Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Support and/or defense.

blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 8:09:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Should we support and/or defend those who aren't willing to defend themselves?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about(sort of).

In WW2, France fell to the Nazis. Now, the French could've played it safe and done nothing. The could have let the Nazis do whatever they wanted. Instead, the French Resistance formed. Without them, D-Day never would have happened.

The Jewish people,on the other hand, let Hitler do to them and take from them what he wanted. There were millions of them being persecuted by Hitler's reign and not once did they even start to have a continent wide rebellion. They hid wherever they could or ignored the problem. You can't say they didn't know what was happening. If they hadn't, they never would have hidden. If they had decided that they had had enough, they could have risen to create a force that would have crushed Hitler.

So, should we help those who won't (not can't but won't) help themselves or not.

* I want anyone reading this to no that I am NOT anti-semetic or anything. My mother is Jewish and I am half Jewish half Christian.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 11:04:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I love when people follow up with "my mother is jewish" (or black, or whatever minority group).

Anyway, as to the Jewish not defending themselves, if you didn't remember, Jewish people did fight back, and they tried to flee (we even sent a ship full of Jewish people back to the Nazi because we didn't want them), but they didn't have the communication network that the French did, and they didn't have the support of the people like the French did. The vast majority of French people were anti-nazi (go figure) and so supported the resistance. The Jewish people did not have that benefit and most of the German people (not just the military, but the actual citizens) were against them. So they can't really be compared.

Here's a question. If I hold a gun to someone's head, and they don't fight back, just submit, hoping that I don't kill them as long as they do what I say, and I kill them anyway, should I not be charged with murder just because the person did not fight back? Is the fact that they submitted out of fear mean they no longer have the right to life?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:27:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 11:04:42 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I love when people follow up with "my mother is jewish" (or black, or whatever minority group).

Anyway, as to the Jewish not defending themselves, if you didn't remember, Jewish people did fight back, and they tried to flee (we even sent a ship full of Jewish people back to the Nazi because we didn't want them), but they didn't have the communication network that the French did, and they didn't have the support of the people like the French did. The vast majority of French people were anti-nazi (go figure) and so supported the resistance. The Jewish people did not have that benefit and most of the German people (not just the military, but the actual citizens) were against them. So they can't really be compared.

Here's a question. If I hold a gun to someone's head, and they don't fight back, just submit, hoping that I don't kill them as long as they do what I say, and I kill them anyway, should I not be charged with murder just because the person did not fight back? Is the fact that they submitted out of fear mean they no longer have the right to life?

Only if their Jewish.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 8:45:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you want to, but not for their sake.

The same for those who are attempting to "help themselves."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 6:11:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 11:04:42 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I love when people follow up with "my mother is jewish" (or black, or whatever minority group).

I don't really care if you love that. I just don't want to be called anti-semetic because of the scenario I happened to choose.

Anyway, as to the Jewish not defending themselves, if you didn't remember, Jewish people did fight back, and they tried to flee (we even sent a ship full of Jewish people back to the Nazi because we didn't want them),

We sent 800-900 people back and that was before WW2. Hitler was in power, but not even Kristallnacht had happened yet. We had no reason to believe that they would come to harm considering there ha been no aggression towards the Jews or anyone by Hitler. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that I said they didn't generally fight back (or something along this lines). Also, fleeing is not fighting back. When they fled, they were turning their back on the problem and trying to make it go away.

but they didn't have the communication network that the French did, and they didn't have the support of the people like the French did.

The French didn't just magically have this communication network appear, they worked for it because, for once, the French were showing strength and bravery. Maybe in Germany the Jewish didn't have the support of the people, but what about Poland, France, Belgium, Russia etc.? They certainly could have created a resistance that would have given Hitler nightmares. As a little side note on the support of the people, once the war started, the majority of the German population didn't support Hitler, either

The vast majority of French people were anti-nazi (go figure)

I never realized that the Jews and all of those invaded countries were pro-Nazi.

and so supported the resistance. The Jewish people did not have that benefit and most of the German people (not just the military, but the actual citizens) were against them. So they can't really be compared.

The Jews were being persecuted in more places than just Germany. People hid them in their homes. The Jews had support and knew they were being targeted. Please enlighten me as to what valid reason they had for not resisting Nazi oppression.


Here's a question. If I hold a gun to someone's head, and they don't fight back, just submit, hoping that I don't kill them as long as they do what I say, and I kill them anyway, should I not be charged with murder just because the person did not fight back? Is the fact that they submitted out of fear mean they no longer have the right to life?

First of all, the Jews didn't have the gun to their heads until after they had refused to fight. The option was pretty much gone by the time they were actually having a gun pointed at them. Next, the question wasn't one of whether or not the killer is sill a murderer and criminal. It's also not a question of whether or not the person forfeits their right to life. The question was should we support a people who won't defend themselves.

Now, here's my question for you. If you and your town knew that a force was coming to put you into work camps and/or kill you, would you hide in your floor boards, or fortify the town to fight back. Personally, if I am going to die either way, then I would prefer to take some Nazis with me.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 6:14:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 8:45:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you want to, but not for their sake.

The same for those who are attempting to "help themselves."

So then am I correct in saying that we should help those who help themselves, but not those who si on the couch leeching welfare because they're too lazy to go out and get a job?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 6:19:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just to clarify, I am not referencing this question to WW2. I was just giving an example of what I mean by supporting oneself versus not supporting oneself. The two examples that came to me first just happened to be WW2. I was more curious because of operations like the one in Somalia. You may know it from the movie Blackhawk Down. Obviously this is a more extreme example than the one of the Jews considering that when we tried to give a starving people some food, they responded by shooting our helicopters down and killing American soldiers.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 6:21:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 6:14:55 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/1/2011 8:45:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you want to, but not for their sake.

The same for those who are attempting to "help themselves."

So then am I correct in saying that we should help those who help themselves, but not those who si on the couch leeching welfare because they're too lazy to go out and get a job?
No, it has nothing to do with whether they help themselves, and everything to do with whether helping them is any help to us.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 2:15:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 8:09:09 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Should we support and/or defend those who aren't willing to defend themselves?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about(sort of).

In WW2, France fell to the Nazis. Now, the French could've played it safe and done nothing. The could have let the Nazis do whatever they wanted. Instead, the French Resistance formed. Without them, D-Day never would have happened.

The Jewish people,on the other hand, let Hitler do to them and take from them what he wanted. There were millions of them being persecuted by Hitler's reign and not once did they even start to have a continent wide rebellion. They hid wherever they could or ignored the problem. You can't say they didn't know what was happening. If they hadn't, they never would have hidden. If they had decided that they had had enough, they could have risen to create a force that would have crushed Hitler.

So, should we help those who won't (not can't but won't) help themselves or not.

* I want anyone reading this to no that I am NOT anti-semetic or anything. My mother is Jewish and I am half Jewish half Christian.

Hold on... the French state fought for about five weeks (their membership in the war lasted for longer but thats how long they actually participated). Most Jews were civilians, some did fight back. The contributions are probably relatively comparable.

Half Jewish half Christian... love it. Absolutely stupid remark!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 3:47:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your problem is your shallow definition of resistance, lack of research, and oversimplified ahistorical analysis. There were many different types of resistance, the majority of them more subtle (psychological and spiritual) than just taking up arms, as explored by Bauer and Frankl (1). With that being said, there were a large number (100+) of efforts at violent resistances (1). All of these failed because the mobility, economic potential of Jewish citizens was limited far past what the French ever experienced--not to belittle the French hardship.

The Jews started leaving Germany and Poland in the mid 30s because they were slowly having their rights stripped. What's more, Hitler's anti-semitism was no secret at that time. The U.S and Canada could have certainly done something and were fully aware of the process taking place in Germany. But, as W. L. M. King put it "No Jews is too many." Plus, the U.S. actually favoured Germany until 1941 when, because Japan attacked, Germany declared war on the U.S. as well (2). Concentration camps and ghettos were already up and running by that point. It is clear that "helping" those people was little more than a by-product of the war.

I also find the statement that the French showed "bravery and strength for once" to be a flagrant and unsubstantiated statement that shows little knowledge of French military history.

As for the question of Somalia, what exactly do you expect them to do? They don't have any infrastructure and live in an incredibly hostile environment. When there's a drought, they have few options if any. If opportunistic militarized groups get hostile, they certainly don't speak for "the people". That's another problem with everything you've said so far. You talk about "a people" as if they were one moral unit with some kind of a hive mind. When we help people, we are helping individuals.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.worldwariihistory.info...
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 4:14:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 2:15:38 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/1/2011 8:09:09 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Should we support and/or defend those who aren't willing to defend themselves?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about(sort of).

In WW2, France fell to the Nazis. Now, the French could've played it safe and done nothing. The could have let the Nazis do whatever they wanted. Instead, the French Resistance formed. Without them, D-Day never would have happened.

The Jewish people,on the other hand, let Hitler do to them and take from them what he wanted. There were millions of them being persecuted by Hitler's reign and not once did they even start to have a continent wide rebellion. They hid wherever they could or ignored the problem. You can't say they didn't know what was happening. If they hadn't, they never would have hidden. If they had decided that they had had enough, they could have risen to create a force that would have crushed Hitler.

So, should we help those who won't (not can't but won't) help themselves or not.

* I want anyone reading this to no that I am NOT anti-semetic or anything. My mother is Jewish and I am half Jewish half Christian.

Hold on... the French state fought for about five weeks (their membership in the war lasted for longer but thats how long they actually participated). Most Jews were civilians, some did fight back. The contributions are probably relatively comparable.

The French resistance was entirely civilian. They fought from the roughly the time the Nazis invaded until the time when France was liberated. Most Jews didn't fight, most fled, hid, or tried to pretend the problem wasn't there. The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s). The French resistance contributed to the possibility of that little event called D-Day. Without them, D-Day wouldn't have happened. The contributions of the two groups are hardly comparable.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 4:43:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The French resistance was entirely civilian. They fought from the roughly the time the Nazis invaded until the time when France was liberated. Most Jews didn't fight, most fled, hid, or tried to pretend the problem wasn't there.

The French resistance consisted mainly of civilians, but was also helped by dispersed military. On top of that, these civilians had much greater freedom and access to the opportunity to rebel.

The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s).

Again, your definition of resistance is very shallow. If you weren't taught about all of the psychological resistance that came in the form of maintaining kindness and humanity in many cases (see: Man's Search for Meaning), that is a failing of your schooling not of holocaust victims (Jewish or otherwise).

The French resistance contributed to the possibility of that little event called D-Day. Without them, D-Day wouldn't have happened. The contributions of the two groups are hardly comparable.

I am in no way belittling the actions of the French resistance. They were courageous and important, but if they are not comparable to the resistance of Jews in ghettos and concentration camps that's because they are two startlingly different situations. Additionally, the allies had very little strategic interest in liberating starving masses that weren't even their own citizens, so even if the Jews could have done something "comparable" to the resistance it would never have the capacity to culminate in something like D-Day.

Basically, your argument is the equivolent to saying that American POWs should have done as much as the French resistance. Except, these POWs would have to be stripped of their expertise. That is how ridiculous the claim you're trying to make.

If you say that Jews should have seen it coming years off, I would like to point out that the concentration camps weren't properly believed until there was actual photo evidence and still there are people who don't believe that could have ever happened. If you don't think fleeing and hiding is a logical response in the face of a war machine the likes of which the world had never seen before that specifically hates you for who you are, than I don't know what to tell you.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:07:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 11:04:42 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I love when people follow up with "my mother is jewish" (or black, or whatever minority group).

Anyway, as to the Jewish not defending themselves, if you didn't remember, Jewish people did fight back, and they tried to flee (we even sent a ship full of Jewish people back to the Nazi because we didn't want them), but they didn't have the communication network that the French did, and they didn't have the support of the people like the French did. The vast majority of French people were anti-nazi (go figure) and so supported the resistance. The Jewish people did not have that benefit and most of the German people (not just the military, but the actual citizens) were against them. So they can't really be compared.

Here's a question. If I hold a gun to someone's head, and they don't fight back, just submit, hoping that I don't kill them as long as they do what I say, and I kill them anyway, should I not be charged with murder just because the person did not fight back? Is the fact that they submitted out of fear mean they no longer have the right to life?

Reply: In your reference it would be justified to submit, but there were plenty of people that did not have guns directly pointed at there head and could have formed a resistance. Militia have been formed in this way throughout all of human history. All it takes is courage. The Jews could have fought back. What did they have to lose? They were going to die by the Nazis anyway.

America stood up to the British did it not? We didn't have anything compared to the mighty force of the British Army, yet we prevailed. Such is the force of courage.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:07:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s).

How much resistance are you expecting for the quantity to be "adequate?" Have you heard of the Bielski group, Warsaw ghetto uprising, or numerous concentration camp uprisings? You do realize the Nazis had quite possibly the best military the world had ever seen up to that point and any group of Jews who faced them head on faced near certain death. There were other assassinations of Nazi officials by Jews, but these were met with huge reprisals. How much are you expecting from a small, unarmed population? There always could have been more armed resistance, but this seems more like the after thought of a callous observer who has no direct experience with the matter. Do you also blame the Tutsis or Sudanese natives for not forming an elaborate private military and fighting off their invaders?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:09:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 6:11:32 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/1/2011 11:04:42 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I love when people follow up with "my mother is jewish" (or black, or whatever minority group).

I don't really care if you love that. I just don't want to be called anti-semetic because of the scenario I happened to choose.

