Pensacola terrorists shooting

Huh?

 

Nice try but what is the Nazi religious view? Anti-christian is defiantly a good descriptor and that makes them religious prisoners. Surely you got more than just a semantic argument.

 

The Nazi's were all over the place religiously, but it had more to do with Hitler and some of the other leadership's fascination with the occult and a search for power. They were anti-catholic because the church was a threat to their control.

All this can be is a semantic argument. Like so many things in here, it's a tangent that adds nothing to the discussion. I don't really know if the nazis considered catholics political opponents, religious opponents, or if they were just sick of all the chanting and incense. In the end it doesn't matter. They labeled them enemies, put down some of the dissidents, and the rest hid in the shadows until the war was over.

 

Just to be clear, this is admitting you're wrong that the pope did not speak out, they went into hiding due to being imprisoned in the camps, and you don't have a clue of the Nazi religion that you raised as a talking point?

 

While all Christians are not Catholic, all Catholics are indeed Christian, even if only in name. They have a rather extensive pedigree in that regard.

 

That was for Nigel.

 

Maybe a little, but not in the sense we were referring to. I'd call it a minor setback We were talking about the Holocaust earlier. That did not start until several years after the pope's dissension.


What are you talking about regarding "nazi religion"? They didn't have one. There was no "nazi church" where they worshiped a god. Hitler was the figurehead and try as he might, he was mortal. Saying it's a religion is stretch. I'd go with "nationalist movement that supplanted the role of religion", but not religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism

 

You would have made an excellent East German Judge.

 

@ryoung57: Are you the one with the pony tails?

 

No, I can get you her number though. But tread lightly, she's East German, so she's hairy AF and will probably try to poop on your chest.

 

Dachau was opened in 1932, pope sent the encyclical in 1937, want to try again?

Nazi religion is your talking point so what is/was your point?

 

"Opened" and "committing genocide" are not the same thing.

The first official concentration camp opened at Dachau (near Munich) in March 1933, and many of the first prisoners sent there were Communists.

Like the network of concentration camps that followed, becoming the killing grounds of the Holocaust, Dachau was under the control of Heinrich Himmler, head of the elite Nazi guard, the Schutzstaffel (SS), and later chief of the German police. By July 1933, German concentration camps (Konzentrationslager in German, or KZ) held some 27,000 people in “protective custody.”

Meanwhile, beginning in the fall of 1939, Nazi officials selected around 70,000 Germans institutionalized for mental illness or disabilities to be gassed to death in the so-called Euthanasia Program. After prominent German religious leaders protested, Hitler put an end to the program in August 1941, though killings of the disabled continued in secrecy, and by 1945 some 275,000 people deemed handicapped from all over Europe had been killed. In hindsight, it seems clear that the Euthanasia Program functioned as a pilot for the Holocaust.

Towards the “Final Solution,” 1940-1941
Throughout the spring and summer of 1940, the German army expanded Hitler’s empire in Europe, conquering Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France. Beginning in 1941, Jews from all over the continent, as well as hundreds of thousands of European Gypsies, were transported to the Polish ghettoes. The German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 marked a new level of brutality in warfare. Mobile killing units called Einsatzgruppenwould murder more than 500,000 Soviet Jews and others (usually by shooting) over the course of the German occupation.

A memorandum dated July 31, 1941, from Hitler’s top commander Hermann Goering to Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the SD (the security service of the SS), referred to the need for an Endlösung (final solution) to “the Jewish question.” Beginning in September 1941, every person designated as a Jew in German-held territory was marked with a yellow star, making them open targets. Tens of thousands were soon being deported to the Polish ghettoes and German-occupied cities in the USSR.

Since June 1941, experiments with mass killing methods had been ongoing at the concentration camp of Auschwitz, near Krakow. That August, 500 officials gassed 500 Soviet POWs to death with the pesticide Zyklon-B. The SS soon placed a huge order for the gas with a German pest-control firm, an ominous indicator of the comingHolocaust.



Then it only ramped up from there but we all know that story.


But back on topic, why are we discussing this part again? We're so far from the original topic that I'm losing interest. If you're looking for a win, I'm not sure I can give you one because my only claim was a subjective/hindsight one that the Vatican could/should have done more to resist the Nazis. Acree and I already worked out that this was a dead end hours ago.


I don't think you took my reference to religion and nazi the way I meant it. I don't have an argument because it wasn't a talking point, just a near meaningless adjective.

 

It was pretty much what I expected. Mr. Young seems to have some genuine issues. It can be difficult to admit such a thing to yourself. Out of simple concern for a fellow human being, I am sincerely asking everyone who regularly partakes in these debates to disengage with him. I am quite serious. Ryoung, ascribe my motivation as you will, but at least consider what I'm saying.

 

Sure

The only issue I have is that this place is an epic waste of time. It's turned into something more akin to 4chan or reddit where people just go off the fucking rails. Maybe I get a little heated but it's mostly due to frustration from the constant history/reputation shit. We can't have a discussion about anything without 10 references to past threads or even completely unrelated issues. People are more concerned about the WHO than the WHAT and it's nonsense.

Most people are able to keep it straight (we rarely have this problem in General) but there are a handful that just can't keep their personal bias's to themselves. It's like arguing with a woman - you'll be discussing a recent issue then out of the blue she'll bring up some slight from five years ago!

 

Agreed

 

At this point, I have to ask and I hope you will give a straight answer and not try to BS your way out of it: a bunch of people have made the same assessment as you have no longer bother trying to get involved in discussions here and simply quit posting. Why can't you?

 

Low self esteem combined with high confidence manifest itself in a never ending circle of self validation.
He can’t quit. He requires it. It’s the only place in his life where he has no direct accountability allowing him to further full fill his delusions of grandeur. It’s not him, it’s everyone else.

 

Straight, honest answer. I come and go depending on how busy my personal life is. I didn't post much in here for several weeks, then got sucked in because I was bored. I don't even have a strong personal opinion on the highway shooting in Florida OR the terrorist attacks. Sometimes the back and forth is intellectually stimulating, sometimes it's garbage. I also like to argue, and until people got so butthurt that they started posting personal info, this was a safe place to do that without any real consequence.

I also (not that it matters a bit in the grand scheme of things) don't want to be one of those guys that ran away like Dung, Brad, Sheik, etc, and randomly gets made fun of with no way of defending themselves. I've never quit anything in my life and the idea of backing down to these guys doesn't sit well.

 

Brad didnt run. He was permabanned