touchy subject

[LaPalida]

I was thinking... It's really weird but when I was 14 I met my stepbrother's grandfather (and his wife). He was a Nazi bomber during WWII (and a political prisoner in Moscow who was later exchanged for some captured Russian troops). Anyway what just hit me is that then even though I knew who he was I didn't feel anything about it. We all spent a nice time together and I played some jigsaw puzzles with the old man (I even have photos of us). I really wonder what he thought of the situation, I mean I grew up hating Nazis (still do) but then at that particular moment nothing, he was just a regular old grandfather (my stepbrother used to laugh and say how he knew his grandad would get mad if he ever saw him playing Wolfenstein). I think about it now and I wonder has anyone else have a similar experience? What did you feel?

Edit: I guess to clarify what I mean is "Have you ever met anyone that you have hated all your life, grew up hating (but never met) and when you did you didn't have any of your previous feelings or just felt dead or something?"

[dusty imp]

nah, nothing to it.
i'm sure you understand that hating a stereotype and hating a particular person are two different things.

[S.C. Watson]

It's not the person you hate, it's what they represent, their ideals, concepts whatever.

You can still accept the person. Just not the ideology.

~S

[nil]

I guess it's far harder to hate something once you put a human face on it.

[gasmask]

we are all just subject to westurn thinking, no matter what, ur thoughts are based apon centuries of christian thinking and philosphy, the basis of everything here, so naturally you would hate a nazi

[NoUseFrAName]

reminds me of the scene in the one episode of Band of Brothers where they'd captured some german troops and one of the captives lived across town from the american guy back in the states.

Yutani summed it up well I think...

-Rob

[USER777]

my grandfather grew up in "schlesien" (former germany, now poland).. he served under the nazi regime and was a tank commander. he killed people he didnt even see. it's kinda weird when i think about it, but it just happened. he also wrote like 4 books about his past and stuff.. but i dont really have that much contact to him anymore :^^;:

[AnarchyAo2]

How come you hate naziis so much? Just because people tell you they're bad and evil doesn't mean its true. You know from first-hand experience that they're not the ravaging scoundrels that we're told to believe they are.

I can probably guess why you hate naziis so much, because they killed the jews. Let me tell ya something...no one wanted the jews. Why do you think we threw them into Israel? They had no where else to go, and no one else wanted them. If we cared so much for the jews, then why didn't we invite them into our country. The president actually has the power to automatically make people citizens, so why didn't he make the jews US citizens then we'd really have a reason to kick Germany's ass? It was about money. Capitalists against socialists and communists. Communists, socialists, and marxists wanted the death of capitalism, which means the death of America. Thats why we fought in WWII, not because of the poor jews being baked, beatened, and starved.

Also, about your grandfather the nazi. I really don't think he cared too much about political status once he became a prisoner. I'd have to say that every thread of patriotism, honor and valor was ripped from him once he was captured, and whats left was the mentality to survive.

[glikster]

As a religious Jew and knowing quite a large number of Holocaust survivors... I also did a lot of research about WW2.
I think I would go so far as to say that the Nazi leaders were evil. The Nazis in general were just like any other group of people - easily led with some who were more sadistic/evil than others.
Anarchy, you're right about no one wanting the Jews, although I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. America did not fight to protect the Jews (and Russians, and Gypsies and Homosexuals....), but again, no one made a claim that they did. However we wanted Israel, we weren't thrown there by anyone.

[LaPalida]

How come you hate naziis so much? Just because people tell you they're bad and evil doesn't mean its true. You know from first-hand experience that they're not the ravaging scoundrels that we're told to believe they are.

Well ok. I grew up in Russia. My grandad hated them, I watched movies about the war atrocities they commited I read books. I didn't have first hand experience with them though at their worst. The thing is it's true there was tons of propaganda out there (you just have to look at the British and American posters at the time) that painted them as inhuman monsters but then again even though not every soldier was like that you have to admit that they did commit horrible crimes. If you don't know you should read up on some concentration camp victim accounts or just watch a couple of movies (about the rape of Poland for one). In my eyes they were the bad guys and they will be. If it wasn't for the Allies we'd be kissing Nazi ass right now. They fought for a terrible ideal so it's not very hard to hate them. Also I do believe that if you are a good person you should stand up for what's right (all that evil needs to triumph is for good people to stand by and do nothing) so if the regular soldiers didn't feel the same way as their leaders shouldn't they have done something? Defected I dunno. There are plenty of horror stories from Poland and Russia (and I am sure from elsewhere) about the atrocities that the soldiers have commited and not the officers.

You're right about the fact that not many countries accepted jewish refugees from the war but don't let that fool you into thinking that no one cared. I think it's pretty shameful when I looked at the figures of how many war refugees were accepted by Canada, US, and some other western countries. But my point of view is not like yours (I mean I am not from US and I don't live there). People in Europe and Russia (unlike US) first of all had to defend themselves from the invasion which really has nothing to do with the capitalism/communism clash or money. They suffered first hand what no one from US or Canada has ever experienced (hopefully never will).

It just becomes hard to hate someone I think if they haven't done anything to you personally or you haven't witnessed firsthand what they have done (and ofcourse when they come off as a nice person in life not try to rub it in to you).

Anyway I'm just ranting now. All this sort of came about after I looked at Beksinski's art. His paintings look so much like concentration camp mass graves.

[otis]

WW2 was not about money.

Anarchy. First of all there are always good and bad (Nazi's, Gemans, Japs..etc) But WE ALL KNOW that Nazism stood for many terrible things such as Facism, genocide,...the list goes on. It was the Nazi's who publicly practiced and preached what they believed in. So...this is why majority of the world "hate" Nazi's so much. (Please don't be one of those morons who don't believe that the extermination of the Jews didn't take place)

It's one thing to preach, it's another to back it up with action. And the Nazi's took drastic actions.

Do your history. BIG Fact: The Jews are the most attacked group of people in the history of the world. Keeping that in mind.....
Sure the war wasn't fought over the Jews. Who said it was?
Nobody was aware, or believed the attrocities happening in the camps until the Americans and Russians arived at thier gates. Roosevelt didn't declare the Jews "American" becuase these epople were already German, Polish, Russian, French, Bulgarian, Dutch,..etc CITIZENS! They all wanted to go back to their respective homes after the war, but sadly discovered that their homes were gone and occupied by new people. There were millions Jewish survivors of the war who were now homeless and had nowhere to go. They were completely displaced. This is when the LEAGUE OF NATION (U.N.) Created the modern state of Isreal. (It was previously Palestine.) A state where they could defend themslves and declare home. Why Palestine? Becuase this region of the world is the birth place of their religion. Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam all originate here. (Now, for some reason, humans have this need to live here. If you ask me, I don't need to live down the steeet or in the same city my religion originated in. ) But for many it is important.

You are on the right, the world knew that Capitalism and Socialism were complete opposites. But so what? Nobody cared how one country chooses to live within their borders. But an asshole like Stalin pushed socialism in the same fashion Hitler pushed Facism. Both of these terrible men have lots of blood on their hands.

[LaPalida]

reminds me of the scene in the one episode of Band of Brothers where they'd captured some german troops and one of the captives lived across town from the american guy back in the states.

That series is awesome. I think my favorite guy there was that dude that couldn't be killed:

"They didn't shoot, probably because they couldn't believe their eyes from what they saw. But the most amazing thing was, after he made contact with I company . . . he came back."

What a character Capt. Ronald Spiers. I think he actually executed the German POW's that you mention above and that the rumors were true, he shot one of his own men too for being drunk and driving (and killing one of his company).

[bracomadar]

The way I see it, if he was a soldier and did his job you should be proud of him. He was brave enough to fly dangerous missions and risked his life for his beliefs. Just because he fought for Germany for the war doesn't make him a Nazi I would think. Just because a friend of mine goes to fight over in Iraq doesn't make him a Republican. Even though the Nazis brainwashed the country, they were a political party. Not every German was a hardcore Nazi. I don't know the man, so I can't speak for him personally, but I think if I were in his shoes I wouldn't be fighting b/c I hated Jews, or any other race. I would be fighting for my country and my fellow soldiers around me. In a war situation I think that’s what any normal soldier would be doing. I had relatives that fought for the South in the Civil War. I'm proud that they fought for their ideas. The ideals of the Confederacy included owning slaves, which I don't agree on, but they also fought for independence from the North. They fought for their freedom. They had the guts to step out onto the battlefield and put their lives on the line for an idea they thought was important enough for them to sacrifice their lives for the future generations. They might not have had the most moral ideas to fight for, but don’t concentrate on all the bad things. As long as they aren't killing and torturing innocent civilians for their own enjoyment (like in the concentration camps) they are just soldiers doing their duty in my mind. If your grandfather bombed cities and killed civilians I don't think it was to kill a certain race, but to pressure the population to give up fighting. If he killed an allied soldier it would have been one less soldier that might have killed one of his fellow soldiers. I see it being more strategic than sadistic. Every army does atrocities in war, even the good guys; some more than others. Don’t look at it as what the government he was fighting for did, but what he did personally.

[USER777]

okay, dunno if the ongoing debate is regarding my post at all, i just want to clarify that my granddad was NOT a nazi, nor did he admire hitler or any of his deeds. he HAD to become a soldier, he was very young (18years old) and he had to fight for his life.

[LaPalida]

First some of you guys need to pay attention to what you are reading. He is NOT my grandfather he is the grandfather of my previous step brother. My real grandfather was on the other side (with the Allies).

Second fighting to defend your country and fighting to invade a country are 2 completely different things. I don't see how you can call Nazi soldiers brave if they invaded others (starting with Poland) with their superior technology (tanks versus men on horseback) without warning killing civilians and terrorizing the countryside (collecting whole villages into their churches and burning them alive). I call that cowardly and underhanded and most definitely evil. I'm sorry to say but I don't agree with you on this at all. I would be ashamed to know the kinds of ideals my grandparents fought for if I was a scion of a Nazi.

They might not have had the most moral ideas to fight for, but don’t concentrate on all the bad things

err.. the insurgents in Iraq are just soldiers with duty in mind too. They are fighting for their ideals too. Should you be proud of them?? Of their strong will to give up their lives for an ideal?

[AndyLC]

My grandfather fought against the communists

a while back, my aunt, my grandfather's daughter, went to some kinda dinner or banquet. There, she got to meet one of the sons of a high ranking communist leader (The guy who was after Mao, I forget his name)
he said "my father fought against your father", smiled, shook hands. It seems funny.

[bracomadar]

err.. the insurgents in Iraq are just soldiers with duty in mind too. They are fighting for their ideals too. Should you be proud of them?? Of their strong will to give up their lives for an ideal?

They are placing their lives on the line for what they believe in and I respect that; not proud of, but respectful of. I don't support them killing our soldiers, but if the roles were switched and they were occupying America I'd be doing about the same thing. To them the U.S. and/or those who support the U.S. are the enemy. They might see the U.S. as a threat to their family, religion, way of life, etc. I don't like the fact that some blow themselves up to kill unarmed civilians that just happen to be supporting the U.S., but the U.S. kill unarmed civilians to get to the enemy soldiers too sometimes, so I can't hate them for that when the people I support do basically the same thing. After all, it is war and innocent people suffer. Every soldier has their own reasons to fight. Some are made to fight and others volunteer. There will be good and bad people on both sides of the war. Some insurgents just want to kill Americans; some U.S. soldiers just want to kill Iraqis. Some insurgents see it as just defending Iraq (from invaders) and some U.S. Soldiers see it as defending America (from terrorists). I can't say for sure what an Iraqi insurgent is like because I've never meet one before :dur: The original topic was about judging an individual, not the group he was fighting for. I guess I'm saying don't judge someone as being a bad person because they hang out with what you consider "bad" people. After all, wasn't that what the Nazis did during W.W.II? They considered that since some Jews, Gypsies, etc. were bad, they all were. You are asking if you should feel about the individual, so judge him as an individual.

[darth massacre]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread.


Dunno if it sounds right, but not all German soldiers who fought in the war are Nazis by principle. Not all Muslims who fight against the Americans are islamic extremists. Not all american troops can see the "politics" in Korea, Vietnam and certainly a lot more can't figure out Iraq right now. Soldiers are tools of political agendas....they don't usually represent what they fight for...its a job, they get things done.

This line uttered from Odessyus in the movie Troy was classic.

"War, is young men dying and old men talking."

Sometimes the lines are blurred though. Like in the case of the SS battalions, those men were handpicked to serve not the country, but the fuhrer. When a politician wields power to further his own ambition....things get a little....errr...dangerous.

[Sanby]

Well ok. I grew up in Russia. My grandad hated them, I watched movies about the war atrocities they commited I read books. I didn't have first hand experience with them though at their worst. The thing is it's true there was tons of propaganda out there (you just have to look at the British and American posters at the time) that painted them as inhuman monsters but then again even though not every soldier was like that you have to admit that they did commit horrible crimes.

Everyone seems to conveniently overlook that fact that the allies did just as many atrocious and inhuman things, and committed just as many war crimes. It's a bit of a double standard here, war is war and both sides did shit that was brutal, stop blaming germans.

BTW, I think many people seem to think that german = nazi. That's not the case. Nazi's were part of that political party, and not everyone in germany agreed with or disagreed with the principal that the nazi's stood for. It is unfair to to say also, that just because somone was fighting in the german army, they were a nazi.

Sanby

[klinesmoker]

It is a touchy subject here, but one worth discussing. No one can argue that we were NOT subject to media representation as a whole. Our views are certainly skewed, whther we want to admit it or not. Not to mention the dire consequences of what occured if you chose not to fight for the Nazi Regime. In the end, I will remain neutral, but I do want to toss out some food for thought. I wonder whether or not it seems ironic to people that the losers of a war are tried as "war criminals" while the victors are heroes.... Hmmmm.....

[Sanby]

I wonder whether or not it seems ironic to people that the losers of a war are tried as "war criminals" while the victors are heroes.... Hmmmm.....

Excellent point, kinda what I was getting at. If the germans had won the war, we would be saying the exact same things about the Americans or the British or both. The only reasont he Nazis are the "bad guys" is because they lost. Like it or not, it's true.

Sanby

[LaPalida]

True enough about not all soldiers being Nazi's Sanby. Perhaps I was dead wrong about that guy being a Nazi but his grandson seem to think so, so I don't know. History is written by the victors klinesmoker and we are definitely subject of the propaganda, there is no denying it.

The only reasont he Nazis are the "bad guys" is because they lost. Like it or not, it's true.

I don't think so. Nazi's were bad guys for more than "just because they lost" and if they won the war the only way you'd be able to say that "If the germans had won the war, we would be saying the exact same things about the Americans or the British or both" is if you were a 5 foot 6 tall "aryan" with blond hair and blue eyes with 4 fingers of forehead. If you weren't most likely you'd be a slave or second rate citizen with not many rights and forget it if you have any jewish/gypsy/slavic blood in you because then you'd be firewood for ovens. I can't believe I am hearing some of this stuff. Oh well.

[AnarchyAo2]

Woah, hold on, something doesn't sound right. Did Hitler want EVERYONE to be an aryan? Or did he just want to make an elite race that would rule the government?

[glikster]

He had three tiers of "people" the ruling caste - Aryans.
The common folks - almost everyone else.
The lower than humans - Jews, gypsies, etc... who were sent to the extermination and work camps.
So no, he didn't want EVERYONE to be Aryan, but the only people who would have the rights of a free citizen would have been Aryans.

[LaPalida]

I wonder whether or not it seems ironic to people that the losers of a war are tried as "war criminals" while the victors are heroes.... Hmmmm.....

The criminals that are being tried really did commit crimes. Look it up. What do you think a war crime is?

[Sanby]

The criminals that are being tried really did commit crimes. Look it up. What do you think a war crime is?

Possibly, but I agree with that statment, " wonder whether or not it seems ironic to people that the losers of a war are tried as "war criminals" while the victors are heroes.... Hmmmm....." The Victors are guilty of just as many war crimes, but they don't get tried, because they won. And, going back to my earlier point, which I still stand by, had the germans won, the americans and brits would have been tried for war crimes, and the germans wouldn't have.

Sanby

[Chris J. Anderson!]

Sup Lapalida,

Your topic reminds me of something I read somewhere. The person asked, "Is there really such a thing is a timeless enemy?" Probably not. In some circumstances a person can be your enemy. In other circumstances, that same person can be your friend. Funny how one difference in belief or ideal can cause conflict and war. Some people take there ideas and beliefs too far, as far as being a matter of life and death.

Amazing that this can get as bad as an entire group of people killing off other mass groups of people.

:::EDIT::: And usually all because of a simple belief that doesn't mean much in the big picture. Mass, meaningless death.

[darth massacre]

In some circumstances a person can be your enemy. In other circumstances, that same person can be your friend. Funny how one difference in belief or ideal can cause conflict and war. Some people take there ideas and beliefs too far, as far as being a matter of life and death.

In America's case.....They thought the enemy of their enemy is a friend. Turns out differently though. (to be more blatant I was referring to Al Qaeda and Taliban's previous incarnation..the Afghan Mujahedeens).

And Chris is right about one thing. There's always someone out there who'll find ways to take things too seriously. Its all good until that same person has a gun (or nuke) in their hands.

[otis]

The only reasont he Nazis are the "bad guys" is because they lost. Like it or not, it's true.

You've got to be fucking kidding? Not every german was convicted of war crimes. Only the big guns who gave the orders were. Not even all of them were caught or convicted either.

I can't believe the panzy -ass, p.c., "open minded", B.S. I'm hearing in this thread.

You actually think that the Nazi party was some Girl Scout organization who were only seen as "the bad guys" becuase they lost the war?

WTF history classes have you been taking?

This discussion is absolutley appaulling and mind boggling that all you ignorant (I'm not calling you stupid) people are trying sound itellectual by overlooking and EXCUSING the attrocities that the Nazi's practiced is ....unspeakable.

You say we are mindwashed by media huh? So history books are lying to us? Survivers of WW2 are lying? All those camps in Poland...what where they?
History, movies, this big , bad media is to REMIND all of you snotty nosed idealist kids how GD lucky you are that the Nazi regeim lost.

