Bubbles85 said:

Quote:

Brian Jones said:

Bubbles85 said:

The Reich were defeated bt the left? The British Government that lead the role in the defeat of the Nazis was a Conservative government lead by Sir Winston Churchill!

---

Actually, no the Soviets defeated the Nazis (and in no way am I trying to disparage the courageous defensive effort the Brits put up, or our D-day and subsequent battles). The fact is that  80% of the German divisions were on the Eastern Front, and the Soviets had by far the most casualties. Those two facts effectively end the argument.

When we got Patton's tank battalions into the continent after D-Day, the whole issue was racing the Soviets to Berlin to see how it would be partitioned, and to see which genius German Rocket scientists went to each side. We got Werner von Braun, which was the biggest prize, but honestly they probably preferred our side because of lifestyle differences, but the Soviets treated elites well too, but not too many other people there got treated well. The scientists may have hid so we would get them, but who ever got them first got to keep them, many German Rocket scientists went to each side.

Patton and allies (particularly Montgomery) reached Berlin at about the same time as the Soviets, which was why Berlin was portioned into 4 sectors. I'm still not sure why France got a sector.

---

Lmfao. Whole lot of butt hurt up in here, about the fact that a conservative government lead the way against the Reich in the Second World War .... But but but the Soviets

---

No one's butt hurt.  Just pointing out your ignorance about the war.

Saying conservatives won WWII when it was mostly fought and won Russia is ignorant.  Plus, FDR was a liberal president on the US side.

Bubbles85 said:

Clearly i must just be ignorant. Yeah thats it!

---

Bubbles85 said:

No ones butt hurt Clearly i must just be ignorant. Yeah thats it!

---

Bubbles85 said:

Please show me where i said conservatives won the war?

I stated that the British Conservatives lead the way and were the very first to stand up against the Nazis which is the truth. I also stated that i made no claim to victory from either side and that it was a combined effort, which i see you have conveniently edited out of my post.

The only reason the Soviets got involved, years on into the conflict, was because of the German invasions of soviet held territory. The British got involved because of the German invasions of another European country.

---

Bubbles85 said:

...go ahead and lay all of the praise for the victory of the war on a commie dictator who was no better than Hitler him self

---

Because he was a "commie dictator", it's impossible to credit him for his role in defeating Germany?!? 

The Ecstatic said:

Bubbles85 said:

Clearly i must just be ignorant. Yeah thats it!

---

Basically.

---

Bubbles85 said:

I've stated twice now that is was a combined effort. What does seem impossible, is for you to credit the British for their role.
You would rather credit a communist dictator responsible for mass murder, than actually admit that a right wing, conservative government, played a leading role in the conflict.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Bubbles85 said:

I've stated twice now that is was a combined effort. What does seem impossible, is for you to credit the British for their role.
You would rather credit a communist dictator responsible for mass murder, than actually admit that a right wing, conservative government, played a leading role in the conflict.

---

I don't credit people based on their ideology, but based on their role in the conflict.

Brian Jones correctly noted that about 80% of the fighting was done in Russia, and they deserve the majority of the credit for defeating Germany.  It's irrelevant if Stalin was a mass murdering communist dictator (which he was).

---

Bubbles85 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Bubbles85 said:

I've stated twice now that is was a combined effort. What does seem impossible, is for you to credit the British for their role.
You would rather credit a communist dictator responsible for mass murder, than actually admit that a right wing, conservative government, played a leading role in the conflict.

---

I don't credit people based on their ideology, but based on their role in the conflict.

Brian Jones correctly noted that about 80% of the fighting was done in Russia, and they deserve the majority of the credit for defeating Germany.  It's irrelevant if Stalin was a mass murdering communist dictator (which he was).

---

No they dont. It was a combined effort and all involved deserve equal credit for the roles they played. Obtaining the largest death count, does not prove you played the biggest role.

Every other country involved against Hitler, had a combined death toll all most equal to that of the Russians. Yet that don't count?

Just admit you cant credit the British conservatives for their role, which was vital to the defeat of the Nazis. They fought longer than any other country and fought the most strategic battles of the war.

The Russians were led poorly and suffered harshly because of it.

---

No one said Russia should get more credit because more of them were killed. 

According to German statistics posted on Wikipedia, 2,742,909 German soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front until 12/31/44, while only 339,959 were killed on the Western Front until 12/31/44.

Another 1,230,045 German soldiers were killed in the Final Battles in Germany (East & West fronts Jan.-May, 1945), of which "2/3 of these casualties can be attributed to the Eastern Front".

The casualties on the Western front weren't all by Britain either.  The US deserves some credit too.

If German military casualties aren't a good measure of contributions to the war, please let us know what is.  But it's not looking very "equal" to me at all.

Bubbles85 said:

Oh and Tip, maybe you'd be more comfortable on the continent under the control of the Brussels elite you never voted for 

---

hostileuniverse said:

Mr world traveler is back, hooray for the 1% coming back to tell us all how ignorant we are not allowing our country to be floods with 3rd world parasites

---

akira_akuma said:

mass migrations usually do not have the intended effect of going neatly and cleanly. it's the concept, already explained by me before, that humans in such swathes will naturally impart a danger to the environment, let alone the statistical inevitability of stragglers and dangerous men.

i think Tipote is pissed that you simply suggest that it's Muslim men, solely, that is responsible for this "imparted danger", due to the fact that they are Muslim; instead of recognizing that it's not simply because they are Muslim, but it's because they are so such large proportions of humans moving in vast streams, which , naturally, in the upswell, will gather lots of the aforementioned stragglers and criminals and ect; that is in the upswell of non-dangerous, non-criminal, migrants whom are not in that category -- you wanna make an economic argument, you can join Qman. but you shouldn't blame the condition of humanity based on them being Muslim...it's stupid, because they are human that they have the problem of criminality in huge swathes of people being pushed like blood through arteries. it is stupid because Muslims do not create criminality...Islam might produce some vagaries within it's adherents and certainly some dangerous ones, especially within the already criminally minded...but that doesn't mean the whole of the criminal element's existence is solely at the responsibility of Islam. that's asinine to presume so, or to even conjure such an argument to support your claims. which you've done so often in the past. trying to pass off the whole of criminality onto the fact that they are "deranged" or "mangy" or "rugrats", instead of the fact that they are a large herd of animal.

if the US suddenly had to migrate, there'd be swathes, too, of criminals to deal with. because they are here. not because they are American, or mangy.

from a purely political point of view, they can be seen as a nuisance, but i can't see how you can attribute criminality, which exists in all areas of the planet, in all nations, to them simply being Muslim. their kind of BEHAVIOR is surely more Muslim...but their criminality is the same as anyone else's. money, sex, violence, passion/honor leading to murder, ect, all of the above attributable to more than Muslim society, but actually attributable to all of the world over.

i think that's Tipote's problem with your posts.

---

elax420 said:

The main problem is the immigrants get filtered in turkey
Of course Turkey is gonna keep the educated and best prospects, and also get the shitty ones as far away from their shores as they can.
It's like how Cuba exiled all the criminals and idiots to America, or Britian and austrailia

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

According to German statistics posted on Wikipedia, 2,742,909 German soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front until 12/31/44, while only 339,959 were killed on the Western Front until 12/31/44.

Another 1,230,045 German soldiers were killed in the Final Battles in Germany (East & West fronts Jan.-May, 1945), of which "2/3 of these casualties can be attributed to the Eastern Front".

The casualties on the Western front weren't all by Britain either.  The US deserves some credit too.

---

That means 9 Germans were killed by the Soviets on the Eastern Front for every 1 killed by the Allies on the Western Front.  I never realized before just how much the East contributed. 

Tipote said:

akira_akuma said:

mass migrations usually do not have the intended effect of going neatly and cleanly. it's the concept, already explained by me before, that humans in such swathes will naturally impart a danger to the environment, let alone the statistical inevitability of stragglers and dangerous men.

i think Tipote is pissed that you simply suggest that it's Muslim men, solely, that is responsible for this "imparted danger", due to the fact that they are Muslim; instead of recognizing that it's not simply because they are Muslim, but it's because they are so such large proportions of humans moving in vast streams, which , naturally, in the upswell, will gather lots of the aforementioned stragglers and criminals and ect; that is in the upswell of non-dangerous, non-criminal, migrants whom are not in that category -- you wanna make an economic argument, you can join Qman. but you shouldn't blame the condition of humanity based on them being Muslim...it's stupid, because they are human that they have the problem of criminality in huge swathes of people being pushed like blood through arteries. it is stupid because Muslims do not create criminality...Islam might produce some vagaries within it's adherents and certainly some dangerous ones, especially within the already criminally minded...but that doesn't mean the whole of the criminal element's existence is solely at the responsibility of Islam. that's asinine to presume so, or to even conjure such an argument to support your claims. which you've done so often in the past. trying to pass off the whole of criminality onto the fact that they are "deranged" or "mangy" or "rugrats", instead of the fact that they are a large herd of animal.

if the US suddenly had to migrate, there'd be swathes, too, of criminals to deal with. because they are here. not because they are American, or mangy.

from a purely political point of view, they can be seen as a nuisance, but i can't see how you can attribute criminality, which exists in all areas of the planet, in all nations, to them simply being Muslim. their kind of BEHAVIOR is surely more Muslim...but their criminality is the same as anyone else's. money, sex, violence, passion/honor leading to murder, ect, all of the above attributable to more than Muslim society, but actually attributable to all of the world over.

i think that's Tipote's problem with your posts.

---

thanks man. well said.

also im kind of surprised in Starter sometimes because I thought he said he had a background in science. I assumed he would have a greater scrutiny in data.
72% male is outdated and represents a snapshot in time. Immigration analysts suggest themselves that while the first waves were predominantly men or young boys, later waves tend to have more females. This could be for multiple reasons.

Too many males no doubt causes problems, regardless of religion, though yes for sure there are some clashes that come with religious dogma.

And the countries in Starter's infographic are all countries where people would have a very legitimate reason to seek asylum.

Islam is not a monolithic group. Many Levantine Muslims have very little in common culturally with African Muslims.

Yes popular opinion is turning against refugees. I have never pretended that these policies were not hugely flawed. I think it was all too much too soon with too little organisation and ultimately that is going to cause a whole lot of problems. Sloppy operations increase the likelihood of poor processes of integration and no doubt pisses off local people. People in Europe had plenty of reasons to be legitimately pissed off about immigration well before this crisis.

A point that is often dismissed as white guilt by some is that our countries have fuelled this problem. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and of course Libya to name a few. I think i saw someone earlier made the very good point about how the fall of Libya was a catalyst for migrant journeys across the Med. It is in our interest to not contribute to these places becoming failed states.

this american life is a good podcast to listen to. they did some interesting pieces about life in the refugee camps in Greece if anyone is interested.
It helps to remember that these people are exactly that! - PEOPLE. Starter and others can pretend they are aliens but has Starter spoken to these "third world parasites"?
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/593/dont-have-to-live-like-a-refugee

elax420 said:

The main problem is the immigrants get filtered in turkey
Of course Turkey is gonna keep the educated and best prospects, and also get the shitty ones as far away from their shores as they can.
It's like how Cuba exiled all the criminals and idiots to America, or Britian and austrailia

---

I think this is true to an extent and is a good point. But it was wealthy Syrians for example who were able to pay the thousands of $$$ to each person to be smuggled. First waves were largely middle class professionals, doctors, teachers, engineers etc, later waves were more working class. builders, barbers etc

anyone even vaguely familiar with the middle east is that most people just want to either be an engineer or doctor and qualify despite the lack of jobs. To call these people parasites like qman, starter and StrawManKing say is unbelievably delusional. I think the term "third world" is fucking stupid and outdated but many of the people in these countries, even the uneducated ones, are more entrepreneurial than they realise.

Are assholes, criminals and rapists coming too? Yes, of course. But assuming such a diverse group of migrants are all one thing is also incredibly delusional and highlights this black and white thinking we often see on this thread.

---

The Ecstatic said:

---

Great response, I'm sure the readers of this thread are thoroughly impressed.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

According to German statistics posted on Wikipedia, 2,742,909 German soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front until 12/31/44, while only 339,959 were killed on the Western Front until 12/31/44.

Another 1,230,045 German soldiers were killed in the Final Battles in Germany (East & West fronts Jan.-May, 1945), of which "2/3 of these casualties can be attributed to the Eastern Front".

The casualties on the Western front weren't all by Britain either.  The US deserves some credit too.

---

That means 9 Germans were killed by the Soviets on the Eastern Front for every 1 killed by the Allies on the Western Front.  I never realized before just how little the West contributed. 

---