100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: US, Israel downplayed Palestinians' upgraded status @ UN | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Tue 12/04/12 05:34 PM
|
|
Another recognisable diversionary tactic complete with an appeal to emotion. An attempt to minimise the industrialsed extermination of a people by raising other examples.
And so what would you call the constant reference to the Jewish Holocaust as if it were the only one that ever happened in the world?
No-one ever said or believes that crap, well, maybe you do. Why do you think that particular horrific event deserves more attention than the others?
I don't, but others aren't the topic of discussion. You really don't get much of anything that goes on, do you? It's a diversion-classic denier tactic. Twoofers do the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another recognisable diversionary tactic complete with an appeal to emotion. An attempt to minimise the industrialsed extermination of a people by raising other examples.
And so what would you call the constant reference to the Jewish Holocaust as if it were the only one that ever happened in the world? Why do you think that particular horrific event deserves more attention than the others? The systematic killing of the Jews in WWII was the reason why so many Jewish refugees desperately were seeking a safe haven where they could live without being further persecuted. I'm sure the turkish people who were destroyed in that genocide would have liked to find a safe haven too. Refugees from Siberia would also like to find a safe haven. etc. etc. etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another recognisable diversionary tactic complete with an appeal to emotion. An attempt to minimise the industrialsed extermination of a people by raising other examples.
And so what would you call the constant reference to the Jewish Holocaust as if it were the only one that ever happened in the world? Why do you think that particular horrific event deserves more attention than the others? The systematic killing of the Jews in WWII was the reason why so many Jewish refugees desperately were seeking a safe haven where they could live without being further persecuted. I'm sure the turkish people who were destroyed in that genocide would have liked to find a safe haven too. Refugees from Siberia would also like to find a safe haven. etc. etc. etc. But we are not talking about Turks or Siberians or Armenians or Chinese or Blackfeet. The topic of this thread relates to Israel which relates to the the Jews. As HotRodD says - this is just an attempt to derail the conversation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 12/04/12 06:45 PM
|
|
Another recognisable diversionary tactic complete with an appeal to emotion. An attempt to minimise the industrialsed extermination of a people by raising other examples.
And so what would you call the constant reference to the Jewish Holocaust as if it were the only one that ever happened in the world?
No-one ever said or believes that crap, well, maybe you do. What "crap" are you talking about? You were critiquing a post by calling it a "diversionary tactic and an appeal to emotion." So what if it was? Isn't that what Israel Zionists do when they are criticized for their aggression towards their neighbors? They bring up the "holocaust" to appeal to people's emotions and cry that they "have a right to defend themselves." They love bringing up the holocaust to justify their aggressive attacks on their neighbors. Why do you think that particular horrific event deserves more attention than the others?
I don't, but others aren't the topic of discussion. You really don't get much of anything that goes on, do you? It's a diversion-classic denier tactic. Twoofers do the same thing. Well you aught to know what twoofers do, since you are one of them. But I disagree that it is a diversion tactic. Why should other holocausts or genocide events be ignored and why do people get upset when the word "holocaust" is used in reference to other mass genocide events? I think because Zionists want all the sympathy for their Jews and they don't want anyone else to claim they are or have been persecuted more or as much as the Jews. In short, the Zionists("Jews") want to own the term "holocaust." (p.s. the anti-Zionists Jews don't.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another recognisable diversionary tactic complete with an appeal to emotion. An attempt to minimise the industrialsed extermination of a people by raising other examples.
And so what would you call the constant reference to the Jewish Holocaust as if it were the only one that ever happened in the world? Why do you think that particular horrific event deserves more attention than the others? The systematic killing of the Jews in WWII was the reason why so many Jewish refugees desperately were seeking a safe haven where they could live without being further persecuted. I'm sure the turkish people who were destroyed in that genocide would have liked to find a safe haven too. Refugees from Siberia would also like to find a safe haven. etc. etc. etc. But we are not talking about Turks or Siberians or Armenians or Chinese or Blackfeet. The topic of this thread relates to Israel which relates to the the Jews. As HotRodD says - this is just an attempt to derail the conversation. Well apparently the conversation swayed to the term "holocaust." So I ask again, why do the Jews object to that term being used by anyone else? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 12/04/12 07:07 PM
|
|
Another recognisable diversionary tactic complete with an appeal to emotion. An attempt to minimise the industrialsed extermination of a people by raising other examples.
And so what would you call the constant reference to the Jewish Holocaust as if it were the only one that ever happened in the world? Why do you think that particular horrific event deserves more attention than the others? The systematic killing of the Jews in WWII was the reason why so many Jewish refugees desperately were seeking a safe haven where they could live without being further persecuted. I'm sure the turkish people who were destroyed in that genocide would have liked to find a safe haven too. Refugees from Siberia would also like to find a safe haven. etc. etc. etc. But we are not talking about Turks or Siberians or Armenians or Chinese or Blackfeet. The topic of this thread relates to Israel which relates to the the Jews. As HotRodD says - this is just an attempt to derail the conversation. Well apparently the conversation swayed to the term "holocaust." So I ask again, why do the Jews object to that term being used by anyone else? Nobody owns the word or is trying to own the word. "The Holocaust" as it came to be commonly known through regular use is understood to refer to the Nazi genocide of the Jews. There are other instances of genocide of course. From the Wiki article entitled "The Holocaust" The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt")[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory.[3][4] Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed.[5] Over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.[6][7] Some scholars argue that the mass murder of the Romani and people with disabilities should be included in the definition,[8][9] and some use the common noun "holocaust" to describe other Nazi mass murders, for example Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, and homosexuals.[10][11] Recent estimates based on figures obtained since the fall of the Soviet Union indicates some ten to 11 million civilians and prisoners of war were intentionally murdered by the Nazi regime.[12][13] The persecution and genocide were carried out in stages. Various laws to remove the Jews from civil society, most prominently the Nuremberg Laws, were enacted in Germany years before the outbreak of World War II. Concentration camps were established in which inmates were subjected to slave labor until they died of exhaustion or disease. Where Germany conquered new territory in eastern Europe, specialized units called Einsatzgruppen murdered Jews and political opponents in mass shootings. The occupiers required Jews and Romani to be confined in overcrowded ghettos before being transported by freight train to extermination camps where, if they survived the journey, most were systematically killed in gas chambers. Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics that led to the genocides, turning the Third Reich into what one Holocaust scholar has called "a genocidal state".[14] The term holocaust comes from the Greek word holókauston, an animal sacrifice offered to a god in which the whole (olos) animal is completely burnt (kaustos).[15] For hundreds of years, the word "holocaust" was used in English to denote great massacres, but since the 1960s, the term has come to be used by scholars and popular writers to refer to the genocide of Jews.[16] The mini-series Holocaust is credited with introducing the term into common parlance after 1978.[17] The biblical word Shoah (שואה) (also spelled Sho'ah and Shoa), meaning "calamity", became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s, especially in Europe and Israel.[18] Shoah is preferred by many Jews for a number of reasons, including the theologically offensive nature of the word "holocaust", which they take to refer to the Greek pagan custom.[19] The Nazis used a euphemistic phrase, the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" (German: Endlösung der Judenfrage), and the phrase "Final Solution" has been widely used as a term for the genocide of the Jews. Nazis used the phrase "lebensunwertes Leben" (Life unworthy of life) in an attempt to justify the killings. OK we can get back to the topic now. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well good, I'm glad that we are allowed to use the term holocaust for other massacres.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Tue 12/04/12 10:36 PM
|
|
What "crap" are you talking about? You were critiquing a post by calling it a "diversionary tactic and an appeal to emotion." I was talking about the crap in your response. So what if it was? Isn't that what Israel Zionists do when they are criticized for their aggression towards their neighbors? They bring up the "holocaust" to appeal to people's emotions and cry that they "have a right to defend themselves." They love bringing up the holocaust to justify their aggressive attacks on their neighbors.
An appeal to emotion is a rhetorical device employed in debating and it is considered a logical fallacy. Do you understand any of this? Why do you think that particular horrific event deserves more attention than the others?
It is often considered highly significant as it was the first 'industrialised' program of extermination. I don't, but others aren't the topic of discussion. You really don't get much of anything that goes on, do you? It's a diversion-classic denier tactic. Twoofers do the same thing.
Well you aught to know what twoofers do, since you are one of them.
Yeah, keep rolling out your grade school crap. It is spelled 'ought' btw. But I disagree that it is a diversion tactic. Why should other holocausts or genocide events be ignored and why do people get upset when the word "holocaust" is used in reference to other mass genocide events?
Because it is a thread on Israel, not the genocide of the American Indian. 'Off topic' ring a bell? Seriously, are you really this dense, or just trolling? I think because Zionists want all the sympathy for their Jews and they don't want anyone else to claim they are or have been persecuted more or as much as the Jews.
In short, the Zionists("Jews") want to own the term "holocaust." (p.s. the anti-Zionists Jews don't.) The problem lies in your first sentence, with "I think". Clearly you don't. You didn't have a clue what I was talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another recognisable diversionary tactic complete with an appeal to emotion. An attempt to minimise the industrialsed extermination of a people by raising other examples.
And so what would you call the constant reference to the Jewish Holocaust as if it were the only one that ever happened in the world? Why do you think that particular horrific event deserves more attention than the others? The systematic killing of the Jews in WWII was the reason why so many Jewish refugees desperately were seeking a safe haven where they could live without being further persecuted. I'm sure the turkish people who were destroyed in that genocide would have liked to find a safe haven too. Refugees from Siberia would also like to find a safe haven. etc. etc. etc. But we are not talking about Turks or Siberians or Armenians or Chinese or Blackfeet. The topic of this thread relates to Israel which relates to the the Jews. As HotRodD says - this is just an attempt to derail the conversation. Normally, that would be obvious to most. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as I said in my previous Post,that List of Genocides was nothing but an obfuscation!
And some of the Items were an obfuscation to the Obfuscation! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as I said in my previous Post,that List of Genocides was nothing but an obfuscation! And some of the Items were an obfuscation to the Obfuscation! This whole holocaust business is an obfuscation of the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with it, and I didn't even mention it initially; Horowitz's video did, and I did nothing but offer to critique the video. After being encouraged to critique it, and since the video went rather extensively into it, I had to say something about it, but didn't want the subject to derail the thread, so my only initial mention of it was "I won't touch the Holocaust stuff in his video…" . I then went on to say why I wasn't going to touch it (because it was illegal in many parts of the world to question it) and went on to make a side point about what I thought of laws that curtail freedom of speech and historical revision. Apparently, that was enough to touch off questions about me being a "holocaust denier." STILL I wanted to leave the issue alone, but I was asked this repeatedly, with the implication that if I didn't answer, then I must be, so I answered with a slew of holocausts and stated for the record that I deny NONE of them. Now I'm told that I was only trying to obfuscate the issue? Obfuscate what? It seems to me that I was in all cases attempting to CLARIFY, not obfuscate. It seems to me that I was trying to PREVENT the obfuscation of the topic of this thread with a heated "side" discussion about the Jewish holocaust. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 12/05/12 06:09 AM
|
|
as I said in my previous Post,that List of Genocides was nothing but an obfuscation! And some of the Items were an obfuscation to the Obfuscation! This whole holocaust business is an obfuscation of the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with it, and I didn't even mention it initially; Horowitz's video did, and I did nothing but offer to critique the video. After being encouraged to critique it, and since the video went rather extensively into it, I had to say something about it, but didn't want the subject to derail the thread, so my only initial mention of it was "I won't touch the Holocaust stuff in his video…" . I then went on to say why I wasn't going to touch it (because it was illegal in many parts of the world to question it) and went on to make a side point about what I thought of laws that curtail freedom of speech and historical revision. Apparently, that was enough to touch off questions about me being a "holocaust denier." STILL I wanted to leave the issue alone, but I was asked this repeatedly, with the implication that if I didn't answer, then I must be, so I answered with a slew of holocausts and stated for the record that I deny NONE of them. Now I'm told that I was only trying to obfuscate the issue? Obfuscate what? It seems to me that I was in all cases attempting to CLARIFY, not obfuscate. It seems to me that I was trying to PREVENT the obfuscation of the topic of this thread with a heated "side" discussion about the Jewish holocaust. Well let's go back to the video then. The video is certainly on topic as it discusses the history of the region that the Palestinians are trying to claim as their homeland. The video points out why this is specious and why the Palestinians certainly have no more claim on the land than the Jews. The Holocaust was described in the video simply to explain the large influx of refugees to Israel after the war. Here is the video again for reference: http://youtu.be/dnIKRse86GU Your response to the video was an off topic listing of wildly exaggerated and historically inaccurate death tolls in other conflicts followed by a question about whether those statistics were any less important than the actual well documented mass killings of Jews during WWII.
Then there were the usual fingerpointing posts saying with the choir responses of "Amen brother" and "how true how true" and the opposing views of "what a crock" and "i call bs"...
Finally I put the discussion back on topic with a news release from the NY Times about why the UN vote was inconsequential and only leading to more frustration when the Palestinians are expecting a big change as a result of the vote while actually all that happened is that they violated their earlier commitments, made no actual progress towards state formation and made the Israelis less willing to engage them in substantive peacemaking. The ridiculous aspect of this is that the Palestinians already do have a de-facto state in the areas they already govern in the W Bank and Gaza but they have no unified government only warring factions like Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad and their only unified policy appears to be attacking Israel while they let their true responsibility to improving the standard of living for their people languish. It is a farce. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From NYT article - Amid Euphoria Over U.N. Vote, Palestinians Still Face Familiar Challenges By ISABEL KERSHNER Published: December 2, 2012 At least in the short term, with Israeli elections scheduled for January, things are likely to get tougher for the Palestinians before they get better. In Jerusalem on Sunday, the Israeli government unanimously rejected the General Assembly’s decision to upgrade the status of Palestine to a nonmember observer state of the United Nations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Palestinian move as “a gross violation of the agreements that have been signed with the State of Israel.” In its latest response, Israel said it would not transfer tax revenues it collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority last month, instead using the money, about $100 million, to pay off about half the debt run up by the authority to the Israel Electric Corporation. The Palestinian Authority has already been suffering through a financial crisis, often unable to pay the salaries of its employees on time. Palestinian officials said that Arab countries had promised to donate funds and make up for any losses caused by punitive Israeli actions, though it was a shortfall in donor money, largely from Arab nations, that caused the financial crisis in the first place. Israel’s financial sanctions followed a government decision to build 3,000 previously planned housing units in contested areas of Jerusalem and in parts of the West Bank that Israel intends to keep under any future arrangement with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have long refused to return to the negotiating table unless Israel halts the construction of settlements. The government has also decided to continue planning and zoning work for the development of a particularly contentious area of East Jerusalem known as E1, a project long condemned by Washington because it would harm the prospects for a contiguous Palestinian state, though privately, Israeli and Palestinian officials said that this last decision could be easily reversed. Mr. Abbas, for his part, was expected to hold meetings with the members of his leadership to discuss how to begin to translate the Palestinians’ new status into practical steps. “We are celebrating our dignity,” said Xavier Abu Eid, a Palestinian spokesman. “Our small nation withstood a lot of pressure for something that is our right.” But the way forward may be fraught with legal obstacles as the Palestinians try to balance their diplomatic victory with the demands of their previous, more concrete achievements. Israel signed its agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which resulted in the creation of an interim self-rule body, the Palestinian Authority. Asked whether the Palestinian Authority would remain the Palestinian Authority in name, Mr. Abu Eid said: “That requires a decision of the leadership. I think it will not be changed in a day.” Palestinian officials have insisted that they will not give up the option of seeking to join the International Criminal Court and pursuing claims against Israel, and some Palestinians now expect their leaders to take legal action against the Israelis’ settlement building. Letters of application for membership in various United Nations bodies and international agencies have been signed “The State of Palestine.” But the Palestinians may not rush to change the name on the front of their passports to Palestine. Even Mr. Abbas is dependent on Israel’s good graces to be allowed to travel through checkpoints and across borders. Many Palestinians were hoping that Mr. Abbas would now seek genuine reconciliation with his rivals in Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza. “Unity is the most important step,” said Malik Barghouti, an employee of the authority’s Finance Ministry in Ramallah. “We are one people.” But if there is no tangible change on the ground, some Palestinians warned, the celebrations could eventually be eclipsed by frustration. “Most people here think we now have lots of rights,” said Mahmoud Mansour, 22, a student of electrical engineering from Jenin in the northern West Bank, who attended the welcome rally. “When they realize that nothing has changed, they will be angry.” bump. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Wed 12/05/12 08:47 AM
|
|
Your response to the video was an off topic listing of wildly exaggerated and historically inaccurate death tolls in other conflicts followed by a question about whether those statistics were any less important than the actual well documented mass killings of Jews during WWII. That wasn't my response to the video; that was my response to the harmful questions implying holocaust denial. To maintain my honour and good reputation, I HAD to respond in such a way as to remove all doubt whatsoever that I was denying ANY holocaust. The ridiculous aspect of this is that the Palestinians already do have a de-facto state in the areas they already govern in the W Bank and Gaza but they have no unified government only warring factions like Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad… Finally…back on topic!…Thank you. I don't know anything about Islamic Jihad. Was it a political party running in the Palestinian elections, or a criminal terrorist group disavowed by the legitimate parties? It appears that the UN vote has fostered at least some unity between Hamas and Abbas' party in that both sides agreed that statehood should be pursued at the UN. It appears many Jews would also agree with the UN vote." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/nyregion/jewish-congregation-applauds-un-vote-on-palestine.html?_r=1& Since things got a little heated before and I'd like to mellow us all out a little, I'd like to post something that could be considered obfuscatory, but probably won't be, since it at least entails a "clash of civilizations." http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/peta-crashes-biker-gathering-not-to-be-missed/27275/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 12/05/12 09:16 AM
|
|
as I said in my previous Post,that List of Genocides was nothing but an obfuscation! And some of the Items were an obfuscation to the Obfuscation! This whole holocaust business is an obfuscation of the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with it, and I didn't even mention it initially; Horowitz's video did, and I did nothing but offer to critique the video. After being encouraged to critique it, and since the video went rather extensively into it, I had to say something about it, but didn't want the subject to derail the thread, so my only initial mention of it was "I won't touch the Holocaust stuff in his video…" . I then went on to say why I wasn't going to touch it (because it was illegal in many parts of the world to question it) and went on to make a side point about what I thought of laws that curtail freedom of speech and historical revision. Apparently, that was enough to touch off questions about me being a "holocaust denier." STILL I wanted to leave the issue alone, but I was asked this repeatedly, with the implication that if I didn't answer, then I must be, so I answered with a slew of holocausts and stated for the record that I deny NONE of them. Now I'm told that I was only trying to obfuscate the issue? Obfuscate what? It seems to me that I was in all cases attempting to CLARIFY, not obfuscate. It seems to me that I was trying to PREVENT the obfuscation of the topic of this thread with a heated "side" discussion about the Jewish holocaust. Thank you! Some people in this thread are clearly trolls who just want to incite an off topic argument and insults, and then cast aspersions backwards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The video points out why
this is specious and why the Palestinians certainly have no more claim on the land than the Jews. How about... duh... they live there? Is it legal and moral to push someone out of their home just because you can? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Wed 12/05/12 10:43 AM
|
|
as I said in my previous Post,that List of Genocides was nothing but an obfuscation! And some of the Items were an obfuscation to the Obfuscation! This whole holocaust business is an obfuscation of the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with it, and I didn't even mention it initially; Horowitz's video did, and I did nothing but offer to critique the video. After being encouraged to critique it, and since the video went rather extensively into it, I had to say something about it, but didn't want the subject to derail the thread, so my only initial mention of it was "I won't touch the Holocaust stuff in his video…" . I then went on to say why I wasn't going to touch it (because it was illegal in many parts of the world to question it) and went on to make a side point about what I thought of laws that curtail freedom of speech and historical revision. Apparently, that was enough to touch off questions about me being a "holocaust denier." STILL I wanted to leave the issue alone, but I was asked this repeatedly, with the implication that if I didn't answer, then I must be, so I answered with a slew of holocausts and stated for the record that I deny NONE of them. Now I'm told that I was only trying to obfuscate the issue? Obfuscate what? It seems to me that I was in all cases attempting to CLARIFY, not obfuscate. It seems to me that I was trying to PREVENT the obfuscation of the topic of this thread with a heated "side" discussion about the Jewish holocaust. Thank you! Some people in this thread are clearly trolls who just want to incite an off topic argument and insults, and then cast aspersions backwards.
BTW,the Land earmarked for new Apartments is nowhere near any land for the Palestinian State! 
People really getting their things into a Bnuch about nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the Land earmarked for new Apartments is nowhere near any land for the Palestinian State! FALSE; it is on occupied Palestinian territory. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162880#.UL-QP--z7vg It could be legally made into Israeli territory IF Palestine sold it to Israel, but indications are that such a sale is unlikely to happen. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162856 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently, that was enough to touch off questions about me being a "holocaust denier."
To clarify this, it was the way you employed classic denier rhetoric. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the Land earmarked for new Apartments is nowhere near any land for the Palestinian State! FALSE; it is on occupied Palestinian territory. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162880#.UL-QP--z7vg It could be legally made into Israeli territory IF Palestine sold it to Israel, but indications are that such a sale is unlikely to happen. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162856 According to Israel it is NOT Palestinian land and they have a good point because there has never been any Palestinian country. The land in question is not occupied by anyone, no one lives there and it had been Jordanian land prior to 1967 when Israel wound up with it after defeating Jordan and the other Arab states who were attacking Israel. Here is an interesting discussion of the legality of the Israeli point of view and it merits serious consideration. In any case, what is or is not going to be the land of any new state of Palestine has to be negotiated between the Palestinians and Israel. Conrad is right though that there is nothing preventing the establishment of the Palestinian state in other areas. http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48939282.html |
|
|
|
|
