Masons and Morocco

Cairenn

Senior Member.
WHAT??? Sorry Masons are not some weird cult. They do a HUGE amount of charity work, my dad was as straight laced as they come and he was a Mason. I am proud of him for that, and folks that make they out to be something else, don't know what they are talking about.

There is NO EVIDENCE, if you have some, please post it.

Btw, the A is for the ARMY and the 5 for the 5th group. Since it was created for the defense of Morocco, the Arabic style background is reasonable.

Nothing Masonic or odd about it.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
WHAT??? Sorry Masons are not some weird cult. They do a HUGE amount of charity work, my dad was as straight laced as they come and he was a Mason. I am proud of him for that, and folks that make they out to be something else, don't know what they are talking about.

There is NO EVIDENCE, if you have some, please post it.

Btw, the A is for the ARMY and the 5 for the 5th group. Since it was created for the defense of Morocco, the Arabic style background is reasonable.

Nothing Masonic or odd about it.

Only teasing! :) I know the at a glance meaning of the symbol, the 'A' and '5' for the fifth army. This is obvious as that is their badge! Also I know a reasonable amount about masonry too, the guilds of old, stone and gold, the crafts, half of my paternal family are, literally, masons, in fact our family there goes by the name "The Masons" as they are multi-generational workers of the stone. I didn' t know about the 5th Army coming into existence to defend the royal family of Morocco. Interesting point but it just reaffirms the masonic link, the king is of the 33rd degree, the Moorish royals being steeped in masonry for centuries. In fact, surely, masonry starts in north Africa, Scottish houses are later day interpretations of the messianic cult of old in north Africa, Egypt.
I would say the 5th Army symbol is deeply masonic. Or beyond masonry. The letter A or Alpha itself is always a reference to the uncapped pyramid, that is what an A is! Such symbolism is lost in modern interpretation of alphabetical construction. They are rooted in hieroglyphic meaning. One would assume alpha or the uncapped pyramid is the first letter as knowledge and it's articulation is rooted in the secrets of the stone.

I think of a beautiful nutter from the inception of hop hop, who sadly died recently, Rammellzee, and Alpha's Bet. He had such a falsely verbose, obtuse philosophy concerning letter construction, historical meaning, cypher and the suppression of knowledge. Utterly nuts and without formal education but fascinating nonetheless. Some academics have attempted to formalise, rationalise his madness.

Regarding evidence, the cipher in the symbol is obvious, so I assume, and am confident if I look to their history this will be the case, especially as you mentioned Morocco! I will look into it.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The Moroccan royal family are not Masons. They are Muslims and Masons have to be Christians.

Before we wander off into a discussion of Masons, I would like to ask Mick to split that discussion off this thread.

Then we can discuss the Masons, properly
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
. The letter A or Alpha itself is always a reference to the uncapped pyramid, that is what an A is! Such symbolism is lost in modern interpretation of alphabetical construction. They are rooted in hieroglyphic meaning. One would assume alpha or the uncapped pyramid is the first letter as knowledge and it's articulation is rooted in the secrets of the stone.


There is NO connection of the letter A to an uncapped or capped pyramid. The first A came from Phonetician alphabet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A

he earliest certain ancestor of "A" is aleph (also called 'aleph), the first letter of the Phoenician alphabet[2] (which, by consisting entirely of consonants, is an abjad rather than a true alphabet). In turn, the origin of aleph may have been a pictogram of an ox head in proto-Sinaitic script[3] influenced by Egyptian hieroglyphs, styled as a triangular head with two horns extended.
Content from External Source
Phoenicia was located in the area of Lebanon, not in Egypt.

Phoenicia was an ancient Semitic civilization situated on the western, coastal part of the Fertile Crescent and centered on the coastline of modern Lebanon. All major Phoenician cities were on the coastline of the Mediterranean, some colonies reaching the Western Mediterranean. It was an enterprising maritime trading culture that spread across the Mediterranean from 1550 BC to 300 BC. The Phoenicians used the galley, a man-powered sailing vessel, and are credited with the invention of the bireme.[3] They were famed in Classical Greece and Rome as 'traders in purple', referring to their monopoly on the precious purple dye of the Murex snail, used, among other things, for royal clothing, and for their spread of the alphabet (or abjad), from which all major modern phonetic alphabets are derived.
Content from External Source

So we can remove the use of the letter A as some kind of an occult symbol.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
The Moroccan royal family are not Masons. They are Muslims and Masons have to be Christians.

Quite. I take your point about Scottish freemasonry and it's ostensive neccessity of belief in Christianity. There are many orders are there not? Certainly the Scottish one prevalent in the states, Rosicrucianism, etc are relatively latter day incarnations, relative to the ancient stature of messianic rites within Egypt. There are many jews in 'masonry' too, surely. I will retract the assertion the king is 33rd degree as I can not prove it, particularly given the fact it is hard to prove anyone's involvement in the highet eschalons of secret societies, and also, practically speaking, as I am on a touch screen phone!

http://www.grandelogeuniedumaroc.com/

But yes, masonry wasn't the point of this thread. It's complex, controversial and not my point, which was concerning the Jamboree and US Department of Defense and 5th Army involvement in operations there.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Symbols are ridiculously open to end-user interpretation though, so anyone can claim, with some degree of truth, that any visual representation is connected to 'X'.
That 'A' could be seen as set-square, a Masonic tool, or just a representation of a 'sacred angle', and '5' can be broken down into occult numbers - '23' for instance.
This way of looking at things is really just a personal tool for grabbing shapes out of chaos and choosing to make a story, but actually thinking that story has to translate to anyone else's reality is an unwarranted step.
It's not useful for predicting anything about reality, except in a 'chaos psychology' sense, and you're not going to convince anyone else of your story unless they're reading from the same script.
Sometimes groups of people choose to create symbols and a story together, but those stories tend to fade out like whirlpools losing their energy over time.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
There is NO connection of the letter A to an uncapped or capped pyramid. The first A came from Phonetician alphabet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A

he earliest certain ancestor of "A" is aleph (also called 'aleph), the first letter of the Phoenician alphabet[2] (which, by consisting entirely of consonants, is an abjad rather than a true alphabet). In turn, the origin of aleph may have been a pictogram of an ox head in proto-Sinaitic script[3] influenced by Egyptian hieroglyphs, styled as a triangular head with two horns extended.
Content from External Source
Phoenicia was located in the area of Lebanon, not in Egypt.

Phoenicia was an ancient Semitic civilization situated on the western, coastal part of the Fertile Crescent and centered on the coastline of modern Lebanon. All major Phoenician cities were on the coastline of the Mediterranean, some colonies reaching the Western Mediterranean. It was an enterprising maritime trading culture that spread across the Mediterranean from 1550 BC to 300 BC. The Phoenicians used the galley, a man-powered sailing vessel, and are credited with the invention of the bireme.[3] They were famed in Classical Greece and Rome as 'traders in purple', referring to their monopoly on the precious purple dye of the Murex snail, used, among other things, for royal clothing, and for their spread of the alphabet (or abjad), from which all major modern phonetic alphabets are derived.
Content from External Source

So we can remove the use of the letter A as some kind of an occult symbol.

I am well aware of Phoenicia's geographic location without referring to Wikipedia, but thanks anyway. I know it's Lebanon and never said Phoenicia was in Egypt! Though whilst we're at it the Phoenician empire did spread far and wide, across to Carthage as your quote hints. There is controversy over the derivation of the phoenician alphabet of modern western use. At least your reference there acknowleges the letter A is derived from hieroglyphics. Western, eurocentric scholars tend to place emphasis on the primacy of Babylonian scripts, just as they do the primacy of Greek philosophy. Revisionists look to Egypt as the cradle.

Black Athena, The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilisation by Martin Bernal is a great book for challenging the preconceptions of Orientalist dogma. Sadly seems he died only a few days ago.

Also, I did not say the A is an occult symbol, it is you that has referenced the occult. To dicipher the symbolism in any sign, including the 5th Army's, I'd assume the best thing to do would be to ask the designer and discuss the brief.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
I
Symbols are ridiculously open to end-user interpretation though, so anyone can claim, with some degree of truth, that any visual representation is connected to 'X'.
That 'A' could be seen as set-square, a Masonic tool, or just a representation of a 'sacred angle', and '5' can be broken down into occult numbers - '23' for instance.
This way of looking at things is really just a personal tool for grabbing shapes out of chaos and choosing to make a story, but actually thinking that story has to translate to anyone else's reality is an unwarranted step.
It's not useful for predicting anything about reality, except in a 'chaos psychology' sense, and you're not going to convince anyone else of your story unless they're reading from the same script.
Sometimes groups of people choose to create symbols and a story together, but those stories tend to fade out like whirlpools losing their energy over time.

I wholeheartedly agree! I never said the 5th Army sign "is" ridden with symbolism, initially. It was a joke, if anyone rechecks. I know not whether there is or is not any cipher within the sign. To me, as an observer, there obviously is, but this is subjective interpretation.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
But the A came from a symbol for an OX not a pyramid. Lay an A on its side and that is more obvious to me, than it is an 'uncapped pyramid'.

Quite. I take your point about Scottish freemasonry and it's ostensive neccessity of belief in Christianity. There are many orders are there not? Certainly the Scottish one prevalent in the states, Rosicrucianism, etc are relatively latter day incarnations, relative to the ancient stature of messianic rites within Egypt. There are many jews in 'masonry' too, surely.

First, you are confusing groups. Rosicruciasm it not related to Masonry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism

Ok, I was incorrect Masons must believe in a Supreme Being, so both Muslims and Jews are allowed. It does seem that some Islamic Imans do not look favorably on Masonary, the same is true of the Catholic Church and some Christian sects.

Morocco was under attack, or threatened by the North African campaign of WW II of the Axis powers. We did not want the Germans to take additional land. Land that would be needed for a campaign against Italy.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Boodles, it did not seem to be a 'joke' to me. You were linking it with other things as well.

I found this to be interesting about the author you mentioned.

The book also ignited a debate in the academic community. While some reviewers contend that studies of the origin of Greek civilization were tainted by a foundation of 19th century racism, many have criticized Bernal for the speculative nature of his hypothesis, his unsystematic and linguistically incompetent handling of etymologies as well as his naive handling of ancient myth and historiography. The claims made in Black Athena were heavily questioned inter alia in Black Athena Revisited (1996), a collection of essays edited by Mary Lefkowitz and her colleague Guy MacLean Rogers.[6][7]

Critics voice their strongest doubts over Bernal's approach to language and word derivations (etymologies). Cambridge Egyptologist John D. Ray has accused Bernal's work of having a confirmation bias.[8] Edith Hall compares Bernal's thesis to the myth of the Olympian gods overwhelming the Titans and Giants, which was once thought of as a historical recollection of Homo sapiens taking over from Neanderthal man. She asserts that this historical approach to myth firmly belongs in the nineteenth century.[9]

Others have challenged the lack of archaeological evidence for Bernal's thesis. Egyptologist James Weinstein points out that there is very little evidence that the ancient Egyptians were a colonizing people in the third millennium and second millennium BC.[10] Furthermore, there is no evidence for Egyptian colonies of any sort in the Aegean world. Weinstein accuses Bernal of relying primarily on his interpretations of Greek myths as well as distorted interpretations of the archaeological and historical data.
Content from External Source
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
I think the decimal point reference was the most important point of that original post. Never mind. Vibrant responses in anycase, thanks.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Yea
Boodles, it did not seem to be a 'joke' to me. You were linking it with other things as well.

I found this to be interesting about the author you mentioned.

The book also ignited a debate in the academic community. While some reviewers contend that studies of the origin of Greek civilization were tainted by a foundation of 19th century racism, many have criticized Bernal for the speculative nature of his hypothesis, his unsystematic and linguistically incompetent handling of etymologies as well as his naive handling of ancient myth and historiography. The claims made in Black Athena were heavily questioned inter alia in Black Athena Revisited (1996), a collection of essays edited by Mary Lefkowitz and her colleague Guy MacLean Rogers.[6][7]

Critics voice their strongest doubts over Bernal's approach to language and word derivations (etymologies). Cambridge Egyptologist John D. Ray has accused Bernal's work of having a confirmation bias.[8] Edith Hall compares Bernal's thesis to the myth of the Olympian gods overwhelming the Titans and Giants, which was once thought of as a historical recollection of Homo sapiens taking over from Neanderthal man. She asserts that this historical approach to myth firmly belongs in the nineteenth century.[9]

Others have challenged the lack of archaeological evidence for Bernal's thesis. Egyptologist James Weinstein points out that there is very little evidence that the ancient Egyptians were a colonizing people in the third millennium and second millennium BC.[10] Furthermore, there is no evidence for Egyptian colonies of any sort in the Aegean world. Weinstein accuses Bernal of relying primarily on his interpretations of Greek myths as well as distorted interpretations of the archaeological and historical data.
Content from External Source

Yeah his views are not popular among the Oxbridge establishment orientalists. Why would they be? Diop is another good revisionist linguist worth reading. Fact is Plato, Socrates, all spent ten years plus learning from the Egyptians. Pythagorus spent ten years plus in Egypt learning mathematics and geometry. We attribute so much to these Europeans for the knowledge they borrowed from Africans. I suggest reading the book. Stuffy academics in Cambridge will always reject such notions as it goes against their world view.
Actually ties in with masonry. The messianic priesthood that Pythagorus, Plato and all the greats of ancient Greece became iniates of is of course entirely African, Egyptian.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
And Cairenn, it was a joke, I assure you. People look at simple symbols and upon further analysis, interpret meaning that is not immediately apparent. I thought it would be funny to flip it around and see a connoted "secret meaning" before I could see the denoted meaning. I have made no negative slant toward freemasons, at all.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
But the A came from a symbol for an OX not a pyramid. Lay an A on its side and that is more obvious to me, than it is an 'uncapped pyramid'.



First, you are confusing groups. Rosicruciasm it not related to Masonry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism

Ok, I was incorrect Masons must believe in a Supreme Being, so both Muslims and Jews are allowed. It does seem that some Islamic Imans do not look favorably on Masonary, the same is true of the Catholic Church and some Christian sects.

Morocco was under attack, or threatened by the North African campaign of WW II of the Axis powers. We did not want the Germans to take additional land. Land that would be needed for a campaign against Italy.

Secret societies are all inter-related. There was a plethora of them in post-enlightenment Venice, Vienna and beyond, they rejected dogmatic notions, and in that sense isn't surprising they faced distain from orthodoxy.

Whether Axis or Allied the 'need' had little or nothing to do with the common man, assuredly.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Really? Tell that to disabled, the Gypsies, the homosexuals and the Jews of Axis controlled Europe. Well tell that to their graves then, since they were killed.

And all secret societies are not inter-related. They each have different roots and rituals.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Really? Tell that to disabled, the Gypsies, the homosexuals and the Jews of Axis controlled Europe. Well tell that to their graves then, since they were killed.

And all secret societies are not inter-related. They each have different roots and rituals.

That's a little emotive as a response. The persecution of homosexuals, jews or gypsies had nothing whatsoever to do with allied war efforts, it was about imperialism and the consolidation of power, on all sides. The allied forces killed countless more than the axis forces. The victors write the historical account. Stalin killed 20 million alone, before during and after the 'war'. Churchill murdered 300 000 citizens in a week at Dresden, the Nazi's didn't set out to deliberately target British civilians from air, as Churchill did, with German citizens. Churchill thoroughly approved of concentration camps as a concept, the British having invented them under Kitchener, I believe. My point is that any acquisition in north Africa, Morocco, in this instance, has nothing to do with what in or was in the interests of the common man in Morocco.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
"Churchill writes that in order to counter guerrilla sabotage, “British military authorities found it necessary to clear whole districts of their inhabitants and gather the population into concentration camps. As the railways were continually cut, it was difficult to supply these camps with all the necessities of life. Disease broke out and several thousands of women and children died."
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The Nazi's didn't target civilians? REALLY, now that is some kind of revisionist history. Now that you have revealed yourself, I bid you adieu.

Between February 13th and February 14th 1945, between 35,000 and 135,000 people were killed by Allied bombing in Dresden. Historians still argue over the number of deaths. However, there were so many refugees in the city at the time that the real figure will almost certainly never be known.
So why was Dresden chosen as a target? Arthur Harris, head of Bomber Command, had always held the view that any city that had anything to do with the Nazi war effort was a target. A number of theories do exist as to why Dresden was chosen so late in the war.

1) The city was in Nazi Germany and for this reason was a legitimate target for attack as the Allies were at war with Nazi Germany.

2) The city was not simply a cultural centre – there were factories there producing weapons and equipment for the Nazi war effort. Therefore, the city was a legitimate target. It was also a rail base to send troops to the war front with the Russians.

3) Though the Russians were allies, Churchill and Roosevelt had already decided that Stalin would be a major problem after the end of the war. Therefore, as the Red Army advanced against an army that was effectively defeated, it had no idea as to what an equal and possibly superior military force could do. Therefore, Dresden was bombed to show the Russians the awesome power of the Allies and to act as a warning to them not to stray from the agreements they had made at the war conferences.
Content from External Source


he Luftwaffe had made a very thorough reconnaissance of the city and knew where the most important factories were. Planning for the raid on Coventry was equally as thorough as the Luftwaffe planned to be as destructive as was possible. Their plan was for a east to west flight over the city followed by a west to east attack. The intention was to create a firestorm within the city that would destroy factories and totally break the morale of the people there. The ultimate aim of the attack was to create such a feeling of shock that the government would sue for peace.
Content from External Source

The 1942 bombing of York

York was bombed as part of the Baedeker Raids on April 29th 1942. Hitler had been infuriated when the RAF had bombed the historic cities of Rostock and Lübeck and it is said that he picked up the Baedeker Guide and ordered that any historic city in the guide that had been given three-stars or more was to be bombed – it was a decision that doomed York, which as a cathedral city had been given three-stars in the guide. More than 70 Luftwaffe aircraft took part on the raid and for the most part their journey was unimpeded with only four bombers being shot down. The bombing started at 02.30 and finished at 04.46. Over 9,000 buildings were either damaged or destroyed and 92 people were killed. The raid exposed the vulnerability of British cities to bombing. A nearby Bomber Command base had heard the attack but could do little to stop it.
Content from External Source



he Blitz (from German, "lightning") was the sustained strategic bombing of the United Kingdom by Germany during the Second World War. Between 7 September 1940 and 21 May 1941 there were major raids (attacks in which more than 100 tonnes of high explosives were dropped) on 16 British cities. Over a period of 267 days (almost 37 weeks), London was attacked 71 times, Birmingham, Liverpool and Plymouth eight times, Bristol six, Glasgow five, Southampton four, Portsmouth three, and there was also at least one large raid on another eight cities.[1] This was a result of a rapid escalation starting on 24 August 1940, when night bombers aiming for RAF airfields drifted off course and accidentally destroyed several London homes, killing civilians, combined with Churchill's immediate response of bombing Berlin.

Starting on 7 September 1940, London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights.[7] More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, almost half of them in London....




Ultimately, Hitler was trapped within his own vision of bombing as a terror weapon, formed in the 1930s when he threatened smaller nations into accepting German rule rather than submit to air bombardment. This fact had important implications. It showed the extent to which Hitler personally mistook Allied strategy for one of morale breaking instead of one of economic warfare, with the collapse of morale as an additional bonus.[22] Hitler was much more attracted to the political aspects of bombing. Where the mere threat of it had produced diplomatic results in the 1930s, he expected that mere threat of German retaliation to persuade the Allies to adopt a policy of moderation and not to begin a policy of unrestricted bombing.

...

t was decided to focus on bombing Britain's industrial cities in daylight to begin with. The main focus of the bombing operations was against the city of London. The first major raid in this regard took place on 7 September. On 15 September, on a date known as the Battle of Britain Day, a large-scale raid was launched in daylight, but suffered significant loss for no lasting gain. Although there were a few large air battles fought in daylight later in the month and into October, the Luftwaffe switched its main effort to night attacks in order to reduce losses. This became official policy on 7 October. The air campaign soon got underway against London and other British cities.

...

Strategic or "terror" bombing

Although official German air doctrine did target civilian morale, it did not espouse the attacking of civilians directly. It hoped to destroy morale by destroying the enemy's factories and public utilities as well as its food stocks (by attacking shipping). Nevertheless, its official opposition to attacks on civilians became an increasingly moot point when large-scale raids were conducted in November and December 1940. Although not encouraged by official policy, the use of mines and incendiaries, for tactical expediency, came close to indiscriminate bombing. Locating targets in skies obscured by industrial haze meant they needed to be illuminated "without regard for the civilian population".[91]

Content from External Source
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Well this *is* turning out to be an interesting history lesson.

(The fire-bombing of Dresden was a major crime against humanity.)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
War is always a crime against humanity. It doesn't matter if it is a 'just war' or one for the sake of national glory. That true of Rome and true today. The 'common man' often pays the price.

If anything, modern warfare is reducing the toll on the civilians. WW II was very likely when civilians took the worst hits from warfare. A lot of bombing during it were done to demoralize the population, on all sides.

As weapons have gotten more precise and after I think everyone saw how poorly 'demoralizing the population' works". Today, if we want to take out a factory, we can hit the building with the production line, the rail lines in and leave the admin building intact.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Didn't war back in ancient times tend to be a more honourable thing, with soldiers meeting on the plains to fight each other and not civilians, not rampaging through the towns hacking at the people and destroying all the infrastructure?
I don't know if that's true or not, but it'd be nice if politicians and armies who wanted to play those games would take it somewhere out of the way of the innocent and blow each others limbs off to their heart's content.
War is such a weird concept, using technology and engineering to destroy as many humans as you can, that then means you've won.
I guess every now and then someone just really wants to impose their will on territory that isn't rightfully theirs so mass-produced violence is the obvious choice.
It's hard to understand what war means in the modern world - the tribal raids that were it's source no longer seem to fit what's happening, now it's all about gaining control of either people's minds or people's markets.
(eta, well, I guess those are 'territories' and resources of a sort)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Churchill writes that in order to counter guerrilla sabotage, “British military authorities found it necessary to clear whole districts of their inhabitants and gather the population into concentration camps. As the railways were continually cut, it was difficult to supply these camps with all the necessities of life. Disease broke out and several thousands of women and children died."

Churchill there is describing what happened during the second Boer War, in 1900, in southern Africa. A very different time, place and situation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=n2...wKv8YGYBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
I
Churchill there is describing what happened during the second Boer War, in 1900, in southern Africa. A very different time, place and situation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=n2...wKv8YGYBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I know, he fought in it as a young cavalier. He repeatedly advocated the use of concentration camps. Set the benchmark and precursor. The imperial standard. Should you be interested a good friend of our family made a BBC documentary about this area. Kenneth Griffith. He was a controversial film maker, David Attenborough used to give him freedom of funds to do so as he pleased. But post production at least one of his documentaries were banned from British television and went unbroadcast for twenty plus years. The British establishment found the uncompromising hard truths difficult to handle.. I think it was Sir Michael Grade that eventually sued Margaret Thatcher, to get the continued ban lifted, and Channel 4 were finally able to screen it. This wasn't his film about Churchill and the Boers though. Great character, great poise, passion and tone.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Griffith


(edit: seems it was the BBC not C4 that aired. Will have to check wiith my mother!
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
War is always a crime against humanity. It doesn't matter if it is a 'just war' or one for the sake of national glory. That true of Rome and true today. The 'common man' often pays the price.

If anything, modern warfare is reducing the toll on the civilians. WW II was very likely when civilians took the worst hits from warfare. A lot of bombing during it were done to demoralize the population, on all sides.

As weapons have gotten more precise and after I think everyone saw how poorly 'demoralizing the population' works". Today, if we want to take out a factory, we can hit the building with the production line, the rail lines in and leave the admin building intact.

500 000 died in Iraq. Ever Google imaged the words "white phosphorus" and "fallujah"? I wouldn't. That's some precision weaponry. Doubt those search terms would bring the volume of disturbing images they used to, has been near totally censored now. Still. Shake and bake they call it, huh? I would guess the hundreds of thousands of people dying from cancer in Iraq due to the sheer tonnage of depleted uranium left there by the 'allies' bullets and armaments might feel demoralised. Google image "Iraq" "birth defects" and "depleted uranium" simultaneously and see how demoralising modern warfare can be. Or don't, it is very disturbing.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Morocco was under attack, or threatened by the North African campaign of WW II of the Axis powers. We did not want the Germans to take additional land. Land that would be needed for a campaign against Italy.

So the logic there is the American European colonialists wanted to stop German European colonialists from depossessing land occupied by French European colonialists. This kind of logic is amusing to Africans, I can assure you, as a Londoner.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
The Nazi's didn't target civilians? REALLY, now that is some kind of revisionist history. Now that you have revealed yourself, I bid you adieu.

Between February 13th and February 14th 1945, between 35,000 and 135,000 people were killed by Allied bombing in Dresden. Historians still argue over the number of deaths. However, there were so many refugees in the city at the time that the real figure will almost certainly never be known.
So why was Dresden chosen as a target? Arthur Harris, head of Bomber Command, had always held the view that any city that had anything to do with the Nazi war effort was a target. A number of theories do exist as to why Dresden was chosen so late in the war.

1) The city was in Nazi Germany and for this reason was a legitimate target for attack as the Allies were at war with Nazi Germany.

2) The city was not simply a cultural centre – there were factories there producing weapons and equipment for the Nazi war effort. Therefore, the city was a legitimate target. It was also a rail base to send troops to the war front with the Russians.

3) Though the Russians were allies, Churchill and Roosevelt had already decided that Stalin would be a major problem after the end of the war. Therefore, as the Red Army advanced against an army that was effectively defeated, it had no idea as to what an equal and possibly superior military force could do. Therefore, Dresden was bombed to show the Russians the awesome power of the Allies and to act as a warning to them not to stray from the agreements they had made at the war conferences.
Content from External Source


he Luftwaffe had made a very thorough reconnaissance of the city and knew where the most important factories were. Planning for the raid on Coventry was equally as thorough as the Luftwaffe planned to be as destructive as was possible. Their plan was for a east to west flight over the city followed by a west to east attack. The intention was to create a firestorm within the city that would destroy factories and totally break the morale of the people there. The ultimate aim of the attack was to create such a feeling of shock that the government would sue for peace.
Content from External Source

The 1942 bombing of York

York was bombed as part of the Baedeker Raids on April 29th 1942. Hitler had been infuriated when the RAF had bombed the historic cities of Rostock and Lübeck and it is said that he picked up the Baedeker Guide and ordered that any historic city in the guide that had been given three-stars or more was to be bombed – it was a decision that doomed York, which as a cathedral city had been given three-stars in the guide. More than 70 Luftwaffe aircraft took part on the raid and for the most part their journey was unimpeded with only four bombers being shot down. The bombing started at 02.30 and finished at 04.46. Over 9,000 buildings were either damaged or destroyed and 92 people were killed. The raid exposed the vulnerability of British cities to bombing. A nearby Bomber Command base had heard the attack but could do little to stop it.
Content from External Source



he Blitz (from German, "lightning") was the sustained strategic bombing of the United Kingdom by Germany during the Second World War. Between 7 September 1940 and 21 May 1941 there were major raids (attacks in which more than 100 tonnes of high explosives were dropped) on 16 British cities. Over a period of 267 days (almost 37 weeks), London was attacked 71 times, Birmingham, Liverpool and Plymouth eight times, Bristol six, Glasgow five, Southampton four, Portsmouth three, and there was also at least one large raid on another eight cities.[1] This was a result of a rapid escalation starting on 24 August 1940, when night bombers aiming for RAF airfields drifted off course and accidentally destroyed several London homes, killing civilians, combined with Churchill's immediate response of bombing Berlin.

Starting on 7 September 1940, London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights.[7] More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, almost half of them in London....




Ultimately, Hitler was trapped within his own vision of bombing as a terror weapon, formed in the 1930s when he threatened smaller nations into accepting German rule rather than submit to air bombardment. This fact had important implications. It showed the extent to which Hitler personally mistook Allied strategy for one of morale breaking instead of one of economic warfare, with the collapse of morale as an additional bonus.[22] Hitler was much more attracted to the political aspects of bombing. Where the mere threat of it had produced diplomatic results in the 1930s, he expected that mere threat of German retaliation to persuade the Allies to adopt a policy of moderation and not to begin a policy of unrestricted bombing.

...

t was decided to focus on bombing Britain's industrial cities in daylight to begin with. The main focus of the bombing operations was against the city of London. The first major raid in this regard took place on 7 September. On 15 September, on a date known as the Battle of Britain Day, a large-scale raid was launched in daylight, but suffered significant loss for no lasting gain. Although there were a few large air battles fought in daylight later in the month and into October, the Luftwaffe switched its main effort to night attacks in order to reduce losses. This became official policy on 7 October. The air campaign soon got underway against London and other British cities.

...

Strategic or "terror" bombing

Although official German air doctrine did target civilian morale, it did not espouse the attacking of civilians directly. It hoped to destroy morale by destroying the enemy's factories and public utilities as well as its food stocks (by attacking shipping). Nevertheless, its official opposition to attacks on civilians became an increasingly moot point when large-scale raids were conducted in November and December 1940. Although not encouraged by official policy, the use of mines and incendiaries, for tactical expediency, came close to indiscriminate bombing. Locating targets in skies obscured by industrial haze meant they needed to be illuminated "without regard for the civilian population".[91]

Content from External Source
The Nazi's didn't target civilians? REALLY, now that is some kind of revisionist history. Now that you have revealed yourself, I bid you adieu.

Between February 13th and February 14th 1945, between 35,000 and 135,000 people were killed by Allied bombing in Dresden. Historians still argue over the number of deaths. However, there were so many refugees in the city at the time that the real figure will almost certainly never be known.
So why was Dresden chosen as a target? Arthur Harris, head of Bomber Command, had always held the view that any city that had anything to do with the Nazi war effort was a target. A number of theories do exist as to why Dresden was chosen so late in the war.

1) The city was in Nazi Germany and for this reason was a legitimate target for attack as the Allies were at war with Nazi Germany.

2) The city was not simply a cultural centre – there were factories there producing weapons and equipment for the Nazi war effort. Therefore, the city was a legitimate target. It was also a rail base to send troops to the war front with the Russians.

3) Though the Russians were allies, Churchill and Roosevelt had already decided that Stalin would be a major problem after the end of the war. Therefore, as the Red Army advanced against an army that was effectively defeated, it had no idea as to what an equal and possibly superior military force could do. Therefore, Dresden was bombed to show the Russians the awesome power of the Allies and to act as a warning to them not to stray from the agreements they had made at the war conferences.
Content from External Source


he Luftwaffe had made a very thorough reconnaissance of the city and knew where the most important factories were. Planning for the raid on Coventry was equally as thorough as the Luftwaffe planned to be as destructive as was possible. Their plan was for a east to west flight over the city followed by a west to east attack. The intention was to create a firestorm within the city that would destroy factories and totally break the morale of the people there. The ultimate aim of the attack was to create such a feeling of shock that the government would sue for peace.
Content from External Source

The 1942 bombing of York

York was bombed as part of the Baedeker Raids on April 29th 1942. Hitler had been infuriated when the RAF had bombed the historic cities of Rostock and Lübeck and it is said that he picked up the Baedeker Guide and ordered that any historic city in the guide that had been given three-stars or more was to be bombed – it was a decision that doomed York, which as a cathedral city had been given three-stars in the guide. More than 70 Luftwaffe aircraft took part on the raid and for the most part their journey was unimpeded with only four bombers being shot down. The bombing started at 02.30 and finished at 04.46. Over 9,000 buildings were either damaged or destroyed and 92 people were killed. The raid exposed the vulnerability of British cities to bombing. A nearby Bomber Command base had heard the attack but could do little to stop it.
Content from External Source



he Blitz (from German, "lightning") was the sustained strategic bombing of the United Kingdom by Germany during the Second World War. Between 7 September 1940 and 21 May 1941 there were major raids (attacks in which more than 100 tonnes of high explosives were dropped) on 16 British cities. Over a period of 267 days (almost 37 weeks), London was attacked 71 times, Birmingham, Liverpool and Plymouth eight times, Bristol six, Glasgow five, Southampton four, Portsmouth three, and there was also at least one large raid on another eight cities.[1] This was a result of a rapid escalation starting on 24 August 1940, when night bombers aiming for RAF airfields drifted off course and accidentally destroyed several London homes, killing civilians, combined with Churchill's immediate response of bombing Berlin.

Starting on 7 September 1940, London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights.[7] More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, almost half of them in London....




Ultimately, Hitler was trapped within his own vision of bombing as a terror weapon, formed in the 1930s when he threatened smaller nations into accepting German rule rather than submit to air bombardment. This fact had important implications. It showed the extent to which Hitler personally mistook Allied strategy for one of morale breaking instead of one of economic warfare, with the collapse of morale as an additional bonus.[22] Hitler was much more attracted to the political aspects of bombing. Where the mere threat of it had produced diplomatic results in the 1930s, he expected that mere threat of German retaliation to persuade the Allies to adopt a policy of moderation and not to begin a policy of unrestricted bombing.

...

t was decided to focus on bombing Britain's industrial cities in daylight to begin with. The main focus of the bombing operations was against the city of London. The first major raid in this regard took place on 7 September. On 15 September, on a date known as the Battle of Britain Day, a large-scale raid was launched in daylight, but suffered significant loss for no lasting gain. Although there were a few large air battles fought in daylight later in the month and into October, the Luftwaffe switched its main effort to night attacks in order to reduce losses. This became official policy on 7 October. The air campaign soon got underway against London and other British cities.

...

Strategic or "terror" bombing

Although official German air doctrine did target civilian morale, it did not espouse the attacking of civilians directly. It hoped to destroy morale by destroying the enemy's factories and public utilities as well as its food stocks (by attacking shipping). Nevertheless, its official opposition to attacks on civilians became an increasingly moot point when large-scale raids were conducted in November and December 1940. Although not encouraged by official policy, the use of mines and incendiaries, for tactical expediency, came close to indiscriminate bombing. Locating targets in skies obscured by industrial haze meant they needed to be illuminated "without regard for the civilian population".[91]

Content from External Source

Ah, Coventry, just down the road from where I am presently sat. The Germans destroyed it. Yet this is in no genuine sense comparable to the British bombardment of German cities. As much as it may pain anyone on the "allied" side to admit, the Germans, in relative terms, followed the conventions of warfare when bombing Britain. They targeted Coventry as it was a heavilly industrialised city, manufacturing mechanisms of war. This is in line with the conventions of war. They bombed east London, the largest port in the world. Of course thousands of British people were murdered in the process. Churchill, however, deliberately set out to target entire cities of civilians and absolutely destroyed so many of them. The death toll is incomparable. Churchill bombed at night from the near offset as he freely admitted blindly aiming for utter carnage, the genocide of the German people, as punishment.

In pointing out the truth I am not "revealing" myself as an apologist for national socialism. I am simply pointing out the facts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
One might ask if that was simply because Hitler did not arrive at that stage of the War, having lost the Battle of Britain, he was then unable to do much bombing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
Starting on 7 September 1940, London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights.[7] More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, almost half of them in London.
...
In comparison to the Allied bombing campaign against Germany, the Blitz resulted in relatively few casualties; the British bombing of Hamburg alone inflicted about 42,000 civilian casualties.
Content from External Source
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned

A different time and place but by no means more acceptable, surely. This is the article from where I grabbed his quote. A decent account, interesting photographs too.

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1444/what-churchill-said
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The Moroccan royal family are not Masons. They are Muslims and Masons have to be Christians.

I thought that the requirement was to believe in a "higher power" - not necessarily the x-ian god, and therefore any monotheists would be eligible under that??

and indeed that is apparently so:


(Q) Can Muslims be Masons?
(A) The only religious requirement is that candidates believe in the Supreme Being. If you can in good faith profess a belief in the Supreme Being, you are eligible to be a Mason. No atheists will ever knowingly be made a Mason.
There are Christian (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon), Jewish, and Muslim Masons. It would be tedious and pointless to go into a religion-by-religion (and then denomination-by-denomination) discussion. The key points to remember are the requirement of belief in the supreme being and the fact that Freemasonry is a fraternity, not a religion.
Content from External Source
- from here
 
Top