There would be too much to talk about in your post (f.e. at some points you missunderstood me), but this isn't the topic.
But I'd like to ask: More educated than who?

I totally agree to your last sentence.
Beside: It is kind of funny to be called an "ethnic german". I guess if I would see "Ich bin in Österreich geboren und ein angehöriger der deutschen Ethnie/des deutschen Volkes" would sound like I was right from the political centre... Don't take this to serious, it sounds unusual to me

This post was last modified: 24.03.2008 17:25 by fleischidambach.

i meant more educated than that neighbor. he's a simple guy. likes to see things black and white.

and yeah sorry that i got so carried away. i just got emotional about the topic.

Would you prefer Austria to become even less ethnically German, zec1? The centre of Vienna in the summer almost seems predominantly Middle Eastern. Even South-Eastern Europeans seem to be considerably more rare than Middle Easterners, though it would be natural for them to seek asylum in Austria. I cannot help but feel sorry for the multiculturalist Germans willing to give up everything out of guilt and fear.

its not a question of how many people there are or which nationality they belong to. the essential question is how they treat each other.

you humanophage spend a lot of time on strange messages in this forum. first you imply that albanians are asian and call for "european unity", whatever that is supposed to be. then you worry about the poor germans losing everything to a bunch of middle-eastern-looking shoppers in vienna downtown. the shoppers are the ones leaving their money here and not the other way around.

i wonder what your motivation is...

btw. vienna is a popular tourist location. also popular for diplomats, journalists, businessmen, spies... so i wouldnt bet on the shoppers necessarily being asylum seekers just cause they look middle-eastern.

This post was last modified: 29.03.2008 22:23 by zec1.

@zec1: I couldn't have said it better.
btw what was the topic of this threat?

It wasnt illegal since it was commited during a war and all the nuclear bombings were justified by the crimes of each nation, nazi germany had the holocaust, which wasnt HItlers idea by the way he just wanted to exile the jews, and japan illegally killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of american soldiers which WAS a war crime at the time, and if we bombed the soviet union there would never have been a cold war and it would have started a war which they would lose and as a result it would have freed a number of people who is the same amount or even more than the 10 million people murdered by Stalin

So who of you would agree, that war itself is the big crime? Just from the ethical point of view of course. Who of you does agree with Kurt Tucholski's: "Soldiers are Murderers!"?

I disagree strongly. The attacking warlord is the murderer, not some guys being forced to join the army with the alternative to die because of desertion. Besides, if all people were thus pacifistic, a violent minority could take over everything. Selfdefense is no crime...
In special case of Dresden, as it was in Coventry, there was no warimportant industry or military, only lots of people they intended to kill because of the very dubious thougt of forcing the enemies popopulation to surrender. There is no proof these bombings did the opposit. Thus they were war crimes, but I think rather the generals are the criminals than the bombing pilots.
Hiroshima, too was a big war crime. The argument, it ended war earlier and could save many american soldiers lives is not true, Japan was about to surrender without conditions (I think the only left point was the Tenno not to kneel and humiliate himself to the Americans) . They wanted to show their power to impress Russia. Ironically, it is possible that this intention come true and this special war crime saved us from third wourld war throuh the awareness of the dangers of atomic weapons.

It is very interesting, that there are a plenty of people who disagree with the point of view, that hiroshima or the bombing of Dresden were war crimes. I think, we should make a difference between defending against a brutal enemy and doing the same like your enemy. What makes you better, when you torture and kill millions of enemies, just because he did the same to you? Do you really think, you're better? Well, I don't want anyone to blame, just to think about. What I've written is dedicated to all, who defend the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and maybe the bombings of Dresden, too (tough the use of nuclear weapons is much worse imho).

As to say it clear: defending against and freeing nazi germany and fascist japan was a task which had to be done! It is only the way, I critizise, just for that we do not repeat our mistakes.


Greetings
BigBob

ive only read upto the third thread so i apologise if my arguments have already come up.

the bombing of dresden was in my opinion a war crime, and a severe tactical error and one of churchills many overlooked mistakes. To be honest he wasnt that great a primeminister.

The bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima were not to end the war and halt the creation of a nazi world. the nazis had already surrendered some months before. the nuclear bombing of japan were in my eyes a warning to the soviet union not to get involved as they had done in eastern europe.