This is my assessment too. The Question has exhaustively researched his material, that's evident. I am still not convinced he's not spinning. The hypothesis that the Nazi Holocaust carries more weight because it was perpetrated against the chosen people is one person's opinion. It also has the misfortune of being an unpopular opinion, and probably a wrong opinion too.SSgt_Sniper said:
Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why are we going after Iran, again?
- Thread starter The Question
- Start date
Ketman said:
My thoughts are more like, the holocaust happened but probably not on such the massive scale as the reports have been! There is no mistake about the intent of the Germans concerning the Jews! 6 million dead? Maybe world wide throughout the entire war, but in just the camps alone? I dont know! I would tend to be sceptical myself, but only of the sheer volume and numbers, however I am not the least bit skeptical about if the holocaust really happened!
I think Messenger is using the data that looks shaky on exactly how many died and by which methods to try to hoodwink people into thinking nothing went on at all! Of course there is spin!
Just because a person lied and said they were shot 3 times when there is only 1 bullet hole and one bullet does that mean they were not shot?
http://reportersnotebook.com/video/david_cole/david_cole_high_resolution.wmv
^It ain't small.... but it's very interesting, to say the least.
^It ain't small.... but it's very interesting, to say the least.
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
As regards the Holocaust, I too am a bit of a skeptic as to the scale and actual intent of the Nazis. First, I find it hard to believe that a nation involved in total war on two fronts would commit the logistics needed to an unnecessary non-military purpose. Second, since the Germans bay all accounts were so fucking competant and efficient, why are there still so many "holocaust survivors" walking around?
SSgt_Sniper
Factional Warfare
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
Well, I have no problem believing Hitler was capable. I also have no problem believing he was delusional enough to try doing everything all at once. As I understand it, the numbers were 10 mil imprisoned, something over 6 mil killed, as to why they didn't finsih, they ran out of time?
I do apologize for taking us off on a tangent not consistent with the original topic of the thread. You guys can move back on topic if you want.
The Question
Eternal
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
Three fronts, at one point, actually. There was western europe, eastern europe -- and lest we forget -- north africa. Politically, the Afrika Korps was the "cleanest" of the Wehrmacht, probably only because leveling propaganda against them would be too ludicrous even for the ADL, and there ain't much that's too ludicrous for the ADL.
The Question
Eternal
Astral said:
No, it means you make damn sure they didn't accidentally shoot themselves and blame it on some poor sucker after the fact.
SSgt_Sniper
Factional Warfare
*Disclaimer: This post refers to the stuff Messenger asked about yesterday regarding Iran. Feel free to find the source, I'm coming up snake eyes looking.*
Okay, the web pages about the documentary are gone. I'll tell you what I remember of it and see if maybe you can drum up the damn thing because Google sucks! I remembered it was a show I'd seen and then went to a website to find out more about, what I had trouble remembering was where. It was a BBC made special that was picked up by the Discovery channel (I think) that discussed the modern history of Jihad and the players involved. It's went into huge depth on the first Afghanistan (Russians) and discussed how while we funneled in weapons, and some medical supplies, The Iranians helped to funnel in the people to fight (as well as some training) and since our goals were compatible, The CIA turned a blind eye.
It then went on to discuss how the Taliban came to power because while everyone else’s equipment was all broken down and junk, suddenly theirs wasn't, and how the intelligence agencies eventually discovered that Iran funneled in surplus equipment (serviceable stuff they no longer wanted) for parts to help get the Taliban's equipment running once again so as to have another religious-fundamentalist government in power, the theory being they'd be more friendly to them (Iran) than any more westernized government or just some warlord who got strong enough.
It also discussed how the Bali movement in Indochina had been short of cash and supplies for a while, to suddenly be back up and running mysteriously, and it did speculate, but the speculation was that Iran probably funneled some stuff there too. It touched briefly on how the Palestinians had received some money from Iran, but didn't focus on it because it was more or less stated that it was only token support compared to the other sources of money some of the Hamas-style organizations had already.
I went on the site afterward to read some more on some parts I missed at the time, but this was right around the time Afghanistan started to kick off, so apparently either I'm not good at looking through site archives, or it's not there anymore. Maybe you can give me some hints what else I can do to find it, or you can find it for me if you have time. *Shrugs* I'll keep trying to find it, but if BBC is the only way to find it I never will, they load impossibly slow for some unexplained reason here in Okieville. Not just here, but at work too. Dunno why.
Okay, the web pages about the documentary are gone. I'll tell you what I remember of it and see if maybe you can drum up the damn thing because Google sucks! I remembered it was a show I'd seen and then went to a website to find out more about, what I had trouble remembering was where. It was a BBC made special that was picked up by the Discovery channel (I think) that discussed the modern history of Jihad and the players involved. It's went into huge depth on the first Afghanistan (Russians) and discussed how while we funneled in weapons, and some medical supplies, The Iranians helped to funnel in the people to fight (as well as some training) and since our goals were compatible, The CIA turned a blind eye.
It then went on to discuss how the Taliban came to power because while everyone else’s equipment was all broken down and junk, suddenly theirs wasn't, and how the intelligence agencies eventually discovered that Iran funneled in surplus equipment (serviceable stuff they no longer wanted) for parts to help get the Taliban's equipment running once again so as to have another religious-fundamentalist government in power, the theory being they'd be more friendly to them (Iran) than any more westernized government or just some warlord who got strong enough.
It also discussed how the Bali movement in Indochina had been short of cash and supplies for a while, to suddenly be back up and running mysteriously, and it did speculate, but the speculation was that Iran probably funneled some stuff there too. It touched briefly on how the Palestinians had received some money from Iran, but didn't focus on it because it was more or less stated that it was only token support compared to the other sources of money some of the Hamas-style organizations had already.
I went on the site afterward to read some more on some parts I missed at the time, but this was right around the time Afghanistan started to kick off, so apparently either I'm not good at looking through site archives, or it's not there anymore. Maybe you can give me some hints what else I can do to find it, or you can find it for me if you have time. *Shrugs* I'll keep trying to find it, but if BBC is the only way to find it I never will, they load impossibly slow for some unexplained reason here in Okieville. Not just here, but at work too. Dunno why.
For the women of Iraq, the war is just beginning
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article717570.ece
The list goes on and on. Of course, most of the Neocons in this thread can't really differentiate between Islamic Fundamentalists, and Secular Muslims.
What a pity.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article717570.ece
The list goes on and on. Of course, most of the Neocons in this thread can't really differentiate between Islamic Fundamentalists, and Secular Muslims.
What a pity.
The Question
Eternal
Astral said:
Just 'cause I'm bored, let's present a more accurate analogy:
If a person lies and says they got shot six times, but keeps changing the story re: how many times they were shot, and with what, and has a bunch of scrapes but not a single bullet wound, and can only show you pictures and drawings and homemade sculptures of the alleged weapon, and is demanding money for it and brainwashing your kids into thinking somebody that kicked the "victim" out of the house for bein' bossy, greedy and obnoxious is the one that did it, despite the lack of any solid proof -- that's when you tell 'em to shut the fuck up.