Thread: The Holocaust

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by surasak

What aggression is that? What country got invaded or absorbed recently by another Islamic country?

1967 Egypt attacked Israel and subsequently Egypt lost certain territories.
They actually lost the entire sinai peninsula which Israel handed back they didn't have the military logistic to hang on to it.
Again in 1973 Egypt an Syria attacked Israel which resulted in lost territory.

So this statement of yours is patently untrue.

You said:

We are now seeing a similar failure of the United Nations taking steps to halt the current aggression by certain Islamic republics!

I ask again: which Islamic republic invaded and took over another country? Which Islamic republic is currently waging war against another country?

Maybe there's a "Hide All Islamic Republic Aggression" filter enabled in my news feeds on my computer and television because I just don't see any current regimes invading or waging war on their neighbors.

The only aggressors (with their troops occupying others' land illegally) in the Middle East right now are Israel and the United States.

Originally Posted by stroller

Mr. Earl must be a Jew.
He keeps defending Israel and accuses those critical of it of anti-semitism.

What a stupid comment.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I think the motives of the holocaust deniers are mostly questionable, but what better way to expose them than letting them publicly state their views, and then rip their arguments apart one by one. At the very least one will have a dialogue, and a better chance of exposing the truth than by forcing these people underground (as in on the Internet), where their claims will never be disputed.

Yes, I can see the point in that, but I can also see the other's point, that anti-semitism seems to be able to be whipped up by fervoured speech, more than any other ism.

^
Exactly, and making false statements against better knowledge has nothing to do with expressing one's opinion, and hate-speeches against persons and groups are way beyond the concept of "free speech".

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I think the motives of the holocaust deniers are mostly questionable, but what better way to expose them than letting them publicly state their views, and then rip their arguments apart one by one. At the very least one will have a dialogue, and a better chance of exposing the truth than by forcing these people underground (as in on the Internet), where their claims will never be disputed.

Exactly. Questioning historic facts should always be welcomed, just because we can. It's the attitude of those jewish groups that I find offensive and "questionable" and suspicious. Why would they be so nervous ?

Originally Posted by surasak

I ask again: which Islamic republic invaded and took over another country? Which Islamic republic is currently waging war against another country?

Maybe there's a "Hide All Islamic Republic Aggression" filter enabled in my news feeds on my computer and television because I just don't see any current regimes invading or waging war on their neighbors.

The only aggressors (with their troops occupying others' land illegally) in the Middle East right now are Israel and the United States.

Iran is actively supporting Hezbolah and insurgent fighters in Iraq. Many of the US casualties are from IDE's of Iranian origin.

Who was the aggressor in 1967 and 1973 against Israel?

Who is responsible for turning Palestine into a productive economy?

The tribal peoples who inhabited Palestine before the Zionist pioneers arrived????

If we followed that argument to it's conclusion then the USA should hand the entire USA back to the native americans.

Originally Posted by stroller

Mr. Earl must be a Jew.
He keeps defending Israel and accuses those critical of it of anti-semitism.

Perhaps my accusing surasak of anti-semitism was rash.

But I don't see how Israel is the aggressor in the ME.

Just because I choose to research the historical precedent for the existence of Israel does not make me a jew either.

I'm finding that there is a historical precedent for Israel.
MM say's scholars debate this. I haven't read the other side of the debate yet.
The pro zionist points seem very cogent to me.
The preponderance of evidence seems to favor Israel.
Prior to the 1880's Palestine was observed by many as a depopulated wasteland.

As far as what was happening prior to 70AD we don't know that much.

I favor an intelligent observation to the situation. The more I research I'm finding how the whole Palestinian homeland issue rather disingenuous.
It can be argued the true Palestinians are the israelis themselves.

None of this makes me a jew I think!

Originally Posted by surasak

I'd rather we as a society simply turn a blind ear to such speech and let it die out on its own.

Problem is, it doesn't always "die out", the 3rd Reich is just one example.

Originally Posted by surasak

And to Mr. Earl: how many Iranian supplied terrorists existed in Iraq prior to the United States destroying the security of that nation? I would argue that Iran's presence is a counter to the aggression of the United States; not the other way around.

Spurious argument, the USA by nature is not an imperialist forces contrary to your opinion. If we were we would have marched into Bagdad back in 1989!

Also, if indeed the nation of Israel existed at one point in the past, then, what happened to it?

I think if you skimmed through the historical link I provided earlier you would have your answer.

And why was a UN resolution needed to reestablish it? It's slightly ironic that a resolution of that nature would be obeyed but Israel seems to ignore any subsequent resolution passed against their aggression and crimes against other peoples. Could the UN, in fact, pass another resolution dissolving Israel since the current Israel exists only due to a UN resolution?

More spurious blah-blah...UN resolutions essentially amount to zero unless enforced by a power. The UN is all bark an no bite!
The USA being the world most powerful nation holds the responsibility to act, and sometimes unilaterally.
The USA is obviously imperfect and open to criticism. And by nature the USA permits such criticism. This is an inherent weakness seen by our enemies.
The USA should not be underestimated because of her freedoms!

I may be an expat not because I hate the USA.

America haters can take that to the bank for what thats worth.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

More spurious blah-blah...UN resolutions essentially amount to zero unless enforced by a power. The UN is all bark an no bite!
The USA being the world most powerful nation holds the responsibility to act, and sometimes unilaterally.
The USA is obviously imperfect and open to criticism. And by nature the USA permits such criticism. This is an inherent weakness seen by our enemies.
The USA should not be underestimated because of her freedoms!

I may be an expat not because I hate the USA.

As strange as it sounds I agree with you here, except for the unilateral part. Being a superpower doesn't forgive you from abusing that power, which is exactly what unilateral means. I have nothing against the US being a police force worldwide, I would actually welcome it, but that power needs to be under control from a multinational standpoint. For now, US standards are spurious, invading Iraq over false pretense while giving Israel a free pass for all their abuses. Definitely not in the best interests of the good Old USA. No wonder 911 happened and will happen again.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by surasak

I'd rather we as a society simply turn a blind ear to such speech and let it die out on its own.

Problem is, it doesn't always "die out", the 3rd Reich is just one example.

The problems that led to the rise of the Third Reich have nothing to do with protecting offensive kinds of speech. I doubt seriously that a small group of people yellling "Die nigger!" or "Die Jew!" is going to suddenly rise to power, overthrow the U.S. government, and establish the Fourth Reich. If that's possible then we have larger issues than whether or not to suppress speech.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by surasak

And to Mr. Earl: how many Iranian supplied terrorists existed in Iraq prior to the United States destroying the security of that nation? I would argue that Iran's presence is a counter to the aggression of the United States; not the other way around.

Spurious argument, the USA by nature is not an imperialist forces contrary to your opinion. If we were we would have marched into Bagdad back in 1989!

But we marched into Baghdad this time?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Didja pull the trigger accidentally while aiming at your foot there?

Does anyone see a nation called Israel here? I see Syria. I see Palestine. I don't see Israel. Maybe the atlas is lying!

Who said anything about teaching?

Originally Posted by surasak

Does anyone see a nation called Israel here? I see Syria. I see Palestine. I don't see Israel. Maybe the atlas is lying!

If you bothered to read the link you would have noted that the jews lived in Palestine prior to 70AD when the Romans ran them out.
Arabs didn't inhabit the area of Palestine until 700AD.

Israel wasn't designated until 1948. Zionist pioneers started coming back to the area in the 1880's, followed by jewish and arab immigrants.

The historical precedent for the jew being the original inhabitants of Palestine is compelling. And given the fact that the area was a depopulated wasteland prior to the arrival of the zionist pioneers gives much credence to the right for Israel to exist.

Any thought of moving Israel is a looser and doesn't have the historical precedence it needs.

The current so called "Palestinians" need to wrap their collective mind around that and quit murdering each other.

So in your logic, if the UN had to vote for re-establishing Native Americans lands back to where they were after they were massacred in the late 1800s, it would be OK with you, right ?

^I think most countries have gone some way to addressing that issue and have given native title to lots of land, wherever it was practicable.

^ agree, but what would the US government do if suddently the Natives decided to get more land and started invading neighboor states ? would that be OK ?

Of course not and it is not OK for Israel to do it either, but that has nothing to do with whether the holocaust occurred or not.

^ it does, because Israel was created because of it. The current ME conflict is a direct consequence of those WW2 dramatic events

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by surasak

I'd rather we as a society simply turn a blind ear to such speech and let it die out on its own.

Problem is, it doesn't always "die out", the 3rd Reich is just one example.

The problems that led to the rise of the Third Reich have nothing to do with protecting offensive kinds of speech. I doubt seriously that a small group of people yellling "Die nigger!" or "Die Jew!" is going to suddenly rise to power, overthrow the U.S. government, and establish the Fourth Reich. If that's possible then we have larger issues than whether or not to suppress speech.

Agree, we are on a slippery slope when society makes it a crime to ask questions. Historically progress has only been made when someone has dared to be a bit different and ask "annoying questions": Socrates, Galileo, Darwin, just to mention a few. Socrates was forced to commit suicide for his questions, Galileo suffered at the hands of the inquisition for his ideas about the movement of the planets, and Darwin was ridiculed by the church for his theory on evolution. Naturally for everyone of these (and other) great thinkers there were probably thousands whose ideas did not stand the test of scrutiny and time.

By banning or jailing the holocaust deniers for expressing their opinions we risk making them into martyrs. In addition, I am sure many people will eventually start asking themselves why it is that these people are not allowed to speak out. "After all, being wrong is not a crime? And since they are not allowed to speak, surely the government has something to hide/fear?"

I simply fear that by treating these nutcases the way we do, we are actually doing them a favour in the long run. Trying to ban conspiracy theories will never, ever work.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it does, because Israel was created because of it. The current ME conflict is a direct consequence of those WW2 dramatic events

Yes, it is a consequence of an actual atrocity.

To deny the holocaust and use as a reason for the denial, that it was a big lie so the Jews could be given a homeland is ridiculous.

Israel has played into the hands of the anti semetics by being territorial and aggressive, but for thousands of years, they weren't in any way aggressive (except commercially) and where did that get them?