Nazi Concentration Camps

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm sure you must be right, Johnny. After all, it's well known that politicians NEVER use rhetoric to attempt to develop a position.
.

Of course they do; however, they don't speak rhetoric all the time. Thus, the problem: winnowing rhetoric from policy.

The prudent course for the Israelis in the 40s and 50s, would be to assume that the arab leaders were talking policy.

 

[Spion]

You're the one claiming that often, the hyperbolic utterances of politicians are mere rhetoric, designed to curry favour or win votes, not to announce actual policy. You claim that this was what happened with the arab leaders.

I don't believe that it was mere rhetoric; you do.

You can't judge whether this ONE quote you've copied is rhetoric or not because you haven't given us the context. It could have been a rousing speech to troops or it could be quote from a newspaper that an Egyptian conscript couldn't read, or it could have been in a diary entry that no-one saw. Which was it, Johnny? Words mean nothing unless you establish who they were spoken to

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm sure you must be right, Johnny. After all, it's well known that politicians NEVER use rhetoric to attempt to develop a position.

If you had any grasp at all of this subject, that you're always so very keen to pontificate on, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.
Some nation-states, in fact most, have had and continue to have a problem with casual judaeophobia, in much the same way they have a problem with other casual "racisms" and manifestations of casual social prejudices. Some nation-states, on top of that, may have institutional prejudices against certain racial, ethnic or religious cultures. At the bottom of the shitheap are nation-states that have structural and/or judicial prejudices, like Malaysia, for example, where an "all embracing philosophy of judaeophobia' exists, and places legal bars in the way of Jews that it doesn't on other culturesl.

Is institutional judaeophobia a prerequisite before a country can propose the extermination of the jews in israel?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm getting tired of repeating this word to you, but here it is again:

Context.

Well then stop repeating it, and try to formulate an answer that is longer than one ambiguous word.

 

[Spion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1948)

Great link, Johnny.

"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup because it is in a list format that may be better presented using prose.
You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available.
This section has been tagged since September 2007."

Can't you do some proper research instead of c+ping all this crap off the nether regions of the internet?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're an academic historian, are you?

Get over yourself.

You called me, or insinuated that I was, a right wing revisionist in this area.

 

[ViolentPanda]

see: George W. Bush; Iraq; US Army.

So you've not paid any attention to the resignations, re-posting and other manipulations that took place under Bush with Rumsfeld at the DoD, then?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So you've not paid any attention to the resignations, re-posting and other manipulations that took place under Bush with Rumsfeld at the DoD, then?

Yep.

The US is still at war in Iraq.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What trend?

Toward "extermination".
That is what you've been claiming, Johnny.

 

[goldenecitrone]

You called me, or insinuated that I was, a right wing revisionist in this area.

Bollocks he did. Maybe you're just feeling a bit paranoid after bandying the old 'self-hating Jew' bullshit around.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Toward "extermination".
That is what you've been claiming, Johnny.

I 'claimed' that the arab leaders talked of extermination. You seem to be saying that it couldn't have happened, because the arab generals would never break international law.

I'm saying that that is a statement that doesn't stand up to scrutiny; also, there are other ways to bring about extermination. The army can simply look the other way while militias etc carry out the extermination. We've seen this happen on a number of occasions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You're the one claiming that often, the hyperbolic utterances of politicians are mere rhetoric, designed to curry favour or win votes, not to announce actual policy. You claim that this was what happened with the arab leaders.

How many Jews were massacred in Israel by Arab military forces during any of the Arab-Israeli wars, Johnny?

I don't believe that it was mere rhetoric; you do.

Because the evidence shows that it was rhetoric.

Since you claim to be able to discern rhetoric from policy, I'm asking if you can tell when Bush is merely being rhetorical.

I can make an informed judgement based on his past actions, as can anyone with an ounce of sense.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Bollocks he did. Maybe you're just feeling a bit paranoid after bandying the old 'self-hating Jew' bullshit around.

Or maybe not, since I apologized for that comment. But trust you to dredge it back up again.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Like I said, not a shred of evidence. I've provided quotes from primary source documents as evidence - all you've done is c+p what someone said on Wikipedia decades after. No contest

Don't forget the cites from that least biased of sources, the JVL.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How many Jews were massacred in Israel by Arab military forces during any of the Arab-Israeli wars, Johnny?.

Not many, if any. Their armies were for shit. They never got the chance.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Because the evidence shows that it was rhetoric.

No, history tells us that the arab armies got their asses kicked, so they never got the chance to demonstrate whether or not it was mere rhetoric.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I can make an informed judgement based on his past actions, as can anyone with an ounce of sense.

Are his pro-fundamentalist statements rhetoric?

How about his apparent sabre rattling toward Iran?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Or maybe not, since I apologized for that comment. But trust you to dredge it back up again.

Fair dos. Still beneath you though. Will never mention it again.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Bollocks he did.

16-10-2007, 05:16 AM
ViolentPanda
is a bigger fascist. Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down in the sewer
Posts: 25,583

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck2
I suppose no such thing.

Yes you do, you said

"Jews lived and worked in Germany. They had stores, etc, and seemed to be doing fine, until Krystallnacht.

What a difference a day makes.

It's obviously disturbing to think that you can be living peacefully one day, then be murdered by your neighbors, the next. I think that's what Israel is all about. They'd been murdered by 'the neighbors' too many times. So in Israel, they'd have some say about who 'the neighbors' would be." (my emphases).

What's that if it isn't a supposition that there was a sudden transformation. chopped liver?

Quote:
What krystallnacht was, was the beginning of the gross and overt physical manifestation of something that had before that been more theoretical.

No it wasn't, it was a declaration of permission.

Quote:
To continue on with the tenor of the discussion, it was the point at which it would be plainly obvious to jewish citizens, that they were no longer safe amongst their non jewish german neighbors.

It had already been plainly obvious to Germany's Jewish citizens that they weren't safe since 1934.

This is basic history, Johnny. Basic history pretty much held as standard by anyone except right-revisionists.

.................

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course they do; however, they don't speak rhetoric all the time. Thus, the problem: winnowing rhetoric from policy.

The prudent course for the Israelis in the 40s and 50s, would be to assume that the arab leaders were talking policy.

No, the prudent thing to do would be to do what any government does and use intelligence to discern rhetoric from policy, otherwise you can't deploy your forces to maximum effect.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, the prudent thing to do would be to do what any government does and use intelligence to discern rhetoric from policy, otherwise you can't deploy your forces to maximum effect.

Ok: they've declared war, their armies are attacking, and the leaders are talking about exterminating you.

In that situation, you'd wait for a report from who: the Israeli eqivalent of the people who told Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq?

This is why you won't be getting elected.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is institutional judaeophobia a prerequisite before a country can propose the extermination of the jews in israel?

You tell me.
There's a shedload of history to draw data from.
I know the answer to the question, but I believe that if you have to wade through the historical examples, you might disabuse yourself of some of your quaint notions.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You tell me.
There's a shedload of history to draw data from.
I know the answer to the question, but I believe that if you have to wade through the historical examples, you might disabuse yourself of some of your quaint notions.

So because something has happened one way in the past, means that it can't happen in a different manner, in the future?

That kind of thinking leads to extinction.

 

[Spion]

No, history tells us that the arab armies got their asses kicked, so they never got the chance to demonstrate whether or not it was mere rhetoric.

Actual evidence, as well as what transpired, shows us that the Zionists were the only side with a long-held and systematic plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine. You have not a shred of proof for that intention for the Arab side. In fact those armies only entered months after the Zionists had begun their work and had carried out several massacres and violently cleared around 200 villages and number of city quarters of Arabs.

In the face of all the evidence you stick up for the ethnic cleansers like some faithful and unthinking servant. You clearly don't want peace in the region. Shame on you

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well then stop repeating it, and try to formulate an answer that is longer than one ambiguous word.

Well said for someone who gives context-free short answers that generally have large and only semi-contextual cut and pastes attached to them. Bravo!

I'll stop repeating it when you start paying attention to it, so that:

a) You stop part-quoting and de-contextualising posts.

b) give at least some attention to historical context,
and
c) acknowledge that context matters.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You called me, or insinuated that I was, a right wing revisionist in this area.

I didn't do either. I stated that the only people who produce arguments against what is accepted by the mass of historians as "accurate" (within the limits of knowledge on the subject) are right-revisionists.

If your conscience is telling you that you are such a creature, then that's between you and your conscience, and nothing to do with me.

Now kindly don't make such groundless accusations again.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I 'claimed' that the arab leaders talked of extermination. You seem to be saying that it couldn't have happened, because the arab generals would never break international law.

You stated "extermination" as a given when you replied to Spion's point about arms manufacture in Israel in the late 1940s with
"Good thing, too, or the work the Holocaust started, would have gotten finished in the Middle East.".
I'm saying that military disciple (inculcated by the colonialists and retained on independence) in the armies at that time was such that it would have been exceedingly unlikely that massacres requested by politicians would have been on the agenda.
You appear to be of the opinion that they would.

I'm saying that that is a statement that doesn't stand up to scrutiny; also, there are other ways to bring about extermination. The army can simply look the other way while militias etc carry out the extermination. We've seen this happen on a number of occasions.

Of course we have, and in every case the underlying antipathy was so great as to have fallen into the category of "an ideology of hate" of one group against the other, whether Hutu-Tutsi, Serbian-Kosovar or Hindu-Muslim, to name but a few.
Your premise falls down on the degree of "anti-Semitism" of the man on the Arab street at that time. History shows us, for example, that the area's greatest anti-Semite, the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, had been in effect deposed and exiled by his own people in Palestine. Arab anti-Semitism at the time was nowhere near the pitch necessary for "extermination", neither had it had time to be indoctrinated into several generations, as it has now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So because something has happened one way in the past, means that it can't happen in a different manner, in the future?

Strategy and tactics are based in history and on intelligence, You assess where to place and how to divide your forces to best effect so that you can cover as many eventualities as possible.

That kind of thinking leads to extinction.

Only if, like you, the thinker doesn't think strategically or tactically.

 

[Spion]

You stated "extermination" as a given when you replied to Spion's point about arms manufacture in Israel in the late 1940s with

Trouble is, he's provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever, execpt for one context-free quote from an Arab leader from several months after the zionists started their cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs.

On the other side of the balance I've provided quotes from primary source material to show it was only the zionists who had the intent and gave the direct military orders aimed at exterminating anyone in Palestine at that time.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Actual evidence, as well as what transpired, shows us that the Zionists were the only side with a long-held and systematic plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine. You have not a shred of proof for that intention for the Arab side.

...other than the words of the arab leaders, who talked of an intention to exterminate the jews in Israel.

Once again, what transpired, was that the arabs had no chance to prove their intentions one way or another. They lost the war(s).