Why does it seem to be a Muslim Problem.

**AntRobertson** · 10-12-2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

We didn't lose in Nam,,...

**Attilla the Hen** · 10-12-2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

Hitler did that and as this thread proves, people think he would have won without the weight of the US troops, but you say he was wrong, but he won up until we entered

The US effort certainly shortened the war, but, it was actually the Russians that beat Hitler. They could have done it without any assistance from the other allied forces.
Three quarters of all men and equipment lost by the Germans was on the eastern front.

**blackgang** · 10-12-2009, 04:07 PM

Yes, The russians did go into Germany, and then after the war, they kept part of it on their side of the wall.
But they also did it with American made goods.

Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945 in return for, in the case of Britain, military bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. It began in March 1941, over 18 months after the outbreak of the war in September 1939. It was called An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States. This act also ended the pretense of the neutrality of the United States. Hitler recognized this and consequently had his submarines attack US ships such as the SS Robin Moor, an unarmed merchant steamship destroyed by a German U-boat on 21 May, 1941 outside of the war zone.
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. The terms of the agreement provided that the material was to be used until time for their return or destruction. (Supplies after the termination date were sold to Britain at a discount, for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the U.S.) Canada operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union.[2]
This program is seen as a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement. The Americans demanded that this rent be settled, and it took until 2006 for the UK government to settle its debt to the USA

The Nazis viewed America as being controlled by Jews not to mention the fact that the Nazis didn't like democracy. Hitler's primary concerns were with Europe, he wanted Germany to rule Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and saw Britain as an eventual ally. Hitler wanted to maintain the British Empire so as to keep order in the world whilst Germany ruled over continental Europe.

As someone who has studied military history I see there being three chief components to eventual Allied victory. The UK is the first component. After the fall of France in 1940 Britain was alone. Victory in the Battle of Britain, the only successful defensive air war in history, ensured that Hitler could not invade.

The U.S.S.R. is the next component. By invading the U.S.S.R. Germany committed itself to a massive struggle, which effectively drained the bulk of Germany's resources and armed forces.

The United States is the next component. American industrial power far outstripped the Axis countries and ensured that Allied armies had massive superiority in numbers and were well supplied so that no matter how many material losses the Allies took fresh equipment and vehicles were always ready. American involvement also allowed for the opening of a second front in the West, which, in conjunction with the Soviet advance, split the German forces. Germany at that point was fighting the three most powerful forces on Earth at that time, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States. Germany had no capacity to defeat those combined forces.

Each had their part to play. Without Britain's survival there would have been no second front and Germany would have been free to divert resources to the Eastern Front as well as to seize Middle Eastern oil resources controlled by Britain. Without the U.S.S.R. the full might of the Wehrmacht could have been focused upon defending continental Europe from a cross Channel invasion and taking Egypt and Middle Eastern oil supplies. Without the U.S. Britain and the U.S.S.R. would not only have had to do without the huge American industrial base, but a second front would have been much more difficult to open successfully. One should also not underscore American contributions in the Pacific. Without U.S. involvement there Japan could have attacked the Soviet Union in the east as well diverting more resources to attacking not only the South East Asian colonies, but India and Australia.

**blackgang** · 10-12-2009, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

The US effort certainly shortened the war, but, it was actually the Russians that beat Hitler. They could have done it without any assistance from the other allied forces.

Thats right, we supplied a lot of material to them and they had the man power to fight there and we were busy bailing the limesys and others out with most of our manpower in the pacific, as well as some in North Africa.
Do you remember how far from Australia the japs were when we got em stopped,, by we I mean the USA.

If I remember correctly, over 1/2 of all dead troops killed in Europe were Russians.

**sabang** · 10-12-2009, 04:33 PM

Over half of all German troops killed in the war died in Russia too.

**blackgang** · 10-12-2009, 05:05 PM

I just looked it up and supposedly 64% of allied death were Ruskies.

But look back at Stalingrad,, no civilized person can live in that part of the world anyway.
-40 and you have a hard time getting enough heat out of gun powder to make a bullet get out of the bore.
Fuck that, wars should be fought in warm places,,fuck Russia.

**sabang** · 10-12-2009, 05:10 PM

You do know why Stalingrad was so bitterly contested BG? Oil.

Might even get this thread back on topic.

**helge** · 10-12-2009, 05:21 PM

^ This city was unfortunate enough to be named after a certain man.
It wasn't necassary to destroy it, to get the oil fields of Baku.

**blackgang** · 10-12-2009, 05:40 PM

I said nothing about WHY, nor do I care, but it was a miserable place to fight any battles in such conditions, I have lived and worked in such places, but never again.
But it is damned easy to loose great numbers of troops in battles in such conditions. And usually it is not the attacking army that wins in such places.
And if the Japs would have came in the back door instead of bombing Pearl Harbor, the whole thing might have came off differently.

**Attilla the Hen** · 10-12-2009, 05:45 PM

Yes BG you are right about the US providing equipment, the most important being supply trucks.
As for the Japanese, the US took them on virtually single handed. My aim is not to disparage the US effort, but, you seem to think the US won the war all by themselves, which is patently untrue.

**Jet Gorgon** · 10-12-2009, 05:52 PM

*sigh* these threads always devolve into US bashing and WWII. I think the muzzies kill each other over their religious diffs (Sunni/Shi'ite), land disputes, economics and brain-washing.

**AntRobertson** · 10-12-2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

*sigh* these threads always devolve into US bashing and WWII.

Yes we need to get back on topic - Muslim bashing.

I think the muzzies kill each other over their religious diffs (Sunni/Shi'ite), land disputes, economics and brain-washing.

In other words: no different from the rest of wretched humanity then.

**blackgang** · 10-12-2009, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

you seem to think the US won the war all by themselves, which is patently untrue

No, I do not, it might seem that way, but I do know how it went down, and I do know who did what and to who.
But it is always the USA who is the shitheel bad guy on here, and never a good word for any of us, so yes I do sound one sided but am actually not that way at all, I have been around the shit house several times looking for the door, have worked with most nationalities and have got on well with everyone except Mid Eastern crews, who were basically the shits.
And I have been known to pull a chain once in awhile.

**Attilla the Hen** · 10-12-2009, 06:19 PM

Anyway, the weather in the UK has been classified as Muslim.

It is either Sunni, or shiite.

**blackgang** · 10-12-2009, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

It is either Sunni, or shiite.

I can dig it.

**panama hat** · 10-12-2009, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by blackgang
Where was UN during Samalia?

Saving your soldier's arses . . . Remember this:

Blackhawk Down . . . US soldiers saved by, among others, Pakistani and Malaysian forces . . . two Muslim countries saving your guy's lives!!!!!!

Originally Posted by panama hat

That's a lot of Rangers here, Delta Forces there, Airborne everywhere . . . arses kicked by some rag-tag thugs.

Awe-inspiring, Hollywood-idolised, chest-thumping forces designations . . . in the end just soldiers . . . saved by Muslims!

Any comment, BG, or are you happy that the discussion has taken a slight turn so you can take your coward's way out as usual . . .

Originally Posted by blackgang

We didn't lose in Nam

Noooooooooooo, it was a gallant victory over the dark forces of evil

**Mr Earl** · 11-12-2009, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

In other words: no different from the rest of wretched humanity then.

I know of no other group of people who systematically targets civilians for suicide bombers.
For that matter are there any non Islamic suicide bombers?

Care to illuminate us?

Or will you just make another spurious and nonsensical comment?

**sabang** · 11-12-2009, 06:12 AM

The only difference between a suicide bombing and any other bombing is that the perpetrator suicides in the process. So I guess what unnerves us so much about this is the sheer fanaticism involved.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

For that matter are there any non Islamic suicide bombers?

Yes. There were quite a few suicide bombings by Tamils in recent years.

**panama hat** · 11-12-2009, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

I know of no other group of people who systematically targets civilians for suicide bombers.

I guess it is more loathsome blowing yourself up than dropping bombs on cities, villages or hurling missiles at the same. Oh, there's one big difference . . . suicide bombers die of their own actions while armchair button-pushers are safe and comfortably sitting in air con while murdering hundreds of civilians

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

For that matter are there any non Islamic suicide bombers?

AS sabang said . . .

**blackgang** · 11-12-2009, 07:11 AM

Jump to Religion‎: About 88% of the population of Tamil Nadu are Hindus. Muslims and Christians account for 6% and 5.5% respectively. ...

So it seems that suicide bombing is not an islamic held singular action.

Tamil are the worst and first, but now it is mostly Islamic, but that is easy to see why as the bastards have nothing, and no hpes of ever having anything and a fanatic belief that they will have it all in the afterlife so to get there as fast as possible is their prime objective.

**blackgang** · 11-12-2009, 07:18 AM

But it is also easy to get young muslim kids that are already being raised that there will be nothing in this life, but when you get to the next one the fruits will fall into your lap and so brainwashing them is very easy and they are less suspect than grown people and can infiltrate groups, they can buy them cheap, and not have so much invested in food and upkeep, plus some folks just do not like kids, and the fact that they are fun to make.
Death has no fear from younger and older people so why not use them if you can get em.

**blackgang** · 11-12-2009, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Any comment, BG, or are you happy that the discussion has taken a slight turn so you can take your coward's way out as usual . . .

I have already answered all these questions in a previous post so yu will have to look in MKP for a fight with me.
But do npt stalk me on the main boards.

**keda** · 11-12-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

In other words: no different from the rest of wretched humanity then.

I know of no other group of people who systematically targets civilians for suicide bombers.
For that matter are there any non Islamic suicide bombers?

Care to illuminate us?

Or will you just make another spurious and nonsensical comment?

Don't be daft, m8, you don't really expect the bug to follow through with a coherent rebuttal, do you?

**AntRobertson** · 11-12-2009, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

In other words: no different from the rest of wretched humanity then.

I know of no other group of people who systematically targets civilians for suicide bombers.
For that matter are there any non Islamic suicide bombers?

Care to illuminate us?

Or will you just make another spurious and nonsensical comment?

Don't be daft, m8, you don't really expect the bug to follow through with a coherent rebuttal, do you?

The original comment that my post, now out of context, was in response to was this:

I think the muzzies kill each other over their religious diffs (Sunni/Shi'ite), land disputes, economics and brain-washing

The manner of killing is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Do you dispute that? Do you instead claim that Muslims are unique in this world in killing each other over such factors? Perhaps you'd like to follow through with a "coherent rebuttal" of your own. Because right now the irony of your taking the opportunity to merely join with Earl in yet another personal attack with no actual substantive input to the topic isn't lost on me.

**keda** · 11-12-2009, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

The only difference between a suicide bombing and any other bombing is that the perpetrator suicides in the process. So I guess what unnerves us so much about this is the sheer fanaticism involved.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

For that matter are there any non Islamic suicide bombers?

Yes. There were quite a few suicide bombings by Tamils in recent years.

Can agree with that, but the Tamils stayed local, posing no threat to the rest of the world. Being predominantly Hindu with Christian and muslim minorities, their cause was not religious, and they had no airs for expansion or domination beyond the region.

In this respect their bombing of civilians had only suicide in common with islam, though for purely political goals, and those that gave their lives to kill innocents did not do so in the fraudulent religious belief that they would enjoy eternal bliss.

Thread: Why does it seem to be a Muslim Problem.

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions