Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) - VMS

This is a discussion on Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) - VMS ; David J Dachtera wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 08/23/07 20:06, David J Dachtera wrote: >>> Tom Linden wrote: >>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote: >>>> >>>>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 323

Thread: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

  1. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    David J Dachtera wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/23/07 20:06, David J Dachtera wrote:
    >>> Tom Linden wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
    >>>>> validity to
    >>>>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
    >>>> It suggests a psychosis.
    >>> Eh, I don't know as I'd go quite that far until the subject turns to homicide
    >>> bombers and other terrorists. (They're usually called "suicide" bombers; but,
    >>> homicide is their actual intent. Their own death is merely incidental.)
    >>>
    >>> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending anyone, I can't help thinking about
    >>> the early Christians facing the lions and other horrible fates. Surely, these
    >>> innocents did nothing to deserve to die that way. THEY were truly martyrs, dying
    >>> for their chosen convictions, and "convicted" of nothing worthy of death.

    >> Or Jews in Europe and blacks in America.

    >
    > Well, be careful there.
    >
    > The British Colonists (before they became "America") brought Africans to North
    > America against their will under deplorable conditions to live and work under
    > deplorable conditions, but that had nothing to do with the religious (or any
    > other) convictions of the Africans. A bit of stupidity on the part of our
    > forefathers was that they considered the Africans to be human-like, but not
    > entirely human.
    >
    > During the first part of the 20th Century, Jews in Europe were persecuted
    > because they were Jewish.


    To be more accurate, they were persecuted and murdered trough out the
    centuries. In fact things may have been better in the late 19th and
    early 20th century (before the 1930's) than they ever were. In earlier
    centuries Jews were not allowed to be member of a guild, which meant
    that they were not allowed to exercise many professions. That is why
    there are relatively many Jewish bankers, and why there are many Jews in
    the diamond trade. There were no guilds for these professions.

    The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
    they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
    the bombers" they explained after the war. That was a big lie, there are
    photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
    Hermann Göring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
    coal. These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
    is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
    and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
    war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
    general attitude to Jews changed.

    In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
    WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
    how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.

    > Remember: Jews were considered a race more than a
    > religious denomination. It could just as easily have been purple people
    > persecuting the green because they were green and not purple. The Nazis
    > targetted racial purity more than religious leanings (the "master race" thing).
    >


  2. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
    > they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
    > the bombers" they explained after the war.


    I've never heard that excuse/reason.

    > That was a big lie, there are
    > photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the


    Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
    attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
    or kill the prisoners.

    > Hermann Göring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
    > coal.


    Which is more likely to shorten the war? Bombing a prison or
    bombing a synfuel complex.

    You know my answer...

    > These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
    > is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
    > and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
    > war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
    > general attitude to Jews changed.
    >
    > In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
    > WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
    > how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.


    I didn't know that...

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  3. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 23, 5:52 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 23, 9:32 am, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > > On Aug 22, 10:55 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:

    >
    > > are you dense? The sites show they found pieces
    > > of New testament that date anywhere from just after
    > > John to the first century ... and those writings translate
    > > to what the bible is now ... so you wish to continue to
    > > deny God and His words, that is not my problem, it's
    > > yours ... the proof is there as always with everything
    > > in the bible, whether you wish to accept it is another
    > > thing ...

    >
    > You had better check the peer-reviewed sources. There are no (none,
    > zero) original manuscripts of the new testament going back to the
    > original authors. The earliest gospel written was Mark which most
    > bible scholars think was written between 70-80 AD. If you agree that
    > Jesus died in 30 AD at the age of 33, then the gospels were being
    > handed on via an oral mechanism for at least 40 years before someone
    > decided to put it into writing.


    and just because these cannot be found now does
    not mean they never existed ...

    > It is almost like God does NOT want us to have access to the original
    > texts.


    no, its more like God has given you His text but
    you do not want to believe Him ...




  4. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/25/07 19:53, ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
    > On Aug 23, 5:52 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:

    [snip]
    >> You had better check the peer-reviewed sources. There are no (none,
    >> zero) original manuscripts of the new testament going back to the
    >> original authors. The earliest gospel written was Mark which most
    >> bible scholars think was written between 70-80 AD. If you agree that
    >> Jesus died in 30 AD at the age of 33, then the gospels were being
    >> handed on via an oral mechanism for at least 40 years before someone
    >> decided to put it into writing.