Some of the comments in these forums sound like they are comming form a new generation of NEO NAZI's.

Is this the kind of crowd that supports CA?

Don't get me wrong you guys, I'm pissed off how much our history and media doesn't remind us how terrible the Japanese were in WW2. Their POW camps were far more brutal than the Germans POW camps were. But for some reason, Mcarthur had an affinity for the Japanese, and in turn we rebuilt their nation for them after the war, more so than we did for Germany.

Some of you have good points, sides are awlays being taken, for right and wrong reasons. But this is the history of mankind, and it is naive to think it will ever change. But to go as far as saying the Nazi's were only getting a bum rap becuase of propaganda....that's just crazy.

[acuna_read]

What's good/bad or wrong/right depends on which side of the fence you sit during war.

[otis]

acua,

See it's that P.C, panzy ass philosophy that allows for terrible attrocities. Your statemnt is EXCUSING the Nazi's for all the civilian woman and children the exterminated.

Your philosophy does not want to believe there is right form wrong. Even if things are NOT always black and white...(easy to recognize), let me tell you one BIG difference between good and evil. Good people will usually always remain passive and hopefull. While evil will seize moments to run over them.

I see it all the time. Good,honst, people who don't want to offend, or hurt others, ALWAYS get taken advantage of, and destroyed by people with evil intentions.

So, if right can't defend from wrong, and must remain passive.....what's next?

[glikster]

While I commend you for trying to bring some life to the moral apathy that seems to fill mainstream America, it's an uphill battle. On the one hand, they do have a point that the winner does write the history books. It's difficult to realize the subtle nuances about the previous fact and the idea that there are objective evils, objective rights and wrongs in the world and that both are equally true.

[acuna_read]

erm, not really. What your saying is that all of leaders (even Hitler himself) knew what he was doing was wrong. I can only assume that he beleived what he was doing was right, but i'm pretty sure that's what he thought.

I dont see how saying that a person beleives in something no matter if it's basically morally wrong is politically correct. If anything what you say could be manipulated. It could be read as your implying that whatever you say is right and the opposite is bad.

To bring this argument up to date, do you beleive that the Taliban etc beleive that what they are doing is wrong? I think they are convinced enough to beleive what they are doing is right.

So what I said above still stands.

P.S. sorry for the bad English, im crap at it.

[otis]

Now worries, your english is very good! :teeth:

The Taliban is completely founded on unrational beliefs. Just break down their beliefs:

They believe that they are defending Islam from the infadels.
So they kill innocent people all over the world.

How can they declare themselves defenders when THEY are ATTACKING innocent people and using terrorism tactics?

Just becuase somone says they BELIEVE somthing, doens't mean it is RATIONAL.

It would be nice if we could just send them to another planet to belive and do as they please....but we all are stuck on this small one, and the world is getting smaller every day.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't evil people on the good guy's side either. But the bigger picture is always more important.

If you are ever wondering what is right or wrong, just break it down and rationalize it. Good people make poor irrational decisions all the time...ironically usually with good intentions. But good intentions are not enough to yeild good results.

Look, I don't know who is doing the better thing...going to war in IRaq or leaving them alone in their sandbox.

If it was up to me, I would be inveting a new enrgy source so we wouldn't have to rely on their oil. The only reason the world is all involved in the middle east is for OIL. The people of the world depend on it.

[acuna_read]

I know my basic English is good (being English helps there, my use of words/vocabulary is poor though :\ )

No-one ever said anything about these people being rational.

Consider my "side of the fence comment" in this way. Do you think an Iraqi national living in Baghdad(sp) who has had relatives/friends/people they know blown up like the American's? I very much doubt it. If that was me id consider them evil B**tards. Although what the US etc may be doing is right as a whole to you and me.

Hope that clears up the side of the fence bit.

P.S. On an interesting note there was a series over here (the UK) on the BBC about Auschwitz/concentration camps. One of the guards said he beleived at the time all the Jews etc were evil, though he know regrets greatly what happened. So to me that proves that at least this one person was convinced what he was doing was right even though it was wrong.

[otis]

I'm not sure if I understand your comparison between Iraqi's and Americans? But I think I can respond: If an innocent Iraqi gets killed in the line of fire by an American, it is accidental. (unless ofcourse they were fighting eachother)
There are always innocent people getting killed in wars (especially urban warfare sectors where civilians are living their lives everyday in a battlefield)

Example: The highway to Bahgdad airport is the most dangerouse stretch of road in the world with random remote bombings and ambushed happening every day! Yet innocent Iraqi civinians are still driving and commuting it every day!

The Americans are trying to protect and to their job, but they don't know who is friend or foe on those roads.

The only people they really trust and and know appreciate them are the CHILDREN.

Let me clearify somthing to you. Right now Iraq is divided between it's tribes. Always has been and always will be. BUT,..for the first time, it is attempting to govern these tribes in a democratic format. This wont be easy, since there is so much terrible history between them.

The AIF (anti-Iraqi-federation) insurgents are not Iraqi!!! they are Suadi's, Iranians, syrinas,..fundamentalists who do not want Iraq to become a democratic nation. Their idealistic, fundamentalist, extremist beliefs don't want change or ANY power given to the people.

Fundamentalist don't want people to have any say, rights, choice, or power. They want to dictate, rule and kill in the name of God. Any practicing muslim will tell you that Islam is not about violence.

In order to have a free market with oil in the middle east, some sort of democracy must be established. Or else one dictator or one regeim will be calling the shots.

[acuna_read]

I think you read too far into what I was trying to say.

You were basically saying that people having views of each other being good/bad was an excuse. I was merely trying to show my point with a recent/known example (based on basic common sense).

From what I gathered you basically said there is a set good and bad. good is good and bad is bad. I was saying that this can be polar opposites (or of varying degrees) depending on where you sit/what country your in.

Edit, I see what's happened, my bad grammar again. You read this sentence Do you think an Iraqi national living in Baghdad(sp) who has had relatives/friends/people they know blown up like the American's? using the word "like" as a comparitive term, I meant it in a friendship type term.

