US 'should have bombed Auschwitz'

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-01-2008, 10:17 PM
Texpat

When he's talking to his Secretary of State (not the media) regarding an Allied decision (notice it wasn't US, despite the incorrect threadhead) that was made 65 years ago, I don't see why not.

The dress-wearing man leading the tour is who was quoted, not Bush. :)
12-01-2008, 10:55 PM
Spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

You try leading a company let alone a fekin country

Led my own company for a few years, no problemo because I was not patently out of my depth like dubba is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

a person who led a nation for eight years

I dont think he leads anything, in fact I suspect that when he needs to piss, he has to be lead to the bathroom by his cock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

My case is that people are attacking him

This guy consistantly presents himself as a fool on the world stage, should we ignore this because of his current position?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

he was smart enough to be elected for two terms

Not in the eyes of people with base intelligence, the events in Florida panned out like something that would possibly occur in Laos or Burma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

strongest nation in the world

China is the strongest nation in the world, when they choose to sell dollars for something else, the game is OVER! Its their call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texpat

Your over-eagerness to discredit him makes you appear equally foolish.

He discredits himself just by opening his mouth, it doesnt need anything added to it by a few interent warriors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by November Rain

would have resulted in killing the inmates

Yes, finally it gets mentioned. collareral damage or friendly fire is not something that is taken into consideration too much though is it?
12-01-2008, 11:00 PM
Texpat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin

collareral damage or friendly fire is not something that is taken into consideration too much though is it?

Actually, yes.

In the end, they didn't bomb.
12-01-2008, 11:00 PM
Boon Mee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texpat

When he's talking to his Secretary of State (not the media) regarding an Allied decision (notice it wasn't US, despite the incorrect threadhead) that was made 65 years ago, I don't see why not.

The dress-wearing man leading the tour is who was quoted, not Bush. :)

Never let the facts get in the way of rabid, BDS-inflicted members of this fine forum, Tex...:rolleyes:
13-01-2008, 06:12 AM
HermantheGerman

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

But tell me this, how many people who go to Israel go to such memorials, museums, and places of remembrance much less go specifically for them?

Because I know plenty of people who've been to Israel for many different and varied reasons but that was never one of them.

Maybe you should try watching the news. Almost every politician, head of state, or president visiting Israel goes to Yad Vashem.
Yad Vashem is Israel’s second most visited site (2 million people last year)...maybe you should tell your friends about it.

Quote:

Almost every idiot that goes to Israel has to go to these Holocaust Memorial sites. Enough is enough !

:1st: are you happy now
13-01-2008, 07:20 AM
November Rain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texpat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin

collareral damage or friendly fire is not something that is taken into consideration too much though is it?

Actually, yes.

In the end, they didn't bomb.

According to the report, collateral damage was not the reason for not bombing; the fact that the inmates would have been killed seems to be neither here nor there, it seems it was a strategic decision.

Quote:

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz during the war from Polish partisans and escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines leading to it, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort, a decision that became the subject of intense controversy years later.
13-01-2008, 08:30 AM
stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by November Rain

According to the report, collateral damage was not the reason for not bombing; the fact that the inmates would have been killed seems to be neither here nor there, it seems it was a strategic decision.

Quote:

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz during the war from Polish partisans and escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines leading to it, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort, a decision that became the subject of intense controversy years later.

Frankly, I would not take a very general summary in a paragraph from a yahoo-newsclip as conclusive regarding this matter - there are much more detailed and authentic accounts on the subject, if one wanted to look further into it.
13-01-2008, 09:57 AM
Rattanaburi

Killing is all the same.

One tortured person is equal to a million.

Greed creates greed.

Mass murderers get all the attention.

Economics kills people.
13-01-2008, 10:51 AM
November Rain

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by November Rain

According to the report, collateral damage was not the reason for not bombing; the fact that the inmates would have been killed seems to be neither here nor there, it seems it was a strategic decision.

Quote:

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz during the war from Polish partisans and escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines leading to it, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort, a decision that became the subject of intense controversy years later.

Frankly, I would not take a very general summary in a paragraph from a yahoo-newsclip as conclusive regarding this matter - there are much more detailed and authentic accounts on the subject, if one wanted to look further into it.

