Does he do this for the benefit of his own people, or is he actually deluded enough to think the world will listen to him? I mean, he's got to be alienating even Europe with statements like this. So I was thinking who was craziest: President of Venezuela, N. Korea, or Iran? I wish I could do a poll.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Wow, iran isn't exactly on good terms with the rest of the world as it is. I'm not sure that they need to be bringing more trouble down on themselves.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Next thing you know, he'll be denouncing Santa Claus...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think he's posturing so he appears strong domestically, though it's entirely possible that he believes those things. I'm not sure how well it's going to work for him.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
That was my impression too twinky. If I were him I would worry that my local posturing would create international consequences.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's hard to say. He might feel that international consequences are inevitable, and that therefore he may as well shore up his domestic support as best he can. It could also be that he's a megalomaniac and wants attention of any type. My current theory is that he's trying to improve his domestic support so he can show the international community that the Iranian people are behind him (regardless of whether or not that's the case) and stall any international consequences until after they have at least one nuclear bomb.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wonder if he might be trying to curry favory with his other local (non-Israel) states.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
With the idiocy that the US ambassador is spouting at Canadians being only the latest example, the DubyaAdministration is equally lacking in contact with anything vaguely resembling reality.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Can you elaborate, aspectre? What is the US ambassador saying?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: With the idiocy that the US ambassador is spouting at Canadians being only the latest example, the DubyaAdministration is equally lacking in contact with anything vaguely resembling reality.
If you want to attempt to equate the two, that's fine aspectre. However, that to me indicates being out of touch with reality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If I were him I would worry that my local posturing would create international consequences.
What's odd is that many people seem to think worrying about the international consequences of local posturing is a sign of weakness in their leaders.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
His rhetoric is in line with a lot of Arabic rhetoric. Nothing new.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Can you elaborate, aspectre? What is the US ambassador saying?
Yesterday the U.S. ambassador to Canada accused Paul Martin of playing the anti-Americanism card in the context of the Canadian election campaign. A few days ago at a global climate change conference in Montreal, Martin criticized the U.S. for its environmental policy. The stupid thing about it is that Martin doesn't have a leg to stand on here, since per capita, we are actually one of the worst offenders in the world. It seems as though it was a fairly obvious ploy to distract attention from his own government's lack of action on that front by playing to Canadians' inherent sense of smug superiority and our eagerness to dump on America.
The thing is that all of the party leaders in our election want to be seen as 1) able to repair our "fractured" relationship with the U.S., and 2) able to stand up to the U.S. on issues such as the softwood lumber dispute.
On a related note, the U.S. cut its softwood lumber duties significantly last week, but did not eliminate them.
Anyway, while I think the U.S. ambassador should feel free to not stick his wrinkled nose into our election campaign, he's quite right to chastise Martin for the latter's unjustified comments. Martin shouldn't have given him an excuse. I don't think this situation is analogous to what's happening in Iran.
Added: Oh. It's also obvious that the U.S. would prefer a Conservative government under the leadership of Stephen Harper. That's basically why I'm annoyed by the ambassador's comments despite accepting them as fair; whether it's intentional or not, they're giving their preferred candidate a helping hand.
[ December 14, 2005, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Watch what happens. He's going to keep hollering this, like a mantra, and slowly but surely, one European politician is going to suggest that maybe it isn't the worst idea in the world, and then another, and eventually, the idea will enter into currency as a legitimate option, even to those who oppose it.
Take a look at this cartoon. This is seriously how it works.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Noemon, here is a decent summary of what happened. Martin today responded pretty harshly to the ambassador's comments by saying he won't be "dictated to" in terms of what subjects he will raise during the campaign.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, why shouldn't nations deeply concerned about the plight of the Jews offer up bits of their own countries to be Jewish territories?
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Next thing you know, he'll be denouncing Santa Claus...
Um...were you trying to equate Santa Claus and the Holocaust?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Out of interest, why shouldn't nations deeply concerned about the plight of the Jews offer up bits of their own countries to be Jewish territories?
That makes more sense than nations that don't want to welcome the Jews giving up bits of their countries.
In 1990 the curators of the Auschwitz Museum dropped their estimated death toll from 4 million down to 1.5 million. Are they guilty of this crime? It's essentially the same figures that Ernst Zundel was arrested for using.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would guess that back in the 50's after everything that had just happened, Jews might not have felt safe in Europe.
Sadly, hoping for a peaceful utopia in Palestine didn't really work out as planned.
Would it be easier if they uprooted and moved to Europe? In the long run, probably. But it'll never be a viable option to the Israeli people, and I can't blame them for thinking that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks twinky, both for the summary and for the link. The link is blocked from my workplace for some reason, so it'll have to wait until I get home.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Out of interest, why shouldn't nations deeply concerned about the plight of the Jews offer up bits of their own countries to be Jewish territories?
Because there's only one place on earth that is ours, and that's the land that God said is ours. You want to give us Alaska, that's cool (no pun intended). We could use the oil. But it'll never be our homeland.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Out of interest, why shouldn't nations deeply concerned about the plight of the Jews offer up bits of their own countries to be Jewish territories?
That makes more sense than nations that don't want to welcome the Jews giving up bits of their countries.
Actually, what makes the most sense is for nations making claims on our homeland to get the hell out and stop trying to kill us.
In 1990 the curators of the Auschwitz Museum dropped their estimated death toll from 4 million down to 1.5 million. Are they guilty of this crime? It's essentially the same figures that Ernst Zundel was arrested for using.
They did nothing of the sort. The 4 million was Jews who were imprisoned there ("who suffered and died"), and not only those who died.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I would guess that back in the 50's after everything that had just happened, Jews might not have felt safe in Europe.
Sadly, hoping for a peaceful utopia in Palestine didn't really work out as planned.
Peace or no peace, it's our home. It'll always be our home. We never gave up our claim to it, even after the Romans kicked us out. The fact that it was invaded by others in the interim doesn't in any way lessen our ownership. It's unfortunate for those who thought they were entitled to just take it, but we're home, and they're just going to have to deal with it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Would it be easier if they uprooted and moved to Europe? In the long run, probably. But it'll never be a viable option to the Israeli people, and I can't blame them for thinking that.
I don't much care about (or for) the Israeli people. That land does not belong to any Israeli nationality. It belongs to the Jews. The Jews who live in Israel have certain perogatives due to the fact that they're there right now, but ownership belongs to all of us. In perpetuity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Actually, what makes the most sense is for nations making claims on our homeland to get the hell out and stop trying to kill us
Not really a rational argument when the people making that claim consider it their homeland as well. Regardless of who is right and wrong, documentation isn't moving either group off the land.
As for your responses to what I said before: Meh. There were people there before you, and people moved in after you, I don't really see how it's different than any other land in the world when it comes to the formation of nationstates.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
How is it not a rational argument? It may not be a sufficient argument for you, but "not rational" doesn't follow from what you said.
And given the forgetful tone of some of the posts here, I thought it was worth the reminder.
Oh, and what I said about the Iranian rants leading to people actually taking it seriously? Well, it just happened here on this thread. On a forum full of intelligent people. Imagine what's going to happen in the real world.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Makes the most sense for you, perhaps, but I think it hard to say something currently seeming quite impossible makes the most sense overall.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How is it not a rational argument? The "we got here first" mentality first of all, when they weren't the first ones there, they drove out the people that were there first, and I highly doubt all the Jews in Israel would clear out willingly just because the Caananites decided they wanted to move back in.
Also the fact that you find it irrational to move however many million Jews, but think it perfectly rational that the millions of Palestinians should leave their homes to find new ones. Shall they dig up their ancestors and take them with them when they go as well?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: They did nothing of the sort. The 4 million was Jews who were imprisoned there ("who suffered and died"), and not only those who died.
The Auchwitz Museum, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Nation of Poland, etc. have all changed their figures downward since 1990, reflecting that less than 1.3 million people of any creed were killed at Auschwitz.
quote:from http://www.rense.com/general62/aauc.htm Franciszek Piper, director of the historical committee of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum, said yesterday that, according to recent research, at least 1.3 million people were deported to the camp, of whom about 223,000 survived.
The 1.1 million victims included 960,000 Jews, between 70,000 and 75,000 Poles, nearly all of the 23,000 Gypsies sent to the camp and 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war.
So with ~4 million fewer people killed at Auschwitz, why do some insist that the 6 million Jews killed figure, heavily based on the Auschwitz numbers is still accurate?
This is what Iran's president is saying. He argues that the 6-million figure is part of a myth that the Israeli government uses for leverage. When he says "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he seems to be saying this in as inflammatory a way as possible. I haven't heard of people in supposedly free countries being detained over saying God doesn't exist, yet people are tried for the supposed crime of "Holocaust Denial" (when most of them do no such thing; they point out that some of the common figures are outdated or incorrect).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was under the impression the number was upwards of seven million total. That number is still taught in schools, and for that matter, colleges.
What new information came to light in the 90's for the drastically reduced number?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Last week I heard about a friend's uncle who was something of a history buff and was making claims along these lines. The odd part is he would start out with "The holocaust never happened" and then when questioned about why he says that he explains that the estimates of 6 million killed weren't accurate and it was probably more like 1.5 to 2 million. My friend's reaction was pretty much the same as mine when I heard that:
Even if it is true (and I am no historian to claim which number is more accurrate), that's still a heck of a lot of dead jewish people. 1.5 million people killed still qualifies as a holocaust in my mind.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree. But it also means that a lot of people qualify for a holocaust.
What the Americans did to the Japanese should be called a holocaust, what the Russians did to, well, themselves should be a holocaust. What the Japanese did to the Chinese and what the Chinese did to the Chinese should be called holocausts. What's going on in Darfur is a holocaust.
It isn't a word specifically reserved for the murdering of Jews is it?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The first big lie being perpetrated here is that the statistic that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust was based on estimates that 4 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz. This is simply untrue.
Estimates of the number of people killed in the Holocaust are based on European sensus data collected before, during and after the war. Detailed records exist which contain nearly all of the names of people (Jews and non-Jews) killed in Nazi concentration camps and death camps.
And by the way, the estimate is that 11-12 million people were killed in the Holocaust -- 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jews. I find it utterly repugnant that half the people murdered are left out of the count simply because they were not Jews.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:So I was thinking who was craziest: President of Venezuela, N. Korea, or Iran? I wish I could do a poll.
Let's recap: Prez/Iran is crazy, smart, and will have nukes soon. Kim is psycho, and may have nukes already. Chavez is just nuts.
So I'd say the President of Iran is most dangerous because not only does he have weapons, he a competent politician and was elected.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Because there's only one place on earth that is ours, and that's the land that God said is ours.
It's really a shame that no one held on to the deed.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Lyrhawn, Holocaust is a word reserved for what happened in World War II simply because it is. Genocide is the general word that you're actually looking for describes the intended extermination of a people because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc. Considering that the US didn't try to exterminate the Japanese, the Russians didn't try to exterminate themselves (same for the Chinese), and the Japanese weren't looking to so much exterminate the Chinese as they were trying to subjugate them and perform horrible experiments on them none of those examples could even be considered genocide. Dafur is the only case I would agree qualifies and unfortunately after past discussions on this forum it seems most people don't even agree on that.
Tom, I already remember you bringing up this frankly ignorant point before just phrased differently. Look, Jews were not the first occupants of modern Israel's borders and they may very well not be the last, however Jews do have a legitimate claim on that specific land. Not only have Jews continuously occupied it longer than any other group of people that are currently around today, but it holds religious significance that some random peice of Europe does not. What you may not realize is that even after the forced Exodus of the vast majority of Jews from Israel is as a group the Jews have always wanted to return to Israel exemplified by the yearly prayer at Passover, "Next year in Jerusalem." All of this is why the desire for a Jewish state is called Zionism, Zion being a mountain in the Holy Land, as opposed to Israelism or some other name.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Look, Jews were not the first occupants of modern Israel's borders and they may very well not be the last, however Jews do have a legitimate claim on that specific land.
Your definition of "legitimate" here appeals to an authority I can't quite recognize. They WANT the land, certainly. Many of them have ancestors from the area. And they used to rule a portion of it for a relatively short time. Does this constitute a "legitimate claim?" Or does the legitimacy of that claim stem from the fact that they really, really think they ought to have the land, in the form of an unsigned mandate from God Himself?
Seriously, I appreciate that a lot of people want to live in Israel, for whatever reason. But "legitimate" claims to territory are a lot like "inherent" human rights.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Maybe if you read the whole the post you would hae seen the part where I gave reasons for a legitimate claim based on non religious reasons. However, since the Muslims who also claim the land based on their own religious reasons accept the Jewish Bible as truth I think we can actually use it a real source since both sides largely accept its authority. Regardless, you didn't ask for "legitimate" reasons why Israel belongs to the Jews, but why scraps of Europe wouldn't be a suitable alternative and I've certainly given you legitimate reasons for that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Maybe if you read the whole the post you would hae seen the part where I gave reasons for a legitimate claim based on non religious reasons.
Again, your "legitimate" claim is based on ancestral presence. I'm afraid that this gives people a great reason to WANT to live somewhere, but it's not typically enforceable in court.
That many Jews would rather live in Israel than in Europe is something I appreciate. I myself would, especially on these cold winter nights, not mind living somewhere a little warmer. But there's a huge distinction between thinking that Hawaii might be a nice place to live and insisting that Hawaii has been ceded to me by God, so everyone currently there had better get out.
That the Holocaust gave moral authority to Zionism is understandable. But I think the insistence on Zion as a place does Zionism itself a disservice, and certainly risks all of its goals for what I consider to be a short-sighted focus on the supernatural properties of a thin strip of desert.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Holocaust is a word reserved for what happened in World War II simply because it is.
OT, but if Holocaust only refers to WWII, then what is Westley talking about in The Princess Bride when he asks for a Holocaust Cloak?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If your family once had a house in Hawaii, but had been illegally evicted and forced to leave Hawaii, but had never gave up on the land that was rightfully yours I would support your claim to regain your house. Of course, its not the general policy of Zionism that "everyone currently there had better get out." Also keep in mind that when Israel was founded it wasn't in the possesion of the local Arabs either so by your logic that the last owners should be the current owners doesn't hold water. Furthermore, at this point why is it OK for Arabs who left Israel to come back and claim Israel for themselves, but not for the Jews before them to?
I'm not just insisting Zion is a place, its really there, you can visit it if you want so I can't imagine how any disservice to anything is being performed.
If you're going to ask for Jews to stop caring about Israel's religious significance then you had better be prepared to ask the same of Muslims and Christians as well. Since that's not going to happen for anyone you might as well accept that there is no acceptable alternative to Israel as a homeland for the Jews.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
Has anyone read a book called The Chosen? It explains that some Jews thought they should wait for God to bring them back into Zion, and that some Jews thought they should form there own nationstate right after WWII ended. Whats the deal with that?
I don't know how to actually quote this so I'll just copy/paste it.
" Also keep in mind that when Israel was founded it wasn't in the possesion of the local Arabs either..." posted by Newfoundlogic.
was it unoccupied? There were probably Arab tribes hanging out by thier bad nomad selves at least, even if no recognized goverment was established.
Also I belive (now, I'm not a Theologist so bear with me)that that land was promised to the seed of Abraham, who aparently is everybody over there's dad. If I'm not mistaken, Jewish people believe that their line of dissent is actually the true one because it comes from Abrahams legitimate marriage.
Now with all that said, is this really just a fammily dispute on a global scale? Some people need to really be more carefull over what they are killing each other about.
[ December 15, 2005, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: String ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I love this bit:
quote:"If your civilization consists of aggression, making oppressed people homeless, suffocating the voices of justice and bringing poverty to a majority of the world's people, we say loudly that we hate your hollow civilization," he said.
Riiiiiiiight... so the West climbs above the middle ages and creates a bright way of life with technology, welfare, education, and capitalism... and suddenly we're stealing from them?
All this is just demagoguery by Iran...ssdd...to give their oppressed people a scapegoat that isn't their government. The Arab governments often remind me of little children. They need to grow up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nato, are you freaking insane?
quote:This is what Iran's president is saying. He argues that the 6-million figure is part of a myth that the Israeli government uses for leverage.
Why are you bending over backwards to cast what he says in the best possible light? He didn't say it was exaggerated, he called it a bloody myth. If he meant to say, "It wasn't as bad as they claim it was," he would have said that, man.
You've forgotten who you're dealing with due to your distaste for...something, I don't know. Israelis. Your own government. Who the hell ever. The leader of Iran hates Jews, would like the ones in Israel at least all dead and gone, and thinks they've made up a myth called the Holocaust in order to justify their presence in the Middle East. End of story.
Posted by His Savageness (Member # 7428) on :
Halocaust doesn't just mean genocide, it also means (and this is from dictionary.com): A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames or great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire. My guess (and this is just a guess, mind) is that the term was first applied to the genocide of the Jews during WWII because of the way in which so many Jews were killed and the ancient Jewish tradition of burnt offerings. I'm in no way trying to imply that the Jewish people themselves were a sacrifice, I'm just looking into the history of word's current usage.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: How is it not a rational argument? The "we got here first" mentality first of all, when they weren't the first ones there, they drove out the people that were there first, and I highly doubt all the Jews in Israel would clear out willingly just because the Caananites decided they wanted to move back in.
There are no Canaanites. And if they were, they've anyway stopped asserting title to the land for well over two thousand years.
We never stopped asserting our claim. There was just nothing we could do about it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also the fact that you find it irrational to move however many million Jews, but think it perfectly rational that the millions of Palestinians should leave their homes to find new ones. Shall they dig up their ancestors and take them with them when they go as well?
Hey, someone on this very board said that it wasn't unreasonable to suggest that five million Israelis be uprooted and transplanted elsewhere. If that's so, then it's even less unreasonable to suggest that a million or so Palestinians be moved. Particularly when there's actually an Arab country on the majority of the land that used to be called Palestine. Moving Israel to Alaska makes a lot less sense than moving Palestine to Palestine. I mean Jordan.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: They did nothing of the sort. The 4 million was Jews who were imprisoned there ("who suffered and died"), and not only those who died.
The Auchwitz Museum, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Nation of Poland, etc. have all changed their figures downward since 1990, reflecting that less than 1.3 million people of any creed were killed at Auschwitz.
Oh, that's nice. Reference one of the biggest Holocaust denial sites on the Internet. It's pretty clear where you're coming from.
Here, read this. It was the Soviets and the Poles who came up with the 4 million figure. It was most likely derived from Eichmann's estimate that 4 million Jews had been killed in the camps ([i]all of them; not just Auschwitz[i]) and another million shot or otherwise killed by mobile units.
Or check this out for simple proof that Nato and his sources are simply making this up. The estimates for Auschwitz have been down in the 1 million range since at least 1968.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: So with ~4 million fewer people killed at Auschwitz, why do some insist that the 6 million Jews killed figure, heavily based on the Auschwitz numbers is still accurate?
The 6 million figure isn't based on 4 million at Auschwitz. It's based on 4 million at all the camps. I can't figure out if you're personally trying to play propaganda games or if you've simply been misinformed. Either way, you're wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: This is what Iran's president is saying.
No. What Iran's president is doing is trying to obliterate the State of Israel. He's trying to kick the Jews out of our own land.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I haven't heard of people in supposedly free countries being detained over saying God doesn't exist, yet people are tried for the supposed crime of "Holocaust Denial" (when most of them do no such thing; they point out that some of the common figures are outdated or incorrect).
Fraud gets prosecuted. Bummer. As to whether the anti-denial laws in Europe are okay... well, I personally think they aren't. But Europe has always been big on controlling people. I don't believe you can get prosecuted for Holocaust denial in the US, and that's a good thing.
[ December 15, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I agree. But it also means that a lot of people qualify for a holocaust.
What the Americans did to the Japanese should be called a holocaust,
Pardon me? Are you talking about the internment camps? Are you saying that those were death camps, where the Japanese were methodically exterminated, with the goal of eliminating ever Japanese person on the face of the earth?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: what the Russians did to, well, themselves should be a holocaust. What the Japanese did to the Chinese and what the Chinese did to the Chinese should be called holocausts. What's going on in Darfur is a holocaust.
A little perspective, please. War sucks. And personally, I don't know enough about what's going on in Darfur to know whether this is war or not. Even if it's war, it doesn't excuse atrocities. But you cannot compare it, either way, to a nation deciding, coldly, to kill every single Jew in the world. Particularly when the Jews weren't at war with them. All the Jews wanted was to be the best Germans and Poles and Russians and whatever that they could be. They were a completely peaceful population, and a decision was made to exterminate them.
I personally get tired of hearing about the Holocaust, because I get it already. And I'm sick of the "Jewish history began at Auschwitz" nonsense that some Jews who've abandoned Judaism and need a historical anchor seem to have glommed onto (Spielberg, for instance).
But I'm starting to understand in this thread why it needs to be remembered. If someone can honestly compare an attempt to exterminate a peaceful population whose only crime was being different with whatever atrocities you can imagine being perpetrated against a belligerant enemy, they need a wake up call, and they need it now.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It isn't a word specifically reserved for the murdering of Jews is it?
It wasn't just the murdering of Jews. Read a history book.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Because there's only one place on earth that is ours, and that's the land that God said is ours.
It's really a shame that no one held on to the deed.
Well, not only did we hold onto the deed, but I can give you tons of historical material from Christians and Muslims that will testify to our continued impassioned claims to ownership of the land and intent to return. Generally speaking, they found it hilarious and pitiful, but that's kind of beside the point.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia:
quote:Holocaust is a word reserved for what happened in World War II simply because it is.
OT, but if Holocaust only refers to WWII, then what is Westley talking about in The Princess Bride when he asks for a Holocaust Cloak?
Holocaust was a term used for burnt offerings. In older Bibles, you'll find "holocaust offerings" mentioned. Its use in The Princess Bride was in that sense.
[ December 15, 2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by String: Has anyone read a book called The Chosen? It explains that some Jews thought they should wait for God to bring them back into Zion, and that some Jews thought they should form there own nationstate right after WWII ended. Whats the deal with that?
There were Jews who objected to the establishment of the state on general principle. Some were afraid of it causing anti-semitism. Others believed that we have to wait for the Messiah to come and lead us back to Israel (an idea that basically came from centuries of living in forced exile and needing to make a virtue of a necessity).
quote:Originally posted by String: I don't know how to actually quote this so I'll just copy/paste it.
" Also keep in mind that when Israel was founded it wasn't in the possesion of the local Arabs either..." posted by Newfoundlogic.
was it unoccupied? There were probably Arab tribes hanging out by thier bad nomad selves at least, even if no recognized goverment was established.
There were Jews and Arabs living there. But neither was sovereign. There'd never been an Arab state in that area. It was a backwater.
quote:Originally posted by String: Also I belive (now, I'm not a Theologist so bear with me)that that land was promised to the seed of Abraham, who aparently is everybody over there's dad. If I'm not mistaken, Jewish people believe that their line of dissent is actually the true one because it comes from Abrahams legitimate marriage.
Now with all that said, is this really just a fammily dispute on a global scale? Some people need to really be more carefull over what they are killing each other about.
It's not that we're killing each other. If Israel were to lay down arms completely today, there'd be hundreds of Jewish casualties by this time tomorrow. If the Arabs were to lay down arms completely today, things would be absolutely the same tomorrow. That alone should point to a fundamental difference between the two sides.
Basically, Israel wants to live in peace. The Arabs want Israel gone. There are Israelis like myself who think that the best solution is to expel the Arabs to another Arab country, but we're a small minority. And we most certainly do not go around blowing people up.
Most Israelis are more than happy to let the Arabs live where they're living. But that's not good enough for them. They want to obliterate the entire state of Israel, either through violence, or through their "right of return" claim, which would result in Jews as a tiny minority even in our own land. It's ludicrous.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nato, are you freaking insane?
Not insane. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people like him out there. Holocaust deniers. They tend to hang with conspiracy theorists of all kinds. One of my favorite authors is James P. Hogan, but if you go to his site (or correspond with him as I have), you'll find that he's become quite the conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier himself.
What's interesting is that you almost always find the same people doing the Holocaust denial coming up with things like "Every Jew who worked in the Twin Towers stayed home on 9/11" or the like. And then they get all outraged when they get accused of being anti-semites.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Look, Jews were not the first occupants of modern Israel's borders and they may very well not be the last, however Jews do have a legitimate claim on that specific land.
Your definition of "legitimate" here appeals to an authority I can't quite recognize. They WANT the land, certainly. Many of them have ancestors from the area.
Many? I think you meant to say "all".
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And they used to rule a portion of it for a relatively short time. Does this constitute a "legitimate claim?" Or does the legitimacy of that claim stem from the fact that they really, really think they ought to have the land, in the form of an unsigned mandate from God Himself?
Seriously, I appreciate that a lot of people want to live in Israel, for whatever reason. But "legitimate" claims to territory are a lot like "inherent" human rights.
Here's the area of Palestine as of 1920. Note the smaller area in which the Jews planned to create our state. Note the smaller yet area consisting of Israel, Gaza and the "West Bank". Then note the internationally recognized area of Israel, with the enormous bite taken out of the middle that leaves it without any means of defense, and with a nine mile wide strip being all that prevents it from being cut in half by enemies.
Here is a map showing the insane, 6 piece jigsaw puzzle map that was okayed by the UN in 1947. That's the one that the Arabs went to war with us to prevent. The one on its right is the result of that attempt to stamp out Israel. What was left was still next to indefensible, which is why the Arabs were able to keep attacking.
The bottom line is that the Jewish people never acquiesced to the forceful eviction of our people by the Romans. The duration doesn't matter. By international law, evictees only lose their right to restoration if they stop protesting the eviction and acquiesce. We never do that, and it's provable that we never did that.
This means that the Arab occupation of 690 CE was itself illegal, and it never became legal, even after 13 centuries.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are many kinds of delusion, aren't there, starLisa? One can believe lies about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Luddites, or any old thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: We never do that, and it's provable that we never did that.
How is this provable?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And what international law are you referring to? I wasn't aware of any sort of "International Law" in existence in 690CE. Retroactive application of a law across 13 centuries is a bit much, don't you think? By that logic what would you do with the fact the U.S. exists today? The Indians certianly objected to the United States!
AJ
(for that matter retroactive application of that law to 690 BC, means that *most* countries in the world wouldn't exist, people may not acquiesce to their occupation, but they may just plain die out!)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:By that logic what would you do with the fact the U.S. exists today? The Indians certianly objected to the United States!
That's about as much sense as international law makes sometimes.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Let's be fair and equitable about this: the Jews keep Israel, but pay the Egyptians the 1.1 quadrillion tons of gold they owe them. Then the Egyptians graciously compensate the Palestianians.
Everybody wins, and we can put all this unpleasantness behind us.
quote: It had to be a joke. An Egyptian lawyer, reported the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv this week, is planning to sue "every Jew in the world" for the "theft" of 1,125 trillion tons of Egyptian gold during the Exodus 3,000 years ago.
"This was the greatest act of collective deception in history," explained the lawyer, Nabil Hilmi. He graciously offered to spread the repayment term over the next 1,000 years - with interest, of course.
But this is the Middle East, and it's no joke. Nor is Hilmi a crackpot: He happens to be the dean of a law school in Cairo. And he's assembled a team of 15 Egyptian lawyers to pursue the case before an international court. All in the name of justice.
...[several paragraphs cut]...
Hilmi, for one, would have to answer that they were. If Jews can be sued for the gold of the Exodus, then surely they are heirs to the Koran's promise that the Holy Land would belong to the people of Moses. Perhaps, when Zionists base their claims on Scripture, they should cite not just the Bible but the Koran too.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: We never do that, and it's provable that we never did that.
How is this provable?
Mocking reports from Christians and Muslims laughing at the pitiful Jews who weep and wail and lament over their lost land.
Do I need to compile some, or are you going to just accept that they exist?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The argument I made was not based on the Bible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Mocking reports from Christians and Muslims laughing at the pitiful Jews who weep and wail and lament over their lost land.
So your claim is based on the fact that, as a generally oppressed and scattered people, you never -- from the point of view of your oppressors -- got over it? Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
At the root of it all, isn't the claim ultimately based on right of conquest? Certainly that's how the land was won originally, according to the Old Testement wrath and destruction was reigned down on the original inhabitants, the hapless Canannites and Jebusites and other -ites who were put to the sword by the city-full.
In the 20th century, the UN clumsily put together a country, and the Israeli's have been holding on ever since, despite repeated attempts to crush them.
It's nothing new, conquest is ultimately how most countries, including the US, were formed, and continued to exist.
Israel just has the misfortune of being one of the last created countries, and so it's always going to be contraversial to some. The right of conquest is frowned on these days--look at the trouble Saddam got in after invading Kuwait.
Conquest is no longer considered cricket.
Personally, I think both Israelis and Palestinians have rights to the land, and grievances.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::cracks knuckles:: and away we go!
quote: It wasn't just the murdering of Jews. Read a history book.
Nice attempt at a cheap shot, that's not what I'm referring to. And seriously, if EVERYONE on this board read multiple history books, for the sake of knowing both sides of a historical argument, about every subject of history when someone on here says "go read a history book" you'd spend half your life reading history books. I spent this last semester reading and rereading Suetonius and Tacitus, and a quick read and reread of Scullard's early history of the Roman people. Those three books took up massive amounts of my time. When I get to mid 20th century history, I'm sure I will read extensively on the holocaust, on and on and on and on about it.
quote: Pardon me? Are you talking about the internment camps? Are you saying that those were death camps, where the Japanese were methodically exterminated, with the goal of eliminating ever Japanese person on the face of the earth?
No, I wasn't talking about internment camps. I was talking about the systematic eradication of large pieces of the Japanese population. The firebombings of Tokyo and other cities, to say nothing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Millions of civilians were killed. Apparently being roasted alive and suffering from radiation sickness doesn't qualify as an atrocity worthy of being called a holocaust in your book, sorry about that. And yes, I realize the difference between systematically eradicating an innocent people and attacking the civilian population of a nation you are at war with. But I think there comes a point where death by immolation is just what it is, and no reason can excuse it or move it into a separate category.
quote: There are no Canaanites. And if they were, they've anyway stopped asserting title to the land for well over two thousand years
I'm sure there are still people of Canaanite descent. It might not even be that hard to trace back either, they'd most likely be in Northern Africa or Spain, spread by Carthage before and during the Punic Wars, but even from there you could probably find a lot in Rome as the descendents of the thousands of slaves brought back to Rome from the Punic Wars. And what exactly do you have to do to give up a claim on land? Formally renounce it? Or just be vocal about wanting it back? You're making up your own rules on what entitles someone to land their ancestors were historically placed on.
My point is, that regardless of who was there first, I can't imagine that if say a million people of Caananite descent marched in Israel demanding their land back, the Israelis would pack up and leave, admitting that someone with an older claim had come home and deserved their land back.
Do you think they would? Do you think they should?
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Thank you, StarLisa, for answering my rather frivolous Princess Bride question in the midst of the more weighty matters.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nato, are you freaking insane?
Not insane. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people like him out there. Holocaust deniers. They tend to hang with conspiracy theorists of all kinds.
...And then they get all outraged when they get accused of being anti-semites.
Please don't call me an anti-semite. I am not anti-semitic. I don't care what people believe, and I don't belive in treating people differently because of what religion they subscribe to. I have nothing against the Jewish people.
The label "Holocaust Denier" is inaccurate and offensive. No intelligent person would argue that what happened to the Jews wasn't terrible and wrong on every level. Killing other people is wrong, I think. If anything, I'm a "holocaust expander" because I think that other ethnic groups that have suffered similar horrific tragedies deserve recognition as well. I do not mean to diminish the importance of the holocaust at all, and I'm sorry if the numbers I found were confusing, erroneous, or outdated. I searched the web for half an hour and couldn't find two sources that agreed on the number of deaths, but I found many sites that said that number has deflated in the past 50 years.
My point is that there were a hell of a lot of deaths, some people are questioning the numbers that have been reported, and that it is okay to question and investigate those numbers without dishonoring those who died in the Holocaust or any other genocide.
Iran's president is trying to be inflammatory. He's giving you a huge chance to prove him a fool. All you have to do is show that he's wrong. Now keep in mind that when he says "The Holocaust is a myth" he doesn't mean that it didn't happen at all or that it wasn't horrible--his other statements make that clear. I think he has reasons for trying to be as inflammatory as possible and that he's not necessarily seeking truth as much as political favor with nations such as Russia, but I don't think that he's wrong to raise some of those questions.
The issue of "Holocaust Denial" is more hot-headed today than "God Denial." This thread is proof of that. In the long run, I feel that whatever each individual believes about anything is their own business, and at risk of looking a fool, one is allowed to voice that opinion. In the context of historical debate, which "Holocaust denial" (I'd say "reexamination" before "revisionist history"), it is necessary to look at every side of the issue, pore over the evidence, and come to more agreement over what occurred. Ernst Zundel and the others are on trial for, at worst, being wrong about something and saying it anyway. That's not freedom.
We, as a global community, MUST learn from the true history of the Holocaust and learn to never commit such an act again. That means investigating the facts and numbers as well as determining why it occurred, so that we can avoid it in the future. We must recognize where the signs are that point towards future genocide and confront the problem before it starts.
I'm worried about racial relations in the world, after this week reading about groups trying to incite race riots in Australia and New Zealand. The underlying message of every morality is peace. Further peace in the world. Seek a solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis that is fair. The Jews deserve to never be threatened by genocide, as do all ethnic and religious groups, and having their own state serves that purpose. Palestinians deserve a land where they do not live in what are essentially refugee camps. The current situation isn't exactly fair either, so let's try to find a better solution. To do that, we need to recognize the suffering of all peoples.
quote:But I think there comes a point where death by immolation is just what it is, and no reason can excuse it or move it into a separate category.
Suffering is suffering, and we must fight it in all its insidious forms.
I want a world where everyone lives and lets others live, no matter what crackpot things those others believe. (And in the end, you might find them to not be crackpots at all.)
Yes, please fight for truth and knowledge among all people, but recognize that part of that battle is fairly evaluating positions that you don't believe yourself.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Until this thread I had always assumed that the term "holocaust denier" was an accurate one. That is, people who denied that the holocaust had ever taken place.
Now, 6 million, 4 million or 1.1 million is a lot of people, and the motivation behind it doesn't change depending on the number. The author of the site referenced doesn't claim to deny the holocaust, only impugns the accuracy of the numbers usually cited.
Yet StarLisa clings to the "holocaust denier" moniker for that particular author, in fact she calls it "one of the biggest Holocaust denial sites on the Internet." So now that Lisa has told me that the biggest holocaust denier is merely claiming that the numbers have been misstated, holocaust denial on the whole deserves much more respectability.
Thanks for clearing that up Lisa.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Actually National Geographic had an interesting article on ancestral genetics of fishermen in the middle east. There were a lot of hot men in that part of the world, but I believe they traced them back to Phonecians and Cananites genetically. http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/
AJ
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow that looks like an awesome article, I wish I had that issue on me so I could read the whole thing.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
About Holocaust Denial: If I recall correctly from my WWII class a few years ago, the problem is not so much that they are revising the numbers down. The problem is that they are saying that Auswitch et al. were not really death camps specifically designed to exterminate as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible, but rather that they were merely forced labor camps that went a bit overboard and worked a few million people to death.
As I said, I am drawing on memory here. Those of you who know more about the subject, please correct me if I am misremembering.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Also, there were plenty more people who were not Jews who died in the Holocaust. They should be remembered, too.
I remember this very well because I played an Aryan who was in a death camp in a school play.
/random drunken opinion.
-pH
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: About Holocaust Denial: If I recall correctly from my WWII class a few years ago, the problem is not so much that they are revising the numbers down. The problem is that they are saying that Auswitch et al. were not really death camps specifically designed to exterminate as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible, but rather that they were merely forced labor camps that went a bit overboard and worked a few million people to death.
As I said, I am drawing on memory here. Those of you who know more about the subject, please correct me if I am misremembering.
Yes, you're correct. The point I was making sarcastically is that Lisa has undermined her own argument by insisting that anyone who questions the accuracy of the numbers is a "holocaust denier." The real holocaust deniers are out there, and they're at least as out of touch with reality as Lisa is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nato,
quote:The label "Holocaust Denier" is inaccurate and offensive. No intelligent person would argue that what happened to the Jews wasn't terrible and wrong on every level.
Show me other statements where he acknowledges in plain language that the Holocaust happened, Nato. Link it. If you can do that, I'll apologize and retract my objective...but I've never seen that kind of talk coming from him. All I've seen from him is "We can have nukes if we want `em" "wipe out Israel" and "Holocaust is a myth".
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
quote:No, I wasn't talking about internment camps. I was talking about the systematic eradication of large pieces of the Japanese population. The firebombings of Tokyo and other cities, to say nothing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Millions of civilians were killed. Apparently being roasted alive and suffering from radiation sickness doesn't qualify as an atrocity worthy of being called a holocaust in your book, sorry about that. And yes, I realize the difference between systematically eradicating an innocent people and attacking the civilian population of a nation you are at war with. But I think there comes a point where death by immolation is just what it is, and no reason can excuse it or move it into a separate category.
While terrible & tragic, the Japanese government had insisted on fighting to the last man; before Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Japan began ordering it's troops into suicidal attacks to defend every inch of land that was taken. (I have a sister who currently lives in Hiroshima, just as an aside)
If you want to talk about the unspoken holocaust of WWII, it's what the Japanese armies did to the Chinese people in Manchuria. A few million Chinese died in the slaughter, 300,000 in the first few days in the taking of Nanking.
During the middle of the war, Japan was outspending everyone, and had put heavy research into atomic weapons. In 2003, the Japanese Government made an effort to say that their program was "years away" and that America's perceived threat of a Japanese counterstrike by A-Bomb was "garbage". But as more paperwork came to light in '04 and '05, and several networks did interviews with remaining scientist, it became clear that Japan was within a 12 month window of developing their atom bomb - something Truman had noted he was concerned about.
I'm not saying we should cheer with happiness what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were terrible events. At the same time, I'm not sure that it didn't save more lives then it cost, something Truman tossed and turned on for the rest of his life.
We'll never know.
But what happened in the Holocaust was the intentional erradiction of all people: Jewish, Gypsy, handicapped/infirmed. All of them were sent to be slaughtered. There was no pressing "if we kill them it ends the war and saves someone else's life" there was no counterbalance; they were killed just for the sake of killing them.
As someone who spent a big part of his life studying history, I've always felt the Holocaust is under-evaluated. While the 6 Million figure represents the count of census roles before and after the war, as well as during, it under-represents births within camps - which did happen and were occassionally fored to happen; forced abortion services, deaths of migrant and moving peoples of gypsy and jewish nature; deaths within Italy during transport of people as cargo, and so on.
In fact, the total taking those things into account might easily exceed 10 Million. Now, I'm aware that some would consider the forced abortion part not a figure to be counted in as they don't consider a fetus a human (I personally do) but the act itself is serious enough that it merits some mention.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: No, I wasn't talking about internment camps. I was talking about the systematic eradication of large pieces of the Japanese population. The firebombings of Tokyo and other cities, to say nothing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Millions of civilians were killed. Apparently being roasted alive and suffering from radiation sickness doesn't qualify as an atrocity worthy of being called a holocaust in your book, sorry about that.
You're right. It really doesn't qualify as a holocaust when aimed against a racist nation that launched a sneak attack against us and had no intention of surrendering. Bummer for them if they didn't like getting nuked. It's like the old story. A guy goes into a doctor's office and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor tells him, "Well, don't do that!" If they hadn't gone out on a world-conquering binge, they wouldn't have wound up with two cities full of crispy critters. It was a self-inflicted wound.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And yes, I realize the difference between systematically eradicating an innocent people and attacking the civilian population of a nation you are at war with. But I think there comes a point where death by immolation is just what it is, and no reason can excuse it or move it into a separate category.
Easy for you to say. Ridiculous, but apparently very easy.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: There are no Canaanites. And if they were, they've anyway stopped asserting title to the land for well over two thousand years
I'm sure there are still people of Canaanite descent.
Genetically? Sure. Ethnically? Not a single one on the face of the planet.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It might not even be that hard to trace back either, they'd most likely be in Northern Africa or Spain, spread by Carthage before and during the Punic Wars, but even from there you could probably find a lot in Rome as the descendents of the thousands of slaves brought back to Rome from the Punic Wars. And what exactly do you have to do to give up a claim on land? Formally renounce it? Or just be vocal about wanting it back? You're making up your own rules on what entitles someone to land their ancestors were historically placed on.
No. It's common sense, and it's International Law. Take your pick.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My point is, that regardless of who was there first, I can't imagine that if say a million people of Caananite descent marched in Israel demanding their land back, the Israelis would pack up and leave, admitting that someone with an older claim had come home and deserved their land back.
How silly. And what about if Godzilla and King Kong were to team up with Mothra and threaten to incinerate and stomp all over Jerusalem if we didn't move out? Would we?
See, I can make up wacked out fairy tales as easily as you. They aren't the point. The Land of Israel is ours.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you think they would? Do you think they should?
Do you think that Godzilla would be cross-fertile with a regular lizard?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: Thank you, StarLisa, for answering my rather frivolous Princess Bride question in the midst of the more weighty matters.
<grin> What could be more weighty than The Princess Bride?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nato, are you freaking insane?
Not insane. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people like him out there. Holocaust deniers. They tend to hang with conspiracy theorists of all kinds.
...And then they get all outraged when they get accused of being anti-semites.
Please don't call me an anti-semite. I am not anti-semitic. I don't care what people believe, and I don't belive in treating people differently because of what religion they subscribe to. I have nothing against the Jewish people.
You forgot "some of my best friends are Jews".
Feh.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
There is an alternative explanation for Ahmadinejad's remarks, beyond that he's calculating political favor; he may actually believe it. I have the strong impression that this kind of expletive-deleted is taught in most Islamic countries now.
And even if he's shrewdly positioning himself, consider what kind of country would be friendly to hearing it! One in which everybody is willing to believe anything as long as it's bad about Jews.
I wish there were some way to lean on these countries (or the friendlier-to-US ones, anyway), so they'd stop deceiving the next generation about this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nato,
quote:Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps," Ahmadinejad said. "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe—like in Germany, Austria or other countries—to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."
and
"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
I've been looking for over half an hour now, and I haven't been able to find anything Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ever said about Jews or the Holocaust other than statements like these. You can see the emboldened parts. Now that I've looked, I wonder how you can possibly say
quote:Iran's president is trying to be inflammatory. He's giving you a huge chance to prove him a fool. All you have to do is show that he's wrong. Now keep in mind that when he says "The Holocaust is a myth" he doesn't mean that it didn't happen at all or that it wasn't horrible--his other statements make that clear.
Because it's clear what he's saying. He's saying that if the Holocaust happened-and we think it's a myth-then why are you, Europe and America, foisting all these Jews on us? If you burned them-and we don't accept that-you give them sanctuary. That's what he's saying. He never once said, "They've exagerrated the Holocaust."
If you don't want to be labeled a "Holocaust Denier" Nato, you'd do better than to stick up for people who are obviously denying the Holocaust happened, who use words like if, and myth, and we don't accept to describe it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmmm those guys in National Geographic were still fishermen...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
starLisa -
quote: Easy for you to say. Ridiculous, but apparently very easy.
I'm not sure how, but you get more beligerant and obnoxious in every post. And it isn't ridiculous, it's not even close to the furthest reaches of the greatest fringes of ridiculous. There's no point in arguing with you though, reason has no sway over you.
And as for your goofy Godzilla reference, you either missed the point or ignored it. You're claiming a right that you expect everyone in the world should recognize, but that I suspect, were that same right claimed against you by a previous landholder, you'd have no intention of honoring it. That, to me, rips up a lot of your credibility.
And I'm sure you know tons and tons about the spread of the Caananites throughout the world. I'm also sure that everyone living in Israel today is of exactly the same bloodline as the Israelites who lived there a couple thousand years ago, as apparently Israelites don't intermarry into other peoples. I wasn't aware you were so ethnocentric.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Iran's president: "If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?" Ahmadinejad asked rhetorically.
"This is our proposal: if you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said, developing a theme he raised in Saudi Arabia last week.
Rakeesh, he's calling it a myth to be inflammatory. He probably believes that not very many people died, minimalizing it to the extreme, which is in my opinion wrong. That's not exactly his issue though. What I've quoted here is his main point. And like I said, you have a big chance to make a fool of him. Doublecheck your numbers, provide the evidence, and the world community will see that he's wrong. Honesty is the best policy?
quote:starLisa: You forgot "some of my best friends are Jews".
Feh.
This is also offensive. Please treat your opposition with some respect. You cannot speak for me and say that I hate Jews, especially when I do not.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
starLisa
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: No, I wasn't talking about internment camps. I was talking about the systematic eradication of large pieces of the Japanese population. The firebombings of Tokyo and other cities, to say nothing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Millions of civilians were killed. Apparently being roasted alive and suffering from radiation sickness doesn't qualify as an atrocity worthy of being called a holocaust in your book, sorry about that.
You're right. It really doesn't qualify as a holocaust when aimed against a racist nation that launched a sneak attack against us and had no intention of surrendering. Bummer for them if they didn't like getting nuked. It's like the old story. A guy goes into a doctor's office and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor tells him, "Well, don't do that!" If they hadn't gone out on a world-conquering binge, they wouldn't have wound up with two cities full of crispy critters. It was a self-inflicted wound.
But it wasn’t the Japanese people that launched the attack, it was the leaders of Japan. And while I’m sure a good amount of the population agreed with what they were being dragged into, I’m sure there were many, many of those that didn’t.
quote: Originally posted by starLisa:
quote: Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It might not even be that hard to trace back either, they'd most likely be in Northern Africa or Spain, spread by Carthage before and during the Punic Wars, but even from there you could probably find a lot in Rome as the descendents of the thousands of slaves brought back to Rome from the Punic Wars. And what exactly do you have to do to give up a claim on land? Formally renounce it? Or just be vocal about wanting it back? You're making up your own rules on what entitles someone to land their ancestors were historically placed on.
No. It's common sense, and it's International Law. Take your pick.
What is this international law you’re talking about? If you think the Jews should have always had their land from way back when, then there WEREN’T any international laws back then.
quote: Originally posted by starLisa:
quote: Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My point is, that regardless of who was there first, I can't imagine that if say a million people of Caananite descent marched in Israel demanding their land back, the Israelis would pack up and leave, admitting that someone with an older claim had come home and deserved their land back.
How silly. And what about if Godzilla and King Kong were to team up with Mothra and threaten to incinerate and stomp all over Jerusalem if we didn't move out? Would we?
See, I can make up wacked out fairy tales as easily as you. They aren't the point. The Land of Israel is ours.
That is just arrogant, and you know you’re being intentionally hurtful. And if you don’t know, well then that’s just ignoranance. Godzilla and King Kong obviously never lived in what is now Israel, and they aren’t human, or for that matter, real. Are you trying to make a claim that the Canaanites were not real?
quote: Originally posted by starLisa: Do you think that Godzilla would be cross-fertile with a regular lizard?
Again, that was just a stupid comment, and you’re not adding anything to the discussion, or helping with the fact that although many people here are trying to take you seriously, you aren’t returning the favor. I foresee you’re credibility coming to an end.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:I foresee you’re credibility coming to an end.
You're way behind me, then. She lost her credibility a long time ago as far as I'm concerned. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, he's calling it a myth to be inflammatory. He probably believes that not very many people died, minimalizing it to the extreme, which is in my opinion wrong. That's not exactly his issue though. What I've quoted here is his main point. And like I said, you have a big chance to make a fool of him. Doublecheck your numbers, provide the evidence, and the world community will see that he's wrong. Honesty is the best policy?
You have no basis for this belief except your desire not to think he's calling the Holocaust a total myth, Nato. Nowhere has he said, "The Holocaust happened, but we shouldn't call it the Holocaust, it was only a few Jews here and there."
It's pretty weird that you have so much faith in the good intentions and the persuadability of fanatics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is he a fanatic or an opportunist? Does it matter?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It makes a difference in hw one should deal with him-but not in what he actually said.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
When two things are dangerous, unfortunate, or evil, it does not follow that they are the same thing.
World War II was a bad thing. The Holocaust was a bad thing. WWII is not therefore the Holocaust.
Are they morally equivalent, or, rather, is US action in WWII morally equivalent to Nazi action in the Holocaust? Let's see.
The Nazis started the Holocaust unprovoked; the US was attacked.
The Nazis killed noncombatants; the US did too. (Nazis did it as a goal.)
The Nazis attempted genocide; the US attempted self-defense.
The Nazis fought a non-enemy that was no threat; the US fought an enemy that was dangerous.
So if killing noncombatants is what really matters here, the actions are morally equivalent. If genocide is worse than self-defense, they are not morally equivalent.
I do hope we'll decide genocide is worse than self-defense. Self-defense can't be eliminated from the world, because groups who don't engage in self-defense cease to exist. It's also unclear that letting aggressors take everything they want is really a moral action. If the US hadn't engaged in self-defense, would there be a Jew left alive today? Is it really moral to let this happen?
And as for the practice of calling people "Nazis" because we don't like them (thread creep, I hope) . . . that's beneath contempt.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What on Earth are you talking about?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I had a professor last year, who although he was definately not a holocaust denier (being Jewish himself), did suggest that other genocides should be paid more attention to as well as the holocaust. He specifically meant the people who died as a result of Communism. He was a journalist or researcher or something during the cold war and I think during that time the deaths of millions under Stalin and friends really struck him hard. I think his point was that the Holocaust gets a "lot of press" (justifiably) but we, not forget but perhaps don't remember as often as we should, that there are other genocides also that personally affected millions and their families, although I know it's not the point of this particular thread.
Anyway, just a thought. I'm not supporting it, necessarily, just throwing it out there because what Nato said reminded me of this professor.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Incidentally, Norway has never stopped objecting to the Swedish occupation of Jæmtland-Herjedalen and Viken, and the Scottish occupation of the Orkneys. Can we have them back, too? Oh, and Denmark would like Skåne returned. And Sweden would like Finland to cease its illegal occupation of, um, Finland, and return to its rightful King. So would Russia, probably.
By the way, why is it that starLisa is so heavy on international law when she thinks it'll help her cause, and completely contemptuous of it when, I don't know, Israel completely ignores it in favour of its own state interests?
Posted by sarcare (Member # 8736) on :
Teshi, I agree with your professor. Following WWII laws were set up to try to prevent anything like the holocaust from happening again, but they weren't really required. It was a lot easier to just define the Holocaust as the most unimagniably evil thing, which could never happen again, thus making it by definition impossible to happen again. This allows various nations and groups to attempt to blissfully destroy entire populations and cultures, free in the knowledge that anyone who tries to invoke laws designed to prevent a holocausts from occuring will be termed a holocaust denier. How does saying what happened in Rawanda was like the holocaust diminish the significance of the murder of Jews? It makes it so they are not the only ones upon whom genocide has been attempted, which apparently means denying there was a holocaust.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)