[Sanby]

It would be nice if we could just send them to another planet to belive and do as they please....but we all are stuck on this small one, and the world is getting smaller every day.

I am sorry, but does this not parrallel what the Nazis, who you hate with a passion, did in the war? Who are you to say, "O, let's just ship them off" If this is what you believe is right, then are supporting acuna_read argument.

BTW acuna_read, I agree with what your saying here, nice job.

Sanby

[otis]

...yeah sanby..that's the plan buddy. :nohope: No ofcourse I'm not saying ship them off!..I'm agreeing that people will always have different points of view. It's only when a majority (civilized people) don't agree with the minority (fundamental extremeists, terrorists, some people in this forum) that conflict will arise. It would be easier if the rest of the world COULD just leave them alone.
But, since it's a small world....WE CAN'T.
We are not going to cuddle, respect and obey this small group of terrorists who believe that you, me, your mom and your children should die becuase you are not an extemeist muslim who is willing to kill in the name of Allah. To them you are an infadel and are not worthy of living.

[LaPalida]

Possibly, but I agree with that statment, " wonder whether or not it seems ironic to people that the losers of a war are tried as "war criminals" while the victors are heroes.... Hmmmm....." The Victors are guilty of just as many war crimes, but they don't get tried, because they won. And, going back to my earlier point, which I still stand by, had the germans won, the americans and brits would have been tried for war crimes, and the germans wouldn't have.

The problem, Sanby, is that THERE REALLY WAS A RIGHT AND A WRONG in WWII. So even if the Nazi regime had prevailed and the Allies (the officers or higher ranking officials) were tried for "war crimes" (which I doubt) they would have been mock trials at best since the regime was not a democratic one (I am guessing they would have just been shot without a trial or put into labour camps). "The Victors are guilty of just as many war crimes" (just as many??? really? where's the proof for that???)... is a blanket statement. By saying that you are implying that a winner of any war is automatically bad/evil and commited just as many crimes as the other side since history is written by them, that's illogical.

[AnarchyAo2]

"How can they declare themselves defenders when THEY are ATTACKING innocent people and using terrorism tactics?"

Bush says, "We need to spread democracy to keep the world safe for democracy." In other words, we need to FORCE other countries to be democratic in order to defend it. The democratic world is doing the same thing.

"Just becuase somone says they BELIEVE somthing, doens't mean it is RATIONAL."

Actually, it does. The thoughts and theories that run through your head are seen as rational to you, but do you think they're seen as rational to everyone else? In other words, "rational" is not one-sided, there are many aspects of rational, and they all depend on who you ask.

"It would be nice if we could just send them to another planet to belive and do as they please....but we all are stuck on this small one, and the world is getting smaller every day."

Ha, and hes trying to define rational.

"If it was up to me, I would be inveting a new enrgy source so we wouldn't have to rely on their oil. The only reason the world is all involved in the middle east is for OIL. The people of the world depend on it."

Why isn't it up to you? You have as much potential as anyone else to do it. So whats stopping you? "Every culprit a victim, and every victim a culprit." I believe thats how the quote goes.

[otis]

anarchy, all of your arguments come back to one philosophy. There is no right from wrong. Maybe that's why your name is anarchy. :S

Bush says, "We need to spread democracy to keep the world safe for democracy." In other words, we need to FORCE other countries to be democratic in order to defend it. The democratic world is doing the same thing.

Bush is NOT forcing ANYBODY. Iraqi's came out, risked their lives to VOTE themselves! Nobody forced them genius.

So you think living under a dictatoral regeim, extremist laws of Alqueda, or any bloody tyrant is better than a republic or democracy?

Yes, democracies are destroyed by dictators, facists all the time. Do your history and look at what happened to Germany and how Hitler came to power. Oh..I forgot, you don't believe history books.



Dude, believe what you want..

[LaPalida]

Actually, it does. The thoughts and theories that run through your head are seen as rational to you, but do you think they're seen as rational to everyone else? In other words, "rational" is not one-sided, there are many aspects of rational, and they all depend on who you ask.

Actually rational implies logical which is the same in every culture because logic is mathematical and that's a universal language. There aren't varying degrees of logic ... it's either logical or it isn't. Your thoughts only seem rational to you in your mind Anarchy but that's because you don't know how to reason.

[Sanby]

O fuck, otis, now I see where your coming from. You are one of those people who acctually believes that bush is doing a good job, in the name of all that is good and just in this world. You here about them, but rarely do you meat them.

Acrually rational implies logical which is the same in every culture because logic is mathematical and that's a universal language. There aren't varying degrees of logic ... it's either logical or it isn't.

:nohope: Gonna have to agree with AnarchyAo2 on this. And I dissagree, because logical, and rational is NOT a universal language, and it does NOT stay the same between cultures, and especially NOT between religions, which ties very closely in with most of this discussion.

I'm gonna say this. Doesn't matter how long we argue, we will never come remotely close to having and agreement on anything? Why, because politics, now, and especially the situation surrounding the war, are so clouded and fucked up, and everyone is effected differently by it.

I think most of what you guys have said is bullshit, and I am sure that most of what I have said seems like bullshit to you guys. So, I'll just watch this thread and try stay out of this. Of course, I am sure the next things you say will provoke me, and I'll go off again. :wink: :)

Hope I made sense somewhat

Sanby

[acuna_read]

This has drifted a fair way from your original topic LaPalida, sorry :bashful: , but this is still a valid/interesting discussion.

Im confused by your posts Otis, I have been merely talking about the perceptions of right and wrong, your going a bit further than that.

THERE REALLY WAS A RIGHT AND A WRONG in WWII
I think my point (and Sanby's to an extent is) that right or wrong is subjective to whoever you are. Lets bring it to a basic level of a football(soccer) team. If my team wins that's good for me, but bad for you if you were the opposing team.

Ultimately there is a morally right and wrong. In reality people twist this to their own thinkings/beleifs/needs. So it's about perceived right and wrong, what is right and wrong is pretty much obsolete.

[ArtbyWard]

America, FUCK YEA! freedom is the only way yea

Those people in Durkadurkastan should just shut up

GO TEAM! /m\

[cucaracha]

My grand uncle also was a soldier in WW2.
And I also grew up hating Nazis, still do.

