Discussion:
The most penetrating interview about what's actually going on re our Middle East policy that I've heard yet.
(too old to reply)
DoD
2008-06-22 08:25:47 UTC
Permalink
[snip much of - "that came later"]
Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea >>>>>power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm
I would say, again, that that comparison isn't even up to the apples
and oranges level.
[snip]
... I disagree. It is a fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade.
There were no democracies in that era.
... it was published in 1776
“Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm“
Ergo, 1776 is not at issue. Once again, there were no democracies in
that era (i.e., 1600). What that means is that Adam Smith's 1776
“fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade”
is irrelevant.
Israel like Holland has little in the way of natural
resources and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries
like Holland was with Spain France and England.
England in 1600 wasn't “fabulously wealthy”.
... The comparison made by Smith was holland and spain
Therefore, irrelevant.
but England in the 1500s had looted the Monastries
Even more irrelevant.
Egypt
$127.9 billion
... But this is NOT about GDP . smiths argument
If you're going to make the statement that a particular country's
neighbours are “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to that country, you
need to provide a factual base for stating such. That base is the most
recent GDPs for the respective countries -- not a comparison of
Holland and Spain written in 1776.
Ireland has about 4 million people
Ireland is irrelevant, except, perhaps, at a stretch, in relation to a
chief rabbi of Israel and a former president, both of whom were Irish
Jews.
Egypt has how
many million people? the er are about 17 millions in Cairo I think. They
have the Nile Pyramids sphynx and a host of world saMOUS STUFF. aND THEIR
TOURIST TRADE IS ??? something like irelands in spite of having maybe twenty
times the population!
 >So Egypt has heritage, water and the suez Canal.
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800. “Heritage” is irrelevant,
and water, as a major Egyptian resource, is a joke.
Syria
$37.76 billion
Oil, water, Heritage.
Water, in a semiarid area? lol. Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500,
compared to not so “fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of
$25,800. Syria's putative “Heritage” is irrelevant.
Lebanon
$24.64 billion
Well, much like Israel for resources.
Lebanon's natural resources:  limestone, iron ore, salt, water-surplus
state in a water-deficit region, arable land.
Israel's natural resources:  timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas,
phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand.
Plus a per capita GDP of $11,300 , for Lebanon, compared to not so
“fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
Jordan
$16.01 billion
Agian tiny and like Israel.
Total sq km Jordan: 92,300
Total sq km Israel:   20,770
Plus a per capita GDP of $4,900, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
Israel
$161.9 billion
Per capita GDP: see above.
You missed Saudi Arabia, (huge oil production and reserves) Iraq (even huger
oil reserves) Libya (oil) Greece (heritage agriculture ).
If you look at a map, you will notice that none of the above countries
Israel’s neighbors. Andyou need to look at current statistics, before
you suggest that Iraq's oil reserves are greater than Saudia's, or
that Greece is “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to Israel.
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece, is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs. It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours – as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.
You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East. It seems democracies,
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.
LOL..... It is funny watching you deal with toddlers....


David...
DoD
2008-06-22 08:35:38 UTC
Permalink
You were stating that the “post Israeli state” invented the
“terminology 'jewish holocaust'”.
...No. I was NOT!
See your statement above: “The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a
post Israeli state invention”
Because something happened after something does not mean the first thing
caused the second or was responsibe for it.
Would you mind translating the foregoing into intelligible English,
then explaining its relevance to your statement that “The terminology
"jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”?
... The terminology was used AFTER the Israeli state came to be recognised
by UN nations.
That statement neither translates your comment above, nor does it
explain the relevance of that comment to your claim that “The
terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”.
Take for example if I stated the term "Tory" did not exist in Middle Age
It would be like stating that Henry II of England didn’t own a Rolls.
... Yes "holocaust" in the sense of WWII killing of Jews didnt exist before
WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it either . It only came to be used after Israel (the >modern country not the Biblical one) existed.
What, exactly, are you trying to say here? That “WWII killing of Jews
didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it”? That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?
I a similar way when people say "holocaust" today it is associated almost
always with the massacre of jews by the Nazis. But this useage is I believe
only after the Israeli State came to exist.
The phrase “Cold War” also arose after the establishment of the state
of Israel. Do you have a point?
... Really. I would regard the "phony war" as a cold war.
What “phony war”?
But when we discuss the "holocaust" people single out jews.
That is because the majority of people singled out by the Nazis were
Jews.
In fact others also died and were targeted.
Apotheosis of the obvious.
And other holocausts happened. this does not take away from
the holocaust against jews as an evil event but it was not unique in the way
the terminology suggests. Other holocausts happened . Indeed other massacres
of Jews happened.
Had you read the quotes you pasted from the site you referenced, as
well as the articles on that site, you would already know that the
20th century Holocaust as pertaining to Jews was, in fact, unique. You
DO read what you cite, don't you?
It also is not usually
associated with the coincident massacre of Slavs and Gypsies for example.
But I am fairly sure "holocaust" existed before the Nazis.
I am fairly sure I indicated in a previous post that the term
“holocaust” “existed before the Nazis”, and that it was used as early
as 1192 in relation to the massacres of English Jews instigated by
Richard I.
... Yes but other holocausts which were NOT of Jews happened.
I believe it has already been established that other mass murders have
occurred throughout the centuries. I suggest you read the holocaust-
history.org site you referenced earlier, and refrain from cherry-
picking fragments from the entirety.
Also, you were re-stating, with
qualification, a previous poster's claim of “lots” of “other
holocausts”.
... No. I was't!
The previous poster wrote: "There have been other holocausts. Lots of
them"
“Depends on what you mean but I would say "several" not "lots". You
then proceeded to dart off on some sort of semantical tangent.
...Yes I pointed out "several" not "lots" in the ACTUAL REPLY!
“...There have been. Depends on what you mean but I would say
"several" not
“lots" The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state
invention as far as I know. But there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER
that (mainly Russian/Polish but also German and other local
populations )
Jews were takgeted and wiped out by the NAZIs. Millions of them.
As were Slavs and Gypsies. In a very callous manner.”
You then proceeded to point out, as examples of what “one could equate
the term "holocaust" with” a) - native Americans' b) - The Irish under
the English Rule; c) - the armenians; d) -the Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda; e)
- pogroms by stalin; f) -Mao's Cultural revolution; and g) -The Congo.
While your scattershot hit a few targets, as scattershot is bound to
do, you were generally wrong.
I clearly pointed to the fact that TODAY "holocaust is
taken to mean relating to Jews bt that others have happened. I also believe
I stated mot "lots" but "several".
As indicated immediately above.
... SO i didnt say "lots" but "several"
Pay attention: it was already established, several posts ago, that it
was not you, but a previous poster who stated that there were lots of
previous holocausts, and that you replied that there were several.
In fact, the term used for the Holocaust by Israel was,
and remains, the Shoah.
... for "the holocaust" ? you see? you refer to THE "holocaust", which you
associate with Jews.
[snip encarta quote on etymology]
The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).
[end excerpt]
NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
Apparently you missed the part of the quote above. Re-read is slowly
and carefully.
... reread "Is " or  reread IT"? carefull when you try to say someone posted
words which mean something else.
If you are going to descend to pettifogging about typos, in lieu if
wracking your mind for a better response, you had better be prepared
to receive the same regarding your own – and there are quite a many of
them. I suggest you also take your own advice and be “carefull” over
any accusations you might make – particularly over incidents which
never happened. Now: re-read the following quote from the site you
“The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).
end excerpt]
NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
I stated several holocausts have happened.
Several times. So? Whether “several holocausts” happened or did not is
not at issue. At issue seems to be the word “holocaust”, and your
question as to when and how it came to refer to the massacre of six
million European Jews. You have been answered several times. The site
you referenced provides answers to your questions. You should read it.
The site you referenced also answers your question as to why the
Holocaust – note the definitive article and capitalization of the noun
– is unique.
I didn't denegrate Jews!
Are you worried you might have?
when did the term "Holocaust" refer to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews?
Previously, you seemed quite sure when it was used, and by whom it was
used -- “a post Israeli state invention” --
..."Introduced by historians in the 1950s" i.e. AFTER Israel was founded
no?
The phrase “Cold War” was also introduced AFTER the state of Israel
was founded, no?
I don't know! The term "cold war" however does not refer either to the
foundation of Israel or to the killing of Jews Slavs gypsies or others by
Nazis.
Another apotheosis of the obvious.
and that there were other
usages. Now you ask when it was used in this specific context? It was
used in reference to the destruction of European Jews in 1942.
... Really? That is interesting. Where?
 >December 1942 speech by Chaim Weizmann.
What did the term "holocaust"mean BEFORE it was used in this way?
Before it was used to “refer to “to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews“? “Holocaust” was used in an English chronicle of 1192 to
refer to the 1189 massacres of English Jews. The literal meaning of
the word is “sacrifice by fire.”
... Yes but NOT ONLY of Jews?
Read the foregoing slowly and carefully: “Holocaust” was used in an
English chronicle of 1192 to refer to the 1189 massacres of English
Jews. The literal meaning of the word is “sacrifice by fire.”
 >...yes but not only of Jews.
I believe your repetitious question has been answered repeatedly. The
answers are also on the site you referenced earlier.
Have you got that?
...if you are saying holocaust means "sacrifice by fire" and not just
applying to jews then yes. Id that what you mean? "sacrifice by fire" but
not wholly reserved and applicable to any particular religion or ethnic
group?
<heavy sigh>
Did you read the Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary
entries for “holocaust” given previously? Here they are again. Read
them slowly and carefully. This time, make sure you understand them.
It will save you the trouble of asking the same question over and over
again.
Merriam Webster
ho-lo-caust
Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston,
from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt,
from kaiein to burn — more at CAUSTIC
Date: 13th century
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially
through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a
often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and
especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with
the
b: a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
American Heritage Dictionary
hol-o-caust
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life,
especially by fire.
2
a. Holocaust
The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War
II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to
that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy
annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.
[snip freedictionary Usage Panel debate]
... ô'â was first used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of Jews in 1939, but
the phrase ha-ô'â ("the catastrophe") became established only after World
War II. Holocaust has also been used to translate urbn ("destruction"),
another Hebrew word used to summarize the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.
You must have missed the above sentence from your freedictionary.com
quote.
..."After WWII! which is AFTER 1945 . But my impression was it became
established in the 1950s. which is AFTER the state of Israel.
The link to the site you provided answers your question. You should
read it.
Merriam Webster
ho-lo-caust
Function:  noun
Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston,
from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt,
from kaiein to burn — more at CAUSTIC
Date: 13th century
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially
through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a - often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and
especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with
the
b - a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
- Merriam-Webster
Re-read the Merriam-Webster definition slowly and carefully.
... I dont need a lecture from you!
That isn't a lecture. That is the answer to the question you keep
repeating.
My comments stanbd up to scrutiny!
Scrutiny by whom?
And did not the WWII holocaust also include Slavs and
gypsies who were ALSO specifically targeted and wiped out?
The Nazis seem not to have developed any “Final Solution to the Slav
Question” or “Final Solution to Gypsy Question”.
Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering of
other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies,
prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses
and
others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust
continued.
By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.
You miss the point of the last sentence, along with the fact that the
total number of any one of the non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of
itself, does not begin to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the
..."as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!
This comment hardly stands up to scrutiny – the reason, no doubt, for
your snippage. -- Your previous statement above, actually a quote you
“By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” The reason your
comment -- that "as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!”
-- does not stand up to scrutiny is as follows. I'll try to put it
simply for you.
Three million Poles killed by the Nazis in the six-year Nazi
occupation of Poland do not equate to “MORE others!” than the six
million Jews killed by the Nazis, though the figure is about the same
as the three million Polish Jews killed by the Nazis.
Two million Soviet POWs killed by the Nazis do not equate to “MORE
others!” than the six million Jews killed by the Nazis.
The estimated 220,000 to 500,000 Gypsies killed by the Nazis do not
equate to “MORE others!” than the six million Jews killed by the
Nazis.
The estimated 80,000 to 200,000 Freemasons, and the 5,000 to 15,000
gays (men), and the 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses killed by the Nazis do
not, in the aggregate,  equate to “MORE others!” than the six million
Jews killed by the Nazis
That is what is meant by the statement -- which you snipped,
apparently without reading -- that “the total number of any ONE of
these non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of itself, does not begin
to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis.”
But as I stated I
wont get into a revisionist numbers game with you!
You started playing your revisionist numbers games when you started
spouting numbers. Like your comments, they don't stand up to scrutiny.
The point you have missed, above all, is that none of these people
would have been murdered had the Nazis not implemented their Final
Solution to the JEWISH Question.
...I didnt miss that point aty all!
Actually, you did, along with most others. I'm sorry you're having so
much trouble grasping them.
It does not make the death of non jews less significant.
Your comments imply that it did, even though this was never at issue.
FYI, on Yom Ha-Shoah, modern Jewish liturgy has prayers for the souls
of the non-Jews murdered by the Nazis, as well as for Jews, and
special prayers for the Righteous Gentiles killed by the Nazis.
Does that sound to you like Jews are trying to “make the death of non
jews less significant”? Does your religious liturgy contain prayers
for Jews murdered by the Nazis?
On the other hand, does the Holocaust have a particularly crucial and
central Jewish element, even though millions of others died? Simply put,
the
answer is yes. The Holocaust, from its conception to its implementation had
a distinctly Jewish aspect to it and, arguably without this Jewish aspect,
there would have been no Holocaust. Most of the non-Jewish people would not
have been killed because the killing machinery would not have been put into
operation.
You do read the quotes you paste, don't you?
...yes.
Re-read the quote from the site you referenced immediately above,
because you appear to have forgotten it.
In this context, two points need to be examined: the particularly Jewish
aspect of the Holocaust and the fact that this neither minimizes nor
trivializes the suffering of others.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
Apparently you missed the following, as well, from the foregoing site
Jews were almost always the first group targeted in any initiative.
There is no doubt that they were the focal point from beginning to
end.
... where did I deny that?
Your question is ridiculous.
The Germans set up an office on the "Jewish Question" under the
direction of Adolf Eichmann -- the infamous Bureau IV B 4. The name
used for the ultimate killing action was "the Final Solution of the
Jewish Question," Others were drawn in -- with horrific results -- but
the key object and common thread was always the Jews.
... So? This does not minimise non Jews or mean only Jews suffered.
Now where did *I* deny that?
There are thousands of captured documents dealing with the killing
actions. Almost every one of them deals with the Jews and there are
almost no documents that deal with another target that do not also
address the Jews.
... there are also no orders to kill Jews existing signed by Hitler but i do
not doubt he ordered it!
Not at issue.
The Einsatzgruppen reports almost always separate
out the Jews from the other people shot, going so far as to break down
the Jews by age and gender (http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-
einsatz).
... and you assert that makes the Jews "special" ? In what way?
You were the one who posted the link to the Holocaust History site.
Read it.
I don't doubt they were targeted but so were others.
That was never at issue, except, it seems, in your mind. The fact
remains that none of the groups mentioned above were targeted to the
extent that Jews were targeted from the beginning. That is another of
the several points you keep missing. It's also a point which is
clearly set out in the Holocaust History site you referenced.
If jews didnt live in Poland
and Mongols did or arabs I dod not doubt the Nazis would have
killed them instead. The Jews were a scapegoat.
If, as you state, the Jews were a scapegoat, then it follows that it
wouldn't have mattered if Jews lived in Poland or not. Had Mongols or
Arabs lived in Poland instead of Jews, the Nazis would not have killed
them, since they were not scapegoats, as Jews were; the Arabs were the
Nazis' allies, and had been since 1937. Palestinian Arabs were active
in promulgating Nazi propaganda, and their leadership spent the war
years in Berlin, where they established, among other things, three all-
Muslim Waffen-SS legions. Syria and Lebanon were under Vichy rule, and
Arabs there fought the Allies. The Egyptian government provided
intelligence on British military movements in North Africa, and there
was a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq. So, no, the Nazis would not have gone for
the Arabs if they were in Poland. In fact, they escorted the Palestine
Arab leadership on a tour of the death camps, which they intended to
establish in Palestine, once the British were driven out.
[snip - sorry i have to go cant finish this now]
I'll just bet you're not.
When you feel up to addressing what you snipped – if you ever do --
here it is again. Per the advice you snipped, you might want to read a
few of the articles on that site. It might save you the trouble of
repeating the same questions ad nauseam.
------------------------------------------------
[snip restored]
And the Report 51, submitted by Himmler to Hitler in 1943,
breaks down the victims into a variety of categories (bandits,
partisans, etc.), but only lists the Jews as "Jews executed."
Finally, the Korherr Report is entitled "The Final Solution of the
European Jewish Question: A statistical report," and once again,
addresses virtually only the Jews.
Hitler said before the outbreak of the war that if there were another
war, he would annihilate the Jews. He said during the war that he was
in the process of annihilating the Jews. And he said in his Testament
that he had done exactly what he had said he would do.
The ultimate aim and the primary target never varied. Others were
murdered in the course of the Final Solution, e.g. Gypsies, Russian
POWs, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on, but the first and
constant target was always the Jews. The Final Solution was intended
for the Jews, was about the Jews and chiefly affected the Jews. There
is no denying that, without the Jews, there is no Final Solution.
To minimize or trivialize the "Jewishness" of the Final Solution is
to
seriously understate, if not, unintentionally perhaps, deny its
essence. This does not mean that the suffering of other groups is to
be ignored; on the contrary, it was terrible. But without the
Holocaust, without the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", the
others live. The term "holocaust" was coined to describe the uniquely
Jewish aspect of the Final Solution. It does not seek to negate the
suffering of the other victims.http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
The Jewish Virtual Library's section on the Holocaust contains
sections on the Nazi massacres of non-Jews. See, for example, the
Gypsieshttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gypsytoc.html
Homosexualshttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gay.html
Jehovah’s Witnesseshttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jehovah.html
Neither group was
wiped out, nor were either on the agenda of the Wanasee Conference, or
ever targeted to be wiped out.
...as many as 6 million of these people had been killed, along with
between 5 and 6 million Jews.
I read the quote you provided. Did you?
This is not to say that the Nazis didn't have it out for certain non-
Jewish Europeans. They planned to exterminate the Poles, whom they
considered almost as subhuman as Jews; in addition to the three
million Polish Jews slaughtered by the Nazis, three million non-Jewish
Poles also perished. Slavs – specifically Russians - were also
considered less than human, and were so brutally treated in German POW
camps that an estimated two millions perished. For other “non-Aryan”
Europeans, IIRC, the general plan was to “Germanize” those they could,
and use those they could not as slave labour. But there was nothing on
the level of “the planned extermination and destruction of the Jewish
race.”
“Until 1940 the general policy within the section was to settle the
Jewish Question in Germany and in areas occupied by Germany by means
of a planned emigration. The second phase, after that date, was the
concentration of all Jews, in Poland and in other territories occupied
by Germany in the East, in ghettos. This period lasted approximately
until the beginning of 1942. The third period was the so-called "Final
Solution" of the Jewish question - that is, the planned extermination
and destruction of the Jewish race....I learned of such an order for
the first time from Eichmann in the summer of 1942.” Testimony of
Dieter Wisliceny, Nuremberg 1946
No comment?
But there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that (mainly
Russian/Polish but also German and other local populations )  Jews were
takgeted and wiped out by the NAZIs. Millions of them. As were Slavs and
Gypsies. In a very callous manner.
“A very callous manner” is a very nice euphemism for what actually
happened.
... "Callous" meaning no emotion was attached to it. It was done in the way
people might exterminate a plague of vermin.
I would say there was quite a bit of emotion attached to it. One need
only look at photographs from the era, of concentration camp personnel
posing by the corpses of people they'd tortured to death, and other
similar photos.
... By the people who did it. Okay. But by the people who ordered it?
I think people believe the Nazis had and ideology and a philosophy which they
adhered to which entailed hating jews slavs etc. But have you considered
thet most Nazis didnt really care about any ideology as long as they got
rich and powerful? This is whay many of them so easily jumped over to
serving communists (who according to "ideology" were as vile as Jews ) or to
working for the Allied as spies. They were along for the ride.
You are grasping at straws. What, exactly, is your point?
In the film
Schindlers List ther is a Nazi near the end who knows the War is ending and
he has a chat with Schindler with a view to cutting a deal. He will deal
with commies or anyone else. He knows the end is coming and allthe ideology
does not matter one whit to him.
By the way did you know a Catholic Priest in the Vatican saved over three
times as many Jews as Schindler?
“By this time the formula 'Final Solution for the Jewish Question' had
taken on a new meaning: liquidation. In this new sense we discussed it
at a special conference on January 20, 1942 in the Wanasee section of
Berlin...After the conference, as I recall, Heydrich, Muller and your
humble servant sat cozily around a fireplace...We all had drinks then.
We sang songs. After a while we got up on the chairs and drank a
toast, then on the table and then round and round--on the chairs and
on the table again.” Testimony of Adolf Eichmann, 1961
Eichmann, et al seemed to have had a good time planning the third
phase of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question.
...yes but net seething with rage like the usual portrayal of Hitler etc.
Do you actually think that matters?
But one could equate the term "holocaust" with
- native Americans
- The Irish under the English Rule - particularly the famine times of the
1820s- 1840s and the great Famine of 1845 in particular
-the armenians
-the Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda
One might make a case for equating the term “holocaust” with the
above, if one were all but devoid of a sense of history.
... So you claim the only use for the term "holocaust" is especially for
the Jews of WWII?
If you review the above, you may see I'm not the one caught up with
semantic antics.
As for “the only use" for holocaust being “especially for the Jews of
WWII,” please note above that that it was used by an English
chronicler in 1192 “especially” for the Jews of England in the 1189
massacres instigated by Richard I. Mary Renault used it The King Must
Die in its literal sense of “sacrifice by fire”.
...Yes because it refers to the Latin translation of Jewish sacrifices by
making burnt offerings.
Again, you are grasping at straws.
I don't deny the term traces it origins to Jewish customs of making
offerings but that does not mean the offerings were PEOPLE!
Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston
I already gave the etymology. Do these semantic antics have a point?
In fact,
however, the Armenian and Rwandan genocides are designated with the
Holocaust as three of the four instances of genocide in the 20th
century.
I missed the Kymer Rouge.
That's Khmer Rouge.
As for the other two, the potato crops of Europe's Jews were not hit
with blight,
... The famine in ireland was not so simple. SEVERAL crops failed sonce the
1820s. thre was a country wide failure in 1845. But the British were
EXPORTING food from Ireland at that time and continued to do so! Including
food for famine relief! Why ? they were getting a good price for it! So
the
starvation was because of a planned economic system on behalf of the
British
who looked upon the Irish as ignorant slave labour to support their
economic
baSE. Much in the same way the NAZIs looked down on the jews and slavs.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall that the English planned the
deliberate destruction of the Irish people,
..."Plantation" was the policy. It amounted to the same.
It didn't, and it's idiotic to suggest it did.
or that they built
concentration camps and gas chambers to exterminate all the Irish.
...No they wouldnt have done that because they hadnt the territory or the
infrastructure.
They hadn't the desire either.
Another point you miss is that the Irish potato famine is neither at
issue nor relevant.
[snip]
The
potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine didn't reduce
Ireland's then-population of 8.5 million to less than 2 million, as
the Nazi Final Solution did for the Jews of Europe, did it?
... No only to 3 million. the population continued to decline to about 3
million in 1970 from which time it has been growing.
Comparing "only two million" Irish to "6.5 million Jews" is a bit like
saying "not 6.5 million but more probably 5 million Jews". It is a pointless
discussion when millions were certainly involved.
When discussing the planned extermination of a people, it certainly
it. But if you are going to trot in a false analogy, like that of the
Irish potato famine to the Holocaust, the numbers do become relevant.
Once again: The potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine
claimed almost a million casualties over seven years; another 1.6
million emigrated, mostly to America. That is not comparable to the
deliberate slaughter of six millions.
And if the
English looked down on the Irish as “ignorant slave labour to support
their economic base,” it makes little sense for them to have
deliberately annihilated that economic base.
... Yeah. Like the Nazis should have kept Jewish slaves instead of kiling
them? The killing of the Jews was not sensible either but that doesn't
justify either killing them or slavery.
Again, you miss the point: the Nazis were not interested in Jews as
an
“ignorant slave labour to support their economic base”. They were
interested in annihilating every Jewish man, woman, and child.
[snip potato famine stuff]
...Many jews were "driven out" in the 1930 just as Irish were in the 1830s.
But the poorer elements couldnt go.
Evidently the Jewish “poorer elements” who “couldn't go” were the
majority; only 25% of European Jews survived the Nazis. The comparison
with the Irish isn't even up on the the apples and oranges level.
... Im not getting into a revisionist numbers game.
Nevertheless, that's what you've been doing.
[snip more potato famine stuff]
They didn’t. They couldn't escape by emigrating
to Palestine either, after the British, at the behest of Nazi
Germany's Palestine Arab allies, barred them from doing so beginning
in 1939.
90% of Europe's Jews did not perish as a result of diseases to which
they had no immunity, as did “native Americans”, to use the current PC
phrase,
diseases like smallpox specifically spread for example by "donating"
blankets to native Indians which were infested with smallpox?
90% of the Indian population of the Americas died from disease-
infested blankets?
Again that is a numbers game.
It's the game you've initiated, along with your semantic antics.
whose estimated population at the time of Columbus's arrival,
in the entire Western Hemisphere, did not exceed 12 million, with the
bulk of the population being located in what became Latin America.
(There is no need, at this point, to go into the slave labor camps the
Spanish set up for the Indians, on which the Germans later based their
concentration camps.)
... Or the ones set up by the British in south africa during the Boer War.
Your point?
...no YOURS .
Excuse me for not being more clear. What I meant was: “What is your
point in your attempts to equate Kitchener's South African
concentration camps for the Boers with the German concentration
camps?” The Brits established concentration camps on Cyprus, too: in
1947-48, for Jews. Neither is equivalent to the German concentration
camps, and certainly not to the death factories
YOU brought up concentration camps being based on earlier
examples. I just gave you the example of the British "concentration camp"
system. Invented by the British.
That British “invention” was ignored by the Germans; the latter based
their slave labor camps those created by the Spanish in the Americas
for Indians. Your “examples” are  tantamount to arguing that because
an apple and a rubber ball are red, round, shiny and smooth, the one
is as good to eat as the other.
Others might also add
- pogroms by stalin
-Mao's Cultural revolution
-The Congo
Others might, but that's their choice.
.. i wouldnt. But "holocaust" is taken today to mean specifically only Jews
in WWII. Why?
As capitalized – the Holocaust – it refers to the deliberate
destruction of 75% of the Jews of Europe.
... Yes but other holocausts did happen.
I believe I stated as much in previous posts, as well as in the
The Final Solution had no political or economic justification; it was
an end in itself. Jews were the ONLY people slaughtered by the Nazis
for simply existing.
None of the non-Jewish groups who were murdered by the Nazis, to
which
you have alluded, were the focus of any "Final Solution". Only Jews
were targeted by the Nazis for utter annihiliation.
Exterminating Jews wasn't a PART of the German war effort -- it was
the same. No German resources which could have been used in the war
were ever diverted to slaughter gypsies, Slavs, gays, Jehovah's
Witnesses, political dissidents, etc. But they were diverted for the
slaughter of Jews. For example, a contributory factor to Rommel's
defeat by the British was lack of needed materiel; it was slow to
arrive, or failed to arrive in time, because necessary transport had
been diverted to transport Jews to the death camps. The same does not
hold for any of the other peoples murdered by the Nazis.
There are other examples fromn history but over the last five hundred
years
I would say the first three above probably qualify as "holocaust"
And it would be as incorrect as equating Ireland’s potato famine with
the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews.
... The destruction of Irish people was known and planned. In fact going
back to pre 1800 you have Lords in Parliamenbt like Bolton (now has a
street
in dublin named after him) who tried to introduce a law to Castrate
Catholic
Priests! It was voted down because it was silly.
So, the English planned the deliberate destruction of the Irish by a)
importing potatoes, so that the population increased dramatically;
then b) introducing a potato blight to starve that increased
population – despite the fact that that population comprised their
“economic base.” That so?
... The "potato famine" as you call it is a misnomer! It was not about the
failure of the potato crop. It was about economics and politics.
And the Nazi extermination of Europe's Jews was not about politics or
economics. Moreover, as the British never targeted the Irish for
utter
annihilation, as the Nazis did the Jews, your persiflage on the Irish
potato famine constitutes a false analogy, and utterly irrelevant.
You
would do better to bring up the Armenian Genocide, or the Khmer
Rouge,
or the Rwandan Genocides by way of comparisons.
Catholic Priests are meant
to be celebate anyway.
But weren't in the past, and aren't today.
[snip irrelevancy]
... The most damage done by Christians in the US was by Protestants.
Fundamentalists like the ones they have today!
Let's let that one go, except to point out that the obvious fact that
neither the US nor American Protestants are relevant to the laws
enacted by Spanish Catholics upon the Indian population of the
Americas – note the plural – nor to the functioning of the
Inquisition
in the Americas.
The Spanishg Inquisition was a meaner and not Vatican led endeavour like the
much more placid Italian Inquisition which had a logical reason for being.
Galileo's views on the Roman Inquisition, along with those of the
Albigensians and the Knights Templar, probably differed.
...as you are making it a number game
Actually, you are the one making a “numbers game”, in addition to
your
semantic antics. I asked you several times what your point was. You
failed to respond, other than with some utter irrelevancy about some
alleged British Final Solution to the Irish Question.
ill ask you How many American natives
were killed by the Spanish Inquisition?
That is tantamount to my asking you if you've stopped beating your
spouse, and is, in any case, irrelevant.
In fact the failed Plantation of Munster and Leix/ Offaly Kings
county/Queens County witnessed about 1000 Catholic families dispossessed
Dispossession is not tantamount to a planned and deliberate genocide.
and
presued to the sea and hunted down like dogs! Their lands were then given
over to Protestant settlers. Thi is similar to the Nazi soultion. the Nazis
were happy to have the Jews as slaves and re settle Poland with "Germanic
people". but when they were losing the war they decided on the "final
solution" of extermination. although they may have planned it earlier.
This, too, doesn't quite make the apples-and-oranges grade.
...It does when you are talking about a quarter of the controlled  country -
Yet again, you miss the point, and call into serious question any
knowledge of recent history you might possess. It's obvious you are
unaware that the Nazi Solution to the Jewish Question did not
envisage
any Germans being “happy to have the Jews as slaves”, or that the
third phase of the Final Solution was implemented when the Nazis were
at the height of their victories.
Again the numbers game does not apply here.
Except when you're the one playing it, yes?
[snip]
6. Only Palestine Arabs can claim western Palestine as "their land."
... on tyhis I would ask what you mean by "semitic".
It's difficult to see what the definition of “semitic” has to do with
the previous poster's implication that only Palestine Arabs can claim
western Palestine as “their land”.
Well when people are accused of being "anti semites" one has to ask what
"semite" means, no?
Not really, when one can look it up. “Semite” originated in the 18th
century to describe the various peoples of the Middle East, based on
the belief that they descended from Noah's son Shem. “Semitic” is used
by linguists and philologists with regard to language groups.  “Anti-
Semitic”,coined in the 19th century,  refers specifically to Jews.
... i was aware of the first bit but not of the latter. Thanks for that. Do
you not find it strange that "semitic" means people of a particular region
but "anti semitic" only applies to the Jews of that region?
“Antisemitic” NEVER applied “only” to “Jews of that region”. It was
coined in the 19th century to mean hatred of Jews, and nothing else.
[snip]
In the case of Islam, a phony religious significance, based solely
upon military-political oneupsmanship between rival khalifs during the
Second Islamic Civil War (c 680/683-685/692). After ibn Zubayr seized
Mecca, al-Malik prohibited all pilgrimages to Mecca, declared Har
Bayit the site of Muhammad's dream into as-samawat, and engaged
Byzantine architects to build the mosque of Umar in order to attract
pilgrims -- and their money, in order to deflect it from ibn Zubaydr.
but for
Jews it's our Washington DC. It's our ancient capital, and there is no
reason to give it up or redivide it. Yes, just as there are Jewish
neighborhoods, and Irish neighborhoods, and Italian neighborhoods, and
African American neighborhoods in DC, so Jerusalem has had many
Quarters. But it's the capital of the Jewish nation, and that is the
way it's going to stay.
Ironic, isn't it, that the first modern usage of "Palestinians"
referred to Jews, and now refers to the descendants of Muslim Arabs of
former British Palestine. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem has been
noted throughout the centuries. It's only recently that the connection
has come to be denigrated, due largely to Pseudostinians, their
propaganda, and the ignorant antisemites who support them.
... Well we are back to what "semities" are.
Were we there in the first place?
Yup ... note the phrase "ignorant antisemites "?
I apologize for the redundancy.
... You don't have to. But YOU WERE there in the first place.
I'm sorry the comment sailed over your head. Let me explain it: A
redundancy is a superfluity of words. Ergo, the phrase “ignorant
antisemites” is a redundancy because antisemites are generally
ignorant people.
Indded the jews have been in
the region for thousands of years. The Jewish and christian holy
Scriptures
record it. But so have the other semites - Arabs.
Semitic-speaking Arabs are relative newcomers to the Near East. Prior
to their recent arrival, the region was occupied for millennia by
other Semitic-language speakers, including Amorites, Babylonians,
Assyrians, Aramaeans, Ugarites, Phoenicians, and others.
Hint: “Semite” isn't an ethnic term; it refers rather loosely to
speakers of a Semitic language.
...and to the descendents of these cultures just as modern Jews are -
and some speak yiddish.
Nation States are a recent
concept of the last 200 years really. Though the nations may have existed
the internationally recognised territories didnt!
REcently the Arabs have mooted the Idea of a nation State of "Palestine."
But don't forget only 50 years ago the Jews mooted the same for "Israel".
Jews “mooted the same for Israel” well before only 50 years ago.
... But it was only validated by International UN mandate then!
There was never an UN mandate for Israel, nor any “validation” by the
UN for Israel.
... funny i could have sworn they vote in the general assembly
and have been on the Security council?
Israel's membership in the UN, and its vote in the General Assembly,
no more constitutes some “UN mandate for Israel” than America's
membership constitutes a “UN mandate for America”. Moreover, Israel
has never been a member of the Security Council.
How many other countries get voting rights but are
not recognised by the UN?
I have no idea how many non-member countries of the UN are given the
right to vote in the General Assembly. You tell me, and we'll both
know.
Following WWI, the League of Nations granted the
Mandate for Palestine to the British, as well as the Mandate for
Mesopotamia; France received the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, while
Japan, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries received
Mandates for other territories formerly belonging to the by-then
defunct Ottoman and German Empires. In 1923, Britain partitioned the
Mandate for Palestine and granted the bulk of territory to the
Abdallah son of Husayn, Sheriff of Mecca and Medina; at the same time,
Britain created Iraq from the Mandate for Mesopotamia and bestowed it
on Abdallah's older brother, the Emir Feisal. In 1947, the UN General
Assembly voted to partition the remaining fifth of Palestine into
another Arab state and a Jewish state. The Arabs immediately went on
the warpath to prevent the creation of a Jewish state in the remainder
of Palestine (and, incidentally, to prevent the creation of a second
Arab state in Palestine.)
...In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of
Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
Imagine that.
In
fact, Israel recently celebrated her 60th anniversary as a state.
...Sorry I apologice. I meant 60 not 50. I was thinking in terms of about a
half century.
But
Jews were mooting the esatablishment of a Jewish state in Syria (as
Palestine was previously known) in the first decades of the 19th
century,  back when the only “Palestinians” around were the Jews of
Europe.
... Yup. And that was LESS THAN 200 years ago.
Correct, 1844 was LESS THAN 200 years ago.
...Which is what I claimed! Nation states are only about 200 years old at
most!
Wherever did you pick up that bit of fluff?
Look Im not saying the Nazi treatment of the Jews and slavs and gypsies was
the SAME as the British treatment of the Irish
You stated that it was “similar to the Nazi soultion,” which it was
not,
... Oh but it WAS. I showed you the similaraties.
You showed nothing, except that you need to educate yourself a bit
more on the subjects you're attempting to discuss. The British
treatment of the Irish in the 19th century nowhere approaches the
treatment of Jews by the Nazis.
and that “the Nazis
were happy to have the Jews as slaves,” which they were not.
... Oh but they were.
Oh but they were not. The purpose of the Final Solution was not to
elate Germans with Jewish slaves; it was to annihilate every Jewish
man, woman, and child, irrespective of any political or economic
justification. And that is one of the major factors that sets it
apart
from every other example you have touched upon.
You need to go back to the link you gave above –http://www.holocaust-history.org/
-- and reread it carefully.
Eeeeyooiiii..

This is why you are the woman of my dreams... You give me so much
entertainment..... I would have dismissed this fruit out of hand.. You
took the time to embarrass him.... What a hoot!!!

Thanks Deborah....
B. H. Cramer
2008-06-22 13:02:58 UTC
Permalink
"DoD" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d483f3bd-547c-4fd4-825e-***@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Fuck orf, you traitorous, dick licking little prick.
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-23 20:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DoD
You were stating that the “post Israeli state” invented the
“terminology 'jewish holocaust'”.
...No. I was NOT!
See your statement above: “The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a
post Israeli state invention”
Because something happened after something does not mean the first thing
caused the second or was responsibe for it.
Would you mind translating the foregoing into intelligible English,
then explaining its relevance to your statement that “The terminology
"jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”?
... The terminology was used AFTER the Israeli state came to be recognised
by UN nations.
That statement neither translates your comment above, nor does it
explain the relevance of that comment to your claim that “The
terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”.
Take for example if I stated the term "Tory" did not exist in Middle Age
It would be like stating that Henry II of England didn’t own a Rolls.
... Yes "holocaust" in the sense of WWII killing of Jews didnt exist before
WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it either . It only came to be used after Israel (the >modern country not the Biblical one) existed.
What, exactly, are you trying to say here? That “WWII killing of Jews
didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it”? That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?
I a similar way when people say "holocaust" today it is associated almost
always with the massacre of jews by the Nazis. But this useage is I believe
only after the Israeli State came to exist.
The phrase “Cold War” also arose after the establishment of the state
of Israel. Do you have a point?
... Really. I would regard the "phony war" as a cold war.
What “phony war”?
But when we discuss the "holocaust" people single out jews.
That is because the majority of people singled out by the Nazis were
Jews.
In fact others also died and were targeted.
Apotheosis of the obvious.
And other holocausts happened. this does not take away from
the holocaust against jews as an evil event but it was not unique in the way
the terminology suggests. Other holocausts happened . Indeed other massacres
of Jews happened.
Had you read the quotes you pasted from the site you referenced, as
well as the articles on that site, you would already know that the
20th century Holocaust as pertaining to Jews was, in fact, unique. You
DO read what you cite, don't you?
It also is not usually
associated with the coincident massacre of Slavs and Gypsies for example.
But I am fairly sure "holocaust" existed before the Nazis.
I am fairly sure I indicated in a previous post that the term
“holocaust” “existed before the Nazis”, and that it was used as early
as 1192 in relation to the massacres of English Jews instigated by
Richard I.
... Yes but other holocausts which were NOT of Jews happened.
I believe it has already been established that other mass murders have
occurred throughout the centuries. I suggest you read the holocaust-
history.org site you referenced earlier, and refrain from cherry-
picking fragments from the entirety.
Also, you were re-stating, with
qualification, a previous poster's claim of “lots” of “other
holocausts”.
... No. I was't!
The previous poster wrote: "There have been other holocausts. Lots of
them"
“Depends on what you mean but I would say "several" not "lots". You
then proceeded to dart off on some sort of semantical tangent.
...Yes I pointed out "several" not "lots" in the ACTUAL REPLY!
“...There have been. Depends on what you mean but I would say
"several" not
“lots" The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state
invention as far as I know. But there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER
that (mainly Russian/Polish but also German and other local
populations )
Jews were takgeted and wiped out by the NAZIs. Millions of them.
As were Slavs and Gypsies. In a very callous manner.”
You then proceeded to point out, as examples of what “one could equate
the term "holocaust" with” a) - native Americans' b) - The Irish under
the English Rule; c) - the armenians; d) -the Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda; e)
- pogroms by stalin; f) -Mao's Cultural revolution; and g) -The Congo.
While your scattershot hit a few targets, as scattershot is bound to
do, you were generally wrong.
I clearly pointed to the fact that TODAY "holocaust is
taken to mean relating to Jews bt that others have happened. I also believe
I stated mot "lots" but "several".
As indicated immediately above.
... SO i didnt say "lots" but "several"
Pay attention: it was already established, several posts ago, that it
was not you, but a previous poster who stated that there were lots of
previous holocausts, and that you replied that there were several.
In fact, the term used for the Holocaust by Israel was,
and remains, the Shoah.
... for "the holocaust" ? you see? you refer to THE "holocaust", which you
associate with Jews.
[snip encarta quote on etymology]
The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).
[end excerpt]
NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
Apparently you missed the part of the quote above. Re-read is slowly
and carefully.
... reread "Is " or  reread IT"? carefull when you try to say someone posted
words which mean something else.
If you are going to descend to pettifogging about typos, in lieu if
wracking your mind for a better response, you had better be prepared
to receive the same regarding your own – and there are quite a many of
them. I suggest you also take your own advice and be “carefull” over
any accusations you might make – particularly over incidents which
never happened. Now: re-read the following quote from the site you
“The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).
end excerpt]
NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
I stated several holocausts have happened.
Several times. So? Whether “several holocausts” happened or did not is
not at issue. At issue seems to be the word “holocaust”, and your
question as to when and how it came to refer to the massacre of six
million European Jews. You have been answered several times. The site
you referenced provides answers to your questions. You should read it.
The site you referenced also answers your question as to why the
Holocaust – note the definitive article and capitalization of the noun
– is unique.
I didn't denegrate Jews!
Are you worried you might have?
when did the term "Holocaust" refer to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews?
Previously, you seemed quite sure when it was used, and by whom it was
used -- “a post Israeli state invention” --
..."Introduced by historians in the 1950s" i.e. AFTER Israel was founded
no?
The phrase “Cold War” was also introduced AFTER the state of Israel
was founded, no?
I don't know! The term "cold war" however does not refer either to the
foundation of Israel or to the killing of Jews Slavs gypsies or others by
Nazis.
Another apotheosis of the obvious.
and that there were other
usages. Now you ask when it was used in this specific context? It was
used in reference to the destruction of European Jews in 1942.
... Really? That is interesting. Where?
 >December 1942 speech by Chaim Weizmann.
What did the term "holocaust"mean BEFORE it was used in this way?
Before it was used to “refer to “to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews“? “Holocaust” was used in an English chronicle of 1192 to
refer to the 1189 massacres of English Jews. The literal meaning of
the word is “sacrifice by fire.”
... Yes but NOT ONLY of Jews?
Read the foregoing slowly and carefully: “Holocaust” was used in an
English chronicle of 1192 to refer to the 1189 massacres of English
Jews. The literal meaning of the word is “sacrifice by fire.”
 >...yes but not only of Jews.
I believe your repetitious question has been answered repeatedly. The
answers are also on the site you referenced earlier.
Have you got that?
...if you are saying holocaust means "sacrifice by fire" and not just
applying to jews then yes. Id that what you mean? "sacrifice by fire" but
not wholly reserved and applicable to any particular religion or ethnic
group?
<heavy sigh>
Did you read the Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary
entries for “holocaust” given previously? Here they are again. Read
them slowly and carefully. This time, make sure you understand them.
It will save you the trouble of asking the same question over and over
again.
Merriam Webster
ho-lo-caust
Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston,
from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt,
from kaiein to burn — more at CAUSTIC
Date: 13th century
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially
through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a
often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and
especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with
the
b: a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
American Heritage Dictionary
hol-o-caust
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life,
especially by fire.
2
a. Holocaust
The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War
II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to
that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy
annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.
[snip freedictionary Usage Panel debate]
... ô'â was first used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of Jews in 1939, but
the phrase ha-ô'â ("the catastrophe") became established only after World
War II. Holocaust has also been used to translate urbn ("destruction"),
another Hebrew word used to summarize the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.
You must have missed the above sentence from your freedictionary.com
quote.
..."After WWII! which is AFTER 1945 . But my impression was it became
established in the 1950s. which is AFTER the state of Israel.
The link to the site you provided answers your question. You should
read it.
Merriam Webster
ho-lo-caust
Function:  noun
Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston,
from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt,
from kaiein to burn — more at CAUSTIC
Date: 13th century
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially
through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a - often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and
especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with
the
b - a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
- Merriam-Webster
Re-read the Merriam-Webster definition slowly and carefully.
... I dont need a lecture from you!
That isn't a lecture. That is the answer to the question you keep
repeating.
My comments stanbd up to scrutiny!
Scrutiny by whom?
And did not the WWII holocaust also include Slavs and
gypsies who were ALSO specifically targeted and wiped out?
The Nazis seem not to have developed any “Final Solution to the Slav
Question” or “Final Solution to Gypsy Question”.
Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering of
other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies,
prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses
and
others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust
continued.
By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.
You miss the point of the last sentence, along with the fact that the
total number of any one of the non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of
itself, does not begin to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the
..."as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!
This comment hardly stands up to scrutiny – the reason, no doubt, for
your snippage. -- Your previous statement above, actually a quote you
“By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” The reason your
comment -- that "as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!”
-- does not stand up to scrutiny is as follows. I'll try to put it
simply for you.
Three million Poles killed by the Nazis in the six-year Nazi
occupation of Poland do not equate to “MORE others!” than the six
million Jews killed by the Nazis, though the figure is about the same
as the three million Polish Jews killed by the Nazis.
Two million Soviet POWs killed by the Nazis do not equate to “MORE
others!” than the six million Jews killed by the Nazis.
The estimated 220,000 to 500,000 Gypsies killed by the Nazis do not
equate to “MORE others!” than the six million Jews killed by the
Nazis.
The estimated 80,000 to 200,000 Freemasons, and the 5,000 to 15,000
gays (men), and the 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses killed by the Nazis do
not, in the aggregate,  equate to “MORE others!” than the six million
Jews killed by the Nazis
That is what is meant by the statement -- which you snipped,
apparently without reading -- that “the total number of any ONE of
these non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of itself, does not begin
to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis.”
But as I stated I
wont get into a revisionist numbers game with you!
You started playing your revisionist numbers games when you started
spouting numbers. Like your comments, they don't stand up to scrutiny.
The point you have missed, above all, is that none of these people
would have been murdered had the Nazis not implemented their Final
Solution to the JEWISH Question.
...I didnt miss that point aty all!
Actually, you did, along with most others. I'm sorry you're having so
much trouble grasping them.
It does not make the death of non jews less significant.
Your comments imply that it did, even though this was never at issue.
FYI, on Yom Ha-Shoah, modern Jewish liturgy has prayers for the souls
of the non-Jews murdered by the Nazis, as well as for Jews, and
special prayers for the Righteous Gentiles killed by the Nazis.
Does that sound to you like Jews are trying to “make the death of non
jews less significant”? Does your religious liturgy contain prayers
for Jews murdered by the Nazis?
On the other hand, does the Holocaust have a particularly crucial and
central Jewish element, even though millions of others died? Simply put,
the
answer is yes. The Holocaust, from its conception to its implementation had
a distinctly Jewish aspect to it and, arguably without this Jewish aspect,
there would have been no Holocaust. Most of the non-Jewish people would not
have been killed because the killing machinery would not have been put into
operation.
You do read the quotes you paste, don't you?
...yes.
Re-read the quote from the site you referenced immediately above,
because you appear to have forgotten it.
In this context, two points need to be examined: the particularly Jewish
aspect of the Holocaust and the fact that this neither minimizes nor
trivializes the suffering of others.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
Apparently you missed the following, as well, from the foregoing site
Jews were almost always the first group targeted in any initiative.
There is no doubt that they were the focal point from beginning to
end.
... where did I deny that?
Your question is ridiculous.
The Germans set up an office on the "Jewish Question" under the
direction of Adolf Eichmann -- the infamous Bureau IV B 4. The name
used for the ultimate killing action was "the Final Solution of the
Jewish Question," Others were drawn in -- with horrific results -- but
the key object and common thread was always the Jews.
... So? This does not minimise non Jews or mean only Jews suffered.
Now where did *I* deny that?
There are thousands of captured documents dealing with the killing
actions. Almost every one of them deals with the Jews and there are
almost no documents that deal with another target that do not also
address the Jews.
... there are also no orders to kill Jews existing signed by Hitler but i do
not doubt he ordered it!
Not at issue.
The Einsatzgruppen reports almost always separate
out the Jews from the other people shot, going so far as to break down
the Jews by age and gender (http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-
einsatz).
... and you assert that makes the Jews "special" ? In what way?
You were the one who posted the link to the Holocaust History site.
Read it.
I don't doubt they were targeted but so were others.
That was never at issue, except, it seems, in your mind. The fact
remains that none of the groups mentioned above were targeted to the
extent that Jews were targeted from the beginning. That is another of
the several points you keep missing. It's also a point which is
clearly set out in the Holocaust History site you referenced.
If jews didnt live in Poland
and Mongols did or arabs I dod not doubt the Nazis would have
killed them instead. The Jews were a scapegoat.
If, as you state, the Jews were a scapegoat, then it follows that it
wouldn't have mattered if Jews lived in Poland or not. Had Mongols or
Arabs lived in Poland instead of Jews, the Nazis would not have killed
them, since they were not scapegoats, as Jews were; the Arabs were the
Nazis' allies, and had been since 1937. Palestinian Arabs were active
in promulgating Nazi propaganda, and their leadership spent the war
years in Berlin, where they established, among other things, three all-
Muslim Waffen-SS legions. Syria and Lebanon were under Vichy rule, and
Arabs there fought the Allies. The Egyptian government provided
intelligence on British military movements in North Africa, and there
was a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq. So, no, the Nazis would not have gone for
the Arabs if they were in Poland. In fact, they escorted the Palestine
Arab leadership on a tour of the death camps, which they intended to
establish in Palestine, once the British were driven out.
[snip - sorry i have to go cant finish this now]
I'll just bet you're not.
When you feel up to addressing what you snipped – if you ever do --
here it is again. Per the advice you snipped, you might want to read a
few of the articles on that site. It might save you the trouble of
repeating the same questions ad nauseam.
------------------------------------------------
[snip restored]
And the Report 51, submitted by Himmler to Hitler in 1943,
breaks down the victims into a variety of categories (bandits,
partisans, etc.), but only lists the Jews as "Jews executed."
Finally, the Korherr Report is entitled "The Final Solution of the
European Jewish Question: A statistical report," and once again,
addresses virtually only the Jews.
Hitler said before the outbreak of the war that if there were another
war, he would annihilate the Jews. He said during the war that he was
in the process of annihilating the Jews. And he said in his Testament
that he had done exactly what he had said he would do.
The ultimate aim and the primary target never varied. Others were
murdered in the course of the Final Solution, e.g. Gypsies, Russian
POWs, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on, but the first and
constant target was always the Jews. The Final Solution was intended
for the Jews, was about the Jews and chiefly affected the Jews. There
is no denying that, without the Jews, there is no Final Solution.
To minimize or trivialize the "Jewishness" of the Final Solution is
to
seriously understate, if not, unintentionally perhaps, deny its
essence. This does not mean that the suffering of other groups is to
be ignored; on the contrary, it was terrible. But without the
Holocaust, without the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", the
others live. The term "holocaust" was coined to describe the uniquely
Jewish aspect of the Final Solution. It does not seek to negate the
suffering of the other victims.http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
The Jewish Virtual Library's section on the Holocaust contains
sections on the Nazi massacres of non-Jews. See, for example, the
Gypsieshttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gypsytoc.html
Homosexualshttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gay.html
Jehovah’s Witnesseshttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jehovah.html
Neither group was
wiped out, nor were either on the agenda of the Wanasee Conference, or
ever targeted to be wiped out.
...as many as 6 million of these people had been killed, along with
between 5 and 6 million Jews.
I read the quote you provided. Did you?
This is not to say that the Nazis didn't have it out for certain non-
Jewish Europeans. They planned to exterminate the Poles, whom they
considered almost as subhuman as Jews; in addition to the three
million Polish Jews slaughtered by the Nazis, three million non-Jewish
Poles also perished. Slavs – specifically Russians - were also
considered less than human, and were so brutally treated in German POW
camps that an estimated two millions perished. For other “non-Aryan”
Europeans, IIRC, the general plan was to “Germanize” those they could,
and use those they could not as slave labour. But there was nothing on
the level of “the planned extermination and destruction of the Jewish
race.”
“Until 1940 the general policy within the section was to settle the
Jewish Question in Germany and in areas occupied by Germany by means
of a planned emigration. The second phase, after that date, was the
concentration of all Jews, in Poland and in other territories occupied
by Germany in the East, in ghettos. This period lasted approximately
until the beginning of 1942. The third period was the so-called "Final
Solution" of the Jewish question - that is, the planned extermination
and destruction of the Jewish race....I learned of such an order for
the first time from Eichmann in the summer of 1942.” Testimony of
Dieter Wisliceny, Nuremberg 1946
No comment?
But there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that (mainly
Russian/Polish but also German and other local populations )  Jews were
takgeted and wiped out by the NAZIs. Millions of them. As were Slavs and
Gypsies. In a very callous manner.
“A very callous manner” is a very nice euphemism for what actually
happened.
... "Callous" meaning no emotion was attached to it. It was done in the way
people might exterminate a plague of vermin.
I would say there was quite a bit of emotion attached to it. One need
only look at photographs from the era, of concentration camp personnel
posing by the corpses of people they'd tortured to death, and other
similar photos.
... By the people who did it. Okay. But by the people who ordered it?
I think people believe the Nazis had and ideology and a philosophy which they
adhered to which entailed hating jews slavs etc. But have you considered
thet most Nazis didnt really care about any ideology as long as they got
rich and powerful? This is whay many of them so easily jumped over to
serving communists (who according to "ideology" were as vile as Jews ) or to
working for the Allied as spies. They were along for the ride.
You are grasping at straws. What, exactly, is your point?
In the film
Schindlers List ther is a Nazi near the end who knows the War is ending and
he has a chat with Schindler with a view to cutting a deal. He will deal
with commies or anyone else. He knows the end is coming and allthe ideology
does not matter one whit to him.
By the way did you know a Catholic Priest in the Vatican saved over three
times as many Jews as Schindler?
“By this time the formula 'Final Solution for the Jewish Question' had
taken on a new meaning: liquidation. In this new sense we discussed it
at a special conference on January 20, 1942 in the Wanasee section of
Berlin...After the conference, as I recall, Heydrich, Muller and your
humble servant sat cozily around a fireplace...We all had drinks then.
We sang songs. After a while we got up on the chairs and drank a
toast, then on the table and then round and round--on the chairs and
on the table again.” Testimony of Adolf Eichmann, 1961
Eichmann, et al seemed to have had a good time planning the third
phase of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question.
...yes but net seething with rage like the usual portrayal of Hitler etc.
Do you actually think that matters?
But one could equate the term "holocaust" with
- native Americans
- The Irish under the English Rule - particularly the famine times of the
1820s- 1840s and the great Famine of 1845 in particular
-the armenians
-the Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda
One might make a case for equating the term “holocaust” with the
above, if one were all but devoid of a sense of history.
... So you claim the only use for the term "holocaust" is especially for
the Jews of WWII?
If you review the above, you may see I'm not the one caught up with
semantic antics.
As for “the only use" for holocaust being “especially for the Jews of
WWII,” please note above that that it was used by an English
chronicler in 1192 “especially” for the Jews of England in the 1189
massacres instigated by Richard I. Mary Renault used it The King Must
Die in its literal sense of “sacrifice by fire”.
...Yes because it refers to the Latin translation of Jewish sacrifices by
making burnt offerings.
Again, you are grasping at straws.
I don't deny the term traces it origins to Jewish customs of making
offerings but that does not mean the offerings were PEOPLE!
Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston
I already gave the etymology. Do these semantic antics have a point?
In fact,
however, the Armenian and Rwandan genocides are designated with the
Holocaust as three of the four instances of genocide in the 20th
century.
I missed the Kymer Rouge.
That's Khmer Rouge.
As for the other two, the potato crops of Europe's Jews were not hit
with blight,
... The famine in ireland was not so simple. SEVERAL crops failed sonce the
1820s. thre was a country wide failure in 1845. But the British were
EXPORTING food from Ireland at that time and continued to do so! Including
food for famine relief! Why ? they were getting a good price for it! So
the
starvation was because of a planned economic system on behalf of the
British
who looked upon the Irish as ignorant slave labour to support their
economic
baSE. Much in the same way the NAZIs looked down on the jews and slavs.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall that the English planned the
deliberate destruction of the Irish people,
..."Plantation" was the policy. It amounted to the same.
It didn't, and it's idiotic to suggest it did.
or that they built
concentration camps and gas chambers to exterminate all the Irish.
...No they wouldnt have done that because they hadnt the territory or the
infrastructure.
They hadn't the desire either.
Another point you miss is that the Irish potato famine is neither at
issue nor relevant.
[snip]
The
potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine didn't reduce
Ireland's then-population of 8.5 million to less than 2 million, as
the Nazi Final Solution did for the Jews of Europe, did it?
... No only to 3 million. the population continued to decline to about 3
million in 1970 from which time it has been growing.
Comparing "only two million" Irish to "6.5 million Jews" is a bit like
saying "not 6.5 million but more probably 5 million Jews". It is a pointless
discussion when millions were certainly involved.
When discussing the planned extermination of a people, it certainly
it. But if you are going to trot in a false analogy, like that of the
Irish potato famine to the Holocaust, the numbers do become relevant.
Once again: The potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine
claimed almost a million casualties over seven years; another 1.6
million emigrated, mostly to America. That is not comparable to the
deliberate slaughter of six millions.
And if the
English looked down on the Irish as “ignorant slave labour to support
their economic base,” it makes little sense for them to have
deliberately annihilated that economic base.
... Yeah. Like the Nazis should have kept Jewish slaves instead of kiling
them? The killing of the Jews was not sensible either but that doesn't
justify either killing them or slavery.
Again, you miss the point: the Nazis were not interested in Jews as
an
“ignorant slave labour to support their economic base”. They were
interested in annihilating every Jewish man, woman, and child.
[snip potato famine stuff]
...Many jews were "driven out" in the 1930 just as Irish were in the 1830s.
But the poorer elements couldnt go.
Evidently the Jewish “poorer elements” who “couldn't go” were the
majority; only 25% of European Jews survived the Nazis. The comparison
with the Irish isn't even up on the the apples and oranges level.
... Im not getting into a revisionist numbers game.
Nevertheless, that's what you've been doing.
[snip more potato famine stuff]
They didn’t. They couldn't escape by emigrating
to Palestine either, after the British, at the behest of Nazi
Germany's Palestine Arab allies, barred them from doing so beginning
in 1939.
90% of Europe's Jews did not perish as a result of diseases to which
they had no immunity, as did “native Americans”, to use the current PC
phrase,
diseases like smallpox specifically spread for example by "donating"
blankets to native Indians which were infested with smallpox?
90% of the Indian population of the Americas died from disease-
infested blankets?
Again that is a numbers game.
It's the game you've initiated, along with your semantic antics.
whose estimated population at the time of Columbus's arrival,
in the entire Western Hemisphere, did not exceed 12 million, with the
bulk of the population being located in what became Latin America.
(There is no need, at this point, to go into the slave labor camps the
Spanish set up for the Indians, on which the Germans later based their
concentration camps.)
... Or the ones set up by the British in south africa during the Boer War.
Your point?
...no YOURS .
Excuse me for not being more clear. What I meant was: “What is your
point in your attempts to equate Kitchener's South African
concentration camps for the Boers with the German concentration
camps?” The Brits established concentration camps on Cyprus, too: in
1947-48, for Jews. Neither is equivalent to the German concentration
camps, and certainly not to the death factories
YOU brought up concentration camps being based on earlier
examples. I just gave you the example of the British "concentration camp"
system. Invented by the British.
That British “invention” was ignored by the Germans; the latter based
their slave labor camps those created by the Spanish in the Americas
for Indians. Your “examples” are  tantamount to arguing that because
an apple and a rubber ball are red, round, shiny and smooth, the one
is as good to eat as the other.
Others might also add
- pogroms by stalin
-Mao's Cultural revolution
-The Congo
Others might, but that's their choice.
.. i wouldnt. But "holocaust" is taken today to mean specifically only Jews
in WWII. Why?
As capitalized – the Holocaust – it refers to the deliberate
destruction of 75% of the Jews of Europe.
... Yes but other holocausts did happen.
I believe I stated as much in previous posts, as well as in the
The Final Solution had no political or economic justification; it was
an end in itself. Jews were the ONLY people slaughtered by the Nazis
for simply existing.
None of the non-Jewish groups who were murdered by the Nazis, to
which
you have alluded, were the focus of any "Final Solution". Only Jews
were targeted by the Nazis for utter annihiliation.
Exterminating Jews wasn't a PART of the German war effort -- it was
the same. No German resources which could have been used in the war
were ever diverted to slaughter gypsies, Slavs, gays, Jehovah's
Witnesses, political dissidents, etc. But they were diverted for the
slaughter of Jews. For example, a contributory factor to Rommel's
defeat by the British was lack of needed materiel; it was slow to
arrive, or failed to arrive in time, because necessary transport had
been diverted to transport Jews to the death camps. The same does not
hold for any of the other peoples murdered by the Nazis.
There are other examples fromn history but over the last five hundred
years
I would say the first three above probably qualify as "holocaust"
And it would be as incorrect as equating Ireland’s potato famine with
the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews.
... The destruction of Irish people was known and planned. In fact going
back to pre 1800 you have Lords in Parliamenbt like Bolton (now has a
street
in dublin named after him) who tried to introduce a law to Castrate
Catholic
Priests! It was voted down because it was silly.
So, the English planned the deliberate destruction of the Irish by a)
importing potatoes, so that the population increased dramatically;
then b) introducing a potato blight to starve that increased
population – despite the fact that that population comprised their
“economic base.” That so?
... The "potato famine" as you call it is a misnomer! It was not about the
failure of the potato crop. It was about economics and politics.
And the Nazi extermination of Europe's Jews was not about politics or
economics. Moreover, as the British never targeted the Irish for
utter
annihilation, as the Nazis did the Jews, your persiflage on the Irish
potato famine constitutes a false analogy, and utterly irrelevant.
You
would do better to bring up the Armenian Genocide, or the Khmer
Rouge,
or the Rwandan Genocides by way of comparisons.
Catholic Priests are meant
to be celebate anyway.
But weren't in the past, and aren't today.
[snip irrelevancy]
... The most damage done by Christians in the US was by Protestants.
Fundamentalists like the ones they have today!
Let's let that one go, except to point out that the obvious fact that
neither the US nor American Protestants are relevant to the laws
enacted by Spanish Catholics upon the Indian population of the
Americas – note the plural – nor to the functioning of the
Inquisition
in the Americas.
The Spanishg Inquisition was a meaner and not Vatican led endeavour like the
much more placid Italian Inquisition which had a logical reason for being.
Galileo's views on the Roman Inquisition, along with those of the
Albigensians and the Knights Templar, probably differed.
...as you are making it a number game
Actually, you are the one making a “numbers game”, in addition to
your
semantic antics. I asked you several times what your point was. You
failed to respond, other than with some utter irrelevancy about some
alleged British Final Solution to the Irish Question.
ill ask you How many American natives
were killed by the Spanish Inquisition?
That is tantamount to my asking you if you've stopped beating your
spouse, and is, in any case, irrelevant.
In fact the failed Plantation of Munster and Leix/ Offaly Kings
county/Queens County witnessed about 1000 Catholic families dispossessed
Dispossession is not tantamount to a planned and deliberate genocide.
and
presued to the sea and hunted down like dogs! Their lands were then given
over to Protestant settlers. Thi is similar to the Nazi soultion. the Nazis
were happy to have the Jews as slaves and re settle Poland with "Germanic
people". but when they were losing the war they decided on the "final
solution" of extermination. although they may have planned it earlier.
This, too, doesn't quite make the apples-and-oranges grade.
...It does when you are talking about a quarter of the controlled  country -
Yet again, you miss the point, and call into serious question any
knowledge of recent history you might possess. It's obvious you are
unaware that the Nazi Solution to the Jewish Question did not
envisage
any Germans being “happy to have the Jews as slaves”, or that the
third phase of the Final Solution was implemented when the Nazis were
at the height of their victories.
Again the numbers game does not apply here.
Except when you're the one playing it, yes?
[snip]
6. Only Palestine Arabs can claim western Palestine as "their land."
... on tyhis I would ask what you mean by "semitic".
It's difficult to see what the definition of “semitic” has to do with
the previous poster's implication that only Palestine Arabs can claim
western Palestine as “their land”.
Well when people are accused of being "anti semites" one has to ask what
"semite" means, no?
Not really, when one can look it up. “Semite” originated in the 18th
century to describe the various peoples of the Middle East, based on
the belief that they descended from Noah's son Shem. “Semitic” is used
by linguists and philologists with regard to language groups.  “Anti-
Semitic”,coined in the 19th century,  refers specifically to Jews.
... i was aware of the first bit but not of the latter. Thanks for that. Do
you not find it strange that "semitic" means people of a particular region
but "anti semitic" only applies to the Jews of that region?
“Antisemitic” NEVER applied “only” to “Jews of that region”. It was
coined in the 19th century to mean hatred of Jews, and nothing else.
[snip]
In the case of Islam, a phony religious significance, based solely
upon military-political oneupsmanship between rival khalifs during the
Second Islamic Civil War (c 680/683-685/692). After ibn Zubayr seized
Mecca, al-Malik prohibited all pilgrimages to Mecca, declared Har
Bayit the site of Muhammad's dream into as-samawat, and engaged
Byzantine architects to build the mosque of Umar in order to attract
pilgrims -- and their money, in order to deflect it from ibn Zubaydr.
but for
Jews it's our Washington DC. It's our ancient capital, and there is no
reason to give it up or redivide it. Yes, just as there are Jewish
neighborhoods, and Irish neighborhoods, and Italian neighborhoods, and
African American neighborhoods in DC, so Jerusalem has had many
Quarters. But it's the capital of the Jewish nation, and that is the
way it's going to stay.
Ironic, isn't it, that the first modern usage of "Palestinians"
referred to Jews, and now refers to the descendants of Muslim Arabs of
former British Palestine. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem has been
noted throughout the centuries. It's only recently that the connection
has come to be denigrated, due largely to Pseudostinians, their
propaganda, and the ignorant antisemites who support them.
... Well we are back to what "semities" are.
Were we there in the first place?
Yup ... note the phrase "ignorant antisemites "?
I apologize for the redundancy.
... You don't have to. But YOU WERE there in the first place.
I'm sorry the comment sailed over your head. Let me explain it: A
redundancy is a superfluity of words. Ergo, the phrase “ignorant
antisemites” is a redundancy because antisemites are generally
ignorant people.
Indded the jews have been in
the region for thousands of years. The Jewish and christian holy
Scriptures
record it. But so have the other semites - Arabs.
Semitic-speaking Arabs are relative newcomers to the Near East. Prior
to their recent arrival, the region was occupied for millennia by
other Semitic-language speakers, including Amorites, Babylonians,
Assyrians, Aramaeans, Ugarites, Phoenicians, and others.
Hint: “Semite” isn't an ethnic term; it refers rather loosely to
speakers of a Semitic language.
...and to the descendents of these cultures just as modern Jews are -
and some speak yiddish.
Nation States are a recent
concept of the last 200 years really. Though the nations may have existed
the internationally recognised territories didnt!
REcently the Arabs have mooted the Idea of a nation State of "Palestine."
But don't forget only 50 years ago the Jews mooted the same for "Israel".
Jews “mooted the same for Israel” well before only 50 years ago.
... But it was only validated by International UN mandate then!
There was never an UN mandate for Israel, nor any “validation” by the
UN for Israel.
... funny i could have sworn they vote in the general assembly
and have been on the Security council?
Israel's membership in the UN, and its vote in the General Assembly,
no more constitutes some “UN mandate for Israel” than America's
membership constitutes a “UN mandate for America”. Moreover, Israel
has never been a member of the Security Council.
How many other countries get voting rights but are
not recognised by the UN?
I have no idea how many non-member countries of the UN are given the
right to vote in the General Assembly. You tell me, and we'll both
know.
Following WWI, the League of Nations granted the
Mandate for Palestine to the British, as well as the Mandate for
Mesopotamia; France received the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, while
Japan, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries received
Mandates for other territories formerly belonging to the by-then
defunct Ottoman and German Empires. In 1923, Britain partitioned the
Mandate for Palestine and granted the bulk of territory to the
Abdallah son of Husayn, Sheriff of Mecca and Medina; at the same time,
Britain created Iraq from the Mandate for Mesopotamia and bestowed it
on Abdallah's older brother, the Emir Feisal. In 1947, the UN General
Assembly voted to partition the remaining fifth of Palestine into
another Arab state and a Jewish state. The Arabs immediately went on
the warpath to prevent the creation of a Jewish state in the remainder
of Palestine (and, incidentally, to prevent the creation of a second
Arab state in Palestine.)
...In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of
Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
Imagine that.
In
fact, Israel recently celebrated her 60th anniversary as a state.
...Sorry I apologice. I meant 60 not 50. I was thinking in terms of about a
half century.
But
Jews were mooting the esatablishment of a Jewish state in Syria (as
Palestine was previously known) in the first decades of the 19th
century,  back when the only “Palestinians” around were the Jews of
Europe.
... Yup. And that was LESS THAN 200 years ago.
Correct, 1844 was LESS THAN 200 years ago.
...Which is what I claimed! Nation states are only about 200 years old at
most!
Wherever did you pick up that bit of fluff?
Look Im not saying the Nazi treatment of the Jews and slavs and gypsies was
the SAME as the British treatment of the Irish
You stated that it was “similar to the Nazi soultion,” which it was
not,
... Oh but it WAS. I showed you the similaraties.
You showed nothing, except that you need to educate yourself a bit
more on the subjects you're attempting to discuss. The British
treatment of the Irish in the 19th century nowhere approaches the
treatment of Jews by the Nazis.
and that “the Nazis
were happy to have the Jews as slaves,” which they were not.
... Oh but they were.
Oh but they were not. The purpose of the Final Solution was not to
elate Germans with Jewish slaves; it was to annihilate every Jewish
man, woman, and child, irrespective of any political or economic
justification. And that is one of the major factors that sets it
apart
from every other example you have touched upon.
You need to go back to the link you gave above –http://www.holocaust-history.org/
-- and reread it carefully.
Eeeeyooiiii..
This is why you are the woman of my dreams... You give me so much
entertainment..... I would have dismissed this fruit out of hand.. You
took the time to embarrass him.... What a hoot!!!
It's not my intention to embarass him/her -- especially as this is
about the only interesting thread on the NG.
Post by DoD
Thanks Deborah....
You're welcome as always.

Deborah
B. H. Cramer
2008-06-22 13:02:12 UTC
Permalink
"***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d0647880-279c-4000-b593-***@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Fuck orf, lying slime.
B. H. Cramer
2008-06-22 13:02:26 UTC
Permalink
"***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7d561722-4a1a-4f8c-b03a-***@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Fuck orf, lying slime.
B. H. Cramer
2008-06-22 13:03:11 UTC
Permalink
"DoD" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7d9e38f1-528b-4f90-bc07-***@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...


Fuck orf, you traitorous, dick licking little prick.
RJ11
2008-06-22 15:16:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@giganews.com>,
B. H. Cramer <***@alltimes.yep> wrote:

(hysterical rants given the snip)

Do calm down, "Cramer". Soon, your little brother will arrive
with the new shipment, and everything will be fine.

"my younger Brother got me absolutely stoned on magic mushrooms.
I spent three days sitting in the corner of the tent waiting to come
down." -- the neo-Nazi "Ben Cramer" reflects on his usage of
hallucinatory drugs. Source:
Message-ID: <***@teranews>

There you go. That's a good lad.

RJ.
Mavisbeacon
2008-06-23 00:30:37 UTC
Permalink
You were stating that the “post Israeli state” invented the
“terminology 'jewish holocaust'”.
...No. I was NOT!
See your statement above: “The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a
post Israeli state invention”
Because something happened after something does not mean the first thing
caused the second or was responsibe for it.
Would you mind translating the foregoing into intelligible English,
then explaining its relevance to your statement that “The terminology
"jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”?
... The terminology was used AFTER the Israeli state came to be recognised
by UN nations.
That statement neither translates your comment above, nor does it
explain the relevance of that comment to your claim that “The
terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”.

...
yes it does - the term was used AFTER the Israeli State came to be is what
it means. And it is backed up by the references given with suggests
"holocaust" referring exclusively to Jews killed by Nazis was a 1950s usage.
Take for example if I stated the term "Tory" did not exist in Middle Age
It would be like stating that Henry II of England didn’t own a Rolls.
... Yes "holocaust" in the sense of WWII killing of Jews didnt exist before
WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it either . It only came to be used after
Israel (the >modern country not the Biblical one) existed.
What, exactly, are you trying to say here? That “WWII killing of Jews
didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it”?

...no that the term for the WWII killing of jews "holocaust" used to
exclusively refer to killing of Jews during WWII became a general
interpretation of twhat "holocaust" means. But as I pointed out
1. Holocausts existed BEFORE WWII and were NOT exclusly to do with Jews.
2. The WWII holocaust was not ONLY of Jews.

That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?

...yes . I restate it above.
I a similar way when people say "holocaust" today it is associated almost
always with the massacre of jews by the Nazis. But this useage is I
believe
only after the Israeli State came to exist.
The phrase “Cold War” also arose after the establishment of the state
of Israel. Do you have a point?
... Really. I would regard the "phony war" as a cold war.
What “phony war”?

The term "phony war" was used by the allies to refer to the German invasion
of the low countries. People thought they wouldnt invade France.
But when we discuss the "holocaust" people single out jews.
That is because the majority of people singled out by the Nazis were
Jews.


..apparently the largest single MINORITY according to the figures given.
which saiod I believe five to six million jews and six million OTHERS. But
so what. even if it was 80 percent Jews and 20 percent others e.g. slavs
surely it is also a holocaust of Savs?
In fact others also died and were targeted.
Apotheosis of the obvious.

...? YOU are the one asking me to restate about the terminology being a post
Isaeli state useage! I didnt reify any argument.
And other holocausts happened. this does not take away from
the holocaust against jews as an evil event but it was not unique in the
way
the terminology suggests. Other holocausts happened . Indeed other
massacres
of Jews happened.
Had you read the quotes you pasted from the site you referenced, as
well as the articles on that site, you would already know that the
20th century Holocaust as pertaining to Jews was, in fact, unique. You
DO read what you cite, don't you?

... ALL Holocausts are unique in some way! Otherwise if they were identical
how would we know the difference except by date? All world wars are also
unique. So?
It also is not usually
associated with the coincident massacre of Slavs and Gypsies for example.
But I am fairly sure "holocaust" existed before the Nazis.
I am fairly sure I indicated in a previous post that the term
“holocaust” “existed before the Nazis”, and that it was used as early
as 1192 in relation to the massacres of English Jews instigated by
Richard I.
... Yes but other holocausts which were NOT of Jews happened.
I believe it has already been established that other mass murders have
occurred throughout the centuries.

... and that you would call then "holocausts"? You see if you only apply
"Holocaust" to WWII jews then who is reifying the argument?

I suggest you read the holocaust-
history.org site you referenced earlier, and refrain from cherry-
picking fragments from the entirety.

... I suggest you acknowledge that i backed up the clarification for which
you asked. I note you seem like you don't want to criticise
holocaust-hoistory.org so you now take a different tack and try to assume
that I quote it out of context or don't understand it.
If you suggest I "cherry picked" something from it then care to point out
how my action is as you claim "cherry picking" ? In fact I argue against
deification or cherrypicking of events as pertaining to just one subsection
of people don't I?
Also, you were re-stating, with
qualification, a previous poster's claim of “lots” of “other
holocausts”.
... No. I was't!
The previous poster wrote: "There have been other holocausts. Lots of
them"
“Depends on what you mean but I would say "several" not "lots". You
then proceeded to dart off on some sort of semantical tangent.
...Yes I pointed out "several" not "lots" in the ACTUAL REPLY!
What you wrote is as follows:
On Jun 16, 6:09 am, "Mavisbeacon" <***@nospam.forme wrote:
“...There have been. Depends on what you mean but I would say
"several" not
“lots" The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state
invention as far as I know. But there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER
that (mainly Russian/Polish but also German and other local
populations )
Jews were takgeted and wiped out by the NAZIs. Millions of them.
As were Slavs and Gypsies. In a very callous manner.”

... Yes! Which in the actual reply says SEVERAL not LOTS! I stated SEVERAL
and not lots!

You then proceeded to point out, as examples of what “one could equate
the term "holocaust" with” a) - native Americans' b) - The Irish under
the English Rule; c) - the armenians; d) -the Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda; e)
- pogroms by stalin; f) -Mao's Cultural revolution; and g) -The Congo.

... I later added Pol Pot's Kymer Rouge.

While your scattershot hit a few targets, as scattershot is bound to
do, you were generally wrong.

... Look either "holocaust" applies only to Jews in WWII or it doesent! If I
give 100 examples or suggestions and even if only one is an example
ADDITIONAL to Jews in WWII there is no suggestion of the other 99 being
generally wrong. If ONE other is right then the term "holocaust" does not
apply ONLY TO JEWS!
I clearly pointed to the fact that TODAY "holocaust is
taken to mean relating to Jews bt that others have happened. I also
believe
I stated mot "lots" but "several".
As indicated immediately above.
... SO i didnt say "lots" but "several"
Pay attention: it was already established, several posts ago, that it
was not you, but a previous poster who stated that there were lots of
previous holocausts, and that you replied that there were several.

...No it hasent! You stated that I agreed with the other posters "lots" . I
pointed out I didnt! It depended on what "lots" was as used meant by him !
MY INTERPRETATION was "several". You then reposted what I stated but you
NEVER commented that I had stated "several" and that you accepted I stated
several until just above. You also comment that the several I mentioned
generally WERE NOT "holocausts" as you would accept them but were
"scattershot" applications of the word "holocaust" and in general "wrong"
i.e. they do not serve to fulfill you defoinition of "holocaust" The only
other example given by you not to do with WWII was one of another group of
Jews in history! You have not stated "holocausts have happened outside of
WWII and they have not been only of Jews"
In fact, the term used for the Holocaust by Israel was,
and remains, the Shoah.
... for "the holocaust" ? you see? you refer to THE "holocaust", which
you
associate with Jews.
[snip encarta quote on etymology]
The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).
[end excerpt]
NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
Apparently you missed the part of the quote above. Re-read is slowly
and carefully.
... reread "Is " or reread IT"? carefull when you try to say someone
posted
words which mean something else.
If you are going to descend to pettifogging about typos,

... you are the one who began that! you started the patronising "reread it"
comment! If you are suggesting I didn't understand something then POINT IT
OUT and explain it and don't patronise people by suggesting they re read it!

in lieu if
wracking your mind for a better response, you had better be prepared
to receive the same regarding your own

... I make frequent typos but I dont tell people that something is "obvious"
! I explain what I believe they have missed! If I have missed something then
care to show it to me?


– and there are quite a many of
them. I suggest you also take your own advice and be “carefull” over
any accusations you might make – particularly over incidents which
never happened.

... Which incidents "never happened" ? You claim I MISSED something in a
quote! What do you claim I missed? I point to a word which has roots in
Hebrew and which IS TAKEN TO refer to mass slaughter in WWII. But I also
point out
1The slaughter was not only of Jews
2. In spite of similar and associated hebrew terminology of shoah the term
"holocaust" does not have to be only related to Jews.


Now: re-read the following quote from the site you
referenced slowly and carefully:
“The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).
end excerpt]
NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"

... I re read it and it refers to a SPECIFIC application of a term which
suggests
1. It is not ONLY mass murder of jews

there are greek latin and farci terms for slaughter as well but that does
not mean it only applied to their people.
I stated several holocausts have happened.
Several times. So? Whether “several holocausts” happened or did not is
not at issue. At issue seems to be the word “holocaust”, and your
question as to when and how it came to refer to the massacre of six
million European Jews. You have been answered several times. The site
you referenced provides answers to your questions. You should read it.

... I did . I happen to have a similar position! Thats why I quoted it!


The site you referenced also answers your question as to why the
Holocaust – note the definitive article and capitalization of the noun
– is unique.

...All holocausts are unique.
I didn't denegrate Jews!
Are you worried you might have?

... I am concerned you seem to think I might.
when did the term "Holocaust" refer to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews?
Previously, you seemed quite sure when it was used, and by whom it was
used -- “a post Israeli state invention” --
..."Introduced by historians in the 1950s" i.e. AFTER Israel was founded
no?
The phrase “Cold War” was also introduced AFTER the state of Israel
was founded, no?
I don't know! The term "cold war" however does not refer either to the
foundation of Israel or to the killing of Jews Slavs gypsies or others by
Nazis.
Another apotheosis of the obvious.

... Not when the term is clearly identified above as meaning relating to
JEWS in WWII and now you seem to acept that it is obvoius it does not relate
ONLY to Jews but also to slavs and Gypsies as well. this does not mean the
significance of Jews dying is taken away from but it also does not mean the
Jews are a special case. Put it this way. If for example Poland had a mostly
black population or a gay or communist or whatever then the Nazis would have
killed all of them anyway. The Jews didnt have anythig special which meant
the Nazis had to specifically get them. they just happened to be a large
minority grouping. In fact Jews throughout Europe have experienced similar
scapegoating in jhistory. But so have Arabs, muslims, Catholics, Protestants
etc. the scale and organisation of the massacre of Jews gypsies and Slavs by
the nazis is what stands out, but the same technology, economic and social
Infrastracture, political conditions didn't exist at other times.
and that there were other
usages. Now you ask when it was used in this specific context? It was
used in reference to the destruction of European Jews in 1942.
... Really? That is interesting. Where?
December 1942 speech by Chaim Weizmann.
What did the term "holocaust"mean BEFORE it was used in this way?
Before it was used to “refer to “to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews“? “Holocaust” was used in an English chronicle of 1192 to
refer to the 1189 massacres of English Jews. The literal meaning of
the word is “sacrifice by fire.”
... Yes but NOT ONLY of Jews?
Read the foregoing slowly and carefully: “Holocaust” was used in an
English chronicle of 1192 to refer to the 1189 massacres of English
Jews. The literal meaning of the word is “sacrifice by fire.”
...yes but not only of Jews.
I believe your repetitious question has been answered repeatedly. The
answers are also on the site you referenced earlier.

...I believe you have stated only WWII and of ONE OTHER example in hiostory
which related only to Jews.
If you actually believe it to be true why dont you state "holocaust applies
not only to jews"?
Have you got that?
...if you are saying holocaust means "sacrifice by fire" and not just
applying to jews then yes. Id that what you mean? "sacrifice by fire" but
not wholly reserved and applicable to any particular religion or ethnic
group?
<heavy sigh>

Did you read the Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary
entries for “holocaust” given previously?

... I am asking what you mean by the term! do you accept "holocaust" in your
useage applies not only to Jews?

Dictionary terms change dependent on useage.

Here they are again. Read
them slowly and carefully.

... What do you mean by the term? Does "holocaust" IN YOUR OPINION apply
only to jews or to others as well?


This time, make sure you understand them.
It will save you the trouble of asking the same question over and over
again.

Merriam Webster
[snip]

American Heritage Dictionary
hol-o-caust
[snip]

when you say "holocaust" do you accept that it does not only apply to Jews?
[snip freedictionary Usage Panel debate]
... ô'â was first used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of Jews in 1939,
but
the phrase ha-ô'â ("the catastrophe") became established only after World
War II. Holocaust has also been used to translate urbn ("destruction"),
another Hebrew word used to summarize the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.
You must have missed the above sentence from your freedictionary.com
quote.
..."After WWII! which is AFTER 1945 . But my impression was it became
established in the 1950s. which is AFTER the state of Israel.
The link to the site you provided answers your question. You should
read it.

My impression was correct as far as I can see! If you are so sure i was not
then QUOTE FROM THE SITE which you claim is so clear about it and don't
patronise others. You may as well say "it is in the Bible somewhere go and
read it" If YOU make a claim it is for YOU to support it! Since you claim
the answer it there then all you have to do is cite it!
Merriam Webster
[snip]
Re-read the Merriam-Webster definition slowly and carefully.
... I dont need a lecture from you!
That isn't a lecture. That is the answer to the question you keep
repeating.

... I didnt ask for a dictionary definition! I asked whether when YOU use
the term "holocaust" you accept it applies to non Jews?
My comments stanbd up to scrutiny!
Scrutiny by whom?


By any reasonable people who scrutinise claims made by those who reposting
them!
And did not the WWII holocaust also include Slavs and
gypsies who were ALSO specifically targeted and wiped out?
The Nazis seem not to have developed any “Final Solution to the Slav
Question” or “Final Solution to Gypsy Question”.
Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering of
other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies,
prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses
and
others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust
continued.
By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.
You miss the point of the last sentence, along with the fact that the
total number of any one of the non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of
itself, does not begin to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the
..."as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!
This comment hardly stands up to scrutiny

It does ! Six is more than five!


– the reason, no doubt, for
your snippage. -- Your previous statement above, actually a quote you
pasted from the site you referenced, but appear not to have read, was:
“By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” The reason your
comment -- that "as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!”
-- does not stand up to scrutiny is as follows. I'll try to put it
simply for you.

Three million Poles killed by the Nazis in the six-year Nazi
occupation of Poland do not equate to “MORE others!”

... Are you saying that the guty who says “By the end of the war, as many as
6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” was wrong?


[snip numbers game]

That is what is meant by the statement -- which you snipped,
apparently without reading -- that “the total number of any ONE of
these non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of itself, does not begin
to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis.”

... Yes. the jews were the largest minority grouping. No other group was a
big as the Jews. But they were still LESS than all the others put together!
This suggests that if about half were Jews it isnt really correct to call it
a holocaust ONLY of Jews doesn't it?
But as I stated I
wont get into a revisionist numbers game with you!
You started playing your revisionist numbers games when you started
spouting numbers. Like your comments, they don't stand up to scrutiny.

... I quoted from a site! It is a WWII holocaust history site! It clearly
states that about half the people who dies were Jews! But when I say "I wont
get into a numbers game" I think it is a waste of time to say "six million"
and then "maybe 5 million2 or "possibly 3.5 million" . This is the waste of
time arguments revistionists get caught up in. By the way I should state I
find nothing wrong with historical revisionism. In fact it is a good thing.
If it is supported by facts.

But "holocaust revisionism" in the main to me really is usually just a front
for "holocaust denial" and it is a waste of time to rehearse such arguments
which have been soundly thrashed by the likes of the Nizkor Project for
example.

I suppose the generl point here is that when you reify the Jews' suffering
and discount others (and I do not doubt for a second that Jews were targeted
throughout history) then you may have problems.
The point you have missed, above all, is that none of these people
would have been murdered had the Nazis not implemented their Final
Solution to the JEWISH Question.
...I didnt miss that point aty all!
Actually, you did, along with most others. I'm sorry you're having so
much trouble grasping them.

... If Poland was not half Jewish and was half black then the Nazis would
have wiped them out too!
It does not make the death of non jews less significant.
Your comments imply that it did, even though this was never at issue.

My comment that "It does not make the death of non jews less significant."
does not make the death of non Jews less significant!

FYI, on Yom Ha-Shoah, modern Jewish liturgy has prayers for the souls
of the non-Jews murdered by the Nazis, as well as for Jews, and
special prayers for the Righteous Gentiles killed by the Nazis.

... As do CHRISTIANS! Christ after all was a Jew! Not alone that Christ
actually preached forgiving the likes of repentant Nazis which is an even
bigger step! Not just victioms but the actual perpretrators of an act to be
forgiven!

Does that sound to you like Jews are trying to “make the death of non
jews less significant”?

... No but I still havent seen you connent that "the WWII holocaust was not
only of Jews and other non Jewish holocausts happened"

Does your religious liturgy contain prayers
for Jews murdered by the Nazis?

... Actually more than that! In addition to prayers for Jews and Muslims,
Christian teaching suggests the Nazis be forgiven! Most Christians cant live
up to this example!
On the other hand, does the Holocaust have a particularly crucial and
central Jewish element, even though millions of others died? Simply put,
the
answer is yes. The Holocaust, from its conception to its implementation
had
a distinctly Jewish aspect to it and, arguably without this Jewish
aspect,
there would have been no Holocaust. Most of the non-Jewish people would
not
have been killed because the killing machinery would not have been put
into
operation.
You do read the quotes you paste, don't you?
...yes.
Re-read the quote from the site you referenced immediately above,
because you appear to have forgotten it.

... I don;t deny the WWII holocaust had a "distinctly Jewish aspect" . About
half the dead were Jews mre than any other group. But my point is that if
half the dead were slavs would "holoocaust " mean "killing of slavs by
Nazis" ? Would the WWII holocaust be described as a "distinbctly slavic
aspect" of Nazi policy? would a "final solution to slavs" be a common usage
term? And let us not forget the slavs were a signicicant minority in any
case.
Also if there were NO JEWS in Poland the Nazis would have rounded up whoever
they decided were "non Aryan" as they did to non Jews!
In this context, two points need to be examined: the particularly Jewish
aspect of the Holocaust and the fact that this neither minimizes nor
trivializes the suffering of others.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
Apparently you missed the following, as well, from the foregoing site
Jews were almost always the first group targeted in any initiative.
There is no doubt that they were the focal point from beginning to
end.
... where did I deny that?
Your question is ridiculous.

... above you state "you missed the following... they were a focal point"
So? WHERE DID I SAY THEY WERE NOT a focal point? where did I deny Jews were
a focus?
The Germans set up an office on the "Jewish Question" under the
direction of Adolf Eichmann -- the infamous Bureau IV B 4. The name
used for the ultimate killing action was "the Final Solution of the
Jewish Question," Others were drawn in -- with horrific results -- but
the key object and common thread was always the Jews.
... So? This does not minimise non Jews or mean only Jews suffered.
Now where did *I* deny that?

Whether you deny it or not is not the issue. You claim the germans set up an
office to focus on Jews. I point out that because they set up an office to
focus on Jews does not mean non jews didnt suffer! I also suggest that oif
there were no Jews the Germans would set up offices to focus on some other
minority! In fact I don't know if they had an office for Slavic or Catholic
affairs. Maybe they did?
There are thousands of captured documents dealing with the killing
actions. Almost every one of them deals with the Jews and there are
almost no documents that deal with another target that do not also
address the Jews.
... there are also no orders to kill Jews existing signed by Hitler but i
do
not doubt he ordered it!
Not at issue.

... The point is that actual orders by Hitler to kill Jews have never been
found! So what? I dont doubt for a moment he did order it! Do you? Likewise
I dont doubt for a moment he ordered the killing of slavs or gypsies! you
hawever do doubt that since you make a special case above for only Jews!
The Einsatzgruppen reports almost always separate
out the Jews from the other people shot, going so far as to break down
the Jews by age and gender (http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-
einsatz).
... and you assert that makes the Jews "special" ? In what way?
You were the one who posted the link to the Holocaust History site.
Read it.

... I accept the Nazis focused on Jews. But this didnt mean that they
neglected others! Maybe Jews were an easy target. they were readily
idebntified by names businesses etc. when Hitler was finished with them he
no doubt planned to get rid of other groups as well. Disabled people,
homosexuals etc.
I don't doubt they were targeted but so were others.
That was never at issue, except, it seems, in your mind. The fact
remains that none of the groups mentioned above were targeted to the
extent that Jews were targeted from the beginning.

... Yes. But as you pointed out Jews were the largest minority grouping!

That is another of
the several points you keep missing. It's also a point which is
clearly set out in the Holocaust History site you referenced.
If jews didnt live in Poland
and Mongols did or arabs I dod not doubt the Nazis would have
killed them instead. The Jews were a scapegoat.
If, as you state, the Jews were a scapegoat, then it follows that it
wouldn't have mattered if Jews lived in Poland or not. Had Mongols or
Arabs lived in Poland instead of Jews, the Nazis would not have killed
them, since they were not scapegoats, as Jews were;

... I dont accept that! The nazis wanted a land grab of Poland and wanted to
remove the Population to resettle it with their pown population. this has
happened elsewhere. The difference is the "success" of the Nazi plan! Any
"non Aryans" would have been targeted. If Poland had no Jews but other "non
Aryans" they would have wiped them out. But unless one particular non aryan
group of these was about half the populatpoin one might not alss it a
"slavic" or "gypsy" holocaust. Maybe you have given me the answer in that!


the Arabs were the
Nazis' allies, and had been since 1937.

...so were the communists in Russia! So what?


Palestinian Arabs were active
in promulgating Nazi propaganda, and their leadership spent the war
years in Berlin, where they established, among other things, three all-
Muslim Waffen-SS legions. Syria and Lebanon were under Vichy rule, and
Arabs there fought the Allies. The Egyptian government provided
intelligence on British military movements in North Africa, and there
was a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq. So, no, the Nazis would not have gone for
the Arabs if they were in Poland. In fact, they escorted the Palestine
Arab leadership on a tour of the death camps, which they intended to
establish in Palestine, once the British were driven out.


... good point! but what iof the Jews were not in Poland and the Arabs were!
then the nazis would have non Aryan arab neighbous and hate them instead of
Jews. One would also have to include Arabs instead of Jews in Germany in the
1920s and 1930s. Mind you isnt that like Germany today? They have all these
Turkish workers that came in over the last 50 years! And who are the people
that hates them the most in Germany? The National Front!
[snip - sorry i have to go cant finish this now]
I'll just bet you're not.

... Well you would be betting wrong! Please don't question my integrity! I
am honestly answering you . If I have to do other things as well then I am
sorry if I cant continue. But If you suggest I am not sorry then you are
making a personal attack on my honesty.

When you feel up to addressing what you snipped – if you ever do --
here it is again. Per the advice you snipped, you might want to read a
few of the articles on that site. It might save you the trouble of
repeating the same questions ad nauseam.

... If you made another quip like that and suggest I am dishonest or
ignorant without actually putting forward what your point is then there is
no point in continuing! If you have something to say than SAY IT! Dont
suggest that "it is all on the site" like some fundamentalist Christian's
"it is all in the Bible" . cite chapter and verse and then explain the
quotation you use in your own words!
Quit the patronising "If you only knew..." comments!



------------------------------------------------
[snip restored]

And the Report 51, submitted by Himmler to Hitler in 1943,
breaks down the victims into a variety of categories (bandits,
partisans, etc.), but only lists the Jews as "Jews executed."
Finally, the Korherr Report is entitled "The Final Solution of the
European Jewish Question: A statistical report," and once again,
addresses virtually only the Jews.

... And that is significant ...because???
Do you believe Hitler ordered the killing of Jews? = YES YOU DO!
DO you have ANy PAPER REFERENCE ? = no you dont!
Does that mean Hitler didnt order it? = NO IT DOES NOT!

So if there is no papers about non jews (which were not focused on as much
and there were lessof anyway)
Does that mean no such ideas, concepts, orders, reports etc ever existed? =
NO it doesnt!


Hitler said before the outbreak of the war that if there were another
war, he would annihilate the Jews.

... Hitler in Mein Kampf refers also to the extermination of Marxism. In
fact while he links Jews and Marxism in palces, in others he specifically
refers to the threat of Marxism in trying to destroy "non jewish national
states" [ page 140]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3200921/-Adolf-Hitler-Mein-Kampf


He also refers to Austrian slavs and how he reacted with glee to the death
of slavic habsburg rulers (Archduke ferdinand in Particular I believe).

He said during the war that he was
in the process of annihilating the Jews. And he said in his Testament
that he had done exactly what he had said he would do.

... I dont doubt jews were the main focus of Nazis because they were the
largest group even if they were a minority group.Let me put it this way.
sup[pose the US didnt enter the War and Germany killed all the Jews. do you
think the Nazis would stop then? dont you believe they would resettle Poland
and then move on to "rootingout" all the other "non aryans". Jews are
significant in this sence because they were FIRST! not BETTER just the FIRST
in line for execution! That doesnt mean the second in line ot the last was
any less unjustified or targeted!

The ultimate aim and the primary target never varied. Others were
murdered in the course of the Final Solution, e.g. Gypsies, Russian
POWs, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on, but the first and
constant target was always the Jews. The Final Solution was intended
for the Jews, was about the Jews and chiefly affected the Jews. There
is no denying that, without the Jews, there is no Final Solution.

... I dont accept that. I accept that the conditions arise out of centuries
which you can not change but if Hitler had succeeded and ther was only a few
Jews in the whole world and a neo Nazi group became powerful in germany
today they would probably mbe more interested in attacking Turks than Jews.
In fact are not all the Russian Neo Nazis like this?

To minimize or trivialize the "Jewishness" of the Final Solution is
toseriously understate,

...wher did I tirvialise Jewishness?

[snip]
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/

The Jewish Virtual Library's section on the Holocaust contains
sections on the Nazi massacres of non-Jews. See, for example, the
sections on:
Gypsies
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gypsytoc.html
Homosexuals
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gay.html
Jehovah’s Witnesses
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jehovah.html
Neither group was
wiped out, nor were either on the agenda of the Wanasee Conference, or
ever targeted to be wiped out.
...as many as 6 million of these people had been killed, along with
between 5 and 6 million Jews.
I read the quote you provided. Did you?


... yes. And I do nopt deny Jews wer the largest minority larger than any
other group of victims. But MORE non Jews were killed. And other holocausts
of non Jews have happened. And yet the term "holocaust" is usually only
associated with WWII Jews. Which is where we came into this. You see I dont
hear people say as I might "the WWII planned Nazi massacre of people such as
gypsies and slavs and of which the largest target by far (in fact about half
of the entire number of people killed) were Jews who, being the largest
minority and easliy identified were singled out for specific identifiation
by Nazi death squads and usually became the first people to be rounded up
for the death camps"
This is not to say that the Nazis didn't have it out for certain non-
Jewish Europeans. They planned to exterminate the Poles, whom they
considered almost as subhuman as Jews; in addition to the three
million Polish Jews slaughtered by the Nazis, three million non-Jewish
Poles also perished. Slavs – specifically Russians - were also
considered less than human, and were so brutally treated in German POW
camps that an estimated two millions perished. For other “non-Aryan”
Europeans, IIRC, the general plan was to “Germanize” those they could,
and use those they could not as slave labour. But there was nothing on
the level of “the planned extermination and destruction of the Jewish
race.”
“Until 1940 the general policy within the section was to settle the
Jewish Question in Germany and in areas occupied by Germany by means
of a planned emigration. The second phase, after that date, was the
concentration of all Jews, in Poland and in other territories occupied
by Germany in the East, in ghettos. This period lasted approximately
until the beginning of 1942. The third period was the so-called "Final
Solution" of the Jewish question - that is, the planned extermination
and destruction of the Jewish race....I learned of such an order for
the first time from Eichmann in the summer of 1942.” Testimony of
Dieter Wisliceny, Nuremberg 1946
No comment?

... As you might say. I commented above. why dont you re read it?

The "phase I" exclusion of Jews was I believe also accompanied by the
exclusion of others.

Look let me get a few things straight here.
You don't know me.
So please don't assume to lecture me.
Ill put you straight on a few things from my perspective.
I don't particularly like the Israeli government positon on many issues.
I am not a "yes man".
I don't go with what authotities say.
I believe peoippe should think for themselves according t logic and reason.

Now people will say "the jews control the media"
but taking the US as an example the Arabs have VAST media control. ( I can
cite examples from history if you want but suffice it to say that is a valid
opinion)
I am neutral.
I am not a holocaust denier.
I have had several exchanges with holocaust deniers on usenet pointing out
their weak arguments.
But there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that (mainly
Russian/Polish but also German and other local populations ) Jews were
takgeted and wiped out by the NAZIs. Millions of them. As were Slavs
and
Gypsies. In a very callous manner.
“A very callous manner” is a very nice euphemism for what actually
happened.
... "Callous" meaning no emotion was attached to it. It was done in the
way
people might exterminate a plague of vermin.
I would say there was quite a bit of emotion attached to it. One need
only look at photographs from the era, of concentration camp personnel
posing by the corpses of people they'd tortured to death, and other
similar photos.
... By the people who did it. Okay. But by the people who ordered it?
I think people believe the Nazis had and ideology and a philosophy which
they
adhered to which entailed hating jews slavs etc. But have you considered
thet most Nazis didnt really care about any ideology as long as they got
rich and powerful? This is whay many of them so easily jumped over to
serving communists (who according to "ideology" were as vile as Jews ) or
to
working for the Allied as spies. They were along for the ride.
You are grasping at straws. What, exactly, is your point?

... The point of a "final solution" or a plan. most Nazis werent
"indoctrinated"


[snip]
...yes but net seething with rage like the usual portrayal of Hitler etc.
Do you actually think that matters?

... In the sense that Nazis acted on personal power grabs rather than an
ideology i think it is central to the issue.
But one could equate the term "holocaust" with
[snip]
...Yes because it refers to the Latin translation of Jewish sacrifices by
making burnt offerings.
Again, you are grasping at straws.

... I dont think so. How?
I don't deny the term traces it origins to Jewish customs of making
offerings but that does not mean the offerings were PEOPLE!
Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston
I already gave the etymology. Do these semantic antics have a point?

Well I have not seen yo to this point state "holocaust" applies to non
jews.
Do you accept it does?
In fact,
however, the Armenian and Rwandan genocides are designated with the
Holocaust as three of the four instances of genocide in the 20th
century.
I missed the Kymer Rouge.
That's Khmer Rouge.

...thats an english translation for an Oriental name

you might also haard of Kahdaffi and Gadaffi and al queda and Khyda

but I think despire spelling falmes people knew what I meant
Thank you for the correction . I will try to use "Khymer" from now on.
And I hope if I type "holokost" you will know what I mean.
As for the other two, the potato crops of Europe's Jews were not hit
with blight,
... The famine in ireland was not so simple. SEVERAL crops failed sonce
the
1820s. thre was a country wide failure in 1845. But the British were
EXPORTING food from Ireland at that time and continued to do so!
Including
food for famine relief! Why ? they were getting a good price for it! So
the
starvation was because of a planned economic system on behalf of the
British
who looked upon the Irish as ignorant slave labour to support their
economic
baSE. Much in the same way the NAZIs looked down on the jews and slavs.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall that the English planned the
deliberate destruction of the Irish people,
..."Plantation" was the policy. It amounted to the same.
It didn't, and it's idiotic to suggest it did.

...Can you justify that remark by supporting it with evidence?
or that they built
concentration camps and gas chambers to exterminate all the Irish.
...No they wouldnt have done that because they hadnt the territory or the
infrastructure.
They hadn't the desire either.

...Can you justify that remark by supporting it with evidence?


Another point you miss is that the Irish potato famine is neither at
issue nor relevant.

...


[snip]
The
potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine didn't reduce
Ireland's then-population of 8.5 million to less than 2 million, as
the Nazi Final Solution did for the Jews of Europe, did it?
... No only to 3 million. the population continued to decline to about 3
million in 1970 from which time it has been growing.
Comparing "only two million" Irish to "6.5 million Jews" is a bit like
saying "not 6.5 million but more probably 5 million Jews". It is a
pointless
discussion when millions were certainly involved.
When discussing the planned extermination of a people, it certainly
it. But if you are going to trot in a false analogy, like that of the
Irish potato famine to the Holocaust, the numbers do become relevant.
Once again: The potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine
claimed almost a million casualties over seven years; another 1.6
million emigrated, mostly to America. That is not comparable to the
deliberate slaughter of six millions.
And if the
English looked down on the Irish as “ignorant slave labour to support
their economic base,” it makes little sense for them to have
deliberately annihilated that economic base.
... Yeah. Like the Nazis should have kept Jewish slaves instead of kiling
them? The killing of the Jews was not sensible either but that doesn't
justify either killing them or slavery.
Again, you miss the point: the Nazis were not interested in Jews as
an
“ignorant slave labour to support their economic base”. They were
interested in annihilating every Jewish man, woman, and child.

[snip potato famine stuff]

[snip the rest as you snipped famine stuff]
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-23 20:50:23 UTC
Permalink
o>>>>>>You were stating that the “post Israeli state” invented the
Post by Mavisbeacon
“terminology 'jewish holocaust'”.
...No. I was NOT!
See your statement above: “The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a
post Israeli state invention”
Because something happened after something does not mean the first thing
caused the second or was responsibe for it.
Would you mind translating the foregoing into intelligible English,
then explaining its relevance to your statement that “The terminology
"jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”?
... The terminology was used AFTER the Israeli state came to be recognised
by UN nations.
That statement neither translates your comment above, nor does it
explain the relevance of that comment to your claim that “The
terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”.
yes it does - the term was used AFTER the Israeli State came to be is what
it means.
Would you mind translating that last into intelligible English?
Post by Mavisbeacon
And it is backed up by the references given with suggests
"holocaust" referring exclusively to Jews killed by Nazis
was a 1950s usage.
A bit later than 1950s usage, in case you hadn't noticed. In any case,
you were given several references – several times – showing that the
word holocaust as referring exclusively to the killing of Jews was
used in a chronicle of 1192. Apart from that, go and read the
“references” to which you refer on the Holocaust-History site you
referenced. Then let the dead horse drop.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Take for example if I stated the term "Tory" did not exist in Middle Age
It would be like stating that Henry II of England didn’t own a Rolls.
... Yes "holocaust" in the sense of WWII killing of Jews didnt exist before
WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it either . It only came to be used after Israel (the >>>modern country not the Biblical one) existed.
What, exactly, are you trying to say here? That “WWII killing of Jews
didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it”? That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?
.no that the term for the WWII killing of jews "holocaust" used to
exclusively refer to killing of Jews during WWII became a general
interpretation of twhat "holocaust" means.
Do you need the dictionary definitions provided a third time, or can
you find them for yourself?
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as I pointed out
1. Holocausts existed BEFORE WWII and were NOT exclusly to do with Jews.
2. The WWII holocaust was not ONLY of Jews.
1 + 2 = more apotheoses of the obvious. Large-scale massacres
certainly existed BEFORE WWII, but few, if any, were referred to as
“the Holocaust”, with the exception of the reference to the 1189
massacres of Jews in England, which were referred to in a chronicle of
1192 as a “holocaust”.

You can stop the repetitious “the WWII holocaust was not ONLY of
Jews”. That is obvious, and has never been in dispute by anyone.

And now, would you mind explaining what you meant when you wrote that
the “WWII killing of Jews didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist
AFTER it”?
Post by Mavisbeacon
That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?
...yes . I restate it above.
Try to restate it more clearly.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I a similar way when people say "holocaust" today it is associated almost
always with the massacre of jews by the Nazis. But this useage is I believe
only after the Israeli State came to exist.
The phrase “Cold War” also arose after the establishment of the state
of Israel. Do you have a point?
... Really. I would regard the "phony war" as a cold war.
What “phony war”?
The term "phony war" was used by the allies to refer to the German invasion
of the low countries. People thought they wouldnt invade France.
Your pinballing from topic to irrelevancy makes it difficult to
understand what you're trying to get at. At to the Cold War, there is
no equivalent to the “phony war”, as Americans called the period in
the months following the September 1939 declaration of war. The term
was not used by the Allies to refer to the German invasion of the Low
Countries, which came *after* the phony war (or “twilight war”, as the
British called it, or “drole de guerre”, as the French called it). And
although you might regard that period as similar to the Cold War, it
was not.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But when we discuss the "holocaust" people single out jews.
That is because the majority of people singled out by the Nazis were
Jews.
.apparently the largest single MINORITY according to the figures given.
No, the MAJORITY of the peoples slaughtered by the Nazis during the
Holocaust.
Post by Mavisbeacon
which saiod I believe five to six million jews and six million OTHERS. But
so what. even if it was 80 percent Jews and 20 percent others e.g. slavs
surely it is also a holocaust of Savs?
75% of Europe's Slavic population was not annihilated by the Nazis. Do
you understand why the figures here are relevant, or do you require a
more simplistic explanation?
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact others also died and were targeted.
Apotheosis of the obvious.
...? YOU are the one asking me to restate about the terminology being a post
Isaeli state useage!
Correct. That is because your statement is ludicrous. The reason it is
ludicrous is because you haven't yet explained what you mean by the
phrase “post Israeli state”. Are you implying that the state of Israel
is defunct and has been succeeded by another?
Post by Mavisbeacon
I didnt reify any argument.
You didn't what any argument?
Post by Mavisbeacon
And other holocausts happened. this does not take away from
the holocaust against jews as an evil event but it was not unique in the way
the terminology suggests. Other holocausts happened . Indeed other massacres
of Jews happened.
Had you read the quotes you pasted from the site you referenced, as
well as the articles on that site, you would already know that the
20th century Holocaust as pertaining to Jews was, in fact, unique. You
DO read what you cite, don't you?
... ALL Holocausts are unique in some way! Otherwise if they were identical
how would we know the difference except by date? All world wars are also
unique. So?
So, you don't read what you cite. You ought to.
Post by Mavisbeacon
It also is not usually
associated with the coincident massacre of Slavs and Gypsies for example.
But I am fairly sure "holocaust" existed before the Nazis.
I am fairly sure I indicated in a previous post that the term
“holocaust” “existed before the Nazis”, and that it was used as early
as 1192 in relation to the massacres of English Jews instigated by
Richard I.
... Yes but other holocausts which were NOT of Jews happened.
I believe it has already been established that other mass murders have
occurred throughout the centuries.
... and that you would call then "holocausts"?
I used the phrase “medieval holocaust” in a college paper on the
massacres of 1349-1350. As to others, it would first be necessary to
review the circumstances attending each, since, as you state above,
“ALL Holocausts are unique in some way! Otherwise if they were
identical how would we know the difference except by date?”
Post by Mavisbeacon
You see if you only apply "Holocaust" to WWII jews
then who is reifying the argument?
Who is what the argument?
Post by Mavisbeacon
I suggest you read the holocaust-
history.org site you referenced earlier, and refrain from cherry-
picking fragments from the entirety.
... I suggest you acknowledge that i backed up the clarification for which
you asked.
You neither backed up any clarification, nor provided any. You merely
provided more muddle.

I note you seem like you don't want to criticise
Post by Mavisbeacon
holocaust-hoistory.org so you now take a different tack and try to assume
that I quote it out of context or don't understand it.
But you quoted it out of context, and you have clearly shown that you
don't understand it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you suggest I "cherry picked" something from it then care to point out
how my action is as you claim "cherry picking" ? In fact I argue against
deification or cherrypicking of events as pertaining to just one subsection
of people don't I?
No. And I'm unaware of when, exactly, you presented an argument
against, or even mentioned, the deification of anyone.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also, you were re-stating, with
qualification, a previous poster's claim of “lots” of “other
holocausts”.
... No. I was't!
The previous poster wrote: "There have been other holocausts. Lots of
them"
“Depends on what you mean but I would say "several" not "lots". You
then proceeded to dart off on some sort of semantical tangent.
...Yes I pointed out "several" not "lots" in the ACTUAL REPLY!
“...There have been. Depends on what you mean but I would say
"several" not
“lots" The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state
invention as far as I know. But there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER
that (mainly Russian/Polish but also German and other local
populations )
Jews were takgeted and wiped out by the NAZIs. Millions of them.
As were Slavs and Gypsies. In a very callous manner.”
... Yes! Which in the actual reply says SEVERAL not LOTS!
I stated SEVERAL and not lots!
I believe that has been established. Several times. Why are you so
defensive about it?
Post by Mavisbeacon
You then proceeded to point out, as examples of what “one could equate
the term "holocaust" with” a) - native Americans' b) - The Irish under
the English Rule; c) - the armenians; d) -the Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda; e)
- pogroms by stalin; f) -Mao's Cultural revolution; and g) -The Congo.
... I later added Pol Pot's Kymer Rouge.
If you say so.
Post by Mavisbeacon
While your scattershot hit a few targets, as scattershot is bound to
do, you were generally wrong.
... Look either "holocaust" applies only to Jews in WWII or it doesent!
Wrong again. The holocaust-history.org site you referenced previously
can tell you why.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If I
give 100 examples or suggestions and even if only one is an example
ADDITIONAL to Jews in WWII there is no suggestion of the other 99 being
generally wrong. If ONE other is right then the term "holocaust" does not
apply ONLY TO JEWS!
I believe it has been a long established fact that the Holocaust was
restricted only to Jews. The holocaust-history.org site you
referenced previously gives a detailed explanation of that, as does
the Jewish Virtual Library's Holocaust section on the victims (non-
Jewish) of the Nazis.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I clearly pointed to the fact that TODAY "holocaust is
taken to mean relating to Jews bt that others have happened. I also believe
I stated mot "lots" but "several".
As indicated immediately above.
... SO i didnt say "lots" but "several"
Pay attention: it was already established, several posts ago, that it
was not you, but a previous poster who stated that there were lots of
previous holocausts, and that you replied that there were several.
...No it hasent! You stated that I agreed with the other posters "lots" . I
pointed out I didnt!
You pointed it out several times. See the quote above. "There have
been other holocausts. Lots of them" Your response: “There have been.
Depends on what you mean but I would say "several" not "lots".

What is your problem in getting over this? Whatever it is, get over
it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
It depended on what "lots" was as used meant by him !
He's a Jew hater. That given, it's not difficult to see what he meant
by “lots” [of other holocausts].
Post by Mavisbeacon
MY INTERPRETATION was "several". You then reposted what I stated but you
NEVER commented that I had stated "several" and that you accepted I stated
several until just above.
What would you like, a formal engraved acceptance?
Post by Mavisbeacon
You also comment that the several I mentioned
generally WERE NOT "holocausts" as you would accept them but were
"scattershot" applications of the word "holocaust" and in general "wrong"
i.e. they do not serve to fulfill you defoinition of "holocaust"
Wrong again. The examples of “holocausts” given by you were: a)
American Indians b) Irish under the English Rule; c) the Armenian
Genocide; d) the Rwandan Genocide; e) Stalin's pogroms; f) Mao's
Cultural Revolution; and g) The Congo. AFAIK, the term “holocaust”
isn't generally applied by historians to any of them – note GENERALLY
– with the exception of Winston Churchill, who referred to the
Armenian Genocide as a holocaust.

Now pay attention: the demise of 90% of the American Indian population
was due to disease, not to massacre. The demise of one million Irish
people was due (English culpability aside) to famine and the diseases
attendant thereupon, not to massacre,
The Armenian, Rwandan, and Cambodian genocides can be termed
“holocausts”, but are generally known as Genocides. e), f) and g)
above can be termed “holocausts”, but only by the ignorant, because
they are not. The holocaust-history.org site you referenced explains
why.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The only other example given by you not to do with WWII
was one of another group of Jews in history!
You asked a question on earlier usage of the word holocaust, you were
given an answer: holocaust, in the sense of a large-scale massacre,
was used in a chronicle of 1192. It happens that the reference was to
the 1189 massacres of English Jews. It wasn't used again in that
sense, AFAIK, until the 20th century.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You have not stated "holocausts have happened outside of
WWII and they have not been only of Jews"
And I'm not going to state it. It's an absurd remark.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact, the term used for the Holocaust by Israel was,
and remains, the Shoah.
... for "the holocaust" ? you see? you refer to THE "holocaust", which you
associate with Jews.
[snip encarta quote on etymology]
The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).
[end excerpt]
NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
Apparently you missed the part of the quote above. Re-read is slowly
and carefully.
... reread "Is " or reread IT"? carefull when you try to say someone posted
words which mean something else.
If you are going to descend to pettifogging about typos,
... you are the one who began that! you started the patronising "reread it"
comment!
Pettifogging over typos is not the same as politely suggesting that
one read a source or reread it. It's childish. Like your “you started
it” response.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you are suggesting I didn't understand something then POINT IT
OUT and explain it and don't patronise people by suggesting they re read it!
Suggesting that someone reread a source is an indirect, and politer,
way of saying you're wrong, then explaining why you're wrong. Since it
goes over your head, I've abandoned it. Read the holocaust-history.org
site you referenced.
Post by Mavisbeacon
in lieu if
wracking your mind for a better response, you had better be prepared
to receive the same regarding your own –
... I make frequent typos
Then it ill behooves you to harp on another's, especially as a
sidedodge of the subject at hand.
Post by Mavisbeacon
but I dont tell people that something is "obvious"
! I explain what I believe they have missed! If I have missed
something then care to show it to me?
I do. You keep missing it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
and there are quite a many of
them. I suggest you also take your own advice and be “carefull” over
any accusations you might make – particularly over incidents which
never happened.
... Which incidents "never happened" ? You claim I MISSED
something in a quote! What do you claim I missed?
I didn't. You wrote: “carefull when you try to say someone posted
words which mean something else.” If I made an attempt “to say someone
posted words which mean something else,” produce my statement. If not,
don't try to claim I said something which I did not.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I point to a word which has roots in Hebrew and which
IS TAKEN TO refer to mass slaughter in WWII.
Wrong again. The root of the word holocaust, as previously indicated,
several times, is Greek, not Hebrew.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But I also point out
1The slaughter was not only of Jews
2. In spite of similar and associated hebrew terminology of shoah the term
"holocaust" does not have to be only related to Jews.
You've pointed that out ad nauseum. Since it's already a given, and
has been so for over half a century, that the slaughter was not only
of Jews, and that the word “holocaust” is not, by usage, restricted to
Jews, your reiteration of the same is nothing more than an apotheosis
of the obvious, and a boring one at that.

Your reference to “similar and associated hebrew terminology of shoah
[with] the term
"holocaust" is also wrong, but let it go.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Now: re-read the following quote from the site you
“The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).
end excerpt]
NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
... I re read it and it refers to a SPECIFIC application of a term
which suggests
1. It is not ONLY mass murder of jews
No duh. Now go and read the entire article. It might serve to halt the
boring reiteration.
Post by Mavisbeacon
there are greek latin and farci terms for slaughter as well but
that does not mean it only applied to their people.
I stated several holocausts have happened.
Several times. So? Whether “several holocausts” happened or did not is
not at issue. At issue seems to be the word “holocaust”, and your
question as to when and how it came to refer to the massacre of six
million European Jews. You have been answered several times. The site
you referenced provides answers to your questions. You should read it.
... I did . I happen to have a similar position! Thats why I quoted it!
If you had read so many as several articles from the site, or at least
the entirety of the one from which you provided a few quotes, you
wouldn't be engaged in these repetitious and boring absurdities.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The site you referenced also answers your question as to why the
Holocaust – note the definitive article and capitalization of the noun
– is unique.
...All holocausts are unique.
ROTFLOL
Post by Mavisbeacon
I didn't denegrate Jews!
Are you worried you might have?
... I am concerned you seem to think I might.
It doesn't worry me a bit.
Post by Mavisbeacon
when did the term "Holocaust" refer to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews?
Previously, you seemed quite sure when it was used, and by whom it was
used -- “a post Israeli state invention” --
..."Introduced by historians in the 1950s" i.e. AFTER Israel was founded
no?
The phrase “Cold War” was also introduced AFTER the state of Israel
was founded, no?
I don't know! The term "cold war" however does not refer either to the
foundation of Israel or to the killing of Jews Slavs gypsies or others by
Nazis.
Another apotheosis of the obvious.
... Not when the term is clearly identified above as meaning relating to
JEWS in WWII and now you seem to acept that it is obvoius it does not relate
ONLY to Jews but also to slavs and Gypsies as well.
Then you misread me. I believe I made it clear that millions of non-
Jews were murdered in the death camps along with Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
this does not mean the significance of Jews dying is
taken away from but it also does not mean the
Jews are a special case.
But the Jews WERE a special case in this instance. You were given a
few of the reasons why. The holocaust-history.org site you reference
goes into greater detail.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Put it this way. If for example Poland had a mostly
black population or a gay or communist or whatever then the Nazis would have
killed all of them anyway.
You already put it “this way”, except you have now replaced Mongols
and Arabs with blacks, gays, and communists. And no, if Poland had
been filled with blacks, gays, and communists, the Nazis would not
have killed all of them.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Jews didnt have anythig special which meant
the Nazis had to specifically get them. they just happened to be a large
minority grouping.
They just happened to be Jews. That is why the Nazis SPECIFICALLY
targeted them for extermination.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact Jews throughout Europe have experienced similar
scapegoating in jhistory.
Never to the extent as that perpetrated by the Nazis, though the
medieval holocaust comes close. And the worst excesses of that time,
as during WWII, occurred in Germany.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But so have Arabs, muslims, Catholics, Protestants
etc.
That is utter bollocks. Produce some evidence which shows that Arabs,
muslims, Catholics, Protestants, were herded into squalid
concentration camps, or gas chambers. The burning of Protestants by
Catholics, or of Catholics by Muslims doesn't count.
Post by Mavisbeacon
the scale and organisation of the massacre of Jews gypsies and Slavs by
the nazis is what stands out,
What stands out is the utter virulence exhibited by the Nazis towards
Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
but the same technology, economic and social
Infrastracture, political conditions didn't exist at other times.
The Aztecs managed rather well in their large scale massacres without
benefit of modern technology – even of any metal-working technology.
The Nazis of the New World.
Post by Mavisbeacon
and that there were other
usages. Now you ask when it was used in this specific context? It was
used in reference to the destruction of European Jews in 1942.
... Really? That is interesting. Where?
December 1942 speech by Chaim Weizmann.
What did the term "holocaust"mean BEFORE it was used in this way?
Before it was used to “refer to “to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews“? “Holocaust” was used in an English chronicle of 1192 to
refer to the 1189 massacres of English Jews. The literal meaning of
the word is “sacrifice by fire.”
... Yes but NOT ONLY of Jews?
Read the foregoing slowly and carefully: “Holocaust” was used in an
English chronicle of 1192 to refer to the 1189 massacres of English
Jews. The literal meaning of the word is “sacrifice by fire.”
...yes but not only of Jews.
I believe your repetitious question has been answered repeatedly. The
answers are also on the site you referenced earlier.
...I believe you have stated only WWII and of ONE OTHER example
in hiostory which related only to Jews.
Wrong again. Your question related to usage of the word holocaust
“Before it was used to “refer to “to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews“? I stated that the word was used in an English chronicle
of 1192 and that it related to the 1189 massacres of English Jews. I
did NOT state that “only WWII and of ONE OTHER example in hiostory
which related only to Jews” -- whatever that's supposed to mean. And
that, AFAIK, is the only reference, apart from Churchill's usage for
the Armenian genocide, where it refers to massacre.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you actually believe it to be true why dont you state "holocaust applies
not only to jews"?
That should already have been obvious.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Have you got that?
...if you are saying holocaust means "sacrifice by fire" and not just
applying to jews then yes. Id that what you mean? "sacrifice by fire" but
not wholly reserved and applicable to any particular religion or ethnic
group?
<heavy sigh>
Did you read the Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary
entries for “holocaust” given previously?
... I am asking what you mean by the term! do you accept
"holocaust" in your useage applies not only to Jews?
I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Dictionary terms change dependent on useage.
Some don't. Certainly the definitions from 2006 and 2008 haven't had
time.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Here they are again. Read
them slowly and carefully.
... What do you mean by the term? Does "holocaust" IN
YOUR OPINION apply only to jews or to others as well?
I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by Mavisbeacon
This time, make sure you understand them.
It will save you the trouble of asking the same question over and over
again.
Merriam Webster
[snip]
American Heritage Dictionary
hol-o-caust
[snip]
That was certainly wishful thinking.
Post by Mavisbeacon
when you say "holocaust" do you accept that it does not only apply to Jews?
Third iteration: I accept the dictionary definitions. Here they are
again. Print them out so that you can refer to them as needed.

Merriam Webster
ho-lo-caust
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially
through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a
often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and
especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with
the b: a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE

American Heritage Dictionary
hol-o-caust
NOUN:
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life,
especially by fire.
2
a. Holocaust
The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War
II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to
that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy
annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip freedictionary Usage Panel debate]
... ô'â was first used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of Jews in 1939, but
the phrase ha-ô'â ("the catastrophe") became established only after World
War II. Holocaust has also been used to translate urbn ("destruction"),
another Hebrew word used to summarize the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.
You must have missed the above sentence from your freedictionary.com
quote.
..."After WWII! which is AFTER 1945 . But my impression was it became
established in the 1950s. which is AFTER the state of Israel.
The link to the site you provided answers your question. You should
read it.
My impression was correct as far as I can see!
That may be part of your trouble.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you are so sure i was not
then QUOTE FROM THE SITE which you claim is so clear about it and don't
patronise others. You may as well say "it is in the Bible somewhere go and
read it" If YOU make a claim it is for YOU to support it! Since you claim
the answer it there then all you have to do is cite it!
I'm not the one making absurd claims, and running in circles from
them.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Merriam Webster
[snip]
Re-read the Merriam-Webster definition slowly and carefully.
... I dont need a lecture from you!
That isn't a lecture. That is the answer to the question you keep
repeating.
... I didnt ask for a dictionary definition! I asked whether
when YOU use the term "holocaust" you accept it applies
to non Jews?
Fourth iteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by Mavisbeacon
My comments stanbd up to scrutiny!
Scrutiny by whom?
By any reasonable people who scrutinise claims made by
those who reposting them!
Your comments and claims have been scrutinised, insofar as they're not
unintelligible, and they don't stand up to the scrutiny of anyone with
a modicum of factual knowledge of the period at issue.
Post by Mavisbeacon
And did not the WWII holocaust also include Slavs and
gypsies who were ALSO specifically targeted and wiped out?
The Nazis seem not to have developed any “Final Solution to the Slav
Question” or “Final Solution to Gypsy Question”.
Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering of
other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies,
prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses
and
others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust
continued.
By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.
You miss the point of the last sentence, along with the fact that the
total number of any one of the non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of
itself, does not begin to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the
..."as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!
This comment hardly stands up to scrutiny
It does ! Six is more than five!
Since you can count, tell me this: is one hundred thousand a greater
number, or a lesser, than six millions?
Post by Mavisbeacon
– the reason, no doubt, for
your snippage. -- Your previous statement above, actually a quote you
“By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” The reason your
comment -- that "as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!”
-- does not stand up to scrutiny is as follows. I'll try to put it
simply for you.
Three million Poles killed by the Nazis in the six-year Nazi
occupation of Poland do not equate to “MORE others!”
... Are you saying that the guty who says “By the end of the
war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” was wrong?
Obviously not. Do you have a problem with reading in context?
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip numbers game]
than the six
million Jews killed by the Nazis, though the figure is about the same
as the three million Polish Jews killed by the Nazis.
Two million Soviet POWs killed by the Nazis do not equate to “MORE
others!” than the six million Jews killed by the Nazis.
The estimated 220,000 to 500,000 Gypsies killed by the Nazis do not
equate to “MORE others!” than the six million Jews killed by the
Nazis.
The estimated 80,000 to 200,000 Freemasons, and the 5,000 to 15,000
gays (men), and the 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses killed by the Nazis do
not, in the aggregate, equate to “MORE others!” than the six million
Jews killed by the Nazis
That is what is meant by the statement -- which you snipped,
apparently without reading -- that “the total number of any ONE of
these non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of itself, does not begin
to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis.”
... Yes. the jews were the largest minority grouping. No other
group was a big as the Jews.
“Minority grouping”, as pertains to the subject, is inaccurate, and
irrelevant. Jews were the largest group slaughtered by the Nazis.
That, alone, should tell you something. As should the facts of the
numbers involved.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But they were still LESS than all the others put together!
Not in the aggregate they weren't. That, too, should tell you
something, as should the Nurnberg Laws.
Post by Mavisbeacon
This suggests that if about half were Jews it isnt really
correct to call it a holocaust ONLY of Jews doesn't it?
That statement, if possible, is an more absurd.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as I stated I
wont get into a revisionist numbers game with you!
You started playing your revisionist numbers games when you started
spouting numbers. Like your comments, they don't stand up to scrutiny.
... I quoted from a site! It is a WWII holocaust history site! It clearly
states that about half the people who dies were Jews! But when I say "I wont
get into a numbers game" I think it is a waste of time to say "six million"
and then "maybe 5 million2 or "possibly 3.5 million" . This is the waste of
time arguments revistionists get caught up in.
You got yourself caught up in it when you started spouting your
rubbish about five or six million gypsies, Slavs, Poles, communists,
gays, jehovah witnesses, etc etc etc being the same as six million
Jews killed.

Now read sloooooooowly: None of the previously mentioned groups
suffered the loss of 75% of its members.

Do you understand why that is most relevant, and NOT any “numbers
game”?
Post by Mavisbeacon
By the way I should state I
find nothing wrong with historical revisionism.
In fact it is a good thing.
If it is supported by facts.
Usually, historical revisionism is not supported by facts, and that is
why it's a perjorative term.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But "holocaust revisionism" in the main to me really is usually just a front
for "holocaust denial" and it is a waste of time to rehearse such arguments
which have been soundly thrashed by the likes of the Nizkor Project for
example.
That's something we can agree upon.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I suppose the generl point here is that when you reify the Jews' suffering
and discount others (and I do not doubt for a second that Jews were targeted
throughout history) then you may have problems.
Where on earth did you get the weird notion that I discount the
suffering of the millions of non-Jews slaughtered by the Nazis? And
what is “reify”?
Post by Mavisbeacon
The point you have missed, above all, is that none of these people
would have been murdered had the Nazis not implemented their Final
Solution to the JEWISH Question.
...I didnt miss that point aty all!
Actually, you did, along with most others. I'm sorry you're having so
much trouble grasping them.
... If Poland was not half Jewish and was half black then the Nazis
would have wiped them out too!
No, they wouldn't. And Poland was not half Jewish. Before the war, it
had the largest Jewish population in Europe. But they were by no means
half the population of Poland.
Post by Mavisbeacon
It does not make the death of non jews less significant.
Your comments imply that it did, even though this was never at issue.
My comment that "It does not make the death of non jews less significant."
does not make the death of non Jews less significant!
Reiterating that the number of non-Jews was MORE! than the number of
Jews killed by the Nazis does, in fact, serve to imply that the
slaughter of Europe's Jews was less significant than the slaughter of
non-Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
FYI, on Yom Ha-Shoah, modern Jewish liturgy has prayers for the souls
of the non-Jews murdered by the Nazis, as well as for Jews, and
special prayers for the Righteous Gentiles killed by the Nazis.
... As do CHRISTIANS!
Christians have an equivalent of Yom HaShoah, with a special liturgy
for the souls of the murdered? I had no idea. When is it observed?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Christ after all was a Jew! Not alone that Christ
actually preached forgiving the likes of repentant Nazis which is an even
bigger step! Not just victioms but the actual perpretrators of an act to be
forgiven!
Does that sound to you like Jews are trying to “make the death of non
jews less significant”?
... No but I still havent seen you connent that "the WWII holocaust was not
only of Jews and other non Jewish holocausts happened"
And you're not going to, because, as I stated above, the remark is
absurd.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Does your religious liturgy contain prayers
for Jews murdered by the Nazis?
... Actually more than that! In addition to prayers for Jews and Muslims,
Christian teaching suggests the Nazis be forgiven! Most Christians cant live
up to this example!
Does your religious liturgy contain prayers for Jews murdered by the
Nazis? And what is the Christian equivalent of Yom HaShoah, and the
special liturgy for the souls of murdered Jews?
Post by Mavisbeacon
On the other hand, does the Holocaust have a particularly crucial and
central Jewish element, even though millions of others died? Simply put,
the
answer is yes. The Holocaust, from its conception to its implementation had
a distinctly Jewish aspect to it and, arguably without this Jewish aspect,
there would have been no Holocaust. Most of the non-Jewish people would not
have been killed because the killing machinery would not have been put into
operation.
You do read the quotes you paste, don't you?
...yes.
Re-read the quote from the site you referenced immediately above,
because you appear to have forgotten it.
... I don;t deny the WWII holocaust had a "distinctly Jewish aspect" .
You have been attempting that for several posts, statements to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Post by Mavisbeacon
About
half the dead were Jews mre than any other group. But my point is that if
half the dead were slavs would "holoocaust " mean "killing of slavs by
Nazis" ?
If six million Slavs, rather than six million Jews, had been murdered
by the Nazis, it would still not be a holocaust of Slavs, for the
reason that tens of millions of Slavs remained. 75% of the Slavic
population of Europe would not have been annihilated, as was the case
with 75% of the Jewish population of Europe. Do you understand the
implication of those figures?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Would the WWII holocaust be described as a "distinbctly slavic
aspect" of Nazi policy? would a "final solution to slavs" be a common usage
term?
“Final Solution” is common usage today because that is the term the
Nazis themselves used in relation to their “Jewish Question”. There
was never a “Slavic Question” to which a Final Solution was applied.
The Endlosung – Final Solution – never applied to any people other
than Jews.

Furthermore, immediately prior to the German invasion of Russia,
Heydrich transmitted an oral order to the Einsatsgruppe commanders to
kill all Jews in Soviet territory. Not Slavs—Jews. Heydrich's 2
July1941 letter to senior SS and police chiefs in the newly-conquered
Soviet territories ordered them to execute all Jews in party and state
positions, and to encourage the location populations to pogroms
against Jews. Jews, not Slavs. On 17 July 1941 all Russian Jewish POWs
were ordered summarily executed. Again, the targets were Jews, not
Slavs. One of the Einsatzgruppe A units reported in that in September
1941, they had killed 15, 104 men, 26,243 women, and 15,112 children –
all Jews. Note that that was only ONE unit of ONE Einsatzgruppe.
Post by Mavisbeacon
And let us not forget the slavs were a signicicant minority in any
case.
Slavs numbered in the tens of millions – hardly a “significant
minority”. While it's ghastly when a people numbering in the tens of
millions loses two millions to butchers, it quite hasn't the same
effect as when a people numbering less than nine millions loses six
millions.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also if there were NO JEWS in Poland the Nazis would have rounded up whoever
they decided were "non Aryan" as they did to non Jews!
This is the third time you have said much the same thing, and for the
third time it's wrong. Jews were the Nazis' chief targets. They were
targeted less than three months after the Nazis came to power. The
term Final Solution, Endlosung, was never used in relation to any
peoples other than Jews. And Heydrich's orders to the Einsatzgruppe
commanders, mentioned above, were specific in their targets: kill
Jews.

As for Aryan, Nazis could be fluid with the term. Both the Japanese
and the Arabs were considered “honorary Aryans”.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In this context, two points need to be examined: the particularly Jewish
aspect of the Holocaust and the fact that this neither minimizes nor
trivializes the suffering of others.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
Apparently you missed the following, as well, from the foregoing site
Jews were almost always the first group targeted in any initiative.
There is no doubt that they were the focal point from beginning to
end.
... where did I deny that?
Your question is ridiculous.
... above you state "you missed the following... they were a focal
point" So? WHERE DID I SAY THEY WERE NOT a focal
point? where did I deny Jews were a focus?
Every time you reiterate your “MORE non-Jews were killed”. That is
playing a numbers game, and, at best, it's disingenuous.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Germans set up an office on the "Jewish Question" under the
direction of Adolf Eichmann -- the infamous Bureau IV B 4. The name
used for the ultimate killing action was "the Final Solution of the
Jewish Question," Others were drawn in -- with horrific results -- but
the key object and common thread was always the Jews.
... So? This does not minimise non Jews or mean only Jews suffered.
Now where did *I* deny that?
Whether you deny it or not is not the issue.
Certainly it is, if you are going to imply rubbish such as restricting
the definitions of “holocaust” only to Jews, denying the sufferings of
non-Jews, and similar twaddle.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You claim the germans set up an office to focus on Jews.
No, I don't “claim” that, although that is in fact what they did. The
statement is from the site you said you read.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I point out that because they set up an office to
focus on Jews does not mean non jews didnt suffer!
That is a given, and not at issue. The fact that the Germans had NO
office for handling “the Slavic Question” or “Gypsy Question” -- and
that they had no Slavic or Gypsy Question to begin with – should be
suggestive to you.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I also suggest that oif there were no Jews the Germans would
set up offices to focus on some other minority!
And you are wrong.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact I don't know if they had an office for Slavic or Catholic
affairs. Maybe they did?
They didn't. Their Endlosung – Final Solution – concerned only the
Jews. What they had planned for non-Jewish non-”Aryans” was to either
Germanise them or enslave them.
Post by Mavisbeacon
There are thousands of captured documents dealing with the killing
actions. Almost every one of them deals with the Jews and there are
almost no documents that deal with another target that do not also
address the Jews.
... there are also no orders to kill Jews existing signed by Hitler but i do
not doubt he ordered it!
Not at issue.
... The point is that actual orders by Hitler to kill Jews have
never been found!
And very likely won't be. Heydrich's order to kill all Jews in Soviet
territory was verbally transmitted, as were other similar orders, and
the decisions of the Wannasee Conference weren't published.
Post by Mavisbeacon
So what? I dont doubt for a moment he did order it! Do you? Likewise
I dont doubt for a moment he ordered the killing of slavs or gypsies! you
hawever do doubt that since you make a special case above for only Jews!
I'm not the one making a special case for Jews: the Nazis themselves
did that.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Einsatzgruppen reports almost always separate
out the Jews from the other people shot, going so far as to break down
the Jews by age and gender (http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-
einsatz).
... and you assert that makes the Jews "special" ? In what way?
You were the one who posted the link to the Holocaust History site.
Read it.
... I accept the Nazis focused on Jews. But this didnt mean that they
neglected others!
Others may well have wished they had, but that's beside the point.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Maybe Jews were an easy target. they were readily
idebntified by names businesses etc.
Maybe that's why the Catholic church was so virulently anti-Semitic
over the centuries: Jews were an easy target, and easily identifiable
by names and businesses.
Post by Mavisbeacon
when Hitler was finished with them he no doubt planned to
get rid of other groups as well. Disabled people, homosexuals
etc.
The Nazis were killing member of those groups while they were killing
Jews. In fact, they were moving against congenitally disabled people
several months after first moving against Jews. In one pre-war year
alone, some 56,000 non-Jewish German citizens were sterilised for no
other reason than that they were congenitally disabled. That means
that if you were a non-Jewish German boy born with a club foot, or a
non-Jewish German girl with a harelip, the Nazis cut off your balls or
hoicked out your ovaries so you couldn't breed, and, theoretically,
produce more club-footed, harelipped Aryans to demean the Master Race.
IIRC, the number of sterilised non-Jewish Aryan German citizens
reached a million before the end of the Nazi regime.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I don't doubt they were targeted but so were others.
That was never at issue, except, it seems, in your mind. The fact
remains that none of the groups mentioned above were targeted to the
extent that Jews were targeted from the beginning.
... Yes. But as you pointed out Jews were the largest minority grouping!
Jews wre the largest grouping, period, and always the focal point.
And, as has been pointed out several times, the Final Solution refers
ONLY to the “Jewish Question”. There was never an equivalent
“Question” for any other group targeted by the Nazis.
Post by Mavisbeacon
That is another of
the several points you keep missing. It's also a point which is
clearly set out in the Holocaust History site you referenced.
If jews didnt live in Poland
and Mongols did or arabs I dod not doubt the Nazis would have
killed them instead. The Jews were a scapegoat.
If, as you state, the Jews were a scapegoat, then it follows that it
wouldn't have mattered if Jews lived in Poland or not. Had Mongols or
Arabs lived in Poland instead of Jews, the Nazis would not have killed
them, since they were not scapegoats, as Jews were;
... I dont accept that!
Then you don't accept historical fact. Mongols – or, at least, the
Japanese – and the Arabs were honorary Aryans.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The nazis wanted a land grab of Poland and wanted to
remove the Population to resettle it with their pown population.
They had no intention of removing the entire Polish population. Just
the “undesirable” elements. They planned to keep the remainder on as
slave labour for the Master Race.
Post by Mavisbeacon
this has happened elsewhere. The difference is the "success" of the Nazi plan!
There have been population transfers throughout history. The Khedive
of Egypt was quite successful in the 1830s, when he invaded and
occupied Palestine (southern Syria, has it was known then), drove out
or expelled much of the population, then replaced them with
Egyptians.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Any
"non Aryans" would have been targeted. If Poland had no Jews but other "non
Aryans" they would have wiped them out.
They wouldn't. As above, the Nazis could be quite fluid about who was
an Aryan and who was not. Beginning in 1933, “non-Aryan” was a
euphemism for Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But unless one particular non aryan
group of these was about half the populatpoin one might not alss it a
"slavic" or "gypsy" holocaust. Maybe you have given me the answer in that!
I don't understand this.
Post by Mavisbeacon
the Arabs were the
Nazis' allies, and had been since 1937.
...so were the communists in Russia! So what?
They weren't. Communists were anathema to the Nazis, even after the
August 1939 pact between Russia and Germany.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Palestinian Arabs were active
in promulgating Nazi propaganda, and their leadership spent the war
years in Berlin, where they established, among other things, three all-
Muslim Waffen-SS legions. Syria and Lebanon were under Vichy rule, and
Arabs there fought the Allies. The Egyptian government provided
intelligence on British military movements in North Africa, and there
was a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq. So, no, the Nazis would not have gone for
the Arabs if they were in Poland. In fact, they escorted the Palestine
Arab leadership on a tour of the death camps, which they intended to
establish in Palestine, once the British were driven out.
... good point! but what iof the Jews were not in Poland and the Arabs were!
then the nazis would have non Aryan arab neighbous and hate them instead of
Jews.
Not at all. The Arabs would still have been anti-British, and
therefore honorary Aryans. Moreover, they would have kissed the Nazis'
collective ass, like they did all through WWII. They loved Hitler, and
they still love Hitler. He was their Abu Ali, and the Arabic language
translation of Mein Kampf remains a perennial bestseller amongst
Arabs.
Post by Mavisbeacon
One would also have to include Arabs instead of Jews in Germany in the
1920s and 1930s. Mind you isnt that like Germany today? They have all these
Turkish workers that came in over the last 50 years! And who are the people
that hates them the most in Germany? The National Front!
Turks aren't Arabs. German workers hate them because they feel they're
taking their jobs. The Dutch don't care for them either, as they
insist that the Netherlands abandon their traditions and embrace
Muslim traditions instead. A similar situation holds in Russia today
for Muslims from Central Asia.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip - sorry i have to go cant finish this now]
I'll just bet you're not.
... Well you would be betting wrong! Please don't question my integrity! I
am honestly answering you . If I have to do other things as well then I am
sorry if I cant continue. But If you suggest I am not sorry then you are
making a personal attack on my honesty.
In that case, I apologise for getting testy.

