Human catastrophe

I must respectfully disagree with this over simplification. Certainly they have played a role, as had the oppressive nature of the political leadership of these benighted lands which gave their people a desire to rebel and the thoughtless nature of well meaning northern European nations like Germany and Sweden who encouraged these unfortunate people to come to their country without giving thought on just how they would get there.

The real overarching reason for this tragedy is the same one that has not been resolved since the mid 7th century, namely the schism between the Shia and Sunni sect's of the Islamic faith.

Throughout the history of the middle east these two subsets of this religion has always been in conflict with each and when one gains dominance over the other it has oppressed the unfortunate loser. For very brief periods they can suppress their mutual hatred for one another, but it never lasts. If they can not agree to live and let live between themselves, how can they ever hope to live in peace with those who revere a lesser prophet in their minds?

If you critically examine the fighting within Iraq and Syria over the last few years (and yes even during active western military operations) you will note they are more than willing to align themselves with "infidels" so long as it provides the opportunity to make war upon their most hated foe. One they hate even more than the Israelis, each other.

 

I know, your'e a nice guy Biak, like all Americans I know, but persistent propaganda made you think that there are "good" and "bad" murders, but murder is a murder, whatever you call it, whatever excuse you have, murder is a murder. Committed by a Nazi hand or by an American hand, it still remains plain murder. Only rhetorics used to justify the murder is different. Goebbels was good, but American propaganda is unsurpassable.

America has produced high precision weapons of mass destruction and they persistently hit civil targets many miles away from the combat zone.

 

I had to merge some quotes due to hitting the quote limit *** indicates where they were murged and where the response is.

He's probably not familiar with that as they don't have that problem in Russia. Unless you consider prison food to qualify.

Indeed there is a difference but of course it's taken out of context. The context of military action vs mass murder is of overwhelming import. Some of the Jews were burned alive as well from what I've read.
***
Hardly.

Actually it's pretty easy to justify nor is it a crime. Your opinions are noted and rejected.
***
Not really. Indeed if they had you wouldn't have any trouble siteing them.

Actually that's your opinion and it's a long way from undeniable indeed it's a fallacy of massive porportions.

Looks like an English comprehension problem. You are using murder in an area where it is simply not appropriate. Murder is indeed condemed but killing opposing soldiers in combat is not murder nor are collateral casualties.
***
Indeed but you are calling killings murder which simply aren't.

Wrong. The US for the most part doesn't use rhetoric to justify murder. American propaganda is good though primarily because it is usually based on the truth unlike Russian propaganda which is (at least lately) seems to be almost exclusivly based on the "big lie".

Not really at least that I'm aware of. Care to produce some examples?
If you were talking about this list:

America has produced high precision weapons of mass destruction and they persistently hit civil targets many miles away from the combat zone.


Quote

It's pretty clear that the "good" professor doesn't know what he is talking about.
Looking at just the first few:
Japan 1945 - There's a war on military and industrial sites were targeted. So there were military objective, it was not outside a declared war sitituation, the bombing was not indiscriminate (targeting studies are available to support this), the civilian population was not targeted indeed leaflets were dropped to warn them. So this ones is clearly flawed.
China (1945-46) - If they are talking WWII, i.e. before September then there was war on. If they are talking about the US participation in the repatriation effort no bombs were dropped (the Marines did call for one air support mission but it didn't drop any bombs because of the risk of civilian casualties)
Looks like this one doesn't count either.
Korea & China (1950-53) - No declared war but it was a UN sponsored "police action". I've seen no evidence that the US deliberately targeted civilians in Korea and they went to a significant effort and consider danger to US planes not to hit targets in China (although Mac really wanted to). So this one is flawed as well.
Guatemala - no evidence for US dropping any bombs at all.
Indonesia - No US military bombing at all. One plane that dropped a few bombs had an American on board probably CIA. Not clear what the target was but it's unlikely it was innocent civilians (could have been government offices/officials)

So of the first 5 cases or if you include the different dates first 7 cases only one has a possiblity of being correct and it's quite marginal. If that's what you are relying on you need better sources.

 

Why are you so quick to jump on US and UK wars? In wars civilians will die. How many innocent French, Dutch, Polish, German (all European) civilians died due to allied artillery and bombing? It's inevitable. Just one of the sad side effects of war. I don't think any of those Europeans are or ever were angry about it. They knew they would pay part of the blood cost of clearing the Nazi regime from their nations.

Yet, after the war was over Slovenians killed unknown thousands of minority German speakers, Italians, anti-communists and others in systematic executions. There was no war to blame this on, it was just genocide, ethnic cleansing, political expediency. it's odd that you never bring this up...

It gets a little silly to blame the US for a genocidal Arab movement that started in Tunisia. I find it rather silly. Perhaps the genocide the Slovenians committed is also due to the US? Those massacres continued until 1949, so it must be Truman's fault.

 

Well, it is difficult to handle this barrage of denial, but I would like to deal first with this:

That is entirely true and even worse than you perhaps know or you can conceive. These were indeed harsh times for the "enemies". They suffered indeed badly, "our" bastards were ruthless executioners. We still deal with that part of our historical herritage, or should I say, a scar in our past. It is impossible now to make that good, but we deal with that as a historical fact and try to mark the lost graves. We are loking forward to find the way for reconciliation with our past. I pray our Lord modestly to have have mercy upon our souls.

 

I blame Truman.

 

Perception.
Have claimed in other threads that folks from different areas process and view things differently. My GF is from another country, and am always wondering about her different perceptions ( to the same situations ), conclusions and processes. It can be very frustrating...Thinking we have the same issues here in this thread.
The media spins in each country.

