Germany's Awesome Power.

Originally posted by Uk_United
Are you aware that Islamic communities in London are lobbying for the right to have an all Islamic community and law to govern Islamic areas in london?

- Like I said there is no such thing as a single homogeneous "Islamic community".
Just because parts of that community are lobbying for this is about as significant as the evangelical zealots who'd like to do similar but under the rules of their religion.

How do you explain this as not a problem?

- Because small vocal zealot minorities aren't anything more than small zealot minorities.
We should not over react and blow this totally out of proportion.

Are you aware that the government doesn't 'dump' all these people of ethnic origin in groups? They choose where they stay and usually they flock to be together.

- .......you mean just like if you moved to a foreign country you'd probably look up the ex-pat group relevant to you (as happens with almost every national grouping the world over), hmmmmm?
Big deal.

Are you aware that the Islamic communities in Europe have expressed a will to be independant?

- No.
I am aware that elements with that community have.
Why are you pretending that is representitive of all?

Are you aware that the situation of Islamic immigration to the netherlands has become so bad that just under 50 percent of the population is now Islamic?

- You are saying almost half of the entire population of the Netherlands is Muslim?

I'm sorry I don't believe this.

If France has the highest Muslim/Islamic population in Europe at 10% how can the Netherlands be almost 50%?!

Did you know that due to this all dutch restaurants and clothing stores are now going out of business?

- Oh Jayzuss, what is this now, trot out the standard old blame the immigrants for any economic change?

If you haven't heard this either on the news or in the statistics then you should read up about it because I would regard these facts as a PROBLEM!

- I would check my facts first if I were you.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Mark Gabriel converted Muslim Imam Holder of a Phd. in Islamic studies from Al Ahazar University in Cairo, Egypt where many of the more radical clerics and Islamic students have been trained or taught.
His book "Islam and terror" Definition of the "Sword" or the Sword of Islam. "May the Sword of Islam rest upon the neck of the Infidel."

- and so what?
So there are intollerant vicious versions of Islam out there. That's hardly news, is it?

......and such intollerance is hardly confined to Islam when it comes to religion.

IMO it gets expressed much more obviously because of it's location, if fundamentalist Christianity were a majority religion in those 'trouble spots' I believe we'd still see similar but under that religious 'brand'.......as has happened in places in Africa, for instance.

for the record ..this is not the same as Northern Ireland.
By the way ..on Northern Ireland..I know what I am looking at when I see Orangemen marching through town with their tophats white gloves and heavy chained medallions hanging off thier tuxedos. Its not protestantism they are celebrating. Same with Sean Finn and others going back to the Peep O'day boys back as far as the late 1600s. These things are not what they seem to the public.

- Actually the Orangemen do specifically and explicitly think they are celebrating their 'Protestant culture'.

They also have some ding-bats on the fringe with an ideology where they imagine they are a lost Israeli tribe to accompany their fundamentalist evangelical version of Christianity.

The problem in Algeria does not have to do with the french today.

- Oh come on.
It has everything to do with the French Empire and Frances attempts in the 1950's to cling on to Algeria despite an unstoppable movement for Algerian independance.

That sparked terrorism there just as the British experienced terrorism in some of the last parts of it's Empire as the curtain came down.

When the muslims got voted in in elections ..they began to instill muslim practices ..true muslim practices for which the Algerians did not take well. With the next election the Muslims were voted out and they decided they were not going and had a entitlement to their will on Algeria. Hence open warfare and the violence in the streets. The more radical muslim factions decided they were going to force their way in spite of election results.

- Show me the country that emerged from colonialism without some sort of civil war.
Those who supported the old status quo invariably end up in conflict with the new regime and instability can drag on for decades, as it has done there.

This is the very nature of this danger among those who take the more radical face of what is true Islam. As Mark Gabriel points out ...real true Islam is Jihad against the infidels. Anyone not converting to Islam will pay a heavy tax or be killed.

- I doubt any single person can define any of the world's major religions.

I note you have completely ignored the part played by the Algerian junta where they infiltrated the Islamist groups and agitated for ever more extreme terrorism (using the groups own ideological/religious extremism back on them as the justification) in an utterly cynical attempt to drive the rebel groups away from public sympathy.

Not what one hears on the evening news or in our educational institutions about a religion of Peace.
It has gone so far in some communities to where as the muslim populations increase they have taken a stand against Christian symbolism in graveyards as offensive in this country. Very downplayed by the media.

- I don't know about you but the internal politics of most countries (particularly those least well off nations) aren't exactly the front page in my country.

Given the scale of the hurt and anger some feel toward the Christian/Imperialist peoples thanks to their 'war' I can't say cemetary attacks are so surprising, even if they are disappointing......and they (once again) hardly refelct the feeling of all Muslims.