I obviously misunderstood. I thought this was the explanation Bush was given when he asked why it hadn't happened (which may or may not have had a bearing on any remarks made). I didn't realise this was just the reporter's opinion. Sorry.
13-01-2008, 03:50 PM
Little Chuchok

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

^Bush: US Should Have Bombed Auschwitz | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited

Not a very hard link to find mien fuhrer.:)

It's for the OP to link it.

Not you.

And it's not up to US to go and search for the link.

It is up to "US" to look for a link if 'WE' want it.That's "US" not "YOU"

You are turning into a pedantic "COCK"
13-01-2008, 04:25 PM
Driventowin

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

^ It's just a rule because in the past there was false links.

So if there has been false links posted in the past? How does posting a LINK legitimize it then? :confused:
13-01-2008, 08:50 PM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

^ It's just a rule because in the past there was false links.

So if there has been false links posted in the past? How does posting a LINK legitimize it then? :confused:

A link doesn't legitimize anything.

It allows people to go to the source of the article.

Who wrote it? Or claimed to write it?

What date? When?

What organization?

What publisher.

With a link you can cross-reference, and then further delve into secondary sources and bibliographies.

The Internet has BS. But you can also check BS on the Internet, fairly quickly.

No link, means I, Milkman, can write an article saying Martians have invaded London, Bangkok, Canbarra, and New York, and that you should kill yourself.

It happened before.....
13-01-2008, 09:35 PM
Driventowin

Quote:

No link, means I, Milkman, can write an article saying Martians have invaded London, Bangkok, Canbarra, and New York, and that you should kill yourself.

It happened before.....

I remember!! I remember!!! War of the worlds 1938!!! Hundreds were injured and killed in the ensuing panic!!:scared:

I don't know about the killing myself part though that sounds pretty sensational and a bit if an extreme over reaction. Especially since I've been waiting a long time to meet martians.. Maybe I should just wait and see if they're friendly first..
13-01-2008, 09:51 PM
November Rain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Who wrote it? Or claimed to write it?

Put that in my post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

What date? When?

That too

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

What organization? What publisher.

Not sure what the difference is, but I posted at least one of them.

Point taken about the link & I will do it in future, but I believe I also put all pertinent info about the article in my OP.
13-01-2008, 10:44 PM
stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

It is up to "US" to look for a link if 'WE' want it.That's "US" not "YOU"

You are turning into a pedantic "COCK"

No, you are wrong.

Milkman is insisting on adherence to a rule which has been here from the beginning, and Issues had people piss all over it, posting shite from e-mail chain letters and other made-up stuff - this place is for 'serious' discussion.;)

It only takes a few seconds to paste a link, and it saves everyone else who participates to do their own searches.
One might want to read the whole thing to make up one's mind.

What is all the fuss about? Got some bee up your bonnet or being controversial for the sake of it?:rolleyes:
14-01-2008, 02:57 AM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

It is up to "US" to look for a link if 'WE' want it.That's "US" not "YOU"

You are turning into a pedantic "COCK"

No, you are wrong.

Milkman is insisting on adherence to a rule which has been here from the beginning, and Issues had people piss all over it, posting shite from e-mail chain letters and other made-up stuff - this place is for 'serious' discussion.;)

It only takes a few seconds to paste a link, and it saves everyone else who participates to do their own searches.
One might want to read the whole thing to make up one's mind.

What is all the fuss about? Got some bee up your bonnet or being controversial for the sake of it?:rolleyes:

Thank you, Stroll.

Putting up a link, takes what? 2 seconds? Perhaps 3 seconds.
14-01-2008, 01:20 PM
Driventowin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

^ It's just a rule because in the past there was false links.

So if there has been false links posted in the past? How does posting a LINK legitimize it then? :confused:

A link doesn't legitimize anything.

It allows people to go to the source of the article.

Who wrote it? Or claimed to write it?

What date? When?

What organization?

What publisher.

With a link you can cross-reference, and then further delve into secondary sources and bibliographies.

The Internet has BS. But you can also check BS on the Internet, fairly quickly.

No link, means I, Milkman, can write an article saying Martians have invaded London, Bangkok, Canbarra, and New York, and that you should kill yourself.

It happened before.....

Actually I was just having a go....prolly should have added one of these as well...:p;)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page