 

You are right: this is about the perception or more precisely, how the perception can be distorted by the propaganda.
But different view on taste of pizza has entirely different weight compared to perception of destruction of entire nations in unjust war over oil.

 

There's the problem right there; anything you disagree with is "propaganda". Just like anyone who disagrees with your mate is a "liberal".

 

This is one of those propaganda things you speak of. Oil companies are international entities. The same companies that bought and sold oil from Iraq under Saddam, are the same companies buying and selling it today. Nobody "took" Iraq's oil, it's still owned by the Iraqi government and people, and still sold through the same channels at the same market rates. International oil companies didn't benefit from the Iraq war.

One can argue the wisdom or not of the war, but the "oil" argument is empty nonsense.

 

After this commercial from the Muslim Lobby,it is maybe time to go to serious things .

 

Stop..Commercial Time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bntfUA6TmLs&feature=player_embedded

 

Finally! A calm, thoughtful and reasoned argument!

 

You just can't help making an arse of yourself, can you?

 

I just saw a headline that there are nine immigrants to Scotland for every birth. Didn't read the article, and don't know who those immigrants are - probably as many eastern Europeans as middle easterners, but doesn't that concern you? Will the next generation be Scottish as you think of the term? There's a point where assimilation becomes engulfment. LJAD may be a bit more radical than I, but borders used to mean something. It isn't just rampant nationalism in the negative way that Germany (since this is a WWII forum) used the term, but there is a point where nations need to draw the line. I would suppose that eastern Europeans would eventually assimilate since they share the same common history as all westerners, but middle easterners (Asians as you term them) won't. They don't want to. In the US, since we have had fewer immigrants from the middle east, they are sort of forced to assimilate except in a few places where they've concentrated and hang onto the values, or lack of, that are common in their own nations.

The same is not true in Europe. You already have a huge Muslim population, and they expect a million more by the end of the year - the next two months. I suspect next year you'll see two or three million and the year after...? As long as they keep being accepted, the numbers will grow every year. And once there, with the high birth rate because they don't understand or accept birth control, you are doomed by sheer voting numbers in generations to come. We are already seeing this in parts of France where entire areas are just ceded to Islam. Burning cars is a kind of sport there. Rape, looting, attacking Jews has become part of life.

I don't see a happy future for Europe. Islam is not compatible with western culture.

 

Scaremongering, that headline was incorrect.



A report by Oxford ­University's Migration Observatory found Scotland's foreign-born population rose from 191,571 to 369,284 - an increase of 93% - between 2001 and 2011.

However, at just 7% the ­proportion of foreign-born residents in Scotland is still considerably smaller than the 13% south of the Border.

The Migration Observatory research body found the sharp rise in Scotland's migrant population was fuelled by a huge rise in the number of Polish-born residents, who acquired the right to live and work anywhere in the EU in 2004.

People born in India (23,489 at the last census count in 2011, more than double the 2001 figure) and Ireland (22,952, up 5%) made up the second and third largest immigrant groups.
Other significant national groups included people born in Pakistan, Germany, the USA and China.
The second-fastest growing immigrant group, after Poles, was Nigerians, whose numbers leaped from 1253 to 9458.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13134590.Number_of_immigrants_living_in_Scotland_doubles_in_a_decade/

In 2002, according to the GROS, the number of live births in Scotland was the lowest ever recorded, at 51,270
If we take the lowest number ever recorded, and multiply that with 10 for a ten year period, we get 512,700 births. Far more than the total immigrant population of 369,284 of 2011, and greater than the number of immigrants arriving in the same time period. But maybe they were comparing the total immigrant population to the number of births in a twelve month period, because that makes sense,.... or not. Why choose 12 months, why not 1 month, or 1 day, then you can get a real dramatic ratio.

The ONS has suggested that around 14,000 people will arrive in Scotland per year for the next decade. 14,000 people is less than 51,270 babies, last time I looked.

The figure actually falls below the Scottish government’s target of attracting 25,000 newcomers each year, and represents a downgrade on previous population projections. (Still fewer than the number of live births).

The current refugee crisis, will of course affect Scotland, more than these figures show. How much is as yet unknown.

Of course, every single one of these immigrants are rabid muslims fundamentalists, fleeing Assad's secular state, seeking a place to daily stone people on the streets in peace and quiet.

 

An other commercial.


33000 from India and Nigeria ,for the moment, within a generation 330000?

Scotland also will experience the pleasures of the multicultural society : rapes,ghettos, racial war,collaps of the economy .

The number of immigrants (= foreigners) in Scotland has almost doubled in 10 years,and what was the increase of the Scottish population (= the autochtones)?

The massive influx of foreigners will change Scotland definitively and the change will not be a good one .

 

3 exemples in one week of benefits of the multicultural society in Belgium

1) Last week : terrorist attack on the PM;concealed of course and when it leaked, it was claimed that the man was mentally unstable (as the murderer in Graz)

2) Monday : terrorist attack on army barracks : immediately the Muslim Lobby (first the BLC) claimed that the man was mentally unstable

3) 2 days ago a Muslim,driving a BMW (only rich people and Muslims have BMWs) killed a girl of 12 years in a car accident and was fleeing (with his father and girlfriend) to un unknown destination .Reaction of the Muslim Lobby ? Was there an imam condemnong what the culprit had done and asking him to surrender ? Of course not .And the media ? Very economical with their comments .

But if the opposite would happen ? The country would be in confusion : it would be world news : racism, islamophobia, the non Muslims must do penance, admit 50000 more Muslims, give 5 billion Euro more .