Most offensive lie of the week!

WWII] represents a war that was of racism and terror....Does that sound familiar to what we are going through today?
- Tom Hanks. bighollywood.breitbart.com...


That is by far the most offensive thing i have ever heard a celebrity say and surprising coming from tom hanks who usually supports WW2 vets, my grandfather was a bombadier in WW2 and fly 48 sorties before being shot down and he did it to defend his country and he was one of the most kindest,gentlest humble people i know and for Hanks to dishonor that memory by saying that B.S. is down right demeaning and slander

If you think about it .. WW2 was all about racism and terror. Hitler wanted to cleanse the world of other races, religions, cultures.

I don't think Tom Hanks was implying that American soldiers were fighting the war because of their own racist agenda. He is saying that the entire premise of WW2 was based on racial hatred.

I try and not let anything said by Hollywood bug me. Actors spouting their rhetoric isn't even entertaining..I guess not living in the real world accects their thought processes or something.

reply to post by Detailed Perfection


you can't be serious WW2 was not inspired by racism...

reply to post by zeroeffect


Honestly, I don't see the outrage.

To get all jacked up over that little 25-second clip is, frankly, a bit of an overreaction. The author of the blog seems to have it in for Hollywood for some reason --- does he just knee-jerk every time one of those "liberal left-leaning latte-drinking Prius-driving Hollywood types" (**) goes on the air and says anything?

**(as the Right in the USA seems intent on branding nearly everyone there, in Hollywood, with the same broad brush).


Mr. Hanks correctly was referring to the reality of some aspects of the war in the Pacific Theater. The Japanese soldiers were culturally impelled to fight to the death. I don't see any morality issues being claimed by Mr. Hanks. In fact, his reference to "what's going on today" could be inferred to mean that the ones who wish to destroy democracy, to further THEIR own agenda (religious Islamic extremism) are also willing to die for their cause. I think he was drawing an allusion to the Japanese mindset, in their culture of the day, under their Imperial Emperor-based society.

reply to post by zeroeffect


I respectfully advise that you value the opinions of media celebrities less, and the knowledge of history more.

To Mr. Hanks, and many others, the idea that a 'world war' can be about one thing is simplistically true.

But war as an expression of society's will, is always more complex than one or two salient issues.

Many make similar assertions about the American Civil war, and yet, most who scrutinize history know that if it had been that simple, a war would not have been necessary to eliminate the problem.

World War II's facade was about a repressive and aggressive attempt to marshal entire nations into a polarized machine to produce and project military might. To that end, cultural and racial bias was used by the progenitors of war.

But to deny that money, personal power, and Machiavellian gamesmanship wasn't a large part of it is ignorant. Ignorance is not the same a lying... unless it is done for the purposes of deception.

----

Relax, successful thespians should not be relied upon to 'think' for a community.... except maybe the community of Hollywood... can you guess why?

Originally posted by zeroeffect
reply to post by Detailed Perfection

 

you can't be serious WW2 was not inspired by racism...

Why would you think it wasn't? Race dominated the discussion in World War II - we have all kinds of visual evidence to support that. Once the war was going it was about survival but it started on a foundation of a weakened economy and race as a propaganda weapon. The Jews were literally blamed for all of the problems in Germany. Class warfare and race wars all come down to a controlling group pitting group A against group B for their own personal gain.

The second world war in both the European and Pacific theaters contained racism. Look at the propaganda posters produced by the Nazis against the Jews - they use every ugly racial stereotype possible and invented a few more. Hitler's hatred for the Jews was based, at least in part, on one of the ugliest race-baiting books around - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He used his racial hatred to kill millions of innocent people.

In the Pacific theater, both the US and Japan were guilty of exploiting the race card. Again, look at the propaganda produced by both countries - Japanese troops portrayed as monkeys with ugly faces for example. Of course it was racism that caused some of our problems - the Japs can't shoot straight or fly airplanes because of their slanted eyes or they don't have the ability to march through jungles because of their stubby little bowed legs. The Japanese did just fine shooting and flying and taking Singapore. And the Japanese propaganda implied that all whites were stupid, lazy and cowardly. Um, yeah, like on Wake Island and Midway I guess.

reply to post by zeroeffect


You obviously took what he said out of context.. perhaps its typical American ego-centrism that makes you think that any comment about WWII must be directed at the US.

WWII WAS a war based on terror, racism, antisemitism, anti a crap ton of things..

reply to post by ararisq


i think the author of the article said it best when he wrote " What is happening today actually bears a considerable resemblance to the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Contrary to Hanks’s thoughtless slander, before 1941 probably not a single American was interested in “annihilating [the Japanese] because they were different.” As evidenced by our laxity when it came to national defense. After Pearl Harbor, however, we had no choice but to swing into action–not to annihilate those who are different, but to defeat Japan and restore the peace. The Filipinos were “different” too, of course, so did we take time out to annihilate them? Um, no.

Likewise with the current conflicts. Prior to September 11, far from setting out to annihilate those who are “different,” we protected Muslims in Bosnia, tried to save Somalians from the warlords, and rescued Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Notwithstanding endless provocations, Americans were happy to leave it at that until Islamic terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans. Once again, we had to swing into action. So, did we “annihilate” those “different” Afghans and Iraqis? No, we established democracies and tried to bring both of those countries into the modern world by, among other things, liberating their women. How can a person of normal intelligence, as Hanks no doubt is, be so blind to reality? Presumably it has to do with swimming in the perverse, liberal water of Hollywood."

It was almost as racist as the War on Terror, which is just an excuse to kill Arabs. The evil men who support it even made up a fictitious organization called al-Qaeda. And over a million innocent people have died as a result.

There's plenty of propaganda and racism to go around.

reply to post by zeroeffect

Well I believe that he was just protesting against the current wars which IMHO is wrong. you need to remember that most actors are not the brightest people in creation.

Originally posted by zeroeffect
reply to post by Detailed Perfection

 

you can't be serious WW2 was not inspired by racism...

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick & then got offended by something that wasn't even said in the way you (mis)understood it.
Plus a lack of historical context about WW2.

*WW2 was inspired by racism* - because it was the racist Nazis who kicked it all off.
Plus all the propaganda following & during from both sides between the Nazis, Allies, Japanese....etc as mentioned by other posts

[edit on 16/3/2010 by moobaawoof]

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by zeroeffect

 

I respectfully advise that you value the opinions of media celebrities less, and the knowledge of history more.

To Mr. Hanks, and many others, the idea that a 'world war' can be about one thing is simplistically true.

But war as an expression of society's will, is always more complex than one or two salient issues.

Many make similar assertions about the American Civil war, and yet, most who scrutinize history know that if it had been that simple, a war would not have been necessary to eliminate the problem.

And I would 'respectfully advise' you to judge the content by the content, and not by its author also belonging to a certain subset. Like certain singers, I wish who would just shut up and sing, since they know nothing about politics or reality. Lincoln used the black freedom thing as a propaganda tool to mobilize the North. It was begun as a states' rights issue, not slavery. But most fought it as a slavery issue. So what was it really? For most, slavery. For some, Constitutional rights. I'd say that it was predominantly fought against slavery. In spite of the circumstances that incited the conflict.
And it would appear that, even if coming from some despot or terrorist, that our current Jihad opposition war is being fought by MOST of these misguided people, as one issue. And yes, there is MUCH much more going on that we are not aware of, that we are not permitted to know.

im sure he was being sarcastic^

its obvious it was inspired by racism, after all world war will usually start off with racism.
or fighting for resources.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by togetherwestand]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by togetherwestand]

Hitler believed Germans were ubermensh, Aryans, a race superior to all others.

He believed Jews were undermensh, a race to be despised and swept from the motherland.

Are you saying this is not a racist philosophy, or that this philosophy had nothing to do with WWII?

And if you don't know about the continual terrorist tactics used by the brave soldiers of the underground in countries Germany took over, risking their lives to keep fighting their enemy, then you need to do some more reading.

Not all terrorism is wrong, you know. If another country invaded Australia I'd turn terrorist myself to defend my homeland.



When Goliath stomps down a hundred cities, that's war. When a survivor from one of these cities chucks a stone at Goliath with his home-made sling-shot, that's terrorism. Who is more moral, Goliath or the stone-chucking survivor?

If you want people to get behind these wars, which are all scams, all you have to do is use the terror, race and spreading democracy cards. These are emotional issues which always work like a charm.

The terror event kicks things off. Then the race card is played to build anger against the enemy. And finally, the spreading democracy excuse is provided to give the impression that the misery and loss of life is justified.

If the public knew the real reasons behind these wars, they would never support them.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Tom Hanks nailed the selling point of the war (in the Pacific, US vs Japan) nicely - it was sold in propaganda as a racist war.

The real reason for the war was of course to conquer Japan and allow the controller scum to make inroads into Asia to further their imperialistic designs.

War propaganda of course focused on the racial and cultural differences between the Japanese and Americans. They were crazy, suicidal, tortured and so on - things the Americans would never do - oh no!

This is of course a stupid and ignorant position - people are people and the values of people are not so different from place to place - regardless of what propagandists might want to instill in people.

Muslims are not towel headed psycho's who want to blow themselves up for Allah any more than Christians would - its purely a propagandized message to deliver a result - support from war.

If people are suicide bombers and so on - generally it is for personal reasons, loss of family members, despair at injustice and displacement from their homes and so on.

The current war on terror is of course based on demonizing Muslims, Arabs, Afghans and so on - making a denial on this point is fairly hard to justify.

The entire basis of the wars in the ME is fear of the 'crazy people' who live in those countries.

The fact that they are generally poor farmers with few resources, and no way to attack anyone is beside the point - they are crazy people, they are dangerous - they are so different from 'normal' people, we need to invade.

Its ridiculous - and anyone with any knowledge can see how absurd it is - but there it is - there's the sales pitch.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Amagnon]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by zeroeffect

 

I respectfully advise that you value the opinions of media celebrities less, and the knowledge of history more.

To Mr. Hanks, and many others, the idea that a 'world war' can be about one thing is simplistically true.

But war as an expression of society's will, is always more complex than one or two salient issues.

Many make similar assertions about the American Civil war, and yet, most who scrutinize history know that if it had been that simple, a war would not have been necessary to eliminate the problem.

World War II's facade was about a repressive and aggressive attempt to marshal entire nations into a polarized machine to produce and project military might. To that end, cultural and racial bias was used by the progenitors of war.

But to deny that money, personal power, and Machiavellian gamesmanship wasn't a large part of it is ignorant. Ignorance is not the same a lying... unless it is done for the purposes of deception.

----

Relax, successful thespians should not be relied upon to 'think' for a community.... except maybe the community of Hollywood... can you guess why?

Hanks can obviously think more effectively than most, although there is some complexity to the issue - the fundamental importance of racism is not negligible.

Firstly Japan did not want to fight the US - it was pushed and lured into attacking Pearl Harbor - by the belief that the US was massing for an imminent attack on Japan.

It is not too hard to find the documented evidence that the US govt knew about the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor, but did nothing. The globalists, using the government created the conditions they knew would draw an attack from the Japanese - and therefore justify war to the US people.

Then the war was fueled by images of the inhuman nature of the Japanese - their ferocity, use of swords, torture and mistreatment of prisoners etc - but the basis was that they were fundamentally different from Americans - they were evil - this was the propaganda for war - it was a racist basis.

Most who lived through the war with Japan maintained a lingering and abiding hate for the Japanese, long after the conflict had finished - from their own experiences? Not as often as you think - mostly due to the stories and things they were told by those who controlled information - the war propagandists.

Nope - the Japanese were evil - pure and simple, and a good Jap was a dead Jap - tell me that there is no racism in this message.

Racism, dehumanization and so on are pretty much required for people to kill other people enmasse - unless you have managed to recruit an army completely composed of psycho's.

All war is based on deception - and war is never fought for the benefit of the common man - it is a racket - it is a lie - and all men would do well to reject the lies and propaganda upon which it is based, and instead sue for peace.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Amagnon]

reply to post by zeroeffect


I have to wonder at your knowledge of history, especially WWII.

And for the record, Tom Hanks, is just an actor, not a history major.

WWII, was inspired by racism, selective racism at that and Hitler wanted a final solution.

The eradication through genocide of the Israelis, homeless, gypsies, any undesirables.

Japan and Italy had just as much of this planned as Germany.

No one ever said your grandfather was not admirable, I did not know him nor would anyone here on ATS, nor would Tom Hanks, so get your emotions in check.

If you really want to know more about how it was done, I recommend this book :

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c9c27969530.jpg[/atsimg]

Quote from : Wikipedia : I.B.M. and the Holocaust

IBM and the Holocaust, by Edwin Black, is a book documenting the relationship between IBM and the Third Reich. Crown Publishing and a consortium of other leading publishers worldwide published it in 2001 in more than forty countries in fourteen languages.

IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation

Amazon Review :

Was IBM, "The Solutions Company," partly responsible for the Final Solution?

That's the question raised by Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust, the most controversial book on the subject since Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners.

Black, a son of Holocaust survivors, is less tendentiously simplistic than Goldhagen, but his thesis is no less provocative: he argues that IBM founder Thomas Watson deserved the Merit Cross (Germany's second-highest honor) awarded him by Hitler, his second-biggest customer on earth.

"IBM, primarily through its German subsidiary, made Hitler's program of Jewish destruction a technologic mission the company pursued with chilling success," writes Black.

"IBM had almost single-handedly brought modern warfare into the information age [and] virtually put the 'blitz' in the krieg."

The crucial technology was a precursor to the computer, the IBM Hollerith punch card machine, which Black glimpsed on exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, inspiring his five-year, top-secret book project. The Hollerith was used to tabulate and alphabetize census data.

Black says the Hollerith and its punch card data ("hole 3 signified homosexual ... hole 8 designated a Jew") was indispensable in rounding up prisoners, keeping the trains fully packed and on time, tallying the deaths, and organizing the entire war effort.

Hitler's regime was fantastically, suicidally chaotic; could IBM have been the cause of its sole competence: mass-murdering civilians?

Better scholars than I must sift through and appraise Black's mountainous evidence, but clearly the assessment is overdue.

The moral argument turns on one question: How much did IBM New York know about IBM Germany's work, and when?

Black documents a scary game of brinksmanship orchestrated by IBM chief Watson, who walked a fine line between enraging U.S. officials and infuriating Hitler.

He shamefully delayed returning the Nazi medal until forced to--and when he did return it, the Nazis almost kicked IBM and its crucial machines out of Germany.

(Hitler was prone to self-defeating decisions, as demonstrated in How Hitler Could Have Won World War II.)

Edwin Black : IBM and the Holocaust


That one book, is a compression of the information of WWII, of just one aspect of how, why, and that the eradication of the Israelis was done, through I.B.M.

You will notice I do not call the Israelis, "Jews", because that word is nasty.

To me, using Adolph Hitler's word, is anti-Semitic, as was Juden.

I speak of the process quite a bit more in the thread below but there is so much knowledge that is lost to history, because people do not bother researching it.

The US Census Form - coming to your mailbox!

The thread is not mine originally, but I've posted some critical information there.

Remember, if your grandfather fought on behalf of the Allies, he was a hero, if he fought on behalf of the Nazi's he was wrong, and if he was just a loyal German, he was blind, and without knowing any of those variables I cannot speak to his honor or not, my commentary there is a blanket statement about history.

Research, investigate, and cross-reference and take Hollywood as nothing more than Hollywood.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]