[url]http://www.freerepublic.com[/url]

Zweifler

Meister
Mitglied seit
14. Oktober 2002
Beiträge
390
Weia, hab tatsächlich ein bissel Zeit verschwendet und da mal reingeschaut...werd's aber lieber sein lassen, da entwickelt man ja sogar für den Schlingel Osama noch Sympathien...
Will nicht wissen, wie's in nem nationalistischen oder richtig rechten Forum bei denen abgeht, wenn das doch nur ein "Konservatives" ist.
Vielleicht werden manche Begriffe da drüben auch etwas anders interpretiert als bei Krauts und anderen debilen Untermenschen.
Für einfache Gemüter sind solche Foren sicher eine Brutstätte radikaler Gedanken...
 

Paradewohlstandskind

Erleuchteter
Mitglied seit
10. April 2002
Beiträge
1.198
Ich habe eine pn von einem aus diesem amerikanischen Forum bekommen und ihn herzlich in die Lounge eingeladen:


Von: Hunble
An: Paradewohlstandskind
Verfasst am: 26.12.2002 - 18:48
Titel: Reply and request for honest dialog
I am Hunble and am taking this effort to continue the dialog.

My ability to speak german is horrible, since I have not spoken it since 1981. So, unless the replies are in English, I simply will not understand.

I am sorry that the topic at www.freerepublic.com was not continued, since censorship is wrong. That was not my choice, and I expressed my anger that some things were deleted.


Ich hoffe er meldet sich. Könnte doch eine ganz interessante Sache werden, wenn sich dann auch mal Leute zu Wort melden, die Englisch ein bisserl besser drauf haben, als ich.

Wobei ich auch die Befürchtung habe, dass sich so mancher unter uns vielleicht nicht Zaume halten kann und der Ton etwas undiplomatisch werden könnte.

Aber wir werden ja sehen!
 

Ordnungszahl94

Meister
Mitglied seit
9. Oktober 2002
Beiträge
370
Für die Amerikaner sind die Deutschen doch folgendes: Tragen ständig Lederhosen, fressen die ganze Zeit Sauerkraut und Hitler war (oder ist) da mal Präsident (gewesen)...(das mit dem "Ist immer noch Präsident" hab ich von nem Austausch-Schüler der da war)

Für "uns" sind die Amerikaner: Cowboys, fett, ungebildet und patriotisch und denken das oben von den Deutschen...

Nun ja, was wir sind stimmt nicht (jedenfalls meiner Ansicht nach)....warum sollte das andere stimmen..

Eine Seite die Zensur als Mittel nimmt Gegenstimmen auszulöschen (ganze Arbeit PWK...ziemlich viele gelösche Posts ;)) finde ich nicht nicht ganz ausschlaggebend...dann könnt ich auch irgendeine Nazi-Seite als Beschreibung für alle Deutschen nehmen...

Stellt sich die Frage: Warum (und wodurch) wurden diese Meinungen gebildet (sofern sie nicht auch nur "erfunden" sind)
 

Bundeskanzler

Erleuchteter
Mitglied seit
11. April 2002
Beiträge
1.023
Ordnungszahl94 schrieb:
Eine Seite die Zensur als Mittel nimmt Gegenstimmen auszulöschen (ganze Arbeit PWK...ziemlich viele gelösche Posts ;)) finde ich nicht nicht ganz ausschlaggebend...dann könnt ich auch irgendeine Nazi-Seite als Beschreibung für alle Deutschen nehmen...

Stellt sich die Frage: Warum (und wodurch) wurden diese Meinungen gebildet (sofern sie nicht auch nur "erfunden" sind)
Meines Erachtens leben Amerikaner extrem, und zwar entweder extrem reich oder arm, gebildet oder ungebildet, links (Demokraten) oder rechts (Republikaner)... usw. usf.

Dieses Schubladendenken hängt sicher auch mit dem Land an sich zusammen. In so einem riesigem Land, in dem es keine wirklich gemäßigte Klimazone gibt sondern nur extrem heiß oder extrem kalt, einem Land, dass durch töten und getötet werden groß geworden ist, einem Land, dass Pferdediebstahl mit Mord gleich gesetzt hat und in dem dank "Religionsfreiheit" jeder Verrrückte ins Fernsehen kommt anstatt in die Irrenanstalt, in so einem Land kann man vielleicht nur durch Schwarz-Weiß-Denken überleben.

In Amerika ist kein Platz für einen MITTELSTAND, eine GRÜNE PARTEI und für LIBERALE MEINUNGEN.

Nach Vietnam ist das Land in eine Lethargie gefallen, die ich mir heute wieder einmal wünschen würde. Vietnam haben die Amis so was von klar verloren, wenn es denn ginge, würden sie es aus der Geschichte auslöschen. Und ich hoffe, es wird WIEDER passieren, vielleicht nicht im IRAK, aber vielleicht kriegen sie von Nordkorea was auf die Schnauze oder wenn sie versuchen, vom IRAK aus den IRAN oder andere Länder zu erobern. The higher they climb the harder they fall!
 

Paradewohlstandskind

Erleuchteter
Mitglied seit
10. April 2002
Beiträge
1.198
Hmmmmm.......

To: Paradewohlstandskind

:arrow: I´m a young bavarian man and my English isn´t that good, but there´s so many things I want to tell the people of the Untited States.

:idea: Gruss Gott ; your English is much, much better than my Deutsche. Welcome to FreeRepublic ...

:arrow: 1. I´m very thankful to United States for settling down a democracy in Germany after the cruel things we´ve done. We, the german people will never forget this deed.

:idea: Unless you were born before the 1930s and 1940s, then you didn't participate in Hitler's cruelty, so you need not say cruel things we've done since Hitler's government no longer exists. As for Democracy, the term has long ago been rendered meaningless. A true democracy is evil incarnate. As some people say, 'democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on who they will eat for supper.' Obviously the wolves will vote to eat the sheep. That's not good if you're an innocent little sheep, is it? Should you hop up on the dinner table of the wolves merely because the vote didn't go your way? To put it in German terms, democracy is three Nazis and a Jew deciding who to pop in the oven. It's always going to be the Jew, isn't it? Even in France it would be the Jew. So understand that the word 'democracy' has been so abused that it has come to mean nothing, or worse, has come to imply something good when in fact there is nothing good about 'democracy.' Democracy is mob rule, and mobs are almost always unjust because most people are out to help themselves and are cruel, or are at best apathetic. People are willing to do vicious things as part of a mob that they would never dare to do as individuals. That is one reason not to think of democracy as if it is inherently virtuous.... it isn't.

To make government work you have to pretty much keep it from becoming a democracy. You must place limits on the mob, limits on democracy. In the US these limits are obtained by the oft-cited separation of powers, which pit one branch of government against the others using the means of a representational republic. The electoral college is most useful; indirect voting via representatives and offset elections is helpful in preventing faddish, impulsive voting behavior of the mob from easily altering government for the worse. A free press makes it harder for corruption to go unnoticed; freedom of religion makes it more difficult for zealotry to dominate government and for government to dominate religion. But most important to good government is for the citizens to consider it a right and duty to be armed and able to fight even their own government should it violate the constitution and try to take for itself those rights properly belonging to the people, among them the right of the people to free speech, to freely worship, to bear arms, and so on. This changes the equation to three armed wolves and an armed sheep determined to keep himself off of the supper table; in this case the sheep is no longer an easy victim and the wolves vote to grow their own food, leaving the sheep alone.

:arrow: 2. But don´t forget, that the russian did the same in the year 1945. It wasn´t only your thing.

:idea: No, the Russians did not 'do the same thing.' The Russians NEVER instituted freedom in the lands that they invaded, as any German should know, since you spent a lot of the last century looking at other Germans across a minefield that the Russians had laid to kill Germans and keep them from joining their kin in the west. When the USSR invaded eastern Germany, Germans fled towards US lines and AWAY from the Russians. There are very good reasons for that.

:arrow: 3. We, that we have don so much suffer to the world, we are the people, who konw best how cruel war is and so the germans are against war against anyone!

:idea: War isn't cruel. Nazis were cruel. War is merely an instrument, a tool to use. It is not in and of itself a bad thing, any more than a baseball bat is a bad thing. A baseball bat can be used to play baseball, in which case it is a useful tool in good hands. It can be used to kill an innocent person, in which case it is a tool used by evil hands. But it can also be used to kill evil people, and thus prevent them from carrying out evil deeds. In that case, it is a useful tool serving a good purpose in good hands. When the United States waged war on Nazi Germany in the 1940s, it was the RIGHT thing to do, a GOOD thing to do. When Britain and the western powers tried to appease Hitler, tried to AVOID war, they did a very bad thing because they enabled evil to spread. Do you understand that? The evil wasn't war- the evil was in the desire to avoid war at all costs!

Freedom is worth MORE than 'peace.' Freedom is worth waging war to keep. But the weak people in the west were willing to give away the freedom of others for the mere purpose of avoiding war. Appeasers like that are no better than the nazis, for without appeasers, the nazis could never have obtained the power they did obtain, and could not have murdered so many people. The weakness and indecision of others made Hitler possible. The fear of fighting is the best ally of evil.

War wasn't the way we would have preferred to solve the problem, but it was the only way to solve the problem. Waging war was a good, albeit costly thing for the US to do to put an end to Hitler. Not waging war would have been far more costly. Ideally, the Germans would have killed Hitler themselves and saved us all a lot of trouble and death. Their country would have been spared destruction and humiliation, but Germans either didn't want to be rid of Hitler, or were too afraid to fight him, or both. Not a few of them thought that Hitler was a great man and had given back Germany her pride, lost at Versailles. Hitler was, after all, democratically elected. He was like Clinton, evil but clearly popular. Towards the end some Germans did develop a conscience and tried to take him out.

When the US waged war on Japan, it was also a GOOD thing to do. It was the only option we had to do that would prevent an EVIL empire from spreading and choking out millions of other people not deemed as equals by the Japanese. Bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was the RIGHT thing to do, as terrible as the bombing was. It wasn't what we wanted to do, but the alternative was even more horrific both for us and for the Japanese. We had already seen the Japanese on Okinawa killing themselves after an agonizing fight; an invasion of Japan would have been unimaginably horrific.

Did we kill German and Japanese civilians, including women and children? Absolutely. Would we do it again if we had to do it over again? Absolutely. Were we wrong to bomb civilians? Absolutely NOT. The civilians we bombed had enabled evil; it may have been from centuries of cultural conditioning, but individuals ALWAYS have the ultimate choice to fight or to comply with evil, no matter their upbringing. American civilians voluntarily joined the US military to fight the evil that should have been confronted by German and Japanese civilians.

War is alway against the children and other people, who can´t defend themselves.

Evil succeeds only when good people fear war more than they fear evil.

It wasn't 'war' that murdered millions of Jews, Gypsies, the 'defective,' and the dissenters in Nazi Germany. No, it wasn't war that murdered those people- it was war that ENDED the murder. Those responsible include not only the nazis, but also those civilian Germans that were unwillinging to stand up against the evil of the nazis. The unwillingness or inability of German civilians to wage war on the Nazi Germans led to the murder of millions of people. Their unwillingness to fight against evil enabled evil to flourish, and they can't blame it on war when it was war that brought an end to it.


:arrow: 4. What about the womoens in Afghaniostan? They are still suffering!

:idea: We can't fix Islam, and we sure aren't required either morally or legally to rebuild Afghanistan or to ignore it when it is controlled or is harboring people who want to kill Americans. The Afghans have a female general over there now. She's an ex-communist or maybe a current communist; if the former, good for her, if the latter, she's probably useless, but she's a general nonetheless. Afghans have some women in their equivalent to our congress. Women and girls are able to go back to school as students or as teachers now and widows are able to work in Afghanistan and provide for their families, something the Taliban didn't allow. . They can leave their homes to go to the market without an escort. There are still problems but only a fool would think that things are 'still the same.' There is food now and with law and order on the rise there is more opportunity for them to become self-sufficient again and not require massive infusions of US food.

:arrow: Nothing is better now.

:idea: Millions of smiling Afghans prove you are wrong. Granted, it would be better is there was no such thing as Islam, but we can't change their religion by force and we can't give them the benefit, overnight, of hundreds of years of western thought on the subject of individual liberty, so it is up to them to figure it out We can only give them the freedom to choose freedom. If they make a mistake and choose not to accept freedom, they have only themselves to blame from here on.


:arrow: Wasn´t this only a senseless strik full of revenge?

:idea: No.

Thoise kinds of have laid waste to Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the place would hadropped a nuNUKED The US doesn't act out of revenge. We act because strecgth prevents more violence.

Obviously we don't act against Afghanistan out of revenge. If we were interested in something as silly as revenge, we would not have sent special forces to do surgical strikes and would not have risked our own troops trying to keep the damage limited to just the bad guys. If we wanted 'revenge' we would have used nuclear weapons and Kabul, Pakistan, Syria, Iran and so on would no longer exist. And everyone would be stunned and afraid; they would keep their mouths shut with no whining from Europeans... the Europeans would instead be tripping all over themselves to get on our good side and would beg for their lives and our goodwill just as they cowered to the Nazis decades ago. They'd probably even offer us their European first-born as a sacrifice. (Jews first, in European tradition, of course...) If we were after revenge we wouldn't have bothered with getting the Northern Alliance to join up with us, we wouldn't have bothered to fly in tons upon tons of food to feed people, we wouldn't have bothered to help them set up a functioning Afghan government to reestablish some semblance of order, and we wouldn't have bothered with putting troops in harm's way when we have the ability to turn the entire country into a shiny glass parking lot. .

Who would we take revenge on in Afghanistan, anyway? The country wasn't ruled by Afghans- it was ruled by Pakistanis and Arabs who were occupying Afghanistan against the will of the Afghan people. We get our 'revenge' from killing any al Qaeda who don't surrender and if we add Arafat and the PLO and Hamas and Hezbollah to the list that's OK with me too. BUt if we were getting revenge we wouldn't be taking prisoners, letting the Red Cross talk to them, and we wouldn't be feeding them halal meals or 'Froot Loops' children's cereal or fretting about whether their butts are pointed the right way when they pray. To say things 'have not changed' in Afghanistan though, is simply ridiculous.

:arrow: 5. I have heard, that Mr. Bin Laden was trained by the C.I. A. Is that correct?

:idea: Aparently not. People assume that because the US helped Afghans fight the Russians back when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, that we must have trained EVERYONE who fought the Russians. This is not true. We did train many Arabs as well as Afghans to fight the USSR, but I've seen no proof nor had reason to believe that bin Laden was one of them. Bin Laden already despised Americans by that time and he wanted nothing to do with the US even then - the feeling was mutual. His connections may have been useful, though- or maybe not. Bin Laden was funded by Saudis and other Arab countries and by his own dad's ample resources; he was a follower of Azzam, a Palestinian cleric, and his people for the most part trained with them, which is another reason why the Palestinians are so intertwined with this current conflict. Azzam to be sure found recruits in America, but he too was always anti-American and always preached against the US even while he was within it. He made good use of american tolerance for speech, even speech against America. Bin Laden was a financier, not a fighter and he did not require military training to be a financier. It seems pretty clear that he didn't have western training at all since he couldn't even hold his gun correctly. (He holds nothing but dirt, now.) Bin Laden did, however, value good training and his group recommended that its people seek out training wherever they could find it, either privately or by joining militaries both in the middle east and in Europe and the US. This would be true of any agents of espionage since it is most useful to know one's enemy from first hand experience. as a result, a number of al Qaeda members had joined if only for a short time, the US armed forces.

:arrow: 6. The Taliban were good enough for keeping th >>MUllahs<< in Teheran silent for biulding a pipeline for America,

:idea: I have no idea what you're talking about now. The Taliban didn't get along with the Mullahs in Iran and indeed, the mullahs in Iran tried to assassinate the Taliban Mullah Omar with a very large car bomb back in the late 1990s, so I don't think they really like one another. Traditionally, Wahhabbists and Shiiites don't get along, although in my opinion they will make temporary alliances when they seek to fight something they hate more than each other, like the US or Israel, or the Russians. There is no Iranian 'pipeline for America' nor was there a Taliban-Afghan 'pipeline for America' either, so I think you are just reading propaganda off of some French web site or from that assinine French book that was published recently. It has addled your brain.

:arrow: so the Talibans were supported by the government in the USA.

:idea: Nope. The Clinton administration tried over and over again to get the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. They probably offered the Taliban some incentives but in any case, they were rebuffed, as bin Laden was never turned over to the US and the Taliban were never sufficiently afraid of Bill Clinton to risk turning bin Laden over; they were more afraid of bin Laden. And for good reason since Clinton was a coward without the will to risk his political career to do the right thing and bin Laden was willing to to kill people he didn't get along with.

The Taliban's closest buddy was Pakistan and their next best friend was the PRC, otherwise known as the People's Republic of China. The PRC and the Taliban were in negotiations at the time of the attack on New York, which is one reason we found so much Chinese material hidden in those caves over there. Did you forget about that? The PRC was also deeply involved in Pakistan during the time of the Taliban and were involved in improving the main highway that leads from the Chinese border to a port on the Indian Ocean to which China very much wanted access.

Europe and China have a much greater interest in natural gas and other fuels in that part of the world than the US ever would in oil from there. We get the bulk of our oil from Venezuela. Venezuela, for those who aren't familiar with it, is in the WESTERN hemisphere and we don't need any Iranian or Afghan pipeline to get to it any more than we would need and Iranian or Afghan pipeline to get to ANWR in Alaska. The pipeline myth sounds good to those who dislike America because it implies that the US is morally equivalent to everyone else's countries- but it just doesn't hold water.

What do you think about that?

:arrow: 7. Robert Dole said, that there´s only one reason, that the Americans want to bomb Saddam: OIL. Is that true? I thin it is?

:idea: I have not heard Bob Dole say any such thing, and I've heard him discuss Iraq recently and he said no such thing then. Care to provide a valid SOURCE for your information?

The US's interest in Iraq certainly has nothing to do with the US 'getting' Iraqi oil- the US has never taken any country, nor expressed any interest in taking any country to get its oil. Were that true, Iraq would have been made a US state back around 1992 and Saudi Arabia and Iran would have been part of our union for a long time. If you want to see who is interested in Iraqi oil, you would have to look to Europe for the answer. Iraq sells most of its oil to places like Germany and France, which may very well explain why Germany and France are willing to let Saddam use mustard and VX gas on his fellow Iraqis, specifically, the Kurds. After all, the Germans have gassed people before - even their own citizens, so should we be shocked to find out that Germans are willing to turn the other cheek while more people get gassed by an evil dictator? And the French have willingly sided with the Germans who gassed Jews and dissenters and experimented or conducted vivisections on living people in order to save their own sorry French butts. Remember Vichy France, so willing to sell even their own kin down the line to be loaded onto cattle cars? So I would expect a German or a Frenchman to be all for supporting Saddam Hussein in gassing Kurds and enemies of the state...particularly when Saddam Hussein's nuclear program is such a good customer for German centrifuges, employs German technicians, and particularly when Iraq buys so many French weapons. Yes indeed, the French and Germans have a lot to lose if we take out Saddam Hussein. Heck, in a few more years France and Germany will be Muslim countries anyway so it's best not to offend your own kin, right?


:arrow: 8. Why can´t everbody get a good education in the richest land of the world. In Germany everbody can study everthing without paying?

:idea: You are free to stay in Germany if you like, and enjoy all the free things that Germany will provide you, at least as long as there are enough gainfully employed Germans to support your lazy carcass. Whatever you do, don't come here and try to impoverish us, too.

We know about Germany's free colleges: Mohammad Atta, the lead hijacker on 911, went to a German university along with his entire Hamburg terrorist cell. That's where they planned the attack on the US, remember? He managed to obtain a fine German degree and yet he was stupid enough to commit suicide?

Committing suicide fits right in with modern German youth... Germany always has had suicidal tendencies... we protect Germans, stupid German kids who have no recollection of life under the Nazis or life under the communists, stupid German kids who think they know better than their parents, who think the Russians would have been good masters; stupid German kids who have conveniently forgot that their marxist idols killed more people than even Hitler did, and continue to kill people today. Stupid German kids who think that there was a serious difference between communism and socialism when both filthy, murderous ideologies are just two sides of the same point on a badly drawn political graph.

Universities cost money to run, don't you know that? Where does the money come from that supports a 'free' university, pays its professors, houses its students? Don't you know that it all STOLEN? The money is STOLEN from those who worked hard to EARN it, stolen from those to whom it belongs, and is given to those to whom it does not belong and who don't deserve it. It is taken by threat of force and violence and fear, as all taxes that are used for the redistribution of wealth are. If you don't pay those unjust taxes, your earnings will be taken at the point of a government gun and you will end up imprisoned. You will lose your freedom and if you fight the government thieves too hard you may even be killed, even though you are innocent and have harmed no one. Do you support this legalized theft? Do you believe you have a right to STEAL or a right to use government to STEAL for you?

Everyone who goes to school but does not pay their entire tuition through their own labor is a THIEF and a PARASITE. It's hard to believe that Germany produced Martin Luther when so many Germans act like unethical bloodsucking ticks and fleas...driving their best and brightest overseas to other countries where they won't be sucked dry.

Why do Europeans think first of American 'wealth' but never of why we are so wealthy? Why do they act so insanely jealous of what Americans have yet do not seek to emulate what we do so as to get such weatlh for themselves? why do Europeans fall for the old marxist nonsense about a finite amount of wealth when the US proves, and common sense proves, that wealth is not finite at all and can be created? Why do Europeans assume that 'land of the free' means 'land of the freebies' and not 'land of liberty?' Europeans talk jealously about American wealth while they sit on their butts half the year on their mandatory vacations, doing nothing useful because they aren't ALLOWED to work more hours even if they wanted to, and not all those who want jobs can get them because unemployment is so high simply because economic growth has been smothered by ridiculously high taxes, which hurt everyone?

America is still wealthy because so far, not everything is free and we still have something resembling a work ethic. We could be much wealthier than we are if more Americans believed in keeping only what they earn and taking nothing they did not. We would be much better off and much wealthier if we could convince the parasites to move to Europe where they could go to college free. You would welcome them, right? You can have them ALL. Each and every one is yours if you can only convince them to move there; then you can see exactly why you don't want more people who need you to provide them a free education. Please take them, please take them all! Send us all those employed people your thieving government steals from. We will welcome them. But keep those folks who need 'free education' because if you give a bottomfeeder a diploma, he is still a bottomfeeder.


By the way, what in the heck does free college have to do with terrorism and war?

Ja was nur... Ja was :?:
 

Suchender

Meister
Mitglied seit
10. April 2002
Beiträge
113
Mich würde interessieren, wer der "Schreiber" eigentlich ist. Denn scheinbar kennt er sich doch gut in manchen geschichtlichen Dingen aus, scheint also ein Basiswissen zu haben.


Aber meine persönliche Meinung:
Man braucht nur die Schlagwörter anschauen. Und dann wird immer klar zwischen GOOD und EVIL differenziert.
GOOD sind er und seine Mates, die die gleiche Idiologie haben.
EVIL sind alle anderen, Bill Clinton, Parasiten *lol*, stupid German Kids, Europa...
Also aus meiner Sicht, ist seine Sicht sehr sehr stark eingegrenzt. Er scheint nur "to earn it" zu kennen. Bin mir sicher, dass unser Freund auch sich nie mit Philosophischen Gedanken beschäftigt hat (d.h. , ob nun alles immer so einfach zwischen GOOD & EVIL einzuteilen ist).
Wenn jemand Krieg als super Werkzeug sieht womit man alles lösen kann... naja... no comment :D!


Ich kann gut verstehen, wie er viele Anhänger bekommt. Eben durch seine Art und Weise die Dinge darzustellen - Propaganda. Er fängt ganz nett und sanft an und zum Schluss tut er wie im 3.Reich zwischen Parasiten und einer art Herrenrasse (the workers who earn it) unterscheiden.
 

Bundeskanzler

Erleuchteter
Mitglied seit
11. April 2002
Beiträge
1.023
Wahnsinn!!!

Die sind ja noch bekloppter als ich eh immer schon vermutet habe. Ich fasse nur mal den Anfang zusammen (ich hab's mir nicht ganz durchgelesen, das ist ja nicht zu ertragen...)

Amerikanisches Weichhirn schrieb:
Krieg ist wie ein Baseballschläger
Amerikanischer Bush-Anhänger schrieb:
Sie würden wieder Deutsche und Japaner ermorden incl. Frauen und Kinder
Amerikanische Dumpfbacke schrieb:
Die Atombombenabwürfe auf Hiroshima und Nagasaki waren okay
Der folgende Punkt allerdings ist wirklich interessant:

Amerikanischer BÖSE-Bekämpfer schrieb:
Es war NICHT der Krieg, der Juden, Zigeuner, Behinderte und Anderdenkende getötet hat sondern der MÖRDER (Hitler). Im Gegenteil, der Krieg hat den MÖRDER getötet. Der Krieg war (aus Sicht des Schreibers) notwendig, weil das Deutsche Volk (die Zivilisten) nicht willens und/oder nicht in der Lage war, gegen das BÖSE, also die Nazis aufzustehen und zu kämpfen.
Wenn ich diese Aussage akzeptiere, dann wird es für die Amerikaner aber höchste Zeit, den MÖRDER GEORGE WALKER BUSH selbst zu töten, ansonsten müssten WIR das demnach übernehmen => oder WER bitte entscheidet, das Hitler BÖSE war und BUSH gut ist?
 

Nacho

Meister
Mitglied seit
10. April 2002
Beiträge
102
Ein Freerepublik-Spinner schrieb:
The german chancellor must be overthrown. He is our misery. His socialist and ex-terrorist (mis-)administration and first signs of communist intentions will ruin us all.
I hope this scumbag of chancellor will not stand the four year period and will be stopped with a motion of no confidence.
I hope this for all of us germans that the self-destruction caused by his politics will be averted.
Hmmm... da scheinen auch ein paar bekloppte Deutsche zu posten...

(Btw: Ich glaube das "Steuber" auch nichts gegen diese "self-destruction" hätte tun können)

Jemand mit Humor schrieb:
The name of his wife´s not "Doris Schröder" but "Doris-Schröder-Köpf". Köpf is also a German word which means "separate the head!" Would be funny if Doris had chosen to call herself "Doris Köpf-Schröder" - all the people would desire: "Doris separate Schröder´s head!" ;-)
Hahaha :?
 

DaMole

Lehrling
Mitglied seit
4. Juli 2002
Beiträge
27
wirklich interessantes thema hier, das meiste hab ich mir schon durchgelesen. ein dickes lob an alle, die versucht haben unseren standpunkt, ansichten gegenüber uns u. anderen ländern verständlich zu machen! besonders PWK! aber ich denke nicht das man dadurch erheblich etwas ändern könnte, es wären nur eine handvoll mehr freunde die man im ausland hat u. bestenfalls zum engeren informationsaustausch im bereich militär, politik, wirtschaft etc verwenden könnten, was sicherlich nicht schaden würde. wenn mein englisch besser wäre, würd ich viell auch mitmachen, aber nicht für dieses amerikanische forum da, das würde mir den rest geben. mir haben schon die ausschnitte hier gereicht *G*. abgesehen davon... ich von meinem standpunkt ausgesehen, traue den amis nicht, wenn die sagen sie tun dies u. jenes rein für ihren oder globalen wohlstand.... die fahrn immer 2 gleisig u. führn immer was im schilde. denen wärs nur zurecht, wenn sie ganz allein die einzigsten auf der erde wärn, so seh ich das... ich denke auch nicht das man die amis von deutscher seite aus bel(k)ehren könnte, naja mal sehen werde über andere wege ami kontakte knüpfen :D u. auch mal ne info quelle holen, sobald sich was interessantes ergibt rühr ich mich wieder ;)
 
Oben