Some discussion points

**travelinman** · February 20th, 2006, 06:22 PM

Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain on 28th May, 1937. Over the next two years Chamberlain's Conservative government became associated with the foreign policy that later became known as appeasement.

Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.

Anthony Eden, Chamberlain's foreign secretary, did not agree with the policy of appeasement and resigned in February, 1938. Eden was replaced by Lord Halifax who fully supported this policy. Halifax had already developed a good relationship with the German government. After his first visit to Nazi Germany he told his friend, Henry (Chips) Channon: "He (Halifax) told me he liked all the Nazi leaders, even Goebbels, and he was much impressed, interested and amused by the visit. He thinks the regime absolutely fantastic."

In November, 1937, Neville Chamberlain sent Lord Halifax to meet Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Goering in Germany. In his diary, Lord Halifax records how he told Hitler: "Although there was much in the Nazi system that profoundly offended British opinion, I was not blind to what he (Hitler) had done for Germany, and to the achievement from his point of view of keeping Communism out of his country." This was a reference to the fact that Hitler had banned the Communist Party (KPD) in Germany and placed its leaders in Concentration Camps.

In February, 1938, Adolf Hitler invited Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, to meet him at Berchtesgarden. Hitler demanded concessions for the Austrian Nazi Party. Schuschnigg refused and after resigning was replaced by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the leader of the Austrian Nazi Party. On 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria and proclaimed union with Germany.

The union of Germany and Austria (Anschluss) had been specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Some members of the House of Commons, including Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, now called on Neville Chamberlain to take action against Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government.

Hugh Christie an MI6 agent working based in Berlin, met with Hermann Goering on 3rd February 1937. He immediately reported his conversation with Goering and included information that Germany intended to take control of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He also told Christie that Germany mainly wanted "a free hand in Eastern Europe."

In March 1938 Hugh Christie told the British government that Adolf Hitler would be ousted by the military if Britain joined forces with Czechoslovakia against Germany. Christie warned that the "crucial question is 'How soon will the next step against Czechoslovakia be tried?' ... The probability is that the delay will not exceed two or three months at most, unless France and England provide the deterrent, for which cooler heads in Germany are praying."

International tension increased when Adolf Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia should be under the control of the German government. In an attempt to to solve the crisis, the heads of the governments of Germany, Britain, France and Italy met in Munich in September, 1938.

On 29th September, 1938, Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred to Germany the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region that contained a large German-speaking population. When Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia's head of state, who had not been invited to Munich, protested at this decision, Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.

The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Germany. However, some politicians, including Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, attacked the agreement. These critics pointed out that no only had the British government behaved dishonorably, but it had lost the support of Czech Army, one of the best in Europe.

One staunch critic of appeasement was the journalist Vernon Bartlett. He was approached by Richard Acland to stand as an anti-Chamberlain candidate at a by-election in Bridgwater. Bartlett agreed and in November, 1938, surprisingly won the previously safe Tory seat. Henry (Chips) Channon , a junior member of the government wrote in his diary: "This is the worst blow the Government has had since 1935".

In March, 1939, the German Army seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. In taking this action Adolf Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement. The British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, now realized that Hitler could not be trusted and his appeasement policy now came to an end

**reason** · February 20th, 2006, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by G L G:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I suppose you missed raven's rebuttal. He very effectively refuted your original post in such a manner to leave little doubt that it was intellectually invalid and indefensible

Aww, our very own Al Gore at HostBoard. Your BS sounds increasingly more Gore-esque everyday. Ofcourse Raven is right, so long as we tread lightly and don't do anything to offend them we will be OK. So long as the western world does not say or do anything they may find offensive, they will not riot and carry an agenda of intolerance. If we just be nice to them they will abandon their hatred of Israel and be all nice and stuff. And anyone who voices an opinion contrary to your politically correct BS is racist. I would rather be a racist in this case than a fool.

I would really, really like to see your points of view BS/Raven/Pina et al, but I just cannot get my head that far up my ass...<hr /></blockquote>You have this really bad habit of responding to imaginary things that were never said nor implied, and ignoring things you post as a discussion opener.

For that reason I've pretty much stayed off to the sidelines because it's clear this discussion is never going to get past the "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot" line of thinking.

No thanks, I'll pass.

Anton von Stockhoff · February 20th, 2006, 07:31 PM

You have this really bad habit of responding to imaginary things that were never said nor implied, and ignoring things you post as a discussion opener.
For that reason I've pretty much stayed off to the sidelines because it's clear this discussion is never going to get past the "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot" line of thinking.

No thanks, I'll pass.

I could actually hear you stomp your foot as I read your reply.

As opposed to the "you are a racist if you do not agree with me" line of thinking...

**gae** · February 20th, 2006, 07:38 PM

I was going to respond, but I really don't want to spoil the party. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

**Raven Soul** · February 20th, 2006, 08:39 PM

I am not going to "defend" my position

Hey I understand where you are coming from, if I posted something and it got shot down point by point by someone who you call an idiot, I would rethink my approach to.

I simply posted this topic to illustrate the current problems with the "Religion of Peace" and to open the eyes of some of the more dense amongst you. I see my mission failed.

Well you did open our eyes, it just wasn't what you wanted us to open them for. Instead we found out that you are a racist who can't even defend his own postings or position. I wouldn't say it was a total failure, because like I said, you did open some eyes.

Diversity training? You have got to be joking.

Why would I be joking? You have displayed Nazi characteristics over and over again by judging a whole religion based solely on the actions of the few and calling for genocide. To me that fits the criteria quite well in regards to diversity and the apparent lack of training you have had.

Of course Raven is right



Well duh!

So long as we tread lightly and don't do anything to offend them we will be OK. So long as the western world does not say or do anything they may find offensive, they will not riot and carry an agenda of intolerance. If we just be nice to them they will abandon their hatred of Israel and be all nice and stuff.



Has anyone on this board said that the cartoon riots was an acceptable way to protest the way they have? Has anyone on this board agreed with an American beheading? Has anyone on this board agreed with suicide bombing? Has anyone on this board agreed that flying planes into building is acceptable? Has anyone on this board agreed that putting a bounty on the head of someone for a cartoon was acceptable? The one thing I think we all agree on is that everyone knows that there are fanatical Muslims, just like there are fanatical Christians and every other major religion. I am not denying that the way some Muslims have been acting is not a direct violation of their beliefs. What I am saying is that you simply cannot lump a whole religion together based on the actions of the few and calling for the mass extermination of innocent people based on said actions of these fanatics. I am not sure why you are not getting that; perhaps you are not as smart as we thought you were. You can try to spin this thread around all you want in a sad excuse to try to justify your very narrow minded viewpoint, but your comments are nothing more than Nazi propaganda fueled by your own ignorance.

And anyone who voices an opinion contrary to your politically correct BS is racist.



No, and don't get it twisted. I am not calling you a racist because you voicing an opinion contrary to one I believe. I am calling you a racist because you are calling for the mass extermination of a religion based solely on the actions of the few.

I would really, really like to see your points of view BS/Raven/Pina et al, but I just cannot get my head that far up my ass

You should be able to since you are apparently letting your ass do all the talking for you.

[ February 20, 2006 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Quoth the Raven ]

[ February 20, 2006 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Quoth the Raven ]

**travelinman** · February 20th, 2006, 10:34 PM

Now who needs to wipe the shit from their eyes?

Give me a break boy, if you took the time to read anything I have posted you would realize that this is not a ?few? but a significant section on the Muslim population. It?s a global problem with enough dedicated fanatics to walk into your eye glass store and blow you to hell.

Grow up and stop listening to the air heads like piss ant. After all what does someone who has been living off his wife and your tax dollars for years have to say except give me more of your money.

**Raven Soul** · February 20th, 2006, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by travelinman:
if you took the time to read anything I have posted you would realize that this is not a ”few” but a significant section on the Muslim population. It’s a global problem with enough dedicated fanatics to walk into your eye glass store and blow you to hell.

I have read what you have posted, and honestly, I have come up with two assumptions. One: Your opinion doesn’t matter that much to me, because as you said yourself, “this isn’t the real you” on the board, and Two: You can’t do math. Example:

The article says tens of thousands so using a conservative numbers of 15,000 we can estimate that for every person that is dedicated and agitated enough to protest there are at least 20 people sitting at home that agree with them. So in this one city alone 15,000 x 20 = 300,000.

Now since this is one of your posts, which you claim I don’t read, I want to focus on this. In your post you said that an article states "tens of thousands" of Muslims are protesting the Prophet Mohammad Cartoons. You gave a rough estimate of 15,000, but since that is actually not “tens of thousands”, lets actually use “tens of thousands” and bump up your estimate to 30,000 people.

Are you following? Good. Now we have 30,000 people protesting the Prophet Muhammad Cartoons, plus the 20 sitting at home for every one of those protesting who agree with what the protestors are doing. This is an estimate by you which I find quite high, however, will use it to prove my point. So this gives us a new number of 600,000 Muslims who now believe the same way as the fanatics do.

I hope you are still with me, because this is where it gets interesting. Out of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, 600,000 is only 0.0375%. To me that number is quite small when asking for the call of genocide.

