I just find it amusing that the Nazi propaganda was carping about the purity of the Aryan race, you know, blode hair and button nose, and their great leader(s), possessed none of these features.
And if you want to call Hitler?s nose, a ?Jewish? nose, I?d find it even more hilarious.
mika.
PS. The question you should be asking is not whether Hitler was a great friend to France, but whether France was a great friend of Hitler?s. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I just find it amusing that the Nazi propaganda was carping about the purity of the Aryan race, you know, blode hair and button nose, and their great leader(s), possessed none of these features.
And if you want to call Hitler?s nose, a ?Jewish? nose, I?d find it even more hilarious.
mika.
PS. The question you should be asking is not whether Hitler was a great friend to France, but whether France was a great friend of Hitler?s. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Glad to see you where teasing : did not understand your post in that way (or perhaps you have made one of the best recovery of the whole history of AI )
For the PS : yes some french collaborates with Hitler, this is true, it's why i would not think that France is superior to Germany, we have all our brilliants peoples, it's just a question of number.
But many more french people where against Hitler( nothing more natural, you would say : we where invaded. ) Massacres like the one of Ourador sur Glane really help french to be the friends of HItler "Sarcasm"Many olds french people hates germans unfortunately even now. Unfortunately because Nazism and others bloody dictatorship system based on hate is not inherently germans, it's a threat for all civilizations. Being french, american, or israelian does not automatically protect us from this cancer.
If you want a friend of HItler you'd rather look for austria where an ancient nazi where in charge of the governement not very long time ago. During an interview, the famous moovie maker Polanski winner of the gold palm in Cannes with his moovie the pianist (from a novel of Spielmann) said that he prefer Germany over Austria, because germany have taken the lesson of the past at the contrary of austria who (according to Polanski) still consider himself as a victim rather to a collaborator. i will not go further because i am not a specialist of austria politic, just quote Roman Polanski. But if you are trying to search good candidate for being a friend of Germany during WW2, austria is a much better candidate than France.
Sad thing is that terrorism works. Who would pay attention to the Palestinians if not for their terrorism? Do you think that the leaders of the free world would discuss plans for a Pal state if the Palestinians wrote a nice letter to G.W.B.? Me thinks not...
<strong>Sad thing is that terrorism works. Who would pay attention to the Palestinians if not for their terrorism? Do you think that the leaders of the free world would discuss plans for a Pal state if the Palestinians wrote a nice letter to G.W.B.? Me thinks not...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well if you are willing to assume that Syria would still be on the security council, then yes I would say there is a high probability that the Palestinian issue would still in the news. And while terrorism is great at getting attention, I think you can build a decent case that the Palestinians would have a much easier time getting what they wanted if they would stop blowing Isrealis up. It might not force Isreal's hand but it would make it very hard politically for the US to defend Isreal, and thereby would drastically increase the likelihood of the UN getting involved. It certainly wouldn't hurt there cause with some segments of the Isreali population as well.
But before we get all indignant that the Palestinians seem to be prepared to sacrifice their children for political ends, we should remember that Israel is prepared to sacrifice Palestinian children too.
[link to image of ten-year-old Mohammed al-Durah being 'shot in the crossfire' removed because I don't wanna get hacked... hang on...]
Hey hey ... Dont jump to using that story so quickly.. it has recently been discussed in a German TV ducomentary that the boy was actualy killed by Palestinian fire ... the story here seems to be far more complicated then some will have you believe.
[quote] A Palestinian boy whose death became a symbol of the intifada actually was killed by Palestinian gunfire, according to a German news report. The report by German ARD Television said the footage of the death of Mohammed Al-Durrah was censored by the Palestinians to make it look as if he had been killed by Israeli gunfire. Israeli army officials said it had been a "grave mistake" for Israel to apologize for Al-Durrah's death immediately after the incident. The dramatic footage was broadcast endlessly on Arab television stations and greatly contributed to anti-Israel fervor in the early stages of the intifada. <hr></blockquote>
If any of you knows German well enough perhaps you could try and dig that report up from their web site ...
German TV report: Palestinians likely killed Gaza boy
By Allison Kaplan Sommer and Herb Keinon
JERUSALEM (March 20) - A German documentary producer who thoroughly investigated the killing of a Palestinian boy a year-and-a-half ago said yesterday it is "much more likely" 12-year-old Muhammad ad-Dura was killed by Palestinian gunmen, and not by Israeli soldiers.
Dura was shot to death in a Gaza Strip crossfire on September 30, 2000, while crouching for safety with his father. The incident was filmed by the France2 television network, and the pictures had a dramatic impact on the public perception of Israel's use of force, with the IDF widely accused of killing the boy.
The video footage of Dura and his father crouching in an alley as bullets whizzed passed them, and then the bleeding dying boy cradled in his father's arms provoked international outrage when it was broadcast.
The documentary aired Sunday night on the German television station ARD.
In an interview with IBA English News, producer Esther Shapira said the purpose of the series was to "understand the truth behind the pictures we see on television." She said that going into the project initially, "I thought it was clear it was an Israeli who fired the shot since we were talking about a Palestinian boy."
She said that the questions she meant to ask was why Israeli soldiers were killing children and how deliberate the shooting had been.
But as she began to delve into the incident, serious doubts were raised as to whether it had been Israeli and not Palestinian gunfire that killed the boy.
She said forensic evidence showed Dura had been shot either from in front or from above, the direction from which the Palestinian gunmen had been firing. For it to have been IDF fire that killed him, the shot would have had to enter from the side.
"According to our findings, it is much more likely it was a Palestinian bullet, not an Israeli bullet, that killed him," Shapira said.
Israel expressed its regrets for the tragic incident, though an IDF investigation did not prove conclusively who shot Dura.
The documentary also did not unequivocally conclude one way or the other, but did ask enough questions to leave the viewer with doubts about the conventional wisdom.
Among the questions raised were who had an interest in killing the boy; whether France2, which filmed the incident, released all the footage in its possession; whether it was possible to hit Dura from where the soldiers were positioned; where are the bullets taken from the boy's body; why did the Palestinians not investigate the incident; and who ordered the footage broadcast continuously on Palestinian television.
Daniel Shek, director of the Foreign Ministry's European Division, said the documentary is "very significant" because it leaves doubt.
"I have all along had a problem with the unbearable certainty of some who had no doubt who was responsible. I think doubt is healthy, and that even if you have a camera on the spot, you can not be sure you are seeing everything," he said.
Shek said he is "modest in his expectations" of whether this documentary will change the way people view Dura's death.
"Muhammad ad-Dura will remain part of the intifada's mythology, and it will not matter what kind of proof you bring to the contrary," he said.
"I hope this will impact a little on the self righteousness of some media organizations, and give journalists room for some self-questioning."
An IDF enquiry (that's the Israeli Defence Force, for those that don't know) didn't conclusively prove who shot this ten-year-old boy?
What nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is the nonsense ?
After the boy was killed the IDF requested the body for autopsy but the PA refused and hastily buried him instead , an autopsy could have proved straight away who killed the boy because they would have been able to ascertain what angle did the bullet come from and what type of weapon was it that hit him ( IDF soldiers use mainly M16 assault rifles while PA gunman mainly use AK 47 which is never used by the IDF...) by analyzing the deadly bullet they would have been able to verify if the shooter was an IDF soldier and who that man was since you can trace each bullet to a specific weapon and in the IDF every soldier had his own personal rifle.
But off course the PA knew that they only stand to loose from a definitive investigation and the IDF pretty much accepted responsibility already so they refused to perform an autopsy and instead used the whole story as dirty propaganda tool...
What's your problem with these facts ? where is the nonsense ? what makes you so sure who killed that boy ?
Remember this was a gun battle between PA gunmen and the IDF who knows what happened ?
I'm not saying he wasn't killed by IDF fire all I'm saying is we can't tell for sure until someone properly investigates this,
the IDF tried to investigate but the PA just wasn't interested in cooperating !
Comments
I just find it amusing that the Nazi propaganda was carping about the purity of the Aryan race, you know, blode hair and button nose, and their great leader(s), possessed none of these features.
And if you want to call Hitler?s nose, a ?Jewish? nose, I?d find it even more hilarious.
mika.
PS. The question you should be asking is not whether Hitler was a great friend to France, but whether France was a great friend of Hitler?s. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>I?m teasing Pdoc.
I just find it amusing that the Nazi propaganda was carping about the purity of the Aryan race, you know, blode hair and button nose, and their great leader(s), possessed none of these features.
And if you want to call Hitler?s nose, a ?Jewish? nose, I?d find it even more hilarious.
mika.
PS. The question you should be asking is not whether Hitler was a great friend to France, but whether France was a great friend of Hitler?s. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Glad to see you where teasing : did not understand your post in that way (or perhaps you have made one of the best recovery of the whole history of AI
For the PS : yes some french collaborates with Hitler, this is true, it's why i would not think that France is superior to Germany, we have all our brilliants peoples, it's just a question of number.
But many more french people where against Hitler( nothing more natural, you would say : we where invaded. ) Massacres like the one of Ourador sur Glane really help french to be the friends of HItler "Sarcasm"Many olds french people hates germans unfortunately even now. Unfortunately because Nazism and others bloody dictatorship system based on hate is not inherently germans, it's a threat for all civilizations. Being french, american, or israelian does not automatically protect us from this cancer.
If you want a friend of HItler you'd rather look for austria where an ancient nazi where in charge of the governement not very long time ago. During an interview, the famous moovie maker Polanski winner of the gold palm in Cannes with his moovie the pianist (from a novel of Spielmann) said that he prefer Germany over Austria, because germany have taken the lesson of the past at the contrary of austria who (according to Polanski) still consider himself as a victim rather to a collaborator. i will not go further because i am not a specialist of austria politic, just quote Roman Polanski. But if you are trying to search good candidate for being a friend of Germany during WW2, austria is a much better candidate than France.
Have a good night, time for me to go to bed.
mika.
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Hassan i-Sabbah ]</p>
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Hassan i-Sabbah ]</p>
<strong>Sad thing is that terrorism works. Who would pay attention to the Palestinians if not for their terrorism? Do you think that the leaders of the free world would discuss plans for a Pal state if the Palestinians wrote a nice letter to G.W.B.? Me thinks not...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well if you are willing to assume that Syria would still be on the security council, then yes I would say there is a high probability that the Palestinian issue would still in the news. And while terrorism is great at getting attention, I think you can build a decent case that the Palestinians would have a much easier time getting what they wanted if they would stop blowing Isrealis up. It might not force Isreal's hand but it would make it very hard politically for the US to defend Isreal, and thereby would drastically increase the likelihood of the UN getting involved. It certainly wouldn't hurt there cause with some segments of the Isreali population as well.
<strong>It is an awful picture.
But before we get all indignant that the Palestinians seem to be prepared to sacrifice their children for political ends, we should remember that Israel is prepared to sacrifice Palestinian children too.
[link to image of ten-year-old Mohammed al-Durah being 'shot in the crossfire' removed because I don't wanna get hacked... hang on...]
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Hassan i-Sabbah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey hey ... Dont jump to using that story so quickly.. it has recently been discussed in a German TV ducomentary that the boy was actualy killed by Palestinian fire ... the story here seems to be far more complicated then some will have you believe.
try this for a different view :
<a href="http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~ginsburg/aldura/"; target="_blank">http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~ginsburg/aldura/</a>;
A quote i found:
[quote] A Palestinian boy whose death became a symbol of the intifada actually was killed by Palestinian gunfire, according to a German news report. The report by German ARD Television said the footage of the death of Mohammed Al-Durrah was censored by the Palestinians to make it look as if he had been killed by Israeli gunfire. Israeli army officials said it had been a "grave mistake" for Israel to apologize for Al-Durrah's death immediately after the incident. The dramatic footage was broadcast endlessly on Arab television stations and greatly contributed to anti-Israel fervor in the early stages of the intifada. <hr></blockquote>
If any of you knows German well enough perhaps you could try and dig that report up from their web site ...
] <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/20/News/News.45526.html"; target="_blank">http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/20/News/News.45526.html</a>;
German TV report: Palestinians likely killed Gaza boy
By Allison Kaplan Sommer and Herb Keinon
JERUSALEM (March 20) - A German documentary producer who thoroughly investigated the killing of a Palestinian boy a year-and-a-half ago said yesterday it is "much more likely" 12-year-old Muhammad ad-Dura was killed by Palestinian gunmen, and not by Israeli soldiers.
Dura was shot to death in a Gaza Strip crossfire on September 30, 2000, while crouching for safety with his father. The incident was filmed by the France2 television network, and the pictures had a dramatic impact on the public perception of Israel's use of force, with the IDF widely accused of killing the boy.
The video footage of Dura and his father crouching in an alley as bullets whizzed passed them, and then the bleeding dying boy cradled in his father's arms provoked international outrage when it was broadcast.
The documentary aired Sunday night on the German television station ARD.
In an interview with IBA English News, producer Esther Shapira said the purpose of the series was to "understand the truth behind the pictures we see on television." She said that going into the project initially, "I thought it was clear it was an Israeli who fired the shot since we were talking about a Palestinian boy."
She said that the questions she meant to ask was why Israeli soldiers were killing children and how deliberate the shooting had been.
But as she began to delve into the incident, serious doubts were raised as to whether it had been Israeli and not Palestinian gunfire that killed the boy.
She said forensic evidence showed Dura had been shot either from in front or from above, the direction from which the Palestinian gunmen had been firing. For it to have been IDF fire that killed him, the shot would have had to enter from the side.
"According to our findings, it is much more likely it was a Palestinian bullet, not an Israeli bullet, that killed him," Shapira said.
Israel expressed its regrets for the tragic incident, though an IDF investigation did not prove conclusively who shot Dura.
The documentary also did not unequivocally conclude one way or the other, but did ask enough questions to leave the viewer with doubts about the conventional wisdom.
Among the questions raised were who had an interest in killing the boy; whether France2, which filmed the incident, released all the footage in its possession; whether it was possible to hit Dura from where the soldiers were positioned; where are the bullets taken from the boy's body; why did the Palestinians not investigate the incident; and who ordered the footage broadcast continuously on Palestinian television.
Daniel Shek, director of the Foreign Ministry's European Division, said the documentary is "very significant" because it leaves doubt.
"I have all along had a problem with the unbearable certainty of some who had no doubt who was responsible. I think doubt is healthy, and that even if you have a camera on the spot, you can not be sure you are seeing everything," he said.
Shek said he is "modest in his expectations" of whether this documentary will change the way people view Dura's death.
"Muhammad ad-Dura will remain part of the intifada's mythology, and it will not matter what kind of proof you bring to the contrary," he said.
"I hope this will impact a little on the self righteousness of some media organizations, and give journalists room for some self-questioning."
---
mika.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
An IDF enquiry (that's the Israeli Defence Force, for those that don't know) didn't conclusively prove who shot this ten-year-old boy?
What nonsense.
<strong>Oh what nonsense.
An IDF enquiry (that's the Israeli Defence Force, for those that don't know) didn't conclusively prove who shot this ten-year-old boy?
What nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is the nonsense ?
After the boy was killed the IDF requested the body for autopsy but the PA refused and hastily buried him instead , an autopsy could have proved straight away who killed the boy because they would have been able to ascertain what angle did the bullet come from and what type of weapon was it that hit him ( IDF soldiers use mainly M16 assault rifles while PA gunman mainly use AK 47 which is never used by the IDF...) by analyzing the deadly bullet they would have been able to verify if the shooter was an IDF soldier and who that man was since you can trace each bullet to a specific weapon and in the IDF every soldier had his own personal rifle.
But off course the PA knew that they only stand to loose from a definitive investigation and the IDF pretty much accepted responsibility already so they refused to perform an autopsy and instead used the whole story as dirty propaganda tool...
What's your problem with these facts ? where is the nonsense ? what makes you so sure who killed that boy ?
Remember this was a gun battle between PA gunmen and the IDF who knows what happened ?
I'm not saying he wasn't killed by IDF fire all I'm saying is we can't tell for sure until someone properly investigates this,
the IDF tried to investigate but the PA just wasn't interested in cooperating !
Do you have anything to base your assertions on ?
can you share that with me ?
I would love to see some proof !