Corrie vs. Caterpillar -- Redux.

People might be more willing to listen to your argument if you weren't a citizen of a country that was allied with Nazi Germany.

You know, I'd make a snide comment here. But much like webfusion's cheerleading of the slaughter of innocent people, the above post says a lot more about you than it does about JJM.


Though maybe people would listen to me more if I didn't live in a State that tried to preserve slavery and seceded from the Union. :rolleyes:
 
You know, I'd make a snide comment here.

Good, you are better than that.

But much like webfusion's cheerleading of the slaughter of innocent people, the above post says a lot more about you than it does about JJM.

Not that this counts as a snide remark or anything.

Though maybe people would listen to me more if I didn't live in a State that tried to preserve slavery and seceded from the Union. :rolleyes:

Well you said it, not me.

Its simple. If someone from an axis country wants to complain about how often Israeli Jews mention the holocaust then he ought to be able to back his claim up with damn good evidence. Of course, everyone should be able to back all their claims up. However, in my opinion people from axis countries need to be doubly mindful of this.

In the same way I would hold you to a higher standard of proof if you lived in the 1920s South (i.e. 60 years after the civil war) and wanted to claim that blacks are always mentioning slavery.

To me, it is just like the way blacks can get away with n***** jokes but the grandchildren of KKK members can't; or Jews can make holocaust jokes but Germans can't (except ironically).
 
Last edited:
What the hell is a Holocaust joke?

I've heard a few, believe it or not, though I won't repeat them here. I've also heard my grandparents, who are Holocaust survivors, make joking reference to the Lodz Ghetto and the various camps they were in. Probably a coping mechanism of some sort.
 
People might be more willing to listen to your argument if you weren't a citizen of a country that was allied with Nazi Germany.

Getting a little short of good material to use in discussions?
 
What the hell is a Holocaust joke?

There are some good google links for humour and holocaust, there was also the Iranian cartoon contest last year.

Here is an inoffensive holocaust joke that I think most people could get away with:

Goebbels was touring German schools. At one, he asked the students to call out patriotic slogans.
"Heil Hitler," shouted one child.
"Very good," said Goebbels.
"Deutschland über alles," another called out.
"Excellent. How about a stronger slogan?"
A hand shot up, and Goebbels nodded.
"Our people shall live forever," the little boy said.
"Wonderful," exclaimed Goebbels. "What is your name, young man?"
"Israel Goldberg."
 
Getting a little short of good material to use in discussions?

Has that ever stopped you?

In my defence I didn't through (or even throw) in a random (and unsupported) claim that Israeli Jews mention the holocaust too often.
 
Last edited:
Please state your evidence for your contention that Israeli Jews are somehow more apt than anyone else to mention the Holocaust.
Since "holocaust" refers to dead Jews, this question was -- again -- mentioning dead Jews only.

Many times more Russians died in WWII than Jews.

I am getting tired of these stories of dead people. If you tell a story about dead people, please mention all of them with equal enthusiasm and pathos.
 
1. The first person to use the word "holocaust" in this thread was you (and doesn't even appear in the quote from Mycroft's post), so your complaint was a total non sequitur (and clearly successful attempt at derailing the thread).

2. You then complain that the "mantra" "holocaust" is misused most often by Israeli Jews, and yet Mycroft, the guy who apparently induced your tirade is neither Israeli nor Jewish. Does that make it a double non sequitur?

3. Third, the point doesn't even make sense. Why, when discussing a specific killing, is it necessary to mention everyone who has been killed, even if its connected by time period and during the same war? Shouldn't the scope of the mention be related to the context in which it is raised? Sure, the fact that numerically more Russians than Jews perished in World War II could be relevant to some conversations. Similarly, the fact that proportionally, more Jews than Russians died might also be relevant. Also, it might be relevant that, proportionally, more Jews were killed by the Romans in the 1st century than by the Nazis in the 20th. It might also be relevant, in some contexts, to mention the Nazis' attempted genocide of Romani (gypsies). Or it might be relevant to discuss the attempted genocide against Armenians by the Turks, or Rwandan genocide, or Cambodian genocide by the Khmer Rouge.

But without specific context, it's impossible to know whether a specific mention of the holocaust should also include a mention of Russian deaths or the deaths of any other people. And since your comment about the holocaust appears to have come out of the blue, well, it just seems pretty bizarre.
 
Since "holocaust" refers to dead Jews, this question was -- again -- mentioning dead Jews only.

Many times more Russians died in WWII than Jews.

I am getting tired of these stories of dead people. If you tell a story about dead people, please mention all of them with equal enthusiasm and pathos.


Am I to assume from this non-answer that you have no evidence that Israeli Jews are more apt to talk about the Holocaust than any other group?

Am I to assume that you do not agree that people should remember their own experiences and those of their parents and grandparents with more emotion than experiences of people they don't know?

Am I to assume from your post that at my grandfather's funeral, after telling a story about him, I should have then with equal enthusiasm told a story of equal length about each and every single person who has died throughout the whole of human history?
 
I am getting tired of these stories of dead people. If you tell a story about dead people, please mention all of them with equal enthusiasm and pathos.

She was not innocent, she was an abettor of real terrorists who have shown themselves again to the world who they are -- and what they wish to accomplish. It is not fantasy, it is purely real and being fashioned right in front of our eyes.

To call the Israelis "terrorists", while we're acting in self-defense consistently and exclusively, simple defies all logic.

Corrie cheered the forces who declared themselves above the laws of humanity, above the civilization we have formed. She was an anarchist, with all her screaming into bullhorns and furiously going about as a defender of ... terrorists. She was no innocent, not by a long shot.


If Corrie were alive today, she would be right there, alongside the manic crowds of Gaza, cheering Qassems that rain upon Sderot, Israel, These attacks from Gaza are still happening even as I type this.

And these same threats today of ballistic missile attack on a grand scale from three directions at once (Lebanon, Syria, Iran) is not particularly great news to Israel, which just twelve months ago suffered a surprise missile barrage.

Yes, threats openly declared as the the President of Iran visits to Damascus, meeting with Nasrallah and Assad simultaneously, and making bellicose statements, all of them together.

No, I do not dismiss that lightly, and I do not feel very secure in The_Fool's reassurances that the 'potential destruction' of Israel is a figment of our imaginations.
 
I see you're still desperate to slander her. That's a shame.

But again, it says more about you than it does about her.


No, it says everything I need to say about her -- slander is the telling of lies, yet it is certainly not a lie to say she was a terrorist supporter of the 1st degree. She knew perfectly well that the terrorists were smuggling weapons to be used against Israel in Rafah at the time of her death; she actually thought that the terrorists were engaged in a useful enterprise, and Israel "deserved" being terrorized. She expressed this hatred of Israel (and the USA) in public. Corrie was a true enemy of the State of Israel. She was not an innocent bystander -- and I have not one shred, not one iota of remorse, for her or for anyone who comes along and lends aid and comfort to people whose openly-stated purpose is to kill jews.


{PHOTO LINK}
http://iowalibertarian.blogspot.com/rachel-corrie-flagburner[1].jpg
Corrie shows her true colors: "F-- America & Death to Israel."


Whenever Israeli Defense Forces go into action against known terrorist targets, I have no problem whatsoever at the results.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/885644.html
 
No, it says everything I need to say about her -- slander is the telling of lies, yet it is certainly not a lie to say she was a terrorist supporter of the 1st degree.

You're right. The word "lie" doesn't seem to do it justice. That sort of dishonesty goes way beyond the concept of "lie."
 
You're right. The word "lie" doesn't seem to do it justice. That sort of dishonesty goes way beyond the concept of "lie."


What is it you're disputing, that she (and the rest of the ISM) hated Israel so much that she openly supported the armed fight against it, or that the groups that attack Israel are terrorists?

Or both?

I don't really blame her, it is easy to be consumed by hate when you're standing in the middle of death and destruction.
 
What is it you're disputing, that she (and the rest of the ISM) hated Israel so much that she openly supported the armed fight against it, or that the groups that attack Israel are terrorists?

Or both?

Like loaded questions much?
 
Like loaded questions much?



23197967.jpg



That was not an answer.
 

Back
Top Bottom