Neutrality is the Answer - They Didn't Attack Switzerland

[9sublime]

Palerider what nationalities do you like apart from Americans and Jews?

 

[palerider]

All of these commissions were formed prior to the Weisenthal's center report, which was shown to contain many errors and falsifications:

Your quotes are not findings, they are claims, nothing more. The only thing "shown" was that the swiss did business, a lot of business with the nazis.

You'll forgive me for doubting reports involving the U.S. government, which doesn't exactly have a track record for honesty in international matters...

Then feel free to provide some PROOF that the report is wrong. Suggesting that data is wrong based on no more than where it comes from constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial attack.

And yet Swiss government officials deported German residents who promoted Nazism:

It does not change the fact that the swiss didn't get attacked, because they were hitler's bankers.

The bottom line is that the Swiss government was not pro-Nazi. Your second source above states:

I never said that they were pro nazi. I said that they didn't get attacked because they were hitler's bankers. They were providing him liquid assets for his war effort in exchange for looted gold.

 

[palerider]

Did we ever hear an apology from FDR for turning away jews? No. There's no doubt the Swiss did turn some jews away, but some were saved, as I previously posted.

FDR is completely beside the point and for you to inject him into this discussion is for you to erect a strawman. This thread isn't about FDR, it is about how the swiss kept from being attacked.

You're own source says 20,000 were allowed in while 25,000 were turned away. That's almost half allowed to safety. (Not to mention those aided by private swiss citizens who ignored their government's policy.) Seems like a very generous allowance during an all out war when every country around you has been conquered. Why are you avoiding my question, shetland pony rider? I'll ask it again: Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated?

Further irrelavence since the topic of this thread isn't about the immigration policies of the US either.

Why were they fleeing Germany in the first place? Why didn't they fight to the death? Why did they turn their guns in?

More irrelavence. Is it really necessary to remind you of what the topic of this thread is?

 

[palerider]

Palerider what nationalities do you like apart from Americans and Jews?

I like all nationalities, but likeing them doesn't mean that I have to disregard their history does it? The men who did business with hitler to keep the nazis from attacking their country are all dead now, or so old that they have become irrelavent. Their actions don't reflect on switzerland today.

 

[9sublime]

You like all nationalities? I reckon I could find lots of quotes that are pretty much blatant racism against Muslims.

 

[palerider]

You like all nationalities? I reckon I could find lots of quotes that are pretty much blatant racism against Muslims.

muslim is neither a nationality nor a race.

 

[9sublime]

General hatred of Muslims.

 

[palerider]

General hatred of Muslims.

Not hatred. Specific dislike. I dislike those who engage in terrorism, and I dislike those who condone and encourage them (terrorists) with their silence.

 

[rmarin]

Switzerland was not neutral.
<Though neutral Switzerland adhered to the mandatory international rules during World War 2, while the warfaring nations violated even these (neither Germany nor the Allies respected Swiss air space, Allied aircraft even dropped about 70 bombs on Switzerland), it is evident that being neutral would call for a spirit of neutrality that was offended by important Swiss actors.

Switzerland's national bank, private Swiss bankers and private manufacturers of war material exploited in fact every loophole in the regulations for their business with Nazi Germany. This was evidently not the notion of neutrality and so Swiss Federal Councillor [member of government] Max Petitpierre (in office 1945-1951) had to admit as early as 1947:

These credits and the deliveries of war material and other products [...] contributed to the war efforts of one of the belligerents. Not only had we abandonded integral neutrality, but - even worse - in so doing, we were as a rule deviating from the very notion of neutrality.
(Max Petitpierre, speech given at a conference of Swiss diplomates, in: Swiss Diplomatic Documents (SDD) vol. 17, nr. 26, p. 87, quoted after Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 519)>

And as far as the Muslim goes :
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

 

[9sublime]

Well if you have a specific dislike of Muslims, then you can understand and not hold it against them if they have a specific dilike of Western people in general because its just as much of an ignorant and stupid thing to believe.

Your brand of conservativism is just as backward as radical Islam, just not as violent and it achieves nothing positive, just like radical Islam.

 

[TheWaffle]

Well if you have a specific dislike of Muslims, then you can understand and not hold it against them if they have a specific dilike of Western people in general because its just as much of an ignorant and stupid thing to believe.

Your brand of conservativism is just as backward as radical Islam, just not as violent and it achieves nothing positive, just like radical Islam.

Well said.

 

[palerider]

Well if you have a specific dislike of Muslims, then you can understand and not hold it against them if they have a specific dilike of Western people in general because its just as much of an ignorant and stupid thing to believe.

So thier bombing and killing and terrorism is analagous to my pointing out the truth about islam?

And did I say that I have a specific dislike of muslims, or did I say that I had a specific dislike of those who engage in terrorism and of those who condone and encourage it through their silence. If you believe that with that statment I am saying that I specifically dislike all muslims, then you are implying, in effect, that there are only those two types of muslims. Are you saying that there are only two types? Terrorists and those who support and encourage terrorism?

Your brand of conservativism is just as backward as radical Islam, just not as violent and it achieves nothing positive, just like radical Islam.

Describe my "brand" of conservativism. List off a few of the tenets of my "brand" of conservativism. Tell me something about the philosophy of my "brand" of conservativism.

Or admit that you really don't know much about conservativism or its tenets, or its philosophy and that you were just being sarcastic because you really didn't have an adequate rebuttal to my statement.

 

[9sublime]

So thier bombing and killing and terrorism is analagous to my pointing out the truth about islam?

NO, what I said was that your thinking and 'specific dislike' of millions of people you have never met based on their religion, is just as backward as terrorists hatred of the west and is therefore 'analagous'. I specifically said that your backward thinking was non-violent though and therefore doesn't involve killing and terrorism.


And did I say that I have a specific dislike of muslims, or 'did I say that I had a specific dislike of those who engage in terrorism and of those who condone and encourage it through their silence. If you believe that with that statment I am saying that I specifically dislike all muslims, then you are implying, in effect, that there are only those two types of muslims. Are you saying that there are only two types? Terrorists and those who support and encourage terrorism?

How have I ever implied that their are only two types of Muslims, ones who commit crimes and supporters of these crimes.

I've been saying the complete opposite.

You've taken my last quote, twisted it and made it go against my main point
in this debate, that most Muslims DON'T SUPPORT TERRORISM AND THAT THEIR SILENCE ISN'T SUPPORT.

As for your brand of conservatism, I am saying that you are just as filled with hate for religions, races and cultures as a lot of violent Muslims are, but rather than blowing stuff up you just sit behind a computer and ***** and moan because you havn't got any balls to change the world. You don't want the world to change, except for it to get more traditionally American. Your thinking is backward.

And how do I not even know the basics of conservatism.

 

[Fonz]

How have I ever implied that their are only two types of Muslims, ones who commit crimes and supporters of these crimes.

I've been saying the complete opposite.

You've taken my last quote, twisted it and made it go against my main point
in this debate, that most Muslims DON'T SUPPORT TERRORISM AND THAT THEIR SILENCE ISN'T SUPPORT.

As for your brand of conservatism, I am saying that you are just as filled with hate for religions, races and cultures as a lot of violent Muslims are, but rather than blowing stuff up you just sit behind a computer and ***** and moan because you havn't got any balls to change the world. You don't want the world to change, except for it to get more traditionally American. Your thinking is backward.

And how do I not even know the basics of conservatism.

sh it I'll say it. there are only two types of religious people. ONes who kill in the name of their God, and ones who support them, either directly or indirectly.

 

[9sublime]

I'm not religious, and I believe it does more harm than good, but thats just absoloute bollocks.