Poll: Scariest thing in existence

@variance:

@axis_roll:

We shall drive a bullet into the forehead
Of the rotten fascist filth,
We shall build a solid coffin
For the scum of humanity!

This is why they won the war.  Best leave them Russians alone.

Another text along these lines is the oath shown from 11:20 to 12:20 in this video of Frank Capra’s Why We Fight: The Battle of Russia - Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKgciQ0FRNY.  I’m not sure if that particular bit of footage (which looks rather staged) originated in either Russia or Hollywood, but my understanding is that The Battle of Russia was presented in Russia during the war and was very favourably received.

il lost about 10,000$ of stuff i got free!

And cool as it sounds, there’s no way a true black hole could be created at the RHIC, as this article explains: http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/black_holes.htm

“Know your enemy”….I can think of no better reason.

Rob.

@Zooey72:

What happened that made Germany so strategic, the cold war. And you know that. It was also in our best intrest to have Germany rebuild its military to help with the Warsaw pact/Nato arms race

You think that was the reason why the US entered the war? AFAIK only Churchill was “wise” enough to look into the future and see this upcoming conflict. The US gov’t did not, thus it can not be the reason for invasion. (Remember that is what we are talking about)

You also know that democracy failed in Germany because of the stab in the back mentality of the German people.

I know, but you know that your point of the last post was "If the US had wanted democracy after WWI, you would have ‘gone in’ ". My answer was: there was no need for you to go in. I don’t argue what you wrote in this post, but this here does not really relate to your earier post.

3rd point. Have we destroyed Iraq the way we did Germany? Think before you knee jerk reaction of “yes” …

Think and remember this should not be a flame war, before you warn me of a knee jerk reaction, especially when you are not long enough a member here on the board to know that i often enough disapproved of this comparison. Germany was bleeded out by the war, Iraq was not. The German population suffered from a year long war, Iraq did not (they suffered from a year long trade-ban, but that is not the same than having bombs fall on your regularly).

Mien kamph… if you are going to study Nazi Germany you should read the autobiography of the man who ran it all. Some of the refrences I used was to show what a dumb a** Stalin was for thinking he could trust Hitler when the book clearly states that he was going to attack.

Like the “dumb” jews who stayed?
Anyway … the book was written in prison, before 1933. If you want to study the regime, then yes, it is interesting to compare what happened to what was proposed in the book. But, it is more important to study what really happened.

Okay I haven’t check this thread in awhile. But is there concern that other nations would form a coalition against us because we drop “under god”?? Am I reading this right?? So we invade another nation and we are okay. But if we drop a couple of words and we are in trouble?? Are you kidding me?!?!?

@dabaron:

The term “Palestine” was invented by the Romans as a means to dishonor the Jews, because they hated them. They wanted to file the Jews and the Arabs together in a land called “Palestine” instead of Israel. So really, the “Palestinians” are just Jordanian Arabs that have lived in the region since the great dispersion and, in my opinion, have no rightful claim to the land whatsoever. Now let’s get back to the topic, unusual stuff.

You’re quite right, dabaron. “Palestine” was what Emperor Hadrian named Judea (omdern day Israel) after the second revlot against Rome in 135 CE. It came from the extinct nation of the Philistines. Hadrian hoepd that by naming Judea and all its cities after extinct nations, he could eventually make the Jews extinct. He failed.

@cystic:

i wish i could pull the names of the Roman historians who did mention Jesus out - i believe that there were 2 of them that were brought up in a different thread.
Also Luke and Mark were not writing to be popular historians, but rather reciting things that they had heard and seen in letters to people.
As far as Jesus having an important ministry, do you consider that Roman historians would consider a guy who was executed in Israel one day after preaching about stuff to be a historically significant occassion? Would a 1890’s Britain historian include a refernce to a regional news story in Manitoba about a religious figure? I’m curious if a British historian would even have mentioned Louis Riel, nevermind someone of a different faith than everyone else.

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? They clearly mention a form of Christianity in their days, over 100 years before Jesus. How do you explain that? And how do you explain the fact that in the dead sea scrolls it says a “young gilr” and not a “virgin” in the Isaiah quotes relied on by the church to claim that Mary was a virgin?