Yes, I read this, but there are still quite a few “bad apples” that condone homicide bombings, beheadings, stonings, and maiming in the name of their Allah. Most suicide attacks are implemented by Muslims. Many simply haven’t much of a choice. A terrorist group orders a Muslim to homicide him or herself, if refused, the group argues do it and only you die, don’t do it, you and your whole family dies. I do have an understanding of the dilemma.
I do not find any justification for the following atrocity, which is also condoned in Islam as any proselytizing by another faith is forbidden: english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … 5DB615.htm
Why do we blame those murdered, instead of the murderers? This is similar to blaming a rape victim for being raped.
I’m amazed by the sheer daftness of this post, and how historically
ill informed the author is.
Jewish hatred goes back to biblical times, and has persisted for centuries.
While i agree that the law enshrining holocaust denial is wrong and should
be changed, that law does not exist in the overwhelming majority of countries in the world, where a rise in Jewish hatred has increased -as in the UK (where i live)
To say Jews ‘wouldn’t be so widely resented’ if the law didn’t exist is
absurd, there is no empirical basis for saying that.
More pertinent to this whole discussion in the UK is the unholy alliance between left-wingers and Islamic fascists ‘We are all Hezbollah now’, is the half witted mantra of these so called liberals. Prattle from the British intelligencia isn’t new, unfortunately crap from the mouths of these drones still has the capacity to fuel anti-Jewish fervour.
Ignorance fuels fear and prejudice, lets keep it real.
It was not an excuse, it was simply a statement of fact: We will attack the King David Hotel because you will not allow Holocaust survivors into the land. The Brits said that they do not take orders from Jews.
There is a difference between warning of an attack, then attacking a military target, as opposed to legitimatizing the killing of any Israeli, or any Jew, or any Westerner-Remember we are all fair game for many Arabs.
We can agree to disagree, without becoming disagreeable.
It’s a bit bloody rich for jews to be complaining how badly they’re treated in the UK when you take a look at the inhumanity they’re STILL perpetrating on millions of innocent people for 60 years. What a fucking hide!!!
These zionist jews steal land, kill innocent people, demolish houses, farms, livelihoods and put people in concentration camps surrounded by 30 foot concrete walls and barbed wire, humiliate them endlessly and yet THEY, the jews, are the victim of a comparative mild bit of racism. WTF?
People around the world are simply waking up to the politically correct bullshit they’ve been force fed for years. You can fool all the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all the time but…
It is worse for Israelis when they accidentally turn a wrong corner into a no Jew Zone, where the Arabs murder them.
Remember, Jews were attacked in this area a long time before the creation of Israel.
Besides, most of the land was purchased by Jews. Also, the refugee camps in Arab lands are a disgrace, why not throw stones at the Arabs for not caring about their brethren. LOL, Arabs are using their “brothers” to keep the pot boiling.
What would you do if your neighbor continually threatens to annihilate you and your family, and starts shooting at your home?
We can agree that is wrong to murder 95 human beings, or you can stop feigning your moral outrage at all the various and assorted atrocities and murders you don’t bother to wink at.
Nope, we can agree that some killing is necessary to protect oneself, especially after 6 million of our brethren were systematically exterminated simply for being Jewish.
Sure, most Brits have a different view, that is my numerous relatives do, but have absolutely no refute for the fact that it was morally wrong to prevent these survivors from fleeing Europe, nor any refute for the fact the British military was warned.
Because of this, 40 British officers helped fight the Israelis in 1948.
Why is it that there is total silence when another ethnic group defends itself, and total outrage when Jews do?
Funny, that was the same thing Hitler was thinking when he charged the Jews for corrupting his race, culture and heritage. Doesn’t matter if he was right. The point is that you are doing the same thing he did.
Tell me, what is the difference between, say, dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian city and a statement made by a person who fails to realize that every problem in the world she has ever opened her mouth about was caused by the very political system she supports?
The difference is, the former is hypocrisy, while the latter is too confused to be even hypocritical. If you at least understood why capitalism is ruining the world, you could be an honest liar…and therefore a hypocrite. But you are a lying liar, and cannot possibly be intentionally hypocritical.
This is quite an enigma, if you haven’t noticed. You are so confused you cannot even be wrong yet.
Welcome to AspaciaLand, where six million wrongs make 95 rights.
Let me show you where this logic leads.
“The King David Hotel was a military target”
So is the Pentagon. By your logic at least one attack on September 11th is partially excused.
By your logic Al Qaeda is forgiven in its attack against the USS Cole.
As in 19 Saudi Arabian Hijackers protesting a U.S. Military base on Saudi soil?
After all, Everyone is entitled to have a homeland free from foreign military intrusion, such that acts of violence protesting said foreign militaries are justified in Aspacialand.
You are aware, of course, that if I gave you thirty minute warning before shooting you in the head, the act of shooting you in the head is murder… right? I mean, that much has to be self evident. Right?
Surely you wouldn’t say that that the act of warning removes culpability of carrying out an attack.
And certainly you are aware that not all the victims in the King David Hotel were military. Not that the distinction of military isn’t mere semantic drivel.
In AspaciaLand it is ok for Zionists to plant bombs because the Jews have suffered.
I assume you are white, is that correct?
By your logic it is justifiable for the black Panthers to kill you because your very skin color represents 500 years of murder, rape and torture, and when an ethnic group has a grievance of such magnitude, well, they are justified in killing those that stand between them and a “homeland”. Because the need for land makes murder alright in Aspacialand.
I find this intriguing. You are making a moral claim to necessity without bothering to demonstrate what the necessity really is in blowing up 95 people, save for some obscure idea of a homeland on a pedastal as if Jews were the Volk, and then decry what you intimate to be a double standard as if it were impossible to believe that planting a bomb that blows up 95 people is inherently wrong in and of itself, regardless of religion or ethnicity.
You are quite prepared to cry bad arabs ad nauseum for commiting the same acts you excuse from zionists because you feel the magnitude of jewish suffering grants them moral license to murder.
Well, before you get confused at want and want to wink the next time someone blows up a building and kills people, I would like to remind you that murder is wrong.
Okay?
It is so wrong that it doesnt matter if its six million, or 95, or just one person. It doesn’t matter who the victim is, India was under colonial rule at the same time, and they got redress peacefully (somewhat) for their political dispute with Britain. Thats probably the reason Ghandi is admired, as far the world knows, he isnt a murderer, nor the kind of hypocrite that argues ‘we have been wronged in the past, and we deserve our own land and we are justified in murdering people to get it.’ Because you know… that is exactly what the Nazi’s did too.
What I have heard on the iamthewitness site is people like Bjerknes (who is at least partly Jewish) say that they do no to know if they are a forgery, but that they admittedly play out in the real world - 100 years later. Again, I have never read them (nor do I wish to). I did suggest you spell them out…
Carleas,
As per your PM,
Point taken, but I am not saying Aspacia will remain clueless on world zionism (however I don’t plan to stick around to find out). As for truth hitting someone in the face, it was just a visual comparison with SiatDs avatar who evidently feels truth slapping him in the face!
Now, I have been called anti-Jewish, despite the fact that I have only spoken of criminal zionist leadership, and in fact pointed out that Jewish people have historically been the first victims of their leadership (and will be again if prophetic minded kabbalists have their way). As for the original question of anti-semitism, given that zionist leadership has been uninterruptly khazar (ie from eastern europe, not semite) one can arguably say that the anti-semites are those who back zionist leadership: both Palestinians and semitic Jews are victims of that group. But that could be just as silly as calling someone anti-semitic because he denouces a crime which has been committed by a Jewish person.
The Blacks are free to leave rather than stay. Prior to the Civil War there were several Black slave revolts against the Whites, and they had every right to revolt, as they were stuck in bondage. The Black Panthers did bomb, rape, and torture, so have the very racist Hell’s Angels, Klu Klux Klan, and others. After WWII where could or would the Jews go. Europe, Naw. The U.S. was still very bigoted at this time. Again, the David Hotel was a military hotel, not a tourist spot. They Jews incarcerate their fanatics and condemn them. They do not pass out candy when civilians are killed. Have you read anything regarding Israeli law, and the numerous decisions against Jews. When evacuated from Gaza and the Sinai did they bomb hotels. One did assassinate Rabin, and another did massacre a number of unarmed Muslims during prayer, however they have always attempted not to hit civilian targets in spite of the fact these civilians are used as human shields by their brethren.
They warned the British to prevent civilian deaths, but the Brits did not listen and did not clear the building of its civilians, nor take preventative measures.
The attack was against a legitimate military target should the British have taken military action as form of defense, this would be acceptable. The Brits had already taken military action. preventing Jews from escaping Nazi Germany to flee to the Mandate.
In essence, you believe that bombing or killing of any sort is morally wrong.
Human history is full of territorial humans and basically this goes for critters too. Ever see a mother cat defend her litter against a much bigger dog? My 6 pound Costello became tired of a German Shepherd nastily barking at our fence line. Cossie, climbed the tree, waited for the pooch, and basically landed on his back, shredding his face and blinding him in one eye. The pooch never came near the yard again.
You talk about the 95 who died in the David Hotel bombing, what if you were prevented from allowing you family from fleeing Europe. During this time Jews that were not allowed to flee, nor accepted into most countries.
I hate to break this to you, but there are other Volk who want you, me and the West destroyed and openly promote this, and implement attacks. Okay, we have been warned, should we cower in fear, or defend ourselves by bombing them? I say yes, you probably will say no.
Is it murder to kill ones enemy, an enemy who was trying and often did prevent your brethren from fleeing after being massacred? It is not a matter of proportion, it is a matter of defense, and the Jews were often attacked, expelled, tortured simply for being Jews. I am talking about since the days of pharaoh, and they simply had enough. Have Blacks suffered as long? Nope. What group has suffered as long.
Protecting oneself is not wrong. However, if you pick a fight, and your nose is bloodied, do not cry foul.
Murder is illegal homicide, killing is legal homicide.
Right, proportion does not matter, however defense is not murder. By your definition we had not right to drop bombs on the Taliban.
Only because Britain was totaled after WWII. Look at what happened after the Brits withdrew-carnage Hindu vs. Muslim, and vice versa. Same old territorial attitudes.
Several million of his brethren had not been massacred, and the Brits do have a democracy, which India bases is government.
Jews did attempt negotiations with the Brits, to no avail: Read the Exodus story:
Sven, Hitler had been in power for all of that year, and was a vocal anti-semite. And the first concentration camp at Dachau opened two days before that article was printed. Aspacia’s claim that jewish violence is reactionary still holds.
Aspacia, my argument has nothing to do with the details or political motivations of any one race or nation over any other. My point, again, is that when you make a moral claim that war is wrong for what ever reason you present, you are merely doing what the guy you are arguing against is doing. Both of you cannot be right.
We have been through this several times, and you seem to think that nations go to war for “ethical” reasons. No, they do not. They go to war for economic reasons, using racial prejudices (nazis vs jews) as a front.
Hitler charged himself with the task of eliminating a race and culture he thought was detrimental to his nation. In his book, he explains the development of his prejudices based on economic facts alone, free from mystical metaphysical ideas which so permeated nazi ideology thereafter. The jews he experienced in Germany were scoundrels, thieves, hustlers, and suspicious people in general. The jewish slums and ghettos, as he called them, were the issues he was concerned with. It was not until the nazi party incorporated other members that the ideas of racial superiority took precedence over the otherwise economic concerns. Yeah, there were a lot of nuts in the nazi party. There is no mistaking that.
And again you fail to realize that when a nation initiates an embargo with another country, it basically picks a fight. To tell Japan that you will no longer trade with them is to 1) tell them to fuck off, and 2) enter into a competition for resources.
This issue, once again, is a matter of economics, and economics is what Marxism is about. As long as there are nations competing for resources, war is justified simply because that is all it is about anyway. Morals and ethics develop from specific material contexts, not the other way around.
You history instructor was correct. Capitalism multiplied the wealth of nations…but this is only due to the sudden rush of technological invention and innovation. This is not to say that a communist system could not produce the same technological advancements. It just so happened that the industrial revolution occurred in the name of capitalism…so therefore everyone believes it couldn’t have happened without capitalism. Nuh-uh.
Here is a small irony for you: in less than fifty years, the world will, just as Marx predicted, realize that the production of new technologies, due to capitalism and the free market, causes problems as a side-effect which cannot be controlled at the rate at which they are produced.
Yeah, like, wonderful stuff. I mean, here we are discussing one of the most significant questions of the day and you’re weighing in with cheap, hackneyed insults. Honestly, did you think for even a moment before posting?
I’m well aware of that. I didn’t say that this was the only cause of anti-semitism. I said that perhaps they wouldn’t be so resented if it weren’t for them being made a special case via such laws.
I live in the UK too, and I see no such rise in Jewish hatred. I see an institutional rise in hatred of Muslims, however. And it’s not as though nations exist in isolation, particularly when discussing Jews (who live almost everywhere on this planet). A law in one country, with which another has for example close diplomatic or economic relations, can fuel a belief in another country. This is pretty basic stuff.
Except my own observations of numerous racists of varying kinds who talk about this exact sort of hypocrisy as a justification for their racism. Not to mention political parties doing the same (see, for example, BNP press releases, some of which are funny but most of which are just sickening). But we can just ignore them. Right, ‘no empirical evidence’ indeed. And, I repeat, my tone was suggestive, not definitive. That you’ve sought to try to refute what I said via insults and labelling speaks volumes.
What alliance? I’ve seen Muslim leaders widely condemning terrorism, along with the left wingers. The most obvious, historically documented alliance in the UK relevant here is the one between MI5/MI6 and Al Qaeda. Abu Hamza? MI6 agent. Omar Bakri? MI6 agent. Haroon Aswad? MI6 agent. And then there’s the issue of MI6 funding a group of Islamic militants to assassinate Gaddafi in an attempted military coup not at all unlike the one in Iran in the 50s, only the Iran one (Operation TP/AJAX, which is recorded in the CIA’s own history of the coup which is available via the New York times website) was successful, whereas the Gaddafi one failed.
No attempt to explain contemporary politics can be remotely accurate if it does not start at the point of collusion between apparent enemies.
I am not frightened of Jews. It’s a cliche, but one of my oldest friends is Jewish, as is his brother and mother, both of whom I know well. His mum is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met - an American woman, very much into art and film. Bright and encouraging, and tries to drum discipline into her somewhat lazy sons (as do I, one of the reasons I get along with her and respect her). No offence, but you could not have misinterpreted my post any more wildly if you’d been trying.
