Nato acknowledges that the Holocaust occurred in his post earlier in this thread, so your assertion that he is denying the Holocaust is irrational.
The link he linked to in that other thread appears to be written by a crackpot.
But that crackpot quotes what appear to be historically verifiable records.
Instead of blackballing and namecalling, you might consider engaging the community in a discussion. Some links supporting your position, or civily refuting his, would be most helpful.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as I understand it, sL and Nato actually have the same position: that the Nazis were exterminating the Jews, that this was wrong, and the actual number of deaths doesn't matter all that much. I suppose Nato could post to further clarify this, though.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep attributing views to Nato that he hasn't said. And you're doing so in an attempt to show that I'm misjudging him.
Until Nato himself states here that he acknowledges that the Nazis deliberately planned to exterminate the Jews and carried out a policy of doing so by means of gassing Jews to death in Auschwitz and other death camps, I'm going to stick with the obvious fact that he's a Holocaust denier.
It's hard for you to believe that there are people so vile that they would try and turn that into a matter of dispute. I get that. But don't claim that he's said the Nazis were trying to exterminate the Jews when he hasn't said anything of the sort.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Nato, might I ask you a few questions to hopefully get your stance straightened out?
1. Do you agree that Nazi Germany's central government set up and executed a plan to systematically murder Jews and other undesirables?
2. Why does it matter to you whether or not 1.5 million or 4 million were killed at Auschwitz? (as posed to Lisa in reverse)
1. As far as I know, there was an attempt to rid Germany and the world of Jews, Bolsheviks, homosexuals, etc. I'm not an expert on the holocaust, but from what I've read, I think it was a terrible crime in many ways. I also believe simply rounding up and imprisoning people based on their race, sexual preference, or religion is wrong, so even if there were nobody dead from what the Nazis did, I would still be against them.
2. It doesn't specifically matter to me how many people were actually murdered. The program as a whole would have been terribly evil even there were very few deaths. Nevertheless, we should try to find out as accurate a history as possible, using the available resources (such as the archive linked from the first post of this thread). Anything less than telling the true story (whatever that may be) would be a dishonor to those who died. The point for me is that we remember the Holocaust and make sure it never happens again.
quote:starLisa: I disagree. And in fact, the link that he provide in this post includes:
Lisa, rense.com is not a holocaust denial site, although sometimes there are essays posted there by people you would call "deniers." The site is aimed at free speech. If you're interested, you should read the disclaimer.
quote:from the disclaimer:
Disclaimer and Fair Use
The idea of a free press in America is one that we hold in the highest regard. We believe in bringing our site visitors and program listeners the widest possible array of information that comes to our attention. We have great trust and respect for the American people, and our worldwide audience, and believe them to be fully-capable of making their own decisions and discerning their own realities.
Among the thousands of articles posted here for your consideration, there will doubtless be some that you find useless, and possibly offensive, but we believe you will be perceptive enough to realize that even the stories you disagree with have some value in terms of promoting your own further self-definition and insight. Our site is a smorgasbord of material...take what you wish and click or scroll right past that which doesn't interest you.
We suggest you don't make 'assumptions' about our official position on issues that are discussed here. That is not what this site is about. We believe it to be unwise to sweep controversy under the carpet. We also firmly believe people should not only read material which they agree with. The opinions expressed through the thousands of stories here do not necessarily represent those of Mr. Rense, his radio program, his website, or his webmaster, Mr. James Neff.
Furthermore, I quoted that story as a source for several bits of information from news stories that I didn't have the time to look up. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, only some of the claims upon which he rests to make those conclusions. My ultimate feelings about the holocaust are different from that particular writer.
quote:Well, as I understand it, sL and Nato actually have the same position: that the Nazis were exterminating the Jews, that this was wrong, and the actual number of deaths doesn't matter all that much. I suppose Nato could post to further clarify this, though.
Thanks, Tom.
