Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10761
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:05 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nah..

Hitler declared war on the US.
Did he?

Oh! I get it, Jap attacked Pearl Harbour, America declared war on them, they were an ally of the Nazi so they declared war on America?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10761
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:08 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It was Churchill that allowed the massacre of the Athenians.
No great fan of his and didn't know about the Cold War starting so early nor that we were responsible for the Generals.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10761
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:16 pm

Shit? How did this become WWII politics?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:27 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nah..

Hitler declared war on the US.
Did he?

Oh! I get it, Jap attacked Pearl Harbour, America declared war on them, they were an ally of the Nazi so they declared war on America?
No I think it was due to the US supplying stuff to the UK, and US ships had attacked some Uboats. Hitler sis not know that Pearl Harbour was going down and was not under an obligation to declare war if Japan was an aggressor.

11/12/41

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10761
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:35 pm

Well, you learn something new everyday.

Dubious
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Dubious » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:59 pm

Arising...
All the quotes given are documented and a part of history...which you know nothing about. Even your responses don't make sense in context of what they're responding to. Just the usual super glib slippery bullshit of one liners the kind you specialize in most of your posts.

You're just another clone of the stupid gene one among the billions out there not worth the time of day who know fuck all but think they know a lot.

Dubious
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Dubious » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:12 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nah..

Hitler declared war on the US.
Did he?

Oh! I get it, Jap attacked Pearl Harbour, America declared war on them, they were an ally of the Nazi so they declared war on America?
No I think it was due to the US supplying stuff to the UK, and US ships had attacked some Uboats. Hitler sis not know that Pearl Harbour was going down and was not under an obligation to declare war if Japan was an aggressor.

11/12/41
In any event, Hitler knew that war with the U.S. was inevitable. The U.S. would never allow the defeat of Britain. Churchill was adamant about getting America into the war and Roosevelt would have been more than obliging if it weren't for public opinion prior to Pearl Harbor, the planned "bait" the Japs fell for. After that, both Churchill and Roosevelt got their wish to declare war on both Germany and Japan.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10761
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:31 pm

Dubious wrote:Arising...
All the quotes given are documented and a part of history...which you know nothing about. Even your responses don't make sense in context of what they're responding to. Just the usual super glib slippery bullshit of one liners the kind you specialize in most of your posts.
Show me.

That they are one-liners is in response to the one-line thought that was presented.
You're just another clone of the stupid gene one among the billions out there not worth the time of day who know fuck all but think they know a lot.
And you're another in the long line of revisionists who ignore that the French died in their droves to fight the Nazi and that the Nazi was intent upon creating the third Reich for Europe. That you appear to wish for it is your bag.

Dubious
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Dubious » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:53 am

Dubious wrote:Arising...
All the quotes given are documented and a part of history...which you know nothing about. Even your responses don't make sense in context of what they're responding to. Just the usual super glib slippery bullshit of one liners the kind you specialize in most of your posts.
Arising_uk wrote:Show me.
Show you what? The only way possible is to embed quotes or supply links of which there can be many more. In your case since they only amount to "one line thoughts" any further attempts are obviously useless no matter how many links are posted.
That they are one-liners is in response to the one-line thought that was presented.
The quotes given were paragraphs of complete thoughts which attempted to "show you" at least some aspect of the story. Happy to supply the links if you like. Your brilliant one liners are all yours as given in most of the posts you make...looks to me like you're trying to pad an already existing superiority complex with the least amount of expense.
And you're another in the long line of revisionists who ignore that the French died in their droves to fight the Nazi...
You still don't get it. That's the reason the Germans sarcastically pointed out the English will fight to the last Frenchman, England and France being allies.

Research and revision of the two World Wars is in full swing and one of its most salient revelations is that the Nazis weren't the only fuckers on the stage. Stories once told have been revised and retold. A fair question, why is there so much secret information, not to be released for decades, still being held in the British Archives ?
...and that the Nazi was intent upon creating the third Reich for Europe.
...once again, a load of croc from one of the best providers of it on the site. I'll refer you to this "one line thought" as further indication of ignorance immune to inquiry:
http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
That you appear to wish for it is your bag.
In which post or in what way have I wished for that? Show me! if you wish to prove that you aren't some disgusting distorter and liar after all.

You're more screwed up than the usual suspects you interminably try to correct. Sending you links is futile. You'll only consider those as "one line thoughts" as well regardless of whatever amount of data is linked to.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10761
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:16 pm

Dubious wrote:...
You still don't get it. That's the reason the Germans sarcastically pointed out the English will fight to the last Frenchman, England and France being allies. ...
And yet you called it capitulation?

They weren't so sarcastic later were they tho'.
Research and revision of the two World Wars is in full swing and one of its most salient revelations is that the Nazis weren't the only fuckers on the stage. ...
Who said they were? But you're off your trolley if you think Britain was looking for another war in Europe as they did everything to avoid it. Such as doing nothing when he invaded Czechoslovakia, etc. Something Churchill vehemently opposed.
Stories once told have been revised and retold. A fair question, why is there so much secret information, not to be released for decades, still being held in the British Archives ?
Because it's been this country's way for a long-time but with FOI this is changing.
...once again, a load of croc from one of the best providers of it on the site. I'll refer you to this "one line thought" as further indication of ignorance immune to inquiry:
http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
Interesting points and ones I read with interest but where did he think things were going to go when he broke the Versailles Treaty and rearmed? When he entered the Rhineland? When he annexed Czechoslovakia? When he invaded Poland?

It seems clear that he thought the other great powers toothless tigers because of their previous inactions and free to act with impunity.

Funny, as I think about this one can see parallels with Putin's actions and they way he is testing Europe's current resolve.
You're more screwed up than the usual suspects you interminably try to correct. Sending you links is futile. You'll only consider those as "one line thoughts" as well regardless of whatever amount of data is linked to.
No, I pretty much read all links I'm given.

Dubious
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Dubious » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:13 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
But you're off your trolley if you think Britain was looking for another war in Europe as they did everything to avoid it. Such as doing nothing when he invaded Czechoslovakia, etc. Something Churchill vehemently opposed.
The link speaks for itself but it seems you still have comprehension deficit disorder.

It was Britain who declared war on Germany both times and then had to beg the Americans to help them out each time, let's not forget that. They were the first to bomb German cities in WW2. Hitler held off retaliating but warned Churchill to stop with the nonsense but he wouldn't listen; Coventry and London were the consequences but Brits always like to think they were the first to be attacked.

Why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to foment a reason to start a war with Germany? That was mentioned in the link as well but it seems to have gone over your head. Hitler didn't want war with England as the article makes clear and there would have been no war between England and Germany but for Churchill. Maybe the British people didn't want war just like the Germans didn't want war but unfortunately there was Churchill on one side and Hitler on the other and that clinched it.

What was in it for the British to make war on Germany anyways. Why didn't they just keep out of it. They were never threatened!

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10761
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:11 pm

Dubious wrote:The link speaks for itself but it seems you still have comprehension deficit disorder. ...
Let me guess, you're also a holocaust revisionist.
It was Britain who declared war on Germany both times and then had to beg the Americans to help them out each time, let's not forget that. They were the first to bomb German cities in WW2. Hitler held off retaliating but warned Churchill to stop with the nonsense but he wouldn't listen; Coventry and London were the consequences but Brits always like to think they were the first to be attacked. ...
Nice slant but not quite as whilst it's true we bombed German cities first it was not area or carpet bombing of civilian centers(thought up by the Germans and didn't the Dutch and Basque regret it) and from the looks of it it was a series of cock-ups all the way as both sides appeared fairly loathe to indulge in such behaviour at first but when those Greman plans accidentally bombed London we bombed Berlin and off it went.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic ... rld_War_II

Don't get me wrong tho', I think the later carpet-bombing campaign by us and the Yanks pretty much a war-crime against civilians but then, rightly or wrongly, my grandad et al just thought 'fuck 'em! They started it' as he was a Londoner.

Although the Germans had no compunction about bombing civilians in cities and did so in Poland, France and the Netherlands, in fact it was pretty much a standard' blitzkrieg' tactic honed when practicing in Spain against towns and small cities.
Why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to foment a reason to start a war with Germany? That was mentioned in the link as well but it seems to have gone over your head. ...
It looks like Chamberlain regretted backing down about the Czechs and had to save face and presumably hoped his political career, given how British politics works.
Hitler didn't want war with England as the article makes clear and there would have been no war between England and Germany but for Churchill. ...
I doubt it, given that if the Reich had managed to spread to the Pacific I seriously doubt they'd have left the British and French at their backdoor and by then we'd have stood no chance even with America's help given the way the Nazi turned the conquered populations into forced military labour.
Maybe the British people didn't want war just like the Germans didn't want war but unfortunately there was Churchill on one side and Hitler on the other and that clinched it.
Could be, could be, but I tend to think History probably more complicated than that.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6252
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:04 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Dubious wrote:The link speaks for itself but it seems you still have comprehension deficit disorder. ...
Let me guess, you're also a holocaust revisionist.
It was Britain who declared war on Germany both times and then had to beg the Americans to help them out each time, let's not forget that. They were the first to bomb German cities in WW2. Hitler held off retaliating but warned Churchill to stop with the nonsense but he wouldn't listen; Coventry and London were the consequences but Brits always like to think they were the first to be attacked. ...
Nice slant but not quite as whilst it's true we bombed German cities first it was not area or carpet bombing of civilian centers(thought up by the Germans and didn't the Dutch and Basque regret it) and from the looks of it it was a series of cock-ups all the way as both sides appeared fairly loathe to indulge in such behaviour at first but when those Greman plans accidentally bombed London we bombed Berlin and off it went.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic ... rld_War_II

Don't get me wrong tho', I think the later carpet-bombing campaign by us and the Yanks pretty much a war-crime against civilians but then, rightly or wrongly, my grandad et al just thought 'fuck 'em! They started it' as he was a Londoner.

Although the Germans had no compunction about bombing civilians in cities and did so in Poland, France and the Netherlands, in fact it was pretty much a standard' blitzkrieg' tactic honed when practicing in Spain against towns and small cities.
Why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to foment a reason to start a war with Germany? That was mentioned in the link as well but it seems to have gone over your head. ...
It looks like Chamberlain regretted backing down about the Czechs and had to save face and presumably hoped his political career, given how British politics works.
Hitler didn't want war with England as the article makes clear and there would have been no war between England and Germany but for Churchill. ...
I doubt it, given that if the Reich had managed to spread to the Pacific I seriously doubt they'd have left the British and French at their backdoor and by then we'd have stood no chance even with America's help given the way the Nazi turned the conquered populations into forced military labour.
Maybe the British people didn't want war just like the Germans didn't want war but unfortunately there was Churchill on one side and Hitler on the other and that clinched it.
Could be, could be, but I tend to think History probably more complicated than that.
My, you really do have a simplistic, media-and-propaganda-driven view of history and politics (and you are so condescending about it). If something is true then it's just that: 'true'. It can't be agenda-driven. Holocaust 'revisionists' are liars who know they are lying but the lie suits their sick agenda. They are scum. That doesn't mean that every single thing that Hitler did was automatically evil, or that he necessarily wanted to conquer the planet. It doesn't make the criminal destruction of Dresden OK, nor the mass rapes that went on after Germany lost. It also doesn't automatically make the 'liberators' into heroes. Fuck, even after being released from the concentration camps many of the released women were raped and ended up having to hide from their 'liberators'. They then went 'home' to find their homes confiscated, with strangers living in them. No one helped them. The simpletons who make up the general public were satisfied with photos of the 'heroic liberators' freeing concentration camp victims. What happened to them after that they didn't want to know. Then there are the millions who were 'rescued' from Hitler, only to be thrown under the bus to Stalin. Hitler or Stalin. What a great 'choice'.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10761
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:09 am

Where did I say anything against any of this?

Where do I say that there are heroes in war?

Where do I say anywhere that war is not hell and that women and children don't generally get the worst of it? The rape of the German women was a heinous war-crime.

But forced to choose between the Axis and the Allies I'd choose the Allies and forced to choose between the Americans and the Soviets I'd choose the Americans.

Feel free to make your own decision.

Dubious
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Nobel Prize in Literature for Bob Dylan. What?

Post by Dubious » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:54 am

Arising_uk wrote:Let me guess, you're also a holocaust revisionist.
Decidedly not. The holocaust, as pertaining to Jews only, constitute approximately half of the total killed. It amounted to more like 13 or 14 million the rest being mostly Slavs from Eastern Europe and Russia. We all know Nazis weren't nice and not loath to go beyond whatever they decided to do. When desperate, they were just as dangerous to other Germans especially during the final months of the war...a monumental horror story in itself.

It confirms again as so often in you’re posts the tendency to jump to conclusions most favorable to your own. You do have a talent for sneaky sub rosa innuendos.
Dubious wrote:It was Britain who declared war on Germany both times and then had to beg the Americans to help them out each time, let's not forget that. They were the first to bomb German cities in WW2. Hitler held off retaliating but warned Churchill to stop with the nonsense but he wouldn't listen; Coventry and London were the consequences but Brits always like to think they were the first to be attacked.
Arising_uk wrote:Nice slant but not quite as whilst it's true we bombed German cities first it was not area or carpet bombing of civilian centers(thought up by the Germans and didn't the Dutch and Basque regret it) and from the looks of it it was a series of cock-ups all the way as both sides appeared fairly loathe to indulge in such behaviour at first but when those Greman plans accidentally bombed London we bombed Berlin and off it went.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic ... rld_War_II
Interesting article. Here’s a UK link pertaining to one of your own higher ups there with Churchill. It just about says it all. Direct statements; no mincing of words:

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/who-star ... ld-war-ii/
Dubious wrote:Why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to foment a reason to start a war with Germany?
Arising_uk wrote:It looks like Chamberlain regretted backing down about the Czechs and had to save face and presumably hoped his political career, given how British politics works.
That doesn’t answer the question - being rhetorical, the reason already inherent - of why did Britain give Poland an unsolicited security guarantee if not to intentionally invoke a war with Germany!
Dubious wrote:Hitler didn't want war with England as the article makes clear and there would have been no war between England and Germany but for Churchill. ...
Arising_uk wrote:I doubt it, given that if the Reich had managed to spread to the Pacific I seriously doubt they'd have left the British and French at their backdoor and by then we'd have stood no chance even with America's help given the way the Nazi turned the conquered populations into forced military labour.
This doesn’t add up. What you’re implying is the reason for war with Germany was based on a speculation. Also don’t know what you mean by “forced military labour” unless it refers to those make to work in munition factories. Anyways, based on what’s known this argument is a cop out. The real reason has more to do with a British Empire hangover in retaining the status quo which obviously backfired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4edDlIGAd2g

Dubious wrote:Maybe the British people didn't want war just like the Germans didn't want war but unfortunately there was Churchill on one side and Hitler on the other and that clinched it.
Arising_uk wrote:Could be, could be, but I tend to think History probably more complicated than that.
For sure! History is indeed more complicated than that. I recall having made that remark before in response to some of yours.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest