some disappointment, that one of your latest posts, starting a thread, was immediately transferred to the pseudoscience sub forum.
    I was also quite disapointed! I'm suprised by this support you offer for my thread! I didn't think it deserved to go into the pseudoscience forum either, but there you go.
    Thank you Halliday, I apreciate this support greatly!

    Your not so bad or scornful after all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    I consider your statement to be very interesting based on the fact that up until today the Zionist movement is still alive and well. I think I want to go with what you are saying at least for the moment until I hear something more striking. I also think Hitler did not loose but fulfilled the objectives of the Zionists. If I might say so there are lots of bits and pieces of information hidden all over the world some of it in the Vatican about the real reason why Hitler failed.

    Most of the information presented today does not reveal the role Africa played in the war game. However we can see from the after effects of WW2 how much the Zionist influence has dominated the world frontier.
    Well it doesn't take a genius to work this out in my opinion Abrakadabra. All you have to do is read a little about the Zion stuff in the bible etc, then observe how many of the wars at present involve Isreal and this quest for the promised land, aided by her allies whose governments are dominated by people who seem to be zionists. It's obvious these people are zionists as they are prepared to kill others to fullfill this biblical prophecy.

    I too am willing to take on board new and improved ideas as and when I am exposed to them.

    I don't like to blame it all on any one group or organisation working together in secret. I like to think of it all as the societal machine which is the established order or society and was established by people long since dead. The will of these people is still very much affecting the actions of people alive today, and that is why I consider all these living people as puppets of the Societal machine. It's not living people I have a problem with, and I don't want to pit myself against them, it's the will of dead people which they keep believing in which I object to as it seems irrational and mindless to me. I may well be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I have always understood that the term "anti-semitism" referred to the Jews.
    Haven't we all! type semite into Google, go to the wiki page... it's latin word meaning arabic.
    My last word on this thread!
    I know what "semite" means. Try typing "anti-semitism" into Google.
    I was not offering support for the pseudoscience thread. I believe it ended up in the appropriate sub forum because of its subject matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    I consider your statement to be very interesting based on the fact that up until today the Zionist movement is still alive and well. I think I want to go with what you are saying at least for the moment until I hear something more striking. I also think Hitler did not loose but fulfilled the objectives of the Zionists. If I might say so there are lots of bits and pieces of information hidden all over the world some of it in the Vatican about the real reason why Hitler failed.

    Most of the information presented today does not reveal the role Africa played in the war game. However we can see from the after effects of WW2 how much the Zionist influence has dominated the world frontier.
    Well it doesn't take a genius to work this out in my opinion Abrakadabra. All you have to do is read a little about the Zion stuff in the bible etc, then observe how many of the wars at present involve Isreal and this quest for the promised land, aided by her allies whose governments are dominated by people who seem to be zionists. It's obvious these people are zionists as they are prepared to kill others to fullfill this biblical prophecy.

    I too am willing to take on board new and improved ideas as and when I am exposed to them.

    I don't like to blame it all on any one group or organisation working together in secret. I like to think of it all as the societal machine which is the established order or society and was established by people long since dead. The will of these people is still very much affecting the actions of people alive today, and that is why I consider all these living people as puppets of the Societal machine. It's not living people I have a problem with, and I don't want to pit myself against them, it's the will of dead people which they keep believing in which I object to as it seems irrational and mindless to me. I may well be wrong.
    Although the bible is supposed to be the book for mankind, I am very skilful at avoiding relying on its truths and meanings. First of all I am skeptical of its reasoning and on how biased it is. I was brought up in a Christian home where Jews were the favorites of Gods people. I left home and travelled out and took in a lot of information about Jews and Germany. I was given a lot of water to carry in baskets and that made me take another look. What I am experiencing today has made a great difference to how I see Zionism today. I know there are a lot of people who hate Jews but I don't want to get into the hate game, however there has to be room enough to discuss the matter. As I see it the chosen people are going overboard with the idea that they are special in the universe.

