Home› A Moving Train

World War II was unnecessary

fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
edited July 2008 in A Moving Train
Yes, you read right.

According to HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED's principle, war and oppression can be handled by simply realizing that no one is RIGHT in something. Everyone is wrong. The Allies should have simply told the Nazis to throw their guns in the sea (I guess maybe they'd throw their gas chambers in the sea too?) and just sat together, hav picnics and talk about that one episode of Seinfeld where Jerry and the gang wanted to watch that movie, but just couldn't find eachother in the theater.

Cause in an oppression, it makes no sense to just SIDE with someone. Everyone has to make a concession and just come to peace. :)

I'm not going to offer a practical solution either. I'm just going to say that war is unnecessary. If it meant decades of more suffering for the Jews, so be it. but fighting is NOT the answer. Maybe the Jews could've performed better nonviolent protests instead of complaining of being killed?

What do you all think? In cases of oppression and occupation, can we really just come together and sing Kumbaya?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345

Comments

  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    the civil war was unnecessary too. enslavement is preferable to war! if we all just become the peaceful change we want, evil people will see how holy and right we are, and become that way too! Ghandi taught me that, and he's infallible!

    for example, look how all the peaceful protests stopped the Iraq War, look how tianenmen square stopped communist oppression in China! look how free Burma is today because of an absolute refusal to take up arms!

    Peace must be maintained at all costs, even if that cost is enslavement! Freedom isn't as important as peace! Peace! PEACE!!!!!!!
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Pretty over the top - huh? Why don't you take my point out of context.. oh wait, you just did.

    Apples and Oranges - not the same thing in any respect and to try and make some half-assed point by taking my words in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict and apply it to WW2, is merely silly.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,620
    Keep your discussions in the thread, starting another thread about a poster is childish, petty, and just a dumbass thing to do.

    If it's attention you want, go find your mama.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Pretty over the top - huh? Why don't you take my point out of context.. oh wait, you just did.

    Apples and Oranges - not the same thing in any respect and to try and make some half-assed point by taking my words in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict and apply it to WW2, is merely silly.

    yeah? hang around here a little while and see how many people dont think its silly. they pretty much apply that to every war, including WWII. you're right though, it is apples to oranges.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Just because people say or believe specific things, doesn't give it validity.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Pretty over the top - huh? Why don't you take my point out of context.. oh wait, you just did.

    Apples and Oranges - not the same thing in any respect and to try and make some half-assed point by taking my words in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict and apply it to WW2, is merely silly.
    How so? I mean, both involve cases of oppression and occupation by a stronger opponent over the other. The only difference is most people just aren't doing anything about the Palestinians. How do you think the Nazi occupation of Europe and it's genocide against the Jews is different than the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the genocide against the Palestinians?
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    MrSmith wrote:
    yeah? hang around here a little while and see how many people dont think its silly. they pretty much apply that to every war, including WWII. you're right though, it is apples to oranges.
    There is a difference, obviously. But not one so striking so as to take a completely different approach to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Keep your discussions in the thread, starting another thread about a poster is childish, petty, and just a dumbass thing to do.
    If you really want to be specific about it, the other thread was intended to discuss a Palestinian being shot by an Israeli. This thread is to discuss actual solutions to the conflict.
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    _outlaw wrote:
    What do you all think? In cases of oppression and occupation, can we really just come together and sing Kumbaya?


    In cases of oppression, yes, world reaction can play a definitive role in making peaceful changes. Occupation means force has already be used. Diplomacy should be the first step, however, sometimes force requires force.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,110
    _outlaw wrote:
    Yes, you read right.

    According to FiveB247x's principle, war and oppression can be handled by simply realizing that no one is RIGHT in something. Everyone is wrong. The Allies should have simply told the Nazis to throw their guns in the sea (I guess maybe they'd throw their gas chambers in the sea too?) and just sat together, hav picnics and talk about that one episode of Seinfeld where Jerry and the gang wanted to watch that movie, but just couldn't find eachother in the theater.

    Cause in an oppression, it makes no sense to just SIDE with someone. Everyone has to make a concession and just come to peace. :)

    I'm not going to offer a practical solution either. I'm just going to say that war is unnecessary. If it meant decades of more suffering for the Jews, so be it. but fighting is NOT the answer. Maybe the Jews could've performed better nonviolent protests instead of complaining of being killed?

    What do you all think? In cases of oppression and occupation, can we really just come together and sing Kumbaya?

    Slow down. I've heard crazy things in my day, but check your facts. Seinfeld wasn't on television during the 1940's. They couldn't have sat at a picnic and talked about Seinfeld. The Allies and the Nazi's talking about Seinfeld....too funny. Do you live in a time warp? Maybe they could have talked about calling people out on a message board and making it personal, but again, computers did not exists back then.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,110
    _outlaw wrote:
    If you really want to be specific about it, the other thread was intended to discuss a Palestinian being shot by an Israeli. This thread is to discuss actual solutions to the conflict.

    Well, at least quote the other poster's comment instead of just trashing the poster. You obviously just wanted to be sarcastic, so you should have kept it to the other thread. If you wanted a serious discussion, then you should have started with a serious first post, and then led into your sarcasm later on in the thread.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Slow down. I've heard crazy things in my day, but check your facts. Seinfeld wasn't on television during the 1940's. They couldn't have sat at a picnic and talked about Seinfeld. The Allies and the Nazi's talking about Seinfeld....too funny. Do you live in a time warp? Maybe they could have talked about calling people out on a message board and making it personal, but again, computers did not exists back then.
    It was a joke. As for making it personal, this isn't personal at all. I'm referring to what he said should happen, and I think people could either elaborate on what he said if they agree, or disagree with it.

    Other than that, I'd still like to hear an actual solution to the conflict from him or someone who agrees with him... I mean, who knows, it might actually be a very good solution...
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,620
    _outlaw wrote:
    If you really want to be specific about it, the other thread was intended to discuss a Palestinian being shot by an Israeli. This thread is to discuss actual solutions to the conflict.

    No, it was an attempt to call out Five...just call it like it is. PM him if you want to , but this is juvenile.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,110
    _outlaw wrote:
    It was a joke. As for making it personal, this isn't personal at all. I'm referring to what he said should happen, and I think people could either elaborate on what he said if they agree, or disagree with it.

    Other than that, I'd still like to hear an actual solution to the conflict from him or someone who agrees with him... I mean, who knows, it might actually be a very good solution...

    I was just mocking the Seinfeld joke, that's all.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Becasue one issue, conflict or problem requires one method of logic or rational to fix it, doesn't mean every issue, conflict or problem should be the same. Each one is different and complex in its own ways. To try and generalize such things is silly.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Well, at least quote the other poster's comment instead of just trashing the poster. You obviously just wanted to be sarcastic, so you should have kept it to the other thread. If you wanted a serious discussion, then you should have started with a serious first post, and then led into your sarcasm later on in the thread.
    Thanks for the advice, I think I'm just a terrible person.

    As for actual solutions, I haven't heard any yet. If the poster wants to defend his position, I'd be happy to edit my first post and write his solution in it.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Becasue one issue, conflict or problem requires one method of logic or rational to fix it, doesn't mean every issue, conflict or problem should be the same. Each one is different and complex in its own ways. To try and generalize such things is silly.
    Alright, so what do you suggest is the best solution to the conflict?
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Are you referring to WW2 or Israle and Palestine? If it's the second, we already have a thread discussing this. As for WW2, all the same issues which caused WW1 basically caused the 2nd.
    _outlaw wrote:
    Alright, so what do you suggest is the best solution to the conflict?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Are you referring to WW2 or Israle and Palestine? If it's the second, we already have a thread discussing this. As for WW2, all the same issues which caused WW1 basically caused the 2nd.
    So far, I've seen nothing offered. I've seen that you said "both sides need to make concessions", but I mean a full detailed plan. Who do you think should do what first?
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,110
    _outlaw wrote:
    Thanks for the advice, I think I'm just a terrible person.

    As for actual solutions, I haven't heard any yet. If the poster wants to defend his position, I'd be happy to edit my first post and write his solution in it.

    I am a terrible person too. It's okay.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    _outlaw wrote:
    So far, I've seen nothing offered. I've seen that you said "both sides need to make concessions", but I mean a full detailed plan. Who do you think should do what first?

    perhaps you could tell us your solution...

    you seem to know the answer, don't be shy...tell us...
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    See here's where you miss the main point. It doesn't matter who does what first. If one side pro-actively takes steps towards a peace process, the other half will comply as well. But if neither do, we continue this 50+ yr conflict. If you keep saying, group x needs to go first, it's more about attaching blame to the issue compared to just realistically creating a peace process. Does Israel open up talks and say, we will stop causing attrocities if you do x,y and z? No. Does Palestine say, we will stop terror groups if you do x,y and z? No. Both sides (and those adamently backing each side) are more concerned about applying blame and telling the other half what they should comply with, compared to seriously taking steps in the right direction. When the Oslo accords were going on, both sides took steps to facilitate the peace and it was the closest we've seen to a peace in this conflict. That's what needs to occur.

    Also, there's no need to have 2 threads about the same exact topic, so just pick one and write in there.
    _outlaw wrote:
    So far, I've seen nothing offered. I've seen that you said "both sides need to make concessions", but I mean a full detailed plan. Who do you think should do what first?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    inmytree wrote:
    perhaps you could tell us your solution...

    you seem to know the answer, don't be shy...tell us...
    Have you noticed why no one else has asked me? I've said my solution several times. It's the same solution that the rest of the world is for, other than both the US and Israel.

    If Israel were to withdraw from the occupied territories, to the '67 borders, Hamas has said they would open talks with them. Hamas and Israel's negotiations could go a long way to creating an independent Palestinian state.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    _outlaw wrote:
    Have you noticed why no one else has asked me? I've said my solution several times. It's the same solution that the rest of the world is for, other than both the US and Israel.

    If Israel were to withdraw from the occupied territories, to the '67 borders, Hamas has said they would open talks with them. Hamas and Israel's negotiations could go a long way to creating an independent Palestinian state.

    with this plan and one of these:

    http://www.saphrym.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/50e7b552c45ad275.jpg

    the problem will be solved...
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    FiveB247x wrote:
    See here's where you miss the main point. It doesn't matter who does what first. If one side pro-actively takes steps towards a peace process, the other half will comply as well. But if neither do, we continue this 50+ yr conflict. If you keep saying, group x needs to go first, it's more about attaching blame to the issue compared to just realistically creating a peace process. Does Israel open up talks and say, we will stop causing attrocities if you do x,y and z? No. Does Palestine say, we will stop terror groups if you do x,y and z? No. Both sides (and those adamently backing each side) are more concerned about applying blame and telling the other half what they should comply with, compared to seriously taking steps in the right direction. When the Oslo accords were going on, both sides took steps to facilitate the peace and it was the closest we've seen to a peace in this conflict. That's what needs to occur.
    The first suicide bombing happened in 1994. Clearly, much before that, Israel was still stealing land. In order to start peace, Israel needs to take a step back. Why would the Palestinians, after 40 years of occupation, and 60 years of oppression, give in first? Logically, Israel should do it. The international community thinks so, as well.

    Also, an article everyone should read: http://annies-letters.blogspot.com/2008/07/palestinian-bar-mitzvah-by-bassam.html
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    You continue to associate blame with responsibility for facilitating the peace process. Both sides are responsible to create a peace and maintain it. Merely waiting for the other half only continues the conflict as we've seen over the past 50 yrs.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    FiveB247x wrote:
    You continue to associate blame with responsibility for facilitating the peace process. Both sides are responsible to create a peace and maintain it. Merely waiting for the other half only continues the conflict as we've seen over the past 50 yrs.
    Let me try to break this down for you.

    The Israelis want land that's not theirs.

    The Palestinians want land that IS theirs.

    The Israelis are more powerful and steal the land.

    The Palestinians fight back and it becomes an ongoing struggle.

    I get your point. Going back and forth doesn't worth. I see where you're coming from. However, seeing as how Israel is occupying Palestinian land (do you disagree with that?) and that they're the more powerful force (or that?) then perhaps they should be the ones to withdraw from the occupied territories.

    You see, there's also a difference between Hamas and Israel:

    Hamas said if Israel withdraws to the '67 borders, they'll pretty much guarantee open talks and less violence.

    Israel has NOT guaranteed anything for Hamas if they stop using violence other than "talks." No withdrawal. Nothing.
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    _outlaw wrote:
    How do you think the Nazi occupation of Europe and it's genocide against the Jews is different than the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the genocide against the Palestinians?
    This is ridiculous. I understand you meant to shock, but let's not get carried away. If you fail to see the difference between the Nazi occupation and Israel, start reading books. I hate this kind of bullshit, downplaying the horror of the Nazi doctrine is never a good idea.
    Israel is wrong in its actions, we all agree on that. But, surprise, Israel isn't the only country with a shitty policy towards Palestine. Did you see how Egypt reacted (for reminders the country involved in wars with Israel over the occupation) when Palestinians tried to flee in the Sinaï? Palestine is getting help from nowhere, but the bad guys aren't just jews.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    Kann wrote:
    This is ridiculous. I understand you meant to shock, but let's not get carried away. If you fail to see the difference between the Nazi occupation and Israel, start reading books.
    Why don't you just explain it to me? Sure, the Nazi occupation was on a more massive scale, but the fact that Israel has been doing this same thing for 60 years doesn't make it much better.
    I hate this kind of bullshit, downplaying the horror of the Nazi doctrine is never a good idea.
    What about "downplaying the horror of the" ISRAELI "doctrine"?? Most people on this board seem to have no problem doing that. You included.
    Israel is wrong in its actions, we all agree on that. But, surprise, Israel isn't the only country with a shitty policy towards Palestine. Did you see how Egypt reacted (for reminders the country involved in wars with Israel over the occupation) when Palestinians tried to flee in the Sinaï? Palestine is getting help from nowhere, but the bad guys aren't just jews.
    Are you trying to justify Israel's blatant occupation and murder of the Palestinian people by saying that atleast Egypt isn't doing anything either??
    Wow. Now THAT is ridiculous.
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    _outlaw wrote:
    Israel has NOT guaranteed anything for Hamas if they stop using violence other than "talks." No withdrawal. Nothing.

    ...and therein lies the rub...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
Sign In or Register to comment.