Red Ken suspended

[RottenIcons]

sidicks said:

RottenIcons said:

I'd hazard a guess that both those facts about the most important matters that concern the entire course of WW2 were unknown to you then!

It's a generic comment based on the majority of your posts, many of which have been completely wrong, no matter how confident you're comments have appeared.

Your opinion is noted. Thanks.

I'm not here to bicker with you, counter my words. I enjoy debate, deplore bickering.

[RottenIcons]

Derek Smith said:

If WWI and II were the same war but with a period of R&R in between then this lowers the blame apportioned to AH for starting it. Certainly the demand from France for reparations was resisted by other allies. The logic of the settlement after WWI, which reduced Germany to penury, being the catalyst for WWII would tend to indicate that we owe our post war period of peace to the USA, and its largesse with Marshall, the loan to the UK and the financial benefits to Germany of occupying forces.

These are fascinating theories, and fun to run with, but again are simplistic.

But I see little argument against AH being a racist as far as Jews were concerned. The behaviour of 'encouraging' Jews to leave is racist behaviour almost by definition. It wasn't done for the sake of the Jews.

I often think of the inter-war period as a sort of extended Christmas Truce But the on the ground reality was so different.

I have to tell you that the Haavara Agreement was NOT Hitler's or the 3rd Reich's idea. He just grasped it as a neat solution that satisfied all parties aims and ambitions, which, if you look at it, it was! Pragmatism is the name of the game here and Hitler was a pragmatist par excellence. He did take advantage, but so did the jews. A match made in heaven or hell depending on your view point.

[simonrockman]

RottenIcons said:

simonrockman said:

It doesn't matter if the details of what Livingstone said to Vanessa Feltz were right...

Only a person with Communist credentials could write that. It really does matter, it matters a huge amount to most of us, it is only to a 'select' few that it matters not one jot. Takes all sorts I suppose.

Western Civilisation: Truth Matters.

Oh dear I've now got myself labelled as a communist. My politics are much more centre-right, small "l" liberal. Confused at the moment because I'm a massive Boris fan but a Europe innie.

My "it doesn't matter" point is based on it being completely out of context. And now he's saying that Netanyahu said the same thing, again taking it out of context, as if that's going to do anything other than inflame the situation.

[RottenIcons]

simonrockman said:

RottenIcons said:

simonrockman said:

It doesn't matter if the details of what Livingstone said to Vanessa Feltz were right...

Only a person with Communist credentials could write that. It really does matter, it matters a huge amount to most of us, it is only to a 'select' few that it matters not one jot. Takes all sorts I suppose.

Western Civilisation: Truth Matters.

Oh dear I've now got myself labelled as a communist. My politics are much more centre-right, small "l" liberal. Confused at the moment because I'm a massive Boris fan but a Europe innie.

My "it doesn't matter" point is based on it being completely out of context. And now he's saying that Netanyahu said the same thing, again taking it out of context, as if that's going to do anything other than inflame the situation.

If you say so. Nettie did say the same thing, Hitler initially did not want to exterminate the jews, his first solution was the Haavara Agreement. Again, is the truth so painful it impedes your senses?

From this thread early on page 3 perhaps.

RottenIcons said:

Just as the 3rd Reich had a final solution, they had a first one.

The first one was the idea of giving the jews in Germany their own homeland. He instigated a repatriation program that was SUPPORTED by jews, it was run by jews, it was paid for by the 3rd Reich. These are simple facts. Hitler had the exact same aims as the founders of Israel who are commonly called Zionists. So KL was speaking in shorthand and you can pull his teeth for that but the principle and overall concept he precis'd was 100% correct.

Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 16:38

[sidicks]

RottenIcons said:

Again, is the truth so painful it impedes your senses?

RottenIcons said:

I enjoy debate, deplore bickering

[Lunar Tick]

Regardless of the minutia of the historical details, I found Thursday's confrontation between Mann and Livingstone hugely entertaining. The far left simply love to scream and shout down anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology. On Thursday, they received a bit of their own medicine

[RottenIcons]

Lunar Tick said:

Regardless of the minutia of the historical details, I found Thursday's confrontation between Mann and Livingstone hugely entertaining. The far left simply love to scream and shout down anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology. On Thursday, they received a bit of their own medicine

Absolutely, commie bites commie, both damaged, it was a good day. A very very good day.

Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 17:43

[RottenIcons]

sidicks said:

RottenIcons said:

Again, is the truth so painful it impedes your senses?

RottenIcons said:

I enjoy debate, deplore bickering

So Netanyahu did say the same thing as the putrescent Ken! I was listening to the news earlier and it seems the scream is for Ken to back down and 'apologise'. Apologising for telling the truth about this subject has happened too many times in the past and I hope that this might be a watershed moment and such cry-bullying tactics from certain lobby groups is shown as nothing more than emotional blackmail.

I hate Ken's politics, but I hope he does not wilt under the cry-bully blackmailing rotters constant wailing.

[Ian Geary]

Joey Ramone said:

boxxob said:

It may be an apparent contradiction to the above, but the other issue is that, for many people, being anti-Israel is actually a cover for pathological jew-hating.

Bang-on correct

I agree that "many people" defending Israel's position will perceive an attack of Israel as an attack on all things Jewish (aka racist aka anti-semantic).

But I think it is too far of a stretch to claim "many people" (ie the majority) of criticism is really driven by Jew-haters.

