So Liberals...

[KurtGodel77]

...but, hey...how many Bills message boards can boast that they have a pedantic, supercilious anal orifice and a Nazi geek it out over history. 

746402[/snapback]

Love your description of Monkeyface. To lighten the mood a little, I'll throw in this link.

[KRC]

Love your description of Monkeyface.    To lighten the mood a little, I'll throw in this link.

746430[/snapback]

 

I can't take credit for it. MelissaInPhilly coined that phrase.

[KurtGodel77]

Your "proof" of it keeps changing.  Now you seem to be saying he was "deeply pro-Soviet" because of Versailles. 

Just for fun, I'll count the number of incorrect statements you make. This is number 1.

Don't take my word for it, look it up.  You'll find that when you look historical facts up, they turn out to be different than when you make them up.

I did look it up, and guess what?

A brief period of independence (1917-1921) following the Russian Revolution of 1917 was ended by Ukraine's absorption into the Soviet Union in 1922.

Now you're up to two incorrect statements.

 

None of the countries you mentioned are actually Soviet neighbors. 

Incorrect statement #3. Turkey is one of the countries I mentioned, and it bordered the Soviet Union.

That leaves only...oh...maybe five million other Poles unaccounted for.  I suppose they just moved to Cheektowaga

Probably most of these people starved to death. But was it the Soviets or the Germans who starved them? Odds are neither country exactly went out of its way to fatten them up too much. But Germany's food situation was never great, and by the end of the war was an absolute disaster.

 

Not that I believe that...but hey, it's your racial theories...

I've never written nor implied races have differing values, so now you're up to incorrect statement #4.

Olay, so you don't know sh-- about Dresden either. 

Incorrect statement #5.

I'm curious as to why you'd think eyewitness reports are so completely reliable, when ever single remotely intelligent person on the planet is aware that's not the case.

Are eyewitness accounts of all atrocities unreliable, or does your logic only apply to Allied atrocities?

 

Would you like me to list all the major war industries in Dresden?  All the legitimate military targets? 

Are you honestly saying the Dresden attack was done to hit military targets? That's shocking, even for you. The end of the war was less than four months away. Under those circumstances, you don't murder 60,000 - 300,000+ women and children, in the hopes that you'll shut down some factory a few weeks early. You bomb enemy soldiers to end the war that much more quickly. The American Air Force focused on tactical bombing following the D-Day invasion. Later on, we switched back to extermination bombings. The Dresden raid was aimed against civilians, pure and simple. If you're trying to refute something as obvious as this, you're even less honest than I'd thought.

No, you said that because of racial isolation over 100k years, Homo Sapiens has undergone speciation. 

Incorrect statement #6.

[cromagnum]

I kinda enjoyed reading the history exchange, now I have to read about the bombing of dresden to know what industrial and military sites and economy they had at that time, I'm sure I watched it on the history channel and the military channel and pbs...But this is like watching cnn and foxnews, you still don't know the truth untill you research it thouroughly or at least semi research it..Ctm is usually pretty acurate with military history, kurt, this is the first time I have read your post on ppp, so no disrepect, I will check it on independent history and military sites, appears to be a good read that I will be entering. and learning further......

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I did look it up, and guess what? 

 

1) Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

2) Are you brain-damaged? That's not even what the article says!!! It says that the Ukraine was ruled by Russia from 1648 to 1993; from 1918-1920, Ukranian separatists declared a series of republics, battled the Bolsheviks unsuccessfully, and were invaded by Poland. Did you actually read what you linked?

 

Probably most of these people starved to death.  But was it the Soviets or the Germans who starved them?  Odds are neither country exactly went out of its way to fatten them up too much.  But Germany's food situation was never great, and by the end of the war was an absolute disaster. 

 

Except that wasn't your original point. Your original point was "Soviets bad, Germans not quite as bad." Except that far more Poles died under the Germans than Soviets.

 

And most of the dead Poles were either executed (gassed - a huge number of them were Jewish) or died as slave laborers. Or are you adding Holocaust denial to your Nazi platform now?

 

I've never written nor implied races have differing values, so now you're up to incorrect statement #4.

 

No, but it's a natural progression from your speciation hypothesis. (Is hypothesis even the right word? Fantasy's probably more accurate.)

 

Incorrect statement #5.

 

Are eyewitness accounts of all atrocities unreliable, or does your logic only apply to Allied atrocities?

 

"My" logic? Ask a prosecuting attorney. Hell, you're living proof that the ability to see something and the ability to remember it are two completely different things; your eyewitness accounts of your own posts are notoriously unreliable.

 

Are you honestly saying the Dresden attack was done to hit military targets?  That's shocking, even for you.  The end of the war was less than four months away.  Under those circumstances, you don't murder 60,000 - 300,000+ women and children, in the hopes that you'll shut down some factory a few weeks early.  You bomb enemy soldiers to end the war that much more quickly.  The American Air Force focused on tactical bombing following the D-Day invasion.  Later on, we switched back to extermination bombings.  The Dresden raid was aimed against civilians, pure and simple.  If you're trying to refute something as obvious as this, you're even less honest than I'd thought.

 

You are so startlingly ignorant on the subject of Dresden and aerial bombing in general that arguing with you is a waste of time. You misunderstand (unsurprisingly) the technology, purpose, doctrine, and political considerations of the Allied air campaign in WWII. You'd have been better off referring to the Hamburg or Tokyo firebombing as genocidal...except you'd still be wrong. But at least you'd have a case. Dresden was a clear-cut viable military target, bombed in a clear-cut legitimate military operation with clear-cut tactical and operational goals relating to the front lines. That 50k people died in the bombing does not make it genocidal; that was not the intent.

 

Quoting the example of Allied air operations around D-Day, too, is stupid (for anyone else, I'd merely say it's disingenious. For you, it's a sadly typical act of idiocy and ignorance). It is, again, a complete mischaracterization of the air campaign, both the prelude to D-Day, operations during D-Day and the immediately following period, and longer-term post-Normandy operations. You have managed to get preciesly NO facts right about it. Not a single one. Most people, even completely ignorant on the subject, would probably manage to stumble over one correct fact by random accident. You can't even manage that.

 

Incorrect statement #6.

746446[/snapback]

 

No, you specifically said that 100k years of racial isolation led to speciation. I linked to it earlier. It was in the same thread where you referenced the "liberal agenda of marital genocide", two posts later. You can look it up.

[KurtGodel77]

I kinda enjoyed reading the history exchange, now I have to read about the bombing of dresden to know what industrial and military sites and economy they had at that time, I'm sure I watched it on the history channel and the military channel and pbs...But this is like watching cnn and foxnews, you still don't know the truth untill you research it thouroughly or at least semi research it..Ctm is usually pretty acurate with military history, kurt, this is the first time I have read your post on ppp, so no disrepect, I will check it on independent history and military sites, appears to be a good read that I will be entering. and learning further......

746449[/snapback]

Here's a good BBC article to get you started.

[cromagnum]

Here's a good BBC article to get you started.

746465[/snapback]

That was informative, I am definitly going to read alot more about WW II..

Thank you for posting the link.

[KurtGodel77]

1) Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

Neither are you.

2) Are you brain-damaged?  That's not even what the article says!!!  It says that the Ukraine was ruled by Russia from 1648 to 1993; from 1918-1920, Ukranian separatists declared a series of republics, battled the Bolsheviks unsuccessfully, and were invaded by Poland.  Did you actually read what you linked?

The Wikipedia article had this to say:

A brief period of independence (1917-1921) following the Russian Revolution of 1917 was ended by Ukraine's absorption into the Soviet Union in 1922

 

Your original point was "Soviets bad, Germans not quite as bad."  Except that far more Poles died under the Germans than Soviets.

1) That's not necessarily true, and 2) more people died overall from the Soviets than from the Nazis.

 

Dresden was a clear-cut viable military target, bombed in a clear-cut legitimate military operation with clear-cut tactical and operational goals relating to the front lines.  That 50k people died in the bombing does not make it genocidal; that was not the intent.

After accusing me of ignorance of Dresden, you write this? Amazing. The purported reason for the Dresden raid was to take out a German railway station. Fine. That's a legitimate military target. The rails in Dresden were up and running a few days after the attack. The purported objective wasn't meaningfully achieved. The real objective was. First high explosive bombs were dropped, to blow the roofs off people's homes and apartments. Then incendiary bombs were dropped to start these homes ablaze. As intended, a firestorm was created around the city, sucking in people and oxygen. Temperatures reached up to 1500 degrees; hot enough to vaporize bone. The city was destroyed, and an untold number of men, women, children, and babies were burned to death or buried beneath rubble.

 

The bombing of residential urban areas was a war crime as defined by the Geneva treaty. The Dresden bombing raid certainly fit that definition. Shutting down the rail lines could have been more effectively and more humanely achieved had the Allies bombed miles of rail lines leading into Dresden; without actually hitting the city itself. But the Dresden raid wasn't about rail lines. It was about extermination.

 

 

Quoting the example of Allied air operations around D-Day, too, is stupid (for anyone else, I'd merely say it's disingenious.  For you, it's a sadly typical act of idiocy and ignorance).  It is, again, a complete mischaracterization of the air campaign, both the prelude to D-Day, operations during D-Day and the immediately following period, and longer-term post-Normandy operations.  You have managed to get preciesly NO facts right about it.  Not a single one.  Most people, even completely ignorant on the subject, would probably manage to stumble over one correct fact by random accident.  You can't even manage that. 

As usual, you're long on personal invective, and short on facts. I wrote the American Air Force focused on tactical targets in the wake of the D-Day invasion. You responded to that factually accurate statement with a full paragraph of venom, but no actual information which would contradict it.

 

No, you specifically said that 100k years of racial isolation led to speciation.  I linked to it earlier.  It was in the same thread where you referenced the "liberal agenda of marital genocide", two posts later.  You can look it up.

746460[/snapback]

I went back and reread all my posts in that thread. Not once did I suggest the world's races constitute different species. Nor did I say a speciation event had taken place. I didn't say it, I didn't imply it, and I didn't and don't believe it. You're dead wrong about my posts in that thread. Apparently, being wrong is a habit you've formed.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

After accusing me of ignorance of Dresden, you write this?  Amazing.  The purported reason for the Dresden raid was to take out a German railway station.  Fine.  That's a legitimate military target.  The rails in Dresden were up and running a few days after the attack.  The purported objective wasn't meaningfully achieved.  The real objective was.  First high explosive bombs were dropped, to blow the roofs off people's homes and apartments.  Then incendiary bombs were dropped to start these homes ablaze.  As intended, a firestorm was created around the city, sucking in people and oxygen.  Temperatures reached up to 1500 degrees; hot enough to vaporize bone.  The city was destroyed, and an untold number of men, women, children, and babies were burned to death or buried beneath rubble. 

 

The bombing of residential urban areas was a war crime as defined by the Geneva treaty.  The Dresden bombing raid certainly fit that definition.  Shutting down the rail lines could have been more effectively and more humanely achieved had the Allies bombed miles of rail lines leading into Dresden; without actually hitting the city itself.  But the Dresden raid wasn't about rail lines.  It was about extermination.

 

Uh...no. I can't really blame you for parrotting the myth, since it's so established (and, by the way, it was started by Goebbels. You're repeating Nazi propaganda, what a shocker). But the decisions leading up to Dresden are well-documented, including the industry in the city. It's importance as a transport hub is well-documented. The raid itself is well-documented. The aftermath is well-documented. None of which actually support the popular myth you're parrotting. Which, again, I can't blame you for, since you haven't the brains to do much else.

 

As usual, you're long on personal invective, and short on facts.  I wrote the American Air Force focused on tactical targets in the wake of the D-Day invasion.  You responded to that factually accurate statement with a full paragraph of venom, but no actual information which would contradict it.

 

As usual, you're long on mistakes but short on actual facts. Read a friggin' book, for crying out loud. I can quote you a day-by-day account of the targets the US and British Air Forces hit from 1943-1945 in the ETO. I wouldn't...because you'd simply say I was wrong, because my referencing actual combat reports from the VIII, IX, XII, and XV Army Air Forces is in your mind somehow far less reliable than the intellectual drool you spout.

 

I went back and reread all my posts in that thread.  Not once did I suggest the world's races constitute different species.  Nor did I say a speciation event had taken place.  I didn't say it, I didn't imply it, and I didn't and don't believe it.  You're dead wrong about my posts in that thread.  Apparently, being wrong is a habit you've formed.

746475[/snapback]

 

You don't actually know what "speciation" means, do you? Because you did say it; you practically defined it. I probably shouldn't be surprised at this point that you don't even understand your own posts...but somehow, you've managed to surprise me.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Neither are you.

 

The Wikipedia article had this to say:

746475[/snapback]

 

You didn't read the entire article, did you?

[KurtGodel77]

That was informative, I am definitly going to read alot more about WW II..

Thank you for posting the link.

746469[/snapback]

I probably read thousands of pages of WWII history before I really learned to read between the lines. There's the surface view, which no doubt you've heard: Germany was unfairly punished by the Versailles Treaty. The Allies came to realize this after Hitler took power, Hitler was a crazy expansionist who wanted to conquer the world. After their appeasement efforts failed, Britain and France finally went to war with Hitler over Poland.

 

But digging beneath the surface brings up tough questions. For instance, every history of WWII I've read clearly indicates that once Poland received a protection guarantee from Britain and France, it became very eager to go to war against Germany. The Polish confidently predicted a march on Berlin. But why were they this eager? France's plan was to hide behind the Maginot Line and wait for the Germans to attack. Hitler understood this, which is why he began the war with the bulk of his army on his eastern front. You'd think that anything France's enemies knew, its allies ought to have known also. Did the French deliberately mislead the Polish about what their strategy would be? While that seems very strange, the alternative is even more strange: that the Polish government deliberately chose a policy which would result in its annihilation.

 

Secondly, there's the question of whether the Polish government inflicted atrocities upon ethnic Germans for the purpose of provoking an attack. In a book praised by The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, John Toland mentioned that a report of one atrocity in particular deeply influenced Hitler's decision to go to war. However, Toland mentioned the numbers in the report had been exaggerated by a subordinate. But was the original estimate, with the smaller numbers, correct? Toland provides no guidance about that question.

 

I can't say I blame him. Suppose the Polish government was guilty of inflicting atrocities on the German minority to provoke a war. Had Toland written that the guilt for starting the war rested with Poland and perhaps France, the Jewish-owned N.Y. Times certainly wouldn't have praised his book. He'd have to listen to creeps like Monkeyface calling him a Nazi. The general public would assume there must be some truth to these accusations, and so wouldn't buy his book.

[KurtGodel77]

Uh...no.  I can't really blame you for parrotting the myth, since it's so established (and, by the way, it was started by Goebbels.  You're repeating Nazi propaganda, what a shocker).  But the decisions leading up to Dresden are well-documented, including the industry in the city.  It's importance as a transport hub is well-documented. 

There's no apostrophe in the possessive form of "its." Since you like well-documented things so much, try looking up the Geneva convention's definition of a war crime. You'll be interested to find the Dresden bombing fits.

 

As for the Goebbels stuff--of course Goebbels complained. A city full of innocent German women and children had just been callously murdered by British and American forces. Any propaganda minister from any nation would have made an issue out of such an act, and rightly so. What was Goebbels supposed to say--"I applaud the decency and restraint shown by Roosevelt and Churchill. I feel the military objective of stopping rail traffic for a few days justified the destruction of one of Germany's largest cities and richest cultural centers. I don't feel those nations should have pursued other, more humane ways to stop that rail traffic. Come to think of it, I'm not at all bothered by the fact the city was filled with refugees from the Soviet invasion. Nor do I feel the Geneva Convention should apply to nations that are a few months away from winning the war."

I can quote you a day-by-day account of the targets the US and British Air Forces hit from 1943-1945 in the ETO. 

Then why don't you? You keep talking about all this wonderful documentation you have that refutes everything I'm saying. But if your memory of your documentation is half as bad as your memory of my posts, you won't be able to refute much.

You don't actually know what "speciation" means, do you?    Because you did say it; you practically defined it. 

Wrong, again. What a surprise. Try actually reading my posts in that thread, and show me where I used the word speciation. You can't, because I didn't. If you're willing to confidently make inaccurate statements about a thread I can easily look up, odds are you're at least equally likely to make inaccurate statements about documentation which you're too lazy or too arrogant to reveal.

[KurtGodel77]

You didn't read the entire article, did you? 

746672[/snapback]

If you're accusing me of skipping the ninth century stuff, you're right. But I read the portion of the article which had to do with the time frame we're discussing, and guess what? You're wrong. Hey, if it makes it any easier on your ego, you can try to pass this off as some Wikipedia error.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

There's no apostrophe in the possessive form of "its."  Since you like well-documented things so much, try looking up the Geneva convention's definition of a war crime.  You'll be interested to find the Dresden bombing fits. 

 

Try reading a history of the air war WWII...as it defies your preconceived notion of the Dresden bombing, I'm sure you'll be entirely disinterested to find the bombing of Dresden fiths the definition of a legitimate military operation.

 

As for the Goebbels stuff--of course Goebbels complained.  A city full of innocent German women and children had just been callously murdered by British and American forces.  Any propaganda minister from any nation would have made an issue out of such an act, and rightly so.  What was Goebbels supposed to say--"I applaud the decency and restraint shown by Roosevelt and Churchill.  I feel the military objective of stopping rail traffic for a few days justified the destruction of one of Germany's largest cities and richest cultural centers.  I don't feel those nations should have pursued other, more humane ways to stop that rail traffic.  Come to think of it, I'm not at all bothered by the fact the city was filled with refugees from the Soviet invasion.  Nor do I feel the Geneva Convention should apply to nations that are a few months away from winning the war."

 

I'm speechless. You don't know anything about it. You're misinformed. Badly. Horribly.

 

Then why don't you?  You keep talking about all this wonderful documentation you have that refutes everything I'm saying.  But if your memory of your documentation is half as bad as your memory of my posts, you won't be able to refute much.

 

I recall we had this problem last time: you make unsubstantiated comments you claim are factual, people disagree, you require people to back up their position, but you don't require the same standard of support for yourself. What's more...when people do back up their claims, you simply resort to "You're wrong, because you disagree with me."

 

Jesus Christ, if you took just thirty seconds to try to back up your own nonsense, you'd find the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey is actually available online, and explains virtually everything I've been telling you. But I suppose the USSBS isn't reliable either...

 

Wrong, again.  What a surprise.  Try actually reading my posts in that thread, and show me where I used the word speciation.  You can't, because I didn't.  If you're willing to confidently make inaccurate statements about a thread I can easily look up, odds are you're at least equally likely to make inaccurate statements about documentation which you're too lazy or too arrogant to reveal.

746755[/snapback]

 

You defined speciation, you !@#$ing idiot! The divergence of a species into separate subspecies due to isolation over a course of time. "Ah, but I didn't use the word, so it doesn't count!" You are absolutely unreal.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If you're accusing me of skipping the ninth century stuff, you're right.  But I read the portion of the article which had to do with the time frame we're discussing, and guess what?  You're wrong.  Hey, if it makes it any easier on your ego, you can try to pass this off as some Wikipedia error.

746775[/snapback]

 

Then learn English. What it says and what you say it says are two entirely different things.

[KurtGodel77]

I'm sure you'll be entirely disinterested to find the bombing of Dresden fiths the definition of a legitimate military operation.

Glad to know you approve of extermination bombings. That fits nicely with your earlier comment about how thousands of years of human history have shown genocide works.

Jesus Christ, if you took just thirty seconds to try to back up your own nonsense, you'd find the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey is actually available online, and explains virtually everything I've been telling you.  But I suppose the USSBS isn't reliable either...

I've read about why the bombing was supposedly justified, and you know what? I'm not buying what you're selling. You don't create a firestorm in the middle of a city and explain later how it was a legitimate military operation, or that you wanted a few rail lines destroyed, or that there were a few factories shut down a few weeks early. There were ways to achieve the legitimate military objective of shutting down those rail lines--ways that didn't involve mass murder. The Dresden bombing violated Articles 23, 25, 26, and 27 of the Annex to the fourth Hague Convention. Therefore the bombings were a war crime.

 

You defined speciation, you !@#$ing idiot!  The divergence of a species into separate subspecies due to isolation over a course of time.  "Ah, but I didn't use the word, so it doesn't count!"    You are absolutely unreal.

At least you're developing a dim awareness that I didn't use the word speciation. That's a start. It's true I used the terms "race" and "subspecies" interchangeably. If you look up the word subspecies, you'll see the following:

n : (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species [syn: race]

Hey, Princeton thinks "subspecies" and "race" are synonyms. But don't let that stop you from calling me a Nazi for embracing that same definition.

 

This situation is a good example of why you have so little credibility in my eyes. I use the word "subspecies" as a synonym for race--just like Princeton. I went on to say that I wanted the world's races to continue to exist. You responded by accusing me of producing "nonsense about racial purity based on blacks being a separate and distinct species." Maybe it's too much to expect you to understand the difference between the words "species" and "subspecies." Hey, kingdom, family, order, class, genus, species, subspecies--they all mean the same thing, right?

[Alaska Darin]

Geek fest!!!!!

 

Don't you two realize you are arguing about something that maybe 10 other people in the world know or understand?

746386[/snapback]

Fortunately for us, only one of THEM actually knows and understands.

[Alaska Darin]

I recall we had this problem last time: you make unsubstantiated comments you claim are factual, people disagree, you require people to back up their position, but you don't require the same standard of support for yourself.  What's more...when people do back up their claims, you simply resort to "You're wrong, because you disagree with me."

746805[/snapback]

Shutup, he used Wikipedia!

[Alaska Darin]

Glad to know you approve of extermination bombings.  That fits nicely with your earlier comment about how thousands of years of human history have shown genocide works.

 

I've read about why the bombing was supposedly justified, and you know what?  I'm not buying what you're selling.  You don't create a firestorm in the middle of a city and explain later how it was a legitimate military operation, or that you wanted a few rail lines destroyed, or that there were a few factories shut down a few weeks early.  There were ways to achieve the legitimate military objective of shutting down those rail lines--ways that didn't involve mass murder.  The Dresden bombing violated Articles 23, 25, 26, and 27 of the Annex to the fourth Hague Convention.  Therefore the bombings were a war crime.

At least you're developing a dim awareness that I didn't use the word speciation.  That's a start.  It's true I used the terms "race" and "subspecies" interchangeably.  If you look up the word subspecies, you'll see the following:

n : (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species [syn: race]

Hey, Princeton thinks "subspecies" and "race" are synonyms. But don't let that stop you from calling me a Nazi for embracing that same definition.

 

This situation is a good example of why you have so little credibility in my eyes. I use the word "subspecies" as a synonym for race--just like Princeton. I went on to say that I wanted the world's races to continue to exist. You responded by accusing me of producing "nonsense about racial purity based on blacks being a separate and distinct species." Maybe it's too much to expect you to understand the difference between the words "species" and "subspecies." Hey, kingdom, family, order, class, genus, species, subspecies--they all mean the same thing, right?

747119[/snapback]

Did they actually take your brain out when they washed it? Or is that just hyperbole?

[KurtGodel77]

Did they actually take your brain out when they washed it?  Or is that just hyperbole?

747321[/snapback]

Looks like we have ourselves a Monkeyface wannabe. Just what these boards needed.