Whenever I try to debate with one of these muslims ..all I have to do is ask for clarification of what the Sword of Islam means. The conversation switchs to a religion of Peace and then breaks down quickly.

- I imagine it is probably the Muslim counterpart to the fundamentalist Christian nonsense where umteen parts of the Bible call for the total extermination and slaughter of those who refuse to accept their idea of what they claim to be "God's truth".

But like I said, extremists are simply that, the extreme and not representitive of the whole.

Originally posted by CaptAvatar

Wow, you ought to actually read a few history books before posting such stupid, uninformed drivel. In 1942 the war was half over all right, Russia and England were about to go under. If the winter hadn't been so bad, the Germans would have rolled right over the ill-equipped Russian army. If the U.S. had not entered at that point, it would have been over with most of Europe and Africa under German domination. Luckily, the second half didn't go as Hitler planned.

No I just don't read the same propaganda you read.

Any one who has studied WW-II knows that the turning point was the failure of the Germans to knock out the Russians with the first blow. Moscow 1941 represents the high water mark of the german offensives. After that its all down hill mostly cause the germans are locked into a war of attrition in the east they can't exstract themselves from , due to neglected war economy. War in the west already reached its high water mark in France and the war at sea was stalling due to the commonwealth established naval superiority.

As success full as the Uboat campaign was , combinded allied merchant shipping was accellerating not slowing down. Only thing that remained to be delt with was the UBoat threat which came with cracking the enigma code and the combination of 10cm Radars on ships and planes plus ship mounted Sonars on as just about every ship to hammer the UBoat fleet...which happened by mid 1943.

AS I already said, as long as the USA was able to bank role this combined allied effort, the Nazies were stalled and could never win . AS the soviets got back on their feet and learned how to better use the instriment they had crafted, the Nazies defeat was inevitable and only a matter of time.Mind you that soviet effort cost them millions upon millions of lives.

Had the USA been needed to win the war in Europe they would have done what Stalin demanded in mid war...a second front! But the Americans knew that Stalin was doing just fine

USA most significant contribution in ETO was strategic bombing to put the final nail in the Nazie economic war machine [just when it reached its stride]....that and saving western Europe from communism.

Oh and BTW incase you have not read YOUR history books too closely Britain and France declared war on Germany thus starting WW-II...and London recieved no weres near the levels of destruction visited on Berlin and Hamburg and Dresden etc.


Edit: had to remove earlier quote due to excessive length...even though others still seem to have excessive quotes too.....

[edit on 3-7-2005 by psteel]

quote: When the muslims got voted in in elections ..they began to instill muslim practices ..true muslim practices for which the Algerians did not take well. With the next election the Muslims were voted out and they decided they were not going and had a entitlement to their will on Algeria. Hence open warfare and the violence in the streets. The more radical muslim factions decided they were going to force their way in spite of election results.

- Show me the country that emerged from colonialism without some sort of civil war.
Those who supported the old status quo invariably end up in conflict with the new regime and instability can drag on for decades, as it has done there.

Now I will try this again...show me where what happened in Algeria recently with the radical influence has to do with the French Colonialists leaving this colony?? Blame the problems on the Colonialists who have been long gone.
The point in my post was that though the French are not there as in colonial days..the Algerians decided they dont want strict islamic sectarian government there and the more radical elements decided they want it and will force it by arms and violence ...which is exactly what Mark Gabriel states and how they do it in three phases. Mark Gabriel particulary states that when they get enough influence and a large enough population the religious clerics move in and start introducing the more radical elements and practices.
Also..since you dont get much news of what is happening in the rest of the world.....everywhere Islam has come into contact with other cultures it has turned radically violent. Sudan today. Kashmir, Asia. Russia, et al. This is just happenstance..the roll of the dice you understand.
One more thing Sminkeypinkey...I am not sure other religions do this..or not..do you know of any other religion, once it becomes dominant ,where you pay a heavy tax if you are not of the dominantl religion or be killed?? And then call yourself a religion of peace!!

OH..while I am at it...Northern Ireland. When I see Orangemen marching down the street to the Catholic areas...in all their regalia , Tophats , tuxedos, white gloves,medallions hanging around their necks...I realize I am looking at a lodge function. The Orangemen are a Masonic Lodge...they just happen to be protestant. Sein Finn just happens to be the Catholic lodge version. Two lodges fighting and involving lots of peoples around them. I dont think most even have a clue. Nothing holy about this conflict going back to the days when Cromwell cleaned their clocks. I am also aware of what happened when the Catholics operating under a orders from priests..dragged the protestants out of their homes and slaughtered man of them in a blood bath about 1640/41. The catholic lodges against the Protestant lodges. Wow!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by Wodan

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by CaptAvatar
Absolutely, lots of great accomplishments!
1) Started world war I, resulting in the deaths of 15 Million!

