I am sorry, I mistook your post for an attempt to discuss the issue seriously. Now I see that you prefer abuse and trollery. If you would like to show me which inhuman, cruel and intolerant aspects of islam I have supported then maybe we can have a discussion. As someone who is frequently criticized by the Left as a "neo-con" for continuously slamming their collusion with islamic extremism I think you may be looking for a long time. Still the search of my posts may prove instructive to you. As to the Netherlands I think I made it clear that this was a complicated case and I expressed agnosticism over Wilders fascism, although he certainly is an anti-islamic rabble rouser. Your attempt to draw me into opposition to Hirst Ali is dishonest or lazy or both. If anything my posts on this board show a clear sympathy for the ideas of both her partner, Niall Ferguson and one of her loudest admirers, Christopher Hitchens. I think though the fact that you can defame me so easily as someone who defends the worst aspects of islam when I have written countless posts slamming the worst aspects of islam, shows that you are probably in the camp of those who cannot or care not to tell the difference between islamofascists who throw acid in the faces of little girls going to school and the ancient religion and culture of a billion people today. It seems that islamophobes prefer to imagine that a billion people take the Quran literally and yearn to have sex with children but somehow manage to acknowledge that Christians and Jews have moved on from the barbaric practices outlined in their Holy Texts. Therein lies the bigotry. I know that all the Abrahamic faiths adopt religious texts that justify stoning people to death. I think it is more important to focus on those scumbags who actually still do stone people to death rather than focus on some sort of sectarian war with a whole culture representing a sixth of the world's people. My posts address those who post here. When leftists or anyone else come on here spouting anti-semitism I think you will find that I demonstrate a clear awareness of the anti-semitism of some anti-Israeli people. More lies and fabrications from you. Or maybe you may be more lazy than abusive with your post here and have just made assumptions about what I believe. There is nothing inconsistent about being a Kemalist as far as Turkey is concerned (have you heard of Attaturk?) and being against the persecution of the Kurds by that country. If I don't choose to mention a complete assessment of the whole of Turkish politics when answering a French nationalist who supports the expulsion of the Rroma from France, and takes the absurd position that the EU represents "Christendom" (as French Gaullists do) then that doesn't mean I am not aware of it. Your assumptions as to what I believe are either lazy twaddle or calculated abuse. The leftist appeasers of Al Qaeda can't tell the difference between my buddy Sajid in Dubai and Osama Bin Ladin either. It's a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee as far as I can see.
You don´t care that Poland was a dictatorship, invaded Czechia in 1938 and took big part from Czechia, but you cry about the German-Polish war as German crime. And where are your tears you did not lose about the Soviet incursion into Poland in 1939? Where are your cries about the victims of the bombings in WWII. You do have just one Goal: Blame Germany. Give Germany the guilt of everything bad. Hypocrisy is the main factor, why history is that distorted.
I think you will find that in this thread I condemned the Molotov Ribbentrop pact and the partition of Polanmd between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. To most reasonable people this is a condemnation of both sides. Still, you carry on chasing shadows if you want to... Germany is guilty of the disaster that was WW2 (WW1 is a different case). There are no mitigating circumstances, even the post WW1 peace imposed by the Allies on Weimar, that justify the German quest for lebensraum and its morally repugnant racial policies. German people who voted NSDAP are aslo guilty. My country, Britain, has a very mixed history, and committed many crimes against people. But its role in standing up to Nazi Germany and in being a major part of the forces that crushed Nazi germany, was probably, as Chirchill said, Britain's finest hour. It was Germany's most shameful hour and those Germans who resist this will get short shrift from civilized people. But those times are past and Germans are different now, most of them horrified at the crimes that their forefathers committed, just as I am at the crimes committed by the British in India and Africa in Victorian times.
There was no "German quest for lebensraum and its morally repugnant racial policies". The Weimarer Republik was an unstable institution without authority. Waters in Germany were international waters, the Central Bank was led by the allieds, German patents were taken by the allieds and Germany payed raparations for the WWI even in the 1980´s. There were limitations of the military and general aviation, etc, etc. In short: Germany was not ruled by Germans. This is what drove the voters to right and left wing parties. All this was pepped by the depression and its unemployment. So when you are ridiculously talking about a "German quest for lebensraum and its morally repugnant racial policies", I can only laugh.
Yes, I am familiar with the causes of the second world war and the background to the rise of Nazism. It explains it. It certainly does not justify it. Only if you deny the enormity of the Holocaust and cast it as a fabrication can you take your position that Germany is a wronged nation. I have read Mein Kampf in a contemporary edition owned by my Nazi hating grandfather (so it wasn't "invented" by some alleged Jewish conspiracy). The racial policies of the NSDAP are a matter of record. Of course Holocaust deniers can squeal all they want, I am clear as to the enormity of Germany's crimes. The German strategy of lebensraum and the basis of this for the Ribbentrop Molotov pact, the partition of Poland and then the invasion of the USSR after that, is clear and explicit. Germany sought living space for its people, and natural resources in the East which it lacked in Germany. It chose to exterminate Jews, Rroma (gypsies), and slavs as untermenschen, in order to achieve that end. As to the bombing of Cologne and Dresden, they were probably examples of poor generalship, but I can only suggest that there was a strong view that even after D Day, the strong will of the German people had to be broken. There is a lot of evidence that Germany felt like a wronged victim (just like you do now, it would seem) and its citizens would fight tooth and nail against Allied troops. People are responsible for their governments at the end of the day. The German people strongly supported the Nazi regime even if they didn't originally vote for it. This would be an admirable quality in a people had they been defending a civilized regime. Unfortunately they were defending the biggest cabal of murderers in the history of the world. Of course sections of the German aristocracy had failed to remove the tyranny and they could see the writing on the wall. But the rest of the German nation stood defending evil. It is debatable whether mass firebombing was excessive or not, but the will of the German people had to be broken, to safeguard Allied lives and to hasten the capitulation of the Nazis. The city you highlight looks like Cologne to me, judging by the distance of the Dom from the river. I don't know Dresden too well. But I have seen what the post-war democracies did for Germany with American led help for German regeneration. I don't think that was the act of victors who wanted to see Germany's eternal destruction. Cologne and Dresden are now beautiful cities. Coventry on the other hand, not so much, unfortunately for them. Sort of the reverse of the Versailles Conference - Britain was rewarded with massive Lend Lease debt - Germany got American funded regeneration. Now we look to a civilized Germany to take leadership in Europe. Old Merkel may be stubborn, but she'll probably get there. If you think I'm anti-German, you are wrong. I have posted many, many times debating with Americans on how German Christian/Social Democracy is a far better socio-economic model than anything the USA has come up with. But I'm anti Nazi Germany. And unfortunately for Germans, in the historical context, those two words go together.
We were talking about why Hitler was elected and not about his plans. Nobody was interested in Lebensraum out of German territory. Lebensraum, I call it German territory, was a matter in the Weimarer Republik but also in the Federal Republc of Germany. One Example: This are election posters of the 1950´ years: You are close to call me a holocaust denyer, but you reduce the bombings to Clogne and Dresden. Note that almost every German was destroyed, even the city where I live was liberated by a firestorm and it is not a big city. The US Masterplan was important to a) unmake the marks of the bomb genocide b) prevent the Germans from an new upraise through some wealth c) create a Germany that can fight the socialists at the hottest border of the world. Now, where all this three points are dropped, Germany´s army is limited again (max manpower: 350.000), its Central Bank is heteronomous again and foreigners can make laws at will here again (EU laws and guidelines), Germany is constantly paying billions again, its court´s decisions can be nullified and its politicians are just better puppets. Germany is going back to a babaric society that is reduced to the lowest instincts.
As I did with yours and I will only reply to those points, in which you want to explain your position and ignore your insults. 1.) The problems with Islam do not begin with an "honour killing", a terrorist attack, a girl blinded by acid or a regime executing someone by stoning. This all is not taking place in a vacuum, in which a lunatic kills randomly. This is absolutely ridiculous and this is taking place rather in Islamic communities, so it is pretty obvious that there may be a connection to Islam. I am not stating that the majority of muslims committs or justifies such deeds, but it is a problem of Islam. 2.) Fundamentalism exists in Christianity and Judaism as well, you wrote, which is without a doubt correct. You can extend that that fanatics exist in every religion. I agree that there are statements in the Bible or Torah, you cannot reconcile with our society as well. There are many things to write about that point: a) Even within fundamentalism there are differences, which can be explosive. The Islam knows the concept of a God's state, a theocracy in which the people should live, as well as it gives the followers the instrument of violence and the order to convert people. This combination can be very dangerous, Christians have the order to convert as well, but they do neither have the concept of theocracy in the Bible nor may they use violence, Judaism does not even promote to convert other people. The lifestyle of the Amish people in the US may not be the same as many non fundamentalists Americans have, but there is a state of coexistence. There are of course many different sects, which have their own philosophy, which they derive from Bible or Quran, there are strictly islamic sects which are dogmatically peaceful too, as you can derive what you want from these books full of contradictions. b) I doubt that there are as many Christians, Jews or other religious people, who follows that strictly the words of their holy books as muslims do. Nevertheless I think real strictly fundamentalists are still an exception with respect to all of these religions. In Europe there is far spreaded a kind of Chritianity light, people who go to the church, do their prayers, believe in God, but don't follow the Bible to the letter. Surely many muslims handle their religion similar. Some mix their religion with their own philosophy, for some it is folklore or just tradition. Islamic fundamentalists may be dangerous, they can start a devastating terror attack, but I don't see them as a threat when it comes to the establishment of a theocracy here in Europe. c) I can speak for Germany only now, the problems in other countries may be others, but the main problems with Islam here are not a few thousand religious fanatics, but a complete closed up parallel culture which develops in districts which are dominated by Turks and/or Arabs. Where hate on the Westerners/Germans/infidels is wide spread, where girls can be forced to wear headscarfs and can be forced to marriage later on, where any form of violence against women is accepted, where any kind of German or in general Western influence is strongly rejected, be it school, police or anything else. With extremely high crime rates. This is not islamic fundamentalism, I doubt that most of the exponents of such a culture know the Quran sufficiently, Islam is just part of a crude mixture of ideas to separate from the others/infidels whatsoever. A diffuse mixture of ghetto culture (trying to imitate American ghetto culture), nationalistic feelings and Islam. Honour killings, especially those few that are reported at all are just the surface you can see. And Turkish organizations like DITIB play a desastrous role in that. Wow, I am deeply impressed you ever heard of Ataturk, but you know, some people also recognize the development since the AKP took over, how they feed Turks here with hate pictures of the US and Israel and how they feed feelings of separation from the German society or any non Turkish influence. You cannot discretely distinguish the influence of nationalism, social problems, extreme patriarchic traditions or even misogynist attitudes and Islam. If you look at the highly or at least solid educated Persians who fled to Germany after 1979, you will not find these problems, for sure, I would not doubt that there is a social problem as well. On the other hand you can compare it to millions of immigrants from Russia under far more precarious circumstances, who did not establish a hostile counter culture like that, who did not cause problems to that extend. The desription of the problems of Islam are by far not exhausted with a few fanatics who are really going to blow up the next train. The more liberal muslims or those who dare to critizise Islam in certain aspects are oftentimes threatened by their community and casted out by a political correct establishment as well. 3.) It was you, who wanted to compare the anti-Semitism of the 19th and 20th century with the contemporary anti-Islamism. And this comparison is ridiculous, because you compare rejections that are based on the pure existence of people, that was even no longer just based on religion, but their ethnicity with rejections because of murder, terror, intolerance and last but not least disrespect for the own individual non-muslim identity. To shorten it, 9/11 was real, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were not. Wilders reacted in rage of the murder of people like Theo van Gogh and in rage of the fact that Hirsi Ali will be in fear of her life for the rest of it. A rather strange kind of solidarity you show with Hirsi Ali, as you claim, by calling people who are outraged about her fate fascists, not mentioning one word about her fate or the of her film director Theo van Gogh. You can insult me as long as you want, your comparison and your statements are completely inacceptable for me. I do not generally doubt that such outrage directed against a certain group can bear the nucleus of a new facism itself, but labeling this potentially dangerous nucleus and problematic polemics as the main threat, while the - from your point of view - innocent victim murders is an abnormous misjudgement.
What would be the difference if you denied the Holocaust. You take an apologetic point of view. This regime was criminal from scratch and at least for a majority recognizable as such at least for critical observers.
That´s the point. I didn´t. Heroclitus is performing has monolog, whatever I write. I just point out, that the others were not better. One example. Both Germany and the SU invaded Poland. Wasn´t it the choice of Britain and France to declare the war only on Germany? Sure it was, but this is not all. They also federalized with the 60 million dead Stalin to fight the 6 million dead Hitler. Completely absurd.
To be strictly fair, this is the Waffen SS, not the SS. And of the over 130 Waffen-SS Divisions, only a handfull were ever accused of "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity". However, I still have to question "best soldiers of all time". After all, they were not only defeated, they were crushed.
This is an apologetic point of view. First of, it was Germany who declared war on Poland, the SU occupied their part of Poland and the Baltics after Poland was as good as finished, France and Britain declared war on Germany before the SU took part. The decisive difference is that Great Britain and the US led a war against Germany not to ethnically clean Germany from Germans. Germany planned to kill most parts of the Polish and parts of Soviet population (-> Generalplan Ost). Nothing what the US or the UK did, comes even close to it. More difficult would be a comparison to the SU, which committed genocides in Poland and the Baltics themselves from 1939-1941. They started very similar with mass killings of the Polish elite, officers, scientists, priests, teachers and so on, followed by deportation. We will never find out, how far Stalin would have gone, because Hitler attacked him in 1941 and the Cold War situation in the aftermath of WWII made a continuation impossible. However without any doubt, within the war Hitler by far murdered much more people than Stalin and by far more than 6 million. Within the war it was the Wehrmacht which brought much more suffering over the peoples of the SU than vice versa. If you take Stalins policy before that war into account, it is up to you or everyone else, who you set as the even more evil or more dangerous guy (we could lead a discussions about serial killers as well, it's rather senseless), but within the war Hitler committed by far even more crimes and they are all well documented. None of these crimes have been connected with the motivation to save the population from Stalins policy, so I don't see in what way the crimes of Stalin could be any excuse. It is apologetic nonsense to raise these issues of the crimes and even if Stalin played in the same league as a butcher, these two have been two of the most monstrous tyrants in human history.
No, just a view without blinkers. Muahahaha! I am sure there was a "Generalplan Heaven" to kill 90 % of the angels, enslave the other 10 % and sell God to Satan. So, we talk about "secret plans". This is the article about the Haunebau series. The Haunebau Ufos were made by the Nazis to reach Moon and Mars and - of course - to implement "Generalplan Heaven". Taste the first sentence: "In science fiction, conspiracy theory, and underground comic books, stories or claims circulate linking UFOs to Nazi Germany." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunebu Do you really think that the Nazis could have hidden the consequences of the "Generalplan Ost" from the population and that any German would have put up with it? If yes, this is an apologetic point of view. Apologetic. There is not even a total number of German and Japanese bomb victims. Get this. So, though Stalind killed 10 times more people than Hitler, you manage it to doubt, "if Stalin played in the same league as a butcher". After Stalin´s dead it was his own party which daclared he was a criminal.
I have a dream that Our Military will wake up to the fact that they are not serving America but are being used as pawns for these jew mobsters. When they are fully awakened a new leader who like Hitler is aware of the jew threat will take charge. All loyal police and inteligence personell will stand behind this leader. By use of the force of all loyal Americans we will surround the New York Federal Reserve Bank and take it over. We will replace all the gold stolen from Fort Knox and return it to the Treasury Department. We will reinstate the Greenback Dollar and begin a massive reconstruction program and rebuild our infrastructure. We will no longer back Israel and the jews who have infiltrated every aspect of our economy and government and send them packing to Israel. All National Monarchies and European Nationalist governments will be respected and the mass deportation of alliens will begin.
Muahahaha! I am sure there was a "Generalplan Heaven" to kill 90 % of the angels, enslave the other 10 % and sell God to Satan. So, we talk about "secret plans". This is the article about the Haunebau series. The Haunebau Ufos were made by the Nazis to reach Moon and Mars and - of course - to implement "Generalplan Heaven". Taste the first sentence: "In science fiction, conspiracy theory, and underground comic books, stories or claims circulate linking UFOs to Nazi Germany." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunebu Wikipedia Editing Courses Launched by Zionist Propaganda Machine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIYhE-hei2Y
You are very sensitive for someone who just posted an abusive lie that: I suggest that if you want a serious discussion you desist from insults that you then fail to back up. You seem to be losing your way with this strawman. Where did I post anything to disagree with this? Of course these are problems for islam in the same way that the Ulster Defence Association is a problem for Christianity. What they do not do is represent islam. And of course it does not take place in a vacuum. It is caused by unreformed religion. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic faiths to have a reformation, not least because they were the first to reconcile science to their faith. It is necessary not to demonize muslims - my argument - but to encourage that reformation and accommodation with secularism. Of course, as there were (and sometimes still is) with Christianity and Judaism, there are a lot of muslims who oppose reformation. They, on the whole, are part of the impediments that liberal democracy has to face in the twenty first century. Still not sure whom you are arguing with. At least I disagree that Judaism and Christianity have not and do not have concepts of theocracy within them. The adoption of Christianity by Rome put religion at the very heart of the State. Indeed what did we have pre-Reformation but corrupt and backward looking theocracies. Even after the Reformation what was Cromwell but a theocrat? In Britain Catholics were forced to attend protestant services and pay tithes. Even in the United States religious intolerance was strong for centuries. And what is theocracy if it is not the assertion by extremist Jewish sects that the Bible justifies them occupying the West Bank and committing criminal acts against arabs who live there? But...having said all that about judeo-Christian theocracy, it is certainly true that there is a big difference between these two religions and islam. For Christianity there is St Paul, who very much separated the church from the State and set a strong religious tradition (often ignored) that it was no business of the State to concern itself with religion. The Enlightenment further developed Christian and reformed Jewish belief that secular values should not be overridden by religious ones in public life. It is very much the task of reforming islam to argue for freedom of individuals to act without coercion from a State dictating religious ways of life. I have heard reform muslims argue that only real religious freedom can come in a secular state. This is to be encouraged but it cannot be when there is a fascist agenda to demonize a billion people, as there is on the far right in Europe and in the United States of America. You are rambling here. What is your point? You don't believe in the Eurabia myth (no theocracy coming in Europe). Good...that's a fascist inspired myth that muslims are going to take over our lives and kill all our children. So you agree with me there that this is a myth. Does that make you "an apologist of every inhuman, cruel, intolerant aspect of Islam" as well then? I actually do believe that extremist muslims are a bigger percentage of muslims than extremist Christrians or Jews are. There are very reactionary attitudes amongs the poor and marginalized muslims in societies like Pakistan and in the very poor Pakistani communities in Britain for example. There is a threat, just one that has to be seen in proportion and contextualized by the social marginalization of these communityies that flirt with islamofascist ideas.. The way to deal with this is not to demonize muslims as islamophobes do, but to engage with them, provide opportunities, and encourage them. Secularized, western muslims will lead the way. Maybe you should give your gastarbeiter more rights, treat them like Germans and they might start to behave like Germans. Denying Turks who are born in Germany the right to citizenship is not a good start. This all very much sound like a generalization and demonization of Turks again. If you marginalize people they will find identity in nationality and religion. It is a vicious circle. It is the fascist's game though and those who are not fascists should be careful not to play it. By painting a community as hostile, the community is driven into a corner and the hostility that ensues confirms the slander. The key to breaking this down is integration, not rejection. And...?