    Hitler might have been extreme, but the Jews today are even worst, supported by the power those benefit from disasters. I have always thought as I grew up what could the Jews have done to deserve Hitler treating them the way he did. Well I have to swallow my spit, I am afraid of them and can understand in some ways why people are turning against them. Hitler was no fool; I do not think he entered the war without some expectations. There is no one that can start a world war all by them self. We are now all speculating why Hitler lost the war, but the war is not over but only placed on hold and will develop into WW3. The original problem has not been solved and now the populations are much larger. Demographics were the main problem and it has not changed.


    You speak of established order; I am seriously wondering what order you mean. There are so many of them. There can never be a one world culture, which in turn makes it almost impossibly to have a one world order. It is unattainable for such a small country such as Israel to dominate world politics and not realize it’s in the minority. I am not saying that a part of Hitler’s failure was not the persecution of the Jews but I do not think that was the main reason he lost the war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    I consider your statement to be very interesting based on the fact that up until today the Zionist movement is still alive and well. I think I want to go with what you are saying at least for the moment until I hear something more striking. I also think Hitler did not loose but fulfilled the objectives of the Zionists. If I might say so there are lots of bits and pieces of information hidden all over the world some of it in the Vatican about the real reason why Hitler failed.

    Most of the information presented today does not reveal the role Africa played in the war game. However we can see from the after effects of WW2 how much the Zionist influence has dominated the world frontier.
    Well it doesn't take a genius to work this out in my opinion Abrakadabra. All you have to do is read a little about the Zion stuff in the bible etc, then observe how many of the wars at present involve Isreal and this quest for the promised land, aided by her allies whose governments are dominated by people who seem to be zionists. It's obvious these people are zionists as they are prepared to kill others to fullfill this biblical prophecy.

    I too am willing to take on board new and improved ideas as and when I am exposed to them.

    I don't like to blame it all on any one group or organisation working together in secret. I like to think of it all as the societal machine which is the established order or society and was established by people long since dead. The will of these people is still very much affecting the actions of people alive today, and that is why I consider all these living people as puppets of the Societal machine. It's not living people I have a problem with, and I don't want to pit myself against them, it's the will of dead people which they keep believing in which I object to as it seems irrational and mindless to me. I may well be wrong.
    Although the bible is supposed to be the book for mankind, I am very skilful at avoiding relying on its truths and meanings. First of all I am skeptical of its reasoning and on how biased it is. I was brought up in a Christian home where Jews were the favorites of Gods people. I left home and travelled out and took in a lot of information about Jews and Germany. I was given a lot of water to carry in baskets and that made me take another look. What I am experiencing today has made a great difference to how I see Zionism today. I know there are a lot of people who hate Jews but I don't want to get into the hate game, however there has to be room enough to discuss the matter. As I see it the chosen people are going overboard with the idea that they are special in the universe.

    Hitler might have been extreme, but the Jews today are even worst, supported by the power those benefit from disasters. I have always thought as I grew up what could the Jews have done to deserve Hitler treating them the way he did. Well I have to swallow my spit, I am afraid of them and can understand in some ways why people are turning against them. Hitler was no fool; I do not think he entered the war without some expectations. There is no one that can start a world war all by them self. We are now all speculating why Hitler lost the war, but the war is not over but only placed on hold and will develop into WW3. The original problem has not been solved and now the populations are much larger. Demographics were the main problem and it has not changed.


    You speak of established order; I am seriously wondering what order you mean. There are so many of them. There can never be a one world culture, which in turn makes it almost impossibly to have a one world order. It is unattainable for such a small country such as Israel to dominate world politics and not realize it’s in the minority. I am not saying that a part of Hitler’s failure was not the persecution of the Jews but I do not think that was the main reason he lost the war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post


    The main reasons for war is almost always the same, territorial, religion, economics, and in some cases women. In Hitler’s case it was also a question of demographics. He lost the war for more than on specific reason. Entering Stalingrad was really a desperate last effort attempt but the war was already lost. The effort to go into Stalingrad was made although Hitler knew that is was a risky project, he knew about the weather, he knew about the supply lines, he knew thousands of his army would be lost, but he did what he had to do as with all who thrive to attain power.
    Good thinking on that. One of the big threats Hitler was constantly waving around in front of anyone who wasn't obedient enough in Germany was that he would draft them and send them to the Eastern Front. It was like prison only worse (in reality it was basically a death sentence), and he didn't have to put you through a trial to do it.

