Why do people hate Jews?

[senorpogo]

That's something I've been thinking about as of late. In the modern world, a lot of is has to do with Israel or Zionism, but it seems to me - with the average knowledge of history that I have - the Jews have been a targeted group since the get go. Why? Is a large portion come from some Christian's view of Jews as "Christ-killers"? Is it because Jews are seen as being affluent and well off? Why do people hate Jews?

[Pauliesonne]

penis envy?

[NobbyNobbs]

Tradition!

[HarryKeogh]

well, because they control the media for starters.

[Pauliesonne]

well, because they control the media for starters.

I thought that was christians.

[Mephisto]

I've often wondered about this myself. Perhaps the claim that they are God's chosen people is enough to incite religious intolerance, but I suspect that early on in Jewish history THEY were the illegal immigrants that threatened the communities they moved into. THEY were the group with dark eyes, dark hair and strange customs who seemingly refused to "intigrate" with the local populace by hanging onto their culture. The Jewish people have suffered and continue to suffer greatly for who they are, and current politics notwithstanding, I hope the knowledge of their past tribulations empathically influences their future.

[bob_kark]

That's something I've been thinking about as of late. In the modern world, a lot of is has to do with Israel or Zionism, but it seems to me - with the average knowledge of history that I have - the Jews have been a targeted group since the get go. Why? Is a large portion come from some Christian's view of Jews as "Christ-killers"? Is it because Jews are seen as being affluent and well off? Why do people hate Jews?
Wiki has a pretty good article that can give some of the background reasons.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#History_of_the_Jews)

Mainly they've always been forced to immigrate to new areas due to being expelled multiple times from what is now Israel. Therefore, they've been considered invaders of sorts, similar to how people in the US view Mexican immigrants. Of course Arabs have a deeper hatred as they believe that the Jews usurped their holy land. Anyway, the article doesn't directly speak to the reason for their perseuction, but you can read between the lines.

[HarryKeogh]

I thought that was christians.

No. Christians are currently being persecuted by the Jewish controlled media with their pro-drug, pro-gay, anti-family agenda.

[StewartP]

Its a good question. I don't think ChrisKiller is a major cause.
Speaking for my religious experience as a Baptist, we were all well aware that JC was jewish himself, as were his disciples. (Whenever I see doe-eyed pictures of the big J looking all caucasian I remind myself that he probably more closely resembled a young Yassar Arafat)

[brodski]

Tradition! I would say that is probably the lagest part.

[webfusion]

How did this get into the "Current Events" section?

see: Headline from 1260 C.E. -- (http://www.historyofjihad.org/mongolia.html)

Mongols Set Out To Conquer Islam

http://www.historyofjihad.org/mongol3.jpg
George Bush Wishes Them Well .... (Photo Op)

Things eventually turned out poorly for the Mongols in Palestine ----
Mamluks Crush the Mongols at 'Ayn Jalut (near Nazareth)

Unfortunately, their rule over Egypt and Palestine from 1260-1517 was disastrous for the Jews.
The Mamluks forced Jews to wear humiliating clothes, forbade their involvement in the government, and permitted them to work at only menial jobs. Jews were forbidden to ride any animal except the donkey, and this they had to ride side-saddle. They were forbidden to have wine, and there were regular house searches for the forbidden liquid.
After the Mamluk-Circassians took over ruling the area, the plight of Jews under their rule didn't improve. When Ovadia Bertinoro traveled through Egypt and Palestine, he found almost no thriving Jewish communties except in Cairo. Those Jews whom he found were subject to tyranny and extortion. The Mamluks succeeded in impoverishing the Jewish community and limiting their existence in Palestine to four cities: Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberius. The situation under the Mamluks was so bad that when Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, they didn't even consider fleeing to Egypt or Palestine.

[Dave1001]

That's something I've been thinking about as of late. In the modern world, a lot of is has to do with Israel or Zionism, but it seems to me - with the average knowledge of history that I have - the Jews have been a targeted group since the get go. Why? Is a large portion come from some Christian's view of Jews as "Christ-killers"? Is it because Jews are seen as being affluent and well off? Why do people hate Jews?

I don't think most people care about jews much one way or the other. To the degree folks think about jews, I think they see them as a relatively successful ethnic grouping, like scandinavians, japanese, and anglosaxons. Jewish folks may have a comparative economic advantage in letting the world know when they are on the receiving end of hate, because of a concentration of jewish economic power in international media (as opposed to in oil, or cattle, or electronics manufacturing or what-not) ... hence I think we're likely to hear more about anti-semitism in France against jews then about discrimination against Koreans in Japan (or against mixed-race Koreans in Korea). But, as an empirical matter I don't think Jews are consistently more hated than a variety of other groups.

With Israel and the arab and muslim world, I think both are using their narrative of hate and antogonism of the other to help unify and solidify their diverse component populations: Israel uses it to unify its population composed of immigrants from farflung places, and the arab world uses it to build bridges between sunni and shiite, arab and persian, Arabian peninsulans and north africans and pakistanis. I think Strauss might have described this process in his writings, how wars against an "enemy" can be used to "solve" domestic challenges.

[yinyinwang]

I think this question is the same as why americans are not performing well in world opinion polls.

[bob_kark]

I think this question is the same as why americans are not performing well in world opion polls.

I was really confused until I read this.

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/513411

I still don't know what it has to do with Jews though.

[Amapola]

well, because they control the media for starters.

I'm not real sure what you mean by this and I might be misunderstanding.....

What actually runs the media is money. People who sell products want to advertise on television, for example, but they want to advertise their product with a successful TV program that they think will help sell their product. The people who run the TV channel want that advertising money, so they do their level best to come up with programming that the advertisers will like, and that will cause the advertisers to spend more money. And of course the more successful a TV program is, the more that can be charged for an advertising spot during that program.

It's the same at newspapers. In the case of newspapers, usually the advertisers want the ad in certain spots in the paper. I used to be a production manager at a small paper and was often approached by advertisers who (falsely) thought I was responsible for placement of ads. Politicians in particular would attempt to influence me to place their ads in certain advantageous spots.

Whether or not "the Jews" own the media does not influence the content as much as advertising dollars do. The publisher of the paper I worked for would have put pretty much ANY ad in his paper if the person would cough up the money. And if that person demanded that certain stories not be covered, or they would pull out their ads, that had a lot more influence on the content of the paper than what the publisher (owner in this case) wanted in the paper.

I've heard people remark that "the Jews" are controlling what we see and hear and read in the media, but my experience indicates that money has more influence.

[bob_kark]

I've heard people remark that "the Jews" are controlling what we see and hear and read in the media, but my experience indicates that money has more influence.
That's because the Jews control the money!

[Amapola]

That's because the Jews control the money!

:D Really?

[bob_kark]

:D Really?
Uhm, no:blush:

[CplFerro]

Dear senorpogo,

From the horse's mouth, you can't get much more directly in than from Luke O'Farrell, professional anti-Jew who writes a column for the Heretical Press, linked to below.

The essential argument is not "The Jews control X" but that the Jews as an entity are acting in such a way as to promote race-mixing, feminism, and homosexuality, all of which Mr. Farrell views as a threat to the (admittedly definitely declining) white race. The presence of the Jews in white society, which they maintain through their media Holocaust Story which immunises them against all criticism and maintains a bulwark of white guilt, acts as a catalyst to break down white culture and sexual norms, drop immigration rules, and ultimately lead to the destruction of whites as a race.

That is why the Jews are hated by National Socialists.

O'Farrell Archive
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/index.html

[Thomas]

Mainly they've always been forced to immigrate to new areas due to being expelled multiple times from what is now Israel. Therefore, they've been considered invaders of sorts, similar to how people in the US view Mexican immigrants. Of course Arabs have a deeper hatred as they believe that the Jews usurped their holy land. Anyway, the article doesn't directly speak to the reason for their perseuction, but you can read between the lines.
However, that Jews have serious problems with integrating due to their unique culture and religion is one thing, but another thing one might remember, is how they traditionally administrate their money as family fortunes.

We have a situation here in Europe now where immigrants from the Middle East are using the same administrative family-fortune system as the Jews have throughout history. The Middle East immigrants basically run all the smaller shops in northern Europe now. They have huge closed networks, and you often see them driving around in very expensive cars (but they are rarely owned by the individual behind the steering wheel, but by the entire family). As a result, they are often accused of being criminals and hustlers.

I believe, that the Jewish(/Arab) family-fortune system, and their closed networks, are one of the things that have made them haunted through recent history. Right now, the third largest political party in Denmark, is one that basically wants to see all the immigrants to the door as soon as possible, and they have already successfully made it very hard to immigrate to Denmark.

History repeats itself, but now in a more civilized manner.

I basically believe this to be a clash between socialism and older traditions, as you don't need a strong family to prevail and retire economically in Europe anymore. But that's a seperate post.

[The Mutha]

Many moons ago, Christians believed the bible when it said "no usury" and wouldn't lend money to other folks because they couldn't charge interest, therefore, they didn't make any money. The Jewish faith did not subscribe to the 'no usury" dictate, so they were quite willing to lend Christians money at some agreed upon interest rate. Well, this worked out okay, except for some inherent animosity amongst the Christians because they were having to lower themselves to have financial dealings with the pesky Jews.

IIRC, there were several kings who became heavily indebted to the Jews and instead of paying back the money, would spread stories about the Jews needing Christian infants to sacrifice for their "unholy rituals" and other such nonsense. The Christian faithful would get riled up because of the stories (and they probably owed some money to the Jews as well) and take to the streets in mass riots to slaughter the Jews or at least drive them out of town. Basically wiping out all their debt in the process. So, borrow money from the Jews until you're up to your eyeballs in debt, then riot against the Jews, drive them out and viola! No Debt!

Win-win situation for King and Christian subjects -- not so win-win for the Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England

[bob_kark]

Many moons ago, Christians believed the bible when it said "no usury" and wouldn't lend money to other folks because they couldn't charge interest, therefore, they didn't make any money. The Jewish faith did not subscribe to the 'no usury" dictate, so they were quite willing to lend Christians money at some agreed upon interest rate. Well, this worked out okay, except for some inherent animosity amongst the Christians because they were having to lower themselves to have financial dealings with the pesky Jews.

Yes, the Templars as well were virtually destroyed by King Philip due to their lending practices, and the fact he owed a great deal to the Templars. At one point they rivaled the power of the RCC itself due to their wealth and land holdings. Now, they're a few guys that like to play dress up and pretend to have the Holy Grail...

[shecky]

Maybe you could ask Mel Gibson (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/439046p-369834c.html)? :)

(can't vouch for the veracity of the story)

[Bruno Putzeys]

Imho, the circle of hate -> self-defense -> group identity -> irritation -> hate has become stable.

When a group is cornered, they will stick together. Individuals will consider themselves either to be fully part of the group or not at all. The group becomes like a drop of oil in a bucket of water. This again fuels hate from the outside world.

It is only recently that the Jewish people have been able to transform their group identity into geographical statehood, a situation taken for granted by other ethnicities and their respective countries. We'll have to wait a few generations before we know if this has the potential of normalising the situation.

[senorpogo]

Maybe you could ask Mel Gibson (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/439046p-369834c.html)? :)

(can't vouch for the veracity of the story)

Awesome.

[Chaos]

Many moons ago, Christians believed the bible when it said "no usury" and wouldn't lend money to other folks because they couldn't charge interest, therefore, they didn't make any money. The Jewish faith did not subscribe to the 'no usury" dictate, so they were quite willing to lend Christians money at some agreed upon interest rate. Well, this worked out okay, except for some inherent animosity amongst the Christians because they were having to lower themselves to have financial dealings with the pesky Jews.
*snip*

That, plus IIRC jews were forbidden from taking up "honest" professions, i.e. crafts, so they pretty much faced the choice of banking/moneylending or starving.

[Lisa Simpson]

More on the Mel Gibson story here.

http://tmz.com/

[CFLarsen]

That, plus IIRC jews were forbidden from taking up "honest" professions, i.e. crafts, so they pretty much faced the choice of banking/moneylending or starving.
They couldn't own land either. That pretty much left out everything else than money lending/banking.

[Dave1001]

More on the Mel Gibson story here.

http://tmz.com/

Let's see if this ends up creating enough controversy to put another couple hundred million in Gibson's bank account ...

[senorpogo]

I think the time is drawing near for a "Why does Mel Gibson hate the Jews?" thread.

[HarryKeogh]

I'm not real sure what you mean by this and I might be misunderstanding.....

I was kidding.;)

[Dave1001]

Let's see if this ends up creating enough controversy to put another couple hundred million in Gibson's bank account ...


The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-Semitic statements: "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."


Deputy Mee then wrote an eight-page report detailing Gibson's rampage and comments. Sources say the sergeant on duty felt it was too "inflammatory." A lieutenant and captain then got involved and calls were made to Sheriff's headquarters. Sources say Mee was told Gibson's comments would incite a lot of "Jewish hatred," that the situation in Israel was "way too inflammatory." It was mentioned several times that Gibson, who wrote, directed, and produced 2004's "The Passion of the Christ," had incited "anti-Jewish sentiment" and "For a drunk driving arrest, is this really worth all that?"

We're told Deputy Mee was then ordered to write another report, leaving out the incendiary comments and conduct. Sources say Deputy Mee was told the sanitized report would eventually end up in the media and that he could write a supplemental report that contained the redacted information -- a report that would be locked in the watch commander's safe.


Gotta wonder who leaked this ... who would have more incentive than Mel Gibson himself?

[davefoc]

I don't know the answer to the OP question. I have participated in these threads before and I am not sure that I understand anything any better as a result of participating in these threads.

I have thought a lot about skeptic's view of the world which seems to involve often detecting anti-semitism where I don't see any. But I am not quite sure what to make of this. The particular world that I have lived in (white middle class, professional engineer) provided me with essentially no contact with anti-semitism. But obviusly that was not a reliable sample to get a feel for anti-semitism in the country or the world.

I do think that minorities are always discriminated against to some degree and since Jews are almost always a minority population it would be expected that there would be more discrimination against Jews than against the average person. Couple this with the religous issues involved in conflicts between Jews and non-Jews and maybe anti-semitism isn't all that unexpected.

One issue here is the propensity of some people to see anti-semitism as the most important part of the Arab hostitlity to Israel. My cut at this is that this notion is false and that if one holds this view one will per force exaggerate the anti-semitism that exists in the world. Part of the Zionist pitch is to attempt to equate the Israeli cause with the Jewish cause. An obvious result of this kind of pitch is that people opposed to Israel will often conflate opposition to Israel with opposition to Jews.

[Amapola]

I was kidding.;)

Oh good! :)

[pipelineaudio]

Therefore, they've been considered invaders of sorts, similar to how people in the US view Mexican immigrants.

I have never seen anyone view mexican * IMMIGRANTS* this way, and I live in a border state

Perhaps like the media you are tyring to mix criminal tresspasser with immigrant?

Yes in the case of criminal tresspassing thief, "invaders" would be a good term, but immigrant? Evidence?

We are proud of our mexican heritage

Do not pollute that pride by wishing criminals upon us

[yinyinwang]

I was really confused until I read this.

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/513411

I still don't know what it has to do with Jews though.
A bigger tree gets more wind.

[gumboot]

the Jews have been a targeted group since the get go. Why? Is a large portion come from some Christian's view of Jews as "Christ-killers"? Is it because Jews are seen as being affluent and well off? Why do people hate Jews?


From my understanding, much of it originates in Medieval Europe. The Romans got rid of the Jews because they were troublesome, simple as that. But Europe rapidly became incredibly religious.

I think much of medieval Europe was probably as bad, religious wise, as the Pan-Islamic state people like Osama are going on about. Jews weren't allowed to own land or work land or anything of that sort. Simply because they weren't a christian.

As such they got into money lending - the one job they could do. And everyone hates people they owe money to, especially if they're also a heathen. In some places (notably Russia - see "A Fiddler On The Roof") they were fairly brutally persecuted.

This carried right through into the 20th Century, where many of Europe's banks and financial centres were owned by Jews. A lot of people lost all their life savings to banks and investment during the hyper-inflation in Germany, and then the Great Depression. Naturally, without anyone else to blame, the bankers and investment brokers were blamed. The Jews. I think this had a LOT to do with the rise of Nazi Germany. Hitler used that animosity, and used it to unite the country in hatred. It was a tool, for focusing. And they ran with it (big time).

Much of the modern anti-Jewish sentiment amongst muslims seems to stem from the same Nazi attitude. There was a lot of encouragement from former Nazis for the Muslim Brotherhood to really extend their goals from the success of Palestine to the extermination of the Jews. Most terrorist organisations were born out of that particular facet of the Brotherhood.

High profile Nazis like Francois Genoud have been directly involved in Islamic terrorism from the get-go.

-Andrew

[Thomas]

This carried right through into the 20th Century, where many of Europe's banks and financial centres were owned by Jews. A lot of people lost all their life savings to banks and investment during the hyper-inflation in Germany, and then the Great Depression. Naturally, without anyone else to blame, the bankers and investment brokers were blamed. The Jews. I think this had a LOT to do with the rise of Nazi Germany. Hitler used that animosity, and used it to unite the country in hatred. It was a tool, for focusing. And they ran with it (big time).
Banking is surely part of the reason why the Jews became a target for the Nazis, but I don't think it explains why 6 millions of them were murdered - including women and children.
This was also a conflict between socialism and the Jewish family-fortune system. The family is less important for the individual under a socialistic ideology, because you no longer need depend on children and forefathers to be financially secure. I.e. the government keep you above waters in troublesome times despite your age and family background.

That the common German Jews (not the bankers) did so well in general compared to the "splitting" German families, was cause of envy, and a dark spot on the quality and future of socialism in Germany. Remember the Nazis were: The National Socialist German Workers Party.

You say the Germans had no one else to blame during the inflation than the Jews, I don't find this to be correct, because it was all caused in great part by the heavy demands of the reparations placed upon the Germans following their loss in World War I. So they could easily blame the winners of this war, and as you know, they also tried to obtain revenge.

The Jewish families were viewed as vampires sucking on a bleeding country because they remained above waters and traded within closed networks. And let's of course not forget the very well off, the bankers. So,

The people didn't like them from financial envy and because they had strong families and closed networks.
The government didn't like them because the family-fortune system indirectly opposed the socialistic working class structure and made it look bad. Furthermore, the Jews didn't fit in with the pure race program the Nazis had in mind.
There were some money to be collected for the state.
From history, nobody seemed to like them anyway.Now it must sound like I hate socialism, and actually I don't. I praise the parts of socialism that carries the financial freedom and the indepence it gives the individual (compared to forced family dependence). I enjoy many things about European socialism, but I'm also aware that the family-fortune structure seems to be stronger when in competition with socialism.

Read my last post in this thread on how this clash between socialism and family-fortune structures still is evident and a problem today in vast parts of Europe. Today it is just the Middle East immigrants who represent the old ways, if you like. Remember we used to have strong family dependence here in Europe, too.

[Polaris]

I thought that was christians.

You're right. He must have been thinking of the banks and all the governments of the world.

[Skeptic]

The essential argument is not "The Jews control X" but that the Jews as an entity are acting in such a way as to promote race-mixing, feminism, and homosexuality, all of which Mr. Farrell views as a threat to the (admittedly definitely declining) white race.

Of course, ultra-orthodox jews are also not too supportive of feminism, homoxesuality, and race-mixing, either (though they don't oppose mixing with blacks, say, in particular, but with "the gentiles" in general). They, of course, are hated for being backward, racist religious fanatics who are out to stop the tide of progress...

[aerosolben]

That's because the Jews control the money!
And they never give it back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo

[bob_kark]

I have never seen anyone view mexican * IMMIGRANTS* this way, and I live in a border state

Perhaps like the media you are tyring to mix criminal tresspasser with immigrant?

Yes in the case of criminal tresspassing thief, "invaders" would be a good term, but immigrant? Evidence?

We are proud of our mexican heritage

Do not pollute that pride by wishing criminals upon us
I'm sorry if I offended you. However, I do see people who view Mexican immigrants in a derogatory way whether legal or illegal. I don't agree with them. However the discrimination exists. Also I do mean immigrant:

immigrant.
im·mi·grant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-grnt)
n.

1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
2. A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.

I do not wish to disrespect your Mexican heritage. However, if one moves from Mexico to live in the United States permanently, they are an immigrant. While I understand what your point, I refuse to stop using the proper term to describe someone who immigrates to this country simply because it may offend someone.

[davefoc]

Banking is surely part of the reason why the Jews became a target for the Nazis, but I don't think it explains why 6 millions of them were murdered - including women and children.
This was also a conflict between socialism and the Jewish family-fortune system. The family is less important for the individual under a socialistic ideology, because you no longer need depend on children and forefathers to be financially secure. I.e. the government keep you above waters in troublesome times despite your age and family background.

That the common German Jews (not the bankers) did so well in general compared to the "splitting" German families, was cause of envy, and a dark spot on the quality and future of socialism in Germany. Remember the Nazis were: The National Socialist German Workers Party.

You say the Germans had no one else to blame during the inflation than the Jews, I don't find this to be correct, because it was all caused in great part by the heavy demands of the reparations placed upon the Germans following their loss in World War I. So they could easily blame the winners of this war, and as you know, they also tried to obtain revenge.

The Jewish families were viewed as vampires sucking on a bleeding country because they remained above waters and traded within closed networks. And let's of course not forget the very well off, the bankers. So,
The people didn't like them from financial envy and because they had strong families and closed networks.
The government didn't like them because the family-fortune system indirectly opposed the socialistic working class structure and made it look bad. Furthermore, the Jews didn't fit in with the pure race program the Nazis had in mind.
There were some money to be collected for the state.
From history, nobody seemed to like them anyway.Now it must sound like I hate socialism, and actually I don't. I praise the parts of socialism that carries the financial freedom and the indepence it gives the individual (compared to forced family dependence). I enjoy many things about European socialism, but I'm also aware that the family-fortune structure seems to be stronger when in competition with socialism.

Read my last post in this thread on how this clash between socialism and family-fortune structures still is evident and a problem today in vast parts of Europe. Today it is just the Middle East immigrants who represent the old ways, if you like. Remember we used to have strong family dependence here in Europe, too.

I am sure there is truth to the above but there are also other facts which suggest a more complicated situation.

1. The Jews in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler seemed to have been significantly integrated into the normal German society. They served in the military and often married gentile Germans. This suggests to me that at least part of what went on was the unigue result of a ruthless, charismatic leader that played a very significant role in exacerbating any anti-semitism that existed prior to his rise to power.

2. Several other groups were targetted by the Nazis for destruction. These included the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Roma (Gypsies). This suggests to me that at least part of what was going on here was that a racial purification paradiigm became established and the transgressions of a particular group were less important than the fact that they just weren't ethnically pure German by the standards of the Nazis.

[Thomas]

I am sure there is truth to the above but there are also other facts which suggest a more complicated situation.

1. The Jews in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler seemed to have been significantly integrated into the normal German society. They served in the military and often married gentile Germans. This suggests to me that at least part of what went on was the unigue result of a ruthless, charismatic leader that played a very significant role in exacerbating any anti-semitism that existed prior to his rise to power.

Agreed. But it was those who didn't want to integrate that stole the picture from the integrated ones. This is what usually happens for immigrants world wide.

2. Several other groups were targetted by the Nazis for destruction. These included the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Roma (Gypsies). This suggests to me that at least part of what was going on here was that a racial purification paradiigm became established and the transgressions of a particular group were less important than the fact that they just weren't ethnically pure German by the standards of the Nazis.
Definately so. I mentioned the pure race program race briefly in my last post, but it is again a large issue, and I will now try to make it short.

That the Germans had just lost World War 1, was a crisis for the population. Not only did they have to deal with massive inflation, they also had to deal with the defeat itself. So to restore the national pride, they looked back in history and naturally focused strongly on events like The battle in the Teutoburger forest (http://www.livius.org/te-tg/teutoburg/teutoburg02.html) around the year 9 CE where the Roman Northern Legions were annihilated in an attempt to invade Germania. And Roman writtings like Tacitus' Germania (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/tacitus-germanygord.html) which praised the Germanic tribes for their ethics and culture became very popular among those who sought to regain their pride. Tacitus' Germania speaks of a pure race with high courage and solid ethical standards (compared to the Romans), and this became a guideline of sorts, and to the Nazis, this guideline justified cleaning the house in a most brutal manner. The Nazis could blame unpure races for a lot of things in Germany, because according to Tacitus it had all once been more or less perfect.

In short, they dwelled in history to restore their pride, but sadly it became one of the most gruesome restorations in the history of mankind. I for one like to study the Germanic tribes as I come from one of them, but I often fear that people consider me a Neo-Nazi when I try to demolish the myth of club swinging, fur dressed cavemen that still lives on in movies like Gladiator (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/). And I can thank the Nazis for that.

I'm sure we can keep on adding reasons for the holocaust, but I believe we got some of the most important factors on the table now.

[davefoc]

Thanks for the reply Thomas. The article that you linked to about Tacitus interesting.

One slightly off the topic thought I have had for awhile is how the relationship between the Arabs and the Germans might have evolved if Germany had not been defeated.

Genetically, the Arabs might have been viewed as pure Jews (or visa versa). The Jews that Hitler were killing were genetically mixed with European ancestry. So what exactly was Hitler targetting? The Jewish genes? It seems so based on the racial stereotyping that was going on. How would he have dealt with the Arabs who he was making alliances with when the shooting stopped?

The craziness of the Nazi goals makes a question like this impossible to answer I suppose. Looking back on this situation, even given a Hitler non-defeat it seems that murder and destruction that he initiated would have gone on almost unabated until Germany was eventually destroyed by the costs of maintaining their empire.

[pipelineaudio]

I'm sorry if I offended you. However, I do see people who view Mexican immigrants in a derogatory way whether legal or illegal. I don't agree with them. However the discrimination exists. Also I do mean immigrant:

immigrant.
im·mi·grant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-grnt)
n.

1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
2. A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.

I do not wish to disrespect your Mexican heritage. However, if one moves from Mexico to live in the United States permanently, they are an immigrant. While I understand what your point, I refuse to stop using the proper term to describe someone who immigrates to this country simply because it may offend someone.


Well if we go by that then, if you ever had sex I call you a rapist

I mean, rape means to have sex with someone right? Same as to invade means to go somewhere eslse right?

Invaders and LEGAL immigrants are two different things

[bob_kark]

Well if we go by that then, if you ever had sex I call you a rapist

I mean, rape means to have sex with someone right? Same as to invade means to go somewhere eslse right?

Invaders and LEGAL immigrants are two different things

Wrong.

rape ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

I certainly agree that there is a difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. However, they are both immigrants.

[pipelineaudio]

Wrong.

rape ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

I certainly agree that there is a difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. However, they are both immigrants.

I certainly agree that there is a difference between rape and consensual sex, however they are both intercourse

[bob_kark]

I certainly agree that there is a difference between rape and consensual sex, however they are both intercourse
I certainly agree that there is a difference between cats and dogs, however they are both animals.

How long do you want to go in circles here?

[davefoc]

Thomas wrote:I'm sure we can keep on adding reasons for the holocaust, but I believe we got some of the most important factors on the table now.

That was my reaction to what has been written previously also. It seems like most of the main reasons had been touched on. I think the issue of anti-semitism and the reasons for the holocaust have been conflated a bit in this thread. They aren't quite the same I think.

Anyway this is a summary based mostly on previous posts of why the German genocide against the Jews happened.

1. Anti-semitism existed in Germany based on:
a. Jews were a minority and minorities often are targets of discrimination and resentment by majority population.
b. Unigue relationship between Judaism and Christianity that led to some particular contempt for Jewish population. Possibly a holdover for anti-semitic notions in Christianity from inclusions of anti-Jewish propaganda in earliest Christian writings.
c. Jewish roles in professions that were seen as exploitive by some in Germany
d. Jewish involvement with communism.
e. Involvement of some Jews with Zionism. (not mentioned previously in this thread, but the subject of at least one contentious thread on the subject previously).
2. Despite all the above, Jewish anti-semitism prior to rise of Hitler was offset by high levels of assimilation of the Jewish population into German society.
3. The high levels of violence created by Hitler's early campaigns of murder against the disabled population worked to overcome some of society's normal resistance to mass murder.
4. Hitler, synergistically used a combination of arguments for racial purity and anti-semitism as one means of unifying the German population for his military goals.
5. Once a culture of high violvence had been established where fears for one's survival helped overcome the normal tendency of people to be somewhat altruistic and generally opposed to the murder of others Hitler was able to establish a national policy of murder based on his racist ideas.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Jews are blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians and someone has the balls to start another "Feel bad for the jews" thread?


Good grief...

[bob_kark]

Jews are blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians and someone has the balls to start another "Feel bad for the jews" thread?


Good grief...
How do you see this as a "Feel bad for the jews" thread? The discrimination of Jews is well documented. We're simply discussing the possible causes of this. If you want to start a thread asking "Why do people hate Arabs?" feel free to do so.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How do you see this as a "Feel bad for the jews" thread? The discrimination of Jews is well documented. We're simply discussing the possible causes of this. If you want to start a thread asking "Why do people hate Arabs?" feel free to do so.



There are dozens of threads about discrimination against the jews.


This thread was simply started at this particular time because the Jews are killing so many people. The thread starter just wants the attention taken away from the fact the jews are murdering hundreds of people and wants people to remember jews are discriminated against.





"People of the jury, The defendant may of brutally killed that whole family..But don't forget he was made fun of as a child!"


Can you say "Red herring"?

[webfusion]

Jews are blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians...

That is a false statement.

The government of the State of Israel, which represents many different segments of a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, has instructed their Defense Forces, whose members encompass Muslims, Jews, Christians and other religions, to act to stop unprovoked missile attacks upon the citizens of the State, by islamic terrorists who operate from within civilian areas of gaza and Lebanon.

So, Dustin, it is not "jews" who are acting as a group, it is Israelis of many different religious persuasions in the IDF; and they are not "blowing up" hundreds of innocent civilians -- the civilians are collateral to the IDF blowing up the terrorists who are illegally using these civilians for cover.

That has been repeatedly pointed out in various threads, and it seems highly unlikely that you missed that basic explanation being given over and over here on JREF Forums....

However, for your edification:
The IDF said it had warned residents of Qana to leave and that Hezbollah bore responsibility for using the town center as a base of operations to fire rockets at Israel.
PM Olmert confirmed that he has seen video evidence (taken from IAF observation drones) that Qana was used as a Hezbollah base for launching hundreds of rockets at Israel.

[bob_kark]

There are dozens of threads about discrimination against the jews.

This thread was simply started at this particular time because the Jews are killing so many people. The thread starter just wants the attention taken away from the fact the jews are murdering hundreds of people and wants people to remember jews are discriminated against.

"People of the jury, The defendant may of brutally killed that whole family..But don't forget he was made fun of as a child!"

Can you say "Red herring"?
That's a fairly bold claim. Do you have any evidence to support your theory?

[TragicMonkey]

This thread was simply started at this particular time because the Jews are killing so many people. The thread starter just wants the attention taken away from the fact the jews are murdering hundreds of people and wants people to remember jews are discriminated against.

Yeah, the Global Jewish Conspiracy International Cabal Of Evil really gives a crap what Dustin is reading on JREF, and is desperately plotting to make him think differently.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That is a false statement.

The government of the State of Israel, which represents many different segments of a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, has instructed their Defense Forces, whose members encompass Muslims, Jews, Christians and other religions, to act to stop unprovoked missile attacks upon the citizens of the State, by islamic terrorists who operate from within civilian areas of gaza and Lebanon.

So, Dustin, it is not "jews" who are acting as a group, it is Israelis of many different religious persuasions in the IDF; and they are not "blowing up" hundreds of innocent civilians -- the civilians are collateral to the IDF blowing up the terrorists who are illegally using these civilians for cover.

That has been repeatedly pointed out in various threads, and it seems highly unlikely that you missed that basic explanation being given over and over here on JREF Forums....

However, for your edification:
The IDF said it had warned residents of Qana to leave and that Hezbollah bore responsibility for using the town center as a base of operations to fire rockets at Israel.
PM Olmert confirmed that he has seen video evidence (taken from IAF observation drones) that Qana was used as a Hezbollah base for launching hundreds of rockets at Israel.


You are a glutton for punishment aren't you? You continue to state the same old refuted arguments as if they were fact...


I'll spare you the punishment and myself the time of refuting your nonsense.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's a fairly bold claim. Do you have any evidence to support your theory?



Why else would someone start a "Why do people hate jews?" thread at this time when the jews are killing so many people?


No other explanation than to divert the attention from the crimes israel is commiting.

[Pardalis]

That is a false statement.

The government of the State of Israel, which represents many different segments of a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, has instructed their Defense Forces, whose members encompass Muslims, Jews, Christians and other religions, to act to stop unprovoked missile attacks upon the citizens of the State, by islamic terrorists who operate from within civilian areas of gaza and Lebanon.

So, Dustin, it is not "jews" who are acting as a group, it is Israelis of many different religious persuasions in the IDF; and they are not "blowing up" hundreds of innocent civilians -- the civilians are collateral to the IDF blowing up the terrorists who are illegally using these civilians for cover.

Funny that you make such a distinction now. Israel is commonly considered a Jewish state. And I noticed that usually whenever it is attacked, you don't make such a distinction. :rolleyes:

The International comitty has repeatedly asked for a cease-fire. Someone should stand down, one must have the courage to do the first move. Of course Hizbollah, by it's nature, will never do that, so it's up to Israel.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The International comitty has repeatedly asked for a cease-fire. Someone should stand down, one must have the courage to do the first move. Of course Hizbollah, by it's nature, will never do that, so it's up to Israel.



Oh no..Israel can't stand down. Afterall they're defending themselves. Why should they stop killing innocent children and defending themselves? Why doesn't the terrorest forces of hezbollah seek a diplomatic solution and ceacefire? You can't expect Israel to do it!

[webfusion]

Pardalis, when Israel is attacked by Islamic Jihadists, from wherever they raise their evil heads, their attacks are made against "the jews" --

That is the "reason d'etre" for brutality directed against Israel.
Do you question that?

AS for a cease-fire, fuggeddaboudit.
Return the hostages first, then we'll think about it.

Why doesn't the terrorist forces of hezbollah seek a diplomatic solution and ceacefire? -- dustin asks

Yeah, why don't they return the hostages and stand down from the tree they climbed into?

[bob_kark]

Why else would someone start a "Why do people hate jews?" thread at this time when the jews are killing so many people?


No other explanation than to divert the attention from the crimes israel is commiting.
Isn't is possible that not every person is aware of every cause for the discrimination of Jews through out history and they consider it worth discussing it with a group of people who may be able to enlighten them? Is there a history of senorpogo creating threads "to divert the attention from the crimes Israel is committing?"

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Pardalis, when Israel is attacked by Islamic Jihadists, from wherever they raise their evil heads, their attacks are made against "the jews" --

That is the "reason d'etre" for brutality directed against Israel.
Do you question that?

AS for a cease-fire, fuggeddaboudit.
Return the hostages first, then we'll think about it.

-- dustin asks

Yeah, why don't they return the hostages and stand down from the tree they climbed into?


Either Israel is morally superior here or it isn't. If it is..Then it should take be the one pushing for diplomatic solutions not the other way around.

If Israel is on the same tier as Hezbollah then they're both insane fanatical terrorist groups who are killing eachother and civilians dying is a given since they are both unstable.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. But it seems that's what you want.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Isn't is possible that not every person is aware of every cause for the discrimination of Jews through out history and they consider it worth discussing it with a group of people who may be able to enlighten them? Is there a history of senorpogo creating threads "to divert the attention from the crimes Israel is committing?"



There have been dozens of threads on that topic in the past. So him starting this thread here and now is an obvious red herring.

If you can't see the obviousness of that fact then i'm wasting my time with you.

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, when Israel is attacked by Islamic Jihadists, from wherever they raise their evil heads, their attacks are made against "the jews" --

That is the "reason d'etre" for brutality directed against Israel.
Do you question that?

Of course not. But I don't understand your logic. Aren't the Israeli bombings that are taking place right now in retaliation against these very same attacks against Jews? So it is Jews fighting back. You can't have it both ways.


AS for a cease-fire, fuggeddaboudit.
Return the hostages first, then we'll think about it.

Are three lives worth killing 500 innocent Lebanese?

This is a false dilemma, you know very well the Hizbollah will never return the hostages, give me a break. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to the Jewish cause. In my very limited knowledge of the issue, I think they deserve a country of their own. But you cannot justify these bombings anymore on these three hostages. Israel needs to take a step back.

[webfusion]

Dustin, you are wasting your time here, that much is obvious.

[bob_kark]

There have been dozens of threads on that topic in the past. So him starting this thread here and now is an obvious red herring.

If you can't see the obviousness of that fact then i'm wasting my time with you.
Has their been one dedicated to this topic since March 2006, when he joined? Is it possible he may have missed these previous threads? Why do you assume the worst? Again, does Senorpogo have a history of creating threads "to divert the attention from the crimes Israel is committing?"

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, you are wasting your time here, that much is obvious.



Whenever anyone tries to have a logical debate with a fanatical apologist like yourself, They are wasting their time.

[webfusion]

So it is Jews fighting back. You can't have it both ways.

What?

It is the IDF fighting. The armed forces of the State of Israel are composed of members other than jews. So, it is not 'jews' which are fighting, it is Druse, Bedouins, Christians, Bah'ais, Jews, Buddhists and Zorastrians for all I know.

Are three lives worth killing 500 innocent Lebanese?
This is a false dilemma, you know very well the Hizbollah will never return the hostages, give me a break.

You completely ignored the second front of this war (in gaza)? Why is that?
How did you disconnect?

As for the return of the hostages, I know nothing of what you are suggesting.

Israel is not stepping back -- if anything it is going to increase and intensify the bombing raids and send in more troops.
Israel's Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Sunday that Israel would continue its military assault on Hezbollah targets for at least two more weeks.

[Pardalis]

What?

It is the IDF fighting. The armed forces of the State of Israel are composed of members other than jews. So, it is not 'jews' which are fighting, it is Druse, Bedouins, Christians, Bah'ais, Jews, Buddhists and Zorastrians for all I know.

Yeah, but the people who are getting killed are also not just Hizbollah. Lebanon is also a diverse nation.


Israel is not stepping back -- if anything it is going to increase and intensify the bombing raids and send in more troops.


That is not going to help give Israel more credibility and sympathy.

[webfusion]

We aren't seeing credibility or sympathy.
We are seeking hostages back.

Yeah, but the people who are getting killed are also not just Hizbollah. Lebanon is also a diverse nation.


Strawman. I have not said that the IDF is 'killing only islamic jihadists'

Dustin, who has thing going here for the jews -- said that "the jews are blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians" and I pointed out that is a false statement. Because it is not "the jews" doing anything ----- it is the legitimate and duly organized Israel Defense Forces. They are not "the jews" any more than the US military is.

The fact that the State of Israel is administered by a Jewish majority and has a jewish cultural plurality, does not translate into the IDF being "the jews"

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/Minority_communities.html

[The Fool]

We aren't seeing credibility or sympathy.
We are seeking hostages back.



Strawman. I have not said that the IDF is 'killing only islamic jihadists'

Dustin, who has thing going here for the jews -- said that "the jews are blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians" and I pointed out that is a false statement. Because it is not "the jews" doing anything ----- it is the legitimate and duly organized Israel Defense Forces. They are not "the jews" any more than the US military is.

The fact that the State of Israel is administered by a Jewish majority and has a jewish cultural plurality, does not translate into the IDF being "the jews"

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/Minority_communities.html
Seems to me you can't have that one both ways web...if people attack Israel, If people fight the Idf.....They get refered to by Israelis as attacking "jews" or "the jews". You are happy to make Israel="The Jews" when it suits.

[webfusion]

No.

The IDF and Israelis are not the ones referring to the islamic jihadist terror attacks as 'attacks on jews' ----- no, the ones who are saying they are attacking jews are the terrorists themselves!

(See: "Al Qaeda Calls on All Moslems To Attack Jews ...")
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=108541

[Raphael]

Israel needs to take a step back.

Problem is, everytime Israel takes a step back, those that wish to destroy them take a step forward.
Dustin, at what point is Israel allowed to fight back?

[davefoc]

With respect, the issue of the appropriateness of the Israeli response to the kidnapping of its soldiers and the rocket attacks is only very vaguely related to the topic of this thread.

The issue is being discussed by considerably more people and in significantly more detail than here in other threads. If somebody is really looking for a discussion about the issue and not just an opportunity to let off steam then one of thsoe threads is probably a more useful place to discuss the topic.

Perhaps the topic of the conflation of Israel and the Jews might be relevant to this thread as a factor in world anti-semitism today. I brought it up previously but there didn't seem to be much interest in the topic then.

I think it is true that the Zionists made every effort to equate Judaism with Zionism and Israel. I think Sharon did this frequently and fairly recently. As a result, I don't think is too surprising that a lot of middle east rhetoric against Israel has taken on a very anti-semitic tone. To some degree this sounds like a case of "As ye sew so shall ye reap" to me.

[Mephisto]

Isn't is possible that not every person is aware of every cause for the discrimination of Jews through out history and they consider it worth discussing it with a group of people who may be able to enlighten them? Is there a history of senorpogo creating threads "to divert the attention from the crimes Israel is committing?"

I agree, Bob. Besides, senorpogo doesn't exactly sound Jewish to me. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Problem is, everytime Israel takes a step back, those that wish to destroy them take a step forward.
Dustin, at what point is Israel allowed to fight back?

It has painted itself into a corner. It stepped forward, kept millions under it's control, but they were not citizens. Now, it cannot step forward or back without causing more trouble.

[a_unique_person]

No.

The IDF and Israelis are not the ones referring to the islamic jihadist terror attacks as 'attacks on jews' ----- no, the ones who are saying they are attacking jews are the terrorists themselves!

(See: "Al Qaeda Calls on All Moslems To Attack Jews ...")
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=108541
Al Qaeda is not all Arabs.

[DreadNiK]

It has painted itself into a corner. It stepped forward, kept millions under it's control, but they were not citizens. Now, it cannot step forward or back without causing more trouble.

Yeah, how dare it be surrounded by genocidal fanatics. Of course, since it is the immediate fault of every man, woman and child in the country, regardless of age, they should all expect their government to just sit there and do nothing while rockets are fired at their homes.

[a_unique_person]

Not what I said at all.

[DreadNiK]

Not what I said at all.

Well, I had a lot of difficulty working out what you were trying to say, so it is unsuprising. It seemed to say Israel can't do anything but cause trouble...but the bit about citizens made little sense to me, so I just had to guess...

[webfusion]

What did you say, a_u_p?

[Mycroft]

# The people didn't like them from financial envy and because they had strong families and closed networks.

# The government didn't like them because the family-fortune system indirectly opposed the socialistic working class structure and made it look bad. Furthermore, the Jews didn't fit in with the pure race program the Nazis had in mind.

Closed networks? Family-fortune system?

[davefoc]

What did you say, a_u_p?
I believe that AUP's point was that he believed that Israel's past actions had led to some of the difficulties that it faces now.

Whether it is a valid criticism or not, it is a common one. But it also seems to be largely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

ETA:However I see that this is the third page of this thread and I suppose by the JREF unofficial rule book all digressions are allowed when the third page is reached.

So discuss away, I don't think there's ever been a thread on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict before, so perhaps it's time for one.

[Thomas]

Closed networks? Family-fortune system?
Closed networks are normal for immigrants in minority. Especially when they are not wanted, and since anti-semitism already was very common in Germany in the 20ies when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, then I consider it to have been unavoidable. The Jews were more or less forced to stick together in closed networks - and whether they would had done it anyway must be left to the realm of speculation. Furthermore, it didn't make it any better that new laws deprived them from all their rights in the 30ies.

As for the family-fortune system, then I must admit that my sources are not as strong as they could have been. They are heavily based on historical tales that takes place in Germany in the 20ies and 30ies. It just makes sense to me, because that is what immigrants do where I come from, and they originate from the same general region as the Jews. Perhaps you have some good sources on this that are less anecdotal?

Slightly off-topic question, but perhaps relevant as to why "people hate Jews", and a question I have asked myself a few times which some of you might can answer (and hopefully justify): Why didn't the Gypsies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos) get their own state as well? They were also mass-murdered by the Nazis, and proportional to their population, they actually suffered a greater loss than the Jews. I believe they originate from a part of India, so it wouldn't have been that hard to locate their "homeland" for them either. They are still more or less in flight today, and rarely appreciated by the countries that house them.

[Meadmaker]

I think comparing the Jews and the Gypsies shows the answer. If you compare the two cultures, they have almost nothing in common, except for the fact that they managed to keep a cultural identity despite not having a country of their own. They were always "foreigners" no matter where they went, and they were always persecuted. A lot of people have come up with reasons related to usury, religion, etc, for the hatred of the Jews, but in my opinion, those are excuses, not reasons. I say this because few if any of those reasons exist for hating the gypsies, but people hated them anyway.

As for the question of why the gypsies didn't get their own homeland after Hitler, there are a few answers. First, there was nowhere in the world with a gypsy majority. While the land at the east end of the Mediterranean had an overall Arab majority, there was a section of it that could be gerrymandered with a Jewish majority. Second, there was nowhere in the world where the gypsies themselves considered "home". The name is a derivative from "Egyptian", but they didn't come from there (and they don't call themselves that, anyway) but although the gypsies revered the idea of their ancient homeland, no one, including them, knew where it was. It was linguistic study that eventually provided the key, but I don't know when that happened. At any rate, they hadn't spent 1500 years saying "Next year somewhere in Northern India".

But I have wondered where displaced gypsies were resettled, assuming any significant number survived the genocide.

[davefoc]

All reasonable answers I think Meadmaker, but I think also the fact is that there was just too few of them to put together the kind of political apparatus that would secure a homeland and/or reparations.

I stand to be corrected, but I believe that there was no program to provide reparations for the Roma after WWII. I think most of the Jewish reparations actually went to the state of Israel which did not distribute them to individuals for that matter either.

[gtc]

Were their Roma (is that the correct term?) who had enough political experience to form a country?

If the Jews did not have the political leaders from at least the 1800s, who could found a nation and argue and negotiate with the international community, then I wonder if they would have ended up with a state.

I wonder if that also might help explain why the Kurds, Druze and Zoroastrians etc don't have a state.

This is more a question than an assertion.

[a_unique_person]

But I have wondered where displaced gypsies were resettled, assuming any significant number survived the genocide.

If you watch British film and TV, a few of them still wander around Great Britain.

[gtc]

If you watch British film and TV, a few of them still wander around Great Britain.

Are they the same people though?

[brodski]

Are they the same people though? Not really, although the UK and Ireland do have their own traveling societies and traditions, there is often a lot of friction between these traveling communities and settled communities.
Most Romanies ("gypsies") in Europe are in southern and eastern Europe, and most of them live in settled communities, they are also probably the most discriminated against group in Europe.

[Thomas]

Good answers. Although I'm still in doubt about a few of the things stated by some of you, but they're not important.

[senorpogo]

This thread was simply started at this particular time because the Jews are killing so many people. The thread starter just wants the attention taken away from the fact the jews are murdering hundreds of people and wants people to remember jews are discriminated against.

You figured me out. It was always my plan to distract these free-thinking, open-minded sceptics from a widely-reported, hugely-discussed war by starting a thread on a message board. Now, with their attention turned away from CNN, Foxnews, the BBC, and the rest of the world's media and firmly placed on my mighty thread, I can carry out the rest of the agenda of my Zionist masters.

:degrin:

MWWAAHAHA!

[bob_kark]

You figured me out. It was always my plan to distract these free-thinking, open-minded sceptics from a widely-reported, hugely-discussed war by starting a thread on a message board. Now, with their attention turned away from CNN, Foxnews, the BBC, and the rest of the world's media and firmly placed on my mighty thread, I can carry out the rest of the agenda of my Zionist masters.

:degrin:

MWWAAHAHA!
Damn, I guess I was wrong...

[robinson]

Wow. And I thought it was because of circumcision. Thanks for the info.

[MaGZ]

That's something I've been thinking about as of late. In the modern world, a lot of is has to do with Israel or Zionism, but it seems to me - with the average knowledge of history that I have - the Jews have been a targeted group since the get go. Why? Is a large portion come from some Christian's view of Jews as "Christ-killers"? Is it because Jews are seen as being affluent and well off? Why do people hate Jews?

The Jewish Problem
http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs974b.html

[MaGZ]

No. Christians are currently being persecuted by the Jewish controlled media with their pro-drug, pro-gay, anti-family agenda.

I will soon be presenting the names of the Jews who control Hollywood.

[Policenaut]

Nice racist article there.

Quoted from the article:

"the Jews as a whole are destroying our society. Their policies are poison to us."
"Otherwise they will destroy us as surely as they have destroyed every other society in which they were given free rein."

What societies have been destroyed by Jews? It would seem many Jewish societies have been destroyed throughout history.

[MaGZ]

Of course not. But I don't understand your logic. Aren't the Israeli bombings that are taking place right now in retaliation against these very same attacks against Jews? So it is Jews fighting back. You can't have it both ways.



Are three lives worth killing 500 innocent Lebanese?

This is a false dilemma, you know very well the Hizbollah will never return the hostages, give me a break. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to the Jewish cause. In my very limited knowledge of the issue, I think they deserve a country of their own. But you cannot justify these bombings anymore on these three hostages. Israel needs to take a step back.

In you mind what is the Jewish cause?

Also, to what effect has a steady diet of holocaust propaganda dedicated you to the Jewish cause?

[Pardalis]

In you mind what is the Jewish cause?

Also, to what effect has a steady diet of holocaust propaganda dedicated you to the Jewish cause?


Breach of civility and Rule 8 violation removed.


:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Cleon]

Please, everyone, keep it civil. Remember thy Membership Agreements.

[gtc]

In you mind what is the Jewish cause?

Also, to what effect has a steady diet of holocaust propaganda dedicated you to the Jewish cause?

MaGZ.

First prove that there is a steady diet of holocaust propoganda. Then ask what effect that steady diet has.

You aren't exactly covering your race in glory.

[Miss Anthrope]

They asked me to be a mod because I'm a JOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[marksman]

Why do people hate Jews?

Because antisemites are secretly being manipuated by the Jews

On a more serious note, I highly recommend the book Constantine's Sword, which details the history of European antisemitism. Antisemitism far predates Christianity.

It really begins in pre-Christian Rome and the root of it was that the Jews refused to assimilate into the Empire and become loyal polytheists like all the other conquered peoples. After all, Rome was willing to adopt "Jehovah" and make him an aspect of Jupiter. How ungrateful of Jews not to worship Minerva and Janus and Neptune! Plus, they refuse to eat with their neighbors just because the Romans really enjoyed shellfish and pork. So they seemed inhospitable.

It began there and then just escalated. When Rome destroyed the Temple, it engaged in its own holocaust, killing proportionally more Jews than the Germans did in the 1940's. And of course, they're the ones who kicked the Jews out of Israel in the first place (well, second place -- Babylon did it first)

[Pardalis]

Plus, they refuse to eat with their neighbors just because the Romans really enjoyed shellfish and pork. So they seemed inhospitable.

So bad etiquette started it all? Damn, I should start taking these things more seriously.

[a_unique_person]

Because antisemites are secretly being manipuated by the Jews

On a more serious note, I highly recommend the book Constantine's Sword, which details the history of European antisemitism. Antisemitism far predates Christianity.

It really begins in pre-Christian Rome and the root of it was that the Jews refused to assimilate into the Empire and become loyal polytheists like all the other conquered peoples. After all, Rome was willing to adopt "Jehovah" and make him an aspect of Jupiter. How ungrateful of Jews not to worship Minerva and Janus and Neptune! Plus, they refuse to eat with their neighbors just because the Romans really enjoyed shellfish and pork. So they seemed inhospitable.

It began there and then just escalated. When Rome destroyed the Temple, it engaged in its own holocaust, killing proportionally more Jews than the Germans did in the 1940's. And of course, they're the ones who kicked the Jews out of Israel in the first place (well, second place -- Babylon did it first)

That wasn't anti-semitism. The Romans were equal opportunity conquerers and subjugaters. In some ways, the Jews got off lightly, they were only banished. The Carthaginians were wiped off the face of the earth for their resistance to Rome. The entire druid population was killed (they were easy to find, since they mostly hung out on the one island.)

The Jewish culture is amazingly enduring, due to it's the amazing depth and richness. That has meant it has endured where other cultures would have just disappeared due to assimilation. While it has meant that they have endured, it also meant they were treated with suspicion.

The Babylonian times were equal for barbarity on all sides, no one singled out the Jews for attacks. Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, they just went around conquering, killing and pillaging in general. History is full such events. It is interesting to note the claims of Joshua for wiping out whole races. (even though it appears such claims were more bravado than fact).


Anti Semitism, that is, just hating Jews for being Jews, started in the Christian times, when the curious reason was that they supposedly were responsible for the death of Jesus, even though he wanted to be killed, according to the twisted and illogical theories of xianity.

[Liszt]

why no mention of even a little Jewish history in this thread?

The original antisemitism was directed at Sephardi Jews, who were called everything from "Christ Killers" (not true for 2 reasons - 1, it was the Romans, so let´s blame the Italians! and 2. The NT is a myth anyway) to "Blood drinkers" also not true. The term antisemitism was coined by a German racist in the early 1800s. Sephardi Jews are semitic.

But this changed in around the 1900. Sephardis just did not weild power. So a new enemy (based on zionism) appeared, who were Ashkenazi Jews.

Ashkenazis are not related to Sephardi´s. They have white skin, for example. The connection is Judaism - religiion, not race. King Bulan of Khazaria converted to Judasim in 740AD, and thus was born Ashkenizi Jews (near the caucus mountains, where the word caucasian comes from)

These were the chaps killed by Hitler (plus many other peoples, of course). And this leads to the problem - sensibly, the Jewish homeland should have been a bit of Germany (Bavaria? It´s lovely there), which would suitably punish Germany, and not hassel the Palestinians. It is also nearer the Khazarian homeland (this is why yiddish sounds like a cross between German and Russian) Also, no one takes the Bible seriously, and it should not be used to justify creation of states. But is it this group who are today targeted by anti Jews - the non semetic peope who´s ancestors converted.

I´ve had some problems explaining this to my Christian friends, who tell me that Jesus was a white man (look at the paintings!) and this is why he was persecuted. Seriously, this has happened.

The big problem now is that people have been born in modern Israel, and it is just too late to suggest a better place, it would be another blow to the Israelis.

also, the use of the word antisemitic implies a 2000 year old conspiracy, even though most stopped blaming semitic Jews 100 years ago and switched to blaming non semetic for the world´s ills

Is this being pedantic? Sorry if it is. It doesn´t really answer the question either.

Anyway, most racism seems to me to stem from the Christian fundamentalists. not enough fun, too much mental.

[Upchurch]

I haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned "Fran Drescher's laugh" as an answer to the thread title question?

[This Guy]

Crap! Am I supposed to hate Jews?

Is it too late?

I'll try real hard!


$&@!(*@#&^((!@__**&#$(!@ JEWS!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

(How's that for a start?)



;)

[corplinx]

I heard the Jews were responsible for all the Police Academy movies.

[marksman]

That wasn't anti-semitism.
Nor did I say it was. I said it was the roots of antisemitism.

The Carthaginians were wiped off the face of the earth for their resistance to Rome.
No, they weren't. The City of Carthage was salted, but the people, the Phoenicians (from whose name we get "Punic" for the "Punic Wars") lived on for another century until the Romans incorporated Syria (the last bastion of Phoenician culture) into the Empire. At that point, unlike Jews, the Phoenicians assimilated into Roman culture and began to identify as Romans. Had they not, they too would likely have been exiled.

The entire druid population was killed (they were easy to find, since they mostly hung out on the one island.)
No, they weren't (http://www.religioustolerance.org/druid1.htm). The druids themselves were slaughtered, but the peoples (the "population") continued to live in Northern Germany and Britain, and druidism survived well into the first millennium. They too were eventually absorbed into Christendom.

Anti Semitism, that is, just hating Jews for being Jews, started in the Christian times, when the curious reason was that they supposedly were responsible for the death of Jesus, even though he wanted to be killed, according to the twisted and illogical theories of xianity.
That's just not true. Jews were hated by Romans for being Jews. Romans were equal opportunity haters, but they hated each culture for different reasons. For the Phoenicians/Carthaginians, it was their arrogance. For the druids, it was their barbarism (from Roman eyes). For the Jews it was their monotheism (and that is hating Jews for being Jews). One by one, the other cultures were assimilated, leaving only the antisemitism.

The seeds of antisemitism were planted by the pagan Romans before Constantine made Christianity the Imperial Religion in the fourth century. Which doesn't forgive Christian antisemitism. It places into historical context.

[Liszt]

I heard the Jews were responsible for all the Police Academy movies.

no, that was the Stonecutters

"who made Steven Guttenburg a star...we did!"

[This Guy]

I heard the Jews were responsible for all the Police Academy movies.

Well, if I had known that, I woulda started hating them years ago!





;)

[Upchurch]

"who made Steven Guttenburg a star...we did!"
"who made Steve Guttenburg a star? ...we do!"

You have been demoted to member #3,438.

[Liszt]

"who made Steve Guttenburg a star? ...we do!"

You have been demoted to member #3,438.

lol, you got me. I may even go back and edit my previous coment - an unforgivable mistake.

[Solus]

"who made Steve Guttenburg a star? ...we do!"

You have been demoted to member #3,438.

n-cCfZrkCFI

:cool:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Jews killed Farfur...

[Cleon]

The Jews killed Farfur...

"You bastards!" :D

[Mycroft]

why no mention of even a little Jewish history in this thread?

The original antisemitism was directed at Sephardi Jews, who were called everything from "Christ Killers" (not true for 2 reasons - 1, it was the Romans, so let´s blame the Italians! and 2. The NT is a myth anyway) to "Blood drinkers" also not true. The term antisemitism was coined by a German racist in the early 1800s. Sephardi Jews are semitic.

But this changed in around the 1900. Sephardis just did not weild power. So a new enemy (based on zionism) appeared, who were Ashkenazi Jews.

Ashkenazis are not related to Sephardi´s. They have white skin, for example. The connection is Judaism - religiion, not race. King Bulan of Khazaria converted to Judasim in 740AD, and thus was born Ashkenizi Jews (near the caucus mountains, where the word caucasian comes from)

These were the chaps killed by Hitler (plus many other peoples, of course). And this leads to the problem - sensibly, the Jewish homeland should have been a bit of Germany (Bavaria? It´s lovely there), which would suitably punish Germany, and not hassel the Palestinians. It is also nearer the Khazarian homeland (this is why yiddish sounds like a cross between German and Russian) Also, no one takes the Bible seriously, and it should not be used to justify creation of states. But is it this group who are today targeted by anti Jews - the non semetic peope who´s ancestors converted.

I´ve had some problems explaining this to my Christian friends, who tell me that Jesus was a white man (look at the paintings!) and this is why he was persecuted. Seriously, this has happened.

The big problem now is that people have been born in modern Israel, and it is just too late to suggest a better place, it would be another blow to the Israelis.

also, the use of the word antisemitic implies a 2000 year old conspiracy, even though most stopped blaming semitic Jews 100 years ago and switched to blaming non semetic for the world´s ills

Is this being pedantic? Sorry if it is. It doesn´t really answer the question either.

Anyway, most racism seems to me to stem from the Christian fundamentalists. not enough fun, too much mental.

Wow. Wrong on so many levels.

[Dumbledore]

Simple question where is the proof that jews control the media? Need I remind you that jews working in Hollywood and the media, and some having ownership in media companies hardly constitutes a media controlled conspiracy. Speaking of which it is hard for me believe that the fundie christens are being persecuted in this country, for this group currently has the president by the balls and is having laws and policies solely written for their beliefs and comfort. I think the real problem that fundie christens have with the media is simply because of the self righteous distance then choose to place themselves at from the rest of their culture and society and therefore the media.

[Dumbledore]

Thomas thanks for your post, but there is not more civilized way of being bigoted and racist. Europe as well as the rest of the world continues this line of thinking and living even though the holocaust as well and many other historic atrocities have shown us the civilized side of accepted bigotry and racism.

[marksman]

why no mention of even a little Jewish history in this thread?
Hey, I posted a detailed history and even cited a respectable source!

The original antisemitism was directed at Sephardi Jews
There were no Sephardic Jews until afte the antisemitic Roman diaspora.

to "Blood drinkers" also not true.
The blood libel was commenced in Britain and that's where Ashkenazi Jews were living, not Sephardic.

The term antisemitism was coined by a German racist in the early 1800s.
Yes, the antisemite Wilhelm Marr coined the phrase in a book railing against German Jews. Those Jews are Ashkenazi.

But this changed in around the 1900. Sephardis just did not weild power. So a new enemy (based on zionism) appeared, who were Ashkenazi Jews.
The term was coined in 1879 by Marr about Ashkenazi Jews in Germany. And while Marr was indeed railing against Zionism, that was only a small part of his screed (it also included the usual tropes about banking and shadow governments).

Ashkenazis are not related to Sephardi´s.
Sepharim are not merely semitic. Traditionally, Sephardic Jews hailed from the Mediterranean. Italian, Spanish and South American Jews are considered Sephardim. And they are related. The Ashkenazis originated from Jews fleeing northward from Spain, Portugal and Italy in the wake of the Inquisition at the end of the 1400's.

The Jews in the Middle East are known as Mizrahi Jews. And as far as I know, until World War II, nobody using the word "antisemitism" ever meant to refer to them.

King Bulan of Khazaria converted to Judasim in 740AD, and thus was born Ashkenizi Jews
That is a myth. There is no evidence of Khazar ancestry for Ashkenazi Jewry. It is theory devised and popularized in the 19th century, 9 centuries after the sacking and destruction of the Khazar kingdom. It is based on outmoded theories of descendance.

A 2000 genetic study comparing the genes of Ashkenazi, Sephardic Jews and Arabs indicates they all have a common ancestry.
-Hammer, M. F.; A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T. Karafet, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheim, M. A. Jobling, T. Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonné-Tamir (May 9 2000). "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It is also nearer the Khazarian homeland (this is why yiddish sounds like a cross between German and Russian)
No, it sounds like a combination of German and Hebrew because that's what it is, and it didn't develop until the 16th and 17th centuries (not surprisingly, within a century after the Jews were kicked out of Spain, Portugal and Italy). There's no Russian in it at all, as far as I know. And Sephardim speak Ladino, a combination of Hebrew and Spanish.

[Cleon]

Wow, I didn't know anyone was still pushing the "Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars" bit. That theory's been dead and gone for years, even before we were able to track down and study the various genetic markers.

[Dumbledore]

Dustin Kesselberg How exactly are Jews blowing up hundreds of innocent people? What does this remark even mean? Are claiming that Jews spontaneously kill innocent people without cause or provocation? Furthermore are you claiming that Jews are somehow different from other people?

[davefoc]

Mycroft's response to Liszt's post about Jewish history
Wow. Wrong on so many levels.

It does seem that Liszt has put forth some claims that are at odds with modern views about Jewish history.

Ashkenazis are not genetically related to other Jews.
This seems to be false based on DNA studies. Ashkenazi Jews are related both to middle east Jews and to Europeans.

Sephardic Jews are semitic
This is true, but the term Sephardic is usually used to describe Jews who live or whose ancestors lived in or near Spain. They had a language (ladino) that fulfilled the same function as Yiddish did for the Ashkenazi Jews. Mizrahi Jews might have been a term more closely related to what Liszt had in mind when he used the term Sephardic Jews.

Anyway, most racism seems to me to stem from the Christian fundamentalists. not enough fun, too much mental.
It seems that antisemitism of some type is fairly widely distributed and the majority originates in areas where Christian fundamentalists are in the minority.

[Gurdur]

All of that post is more or less true except for the following:
.....Sepharim are not merely semitic.
this is roughly meaningless; no Jew at all regardless of branch would be "merely Semitic".
No, it sounds like a combination of German and Hebrew because that's what it is, and it didn't develop until the 16th and 17th centuries (not surprisingly, within a century after the Jews were kicked out of Spain, Portugal and Italy). There's no Russian in it at all, as far as I know. And Sephardim speak Ladino, a combination of Hebrew and Spanish.
This is wrong on the following:

1) there are 3 different main branches of Yiddish. The Yiddish branch spoken in western Russia and eastern Poland actually had a lot of Slavic words incorporated into it, including Russian ones; that branch has almost linguistically died out.

2) Not all Sephardi spoke Ladino by a long shot. Many communities of Sephardi spoke other dialects/languages/argots based on Hebrew mixed with other languages, such as Farsi.

[Dumbledore]

So Dustin Israel should sit back as a terrorist group launches missiles at its civilians. How would the US respond if terrorists were launching missiles at us from Mexico or Canada? We nearly had a nuclear war over the Cuban missile crisis, and that was just the threat of nuclear missiles off our shore.

[robinson]

I don't hate Jews. In fact, I really really like a lot of people who are Jewish, even though I didn't know they were Jews.

I don't really hate anybody these days. Can we change this topic to "Why do people dislike Jews?" Hate is such an ugly emotion.

[Cleon]

No, it sounds like a combination of German and Hebrew because that's what it is, and it didn't develop until the 16th and 17th centuries (not surprisingly, within a century after the Jews were kicked out of Spain, Portugal and Italy). There's no Russian in it at all, as far as I know. And Sephardim speak Ladino, a combination of Hebrew and Spanish.

That's actually not entirely correct.

As far as history goes: Yiddish is almost a thousand years old. The oldest written evidence of it, a siddur that says "may a good day come to him who carries this prayer book into the synagogue" in Yiddish, dates back to the 13th century.

Second, linguistically, Yiddish's root is Germanic, and it (obviously) has a lot of Hebrew influence, but it doesn't stop there. Depending on the regional dialect, Yiddish also has a lot of influence from Russian, Polish, and other central/eastern-european languages. (This also points away from the Khazar "theory" of Ashkenazim; The Khazars were Turkic, and spoke a distinctly Turkic language that is neither related to German nor Russian--nor Yiddish.)

Regarding the Sephardim; the Sephardim spoke/speak a number of languages. Ladino is the main one; however, it's not just Spanish and Hebrew, there is also a large Arabic component, as much of the language developed while the Sephardim lived under Muslim rule in Al-Andaluz (Andalucia). The Sephardim actually did pretty well under Muslim rule in Spain, especially when compared to their experience with the Christians, and after the expulsion many of them settled in various parts of the Arab/Muslim world; Morocco, Palestine, Turkey, etc. (As a result of this, to this day Mizrahim--Arab Jews--are often mistakenly referred to as Sephardim.)

[parky76]

Until 100 years ago anti-Semitism was almost completely a christian phenomenon. I have no doubt that had christianity not taken hold in the roman empire and spread through europe, anti-semitism would not exist today.

as long as one jew exists, the christian philosophy is challenged. as long as one of jesus' fellow jews exists and says "uh uh...sorry...jesus was NOT the messiah"...there will be anti-semitism.

[Dumbledore]

No, as Dustin shows us people really do hate Jews for various reasons, antisemitism is just as real as any other form of racism.

[Dumbledore]

I don't think that you can simply blame christens for antisemitism. While their religion does hold some antisemitic views most christens have move passed these views. The real roots of antisemitism and its existence today are multifaceted and cannot be simply blamed on one group or cause.

[LibraryLady]

why no mention of even a little Jewish history in this thread?

The original antisemitism was directed at Sephardi Jews, who were called everything from "Christ Killers" (not true for 2 reasons - 1, it was the Romans, so let´s blame the Italians! and 2. The NT is a myth anyway) to "Blood drinkers" also not true. The term antisemitism was coined by a German racist in the early 1800s. Sephardi Jews are semitic.

But this changed in around the 1900. Sephardis just did not weild power. So a new enemy (based on zionism) appeared, who were Ashkenazi Jews.

Ashkenazis are not related to Sephardi´s. They have white skin, for example. The connection is Judaism - religiion, not race. King Bulan of Khazaria converted to Judasim in 740AD, and thus was born Ashkenizi Jews (near the caucus mountains, where the word caucasian comes from)

How does this explain Russian progroms? Ashkenazi Jews were discriminated against and killed just as the Sephardics were in Spain during the Inquisition. (Incidentally I am Ashkenazi)

The split between the two groups (and there are more than just these two groups) occured during the Diaspora when some Jews went to the Mediterranean countries including Spain, and some went to northern Europe, Germany, Poland, Russia, etc. There is no more racial difference between them than you would find between any other two cohesive groups. I was talking yesterday to a blonde Sephardic lady who obligingly spoke some Ladino for me.

These were the chaps killed by Hitler (plus many other peoples, of course). And this leads to the problem - sensibly, the Jewish homeland should have been a bit of Germany (Bavaria? It´s lovely there), which would suitably punish Germany, and not hassel the Palestinians.

But would have hassled the Germans, right?

It is also nearer the Khazarian homeland (this is why yiddish sounds like a cross between German and Russian)

Yiddish is a cross between German, Russian, Hebrew, and any other language that's handy at the moment. Different Jews speak different Yiddish--my parents spoke a heavily Russian variety.

Also, no one takes the Bible seriously, and it should not be used to justify creation of states. But is it this group who are today targeted by anti Jews - the non semetic peope who´s ancestors converted.

Who doesn't take the Bible seriously? Have you turned on the television on Sunday morning lately? Or are you referring to the Germans or Khazhaks? And I am Ashkenazi and Semitic.

I´ve had some problems explaining this to my Christian friends, who tell me that Jesus was a white man (look at the paintings!) and this is why he was persecuted. Seriously, this has happened.

He was persecuted because he was white? I've always thought Jesus would have looked something like my oldest brother.

Snip

also, the use of the word antisemitic implies a 2000 year old conspiracy, even though most stopped blaming semitic Jews 100 years ago and switched to blaming non semetic for the world´s ills

Which would explain the Holocaust 60 years ago?

Is this being pedantic? Sorry if it is. It doesn´t really answer the question either.

No, it's being uninformed.

[marksman]

All of that post is more or less true except for the following:

this is roughly meaningless; no Jew at all regardless of branch would be "merely Semitic".
That's a good point. Thanks for the clarification.

1) there are 3 different main branches of Yiddish. The Yiddish branch spoken in western Russia and eastern Poland actually had a lot of Slavic words incorporated into it, including Russian ones; that branch has almost linguistically died out.
I didn't know that! Thanks!

2) Not all Sephardi spoke Ladino by a long shot. Many communities of Sephardi spoke other dialects/languages/argots based on Hebrew mixed with other languages, such as Farsi.
I didn't mean to be so broad. I apologize. I actually know quite a few Persian Jews and they would beat me senseless (metaphorically) for my careless words about Sephardic Jews. (Although they're the ones who introduced me to the term "Mizrahi Jews" after metaphorically beating me senseless when I referred to them as Sephardic.)

That's actually not entirely correct.
Gurdur beat you to it!

[Cleon]

Gurdur beat you to it!

:D .יאָ, אָבער ער ניט קענט ייִדיש

[parky76]

One man writes one book about Jews in Khazaria, and suddenly all Ashkenazi Jews are from the Khazars. Wow.

The Nazis claimed that the Jews were an evil Semitic tribe...now anti-Semites say that we are not Semites at all...but Turko-Caucasians.

Whats next....are we Japanese?

[MaGZ]

MaGZ.

First prove that there is a steady diet of holocaust propoganda. Then ask what effect that steady diet has.

You aren't exactly covering your race in glory.

List of Holocaust films
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films

Are there any films about the Armenian genocide?
Any films about the Soviet starvation of the Ukraine?
Any films about the expulsion of Arabs in Palestine in 1948?

I will let you in on a secret. The Jews control Hollywood.

[parky76]

i fail to see how "Amistad" helped the Jews.
i fail to see how "Dances with Wolves" helped the Jews.
i fail to see how "Malcolm X" helped the Jews.
i fail to see how "Braveheart", "Dr. Shevago", "Roots", "Glory", "7 Years in Tibet", "Come See the Paradise", "Ghandi", "Mississippi Burning", and all the other movies about ethnicities suffering...helped the Jews.

There have been many movies about people suffering, not just about the Jews.

Once again, MaGz, you are wrong.

[MaGZ]

Simple question where is the proof that jews control the media? Need I remind you that jews working in Hollywood and the media, and some having ownership in media companies hardly constitutes a media controlled conspiracy. Speaking of which it is hard for me believe that the fundie christens are being persecuted in this country, for this group currently has the president by the balls and is having laws and policies solely written for their beliefs and comfort. I think the real problem that fundie christens have with the media is simply because of the self righteous distance then choose to place themselves at from the rest of their culture and society and therefore the media.

I will soon have an updated list of Jews who run things in Hollywood. I will post it in the near future. The thread will be titled "Jewish Control of the Media".

Who Rules America?
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/

[a_unique_person]

Nor did I say it was. I said it was the roots of antisemitism.



It wasn't the roots either. It was imperialism, pure and simple, played inhumanely, against numerous races. It was brutal and unfair to the Jews, but it wasn't the roots of anti semitism, any more than it was the roots of hatred of other ethnic groups. It is a testament to Judaism's resilience that it has survived so long, when so many other cultures from the same times have disappeared long ago. The Romans themselves, Etruscans, Aztecs, Ancient Greeks, Celts, Carthaginians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Hittites, Macedonians, and many, many more, all gone, long ago.

[bigred]

That's something I've been thinking about as of late. In the modern world, a lot of is has to do with Israel or Zionism, but it seems to me - with the average knowledge of history that I have - the Jews have been a targeted group since the get go. Why? Is a large portion come from some Christian's view of Jews as "Christ-killers"? Is it because Jews are seen as being affluent and well off? Why do people hate Jews?
Why do people think "people" hate Jews? You mean the world on the whole? They don't. Mostly it's Arabs/Muslims, and you know how loony they are. :cool:

I mean cmon - how can you hate a group that gave us the 3 Stooges, not to mention Capt Kirk and Spock?

[a_unique_person]

Why do people think "people" hate Jews? You mean the world on the whole? They don't. Mostly it's Arabs/Muslims, and you know how loony they are. :cool:

I mean cmon - how can you hate a group that gave us the 3 Stooges, not to mention Capt Kirk and Spock?

The holocaust was committed by xian Europe.

[Cleon]

Are there any films about the Armenian genocide?
Any films about the Soviet starvation of the Ukraine?
Any films about the expulsion of Arabs in Palestine in 1948?

Er...many. On all counts. Seriously.

[robinson]

Spock is Jewish???

I thought he was a Vulcan.

[bigred]

Until 100 years ago anti-Semitism was almost completely a christian phenomenon. I have no doubt that had christianity not taken hold in the roman empire and spread through europe, anti-semitism would not exist today.

as long as one jew exists, the christian philosophy is challenged. as long as one of jesus' fellow jews exists and says "uh uh...sorry...jesus was NOT the messiah"...there will be anti-semitism.
Didn't exactly ace your world history classes did ya?

Well I'm really shocked that - at JREF of all places - some people grabbed this like a dog to a favorite bone and turned it into Christian-bashing. I'm surprised you haven't blamed them for the ebola virus and El Nino too.

:rolleyes:

PS you might try learning a little about something before attacking it. That's not how Christianity is at all; I've no doubt most Christians would find your statements laughably inaccurate. In fact, I suspect it's much more like you would be if you belonged to it - ie live for the attack. How wonderful your beliefs must be to have instilled that attitude in you.

[Elizabeth I]

I heard the Jews were responsible for all the Police Academy movies.

Well, MaGZ does say the Jooos control Hollywood. :con2:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Spock is Jewish???

I thought he was a Vulcan.

"All right, what kind of atmosphere are you reading, Vulcan Jew?"

[parky76]

Human beings have a natural tendency to want to single out those who are slightly different. Whether its Jews, blacks, Muslims, Gypsies, Irish, people will always find a group to make a scapegoat out of. The only reason why hatred of Jews is so widespread is that Jews are everywhere.

When someone hates another person, it is not the hated person that has the problem.

[Jeff Corey]

Spock is Jewish???

I thought he was a Vulcan.
Nope. jewish.Kirk is too, his grandparents were Ukranian jews.

[marksman]

It wasn't the roots either. It was imperialism, pure and simple
And imperialism cannot be the root of antisemitism??

it wasn't the roots of anti semitism, any more than it was the roots of hatred of other ethnic groups.
Why can't it be the root of hatred for multiple groups?

This argument doesn't make any sense at all.

For example, Athens can be described as the root of modern democracy. Athens can also be described as the root of theater.

[marksman]

Spock is Jewish???

I thought he was a Vulcan.

So McCoy was an antisemite?!

[robinson]

So Jews rule the Universe as well. Something ain't right here.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So Dustin Israel should sit back as a terrorist group launches missiles at its civilians. How would the US respond if terrorists were launching missiles at us from Mexico or Canada? We nearly had a nuclear war over the Cuban missile crisis, and that was just the threat of nuclear missiles off our shore.

If some group of crazies in the U.S. started launching missiles from the United States into Canada, what should Canada do? Firstly they should try to work with the U.S. Govt to get these people stopped and arrested. If that fails they should come into U.S. territory and try to stop them themselves. However should they start launching missiles themselves into U.S. cities, killing numerous civilians in the process? No. BTW, Israel admited they made numerous strategic mistakes during that conflict.

No, as Dustin shows us people really do hate Jews for various reasons, antisemitism is just as real as any other form of racism.

Probably more prevalent than other forms of racism, especially in the Middle East.

[robinson]

Jews are not a race, so how can you be a racist for hating Jews? Wouldn't it be a religious intolerance thing?

[blndrhed]

That's quite the generalization to say people hate jews. A lot of jews are universally respected for their brilliance. John Stewart is very popular because of his brilliant intellect. Einstein was universally respected by practically everyone. Of course they are considered as humanists to most. Stewart to be openly skeptical of Middle East issues. It's the pro-Israel dogmatists who tend to be most unpopular. Never acknowledging the faults of your country, and overt nationalism or ethnocentrism, tends to turn people off. Much like a lot of people in the US who deny our countries misdeeds are unpopular internationally.

[robinson]

Don't forget, I'm a Jew lover, so don't kill me for asking.

[blndrhed]

Jews are not a race, so how can you be a racist for hating Jews? Wouldn't it be a religious intolerance thing?
Actually Jews are considered a race. You are considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish. There are a lot of secular Jews who are atheists. That's kind of part of the Jewish Conspiracy thing actually.

[robinson]

Anybody can become a Jew. Race has nothing to do with it. I checked. Jews are of many racial backgrounds.

"You are considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish". Well, that isn't 100% true. If you are a male, you also have to be circumcised to be a Jew.

[Miss Anthrope]

Actually Jews are considered a race. You are considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish. There are a lot of secular Jews who are atheists. That's kind of part of the Jewish Conspiracy thing actually.

Exactly. I'm am one of these. An ethnic Jew. Halfbreed, really, but born via the Jewish half.

[a_unique_person]

And imperialism cannot be the root of antisemitism??



No, because Imperialism is about subjugating and ruling anyone you can think of. It has nothing to do with Jews specifically.



Why can't it be the root of hatred for multiple groups?

This argument doesn't make any sense at all.

For example, Athens can be described as the root of modern democracy. Athens can also be described as the root of theater.


Yes, different case. Theatre and democracy have nothing to do with a specific race.

[Liszt]

hey, this has turned out to be quite an informative thread, so I´m not apologising for my "ignorance" earlier ;) (it shows that you can read 10 books about a subject and still not be right...)

Spock acted in a film about the Holocaust once, he played Mel Mermelstein in the film "Never Forget"

[David Swidler]

Anybody can become a Jew. Race has nothing to do with it. I checked. Jews are of many racial backgrounds.

"You are considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish". Well, that isn't 100% true. If you are a male, you also have to be circumcised to be a Jew.

That's not true, either. Only to become a Jew. A non-circumcised adult male born to a Jewish mother might be barred from certain activities (partaking of the Passover offering, for example), but is considered completely Jewish - counted for a minyan of ten, enjoys the same inheritance rights/obligations, what have you.

[marksman]

No, because Imperialism is about subjugating and ruling anyone you can think of. It has nothing to do with Jews specifically.
But Roman Imperialism (which is what I discussed) had specific justifications for hating each group they subjugated. That's part of how the Romans operated. They needed to justify for themselves why they were Romanizing each population. Often they claimed self-defense. For the Jews, and only for the Jews, they were reviled and hated for their monotheism. That's also why Christians were persecuted (and considered either a sect of Judaism or a cultic offshoot) in much of the pre-Constantine era.

When Rome became Christian, this anti-monotheism was converted (so to speak) into anti-judaism (ie, antisemitism).

To claim that antisemitism began after Constantine is to be fundamentally ignorant of history. The roots of antisemitism are found in the specific type of Imperialism practiced by the Romans. And yes, their antagonism towards Jews did have to do with Jews specifically. And their antagonism towards Phoenicians had to do with Phoneicians specifically. And their antagonism towards druidism... I trust you get the idea.

After all, the Nazis didn't just hate Jews. They hated blacks and gays and communists and gypsies and slavs... Nobody would say the Nazis weren't antisemites just because they hated all non-Aryan races. The Romans were similarly contemptuous of all who were not like them, but they had different justifications for their hatred of each group, just as the Nazis did.

Yes, different case. Theatre and democracy have nothing to do with a specific race.
But they do have to do with how we define the word "root" which is what you seem to be quibbling with in a very irrational manner.

[blndrhed]

That's not true, either. Only to become a Jew. A non-circumcised adult male born to a Jewish mother might be barred from certain activities (partaking of the Passover offering, for example), but is considered completely Jewish - counted for a minyan of ten, enjoys the same inheritance rights/obligations, what have you.
Converts don't have the same status as ethnic Jews.

Edit:

Sorry, my bad. Replying to someone actually making my point. Yet to master system. Admins please delete at will.

[robinson]

What is an ethnic Jew?

[blndrhed]

What is an ethnic Jew?
Anyone who's mother is Jewish. I thought that had been established.

[Cleon]

"Jewish" is simultaneously a religion, an ethnicity, and a culture--or even a group of cultures, if you want to be pedantic.

Reducing it to merely a question of religion is no more accurate than reducing it to one of "race."

[Dorian Gray]

Note: I am an atheist.

Anyway, God sent Jesus down here to die, and Pontius Pilate actually sentenced Jesus to die, while Roman soldiers killed him (or did they?!?!). So we've got God's will plus Romans doing the dirty work. So what? Ok, maybe Jews ratted him out? But that was just one guy, not all Jews, and that was 2000 years ago, not last Thursday. So what the F?

How can Christians be angry at the Jews, when if it weren't for the one Jew 2000 years ago, their religion wouldn't even exist? And for all they know, 'one of you will betray me' was a directive, not a prophesy, considering it was Jesus whole purpose to die down here.

Even though he didn't actually die, and knew the whole time he wouldn't die, and knew the whole time he would inherit the earth, and so how could he have possibly been tempted by Satan and how could his death have been a sacrifice?

And even though it says about a thousand times that Jews are God's chosen people, and they were doing what God said like they always do, like Isaac nearly killing his kid, so how can anyone be mad at them?

And all the people in that Adam Sandler song are cool, as is Adam Sandler himself, so how can you hate them? I mean, Capt. Kirk and David Lee Roth? I'd hate Sammy Hagar before I hated David Lee Roth.

They might get back together, by the way. Van Halen with Roth, I mean. Though without Michael Anthony, whose name sounds Roman, which takes us full circle to who actually killed Jesus.

I rest my case.

[Oliver]

That's something I've been thinking about as of late. In the modern world, a lot of is has to do with Israel or Zionism, but it seems to me - with the average knowledge of history that I have - the Jews have been a targeted group since the get go. Why? Is a large portion come from some Christian's view of Jews as "Christ-killers"? Is it because Jews are seen as being affluent and well off? Why do people hate Jews?


I may be a little bit late concerning the OP but the question isn't "Why do people hate Jews", it's rather "Why do people hate other ethnic groups".

From what I know about the psychological factor behind this, this kind of hate against another ethical group is based on experience, most probably initiated by people in your environment like relatives and friends. Also the general thinking about issues and of course, the media you consume also has a role in this kind of thinking.

From psychological point of view, most of the hate evolves in a persons subconscious as a result of negative emotions concerning a other group or person. If you hear negative news about something long and often enough, you're receptive to adopt such feelings subconsciously.

For an American example: I don't know about the actual numbers but from what I've heart in the past, most stories about murder, violence, shootings, drugs are
about black people as being the suspects or perpetrators.

If you listen to these kind of news long enough, you might tend to evolve emotions towards blacks just because you subconsciously connect crime and black - which might lead to some kind of fear against black people or in the worst case, hate. Now I know that this process of thinking isn't rational at all, but it's a part of Human Nature and it can be used against a group. The Nazis were a good example for using this behavior. I also tend to include the Communist-Antipathy and Saddam-Antipathy as a result of using this human behavior for governmental purposes - which is: "support us". Also known as Propaganda.

Now I know some in here may have a hard time to grasp what I said, especially because my English isn't good enough to explain it much clearer, but the Kramer incident was a very, very good example of that human characteristic, especially when he's trying to explain himself - which he couldn't because he wasn't aware of that characteristic for himself:

54wS7h1-A80

ETA: Just in case the whole clip is violating the rules in here:
Admins, please delete the one above if this is the case, thank you in advance.

D-8a62me7g8

[LashL]

<snip>From what I know about the psychological factor behind this, this kind of hate against another ethical group is based on experience, most probably initiated by people in your environment like relatives and friends. Also the general thinking about issues and of course, the media you consume also has a role in this kind of thinking.

From psychological point of view, most of the hate evolves in a persons subconscious as a result of negative emotions concerning a other group or person. If you hear negative news about something long and often enough, you're receptive to adopt such feelings subconsciously.

I agree, to a certain extent, with this snippet quoted above. I think that a large proportion of the blind hatred that is espoused against any particular group is exactly that - blind - because it is based on misinformation and grievances passed on by prior generations, combined with an unwillingness of certain memebers of subsequent generations to utilize critical thinking skills.

After all, it is far, far easier to just hate blindly, or to accept uncritically the views of biased media, friends, or family, than to actually educate yourself or to actually think rationally and critically.

It also sheds some light on your numerous, uneducated, predictable, knee-jerk anti-American rantings, Oliver.

[Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming - sorry for the minor derail]

[Policenaut]

Also people need a scapegoat for the ills of the world and their lives in general. It can't be my fault my life sucks. Must be the Jews doing this to me. After all they control EVERYTHING.

[a_unique_person]

It's a lot easier than asking why your life really sucks.

[Oliver]

I agree, to a certain extent, with this snippet quoted above. I think that a large proportion of the blind hatred that is espoused against any particular group is exactly that - blind - because it is based on misinformation and grievances passed on by prior generations, combined with an unwillingness of certain memebers of subsequent generations to utilize critical thinking skills.

After all, it is far, far easier to just hate blindly, or to accept uncritically the views of biased media, friends, or family, than to actually educate yourself or to actually think rationally and critically.

It also sheds some light on your numerous, uneducated, predictable, knee-jerk anti-American rantings, Oliver.

[Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming - sorry for the minor derail]


What parts of my post didn't you agree with?

Concerning your criticism: I admit that I may simplify several issues based on my non-american point of view - and yes, there might be also the possibility that I'm also a victim of negative propaganda (from english and US-Sources) - but so far, I didn't find a good explanation for the invasion of Iraq, which is the biggest point of my criticism. What I've found about this issue are lies from the official side of the story - which made it even more bothering to me instead seeing good reasons in it. And unfortunately - Iraq is just one incident in a row of things that bother me whenever they make no moral sense to me.

So if you think that I am annoying - you might be able to imagine the ones who don't have the opportunity to share their views with Americans at all, are you?

Also people need a scapegoat for the ills of the world and their lives in general. It can't be my fault my life sucks. Must be the Jews doing this to me. After all they control EVERYTHING.


It isn't that easy. You don't blame groups you don't know nothing about. But if you grew up with the Idea that Jews are controlling the world, you might tend to have negative opinions and emotions about them without any factual basis - just because you learned that "they are bad".

It's a lot easier than asking why your life really sucks.


That's true - and it's the Medias responsibility to educate the people by telling the positive and negative sides of a story, including the different opinions about an Issue. That's the only way to block prejudice.

From what I saw in many occasions, Americans were scared/misguided about Communists, Cuba, Iran, Terrorists, the French, Saddam and so on - and I miss coverage showing the other side of these issues in a fair&balanced manner.

Now I don't want to make a conspiracy out of that - but it's highly immoral if this is the truth. And people should know about this issue because in Germany, we know what can happen with this kind of misguidance about another ethnic group.

[blndrhed]

I honestly don't see that much anti-antisemitism anymore in society. "White Supremacy" is pretty much a thing of the past. I would say there's a definite rise in "Jewish Conspiracy" rhetoric since the rise of the internet. There is the "Anti-Zionists" from the left who are accused of what is referred to as the "New Antisemitism", by Jewish Zionists, and Christian Zionist Evangelicals, and of course the "Arab hatred", that has existed since the foundation of Israel on what they consider their "Holy Land".

[Chaos]

"Jewish" is simultaneously a religion, an ethnicity, and a culture--or even a group of cultures, if you want to be pedantic.

Reducing it to merely a question of religion is no more accurate than reducing it to one of "race."

Cleon, my friend, can you please tell me what "accurate" has to do with anti-semitism? ;)

[Oliver]

Is there someone in here who's interested in "Propaganda" and how it works? It probably would make an interesting thread for those who don't fully understand the mechanics behind it...

[blobru]

...
1. Anti-semitism existed in Germany based on:
a. Jews were a minority and minorities often are targets of discrimination and resentment by majority population.
b. Unigue relationship between Judaism and Christianity that led to some particular contempt for Jewish population. Possibly a holdover for anti-semitic notions in Christianity from inclusions of anti-Jewish propaganda in earliest Christian writings.
c. Jewish roles in professions that were seen as exploitive by some in Germany
d. Jewish involvement with communism.
e. Involvement of some Jews with Zionism. (not mentioned previously in this thread, but the subject of at least one contentious thread on the subject previously).
...

I'm going to add one item to your list, dave (sort of an offshoot of 'c' = the $$$ gripe):

f. Jewish intellectualism conflicted with the anti-intellectual Nazi ethic.

Jewish culture, centred around learning and interpretation (midrash) of The Torah during the diaspora, has a proud tradition of universal literacy and deep respect for dialogue. Intellectuals coming out of this tradition have made contributions far out of proportion to their numbers. Their outsider voice and perspective ("skepticism", one might say) was at odds with the Nazi ideal of unified will and rabid patriotism.
Jewish intellectuals were cited by Goebbels as degenerate influences in German culture (the Nazis were uber-realists -- the Fuhrer painted only landscapes -- and Jewish thought and art was often abstract and avant-garde; I doubt Marx's Communist Manifesto was a big hit with the brown shirts either). It's significant that before the Nazis began rounding up the Jews, they burned their books.
I don't know whether this is a recurring theme in the history of anti-semitism, but the Nazis certainly hated Jewish scholarship and all that it stood for.

[Oliver]

I'm going to add one item to your list, dave (sort of an offshoot of 'c' = the $$$ gripe):

f. Jewish intellectualism conflicted with the anti-intellectual Nazi ethic.


The intellectualism point doesn't make much sense because there is another point that wasn't raised so far:
The Idea of Darwin's "survival of the fittest (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22survival+of+the+fittest%22+%22nazi+germany%22 +darwin&btnG=Search)".

[Dumbledore]

As you well know Dustin Lebanon refused to do anything about the Hezbollah operating and launching missiles from there country. Therefore following my analogy Canada would refuse to do anything as well, what would be the US response then. Please give me some other laughable reason why Israel and therefore Jews are a bloody savage people who only want an excuse to kill the innocent. P.S. If you harbor terrorists and allow them to launch attacks from your country some of your people might get killed in the cross fire, but I guess Hezbollah's plan worked, people like you get to rant about the evils of Israel and Jews with pictures, never mind the truth behind what happened!

[Oliver]

As you well know Dustin Lebanon refused to do anything about the Hezbollah operating and launching missiles from there country. Therefore following my analogy Canada would refuse to do anything as well, what would be the US response then. Please give me some other laughable reason why Israel and therefore Jews are a bloody savage people who only want an excuse to kill the innocent. P.S. If you harbor terrorists and allow them to launch attacks from your country some of your people might get killed in the cross fire, but I guess Hezbollah's plan worked, people like you get to rant about the evils of Israel and Jews with pictures, never mind the truth behind what happened!


I have no Idea who you are talking to - but if you like to reply to someones post, just use this button: http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/quote.gif

[Giggywig]

The intellectualism point doesn't make much sense because there is another point that wasn't raised so far:
The Idea of Darwin's "survival of the fittest (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22survival+of+the+fittest%22+%22nazi+germany%22 +darwin&btnG=Search)".

Could you elaborate?

[Dumbledore]

Further more Dustin the analogy is based on Canada or Mexico allowing terrorists to launch missiles from there country not the other way around! Sorry to be so harsh everyone but it is very angering to have people try to paint Israel as some evil, innocent person killing country. Certainly Israel has done some bad things, they are not lily white, no country is; but they certainly do not kill innocent people purposely because they supposedly have an excuse to!:p

[bigred]

I'd hate Sammy Hagar before I hated David Lee Roth.There goes your credibility.

[a_unique_person]

Further more Dustin the analogy is based on Canada or Mexico allowing terrorists to launch missiles from there country not the other way around! Sorry to be so harsh everyone but it is very angering to have people try to paint Israel as some evil, innocent person killing country. Certainly Israel has done some bad things, they are not lily white, no country is; but they certainly do not kill innocent people purposely because they supposedly have an excuse to!:p

I'd dispute that. Not all individuals would, by any means, but the IDF has been caught at doing just that, or recklessly killing people in actions. The English activist shot by the IDF in Gaza, the the farm workers bombed during the recent Lebanon war.

[blobru]

The intellectualism point doesn't make much sense because there is another point that wasn't raised so far:
The Idea of Darwin's "survival of the fittest (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22survival+of+the+fittest%22+%22nazi+germany%22 +darwin&btnG=Search)".

The Nazis had ideas sure, lots of them, but they were really dumb ideas. Not being facetious; to suit their own ideology they warped phrases like "survival of the fittest", which just means 'adapted organisms reproduce more', into "survival of the strongest": "might makes right", where it is the duty of stronger citizens/races to eliminate weaker. This is not biological Darwinism at all, rather the Nazis' biased translation of various philosophers' sketchy understanding of it.
Intellectualism was a threat to the Nazis because their crazy ideas on society, race and destiny, like any other woo ideas, couldn't bear critical scrutiny. They made examples of so-called intellectual "degenerates" for their tragic outlook: portraying man as confused and suffering, or life as meaningless. Nazis were great believers in positive thinking, in willpower, and saw modern pessimism as a blight on the German soul. So they targeted "degenerate" intellectuals for humiliation, expulsion, censorship and book burnings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning#Jewish.2C_anti-Nazi_and_.22degenerate.22_books_.28by_the_Nazis.29 ) (not all the works were Jewish, but they were at the forefront, and of course were blamed for having mixed degenerate Jewish thought with pure German ideals). I think in bullying intellectuals the Nazis were also exploiting the masses' mistrust of modern culture in general.

[robinson]

Freud, Marx, Einstein, all Jewish. Coincidence? I think not.

[MaGZ]

As you well know Dustin Lebanon refused to do anything about the Hezbollah operating and launching missiles from there country. Therefore following my analogy Canada would refuse to do anything as well, what would be the US response then. Please give me some other laughable reason why Israel and therefore Jews are a bloody savage people who only want an excuse to kill the innocent. P.S. If you harbor terrorists and allow them to launch attacks from your country some of your people might get killed in the cross fire, but I guess Hezbollah's plan worked, people like you get to rant about the evils of Israel and Jews with pictures, never mind the truth behind what happened!

Why do you think Israel can not do anything about the missiles raining down on them from Lebanon? They tried to take them out last year but failed. What is wrong with the Israeli military these days?

[a_unique_person]

As you well know Dustin Lebanon refused to do anything about the Hezbollah operating and launching missiles from there country. Therefore following my analogy Canada would refuse to do anything as well, what would be the US response then. Please give me some other laughable reason why Israel and therefore Jews are a bloody savage people who only want an excuse to kill the innocent. P.S. If you harbor terrorists and allow them to launch attacks from your country some of your people might get killed in the cross fire, but I guess Hezbollah's plan worked, people like you get to rant about the evils of Israel and Jews with pictures, never mind the truth behind what happened!

Lebanon did not 'refuse' to do anything about Hizbollah. As is clearly the case, with cabinet members being assassinated at intervals, the government of Lebanon is not capable of taking on Hizbollah directly. They are no friends of Hizbollah, nor of Libya, but are backed by the West and doing their best to maintain peace without allowing the country to revert back to the disastrous and bloody civil war that ravaged the country. One of the effects of Israel rampaging over much of the infrastructure of Lebanon was to increase the power of Hizbollah and weaken the pro-Western government.

[blndrhed]

I agree, to a certain extent, with this snippet quoted above. I think that a large proportion of the blind hatred that is espoused against any particular group is exactly that - blind - because it is based on misinformation and grievances passed on by prior generations, combined with an unwillingness of certain memebers of subsequent generations to utilize critical thinking skills.

After all, it is far, far easier to just hate blindly, or to accept uncritically the views of biased media, friends, or family, than to actually educate yourself or to actually think rationally and critically.

It also sheds some light on your numerous, uneducated, predictable, knee-jerk anti-American rantings, Oliver.

[Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming - sorry for the minor derail]
Wow! I was so with you on this post, until you contradicted yourself and made an unnecessary attack on Oliver as an "Anti-American". I question who the true "critical thinkers" are.

[Oliver]

Could you elaborate?


The Idea of "survival of the fittest" also had a major role within the Nazi-Ideology. And it still is being misused by Neo-Nazis today. But that's why I added this Link in my last post:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22survival+of+the+fittest%22+%22nazi+germany%22 +darwin&btnG=Search

[Dumbledore]

Well then it certainly served Hezbollah in multiple ways to incite Israel to attack Lebanon. My question is though what kind of magical wand was Israel suppose to wave in order to stop the missile attacks? I have certainly heard an ear full of all the abuses and wrong actions by Israel but what was Israel suppose to do, what would we do in the US? Everyone seems to skirt around this issue. As I see it Israel was backed into a no win situation and has be criticized for reacting the only way they could to bring an end to the missile attacks. Lebanon was unwilling or unable to stop Hezbollah's terrorist actions, so I repeat what magical wand was Israel suppose wave to deal with these missile attack on its citizens?:cool:

[a_unique_person]

Well then it certainly served Hezbollah in multiple ways to incite Israel to attack Lebanon. My question is though what kind of magical wand was Israel suppose to wave in order to stop the missile attacks? I have certainly heard an ear full of all the abuses and wrong actions by Israel but what was Israel suppose to do, what would we do in the US? Everyone seems to skirt around this issue. As I see it Israel was backed into a no win situation and has be criticized for reacting the only way they could to bring an end to the missile attacks. Lebanon was unwilling or unable to stop Hezbollah's terrorist actions, so I repeat what magical wand was Israel suppose wave to deal with these missile attack on its citizens?:cool:

Attack Hizbullah, not Lebanon in general, maybe? Attack military targets only, otherwise it is just doing what it accuses them of doing, attack civilian targets because it can't attack the military ones that are beyond it's reach.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Further more Dustin the analogy is based on Canada or Mexico allowing terrorists to launch missiles from there country not the other way around! Sorry to be so harsh everyone but it is very angering to have people try to paint Israel as some evil, innocent person killing country. Certainly Israel has done some bad things, they are not lily white, no country is; but they certainly do not kill innocent people purposely because they supposedly have an excuse to!:p

Even if Mexico had terrorists launching rockets at our cities and even if Mexico wasn't cooperating, that doesn't give us the right to launch rockets at their cities killing their civilians. What we would have to do is simply invade Mexico and deal with the terrorists that way, without launching rockets into major Mexican metropolitan areas and killing civilians.

I would also like evidence that Lebanon was "able" to deal with Hezbollah but was unwilling to do so.

[stilicho]

Anyway this is a summary based mostly on previous posts of why the German genocide against the Jews happened.

1. Anti-semitism existed in Germany based on

.....

e. Involvement of some Jews with Zionism. (not mentioned previously in this thread, but the subject of at least one contentious thread on the subject previously).

I find this relatively new reason to hate the Jews to be fascinating. Far from being the desultory word it has become, Zionism was actually promoted by a lot of the people we might consider "racist" or at least "politically incorrect" these days. There was a general feeling among European intellectuals around the end of the nineteenth century that there was a strong reason to establish a homeland for European Jews to resolve the "Jewish Question". The principle of "self-determination" was a liberal one then, and intended not only to address the "Jewish Question" but also the minorities contained within the decaying polyglot empires that dominated Europe before the Great War.

Zionism appears to have acquired its negative connotations only after the establishment of Israel as a state.

[Oliver]

I may be a little bit late concerning the OP but the question isn't "Why do people hate Jews", it's rather "Why do people hate other ethnic groups".

From what I know about the psychological factor behind this, this kind of hate against another ethical group is based on experience, most probably initiated by people in your environment like relatives and friends. Also the general thinking about issues and of course, the media you consume also has a role in this kind of thinking.

From psychological point of view, most of the hate evolves in a persons subconscious as a result of negative emotions concerning a other group or person. If you hear negative news about something long and often enough, you're receptive to adopt such feelings subconsciously.

For an American example: I don't know about the actual numbers but from what I've heart in the past, most stories about murder, violence, shootings, drugs are
about black people as being the suspects or perpetrators.

If you listen to these kind of news long enough, you might tend to evolve emotions towards blacks just because you subconsciously connect crime and black - which might lead to some kind of fear against black people or in the worst case, hate. Now I know that this process of thinking isn't rational at all, but it's a part of Human Nature and it can be used against a group. The Nazis were a good example for using this behavior. I also tend to include the Communist-Antipathy and Saddam-Antipathy as a result of using this human behavior for governmental purposes - which is: "support us". Also known as Propaganda.

Now I know some in here may have a hard time to grasp what I said, especially because my English isn't good enough to explain it much clearer, but the Kramer incident was a very, very good example of that human characteristic, especially when he's trying to explain himself - which he couldn't because he wasn't aware of that characteristic for himself:

54wS7h1-A80

ETA: Just in case the whole clip is violating the rules in here:
Admins, please delete the one above if this is the case, thank you in advance.

D-8a62me7g8


Does someone in here understand the psychological backgrounds? :confused:

[robinson]

"the Kramer incident"

I wish the hell people would quit using Kramer's name instead of Richards. Kramer never did nothing. People are dumb.

[davefoc]

I find this relatively new reason to hate the Jews to be fascinating. Far from being the desultory word it has become, Zionism was actually promoted by a lot of the people we might consider "racist" or at least "politically incorrect" these days. There was a general feeling among European intellectuals around the end of the nineteenth century that there was a strong reason to establish a homeland for European Jews to resolve the "Jewish Question". The principle of "self-determination" was a liberal one then, and intended not only to address the "Jewish Question" but also the minorities contained within the decaying polyglot empires that dominated Europe before the Great War.

Zionism appears to have acquired its negative connotations only after the establishment of Israel as a state.

I assume you mean Europeans when you say that Zionism is a relatively new reason to hate Jews. Clearly there was a lot of resistance to Jewish immigration into the area that became Israel by the indigenous population well before Israel became a country .

I put it on the list based mostly on a discussion long ago between Capel Dodger and Cleopatra about whether Zionism had contributed to the antisemitism in Germany before WWII. Cleopatra argued that Zionism was not a factor at all and CD argued that it was a very significant factor. At the time I didn't know enough to judge between the two possibilities and I don't know more today about the issue. But it seems like it must have been more than zero so I put it on the list. From my perspective it seems likely that the notion that a citizen would have loyalties to another political entity would engender some resentment in the part of the population that considered themselves only German. It probably has that effect in the US today amongst the population that sees themselves as only American, but it doesn't seem to be that significant an issue with regard to cause of what antisemitism still exists in the US.

[jsiv]

Norway banned jews from the country long before the world wars, proud luterhans as we are.

[Oliver]

"the Kramer incident"

I wish the hell people would quit using Kramer's name instead of Richards. Kramer never did nothing. People are dumb.


I used "Kramer" because most people know this role in contrast to his real name. You might consider that there are many Non-US-Reader in here, too. Maybe also many who don't know the incident at all.

Why is that dumb? :confused:

[robinson]

Kramer didn't do anything. Richard's is not Kramer!! It is dumb to keep saying "the Kramer Incident", as if it describes reality.

[jsiv]

You mean Seinfeld wasn't a documentary?

[Oliver]

Kramer didn't do anything. Richard's is not Kramer!! It is dumb to keep saying "the Kramer Incident", as if it describes reality.


I used "Kramer" because most people know this role in contrast to his real name. You might consider that there are many Non-US-Reader in here, too. Maybe also many who don't know the incident at all. :boggled:

[robinson]

Neither Richards, nor the character Cosmo Kramer, are Jewish. But hey, what the heck, a little off topic dumbness never hurt anything.

[Pardalis]

You mean Seinfeld wasn't a documentary?

I always wondered where those laughs came from.

[Oliver]

I always wondered where those laughs came from.


Where do the laughs come from in Loose Change SE? :confused:

[Dumbledore]

Attack Hizbullah, not Lebanon in general, maybe? Attack military targets only, otherwise it is just doing what it accuses them of doing, attack civilian targets because it can't attack the military ones that are beyond it's reach.

Well it is kind of hard to attack military targets when you are fighting terrorists who use civilians as cover! I also find interesting that all the requirements to act properly and save innocent life in on Israel and not Hezbollah, now why would that be?;)

[Dumbledore]

Even if Mexico had terrorists launching rockets at our cities and even if Mexico wasn't cooperating, that doesn't give us the right to launch rockets at their cities killing their civilians. What we would have to do is simply invade Mexico and deal with the terrorists that way, without launching rockets into major Mexican metropolitan areas and killing civilians.

I would also like evidence that Lebanon was "able" to deal with Hezbollah but was unwilling to do so.

First of all ground invasion takes time, as opposed to an airstrike, mean while do you recommend to allow the terrorists to continue launching missiles at your innocent civilians and major metropolitan areas?

Secondly nice choice of argument, but that is not what I posted, Lebanon was unable or unwilling to deal with Hezbollah themselves. This equates to the same thing for Israel doesn't it. They are forced to respond to bring an end to the missile attacks and the did respond to end the missile attacks as quickly as possible as any other country would do. Mean while the international community sat back, the same community who refuse to follow through on their disarmament of Hezbollah, and complained abouts Israels needless destructive action. So as I said before, Hezbollah was successful in backing Israel into a no win situation, in which Israel's reaction was sure to be criticized no matter what they did to protect their citizens!:crowded:

[stilicho]

I assume you mean Europeans when you say that Zionism is a relatively new reason to hate Jews. Clearly there was a lot of resistance to Jewish immigration into the area that became Israel by the indigenous population well before Israel became a country .

I agree with this to some extent. Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire then, however. Europeans did not think it a bad thing to move populations around in the name of "self-determination". (Americans weren't immune from this, either.)

I find the population displacement to be a fair objection. But then, too, we might ask why Poland was "moved" a couple hundred miles west and why the Germans ought not be returned to East Prussia. These "solutions" were very popular among liberal thinkers in Europe and America--specifically those who felt that the greater threat was from "obsolete" imperial political structures.

Certainly the "solution" in the former Yugoslavia reflects that such thinking hasn't entirely gone away.

I put it on the list based mostly on a discussion long ago between Capel Dodger and Cleopatra about whether Zionism had contributed to the antisemitism in Germany before WWII. Cleopatra argued that Zionism was not a factor at all and CD argued that it was a very significant factor. At the time I didn't know enough to judge between the two possibilities and I don't know more today about the issue. But it seems like it must have been more than zero so I put it on the list. From my perspective it seems likely that the notion that a citizen would have loyalties to another political entity would engender some resentment in the part of the population that considered themselves only German. It probably has that effect in the US today amongst the population that sees themselves as only American, but it doesn't seem to be that significant an issue with regard to cause of what antisemitism still exists in the US.

This is why nationalism is as irrational as religious or cultural bigotry.

I am proud of my country. But you read about conflict upon conflict, the several genocides throughout recent history, and the displacements of populations in the name of nationalism, and you realise that all this two centuries of liberalism, reason, and idealism has brought us no further from our basic instincts as social creatures.

Pessimistic? Possibly.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

First of all ground invasion takes time, as opposed to an airstrike, mean while do you recommend to allow the terrorists to continue launching missiles at your innocent civilians and major metropolitan areas?

Secondly nice choice of argument, but that is not what I posted, Lebanon was unable or unwilling to deal with Hezbollah themselves. This equates to the same thing for Israel doesn't it. They are forced to respond to bring an end to the missile attacks and the did respond to end the missile attacks as quickly as possible as any other country would do. Mean while the international community sat back, the same community who refuse to follow through on their disarmament of Hezbollah, and complained abouts Israels needless destructive action. So as I said before, Hezbollah was successful in backing Israel into a no win situation, in which Israel's reaction was sure to be criticized no matter what they did to protect their citizens!:crowded:

A ground invasion would be the only viable option. Launching missiles ourselves would be far too risky due to the very high potential for collateral damage. The fact that organizing a ground invasion might take a little time would not be worse than killing numerous innocent civilians caught in the crossfire between the two countries.

Israel could have invaded Lebanon and offset the civilian casualties drastically, resorting to house to house raids where the specific missiles were launched from and arresting the people there.

[Ziggurat]

Israel could have invaded Lebanon and offset the civilian casualties drastically, resorting to house to house raids where the specific missiles were launched from and arresting the people there.

Where did you get the idea that urban combat would produce fewer collateral casualties than precision bombing? I've never seen any evidence to that effect, and there's plenty of reason to think it's NOT true. How, for example, do you get a ground combat force to strike at Hezbollah assets in Beirut without a LOT of fighting, and a LOT of civilian casualties, just to get to the location of interest?

Now it might be true that an earlier, more agressive invasion into southern Lebanon would have been better at crippling Hezbollah, but that's not what you're claiming. And there were a number of reasons it didn't happen anyways. One is that the Israeli air force overestimated their capabilities, and another is that the Israeli army has gotten out of practice with conventional warfare because of their focus on antiterrorism operations. These were mistakes, but they're the sort of mistakes that countries make in good faith.

By the way, do you remember the faked Reuters photos from Lebanon? Did you see the pictures of the old ambulances with holes in the roof from missing ventilation domes which were claimed to be the targets of Israeli air strikes?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Where did you get the idea that urban combat would produce fewer collateral casualties than precision bombing? I've never seen any evidence to that effect, and there's plenty of reason to think it's NOT true. How, for example, do you get a ground combat force to strike at Hezbollah assets in Beirut without a LOT of fighting, and a LOT of civilian casualties, just to get to the location of interest?

Now it might be true that an earlier, more agressive invasion into southern Lebanon would have been better at crippling Hezbollah, but that's not what you're claiming. And there were a number of reasons it didn't happen anyways. One is that the Israeli air force overestimated their capabilities, and another is that the Israeli army has gotten out of practice with conventional warfare because of their focus on antiterrorism operations. These were mistakes, but they're the sort of mistakes that countries make in good faith.

A ground invasion would involve going house to house and arresting the Hezbollah fighters after tracking the location of the launch sites. Simple ground fighting doesn't necessarily equal civilian casualties. Please explain how that would be the case. How would house to house searches and arrests equal substantial civilian casualties?

By the way, do you remember the faked Reuters photos from Lebanon? Did you see the pictures of the old ambulances with holes in the roof from missing ventilation domes which were claimed to be the targets of Israeli air strikes?

I saw them, I've never seen evidence they were faked.

[Ziggurat]

A ground invasion would involve going house to house and arresting the Hezbollah fighters after tracking the location of the launch sites.

And they'd still be at those sites - why?

Simple ground fighting doesn't necessarily equal civilian casualties.

It does if Hezbollah wants it to.

Please explain how that would be the case.

Easily: Hezbollah fighters take up positions in civilian-occupied houses. It's pathetically easy for them to guarantee civilian casualties in a ground fight.

How would house to house searches and arrests equal substantial civilian casualties?

You think you can just go in and arrest groups armed with anti-tank missiles, like this is an episode of COPS? Seriously, Dustin, how clueless are you?

I saw them, I've never seen evidence they were faked.

Which ones did you not think were fake? The ones Reuters admited were photoshopped? Or the ones with the ambulances showing old rusted holes from missing ventilation domes which were claimed to be the result of missile strikes?

[a_unique_person]

Where did you get the idea that urban combat would produce fewer collateral casualties than precision bombing? I've never seen any evidence to that effect, and there's plenty of reason to think it's NOT true. How, for example, do you get a ground combat force to strike at Hezbollah assets in Beirut without a LOT of fighting, and a LOT of civilian casualties, just to get to the location of interest?

Now it might be true that an earlier, more agressive invasion into southern Lebanon would have been better at crippling Hezbollah, but that's not what you're claiming. And there were a number of reasons it didn't happen anyways. One is that the Israeli air force overestimated their capabilities, and another is that the Israeli army has gotten out of practice with conventional warfare because of their focus on antiterrorism operations. These were mistakes, but they're the sort of mistakes that countries make in good faith.


If you read Haaretz, it's nothing to do with good faith. It's to do with hubris and incompetence. Farm workers were bombed for doing nothing more than harvesting food, for example.

The fuss made over that photo was unbelievable. There are numerous examples and photos of the damage done to civilian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants. Picking out one faked photo and and a debatable one does not excuse the shambles that was the campaign that was undertaken by Israel. There were Australians stranded in a village that was bombed when no missiles were being fired from it, they were being fired from a heavily fortified mountain nearby that air strikes could not touch. Israel dropped thousands of cluster bombs in the last days before the peace deal was agreed to. For what? They were purely for punitive reasons against civilians.

[robinson]

For some reason I don't think of Israel as being Jewish. I guess it is, which means some people have plenty of reasons to hate Jews. War is hell.

[a_unique_person]

I don't hate Jews. Israel is by it's own definition a Jewish state. Being critical of Israel for it's actions in Lebanon is not hating Jews. War is hell made by people. Plenty of people, including Jews, in Israel, who disagree with Israel's actions in the war. The mass deployment of anti personnel weapons in the last days of the war in civilian areas was an action with no military worth at all.

[David Swidler]

We're gonna get derailed if we focus on last year's war. But if you insist...

Targeting civilians may or may not have military value. Far be it from me to advocate such a thing, but fomenting a humanitarian crisis by creating tens of thousands of refugess within the enemy's borders might have quite a significant military benefit. IIRC, that's exactly what the Wehrmacht did in several places.

Which is not to say that's what the IDF was trying to do, just that your blanket statement isn't necessarily true.

[Ziggurat]

If you read Haaretz, it's nothing to do with good faith. It's to do with hubris and incompetence.

Those are good-faith mistakes. What I mean is that they weren't done out of malicious intent. That doesn't mean there isn't reason to blame someone for them, but it's of a different sort than if something was done out of an intention to be evil. Which is precisely what Hezbollah was doing.

The fuss made over that photo was unbelievable.

Damn you're clueless, AUP. The "fuss" was far smaller than it should have been. It's a god-damned BIG deal. First, deliberate targeting of ambulances would be a major war crime, but of course it didn't happen. And second, while the contents of the photoshopped Reuters photos didn't really change much, it's VERY significant that one of the primary sources of information for the public was compromised by terrorist propaganda. Do you honestly not understand why that might matter? Do you honestly not see that that issue extends far beyond the specific context of those photos? No, I guess you don't. Which is why you fall for propaganda yourself so easily.

There were Australians stranded in a village that was bombed when no missiles were being fired from it, they were being fired from a heavily fortified mountain nearby that air strikes could not touch.

You're an idiot, AUP. There ARE no locations in Lebanon that Israel couldn't touch with air strikes. There were plenty of arms caches that Israel didn't know about, and it can be damned difficult to hit a moving target, but there was no place so heavily fortified that it couldn't be touched. None.

[Dumbledore]

A ground invasion would be the only viable option. Launching missiles ourselves would be far too risky due to the very high potential for collateral damage. The fact that organizing a ground invasion might take a little time would not be worse than killing numerous innocent civilians caught in the crossfire between the two countries.

Israel could have invaded Lebanon and offset the civilian casualties drastically, resorting to house to house raids where the specific missiles were launched from and arresting the people there.

So Israel should let its own citizens die to protect the innocent citizens that Hezbollah is using as a shield. I think you would be hard pressed to find any country that would make that decision. Aren't the Israeli citizens also innocent? Further more what is Hezbollah's responsibility in all of this, why must Israel be the only ones who are concerned with saving innocent life.:confused: I find it most interesting that you would side with an terrorist organization than an country that was unprovokingly attacked and forced to defend itself.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And they'd still be at those sites - why?

The troops would be across the areas they were being launched from and could get to the launch sites quickly.


Easily: Hezbollah fighters take up positions in civilian-occupied houses. It's pathetically easy for them to guarantee civilian casualties in a ground fight.

That could be a possibility, however the number of casualties from house to house hostage taking would not only likely reduce collateral damage but it would also have made the general population lose support for Hezbollah.


You think you can just go in and arrest groups armed with anti-tank missiles, like this is an episode of COPS? Seriously, Dustin, how clueless are you?

I must be pretty clueless. Terrorists are arrested in Iraq and Afghanistan all of the time.


Which ones did you not think were fake? The ones Reuters admited were photoshopped? Or the ones with the ambulances showing old rusted holes from missing ventilation domes which were claimed to be the result of missile strikes?

The ambulance photographs.

So Israel should let its own citizens die to protect the innocent citizens that Hezbollah is using as a shield.

No.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any country that would make that decision.

I agree.

Aren't the Israeli citizens also innocent?

Well, Some of them.

Further more what is Hezbollah's responsibility in all of this, why must Israel be the only ones who are concerned with saving innocent life.

Hezbollah is unquestionably responsible. There is no point in even discussing it since it is undisputed. However people are disputing the mistakes Israel made, and if you want to compare Israel to Hezbollah...


I find it most interesting that you would side with an terrorist organization than an country that was unprovokingly attacked and forced to defend itself.

I'm not siding with Hezbollah because I critique the tactics of Israel. That's sort of like saying I side with Al-Quaeda because I critique U.S. foreign policy.

[Ziggurat]

The troops would be across the areas they were being launched from and could get to the launch sites quickly.

And how, exactly, would they get deployed like that in the first place without risking significant civilian casualties? You think they could have just walked in unopposed? No, they couldn't. And they didn't, even after significant pounding of Hezbollah positions from the air. In fact, how on earth do you figure they even had the manpower to deploy a force large enough to be almost on top of any Hezbollah launches?

Besides which, minimizing Lebanese civilian casualties wasn't the only objective. Minimizing their own casualties, including military casualties, was actually more important, and they were right to act thusly. And what you propose is essentially a good way to get a lot of Israeli soldiers killed. Why you think Isreali should or would ever have done that is quite beyond me.

I must be pretty clueless. Terrorists are arrested in Iraq and Afghanistan all of the time.

With a much bigger policing force relative to the number of enemy fighters, and with an enemy which is MUCH less well equiped and entrenched than Hezbollah. They had anti-ship missiles, for cryin' out loud, and they've been digging in for precisely this sort of battle for YEARS. So yes, you are pretty damned clueless.

The ambulance photographs.

Damn, that's rich. Do you know what happens to a vehicle that's hit by an air strike? It's ripped to pieces. Do you know what happens to the occupants? They're turned into pulp. The vehicle doesn't have a small hole in the roof. The occupants don't just go to the hospital with wounds. The whole thing was a fraud, top to bottom. And you fell for terrorist propaganda.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

[a_unique_person]

I would rather believe the ICRC than Zombie, any day.

[JJR]

Its a good question. I don't think ChrisKiller is a major cause.
Speaking for my religious experience as a Baptist, we were all well aware that JC was jewish himself, as were his disciples. (Whenever I see doe-eyed pictures of the big J looking all caucasian I remind myself that he probably more closely resembled a young Yassar Arafat)

They did, in fact, kill Jesus Christ. The Romans did the butchery and torture, and the Jews were indifferent, letting it all happen.

The Jews were different back then. Jews once had brown skin, but they changed. They are not what they once were.

Sometimes I feel sorry for Jews. Today a Jewish friend (or at least he looks Jewish - I have never asked) got the biggest bud we had and it made him happy. We're fine with smaller ones, dude.

We're solid. ;)

[Loss Leader]

I haven't actually read any of this thread, but I'm going to just answer the title by saying: because we're so freaking awesome!

[JJR]

I haven't actually read any of this thread, but I'm going to just answer the title by saying: because we're so freaking awesome!

Sarah Silverman is awesome. :)

[Loss Leader]

Sarah Silverman is awesome. :)


Hey, Natalie Portman's no slouch, either. I defy any heterosexual Aryan Brotherhood member to watch Natalie Portman rap on SNL (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=2922) and not rethink his entire belief structure.

[JJR]

Hey, Natalie Portman's no slouch, either. I defy any heterosexual Aryan Brotherhood member to watch Natalie Portman rap on SNL (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=2922) and not rethink his entire belief structure.

This isn't Chris Hansen, is it? :D

[blndrhed]

Well it is kind of hard to attack military targets when you are fighting terrorists who use civilians as cover! I also find interesting that all the requirements to act properly and save innocent life in on Israel and not Hezbollah, now why would that be?;)
Methinks you are unfamiliar with the tactics of the IDF.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And how, exactly, would they get deployed like that in the first place without risking significant civilian casualties? You think they could have just walked in unopposed? No, they couldn't. And they didn't, even after significant pounding of Hezbollah positions from the air. In fact, how on earth do you figure they even had the manpower to deploy a force large enough to be almost on top of any Hezbollah launches?

The vast majority (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Israel-Hizbullah+conflict-+Victims+of+rocket+attacks+and+IDF+casualties+July-Aug+2006.htm) of casualties on the IDF were from the Katyusha rockets which were being launched without much ability to even aim. Do you have evidence that Hezbollah had the ability to engage in a significant amount of Ground fighting with the IDF, especially an amount that would cause less than 1,000 casualties and 4,400 injuries on Lebanese civilians in the months time they were caused?

Besides which, minimizing Lebanese civilian casualties wasn't the only objective. Minimizing their own casualties, including military casualties, was actually more important, and they were right to act thusly. And what you propose is essentially a good way to get a lot of Israeli soldiers killed. Why you think Isreali should or would ever have done that is quite beyond me.

I've seen no reason to believe that the tactics utilized by the IDF at the time were the best to minimize both Lebanese civilian and IDF personnel casualties.

With a much bigger policing force relative to the number of enemy fighters, and with an enemy which is MUCH less well equiped and entrenched than Hezbollah. They had anti-ship missiles, for cryin' out loud, and they've been digging in for precisely this sort of battle for YEARS. So yes, you are pretty damned clueless.

The number of active fighters involved in the conflict on the side against Israel is estimated to have had a maximum of 1,000 active fighters while the IDF had over 30,000 (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060813/3/2of6v.html). Hezbollah had Katyusha rockets which are not very accurate at all and something like 95% of the rockets they fired were these sorts of rockets. The fact that they had one or two anti-ship missiles is hardly impressive and would have not been very effective in close quarter combat.

Damn, that's rich. Do you know what happens to a vehicle that's hit by an air strike? It's ripped to pieces. Do you know what happens to the occupants? They're turned into pulp. The vehicle doesn't have a small hole in the roof. The occupants don't just go to the hospital with wounds. The whole thing was a fraud, top to bottom. And you fell for terrorist propaganda.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

I've never seen a vehicle hit by an air strike, and I doubt you have either. I'm also not an expert on what actually hit the ambulance or what air-strikes can or can't do in different situations (and I doubt you are or can either) so I won't argue that. I have tried to read that "Zombie time" blog but I found it thick and ranty, so I would rather put my confidence in organizations such as the Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/index.htm) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList577/1FE66CF8A9A9FEF2C12571B5005F59A0) opposed to some blog ran by someone who doesn't even give out their name and who's only claim to fame is trying to call that incident a hoax. I neither have time to read the entire ranty tirade from that blog nor do I have time to refute every point of it on this forum, so I'll stick with what HRW and ICRC says.

[LibraryLady]

They did, in fact, kill Jesus Christ. The Romans did the butchery and torture, and the Jews were indifferent, letting it all happen.

The Jews were different back then. Jews once had brown skin, but they changed. They are not what they once were.

Sometimes I feel sorry for Jews. Today a Jewish friend (or at least he looks Jewish - I have never asked) got the biggest bud we had and it made him happy. We're fine with smaller ones, dude.

We're solid. ;)

Huh?

[brodski]

Huh?

Well the second part of the post appears to be JJR discussing smoking cannabis with a friend. Which may explain the first part, if he posted shortly afterwards. Although most of his other posts tend to inspire similar reactions in people, and in one of the politics threads he boasts of being a “real National Socialist”, so maybe he’s got bigger issues than intoxication.

[Loss Leader]

This isn't Chris Hansen, is it? :D



For the love of Mike, she's 26.

[Ziggurat]

The vast majority (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Israel-Hizbullah+conflict-+Victims+of+rocket+attacks+and+IDF+casualties+July-Aug+2006.htm) of casualties on the IDF were from the Katyusha rockets which were being launched without much ability to even aim.

I don't see any supporting evidence in that link for your contention. It looks to me like most IDF casualties are in combat, probably small arms fire, antitank missiles, IED's/mines, and mortars, NOT Katyusha rockets. In fact, only one incident on that page seems to reference Kayushas killing IDF soldiers. So it's looking to me like you just posted proof that you're wrong.

Do you have evidence that Hezbollah had the ability to engage in a significant amount of Ground fighting with the IDF, especially an amount that would cause less than 1,000 casualties and 4,400 injuries on Lebanese civilians in the months time they were caused?

It isn't the IDF's job to minimize total casualties. Their primary goal is to minimize Israeli casualties. If they can save one Israeli life at the cost of two Lebanese lives, guess what: that's what they'll do. And despite whatever brainwashed nonsensical moral calculus you were raised with, that is precisely what they are SUPPOSED to do. And it's pretty god damned clear, given that IDF casualties mostly WERE from ground combat, that an increase in ground combat (which is what you propose) would lead to increased Israeli casualties.

I've seen no reason to believe that the tactics utilized by the IDF at the time were the best to minimize both Lebanese civilian and IDF personnel casualties.

It's not their job to minimize both. It's their job to minimize Israeli casualties first, and only then worry about Lebanese civilians. And given your complete cluelessness on military issues, your inability to understand why things happened the way they did is, well, pretty insignificant.


The number of active fighters involved in the conflict on the side against Israel is estimated to have had a maximum of 1,000 active fighters while the IDF had over 30,000 (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060813/3/2of6v.html).

1000 may be the number of "hard core" Hezbollah fighters, but the number that they can and did activate for this conflict was MUCH higher.

Hezbollah had Katyusha rockets which are not very accurate at all and something like 95% of the rockets they fired were these sorts of rockets. The fact that they had one or two anti-ship missiles is hardly impressive and would have not been very effective in close quarter combat.

Katyushas are worthless for close quarters combat too. Which is why they weren't used for that. For close quarters combat, they used anti-tank missiles, which are reasonably accurate, and are VERY deadly when used against infantry. Which is exactly what happened. And if ground combat had been the primary method from the beginning, they would probably have used a lot more IEDs as well.

I've never seen a vehicle hit by an air strike, and I doubt you have either.

Then you're an idiot, because I HAVE seen such vehicles, and so would you if you had followed the link I gave. Pictures of such vehicles are quite common, they hit the wire services regularly, Israel does airstrikes against cars all the time, and they have a policy of confirming such strikes. Go back to that link and scroll down until you find the pictures of what real airstrikes do to a vehicle.

I'm also not an expert on what actually hit the ambulance or what air-strikes can or can't do in different situations (and I doubt you are or can either) so I won't argue that.

It doesn't take any great expertise, just a bit of bloody common sense. Munitions used in air strikes are intended to DESTROY vehicles. And that is precisely what they do. The only real way to get very light damage is if the munition doesn't score a direct hit. But that's not the case here: the claim is that it punched through the roof.

I have tried to read that "Zombie time" blog but I found it thick and ranty, so I would rather put my confidence in organizations such as the Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/index.htm)

What a joke. I'm looking at the case where the missile supposedly penetrated all the way through the vehicle, without really damaging the interior, and then left a small crater in the pavement. The only possible scenario under which that makes any sense is if the munition didn't explode. But if that were the case, WHERE'S THE REMAINS? They make claims that Israel uses munitions with casing that disintigrates upon detonation, and so that's why they didn't find any shrapnel to analyze, but it can't have detonated, or the vehicle would have been destroyed completely. Furthermore, despite pointing out that some missiles don't produce shrapnel, they go on to say that the ambulance workers were HIT by shrapnel. So where is that shrapnel? Do they not even realize that they're essentially contradicting themselves? Their entire case rests on the assumption that the IDF was using some unknown experimental munition. Well, that's bull***t. If we allow for claims of that sort, we can attribute anything to anyone. There is no evidence that the IDF used, or even HAS, any munitions which would cause anything like this kind of damage.

Their refutation of the rust, for example, is likewise absurd. It's not enough that the air be humid: rust requires LIQUID water, and they provide NO evidence that there would have been liquid water on the ambulance. They're idiots.

In the end, though, there's simply no refutation involved. All it really involves is them going back to the scene, and the people who made the claims just making them again.

Oh, and the picture of the basement where the ambulance drivers were supposedly brought to when wounded? Priceless. It shows absolutely nothing of any use. Why the hell include it? It's like they're trying to pull off the Wookie defense.

and the International Committee of the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList577/1FE66CF8A9A9FEF2C12571B5005F59A0)

This isn't a refutation of any sort. It's just the ICRC repeating the claims made by the ambulance drivers themselves. What's particularly trustworthy about that?

opposed to some blog ran by someone who doesn't even give out their name

In other words, "who do you trust, me or your lying eyes?" Nothing about the link I provided relies at all upon any special knowlege on the part of the poster. The arguments can be weighed and the evidence examined on their own merits. That's all it takes. But YOUR links? The ICRC relies completely upon the reliability of those alleging the attack (and appears to have been posted before doubts about the incident became widespread), and the HRW link relies ultimately upon an assertion that the IDF was using unknown weapons which leave no trace. Well, damn those crafty Jews. If they get to invent unknown, unknowable, secret weapons that cannot be confirmed in any way, shape, or form, who knows what mischief they can commit.

And appealing to their authority will get you nowhere. Just like it got Dan Rather nowhereto complain about bloggers in their pajamas, when they were the ones schooling him on typeface analysis. HRW has no particular forensic expertise, and it more than shows. They did such a piss-poor analysis that it contradicts itself. HRW is a tool, and so apparently are you.

[Oliver]

I may be a little bit late concerning the OP but the question isn't "Why do people hate Jews", it's rather "Why do people hate other ethnic groups".

From what I know about the psychological factor behind this, this kind of hate against another ethical group is based on experience, most probably initiated by people in your environment like relatives and friends. Also the general thinking about issues and of course, the media you consume also has a role in this kind of thinking.

From psychological point of view, most of the hate evolves in a persons subconscious as a result of negative emotions concerning a other group or person. If you hear negative news about something long and often enough, you're receptive to adopt such feelings subconsciously.

For an American example: I don't know about the actual numbers but from what I've heart in the past, most stories about murder, violence, shootings, drugs are
about black people as being the suspects or perpetrators.

If you listen to these kind of news long enough, you might tend to evolve emotions towards blacks just because you subconsciously connect crime and black - which might lead to some kind of fear against black people or in the worst case, hate. Now I know that this process of thinking isn't rational at all, but it's a part of Human Nature and it can be used against a group. The Nazis were a good example for using this behavior. I also tend to include the Communist-Antipathy and Saddam-Antipathy as a result of using this human behavior for governmental purposes - which is: "support us". Also known as Propaganda.

Now I know some in here may have a hard time to grasp what I said, especially because my English isn't good enough to explain it much clearer, but the Kramer incident was a very, very good example of that human characteristic, especially when he's trying to explain himself - which he couldn't because he wasn't aware of that characteristic for himself:

54wS7h1-A80

ETA: Just in case the whole clip is violating the rules in here:
Admins, please delete the one above if this is the case, thank you in advance.

D-8a62me7g8


Is no one in here familiar with the psychological backgrounds of prejudice??? :confused:

[Katana]

I'm posting this as a general reminder (for now) to attack arguments rather than people. Thanks.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't see any supporting evidence in that link for your contention. It looks to me like most IDF casualties are in combat, probably small arms fire, antitank missiles, IED's/mines, and mortars, NOT Katyusha rockets. In fact, only one incident on that page seems to reference Kayushas killing IDF soldiers. So it's looking to me like you just posted proof that you're wrong.

Most of the IDF casualties listed seem to be from the rockets.

It isn't the IDF's job to minimize total casualties. Their primary goal is to minimize Israeli casualties. If they can save one Israeli life at the cost of two Lebanese lives, guess what: that's what they'll do. And despite whatever brainwashed nonsensical moral calculus you were raised with, that is precisely what they are SUPPOSED to do. And it's pretty god damned clear, given that IDF casualties mostly WERE from ground combat, that an increase in ground combat (which is what you propose) would lead to increased Israeli casualties.

Why should the IDF hold Israeli lives at higher regard than Lebanese lives?



1000 may be the number of "hard core" Hezbollah fighters, but the number that they can and did activate for this conflict was MUCH higher.

During the conflict the top estimated number of active combatants against the IDF were about 1,000. This included Hezbollah, Amal, LCP and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.


Katyushas are worthless for close quarters combat too. Which is why they weren't used for that. For close quarters combat, they used anti-tank missiles, which are reasonably accurate, and are VERY deadly when used against infantry. Which is exactly what happened. And if ground combat had been the primary method from the beginning, they would probably have used a lot more IEDs as well.

Which is what is expected to happen and is what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.


Then you're an idiot, because I HAVE seen such vehicles, and so would you if you had followed the link I gave.

You've seen "pictures" of such vehicles. Not the vehicles themselves or the actual strike.

Pictures of such vehicles are quite common, they hit the wire services regularly, Israel does airstrikes against cars all the time, and they have a policy of confirming such strikes. Go back to that link and scroll down until you find the pictures of what real airstrikes do to a vehicle.

There are hundreds of types of bombs used in airstrikes and countless thousands of scenarios that can occur during an airstrike which can produce any number of different outcomes.


It doesn't take any great expertise, just a bit of bloody common sense. Munitions used in air strikes are intended to DESTROY vehicles. And that is precisely what they do. The only real way to get very light damage is if the munition doesn't score a direct hit. But that's not the case here: the claim is that it punched through the roof.

Unless the strike goes right through the vehicle without detonating.


What a joke. I'm looking at the case where the missile supposedly penetrated all the way through the vehicle, without really damaging the interior, and then left a small crater in the pavement.

It significantly damaged the interior.

The only possible scenario under which that makes any sense is if the munition didn't explode. But if that were the case, WHERE'S THE REMAINS? They make claims that Israel uses munitions with casing that disintigrates upon detonation, and so that's why they didn't find any shrapnel to analyze, but it can't have detonated, or the vehicle would have been destroyed completely. Furthermore, despite pointing out that some missiles don't produce shrapnel, they go on to say that the ambulance workers were HIT by shrapnel. So where is that shrapnel? Do they not even realize that they're essentially contradicting themselves?

The missile could have detonated under the ground and the shrapnel could have came from the ambulance itself.


Their refutation of the rust, for example, is likewise absurd. It's not enough that the air be humid: rust requires LIQUID water, and they provide NO evidence that there would have been liquid water on the ambulance. They're idiots.

Rust can occur in humid air. (http://enginewise.co.uk/articles/rust-removal-2.html) Humidity is one of the key factors that cause rust.



This isn't a refutation of any sort. It's just the ICRC repeating the claims made by the ambulance drivers themselves. What's particularly trustworthy about that?

It's not some blog by some random anonymous person. I don't have the time to learn all there is about ballistics or the event that occurred so I'll stick with believing the reputable organizations opposed to some conspiracy theorist.


HRW is a tool, and so apparently are you.

:rolleyes:

[Dumbledore]

Methinks you are unfamiliar with the tactics of the IDF.

Well if you would like to show me some proof that the IDF actually engages in tactics that Hezbollah does, without any other logical explanation behind it, i.e. without a antisemitic slant, I am open to it. I don't believe Israel and the IDF are lily white and perfect, I just don't think they slaughter innocent civilians needlessly as Hezbollah does.;)

[Dumbledore]

I'm posting this as a general reminder (for now) to attack arguments rather than people. Thanks.

Good reminder, I will behave myself, thanks.

[a_unique_person]

Many civilians when attacked have no idea what they are actually attacked with, they will call it what they think it might have been. A 'missile' could easily have been any number of types of weapon. My guess is it wasn't a missile, but some other kind of weapon.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/22/lebano14061.htm



Indiscriminate Bombardment

By Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch, published in Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525892021&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Why did so many Lebanese civilians lose their lives to Israeli bombing? The government line is that the IDF was doing the best it could, but these deaths were the result of Hizbullah hiding its rockets and fighters among civilians. But that assertion doesn't stand up to the facts.
Of course Hizbullah did sometimes hide among civilians, breaching its duty to do everything feasible to protect civilians and possibly committing the war crime of deliberate shielding, but that's not the full story.

Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed. In none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.

How do we know? Through the same techniques we use in war zones around the world to cut through people's incentive to lie. We probed and cross-checked multiple eyewitnesses, many of whom talked openly of Hizbullah's presence elsewhere but were adamant that Hizbullah was not at the scene of the attack. We examined bombing sites for evidence of military activity such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers and military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters. If we were unsure, we gave the IDF the benefit of the doubt.

The case of Kana shows how this works. After two Israeli missiles killed 28 civilians in a house there on July 30, the IDF initially charged that Hizbullah had been firing rockets from the vicinity of the targeted house. But Human Rights Watch investigators who visited Kana found that there had been no Hizbullah presence near the bomb site at the time of the attack. IDF sources later admitted to an Israeli military correspondent that Hizbullah wasn't shooting at all from Kana that day.

In some cases, the IDF trotted out video of Hizbullah firing rockets from a village. But it has yet to show that Hizbullah was in a civilian building or vehicle at the time of an Israeli attack that killed civilians. Blaming Hizbullah is simply not an honest explanation for why so many Lebanese civilians died. And without honest introspection, the IDF can't meet its duty and self-professed goal to do everything possible to spare civilians.

Hizbullah certainly should not be let off the hook. Human Rights Watch has conducted detailed investigations of the militia's obvious war crimes - its deliberate efforts to kill Israeli civilians by indiscriminately targeting Israeli cities. Israel had every right to try to stop Hizbullah from raining death and destruction on its people. But under international humanitarian law, just as Israeli abuses in Lebanon did not justify reprisals against Israeli civilians, so Hizbullah's war crimes did not justify Israel shirking its duty to protect Lebanese civilians.

So what was the cause of so many civilian deaths? The IDF seemed to assume that, because it gave warnings to civilians to evacuate southern Lebanon, anyone who remained was a Hizbullah fighter. When the IDF saw a civilian home or vehicle that Hizbullah might use, it often bombed, even if, as in Kana, Srifa, Marwahin, or Aitaroun, there was no evidence that Hizbullah was in fact using the structure or vehicle at the time of attack. In weighing the military advantage of an attack against the civilian cost, the IDF seemed to assume no civilian cost, because all the "innocent" civilians had supposedly fled. Through these calculations, the IDF effectively turned southern Lebanon into a free-fire zone.

But giving warning, as required by international humanitarian law, does not relieve the attacker of the duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only combatants. Otherwise, Palestinian militants might "warn" Israeli settlers to leave their West Bank settlements and then be justified in attacking anyone who remained. Hizbullah might have done the same in northern Israel.

Nor does an evacuation warning mean that all civilians did in fact flee. Many remained in southern Lebanon because of age, infirmity, inability to afford exorbitant taxi fares charged for evacuation, or fear of becoming yet another roadside casualty of IDF bombing. As a result, the IDF's indiscriminate bombardment had devastating consequences for civilians.

[Dumbledore]

Why should the IDF hold Israeli lives at higher regard than Lebanese lives?


Because that is what countries inherently do, they value their citizens lives above the lives of citizens in other countries. If you could provide me with some proof that other countries do not do this, then I would believe that Israel is out of line. Personally I am glad that countries do this, it makes me feel protected by my government, which I do believe it is their job.

[Dumbledore]

Many civilians when attacked have no idea what they are actually attacked with, they will call it what they think it might have been. A 'missile' could easily have been any number of types of weapon. My guess is it wasn't a missile, but some other kind of weapon.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/22/lebano14061.htm

While this site does give insight in how the IDF did not do everything they could to save Lebanese life it does not show that the IDF purposely tried to kill innocent Lebanese citizens.

Secondly war is hell, if you think no innocent people are going to get killed your are sorely mistaken. The IDF should do more to reduce the amount of innocent life taken. With that said it is very easy to sit back and criticize a military action with 20/20 hindsight. I do not have much patience for the international community since they are the ones who did not disarm Hezbollah when they committed to doing so. It is easy to criticize Israel without really considering the position they were put in. Israel and the IDF are not perfect they should improve, but we should also consider the position they were put in, and the inaction by the international community, but the international community is good at complaining!:cool:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Because that is what countries inherently do, they value their citizens lives above the lives of citizens in other countries. If you could provide me with some proof that other countries do not do this, then I would believe that Israel is out of line. Personally I am glad that countries do this, it makes me feel protected by my government, which I do believe it is their job.

That's one of the main causes of collateral damage and genocide. Holding one group of people at a higher regard than another group of people. That's why the...Holocaust happened!


While this site does give insight in how the IDF did not do everything they could to save Lebanese life it does not show that the IDF purposely tried to kill innocent Lebanese citizens.

They didn't purposely try to kill innocent Lebanese citizens, they just killed them due to strategic incompetence.

[Dumbledore]

That's one of the main causes of collateral damage and genocide. Holding one group of people at a higher regard than another group of people. That's why the...Holocaust happened!

They didn't purposely try to kill innocent Lebanese citizens, they just killed them due to strategic incompetence.

No the holocaust happened because one group of people decided to exterminate another group of people, that is very different than valuing the life of some people over others.

Secondly, as I stated before, war is hell, people get killed in war. If you are in a war zone there is a good chance you will be killed no matter who is doing the attacking. Exactly how many people killed everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan, are these all combatants? It is expected that innocent people will be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are war zones. Now the IDF does need to do better, but when you wage war people get killed, no matter how careful you are! Furthermore could you please show me a war or military action in which innocent people did not get killed.

[Ziggurat]

Most of the IDF casualties listed seem to be from the rockets.

Most IDF casualties don't list the exact cause. Of the cases which are attributed to rockets, only one incident on the page you linked to indicated Katyusha rockets. The anti-ship missile was also a rocket. So are the anti-tank missiles used against infantry. But you didn't say all forms of rockets (nor would that argument be significant): you specifically said Katyushas.

Why should the IDF hold Israeli lives at higher regard than Lebanese lives?

Because that's their job. That's why they're the Israeli Defense Force. They are drafted from the Israeli population, they are paid by Israeli taxes, and they are answerable to the Israeli government, which is elected by Israeli citizens. The idea that any national military won't be interested first and foremost with protecting its own citizens is quite frankly insane.

During the conflict the top estimated number of active combatants against the IDF were about 1,000.

Estimated by whom? Because that doesn't match what I've read. I've only seen that number as the number of "hard core" Hesbollah fighters, not the total.

You've seen "pictures" of such vehicles. Not the vehicles themselves or the actual strike.

And you've only seen pictures of the ambulance that supposedly got hit. And we've both only seen pictures of men on the moon.

There are hundreds of types of bombs used in airstrikes

In the world? Yes. That a given military has which are capable of performing precision strikes? No. That number is considerably smaller. And a good number of those would have left little beyond twisted steel and four scattered wheels to indicate the target was even a vehicle to begin with. So no, the number of candidate precision munitions from Israel really isn't very large.

Unless the strike goes right through the vehicle without detonating.

If it detonated under the vehicle, why aren't there signs of massive damage to the bottom of the vehicle? And if it didn't detonate, where are the remains? And why did they say it detonated, causing an explosion with fire, if it just punched through the vehicle and hit the road without exploding?

It significantly damaged the interior.

No, it didn't. That's all cosmetic damage. There is NO buckling of the floor or the walls of the vehicle. Compare that to pictures of known air strikes.

The missile could have detonated under the ground and the shrapnel could have came from the ambulance itself.

If it detonated underneath the vehicle, the floor should be buckled upwards. But it isn't. There's NO signs of damage coming from underneath the vehicle.

It's not some blog by some random anonymous person. I don't have the time to learn all there is about ballistics or the event that occurred so I'll stick with believing the reputable organizations opposed to some conspiracy theorist.

And you don't have time to learn about typeface analysis from anonymous bloggers, so you'll trust Dan Rather too. And Reuters, while we're at it. Oh, but then they spoiled it by having the integrity to admit they were duped by cheap photoshopping from a stringer who piggybacked on their reputation to push Hezbollah propaganda.

And why is HRW credible in the first place? Do they have a track record of forensic or ballistics analysis? No, they don't. Is there really anything to this credibility which you assign them beyond high visibility and agreement with their politics? Is there really any reason to think that they cannot be duped either?

[Ziggurat]

Many civilians when attacked have no idea what they are actually attacked with, they will call it what they think it might have been. A 'missile' could easily have been any number of types of weapon. My guess is it wasn't a missile, but some other kind of weapon.

And if they're that confused about what hit them, how can we trust their attribution of who hit them? Even assuming that they're trying to be honest but are just confused, the only conclusion is that we cannot.

[a_unique_person]

And if they're that confused about what hit them, how can we trust their attribution of who hit them? Even assuming that they're trying to be honest but are just confused, the only conclusion is that we cannot.

There is documentation of several vehicles being hit by the IAF, including ones that were fleeing the South as advised by the IDF.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No the holocaust happened because one group of people decided to exterminate another group of people, that is very different than valuing the life of some people over others.

If one group is inferior, what's wrong with exterminating them? Especially when you perceive that they are somehow threatening you?

Secondly, as I stated before, war is hell, people get killed in war. If you are in a war zone there is a good chance you will be killed no matter who is doing the attacking. Exactly how many people killed everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan, are these all combatants? It is expected that innocent people will be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are war zones. Now the IDF does need to do better, but when you wage war people get killed, no matter how careful you are! Furthermore could you please show me a war or military action in which innocent people did not get killed.

The whole "war is hell, people get killed" isn't an excuse for the strategic errors that cost civilian lives. The IDF has admitted to strategic mistakes, I don't know why you're defending their blunders when even they aren't.

Most IDF casualties don't list the exact cause. Of the cases which are attributed to rockets, only one incident on the page you linked to indicated Katyusha rockets. The anti-ship missile was also a rocket. So are the anti-tank missiles used against infantry. But you didn't say all forms of rockets (nor would that argument be significant): you specifically said Katyushas.

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

Because that's their job.

No it's not.

That's why they're the Israeli Defense Force. They are drafted from the Israeli population, they are paid by Israeli taxes, and they are answerable to the Israeli government, which is elected by Israeli citizens. The idea that any national military won't be interested first and foremost with protecting its own citizens is quite frankly insane.

There's a difference between being interested in saving ones own citizens primarily and haphazardly attacking a country killing civilians.

Estimated by whom? Because that doesn't match what I've read. I've only seen that number as the number of "hard core" Hesbollah fighters, not the total.

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.

And you've only seen pictures of the ambulance that supposedly got hit. And we've both only seen pictures of men on the moon.

And?


If it detonated under the vehicle, why aren't there signs of massive damage to the bottom of the vehicle? And if it didn't detonate, where are the remains? And why did they say it detonated, causing an explosion with fire, if it just punched through the vehicle and hit the road without exploding?

Perhaps it's detonation was underground and not noticeable, Perhaps it never detonated and its remains were lost underground. Perhaps the eyewitness accounts thought it detonated when it didn't.


No, it didn't. That's all cosmetic damage. There is NO buckling of the floor or the walls of the vehicle. Compare that to pictures of known air strikes.

They were lucky.

If it detonated underneath the vehicle, the floor should be buckled upwards. But it isn't. There's NO signs of damage coming from underneath the vehicle.

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



And why is HRW credible in the first place? Do they have a track record of forensic or ballistics analysis? No, they don't. Is there really anything to this credibility which you assign them beyond high visibility and agreement with their politics? Is there really any reason to think that they cannot be duped either?

Does that anonymous blogger have a track record of forensic or ballistic analysis? HRW and other large organizations could easily use forensic experts to tell them what happened based on the pictures, does some guy in his basement running a blog have those resources? I doubt it.

[JJR]

If one group is inferior, what's wrong with exterminating them? Especially when you perceive that they are somehow threatening you?


http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i65/d4r7h7odd/gifs/applause.gif

[Gurdur]

No the holocaust happened because one group of people decided to exterminate another group of people, that is very different than valuing the life of some people over others. If one group is inferior, what's wrong with exterminating them? Especially when you perceive that they are somehow threatening you?


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


The whole "war is hell, people get killed" isn't an excuse for the strategic errors that cost civilian lives.


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.

[a_unique_person]

If one group is inferior, what's wrong with exterminating them? Especially when you perceive that they are somehow threatening you?


Are you saying the Holocaust was morally justified?

[JJR]

Medical experiments on kids was gross. I wouldn't want to do that.

So, that's something the Nazis did in the Hollocaust that I don't like. However, when it comes to lamp shades, I'll take a SOFA!!! A nice leather sofa.

That's all I'm saying.