There is a difference of course. All comparisons are eventually odious. There is no genetic component to islamic belief, and this part of Nazism does not carry over with respect to muslims even if most islamophobes (just look on this board) define muslims explicitly (if absurdly) in terms of race. Islamophobia is a hatred and fear of brown people who dress differently. It is however utterly absurd to suggest in any way that 9/11 justifies islamophobia. Nonetheless the comparison is less than perfect with anti-semitism, as with all comparisons. But the comparison is nevertheless strong in several ways. Islamophobia is similar to anti-semitism in the following ways: 1. A fear of outsiders and xenophobia 2. Rejection of any analysis which judges the behaviour of the target group to be complex, varied or diverse. 3. Allegations that the group was aiming to take over society or the world 4. Analysis that the cultural achievements of the Group are entirely illusory in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 5. Allegations of secret alliances between existing powerful elites and these groups 6. Excusing and arguing mitigation for violent attacks on their communities 7. Generalizations which have condemned people just for membership or association with a large group which most of such people were born into. 8. Demonization of beliefs and customs 9. Visceral emotional hatred and irrationality towards the target group 10. The general low intelligence and gullibility of people who espouse these racist beliefs with the exception of a few leaders who know how to manipulate mobs and initiate pogroms All of these things characterize the islamophobia of today's Far Right and the Nazis anti-semitism. Islamophobia of this sort is equally as unacceptable. Just because I agree with Wilders on one thing, doesn't mean that I have to think he is not a dangerous and extremist demagogue! Again, I think you have lost your way here again, in your effort to insult me. It is quite possible for me and a fascist (if I thought Wilders was one) to be outraged at the same thing. I am sure for example that we would both be outraged at child murder. that would not make me in any way sympathetic to him. I think anyway you will find that I expressed agnosticism on Wilders fascism. Nevertheless, why should I have to talk about Hirsi Ali or van Gogh when talking about him? Hirsi Ali is not a political ally of Wilders. They are not any sort of set. It seems that if someone does not follow a particular script that is in your head you can ascribe to them beliefs which they do not have! Wilders calls for the possession of a Quran to be a criminal offence in the Netherlands. That makes him a hate-politician who demonizes islam and wants to deny religious freedom in a liberal democracy. That's the same kind of authoritarian intolerance that kills filmmakers and damages freeedom of expression. And yet you fail to identify any insult nor can you state any credible reason why anything I have said is unacceptable to you. You are merely shadow boxing, dancing round arguments that I have not made, but that are in your head as somethingt you have decided that I believe. And on this basis you opened with insulting me. I suggest that if you can't take it, you shouldn't give it out buddy.
1. You obviously do not know anything about the politics of Germanization which is a proven fact as the Generalplan Ost was worked out in the SS main office for race and settlement. You compare it to a bizzar science fiction comic, obviously this kind of source from which you take your information. Millions of Polish people were killed during the German occupation of Poland. Combined with the Polish Jews who have been murdered Poland lost 5-6 million people and when it comes to this topic you cannot hold your laughter. 2. The number of people who have been killed under the order of Hitler exceeds 6 million by far, as Stalin killed far less than your fantasy number of 60 million. Although we are already discussing scales which leave no doubt that any of these tyrants lost any left over of a conscience or shame, I resent this assumption that the anti-Hitler coalition just joined the more evil empire. How many people exactly have been killed under the orders of Stalin is controverse (it's oftentimes a question how many of the deportated people died, which were deportated with the intention that they were not to return), even if I take serious historians most opposing to Stalin there are numbers about 20 million (Robert Conquest e.g.), some historians give much lower estimations! Even according to these highest estimations, there is not that much of a difference as you try to pretend (there have been more than 12 million helpless people who died intentionally under Hitler's orders and we are talking about uncontrovertable murder only, not about ruthless war tactics). According to other estimations the number of Stalins victims were lower than these of Hitler, however the repitition of the lie that Stalin killed 10 times more people is up to you. While we can only speculate about Stalins woulds and ifs (until 1990, when SU opened its archives, there wasn't even 100% clarity about the dimensions of his crimes), after the war, many of the most horrofic plans of the Third Reich have been uncovered, proving that the unimaginable horrors that have been real were only the beginning of a shocking purge policy in Europe. I do not know what the horrors of Stalinism could anyhow be an excuse for anything. Interesting remark that Stalin's own party declared him as a criminal, suggesting that this could be the difference to Hitler. 3. For a comparison with Western allies, you take now German civilian losses of the war (we were talking about victims of Stalin and Hitler in their terretory not as a consequense of war but as a result of an order which included their dead) and want to compare them with the people murdered by Hitler. The numbers are not unknown, as you stated, and they are a result of reckless war tactics. Killing civilians with air or atrillery bombardements was not a speciality by the allies only. To be concrete, the siege of Leningrad alone, cutting off the supply and adding heavy artillery bombardement and air raids - for about a year - killed more civilians than the U.S. Airforce in Germany. We could question some of the war tactics of the USAF and RAF, but you take out these German civilian victims, you do not mention a word about 17 million civilian victims of the SU, you do not mention Hitlers air raids on England, you just take out the number of German civlian victims pretending that Germany led a chivalrous war. You do not compare them with the victims of far more reckless war tactics, which you do not mention at all, but to Holocaust victims.
Labeling me constantly as a liar is IMO an insult, but as I wrote, I will only answer to the statements connected with the context not to your insults. If my impression of your posts is an insult in your opinion, I will try to replace the statement by a more detailed description by what I mean or what I did not want to state. I did not want to assume you are a supporter of terrorist or violent ideas. What I wanted to express with "apologist" in your statements muslim immigrants mostly comes out as victims, who are driven into any kind of extremism, violence or hate. You constantly asked, what I wanted to express with my statements, I thought, it was clear. You were writing I do judge billions of people after a few lunatics, which I did not, so I described in detail that these criminals are by far not the only problem that I see and they do not begin with religious fanatics, but there are a lot more problems between these two cultures. I cannot look into the head of Wilders, I cannot even guarantee you are wrong, there may be fascists who always thought muslim immigrants to be inferior because most of them have darker skin or darker eyes. Such assumptions are not a usual reaction, when there is a former liberal who is outraged by a religious motivated murderer of a film maker, who critizised Islam. I even resent the term Islamophobia in this content. If an insulting statement towards a religion leads to such a murder we talk about rational anxieties. I know the Netherlands pretty well, I experinced it as a hospitably country with a very cosmopolitan image. My grandparents lived next to the Netherlands and even after the war, in times when they held a grudge against Germans, it was always something they carried with them under the surface, because it was a prior part of their culture to treat visitors and foreigners with respect and hospitality. What I never saw were masses of fascists hunting immigrants and driving them into any kind of islamist tendency as a reaction to a marginalization. I don't know from where you got the idea that there are fascists in the first place who drives poor muslim immigrants into violent ideology, I have quite the opposite opinion when it comes to the Netherlands, that there have been islamists who completely poisoned the atmosphere. For Hirsi Ali, she gave several interviews in which she confirmed that the problems Wilders made part of his politics do exist. I consider this Wilder-thing as a backlash which can go too far (as you mentioned Quran posession laws) and such a phenomenon can bear the nucleus of a new extremist ideology, but again, I see this as a reaction of the people confronted with these phenomenons of Islam, not vice versa. It furthermore appears to me rather strange to handle and argument like 9/11, which stands exemplaric for a lot of terrorist attacks like you did ("no excuse"), but to find excuses like "marginalization" when it comes to muslim violence. For Germany, the situation is a little different. I would admit there is not such a culture of hospitality like in the Netherlands or let's say at least for several decades it did not exist. There may have been reasons for many Turks to have felt outcasted, sometimes for xenophobic reasons, sometimes for social reasons (sometimes the companies exploited the situation f these Turks ruthlessly). Nevertheless there have been countless immigrants, who faced the same problems and found ther ways to deal with their problems and last but not least the advantages of a living in Germany seem to have outweighted the disadvantages. As these problems within the first generation of Turks here decreased and as the politicians dealed with the problems, the problems of the second and third generations and parallel cultures increased. I did not want to state that the majority of the Turks live in parallel culture, beating up their wives, there are of course great examples of Turkish immigrants here - if you read this in my statement. Nevertheless, these problems, I mentioned, do exist. I do not understand what rights do you want see to be given to them or asked the other way, what rights they should lack in Germany. Of course children born here get the German citizenship, when one of their parents has a permanent residence permit, from where are these myths, that they do not get the German citizenship? I see constantly efforts from the German side to integrate them (language courses for free - many non muslim immigrants learned the language without it by the way), the willingness from the official Turkish side is limited (Erdogan strictly rejects the idea of Turkish children learning German as the first language as a crime against humanity). It is not that they should behave like Germans, the Vietnamese minority does not as well, nor does the Sorbs here. About that question of theocracy, I did not doubt that there have been such things like Christian theocracies, like under Savonarola or other persons, but it is not implied by the Bilbe and enables a peaceful way of ignoring each other when it comes to Christians who take the Bible word by word, like e.g. Amish people in the US.
Millions of Polish people were killed? Not even the Jews say this. You don´t see the the double moral standards. Though the gas chambers had no counter mechanism, the number of victims killed by the Germans is engraved in stone, while the number of victims killed by Stalin is openly discussed. You say that I am lying, but you have not even consulted the wikipedia for your audacious imputation. "Before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, researchers who attempted to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims If we would consult other sources about the people killed in German concentration camps, we would have about 300.000 victims, no gas chambers, no holocaust and a Germany that has rescued Europe from the butcher Stalin. There was no attempt to make a difference. If the own party says it, it should not be questioned anymore. What a derision of German victims! You say "U.S. Aiforce" but it was also the Brits, who bombed. Note that about 1100 US heavy four engined bombers bombed Germany alomst every day. Plus the British bombers almost every night. And there is another major difference: While the battles around cities caused heavy damages, it neverthelss was the goal of both sides to controll the cities. The air raids on German cities often had no military goal, it was just a butchery. You compare that? If you compary any German city in 1945 with London in 1945 you´d see that London had a comparatively healthy status. And I was talking about German victims because you don´t care about them. Now you try to charge me with what you do.
Maybe because it is so obvious it was not considered needed to repeat. In total, an estimated 5.6-5.8 million poles died during WWII. Mostly during the Invasion then occupation by the Nazi's. Now granted, the majority of those killed by the Nazi's were Jewish, but not all. There were another estimated 2.8 million killed during the occupation. 150,000-250,000 during the one month invasion alone. Then after that you had the 1939 Einsatzgruppen killings, another 50-70,000 of the elite of Poland. Nobility, teachers, clergy, dissidents, law enforcement, lawyers, anybody they thought might pose a problem during the occuipation. Then the mass executions. Palmiry, Viovodeship, Bydgoszcz, and many many others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes_against_ethnic_Poles
