Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So how have Marx and Freud influenced you? I agree they have been influential to society in general, but how do they relate to you personally?
Personally? Hmm, their work has influenced my attitudes profoundly, Marx the least, more Einstein with his theory of relativity, atheism, anti-militarism and as a humanist. Freud as the founding father of psychology and psychotherapy, which led me from a keen interest to taking up courses to study, though I have not taken a career in this field.
I am not very literal, either, but to my understanding, Marx took the principle of “dialectic”, taught by Hegel – thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis, as a foundation for his “dialectic materialism”. While Hegel's dialectic was based in the metaphysical, Marx postulated that historic societal change/events are brought about by man and their conscious actions, culminating in devising his political agenda with Lenin.Accoding to Marx, communism would be the final stage of development, where all, specially economic, differences are dissolved.Let's not forget that Marx was foremost a philosopher and theorist, and would probably turn in his grave had be seen what had become of the Russian revolution later on.
I am still not sure what you are referring to, I don't know of any Arab Jihad against Jews during the 3rd Reich or the aftermath.The Gand Mufti of Jerusalem requested Hitler to deal with the 'problem" of jews in Palestine, and the Arab world has regarded Israel as an enemy since its founding, some elements intend on its destruction.There was a jihad declaration against Jews by Bin Laden in 1998.
“Terrorist” has become one of these overused buzzwords, just as “Jihad”, for example, and the meaning has become blurred.I agree with what was siad already, there needs to be a political goal for the use of the term "terrorism", otherwise it's crime.And, btw, terrorist violence isn't always random, but it needs to be directed at civilian targets to classify as terrorism." - is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."Curiously, by this definirion, the Boston tea party was an act of terrorism. 😀
A great leader, yes.But also a late British colonial supremacist, fond of using mustard gas during air raids on the Iraqi tribes - Saddam wasn't the first to gas the marsh Muslims:
Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html
I thought I read a post here about this, but I guess not.http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/How big was this during that time? Was Hitler a willing partner and enabler of their jihad?
What Jihad was there at that time?
Could you provide a valid link for this please? This is the first I've ever heard of it.
Sorry, don't have one at hand, it's some time ago. wasn't it in connection with the speech about David and Goliath? I don't think it's that important, but will look for a reference if you insist.
Aggressive tactics were taken by both Allied and Soviet forces in the aftermath of Germany's fall. For example, I found this:
Thanks for the link, yeah, French and Russian, I am not surprised.
I hope I dont cause an uproar here, but all nazi's were not war criminals. It's a good bet that a good portion were not aware of the horrible things Hitler and the higher ups were doing. It is possible someone from that era coul very well change and feel remorse, especially if they were not aware of the tragedy perpatrted by the nazi elite and found out later on.
Absolutely!Hitler was elected by 1/3 of the voters, later more than 90% of Germans joined the NSDAP, not out of conviction, but because there were disadvantages and discrimination if you weren't, my granfather lost his (medium management) job and income at the local admin because he refused to join the party. But then, a concentration camp guard not being aware of what was going on?The redeeming feature is the marriage with a jew, this guard was no hard-core Nazi!
I don't usually like Westerns much, but Sergio Corbucci's The Great Silence with Klaus Kinski is cult!http://www.moviemail-online.co.uk/sleeve/larger/18917.JPGAnd of course The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a classic.
Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket.Apparently this one comes quite close to how some soldiers experienced the war.Apocalypse Now is awesome, but is isn't really about Vietnam.
No, Nazism did not die with Hitler, but when the Allies occupied Germany they were able to counter any resurgence. From what I understand, this was done with brute force; in other words, swift and extensive punishment for even relatively small infractions.
Who was punished and how? Any links to events?
My question: can the lessons learned from post-WWII be applied to today's Iraq situation? Are the two episodes similar enough, or do differences quash any attempted implementation of plans based on wisdom and knowledge of past experience?
There are several important differences: -The allies, specially the US, were welcomed as liberators - support for the Nazis was not as widespread as that of the Japanese population for their regime, for example. Germany was ravaged by war and most were looking forward to the end of the war.There was no war in Iraq before the invasion, and while the invaders may have been seen as liberators by some, for the overwhelming majority of the population the situation has gotten worse, not better.-Germany was similar in culture religion etc. to the allied forces, i.e. Western and predominantly Christian.Western or US culture are alien to Iraq, and US troops chanting Christian songs at the gates of Falluja, which hosts Islam shrines, certainly didn't help bridge the gap. The Iraq scenario is seen as a religious conflict by many, not only in Iraq itself, but in surrounding countries and by a number of Americans, too.-Germany had been a democracy before, with a history of 'liberal' philosophy, Iraq hasn't.-the Iraq invasion was and is primarily US driven, and is perceived as such. It adds to the sentiment that the US is expanding its influence in the region by military means. Which is supported by websites such as the PNAC - an invasion of Iraq was conceived long before 9/11 or any alleged WMDs.So, no, a comparison of the 2 doesn't hold.