He is one of the friendliest, most thoughtful persons I ever got to know.
He is deeply christian and was in russian and french war captivity.

He told me stories about fifty men fighting for a moldy old bread.
He wasn't convinced of nazi ideologies and all the hate. Just as many soldiers, and he's thankful for what the allied troops did.

You see, a person that lived that time or even fought back then is not automatically nazi.
Very, very very few survivers are still spreading nazi right-wing radicalism.
And of course, allied veterans are still confident with their actions, because they know, they did the right thing.

[LaPalida]

Gonna have to agree with AnarchyAo2 on this. And I dissagree, because logical, and rational is NOT a universal language, and it does NOT stay the same between cultures, and especially NOT between religions, which ties very closely in with most of this discussion.

That's because most cultural and esp. religious beliefs are NOT logical. Logic is mathematical (on/off). Religion is faith ... where faith begins logic ends.

Ultimately there is a morally right and wrong. In reality people twist this to their own thinkings/beleifs/needs. So it's about perceived right and wrong, what is right and wrong is pretty much obsolete.

Ok answer this very simple question: Is it right or wrong to invade other people, terrorize and torture them and then burn them in ovens?

[Sanby]

That's because most cultural and esp. religious beliefs are NOT logical. Logic is mathematical (on/off). Religion is faith ... where faith begins logic ends.

Ok, then stop talking about logic, because if this is how you choose to define it, then it has zero to do with this duscussion. I still dissagree with what your saying.

Sanby

[acuna_read]

Ok answer this very simple question: Is it right or wrong to invade other people, terrorize and torture them and then burn them in ovens?
In my personal opinion it isnt right. But our governments and alot (the majority?) of our countrie population beleive so.

@ Icemoon :D :bashful:

Now where did I leave my Armadillo :dur:

Edited for LaPalida as I accidentally missed a word out.

[darth massacre]

I think this right or wrong thing may never end.

War is hell.

Good men CAN and most often do commit atrocities on the battlefield for survival.

The "not so good" men with their flawed "faith" as LaPadila mentioned may take it a step further because their faith tells them they're right no matter what they do.

To put it in a simple way....in any war atrocities are commited....but atrocities in combat are glossed over. However there are other atrocities as mentioned....like the gas chambers of Auschwitz, the massacre in Nanking, the ethnic cleansing in Rawanda and Serbia/Bosnia.....these are beyond the atrocities usually committed in combat.....There's a difference between shooting an armed combatant and shooting refugees who're just trying to get out of your battlefield. I can't speak for LaPadila but I think this is what she meant when we talk about right or wrong, not in terms of politics or whoever wins makes the rules.

At least the European/Western culture after WW2 are mindful of this dark point in history and pushed for its inclusion in the school syllabus hence allowing us this argument here.....what of the Japanese and their repeated denial of their war crimes in China and the Korean Peninsular? Their newer generation had only a faintest idea what happened in WW2 and most of them couldn't be bothered to find out in detail.

If we don't learn from history, we're prone to repeat it.

[LaPalida]

Ok, then stop talking about logic, because if this is how you choose to define it, then it has zero to do with this duscussion. I still dissagree with what your saying.

Huh? How is that? How exactly does it have zero to do with this discussion? Because you just declared it so? Your "disagreeing" with me doesn't help you support your point of view, usually if you want to support your point of view you do so with logical arguments/actual examples not empty statements like "I still dissagree with what your saying". How about we hear what your definition of logic is so that we may proceed with our discussion with this new knowledge in mind.

[LaPalida]

In my personal opinion it isnt. But our governments and alot (the majority?) of our countrie population beleive so.

@ Icemoon

Now where did I leave my Armadillo

Isn't what? Right or wrong? Camouflaging your answer in jokes is not an honest answer. Why don't you just answer straightforwardly, it's a simple question that anyone here can answer. I will go first: I think it's definitely wrong. Now your turn....

[ArtbyWard]

But what if allah really is the true essence of living, or whoever. If we are all muslim everyting would be peaceful, according to them. Who says it's ok to masskill millions of animals just to feed us? I'm just trying to say it al depends on how you view it. Maybe war is'nt such a bad thing? War is as old as man - so why is'nt it a trait of mankind. Animals fight each other, or even on mass scale (ants). And what is evil, good doesn't exist without evil so how can evil be evil then? No matter what happens it's all in balance.

Not saying that this is my point of view, but I just want that people can stand for their beliefs and views, but please don't think it's the only&right way. Terrorist think that way, but team america also does. We (the west) are not on the right way, we just are on A way, and I am happy to be on that way.

[AnarchyAo2]

"anarchy, all of your arguments come back to one philosophy. There is no right from wrong. Maybe that's why your name is anarchy."

Oh, I definiately believe there is no right and wrong. I believe there are morals, and principals, but those are owned by every individual. The words "right", and "wrong", are so...final, and seem to apply to everyone, everywhere. I'll use LaPailda's example. No matter were you are on earth if you're asked what does 2+2= ?, the right answer is 4. Its scientifically proven. But, religion and morality is not a science, therefore it cannot be pinned down and defined with labels such as right and wrong.

"Bush is NOT forcing ANYBODY. Iraqi's came out, risked their lives to VOTE themselves! Nobody forced them genius.

So you think living under a dictatoral regeim, extremist laws of Alqueda, or any bloody tyrant is better than a republic or democracy?

Yes, democracies are destroyed by dictators, facists all the time. Do your history and look at what happened to Germany and how Hitler came to power. Oh..I forgot, you don't believe history books."

Bush is too, Otis! He says it himself. Look at the news, the US is met by strong opposition, and they're beating us pretty bad. Doesn't it only make sense that if Saddam was so bad then they'd do the same thing to him as they're doing to us? They could have overthrown him easily, but they didn't. The US did. Yeah, you're right, I'm not a very educated person, but I sure as hell know when things don't add up.

[jetpack42]

Bush says, "We need to spread democracy to keep the world safe for democracy." In other words, we need to FORCE other countries to be democratic in order to defend it. The democratic world is doing the same thing.


everyone seems to forget that we gave Saddam an alternative; leave the country in 24 hours and allow weapons inspectors inside. But I agree, it's definitely a better story if we're barbarians.

[Sanby]

The way I would deine logic. Is a sensical way of looking at things. Belief does come into play, wheather it's religios belief or not. Different people will come to different Logical conlusions, or actions if all present with the same problem, situatio whatever. If Logical= math, like you are saying, then every person would come to the exact same conclusion, because their would be only one answer. So, logic doesn't= math, it has to do with beliefs, education, upbringing, experience, a whole wack of things. I thinkthat you are using the word "Logic" as substitue for the word "fact"

i hope this makes sense, it's kinda late and I'm tired.

Sanby

[Sanby]

everyone seems to forget that we gave Saddam an alternative; leave the country in 24 hours and allow weapons inspectors inside. But I agree, it's definitely a better story if we're barbarians.

C'mon man, this weapons inpector stuff is such bullshit. How many times would you like them to come up empty handed eh? If all it takes is false claims, that are dissproved time and time again, to invade and practically fucking take over a country, then we are in a sad time. Can you imagen a country come up to the states and say to bush, we are giving you 24 hours to leave the country. I am sure that would go over fuckign nicely, the US would probably blow up half the fucking world. Which BTW brings me to another point. What gives the States any more right then anyone else to have giant stock piles of "weapons of mass destruction"? The US has a rediculous amount of weaponry, why don't they get rid of that, before they start bitching about other people?


Sanby

[emily g]

Which BTW brings me to another point. What gives the States any more right then anyone else to have giant stock piles of "weapons of mass destruction"? The US has a rediculous amount of weaponry, why don't they get rid of that, before they start bitching about other people?
Uhhh, check out the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only the "Big Five" countries (United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France and China) are allowed to have nuclear weapons. Everyone else who signed the treaty cannot have nuclear weapons or help other states get these weapons.
All members of the United Nations have signed this treaty except Israel, India, and Pakistan. North Korea has threatened to withdraw.
All these countries agreeing together and signing this treaty is what has given the U.S. (and the other four) the "right" to have all these weapons. This treaty also gives the Big Five the "right" to prevent the other countires from getting them.

emily

p.s. I'm not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, just saying that this is the way it is. Some countries are allowed to have these weapons and some aren't.

Edit: Just so we're clear, the term "weapons of mass destruction" includes nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons.

[LaPalida]

Not saying that this is my point of view, but I just want that people can stand for their beliefs and views, but please don't think it's the only&right way. Terrorist think that way, but team america also does. We (the west) are not on the right way, we just are on A way, and I am happy to be on that way.

That may be but sometimes some beliefs are right while others aren't. Let me give you a simple example. Two people disagree on the product of 2 + 2. One believes that 2 + 2 = 4 the other believes that 2 + 2 = 6. Who's right? Here is another: Two people disagree on what the capital of Canada is. One says it's Toronto the other believes it's Ottawa. One of them is right the other isn't. So not all beliefs are relative.

[acuna_read]

Didnt you just cross logic with beleif there though? :teeth: :^^: :tihi:

[LaPalida]

Ok let me rephrase that then. One person believes 2 + 2 = 6 the other KNOWS that 2 + 2 = 4. Happy? Same for the other: One person believes that Toronto is the capital of Canada and the other KNOWS that the capital is Ottawa. Besides belief and faith are 2 different things (and I believe that I was crossing faith not belief). Let me quote what I said:

That's because most cultural and esp. religious beliefs are NOT logical. Logic is mathematical (on/off). Religion is faith ... where faith begins logic ends.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Belief: A degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence

Knowledge: Awareness or understanding esp. of an act, a fact, or the truth

[glikster]

From the time of the Greeks people codified logic. It is mathematical. Take a look at any book on rational reasoning. It's not the logic that is inherently flawed, it's the person attempting to use the logic.

I'll be honest with myself, I absolutely believe in objective good and evil or right and wrong because I am a religious person. And that what I believe is good or evil is based on the same thing. So, yes, what all of you are saying is true - there is right and wrong for each person.
But when that person is smoking absolutely innocent families with small children out of their small house and forcing them to travel in conditions you can't imagine to work or be gassed or dig their own graves and shot? Or used as medical guinea pigs?
Hey, who are we to judge them, if they think it's right, let's just sit back and let them impose their views of right or wrong on us by letting them kill us.

[Sanby]

I will reply to verything eles later, I don't have a lot of time, I just wanted to reply to emily. I withdraw my statement beofer, I did not realize this existed, thankyou for bringing this to my attention. Although, now that I know this, I think that the treaty is rediculous.

Sanby

[emily g]

I will reply to verything eles later, I don't have a lot of time, I just wanted to reply to emily. I withdraw my statement beofer, I did not realize this existed, thankyou for bringing this to my attention. Although, now that I know this, I think that the treaty is rediculous.

Sanby
Awesome, thanks for acknowledging my post and rescinding your statement.
I think the world was kind of in an awkward situation when this treaty was written. Nobody wanted nuclear weapons to spread, but some countries already had them. What to do?
So they basically decided to keep things as they were. If you already have them, fine. But we don't want them to spread any further.
They could have decided that countries who already had them would have to get rid of them. But some countries wouldn't go along with that (especially with the Cold War going on). I think they were counting on The Big Five to balance each other out in terms of power and thus keep each other from using them.

emily

[Ssenkrah Semaj]

I'm so glad I've recently been saved and become an atheist, religion is the cause for the majority of shit in the world today and has always been.

And going back to the comment of respecting your ancestors who served in the confederacy or nazi germany. What the hell kind of sense does that make? I could not respect my grandfather for fighting for the confederacy, I would however have respect for him if he stood up for what is right and fought for the union even though he lived in the south. Same goes for if my german ancestors fought for Hitler......how the hell can you respect someone who does not stand up for what is right even if they are blood????

[Sanby]

Ssenkrah Semaj, you have got to be kidding me.

Sanby

[AnarchyAo2]

Semaj, you say that you're an atheist but you still hold the morals of an orthodox christian. So, you tell me, whats the difference? ( I don't want to hear a bunch of shit about god not being real, I want to know what makes you more resistant to the such movements as the nazi, and communist movements ).

