|
|
#111
12-14-2005, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Zipo as baton expert
[ QUOTE ]
Earlier I wrote: <font color="white"> . </font> "You directed a pointed remark toward me, in which you claimed my abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to my supposed support of Israel." <font color="white"> . </font> You replied to that specific quote in your last post: <font color="white"> . </font> " You are imagining things. This never happened." <font color="white"> . </font> I submit a quote from your earlier post #4188240 in this thread: <font color="white"> . </font> "But the way I see things, you are incapable of reasoned argument and a prime example of that deficiency is your reflexive reaction to anyone who dares dispute "what's best for Israel" : He or she is an anti-semite." [/ QUOTE ] How much of a fool will you make of yourself? Numero Uno : My remark (in bold) was clearly referring to an earlier "exchange" we had, where you ended up accusing me of anti-semitism. It was not in THIS thread (at least not yet, we still have a-ways to go... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])... Numero Due : Where O Where did I write that your abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to your support of Israel? For what it's worth, and FYI, I do not think that. What I do think (and I will repeat it slowwwwly as I do for fools and children) is simply that, for you, anyone who dares dispute "what's best for Israel" is an anti-semite. Which is exactly what appears in your quote of my text! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] You claim my earlier posts were full of platitudes. Offer up one - just one - and we'll compare it to the dictionary definition of 'platitude'. [/ QUOTE ] Since you refuse to pick a number for me [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img], I guess I'll have to do all the work. Here we go, I close my eyes and pick . . . [ QUOTE ] There are several varieties of Holocaust deniers, who have in common a deep sense of hatred and bigotry toward Jews. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] plat·i·tude n. A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant. [/ QUOTE ] Twirl that around a bit. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] 
|
|
#112
12-14-2005, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holocaust Denial
[ QUOTE ]
The American Indian holocaust was mostly effectuated through disease. [/ QUOTE ] Disease ran rampant in all populations before the 20th century. That you suggest that most indians died of disease is an admission that most indians were not killed by an American genocide, since deliberate usage of disease to kill was a very infrequent practice. You try to stretch two cultures in conflict into genocide. How unfair of you, and a true distortion of history.
|
|
#115
12-14-2005, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mens rea
For the sake of all of our sanities, I'll ignore the fact that you once again missed the point that the Canadian Criminal Code was being used only to explain the legal principles that underlie the claim of murder and not as the binding legislation by which the Nazis ought to have governed themselves. I'll further refrain from pointing out to you that almost all Western Democratic Criminal Codes are derived from the Common Law criminal jurisprudence of 16th through 19th century Great Britain, which were the best codification of legal principles before they began to be legislated by statute.
I'll instead focus on this sentence: If I dress up like a ghost and say "boo, you're gonna die" and three days later you die of a heart attack, I guess that makes me a murderer too according to your less than stellar legal opinion. That's not even murder in Canada, unless the victim is particularly old and frail, or an infant. The harrassment issue takes effect when the threat is reasonably credible, such as a credible threat to expose you to the world as a Nazi, which in turn would alienate you from all you hold dear, and you take your own life.
|
|
#116
12-14-2005, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
War?
[ QUOTE ]
This concept of "war crimes" is a farce and just illustrates the pathological self-righteousness of America and other western powers who endorse it. War is a state of affairs in which there are no rules -- anything goes, kill or be killed, use everthing you've got to destroy the enemy. When there are no rules, there is no such thing as a crime. The definition of a crime is relative to a set of rules. Of course if the masses will buy it and therefore you can get mileage out of it, there's no reason why you couldn't pretend there's something called war crimes and use it to manipulate people to behave as you'd like them to behave. Propaganda is, after all, an important element of overall strategy and a so good warrior is wise to use it whenever it's advantageous. But to believe such a thing exists as an objective concept universally applicable to all parties is simply deluded. [/ QUOTE ] This argument is useless in this context unless you strongly believe there was an existing war between the Nazis and the Jews long before they began interning and killing them off. You would have to question whether the Jews, by virtue of their Jewishness, posed a legitimate threat to the "German way of life". That the Jews were already subject to numerous restrictions and limitations on their freedoms may be evidence of that. By the way, this was basically Hitler's argument, that the Jews' codes of morality were an assault on the German way.
|
|
#117
12-14-2005, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holocaust Denial
[ QUOTE ]
"The only injustice was the eviction of all those jews 1500 years ago, before there even were any 'Arabs'. More importantly, there has been a continuous significant Jewish community in Israel since the dawn of history. The move of the european jews there was immigration, not colonization. Those people did not set the arabs to work in their fields or force on them slave labour, they simply created their own communities independent of the existing arab communities." 1) 1500 years ago is a long time to remedy an injustice, is it not? And how can it be the "only" injustice when hundreds of thousands of native lost their homes in 1948? [/ QUOTE ] It is. But that doesn't mean it can't be remedied. Considering 1948 was long long after the major Jewish immigrations to Palestine, I don't see how there is a direct correlation between the Jewish immigration and the loss of homes. [ QUOTE ] 2) Why the e of quotation marks for "Arabs"? [/ QUOTE ] Because the Arab "nation" was not a term used at the time (first century). [ QUOTE ] 3) There were Jews at the dawn of history? In any event, the vast majority of the population of Palestine at the start of Zionism (I mean Herzl's Zionist) was not Jewish. It was Palestinian. [/ QUOTE ] Since the dawn of recorded history in Canaan, arguably. Regardless, Palestinian was a term used to refer to the Jews of Palestine, the Arabs referred to themselves as Arabs/Syrians/Egyptians/whatever. So by calling the population of Palestine "Palestinians" is a grave miscarriage of the word. [ QUOTE ] 4) Of course Zionism was colonization. It was advertised as a colonial enterprise by the founders of Zionism from the get-go. [/ QUOTE ] Calling it "colonization" was the only way to convince the European powers that be to allow the Jews to move there. There's little doubt that unless there was a European interest the immigration would never have been allowed, and the evidence that most land that became Jewish was purchased and not appropriated until after the War of Independence and the establishment of the seige on the Jews. It is also ridiculous to assert colonization when the non-Jewish natives were not interned or enslaved, or shipped back to England to serve under the King. [ QUOTE ] 5) There is plenty of evidence to contradict your rosy picture of the impact of Zionism on the natives. One doesn't have to rely on Arab propaganda, one can read Ahad Ha'am or other early Zionist settlers, Jabotinsky, Buber or other Jewish sources from a variety of political perspectives. [/ QUOTE ] See response to Q4.
|
|
#118
12-14-2005, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
\"in trying to denounce the Nazis\"
As if they needed any more "denouncement", or their actions were ever NOT capable of being denounced!
[ QUOTE ] It is Gamblor who brought up legality in trying to denounce the Nazis, not me. [/ QUOTE ] It was brought up because you questioned whether their actions constituted "murder", which required a legal definition. The portion of this world ignorant of mundane details such as the definition of murder are happy to call it "killing".
|
|
#119
12-14-2005, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holocaust Denial
The Nazis wanted to get rid of the Jews, but there are different ways to get rid of people. The official documents show that the intent was deportation.
I'm sure there were Nazis in the hierarchy who just intended to kill undesirables off, and many were. But this was not official policy. And like Beer and Pizza said, there is a difference between intentionally spreading disease and it happening due to circumstances. I don't think it was Nazi policy to go around coughing on undesirables and thereby eliminate them this way.
|
|
#120
12-14-2005, 10:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Holocaust Denial
"I don't see how there is a direct correlation between the Jewish immigration and the loss of homes."
-If not for the Jewish immigration those people would still have their homes. "calling the population of Palestine 'Palestinians' is a grave miscarriage of the word." -I'll let that statement stand on its own. "It is also ridiculous to assert colonization when the non-Jewish natives were not interned or enslaved, or shipped back to England to serve under the King." A colony is a land settled or conquered by an outside nation and controlled by it. The Jews defined themselves as a nation, albeit an unusual one without a land. They colonized Palestine.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
