Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The same Catholic Church which issued a Papal Bull in German rather than Latin condemning the attrocities, and which sheltered numerous Jews within the Vatican from harm?
If there was no Pearl Harbor
- Thread starter Cancel 2020.1
- Start date
The same Catholic Church which issued a Papal Bull in German rather than Latin condemning the attrocities, and which sheltered numerous Jews within the Vatican from harm?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Yeah, they would. The Byzantine nature of our system demands its.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
If anyone read Mein Kampf they would have known. Hitler wasn't subtle about it.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
FYI, we at NORAD have ZERO control over ground forces. We are involved in Air Battle Management (Officers go to ABMs, while the current enlisted job title is C2 Battle Management), and only coordinate with Secret Service, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, FAA, and DEA to get the mission accomplished.
Before the Papal Bull in German there was the treaty with Hitler.
They helped 3,000 Jews, a minuscule number compared to the number that died.
You know what? I am not having this debate with you folks right now. Sorry. Nothing personal patriot 66.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Well, how many people can you hide in that dinky little town?
They could have done many other things, but chose to remain neutral. When you are a religion which preaches justice and the Golden Rule, you can't remain neutral.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
You can get killed, though, which is why the early hesitation. Who did a better job, Rana?
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Yet nearly 3,000 priests, hundreds of nuns, including Edith Stein were also Holocaust victims. That doesn't begin to touch the number of Poles also killed trying to hide Jews.
What about all the Lutheran ministers and 'faithful' that also preached justice and the Golden Rule? Many of whom were in the elites f the NAZI movement. Seems to me Rana just likes exercising her right to denigrate the religion it's ok to denigrate.
tekkychick
New member
I apologize, I haven't read through all the pages.
But in regards to the initial Op - I have no idea what I would have thought then. It's very dependent on the news that was going around, what people knew, what the zeitgeist was. None of us can say now what we would have done then - at least not honestly
But in regards to the initial Op - I have no idea what I would have thought then. It's very dependent on the news that was going around, what people knew, what the zeitgeist was. None of us can say now what we would have done then - at least not honestly
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
It's more of a "knowing what we know now about the Holocaust" and "what kind of person you are today" kind of question.
In other words, are there situations/atrocities that you think warrant action, or are you strictly a "only use military when our security is threatened" individual?
The U.S. Genocide moves onto to it's next ME nation.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...nocide-in-the-Middle-East&p=770810#post770810
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
If you want to know the candid truth about Pearl Harbor and WWII, you should read Winston Churchill.
After hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill declared, “Now at this very moment I knew that the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! ... How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care ... We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end ... Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to a powder. All the rest was merely the proper application of overwhelming force.”
If you don't know how Roosevelt and Churchill manipulated the war with remarkable success, albeit at tremendous cost, then you should stop watching movies and pick up a book and learn some real history.
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War
According to his own official statements, repeated on many occasions, and with special emphasis when the presidential election of 1940 was at stake, Franklin D. Roosevelt's policy after the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1939 was dominated by one overriding thought: how to keep the United States at peace. One of the President's first actions after the beginning of hostilities was to call Congress into special session and ask for the repeal of the embargo on the sales of arms to belligerent powers, which was part of the existing neutrality legislation. He based his appeal on the argument that this move would help to keep the United States at peace. His words on the subject were:
Let no group assume the exclusive label of the "peace bloc." We all belong to it ... I give you my deep and unalterable conviction, based on years of experience as a worker in the field of international peace, that by the repeal of the embargo the United States will more probably remain at peace than if the law remains as it stands today ... Our acts must be guided by one single, hardheaded thought -- keeping America out of the war.
This statement was made after the President had opened up a secret correspondence with Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty and later Prime Minister in the British government. What has been revealed of this correspondence, even in Churchill's own memoirs, inspires considerable doubt as to whether its main purpose was keeping America out of the war.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin.html
Roosevelt goaded the Japanese into attacking. Of course he knew they were coming .. but he need that attack to force America's hand.
'Pearl Harbor' has become the icon for false flags. PNAC called for it .. and got 9/11.
This would be funny, if not so tragic ..
Israel lobbyist hints that ‘Pearl Harbor’ may be needed to get US into war with Iran
Last Friday, during question time at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” the director of research at the pro-Israel think tank hinted that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get the United States to go to war against the Islamic Republic.
“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough,” said Patrick Clawson, who also heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what would happen if negotiations with Tehran fail. “And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.”
As a consequence, Clawson said he was led to conclude that “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.”
Intriguingly, he went on to recount a series of controversial incidents in American history — the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the blowing up of the USS Maine — that US presidents “had to wait for” before taking America to war.
“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked,” Clawson continued, “which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.”
“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise,” the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, “it would be best if somebody else started the war.”
VIDEO
Update: It’s worth noting that op-ed in the Jerusalem Post magazine earlier this year raised the possibility of just such an attack. In a piece entitled “The looming war with Iran,” Avi Perry, who served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government, confidently predicted:
Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.
http://thepassionateattachment.com/...r-may-be-needed-to-get-us-into-war-with-iran/
After hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill declared, “Now at this very moment I knew that the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! ... How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care ... We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end ... Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to a powder. All the rest was merely the proper application of overwhelming force.”
If you don't know how Roosevelt and Churchill manipulated the war with remarkable success, albeit at tremendous cost, then you should stop watching movies and pick up a book and learn some real history.
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War
According to his own official statements, repeated on many occasions, and with special emphasis when the presidential election of 1940 was at stake, Franklin D. Roosevelt's policy after the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1939 was dominated by one overriding thought: how to keep the United States at peace. One of the President's first actions after the beginning of hostilities was to call Congress into special session and ask for the repeal of the embargo on the sales of arms to belligerent powers, which was part of the existing neutrality legislation. He based his appeal on the argument that this move would help to keep the United States at peace. His words on the subject were:
Let no group assume the exclusive label of the "peace bloc." We all belong to it ... I give you my deep and unalterable conviction, based on years of experience as a worker in the field of international peace, that by the repeal of the embargo the United States will more probably remain at peace than if the law remains as it stands today ... Our acts must be guided by one single, hardheaded thought -- keeping America out of the war.
This statement was made after the President had opened up a secret correspondence with Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty and later Prime Minister in the British government. What has been revealed of this correspondence, even in Churchill's own memoirs, inspires considerable doubt as to whether its main purpose was keeping America out of the war.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin.html
Roosevelt goaded the Japanese into attacking. Of course he knew they were coming .. but he need that attack to force America's hand.
'Pearl Harbor' has become the icon for false flags. PNAC called for it .. and got 9/11.
This would be funny, if not so tragic ..
Israel lobbyist hints that ‘Pearl Harbor’ may be needed to get US into war with Iran
Last Friday, during question time at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” the director of research at the pro-Israel think tank hinted that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get the United States to go to war against the Islamic Republic.
“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough,” said Patrick Clawson, who also heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what would happen if negotiations with Tehran fail. “And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.”
As a consequence, Clawson said he was led to conclude that “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.”
Intriguingly, he went on to recount a series of controversial incidents in American history — the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the blowing up of the USS Maine — that US presidents “had to wait for” before taking America to war.
“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked,” Clawson continued, “which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.”
“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise,” the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, “it would be best if somebody else started the war.”
VIDEO
Update: It’s worth noting that op-ed in the Jerusalem Post magazine earlier this year raised the possibility of just such an attack. In a piece entitled “The looming war with Iran,” Avi Perry, who served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government, confidently predicted:
Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.
http://thepassionateattachment.com/...r-may-be-needed-to-get-us-into-war-with-iran/
tekkychick
New member
Well....tough one. I was in favor of going after bin Laden in Afghanistan, which meant dumping the Taliban. I was against the war in Iraq - false pretenses and it took our eye off bin Laden.
So I tend to in general think - if they don't attack us, it's not our business.
That does lead to horrible shit like the holocaust, the genocide in Rawanda, etc. But we can't fix human nature
If we ARE going to go to war - it needs to be debated; and facts can't be falsified.
With Syria - if it really is true that the regime used chemical weapons, then they should be punished in some fashion. But I don't want us to be fighting to 'liberate' Syria; we just can't do that
I wish we could fix the world. But we can't. And when we try, we often cause more damage than we fix.
tekkychick
New member
Oh - in relation to WWII - I HOPE I would have been calling to let all the Jewish immigrants in to the country. I think there were a lot of people from Iraq we should have let in. But who knows what I would actually have done?