Should Australia be adopting Nuclear Arms

[The4thEstate]

Just as the only difference between Germany and Australia in World War II was that the Germans had a "different way" of treating Jews.

You mean like the US treated the SS St.Louis, 4E? Gee, that really showed the difference there, now didn't it? Tsk, tsk.

Many nations were anti-Semitic in their treatment of the Jews before WWII. The UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France, etc., etc. The Germans carried it a step further. They killed them. WWII wasn't about saving the Jews, it was about saving Western Europe. The last pogrom against the Jews in Poland occurred when, 4E? 1945. Nice, hey.

Whinge and whine as much as you like 4E, the world remembers. Tsk, tsk.

Yeah, you're so right, Brian! The Germans had the stones to do what the rest of the Allies really wanted to accomplish: Exterminate the Jews.
And you have to hand it to the Krauts for getting it done smoothly and efficiently, right?

Darn, if only we hadn't interrupted them by trying to save Western Europe ...

[Black Orchid]

[brian ross]

Just as the only difference between Germany and Australia in World War II was that the Germans had a "different way" of treating Jews.

You mean like the US treated the SS St.Louis, 4E? Gee, that really showed the difference there, now didn't it? Tsk, tsk.

Many nations were anti-Semitic in their treatment of the Jews before WWII. The UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France, etc., etc. The Germans carried it a step further. They killed them. WWII wasn't about saving the Jews, it was about saving Western Europe. The last pogrom against the Jews in Poland occurred when, 4E? 1945. Nice, hey.

Whinge and whine as much as you like 4E, the world remembers. Tsk, tsk.

Yeah, you're so right, Brian! The Germans had the stones to do what the rest of the Allies really wanted to accomplish: Exterminate the Jews.
And you have to hand it to the Krauts for getting it done smoothly and efficiently, right?

Darn, if only we hadn't interrupted them by trying to save Western Europe ...

Erecting strawman arguments, 4E? Have you lowered yourself to that point, really? Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk.

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

You put three Jews in a room and you'll get four opinions. You put three Muslims in a room and you'll have a schism followed by a civil war. You put three Christians in a room and they'll be playing "pass the parcel" faster than you can blink an eye.

[Redneck]

Brian Ross wrote

You put three Jews in a room and you'll get four opinions. You put three Muslims in a room and you'll have a schism followed by a civil war. You put three Christians in a room and they'll be playing "pass the parcel" faster than you can blink an eye.

I will pay that one!

[The4thEstate]

Just as the only difference between Germany and Australia in World War II was that the Germans had a "different way" of treating Jews.

You mean like the US treated the SS St.Louis, 4E? Gee, that really showed the difference there, now didn't it? Tsk, tsk.

Many nations were anti-Semitic in their treatment of the Jews before WWII. The UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France, etc., etc. The Germans carried it a step further. They killed them. WWII wasn't about saving the Jews, it was about saving Western Europe. The last pogrom against the Jews in Poland occurred when, 4E? 1945. Nice, hey.

Whinge and whine as much as you like 4E, the world remembers. Tsk, tsk.

Yeah, you're so right, Brian! The Germans had the stones to do what the rest of the Allies really wanted to accomplish: Exterminate the Jews.
And you have to hand it to the Krauts for getting it done smoothly and efficiently, right?

Darn, if only we hadn't interrupted them by trying to save Western Europe ...

Erecting strawman arguments, 4E? Have you lowered yourself to that point, really? Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk.

Strawman argument? Moi?

Why, heavens no! I'm simply giving your comments all the consideration they so richly deserve.

You specialize in dodging and deflecting when you're pinned in a corner and unwilling to admit the veracity of the other person's argument, so why should I take this particular deflection any more seriously than the previous ones?

You seem to think it's meaningful to point out historical shortcomings of other nations that occurred decades, if not centuries ago ... as if you're Diogenes clutching a lantern, searching for one honest country.

Meanwhile, you shrug off the fact that at this very minute, the government of China is maintaining re-education camps for about 1.5 million Muslims, treating Islam as if it were a mental illness.

Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment, and I find it difficult to choose a side to cheer for in this particular confrontation. But you're the one who screams "Islamophobe" at the drop of a hat while acting as if China's human rights offenses aren't half as bad as America's.

So let me get this straight -- you're more offended by someone posting something like "I don't trust Muslims in general" on a little forum like this than the fact that China commits human rights offenses like this:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/76415317 ... atives-say

Former detainees say that while in detention they were forced to memorize Chinese communist propaganda and learn Mandarin and were occasionally violently interrogated or beaten.

Seems to me that what China is doing even as we speak is a bigger deal than what the U.S. may have done during World War II. Or during its westward expansion. Or in the South before the Civil War.

With China, there's the possibility of actually doing something about it today.

So yeah, when you start deflecting to "But look how your country screwed up in the 1940s," you can bet I'm not going to take your latest historical sidestep very seriously.

That's why I'm posting this for your benefit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YymGJKhGgY

[The4thEstate]

Speaking of China, isn't this interesting ... protests against the Chinese government have spread to the mainland.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wenl ... -w078v2gzp

Residents of a Chinese town threw bricks at riot police, set up street barricades and overturned police cars in a sign of “copycat” demonstrations inspired by the unrest in Hong Kong.

Hundreds of people in Wenlou, about 60 miles north of Hong Kong, marched and chanted a similar protest slogan to that of the territory’s demonstrators. They took to the streets after learning that the authorities had included a crematorium in a proposed £8 million “ecological park” without notifying the public.

Meanwhile, average Iranians are rising up against the mullahs who rule them. It's getting nasty, with hundreds of protesters killed by government troops. But this time, unlike the Obama years, the U.S. is on the side of the protesters.

Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd say that Trump's tough stance against China and Iran is doing more to promote freedom in those countries than, say, giving Iran $150 billion and looking the other way while China stole U.S. trade secrets and screwed America on trade deals.

Wouldn't it be great if the people of China and Iran overthrew their totalitarian leaders, making it unnecessary for Western nations to have to spend billions of dollars in military expenditures?

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

Many nations were anti-Semitic in their treatment of the Jews before WWII. The UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France, etc., etc. The Germans carried it a step further. They killed them. WWII wasn't about saving the Jews, it was about saving Western Europe. The last pogrom against the Jews in Poland occurred when, 4E? 1945. Nice, hey.

Well, let's analyse your latest bit of moral posturing, Brian.

You appear to be taking your default position as strongly anti racist while refusing to explain the contradictions of the quotes by you, which clearly display your own racism towards white people in general, and Americans in particular. This is hypocrisy, and you know it is hypocrisy. How you can then mount your white horse, and surrounded by a chorus of singing angels, condemn in others what you do yourself, is something I would really like you to explain to all of us?

Racism is hardly a Cardinal Sin if everybody does it, including yourself.

Next. let's look at anti Semitism. I am a staunch supporter of Israel against it's religious fascist opponents. I admire the secular Jews and I am mindful of the immense contribution the secular Jews have made to western enlightenment and prosperity. But the fundamentalist Jews are almost as bad and as racist as the Muslims and the Nazis.

The Jews were persecuted by the Christian churches for nearly 2000 years because Christianity had morphed from being an entirely pacific religion to an extremely violent one. One cause of that, was because of what Churchill so rightly explained that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." That should ring a bell for you, Brian, because as a card carrying socialist, you advocate for a socialist totalitarian system yourself. Democracy is a real inconvenience to sort of socialist utopia you dream of implementing.

With total control, the church aristocracy used anti Semitism as just one of it's tactics to remain in power. With total control of "education" over the masses it was easy for the pope's and prelates to brainwash the masses (similar to HIGW today) with the call that "the Jews killed Christ." But with the Enlightenment, western attitudes towards Jews began to change.

But there was a problem. There were too many fundamentalist Jews in western Europe who were themselves extremely racist towards their own host populations. Similar to Muslims today, they refused to allow their daughters to marry non Jews. They refused to even eat food prepared by non Jews. Their communities were entirely insular and exclusive. Among Europeans, the attitude that Jews cared for nobody but themselves was widespread, with more than a little truth in that statement. Had the fundamentalist Jews, who just happened to be the majority of Jews in Eastern Europe, integrated into their host societies, it is reasonable to assume that anti Semitism might have withered away.

Now, lets look at Jews today. Israel is unapologetically a Jewish state. The Jews may advocate for multiculturalism everywhere else, but not in Israel. The Jews may advocate for open borders and the free passage of refugees, but not in Israel. The Jews, the world's most racially oppressed people, recognise the need to apply a bit of racism themselves for their own countries survival.

So, I repeat the question, Brian. How can racism be absolutely wrong, if everybody does it to one degree or another, including yourself?

[Nicole]

Just as the only difference between Germany and Australia in World War II was that the Germans had a "different way" of treating Jews.

You mean like the US treated the SS St.Louis, 4E? Gee, that really showed the difference there, now didn't it? Tsk, tsk.

Many nations were anti-Semitic in their treatment of the Jews before WWII. The UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France, etc., etc. The Germans carried it a step further. They killed them. WWII wasn't about saving the Jews, it was about saving Western Europe. The last pogrom against the Jews in Poland occurred when, 4E? 1945. Nice, hey.

Whinge and whine as much as you like 4E, the world remembers. Tsk, tsk.

Yeah, you're so right, Brian! The Germans had the stones to do what the rest of the Allies really wanted to accomplish: Exterminate the Jews.
And you have to hand it to the Krauts for getting it done smoothly and efficiently, right?

Darn, if only we hadn't interrupted them by trying to save Western Europe ...

Erecting strawman arguments, 4E? Have you lowered yourself to that point, really? Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk.

Strawman argument? Moi?

Why, heavens no! I'm simply giving your comments all the consideration they so richly deserve.

You specialize in dodging and deflecting when you're pinned in a corner and unwilling to admit the veracity of the other person's argument, so why should I take this particular deflection any more seriously than the previous ones?

You seem to think it's meaningful to point out historical shortcomings of other nations that occurred decades, if not centuries ago ... as if you're Diogenes clutching a lantern, searching for one honest country.

Meanwhile, you shrug off the fact that at this very minute, the government of China is maintaining re-education camps for about 1.5 million Muslims, treating Islam as if it were a mental illness.

Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment, and I find it difficult to choose a side to cheer for in this particular confrontation. But you're the one who screams "Islamophobe" at the drop of a hat while acting as if China's human rights offenses aren't half as bad as America's.

So let me get this straight -- you're more offended by someone posting something like "I don't trust Muslims in general" on a little forum like this than the fact that China commits human rights offenses like this:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/76415317 ... atives-say

Former detainees say that while in detention they were forced to memorize Chinese communist propaganda and learn Mandarin and were occasionally violently interrogated or beaten.

Seems to me that what China is doing even as we speak is a bigger deal than what the U.S. may have done during World War II. Or during its westward expansion. Or in the South before the Civil War.

With China, there's the possibility of actually doing something about it today.

So yeah, when you start deflecting to "But look how your country screwed up in the 1940s," you can bet I'm not going to take your latest historical sidestep very seriously.

That's why I'm posting this for your benefit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YymGJKhGgY

Great post!

[brian ross]

That map shows how many Muslims there are in various parts of China. The Chinese are presently oppressing Muslims in only one province - Xingxiang - the dark bit off to the left there. There are Muslims throughout China who aren't being oppressed at all. The Uighurs are a tribe that only came under Chinese rule in the late 19th century. They have long refused to accept Beijings rule over them. The other Muslims? They accept Chinese control of their homelands. This doesn't excuse the way China is reacting to the Uighur separatist movement but it explains why they are reacting so harshly to it. The Communist Party refuses to accept that people might owe allegiance to any other organisation in China. The Communist Party is supreme in their eyes.

Now, 4E tell us what happened the last time some states in the USA decided they didn't like being in the USA any more? 1861 wasn't it? It was called the American Civil War or as the Southerners prefer, "the war of Northern aggression." How many died?