However, I am not done and will continue to make this fun for you and everyone else, so just sit back there before you start whipping out the name calling, which seems to be the only line of defense for a handful of people around here.

There are a total of 59 countries in the world, where the majority of the population is Muslim. Thank you very much www.islamicweb.com. So with that being said, let’s assume that in each of these countries there are 600,000 Muslims protesting the Prophet Mohammad Cartoons. This would make our new number 35,400,000 Muslims who agree with the fanatical was of thinking. Now, this is where it gets more interesting. That is only 2.2125% of the entire Muslim population that believes the way in which the fanatics do. Again, looking at 2.2125% of a population is still a very, very small number when it comes to asking for the call of genocide.

**Piña** · February 21st, 2006, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by G L G:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pi?a:
Hey GL

Pretty close to the beginning of this thread I asked if you would define "outrage". I was wondering what you meant by it in your posting.

You haven't had the courtesy of responding to my request. May I ask why?

I must have overlooked it just like you overlooked my posting my email address and asking you to shoot me an email to catch you up on some things.<hr /></blockquote>Where was that? I scanned back through the thread and didn't see it. Another thread?

I posted an article I was sent in email and the original writer stated it. But in this case I think outrage could be used to describe muslim reaction to every perceived slight against their religion, yet no similar outcries from the "majority" of "peaceful" muslims against jihadist and militant muslim activites. I guess news headlines are just a figment of my racist imagination...

This really doesn't answer my question. I'm asking for an objective definition of the term "outrage" in the context that you used it so that a reasonable person could determine whether or not Muslim reaction met or did not meet that definition. So where do you set the bar? Are we talking about people speaking out against the actions you list? Perhaps nasty letters to the editor in the local fish wrapper? Are we talking about people gathering at thier houses of worship and raising thier voices to god in protest? Peaceful protests in the street? Rioting in the street? Just where is that line we have to cross to venture into your yet undefined term "outrage?"

I'm just looking for a good objective guide so that I can reply intelligently to your allegations. What does "outrage" look like to you?

**travelinman** · February 21st, 2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
There are a total of 59 countries in the world, where the majority of the population is Muslim. Thank you very much www.islamicweb.com. So with that being said, let’s assume that in each of these countries there are 600,000 Muslims protesting the Prophet Mohammad Cartoons. This would make our new number 35,400,000 Muslims who agree with the fanatical was of thinking. Now, this is where it gets more interesting. That is only 2.2125% of the entire Muslim population that believes the way in which the fanatics do. Again, looking at 2.2125% of a population is still a very, very small number when it comes to asking for the call of genocide.

Your math is faulty because I was using a city and you?re using countries.

Using round numbers from cense data on the internet.

The population of Istanbul is 10, 000,000

The population of Turkey is 70,000,000

So take your 600,000 and multiply by 7 and you get 4,200,000

Now assuming that Turkey has the same population as the other 58 countries you provided (which it doesn?t, it?s #3 well below Indonesia with over 200 million)

4,200,000 x 59 = 247,800,000 significantly larger than your number of 35,400,000.

And the point of this and everything else I post on this topic is:

While I understand that these numbers do not represent every single Muslim in the world, the actual amount is very significant and much higher then the Liberals will admit to.

Let?s look at history:

American Revolution
Population of the colonies, 3,500,000
Active in the war 200,000

Cuban revolution
Population of Cuba 6,900,000
Active in the war not known but there were 300 in the army when Batista left Cuba.

You can continue to hide your head in the sand or you can continue the liberal strategy of appeasement and wake up one morning 20 years from now, roll out your rug and bow to the east or you can look around you, see what is happing and do something different.

**reason** · February 21st, 2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by G L G:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />You have this really bad habit of responding to imaginary things that were never said nor implied, and ignoring things you post as a discussion opener.
For that reason I've pretty much stayed off to the sidelines because it's clear this discussion is never going to get past the "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot" line of thinking.

No thanks, I'll pass.

I could actually hear you stomp your foot as I read your reply.

As opposed to the "you are a racist if you do not agree with me" line of thinking...<hr /></blockquote>I never called you a racist.

I did say the bullet points you used to defend the stance were refuted handily. In other words, you did not defend your position very well and left yourself wide open to be shot down.

Giving a laundry list of absolutes is a dangerous thing when debating a point. Because there will usually be someone who can provide you with an exception.

In this case, Raven provided a number exceptions.

You lost the argument in your very first post. Admit defeat and move on to something else.

[ February 22, 2006 09:04 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]

Thread: Some discussion points

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions