[Rich]

One of the aims of the bombing campaign was undoubtedly to exterminate a significant part of the German population.

ahhh, no. The objective of the bombing campaign of the Allies when it came to the population, was to de-house workers,

Yeah right! It was a euphemism like "Transport to the East" and "Evacuation". Perhaps I should have said genocide was one of the aims of the bombing. The beauty of it was that no one ever had to own up to genocide, even to themselves. Its like when Israel wastes women and Kids in its operations. Every one knows that collective punishment, not one jot different in quality from what the Nazis did, is one of the aims, but no one ever has to admit to it. There's always reasons. Virtually any conflict you look at both sides always seem to consider themselves the non aggression. There's always special circumstances that justify breaking their own moral codes.

Some of the Jewish supremacist racists like to make out that I'm arguing that the Jews are evil. I'm not. The only thing that is special about Jewish nationalists is the power they have to project and dominate with their narrative. And this was fundamentally the issue we had with Nazis, not they were evil but they were powerful. Or rather they became over powerful. Early on the Nazis were widely supported by Conservatives across the developed world. Those that now try and make out that the Nazis and Fascists were a left wing movement can only be described as vermin. What next will Pinochet be discovered to be a man of the left, because he didn't do enough to reduce inheritance tax? No one can seriously ague that the Nazis were worse than the Khmer Rouge, but Reagan and Thatcher happily backed them in the 1980s. This has remained uncontroversial because unlike Saddam, the Afghan Mujahadine or The Nazis, the Khmer Rouge never became a threat to Western interests.

[wat0n]

Oh calm down Wat0n, Buzz62 does not appear to be saying the Holocaust didn't happen. He does appear to question the facts of the holocaust. Is questioning the details of the holocaust so offensive?

To quote his first message when you wrote that Buzz62 denys the holocaust:

Buzz62 wrote: There are lots of questions. Questions that are actively squelched at every turn.
Like the 6,000,000 figure.
Did the Nazis plan to murder Jews all along? Or was that a "last resort" of sorts?
Did all Germans support this?
Why does nobody ever speak of the approximately 7,000,000 Ukrainians murdered by Stalin in the '30's?
Who designed and built the original concentration camps in Russia?

None of which is a denial that the holocaust occurred - which appears to be what your claiming Buzz62 is claiming.

Except of course when you read the complete thread and realize it wasn't part of an impartial and intellectually honest inquiry of truth, but was politically motivated to bash the Zionists and the researchers on the topic, if not Jews in general. As such, it is Holocaust denial by definition.

I quoted the relevant excerpts above, and you are encouraged to read them before further commenting.

[dcomplex]

wat0n, the defining trait about an antisemite is that they will believe literallu any negative story about us, by George Orwell's reckoning. Buzz62 is outright a jew-hater.

[Tailz]

Yeah right! It was a euphemism like "Transport to the East" and "Evacuation". Perhaps I should have said genocide was one of the aims of the bombing.

Well no, the objective was to de-house people, because doing so puts more people out of the war effor than simply killing people. It is the same reason why weapons of war are more often than not, designed to mame, than to kill. Because if you kill a person, you have taken one person out of the fight, if you wound a person, you have knocked out that person, plus another one or two people who will go to that persons aid. This is then followed by two stretcher bearers, a medic, medical staff, care staff, etc... this methadolidy dates back to the First World War.

If you de-house a population, it creates a huge strain on a war economy as the society suddenly has to feed, house, cloth, it's displaced population. Then there is the point that the workers are no longer working, their trying to find a place to live, their looking for their next meal. Next the state has to dedicate more manpower and resources to defence against such attacks. It is reckoned that the bombing campaign drew massive resources from Germany to defend manufacturing resources such as the industrial heartland, the Ruhr.

If you simply kill them, that's it, you have no other effect. As horrible as that all is, that is how it works. The objective was to get as many people out of the work force as possible, get them to use up as much material and man power possible defending against such attacks, create the greatest strain on the war economy as possible.

The same principle apples to the commando raids on Norway, small commando raids forced the Germans to station something like 300,000 troops in Norway, so that alone took 300,000 fighting men off the battlefield.

The beauty of it was that no one ever had to own up to genocide, even to themselves.

The flaw in your argument is how the Allied forces treated the bombing campaign after the war. Those involved didn't get campaign medals, and the issue turned into a political hot topic, even now.

Its like when Israel wastes women and Kids in its operations.

Again, the flaw in your argument is how such incidents are treated by the Israeli’s who do take it seriously when such acts are seen. We see Israeli’s themselves via NGO's taking such deeds to court... The flaw then in that case, is the system that then, is setup under an ideology to defends its own - because a conviction then becomes a conviction against what the state itself enacted and stands for. While to force the issue, would require almost the invasion and occupation of Israel in order to bring such people to justice. I remember a news article from a while ago, about the possibility of diplomatic fall out from the planned visit of an Isreaeli general, who would have been arrested at the airport for war crimes had he visited the UK.

Every one knows that collective punishment, not one jot different in quality from what the Nazis did, is one of the aims, but no one ever has to admit to it. There's always reasons. Virtually any conflict you look at both sides always seem to consider themselves the non aggression. There's always special circumstances that justify breaking their own moral codes.

I agree with you, so your happy then to just shrug in apathy? And condone collective punishment then? I would rather not.

Some of the Jewish supremacist racists like to make out that I'm arguing that the Jews are evil. I'm not. The only thing that is special about Jewish nationalists is the power they have to project and dominate with their narrative. And this was fundamentally the issue we had with Nazis, not they were evil but they were powerful. Or rather they became over powerful. Early on the Nazis were widely supported by Conservatives across the developed world. Those that now try and make out that the Nazis and Fascists were a left wing movement can only be described as vermin. What next will Pinochet be discovered to be a man of the left, because he didn't do enough to reduce inheritance tax? No one can seriously ague that the Nazis were worse than the Khmer Rouge, but Reagan and Thatcher happily backed them in the 1980s. This has remained uncontroversial because unlike Saddam, the Afghan Mujahadine or The Nazis, the Khmer Rouge never became a threat to Western interests.

I think your rambling off on a tangent, i’ll wait for you to wander back to the topic.

[Rich]

The flaw in your argument is how the Allied forces treated the bombing campaign after the war. Those involved didn't get campaign medals, and the issue turned into a political hot topic, even now.

No that precisely proves my point. What most people had no problem with at the time, became an embarrassment later. People couldn't really deny the fire-storming and area bombing campaign, so they try to evade responsibility.

I agree with you, so your happy then to just shrug in apathy? And condone collective punishment then? I would rather not.

In certain situations collective punishment is necessary, why be embarrassed by this. Its like Liberals have set up a bunch of symbolic totems like the religions of the past. The current order suits me nicely. For many Westerners its a great time to live, but really Liberalism as a philosophical system as ideology is utterly ridiculous. Millions of Black people have dies in recent years in ethnic conflicts in Africa. No body in the West really gives a fuck, but for God's sake don't say N*****.

[dcomplex]

Liberals can believe in collective punishment for collective responsibility...

[Buzz62]

wat0n, the defining trait about an antisemite is that they will believe literallu any negative story about us, by George Orwell's reckoning. Buzz62 is outright a jew-hater.

And that makes you an...Arab-hater?
Tell me lad...which is worse?

By design of definitions, at the convenience of Israel, I become a Jew-Hater and a Holocaust Denier.
And why? Because I see history for what it is, and not for how some people would like it to be.

Carma is a bitch...dcomplex.
I hope you're ready...

[dcomplex]

I love when the Arabs threaten us; it means we get more land.

You'd think that they'd have learned by now.

[anarchist23]

I love when the Arabs threaten us; it means we get more land.You'd think that they'd have learned by now.

Still posting exclusively in the Israel and Palistine forum? Are you to frightened to post anywhere else? Or do you suffer from acute monomania ??