Why do people hate Jews?

[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 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 and not rethink his entire belief structure.

This isn't Chris Hansen, is it?

 

[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 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. 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 and the International Committee of the Red Cross 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?

For the love of Mike, she's 26.

 

[Ziggurat]

The vast majority 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.

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

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

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:



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.

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

 

[Katana]

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

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Katana

 

[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. 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.

 

[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.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Katana

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

[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]Indiscriminate Bombardment[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]By Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch, published in Jerusalem Post[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]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. [/FONT]

 

[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!