Austria-Hungary started the first World War. The later Versailles treaty claim that Germany is solely to be held responsible is regarded wrong nowadays.

"start" doesnt mean "is guilty for", or "caused"....

Germany far from started WWI. They were a new nation then and were seen as a threat by the powers of Europe due to their increasing Industrial and Economic dominance. Trying to their expand there territory inside and outside Europe was met with serere stubborness by other countries throughout the World.

Russia was one country that needed WWI to start because its citizens were demanding democracy after losinga war against Japan and its government wanted national attention drawn elsewhere.

There are far more other reason why Germany did not start WWI which I can go into if you like.

Originally posted by CaptAvatar

Originally posted by Uk_United
tell me about it. No country in history has gone through what they have. It's amazing what those Germans have done!!

Absolutely, lots of great accomplishments!
1) Started world war I, resulting in the deaths of 15 Million!
2) Introduced chemical warfare to the world!
2) Started world war II, resulting in the death of upwards of 41 Million people!
3) First to systematically eradicate Jews since the Romans!
4) Destroyed London!

You are right! It really is amazing what those Germans have done!!

1) Germany never started WWI
2) The Allies introduced the A-Bomb, weapons progression its called.
3) Yep
4)Nope, only parts. Look what Bomber Harris did.

Bomber Harris..I havent seen that name in years. Thanks for reminding me.

Yes as I recall it was Bomber Harris who took the war to the German civilian population causing the Germans to react in kind and bombing English cities. In the history books a accident as I recall.
Though not admitted by anyone nor would I ever expect it to be so, it is my opinion that this was a calculated move to take the pressure off British Airdromes and other military sites.

Thanks for reminding me of that historic name,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Bomber Harris..I havent seen that name in years. Thanks for reminding me.

Yes as I recall it was Bomber Harris who took the war to the German civilian population causing the Germans to react in kind and bombing English cities. In the history books a accident as I recall.
Though not admitted by anyone nor would I ever expect it to be so, it is my opinion that this was a calculated move to take the pressure off British Airdromes and other military sites.

Thanks for reminding me of that historic name,
Orangetom

I think Bomber Harris, had he thought a little harder, could have invented the A-Bomb. He had the right idea. Hit the enemy with a force so strong that they would surrender. He threw, more or less, the whole RAF over Dresden and bombed the hell out of it and waited by his office phone for the surrender to be phoned in. Only Hitler took the huff and got his own back.

Another thing about bombing the cities is that you kill the male civilians which in the long term shall be called up through conscript to fight in the war.

I remember reading an article about the Western Front in WWI where there was an English soldier who during the unofficial Christmas Truce went over and shook hands with a German soldier. It turned out the German was an office worker in the same office he worked at in Kent. The German because he was still officially a German citizen though lived in England for years was called up for national service.

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Though not admitted by anyone nor would I ever expect it to be so, it is my opinion that this was a calculated move to take the pressure off British Airdromes and other military sites.

Hmmm, never thought about it that way. Sounds like an interesting theory.

Originally posted by soapydodger
I think Bomber Harris, had he thought a little harder, could have invented the A-Bomb.

Whooah, do you have ANY idea how much money he could have saved that was thrown into the Manhattan Project?

Originally posted by soapydodger
Another thing about bombing the cities is that you kill the male civilians which in the long term shall be called up through conscript to fight in the war.

Virtually all war-fit men were already in arms and uniform at that time. Boys as young as 11 were used as flak helpers. You can put it how you want, although some reasons for the carpet bombings are understandable, Bomber Harris´s orders were a crime against humanity.

Originally posted by soapydodger
I think Bomber Harris, had he thought a little harder, could have invented the A-Bomb.

Whooah, do you have ANY idea how much money he could have saved that was thrown into the Manhattan Project? .

I was joking. Its was an off the cuff remark. A bit like when my dad said. "i could have invented the TV remote in the 1950's. I was always moaning about having to get out my seat to change the channel."


[edit on 3-7-2005 by soapydodger]

Ok this is getting quite ridiculous! Even I have been thrown off topic here! lol
sminkey pinkey,

bye the way France has 10% of it's pop muslim and has the largest pop but the netherlands has the highest percentage not largest number. Think about it.
Bye the way sminkey good debate on this immigration issue i'll open up a new thread regarding it for anyone who's interested.

Now back to the real topic.

Germany is an impressive nation who's ingenius inventions and hard working population have enabled it to recover from 2 world wars and nearly win against the world.

Originally posted by soapydodger
[I was joking. Its was an off the cuff remark.

I know. Thats why I didnt respond to it seriously. I should have made that one clearer...

