Why do people hate Jews? [Archive] - Page 2

Ziggurat

10th August 2007, 10:23 PM

You must be looking at a different page than I am. I see numerous references to Katyusha rockets.

Indeed there are. But in every case except one, it's civilians, not IDF, which the Katyusha killed. And you said IDF.

No it's not.

Yes it is.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies. (http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2006/july-2006/strength-of-israel-lebanon-and-hezbollah) The number of active fighters(those actually fighting) was only 600 to 1,000. 3,000 to 5,000 available and 10,000 reservists. Israel had a total troop strength of 168,000 and 408,000 reservists. How anyone would even differentiate between "hard core" and "non hardcore" fighters is beyond me, as is what the definition of "hardcore" would even be and who would meet that criteria. Israel had 30,000 active troops in south Lebanon while at the same time Hezbollah had only 600 to 1,000 active fighters.

Israel had to assume that if they waged a primarily ground war on Lebanese territory, they would have to face the entire reserve force of Hezbollah. That's what reserves are for. So they has to assume that they could not achieve dramatic numerical superiority. Add in the fact that they were fighting an enemy which had spent literally years preparing for just such a war, and fighting this enemy on their home turf, and the idea that they could have fought it the same way we're fighting in Iraq becomes quite obviously ridiculous.

And?

Are you honestly that clueless? It's possible to figure things out by looking at photos.

Perhaps it's detonation was underground and not noticeable, Perhaps it never detonated and its remains were lost underground.

No. They showed the spot where the missile (or part of it) supposedly impacted the ground after penetrating the ambulance. There's no underground there: it's solid asphalt with a divot in it.

Perhaps the eyewitness accounts thought it detonated when it didn't.

In which case, where are the remains?

They were lucky.

I don't believe in unsubstantiated stories which require unbelievable luck and unheard-of weapons.

Unless the detonation was shielded by dozens of feet of ground.

The only weapons that can penetrate dozens of feet of ground are designed for the purpose, and would not have been used to strike a moving, unarmored vehicle. Not to mention, the ground spot in question was shown with a small divot in asphalt: under the divot is more asphalt, there's no hole under the divot in which anything could have gone. You're coming up with increasingly bizarre excuses to avoid concluding the obvious: it was faked. And why, exactly, is that something that's difficult for you to accept anyways? Are you unwilling to consider the idea that Hezbollah and their sympathizers might just lie?

Does that anonymous blogger have a track record of forensic or ballistic analysis?

No, but I'm not relying on this blogger's identity to support my position. You are relying on HRW's identity to support yours.

HRW and other large organizations could easily use forensic experts to tell them what happened based on the pictures,

Maybe they could have, but they didn't. Just like CBS could have consulted with type face analysts to determine if the Bush guard memo could have come from a 1970's typewriter rather than a Microsoft word document, but they didn't.

Dustin Kesselberg

10th August 2007, 10:55 PM

Uh huh, so Dustin is back, and justifying actual genocide.......

I'm not justifying Genocide. I'm saying that Genocide is the result when one group of people sees another as being inherently inferior or values them less. I never defended genocide.

But then Dustin is whining about stragetic errors that cost civilian lives.

Goodness. Let me get this straight.

Dustin thinks the Holocaust and its actual planned genocide was hunkydory.

But Dustin thinks that stragetic errors that may cost civilian lives is somehow wrong.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, I see the Silly Season is upon us, the Moon is waxing in influence on the susceptible, and black is white while white is black. Okeydokey.

I said the Holocaust and planned genocide is "Hunkydory"? I think you might need glasses.

Are you saying the Holocaust was morally justified?

No.

Dustin,

You used to have an avatar of David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving), right? What's your opinion of Irving's work? What's your opinion on the Holocaust? What's your opinion of the Wannsee Conference?

(ETA: I found this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2465582&postcount=132) to confirm my memory.)

I've explained why I had a Irving avatar numerous times.
My opinion of Irvings work on the holocaust is that it's bunk.
My opinion of the holocaust is the same as any reputable historians.

The link you posted is my questioning moral relativism.

Well that is certainly a Nazi way to think about things, but no one said the other group is inferior, I simply stated that a country like America values its citizens lives over the lives of citizens in other countries, can you show me that this is not true.

Just because it's happens doesn't mean it's right. Why would one country value it's citizens over another? What reason would they have to do such a thing? What's the rational?

Secondly exterminating a group of people even if you believe they are inferior to you and are threating you is not necceary. You have to choose to exterminate a group of people, instead of dealing with them is some other manner.

But if one group thinks another is inferior and is threatening them somehow then it lets you understand their mindset. The Nazis saw the Jews as inherently inferior to them and saw Germans as somehow "superior" to all other nations. This is the mentality that led to the Holocaust.

Finally I am defending Israels action against Hezbollah, since you and others are unclear on what position Israel was put in when Hezbollah started their unprovoked attack on them. Yes the IDF made mistakes, and they have admitted them, thereby showing that they are not the ruthless killers you have suggested they are. But if you think that war comes without the death of innocent civilians you are fooling yourself.

Some deaths are just unjustified in war. The fact that collateral damage occurs in war doesn't excuse all civilian deaths.

Well this certainly explains a lot! Thanks!;)

No it doesn't.

Indeed there are. But in every case except one, it's civilians, not IDF, which the Katyusha killed. And you said IDF.

I see plenty of soldiers who died from them as well.

Yes it is.

Why?

Israel had to assume that if they waged a primarily ground war on Lebanese territory, they would have to face the entire reserve force of Hezbollah. That's what reserves are for. So they has to assume that they could not achieve dramatic numerical superiority. Add in the fact that they were fighting an enemy which had spent literally years preparing for just such a war, and fighting this enemy on their home turf, and the idea that they could have fought it the same way we're fighting in Iraq becomes quite obviously ridiculous.

You're backtracking. Israel had a reserve 16 times that of Hezbollah's highest estimated reserve. Give me a break.

Are you honestly that clueless? It's possible to figure things out by looking at photos.

And it's possible to be deceived just by looking at photos, especially if you're untrained.

No. They showed the spot where the missile (or part of it) supposedly impacted the ground after penetrating the ambulance. There's no underground there: it's solid asphalt with a divot in it.

It went right through the cement.

In which case, where are the remains?

Underground, lost.

I don't believe in unsubstantiated stories which require unbelievable luck and unheard-of weapons.

Neither do I.

The only weapons that can penetrate dozens of feet of ground are designed for the purpose, and would not have been used to strike a moving, unarmored vehicle. Not to mention, the ground spot in question was shown with a small divot in asphalt: under the divot is more asphalt, there's no hole under the divot in which anything could have gone. You're coming up with increasingly bizarre excuses to avoid concluding the obvious: it was faked. And why, exactly, is that something that's difficult for you to accept anyways? Are you unwilling to consider the idea that Hezbollah and their sympathizers might just lie?

This is the picture I'm looking at.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw/hrw_hole.jpg
Which are you looking at?

No, but I'm not relying on this blogger's identity to support my position. You are relying on HRW's identity to support yours.

You're relying on his amateur examination of the incident compared to that of reputable organizations.

a_unique_person

11th August 2007, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2851818#post2851818)
Are you saying the Holocaust was morally justified?

No.

Thank you.

MaGZ

11th August 2007, 01:04 PM

Pardalis

11th August 2007, 01:16 PM

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/03/26/nuit_et_brouillard.html

MaGZ

11th August 2007, 01:21 PM

Try posting in the Holocaust section of www.skepticforum.com (http://www.skepticforum.com).

Every time I go there, afterwards I feel like I need a bath.

I just did a quick visit there. I like what I saw.

Pardalis

11th August 2007, 01:26 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_%28resources%29

MaGZ

11th August 2007, 01:33 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_%28resources%29

The antidote to holocaust propaganda.

http://www.ihr.org/

Pardalis

11th August 2007, 01:34 PM

DKNOzqe7XaI

ETA: can someone tell me how to make those damn NSFW tags?

Nevermind, got it.

twinstead

11th August 2007, 01:35 PM

The antidote to holocaust propaganda.

http://www.ihr.org/

How can the answer to propaganda be more propaganda?

Dumbledore

11th August 2007, 04:06 PM

I'm not justifying Genocide. I'm saying that Genocide is the result when one group of people sees another as being inherently inferior or values them less. I never defended genocide.

Just because it's happens doesn't mean it's right. Why would one country value it's citizens over another? What reason would they have to do such a thing? What's the rational?

But if one group thinks another is inferior and is threatening them somehow then it lets you understand their mindset. The Nazis saw the Jews as inherently inferior to them and saw Germans as somehow "superior" to all other nations. This is the mentality that led to the Holocaust.

Some deaths are just unjustified in war. The fact that collateral damage occurs in war doesn't excuse all civilian deaths.

Well it certainly sounded like you were, furthermore holding another group as inferior to you does not promote genocide, it might promote discrimination, but committing genocide is a whole other issue.

To be clear my statement is that if it comes down to the death of its own citizens versus the death of another countries citizens the country in question will always choose the life of its own citizens over the life of citizens in other countries. Do you believe this is not true? Do you think countries should choose the life of citizens in other countries instead of their own?

But this was not just he mentality of the Nazis, they saw themselves as universally supreme to all other races and they saw Jews as less than dogs. This goes far beyond simply thinking a group is inferior to you. Furthermore the Nazis then took the step of eradicating all Jews which is a choice, not indicative of thinking a group is inferior to you. In short the Nazis choose to commit genocide, thinking a group is inferior to you and is threating you does not inherently mean you need to eradicate them. Finally it is dangerous to put yourself in the mindset of Nazis, quite often this is used to justify actions taken by the Nazis.

I agree with you and the IDF have identified and apologized for the needless deaths they have caused. My main point is that people get killed in war, mistakes are made. To hold the IDF up to some artificial standard that no one else can meet is hardly fair and to characterize the IDF as outright killers of innocent people is slander and misleading. In short the IDF identified their mistakes and are trying to improve upon them, so why do you continue to tout that the IDF and Israel needlessly killed innocent civilians when you know that innocent civilians get killed all the time in war, and because of mistakes made in war. Finally no one is trying to excuse civilian deaths in this military action, quite the opposite we are identifying them and why they occurred. Like I said the IDF and Israel hold themselves responsible for these deaths, what more are they suppose to do, people get killed in war and mistakes are made in war. Unless you of course have another magical solution that no other country in the world could implement or accomplish!:confused:

Dumbledore

11th August 2007, 04:10 PM

I bet you have seen lots of holocaust movies thanks to the Jews who run Hollywood.

No actually I haven't, I have read about the holocaust, or do the Jews control everything I read as well and how about the modern development of western civilization post WWII, do they control that is well. Confess, the Jews are God, in control of everything aren't they!!!

Dumbledore

11th August 2007, 04:14 PM

The antidote to holocaust propaganda.

http://www.ihr.org/

Thanks for identifying another closeted antisemitic site for me!!!:D

Dumbledore

11th August 2007, 04:17 PM

How can the answer to propaganda be more propaganda?

I agree with you but the holocaust is not propaganda, it actually happened, refuting it is kind of like refuting Newtonian physics. If you don't believe it happened then you have more problems than I care to address.;)

MaGZ

11th August 2007, 06:52 PM

No actually I haven't, I have read about the holocaust, or do the Jews control everything I read as well and how about the modern development of western civilization post WWII, do they control that is well.

Yes, in some cases the Jews do control everything you read.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/24media3.htm

a_unique_person

11th August 2007, 07:18 PM

Yes, in some cases the Jews do control everything you read.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/24media3.htm

Rupert Murdoch seems to be the person who wants to control the media, and he's doing a pretty good job of getting there.

MaGZ

11th August 2007, 07:32 PM

THE CAUSES OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS JEWS: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/02hos.htm

Dustin Kesselberg

12th August 2007, 12:02 AM

Well it certainly sounded like you were, furthermore holding another group as inferior to you does not promote genocide, it might promote discrimination, but committing genocide is a whole other issue.

Holding one group as inferior to you is one of the main causes of genocide. People wouldn't commit genocide if they thought that the other groups were equal.

To be clear my statement is that if it comes down to the death of its own citizens versus the death of another countries citizens the country in question will always choose the life of its own citizens over the life of citizens in other countries. Do you believe this is not true? Do you think countries should choose the life of citizens in other countries instead of their own?

Countries can hold the interests of their citizens above those of others, however not to the extent of killing other citizens in other countries, unless it is absolutely necessary. I don't believe many of the Lebanese deaths fit that definition of absolutely necessary due to the number of strategic flaws.

But this was not just he mentality of the Nazis, they saw themselves as universally supreme to all other races and they saw Jews as less than dogs. This goes far beyond simply thinking a group is inferior to you.

It all depends on how inferior you think they are. However the idea that one is superior to the other is the key to genocide.

Furthermore the Nazis then took the step of eradicating all Jews which is a choice, not indicative of thinking a group is inferior to you. In short the Nazis choose to commit genocide, thinking a group is inferior to you and is threating you does not inherently mean you need to eradicate them. Finally it is dangerous to put yourself in the mindset of Nazis, quite often this is used to justify actions taken by the Nazis.

They wouldn't of committed genocide if they thought the Jews were equal.

I agree with you and the IDF have identified and apologized for the needless deaths they have caused. My main point is that people get killed in war, mistakes are made.

How is that point relevant when you admit the IDF caused needless deaths? It sounds like an excuse.

To hold the IDF up to some artificial standard that no one else can meet is hardly fair and to characterize the IDF as outright killers of innocent people is slander and misleading. In short the IDF identified their mistakes and are trying to improve upon them, so why do you continue to tout that the IDF and Israel needlessly killed innocent civilians when you know that innocent civilians get killed all the time in war, and because of mistakes made in war. Finally no one is trying to excuse civilian deaths in this military action, quite the opposite we are identifying them and why they occurred. Like I said the IDF and Israel hold themselves responsible for these deaths, what more are they suppose to do, people get killed in war and mistakes are made in war. Unless you of course have another magical solution that no other country in the world could implement or accomplish!:confused:

I hold all countries to the same standard in war. If the IDF does something I believe is wrong then I'll point it out as quickly as if I think the U.S. did something wrong.

Oliver

12th August 2007, 12:07 AM

THE CAUSES OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS JEWS: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/02hos.htm

It's just a suggestion here - but if something annoys you too much concerning the hostility you get, you may consider to do the same as Pardalis himself would do: Put those people on ignore.

At least for a while - to calm down for yourself.

a_unique_person

12th August 2007, 12:43 AM

THE CAUSES OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS JEWS: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/02hos.htm

I watched a documentary about a rich, successful Jewish businessman in Germany before WWII. The Nazi solution to the problem of having such a situation was to take his business off him, allow him to escape to exile with almost nothing, and replace the owner of the business with a family that wasn't Jewish.

In what way did that improve anything? The business stayed exactly the same, just the owners were different. Instead of someone who was Jewish making money from his endevours, it was someone who wasn't Jewish.

Chaos

12th August 2007, 12:49 AM

Dustin Kesselberg

12th August 2007, 01:47 AM

I watched a documentary about a rich, successful Jewish businessman in Germany before WWII. The Nazi solution to the problem of having such a situation was to take his business off him, allow him to escape to exile with almost nothing, and replace the owner of the business with a family that wasn't Jewish.

In what way did that improve anything? The business stayed exactly the same, just the owners were different. Instead of someone who was Jewish making money from his endevours, it was someone who wasn't Jewish.

From the Nazi perspective, The Jew was taking advantage of the Germans by owning the business and making money off of the German customers. The Nazis thought that Jews had no right to make money off of German customers. Replacing the owner of the business with a German family means that one more German family has an occupation and can sell the goods in an "Aryan way" not taking advantage of the customers.

blobru

12th August 2007, 08:36 AM

THE CAUSES OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS JEWS: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW [my resize]
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/02hos.htm

Jeezuss, that's a monster link (100+ pages)!

The author's contention is that Jews are hated because the Torah and Talmud name them The Chosen People, and several passages from each exhibit contempt for non-Jews. Well okay -- doctrinal bigotry and exclusivity ain't going to make anyone too popular (though contempt for outsiders is hardly unique to Judaism).

But the author's further contention that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in spite of being a crude forgery (which he admits), somehow bolster the claim that Jews are out to take over the world(?!): :confused:

"The context of [this]," says Eugene Korn, "is [Maimonide's] description of an ideal polity under Jewish sovereignty." [KORN, p. 266] Such a world view in traditional Jewish thinking is usually swept under the rug in modern popular discourse. A case in point is the complete lack of historical context in which popular Jewish commentary condemns those non-Jews who readily accepted (and still accept) the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the best known anti-Jewish text in modern history. (Originating in Eastern Europe, the Protocols claimed to be an actual document from a secret Jewish cabal). "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," notes Richard Levy,

"one of the most important forgeries of modern times, presents a
Jewish plot to take over the world and to reduce non-Jews to slavery ...
The Protocols found a huge audience, especially following the
turbulent times following World War I ... Why has the Protocols
of Elders of Zion, a shameless fraud, seized the imagination and
informed the political judgment of [anti-Semitic] men and women
throughout the twentieth century?" [SEGEL, p. 3]

Like virtually all Jews who pose such a question, they do not actively seek an answer from within their own community -- i.e., they are really not interested in an honest answer. Why would anyone fall for the idea of a Jewish plot to dominate the world aimed at holding all others in subjugation? Maimonides, above, in classical religious thinking, points to the beginning of an answer. Orthodox conviction that God will favor Jews at the "end of days" to, in some form, rule the world is yet another marker. The Torah/Old Testament states expected Jewish domination clearly in a number of places -- for example:

"The Gentile shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness
of thy rising ... the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee ...
Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be
shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the
Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For the nation and kingdom
that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly
wasted." [ISAIAH 60, 1-12]

"Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt
break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a
potter's vessel." [PSALMS 2: 8-9]

"Thus saith the Lord, 'The labor of Egypt, and merchandise of
Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto
thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee, in chains they
shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make
supplication unto thee, saying, 'Surely God is in thee; and there is none
else, there is no [other] God.'" [ISAIAH 46: 14]
...
...
...
As prominent anti-Jewish critic Henry Ford once said about his own publishing of an edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

"You will find we at no time guaranteed their authenticity. We have
merely stated what they contain and have paralleled this with what
actually took place and are leaving it to the mind of the public to
judge." [WARREN, D., 1996, p. 150-151]

In 1920, the London Times reviewed the Protocols, not with condemnation, but with the uneasy sense that much of what the Protocols proclaimed, forgery or not, was coming to pass on the world scene:

"What are these 'Protocols?' ... Are they a forgery? If so, whence comes the
uncanny note of prophecy, prophecy in parts fulfilled, in parts far gone in
the way of fulfilment? Have we been struggling these tragic years to blow up
and extirpate the secret organisation of German world dominion ony to find beneath
it another, more dangerous because more secret? Have we been straining every
fibre of our national body, escaped of a 'Pax Germanica' only to fall into a
'Pax Judaica?' The 'Elders of Zion' as represented in their 'Protocols' are by
no means kinder taskmasters than William II and his henchmen would have
been." [BERMANT, C., 1977, p. 33]

So, a couple of passages in the Old Testament promise an endtime in which God will destroy the Gentiles (Revelations promises the same to Christians in the New Testament); a Jewish philosopher envisions a utopia under Jewish law (as St. Augustine envisions the triumph of Christian law in "City of God"); Henry Ford (ha!) and a 1920 London Times columnist think it's a good read; therefore "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a book of FAKE history, is still a pretty accurate depiction and relevant evidence of an international Jewish conspiracy to enslave humankind!!!??? :jaw: Wow, just... wow. You've really got to wonder where this level of prejudice comes from: did a rabbi back over his dog when he was a kid? (Oy veh, such a putz!)

David Swidler

12th August 2007, 11:04 AM

Jeezuss, that's a monster link (100+ pages)!

The author's contention is that Jews are hated because the Torah and Talmud name them The Chosen People, and several passages from each exhibit contempt for non-Jews. Well okay -- doctrinal bigotry and exclusivity ain't going to make anyone too popular (though contempt for outsiders is hardly unique to Judaism).

But the author's further contention that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in spite of being a crude forgery (which he admits), somehow bolster the claim that Jews are out to take over the world(?!): :confused:

So, a couple of passages in the Old Testament promise an endtime in which God will destroy the Gentiles (Revelations promises the same to Christians in the New Testament); a Jewish philosopher envisions a utopia under Jewish law (as St. Augustine envisions the triumph of Christian law in "City of God"); Henry Ford (ha!) and a 1920 London Times columnist think it's a good read; therefore "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a book of FAKE history, is still a pretty accurate depiction and relevant evidence of an international Jewish conspiracy to rule humanity!!!??? :jaw: Wow, just... wow. You've really got to wonder where this level of prejudice comes from: did a rabbi back over his dog when he was a kid? (Oy veh, such a putz!)

No, not a putz. A schlemiel.

Schlemiel (from the Hebrew name Shlumiel): a hapless fellow. If the Schlemazel is the one who always spills the soup, the schlemiel is the one upon whom it always falls.

Many have made good points before, but I'd like to add a few that I think also bear consideration, with a nod toward the classical Jewish understanding of why the goyim hate us.

I don't think there's one overarching reason for Jew-hatred. For most antisemitten it's an admixture of xenophobia and immaturity, kept fresh through the ages by a Church that just couldn't bear to witness the continued existence - and occasional prosperity - of the very people their God was supposed to have rejected.

The Talmud weighs in on the topic with an ambiguous statement, roughly translated thus: Why was the place the Jews received the Torah called Sinai? Because from there, hate (Hebrew: sin-ah) came into the world.

There are two generally accepted undersrtandings of that statement:

1. Envy of Israel's special relationship with God.

To the Church, it's a jealousy thing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Catholic Church has yet to come to terms with a reestablished Jewish government in the Holy Land - this almost sixty years after the fact.

Of course, with the waning of Church influence in international - and local - affairs over the last few centuries, this "true antisemitism" - Jew-hatred that singles out the Jew for theological, cosmic reasons, as opposed to any other minority, or for more mundane reasons - has reared its head only occasionally.

That's one angle. But there's another:

2. The Jews are responsible for making us feel guilty for doing "wrong."

This is even more sinister than the first understanding, and it's one that Nietzsche, chiefly, discussed. If there's a God that actually has specific expectations of humans, that means I can't do whatever the hell I want just because I feel like it. It means morality has meaning beyond any utilitarian, societal function it plays. Actions are essentially right or wrong.

Some people can't stand that idea. It tears them to pieces that the Jewish message of a universal God that cares about human affairs "makes" them feel guilty for acting on their baser desires.

So they target the messenger. Maybe without the messenger, the message will eventually disappear.

It's not jealousy that led to Treblinka and Babi Yar. Mein Kampf resonates more with the second understanding of that Talmudic passage.

Note that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. They worked in tandem quite well during WWII: the Nazi Final Solution merged with age-old, Church-nurtured Polish, Ukranian, Romanian, Russain, Baltic etc. anti-Semitism to perpetrate the otherwise unthinkable.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, people are just too shocked by its scale and horror to comprehend how it could happen. Good people cry. Not-so-good people remain indifferent. Bad people try to turn it against the very victims it targeted.

But the Holocaust's enormity affects all understandings of anti-Semitism, and I think people place undue emphasis on economic factors that, although occasionally prominent, fail to address the underlying motives. How many wealthy Jews have there been, really? What kind of perversion does it take to believe that the vast majority of Jews - historically just as dependent on subsistence economies as their gentile neighbors - are part of a huge plot to amass wealth? Pray tell, when, exactly, do my poor ancestors ever get their share in this supposed plot? You know, the ones stripped of their belongings, including the clothes of their backs, as they were herded out of town in Lithuania to be machine-gunned in some ditch as their smiling gentile neighbors cheered on the Einsatzgruppen?

Economic "justifications" for evil only go so far.

JJR

12th August 2007, 11:13 AM

I am astonished at the turn this has taken. Astonished and horrified. I suppose the two of you are also fans of Pol Pot and Stalin as well?

No, I don't want to know.

This is so sad and upsetting.

Relax. I just want to pleasure Jews to death . . . making reality as much like an acid trip as possibe. Woooow. That's all I'm really saying.

Furthermore (on the subject of . . . pleasure), I believe that the majority of prisoners on death row are genetically defective. Surveys have been conducted, proving that most of them have a small pre-frontal cortex, and are thus unable to inhibit their impulses. When you or I punch, they KILL . . . and can't stop from doing so any more than you can stop from punching. There is no justice in dealing them anything other than pleasure since it is not their fault they are what they are and we require their absence in order to promote harmony in our community. People should get paid for any service.

I'd say they deserve a mellow death. Solient Green (Make Room, Make Room - Harry Harrison) death needed. Nice movie with waterfalls, forests, and other scenery and classical music with a good feeling heroin overdose. After all, we do know what heroin feels like but we have no idea what the lethal injection feels like because anyone who experiences the chemical is dead and can not give an account of the experience. Is the current lethal injection even a remotely humane method of execution?? Or does it just make US feel better?

Oh, and if someone requests a fireing squad I believe the request should be granted.

JJR

12th August 2007, 11:31 AM

I am glad you can joke, I think that is important. For me though, I have seen the pictures of the Holocaust, this is something that is very real, and mankind is very capable of doing it again, if not to Jews then to some other group. In short the Holocaust is not a Jewish issue it is an issue for everyone.

Of course. The Jews were even blamed for the Black Plague, gathered together and burned to death in barns in the Dark Ages. One of the reasons why I persued the Priesthood in the LDS church is so that I would have a foundation in faith that would prevent me from thinking like someone from the Dark Ages so that history would never repeat, etc. Joe Smith thought the Catholic church had it wrong, and that's the end of it, son.

Wishing to tax a Jewish person with pain or death just for being born different is too Communist, and we all know that America can be very anti-Commie . . . so that's the end of THAT, too. Pleasure . . . Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and a really high standard of living is what the doctor ordered.

If at all possible, I wish pleasure and for as much fun as can be obtained before whatever action has to be taken to deter the kind of behavior that was exhibited by any guilty party. They still hang you for treason in the military, though.

I'm not saying that the military hangs people for treason to try and sound bold, I'm just saying that traitors are hanged. It is the law. Military law . . . and I think the same punishment should be given to confessed mercenaries. We need people that believe in our cause.

In other words . . . don't meet the criteria? Thank you. Next please.

Thank you. Next.

Dumbledore

12th August 2007, 01:09 PM

Yes, in some cases the Jews do control everything you read.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/24media3.htm

Sorry I don't bother reading antisemitic propaganda, but thanks for identifying another link for me!:D

Dumbledore

12th August 2007, 01:15 PM

THE CAUSES OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS JEWS: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/02hos.htm

I really have to thank you for all of these clear identifications of antisemitics and their sites from one person, thanks again. P.S. Have you caught on that no one but fellow antisemitics take these people and links seriously?:D

Elizabeth I

12th August 2007, 01:43 PM

Relax. I just want to pleasure Jews to death . . . making reality as much like an acid trip as possibe. Woooow. That's all I'm really saying.

Furthermore (on the subject of . . . pleasure), I believe that the majority of prisoners on death row are genetically defective. Surveys have been conducted, proving that most of them have a small pre-frontal cortex, and are thus unable to inhibit their impulses. When you or I punch, they KILL . . . and can't stop from doing so any more than you can stop from punching. There is no justice in dealing them anything other than pleasure since it is not their fault they are what they are and we require their absence in order to promote harmony in our community. People should get paid for any service.

I'd say they deserve a mellow death. Solient Green (Make Room, Make Room - Harry Harrison) death needed. Nice movie with waterfalls, forests, and other scenery and classical music with a good feeling heroin overdose. After all, we do know what heroin feels like but we have no idea what the lethal injection feels like because anyone who experiences the chemical is dead and can not give an account of the experience. Is the current lethal injection even a remotely humane method of execution?? Or does it just make US feel better?

Oh, and if someone requests a fireing squad I believe the request should be granted.

Of course. The Jews were even blamed for the Black Plague, gathered together and burned to death in barns in the Dark Ages. One of the reasons why I persued the Priesthood in the LDS church is so that I would have a foundation in faith that would prevent me from thinking like someone from the Dark Ages so that history would never repeat, etc. Joe Smith thought the Catholic church had it wrong, and that's the end of it, son.

Wishing to tax a Jewish person with pain or death just for being born different is too Communist, and we all know that America can be very anti-Commie . . . so that's the end of THAT, too. Pleasure . . . Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and a really high standard of living is what the doctor ordered.

If at all possible, I wish pleasure and for as much fun as can be obtained before whatever action has to be taken to deter the kind of behavior that was exhibited by any guilty party. They still hang you for treason in the military, though.

I'm not saying that the military hangs people for treason to try and sound bold, I'm just saying that traitors are hanged. It is the law. Military law . . . and I think the same punishment should be given to confessed mercenaries. We need people that believe in our cause.

In other words . . . don't meet the criteria? Thank you. Next please.

Thank you. Next.

I certainly hope someone with medical expertise has you under close observation.

Dumbledore

12th August 2007, 01:48 PM

Holding one group as inferior to you is one of the main causes of genocide. People wouldn't commit genocide if they thought that the other groups were equal.

Countries can hold the interests of their citizens above those of others, however not to the extent of killing other citizens in other countries, unless it is absolutely necessary. I don't believe many of the Lebanese deaths fit that definition of absolutely necessary due to the number of strategic flaws.

How is that point relevant when you admit the IDF caused needless deaths? It sounds like an excuse.

I hold all countries to the same standard in war. If the IDF does something I believe is wrong then I'll point it out as quickly as if I think the U.S. did something wrong.

No people would not commit genocide if they decided not to commit genocide. In committing genocide thinking another group is inferior to you is a maybe a tentative have step in the direction of genocide, but it does not directly lead to genocide. For example many people view illegal aliens as less than them, and hence inferior to them, they do not however round them up and exterminate them. Further they view these illegal aliens as threating their country, such as a drain on social programs, education, jobs, but they don't exterminate them still. To be clear illegal aliens are viewed as inferior and a threat to the country and still miraculously the government does not round them up and exterminate them. It is almost like the Nazis choose to deal with their problems with the Jews by exterminating them??!

So what were these strategic flaws that Israel committed that meant the death of innocent Lebanese citizens. You believe there was some magical way that Israel could stop the missile attacks on their people without Lebanese citizens getting killed in the process. You do remember that no military action in the history of mankind has ever resulted in no death of innocent civilians! You have been shown that ground assault would have been too slow to stop the missile attacks, and that ground assault would have cost just as much innocent civilian life, or more, as the much quicker air assault to stop the missile attacks. We have gone around and around on this issue, I have no doubt that I am not going to convince you. My question is why is that, why are you not convinced when you have presented with overwhelming evidence of the situation and limitations Israel was put in, do you insist that Israel slaughtered innocent civilians for no reason?

No it is not an excuse, by the fact that the IDF acknowledges its mistakes. I am merely stating that people get killed in war, innocent people all the time. This is not an excuse anymore than we expect innocent people not to get killed in a war zone. I think it is sad and horrible that these people died, and it would be nice if more that just Israel got blamed for there deaths. For it might have been the IDF that accidentally killed them but it was the international community and Hezbollah that created the situation in which they could get killed. Of course this is not true if you think that Israel should have sat idly by and allow Hezbollah launch missiles at its citizens, or that they had some other magical way to stop the missile attacks.

From reading your posts I seriously doubt you do. All I have heard from you is endless reasons why Israel slaughtered innocent civilians. I have not heard about Hezbollah and their tactics of using civilians for cover. Or the International communities responsibility to disarm Hezbollah, which they did not do when they pledged to do so. Furthermore this thread is about why people hate Jews, I think that it is very telling that you espouse these ideas about Israel here. Does Israel somehow represent all Jews everywhere? I realize that most people see Israel as a strictly Jewish nation but is any action by Israel a reason to hate Jews everywhere? Unless you simply just want to hate Jews and questionable actions by Israel are a good platform in which to do so.;)

Dumbledore

12th August 2007, 01:52 PM

From the Nazi perspective, The Jew was taking advantage of the Germans by owning the business and making money off of the German customers. The Nazis thought that Jews had no right to make money off of German customers. Replacing the owner of the business with a German family means that one more German family has an occupation and can sell the goods in an "Aryan way" not taking advantage of the customers.

So a German making a profit off of another German, good, a Jew making a profit off a German, bad. You got to love that Nazi logic!!!:D

Dustin Kesselberg

13th August 2007, 03:35 AM

No people would not commit genocide if they decided not to commit genocide. In committing genocide thinking another group is inferior to you is a maybe a tentative have step in the direction of genocide, but it does not directly lead to genocide.

It's the main step.

For example many people view illegal aliens as less than them, and hence inferior to them, they do not however round them up and exterminate them.

I would imagine that more people who believe illegal aliens are inferior to them would round them up and kill them than those who don't believe they are inferior to them.

Further they view these illegal aliens as threating their country, such as a drain on social programs, education, jobs, but they don't exterminate them still.

Likely because they can't. I'm sure if the people who viewed illegal aliens as inferior would probably be the first jump on the genocide wagon if their views were common.

To be clear illegal aliens are viewed as inferior and a threat to the country and still miraculously the government does not round them up and exterminate them.

That's because our government doesn't view them as inferior human beings. Some far right nutters might, but the govt doesn't.

So what were these strategic flaws that Israel committed that meant the death of innocent Lebanese citizens. You believe there was some magical way that Israel could stop the missile attacks on their people without Lebanese citizens getting killed in the process. You do remember that no military action in the history of mankind has ever resulted in no death of innocent civilians!

Civilian casualties can be lowered if proper procedures are taken.

You have been shown that ground assault would have been too slow to stop the missile attacks, and that ground assault would have cost just as much innocent civilian life, or more, as the much quicker air assault to stop the missile attacks.

No I haven't.

We have gone around and around on this issue, I have no doubt that I am not going to convince you. My question is why is that, why are you not convinced when you have presented with overwhelming evidence of the situation and limitations Israel was put in, do you insist that Israel slaughtered innocent civilians for no reason?

They might have had reasons for causing a high amount of civilian deaths. The reason could have been military incompetence, lack of chain of command, bad communication, bad strategy, etc. Reasons don't equal justifications.

No it is not an excuse, by the fact that the IDF acknowledges its mistakes. I am merely stating that people get killed in war, innocent people all the time.

IDF admits it made mistakes. Why bring up the fact that innocent people die in war then? It sounds like you're making an excuse to me.

From reading your posts I seriously doubt you do. All I have heard from you is endless reasons why Israel slaughtered innocent civilians. I have not heard about Hezbollah and their tactics of using civilians for cover.

Do you think Hezbollah needs to be criticized here? Do you think that there are even people on this forum who would defend Hezbollah? Everyone already knows that Hezbollah has a lot of blame and so there is no point in railing on Hezbollah.

Furthermore this thread is about why people hate Jews, I think that it is very telling that you espouse these ideas about Israel here. Does Israel somehow represent all Jews everywhere? I realize that most people see Israel as a strictly Jewish nation but is any action by Israel a reason to hate Jews everywhere? Unless you simply just want to hate Jews and questionable actions by Israel are a good platform in which to do so.;)

People see Israel as being a "Jewish nation" and see it as representing Jews. So the actions of Israel could be a reason for many people.

Dustin Kesselberg

13th August 2007, 03:36 AM

So a German making a profit off of another German, good, a Jew making a profit off a German, bad. You got to love that Nazi logic!!!:D

The money stays among Germans. It's similar to the opposition to importing goods to America at the cost of Americans producing them.

a_unique_person

13th August 2007, 04:00 AM

The money stays among Germans. It's similar to the opposition to importing goods to America at the cost of Americans producing them.

He was a German Jew, and he had no desire to leave Germany at all, he only left when it meant his life was at risk. So the money stayed in Germany, too.

Dustin Kesselberg

13th August 2007, 04:58 AM

He was a German Jew, and he had no desire to leave Germany at all, he only left when it meant his life was at risk. So the money stayed in Germany, too.

I'm not sure what or who you're talking about.

Mycroft

13th August 2007, 09:02 AM

It's the main step.

I disagree. The main step would be to convince yourself and others that the targeted group either were a direct threat to your group, or that you were in competition for scarce resources.

That's what happened in the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, and in Rwanda.

Nancarrow

13th August 2007, 09:26 AM

Relax. I just want to pleasure Jews to death . . .

It's funny you should say that, I've spent most of today thinking about Rachel Weisz.

No I've no idea in what context you originally said what you did, and I'm not entirely sure I want to go back and find out.

dudalb

13th August 2007, 02:04 PM

It's funny you should say that, I've spent most of today thinking about Rachel Weisz.

Natalie Portman for me. GIves a whole new meaning to the term "Nice Jewish Girl".
What's that about the Neo Nazi belief that all Jewish Women are ugly?

Ziggurat

13th August 2007, 03:00 PM

I see plenty of soldiers who died from them as well.

Quote, then, because I don't see it in the link you gave.

Why?

Because Israeli citizens have obligations to the Israeli state which non-Israeli citizens do not have, and the Israeli state therefore has reciprocal obligations to its citizens which it does not have to citizens of any other state. To believe otherwise is a trans-nationalist hallucination. No country in the world opperates any differently, nor should they.

You're backtracking. Israel had a reserve 16 times that of Hezbollah's highest estimated reserve. Give me a break.

I'm not backtracking at all. But unlike you, I have a clue about what those numbers actually mean, and the difference between total force and the force that can be brought to bear in any particular situation.

And it's possible to be deceived just by looking at photos, especially if you're untrained.

And what, pray tell, is HRW's training? They have none beyond what you and I have.

It went right through the cement.

How can you tell? From the photo, there's no reason to believe it's anything more than a divot in the cement, with the bottom in shadow. And given that the pock-marked roofs were supposedly made that way as a result of something exploding, and that the damage came from above, (which would require detonation above the vehicle), the evidence isn't consistent with that explanation either.

Underground, lost.

If it's underground, it's not lost: they know exactly where it is. In fact, if it's underground, a bomb disposal squad had BETTER dig it out, or it could explode at a random moment and kill someone.

You're relying on his amateur examination of the incident compared to that of reputable organizations.

I'm looking at both arguments, seeing if they make any sense, and evaluating it on its own merit, independent of who is presenting the argument. The identity of either group is of no concern to me in that evaluation process. But it apparently is for you, leading you to the fallacy not just of an argument from authority, but an argument from false authority.

Dumbledore

13th August 2007, 06:09 PM

It's the main step.

That's because our government doesn't view them as inferior human beings. Some far right nutters might, but the govt doesn't.

Civilian casualties can be lowered if proper procedures are taken.

They might have had reasons for causing a high amount of civilian deaths. The reason could have been military incompetence, lack of chain of command, bad communication, bad strategy, etc. Reasons don't equal justifications.

IDF admits it made mistakes. Why bring up the fact that innocent people die in war then? It sounds like you're making an excuse to me.

Do you think Hezbollah needs to be criticized here? Do you think that there are even people on this forum who would defend Hezbollah? Everyone already knows that Hezbollah has a lot of blame and so there is no point in railing on Hezbollah.

People see Israel as being a "Jewish nation" and see it as representing Jews. So the actions of Israel could be a reason for many people.

Sigh I am quite done arguing with you, you do not listen to any of the points or arguments I make, nor do you bother to rationally defend your own arguments and positions. I have repeatly argued my stances on various issues you have addressed, if you don't want to read my posts or acknowledge my arguments that is your problem.

Finally there was really no chance that I or anyone else was going to convince of anything that you don't already believe. If you want to go on asserting that believing a group is inferior to you and threatens you the only course of action is genocide, go ahead. And that Israel whole heartedly choose to kill innocent civilians and that they had plenty of other options that would have stopped the missile attacks and saved innocent Lebanese civilians. Also continue to judge all Jews by the actions of Israel, I mean other people do so that must mean it is okay to do so. But always remember that ignoring evidence and arguments contrary to your own is necessary in being steadfastly resolved to continue believing what you believe no matter what! Just remember such a belief system has no place in a rational and logical discussion.;)

Dumbledore

13th August 2007, 06:12 PM

Dumbledore

13th August 2007, 06:16 PM

I'm not sure what or who you're talking about.

He is replying to your argument about the jewish business man in Germany being replace by another German by the Nazis. His point was that the jewish business man was German, this did not matter to the Nazis though!

Dustin Kesselberg

14th August 2007, 02:53 AM

I disagree. The main step would be to convince yourself and others that the targeted group either were a direct threat to your group, or that you were in competition for scarce resources.

That's what happened in the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, and in Rwanda.

It seems to me that if another group (who are considered equal in every way) was in competition with you for scarce resources then the reasonable thing to do would be to work together, or possibly some other alternative aside from simply murdering them. Perhaps moving or moving them.

Because Israeli citizens have obligations to the Israeli state which non-Israeli citizens do not have, and the Israeli state therefore has reciprocal obligations to its citizens which it does not have to citizens of any other state. To believe otherwise is a trans-nationalist hallucination. No country in the world opperates any differently, nor should they.

The idea that one people "us" are somehow superior to another people "them" is one of the main causes of conflict and genocide in the world. What country do you come from? Do you believe that you're superior to foreigners?

I'm not backtracking at all. But unlike you, I have a clue about what those numbers actually mean, and the difference between total force and the force that can be brought to bear in any particular situation.

Hezbollah's force "brought to bear" was likely under 1,000 fighters. Israels was 30,000 active troops in Lebanon.

And what, pray tell, is HRW's training? They have none beyond what you and I have.

They have the resources to consult experts.

How can you tell? From the photo, there's no reason to believe it's anything more than a divot in the cement, with the bottom in shadow. And given that the pock-marked roofs were supposedly made that way as a result of something exploding, and that the damage came from above, (which would require detonation above the vehicle), the evidence isn't consistent with that explanation either.

The pockmarks were possibly due to fragments of the missile as it hit the vehicle and went through it into the concrete.

If it's underground, it's not lost: they know exactly where it is. In fact, if it's underground, a bomb disposal squad had BETTER dig it out, or it could explode at a random moment and kill someone.

Unless it exploded underground and the concrete masked the explosion since it was too deep. In which case any remains would be lost.

I'm looking at both arguments, seeing if they make any sense, and evaluating it on its own merit, independent of who is presenting the argument. The identity of either group is of no concern to me in that evaluation process. But it apparently is for you, leading you to the fallacy not just of an argument from authority, but an argument from false authority.

I'm looking at both arguments and the argument made by that blogger seems to be bunk. The fact that he isn't an expert just adds to it.

Sigh I am quite done arguing with you, you do not listen to any of the points or arguments I make, nor do you bother to rationally defend your own arguments and positions.

I'm reading your points and I'm addressing them. How am I not rationally defending mine? Because you aren't content with my answers?

I have repeatly argued my stances on various issues you have addressed, if you don't want to read my posts or acknowledge my arguments that is your problem.

I've read then and have been addressing them. If I missed something then please tell me.

Finally there was really no chance that I or anyone else was going to convince of anything that you don't already believe.

Well if I found your argument convincing I would.

If you want to go on asserting that believing a group is inferior to you and threatens you the only course of action is genocide, go ahead.

I never said that.

And that Israel whole heartedly choose to kill innocent civilians and that they had plenty of other options that would have stopped the missile attacks and saved innocent Lebanese civilians.

I never said that. I said that they made bad decisions with other options available. Even Israel agrees with that.

Also continue to judge all Jews by the actions of Israel, I mean other people do so that must mean it is okay to do so.

I don't judge Jews based on what Israel does. You seem to be the one who hasn't been reading my posts.

But always remember that ignoring evidence and arguments contrary to your own is necessary in being steadfastly resolved to continue believing what you believe no matter what!

Ok.

Just remember such a belief system has no place in a rational and logical discussion.

I agree.

He is replying to your argument about the jewish business man in Germany being replace by another German by the Nazis. His point was that the jewish business man was German, this did not matter to the Nazis though!

Well that isn't how the Nazis saw it. Jews weren't considered Germans.

Dumbledore

14th August 2007, 04:39 AM

The idea that one people "us" are somehow superior to another people "them" is one of the main causes of conflict and genocide in the world. What country do you come from? Do you believe that you're superior to foreigners?

I'm reading your points and I'm addressing them. How am I not rationally defending mine? Because you aren't content with my answers?

While total universal equality is definitely something worth striving for, waiting for it to occur to end the possible threat of genocide seems some what silly. Deciding not commit genocide, even if a group who is perceived as inferior is threating you would be a much better commitment to stopping genocide then waiting for universal equality. Just my option though.;)

No, because your answers lead no where, we have been going in circles. I am not going to convince you of anything. It seems quite clear to me that you are quite invested in "wining" your arguments, so you have your victory. :p

Ziggurat

14th August 2007, 05:59 AM

They have the resources to consult experts.

Maybe they do. But since they didn't consult experts, why is that in any way relevant?

The pockmarks were possibly due to fragments of the missile as it hit the vehicle and went through it into the concrete.

Why was there only one significant fragment, then? Or did the rest miraculously not pierce the body of the ambulance? And where is it? You can't come up with a single explanation that fits the evidence: you keep picking different explanations to match each different piece of evidence. But apparently, you can't draw the obvious conclusion from that: their story is false.

Unless it exploded underground and the concrete masked the explosion since it was too deep. In which case any remains would be lost.

But how could they know that's what happened, if there are no signs on the surface that it exploded underground? And how deep do you think it would have to be not to show signs on the surface? Shock waves travel through the ground pretty easily, and cause spalling on the opposite side even it they don't break the intervening solid, but there are no signs of that. If it exploded, why isn't there at least swelling or cracked asphalt on the surface from the explosion? If the missile or bomb could really penetrate so deeply before exploding that it wouldn't even show on the surface, then why on earth would you use it on an unarmored vehicle? A munition like that would go through the vehicle without exploding every time. And does Israel even have deep-penetrating munitions that small? I don't think they do, and no evidence is presented to that effect.

Dumbledore

14th August 2007, 06:07 AM

Maybe they do. But since they didn't consult experts, why is that in any way relevant?

Why was there only one significant fragment, then? Or did the rest miraculously not pierce the body of the ambulance? And where is it? You can't come up with a single explanation that fits the evidence: you keep picking different explanations to match each different piece of evidence. But apparently, you can't draw the obvious conclusion from that: their story is false.

But how could they know that's what happened, if there are no signs on the surface that it exploded underground? And how deep do you think it would have to be not to show signs on the surface? Shock waves travel through the ground pretty easily, and cause spalling on the opposite side even it they don't break the intervening solid, but there are no signs of that. If it exploded, why isn't there at least swelling or cracked asphalt on the surface from the explosion? If the missile or bomb could really penetrate so deeply before exploding that it wouldn't even show on the surface, then why on earth would you use it on an unarmored vehicle? A munition like that would go through the vehicle without exploding every time. And does Israel even have deep-penetrating munitions that small? I don't think they do, and no evidence is presented to that effect.

Good luck arguing with him!!!;)

JJR

14th August 2007, 10:27 AM

I certainly hope someone with medical expertise has you under close observation.

It's simple, man. If you believe that Jews need to go, then it's a medical situation. Nazis always said, "You are sick" referring to any White person thought to be displaying, "Jewish thinking" and they always said that Jews are sick . . . that they are walking germs.

Since Hitler stole the idea of vascectomizing the mentally feeble from America . . . hey, he should have gone further and vascectomized 6 million Jews. Then he wouldn't be thought of as a murderer . . . just a ball snipper.

He, uh . .. actually did sterilize retards. They even had a feeble minded man that he sterilized at Neuremburg (sp?). The lawyer defending the Nazis proved that the man who was sterilized was, in fact, retarded . . . and that his condition was genetic. He came from a very large family in Germany . . . and they were all retarded. All of their children would have been retarded, too.

Homosexuality is also a good method of reducing the population . . . weither it be the population of Jewish people or the population in general. The side effect is Socialism (Gays tend to be a little sensitive and Socialist) . . . which is okay because we're talking about National Socialism . . . Nazis.

This is what I mean by, "Pleasuring Jews to death" . . . this is the method and it destroys violent anti-Semitism. It makes pressuring Jews into the program fun (as any bisexual young punk rock girl can tell you when attempting to seduce Natile Portman) . . . and it makes the clumbsy over-enthusiastic look silly . .. all you have to say is, "Okay, keep your shirt on, babe."

The world can go through it's Nazi phase and never harm a Jew . . . and perhaps learn something about genetics. If Jews are genetically inferior and extremely prone to causing Socialism which destroys a Civilization by weakening it (like worms boring holes in a healthy apple) . . . then sex is the answer. Lots and lots of sex.

It's a good thing that, unlike what the Nazis said . . . many Jewish women are hot. And young men.

If you can't tell, I've outgrown my destructive Nazi phase. This is an important time. We are laying the groundwork for the future. This is no time to be immature.

Nazis were unprofessional - but it was not their unprofessionalism that caused the war. It was their natural distrust of America which was caused by the mind-numbing conservatism of the time. Hitler had no idea that America was ready to play and just couldn't trust us. Those were desperate times, and it is up to us to make sure none of it ever happenes again.

Never again.

Gurdur

14th August 2007, 10:32 AM

....If you can't tell, I've outgrown my destructive Nazi phase. This is an important time. We are laying the groundwork for the future. This is no time to be immature.

JJR, if you were at all coherent, you would worry me.

JJR

14th August 2007, 10:57 AM

JJR, if you were at all coherent, you would worry me.

Sex isn't scary . . . unless you belive in eternal damnation. :eye-poppi

M'kay??

Loss Leader

14th August 2007, 12:21 PM

JJR, if you were at all coherent, you would worry me.

Luckily, the marijuana that makes him incoherent also makes him ineffectual.

Soapy Sam

14th August 2007, 12:36 PM

Look. My great^nth grandparents were Amalekites (or possibly Ammonites, or even Goniatites, we lost the records in the war). One day, there they were, herding the goats, sacrificing to the Lord of the Zippers, when this mob of unwashed sand-dancers roll in from the desert and march round the walls, blowing trumpets. Next thing, the walls fall down. Total collapse in the building industry. Who gets all the reconstruction contracts? You guessed it. Hot line to the Man at the Top , apparently.
Hey- they eat wierd food, put towels on their heads, talk to god, get their legal code from bushes, won't work on weekends and won't marry Ishtarites.

What's not to like?

Dustin Kesselberg

15th August 2007, 05:47 AM

Maybe they do. But since they didn't consult experts, why is that in any way relevant?

Proof?

Why was there only one significant fragment, then? Or did the rest miraculously not pierce the body of the ambulance? And where is it? You can't come up with a single explanation that fits the evidence: you keep picking different explanations to match each different piece of evidence. But apparently, you can't draw the obvious conclusion from that: their story is false.

Molten pieces of metal generally leave no recognizable traces.

But how could they know that's what happened, if there are no signs on the surface that it exploded underground?

How about hole leading underground and the lack of remains?

And how deep do you think it would have to be not to show signs on the surface? Shock waves travel through the ground pretty easily, and cause spalling on the opposite side even it they don't break the intervening solid, but there are no signs of that.

There are no pictures of it. You're assuming it didn't happen based on lack of pictures of such evidence.

If it exploded, why isn't there at least swelling or cracked asphalt on the surface from the explosion? If the missile or bomb could really penetrate so deeply before exploding that it wouldn't even show on the surface, then why on earth would you use it on an unarmored vehicle?

Incompetence?

A munition like that would go through the vehicle without exploding every time. And does Israel even have deep-penetrating munitions that small? I don't think they do, and no evidence is presented to that effect.

I don't know. Clearly they do.

Mycroft

15th August 2007, 09:24 AM

Proof?

You're asking him to prove a negative. If there is an assertion that the IRC consulted experts, then whoever made that assertion should provide the evidence. Until then, I am unaware of any time when the IRC claimed to have consulted experts.

Molten pieces of metal generally leave no recognizable traces.

Except that they do. Just like forensic experts can analyze blood spatter to gather evidence on how a crime took place, so also would it be possible to analyze molten metal spatter to learn much about what kind of explosion took place. Further, molten metal can be subject to analysis to determine what types of metal it is, where it was smelted, etc.

Further, bomb residue isn't necessarily molten. Bomb fragments can tell an expert much about what kind of weapon it was, where it was manufactured, etc.

How about hole leading underground and the lack of remains?

This makes no sense.

There are no pictures of it. You're assuming it didn't happen based on lack of pictures of such evidence.

Lack of evidence is always good reason to be skeptical.

Incompetence?

You can't have it all ways to answer every objection. Did the missile supposedly explode above the vehicle? Or did it penetrate the vehicle to create the hole in the ground? These are mutually exclusive options.

I don't know. Clearly they do.

Except it's not clear at all except to someone who presupposes the conclusions you are.

Ziggurat

15th August 2007, 12:47 PM

Mycroft already addressed a number of these points, but I'll add my $0.02.

Proof?

YOU are the one who thinks that it's significant that HRW could have paid for professional experts. But why is that relevant if they didn't? Why is the standard what they could have done, and not what we know they did? That blog may not have been able to pay experts, but they could have got experts to consult for free (it happened in the Dan Rather fake memo case). But I'm not alleging that, and I'm not arguing from authority. The burden is on YOU to show any evidence that they did consult experts. And suppose they did, what then? Since they make no mention of experts, we cannot evaluate what part, if any, of their analysis derives from those experts. CBS claimed to have passed the fake memos by experts, and in one sense they did. But they did it piecemeal, and the feedback they got from those experts didn't actually confirm the authenticity of the memo (not surprising since it was a crude forgery). In summary: 1) you are the one whose argument depends on HRW having consulted experts, not me, 2) there is no evidence that experts were consulted, and no details of any consultation provided, and 3) without details of the results of that consultation, it's of no use in evaluating the reliability of their report even if it happened.

Molten pieces of metal generally leave no recognizable traces.

Boy, did you miss my point. You said that maybe the hole in the floor was only caused by a fragment. Well, the hole in the floor would then be very much a trace of that fragment, wouldn't it? But why is it the only such trace? Are you seriously trying to argue that a missile exploded, and only left one fragment from that explosion? Furthermore, the fragment may be hard to identify as anything in particular because of deformation from the explosion, but that alone would be an important indication of how it originated, and such fragments should still be locatable. But none were. Why not? The only answer you and HRW can come up with is to bounce around between conflicting theories (it's both a missile which produces no shrapnel when it explodes and it's a deep-penetrating unexploded munition).

How about hole leading underground and the lack of remains?

Again, you missed the point completely. My question was, what evidence is there that the missile exploded underground, and isn't sitting there unexploded, possibly ready to kill someone randomly? A hole in the ground for the entry point wouldn't indicate that the missile exploded. And if it exploded underground, how could you tell there weren't any remains unless you dug it up?

Lastly, and maybe even most importantly, what evidence is there that there even is a hole leading underground? None. The photos only indicate a divot in the pavement, with a shadow covering what might either be a hole that goes deeper, or could simply be the bottom of the divot in plain sight but invisible in the photo because of that shadow.

There are no pictures of it. You're assuming it didn't happen based on lack of pictures of such evidence.

Uh, no. There ARE photos of it: the photo of the street showing the alleged impact point. If the munition went off underground, then the shockwave from the explosion should travel up through the pavement and cause spalling on the opposite side which, in the case of an exlposion under the pavement, would mean on the top side of the pavement. But there is no such spalling, and we know that because we have photos of the top of the pavement. Therefore, there's no evidence that anything exploded underground. So if there were a missile or other munition which penetrated deep into the ground at that spot, the bomb squad had better dig it out to at least make sure it's not still dangerous. And at that point, they'll have some good physical evidence of what Israel supposedly attacked those ambulances with. But of course, that won't happen. Why? Because no munition penetrated the ground. Hell, we don't even know that it was caused by any munition at all, penetrating or not. That hole in the ground could have easily been caused by a pickaxe.

I don't know. Clearly they do.

Clearly they do? Why is it clear? Oh yeah, because you've already assumed an answer, and so you'll invent the existence of things in order to confirm what you already believe. Need to convince yourself Israel deliberately targets ambulances? Easy! Just invent sooper-sekret Joo weapons.

gtc

15th August 2007, 05:46 PM

JJR, if you were at all coherent, you would worry me.

Gurdur, as you read that far through his post, you DO worry me.

Dustin Kesselberg

16th August 2007, 06:39 AM

You're asking him to prove a negative. If there is an assertion that the IRC consulted experts, then whoever made that assertion should provide the evidence. Until then, I am unaware of any time when the IRC claimed to have consulted experts.

He's claiming they "did not" consult experts.

Except that they do. Just like forensic experts can analyze blood spatter to gather evidence on how a crime took place, so also would it be possible to analyze molten metal spatter to learn much about what kind of explosion took place. Further, molten metal can be subject to analysis to determine what types of metal it is, where it was smelted, etc.

If there are professional crime scene investigators there to examine the entire area and scan to see if such pieces of metal are there, however to the naked eye and the normal person, it is unlikely they could identify such pieces let alone separate them from the normal pieces of metal in the street in Lebanon or the bits of metal from the ambulance.

This makes no sense.

The hole in the concrete leading underground is evidence the missile went underground.

Lack of evidence is always good reason to be skeptical.

He's not being "skeptical". He's making positive assertions based on the lack of evidence. Based on the lack of pictures of the damage from the detonation underground he's concluding it didn't happen.

You can't have it all ways to answer every objection. Did the missile supposedly explode above the vehicle? Or did it penetrate the vehicle to create the hole in the ground? These are mutually exclusive options.

It could have started to break apart above the vehicle where molten pieces of metal from the heat of the missile caused the potholes but the bulk of the missile itself penetrated the ambulance and into the ground.

Except it's not clear at all except to someone who presupposes the conclusions you are.

I'm just making a logical conclusion based on what I've seen. There is no evidence it was faked and based on the pictures and evidence that I have seen, It looks legitimate. The arguments that it was fake are also easily rebuked.

YOU are the one who thinks that it's significant that HRW could have paid for professional experts. But why is that relevant if they didn't? Why is the standard what they could have done, and not what we know they did? That blog may not have been able to pay experts, but they could have got experts to consult for free (it happened in the Dan Rather fake memo case). But I'm not alleging that, and I'm not arguing from authority. The burden is on YOU to show any evidence that they did consult experts. And suppose they did, what then? Since they make no mention of experts, we cannot evaluate what part, if any, of their analysis derives from those experts. CBS claimed to have passed the fake memos by experts, and in one sense they did. But they did it piecemeal, and the feedback they got from those experts didn't actually confirm the authenticity of the memo (not surprising since it was a crude forgery). In summary: 1) you are the one whose argument depends on HRW having consulted experts, not me, 2) there is no evidence that experts were consulted, and no details of any consultation provided, and 3) without details of the results of that consultation, it's of no use in evaluating the reliability of their report even if it happened.

I'm simply saying the HRW has more resources to consult experts and it is more likely they did so than some random Blogger doing so. Since it's more likely then that lends credence to their reputability. Generally this would be an appeal to authority, except there is nothing else to appeal to since the arguments themselves proposed by the blogger are bunk.

Boy, did you miss my point. You said that maybe the hole in the floor was only caused by a fragment. Well, the hole in the floor would then be very much a trace of that fragment, wouldn't it? But why is it the only such trace? Are you seriously trying to argue that a missile exploded, and only left one fragment from that explosion? Furthermore, the fragment may be hard to identify as anything in particular because of deformation from the explosion, but that alone would be an important indication of how it originated, and such fragments should still be locatable. But none were. Why not? The only answer you and HRW can come up with is to bounce around between conflicting theories (it's both a missile which produces no shrapnel when it explodes and it's a deep-penetrating unexploded munition).

No. The hole in the ambulance would have been caused by the missile itself and the potholes in the roof by small fragments of metal breaking off of the missile as it hit the ambulance.

Again, you missed the point completely. My question was, what evidence is there that the missile exploded underground, and isn't sitting there unexploded, possibly ready to kill someone randomly? A hole in the ground for the entry point wouldn't indicate that the missile exploded. And if it exploded underground, how could you tell there weren't any remains unless you dug it up?

It might not have exploded underground. Perhaps the Lebanese are just too incompetent to go get it.

Lastly, and maybe even most importantly, what evidence is there that there even is a hole leading underground? None. The photos only indicate a divot in the pavement, with a shadow covering what might either be a hole that goes deeper, or could simply be the bottom of the divot in plain sight but invisible in the photo because of that shadow.

The fact that nothing remains of the missile itself is proof that it's a hole not a shallow divot.

Uh, no. There ARE photos of it: the photo of the street showing the alleged impact point. If the munition went off underground, then the shockwave from the explosion should travel up through the pavement and cause spalling on the opposite side which, in the case of an exlposion under the pavement, would mean on the top side of the pavement. But there is no such spalling, and we know that because we have photos of the top of the pavement. Therefore, there's no evidence that anything exploded underground. So if there were a missile or other munition which penetrated deep into the ground at that spot, the bomb squad had better dig it out to at least make sure it's not still dangerous. And at that point, they'll have some good physical evidence of what Israel supposedly attacked those ambulances with. But of course, that won't happen. Why? Because no munition penetrated the ground. Hell, we don't even know that it was caused by any munition at all, penetrating or not. That hole in the ground could have easily been caused by a pickaxe.

The shock wave could have expanded and caused distortions further away from the initial entrance point of the missile which would have been out of the view of the cameras and possibly even unnoticeable to untrained eyes who could have noticed it and taken the picture.

Clearly they do? Why is it clear? Oh yeah, because you've already assumed an answer, and so you'll invent the existence of things in order to confirm what you already believe. Need to convince yourself Israel deliberately targets ambulances? Easy! Just invent sooper-sekret Joo weapons.

I didn't assume anything. I'm basing my conclusions off of the available evidence and the weakness of the arguments asserting that it was some big conspiracy. If someone is proposing a conspiracy theory like this then I would ask for the proof, however their only "proof" is the supposed inconsistencies in the story or the impact itself which could easily be due to incorrect reporting, lack of experts on the scene at the time, etc, etc. None of which means it was some fake. You have the same mentality as the 9/11 "truthers" and holocaust deniers who go after a few flaws in the story itself or lack of information and then yell "Conspiracy" or "Coverup"!

Ziggurat

16th August 2007, 12:18 PM

I'm simply saying the HRW has more resources to consult experts and it is more likely they did so than some random Blogger doing so. Since it's more likely then that lends credence to their reputability.

No, it doesn't.

Generally this would be an appeal to authority, except there is nothing else to appeal to since the arguments themselves proposed by the blogger are bunk.

First off, there's no "except that..." here: you're using a fallacy of argument from authority. Secondly, there isn't even any authority involved: what they could have done is not the same thing as what we know they did: if they want people to place additional weight on their arguments because they consulted experts, they better damned well tell us what those experts said, otherwise they could be telling us something totally different from what the experts said even if they did consult. Thirdly, if there's nothing else to appeal to, then does that mean you're not appealing to the strength of HRW's argument itself? I guess that's a reasonable decision, given how full of holes that argument is. Lastly, of course, I don't share your opinion about the flaws in that blogger's argument, and you haven't actually detailed what those supposed flaws are. You've only resorted to argument from authority: HRW is supposedly able to consult experts and since he disagrees with HRW, he must be wrong. How'd that line of argumentation work out for Dan Rather?

No. The hole in the ambulance would have been caused by the missile itself and the potholes in the roof by small fragments of metal breaking off of the missile as it hit the ambulance.

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would pieces of the missile come off before impact or explosion? If the missile was falling apart because of defects, those other pieces wouldn't reach the speed the missile reached (because they came off while the missile was accelerating), and they wouldn't end up anywhere near the missile's final destination either. In fact, if pieces were falling off the missile in flight because of defects, the missile wouldn't even remain in controlled flight, because designers don't put extraneous pieces of metal on something like a missile.

It might not have exploded underground. Perhaps the Lebanese are just too incompetent to go get it.

Then why don't they ask for assistance? A lack of domestic expertise doesn't excuse not taking care of the problem. Unless, of course, the Lebanese government is even more cavalier about Lebanese civilian deaths than the Israeli government is.

The fact that nothing remains of the missile itself is proof that it's a hole not a shallow divot.

No, it isn't proof, nor is it even the simplest explanation consistent with that fact. The simplest explanation is that there WAS NO MISSILE.

The shock wave could have expanded and caused distortions further away from the initial entrance point of the missile which would have been out of the view of the cameras and possibly even unnoticeable to untrained eyes who could have noticed it and taken the picture.

No, it couldn't. Maximum intensity for a shock wave is closest to its origin. Furthermore, maximum damage from a given shockwave will occur when that shockwave impacts a surface (traveling from either side) perpendicular to that surface. BOTH points would be directly above the point of detonation. And since the trajectory of the supposed missile would have to be close to vertical (we know this from the holes in the ambulance), and because ground penatrating munitions cannot penetrate more than about ten feet unless they're huge (which this clearly isn't), the wide-area photo of the street DOES cover the area directly above any possible underground detonation point.

I didn't assume anything. I'm basing my conclusions off of the available evidence and the weakness of the arguments asserting that it was some big conspiracy.

Who said anything about the conspiracy being big? It need not be at all: just those guys in the ambulance who were supposedly hit. After that, all it takes is a gullible press eager to show a story of war crimes. It didn't take much of a conspiracy to fool Dan Rather.

You have the same mentality as the 9/11 "truthers" and holocaust deniers who go after a few flaws in the story itself or lack of information and then yell "Conspiracy" or "Coverup"!

Quite the reverse. 9/11 conspiracy theorists never construct a simple narrative of what they think the conspiracy is. The standard version of events is, in contrast, quite simple. It's a matter of Occam's razor: a conspiracy (beyond the hijackers, that is) for 9/11 is the more complex answer. But for this situation, fraud is the simplest answer. It's easy to pull off (they didn't have to produce any missile fragments, for example), and it explains all the inconsistencies in the "evidence" and the fact that no physical remains of the munition can be found anywhere. In contrast, those claiming that Israel actually attacked the ambulance cannot fix on a single narrative: what kind munition actually hit the vehicle? The answer keeps changing, depending on what bit of evidence you need to explain, and often relies upon assuming the existence of unknown munitions for which there is no evidence at all. Fitting the evidence to the story of an Israeli attack is endlessly complicated. And frankly, it IS a conspiracy theory: it requires that the Israeli military conspired to attack ambulances and then cover up their own crimes. Damn crafty Jews: I bet they stole all the missile fragments. Man, you're clueless.

Dumbledore

16th August 2007, 02:00 PM

Well getting back to the issue at hand, besides Israel why do people hate Jews. Certainly not all antisemitism centers around Israel!

Dustin Kesselberg

17th August 2007, 08:26 AM

First off, there's no "except that..." here: you're using a fallacy of argument from authority. Secondly, there isn't even any authority involved: what they could have done is not the same thing as what we know they did: if they want people to place additional weight on their arguments because they consulted experts, they better damned well tell us what those experts said, otherwise they could be telling us something totally different from what the experts said even if they did consult. Thirdly, if there's nothing else to appeal to, then does that mean you're not appealing to the strength of HRW's argument itself? I guess that's a reasonable decision, given how full of holes that argument is. Lastly, of course, I don't share your opinion about the flaws in that blogger's argument, and you haven't actually detailed what those supposed flaws are. You've only resorted to argument from authority: HRW is supposedly able to consult experts and since he disagrees with HRW, he must be wrong. How'd that line of argumentation work out for Dan Rather?

According to their website...

In response, Human Rights Watch researchers carried out a more in-depth investigation of the Qana ambulance attacks. Our investigation involved detailed interviews with four of the six ambulance staff and the three wounded people in the ambulance, on-site visits to the Tibnine and Tyre Red Cross offices from which the ambulances originated to review their records and meet with supervisors, an examination of the ambulances that were struck, an on-site visit to the Qana site where the attack took place, and interviews with others such as international officials with the International Committee of the Red Cross who were involved in responding to the attack on the night it happened.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/1.htm#_Toc152999220

So they had "researchers" go to the site and examine the the ambulance, take interviews with those who were there as well as with international officials to get the true story.

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would pieces of the missile come off before impact or explosion? If the missile was falling apart because of defects, those other pieces wouldn't reach the speed the missile reached (because they came off while the missile was accelerating), and they wouldn't end up anywhere near the missile's final destination either. In fact, if pieces were falling off the missile in flight because of defects, the missile wouldn't even remain in controlled flight, because designers don't put extraneous pieces of metal on something like a missile.

The intense heat could have caused small pieces of molten metal to flake off of the missile.

Then why don't they ask for assistance? A lack of domestic expertise doesn't excuse not taking care of the problem. Unless, of course, the Lebanese government is even more cavalier about Lebanese civilian deaths than the Israeli government is.

Could be.

No, it isn't proof, nor is it even the simplest explanation consistent with that fact. The simplest explanation is that there WAS NO MISSILE.

That's hardly the simplest explanation. You're making more assumptions by assuming there was no missile. First you're assuming there was some big conspiracy with international officials involved, then you're assuming that the people involved are so incompetent that they can't even notice that the missile seemed to have "vanished" into thin air. Then you're assuming that all of the reporters there couldn't notice that it was a fraud, if it was. You're making far more assumptions to say it was some elaborate conspiracy concocted by the Lebanese govt, or Hezbollah, or whomever than is needed to say it was simply Israeli incompetence that caused the missile to hit the ambulance.

No, it couldn't. Maximum intensity for a shock wave is closest to its origin.

Ok, Mr. Ballistics expert. You're assuming that the medium in which the shockwave is traveling is perfectly even and there exist no massive changes in the medium which could change the shockewave. Such as a sewer.

And since the trajectory of the supposed missile would have to be close to vertical (we know this from the holes in the ambulance), and because ground penatrating munitions cannot penetrate more than about ten feet unless they're huge (which this clearly isn't), the wide-area photo of the street DOES cover the area directly above any possible underground detonation point.

You're assuming the missile didn't change trajectory underground or that it didn't go deeper due to a sewer. Most city streets aren't totally concrete straight down and have sewers under them or soft sand or even other material which could alter the trajectory of the missile so that the shockwave from its detonation wouldn't have been directly above it's impact spot.

Quite the reverse. 9/11 conspiracy theorists never construct a simple narrative of what they think the conspiracy is. The standard version of events is, in contrast, quite simple. It's a matter of Occam's razor: a conspiracy (beyond the hijackers, that is) for 9/11 is the more complex answer. But for this situation, fraud is the simplest answer. It's easy to pull off (they didn't have to produce any missile fragments, for example), and it explains all the inconsistencies in the "evidence" and the fact that no physical remains of the munition can be found anywhere. In contrast, those claiming that Israel actually attacked the ambulance cannot fix on a single narrative: what kind munition actually hit the vehicle? The answer keeps changing, depending on what bit of evidence you need to explain, and often relies upon assuming the existence of unknown munitions for which there is no evidence at all. Fitting the evidence to the story of an Israeli attack is endlessly complicated. And frankly, it IS a conspiracy theory: it requires that the Israeli military conspired to attack ambulances and then cover up their own crimes. Damn crafty Jews: I bet they stole all the missile fragments. Man, you're clueless.

You as well as that "Blogger" who you keep referencing are using the same flawed reasoning as 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You're relying on faulty initial reports of the events and then concocting a big framework based on those faulty initial reports. However the fact is simple, when organizations (such as the HRW) sent researchers to the actual places and examined the actual evidence after the fact and conducted numerous interviews their conclusion was that it was not a hoax or a conspiracy. That was their conclusion. You're relying on the expertise of some anonymous blogger who is in turn relying on faulty initial reports of the event and you're deluding yourself. The entire argument being made by you as well as anyone claiming this was some "conspiracy" totally relies on 3 or 4 pictures of the ambulance as well as faulty initial reports of the incident while you ignore the conclusions of organizations who visited the scene and studied the ambulance and conducted numerous interviews with witnesses and international officials.

All of the arguments that it was some "hoax" are easily refuted. Arguments from the assertion that "rust" on the roof proves that the ambulance hole was caused earlier to Hezbollah simply removing the roofs air vent to make it appear that it was struck with a missile to the contention that the damage to the ambulance must have been worse if it was hit with a missile. The fact is, you're deluding yourself into believing some conspiracy because you can't admit that Israel did such a thing due to your inherent bias.

Ziggurat

17th August 2007, 09:54 AM

So they had "researchers" go to the site and examine the the ambulance, take interviews with those who were there as well as with international officials to get the true story.

And who were those researchers? Were they just HRW staffers? Or did they have any actual expertise in forensics, ballistics, or anything military related? You can't tell, can you? Which means there's no reason to presume any expertise: the only thing which can be evaluated is the strength of their argument. And that falls apart badly. As for consultation with "international officials", ie, red cross officials, do they actually know anything beyond what the ambulance drivers told them? No evidence of that exists either. You're continuing to try to play the argument from authority card, and it still doesn't work.

The intense heat could have caused small pieces of molten metal to flake off of the missile.

Intense heat of what? The Lebanese summer? :rolleyes: This is about the silliest thing you've written, and that's saying something.

That's hardly the simplest explanation. You're making more assumptions by assuming there was no missile. First you're assuming there was some big conspiracy with international officials involved,

Again, argument from authority: what does being an "international official" have to do with anything? And secondly, what kind of involvement is even required? If all they did is repeat what they were told by the ambulance drivers, then yeah, they're "involved", but they don't have to actually be in on the deception. All their "involvement" would demonstrate is what the version of events being given by the drivers was at that particular date - it would not indicate anything at all about the accuracy of the account.

then you're assuming that the people involved are so incompetent that they can't even notice that the missile seemed to have "vanished" into thin air.

Well, that's pretty much exactly what HRW is claiming. They in fact go to some lengths to try to formulate explanations for why exactly that might have happened. You seem to be of the opinion that it's more likely that such a vanishing act actually occured than that someone was just too incompetent to figure out that that's not possible. Because despite your personal insistence that the missile might have lodged itself deep underground, HRW doesn't list that as a possible explanation. Maybe because they saw that the "hole" doesn't actually lead anywhere.

Then you're assuming that all of the reporters there couldn't notice that it was a fraud, if it was.

No, I'm not assuming that: it's perfectly possible the reporter knows but doesn't care. I cannot distinguish between the scenarios.

You're making far more assumptions to say it was some elaborate conspiracy concocted by the Lebanese govt, or Hezbollah, or whomever than is needed to say it was simply Israeli incompetence that caused the missile to hit the ambulance.

But you cannot simply say that: you have to square the physical evidence with that scenario, and you and HRW have both consistently FAILED to do so.

However the fact is simple, when organizations (such as the HRW) sent researchers to the actual places and examined the actual evidence after the fact and conducted numerous interviews their conclusion was that it was not a hoax or a conspiracy. That was their conclusion.

I'm perfectly willing to believe it was. Doesn't mean they didn't get it wrong. And they did: their arguments make no sense.

All of the arguments that it was some "hoax" are easily refuted.

No, they aren't. As pointed out before, you STILL cannot point to ANY munition and say the evidence is consistent with this. Not a single one. You keep flipping back and forth between different possibilities, invent nonexistent munitions out of thin air, and add in nonsensical additions to try to account for the overwhelming discrepencies. Why aren't there ANY remains of the munition? Is it because it penetrated the ground? What kind of munition is that small and can still penetrate a road deep enough and cleanly enough not to leave any surface traces of its impact? And if that is what happened, what are the other marks on the roof? Pieces of the missile melting off in mid-flight? You've GOT to be kidding with that one. And why is the entry hole larger than the exit hole? It should be the reverse (quiz for the day: do you have any clue as to why it's basically always the reverse?). In fact, if the missile can penetrate the road with that clean and small a hole, the hole in the roof would be that small too, because solid pavement with transmit damage outwards from the entry point far better than thin sheet metal. You can't come up with a single coherent theory of what happened, and neither could HRW. ALL you can do, and all you HAVE done, is appeal to HRW's supposed authority. Dan Rather, line 1...

Corsair 115

17th August 2007, 08:13 PM

The money stays among Germans. It's similar to the opposition to importing goods to America at the cost of Americans producing them.

Uh, what about the other side of that equation - America exporting goods to other countries?

a_unique_person

17th August 2007, 08:31 PM

Well getting back to the issue at hand, besides Israel why do people hate Jews. Certainly not all antisemitism centers around Israel!

And it is possible to be critical of Israel and not be an anti-semite.

Gurdur

17th August 2007, 08:45 PM

Gurdur, as you read that far through his post, you DO worry me.

OK, fine, finally someone got in a dig at me that was completely and utterly justified. I can't even claim boredom as an excuse.

Full points to gtc on that one. Ouch! heh. ;)

LibraryLady

18th August 2007, 10:55 AM

It's simple, man. If you believe that Jews need to go, then it's a medical situation. Nazis always said, "You are sick" referring to any White person thought to be displaying, "Jewish thinking" and they always said that Jews are sick . . . that they are walking germs.

Since Hitler stole the idea of vascectomizing the mentally feeble from America . . . hey, he should have gone further and vascectomized 6 million Jews. Then he wouldn't be thought of as a murderer . . . just a ball snipper.

He, uh . .. actually did sterilize retards. They even had a feeble minded man that he sterilized at Neuremburg (sp?). The lawyer defending the Nazis proved that the man who was sterilized was, in fact, retarded . . . and that his condition was genetic. He came from a very large family in Germany . . . and they were all retarded. All of their children would have been retarded, too.

Homosexuality is also a good method of reducing the population . . . weither it be the population of Jewish people or the population in general. The side effect is Socialism (Gays tend to be a little sensitive and Socialist) . . . which is okay because we're talking about National Socialism . . . Nazis.

This is what I mean by, "Pleasuring Jews to death" . . . this is the method and it destroys violent anti-Semitism. It makes pressuring Jews into the program fun (as any bisexual young punk rock girl can tell you when attempting to seduce Natile Portman) . . . and it makes the clumbsy over-enthusiastic look silly . .. all you have to say is, "Okay, keep your shirt on, babe."

The world can go through it's Nazi phase and never harm a Jew . . . and perhaps learn something about genetics. If Jews are genetically inferior and extremely prone to causing Socialism which destroys a Civilization by weakening it (like worms boring holes in a healthy apple) . . . then sex is the answer. Lots and lots of sex.

It's a good thing that, unlike what the Nazis said . . . many Jewish women are hot. And young men.

If you can't tell, I've outgrown my destructive Nazi phase. This is an important time. We are laying the groundwork for the future. This is no time to be immature.

Nazis were unprofessional - but it was not their unprofessionalism that caused the war. It was their natural distrust of America which was caused by the mind-numbing conservatism of the time. Hitler had no idea that America was ready to play and just couldn't trust us. Those were desperate times, and it is up to us to make sure none of it ever happenes again.

Never again.

:candle:

Yahrzeit candle.

Dustin Kesselberg

18th August 2007, 03:07 PM

And who were those researchers? Were they just HRW staffers? Or did they have any actual expertise in forensics, ballistics, or anything military related? You can't tell, can you? Which means there's no reason to presume any expertise: the only thing which can be evaluated is the strength of their argument. And that falls apart badly. As for consultation with "international officials", ie, red cross officials, do they actually know anything beyond what the ambulance drivers told them? No evidence of that exists either. You're continuing to try to play the argument from authority card, and it still doesn't work.

They were "researchers", which has a very specific meaning. I don't know all of their expertise but they were researchers sent by a large international organization to investigate the incident and they came to a specific conclusion, which I agree with based on the relevant facts. You can trust some anonymous blogger if you want.

Intense heat of what? The Lebanese summer? :rolleyes: This is about the silliest thing you've written, and that's saying something.

The intense heat from the Missile

Again, argument from authority: what does being an "international official" have to do with anything? And secondly, what kind of involvement is even required? If all they did is repeat what they were told by the ambulance drivers, then yeah, they're "involved", but they don't have to actually be in on the deception. All their "involvement" would demonstrate is what the version of events being given by the drivers was at that particular date - it would not indicate anything at all about the accuracy of the account.

Or the individuals who responded to the incident and saw a big hole in an ambulance and a paramedics leg blown off.

Well, that's pretty much exactly what HRW is claiming. They in fact go to some lengths to try to formulate explanations for why exactly that might have happened. You seem to be of the opinion that it's more likely that such a vanishing act actually occured than that someone was just too incompetent to figure out that that's not possible. Because despite your personal insistence that the missile might have lodged itself deep underground, HRW doesn't list that as a possible explanation. Maybe because they saw that the "hole" doesn't actually lead anywhere.

Where does HRW assert the Missile disappeared into thin air?

No, I'm not assuming that: it's perfectly possible the reporter knows but doesn't care. I cannot distinguish between the scenarios.

So all of the reporters on the scene know it is a hoax but "don't care"? Please explain your reasoning behind reasoning that as a possibility.

But you cannot simply say that: you have to square the physical evidence with that scenario, and you and HRW have both consistently FAILED to do so.

How have I or HRW failed to do so?

I'm perfectly willing to believe it was. Doesn't mean they didn't get it wrong. And they did: their arguments make no sense.

How don't they make sense? You've never explained that.

No, they aren't. As pointed out before, you STILL cannot point to ANY munition and say the evidence is consistent with this. Not a single one. You keep flipping back and forth between different possibilities, invent nonexistent munitions out of thin air, and add in nonsensical additions to try to account for the overwhelming discrepencies. Why aren't there ANY remains of the munition? Is it because it penetrated the ground? What kind of munition is that small and can still penetrate a road deep enough and cleanly enough not to leave any surface traces of its impact? And if that is what happened, what are the other marks on the roof? Pieces of the missile melting off in mid-flight? You've GOT to be kidding with that one. And why is the entry hole larger than the exit hole? It should be the reverse (quiz for the day: do you have any clue as to why it's basically always the reverse?). In fact, if the missile can penetrate the road with that clean and small a hole, the hole in the roof would be that small too, because solid pavement with transmit damage outwards from the entry point far better than thin sheet metal. You can't come up with a single coherent theory of what happened, and neither could HRW. ALL you can do, and all you HAVE done, is appeal to HRW's supposed authority. Dan Rather, line 1...

4 or 5 inch thick pavement would actually absorb much of the impact thus causing a smaller hole. The ultra thin sheet metal clearly would have a much larger hole in it.

Uh, what about the other side of that equation - America exporting goods to other countries?

What about it?

Dumbledore

18th August 2007, 03:31 PM

And it is possible to be critical of Israel and not be an anti-semite.

No one said if you do criticize Israel you are an antisemitic! Is there a reason for your overreaction?

Ziggurat

18th August 2007, 04:29 PM

They were "researchers", which has a very specific meaning.

No, actually, it doesn't have a specific meaning - which is why you will search in vain for any definition of the term.

I don't know all of their expertise

No, you don't know any of their expertise.

but they were researchers sent by a large international organization

Argument from authority again. By "a large international organization", you mean Human Rights Watch. But why does the fact that HRW sent these "researchers" (and yes, the term is undefined, and no, we don't have any information about their qualifications) mean that they must therefore be competent?

You can trust some anonymous blogger if you want.

I do not trust anonymous bloggers. I trust logic. And the argument that he laid out is logical. HRW's argument is not.

The intense heat from the Missile

That isn't an answer. Is it the heat from the rocket exhaust? Heat from friction with the air? Heat from the explosion? "From the missile" isn't an answer. And none of the possible answers make any sense, but I'll let you settle on one first before I rip it to shreds.

Where does HRW assert the Missile disappeared into thin air?

"Human Rights Watch cannot conclusively state which missiles were used in the attack on the ambulances, because our researchers did not find diagnostic shrapnel or missile parts at the scene, and because of the experimental nature of some missiles used by the IDF."
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/4.htm
Translation: there's no actual physical trace of any munition because it's a Sooper-Sekrit Joo WeaponTM.

4 or 5 inch thick pavement would actually absorb much of the impact thus causing a smaller hole. The ultra thin sheet metal clearly would have a much larger hole in it.

Uh, NO. You've got the effects exactly backwards. Yes, the ground will absorb much of the impact, but it's going to do so by deforming and shattering. That's HOW it is going to absorb the impact. It's precisely because pavement is thicker and stronger (and much more brittle) than thin sheet metal that one should expect shockwaves from impact to shatter a larger area around the hole. Thin sheet metal doesn't need to absorb much of the impact, the fact that it's not strong means it will rip apart immediately in the path of the missile and so won't transmit deformations outwards, and that's precisely why the hole would be smaller. Imagine trying to drive a nail through a brick versus through a sheet of aluminum foil: which is going to show more damage? The brick, precisely because it's easy to get the nail to go through aluminum foil.

Dustin Kesselberg

18th August 2007, 04:45 PM

No, you don't know any of their expertise.

Their expertise was research. Probably of various kinds.

Argument from authority again. By "a large international organization", you mean Human Rights Watch. But why does the fact that HRW sent these "researchers" (and yes, the term is undefined, and no, we don't have any information about their qualifications) mean that they must therefore be competent?

It's an argument from reputability.

I do not trust anonymous bloggers. I trust logic. And the argument that he laid out is logical. HRW's argument is not.

How is it logical?

That isn't an answer. Is it the heat from the rocket exhaust? Heat from friction with the air? Heat from the explosion? "From the missile" isn't an answer. And none of the possible answers make any sense, but I'll let you settle on one first before I rip it to shreds.

From the rocket exhaust and/or friction with the air.

"Human Rights Watch cannot conclusively state which missiles were used in the attack on the ambulances, because our researchers did not find diagnostic shrapnel or missile parts at the scene, and because of the experimental nature of some missiles used by the IDF."
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/4.htm
Translation: there's no actual physical trace of any munition because it's a Sooper-Sekrit Joo WeaponTM.

I don't see how them stating they found no shrapnel equates to them stating it "disappeared into thin air".

Uh, NO. You've got the effects exactly backwards. Yes, the ground will absorb much of the impact, but it's going to do so by deforming and shattering. That's HOW it is going to absorb the impact. It's precisely because pavement is thicker and stronger (and much more brittle) than thin sheet metal that one should expect shockwaves from impact to shatter a larger area around the hole. Thin sheet metal doesn't need to absorb much of the impact, the fact that it's not strong means it will rip apart immediately in the path of the missile and so won't transmit deformations outwards, and that's precisely why the hole would be smaller. Imagine trying to drive a nail through a brick versus through a sheet of aluminum foil: which is going to show more damage? The brick, precisely because it's easy to get the nail to go through aluminum foil.

The street was Asphalt, which is fairly soft, especially in high temperatures. A high speed impact would unlikely cause any sort of large hole due to the fact it can easily absorb the impact. A super thin piece of sheet metal will show more damage because it can't absorb the impact very well. The nail through a brick comparison breaks down for several reasons. Mainly due to the fact that simply "driving" a nail through foil won't produce much of a hole due to the fact there isn't much speed associated with it, and due to the fact that bricks tend to crumble which would result in more damage.

Ziggurat

18th August 2007, 05:53 PM

Their expertise was research. Probably of various kinds.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has expertise in "research" - that isn't a field. And all it takes to be a "researcher" is to research something: doesn't mean you're qualified to do it, doesn't mean you have any experience doing it, doesn't mean you'll do a good job, doesn't mean what you're researching is even real. Hence "paranormal researchers". You're really getting desparate here.

It's an argument from reputability.

What, you think because you can put a slightly different word there that you can turn it from a fallacy to a valid argument? How dumb do you think I am?

From the rocket exhaust and/or friction with the air.

Missiles don't go fast enough to melt metal from friction with the air. And you'd have to be a bloody stupid moron to design a missile whose exhaust heat actually melted parts of the missile. That would make the missile fatally unreliable. Furthermore, the most intense heat from the rocket exhaust is on the inside surface of the exhaust nozzle. Anything that comes off from there (through fracture or melting) is going to be propelled backwards along with the exhaust. It isn't going to continue at ballistic speeds along with the rocket.

The street was Asphalt, which is fairly soft, especially in high temperatures.

High temperatures means a lot hotter than a summer day.

A high speed impact would unlikely cause any sort of large hole due to the fact it can easily absorb the impact.

HOW does it absorb the impact? Is it through fracture? Plastic deformation? Because those processes will lead to larger holes. The only process that might not is elastic deformation, but you've GOT to be kidding me if you think asphalt, even soft asphalt, is elastic. A small hole indicates that the impact WASN'T absorbed, that the projectile didn't lose much energy while passing through.

A super thin piece of sheet metal will show more damage because it can't absorb the impact very well.

No, you've STILL got it wrong. It will punch a small hole through the sheet metal precisely because it can't absorb the impact: the metal in the immediate vicinity of the impact fails completely, and so doesn't transmit forces outwards for any extended period of time, so that the area of deformation is contained. The stronger the sheet metal, the longer it takes for the impact point to fail completely, the more time it has to pull on the surrounding metal before the projectile has puched through, and the larger the area of deformation around the impact point.

The nail through a brick comparison breaks down for several reasons. Mainly due to the fact that simply "driving" a nail through foil won't produce much of a hole due to the fact there isn't much speed associated with it, and due to the fact that bricks tend to crumble which would result in more damage.

You could do the same thing with a bullet: fire a bullet through aluminum foil and it will make a pretty clean hole about the size of the bullet. Fire a bullet at a brick and it will create a crater larger than the bullet.

LibraryLady

18th August 2007, 05:59 PM

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has expertise in "research" - that isn't a field.

Actually it is--it's called librarianship, also information management. It's what I do for a living.

However, like every profession, there are a lot a charlatans out there.

firecoins

18th August 2007, 06:03 PM

I hate the Jews because they are dirty, smelly and cheap.

firecoins

18th August 2007, 06:22 PM

No. Christians are currently being persecuted by the Jewish controlled media with their pro-drug, pro-gay, anti-family agenda.
Jews love gay people because they know how to shop. Those rascally Jews!

Ziggurat

18th August 2007, 06:30 PM

Actually it is--it's called librarianship, also information management. It's what I do for a living.

Point taken. But the specific label is critical, because it's only the use of the label which Dustin is relying upon (he's got zero information besides that one word regarding their qualifications). HRW certainly didn't claim to have sent librarians.

Mycroft

20th August 2007, 09:39 AM

And it is possible to be critical of Israel and not be an anti-semite.

It is.

And there are many people on this forum who are critical of Israel who are not anti-Semites.

LibraryLady

20th August 2007, 09:52 AM

Point taken. But the specific label is critical, because it's only the use of the label which Dustin is relying upon (he's got zero information besides that one word regarding their qualifications). HRW certainly didn't claim to have sent librarians.

If they had sent librarians, at least the research would have been well cited and likely more reliable.

Dustin Kesselberg

20th August 2007, 10:29 AM

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has expertise in "research" - that isn't a field. And all it takes to be a "researcher" is to research something: doesn't mean you're qualified to do it, doesn't mean you have any experience doing it, doesn't mean you'll do a good job, doesn't mean what you're researching is even real. Hence "paranormal researchers". You're really getting desparate here.

I wouldn't call someone a "researcher" simply because they "research" something. Most people wouldn't. They would need some scientific expertise, which it's only reasonable to assume they did.

What, you think because you can put a slightly different word there that you can turn it from a fallacy to a valid argument? How dumb do you think I am?

If you want to believe fallacious arguments from a non reputable source, Be my guest.

Missiles don't go fast enough to melt metal from friction with the air. And you'd have to be a bloody stupid moron to design a missile whose exhaust heat actually melted parts of the missile. That would make the missile fatally unreliable. Furthermore, the most intense heat from the rocket exhaust is on the inside surface of the exhaust nozzle. Anything that comes off from there (through fracture or melting) is going to be propelled backwards along with the exhaust. It isn't going to continue at ballistic speeds along with the rocket.

Different missiles work different. HRW believes it was the SPIKE anti-armor missile system or the still experimental DIME (dense inert metal explosive) missile.

High temperatures means a lot hotter than a summer day.

Depends. I can go outside and easily poke a metal rod deep into asphalt on a hot summer day it's so soft.

HOW does it absorb the impact? Is it through fracture? Plastic deformation? Because those processes will lead to larger holes. The only process that might not is elastic deformation, but you've GOT to be kidding me if you think asphalt, even soft asphalt, is elastic. A small hole indicates that the impact WASN'T absorbed, that the projectile didn't lose much energy while passing through.

The same way a giant marshmallow might absorb the impact. The kinetic energy from the blast radiates through the asphalt and due to it's softness it absorbs the energy gradually without causing a large impact crater.

No, you've STILL got it wrong. It will punch a small hole through the sheet metal precisely because it can't absorb the impact: the metal in the immediate vicinity of the impact fails completely, and so doesn't transmit forces outwards for any extended period of time, so that the area of deformation is contained. The stronger the sheet metal, the longer it takes for the impact point to fail completely, the more time it has to pull on the surrounding metal before the projectile has puched through, and the larger the area of deformation around the impact point.

The sheet metal would transmit the force, It isn't as soft as tin foil. It transmit the force easily actually. When I say it "can't absorb the impact" I mean that it can't take the impact and radiate the energy through without causing much damage.

You could do the same thing with a bullet: fire a bullet through aluminum foil and it will make a pretty clean hole about the size of the bullet. Fire a bullet at a brick and it will create a crater larger than the bullet.

The difference in density and composition between foil and a brick is totally different from that of the sheet metal and asphalt. A bullet fired at aluminum foil would likely cause a larger hole simply due to the disturbance in the air from the bullet.

This thread looks like it's starting to get derailed. Please stay on topic or request a split. Thanks!

Ziggurat

20th August 2007, 11:24 AM

I wouldn't call someone a "researcher" simply because they "research" something. Most people wouldn't. They would need some scientific expertise, which it's only reasonable to assume they did.

Nonsense. Historians do research too. Scientific expertise is absolutely not a requirement to be a "researcher", even a well-credentialed one. And while you might hope that nobody would call someone a researcher if they didn't have relevant research experience, in the absence of any actual evidence of such expertise, we cannot actually conclude that it exists. Certainly no such expertise is in evidence: there's basically no citations or references anywhere in the whole report (in contrast to the zombietime website which you've tried so hard to disparage). Seriously, since whoever HRW sent to Lebannon can be called a researcher purely on the basis that they're doing some sort of research, what precludes them from using the label even if no prior research experience exists, or if their experience/expertise is in an unrelated field? Oh, that's right: nothing. Argument from assumed authority is even weaker than argument from authority.

If you want to believe fallacious arguments from a non reputable source, Be my guest.

Except you haven't shown how those arguments (particularly regarding the possible munitions, and why HRW's attribution of DIME or Spike missiles as possibilities makes no sense) are fallacious. Reputability has absolutely nothing to do with it: if the arguments are fallacious, you should be able to demonstrate that regardless of his reputability. You shouldn't need to refer to his identity to disprove his argument (again: see Dan Rather). And yet, that's really the only thing you can refer to.

Different missiles work different. HRW believes it was the SPIKE anti-armor missile system or the still experimental DIME (dense inert metal explosive) missile.

And the Zombietime site demolishes that argument, with references to actual authorities on those munitions so you don't have to take their word for it either. Spike is a two-warhead design intended to destroy armored vehicles: an unarmored ambulance would be demolished completely, and Spike isn't built to be a deep penetrator so it couldn't be burried under the road (a ridiculous claim that HRW doesn't even make). As for DIME, well, 1) there's no evidence Israelis have ever deployed any DIME munitions, 2) it would be silly to use an experimental munition whose purpose is to limit civilian casualties if you're going to target civilians, and 3) within the blast radius, DIME does an extraordinary amount of damage, including burning pretty much everything.

Depends. I can go outside and easily poke a metal rod deep into asphalt on a hot summer day it's so soft.

But the surface of the road isn't plastically deformed, it's broken.

The same way a giant marshmallow might absorb the impact.

Marshmallows are elastic. Asphalt, even soft asphalt, is not. It will either shatter or plastically deform.

The kinetic energy from the blast radiates through the asphalt and due to it's softness it absorbs the energy gradually without causing a large impact crater.

Your understanding of physics is pathetic, and your explanations contradictory. If the asphalt was soft, as you suggest, it would absorb energy by plastic (NOT elastic) deformation. But it clearly didn't: there's no plastic deformation at the supposed impact site at all. If it wasn't soft, it should transmit those forces by fracturing. And we can see that if any munition did actually hit that road, fracturing is exactly how it absorbed however much energy it absorbed. But the size of the fractures should be LARGER for the road than for the roof of the ambulance (and larger for the floor of the ambulance than for the roof), for reasons already explained but which you apparently can't understand.

The sheet metal would transmit the force, It isn't as soft as tin foil.

It's not as soft as alluminum foil, but it's soft compared to the forces required to punch deep into the ground through a road surface. And that's the relevant comparison.

It transmit the force easily actually.

No, it really won't. The force required to punch through sheet metal is significantly less than that required to punch through a road. If you don't believe me, take a pickaxe to the roof of your car and then the road in front of your house. Sheet metal will fail under much lower compressive loads (which is what an impact is) than a road surface will, which is precisely why the hole in the ambulance roof should be smaller than the hole in the road surface.

Furthermore, and what you still haven't addressed, the hole in the floor of the ambulance should be the same size or bigger, not smaller, than the hole in the roof. I also notice that you've stopped trying to explain the additional holes and dents in the roof. I guess even you counldn't continue to believe your own nonsense about the rocket melting in mid-flight.