BF2S Forums Hang On A Minute...4 million Catholics systemically killed by Nazis?

FatherTed wrote:

To be fair, it wasn't just the americans nicking africans.

No-one was denying that were they?

I hate long posts (I don't have the attention span to read them, tbh), but I guess I don't have to read this one because I wrote it.

Braddock wrote:

san4 wrote:

Not a double standard. How many of those groups were accused of killing God's son?

Hatred and attacks on Jews are different in kind, not just severity. The things that make treatment of Jews unique are:

- 2000 years of hatred
- accused of killing a God (an accusation not retracted until 1965!)
- legally banned from multiple countries
- attacks were frequently contrary to the material interests of the attackers (e.g., Nazi Germany diverted precious resources from the war).

It's not just 'worse', it's different from racism, political control, geopolitics, or amoral profiteering.

I would not in any way try and deny the existence of anti-semitism. It is a very real form of racism that has existed throughout history and persists to this day but I'm afraid I believe it to be just another form of racism... it is no different to hating a black person, a yellow person or an Irish person because of some ingrained dislike.

Braddock wrote:

2000 years of hatred?

Hey, racism has been around forever. Who's watching the clock?

You forgot to name a group that has been hated for 2000 years.

Braddock wrote:

Accused of killing a God (an accusation not retracted until 1965!)?

Meh, couldn't give a shit about Jesus or how he was killed to be honest and I'm sure that's not the reason many Arabs are anti-Semitic. This argument is no different to that of a modern day Englishman experiencing racism from an Irishman on the grounds of past Imperialism.

(a) what you personally give a shit about is obviously not relevant, (b) extra reasons for anti-Jewish hatred don't mean the accusation of Deicide wasn't a gigantic--and unique--factor in European hatred of Jews, and (c) you're right, the argument is nonsensical that present-day Jews are responsible for a killing that happened 2000 years ago, but that's also obviously irrelevant in the face of the fact that the argument was made and accepted for approximately 1965 years.

Also, you forgot to name a group that has been accused of killing a God.

Braddock wrote:

legally banned from multiple countries?

Okay, fair enough but black people were 'legally' snatched from Africa and taken to America for slave labour because they were regarded as subhuman. Again, the Jews are not unique in experiencing mass racism.

I didn't say Jews were unique in experiencing mass racism. I said they were unique in experiencing governments of multiple countries enacting laws banning them from residing in those countries. A ban on residence is different from slavery--not worse, but qualitatively different. Africans were not so despised that they were forbidden to set foot on British (or French or Spanish) soil. Being seen as subhuman is not the same as being seen as an evil human. Again, not necessarily worse, but very different, and very unusual in history.

Again, you didn't name a group that has been banned from residing multiple countries.

Braddock wrote:

Attacks were frequently contrary to the material interests of the attackers (e.g., Nazi Germany diverted precious resources from the war)?

Not sure where you're going with that one. Perhaps you can clarify for me.

The Germans hated Jews so much they were willing to jeopardize the war effort by spending resources killing them. German hatred of Jews was actually great enough to overcome German self-preservation. That's an amazing fact. Similarly, in numerous contexts throughout history, Jews were attacked and hated despite being economically productive citizens. It reflects an awesome and bizarre degree of hatred when the hatred interferes with one's achievement of important goals. In contrast, slave traffickers and slave owners profited from brutalizing and demeaning Africans. Not that there wasn't tremendous prejudice against black Africans, but the fact that prejudice produced profit almost certainly helped it endure. Attacks on Native Americans also provided material benefits to the White invaders. Did the British benefit--economically or politically--from their treatment of the Irish? Would they have acted the same way if they had not obtained benefits from doing so? The motivation for banning Jews was pure--they were hated.

Can you name another group that people have actually paid to persecute?

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Yes that is why you are arrogant, you speak of minority groups and you want to use YOU and your Muslim friends as the cornerstone for arguing that Islam is tolerant and peaceful? Can you get any more "minority" than an individual and his experiences?

I've continually bombarded you in the past with census statistics clarifying how much of a distinct minority Muslims are in Western society and you continually dismissed them so it would seem I just can't win with you. I read the papers lowing, I watch the news, I experience all the hysteria and paranoia that the media put out there... I just don't see any of it in my everyday life. When I do I'll come crawling back to you asking for forgiveness but I wouldn't hold my breath mate.

lowing wrote:

2. Ok a question and not being a smart ass here but, were the Catholics that were killed, killed because they were Catholic? Or were they killed just because it was war and people get killed and it turns out a lot of those killed happen to have been Catholic?

Wikipedia does not imply that the 4 million Catholic death toll is inclusive of actual battle casualties, it says the Nazis carried out "the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews (in what has become known as the Holocaust), four million Catholics, and about five million other people, mainly Russians, Poles and Roma."

I wouldn't describe deaths on a battlefield as "systematic murder".

1. and I have bombarded you with articles that do not show Islam in a favorable light and shows it an intolerant religion, so i guess we are even.

2. Ya got me then Braddock, I have no idea I will leave this one to the others.

lowing wrote:

I do not give a fuck how Islamic culture functions in an Islamic society. Western society is not ISLAMIC. The cultures are different and I have no desire to adobt anything Islamic into western society.

I do not want a country where my country must adapt to wh oshows up and bitches. I want a country where you come here understanding our way of life and are welcome to join it, contribute to it or stay the hell out of it. Another thought, if Islamic culture is fucking great why all of the immigration OUT of it?

Your country doesn't need to adapt to anything lowing, in case you hadn't noticed. It has one of the most egalitarian and pluralistic constitutions in the world. A constitution of tolerance. You cannot tolerate. That's the problem here. You are the problem. You don't have to adopt anything into western societal norms. You just have to tolerate what people do in their own private lives within the laws set down in the constitution, which nobody is threatening.

This is how immigration works lowing:

- People with little or nothing come from shitty backgrounds in dirt poor countries to find work and a better life. In general they don't come with some sort of ludicrous conspiracy to overthrow civilization. If you think otherwise, then you are retarded. It takes a couple of generations for full integration to occur. The effect of western society and affluence on successive generations of immigrants is to secularise and promote tolerance. America is a very tolerant society and that is a good thing. Bosnia has learned that toleration is necessary to coexist and to become affluent. The richer the country the more secular the population (i.e. the more nominal their religious denomination becomes). It doesn't matter that Bosnia or Turkey is a Muslim nation because both have learned these societal norms (which are not, as a consequence, the preserve of the 'west'). When all of the dictatorships and puppet governments in the poorer parts of the world where extremist religious nutters come from are toppled and those nations are embraced as equal partners by the international community the people in those countries will become more affluent and secular. A policy of inclusion/co-operation and fostering of mutual tolerance is what is needed not stubborn entrenchment of opposing camps. The Czechs failed to reach out to Sudeten Germans post WWI and as a consequence the Sudetens turned to Nazi Germany for support and we all know where that led - your approach is akin to what happened there.

Basically lowing - we have to coexist. Live with it.

Braddock wrote:

san4 wrote:

You forgot to name a group that has been hated for 2000 years.

. . . It's just racism like any other race would experience. Jews are no more special than any other race.

Being subject to a unique form of hatred does not make Jews more special than any other ethnic group. It just means they were treated differently.

Braddock wrote:

san4 wrote:

What you personally give a shit about is obviously not relevant, (b) extra reasons for anti-Jewish hatred don't mean the accusation of Deicide wasn't a gigantic--and unique--factor in European hatred of Jews, and (c) you're right, the argument is nonsensical that present-day Jews are responsible for a killing that happened 2000 years ago, but that's also obviously irrelevant in the face of the fact that the argument was made and accepted for approximately 1965 years.

Also, you forgot to name a group that has been accused of killing a God.

Sadly there are idiots who would use a bullshit tale about a mystical guy with a beard and his hippy son being crucified as an excuse to fuel their racism but as a major contributing factor in fueling racism in a wider sense it's just another reason; it's no more special a reason than believing black people smell or that Muslims are unhygienic or that Gypsies will put curses on you if you are not nice to them.

Perhaps you're unable to appreciate genuine religious beliefs, but, to a believer, saying that someone killed God is not the same as saying someone smells. It's a cosmic sin, worth sacrificing nearly anything to avenge.