[Chris J. Anderson!]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! It's amazing that in many of these debates, it usually ends up in a disscussion of what the definitions of "FACT" and "BELIEF" is, HAHAHA!!

About the, what is "RIGHT", or "WRONG" debate, I think there is at least one universal moral that all humans can and will agree on, that killing another human being, (unless out of defense in extreme circumstance), is wrong. If it where the right thing to do, then we'd all be dead. If killing was right, then there would be no reason for you to want to live, it would be in your nature and first desire to kill yourself and others with you. But it's not. Obviously it's in human nature to survive and live, and so in order for humanity to live, one should not harm or kill another. Once a person or a country decides to kill a person or people, they are wrong, and evil, because they are a threat to humanity, like the Natzi's were to others. "Evil", "Bad", these words are simply used to discribe a threat to your life.

However, all countries on the this planet have and still do kill people for there own greedy desires, which makes them wrong, and evil, including America and all the other countries that seem innocent to what is wrong. But no one is a timeless enemy. No one is always and forever wrong and evil, including the Natzi's.

99% of human beings, countries, and cutlures, are both right and wrong, good and evil. There are no timeless saints, no timeless good guys or villians. There are a few individuals who may be at least 99% good people, but most aren't smart enough to out smart the wicked......

.......which is why, today, we are all a threat to each other, and why all countries and cultures are seperated from each other and have nukes. Good people do nothing and let it happen. And don't think for a second that the world has nukes for show-&-tell. We have them to use them, all, sooner or later. Which is pretty messed up.

This ends my cheap rant.

[S.C. Watson]

This ends my cheap rant.

yeah, but I'd buy that for a dollar.

:yayca:

[Ssenkrah Semaj]

Kidding you about what sanby my first or second point..perhaps both?

I do not hold the morals of an orthodox christian Anarchy..? I hold the morals of an intelligent human being, which happens to bare similiarities to pagan, buddhist, hindu, confucious, and judaism. But of course it does, human beings come to moral convictions on their own through interaction with others, not from a spiritual being.

I am not like normal atheists who became atheist through belief in science over religion, I became an atheist from reading the bible. I was in fact a born again christian, even a youth pastor for a time. When i got into college i started learning more about theology, religious history, and philosophy. This in turn created the question that started me on my road to atheism: "Why do people believe in other Gods other than the Christian one, when he is the only true God" And it dawned on me that maybe I was the wrong one and perhaps their God(s) were true. I mean who am I to think that my god is the only real god solely because I believe in him.

So I decided to find answers in the bible because if my God was real then inside his book i would find truth and i did. I found page after page of undeniable contradictions one verse saying thou shalt not this were as another verse did. How could an omnipotent omniscient being contradict himself....he cannot...but man can. Okay so if man wrote the bible wasn't it through godly direction? How can God direct error...he cannot....but man can.

It infuriates me that so many people who believe in their God so fervently do so not from knowledge of the bible but from the fact that they were taught from childhood that there is a God from their parents. A lot of your parents taught you that their was a Santa too but eventually you realized there wasn't....do so now with the notion of a God. Do some research read about biblical contradictions, history of christianity and judaism, scientific evidence, if he is real then the truth will stand but if he is not perhaps then the real truth shall set you free.

I'm just trying to free your mind or you could go back to sleep, your choice.

Some sites you should check out if your curious if your religion holds up to examination:
Excerpts from my favorite christian-to-atheist book. You have got to read this.
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=lostfaith
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=refute
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[LaPalida]

I concur with you, Ssenkrah Semaj, on every point. To have morals one does not need to believe in the divine or read the Bible. One comes to moral conclusions through rational reasoning.

[Sanby]

Ssenkrah Semaj Whoa, whoa , whoa, slow down man. I should have made myself clearer, I disagree with your second point, your first point, makes complete sense to me, as does your explanation you just posted. I have never been a religious person, because frankly, the whole thing doesn't make sense to me, and religion, christianity especially (not sure about other religions) seems to constantly contradict itself. People that live their lives according to God, and bla bla bla, drive me nuts, especially the ones who, everytime you say something against christianity, start quoting from the bible.


K, I'm just rambling now, so I'll get onto the other point.

A lot of people in the German army did believe that what they were doing was right. So, if he felt he was doing the right thing, then could you not respect him? Or, if he didn't believe that he was doing the right thing, but he didn't have a choice, you wouldn't respect him? You are saying, because of something like conscription, you wouldn't be able to respect your grandfather?

Sanby

[Ssenkrah Semaj]

I was answering Anarchy with the religious rant Sanby not you dude.

I in fact am of German heritage my great grandmother was German and No i could not respect my grandfather who served in a war where millions of innocent people were killed solely because of their religious beliefs or semitic heritage. Even if he believed he was right or he was drafted. I don't understand your point...are you looking for justification in your prejudice beliefs? Some of the points you've made earlier have a striking similiarity to what actors portraying neo-nazis said in a favorite movie of mine, American History X. Forgive me if i am wrong but it seems as though you believe nazi's are not as bad as they have been portrayed when I in fact believe the opposite i believe they are worse.

[nil]

Ssrenkah: I think you're missing the point Sanby is trying to make. He is not saying he would respect Person A for the fact that he fought for the Nazis or the Confederates. The respect is NOT based on Person A's belief. It is not based on the morality of Person A, or wether the cause he was fighting for was "good".

The respect Sanby is talking about is based on the fact that Person A had the backbone to stand up for SOMETHING (the important thing here is that it doesn't matter what that thing was), and risk his life to defend or support that thing.

While I don't agree with everything Sanby has said, I do agree with this (you could even read that sentence as "I don't agree with Sanby's SOMETHING, but I respect him for stating it and defending it (although, not with his life :wink: ))

[Sok N. Wett]

During the Khmer Rouge Regime, Americans dropped bombs in Cambodian, killing civilians, woman and children. The media even tried to cover it up, and yet here I am living in America......

[the_blur]

Anyone defending Nazis in this thread is a fucking moron.

READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Specifically: criticisms of.

Dont make me get off this chair and school you.