Red Ken suspended
Discussion
easytiger123 said:
RottenIcons said:
Yes, 1920 having served in the trenches and probably suffering what we'd call these days PTSD and angry at the defeat, do you think he's going to say or write anything that he might recant upon later in life? I think that is entirely possible.
His actions in 1932 in even considering, let alone making a huge effort to install and allow the Haavara Agreement means that I am right and that he did 'grow up' a bit and try the kinder and generous approach.
So, anything Hitler said that doesn't suit your ludicrous hypothesis that he was a lovely guy trying to help the Jewish people whom he loved dearly, you just write-off because he was in prison when he wrote it or suffering (according again to your non-expert opinion) from PTSD when he said it. What complete and utter garbage. His actions in 1932 in even considering, let alone making a huge effort to install and allow the Haavara Agreement means that I am right and that he did 'grow up' a bit and try the kinder and generous approach.
Hitler did not love the Jews, he hated them, but an easy option was available and he did all he could to take that path, he was a pragmatist, it was his 'first' Solution to the Jewish Problem as he saw it.
Yeah. Hitler was a benign Zionist. Wanted nothing more than for the Jewish people to have their own homeland where they could be safe:
FFS.
"The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations. After the death of his victim, the vampire sooner or later dies too"
There's more here on Ken's best mate. Fill your boots,
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holoc...
FFS.
"The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations. After the death of his victim, the vampire sooner or later dies too"
There's more here on Ken's best mate. Fill your boots,
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holoc...
Edited by audidoody on Monday 2nd May 11:03
RottenIcons said:
Enough of the diversions.
Except it's not a diversion. This is us destroying your proposition that Ken Livingstone was correct in his analysis of the Third reich's relationship with Zionism.The problem you have with with this rather bizarre defence of 'we can't rely ion anything put to paper by Hitler in the early 20's as he was a bit ill and didn't really mean it' is that, if you do actually read his writings from that period, specifically Mein Kampf, you will notice that in respect to his vision of a future Nazi Germany's foreign and racial policies, pretty much everything he promises comes to pass in the period 1938-45. Ergo, his earliest writings mean everything. They are no less than a blueprint for future action.
irocfan said:
wow! This thread's kind of gone in directions I didn't expect (even by NPE standards) 
I keep trying to get back on course.Ken was right, it's a matter of fact. Move on. John Mann is the chap who should be looked at (have his bumps felt) as he's clearly hysterically off his rocker, he has it seems been suspended, is that right?
irocfan said:
wow! This thread's kind of gone in directions I didn't expect (even by NPE standards)
Don't worry. We haven't reached peak Fascism a la the Calais Migrant Madness thread. Yet.What astounded me about that particular debacle was that someone started (purposely, because he PM'd me to let me know what he was up to) posting excerpts from Hitlers speeches on the subject of the Jewish menace, but substituted the word 'Jew' for 'migrants'. In doing so, and despite using terms such as 'maggots', 'disease' and 'destroy' he was vociferously supported by numerous PH'ders.
Edited by Joey Ramone on Monday 2nd May 11:53
RottenIcons said:
I keep trying to get back on course.
Ken was right, it's a matter of fact. Move on. John Mann is the chap who should be looked at (have his bumps felt) as he's clearly hysterically off his rocker, he has it seems been suspended, is that right?
No you don't. You keep dragging it off course by acting as an apologist for Hitler and now the Third Reich, re-writing history to exclude the bits that don't support you, and ignoring the words of Niall Ferguson who entirely refutes some of the utter nonsense you've written on here. Now you want to blame John Mann rather than Ken Livingstone. Don't act all surprised and faux virtuous when you get called out on your horse-sKen was right, it's a matter of fact. Move on. John Mann is the chap who should be looked at (have his bumps felt) as he's clearly hysterically off his rocker, he has it seems been suspended, is that right?
t by pretty much every other poster.easytiger123 said:
RottenIcons said:
I keep trying to get back on course.
Ken was right, it's a matter of fact. Move on. John Mann is the chap who should be looked at (have his bumps felt) as he's clearly hysterically off his rocker, he has it seems been suspended, is that right?
No you don't. You keep dragging it off course by acting as an apologist for Hitler and now the Third Reich, re-writing history to exclude the bits that don't support you, and ignoring the words of Niall Ferguson who entirely refutes some of the utter nonsense you've written on here. Now you want to blame John Mann rather than Ken Livingstone. Don't act all surprised and faux virtuous when you get called out on your horse-sKen was right, it's a matter of fact. Move on. John Mann is the chap who should be looked at (have his bumps felt) as he's clearly hysterically off his rocker, he has it seems been suspended, is that right?
t by pretty much every other poster.I think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
RottenIcons said:
irocfan said:
wow! This thread's kind of gone in directions I didn't expect (even by NPE standards)
I keep trying to get back on course.Ken was right, it's a matter of fact. Move on. John Mann is the chap who should be looked at (have his bumps felt) as he's clearly hysterically off his rocker, he has it seems been suspended, is that right?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/30/li...
What us your agenda in all this!
RottenIcons said:
I think we've done this all before. You have your opinion and you're welcome to it.
I think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
The outburst was by the vile Livingstone creature, hence the title of this thread. It's more than a little ironic that someone who is now after all your other sI think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
t, trying to turn this around so that somehow Mann is the bad guy has got the nerve to ask cui bono.Personally I think both were wrong, Mann should also be suspended. Not for his statements per se, more for their manner and impact to the perception of the party. He could have equally requested a private meeting and then published a statement but he let the heat of the moment get to him.
So a short suspension would be appropriate.
So a short suspension would be appropriate.
easytiger123 said:
RottenIcons said:
I think we've done this all before. You have your opinion and you're welcome to it.
I think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
The outburst was by the vile Livingstone creature, hence the title of this thread. It's more than a little ironic that someone who is now after all your other sI think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
t, trying to turn this around so that somehow Mann is the bad guy has got the nerve to ask cui bono.The truth is vile sometimes, and occasionally the speaker of that vile truth can be vile too, that is not the issue, the issue is was it the truth in the first place and in this instance it was, so everything else spouted by KL's antagonists is ignorant anger or flummery.
Who benefits from hiding the truth is the matter in hand now. We have this Mann creature indulging in posturing his faux outrage for the cameras in order to shut down any revealing of the truth, such as the Haavara Agreement even existing at all, let alone all the positives it actually achieved! 63,788 people were taken to Palestine and all prospered, the richest families in modern day Israel are ALL from this 3rd Reich paid for exodus. Think about that for a moment. It's the truth but it sure as hell doesn't fit the 'Victor's Story' does it!
Now I would like to move this on to the real nub of this issue today, I'm sure you will have plenty to rail about if we do. I hate circular debate and we are in that zone regarding Haavara and how it originated and most of it's benefits. Please, I ask, can we move on?
RottenIcons said:
easytiger123 said:
RottenIcons said:
I think we've done this all before. You have your opinion and you're welcome to it.
I think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
The outburst was by the vile Livingstone creature, hence the title of this thread. It's more than a little ironic that someone who is now after all your other sI think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
t, trying to turn this around so that somehow Mann is the bad guy has got the nerve to ask cui bono.The truth is vile sometimes, and occasionally the speaker of that vile truth can be vile too, that is not the issue, the issue is was it the truth in the first place and in this instance it was, so everything else spouted by KL's antagonists is ignorant anger or flummery.
Who benefits from hiding the truth is the matter in hand now. We have this Mann creature indulging in posturing his faux outrage for the cameras in order to shut down the opening up of the truth such the Haavara Agreement even existing at all, let alone all the positives it actually achieved! 63,788 people were taken to Palestine and all prospered, the richest families in modern day Israel are ALL from this 3rd Reich paid for exodus. Think about that for a moment. It's the truth but it sure as hell doesn't fit the 'Victor's Story' does it!
Now I would like to move this on to the real nub of this issue today, I'm sure you will have plenty to rail about if we do. I hate circular debate and we are in that zone regarding Haavara and how it originated and most of it's benefits. Please, I ask, can we move on?
Neither of these was supporting Zionism.
I'll as again - what are you trying to fain from your absurd proclamations?
markh1973 said:
RottenIcons said:
easytiger123 said:
RottenIcons said:
I think we've done this all before. You have your opinion and you're welcome to it.
I think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
The outburst was by the vile Livingstone creature, hence the title of this thread. It's more than a little ironic that someone who is now after all your other sI think the real issue now is what is behind the outburst by the vile Mann creature, I noticed he was careful to ensure the cameras tracked his every move, checking every so often, so we have to at least consider his outburst was a put up job. Now the oldest of all questions has to be asked about that 'Cui bono' in the interests of moving this on would you care to hazard a guess?
t, trying to turn this around so that somehow Mann is the bad guy has got the nerve to ask cui bono.The truth is vile sometimes, and occasionally the speaker of that vile truth can be vile too, that is not the issue, the issue is was it the truth in the first place and in this instance it was, so everything else spouted by KL's antagonists is ignorant anger or flummery.
Who benefits from hiding the truth is the matter in hand now. We have this Mann creature indulging in posturing his faux outrage for the cameras in order to shut down the opening up of the truth such the Haavara Agreement even existing at all, let alone all the positives it actually achieved! 63,788 people were taken to Palestine and all prospered, the richest families in modern day Israel are ALL from this 3rd Reich paid for exodus. Think about that for a moment. It's the truth but it sure as hell doesn't fit the 'Victor's Story' does it!
Now I would like to move this on to the real nub of this issue today, I'm sure you will have plenty to rail about if we do. I hate circular debate and we are in that zone regarding Haavara and how it originated and most of it's benefits. Please, I ask, can we move on?
Neither of these was supporting Zionism.
I'll as again - what are you trying to fain from your absurd proclamations?
These are not absurd proclamations, this is the truth of the matter.
I utterly loathe KLs politics he's a dirty commie and my natural enemy politically, but he told the truth and that means I have to defend what he said (not him) because that is the moral thing to do.
