Total Posts:128|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

how is hitler diferente of muhammd?

banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:20:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!

Hitler was convinced jews cuase truble for the every day germen..!!
Muhammud killed infidels raped women as well..!!
Hitler was very much into accult and he had accult simbols to give him power..!!
Its sure that if hitler would win he would be the next muhammud..!!
How are thuse 2 evil people differante..?
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:22:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:20:17 PM, banker wrote:
Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!

As do about one fourth of the people that have lived on this planet.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:26:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Volk you could do better respect yourself..!!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:27:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:26:04 PM, banker wrote:
Volk you could do better respect yourself..!!

banker yu culd do beter respect muslems.....!!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:27:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hitler never actually killed anyone.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:27:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:27:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hitler never actually killed anyone.

Technically, no. However, he gave orders to kill people.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:29:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:27:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/21/2010 8:27:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hitler never actually killed anyone.

Technically, no. However, he gave orders to kill people.

So he's innocent in my book.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:31:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
True he also donated his income of his book to the poor

I agree hitler actually never killed anyone himself...!!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:36:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:32:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Is this your book? http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. I just don't think it's right to accuse Hitler of killing 6 million Jews when he never lifted a finger. The brainwashed idiots who obeyed his orders should be the ones convicted and condemned. I think people ought to shine the light on the ones who committed the acts, rather than condemn the man who didn't kill anyone.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:40:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:36:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/21/2010 8:32:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Is this your book? http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. I just don't think it's right to accuse Hitler of killing 6 million Jews when he never lifted a finger. The brainwashed idiots who obeyed his orders should be the ones convicted and condemned. I think people ought to shine the light on the ones who committed the acts, rather than condemn the man who didn't kill anyone.
Hitler wanted them dead. He gave orders to kill them. He, essentially, killed them.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:44:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let's put it this way:

If some random guy really hated Jews, stood up and told a bunch of people to kill 6 million Jews, people would just give him dirty looks. He's just exorcising free speech.

But if another guy stood up and told a bunch of people to kill 6 million Jews, and they actually did it, that man would probably be sentenced to death.

So why the double standard?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:46:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hitler knew that he had enough authority to get what he wanted done. A man with no authority can say whatever he pleases, but a man who gives orders knowing that his orders will be carried out is immoral.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:46:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Hitler knew that he had enough authority to get what he wanted done. A man with no authority can say whatever he pleases, but a man who gives orders knowing that his orders will be carried out is immoral.

Double standard.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:51:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:48:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/21/2010 8:46:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Hitler knew that he had enough authority to get what he wanted done. A man with no authority can say whatever he pleases, but a man who gives orders knowing that his orders will be carried out is immoral.

Double standard.

As much of a double standard as treating the man who completely accidentally shot his friend while they were hunting different from the man who murdered his friend with full intent. Just because it's a double standard, doesn't mean it's bad.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:52:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is true that those that did the killing are also guilty, but so is the one that put the plan in motion.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:53:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Geo... really?

You're saying Hitler is innocent because he never personally oversaw the deaths of 6 million individuals, even though he is the one who ordered it done?

Even though Hitler was the one who knew he could command people to do these acts, and did, with full intent and knowledge of what would happen when he commanded these acts be committed, he is innocent of anything?

Come on, Geo. Maybe you should stop reading Charles Manson.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:54:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:51:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
As much of a double standard as treating the man who completely accidentally shot his friend while they were hunting different from the man who murdered his friend with full intent. Just because it's a double standard, doesn't mean it's bad.

The problem is that there is that one person gets punished and the other doesn't even though both committed the same crime.

Example:

Random Guy says: Kill 6 million people.
Hitler says: Kill 6 million people.

Both committed the same crime, but one gets condemned and punished, the other doesn't
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:56:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:54:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Random Guy says: Kill 6 million people.
Hitler says: Kill 6 million people.

One uses the threat of coercion to threaten others into following his orders and thus committing the murders.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:56:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:53:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
Geo... really?

You're saying Hitler is innocent because he never personally oversaw the deaths of 6 million individuals, even though he is the one who ordered it done?

Even though Hitler was the one who knew he could command people to do these acts, and did, with full intent and knowledge of what would happen when he commanded these acts be committed, he is innocent of anything?

Come on, Geo. Maybe you should stop reading Charles Manson.

Yes, Charles Manson is innocent whether he commanded death or not. I personally feel that Manson didn't even command or conspire anything.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:59:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:56:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/21/2010 8:54:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Random Guy says: Kill 6 million people.
Hitler says: Kill 6 million people.

One uses the threat of coercion to threaten others into following his orders and thus committing the murders.

Fallacy. Threatening coercion is also at the whims of his command. How does he convince the coercers to coerce others?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 9:00:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:56:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, Charles Manson is innocent whether he commanded death or not. I personally feel that Manson didn't even command or conspire anything.

Geo, the evidence and testimony, whether of Manson or Hitler, was that they ordered these acts be committed by their followers. These acts where then carried out, on their orders, with their blessing, and their direction.

Even if they never physically had blood on their hands, they are the principle co-actor in the act, since they are the ones who even sent such an event in motion. They are responsible for the deaths just as much as the person who physically committed the act is.

If you go with your logic, then anyone can conspire to murder, give someone the tools for murder, give them the directive to murder, yet be innocent of all charges. Are you sure you want to stick with this?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 9:02:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 9:00:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/21/2010 8:56:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, Charles Manson is innocent whether he commanded death or not. I personally feel that Manson didn't even command or conspire anything.

Geo, the evidence and testimony, whether of Manson or Hitler, was that they ordered these acts be committed by their followers. These acts where then carried out, on their orders, with their blessing, and their direction.

Even if they never physically had blood on their hands, they are the principle co-actor in the act, since they are the ones who even sent such an event in motion. They are responsible for the deaths just as much as the person who physically committed the act is.

If you go with your logic, then anyone can conspire to murder, give someone the tools for murder, give them the directive to murder, yet be innocent of all charges. Are you sure you want to stick with this?

Man is responsible for his own actions. Manson nor Hitler can be responsible for the actions of other people. Everyone has a choice.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 9:06:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 9:02:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/21/2010 9:00:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/21/2010 8:56:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, Charles Manson is innocent whether he commanded death or not. I personally feel that Manson didn't even command or conspire anything.

Geo, the evidence and testimony, whether of Manson or Hitler, was that they ordered these acts be committed by their followers. These acts where then carried out, on their orders, with their blessing, and their direction.

Even if they never physically had blood on their hands, they are the principle co-actor in the act, since they are the ones who even sent such an event in motion. They are responsible for the deaths just as much as the person who physically committed the act is.

If you go with your logic, then anyone can conspire to murder, give someone the tools for murder, give them the directive to murder, yet be innocent of all charges. Are you sure you want to stick with this?

Man is responsible for his own actions. Manson nor Hitler can be responsible for the actions of other people. Everyone has a choice.

How can you hate the Illuminati, then? How could you ever blame them for whatever crazy conspiracy if they're just getting people to "follow orders"?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 9:07:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 9:02:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Man is responsible for his own actions. Manson nor Hitler can be responsible for the actions of other people. Everyone has a choice.

And it was the choice of Manson and Hitler to order these deaths. Their followers, either coerced, brainwashed, or even voluntarily, are certainly guilty actors, all in their own way - but the person who orders and directs the event, that conspires and plans out these actions, is just as guilty as them. They played their part in the event, with full knowledge of and full intent in the consequences. That makes them guilty of the action themselves - they planned it. Without them, the action most likely would have never happened. They are an actor and they are guilty.

If I forced a gun to your head, or your family, and said that unless you committed this act, would you say I was innocent of the actions you committed? Even though I forced you, against your will, to commit the actions? Do I get off scot free?