213374U

My ignorant... what?

n/m

A cause for concern, you say? Depends on whom you ask.

Actually, it will.

Sure, fine. Are you going to switch to tofu burgers too? Because, you know, bovine livestock is the next target of the climate change adherents. Cow farts will kill the planet, I tells ya! You win. That always makes me wonder - why isn't it Chinese or Indian "scientists" warning about this post-modern armageddon? In the case of a possible mass crops failure scenario (one of the woes of this environmental DOOM), they would get the short end of the stick for sure.

Being biased against German soldiers isn't an issue today? Well, perhaps where you live it isn't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be, at any rate. And no, I'm not without bias myself. I'll thank you to point out when my biases are clearly distorting my judgement, because it's not something that can't be corrected, or to be proud of. Yeah, while you're at WP, look up either/or fallacy. And do read the first paragraph of the very article you're linking to, where it says that it was agreed after the war that the Wehrmacht wasn't a criminal organisation per se.

Um, right. All non-resistance Germans were Nazis. Good luck with that, professor. Aaaand style over substance. Aaaand hipocrisy. Aaaand cherrypicking. Aaaand

Yeah, the good ol' "if you ain't with us, you're against us". Again, there was conscription in Germany since 1935; ~5M men in the 1939 Wehrmacht from a 100,000 men Reichswehr in 1933. I suppose you are suggesting that everyone should have dodged the draft at that time because, well, the Nazis were in power? Interestingly, draft dodgers often joined the SS, to avoid military service. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing... Because the army serves the state and the people and not the Party or the person of the Head of State? Your argument for passive support has some merit, but then, you can extend that to all Germans that didn't actively fight the Nazis. Were they, by your reasoning, Nazis by extension? Why don't we start digging into the reasons why Hitler's hate drivel found so much acceptance with the German people? Say, what have you done lately, putting your own life at risk, to fight tyranny and injustice? Because there's a lot of work for heroes out there.

Being biased is inevitable. However, being proud of (or merely accepting) one's own recognized bias is bad, m'kay? Openly using that bias to justify bald-faced hate is childish, stupid and very dangerous. But we are supposed to smile paternally and let it go because it's a) a Jew doing it and b) a young Jew. Neither is an excuse, folks. Well, there's heroes, and then there's "Hero of the Soviet Union"-s. It's pretty cool how deeply you have mastered doublethink. So, because it's kotorchum doing it, German soldiers = NAZI. Everyone else must be very careful with the distinctions between Waffen-SS, Wehrmacht, Gestapo, SD, party officials, etc.

That's because Carth is more like "an hero", though.

That guy's channel is great!

What would be an example of an unbiased news source? Sources that don't say things like the first statement in the aztlan link.Neat. One of the sources he posted is biased, so clearly all three are biased AND what they are reporting must be FALSE. Uncanny logic. But here, let me dig up a more "respectable" source for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/1...ape-claim-block Mythical myths and innuendo, no doubt.

My bad. But you said: (emphasis mine) So you're either claiming he has a deeper knowledge of the facts that allows him to make more accurate judgements, or you're just defending his bias. A doubly unjustified bias too, because his connection to WWII isn't direct.

You ARE being anal. Okay, let's assume I'm a Protestant. Does that give me a more informed perspective on French Catholics because they happened to murder a whole bunch of Huguenots? And so on and so forth with any number of massacres throughout history. Kotorguy has NO personal experience of the tragedies of WWII. I'm not even attacking the validity of the claims of his grampa or whatever. But those are, to us, secondary sources, and their value is not certified because they are being presented by a Jew - so his being a Jew has no bearing on this discussion. But the Wehrmacht as an organization was acquitted.

No, you (or kotorperson) tell me how precisely it relates to the particular WWII subject being discussed. I thought that adding the IDF thing and Palestinians would better illustrate my point. No such luck. But anyway, please explain how the Holocaust is relevant when discussing, say, the Battle of the Bulge? How is it relevant to the development of alternative fuel sources from, for instance, potato alcohol? How is it relevant to war crimes committed by the IJA? How is it relevant to the Battle of Midway? EDIT: Thinking about it, it's not even the the Holocaust, itself. It's the relevance of someone belonging to a group that was targeted for extermination by one of the belligerents during WWII, but without direct connection to the Holocaust himself. So, um, unless prejudice is now somehow a valid form of argument, there isn't much to be said for "relevance".

And I added the Scientology part as obvious nonsense, so he would understand that belonging to a certain group or other is irrelevant with regards to what's being discussed (possible heroism of WWII Germans, in case you got that mixed up with war crimes). You brain farted on that. I'd offer my congratulations, but the situation is already embarrassing enough.

And I'm not sure where his being Jewish, Polish, Russian or French fits in with the unrelated issue of whether a WWII German soldier can be a hero or not. Oh wait, it doesn't fit anywhere. Not to mention the fact that kotorsomethingorother didn't experience the war himself, so he's about as qualified to make value judgements as you or me. His perspective isn't any more "real and human" than any Wikipedia article, but unlike wiki articles, his perspective has no citations attached. By the way, you may have all the college degrees in the world, but you are still failing basic reading comprehension. Lare didn't ask which ethnic or religious group anyone belongs to, which is what I was referring to.

ROFLASDASFASDKHJ And I'm a scientologist. Who asked you and, more pertinently, who the **** cares? In all seriousness though, I suppose we're required to take a Palestinian's opinion at face value on whether an IDF member can be a hero as well, then, if your opinion as a Jew is somehow especially relevant. To be fair to the good Generalfeldmarschall, he wasn't one of the most ardent detractors of the Nazis within the military establishment - only after the tide turned did many of them begin to think that perhaps uncle Adolf and his gang of cranks wasn't the best for Germany. That's not to say there weren't any such cases, but people like von Hammerstein-Equord, von Fritsch, von Witzleben or von Leeb are much better examples. And even so, the reasons needn't be that they all thought the Nazis were "evil". Some resented a Bavarian corporal's growing influence and meddling in what was considered an elite circle, heir of the proud military traditions of Prussia. Some feared the de facto parallel, Nazi-fostered, army in the form of the SA and later SS. Some thought that going to war with the Allies and the Soviet Union was suicide, and some others truly despised the way the Nazis had done away with civil liberties and freedom in Germany. At any rate, these people were professional soldiers in the purest sense, and actively moving against the regime would have been treacherous and demeaning in their eyes. Fedor von Bock exemplifies this thinking: a military man through and through, who remained at his post despite his personal feelings towards the Nazis. As for Wehrmacht members "fighting for the Nazis", this is simply ridiculous. Germany had, since 1935, re-instituted conscription. The Waffen-SS are a different story though. But even in the Waffen-SS there were many non-volunteers and some others that weren't so much fighting "for the Nazis", as they were against communism. See 1, 2.

Yeah. You haven't seen Fight Club? Anyway, I think it's kinda funny that the same people that shell out the big bucks for that crap are in many cases dying to lose a few pounds of lard. \o/

You're just jealous he has a different rig for each game!

Hit a nerve? You must be new here. That's just how I am, what with my chronic allergy to bull**** and all. Now, for the "substance" in your post. The key measures Hitler took to dismantle the Weimar Republic are precisely what I mentioned: the Reichstag Fire Decree and the 1933 Enabling Act, nullifying popular, media and communist opposition, and investing Hitler with legislative power, respectively. The "closest" Dubya ever went to that is USAPATRIOT which, while controversial, was passed by an overwhelming majority (and reauthorized in 2005 and 2006). Further, parts of it were found to be unconstitutional, and had to be struck from the law - which indicates that the system is working as intended, and safe from from turning into an Orwellian nightmare. Care to explain where those obvious parallels are? The fall of the Roman Republic was the result of a centuries-long power struggle between the optimates and the populares, which culminated in a civil war due to the Senate's fear of Julius Caesar and their (and Pompeius') inability to deal with him or find a solution otherwise. Again, I fail to see where the parallels are. The bottom line is, the only slippery slope present here is the fallacy in your arguments. You're right, I'm probably not as knowledgeable on the matter as I think, but at least I'm basing my arguments on real historical events, as opposed to pop culture and new age religioun claptrap. I don't know man, but if anyone's posting fluff and squirming when presented with concrete details, it sure as **** ain't me.

Faceless bureaucrats? You know this is the candidate endorsed by Sarkozy and Merkel, right?

Battle Pope is the only Pope I respect. "When he's not leading mass, he's out kicking ass" You said it's a slippery slope, but failed repeatedly to show how it is actually so. And then, for extra comedy, you accuse me of not having a grasp of history, when in fact it's you who, clearly, has no idea what he's talking about. Read up on how Hitler turned the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian state, and then show me where the analogies lie between W's policies and Hitler's Enabling Act and Reichstag Decree. And the RSHA and the dept of Homeland Security. And the FBI and the Gestapo. Or perhaps you'd like to substantiate your frankly mad theories using the good ol' Soviet Union as a starting point? Because, you see, that's the stuff we're talking about when discussing where that slippery slope of yours would lead. Your lame e-psychiatry doesn't work on me, bub. Next time try an actual argument instead of an appeal to emotion based on prefabricated tags and fearmongering. Funny, because that's exactly what you accuse others of. Much like with that Pope business. Guess it isn't me who's in need of some e-psychiatry. Nobody asked you anything. You felt like rubbing your wiccan/neo-pagan/druidic beliefs (you're so cool!) in our faces, and used the chance to deflect a valid point (yes, sometimes even Hades makes those). Care to try again?

The only thing you'll inherit are headaches.