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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many kinds of delusion, aren't there, starLisa? One can believe lies about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Luddites, or any old thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, StarLisa, for answering my rather frivolous Princess Bride question in the midst of the more weighty matters.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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/
posted
Wow that looks like an awesome article, I wish I had that issue on me so I could read the whole thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 234 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