Originally posted by Wodan
germany is now nothing special, it is even less powerful than france or uk by military

No, it's not. We are militarily more powerful than France and Great Britain.

Regarding our military, we have the best tanks in the world and good fighters.

Does anyone have any information on the current German army, any stats and figures would be appreciated.

regarding the latest comment I don't think Germnay is more powerful tham GreaT Britian or France since it hasn't got any nuclear weapons. In a fight France or Britain could just nuke germany, end of story. However you can't just nuke countries so I don't know who would win a conventional fight.

oooh that just gave me an idea! Lets have a scenario, in conventional warfare who would win if Germany decided to have war with Britain and France once again [disregard alliances please I don't want people saying, but then the USa would come in and game over Germany]

Originally posted by Uk_United
Does anyone have any information on the current German army, any stats and figures would be appreciated.

The German army (called in German "Bundeswehr") is allowed to have 350,000 soldiers, by the power of the treaty about the number of soldiers of 1992.
By the power of the treaty about conventional weaponry, the German army is alowed to have: 4166 tanks, 3446 infatry fighting vehicles, 2707 units of artillery of calliber higher than 100mm, 900 combat aircraft and 306 attack helicopters. I don't know if in Germany these treaties have already been brought to reality or not.

Originally posted by Uk_United
regarding the latest comment I don't think Germnay is more powerful tham GreaT Britian or France since it hasn't got any nuclear weapons. In a fight France or Britain could just nuke germany, end of story. However you can't just nuke countries so I don't know who would win a conventional fight.

We would. We have the best tanks in the world, good combat ships, good attack helicopters and good fighters.

Originally posted by Uk_United
oooh that just gave me an idea! Lets have a scenario, in conventional warfare who would win if Germany decided to have war with Britain and France once again [disregard alliances please I don't want people saying, but then the USa would come in and game over Germany]

First, why would we attack France? France is our ALLY.
But if we did, then... we would defeat France and Great Britain. As I already said, we have the best tanks in the world, good combat ships, good attack helicopters and good fighters.

Oh please, not that kind of thread again....

The numbers you name are the POSSIBLE totals. For example, even with the conscripts the german forces has not 350.000 soldiers. ATM they have 250.393 men and women in service. The same goes to all the other parts of the forces.

Both France and UK surpass Germany in ALL fields except the number land-based vehicles. More soldiers, more aircraft, more and larger ships, higher budget. Apart from that a considerable amount of UKs and french forces had some actual combat experience within the last 60 years. The few german KSK and paratrooper soldiers in Afghanistan are NOT a considerable amount.

Im not saying Germany could not win, but your argumentation is flawed. Apart from that this doesnt fit into the topic IMO.

[edit on 4/7/2005 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Both France and UK surpass Germany in ALL fields except the number land-based vehicles. More soldiers, more aircraft, more and larger ships, higher budget.

Great Britain doesn't. By the power of the treaty about the number of soldiers of 1992, Great Britain is allowed to have 260,000 soldiers. By the power of treaty about conventional weaponry, Great Britain is allowed to have 1015 tanks, 3176 infatry fighting vehicles, 636 artillery units, 900 combat aircraft and 384 combat helicopters.
Apart from that, a large number of soldiers does not ensure victory. If a country wants to win, these soldiers must be armed with weaponry of good quality. We Germans have the best tanks in the world, and we have as good combat aircraft as Great Britain does.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Apart from that a considerable amount of UKs and french forces had some actual combat experience within the last 60 years. The few german KSK and paratrooper soldiers in Afghanistan are NOT a considerable amount.

Our troops also participate in peacekeeping missions in the Balkans.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
this doesnt fit into the topic IMO.

It does.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by AtheiX]

AtheiX, as long as we dont have nukes, we loose, btw. it doesnt matter, we all know, given allowance to build every kind of weapon, and having the will to do so, germany would be superior, to the others, as they have a higher GDP, higher population, at least the same know how (or at least the ability to get this know how, in a period of time)


AND

we are allied, nowadays it doesnt matter!!

The German army (called in German "Bundeswehr")

the german army is called "Heer"
german airforce is called "Luftwaffe"
german navy is called "Marine"

the german armed forces as a whole (these three parts plus an part for logistics, maintance and similiar non-combat stuff) are called "Bundeswehr"

Originally posted by Wodan

The German army (called in German "Bundeswehr")

the german army is called "Heer"
german airforce is called "Luftwaffe"
german navy is called "Marine"

the german armed forces as a whole (these three parts plus an part for logistics, maintance and similiar non-combat stuff) are called "Bundeswehr"

When I was talking about the German army, I meant the WHOLE German armed forces. I know how the German land forces, air forces and the navy are called in German.