It sounds all too much like the race card that is pulled out to close down arguments.

Which only goes to show how alike humans are, regardless of whichever deity they have been brought up to believe in.

Wouldn't the world be easier if two wrongs did in fact make a right?

Ian

[Joey Ramone]

RottenIcons said:

I said Military Historian, a specialist in the apparatus of warfare, like Janes. They publish a lot more than a simple list. Not one of those people you mentioned is a specialist in apparatus.

A proper Military Historian is not a specialist in 'apparatus'.That's largely irrelevant tactical detail that explains little. A proper military historian analyses the use of armed forces as instruments of state power. That's why Hew Strachan or David French are far superior to 'spotters' who love quoting gun calibres of ships and top speeds of various aircraft but are of little use otherwise. The latter will tell you what happened. The former will tell you why it happened, what the technical, ideological, sociological, cultural, political and strategic factors that shaped militaries and caused them to behave in the way that they did, That's why David French will always be of far greater use than any spotter in explaining why, for example, the British Army adopted the methods that it did 1939-45, why it adhered to certain doctrines and behaviours, Denis Showalter would do the same for the Wehrmacht, David Glantz for the Soviets.

[RottenIcons]

Joey Ramone said:

RottenIcons said:

I said Military Historian, a specialist in the apparatus of warfare, like Janes. They publish a lot more than a simple list. Not one of those people you mentioned is a specialist in apparatus.

A proper Military Historian is not a specialist in 'apparatus'.That's largely irrelevant tactical detail that explains little. A proper military historian analyses the use of armed forces as instruments of state power. That's why Hew Strachan or David French are far superior to 'spotters' who love quoting gun calibres of ships and top speeds of various aircraft but are of little use otherwise. The latter will tell you what happened. The former will tell you why it happened, what the technical, ideological, sociological, cultural, political and strategic factors that shaped militaries and caused them to behave in the way that they did, That's why David French will always be of far greater use than any spotter in explaining why, for example, the British Army adopted the methods that it did 1939-45, why it adhered to certain doctrines and behaviours, Denis Showalter would do the same for the Wehrmacht, David Glantz for the Soviets.

If you say so pilgrim, if you say so.

[MarshPhantom]

chris watton said:

I find it ironic that the Left who spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to prove that everyone is Islamophobic are now devoting their time to rubbishing the idea that anti-Semitism is a problem.

The Left - Double standards matter!

Ken has been kicked out of the Labour Party. What religion was Ed Milliband again?

[s2art]

MarshPhantom said:

Ken has been kicked out of the Labour Party. What religion was Ed Milliband again?

Primarily, socialist.

[MarshPhantom]

Pooh said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pooh said:

MarshPhantom said:

It's these attempts to close down any debate in this way that gets people's backs up.

Pot kettle? You (and the rest of the loony left) are quite happy to shout about racism at every opportunity.

The difference is he specifically accused of posting anti Semitic stuff on here. I haven't, and I'm still waiting for him to find an example.

You have missed the point, you have complained that people are trying to close down the debate by falsely accusing him of anti-Semitism but you have done the same thing by shouting racism at anybody who says things you don't approve of, Boris is a case in point.

Boris was racist, you may not agree but plenty do. I haven't posted anything that could possibly be taken as anti Semitic. Which is why I complained about wanting to close down the debate.

[RottenIcons]

s2art said:

MarshPhantom said:

Ken has been kicked out of the Labour Party. What religion was Ed Milliband again?

Primarily, socialist.

I love that reply, just love it. It's tells so much without the the need of telling. Honesty nutmeg'd.

Edited by RottenIcons on Saturday 30th April 18:19

[s2art]

MarshPhantom said:

Boris was racist, you may not agree but plenty do.

Someone will have to explain to me what was racist about Boris's remark.

[MarshPhantom]

s2art said:

MarshPhantom said:

Boris was racist, you may not agree but plenty do.

Someone will have to explain to me what was racist about Boris's remark.

To paraphrase Boris "Obama has a chip on his shoulder because he's Kenyan" how is that different to saying "someone has a chip on their shoulder because they're Jewish"

[turbobloke]

MarshPhantom said:

Boris was racist, you may not agree but plenty do.

It may be that "...plenty do" but it doesn't matter how many people are being contrived about it, or how many are plain wrong. Boris was not being racist, it's already been explained to you by andymadmak who corrected your error some time ago.

Earlier MarshPhantom said:

Boris criticized Obama for being Kenyan...

Then andymadmak said:

Boris suggested that Obama's hostile attitude to the UK may have been influenced by the British treatment of his father in Kenya. That is NOT the same as criticising Obama for being Kenyan!

s2art said:

Someone will have to explain to me what was racist about Boris's remark.

They'll have a job.

It'll be misrepresentation as above from MP, or worse as in a plain fabrication, or the detail won't matter because being it's Boris and being accused of racism is enough of itself for other professionally offended individuals to join in the nonsense. It then progresses akin to mass hysteria.

[sidicks]

MarshPhantom said:

To paraphrase Boris "Obama has a chip on his shoulder because he's Kenyan" how is that different to saying "someone has a chip on their shoulder because they're Jewish"

I thought that was clearly explained earlier in this thread.

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

MarshPhantom said:

To paraphrase Boris "Obama has a chip on his shoulder because he's Kenyan" how is that different to saying "someone has a chip on their shoulder because they're Jewish"

I thought that was clearly explained earlier in this thread.

Indeed, once or twice...