    Sometimes it's disturbing to try and get inside the head of a power hungry psychopath. Being chancellor is never enough for that kind of person. They must squash all dissent also. Their power must be absolute - but of course no ruler's power is ever absolute - so it becomes an endless quest.

    It's probably why Hitler wouldn't surrender when things started to turn. He preferred to remain absolute dictator of a nation - no matter how badly it may fail under him - rather than acquiesce his throne to save it.
    I think you are correct.. No nation, outside of complete annihilation, can be defeated when the vast majority of its people are behind it. The greatest threat no any nation is how ones own government/s and politicians/leaders treats its people. Most laws, most restriction, every liberty fought against, every attack (both physical and/or verbal) a government and/or politician/leader places upon the people of a nation disenfranchises/upsets/angers someone. It is these people, their numbers, that add up and they will not fight or properly fight/sacrifice themselves for the continuation and lives of the nation, leaders and politicians that have disenfranchised/upset/angered them.

    Hitler's problem was not going into africa or russia... His problem was that he disenfranchised/upset/angered to many of his fellow countrymen and women, and his support came from those who were dependent upon him for everything.

    Those that are dependent are weak and not self reliant, and those that are self reliant are worth their weight in gold when a nation is challenged or is challenging from within or from without. Hitler's social/liberal political agenda to weaken the self reliant and strong within germany disenfranchised the strong and created a larger and larger class of weak dependent people. A nation or people cannot survive for long under these circumstances and conditions.

    Temporary security from internal threats to their domination is provided for the power hungry leaders and politicians when their subjects/slaves (and make no mistake about it, this is how these type of folks see the people) are limited in freedom, liberty and self reliance but, these actions, policies and laws lead to the foulest of crimes/abuses and then the downfall of a nation. This was Hitler's problem, and this is the problem with all socialist/liberal agendas.
    Last edited by gonzales56; January 7th, 2013 at 02:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I know what "semite" means. Try typing "anti-semitism" into Google.
    I was not offering support for the pseudoscience thread. I believe it ended up in the appropriate sub forum because of its subject matter.
    I found some history on the word which is used very poorly in contemporary times. It means anti-descendents of shem.
    There are various ideas about why the word was adopted. This link is not impartial but it seems to be fairly descriptive, i'm sure there is more to the story of course:
    Anti-Semitism: ..... What Is It? - Anti-Semitism & Holocaust - Christian Action for Israel

    I'm not anti descendents of shem at all as far as i'm aware... are not Syrians and Palistinians descendents of Shem? Does it not mean that any Jew who discriminates against other Jews or Arabians or descendents of Shem, is an anti-semite? Wasn't Jesus an antisemite when he went into the church and threw over the tables which were used for trading inside Gods house?

    It's a cheap trick to smear anybody who criticises Jews as prejudiced and racist... no other group has such a privelidge position of having a word which they can use to paint criticisms as racist, if anything it just futher incites a feeling of injustice and inequality.

    But I too have said all I have to say and more... there are plenty of other things in the world I think worthy of criticism, such as the doctrines of orthodox science... which so far, I have not found the zionists to be responsible for. In fact on the surface it appears to be an almost opposing factor to monotheistic Jewlery, though the founding fathers were apparently Christians and God believers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I was not offering support for the pseudoscience thread. I believe it ended up in the appropriate sub forum because of its subject matter.
    Keep your beleifs to yourself, they are antiscientific and antiQFYian. Have a nice day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post



    Keep your beleifs to yourself, they are antiscientific and antiQFYian. Have a nice day.
    Unfortunately there are other forum members who seem to share my opinion, about many of your posts, and they know a lot more about science than either of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    Although the bible is supposed to be the book for mankind, I am very skilful at avoiding relying on its truths and meanings. First of all I am skeptical of its reasoning and on how biased it is. I was brought up in a Christian home where Jews were the favorites of Gods people. I left home and travelled out and took in a lot of information about Jews and Germany. I was given a lot of water to carry in baskets and that made me take another look. What I am experiencing today has made a great difference to how I see Zionism today. I know there are a lot of people who hate Jews but I don't want to get into the hate game, however there has to be room enough to discuss the matter. As I see it the chosen people are going overboard with the idea that they are special in the universe.

    Hitler might have been extreme, but the Jews today are even worst, supported by the power those benefit from disasters. I have always thought as I grew up what could the Jews have done to deserve Hitler treating them the way he did. Well I have to swallow my spit, I am afraid of them and can understand in some ways why people are turning against them. Hitler was no fool; I do not think he entered the war without some expectations. There is no one that can start a world war all by them self. We are now all speculating why Hitler lost the war, but the war is not over but only placed on hold and will develop into WW3. The original problem has not been solved and now the populations are much larger. Demographics were the main problem and it has not changed.


    I know what you mean with all of that Abrakadabra, though I wouldn't say 'the Jews', most of whome are surely decent and nice people. Bit like I wouldn't blame 'Christians' for the horrors committed in the name of that religion.

    If you look at the situation today, we'r on the brink of WW3 constantly and it's Isreal which is the potential catalyst. Lets just hope for the best.
    People over there are being bombed and living in fear... but it's me who is the trouble maker because I mention the way things seem to me, ofcourse!


    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    You speak of established order; I am seriously wondering what order you mean. There are so many of them. There can never be a one world culture, which in turn makes it almost impossibly to have a one world order. It is unattainable for such a small country such as Israel to dominate world politics and not realize it’s in the minority. I am not saying that a part of Hitler’s failure was not the persecution of the Jews but I do not think that was the main reason he lost the war.
    The way I see it... all these apparent establishments and powers are all different sides to the same ancient established order of things, whether they realise it or not.

    But then, I just like to simplify things instead of complicate them, so perhaps I see it in an over simplified manner.

    But christianity, Judaism and Islam are three sides of the monotheistic organised religion and the leaders would work together I would have thought... Perhaps they really are against each other, eitherway they are all pawns in the same game. In my honest opinion.

    Perhaps that game was started with the best of intentions, perhaps those involved in the game today have the best intentions. But for me, I look around and see a lot of suffering and it doesnt seem necesary. I see a lot of people whose seem primarilly concerned with their own interests, and it's hard to believe in them. The world is full of people fighting each other, and it's mostly down to history as far as I can see. I wish there was a way for people to live and let live, help each other out. I think insecurity is the driving force behind the divisions which exist in mankind.

    The Jews are no different from the Christians really, just people who have been indoctrinated by beliefs, nothing wrong with that. No reason to hate anybody.

    I just wish people could stop worrying so much, be very open and work together to find the best solution for the future... because at present it all seems very wrong just below the surface.

    Thats why I speak openly, I wish others could do the same. If the best laid plans have been corrupted over the years then we need to take a look and take responsibility for whether we follow them, and the damage they might cause.
    If there are sound and just plans in place for society, then I wish I knew what they were. Certainly ideas of 'chosen people' stink of inequality, though perhaps they are or will be the most worthy and nobel leaders, perhaps leadership is necesary and then inequality cannot be avoided.

    My philosophy is that everybody needs to be cared for... we are not selfish organisms, we are naturally a co-operative unit aware of our place as part of the whole. The whole means whole, not just a tribe or cult but all life. We each should take some responsibility to ensure we serve all, because that is the best way to serve ourselves, imho.

    Any superior cell in a human body might be part of a collective such as a brain, responsible for instructing other cells to a degree... but no cell in a biological organism would have the power or the inclination to destroy any other cell, because it would be destructive to the organism as a whole. Therefore nature does not endow any cell with that kind of authority and power, nor does it endow any organ (collection of cells) with that ability.

    So basically, war is not natural, it's not necesary and anybody or group responsible are pathogens.

    Hitler might have seen himself as part of the imune system, shutting down the body and trying to eliminate what he considered unhealthy cells. The people he disliked might have considered themselves in the same way. I don't like Hitlers methods, I don't respect them, I prefer a peacefull kind of therapy method like Ghandi. I don't know about his intentions or the intentions of Zionism and so I really shouldn't talk about it as if I know whats going on, because I don't. But sometimes I can't help joining in the debate, i've had long enough on this earth to know that in spite of all our remarkable acheivements, something somewhere is not quite right. I personally think it comes down to the desire for greater power over nature and I think this is born from a deep rooted insecurity. Lots of bad happens as a result, I find it hard to imagine how it can provide a greater good long term. But hey ho, it is what it is, whatever that is.

    I don't have the same dog eat dog mentality as many of these people who have been responsible for killings and wars over millenia... I don't even like to talk about it, I think of it all as evil and I don't think the truths are out there, not even hidden behind all the untruths.

    Everybody needs to heal each other, I think the only way the zionist thing or any other thing will be abandoned is by those involved deciding to adapt their philosophies and be true to their own hearts and minds. Fighting and blaming just causes more insecurity and makes it all worse imo.

    I really wish I never got involved, as its a complicated mess... and I probably just makes things worse.

    This isn't exactly the mainstream scientific thought but... 'Peace and Love'.
    Last edited by question for you; January 10th, 2013 at 11:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post



    Keep your beleifs to yourself, they are antiscientific and antiQFYian. Have a nice day.
    Unfortunately there are other forum members who seem to share my opinion, about many of your posts, and they know a lot more about science than either of us.
    Then let them share their opinions and save us both much time... Stop seeing everything as unfortunate, you need some optimism in your life!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra
    Hitler might have been extreme, but the Jews today are even worst, supported by the power those benefit from disasters. I have always thought as I grew up what could the Jews have done to deserve Hitler treating them the way he did. Well I have to swallow my spit, I am afraid of them and can understand in some ways why people are turning against them. Hitler was no fool; I do not think he entered the war without some expectations. There is no one that can start a world war all by them self. We are now all speculating why Hitler lost the war, but the war is not over but only placed on hold and will develop into WW3. The original problem has not been solved and now the populations are much larger. Demographics were the main problem and it has not changed.
    The Jews are worse than Hitler? The Jews will be the cause of World War 3? Really? I don't understand where this hate comes from. I really don't.
    Last edited by Harold14370; January 10th, 2013 at 11:51 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I could have accepted as a debating point the argument that Israeli government policy over the last several decades has led to a substantial amount of bloodshed well beyond the borders of Israel. But to conflate Israeli government policy with Israelis and then with Jews is just silly. Of course many people think Hitler was silly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra
    Hitler might have been extreme, but the Jews today are even worst, supported by the power those benefit from disasters. I have always thought as I grew up what could the Jews have done to deserve Hitler treating them the way he did. Well I have to swallow my spit, I am afraid of them and can understand in some ways why people are turning against them. Hitler was no fool; I do not think he entered the war without some expectations. There is no one that can start a world war all by them self. We are now all speculating why Hitler lost the war, but the war is not over but only placed on hold and will develop into WW3. The original problem has not been solved and now the populations are much larger. Demographics were the main problem and it has not changed.
    The Jews are worse than Hitler? The Jews will be the cause of World War 3? Really? I don't understand where this hate comes from. I really don't.
    Well perhaps I wouldn't quite have worded it as strongly as Harold by suggesting this is hatred, but I would say that you appear to be slightly misguided. Yes I will agree with you that many in the world are often shocked by the loss of life seen from Israeli incursions or air strikes especially when we see that children have been killed or injured, but we also need to remember here that these arn't just random attacks, no country in the world is going to sit back and ignore it's own citizens being killed by rocket attacks or bus bombs etc..., there have been far more serious reactions shown by other countries trying to defend themselves. So to describe Israel as or Jews as worst than Hilter is misguided.

    What we would all like to see is proper negotiations taking place between the Palestinian Leadership and the Israel Government without any thread of continueing violence, not continueing to blame one side or another, so such attitudes don't really help the situation imho.
    Last edited by Ascended; January 10th, 2013 at 12:26 PM. Reason: Fixed the quote attributation problem
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    previous message no longer required... plus i'm having problems with it.

    No problem Harold, thank you for fixing it. *in advance response to post 145.
    Last edited by question for you; January 10th, 2013 at 12:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    The libelous goings on! just another day at the sience forum company
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I think what you need to do for me if you would be so kind is click on 'edit'... then change my name in brackets for the name of the author of the quote.

    Here are the necesary brackets if that helps you:

    [QUOTE=Abrakadabra;382161]

    Cheers Ascended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I could have accepted as a debating point the argument that Israeli government policy over the last several decades has led to a substantial amount of bloodshed well beyond the borders of Israel.
    But what would it change? Well you never know I guess.

    So yeah, is there anybody out there who wants to take the stance that the Isreali governments policies and the blood spilt as a result is acceptable or necesary?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Sorry, QFY. I had some problem with the quote button. I apologize for the misquote.
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    So yeah, is there anybody out there who wants to take the stance that the Isreali governments policies and the blood spilt as a result is acceptable or necesary?
    Is there anyone out there who want to take the stance that bombing school buses full of children, blowing up markets full of people and randomly launching rockets against civilians is acceptable or necessary?
    Ascended likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    So yeah, is there anybody out there who wants to take the stance that the Isreali governments policies and the blood spilt as a result is acceptable or necesary?
    Is there anyone out there who want to take the stance that bombing school buses full of children, blowing up markets full of people and randomly launching rockets against civilians is acceptable or necessary?
    Well.... Nah, can't we just ask them all to play nice or something?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I could have accepted as a debating point the argument that Israeli government policy over the last several decades has led to a substantial amount of bloodshed well beyond the borders of Israel.
    But what would it change?
    It would have avoided a faulty generalisation on your part taking on the appearance of an anti-semitic rant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Freshman Shamandrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    28
    Hello, I did a quick read of this thread. Dictators facinate me, their psychology, evolutionary psychology behind them (I have some weird theories about it), their history and more.

    Here's my answer:

    Luck.

    Why do I say this? I recently read Thinking, fast en slow it says most CEO's do well because of luck, not really because of their decisions.Hitler did a lot of things "good", it was only a matter of time before he made a mistake. And I would think, the more you do good, the more confident you get and the more mistakes you would make (nothing to back it up though). Of course luck is not all there is, Hitler decisions should not be ignored. It's very complicated I think.

    I agree that the attack of USSR could have been a mistake. On the other hand:

    -Who says the USSR wouldn't attack Germany eventually?
    -If so could the USSR not be stronger if it wasn't attacked?

    I would say, the more fronts, the more risk for failure (again nothing to back it up, just common sense).

    Another thing; I've read on many occassions (on the internet though) that the people that used to be under Soviet rule saw the Germans as liberators. The mistake was that they treated the people just as bad if not worse.

    Something interesting: I saw talking about Christianity, in the book Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer, Albert Speer says Hitler would have prefered the people to be Islamic, because of their attitude. Whatever that would be true, I remain neutral; I have nothing against Islam I just thought it might be interested for the discussion.
    Last edited by Shamandrill; January 21st, 2013 at 06:42 AM.
    I have a hunger, a hunger for information, a sick obsession with science, I want to know, want to how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    Hitler is such a controversial topic that to discuss him at all is to open yourself up to possible criticism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
    Hitler is such a controversial topic that to discuss him at all is to open yourself up to possible criticism.
    If we remain silent about the great failings of humanity, how do we teach future generations not to repeat those decisions?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Hitler failed because he ran out of gas. The end. No one can conquer the world, not by love and not by war.. Even if Hitler got his hand on Russia, one country or an another would've at least weakened the Nazis till they couldn't stand anymore.. I guess it was the Russians..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
    Hitler is such a controversial topic that to discuss him at all is to open yourself up to possible criticism.
    I usually find myself quitely agreeing with, or at least appreciating, your posts Jim, but here I find myself saying, what?

    Why should we be concerned about criticism? What form do you think this criticism would take?

    And, on a different tack, what do you see as controversial about Hitler that should discourage discussion? Controversial subjects are the life blood of discussion and of forums such as this. Do you mean that we may encourage Holocaust deniers, ne0-nazis and the like? If that is your meaning I refer you to Flick Montana's post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Why should we be concerned about criticism? What form do you think this criticism would take?
    Controversial subjects are the life blood of discussion and of forums such as this.
    The shades of gray, where lines get drawn.

    Recent locked threads due to criticism or controversy include a thread or two about underage molestation (yes, I use that word because it applies when a juvenile mind is simply not mature enough to fully comprehend such actions used against them) and a rather hilarious O.P. that included a comic that was quite funny, though others, with the smug air of political correctness declared as "Bigoted"... as if any 'bigotry' is automatically evil.

    There's quite a difference between the two. I think the closure of one of the topics was understandable whereas the other closure was crass and absurd and the responses too over-reactive.

    So yes, criticism and controversy absolutely are an issue. It can lead a person with an unpopular opinion being banned for having it on many forums. It can lead to constant bias against that member, should they be so bold as to admit to a little bit of bigotry or saying that maybe the human species could use a little more selective breeding 'cuz face it, we're a mess and breeding terrible traits into our species at an alarming rate the more complacent we get with out society. And good luck getting any agreements on what traits are desirable and what traits are not. At least the less intelligent animals know what they want and what they don't. Humans are all over the place. And some pretty good arguments could be made in favor of that diversity just as good arguments can be made against it.

    What you just said to Jim Colyer missed the mark, completely. Criticism and controversy are welcome to some degree, variably, and totally unwelcome in other degrees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    What you just said to Jim Colyer missed the mark, completely. Criticism and controversy are welcome to some degree, variably, and totally unwelcome in other degrees.
    Since your post demonstrates you have no idea which mark I was aiming for it is presumptuous of you to suggest I have missed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Since your post demonstrates you have no idea which mark I was aiming for it is presumptuous of you to suggest I have missed it.
    Maybe it does; maybe it doesn't. Since you chose to not clarify anything and just make an unsupported assertion- I can choose to think that your response to Jim Colyer still missed the mark. Because it most certainly appears to have done so- I have supported my reasons for thinking such with clear examples and clarity and in science, that outweighs unsupported claims of presumptuousness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I know what I was aiming for. In this instance I have no interest in taking the time to demonstrate how practically every sentence in your response confirms you don't know where I was aiming. Feel free to substitute wrong for presumptuous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I know what I was aiming for. In this instance I have no interest in taking the time to demonstrate how practically every sentence in your response confirms you don't know where I was aiming. Feel free to substitute wrong for presumptuous.
    You got it. Your refusal to be clear and scientific about your denials is fine. I really don't care about where you were aiming, but what you actually said.
    In the meantime, the topic can be controversial and open one up to criticism; Criticism that has a negative impact as a whole. Among a discussion group, as I showed above, a discussion group can and will discourage controversy at times and criticism can be severe. Denying that is not quite honest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    and a rather hilarious O.P. that included a comic that was quite funny, though others, with the smug air of political correctness declared as "Bigoted"... as if any 'bigotry' is automatically evil.
    I would just like to defend myself against a possible accusation of "smug political correctness" in that thread. I was merely making a smug comment about the turn of phrase used in the OP. (And if the comic was "hilarious", then my comment must rank as mildly amusing, at least )
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I would just like to defend myself against a possible accusation of "smug political correctness" in that thread. I was merely making a smug comment about the turn of phrase used in the OP. (And if the comic was "hilarious", then my comment must rank as mildly amusing, at least )
    I really do think that reacting only with "That's bigoted" seems a bit much, to me.
    That was the only thing that two people said and then it was locked. Now whether it should have been locked is not something I would like to debate- the point is that it was locked- and this demonstrates that not all ideas are welcome.
    The scientific method is a way of avoiding the human bias, but a political topic cannot remove that bias. So while one can say that a scientific idea is wrong, it's not so easy on a political topic or on a Joke.
    It smacks a certain way- heavily- to see such a reaction for that one. I have been on many forums, I think this one has the best mods by far and the most openness and that closure was contrary to what I expect to see on this forum. It actually was a bit disturbing.
    (Don't think I see the forum as bad just because I speak of its faults.)
    I don't doubt some people will get offended by a joke. But no one has the right to go through life politically unoffended.

    Anyway- this is a total tangent and side topic...

    Hitler failed because he was a genocidal F-head. (Apologies if my ideas are offensive to genocidal f-heads out there reading).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Hitler failed because he was a genocidal F-head. (Apologies if my ideas are offensive to genocidal f-heads out there reading).
    How do you argue that though? The only I can really link to that hypothesis is the German particularly harsh treatment of East Europeans who came to see him as the enemy instead of a savior from Stalin.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    How do you argue that though?
    It's more bitter opinion than science. The thing of it is, a megalomaniac that decides that an entire race needs to be wiped out will not get a lot of scientific consideration from me.
    I can list a lot of reasons for his downfall, including his preoccupation with conquest, poor military choices and frankly- his pissing off too many people at one go.
    But in the end, he focused on trivial racial differences without cause and used those differences as a scapegoat. He then set about genocidal removing other races. During the process of this was some cruelty of the likes never seen since.
    There is a scientific reason why I think he was a nutter- I just cannot say it scientifically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You got it. Your refusal to be clear and scientific about your denials is fine. I really don't care about where you were aiming, but what you actually said.
    In the meantime, the topic can be controversial and open one up to criticism; Criticism that has a negative impact as a whole. Among a discussion group, as I showed above, a discussion group can and will discourage controversy at times and criticism can be severe. Denying that is not quite honest.
    I am sure you think this means something. Well done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I am sure you think this means something. Well done.
    It means you really cannot handle any criticism, at all. It means that you made a claim and then refused to clarify or support or back up your words. Now, you're trying to prolong a rather useless and senseless argument that never should have had any grounds, whatsoever, to begin. If you think I misunderstood you at the start- clarify. See how simple that is?
    But no, like aquatic ape hypothesis, you can't handle it but with nothing to back it up with, you act like an angry child snapping off remarks.

    Now, if you'd like the last word- I won't respond to the next post you make in which you seem to be aiming for an argument... I don't care for the argument, your pathetic little attitude or for the last word. Feel free to take it.

    No, really- go on- it's all yours. I give my word that I will not reply to you in this thread any further unless you are on topic and being reasonable and sane.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    How do you argue that though?
    It's more bitter opinion than science. .....
    I still don't see a clear link between the genocide and his downfall--but I'm glad you narrowed it down to the genocide of the Jews, they were not the only target. If anything though the cultural and religious antisemitism he was able to tap were largely responsible for the economic and military recovery that allowed Germany to be the center of another WW. And I would agree he made bunches of mistakes.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I still don't see a clear link between the genocide and his downfall--
    In all seriousness, there may well be a link. After-all, many leaders that have participated in atrocities have suffered an eventual violent and unpleasant downfall.
    But the statement was an emotional appeal, not an argument. I made it as an attention getter to distract back to the actual topic... I kinda didn't think I'd get called on it... I am glad that I did though, because it's making me really think about whether or not atrocities will lead to a downfall... or whether that is only coincidental to why there is an eventual take down.
    Probably- the actual motivation for taking such a leader out is more of a financial reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    i think instead of the OP's question it should read instead 'why did hitler fail so late?' he could have been defeated much sooner, but for some reason he was knowingly allowed to arm up and giving the chance to build up an image more and more ppl fell for, and not just in germany.

    if he had experienced more political pressure early on, he couldn't have sucked so many ppl into his sick world of thinking ... maybe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    Originally Posted by Zundap
    . Adolph Hitler was mistaken, the inflation was caused by the Zionists as a weapon to cripple and destroy Germany financially.
    i think i know where you got this from. but check the date of that tape. if that tape would have been done 20 years prior to when it was done, i could see your point. but as it is, it's just propaganda you either spread or fell for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Some of us fail to see our memories or hear our thoughts etc ...
    By JackMonedula in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 16th, 2012, 08:41 AM
  2. Is multiculturalism doomed to fail?
    By Latin_of_delight in forum Politics
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: March 26th, 2011, 12:44 AM
  3. Failing to Fail
    By Learner Chemist in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 15th, 2011, 05:30 PM
  4. Why do most religions fail?
    By ox in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: December 17th, 2010, 10:54 AM
  5. so has the lhc fail again?
    By luxtpm in forum Physics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 21st, 2010, 12:00 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •