How did Lawrence Laxdal come up with his username?

[Jonas]

and that probably would've succeeded, seeing as he would've had control of almost 3 whole continents.

Isn't that a win condition? Why would he keep fighting after he'd already won?

[Made in China]

and that probably would've succeeded, seeing as he would've had control of almost 3 whole continents.

Isn't that a win condition? Why would he keep fighting after he'd already won?

Nazism had a new order. Its ideology was that there's heirarchy between ALL the races - and therefore Hitler had to conquer all of the world so there could be order. It also believed that the habitat for the Arian race is Poland and Russia, meaning that war against Russia was inevitable. It also held the belief that Jews and mixed-race-Gypsies are the "germs" of the human races, and should be eradicated. Since Jews were at the time inhabitants of all the world's nations, including the Arab ones, the world needed to be conquered completely.
3 reasons I can think of why he would've gone to war against Russia anyway. Heck, almost any conquerer fought to have control of the entire world, even on parts which seem otherwise small and meaningless.

[Jonas]

Right but don't you win when you control 3 continents? As such he would automatically get the rest of the board as well, right?

[gamer0004]

Putting someone who's by any moral beliefs is evil as an avatar might seem disturbed, but Hitler is also recognized as the most evil man of the 20th century, while also being recognized as a brilliant tactician and politician.

Please cut the "billiant tactician" part. He was a military fool, and ruined the campaign in Russia. He was however a very able politician, yes.

I believe he started the Russian campaign because he believed that it is the Arian's natural habitat, and it is more of an ideological than tactical. Yes, that's what failed him, and it was a tactical disaster - though his original plan was to conquer Europe, invade North Africa and then start invading Asia, ending with fighting Russia through the Asian and European fronts, and that probably would've succeeded, seeing as he would've had control of almost 3 whole continents.
But that's from my highschool History class, so it may be mildly inaccurate, and I have no problem with taking that part back if I'm proven wrong.

No, the attack on the Soviet-Union was not a mistake. It was inevitable, both he and Stalin thought. If the Germans hadn't attacked the Soviets, the Soviets would've invaded Germany.

However, he seriously messed up during the Russian campaign.

Also, no "new world order" plans for Hitler. He didn't even want to conquer Russia completely, he just wanted to defeat them and then occupy like the eastern half of Russia (they would just stop after Moscow).

Not many people know just how close they were to victory in 1941/42.

[Made in China]

Wait, the eastern part of Russia? he invaded them from the west, so... it's practically destroying Russia. Also, the Riventrop(sp?)-Molotov agreement states that they won't go to war and would share Poland, and that went pretty well, so no cause for Russian assult? And Russia was on Germany's side when WWII started, so I don't know. But I guess you know more on the subject, the education in our country is crap.
But anyway, I withdraw stating that Hitler was a brilliant strategist.

[DDL]

Right but don't you win when you control 3 continents? As such he would automatically get the rest of the board as well, right?

Depends on the house rules. Hell, one time I ended up in a stalemate situation where the US completely controlled germany, and germany completely controlled the US.

More wars should be like that, it would be hilarious.

[Jane_Denton]

But killing 37 people over the period of a decade while the police hunts for you requires both skill and intelligence, because, well, with every killing that you make, the police may be closing in on you, with the general risk of leaving evidence. So in the act of killing, he excelled – and though I agree with you that actual killing is horrendous, he did execute it perfectly, and therefore, if caught, should be studied more carefully. And by the way, they recently tried DNA analyzing the mail that he sent, and it ruled out all the suspects they had. And since you can't go mapping all of the state's residents DNA, you can't really figure out who the Zodiac Killer was – not today, not then.

He claimed he killed 37... there was only proof for about 5... As far as being intelligent... the evidence thing... it was the 60's they had fingerprinting and blood typing... there was no real CSI science back then.. so he could have left tons. It you want to get away with murder it wouldn't be hard... make it random and choose a remote area... which he did... even by todays standards it's the hardest murder to prove... so it doesn't take a genius to figure it out how to get away with murder...

Putting someone who's by any moral beliefs is evil as an avatar might seem disturbed, but Hitler is also recognized as the most evil man of the 20th century, while also being recognized as a brilliant tactician and politician. He isn't glorified, but he must be used as a symbol so it won't happen again. I mean, until you've eradicated all evil from the world, you must be aware of it – and Hitler and Nazism is a prime example of evil that is recognized 60 years and counting after its disappearance. And so, while Hitler poses as a foreign threat, the Zodiac Killer may be considered as a prime example of a domestic threat.

Did you read the guys reason why he thought it was cool?

And, as said, I don't honor or think the Zodiac Killer is a great man. He fascinates me as he pulled off something that's very hard – and if I were given the choice, I would give him a life of agony for all the suffer that he's caused, all the while seeing it as a game. But he's probably a very intelligent person, and looking at the possibilities of how he could've benefited the human race instead of harming it is also interesting, and is also why we should look into his past and mind (of course by a psychologist).

I think it's an insult to intelligent people to call a murderer intelligent. And I don't think what he did was hard by any stretch of the imagination... he went after strangers with no link to himself... there are thousands of unsolved murders everyday...

Murderers are interesting. Murderers are different, unique, exciting.

If you were trying to scare me you've succeeded... Cause that is the most disturbing thing I've ever heard come out of anyones mouth in a long time...

Clearly you both have strong convictions on defending the murderer... let me know if they families he's affected feel the same way when you tell them... Have either of you actually experienced violent crime personally... or is life just something that happens on the tv or the net? At this point I'm concerned for both of you...

[gamer0004]

Wait, the eastern part of Russia? he invaded them from the west, so... it's practically destroying Russia. Also, the Riventrop(sp?)-Molotov agreement states that they won't go to war and would share Poland, and that went pretty well, so no cause for Russian assult? And Russia was on Germany's side when WWII started, so I don't know. But I guess you know more on the subject, the education in our country is crap.
But anyway, I withdraw stating that Hitler was a brilliant strategist.

Lol fail, I ofc meant to say "western half".

The education in my country is probably worse, but I am interested in history and especially WWII, though may 1940 (the invasion of the Netherlands) is my specialty.

Point is, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was only a short term solution.
The Nazis and communists were each others arch-enemies. Far-right vs. Far-left (of course, in reality there wasn't much difference between how the two powers handled things).
Stalin thought that war would only start in 1943 or later, Hitler, knowing that the longer they waited the harder it would be to defeat the Soviets, wanted to invade the Soviet-Union as soon as possible.
But he screwed up by (among other things) splitting his forces in the south, wanting to conquer both the oil fields in the South-East and Stalingrad at the same time. When that didn't work, he should've pulled back his troops from Stalingrad to prevent the destruction of that army, but he didn't (because of the symbolic value of Stalingrad).

In the end the Soviets won, because Stalin started listening to his generals, while Hitler stopped doing that.

[DDL]

Murderers are interesting. Murderers are different, unique, exciting.

If you were trying to scare me you've succeeded... Cause that is the most disturbing thing I've ever heard come out of anyones mouth in a long time...

Clearly you both have strong convictions on defending the murderer... let me know if they families he's affected feel the same way when you tell them... Have either of you actually experienced violent crime personally... or is life just something that happens on the tv or the net? At this point I'm concerned for both of you...

I'm...not sure what to say. I can't figure out whether you're joking, or stupid, or just incredibly naive.

Firstly, I'd hope we can all agree that assuming "anyone taking the time to explain the nature of human fascination with the macabre" is also "strongly defending murder" is...utterly idiotic. Seriously. It's like you didn't even read what I was saying, and just cherrypicked the words that best fit some preconceived pigeonhole. The fact that humans as a whole find murderers more interesting than victims really shouldn't be news to ANYONE. Read a newspaper. Any newspaper. It's self evident.

Since the godwin button has already been pressed, think about it this way: how many people can name the 234586th Jew gassed by the Nazis? And how many people can name the leader of the Nazi party at that time?

Victims are generally more numerous, and unexceptional: all they do is die, which let's be honest, anyone can do. Murderers kill, which is something that most people will not do. It's the nature of human information storage to instantly find "that which lies outside accepted norms" more worthy of interest. After all, when remembering how to handle liguistic rules, do you remember every single last incidence of the rule, or do you remember the general rule and then the few rare exceptions?

A paper will sell far more copies if it features "HUNT FOR KILLER" on the cover, than if it featured "VICTIMS STILL DEAD". Surely you know this. Surely you can also see that this is not the same thing at all as a paper with "MURDER IS AWESOME" on the cover. Associating the two is idiotic.

You give the general impression that you..well, HATE MURDERERS, and will go out of your way to make sure they are perceived as stupid bumbling cretins who should be forgotten. This is as idiotic as venerating murderers (which again, I am not doing). It's like hating people who cough, and thus maintaining that anyone who coughs MUST BE STUPID, and anyone who coughs SHOULD NEVER BE TALKED ABOUT. It's an utterly irrational protest against an implicit facet of human nature. People who cough can be intelligent or stupid. They can be popular or hated, they can be loved by their families or be orphans. They're just people. So are murderers. Performance of an action, be it coughing or killing someone, does not alter your innate properties. If you are intelligent and you kill someone, you are still intelligent afterwards. Ditto for if you're stupid. There is absolutely no need to even bother discussing the mental capacity of any particular killer, and saying "it's an insult to intelligent people to call a murderer intelligent" is 100% as idiotic as claiming he must be intelligent because he killed people and got away with it. It's irrelevant.
(Also, modern CSI stuff is nothing like TV, it's slow, inefficient and also gets it wrong a lot)

Ultimately, our entire society is based around the assumption that almost all people WON'T randomly shoot strangers for no reason. It's not something you can easily predict or prevent, at least not without severely curtailing the freedoms of EVERYONE ELSE. Some risks simply are necessary if we want to continue living the lives we do. Plus, aside from the completely random killers, most other murders are fairly obvious: find a dead drug dealer? Look for a happy drug dealer with twice as many drugs. Find a dead husband? Look for a living wife. And so on. This is the kind of stuff the police is designed to handle: crappy, predicable crime that basically stems from laziness, greed, hatred, bigotry, abuse and so on. Things all of us have experienced, but taken to further extremes. Dude who randomly kills people in the middle of nowhere for no reason? WAY outside the ballpark, and thus harder to crack, AND ALSO THUS MORE INTERESTING.


So, to summarise: murderers like this get all the attention because they are inherently more interesting to us poor mouthbreathing media saturated masses. This is the way the world works. Irrespective of whether you personally agree with this, THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS. Views and opinions, no matter how noble, always shatter against the sharp pointy rocks of fact.

[Jane_Denton]

I'm...not sure what to say. I can't figure out whether you're joking, or stupid, or just incredibly naive.

This is as far as I got reading your reply... when someone has to resort to insults then they lose my attention... I'm not discussing this topic with you any further.

[DDL]

Only one of those could be possibly construed as an insult, and the entirety isn't at all.

Also, have you EVER been in a debate on the internet before? Or have you always left after someone posts something you deem offensive, which from the looks of things is..not terribly hard to do?

Seriously, I put a lot of effort into trying to put my side across clearly and succinctly (with examples, even), and you dismiss it all based on frankly ludicrous criteria, and thus deny me a chance to see your side. That's a terrible, terrible debating tactic.

Grow a thicker skin, and read more. You might learn something. Or even better, you might teach me something. I'm always willing to learn.

[Made in China]

Actually, the rules of debate (by general) state that you should never insult the other side of it. You may, however, make fun of its ideas, since sarcasm is a valid way of speech.

You say that on the internet people do not necessarily obey the rules, and you are absolutely correct. But being polite always helps, and the rules of debate were made so you would actually have more chances of winning it, so...

And Jane_Denton, please read on. He has valid points in there, and walking out on a debate is like a TKO - while formally you haven't lost, it just implies that you gave up. And one the said insults was also said by me in another way - I believe I said if the world were cleansed of all evil, you would've been correct, but it just isn't. And that's pretty much synonymous with "being naive". So while "rude" (though quite polite, relating to other internet debaters), he says pretty much the same thing as someone which you found quite non-offensive.

[Jaedar]

DDL might be rude, but he always has good arguments.

And you can't have a debate without insulting the other side... you can however do it subtly or openly

[ecs]

ECS offers a fantastic collection of Ready to Wear dresses online in Pakistan. Choose from our collection of high-quality dresses and shine at any event with our best deals. Grab your favorite dress online at the best prices.

[houseofflowers]

Discover loving flowers that reflect love and respect. Our beautiful flowers are the perfect means to let someone know you care about them. Today, express your feelings with these sympathetic flowers.