Anyway, as to the Jewish not defending themselves, if you didn't remember, Jewish people did fight back, and they tried to flee (we even sent a ship full of Jewish people back to the Nazi because we didn't want them),

We sent 800-900 people back and that was before WW2. Hitler was in power, but not even Kristallnacht had happened yet. We had no reason to believe that they would come to harm considering there ha been no aggression towards the Jews or anyone by Hitler. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that I said they didn't generally fight back (or something along this lines). Also, fleeing is not fighting back. When they fled, they were turning their back on the problem and trying to make it go away.

The targeting of Jews began the moment Hitler went into power. It didn't start with concentration camps, and most of the Jews certainly noticed the writing on the walls (thus why they tried to leave).


but they didn't have the communication network that the French did, and they didn't have the support of the people like the French did.

The French didn't just magically have this communication network appear, they worked for it because, for once, the French were showing strength and bravery. Maybe in Germany the Jewish didn't have the support of the people, but what about Poland, France, Belgium, Russia etc.? They certainly could have created a resistance that would have given Hitler nightmares. As a little side note on the support of the people, once the war started, the majority of the German population didn't support Hitler, either.

Most of the population didn't support Hitler's wars, but they still supported mistreatment of Jews (though not to the degree of the concentration camps). As for the other nations, many of them did support Hitler, like many in Poland and other nearby nations (since many were actual German's before their land was divided up after WW1).


The vast majority of French people were anti-nazi (go figure)

I never realized that the Jews and all of those invaded countries were pro-Nazi.

Where much of the concentration camps were, and many of the Jews rounded up and killed, they were (not the Jews, but the people).


and so supported the resistance. The Jewish people did not have that benefit and most of the German people (not just the military, but the actual citizens) were against them. So they can't really be compared.

The Jews were being persecuted in more places than just Germany. People hid them in their homes. The Jews had support and knew they were being targeted. Please enlighten me as to what valid reason they had for not resisting Nazi oppression.

If open resistance was 100% death, and hiding and running was 95% death, that is a valid reason to run. This wasn't like in France where they couldn't tell if you were part of the resistance just by your nose.



Here's a question. If I hold a gun to someone's head, and they don't fight back, just submit, hoping that I don't kill them as long as they do what I say, and I kill them anyway, should I not be charged with murder just because the person did not fight back? Is the fact that they submitted out of fear mean they no longer have the right to life?

First of all, the Jews didn't have the gun to their heads until after they had refused to fight. The option was pretty much gone by the time they were actually having a gun pointed at them. Next, the question wasn't one of whether or not the killer is sill a murderer and criminal. It's also not a question of whether or not the person forfeits their right to life. The question was should we support a people who won't defend themselves.

Now, here's my question for you. If you and your town knew that a force was coming to put you into work camps and/or kill you, would you hide in your floor boards, or fortify the town to fight back. Personally, if I am going to die either way, then I would prefer to take some Nazis with me.

I'f fighting back had 100% of death, hiding had a 98% of death, and running to another town had a 95% of death, I'm running and making my family run to. I'll put my own life on the line, maybe staying and fighting slows the invaders so that those running have a better chance, but I'm not letting my wife and our child risk their lives any more then must for the foolish sake of pride.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:12:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 5:07:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s).

How much resistance are you expecting for the quantity to be "adequate?" Have you heard of the Bielski group, Warsaw ghetto uprising, or numerous concentration camp uprisings? You do realize the Nazis had quite possibly the best military the world had ever seen up to that point and any group of Jews who faced them head on faced near certain death. There were other assassinations of Nazi officials by Jews, but these were met with huge reprisals. How much are you expecting from a small, unarmed population? There always could have been more armed resistance, but this seems more like the after thought of a callous observer who has no direct experience with the matter. Do you also blame the Tutsis or Sudanese natives for not forming an elaborate private military and fighting off their invaders?

Reply: They could have done so. America faced the strongest military force of it's day (Britain) and won. It's called courage. Where there is a will, there is a way. Small tactical forces are very effective. That's why groups have assassins and special forces.

No, there is no excuse for the cowardly way they reacted to the situation. Either way, they would have been better remembered dying with courage instead of cowardice.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Talleyrand
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:18:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think it's fair for anyone to accuse you of anti-Semitism. They should, however, accuse you of idiocy.

Your case for people "not helping themselves", besides making no sense, is irrevocably flawed. Not that resistence serves as a very good measure of whether a group of people need help or not (if they could help themselves, then they wouldn't need our help that much, would they?), but to draw a big circle around any one group of people and say they did this one thing is worse than disengenuous. It's wrong. And I'm going to focus on why your facts are wrong because they're so infuriatingly wrong it makes me hurt inside.

A lot of Jews went along with Holocaust. They were living in a repressive autocracy, and when authority tells people to do something the majority will do it (especially when said authoiy lies and tell them they're going to be relocated out of a ghetto, and are instead moved to death camps). Millgram, anyone?

A lot of French people went along with Nazi occupation as well (which you blatantly ignore). The Nazi Empire occupied pretty much all of the northern half of France after it's invasion in 1940. The rest was ruled by a puppet government under Maréchal Philippe Pétain. This was called Vichy France, and to this day pétainisme is a French word for collaboration. So not every French contribution to the war was positive. Did they "deserve" to be helped any more than you suggest the Jews shouldn't have been (stupid question by the way)? And throw the French side, that's a fact you can say about pretty much every state the Germans invaded and we liberated

Well, the Free French Army and the Maquis. Okay, so there were French people who fought back, which means they "helped themselves" regardless of of the massive number of collaborators. So let us look at Jewish contributions to the war or just attempts to change their lot. Hm, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (1943), Bialystok Ghetto Uprising (1943), the Bielski Partisans (1941-1944), the Jewish Military Union (1939-1943), The Jewish Combat Organization (1939-1943, and all of which happened with the support of the Polish Resistence), the Jewish Brigade (1944) and the Special Interrogation Group (1942 both of which had been sponsored by the British government). Not to mention the tens of thousands of German and Austrian Jews who fled persecution to join the armed force of just about every army that fought the Germans (which includes...oh yes, the Maquis). But naw, Jews just sat on their hands and died.

And what about international Jews? Jews from Palestine migrated in the thousands to Britain in order to fight, and the rise of the blatantly anti-Semetic (read Mein Kampf (1925), which had sold 53,000 copies in the UK by 1938, for god's sake) Nazi Party prompted a boycott of German exports by American Jewish business magnates.

Oh, and you know how the Maquis were involved with Operation Overlord (I'm not sure why you think they were instrumental, but fine)? Well you realize that a majority of the phycisits who formed the Manhatten Project to beat Hitler to the Bomb were German or Austrian Jews fleeing persecution, right?

Your example of Somalia doesn't make any sense either. The people who were shooting at those Ranger battalions were obviously not the ones international efforts were trying to feed.

Oh, and your comment about the French showing bravery "for once" is so stupidly insulting I have half a mind to go on about the careers of Napoleon, Du Gaulle Foch, Louvois, le Grand Condé, Turenne, Ney, The Conqueror and Charlemagne until my ears fall off. But I won't.
Inter arma enim silent ledges.
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:20:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 5:07:06 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/1/2011 11:04:42 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I love when people follow up with "my mother is jewish" (or black, or whatever minority group).

Anyway, as to the Jewish not defending themselves, if you didn't remember, Jewish people did fight back, and they tried to flee (we even sent a ship full of Jewish people back to the Nazi because we didn't want them), but they didn't have the communication network that the French did, and they didn't have the support of the people like the French did. The vast majority of French people were anti-nazi (go figure) and so supported the resistance. The Jewish people did not have that benefit and most of the German people (not just the military, but the actual citizens) were against them. So they can't really be compared.

Here's a question. If I hold a gun to someone's head, and they don't fight back, just submit, hoping that I don't kill them as long as they do what I say, and I kill them anyway, should I not be charged with murder just because the person did not fight back? Is the fact that they submitted out of fear mean they no longer have the right to life?

Reply: In your reference it would be justified to submit, but there were plenty of people that did not have guns directly pointed at there head and could have formed a resistance. Militia have been formed in this way throughout all of human history. All it takes is courage. The Jews could have fought back. What did they have to lose? They were going to die by the Nazis anyway.

What did they have to lose? When you are a mother or a father or a brother, you don't calculate that you have nothing to lose and you certainly don't assume, until it's too late that your oppressors are going to be inhuman genocidaires. This is especially the case if you are a Jew because you are used to moderate amounts of oppression and you believe in the fundamental goodness of humanity. You speak so lightly with the benefit of hindsight, but if you tried to step into their shoes for just a moment, you would realize it's not that simple.

America stood up to the British did it not? We didn't have anything compared to the mighty force of the British Army, yet we prevailed. Such is the force of courage.

This analogy is hugely problematic. Not only did the American populous have access to far more freedom, but there was a greater preportion of them. Additionally, the difference technology made back then was far less than the vastly more advanced weaponry of the 40s. What's more, there was no infrastructure in place specifically designed to keep the American population unable to resist. They also weren't starved. There are a number more problems, but I don't think they all need to be stated.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 5:23:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 5:12:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:07:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s).

How much resistance are you expecting for the quantity to be "adequate?" Have you heard of the Bielski group, Warsaw ghetto uprising, or numerous concentration camp uprisings? You do realize the Nazis had quite possibly the best military the world had ever seen up to that point and any group of Jews who faced them head on faced near certain death. There were other assassinations of Nazi officials by Jews, but these were met with huge reprisals. How much are you expecting from a small, unarmed population? There always could have been more armed resistance, but this seems more like the after thought of a callous observer who has no direct experience with the matter. Do you also blame the Tutsis or Sudanese natives for not forming an elaborate private military and fighting off their invaders?

Reply: They could have done so. America faced the strongest military force of it's day (Britain) and won. It's called courage. Where there is a will, there is a way. Small tactical forces are very effective. That's why groups have assassins and special forces.

We won, because it took 2 months for new troops to arrive from England to the US colonies, and England was in another war with India, Holland, France, etc. We also had the ability to organize large numbers of people rather openly. A single british troop couldn't stumble across recruitment posters, phone in his comander and have a 1,000 troops there in 15 minutes. He had to either travel, by horse, or write a bloody letter, which took immense amounts of time to reach it's target. Thus allowing recruiting and organizing to actually be done. There is no comparison.


No, there is no excuse for the cowardly way they reacted to the situation. Either way, they would have been better remembered dying with courage instead of cowardice.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 7:45:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 5:23:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:12:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:07:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s).

How much resistance are you expecting for the quantity to be "adequate?" Have you heard of the Bielski group, Warsaw ghetto uprising, or numerous concentration camp uprisings? You do realize the Nazis had quite possibly the best military the world had ever seen up to that point and any group of Jews who faced them head on faced near certain death. There were other assassinations of Nazi officials by Jews, but these were met with huge reprisals. How much are you expecting from a small, unarmed population? There always could have been more armed resistance, but this seems more like the after thought of a callous observer who has no direct experience with the matter. Do you also blame the Tutsis or Sudanese natives for not forming an elaborate private military and fighting off their invaders?

Reply: They could have done so. America faced the strongest military force of it's day (Britain) and won. It's called courage. Where there is a will, there is a way. Small tactical forces are very effective. That's why groups have assassins and special forces.

We won, because it took 2 months for new troops to arrive from England to the US colonies, and England was in another war with India, Holland, France, etc. We also had the ability to organize large numbers of people rather openly. A single british troop couldn't stumble across recruitment posters, phone in his comander and have a 1,000 troops there in 15 minutes. He had to either travel, by horse, or write a bloody letter, which took immense amounts of time to reach it's target. Thus allowing recruiting and organizing to actually be done. There is no comparison.


No, there is no excuse for the cowardly way they reacted to the situation. Either way, they would have been better remembered dying with courage instead of cowardice.

Reply: Yes, there is a comparison. All of that came fr the courage people had to resist the British and build those forces of resistance. The courage to build that network of communication. We had the courage from the beginning and it caused us to win. You don't give credit where it is due. If you think we won just because the British were too busy doing other things, then you are looking at history through very distorted and biased eyes.

The fact is that people who lived here in the colonies decided to have courage and start a resistance against British dominion over them. Everything that came after that came because those people had courage and started the resistance. Without it, America would never have been born.

The Jews could have started a resistance and they could have found many allies to help them. The sad thing is that they didn't have any courage and everyone else had to come same them from their cowardice.

I someone attacks you, defend yourself. Don't just let them do whatever they want and submit like a coward.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 7:59:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 7:45:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:23:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:12:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:07:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s).

How much resistance are you expecting for the quantity to be "adequate?" Have you heard of the Bielski group, Warsaw ghetto uprising, or numerous concentration camp uprisings? You do realize the Nazis had quite possibly the best military the world had ever seen up to that point and any group of Jews who faced them head on faced near certain death. There were other assassinations of Nazi officials by Jews, but these were met with huge reprisals. How much are you expecting from a small, unarmed population? There always could have been more armed resistance, but this seems more like the after thought of a callous observer who has no direct experience with the matter. Do you also blame the Tutsis or Sudanese natives for not forming an elaborate private military and fighting off their invaders?

Reply: They could have done so. America faced the strongest military force of it's day (Britain) and won. It's called courage. Where there is a will, there is a way. Small tactical forces are very effective. That's why groups have assassins and special forces.

We won, because it took 2 months for new troops to arrive from England to the US colonies, and England was in another war with India, Holland, France, etc. We also had the ability to organize large numbers of people rather openly. A single british troop couldn't stumble across recruitment posters, phone in his comander and have a 1,000 troops there in 15 minutes. He had to either travel, by horse, or write a bloody letter, which took immense amounts of time to reach it's target. Thus allowing recruiting and organizing to actually be done. There is no comparison.


No, there is no excuse for the cowardly way they reacted to the situation. Either way, they would have been better remembered dying with courage instead of cowardice.

Reply: Yes, there is a comparison. All of that came fr the courage people had to resist the British and build those forces of resistance. The courage to build that network of communication. We had the courage from the beginning and it caused us to win. You don't give credit where it is due. If you think we won just because the British were too busy doing other things, then you are looking at history through very distorted and biased eyes.

The fact is that people who lived here in the colonies decided to have courage and start a resistance against British dominion over them. Everything that came after that came because those people had courage and started the resistance. Without it, America would never have been born.

I'd have to question how you're looking through history. The American revolution was not supported by most americans who, at the time viewed themselves as Britons. Even the south didn't get involved until later. And it was the good work of much propaganda to motivate people to kill and die for something.


The Jews could have started a resistance and they could have found many allies to help them. The sad thing is that they didn't have any courage and everyone else had to come same them from their cowardice.

You do realize that the war was not fought for the Jews.


I someone attacks you, defend yourself. Don't just let them do whatever they want and submit like a coward.

Again, if someone has a gun pointed at their head, is it their own fault if the gun man kills them? I imgaine that if someone beats the crap out of you with a baseball bat, you're not going to call the police like a coward and have them "save you from your own cowardice."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 8:15:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 7:45:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:23:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:12:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:07:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s).

How much resistance are you expecting for the quantity to be "adequate?" Have you heard of the Bielski group, Warsaw ghetto uprising, or numerous concentration camp uprisings? You do realize the Nazis had quite possibly the best military the world had ever seen up to that point and any group of Jews who faced them head on faced near certain death. There were other assassinations of Nazi officials by Jews, but these were met with huge reprisals. How much are you expecting from a small, unarmed population? There always could have been more armed resistance, but this seems more like the after thought of a callous observer who has no direct experience with the matter. Do you also blame the Tutsis or Sudanese natives for not forming an elaborate private military and fighting off their invaders?

Reply: They could have done so. America faced the strongest military force of it's day (Britain) and won. It's called courage. Where there is a will, there is a way. Small tactical forces are very effective. That's why groups have assassins and special forces.

We won, because it took 2 months for new troops to arrive from England to the US colonies, and England was in another war with India, Holland, France, etc. We also had the ability to organize large numbers of people rather openly. A single british troop couldn't stumble across recruitment posters, phone in his comander and have a 1,000 troops there in 15 minutes. He had to either travel, by horse, or write a bloody letter, which took immense amounts of time to reach it's target. Thus allowing recruiting and organizing to actually be done. There is no comparison.


No, there is no excuse for the cowardly way they reacted to the situation. Either way, they would have been better remembered dying with courage instead of cowardice.

Reply: Yes, there is a comparison. All of that came fr the courage people had to resist the British and build those forces of resistance. The courage to build that network of communication. We had the courage from the beginning and it caused us to win. You don't give credit where it is due. If you think we won just because the British were too busy doing other things, then you are looking at history through very distorted and biased eyes.

You speak about "history through distorted and biased eyes" and yet you talk about "courage" as if American history was some kind of fairy tale. Have you ever read a reputable historic journal where "courage" was cited as a social force? The answer is no because there are none out there. The analysis of history doesn't work that way. It deals in quantifiable and observable phenomenon. All of those reasons cited were very good reasons "courage" is like saying Santa Claus did it.


The fact is that people who lived here in the colonies decided to have courage and start a resistance against British dominion over them. Everything that came after that came because those people had courage and started the resistance. Without it, America would never have been born.

The Jews could have started a resistance and they could have found many allies to help them. The sad thing is that they didn't have any courage and everyone else had to come same them from their cowardice.

I'm glad you took the time to not read this thread. As has been said numerous times before, there were literally hundreds of armed insurrections! And with few exceptions (the Polish resistance being one) "the Jews" tried to and did not find allies. This resistance failed because it was a number of starved and beaten untrained pesants versus one of the best equipped most stringently trained armies in the world.


I someone attacks you, defend yourself. Don't just let them do whatever they want and submit like a coward.

That's really easy to say, now how about you show the facts to back it up.

Links to information about Jewish resistance movements.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...
http://www.ushmm.org...
http://fcit.usf.edu...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 8:48:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 5:09:29 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

If open resistance was 100% death, and hiding and running was 95% death, that is a valid reason to run. This wasn't like in France where they couldn't tell if you were part of the resistance just by your nose.