Braddock wrote:

san4 wrote:

I didn't say Jews were unique in experiencing mass racism. I said they were unique in experiencing governments of multiple countries enacting laws banning them from residing in those countries. A ban on residence is different from slavery--not worse, but qualitatively different. Africans were not so despised that they were forbidden to set foot on British (or French or Spanish) soil. Being seen as subhuman is not the same as being seen as an evil human. Again, not necessarily worse, but very different, and very unusual in history.

Again, you didn't name a group that has been banned from residing multiple countries.

Many races have suffered many different types of injustices over the years. The Jews are not special in this regard. They suffered one particular manifestation of racism, black Africans suffered another, Catholics suffered another under British rule in Ulster, and so on and so on. Are there any countries nowadays where Jews are forbidden to set foot? Saudi Arabia maybe, but even Iran has a relatively strong Jewish population these days.

All I said was that Jews are the only people who have been banned from residing in multiple countries. That makes their treatment unique. It doesn't mean other groups were not treated in unique ways, although, come to think of it, I'm not sure the ones you mention endured unique types of persecution. Slavery was certainly not unique to black Africans. I don't know enough about the Catholic experience in Ulster to know how unique it was, but wasn't it a political conflict, one in a long line of contests for power that extends throughout human history? Didn't the British have something to gain? As far as I know, one can't say the same about banning a particular group from residing in a country. For no particular reason.

Braddock wrote:

san4 wrote:

The Germans hated Jews so much they were willing to jeopardize the war effort by spending resources killing them. German hatred of Jews was actually great enough to overcome German self-preservation. That's an amazing fact. Similarly, in numerous contexts throughout history, Jews were attacked and hated despite being economically productive citizens. It reflects an awesome and bizarre degree of hatred when the hatred interferes with one's achievement of important goals. In contrast, slave traffickers and slave owners profited from brutalizing and demeaning Africans. Not that there wasn't tremendous prejudice against black Africans, but the fact that prejudice produced profit almost certainly helped it endure. Attacks on Native Americans also provided material benefits to the White invaders. Did the British benefit--economically or politically--from their treatment of the Irish? Would they have acted the same way if they had not obtained benefits from doing so? The motivation for banning Jews was pure--they were hated.

Can you name another group that people have actually paid to persecute?

The Germans actually put a lot of effort into keeping extermination costs down. They invented a system of a reusable bullet for firing squad style executions before switching to gas, which they tried to make as cheap and efficient as possible. Hitler definitely seemed to have an axe to grind with the Jewish community...nobody in their right mind would deny that...but the fact was the Jewish community were always the visual focus of his Nationalism - upon which he rose to power. It could be argued that he simply had to follow through on this commitment in order to maintain the fervour and support he needed behind him (this support could even be viewed as his material gain from the situation).

You want me to name another group that cost money to persecute? How about the Kurds in Northern Iraq? Chemical weapons don't grow on trees you know.

The Kurds were a threat to Saddam's power and Iraq's territorial integrity. He persecuted them for political gain.
The suggestion that Hitler spent huge sums of money to kill Jews in order to maintain his popular support doesn't contradict the proposition that Germany diverted precious resources to kill Jews. It just means that the decision was popular.

Yes, "Hitler definitely seemed to have an axe to grind with the Jewish community," but Hitler wasn't the only one. England, France, Spain, Russia and the Catholic church all singled Jews out for persecution. Fixed: "Pretty much everyone definitely seemed to have an axe to grind with the Jewish community." Hitler is the poster boy only because he is the most recent.

san4 wrote:

Being subject to a unique form of hatred does not make Jews more special than any other ethnic group. It just means they were treated differently.

One could form an equally valid argument about how differently any other race were treated when compared to other races if they select to focus entirely on the unique aspects of each plight. You seem to be almost implying that the Jews were the only race that were ‘truly’ hated in the racism that they suffered… that is simply not true. I have heard Muslims described as ‘cockroahes’ by British National Party members… a party once famous for its intolerance of Jews. They have openly switched Jews with Muslims as their number one enemy in campaigning so it looks like the Jews have lost their uniqueness in the eyes of that particular bunch of racists.

san4 wrote:

All I said was that Jews are the only people who have been banned from residing in multiple countries. That makes their treatment unique. It doesn't mean other groups were not treated in unique ways, although, come to think of it, I'm not sure the ones you mention endured unique types of persecution. Slavery was certainly not unique to black Africans. I don't know enough about the Catholic experience in Ulster to know how unique it was, but wasn't it a political conflict, one in a long line of contests for power that extends throughout human history? Didn't the British have something to gain? As far as I know, one can't say the same about banning a particular group from residing in a country. For no particular reason.

Catholics in Northern Ireland were discriminated along religious lines during the troubles. A catholic could be locked up indefinitely on a whim with no warrant or concrete cause for arrest. They were prevented from owning large amounts of property or business by way of several complex regulations and laws and the voting regions were divided up so as to favour Protestant rule. Discrimination and racism, pure and simple and I can guarantee it was very hateful too… killing a stranger because they have a Celtic top on would be considered hateful in most people’s book.

One could argue (though I wouldn’t personally because it’s a pretty tasteless argument) that Jews were banned from certain countries because of their uncanny ability to successfully penetrate the upper echelons of Governmental power… look at the US. I’m sure some people thought it in the best interest of National identity to keep Jews out. Also, every nomadic people that travel around from place to place suffers intense racism. Look at Roma gypsies (I know many of them happen to be Jewish too) or Irish travellers… they are almost universally despised. Many people also go to great lengths to keep them out of their community too so again the Jews are not unique in that regard.

san4 wrote:

Perhaps you're unable to appreciate genuine religious beliefs, but, to a believer, saying that someone killed God is not the same as saying someone smells. It's a cosmic sin, worth sacrificing nearly anything to avenge.

I was raised Catholic but I’m afraid I don’t hate Jews because they killed JC, sorry. I don’t buy all that cosmic bullshit… and the Nazis and Russians (in the era of Communism) were atheists so they didn’t buy any of that cosmic bullshit either, their anti-Semitism must have been based on other grounds.

san4 wrote:

The Kurds were a threat to Saddam's power and Iraq's territorial integrity. He persecuted them for political gain. The suggestion that Hitler spent huge sums of money to kill Jews in order to maintain his popular support doesn't contradict the proposition that Germany diverted precious resources to kill Jews. It just means that the decision was popular.

Hitler had a very definite program of eugenics, this is no secret – he had set his stall out to pursue this program and he sank in the money that was necessary to do so… I know it sounds heartless but one has to regard it in the same way as any other social service or program that a Government might try and implement. Blacks, half-casts and disabled/impaired people suffered the same fate as the Jews, he just seemed to make more of a campaign issue with the Jewish community because they were insular and regarded suspiciously by the rest of the population (just like how Muslims are regarded today, so again the Jews are not unique in this regard).

san4 wrote:

Yes, "Hitler definitely seemed to have an axe to grind with the Jewish community," but Hitler wasn't the only one. England, France, Spain, Russia and the Catholic church all singled Jews out for persecution. Fixed: "Pretty much everyone definitely seemed to have an axe to grind with the Jewish community." Hitler is the poster boy only because he is the most recent.

Again you go back to the “everybody hates us” siege mentality. I’m sorry but, with all due respect, the Jews have to get over themselves. Other races have it just as tough, and in many cases even tougher, than the Jews. Name me a Western country where racism against black people is no longer a problem… because even in Spain it is still common to hear monkey noises when a black player gets on the ball in a soccer game. Jews often suffer from racism, that is true, but they are no different to all the other races that suffer from racism too.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-10-16 12:58:02)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not give a fuck how Islamic culture functions in an Islamic society. Western society is not ISLAMIC. The cultures are different and I have no desire to adobt anything Islamic into western society.

I do not want a country where my country must adapt to wh oshows up and bitches. I want a country where you come here understanding our way of life and are welcome to join it, contribute to it or stay the hell out of it. Another thought, if Islamic culture is fucking great why all of the immigration OUT of it?

Your country doesn't need to adapt to anything lowing, in case you hadn't noticed. It has one of the most egalitarian and pluralistic constitutions in the world. A constitution of tolerance. You cannot tolerate. That's the problem here. You are the problem. You don't have to adopt anything into western societal norms. You just have to tolerate what people do in their own private lives within the laws set down in the constitution, which nobody is threatening.

This is how immigration works lowing:

- People with little or nothing come from shitty backgrounds in dirt poor countries to find work and a better life. In general they don't come with some sort of ludicrous conspiracy to overthrow civilization. If you think otherwise, then you are retarded. It takes a couple of generations for full integration to occur. The effect of western society and affluence on successive generations of immigrants is to secularise and promote tolerance. America is a very tolerant society and that is a good thing. Bosnia has learned that toleration is necessary to coexist and to become affluent. The richer the country the more secular the population (i.e. the more nominal their religious denomination becomes). It doesn't matter that Bosnia or Turkey is a Muslim nation because both have learned these societal norms (which are not, as a consequence, the preserve of the 'west'). When all of the dictatorships and puppet governments in the poorer parts of the world where extremist religious nutters come from are toppled and those nations are embraced as equal partners by the international community the people in those countries will become more affluent and secular. A policy of inclusion/co-operation and fostering of mutual tolerance is what is needed not stubborn entrenchment of opposing camps. The Czechs failed to reach out to Sudeten Germans post WWI and as a consequence the Sudetens turned to Nazi Germany for support and we all know where that led - your approach is akin to what happened there.

Basically lowing - we have to coexist. Live with it.

Bullshit. I will not let you tell me that I am intolerant because I do not want a culture and religion plagued with tolerant and equality issues into western society, moving it backwards not carrying it forward.

No Cam, that is the way immigration USED to be. Now, it is a cancer that spreads. Immigrants come here NOT to adopt and better themselves by joining our society and becoming an American and contributing. They come here in order to take what they can get by using laws set up to help people assimilate. They do this with no intention of becoming citizens. So spare me the speech and they Nazi comparison.



We can co-exist I will do it here, you can do it over there, call me when ya got something you wanna trade or sell, I will do the same. Unless of course you decide that you want to become an American and contribute and adopt into our society. Then gimme a call you can sleep on the couch until you get on your feet.  I wish you could live with that.

Last edited by lowing (2008-10-16 18:15:24)

lowing wrote:

Bullshit. I will not let you tell me that I am intolerant because I do not want a culture and religion plagued with tolerant and equality issues into western society, moving it backwards not carrying it forward.

lol. How tolerant of you.... To be expected I suppose. Stubborn, tribal and unyielding to the last and also showing complete disregard for the extremely logical and demonstrated example of affluence breeding apathy to religion and increased toleration. Keep your head in the sand if you really must. Trying to equate people in caveman developing countries to people of a similar religion living and working in the west for one or more generations is quite the stretch. Tell you what - get back to me when your constitution gets revoked.... whenever that occurs...

lowing wrote:

No Cam, that is the way immigration USED to be. Now, it is a cancer that spreads. Immigrants come here NOT to adopt and better themselves by joining our society and becoming an American and contributing. They come here in order to take what they can get by using laws set up to help people assimilate. They do this with no intention of becoming citizens. So spare me the speech and they Nazi comparison.

Mr. Toleration and Understanding: "Immigration is a cancer that spreads." You are in fucking dreamland if you think most people come to richer countries to sit on their ass. If your theory held true then why on earth do tons of Mexicans hang around home depots desperately hoping for casual labour? Your dreamstories rarely check out. 

lowing wrote:

We can co-exist I will do it here, you can do it over there, call me when ya got something you wanna trade or sell, I will do the same. Unless of course you decide that you want to become an American and contribute and adopt into our society. Then gimme a call you can sleep on the couch until you get on your feet.  I wish you could live with that.

I´m afraid your example of coexistence is incompatible with reality lowing. You´d better try again. As soon as you come to terms with reality get back to me. I don´t exactly think America will be loading up trains full of American Muslims to ship them out anytime soon (I should hope not anyway - given that protections in the US constitution extend to everyone equally...).

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-17 10:42:59)

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

1. But I can acknowledge that there are elements in Islamic society that are negative and dangerous, can you acknowledge that there are many Muslims out there in Western society who can coexist with us with the greatest of ease and contribute positively to our society?

2. I'm not claiming this to be a cast iron fact but my point is the figures are out there and judging by this thread it seems perfectly acceptable to casually dismiss these murders... but only when it's not the Jewish death toll you are questioning.

1. Oops, ya just proved my point and my distinction. "ISLAM" is dangerous and negative, and yes I have long admitted that their are "MUSLIMS" that co-exist just fine in western society.

Not quite sure how you think I proved your point lowing but I'm glad to hear you acknowledge the existence of Muslims who get along swimmingly with Western society... the next step is acknowledging that these Muslims are the ones in the majority, not the extremists.

Braddock, read back, I have always, distinguished between individuals and Islam. I hate Islam, it does not belong in the west. It is an intolerant violent oppressive and yes, a very very fucking needy religion and culture and I do not want it here. It goes against the freedoms tolerance and equality that the western society has strived, and continues to strive, to achieve.

to find out why jews get more mention than the 4 million Catholics killed, i recommend this eye opening book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/51-Documents-Zi … amp;sr=8-1

and no, its not a holocaust denying book before someone shouts it

the jews did it

Back to the original question: this sums it up pretty well. It was the Poles and Slavs who were killed en masse, and Poland is of course almost entirely Catholic.:

n the eastern European regions, millions of Poles -- Jews and Catholics alike -- were murdered by the SS and police personnel in the field or in killing centers such as Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka. In the ideology of the Nazis, the Poles were considered an inferior "race." The Germans intended to murder members of the political, cultural and military elite and reduce the remainder of the Polish population to the status of a vast pool of labor for the so-called German master race. It is estimated that between 5 and 5.5 million Polish civilians, including 3 million Polish Jews, died or were killed under Nazi occupation. This figure excludes Polish civilians and military personnel who were killed in military or partisan operations. They number approximately 664,000.

SS authorities in the concentration camps did not generally record the religious affiliation of a prisoner, with the exception of the Jehovah's Witnesses. As a result it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reliably estimate the total number of Catholic victims who were persecuted or killed because of some action or position connected to their Catholic faith. Some data exists regarding the number of Catholic prisoners (especially members of the clergy) in individual camps.

Last edited by Talon (2008-10-18 11:18:25)

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Try arguing what is posted. I said it is not hypocritical to not tolerate intolerant cultures. Your opinion that I live in a dreamland is not much of an argument against what is posted it is more of an attempt at an insult.

And I said that the tolerance of a religion is proportional to the level of affluence experienced by those practicing it - just take a look at Judaism, whose holy book contains segments every bit as depraved as those that exist in the Quran. So yes your are narrow minded and intolerant.

lowing wrote:

2. Again, try arguing what is posted. I did not say they come here to "sit on their asses" I said they come here with no intention of contributing or becoming a party of the society of which they accept benefits. They take what they can get and when it dries up they leave. Also, please stop with the all of the dramatics in your posts. You can be such a drama queen Cam.

And I´m telling you that the vast majority of immigrants move to richer countries to find work and build a better life for themselves and their family. So weŕe going to have to agree to disagree if you persist with your oft-repeated painting of the whole with that of a minority (seems to be a hobby of yours...).

lowing wrote:

3. Yet again more dreamland insults and very little substance. Our constitution is intact in my post Cam. Basically, welcome, join us, earn your keep, and contribute. It does not mean, come on the door is open take whatever you can get, send it all back you the motherland, then haul ass.

Our constiution does not allow for absolute freedom, so for Islam to move in, and start dictating to the rest of us what it needs and we will be sued for discrimination if we do not comply is an attitude that does not sit well with me.

Your constitution guarantees freedom of religion. And back to dreamland again: "Islam moves in and starts dictating to the rest of us". Wake up man, wake up. You appear to have clinical paranoia. Either embrace your constitution or haul ass out to a more bigoted country.

Is there any chance in hell that you or anyone one of your minions could possibly make an argument without hiding behind the generalization shield. I swear to god. You are driving me nuts with the constant I have no defense so I must use the it isn't everybody defense. I understand Cam, I do not know every mother fucker on this planet so it is safe to assume that I can not possibly mean EVERY mother fucker on this planet when I speak on a topic.

Now please continue, tell me again how peaceful and tolerant Islam is?

Our constitution did not have the, fucked up, backward, intolerant, violent, personal hygene needing, religion and culture of Islam in mind when it was written. Or it surely would have been outlawed.

Tell me Cam, how in the fuck can you stand the stench of body odor in an Islamic country? Or by being European, do you not notice it?

Can ya tell I am not in a good mood today? Yeah, a bunch of Turks moved into our hut yesterday.

BAN!!!!!!!!!

where are the mods when you need them?