Since I have also been called anti-Semitic directly in other threads, I would like to clarify my position in general. I have no dislike for anybody based on their race, religion, sexual preference, or gender. I myself am an athiest/agnostic, but I do not wish to deny anybody their religion. I do object to many of the policies of the current Israeli government, but I feel that it does not stand for Jews in general, or even all of Israel's citizens, just like I feel the current US administration does not represent the position of many Americans. If anybody believes this position is anti-Semitic, I hope you will reconsider.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to stick with the obvious fact that he's a Holocaust denier.
Nato said on page 1:
quote: I have never denied that the holocaust exists. In fact, I am quite sure that terrible atrocities did occur at the hands of the Nazis.
And he's made clear what meaning lies behind his use of the term "Holocaust". And atrocities... hell, Columbine was an atrocity.
Nato is quite capable of writing. And also of laughing his a** off watching you all try and answer for him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're still weaseling, Nato. "Ridding the world" is a cute way out. (1) Did the Nazis or did they not plan to methodically kill all the Jews? (2) Did they march Jews into gas chambers and kill them with poison gas?
Don't muddy the waters with Roma and gays, either. That's not the question.
A simple "yes" or "no" will do for each question. I'm willing to lay odds that you won't answer yes to either of them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, it's unfair to say that I think that genocide and school shootings are on the same level. When wide-scale murder becomes the policy of a government, it's a very different thing than a local tragedy.
quote:You're still weaseling, Nato. "Ridding the world" is a cute way out. (1) Did the Nazis or did they not plan to methodically kill all the Jews? (2) Did they march Jews into gas chambers and kill them with poison gas?
I don't know. I would like to see more conclusive research into what happened at the concentration camps. I have read conflicting evidence, and I'm still not sure what happened. I believe the Nazis intention was to eliminate the Jews, but I don't know exactly how they did it or how far they got. I didn't go so far to make the statements you are demanding I make, because I am not sure if they are true. It seems that they probably are true, but again, I am not an expert in the matter, and I hope real experts continue to research the matter and let me know what they find out. I do know a lot of people died and terrible crimes were committed, but I don't profess to know the exact scope or method.
I still believe the main lesson from the Holocaust for us today is to make sure it doesn't happen again. To that end, I would also be interested in learning more about how the German population didn't rise up against such crimes being committed by their government. I would hope there would be an uprising to stop such things if they were to happen again.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:(1) Did the Nazis or did they not plan to methodically kill all the Jews? (2) Did they march Jews into gas chambers and kill them with poison gas?
You know, sL, I'm not sure that the first statement depends on the second for its truth.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's okay, Tom. I didn't say it did. But as I suspected, Nato avoided giving either one of them a "yes".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nato is quite capable of writing. And also of laughing his a** off watching you all try and answer for him.
I wish you'd provide links and data to back up your opinion.
We've seen what Nato calls evidence-- do you have something to offer to the discussion besides disdain for Nato's opinion?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nato, would you be willing to affirm that the Nazis certainly planned to methodically kill a huge number of innocent Jews, and successfully killed some consequential number of them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't muddy the waters with Roma and gays, either. That's not the question.
Why not? Do you believe the Nazis' desire to eliminate gays was all that different from a desire to eliminate Jews? It seems that all of these groups was just a part of their ethnic cleansing project.
I understand you simply may not be interested in those parties, but why should we exclude them from our consideration of the crimes of the Holocaust?
It seems to me that creating a dichotomy between the Jewish Holocaust and all other forms of genocide or identity-based systematic murder is counterproductive. I don't want any of these things to happen again ever, so why not acknowledge all aspects of the Holocaust and work toward making it not happen again?
I think our quarrel may come from different aims. I am looking toward the future, while you seem to want a recognition of the specific historic events. Why is that so important to you?
I don't mean to suggest that the truth of the Holocaust isn't important; like I've said above, I think the matter should still be looked at and recognized for its horribleness. But I still feel the point of looking at it is for the present and the future, and in order to best learn from it, we should have as accurate a picture as possible. If you have evidence showing that you know accurately what happened, present it. I have seen dozens of essays expressing doubt about specific elements of that account, and I don't think the matter is completely cleared up yet. I hope the unveiling of this archive will assist us in developing a complete understanding of how the Holocaust happened, how much the German people knew about it, and how it could have been stopped. All so that we will be prepared to stop it again if we need to.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me point out that the existence of 'dozens of essays' is a highly misleading form of argument, because it ignores the hundreds, even thousands, of essays, witness statements, and now Nazi documents that do not doubt the Holocaust. It's like picking out the dozen or so websites that support Creationism, and calling that evidence against evolution.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, that point wasn't very clear. I'll see if I can find some examples sometime this evening.
The sort of argument I'm talking about are those that say things like "the gas chambers at Auschwitz would not have had the capacity to kill as many people as claimed," or claims that many victims in the concentration camps died of starvation and being worked to death (which I think is no less evil than a gas chamber).
I am sure many of these people are wrong at least in part, but my point is that doubt remains about what actually happened, and we should use these newly released records to come closer to an accurate account.
Edit: Here'sone essay, about a holocaust denial trial. Here's another commentary. I don't agree with all these essays, but I point to the fact that they do exist as evidence that there is significant doubt about the official account. I think that we should continue looking into the matter while recognizing that no matter what the exact details were, that this was a terrible crime against humanity.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Yes, I do believe that happened.
---
starLisa, I have a question for you. You said:
quote:Don't muddy the waters with Roma and gays, either. That's not the question.
Why not? Do you believe the Nazis' desire to eliminate gays was all that different from a desire to eliminate Jews?
Actually, yes I do. Read Mein Kampf. Read German records. First and foremost, they wanted to wipe out the Jews. As long as they were doing so, they figured they'd wipe out other people they didn't like.
It's of little comfort to a gay man or a Roma that they were being murdered as a second thought. I'm quite aware of that. Dead is dead. Murder is murder. Genocide is genocide. But you need to learn a little history.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I understand you simply may not be interested in those parties, but why should we exclude them from our consideration of the crimes of the Holocaust?
I never said anything of the sort. But I know where sicko Holocaust deniers (excuse me, "minimizers") are coming from.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: It seems to me that creating a dichotomy between the Jewish Holocaust and all other forms of genocide or identity-based systematic murder is counterproductive.
I certainly do make a distinction between the Holocaust and Darfur, for example. Or between the Holocaust and Bosnia.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I think our quarrel may come from different aims. I am looking toward the future, while you seem to want a recognition of the specific historic events. Why is that so important to you?
It's not. Quite frankly, I'm personally sick to death of the Holocaust. I don't watch Holocaust movies, and I won't go to talks about the damned thing, either. There's a very disturbing tendency in some parts of the Jewish community (primarily non-religious ones) to have a "Jewish history begins at Auschwitz" worldview.
But then I see people like you quoting Jeff Rense and his band of haters and I get a sense of why it's so important to keep it from being forgotten.
Maybe you're just a naif who quoted some things from Rense without realizing that they're only pieces of a propaganda campaign that is absolutely anti-semitic. But maybe you're not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both of those links posted by Nato were blocked as being hate speech by Allstate Insurance's internet system.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting. I found these links on a quick Google search and scanned them for material I wouldn't want to link from here. I found them relatively innocuous.. Perhaps incorrect in parts, but not hate speech.
Here's a list of book reviews on some of these topics. Can you get to that?
quote:starLisa: I certainly do make a distinction between the Holocaust and Darfur, for example. Or between the Holocaust and Bosnia.
Why should we do this? Shouldn't all genocides be met with the same reaction: resistance?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: That's interesting. I found these links on a quick Google search and scanned them for material I wouldn't want to link from here. I found them relatively innocuous.. Perhaps incorrect in parts, but not hate speech.
Here's a list of book reviews on some of these topics. Can you get to that?
quote:starLisa: I certainly do make a distinction between the Holocaust and Darfur, for example. Or between the Holocaust and Bosnia.
Why should we do this? Shouldn't all genocides be met with the same reaction: resistance?
That site is blocked as well. It's probably not the individual essays, but the main sites themselves. I'll take a peek when I get home.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, yes I do. Read Mein Kampf. Read German records. First and foremost, they wanted to wipe out the Jews. As long as they were doing so, they figured they'd wipe out other people they didn't like.
The motive, method, and result were all the same, so what exactly is the difference, the level of desire, the intensity? Should that have any bearing on the severity of the crime? I don't see why creating a distincion between the different groups is all that important.
quote:I never said anything of the sort. But I know where sicko Holocaust deniers (excuse me, "minimizers") are coming from.
Is a Holocaust "maximizer" someone that places the attack on Jews above every other similar atrocity?
quote:I get a sense of why it's so important to keep it from being forgotten.
You may have missed it, but it seems that Nato has that same desire.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not. Quite frankly, I'm personally sick to death of the Holocaust. I don't watch Holocaust movies, and I won't go to talks about the damned thing, either. There's a very disturbing tendency in some parts of the Jewish community (primarily non-religious ones) to have a "Jewish history begins at Auschwitz" worldview.
But then I see people like you quoting Jeff Rense and his band of haters and I get a sense of why it's so important to keep it from being forgotten.
And from my side, I would certainly love to leave the Holocaust and the whole concept of genocide in the past, as a failed ideology that does nothing but hurt human existence, but I see too many examples of how people haven't learned the lesson I take from the holocaust: that racial or religious discrimination, segregation, and murder shouldn't happen.
I just watched Hotel Rwanda a couple weeks ago and saw their account of how genocide erupted out of a situation westerners created and how the international community was utterly negligent in attempting to stop it.
I just read about how Israel will deny its citizens the right to live with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is Palestinian.
I see reports of ethnic cleansing-style attacks on villages in Sudan and too little effort to step in and stop it. How many people have to die before we have to do something?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: That site is blocked as well. It's probably not the individual essays, but the main sites themselves. I'll take a peek when I get home.
It's interesting to see essays questioning details of the Holocaust labeled as "hate speech." Such inquiry is what the First Amendment protects, in an attempt to bring the truth to all people. I personally have no problem with this sort of discussion, because the worst-case scenario is that these "deniers" are wrong, and we won't be able to find that out if we can't evaluate their claims.
In a free country, being wrong isn't a crime. I don't see any malice behind the words of these essays, only a desire to correct what these people see as an error in our history books. I don't think anybody who advocates for true hatred of the Jews would ever get very far these days, precisely because the Holocaust showed us the terrible results of allowing hatred or racial discrimination to make your decisions. I (perhaps too optimistically) believe that we can someday eliminate racial hatred. I at least think it is necessary for us to make significant social progress on the global scale. I believe that the Holocaust can be a painful, yet instructive chapter in our history books, and I hope we learn its lessons well.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: That's interesting. I found these links on a quick Google search and scanned them for material I wouldn't want to link from here. I found them relatively innocuous.. Perhaps incorrect in parts, but not hate speech.
Here's a list of book reviews on some of these topics. Can you get to that?
Rather than read swill like this:
quote:Why Spielberg didn't hit the "holocaust" theme harder is anyone's guess. It's my hunch he intuits how weary American audiences are of blatant holohoax operas. He chose to advance his agenda by less transparent means.
quote:This film is a botched job, to the extent that Spielberg subverts his own agenda in a concluding cemetery scene and reveals a terrible truth about the Jewish mentality in the process.
Of course, everywhere he uses the term "Holocaust", he puts in in quotes.
quote:It all kinda makes you wonder what the white Americans and the white Nazis could have accomplished ...........together.
Ooo... nice one.
Rather than read garbage of that sort, why not check out Ken McVay's Nizkor.org site. In particular, read this. It's common for Holocaust deniers to pretend that they aren't. Because they know that sane and moral people will be disgusted with them. So they lie. Plain and simple. They start with "I don't deny the Holocaust", and continue with denial of that the Holocaust happened. Fools fall for it.
Nato, you are fooling no one.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I just read about how Israel will deny its citizens the right to live with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is Palestinian.
The Palestinians have been on the record as publically wanted to wipe Israel off the map for decades now. I think we have a right to prevent enemies from entering our country at a time of war.
How do you suppose these marriages happened in the first place? They happened outside of Israel. And they can live happily ever after outside of Israel. What they're doing is similar to someone marrying a US citizen for the sole purpose of gaining entry to the US. The difference is, we're talking about a population of people who perpetrate and celebrate the murder of innocents.
And I'm not sure what kind of moral viper would bring a simple safety precaution that harms no one into a discussion about genocide. Oh, actually that's not true. I know exactly what kind of moral viper would do that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
About 'harms no one' : I take you agree, then, that a US law against gay marriage likewise harms no one, since gays are perfectly free to live happily ever after - with papers, no less - in most of Europe?
posted
I can see why you'd ask. After all, you can't even go into a grocery store these days without having your bags checked to make sure that you aren't one of those homosexual suicide bombers.
posted
I'm not objecting to the law, as such. The harm that it does could quite conceivably be less than the harm it avoids. I was merely objecting to the statement that it does no harm at all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I can see why you'd ask. After all, you can't even go into a grocery store these days without having your bags checked to make sure that you aren't one of those homosexual suicide bombers.
Grow up.
That was the most alien part of being in Israel, having to go through a security check to enter a shopping mall.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some examples of the deceit used by Nato and people like him.
Quoting from Wikipedia, just because it's well written:
quote:A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard Document" (actually a paper by Aaron Breitbart), [6] which describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Holocaust Deniers seize on this discrepancy and insist that the number of Jews killed must be immediately brought down at least 2.5 million. If their presumption that Historians had used this statistic to reach their overall estimate was correct they would be partly right, however, they ignore the facts that
the 4 million figure of the Soviets included almost 2 million non-Jews, and
historians in any event did not use the 4 million figure in calculating the total number of Jews killed.
quote:A number of other common Holocaust denial claims about gas chambers rely on misdirection, similar to the Auschwitz plaque example given above. For example, the Institute for Historical Review has claimed that Holocaust testimony on gas chambers is unreliable, because, in the words of the IHR: "Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false." This claim is clearly false, as the Nizkor Project and other sources has pointed out, the minimal concentration of Zyklon-B to be explosive 56,000 parts per million, while the amount used to kill a human is 300 parts per million, as is evidenced in any common reference guide to chemicals, such as the "The Merck Index" and the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics". In fact, the Nazis' own documentation stated "Danger of explosion: 75 grams of HCN in 1 cubic meter of air. Normal application approx. 8-10 grams per cubic meter, therefore not explosive." (Nuremberg document NI-9912)
quote:The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted proof, which was then ignored. He then sued IHR and won the $50,000 reward, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering as well as having the court declare the occurrence of the Holocaust a legally indisputable fact.
quote:Deniers consider one of their stronger arguments to be the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They claim that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. In their view this makes it impossible that 6 million Jews died, even given an extremely high birth rate. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deliberate extermination of millions of Jews, cannot have happened.
However, as is typically the case, the evidence given by Holocaust deniers does not stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 11,266,600. Moreover, it revises its estimate of the World Jewish population in 1939 upwards, to 16,643,120. Thus, according to the 1949 World Almanac the difference between the pre and post war populations is over 5.4 million.
And it goes on and on. The problem is, there is a vast amount of literature substantiating the fact that the Nazis deliberately murdered upwards of 11 million, 6 million or so as Jews, and that even more were to be killed, had the Allies not won the war. Deniers will find sources that are most easily twisted or misrepresented, and focus on them. In order to dispute them, you have to recapitulate 6 years worth of research and evidence. Which makes it a waste of time. Some people have taken up the challenge. Ken McVay, who isn't even Jewish, thought it worthwhile. Me, I think the proper response to Holocaust deniers is the same as it is to any anti-semites. Mockery or abuse.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm not objecting to the law, as such. The harm that it does could quite conceivably be less than the harm it avoids. I was merely objecting to the statement that it does no harm at all.
You did so in a childish way. I'm a US citizen, as is my partner. Telling us we can't marry is a far sight different than telling someone we were charitable enough to grant citizenship to that they can't just cross the border, marry one of our enemies, and then use that clever technique to bring the enemy back into Israel.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I can see why you'd ask. After all, you can't even go into a grocery store these days without having your bags checked to make sure that you aren't one of those homosexual suicide bombers.
Grow up.
That was the most alien part of being in Israel, having to go through a security check to enter a shopping mall.
I know. I used to work at an industrial park across from Malcha Mall in Jerusalem. You'd cross the street to get and get something to eat, and you'd have to stand in line while they checked every last person going in. If you had a backpack, you learned to have it open and ready for inspection by the time you got to the door.
It becomes a way of life. For years, there were no public trashcans. Why? Because the damned Arabs kept tossing bombs into them. I remember when they announced that they'd found special bomb-proof trashcans that they were going to buy to put around the city.
Because Israel is foolish enough to let the Arabs be there at all, and because there's no way to distinguish between the animals who toss bombs into trashcans and throw molotov cocktails at pregnant mothers driving with their children on the one hand, and Arabs who aren't spending their time trying to figure out how to spill more Jewish blood, we have to live under siege in our own land.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um. I seem to recall that you have lived for a while in Israel. Were you born a US citizen? Or is the US, perchance, being 'charitable enough' to grant you citizenship? But in any case, I do not deny that the cases are different. I am merely trying to trim your hyperbole down the slightest tad.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was born in Chicago. I lived for about a year on an Air Base in Louisiana (Barksdale AFB) when I was 2-3. We moved back to Chicago and spent a short time in the city before moving to Skokie, where we lived from 1966 to 1972. Then we moved to Highland Park, a little further north.
I went to college in St. Louis. After I graduated in 1985, I spent a year in Israel (I'd spent the summer of 1980 there prior to that).
In 1987, I moved to Israel. In 1995, I moved to New York. In 1997, I moved to California. At the end of that year, I moved back to Israel. In early 2001, I moved back to the US. I've spent about 12 years living in Israel. I should be there right now, and bitterly regret not being able to be there.
I have Israeli citizenship along with my US citizenship, granted under the Law of Return.
Oh, and good luck with that "trimming", considering that I wasn't engaging in any hyperbole. The harm in question is self-inflicted, and not being perpetrated by Israel. You might as well say that a bank robber is being "harmed" not just when he's imprisoned for his crime, but merely because he's prevented from carrying it out in the first place.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not understanding why the fact that the Holocaust also involved homosexuals and other groups is less important than the fact that it involved Jews. Will someone please explain?
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I just read about how Israel will deny its citizens the right to live with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is Palestinian.
The Palestinians have been on the record as publically wanted to wipe Israel off the map for decades now. I think we have a right to prevent enemies from entering our country at a time of war.
Are Palestinian emigrants and refugees all considered enemies, or does this law not apply to some of them?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not less important. It was primarily aimed at Jews. As witness the fact that of 11 million people murdered, 6 million of them were Jews. That's about a third of the entire Jewish population of the world at the time, mind you.
Furthermore, the aim of Holocaust deniers is not homophobia; it's anti-semitism. Their literature is steeped in it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and good luck with that "trimming", considering that I wasn't engaging in any hyperbole. The harm in question is self-inflicted, and not being perpetrated by Israel. You might as well say that a bank robber is being "harmed" not just when he's imprisoned for his crime, but merely because he's prevented from carrying it out in the first place.
You are seriously asserting that there cannot possibly be a single good-faith marriage between Israeli and Palestinian?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am serious asserting that we don't have any moral requirement to take such a possibility into account when doing so would put our own lives at risk.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I just read about how Israel will deny its citizens the right to live with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is Palestinian.
The Palestinians have been on the record as publically wanted to wipe Israel off the map for decades now. I think we have a right to prevent enemies from entering our country at a time of war.
Are Palestinian emigrants and refugees all considered enemies, or does this law not apply to some of them?
They are all potential enemies. As members of a nation which considers itself at war with us and is devoted not merely to defeating us, but to wiping us off the map, yes, they are all serious risks.
But all we're doing is saying, "Stay out". It's not like we're shooting at them. They can live and be well elsewhere. And if they want to live with their spouses who have Israeli citizenship, well, nothing is preventing them from doing so. There's just no reason why we should endanger ourselves by letting them in.
Furthermore, it's not only an issue of actual intent to harm us. There's a demographic issue at play here as well. Arabs have been a solid majority in the Galilee for decades now. And yes, there've been demands that not only should they be entitled to Judea and Samaria, but to the Galilee as well. They sit there, receiving social benefits from the State of Israel, possessed of more rights than any Arabs in Arab countries, and merely by having babies, further the cause of those who want to eliminate Israel.
So we let them. Because we don't want people to be angry with us. But this internal population increase is bad enough. We'd have to be more insane than we already are to allow them to add to it by immigration.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I am serious asserting that we don't have any moral requirement to take such a possibility into account when doing so would put our own lives at risk.
I agree that you don't. That's not the issue. The question is whether the law causes any harm at all. If there are good-faith marriages, then those people are being harmed by not being allowed to live together, yes or no? You don't have to agree that this harm is greater than the harm of letting Palestinians into the promised land, I don't necessarily think it is. I just want to know if you can admit to the existence of any harm, at all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I am serious asserting that we don't have any moral requirement to take such a possibility into account when doing so would put our own lives at risk.
I agree that you don't. That's not the issue. The question is whether the law causes any harm at all. If there are good-faith marriages, then those people are being harmed by not being allowed to live together, yes or no?
I'd written:
quote:And I'm not sure what kind of moral viper would bring a simple safety precaution that harms no one into a discussion about genocide. Oh, actually that's not true. I know exactly what kind of moral viper would do that.
I find nothing wrong with that. It's not the safety precaution that's harming them. There is no "right to live in Israel" that is being taken away from them.
To the extent that there is harm, and I'll stipulate that there might be some, it's not the safety precaution that's causing the harm. It's what the safety precaution is addressing. And on that point, I'm completely on their side. I think the Arabs should cease their endless war against Israel.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You don't have to agree that this harm is greater than the harm of letting Palestinians into the promised land, I don't necessarily think it is. I just want to know if you can admit to the existence of any harm, at all.
Bait and switch [Edit: strawman, rather]. I didn't deny "any harm". I denied harm being caused by the precautions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this thread has taken an interesting turn.
sL: I'm going to assume that you realize the difference between someone ACTUALLY saying or doing something and their use of data from a source you despise.
I think you've ascribed motives to nato without any real proof other than your own beliefs about "holocaust deniers."
While your negative viewpoint might be instructive to nato on how to approach the topic in the future, to adequately distinguish his views from those of the people you're lumping him in with, I think you've gone more than just a little bit over the top in blasting him for opinions he has yet to express.
As for the marriages between Israeli and non-Israeli Palestinians, I can understand every bit of your view except the part where you say it causes no harm to the couples who must choose between living together as a married couple and living inside the borders of Israel. You've gone from saying they ALL have it in for Israel to saying that concern over the ones that really ARE good-faith marriages is secondary to Jewish security inside the borders of Israel.
I think you're stopping just short of honesty here. What I think you mean to say, and should just come out and say it, is that you don't give a darn about their pain and suffering and consider it neglible in comparison to the fear of harm that Jews feel.
Unless I've totally missed what else you are saying, this is really the logical conclusion from your statements, is it not?
If so, it'd be more correct to acknowledge the harm this policy may be doing to innocent people, but simply come right out and say "too bad, I don't care" than to try to deny that the harm exists (and, by the way, is a direct result of the policy...)
posted
Oh, I see. You're saying that the precautions are caused by the attacks, so any harm is caused by the attacks, not the precautions. Well, ok, it's a possible way to use the language, but it wasn't the first interpretation that came to my mind.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe that Nato should be reviled the way you're doing, starLisa. I think it's wrong, inappropriate, unfair, and unjustly malicious. I think it demeans you to do it, and I wish you would stop.
For all of that, though, I can empathize with your deep frustration and anger about this. Because frankly Nato, many of your arguments are very, very similar to people who are what starLisa claims you are being. You routinely call into question the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis, the methods, and the seriousness of this horrible crime.
Yes, by bringing into doubt the number of Jews massacred, you are diminishing the crime or attempting to do so. Murdering two people is a more serious crime than murdering one person. Murdering ten people is a much more serious crime than murdering one person.
One has to wonder: in what way exactly does believing a supposedly artificially high number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust (and really, you should find better sources than ones which also include writings by people who put that word in quotes) dishonor those who actually died? For one thing, they're dead and you're a self-identified atheist/agnostic. So the feelings, the 'honor' of the dead, shouldn't be very relevant. But setting that aside...how are they dishonored by believing a too-high figure?
Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that Nato and the websites he has referenced are correct (although they appear to be making different claims, fortunately): the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust was substantially lower than the one commonly accepted. Doesn't acknowledging this 'fact' diminish the Holocaust, and thus weaken your stated goal of inspiring resistance against future genocides, Nato? The Holocaust is...well, the poster-child for genocide in the Western world. When a Westerner thinks 'genocide' they usually think first of the Holocaust.
Something to be reviled, rejected, fought against in the future. Feelings you say you wish to inspire in others regarding genocide. And yet for some reason, you say because doing otherwise 'dishonors the dead', you want to dilute the impact of the Holocaust in people's minds.
Consider this my personal question to the question of those who continue to ask, "Does it matter what the Nazi's priorities were when picking out whom to exterminate?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something to be reviled, rejected, fought against in the future. Feelings you say you wish to inspire in others regarding genocide. And yet for some reason, you say because doing otherwise 'dishonors the dead', you want to dilute the impact of the Holocaust in people's minds.
Doesn't this directly intersect Katie's distinction between something real and something useful on the other thread?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that Nato and the websites he has referenced are correct (although they appear to be making different claims, fortunately): the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust was substantially lower than the one commonly accepted. Doesn't acknowledging this 'fact' diminish the Holocaust, and thus weaken your stated goal of inspiring resistance against future genocides, Nato? The Holocaust is...well, the poster-child for genocide in the Western world. When a Westerner thinks 'genocide' they usually think first of the Holocaust.
Something to be reviled, rejected, fought against in the future. Feelings you say you wish to inspire in others regarding genocide. And yet for some reason, you say because doing otherwise 'dishonors the dead', you want to dilute the impact of the Holocaust in people's minds.
Consider this my personal question to the question of those who continue to ask, "Does it matter what the Nazi's priorities were when picking out whom to exterminate?"
I really, really don't think it matters. And on top of that, while to some, murder of ten might be worse than murder of one, when we're talking about something on such a large scale, the precise numbers really don't make the entire thing have less of an impact just because they may be fewer.
On TOP of that, later discovery that misinformation might be involved actually MIGHT lessen the horror of the Holocaust in the eyes of some.
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with any of the numbers.
And as for the population of Jews and saying that that is big in deciding that it's somehow a bigger deal that Jews were involved than other people, what is the total percentage of the population that is Jewish? What was the percentage in the areas from which the Jews were forcibly taken? And given that, is the percentage of Jews significantly less than the percentage of homosexuals?
I really don't know any of these statistics. I'm just saying that they should be considered.
And am I the only person who was always given the impression that the Germans were systematically working their way through the people they wanted to get rid of? As in, first they went after Jews, then another group, then another...
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think you're stopping just short of honesty here. What I think you mean to say, and should just come out and say it, is that you don't give a darn about their pain and suffering and consider it neglible in comparison to the fear of harm that Jews feel.
It's true that I don't give a hoot if they feel put upon. But that doesn't detract from the fact that the State of Israel is not harming them. Harm implies that something is being taken away from them that is theirs by right.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: And am I the only person who was always given the impression that the Germans were systematically working their way through the people they wanted to get rid of? As in, first they went after Jews, then another group, then another...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