10/10 and sig
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 9:24:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 7:59:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 7:45:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:23:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:12:52 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 5:07:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The contributions aren't comparable at all. The Jews who did fight back clearly didn't do that much. If they had, then we would learn about there contributions as a fighting force. Instead, we hear about how they hid, fled, or did nothing which ultimately ended up in many of their death(s).

How much resistance are you expecting for the quantity to be "adequate?" Have you heard of the Bielski group, Warsaw ghetto uprising, or numerous concentration camp uprisings? You do realize the Nazis had quite possibly the best military the world had ever seen up to that point and any group of Jews who faced them head on faced near certain death. There were other assassinations of Nazi officials by Jews, but these were met with huge reprisals. How much are you expecting from a small, unarmed population? There always could have been more armed resistance, but this seems more like the after thought of a callous observer who has no direct experience with the matter. Do you also blame the Tutsis or Sudanese natives for not forming an elaborate private military and fighting off their invaders?

Reply: They could have done so. America faced the strongest military force of it's day (Britain) and won. It's called courage. Where there is a will, there is a way. Small tactical forces are very effective. That's why groups have assassins and special forces.

We won, because it took 2 months for new troops to arrive from England to the US colonies, and England was in another war with India, Holland, France, etc. We also had the ability to organize large numbers of people rather openly. A single british troop couldn't stumble across recruitment posters, phone in his comander and have a 1,000 troops there in 15 minutes. He had to either travel, by horse, or write a bloody letter, which took immense amounts of time to reach it's target. Thus allowing recruiting and organizing to actually be done. There is no comparison.


No, there is no excuse for the cowardly way they reacted to the situation. Either way, they would have been better remembered dying with courage instead of cowardice.

Reply: Yes, there is a comparison. All of that came fr the courage people had to resist the British and build those forces of resistance. The courage to build that network of communication. We had the courage from the beginning and it caused us to win. You don't give credit where it is due. If you think we won just because the British were too busy doing other things, then you are looking at history through very distorted and biased eyes.

The fact is that people who lived here in the colonies decided to have courage and start a resistance against British dominion over them. Everything that came after that came because those people had courage and started the resistance. Without it, America would never have been born.

I'd have to question how you're looking through history. The American revolution was not supported by most americans who, at the time viewed themselves as Britons. Even the south didn't get involved until later. And it was the good work of much propaganda to motivate people to kill and die for something.

Reply: Either way, it makes those who started the resistance even more brave, as they did not even have much support and they were able to do it no-the-less. It proves my point even more.



The Jews could have started a resistance and they could have found many allies to help them. The sad thing is that they didn't have any courage and everyone else had to come same them from their cowardice.

You do realize that the war was not fought for the Jews.

Reply: Of course, but it doesn't change the fact of them being saved and not having started a resistance.


If someone attacks you, defend yourself. Don't just let them do whatever they want and submit like a coward.

Again, if someone has a gun pointed at their head, is it their own fault if the gun man kills them? I imgaine that if someone beats the crap out of you with a baseball bat, you're not going to call the police like a coward and have them "save you from your own cowardice."

Reply: That's a completely different situation. You use a false comparison.

Now, if I knew that someone was going to try and hit me or my friends with a baseball bat and they were going to keep coming at us with baseball bats... then it's up to me/us to either run, let it happen without a fight, or do something to resist against it.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 9:57:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tiel you're just ignoring facts. Many resistances were started. Many many resistances were started by the Jews during WW2. Look at the links; read this thread, it's all there.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 10:56:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 9:57:15 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
Tiel you're just ignoring facts. Many resistances were started. Many many resistances were started by the Jews during WW2. Look at the links; read this thread, it's all there.

Reply: I am not trying to ignore anything. I will look into what you say. I do not wish to take a stance of ignorance. If I am wrong, I will admit it.

Maybe you can refer me to some resourceful knowledge in support of you position? What resistance did they start?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 10:16:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 10:56:36 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/4/2011 9:57:15 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
Tiel you're just ignoring facts. Many resistances were started. Many many resistances were started by the Jews during WW2. Look at the links; read this thread, it's all there.

Reply: I am not trying to ignore anything. I will look into what you say. I do not wish to take a stance of ignorance. If I am wrong, I will admit it.

Maybe you can refer me to some resourceful knowledge in support of you position? What resistance did they start?

Sure, just look at my post before yours, there's a list of links at the bottom. If you look at my first post in this thread you will see a link to a Wikipedia article on Jewish resistance during WW2. If you read Talleyrand's post he also states a few.