    >
    > and just because these cannot be found now does
    > not mean they never existed ...


    I hate it when I agree with Boob.

    >> It is almost like God does NOT want us to have access to the original
    >> texts.

    >
    > no, its more like God has given you His text but
    > you do not want to believe Him ...


    Whew. Back to thinking he's a boob.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  5. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
    > [snip]
    >> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
    >> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
    >> the bombers" they explained after the war.

    >
    > I've never heard that excuse/reason.
    >
    >> That was a big lie, there are
    >> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the

    >
    > Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
    > attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
    > or kill the prisoners.


    Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
    of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
    the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
    would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
    al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
    the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.

    >
    >> Hermann Göring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
    >> coal.

    >
    > Which is more likely to shorten the war? Bombing a prison or
    > bombing a synfuel complex.
    >
    > You know my answer...


    Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
    would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
    workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.

    The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
    but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
    that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
    of thousands of Jews.

    By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
    with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.

    >
    >> These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
    >> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
    >> and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
    >> war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
    >> general attitude to Jews changed.
    >>
    >> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
    >> WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
    >> how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.

    >
    > I didn't know that...
    >


  6. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >

    [...snip...]
    >
    > > Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
    > > that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
    > > themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always

    >
    > "The Jews killed Jesus."
    >

    Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
    sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.

    NSR



  7. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
    >>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
    >>> the bombers" they explained after the war.

    >>
    >> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
    >>
    >>> That was a big lie, there are
    >>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the

    >>
    >> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
    >> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
    >> or kill the prisoners.

    >
    > Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
    > of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
    > the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
    > would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
    > al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
    > the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.


    Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?

    You've *got* to be kidding.

    >>> Hermann Göring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
    >>> coal.

    >>
    >> Which is more likely to shorten the war? Bombing a prison or
    >> bombing a synfuel complex.
    >>
    >> You know my answer...

    >
    > Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
    > would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
    > workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.


    The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
    targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.

    Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
    German POWs tit-for-tat. And telling the Germans what we were doing.

    Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
    would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
    finishing the war quicker.

    > The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
    > but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
    > that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
    > of thousands of Jews.
    >
    > By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
    > with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.


    Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous". Probably
    in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
    who know of important parts of the network.

    >>> These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
    >>> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
    >>> and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
    >>> war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
    >>> general attitude to Jews changed.
    >>>
    >>> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
    >>> WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
    >>> how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.

    >>
    >> I didn't know that...
    >>



    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  8. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 25, 4:48 pm, Dirk Munk wrote:
    > David J Dachtera wrote:
    > > Ron Johnson wrote:


    [...snip...]

    >
    > To be more accurate, they were persecuted and murdered trough out the
    > centuries. In fact things may have been better in the late 19th and
    > early 20th century (before the 1930's) than they ever were. In earlier
    > centuries Jews were not allowed to be member of a guild, which meant
    > that they were not allowed to exercise many professions. That is why
    > there are relatively many Jewish bankers, and why there are many Jews in
    > the diamond trade. There were no guilds for these professions.
    >
    > The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz,
    >


    There is no way any modern civilized person would ever defend the
    German point of view surrounding the Holocaust. Having said that, I'm
    only bringing up the next fact to remind everyone how the western
    world, on average, was much more anti-Semitic than it is today. (And
    that we pompous Christians are mostly all-talk but no action)

    Before World War 2 broke out, Germans were putting pressure on Jewish
    people to leave Germany (this is one of the reasons that Einstein came
    to America in the early 1930's). By the late 1930s Germany was forcing
    Jewish people to become refugees then contacted western countries to
    receive them. When no countries acted, FDR convened the Evian
    conference to break the log jam.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evian_Conference
    This basically accomplished nothing. And as sick as it sounds, Hitler
    placed "the lack of Western interest in receiving Jews" into NAZI
    propaganda which later led to Holocaust.

    This inaction to take Jewish refugees was one reason the Jewish people
    decided they needed their own home land.

    We should all be embarrassed by the lack of action by our various
    countries.

    NSR


  9. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>

    > [...snip...]
    >>> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
    >>> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
    >>> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always

    >> "The Jews killed Jesus."
    >>

    > Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
    > sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.


    The *Romans* killed Jesus. Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
    neurons to rub together, knows that.

    Anyway... I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
    but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.

    But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
    list who would probably agree with me.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  10. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 25, 4:48 pm, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >> David J Dachtera wrote:
    >>> Ron Johnson wrote:

    >
    > [...snip...]
    >
    >> To be more accurate, they were persecuted and murdered trough out the
    >> centuries. In fact things may have been better in the late 19th and
    >> early 20th century (before the 1930's) than they ever were. In earlier
    >> centuries Jews were not allowed to be member of a guild, which meant
    >> that they were not allowed to exercise many professions. That is why
    >> there are relatively many Jewish bankers, and why there are many Jews in
    >> the diamond trade. There were no guilds for these professions.
    >>
    >> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz,
    >>

    >
    > There is no way any modern civilized person would ever defend the
    > German point of view surrounding the Holocaust. Having said that, I'm
    > only bringing up the next fact to remind everyone how the western
    > world, on average, was much more anti-Semitic than it is today. (And
    > that we pompous Christians are mostly all-talk but no action)
    >
    > Before World War 2 broke out, Germans were putting pressure on Jewish
    > people to leave Germany (this is one of the reasons that Einstein came
    > to America in the early 1930's). By the late 1930s Germany was forcing
    > Jewish people to become refugees then contacted western countries to
    > receive them. When no countries acted, FDR convened the Evian
    > conference to break the log jam.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evian_Conference
    > This basically accomplished nothing. And as sick as it sounds, Hitler
    > placed "the lack of Western interest in receiving Jews" into NAZI
    > propaganda which later led to Holocaust.


    Indeed, try to find the story of the passenger liner St. Louis on the
    web. The ship set sail from Germany to bring some 900 Jews to Cuba, but
    when they arrived the Cuban government did not want them anymore. The US
    did not want them either, the US Coast Guard fired warning shots to
    prevent the ship from entering US waters. Hitler was jubilant.

    Did you know that Adolf Eichmann tried to find places where he could
    bring the Jews? No one wanted them.

    >
    > This inaction to take Jewish refugees was one reason the Jewish people
    > decided they needed their own home land.
    >
    > We should all be embarrassed by the lack of action by our various
    > countries.
    >
    > NSR
    >


  11. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >>> [snip]
    >>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
    >>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
    >>>> the bombers" they explained after the war.
    >>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
    >>>
    >>>> That was a big lie, there are
    >>>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
    >>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
    >>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
    >>> or kill the prisoners.

    >> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
    >> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
    >> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
    >> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
    >> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
    >> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.

    >
    > Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
    >
    > You've *got* to be kidding.


    Well, they did at the heavily defended oil refineries at Ploesti....

    Furthermore, I did not talk about mass bombing, a few dozen bombers
    might have been enough.

    >
    >>>> Hermann Göring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
    >>>> coal.
    >>> Which is more likely to shorten the war? Bombing a prison or
    >>> bombing a synfuel complex.
    >>>
    >>> You know my answer...

    >> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
    >> would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
    >> workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.

    >
    > The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
    > targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
    >
    > Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
    > German POWs tit-for-tat. And telling the Germans what we were doing.
    >
    > Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
    > would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
    > finishing the war quicker.


    Really? So why didn't the same people tell the home front that millions
    of Jews were being murdered in Poland? Again, they just did not care. It
    were just Jews being murdered.

    >
    >> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
    >> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
    >> that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
    >> of thousands of Jews.
    >>
    >> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
    >> with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.

    >
    > Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous". Probably
    > in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
    > who know of important parts of the network.
    >


    No, for instance they made similar precision bombings on The Hague and
    Copenhagen to destroy the central registries of population.

    >>>> These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
    >>>> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
    >>>> and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
    >>>> war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
    >>>> general attitude to Jews changed.
    >>>>
    >>>> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
    >>>> WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
    >>>> how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.
    >>> I didn't know that...
    >>>

    >
    >


  12. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >>> [snip]
    >>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in
    >>>> Auschwitz, but they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It
    >>>> was to far away for the bombers" they explained after the war.
    >>>
    >>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
    >>>
    >>>> That was a big lie,
    >>>> there are photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their
    >>>> way to the
    >>>
    >>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
    >>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
    >>> or kill the prisoners.

    >>
    >> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the
    >> majority of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even
    >> if bombing the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed
    >> prisoners etc. , it would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the
    >> fuel plants also killed al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if
    >> Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so the bombers could have made a low
    >> altitude attack.

    >
    > Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
    >
    > You've *got* to be kidding.
    >
    >>>> Hermann Göring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline)
    >>>> out of coal.
    >>>
    >>> Which is more likely to shorten the war? Bombing a prison or
    >>> bombing a synfuel complex.
    >>>
    >>> You know my answer...

    >>
    >> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose
    >> it would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And
    >> the workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.

    >
    > The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
    > targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
    >
    > Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
    > German POWs tit-for-tat. And telling the Germans what we were doing.
    >
    > Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
    > would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
    > finishing the war quicker.
    >
    >> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
    >> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying
    >> is that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save
    >> hundreds of thousands of Jews.
    >>
    >> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude
    >> attacks with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance
    >> fighters.

    >
    > Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous". Probably
    > in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
    > who know of important parts of the network.
    >

    http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1944.html
    OPERATION CARTHAGE (March 21, 1945)

    At the request of the Danish resistance movement, a force of RAF Mosquitos
    from 487, 464 and 21 Squadrons of 140 Wing, escorted by Mustangs of Fighter
    Command, attacked the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen. The Gestapo had
    taken over the five storey Shell House, the pre-war H/Q of the Shell
    Petroleum Company. On the day of the raid it housed a large number of Danish
    resistance fighters who had been arrested and were being interrogated as the
    first bombs fell. Some prisoners were killed but 30 escaped during the
    bombing. Some 151 Gestapo agents and their Danish collaborators were also
    killed.

    Although the raid was a success, a horrific tragedy occurred nearby. One of
    the Mosquitos, on its bombing run, struck a light mast in the railway goods
    yard, veered to the left and crashed in a ball of fire near the Jeanne d'Arc
    Catholic School. The fire and smoke from the crash was mistakenly targeted
    by the next wave of Mosquitos which dropped their bombs on and around the
    crash site. The resulting fires soon spread to other buildings and
    eventually engulfed the school which burned to the ground in less than two
    hours. Eighty-six children and ten teachers lost their lives in this tragedy
    and sixty-seven were injured. When rescuers reached the school cellers they
    found the bodies of forty-two children huddled together. They had all
    drowned in water from the firemen's hoses.



    Dweeb

    >>>> These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
    >>>> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that
    >>>> time, and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only
    >>>> after the war when it became very visible to the public what had
    >>>> happened that the general attitude to Jews changed.
    >>>>
    >>>> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long
    >>>> after WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as
    >>>> when I heard how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.
    >>>
    >>> I didn't know that...




  13. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson wrote:

    [...snip...]

    >
    > The *Romans* killed Jesus. Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
    > neurons to rub together, knows that.
    >


    Many misguided Christians believe that the Sanhedrin maneuvered Pilot
    into the crucifixion and the Romans obliged in order to avoid a
    political crisis (Pilot had already been warned twice by Tiberius to
    keep things quiet in Judea)

    But if this was supposed to be some sort of divine sacrifice then why
    blame anyone?

    NSR


  14. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/26/07 10:03, Dr. Dweeb wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:

    [snip]
    >> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous". Probably
    >> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
    >> who know of important parts of the network.
    >>

    > http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1944.html
    > OPERATION CARTHAGE (March 21, 1945)
    >
    > At the request of the Danish resistance movement, a force of RAF Mosquitos


    Denmark is close enough to France to be "the same".

    > from 487, 464 and 21 Squadrons of 140 Wing, escorted by Mustangs of Fighter
    > Command, attacked the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen. The Gestapo had
    > taken over the five storey Shell House, the pre-war H/Q of the Shell
    > Petroleum Company. On the day of the raid it housed a large number of Danish
    > resistance fighters who had been arrested and were being interrogated as the
    > first bombs fell. Some prisoners were killed but 30 escaped during the
    > bombing. Some 151 Gestapo agents and their Danish collaborators were also
    > killed.
    >
    > Although the raid was a success, a horrific tragedy occurred nearby. One of
    > the Mosquitos, on its bombing run, struck a light mast in the railway goods
    > yard, veered to the left and crashed in a ball of fire near the Jeanne d'Arc
    > Catholic School. The fire and smoke from the crash was mistakenly targeted
    > by the next wave of Mosquitos which dropped their bombs on and around the
    > crash site. The resulting fires soon spread to other buildings and
    > eventually engulfed the school which burned to the ground in less than two
    > hours. Eighty-six children and ten teachers lost their lives in this tragedy
    > and sixty-seven were injured. When rescuers reached the school cellers they
    > found the bodies of forty-two children huddled together. They had all
    > drowned in water from the firemen's hoses.


    And the Nazis probably had a propaganda field day with it.

    Thank you for making my case.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  15. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/26/07 10:05, Dirk Munk wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >>> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >>>> [snip]
    >>>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in
    >>>>> Auschwitz, but
    >>>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
    >>>>> the bombers" they explained after the war.
    >>>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
    >>>>
    >>>>> That was a big lie,
    >>>>> there are
    >>>>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
    >>>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
    >>>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
    >>>> or kill the prisoners.
    >>> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
    >>> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
    >>> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
    >>> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
    >>> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
    >>> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.

    >>
    >> Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
    >>
    >> You've *got* to be kidding.

    >
    > Well, they did at the heavily defended oil refineries at Ploesti....


    Pick a better example. Even after meticulous planning and practice
    attacks in Libya, Operation Tidal Wave was an unmitigated diaster.

    > Furthermore, I did not talk about mass bombing, a few dozen bombers
    > might have been enough.


    Sure, to kill some cows.

    >>>>> Hermann Göring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
    >>>>> coal.
    >>>> Which is more likely to shorten the war? Bombing a prison or
    >>>> bombing a synfuel complex.
    >>>>
    >>>> You know my answer...
    >>> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
    >>> would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
    >>> workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.

    >>
    >> The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
    >> targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
    >>
    >> Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
    >> German POWs tit-for-tat. And telling the Germans what we were doing.
    >>
    >> Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
    >> would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
    >> finishing the war quicker.

    >
    > Really? So why didn't the same people tell the home front that millions
    > of Jews were being murdered in Poland? Again, they just did not care. It
    > were just Jews being murdered.


    Hmmm. Maybe because they weren't Americans?

    >>> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
    >>> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
    >>> that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
    >>> of thousands of Jews.
    >>>
    >>> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
    >>> with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.

    >>
    >> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous". Probably
    >> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
    >> who know of important parts of the network.
    >>

    >
    > No, for instance they made similar precision bombings on The Hague and
    > Copenhagen to destroy the central registries of population.


    Copenhagen is pretty damned close to France, and a hell of a lot
    closer to England than Poland is.

    And, as Dr. Dweeb so helpfully pointed out, there was extensive
    collateral damage.

    Laser guided, terrain mapping and GPS-guided bombs go off course.
    What makes you think that optically-sighted dumb bombs won't go off
    course?

    [snip]

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  16. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/26/07 07:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    [snip]
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evian_Conference
    > This basically accomplished nothing. And as sick as it sounds, Hitler
    > placed "the lack of Western interest in receiving Jews" into NAZI
    > propaganda which later led to Holocaust.
    >
    > This inaction to take Jewish refugees was one reason the Jewish people
    > decided they needed their own home land.
    >
    > We should all be embarrassed by the lack of action by our various
    > countries.


    Full ACK.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  17. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/26/07 13:20, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    > [...snip...]
    >
    >> The *Romans* killed Jesus. Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
    >> neurons to rub together, knows that.
    >>

    >
    > Many misguided Christians believe that the Sanhedrin maneuvered Pilot


    Why does that make them misguided? It's very valid to "blame"
    *some* Jews (those who would lose power!) instead of a blanket
    condemnation of the whole "race".

    > into the crucifixion and the Romans obliged in order to avoid a
    > political crisis (Pilot had already been warned twice by Tiberius to
    > keep things quiet in Judea)
    >
    > But if this was supposed to be some sort of divine sacrifice then why
    > blame anyone?


    Because humans love to fund fault and blame.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  18. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/26/07 10:05, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>> On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>>>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >>>>> [snip]
    >>>>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in
    >>>>>> Auschwitz, but
    >>>>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
    >>>>>> the bombers" they explained after the war.
    >>>>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> That was a big lie,
    >>>>>> there are
    >>>>>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
    >>>>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
    >>>>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
    >>>>> or kill the prisoners.
    >>>> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
    >>>> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
    >>>> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
    >>>> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
    >>>> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
    >>>> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.
    >>> Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
    >>>
    >>> You've *got* to be kidding.

    >> Well, they did at the heavily defended oil refineries at Ploesti....

    >
    > Pick a better example. Even after meticulous planning and practice
    > attacks in Libya, Operation Tidal Wave was an unmitigated diaster.
    >
    >> Furthermore, I did not talk about mass bombing, a few dozen bombers
    >> might have been enough.

    >
    > Sure, to kill some cows.


    Well, if the British were capable of destroying some heavily defended
    dams in the middle of the night with less then 20 Lancasters, I'm sure
    the Americans would have been able to destroy one undefended camp in
    bright daylight with a few dozen Liberators. The only thing they had to
    do was to follow the railroad, and drop the bombs at the end of it. How
    difficult could it have been?

    >
    >>>>>> Hermann Göring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
    >>>>>> coal.
    >>>>> Which is more likely to shorten the war? Bombing a prison or
    >>>>> bombing a synfuel complex.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You know my answer...
    >>>> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
    >>>> would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
    >>>> workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.
    >>> The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
    >>> targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
    >>>
    >>> Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
    >>> German POWs tit-for-tat. And telling the Germans what we were doing.
    >>>
    >>> Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
    >>> would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
    >>> finishing the war quicker.

    >> Really? So why didn't the same people tell the home front that millions
    >> of Jews were being murdered in Poland? Again, they just did not care. It
    >> were just Jews being murdered.

    >
    > Hmmm. Maybe because they weren't Americans?
    >


    Yes of course. Sorry I forgot that risking a few hundred American lifes
    to save a million Jews was out of the question.

    >>>> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
    >>>> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
    >>>> that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
    >>>> of thousands of Jews.
    >>>>
    >>>> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
    >>>> with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.
    >>> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous". Probably
    >>> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
    >>> who know of important parts of the network.
    >>>

    >> No, for instance they made similar precision bombings on The Hague and
    >> Copenhagen to destroy the central registries of population.

    >
    > Copenhagen is pretty damned close to France, and a hell of a lot
    > closer to England than Poland is.


    Not really. The distance London-Copenhagen is about 1000km, the distance
    London-Auschwitz about 1300km. London to the middle of France is less
    than 600km.

    >
    > And, as Dr. Dweeb so helpfully pointed out, there was extensive
    > collateral damage.


    Yes, but you don't think the concentration camp was in the middle of a
    nice Polish town do you? Prisoners would have been killed (but they
    would have been killed anyway) and SS guards.

    >
    > Laser guided, terrain mapping and GPS-guided bombs go off course.
    > What makes you think that optically-sighted dumb bombs won't go off
    > course?


    Bombs went off course in all occupied countries and Germany, it did not
    stop the bombing.

    >
    > [snip]
    >


  19. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    > > On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > >> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:

    >
    > > [...snip...]
    > >>> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
    > >>> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
    > >>> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
    > >> "The Jews killed Jesus."

    >
    > > Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
    > > sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.

    >
    > The *Romans* killed Jesus. Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
    > neurons to rub together, knows that.
    >
    > Anyway... I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
    > but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.
    >
    > But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
    > list who would probably agree with me.
    >
    > --
    > Ron Johnson, Jr.
    > Jefferson LA USA
    >
    > Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    > Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


    No, Adam and Eve and you and I killed Him ...

    if it was not for our sins, He would have not had
    to come here and die for them ...


  20. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/26/07 18:54, ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > No, Adam and Eve and you and I killed Him ...
    >
    > if it was not for our sins, He would have not had
    > to come here and die for them ...


    There is no evidence of a God that flits around breaking the laws of
    nature that He/It supposedly created.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast