Skip to comments.Minutes Silence for Munich Massacre Victims Rejected ('too political' apparently)
Posted on 06/29/2012 3:36:09 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
Calls for the victims of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre to be remembered with a minute's silence at the opening of the London 2012 Games have been rebuffed by the organisers.
Ankie Spitzer has campaigned unsuccessfully for the act of remembrance since the atrocity.
Her husband - fencing coach Andre Spitzer - was one of 11 Israeli athletes and trainers killed when the Palestinian "Black September" organisation attacked apartments in the Olympic village and took them hostage in what was the darkest chapter in Olympic history.
The world looked on in horror as friendly competition was replaced by killing and bloodshed.
Many of those who died, including a West German police officer, were killed in a botched rescue effort.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Not to mention the natural European anti-Semitism that went underground in the years following World War II. Since so many Euros were slaughtered in that war (the most manly, aggressive), the Euros left over were passive and effeminate. However, they let the Muslims immigrate so now they’re anti-Semitic by proxy.
These bastards are Chicago thugs!
I won’t be watching any Olympic games, for this and other reasons. I’m old and still have very fresh memories of this horrific event. They should have more than just a “moment’ of silence. (Trying to self control a rant....)
Idea: Israeli athletes step out of line during the opening ceremonies, sit in w circle and say a prayer of remembrance.
....and a lesson that apparently was never taken seriously and since has lead to the death of thousands and still the potential of millions
If those killed were anything but Israeli, this would be a no-brainer.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Often said, but doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny, for many reasons. Among these are the fact that most combatants, on all sides, were conscripts, and conscription doesn't select for those qualities; and in any case the indiscriminate, industrial scale of the killing in modern warfare means that an individual's character has no bearing on the likelihood of his death.
American tactics were different. If American troops came up against a difficult position, they'd call in artillery or an air strike.
This isn't to denigrate the bravery and courage of anybody's troops. What it meant, was that the Americans, in the words of German troops after the war, "fought a rich man's war". The Soviets, Germans, Brits, French, etc. didn't always have the available armament or weaponry to do what the Americans could do at all times. This is also why the Americans were the most aggressive troops at the end of the war (followed by the Soviets, but that was because they were fueled by Vodka).
For Britain, the most devastating war in terms of people lost was the first world war, which cost millions of lives, and was more based on full frontal assault tactics. By contrast, British casualties ‘only’ numbered in the hundreds of thousands during WWII. If your Darwinian hypothesis held true, it would suggest that the first world war would have been the conflict that reduced Britain to a nation of cowards, and yet Britain continued to fight the Second World War in spite of odds that looked far less favourable in the early stages than at any time during the earlier war...
Montgomery was a VERY cautious general, only attacking after he had built up enough forces and had enough intel from ULTRA to strike at el-Alamein.
I admit my generalizations are just that, generalizations. I'm sure that today you have hardcore snake-eating Germans, Brits, French, and Russians even today. However, they're not in the size and quantity that we have in America.
They are generalisations, and they are inaccurate. Britain has fought wars since WWII were victory was not guaranteed. When was the last time American troops fought a war like the Falklands, where the enemy adversary had the means to defeat and destroy the task force.
As you yourself admit, America has the firepower and logistics to waste anything in its path easily and with considerably less risk to its own soldiers. Britain has not had this luxury and yet has fought battles and wars on limited resources and still won the fight. In the 20th Century, Britain and its troops have been forced to fight under conditions far more adverse than anything America has had to face since the US Civil War, well beyond living memory...
Besides which, I seem to recall that in the early stages, US Forces were also ignonimously routed from the Phillipines and various Pacific islands. It had little to do with bravery, and everything to do with being caught out and strategically outmaneuvered...
I’ve no doubt what you say in this post is true, but the numbers involved simply aren’t enough to have the permanent consequences on the national character you claim. Any geneticist will tell you that, terrible as they were, the numbers lost, in proportion to the total male population, could not have had a serious impact on the gene pool. Remember also that the genes of those who did die survived, as often as not, in siblings too young or too old to fight, or in children conceived before their deaths. The casualties came from a quite narrow age band; and there’s no logic in supposing that the qualities you mention were not present, in equal proportion, in those who happened not to be of fighting age when the war took place. All this is true even with the much larger losses of the First World War.
I haven’t watched an Olympiad in at least a decade. Last I saw, the women’s gymnastics had degenerated into exotic dancing with a ball or some other prop, and I turned it off. So to me it’s a question of which athletic events to not watch this year. Arab athletes walk out. Arab athletes stay in. They have a moment of silence. They don’t. I could care less.
Plus guest who had to bail Europe out twice during the two world wars? You guess it, we the Americans!