one gleefully makes a nazi/israel comparison for the express purpose of undermining that very comparison? why? kinda counterproductive but....what would i know. can you document this alleged "glee"? why are instances of these important to you? why? do you find a poster who exclusively focuses on some specialized field in p&m similarly troubling? i mean, you are demanding that members be catholic in their interests, right? shall we advocate quotas? 2 threads of x to 3 threads of y? a perspective of what? jews got their own nation but the roma did not? the aborigines are child molesters? how have you helped? do you bring these issues up on this board? why wait or demand it of others? why merely react? you are a wordy fellow so why not put that to use and help set the tenor by being proactive about these matters? as it stands, the spectacle of you tearing your hair out and wringing your hands is somewhat amusing to say the very least most react to what is already on the table. any criticism of israel is automatically deemed anti semitic by both the zionists and the armchair pundits from far away lands who mindlessly parrot those taking points. do you not buy into sam's account of how she was introduced to these matters? to you the poisoned discourse is an entirely one-sided matter and the consequent criticism is easily construed to be supportive of the zionist stance despite your protestations. do you engage any of the names in my "zionist lobby list" aka hit list? what have i missed or am i simply supposed to take at face value, an implication of fair and balanced? so the current form of criticism can only make matters worse? to me, one of the more effective forms of discourse is where one points of the inherent hypocrisy and double standards of any particular line of thought or action. there is also a matter of relevance. if one is addressing israeli issues, would one not be better served by bringing up instances that the objects of discussion can relate to? you should talk to a budding zionist about the conquest and genocide of the aboriginal peoples by the anglos rather than their oppression by the nazis simply because one feels it is a more accurate representation of the current facts on the ground? i mean....where are the ovens? and since there are none to be found, all analogies concerning the german/jew experience are invalid simply because they culminated in the holocaust while the ip experience is nowhere close to it? the conflict is on going and yet we are assured of a resolution that cannot even remotely be compared to a genocide simply because the details are supposedly different? i mean... where are the ovens? as for the lack of israelis and palestines on this board, we will soon fix that once the universal translator upgrade is implemented. we shall then see what a reasoned and rational discourse looks like. i have a feeling your public enemy #1, will be taking on a new role here...... a moderate and a respected voice of reason relevance as best exemplified by.......mummy, who are the germans and what did they do?....or variations of. analogies best work when there is a familiarity with the references. why is this so hard to understand? Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina owing to intensified aggressive acts by the Serbian and Montenegrin forces to acquire more territories by force, characterized by a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights, a burgeoning refugee population resulting from mass expulsions of defenceless civilians from their homes and the existence in Serbian and Montenegrin controlled areas of concentration camps and detention centres, in pursuit of the abhorrent policy of “ethnic cleansing”, which is a form of genocide, ... —United Nations General Assembly. dunno about you but i just hallucinated a jackbooted nazi thug but wait..... where are the ovens? ja, i see my error now again.... relevance and immediacy if one is unable is acknowledge that the usa acts out of self interest, that policies can have intentionally adverse consequences, that the usa does supports dictators that oppress people, that it overthrows govts and replaces it with ones favorable to it, all in the course of a discussion, it is not uncommon to see the rhetoric you describe. why freak out? bludgeoning sheeple that bleat nay at the drop of a hat is an eminently admirable quality in my book. really, is "others do it too" in anyway, a reasonable excuse? why bother then? throw your hands up and walk away if that is the sentiment your op into this thread is just you trolling, quad. your sensibilities no matter how admirable, is taken to extremes if the implication of sam's opinion is that the ovens are the next step. it is a petty and hostile reading that enables those sort of conclusions. sure it is possible but is it logically necessary corollary? i'll take it at face value. i will allow sam her perception because it is seems to be a rather commonplace observation. does "eerie" piss you off? beside, who the fuck do i think i am to expect her to adopt a rhetoric of my choosing? you? why not try the history forums? nuance and perspective is readily built into the slant over there. here, i expect all to be fiercely partisan and ideological. certain fori, by virtue of its labels, is more a reflection of the real world rather than some ivory tower i have no trouble grasping that. nor does the expectation of heightened sensibilities on part of the israelies by virtue of their experience. one would think this "never again" would be applicable to all rather than just themselves
I don't want to bludgeon them, that's a waste of my time, and not conducive to me being who I want to be as a person-it feeds my violent, hateful side, which needs no feeding. ...I want to make them think...any ideas how to deprogram? How does one grab the ear...and slip in a headworm...make them question what they have heard all their life.
Not by way of any excuse for Israel’s confiscation of Bedouin lands (some even with Ottoman empire deeds which Israeli courts ignore) or the current confinement of Bedouins to one of three “enclosures” in the worst part of the Negev (a place where there is little ground water and what there is, is too saline to drink) do I note that this oppression of relative primitive people by a more advanced one is a very old story in human history. It seems to be an inevitable process of usurping what clearly belongs to the original occupiers of the land, perhaps with some unspoken justification about making more efficient use of the land for the benefit of a larger population. I think comparison of Israeli acts against the Bedouins with Nazi acts against the Jews is very weak to the extreme of being pointless. Almost any other historic suppression of a primitive people would be a more accurate parallel to what the Jews are doing to the Bedouins. I.e. the Jewish victims of Nazi Germany were far from a primitive people. Furthermore Israel seems to have learned that Hitler’s brutal and rapid attempt at extermination of a people is doomed to fail – arouses too much "outside interference." I.e. with slow and more gentle steps, Israel first destroyed the Bedouin culture. No longer do Bedouins roam the desert with their vast herds of black goats, which like the Bedouins themselves are nearing extinction. The high Bedouin birth rates has been reduced to far below replacement, mainly by allowing young men of military age to leave the confinement of the “enclosures” if they join the IDF. Thus now the confined Bedouin populations of the enclosures are mainly the elderly and younger women without husbands. The school age population of the largest of the three Negev enclosures does not even fill one school bus. In another generation, except for some infertile elderly, the Bedouins will be extinct, without any dying in toxic showers or being cremated in ovens. Already with it decades long “human approach,” Israel has done away with a higher percentage of the Bedouins than Hitler did with the Jews. As is almost always the case, Israel is doing this “for their own good,” or at least for the education of the children of that the primitive people (as Australia’s “helping hand” for education aborigines did). I.e. they are rounded up and confined in camps for their education into the modern world. Hitler made no pretense of this so once again almost any other extermination or “assimilation” is a more accurate comparison to Israel's actions. Officially, the fact that Israel wanted and needed the Bedouin lands (“lebensraum”) has nothing to do with the confinement of the Bedouins. Only by confinement of these semi-nomadics to the camps, could the children be educated is the official Israeli reason why the Bedouins were rounded up and forced into the three camps. In earlier eras often it was "saving the souls of the heathens" that was the more common reason offered, but like in Israel case gaining lebensraum without compensation was the real reason. It has always been this way and no doubt always will be when an advanced culture finds a primitive one on land it wants. God help humans if ETs come to Earth.
A comment on Godwin's law: I've found out who Godwin is, and what his law is about. For the record, there is no such thing as a "breach" of his law. It's about discussions, and has been extended to discussions on the internet. It says that, given enough time, participants in any discussion will start to make references to the behaviour of Nazis. That is, you will be accused of being an "internet nazi", a "science nazi", a "grammar nazi" etc. There is no idea that this law is any more than a phenomenon of human interaction, and claiming, as quadraphonics has, that the law is being "breached" is specious and completely irrelevant. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's probably going to be called a "duck nazi". The use of the analogy has become a part of the lexicon, and that's all it is. The way quadraphonics presented his argument suggested that some Zionista had written down a law, which declaimed the use of such analogy. His argument is therefore entirely inappropriate, and simply wrong. That he made a point of claiming that "simply nationalism" isn't "just nationalism"--a very fine point of lexicological usage, then decried my claim that I compared the Israelis and their behaviour to the Nazi regime, without explicitly claiming "Israelis are Nazis" is not, in his lexicon, a fine point. I therefore classify quadraphonics as just another denialist.
Thank you Billy, I think I have already explained why I use a paradigm that reflects Israeli experience rather than some foreign experience. I don't know if you have ever discussed this issue with Israelis, especially Zionists, but they see themselves as fending off a holocaust by "defending" themselves from Palestinians. So the paradigm of USAmericans or Australians only resonates with them as Bedouin = not Jews = detention or confinement to protect Jews = Israel like America/Australia. i.e. they see nothing wrong with the ethnic cleansing because others did it too. This is their mentality in all cases. Right now, with Palestinian statehood pending in the UN, they are mulling "emergency laws" in the West Bank with the aim of - you got it - detaining protestors for at least 9 hours and working them over. At the same time, they are retroactively annexing parts of the West Bank still held by Palestinians under occupation Usually the people who are dispossessed in the West Bank are dumped in Gaza which is the ghetto for unwanted non-Jews in Palestine with residents being transported there since the nakba, Note that in all cases, once the Israelis have appropriated the land, their first job is to get rid of the non-Jews by threats and harassment. If that fails, they simply declare it as state land, bulldoze the homes and orchards, build Jewish only apartments and dump the Palestinians in Gaza. The Bedouins are right now being dumped in shanty towns but I think once Israel has determined that it will annex the West Bank, they will also appropriate the shanty towns and dump all the Palestinians in Gaza. Meanwhile, the US will veto any actions which hold Israel accountable and the EU will talk talk talk.
Yeah, a few Christians here and there, but not millions and millions penned into camps. I'm pretty sure that if Palestinians were Christian, we'd see a much much different response from America. Ironically, Islam is a sec of Christianity, much like Mormonism. Oh, but Americans aren't too keen on Mormons much either Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That was how the New World was "settled". Perhaps we can feel those three fingers pointing back at us and just can bare to nay say Israelis. Like some sort of unspoken truth? Naw, it's just that Americans by and large don't like Islam (yes I'm generalizing, but, that is the case). "Oh look Jane, there's a nice woman wearing a Burka. She's empowered Jane. And Dick, do you see the man with the two foot long beard? That's piety. Just like that Catholic Priest whose lap you used to sit on before the "insolent". Lets' welcome our new Muslims neighbors over for soda and chips and a game of Scrabble.
Do they have oil? Maybe some NATO peace bombs will sort things out for them? Oh wait, they don't have any oil. These Bedouins aren't the only people to be driven off their lands. Some tribes of the Amazon, Tibetans, Aboriginals in Australia, Uyghur, Cambodian tribes, Burmese highlanders, the gods only know how many African tribes.... and etc... The thing is, these aren't P-I so they don't necessarily count for much. See, you have to be I-P and fight over some tiny weenie teeny sliver of land smaller than the pan handle of Florida in the eyes of the One God to be noteworthy. Which is why I mentioned the fact that if Palestinians were to convert to modern Christianity they may just have a shot at keeping their homeland. Anyway, as it stands, peak oil was hit in 08, so the Israelis only have to maintain the charade for another, what, 15-25 years and then the entire desert is theirs if they want it. No one is going to give two poops once the oil is gone.
I was thinking about this statement and trying to remember where I had read Adolf Hitler's opinion about Jews. Apparently Eastern Jews in Europe looked a lot like this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and were considered backward and religiously deluded revolutionaries following some 3000 year old book [see Nazi propaganda about Jewish religion - very similar to Israeli views about Islam or Muslims] So primitive can be a relative term. Compare that with this perspective of Palestinians: Are all Bedouins all that primitive? Or is that just what we hear from Israelis? Just like the Germans, Israelis and Zionist Jews see only certain people looking, talking and thinking and believing a certain way as part of their lebensraum This is Rabbi Eric Yoffie of the Reform Judaism movement in the United States [where he preaches multiculturalism] speaking in the Jerusalem Post: Do you think Rabbi Yoffie would stand up and say that in the US?
Did you know that until the "Islamic Revolution" there were Hindu missions in Iran. Following the "Glorious Revolution" they were abandoned. Ever been to a Hindu Temple in KSA (other than the Ka'ba which is now usurped)? A synagogue? Seems to me that they're all full of the same intolerant religious horse shit over there in the ME.
That was the racist stereotype. But should it have been a problem even if that was what they all did look like?
There was an Islamic revolution in Iran because over 25 years the Shah killed, tortured, imprisoned or exiled all the secularists and democrats, including students. The same thing happened in those parts of the Middle East where the Liberals were targeted - this is how Hamas and Hezbullah came to power and how after the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan, you will see the Sadarists and Taliban regain power in those regions. I'm betting that Libya and Syria will see similar upheavels, in Libya where the NATO are assassinating the undesirables and in Syria where American and EU sources are supplying weapons to fundamentalist groups. All that intolerant bullshit is only as old as the British Raj, which instituted these policies that the Americans have inherited and the Zionists have capitalised on. You'll have noted how the Israelis financed Hamas into power, undermined the PLO and then installed the PA, turning Palestinian against Palestinian British colonial strategy and the 9/11 blowback
You think KSA doesn't allow Hindu Temples because why? Indians colonized KSA? Pluuuulease. But, why not run that scenario over in your mind. What if a large number of Hindus moved to KSA and demanded that polytheistic Temples be built in Mecca. How well do you suppose that would go over with the locals? European colonization was short lived and had a modest almost insignificant effect on the state of affairs in so-called Islamic nations (and Iran wasn't occupied, certainly not in 1979). To be objective you'd recognize the huge and greatly significant effect that centuries of Ottoman occupation had and the damning effects Islam had/has on the ME. Take Imams destroying Astrolabes as an example, or condemning the printing-press as "unislamic" and the overall discouraging equality and religious tolerance. See, Europeans had those SAME problems. Only we recognize it as a "Dark Age" and we moved on lessons learned. This seems to be impossible for Muslims. They'd prefer to make up an imaginary "Glorious History" that never even happened and thus are doomed to repeat all the follies of the past. The simple fact is, life has always been pretty shit for Muslims in the ME, including the ones who were Muslim-Christian in the 700s. The only city that ever made anything out of religion was Constantinople and it was pretty damn open-minded as long as trade persisted (in the end it was consumed as well). Learn from History or be doomed to repeat it. What you should be thinking is the effects of Ottoman and Islamic blow-back because THAT is what we have in play in the ME. Those repercussions. Roosters coming home to roost. Monotheism and the interplay between Jews, Christians and Muslims. IOWs, it's a problem based on religion. I don't think you find these sorts of problems with Jews who migrated to India - do you? How about China? Not that I know of. Certainly not to the degree of I-P. Christianity was banned in Japan as well as in China. Why do you suppose that is the case? Buddhism wasn't. As far as I am concerned, so long as religion is a major factor in the ME, there will be NO peace. That isn't to say that there WILL be peace, as people suck, but at least with monotheism gone, there will be one less reason to kill one another. But, that isn't going to happen. Why don't we see next year, or the year after that. I'm pretty sure that this will be the case - if not, even more so. I seem to remember you touted the efficient breeding of Muslims in Israel. As if breeding alone could only bred the Jews under. So, I'm assuming you also don't see a future with peace. It's just you want one where it's the Muslims on the top. Why is that SAM?
KSA doesn't allow Hindu temples for the same reason they demolished all the old historic Islamic structures - they are extremists. The question to ask is, how did such extremists come to and retain power in a region where even the Ottomans were hard pressed to get a foot hold? British funding - the kingdom is a little over 100 years old. I don't think Saudi people themselves would care either way what people do or do not believe. Like people everywhere else they tend to come from the full spectrum of human tolerance Yes, which brings us to American support for Israeli extremists. Looks very much like British divide and rule. Hmm, so when will you learn from history? Probably when the shoe is on the other foot? It was interesting watching the US Congress doing yo yos for Netanyahu. Goes to show how the influence of money and manipulation of power makes domestic politics insignificant anywhere, doesn't it? US preparing to bomb Syria? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3CI80bcT_k You know my rules for "what SAM said" - I need a link so we can both see the context in which that statement was made. Meanwhile, any breeding programs are completely irrelevant. As Billy T says, the Bedouins are almost completely wiped out as an ethnic group and the US will veto the two state solution, consigning the rest of the Palestinians to ethnic cleansing. Maybe they can drink themselves to death like the natives in America - maybe not. But we all know which bench the Americans will be occupying don't we?
Q: How is it that Israel is a state, recognised by the UN? A: The UN voted to recognise its right to statehood in 1947, after Britain abandoned its responsibilities to the Palestine Mandate. Q: Why does Israel oppose UN recognition, even a vote on, according the same rights for Palestinians, more than 60 years later? A: Well, it could be that Israel is a country run by hypocrites, but I'm no political expert. It could be that Israelis are choosing to suffer from collective amnesia, too.
Youtube: Niall Ferguson (BBC debate) You sound like Ziauddin Sardar. The same tired old whine: blame everyone and everything but oneself and ones moronic ideology. The poor me attitude. The Chinese were on the shit end of the British stick, yet I never hear Chinese whine about it. Oh, they admit they got their asses handed to them, but they seem to be able to suck it up and move on. They certainly don't blame England for Chinese Communism. They also seem to be rational enough to acknowledge that Communism is a failed idea and are willing to learn from their own history and move forward. Not so in the ME. Why is Iran today such a mess? Is it because of their idiotic asinine idea of creating an Islamic Republic or is it the big bad British and Americans from three generations ago. OK SAM, lets make a prediction. If the Egyptian Revolution fails and Egypt becomes a failed Islamic State, is this the fault of Islam and Egyptians or is it the fault of the brief British colonization? Suppose the Egyptian Revolution succeeds and Egypt becomes a thriving Islamic State, is this the product of Islam and Egyptians or is it the result of the British colonization? I'd like to have you on the record before Egypt implodes and elects another dictator, Islamic or otherwise.
Lol. See, I was thinking the same thing about you. Caveat emptor. You get what you pay for. When the British made the decision to support the Wahabis instead of the pan-Arab nationalism movement, they bought themselves Al Qaeda. When the Americans made the decision to fund Saddam, the mujahideen, recognise the Irgun terrorism as statehood for Jews, they bought themselves 9/11 See, you get what you pay for. So when you make the next payment think of what you want your future to be. Because supporting extremism and violence as a matter of policy will only get you more extremism and more violence. Ironic isn't it that the Brits supported Pakistani separatists over Gandhi's subversiveness which led to the partition, which led to the ISI which led to the Taliban and here we are 60 years hence reaping the benefits of all that foresight. So, caveat emptor. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is no oil in China - if there was, boy o boy, you'd hear the Chinese whining. As it was they even skipped out on the proxy war between the communists and the democrazies because they prefer to win by strategy rather than war
Well, this is exactly right. They're also religiously intolerant. The God damn state has a preference for personal superstition. WTF? It's no different than those asinine signs in KSA they read "Muslims Only" on various highways. Wouldn't want an infidel slipping into Mecca on accident. The entire ME is one big monotheistic turd and sadly there's a LARGE bowel system in the southern states of the US that want to jump on in the toilet and swim with the floaties.
There's no oil in Pakistan, what's their excuse? Also, China came within a hair of having 15 nukes dropped on it during the Korean War. History could have went in all sorts of different directions. We supported Korea and Taiwan while China supported the Vietnamese and NKR. We nuked Japan. Japan slaughtered million in Nanjing. Wow, one wonders: WHY is Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China all doing relatively pretty decently. According to you they should be praying 5 times a day to the sun and whining about British heroin. One wonders, why stop with the British? Hell go back to Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt. That's the thing about History - it's continuous. It's Alexander of Macedonia's fault! So? Your prediction on Egypt?
They are back in 1930, facing the question of Arab states vs pan-Arab nationalism. Only this time its more difficult. In the 1930s, the Arab states [for want of a better term] were heavily under the influence of the communist model, like India under Nehru. At the time, socialism was the by word and like the Indian states with all their ethnic groups, languages and diversity, Arab nationalists wanted a unified Arab country made up of the various Middle Eastern nations minus Iran and Turkey. That would have been an easier prospect at that time because it was only a teeny bit different from the map under the Ottomans http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/maps/pol.html Today, its all up in the air. And the "new alliance" 60 years away from memories of Ottoman imperialism is one where Egypt and Turkey are partners. And Saudi Arabia has their oars in the water So at the moment, I will cop out in the words of Zhou Enlai who when asked about the French Revolution replied "It is too soon to say." Meanwhile, we can debate the Jim Crow in Israel i.e. the thread topic.