Again, I've said this repeatedly, probably as often as I asked if we can move on to more contemporaneous issues.
Edited: Telephone formatting/spelling/spacing issues grrrrr
Edited by RottenIcons on Monday 2nd May 12:33
Joey Ramone said:
Furthermore RottenIcons, what's the title of your blog? If you have the courage of your convictions, put it up here so we can take a good look at your thoughts and ideas.
Fat chance of that happening.Not sure how the following are supportable:
- Hitler was kindly towards Jews,
- Livingstone is a commie (a fool and a socialist one but he isn't a commie)
RottenIcons said:
Hitler did support Zionism, Zionism is defined as being the quest to found a homeland for jews in the Middle East, it is established beyond reasonable doubt he did that. Come on guy, just accept the truth and shame the devil. As I stated clearly an age ago, this was his First solution, his second was to make them work for National Socialism by force, then to exterminate them as the final solution, I have stated this repeatedly. The second and final solutions were not in any way supportive of zionism, but initially he did.
These are not absurd proclamations, this is the truth of the matter.
[/footnote]
None of these things were supporting Zionism - all of them were about getting Jews out of Germany. He had no desire for there to be a Jewish state.These are not absurd proclamations, this is the truth of the matter.
[/footnote]
markh1973 said:
RottenIcons said:
Hitler did support Zionism, Zionism is defined as being the quest to found a homeland for jews in the Middle East, it is established beyond reasonable doubt he did that. Come on guy, just accept the truth and shame the devil. As I stated clearly an age ago, this was his First solution, his second was to make them work for National Socialism by force, then to exterminate them as the final solution, I have stated this repeatedly. The second and final solutions were not in any way supportive of zionism, but initially he did.
These are not absurd proclamations, this is the truth of the matter.
[/footnote]
None of these things were supporting Zionism - all of them were about getting Jews out of Germany. He had no desire for there to be a Jewish state.These are not absurd proclamations, this is the truth of the matter.
[/footnote]
The bloke was a failure and an example on how not to do things.
'the grand mufti was very accomodating '
No he was anti jewish/zionist from the off,I can refer you to the british concern a the time about how he wouldnt engage at all with jews.
The point about him letting jews in is again utter nonsense.He was appointed by the british ,his influence was mostly limited to religious matters,the british controlled the land and migration in and out of palestine...was it him who partitioned palestine ? Was it him the zionist organizations dealt with and not the british ? I also recall from his autobiography (read a long long time ago) that there was section in which he goes on about despite his dislike for the jews how he admired the fact that despite them being the sttest land by the british they were able to make it a viable agricultural land,something the arabs had failed to do.
He incited riots and terrorism against jewish settlements .
I dont like these games where linking stuff is seem as some form of truth but since you wont admit your errors...from your beloved wiki..
'
From as early as 1920 he actively opposed Zionism, and was implicated as a leader of the 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment but was pardoned by the British.[11] In 1921 the British High Commissioner appointed him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a position he used to promote Islam while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism.[12][13] During the period 1921-36 he was considered an important ally by the British Mandatory authorities.[14]'
this section in particular.
'In 1933, within weeks of Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the German Consul-General in Palestine, Heinrich Wolff,[137][138] sent a telegram to Berlin reporting al-Husseini's belief that Palestinian Muslims were enthusiastic about the new regime and looked forward to the spread of Fascism throughout the region. Wolff met al-Husseini and many sheikhs again, a month later, at Nabi Musa. They expressed their approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked Wolff not to send any Jews to Palestine.[139] '
No he was anti jewish/zionist from the off,I can refer you to the british concern a the time about how he wouldnt engage at all with jews.
The point about him letting jews in is again utter nonsense.He was appointed by the british ,his influence was mostly limited to religious matters,the british controlled the land and migration in and out of palestine...was it him who partitioned palestine ? Was it him the zionist organizations dealt with and not the british ? I also recall from his autobiography (read a long long time ago) that there was section in which he goes on about despite his dislike for the jews how he admired the fact that despite them being the s
ttest land by the british they were able to make it a viable agricultural land,something the arabs had failed to do.He incited riots and terrorism against jewish settlements .
I dont like these games where linking stuff is seem as some form of truth but since you wont admit your errors...from your beloved wiki..
'
From as early as 1920 he actively opposed Zionism, and was implicated as a leader of the 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment but was pardoned by the British.[11] In 1921 the British High Commissioner appointed him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a position he used to promote Islam while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism.[12][13] During the period 1921-36 he was considered an important ally by the British Mandatory authorities.[14]'
this section in particular.
'In 1933, within weeks of Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the German Consul-General in Palestine, Heinrich Wolff,[137][138] sent a telegram to Berlin reporting al-Husseini's belief that Palestinian Muslims were enthusiastic about the new regime and looked forward to the spread of Fascism throughout the region. Wolff met al-Husseini and many sheikhs again, a month later, at Nabi Musa. They expressed their approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked Wolff not to send any Jews to Palestine.[139] '
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff