Does anyone else find this disturbing?

Taliban Requires Hindus to Wear Identifying Mark

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 22, 2001

Answers

You did mean to say "Shades of 1939 in Germany"?

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), May 22, 2001.

Why do you care? They haven't killed anyone yet, and even if they do, you could just call it a late-term abortion and be fine with it, right?

You see tarzan, since your position is that it's o.k. for a mother to kill her own child, it's kind of hard to believe you feel any real outrage at someone else's life potentially being in danger. What's the difference?

-- Seriously (This@was.a.troll.right?), May 22, 2001.

Paracelsus-

Since this is taking place in Afghanistan, I meant to say, Shade of 1939 in Afghanistan.

Seriously-

I believe this is a precursor to something more sinister for Hindus living in Afghanistan. I don't believe it's okay for a woman to kill her own child. Preventing the birth of a potential child is another story.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 22, 2001.

OK, I can see it being said either way. Taliban is spooky and does not bode well for peace in that region. If they take over Pakistan, then India may have to act.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), May 22, 2001.

My sentiments exactly. That part of the world is unstable and armed to the teeth- not a good combination.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 22, 2001.

Yes, I have no ill-will to any of these countries but I hope we do not get sucked into their problems. Do we have any client states in this region? Are we selling arms to any of them? I would guess that we tilt to India and that India is a larger trading partner.

Speaking of India, I have seen several articles detailing how internally unstable that huge country is. There are many competing groups.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), May 22, 2001.

a fetus is a child Tarzan, as you are no doubt aware. Sophistry won't change that, any more than Hitler calling jews non-people made it o.k. to kill them.

P.S. Since you brought up 1939, I invoke Godwin's law. You lose this and all other arguments past through future.

-- Cover (your@eyes.the.murder.happens.anyway), May 22, 2001.

Nice try. Unfortunately, since I made an oblique reference to the Holocaust in regards to the Taliban's marking of Hindu's, that argument would be the one to which involves Godwin's law, not abortion. Better luck next time! :-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 22, 2001.

Godwin's Law only says that the longer a thread lasts the more likely it is someone will make a comparison to Hitler or the Holocaust. You can't win or lose an argument based on Godwin's Law.

Text of Godwin's Law

-- Godwin (you're@wrong.yes), May 22, 2001.

Nice try sidestepping what the real issue was, namely you saying that those people between 0 and 9 months old aren't people in the same way that Hitler said the Jews weren't. Karma, Tarzan, your "better luck next time" will no doubt return to you in full measure based on your actions. Hopefully for you the Westerners will be right and there will be a merciful God waiting for you. If you have to REALLY pay for your actions, well, good luck!

Anon,

I was reflecting to tarzan the way he has used Godwin's law, but if you want to butt in, feel free.

-- Karma (Karma@karma.karma), May 22, 2001.

Nice try sidestepping what the real issue was, namely you saying that those people between 0 and 9 months old aren't people in the same way that Hitler said the Jews weren't.

Actually, Hitler never denied that the Jews were people. In fact, he considered them to be a seperate race in the same way that we consider asians to be a seperate race from caucasians. Remember that Hitler divided everyone up into either Aryan or non-Aryan. Moreover, the Nazi's first attempts to get rid of the Jews involved emmigration, not murder. To our eternal, national shame, the US State Department stubbornly delayed and in many cases prevented European Jews from entering the US. Finally, it's worth pointing out that among Hitler's first official acts in 1933 was to outlaw abortion and contraception. He even made abortion illegal in nations the Nazis occupied. For instance, in France in 1940, the Nazis declared abortion to be a capital crime. Like you, Hitler was anti- choice. He was also anti-homosexuality and pro-school prayer. However, I wouldn't dream of spitting on the memories of those who died in the Holocaust, Jewish or otherwise, by using their deaths to attempt to make points in a debate.

One other point: humans are not born nine months old. We count age from the time of birth, not conception.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 22, 2001.

Maybe Karma is now issuing conception certificates instead of birth certificates.

The thought that I am nine months older than I thought I was is kind of depressing. I bet when this gets out there will be a dramatic increase in mid-life crises.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 22, 2001.

Tarzan--

I recall (maybe incorrectly) that the Chinese consider a child to be 9 months old when it is born. Can anyone here confirm or disprove this? Are there any Chinese at Unc's?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

Lars--

Maybe this is what you recall. In traditional Chinese culture, everyone has the same birthday, New Year's Day.

-- (Li_Ziang_Zhou@Mahjong.sing_along), May 23, 2001.

Li Ziang Zhou is correct.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swiningthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

Jack,

"The thought that I am nine months older than I thought I was is kind of depressing. "

You're not nine months older, it's just a different frame of referrence. It's often hard to know *exactly* when we were conceived, so at birth a child might be 38 weeks old or 41 weeks. Your age a couple of weeks plus or minus isn't important, but no one who wasn't trying to be obtuse would suggest we just sprung forth de novo at birth, but were alive and growing since conception.

Tarzan,

"Actually, Hitler never (etc.)" and if you'll also remember the ONLY people Hitler ordered killed were German "defectives (mentally impaired)" early in his career. Much like Clinton, he learned from his mistake and never directly did anything, but had other's do his work for him. Or are you some Holocaust revisionist saying the Holocaust never happened because Hitler didn't order it? Again, sophistry on your part. Trying to nit-pick details to obscure the big picture: Hitler killing Jews because they weren't "people", you killing babies because to you THEY aren't "people". Nice try though.

-- Issued (one@conception.cert.for.JBThug), May 23, 2001.

Correction for clarification:

"but no one who wasn't trying to be obtuse would suggest we just sprung forth de novo at birth, rather than being alive and growing since conception. "

-- Issued (one@conception.cert.for.JBThug), May 23, 2001.

Actually, Hitler never (etc.)" and if you'll also remember the ONLY people Hitler ordered killed were German "defectives (mentally impaired)" early in his career.

Not true. Hitler started with the physically disabled and elderly "non-Aryans" a number of years before he started killing all "non-Aryans" outright.

Much like Clinton, he learned from his mistake and never directly did anything, but had other's do his work for him.

???

Or are you some Holocaust revisionist saying the Holocaust never happened because Hitler didn't order it?

Actually, there's ample evidence that Hitler was the architect of the Final Solution (his term for the Holocaust). Mein Kampf, for instance, is a good place to start.

Again, sophistry on your part. Trying to nit-pick details to obscure the big picture: Hitler killing Jews because they weren't "people", you killing babies because to you THEY aren't "people". Nice try though.

Unfortunately for you, Hitler believed the Jews were people, just the "wrong" kind of people. Given the fact that you share Hitler's view that abortion is murder and that feti are people, I would think you wouldn't be in such a big hurry to invoke him. Sort of prejudicial, know what I mean?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

tarzan,

I see you have difficulty with reading comprehension, so rest assured I'm typing this slowly for you

Actually, Hitler never (etc.)" and if you'll also remember the ONLY people Hitler ordered killed were German "defectives (mentally impaired)" early in his career.

Not true. Hitler started with the physically disabled and elderly "non-Aryans" a number of years before he started killing all "non-Aryans" outright.

What I said was hitler ORDERED german's killed, later he had non-germans killed, but did not ORDER this in the same way. Do you have trouble understanding this, or does your hatred for babies extend to Jews too?!?! Here's some links in case I'm wrong:

Link

with a quote:

"1.1 An account of Hitler's role in the genesis of the final solution is complicated by the fact that the dictator avoided the use of explicit written directives relating to the murder of the Jews. When he came to speak on this subject he used expressions which, to say the least, leave a certain amount of room for interpretation. The meaning of the key words describing the aims of Nazi anti-Jewish policy changed over the years when antisemitic policy became more and more radicalized. There is no meaning to these terms independent of the time factor. To translate these terms properly, one has to take the reality of antisemitic policy into account. When the same vocabulary was used to describe Nazi aims towards other groups, the meaning might have been be completely different. As far as the fate of the Jews is concerned, formulations such as annihilation (Vernichtung), extirpation (Ausrottung), final solution (Endlösung) removal (Entfernung), resettlement (Umsiedlung), evacuation (Evakuierung) etc. were used by Hitler and leading National Socialists from mid 1941 onwards increasingly - and from Spring 1942 definitely - as camouflage for mass murder.

1.2 Before this time, the very same vocabulary was used by Hitler and leading Nazis in a different sense. As will be described in more detail in this report, an interpretation has to take into account the different stages of anti-Jewish policy. During the 1920's and up to the mid 1930's, the main aim of Nazi anti-Jewish policy was to undermine the legal and economic situation of the German Jews so as to force them to emigrate. The Jews would disappear from the vantage point of the Nazis from German public life and later on, from German territory. When the Nazis used the term annihilation (Vernichtung) during these early years, they referred on the one hand to the planned destruction of the alleged dominant position of the Jewish minority in German society. From the context of the relevant texts, however, it is obvious, on the other hand, that this term had a vaguely defined violent and even murderous component, by which Hitler and the Nazis signified their main goal - which was the "removal of the Jews". In a cautious interpretation of this terminology, it would not be exaggerated to describe the meaning of annihilation here as ambiguous. The perspective of mass murder was already present here. In conclusion, one has to say, that during this period (the 1920's end the first half of the 1930's), the Nazis saw in the "final solution" a potentially violent "removal" of Jews from German public live and German soil.

1.3 At the end of the 1930's, the Nazis intensified the pressure for emigration or expulsion. During this period, terms like "removal" (Entfernung) or "final solution" (Endlösung) revealed an inconsistency with the notion of a further existence of a Jewish minority in Germany. The violent aspect of anti-Jewish policy became more and more significant. In the last year before the outbreak of the Second World War the term extermination pointed clearly to the possiblility of genocide.

1.4 Between the outbreak of war in Summer 1939 and the middle of 1941, the Nazis were looking for a so called "territorial solution" of the Jewish problem, i.e. they were planning to deport the Jews to a territory on the periphery of their empire where there were insufficient means to subsist and where they would perish. Technically the terms resettlement (Umsiedlung) or evacuation (Evakuierung) meant a kind of geographical relocation but one cannot disregard the fact that this vocabulary increasingly offered the perspective of the physical end of the Jews in Europe. The term "final solution" was used in this period in the same way.

1.5 Between the summer of 1941 and the spring of 1942 the meaning of this vocabulary changed. It was now increasingly used as a synonym for systematic mass murder. However, even in this period - particularly between Autumn of 1941 and Spring 1942 - this terminology can in some cases still be ambivalent. For an interpretation each phrase has to be analysed in its historical context. In particular, in a period in which one Jewish minority after another was being included in the process of systematic mass murder, one has to determine which Jewish minority was indicated by each of the relevant phrases. "

The point here Tarzan is that Hitler SIGNED the order to kill German defectives, but later tried to obscure his role in killing the Jews. Don't you get that?

Much like Clinton, he learned from his mistake and never directly did anything, but had other's do his work for him.

???

given the above, do you REALLY need this explained?

Unfortunately for you, Hitler believed the Jews were people, just the "wrong" kind of people. Given the fact that you share Hitler's view that abortion is murder and that feti are people, I would think you wouldn't be in such a big hurry to invoke him. Sort of prejudicial, know what I mean?

You turn my stomach. In the same way that Hitler condemned people to death because of who they were, you will do the same thing to the defenseless, and act as if it means nothing. So Mr. Denier, what is the big difference between a baby one day before birth and one day after? After you answer that, what is the difference between an Aryan and a Jew that makes it acceptable to kill one and support the other.

-- Tarzan (You've@hit.a.new.low), May 23, 2001.

Ah, the old semantics game. The last gambit of a cornered poster.

I am quite aware that Hitler made very few recorded direct orders. This, of course, is why I did not use the term "ordered" as you did. Just to play along, why don't you provide me with a reference to Hitler's direct order to execute German mental defectives (remembering, of course, that Hitler used the Nuremberg definition of "German" as a non-Jewish person).

While you're at it, please explain what any of this has to do with Clinton.

You turn my stomach.

Now now. Flattery will get you nowhere.

In the same way that Hitler condemned people to death because of who they were, you will do the same thing to the defenseless, and act as if it means nothing.

But wait a minute. You just posted several paragraphs saying Hitler never actually condemned anyone to death. And now you're reversing yourself? You're not very good at this, are you?

:-)

I appreciate the attempt at ESP, but I don't believe in fortune telling or psychics. I have not ever killed anyone, defenseless or otherwise, and I don't intend to ever kill anyone unles, say, someone breaks into my home at 3 in the morning. Even then, I'll try to fire a warning shot first.

So Mr. Denier, what is the big difference between a baby one day before birth and one day after?

Simple. A fetus one day before birth, is a potential human. A baby one day after birth is an actual human.

After you answer that, what is the difference between an Aryan and a Jew that makes it acceptable to kill one and support the other.

There is no difference between an Aryan and a Jew. They are both actual humans. It is not okay to kill either of them, unless of course you must do so to defend yourself.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

Maria just come out and say it is you. We all know your stance on abortion.

Tarzan why would anything disturb you? You have said you do not believe in God so then might I inquire as to what you are afraid of? If the whole world blows up, why would it bother you? No fear,remmeber?

-- (here@it.is), May 23, 2001.

Tarzan,

"But wait a minute. You just posted several paragraphs saying Hitler never actually condemned anyone to death. And now you're reversing yourself? You're not very good at this, are you? "

Care to back this statement up, or will you put more mealy-mouthed half-statements in its place? You're not very good at this tarz old boy, I can very clearly see where I said he did. How about my apology?

" Just to play along, why don't you provide me with a reference to Hitler's direct order to execute German mental defectives (remembering, of course, that Hitler used the Nuremberg definition of "German" as a non-Jewish person). "

What for, how would it change your opinion? Why should I spend the time getting the referrence for you? Do you even speak enough German to understand it? If you'd bother to follow a few of the links from the JDL or the Simon Weisenthal center, it's easy enough to find, if it would really mean something to you. However, since you don't show much capacity for assimilating information, I doubt my giving it to you would do much good.

" I have not ever killed anyone, defenseless or otherwise, "

Yes you have, in the same way a getaway driver is responsible for the murder in a robbery. That you don't accept it is not your problem, that it will come back to you is your problem. Good luck.

"So Mr. Denier, what is the big difference between a baby one day before birth and one day after?

Simple. A fetus one day before birth, is a potential human. A baby one day after birth is an actual human. "

Again, with the sophistry. Good luck tarzan, what an ignorant thing to say. I bet you also encourage pregnant women to do drugs and drink themselves unconscious, after all they aren't hurting any other PEOPLE right?

-- Back (to@the.drawing.board.no.ball), May 23, 2001.

Maria just come out and say it is you. We all know your stance on abortion.

I thought Maria was pro-choice.

In any event, this poster certainly argues like Maria. Lots of heat, little light. Tarzan why would anything disturb you?

Short answer: because I'm human.

You have said you do not believe in God so then might I inquire as to what you are afraid of?

I'm not sure what atheism has to do with fear, but I'll try to answer your question anyway. I'm afraid of heights, or more accurately I suppose, I'm afraid of falling.

If the whole world blows up, why would it bother you? No fear,remmeber?

If the world blew up, it wouldn't bother me, since I'd be gone with the world. But I would do my best to prevent the world from blowing up. I've grown rather attached to this lump of clay.

Care to back this statement up, or will you put more mealy-mouthed half-statements in its place?

Sure!

First, you said, What I said was hitler ORDERED german's killed, later he had non-germans killed, but did not ORDER this in the same way. Then, you posted a link to the index page of a site on the Lipstadt case. Interestingly, you didn't actually post a link to the text you provided. In any event, I'm not going to bother to re-post all that text. If you like, I will repost the relevant passages, but for now, I'll presume you actually read what you posted. Then, you did a complete 180 and said, In the same way that Hitler condemned people to death because of who they were... (grandstanding snipped).

You're not very good at this tarz old boy, I can very clearly see where I said he did. How about my apology?

I'll accept it as soon as you produce it. I'm waiting patiently. :-)

What for, how would it change your opinion? Why should I spend the time getting the referrence for you? Do you even speak enough German to understand it? If you'd bother to follow a few of the links from the JDL or the Simon Weisenthal center, it's easy enough to find, if it would really mean something to you. However, since you don't show much capacity for assimilating information, I doubt my giving it to you would do much good.

You can't produce it, can you? ROFL! I love amateur night!

For future reference, refusing to provide citations or evidence is NOT a good way to strengthen your argument.

"I have not ever killed anyone, defenseless or otherwise,"

Yes you have, in the same way a getaway driver is responsible for the murder in a robbery. That you don't accept it is not your problem, that it will come back to you is your problem. Good luck.

LOL! Being an accessory to murder does NOT equate to being a murderer. Assuming, of course, a murder has even occured in the first place.

Let's see... first you make an argument based on semantics, then you shoot yourself in the foot, then you miss a very basic point of law (and logic, for that matter). Hmmm. Maybe you are Maria after all! :-)

Good luck tarzan, what an ignorant thing to say.

ROFLMAO! All you can do is spew and fume. I love it!

I bet you also encourage pregnant women to do drugs and drink themselves unconscious, after all they aren't hurting any other PEOPLE right?

Not at all. In fact, I believe that every woman who wants to carry a pregnancy to term should seek out pre-natal care.

BTW- you never did explain the connection Bill Clinton had to Hitler and abortion. Could you please elaborate on this point? I'm really enjoying your posts!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

Lord Shiva gave us the Law of Karma so that what we do, good and bad, will return to us. A person can only be held responsible for what he or she has done or thought, not for the thoughts and actions of others. The get-away driver will only get his karma, not the karma of the murderer or the victim.

-- Sanjay Govindaswami (sanjay@guru.net), May 23, 2001.

Ok tarzan, you're wearing me down with your obtuseness, and at this point I'm actually hoping for your sake it's deliberate. In your earlier post you said,

"But wait a minute. You just posted several paragraphs saying Hitler never actually condemned anyone to death. And now you're reversing yourself?"

To which I asked you to show me where I said this, and you quoted,

"What I said was hitler ORDERED german's killed, later he had non-germans killed, but did not ORDER this in the same way. "

How stupid ARE you tarzan? you state that I never said hitler condemned anyone to death and to back it up post where I said hitler DID order germans killed? LOL, this has to be some kind of idiocy record, even for you! Seriously, take (or stop taking) your medication!

I'm still waiting for you to apologize, but seeing your character, doubt you will.

On the German's referrence, obviously I could produce it, or wouldn't have cited it. Please show me where I *refused* to do so. Again, for someone like you who thinks "yes" means "no", what good would it do for me to spend my time posting it?

"LOL! Being an accessory to murder does NOT equate to being a murderer"

LOL! You still end up in prison, slim, if you want to make a semantic argument rather than face this simple fact, go right ahead.

"BTW- you never did explain the connection Bill Clinton had to Hitler and abortion. Could you please elaborate on this point? I'm really enjoying your posts! "

Thank you. Actually far from being enjoyable it's really a severe form of malice on my part. You see, I believe that if someone is Ignorant of the morality of their actions, they won't be held responsible for them in a moral sense when they die, but once fully informed, they will be. What I'm trying to do is see to it you are *fully* informed of what you are doing before you meet your maker, and so will face the consequences. Pretty malicious, huh?

Clinton has no connection to hitler and abortion that I'm aware of, what Clinton had in common with hitler was the ability to not sign his own name to things, but to let others take the fall for him -- something hitler learned after signing the death order for "defectives", and paying publicly for it.

Again though, we should return to the real point:

Hitler killing Jews because they weren't "people", you killing babies because to you THEY aren't "people". Jews and Aryans are both people, just like babies one day pre and post birth are both babies. Hitler drew one line, you draw another, the result is the same, just with a different group of victims.

"A person can only be held responsible for what he or she has done or thought, not for the thoughts and actions of others. The get-away driver will only get his karma, not the karma of the murderer or the victim."

Sanjay,

If the getaway driver knows a murder is a possibility in the robbery, and he goes through with his part anyway, is he not in some way accountable for the murder? He was aware of the possible outcome, and so to drive the getaway car must have sanctioned the possibility. Similarly, if tarzan walks someone into an abortion clinic, it is not the same as walking an old lady across the street, in one case, his only intent is to help an old lady cross a street. In the other, his intent is to help at least some women murder their children. Bad Karma.

-- Try (again@tarz.before.your.next.dose), May 23, 2001.

Herr "Troll:"

Ich spreche, lese und schreibe Deutsch sehr gut.

Zeigt du dir deinen "Beweis."

JETZT.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), May 23, 2001.

How stupid ARE you tarzan? you state that I never said hitler condemned anyone to death and to back it up post where I said hitler DID order germans killed?

Actually, this was an error on my part. I should have said, "You just posted several paragraphs claiming that Hitler never condemned any JEWS to death,".

Let's try this one more time.

First you said: and if you'll also remember the ONLY people Hitler ordered killed were German "defectives (mentally impaired)" early in his career.

Then, you amended this to: What I said was hitler ORDERED german's killed, later he had non-germans killed, but did not ORDER this in the same way.

Then, you posted several paragraphs whose key points included:"An account of Hitler's role in the genesis of the final solution is complicated by the fact that the dictator avoided the use of explicit written directives relating to the murder of the Jews."

Then, you said: The point here Tarzan is that Hitler SIGNED the order to kill German defectives, but later tried to obscure his role in killing the Jews. Don't you get that?

And to make matters worse, you said: In the same way that Hitler condemned people to death because of who they were, you will do the same thing to the defenseless, and act as if it means nothing.

Your words went from "Hitler only condemned German mental defectives" to "Hitler condemned everyone to death indirectly" to "Here's someone who supports my position that Hitler never directly ordered the Jews to be condemned" to "Hitler ordered some people condemned but tried to obscure his role in the condemnation of others" and finally to "Hitler condemned the Jews to death,"

So which is it? Did Hitler condemn the Jews to death, or didn't he? Please make up your mind, take one position, and do try to stick with it. Thanks!

I'm still waiting for you to apologize, but seeing your character, doubt you will.

I apologize. I should have said, "You just posted several paragraphs saying Hitler never actually condemned the Jews to death." Next time I will try to be more accurate.

BTW- not to be boring, but I'd really like to know whether you believe Hitler directly ordered the execution of the Jews or not. :-)

On the German's referrence, obviously I could produce it, or wouldn't have cited it.

Why should I assume you can produce evidence you have not produced, especially when you become hostile and irate when asked? And for future reference, you can't be said to have cited a document which you have not yet proven to even exist.

Please show me where I *refused* to do so.

Oh, you haven't refused to produce the evidence yet. However, from the obstinate, posturing language you use in this paragraph, you seem to be working up to it:

What for, how would it change your opinion? Why should I spend the time getting the referrence for you? Do you even speak enough German to understand it? If you'd bother to follow a few of the links from the JDL or the Simon Weisenthal center, it's easy enough to find, if it would really mean something to you. However, since you don't show much capacity for assimilating information, I doubt my giving it to you would do much good.

Again, for someone like you who thinks "yes" means "no", what good would it do for me to spend my time posting it?

It would prove that this order actually exists. As of now, we really don't know, do we?

I think ADH said it best when he said:

Ich spreche, lese und schreibe Deutsch sehr gut. Zeigt du dir deinen "Beweis." JETZT.

Let me know if you need a translation.

LOL! You still end up in prison, slim, if you want to make a semantic argument rather than face this simple fact, go right ahead.

An accessory to murder may very well do jail time (assuming he or she doesn't turn states evidence) but under no circumstances does he or she go to jail for murder. The difference between shooting someone in the head and driving that shooter away from the scene of the crime is anything but semantic.

Um... you do know what semantic means, don't you? :-)

You see, I believe that if someone is Ignorant of the morality of their actions, they won't be held responsible for them in a moral sense when they die, but once fully informed, they will be. What I'm trying to do is see to it you are *fully* informed of what you are doing before you meet your maker, and so will face the consequences. Pretty malicious, huh?

Actually, it's just pretty ignorant of the religion you stole the concept of karma from, Hinduism. It's also a good way to get some bad karma for yourself. Not that that matters to me of course.

Clinton has no connection to hitler and abortion that I'm aware of, what Clinton had in common with hitler was the ability to not sign his own name to things, but to let others take the fall for him - - something hitler learned after signing the death order for "defectives", and paying publicly for it.

So the Clinton reference was a red herring. Charming.

Hitler killing Jews because they weren't "people", you killing babies because to you THEY aren't "people".

Unfortunately for you, Hitler believed the Jews were people, just the "wrong" kind of people. Given the fact that you share Hitler's view that abortion is murder and that feti are people, I would think you wouldn't be in such a big hurry to invoke him. Sort of prejudicial, know what I mean?

I have not ever killed anyone, defenseless or otherwise, and I don't intend to ever kill anyone unles, say, someone breaks into my home at 3 in the morning. Even then, I'll try to fire a warning shot first.

Oooo, repeating yourself is fun! It's ever so much easier than actually coming up with an argument! Jews and Aryans are both people, just like babies one day pre and post birth are both babies. Hitler drew one line, you draw another, the result is the same, just with a different group of victims.

Actually there are several differences between abortion and the Holocaust. Would you like to know what they are?

Similarly, if tarzan walks someone into an abortion clinic, it is not the same as walking an old lady across the street, in one case, his only intent is to help an old lady cross a street. In the other, his intent is to help at least some women murder their children. Bad Karma.

Actually, my intent is to ensure that women are able to control their bodies and exercise their reproductive choices, regardless of what those choices may be, from the angry and occasionally violent self- righteous who would deny them that choice.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

-- Tarzan the Tag Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.closedtag), May 23, 2001.

I have seen many of your posts on this topic, Tarzan, and you are always very careful to show respect for the victims of the shoah, unlike the opportunists who hope to make an argument on the bodies of six million people. It's disgusting to me how many people want to use the Holocaust to deprive women of their rights as though something as awful as Auschwitz can compare to a woman's right to choose. I know you're an atheist, but I believe G_d will bless you for treating the memories of these people with respect.

-- Rachel (rachel@none.no), May 23, 2001.

Oh and Mr. Troll, just so you know, Already Done Happened is demanding you provide evidence. He's doing it in a snotty tone, the same way you'd ask a kid. I don't think he has a very high opinion of you. If so I agree with him.

-- Rachel (rachel@none.no), May 23, 2001.

Tarzan, why do you keep pointing out that Hitler was anti-abortion? You know this doesn't make him pro-life by any stretch of the imagination don't you?

Mariatroll, I find it extremely funny that you apparently worship a god who requires your help in passing judgement on transgressors. My LORD is so powerful that He can and will pass His own judgements in His own time. My LORD wants me to concentrate on perfecting myself, not in judging my brother's shortcomings. Maybe you should re-examine whatever you have faith in.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 24, 2001.

Rachel-

Thanks. I don't share your belief, but I know a compliment when I see one.

Polly-

I am trying to make the point that Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust are more than just the black and white issues that we like to think they are. People seem to want to reduce them to their most basic qualities, but in so doing they completely obliterate the truth of the matter. Hitler's rise to power didn't come because the Germans were an essentially evil people who wanted to kill the Jews, instead Hitler had a slow ascent to power by appealing to those qualities the Germans admired so much about themselves, such as their faith in god, family, and their culture. Kinder, Kuche, Kirche as the expression goes. Hitler's rhetoric included a lot of appealing talk about the German people, family values, and patriotism. He seduced Germany with words and concepts that anyone could find appealing, but he twisted these concepts into grotesque parodies of themselves. Faith in God became anti-semitism (the Nazis made much of the fact that the Jews were said to have killed Christ). Patriotism became the urge to swallow all of Europe. Family values meant that every German woman was expected to produce as many children as possible. For reference, here's a speech by Joseph Goebbels on women's place in the Reich:

The first, best, and most suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family, in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.

My point is this: demonizing your opponent by drawing a parallel between him and Hitler is not only disrespectful to those who died in the Holocaust but it's also likely to be woefully inaccurate. Just as an anti-choice activist can say that I am like Hitler because I support a woman's right to choose, so I can say that s/he is like Hitler because Hitler was anti-choice. Hitler is not someone who can be neatly pigeon-holed into our 21st century political vocabularly.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 24, 2001.

Sorry to take the thread away from the holocaust analogy, but it appears that $43 million of our tax dollars are going to the Taliban.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 24, 2001.

already,

so you want my proof NOW do you? Well at least I believe you that you can read and write German (although I don't know about the "very well" part, it is kind of a small sample).

O.k., here you go, (in english, so it's usefull to someone other than you, from the nuremburg trials) Link

"On 1 September 1939, the very day of the German attack on Poland, and after a great deal of discussion between Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Leonardo Conti, Philipp Bouhler, the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, and others, Hitler issued the following authority to the defendant Karl Brandt:

"Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death. [Signed] ADOLF HITLER" "

P.S. Don't be such an asshole next time, and in addition to your rude tone, it's quite rude to insist someone do something for you, internet or no.

Tarzan,

If you expect people to read through your gar-bage, can you at least have the decency to post it in a legible format? I'm waiting ;-) (yes, Already, I'm pointing out the irony to you)

"My point is this: demonizing your opponent by drawing a parallel between him and Hitler is not only disrespectful to those who died in the Holocaust but it's also likely to be woefully inaccurate. "

Unless, like in your case, the shoe happens to fit perfectly, then it's just sad.

-- Birds (of@feather.you.guys), May 24, 2001.

O.k., here you go, (in english, so it's usefull to someone other than you, from the nuremburg trials)

I'm glad that you have learned the definition of a citation. Unfortunately, this citation doesn't support your assertation, which was: and if you'll also remember the ONLY people Hitler ordered killed were German "defectives (mentally impaired)" early in his career. Not only does the order itself belie your assertation, but the rest of the document cited does as well. Here are some relevant points.

"The defendant Hoven, as chief surgeon of the Buchenwald concentration camp, took part in the program and personally ordered the transfer of at least 300 to 400 Jewish inmates of different nationalities, mostly non-German, to their death in the euthanasia station at Bernburg."

"Reference should also be made to the policy which was in existence in Germany by the summer of 1940, under which all aged, insane, and incurable people, 'useless eaters', were transferred to special institutions where they were killed, and their relatives informed that they had died from natural causes."

"Euthanasia became merely a polite word for the systematic slaughter of Jews and many other categories of persons useless or unfriendly to the Nazi regime."

That this order included "mental defectives" is not in doubt. That it was confined to "mental defectives" is absolutely false. Come to think of it, that it was "early in his [Hitler's] career" is also false, since the order came through in 1939.

Thanks for the citation though! :-)

If you expect people to read through your gar-bage, can you at least have the decency to post it in a legible format? I'm waiting ;-)

Sorry, I forgot who my audience was. Unfortunately, I am limited in media to HTML, not Crayola.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 24, 2001.

Tarzan,

the link was for the rude, but literate, "already", not you. As I've never seen you accept ANYONE'S links as valid on the forum, like I said earlier why bother posting you one? Thanks for your (predictable) comment though, LOL.

" Unfortunately, I am limited in media to HTML, not Crayola. "

LOLWTIME. Your post in *all bold* LOOKED like crayon, that's why I didn't read it! Catch a clue, adolf.

-- Another (Sad@tarzan.attempt), May 24, 2001.

the link was for the rude, but literate, "already", not you.

Let me explain how this works. On a public bulletin board, any message you post is for all to read and comment on. If you wish to have a private message, you must use a private medium, such as e-mail.

Whether or not the citation was meant for me, I still owe you a big thank-you. I got a huge laugh out of watching you shoot yourself in the foot!

:-)

As I've never seen you accept ANYONE'S links as valid on the forum, like I said earlier why bother posting you one?

On the contrary, your link was very valid. It was your original assertation that was flawed. The link you provided proved this admirably.

BTW, for future reference, it's usually considered a good idea to read the entire citation before you post it, just in case it invalidates your original assertation, like it did this time.

Your post in *all bold* LOOKED like crayon, that's why I didn't read it!

Taking the cowards way out, eh? Good for you, it shows that even though you're lacking character you still have enough sense to know when you've been beaten.

Better luck next time.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 24, 2001.

Okay Tarzan, that makes sense. I don't agree with you about abortion, but using Hitler or the Nazis to make a point is just a dumb thing to do.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 24, 2001.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. It's really ironic that someone who can't even follow the rules of basic grammar on a consistant basis finds it difficult to read a post that's in bold face type.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 24, 2001.

POLL TIME,

Who here DID bother to read all of tarzan's bold post? Note: tarzan, you should only respond ONCE, this includes any aliases, alter egos, significant others, personalities, aliens, etc. that share the physical body you posted it from. I hate to tell you this old boy, but I bet *most* people skip over long posts from people that can't even figure out how to turn tags off.

Polly,

Not ironic, part of the disguise...

-- Awaiting (the@results.here), May 24, 2001.

Birdman, if you hadn't been such a cocksucking asshole when Tarzan asked to see your proof, then you wouldn't have gotten lectured by me. Besides, I didn't insist you do something for me; I ordered you to, as one would order a child or a pet. Check your German grammar. Maybe you're not as smart as you would have us think.

Also, if you're going to post a bunch of hunches and guesses about Tarzan possibly using more than one alias, then maybe your accusations would have more weight if you didn't use a DIFFERENT FUCKING NAME EVERY TIME YOU POST.

Just a thought, numbnuts.

If you doubt my German linguistic ability, then you go right ahead and try me, shit-for-brains. And don't be such an asshole next time when someone asks you for proof. It's quite rude to assume that everyone in your audience is mentally unable to keep up with you, especially when some of them might just be mentally able to run rings around you. Don't make assumptions, and you won't get lectured like you're a child.

Also, if Tarzan wants to comment on your link, that's his choice. If you don't like it, that's too fucking bad, you arrogant ignoramus.

Klar? Verstehst du?

It's so funny that you immediately changed tactics from attacking Tarzan's position to attacking his posting style once it became apparent that your oh-so-significant, nobody-on-this-thread-could- read-it "evidence" actually supported HIM, not YOU. Maybe you're functionally illiterate in English as well as in German, hmm? It's also funny that you seem to think that Polly is actually Tarzan. If you had seen Polly around more, you would realize that Polly is a knee-praying, capital-letter-"LORD"-spelling hardcore xtian, and that Tarzan's keyboard would probably burst into flames if he actually wrote "God" or "LORD."

Maaaaaaan, you're stupid.

In any event, I'm waiting for further entertainment from you. I'm always amused when a poker player overreaches his hand, trying to buy the pot.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), May 25, 2001.

Hey Already Done Happened, there is no need to use that kind of language here. Obscenities don't add a thing to your argument and are usually the sign of someone who has run out of things to say. Not that I think you could ever find yourself in that boat!

"If you had seen Polly around more, you would realize that Polly is a knee-praying, capital-letter-"LORD"-spelling hardcore xtian, and that Tarzan's keyboard would probably burst into flames if he actually wrote "God" or "LORD." "

I appreciate the compliment. If loving the LORD is wrong, I don't want to be right.

BTW- I'll be praying for you, too, Already. I hope you won't mind.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 25, 2001.

Already,

as our good friend tarzan would say,

"Ah, sweet obscenities. The last resort of a semi-illiterate. "

On a numbers level, you have won the "semi-illiterate" contest hands down. BTW, don't confuse being able to speak a second language with being intelligent, learning a language reflects training or exposure, not intelligence. If you really believe language speaking ability reflects intelligence, be prepared for someone to post something in Chinese or Swahili (sic) and ask you why you are too stupid to understand it (do you see where I'm going here)? Also, to prove you can really speak German as well as you say, translate this entire thread into German, a nd do it now, otherwise admit you are as big of a stupid blowhard as you appear.

No, I don't think Polly is tarzan, and don't know where you came up with that idea. "Maaaaaaan, you're stupid."

In a different key, as I figured, the only person reading tarzan's bold posts (or caring enough to stand up for about reading them) is/are tarzan, if even him.

-- Still (using@the.same.handle.to.please.already), May 25, 2001.

I read Tarzan's posts. I thought they were very insightful, though a little long. I especially got a lot out of the link he provided, which linked to a site about the use of propoganda by the Nazis. You should read what he has to say, you could learn a lot from him.

It's a safe bet to say that Polly and Already read his posts, too. Which means that pretty much everyone who's following this thread but you read Tarzan's posts.

-- Rachel (rachel@none.no), May 25, 2001.

Add one more name to the list of Tarzan post-readers, Maria.

Why do you care so much about Tarzan anyway? For someone who doesn't like him you sure spend a lot of time thinking about him.

-- (here@it.is), May 25, 2001.

I read the whole thread too and I can find plenty to disagree with besides Tarzan's HTML. It's only people who are out of ideas who concentrate on the little details.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

But what does this have to do with why I can't stop thinking about Tarzan's dick?

-- Maria (obse@ssed.com), May 25, 2001.

"Hey Already Done Happened, there is no need to use that kind of language here."

Kiss my ass, BITCH.

"Obscenities don't add a thing to your argument and are usually the sign of someone who has run out of things to say. Not that I think you could ever find yourself in that boat!"

Obscenities are the icing which I spread liberally upon the layer cake of my posts. If you don't like icing on your cake, then you'll have to scrape it off with your fork, BITCH.

"I appreciate the compliment. If loving the LORD is wrong, I don't want to be right."

--waves dismissively-- Is there any doubt that this dude is NOT the Apeman?

"BTW- I'll be praying for you, too, Already. I hope you won't mind."

Knock yourself out. Waste all the time you want.

"Already, as our good friend tarzan would say, "Ah, sweet obscenities. The last resort of a semi-illiterate."

Yes, except that I've only scored points ON you, BITCH. You've scored none on me. Looks like you're semi-literate AND semi- innumerate, too.

"On a numbers level, you have won the "semi-illiterate" contest hands down."

I have won the "Literate In More Than One Language" contest hands- down, too, and am also the early favorite in the "Debunking Trollish and Spurious German History Claims" contest, though Tarzan is coming up on the outside there.

"BTW, don't confuse being able to speak a second language with being intelligent, learning a language reflects training or exposure, not intelligence."

BTW, posting a citation that CONTRADICTS your point (rather than supporting it) does not make you look intelligent. It makes you look careless and stupid. BITCH.

"If you really believe language speaking ability reflects intelligence, be prepared for someone to post something in Chinese or Swahili (sic) and ask you why you are too stupid to understand it (do you see where I'm going here)?"

You don't know how many languages I might speak, do you? Better be careful what you wish for. You already know I'm fluent in English, German and Profane, so watch your step, BITCH.

Besides, YOU arrogantly said that Tarzan couldn't understand your "proof," (maybe YOU thought he was too stupid?) so you wimped out and refused to present it. Now that your pussy bluff has been called, you're backpedaling like a white man who just got off the subway in Harlem. Fuck you, ignorant BITCH.

"Also, to prove you can really speak German as well as you say, translate this entire thread into German, and do it now, otherwise admit you are as big of a stupid blowhard as you appear."

You wouldn't understand it, and it wouldn't change your mind. And you can gnaw on my big ol' root, too.

I'm not reposting SHIT for you. All your ignorant ass needs to know is that I can read and comprehend ANYTHING YOU POST in German, and I can respond cogently, coherently and eloquently.

BTW, since you have posted nothing at all in German, why don't YOU repost the entire thread in German? Prove YOUR ability in the language, fuckwit BITCH.

"No, I don't think Polly is tarzan, and don't know where you came up with that idea. "Maaaaaaan, you're stupid."

Hey, fuckhead, you're the one posting links that DEBUNK YOURSELF. I wouldn't call anyone else stupid if I were you. BITCH.

"In a different key, as I figured, the only person reading tarzan's bold posts (or caring enough to stand up for about reading them) is/are tarzan, if even him."

I'm not Tarzan. But I would like to buy him a beer.

BTW, when are you going to get around to actually trying to counter or debunk some of what Tarzan's said? He's already disassembled your entire fucking argument, you syphilis-infected cumstain.

Have a nice day.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@you're.a.whiny.BITCH.com), May 25, 2001.

WOW! Polly, you really got under Already's skin.TeeHee. I didn't realize he could get so angry. Must be the "german influence".

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 25, 2001.

I also read all of Tarzan's post.

Just so you know, there's some fucking moron trying to hijack my handle and act as a lap dog to Maria. I have been on vacation and this is the first time I've posted here. If my troll insulted any of you people I want to apologize. It wasn't the real me.

-- The REAL Lay Down (on@the.couch), May 25, 2001.

Maria does not need a lap dog. You are a liar and your true colors have shown through. You phsycho wannabe.

Tell us, have you gottn Marg the skank hoe to that couch yet? OOOOOOOOhhhhhhhh Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

-- hows this for stealing (Lay@down.couch), May 25, 2001.