HOW MANY Jews died...

[hodgy]

...during the Holocaust?

During a movie, "Talk Radio" the radio host is confronted by a neo-nazi who claims that the numbers have been well overly-inflated, and that the surviving Jews were and are getting rich off of this.

"Hitler killed between 5 and 7 million Jews!" the host screamed into the mike. "It could have also been 2.", the caller slithered.

And that moment it sunk in, WHAT IF we are actually spawning hatred toward the Jews by our unequal treatment toward them. I am talking strictly U.S. Policy toward Israel now.

I mean, if I am not mistaken, that IS one of the arguments you hear from OBL, is it not?

So HOW MANY actually died, were murdered, were held in sub-human conditions, or worked like so many slaves? Are those numbers available, and in today's litigious society could we attach a value to that pain and suffering. Because when we have that number, then we can apply it to what Israel has amassed since then, and see if they are still in the 'red' persay.

At 'some' point they should be paid off, and no longer rely on the U.N. or the U.S. for financial or militarial support.

Well - 5,000,000 or 500,000 - it doesn't make a difference to the morality of it. The fact that you want to ask the question in terms of absolute figures does not cast a good light on your motivation.

 

[varwoche]

So, I perceive a poster’s views to be (perhaps unconsciously) anti-semitic, and it should make no difference to my reaction that I am a Jew, an object of that person’s prejudice, and possibly hatred?

I acknowledge your question -- need to chew on it for a while.

how sheltered US Jews are from anti-semitism.

True.

So, Israel now is ‘as much a democracy as South Africa was during the apartheid era’. At best, this is a gross exaggeration.

I agree -- note my toned-down version above. I still don't see how this justifies an assumption of anti-semitism.

Shalom.

 

[a_unique_person]

Gee,

AUP is just soooo much better at this KOA. You should get together with him sometime and take a lesson or two in hard-hitting yet subtle anti-semitism 101. I believe the first chapter is on the importance of hiding one's motives in a plausable way.

-z

**** you too. Another liar. I had kept out of this thread, for obvious reasons, only to find this sort of **** being spouted behind my back.

 

[Mycroft]

**** you too. Another liar. I had kept out of this thread, for obvious reasons, only to find this sort of **** being spouted behind my back.

O c'mon! All he said is you were more subtle in your anti-Semitism. It's a compliment, really.

 

[a_unique_person]

O c'mon! All he said is you were more subtle in your anti-Semitism. It's a compliment, really.

You are a very, very sick and corrupted person.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: To Donks:

I don't think you give anything to England - we pay our own way.

Madonna.

No thanks necessary.

 

[Mycroft]

You are a very, very sick and corrupted person.

It's your prejudice.

 

[a_unique_person]

It's your prejudice.

prejudice is a subjective thing. That you lie is a plain and simple fact.

 

[Jocko]

prejudice is a subjective thing. That you lie is a plain and simple fact.

If prejudice is subjective, and someone says you are prejudiced, how is that suddenly a lie (a FACT no less!) and not subjective?

Or are you using some subjective interpretation of the word "lie"?

Come on, AUP, no one believed it when Elton John got married either. Subjectivity is subjective too, it seems.

...."behind your back"? Catty much? Sheesh.

 

[a_unique_person]

If prejudice is subjective, and someone says you are prejudiced, how is that suddenly a lie (a FACT no less!) and not subjective?

Or are you using some subjective interpretation of the word "lie"?

Come on, AUP, no one believed it when Elton John got married either. Subjectivity is subjective too, it seems.

...."behind your back"? Catty much? Sheesh.

Like I said, I kept right out of this thread, because it looked like some Holocaust denying drivel was going to be served up, ditto the circumcision thread.

That's not good enough, though, because all that does is show how good I am at being a devious, lying anti-semite.

He made an objective judgement about me, when he had nothing factual to base that judgement on, only some sort of psychic mind-reading skills. That constitutes a lie. So I am calling him a liar. But this lie was not just anything, but about me being an anti-semite like David Irving. That is a massive insult to me, and libellous.

 

[Mycroft]

He made an objective judgement about me, when he had nothing factual to base that judgement on, only some sort of psychic mind-reading skills.

I've been arguing with you for a year and a half now, you can't serriously say I have nothing to base it on.

If it makes you feel better, I don't think your just anti-Semetic. You have other prejudices too.

 

[a_unique_person]

I've been arguing with you for a year and a half now, you can't serriously say I have nothing to base it on.

If it makes you feel better, I don't think your just anti-Semetic. You have other prejudices too.

You only ever make baseless assertions, and not just that I am anti semitic, but there are assertions that I am a closet extremist like Irving.

For a start, how do you know that I frequent, for example, electronic intifada?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You only ever make baseless assertions, and not just that I am anti semitic, but there are assertions that I am a closet extremist like Irving.

It's not at all baseless. In fact, here is a rather recent example of things you've written that might lead one to think you're anti-Semetic.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
For a start, how do you know that I frequent, for example, electronic intifada?

I don't, but quite frankly you are so consistently anti-Israel, so completely unwilling to ever grant Israel the benefit of the doubt and so unskeptical of anything critical of Israel that you could write for electronic intifada. Seriously, I read it sometimes. You would fit right in.

Remember the time when you were the only one to hear laughter on the video of the Palestinian-Arab violin player?

How about when you created an aquifer with no more evidence than a picture of a hiltop with trees?

Or when you described 500 years of Ottoman rule over Palestine as "occupation" for no other reason than to discredit Zionist negotiations with the Ottomans?

Or the way you continually emphasize the religious element of Zionism (which was a secular movement) while simultaneously excusing and downplaying the religious fanaticism from the Palestinian-Arab side?

You are an anti-Israel and anti-USA propagandist. How did you become this way? Well, you have certain prejudices that filter and slant the information you recieve. In your case, these filters are stronger than most.

 

[Lucky]

From billydkid:
I am not very learned about middle eastern politics, but if I understand correctly, a significant portion of the inhabitants of the lands now identified as Israel do not have citizenship and can not vote. How that can be called a democracy in any genuine sense is beyond me. If I am wrong about this, my mistake.

True, you are not learned, you do not understand correctly, and what you say is more than just a mistake. I want to explain why it could be seen as an anti-semitic ‘mistake’.

Actually, I don’t know exactly what your misunderstanding is. Do you mean the inhabitants of the disputed (or ‘occupied’, if you prefer) territories (who do not wish to be Israeli citizens or vote in Israeli elections and are fighting for a separate state)? Or are you talking about immigration laws and foreign workers who are denied citizenship? If so, every democracy has those (right or wrong), and you would need to justify your singling out of Israel for criticism on that. Whatever your reasons for claiming that Israel is as bad as apartheid South Africa, they are certainly based on lack of knowledge.

Now, we are all happy to comment on issues (especially political ones) that we know little about, so I have to justify my statement that your inappropriate comments here may indicate some unconscious anti-semitism.

First, I will do you the courtesy of assuming that, when discussing the policies of a foreign country with one of its inhabitants, you don’t normally begin by being deliberately offensive. I assume you don’t stride in, fists waving, saying things like ‘well, actually, I don’t know what I’m talking about but I’ll make some ill-informed criticisms anyway’. (Though, as you’re an American…)

You must be aware that discussing Israel/Palestine with Jews, whilst not the same as discussing it with Israelis or Palestinians, is also not the same as discussing with disinterested parties. Jews tend to have vastly greater knowledge of the history and politics of the situation than outsiders, and also a great emotional involvement (often including an Israeli family). It is therefore a matter of common decency and common sense to bear in mind our sensibilities in this discussion.

Contrast these two statements. One is guaranteed to annoy me with its offensive exaggeration; the other is a considered opinion that I disagree with but which provides a basis for discussion:
billydkid: they are as much a democracy as South Africa was during the apartheid era
varwoche: I consider Israel to be on the path to an apartheid state

I suspect that you are happy to have your opinions ready made for you by those biased towards or against one side, without troubling yourself about tedious facts. Unfortunately, that is all too common. If you retort that exactly the same could be said about many pro-Israelis (or anti-Palestinians) then I can only agree.

Let me put it this way. You have some interest in the Israel/Palestine issue, else you wouldn’t have bothered posting. Presumably you would like me to listen to you (your assumptions about my views are utterly wrong, by the way). If so, it helps that I don’t write you off as an anti-semitic bigot. You made a comment that Jews would tend to find offensive, and possibly even anti-semitic. When I pointed this out to you (and tried to explain why I was offended) you retreated into an indignant denunciation of my supposed Israel-apologist views. Not a good start.

varwoche: I don’t think that any single remark can be interpreted with certainty as anti-semitic (including ‘Hitler was right’, which was once said to me). It is all a matter of context and probability. Does the person also have positive things to say about Jews and/or Israel? Does the person display any compassion for Israel’s problems, or is the compassion entirely one sided? Are this person’s mistaken assumptions consistently in an anti-Jewish/anti-Israel direction? Of course, the test of anti-Israel criticism is whether there is any balancing criticism directed towards Arabs or Palestinians. For example, blaming the Israeli government for provoking suicide bombings is a bit of a giveaway.

 

[varwoche]

So, I perceive a poster’s views to be (perhaps unconsciously) anti-semitic, and it should make no difference to my reaction that I am a Jew, an object of that person’s prejudice, and possibly hatred?

Once a "reaction" becomes a post to a skeptical forum, yes, that's basically what I'm saying.

how sheltered US Jews are from anti-semitism.

It also depends a great deal on where you are in the US. Here's a good source for some of the more extreme stuff: Southern Poverty Law Center

Now, when composing my post I originally put ‘anti-semitic, anti-Israel or Holocaust-denying statements’. I then realised that the statements I was quoting were not overtly anti-semitic, and, in any case, my point was that the statements were perhaps indicating an underlying prejudice. So I removed the phrase ‘anti-semitic’ from my analysis of the comments before posting, but you quoted it anyway!

I don't understand. 1) I didn't quote you, and 2) the post in question contains:

Lucky: I cannot avoid suspecting the person responsible of anti-semitism

My point is that there are other interpretations for billykid's post, and that assuming the worst interpretation is reactive.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by varwoche
Once a "reaction" becomes a post to a skeptical forum, yes, that's basically what I'm saying.

This doesn't sound reasonable to me. It's like saying a black person shouldn't react differently to "ni**er" than a white person.

The target of racism will be both more sensitive and have a greater reaction to racism. That's human nature, and it's not a fault.

Originally posted by varwoche
My point is that there are other interpretations for billykid's post, and that assuming the worst interpretation is reactive.

I think there is always a different interpretation of everything. Finding the alternative interpretation isn't enough, you must then have reason to prefer the alternative interpretation over the racist interpretation.

 

[a_unique_person]

This doesn't sound reasonable to me. It's like saying a black person shouldn't react differently to "ni**er" than a white person.

The target of racism will be both more sensitive and have a greater reaction to racism. That's human nature, and it's not a fault.



I think there is always a different interpretation of everything. Finding the alternative interpretation isn't enough, you must then have reason to prefer the alternative interpretation over the racist interpretation.

Guilty until proven innocent, I know the feeling.

 

[Mycroft]

Guilty until proven innocent, I know the feeling.

You're free to make your case.

You keep saying "no evidence", but the truth is each time I or Skeptic called you a bigot we gave reasons. Most of the time you just don't respond.

Then there was the time, acording to you, where you got upset at being called an anti-Semite so you thought starting a thread that's insulting and hurtful to Jews would be appropriate.

 

[varwoche]

This doesn't sound reasonable to me. It's like saying a black person shouldn't react differently to "ni**er" than a white person.

You're taking it to an extreme. Billykid posted nothing of this nature -- not even remotely.

The target of racism will be both more sensitive and have a greater reaction to racism. That's human nature, and it's not a fault.

True, it's human nature. And I don't see it as a fault, unless and until it reaches the point of clouding one's judgement.

 

[Brahe]

I don't know why you even respond to Mycroft, a_unique_person. I set him on ignore a long time ago. Just today I resolved to undertake a quick review to see if either I had been mistaken or Mycroft had changed. It took no more than a single post to demonstrate that Mycroft is nothing more than a troll who has nothing of substance, only insults.

Frankly, you're wasting your time with him. You can't change his mind and there's no need to convince the rest of us that he's wrong. You might as well argue against Geller or Irving or Wyatt for all the good it will do you.