Actually, however testy either of us may get, this is one of the very
few interesting threads in this NG.
Post by Mavisbeacon
When you feel up to addressing what you snipped – if you ever do --
here it is again. Per the advice you snipped, you might want to read a
few of the articles on that site. It might save you the trouble of
repeating the same questions ad nauseam.
... If you made another quip like that and suggest I am dishonest or
ignorant without actually putting forward what your point is then there is
no point in continuing! If you have something to say than SAY IT! Dont
suggest that "it is all on the site" like some fundamentalist Christian's
"it is all in the Bible" . cite chapter and verse and then explain the
quotation you use in your own words!
Quit the patronising "If you only knew..." comments!
What “If you only knew....” comments are those? Suggesting that you
read the site you referenced isn't the same as some dumb fundy tootle
about “it's all in the bible”. (Usually, when a fundy says that, you
can be sure it isn't.) But I do think you should read more of the
articles on the holocaust-history site.
Post by Mavisbeacon
------------------------------------------------
[snip restored]
And the Report 51, submitted by Himmler to Hitler in 1943,
breaks down the victims into a variety of categories (bandits,
partisans, etc.), but only lists the Jews as "Jews executed."
Finally, the Korherr Report is entitled "The Final Solution of the
European Jewish Question: A statistical report," and once again,
addresses virtually only the Jews.
... And that is significant ...because???
Are you joking?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Do you believe Hitler ordered the killing of Jews? = YES YOU DO!
DO you have ANy PAPER REFERENCE ? = no you dont!
Does that mean Hitler didnt order it? = NO IT DOES NOT!
So if there is no papers about non jews (which were not focused on as much
and there were lessof anyway)
Does that mean no such ideas, concepts, orders, reports etc ever existed? =
NO it doesnt!
What are you going on about now? Of course Hitler ordered the killing
of Jews. And of course he ordered the killings of non-Jews. It's
immaterial whether any “papers” exist or not showing that Shitler
personally ordered the killings of Jews -- it's inconceivable that it
would have taken place without his orders, or without his knowledge,
as some revisionists try to argue. The rant is ridiculous.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Hitler said before the outbreak of the war that if there were another
war, he would annihilate the Jews.
... Hitler in Mein Kampf refers also to the extermination of Marxism. In
fact while he links Jews and Marxism in palces, in others he specifically
refers to the threat of Marxism in trying to destroy "non jewish national
states" [ page 140]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3200921/-Adolf-Hitler-Mein-Kampf
Ergo, his chief targets were Jews. He believed Jews were responsible
for communism.
Post by Mavisbeacon
He also refers to Austrian slavs and how he reacted with glee to the death
of slavic habsburg rulers (Archduke ferdinand in Particular I believe).
The reference is more than likely the 28th June 1914 assassination of
Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria by the Serbian terrorist Gavrilo
Princep. You do know the significance of the Archduke's assassination,
don't you? Serbs were Slavs. Austrians, like Hitler, were not Slavs.
The Hapsburgs were a royal German house, not Slavic. If you have
information which contradicts any of this, please produce it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
He said during the war that he was
in the process of annihilating the Jews. And he said in his Testament
that he had done exactly what he had said he would do.
... I dont doubt jews were the main focus of Nazis because they were the
largest group even if they were a minority group.
You have been insinuating the opposite.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Let me put it this way.
sup[pose the US didnt enter the War and Germany killed all the Jews. do you
think the Nazis would stop then? dont you believe they would resettle Poland
and then move on to "rootingout" all the other "non aryans". Jews are
significant in this sence because they were FIRST! not BETTER just the FIRST
in line for execution! That doesnt mean the second in line ot the last was
any less unjustified or targeted!
Let me put it another way: until you've read more history, you're
better off leaving What-Might-Have-Been to writers like Gregory
Benford, Frederick Pohl, Harry Turtledove, Gregory Benford, Barry
Malzberg, Philip Dick, and the like. They do it superlatively.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The ultimate aim and the primary target never varied. Others were
murdered in the course of the Final Solution, e.g. Gypsies, Russian
POWs, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on, but the first and
constant target was always the Jews. The Final Solution was intended
for the Jews, was about the Jews and chiefly affected the Jews. There
is no denying that, without the Jews, there is no Final Solution.
... I dont accept that.
Then you don't accept historical fact.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I accept that the conditions arise out of centuries
which you can not change but if Hitler had succeeded and ther was only a few
Jews in the whole world and a neo Nazi group became powerful in germany
today they would probably mbe more interested in attacking Turks than Jews.
In fact, they would not.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact are not all the Russian Neo Nazis like this?
A question like that doesn't deserve a response.
Post by Mavisbeacon
To minimize or trivialize the "Jewishness" of the Final Solution is
to seriously understate,
...wher did I tirvialise Jewishness?
The “Jewishness of the Final Solution.” Read on, and try to keep it in
context with what you snipped.

[snip restored]
Post by Mavisbeacon
if not, unintentionally perhaps, deny its
essence. This does not mean that the suffering of other groups is to
be ignored; on the contrary, it was terrible. But without the
Holocaust, without the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", the
others live. The term "holocaust" was coined to describe the uniquely
Jewish aspect of the Final Solution. It does not seek to negate the
suffering of the other victims.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
Note the final sentences:
THE TERM "HOLOCAUST" WAS COINED TO
DESCRIBE THE UNIQUELY JEWISH ASPECT
OF THE FINAL SOLUTION. IT DOES NOT SEEK
TO NEGATE THE SUFFERING OF THE OTHER
VICTIMS.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/

Read also the Jewish Virtual Library's section on the Holocaust, which
contains
sections on the Nazi massacres of non-Jews, the links to which were
previously provided you. See, for example, the sections on:
Gypsies
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gypsytoc.html
Homosexuals
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gay.html
Jehovah’s Witnesses
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jehovah.html
Post by Mavisbeacon
Neither group was
wiped out, nor were either on the agenda of the Wanasee Conference, or
ever targeted to be wiped out.
...as many as 6 million of these people had been killed, along
with between 5 and 6 million Jews.
I read the quote you provided. Did you?
... yes. And I do nopt deny Jews wer the largest minority larger than any
other group of victims. But MORE non Jews were killed. And other holocausts
of non Jews have happened. And yet the term "holocaust" is usually only
associated with WWII Jews. Which is where we came into this.
It's where YOU came in. And it's where you're still stuck. You
yourself gave the reason why can't move past it, and the reason is
this: “My impression was correct as far as I can see!” You think YOUR
impression is correct as far as YOU can see. Try to see a bit farther
than that.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You see I dont
hear people say as I might "the WWII planned Nazi massacre of people such as
gypsies and slavs and of which the largest target by far (in fact about half
of the entire number of people killed) were Jews who, being the largest
minority and easliy identified were singled out for specific identifiation
by Nazi death squads and usually became the first people to be rounded up
for the death camps"
The reason you don't hear people saying this, and in all likelihood
probably won't, is that it's partly your unfounded and subjective
opinion, partly a muddle, but mostly it's absurd.
Post by Mavisbeacon
This is not to say that the Nazis didn't have it out for certain non-
Jewish Europeans. They planned to exterminate the Poles, whom they
considered almost as subhuman as Jews; in addition to the three
million Polish Jews slaughtered by the Nazis, three million non-Jewish
Poles also perished. Slavs – specifically Russians - were also
considered less than human, and were so brutally treated in German POW
camps that an estimated two millions perished. For other “non-Aryan”
Europeans, IIRC, the general plan was to “Germanize” those they could,
and use those they could not as slave labour. But there was nothing on
the level of “the planned extermination and destruction of the Jewish
race.”
“Until 1940 the general policy within the section was to settle the
Jewish Question in Germany and in areas occupied by Germany by means
of a planned emigration. The second phase, after that date, was the
concentration of all Jews, in Poland and in other territories occupied
by Germany in the East, in ghettos. This period lasted approximately
until the beginning of 1942. The third period was the so-called "Final
Solution" of the Jewish question - that is, the planned extermination
and destruction of the Jewish race....I learned of such an order for
the first time from Eichmann in the summer of 1942.” Testimony of
Dieter Wisliceny, Nuremberg 1946
No comment?
... As you might say. I commented above. why dont you re read it?
Point it out. I can't keep track of all of them.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The "phase I" exclusion of Jews was I believe also accompanied
by the exclusion of others.
Then you believe wrongly, as shown by the testimony of Eichmann's
aide, that is: “Until 1940 the general policy within the section was
to settle THE JEWISH QUESTION in Germany and in areas occupied by
Germany by means of a planned emigration. That “planned emigration”
was the forced emigration of Jews. Less than than three months after
the Nazis came to power, a national boycott of all Jewish businesses
and professions waws instigated. Legislation followed a week later (7
April 1933) which removed Jewish officials of national, state, and
municipal government, along with Jewish notaries, teachers, and other
semi-public servants. Jewish businesses were liquidated, and Jewish
doctors and lawyers barred from practicing. The Nurnberg Laws of 1935
stripped all Jewish citizens – and all citizens with one Jewish
grandparent – of their citizenship, and prohibited non-Jews from
marrying Jews. After the aunschluss, the same laws were extended to
Austria.

That was the beginning of the “phase I exclusion of Jews”. Whatever
you may believe, it was not “accompanied by the exclusion of others.”
There was great pressure on Protestant and Catholic churches, which
the Vatican attempted to relieve by signing a concordant with the
German government whereby all diocesan appointments were to be made
only after consultation with the Reich, and Catholic clergy was
prohibited from taking part in politics. None of it was on a par with
the disabilities inflicted on German and Austrian Jews, and none of it
had a thing to do with Slavs, gypies, Poles, etc.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Look let me get a few things straight here.
You don't know me.
So please don't assume to lecture me.
Ill put you straight on a few things from my perspective.
I don't particularly like the Israeli government positon on many issues.
Neither do the Israelis who used to post here, and those who still
post here.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I am not a "yes man".
I don't go with what authotities say.
I believe peoippe should think for themselves according t logic and reason.
Logic and reason were sorely lacking in the period under discussion,
except in an extremely twisted manner. That is one of the points
you're not taking into consideration.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Now people will say "the jews control the media"
but taking the US as an example the Arabs have VAST media control. ( I can
cite examples from history if you want but suffice it to say that is a valid
opinion)
Before I agree with you – and at this point, I don't disagree with you
– I'd have to check into that. I haven't considered it before. But I
have a feeling you may be right.

I'm interested to know what brings you to the conclusion that Arabs
have vast media control? It wouldn't surprise me, though. The Saudi
royals, for example, are substantial stockholders in the Disney
corporation.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I am neutral.
I am not a holocaust denier.
I have had several exchanges with holocaust deniers on usenet pointing out
their weak arguments.
Good for you! I just ignore the turds.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I think people believe the Nazis had and ideology and a philosophy which they
adhered to which entailed hating jews slavs etc. But have you considered
thet most Nazis didnt really care about any ideology as long as they got
rich and powerful? This is whay many of them so easily jumped over to
serving communists (who according to "ideology" were as vile as Jews ) or to
working for the Allied as spies. They were along for the ride.
You are grasping at straws. What, exactly, is your point?
... The point of a "final solution" or a plan. most Nazis werent
"indoctrinated"
[snip]
You just hit on something which is among the more astonishing aspects
of the Holocaust, and that is that most of the atrocities weren't
carried out by Nazi party members, or the German army, but by ordinary
citizens. No indoctrination was necessary. They went after Jews
because they hated Jews; once having tasted blood, so to speak, there
was no problem in going after other victims. Incredible, isn't it?

One of the more chilling aspects, at least to me, occurred when the
Hungarian government was in the process of rounding up Hungarian Jews
and shipping them to the death camps. Since they were required to pay
a part of the costs of transport, they argued for a special group
discount. They deserved one, they felt, since they were packing so
many Jews into the trains, well above the usual numbers that qualified
for group discounts. Therefore, they wanted a special group discount.
Can you imagine?
Post by Mavisbeacon
“By this time the formula 'Final Solution for the Jewish Question' had
taken on a new meaning: liquidation. In this new sense we discussed it
at a special conference on January 20, 1942 in the Wanasee section of
Berlin...After the conference, as I recall, Heydrich, Muller and your
humble servant sat cozily around a fireplace...We all had drinks then.
We sang songs. After a while we got up on the chairs and drank a
toast, then on the table and then round and round--on the chairs and
on the table again.” Testimony of Adolf Eichmann, 1961
Eichmann, et al seemed to have had a good time planning the third
phase of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question.
...yes but net seething with rage like the usual portrayal of Hitler etc.
Do you actually think that matters?
... In the sense that Nazis acted on personal power grabs rather than an
ideology i think it is central to the issue.
The Wannasee Conference wasn't a personal power grab, and they were
definitely acting on an ideology. It was the ideology of Mein Kampf
and the Final Solution.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But one could equate the term "holocaust" with
[snip]
...Yes because it refers to the Latin translation of Jewish
sacrifices by making burnt offerings.
Again, you are grasping at straws.
... I dont think so. How?
I missed the previous references.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I don't deny the term traces it origins to Jewish customs of making
offerings but that does not mean the offerings were PEOPLE!
Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston
I already gave the etymology. Do these semantic antics have a point?
Well I have not seen yo to this point state "holocaust" applies to non
jews.
Do you accept it does?
For the fifth, and final, time, I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact,
however, the Armenian and Rwandan genocides are designated with the
Holocaust as three of the four instances of genocide in the 20th
century.
I missed the Kymer Rouge.
That's Khmer Rouge.
...thats an english translation for an Oriental name
So what? In English, it's Khmer Rouge.
Post by Mavisbeacon
you might also haard of Kahdaffi and Gadaffi and al queda and Khyda
but I think despire spelling falmes people knew what I meant
Thank you for the correction . I will try to use "Khymer" from now on.
And I hope if I type "holokost" you will know what I mean.
[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
I may be wrong, but I don't recall that the English planned the
deliberate destruction of the Irish people,
..."Plantation" was the policy. It amounted to the same.
It didn't, and it's idiotic to suggest it did.
...Can you justify that remark by supporting it with evidence?
I might, if it were at issue, but it's not, and astronomically way off
topic for SCJ.
Post by Mavisbeacon
or that they built
concentration camps and gas chambers to exterminate all the Irish.
...No they wouldnt have done that because they hadnt the territory or the
infrastructure.
They hadn't the desire either.
...Can you justify that remark by supporting it with evidence?
Since you are the one who stated that the Irish famine was the same as
the holocaust, it's up to you to produce some English doctrine
equivalent to the Endlosung. But post it to soc.culture.irish, as it's
off topic for soc.culture.jewish.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Another point you miss is that the Irish potato famine is neither at
issue nor relevant.
[snip]
...
[snip]
The
potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine didn't reduce
Ireland's then-population of 8.5 million to less than 2 million, as
the Nazi Final Solution did for the Jews of Europe, did it?
... No only to 3 million. the population continued to decline to about 3
million in 1970 from which time it has been growing.
Comparing "only two million" Irish to "6.5 million Jews" is a bit like
saying "not 6.5 million but more probably 5 million Jews". It is a pointless
discussion when millions were certainly involved.
When discussing the planned extermination of a people, it certainly
it. But if you are going to trot in a false analogy, like that of the
Irish potato famine to the Holocaust, the numbers do become relevant.
Once again: The potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine
claimed almost a million casualties over seven years; another 1.6
million emigrated, mostly to America. That is not comparable to the
deliberate slaughter of six millions.
And if the
English looked down on the Irish as “ignorant slave labour to support
their economic base,” it makes little sense for them to have
deliberately annihilated that economic base.
... Yeah. Like the Nazis should have kept Jewish slaves instead of kiling
them? The killing of the Jews was not sensible either but that doesn't
justify either killing them or slavery.
Again, you miss the point: the Nazis were not interested in Jews as
an
“ignorant slave labour to support their economic base”. They were
interested in annihilating every Jewish man, woman, and child.
[snip potato famine stuff]
[snip the rest as you snipped famine stuff]
Snippage of relevant facts restored, in case you care to face them and
address them.
Post by Mavisbeacon
...Many jews were "driven out" in the 1930 just as Irish were in the 1830s.
But the poorer elements couldnt go.
Evidently the Jewish “poorer elements” who “couldn't go” were the
majority; only 25% of European Jews survived the Nazis. The comparison
with the Irish isn't even up on the the apples and oranges level.
... Im not getting into a revisionist numbers game.
Nevertheless, that's what you've been doing.
[snip more potato famine stuff]
They didn’t. They couldn't escape by emigrating
to Palestine either, after the British, at the behest of Nazi
Germany's Palestine Arab allies, barred them from doing so beginning
in 1939.
90% of Europe's Jews did not perish as a result of diseases to which
they had no immunity, as did “native Americans”, to use the current PC
phrase,
diseases like smallpox specifically spread for example by "donating"
blankets to native Indians which were infested with smallpox?
90% of the Indian population of the Americas died from disease-
infested blankets?
Again that is a numbers game.
It's the game you've initiated, along with your semantic antics.
whose estimated population at the time of Columbus's arrival,
in the entire Western Hemisphere, did not exceed 12 million, with the
bulk of the population being located in what became Latin America.
(There is no need, at this point, to go into the slave labor camps the
Spanish set up for the Indians, on which the Germans later based their
concentration camps.)
... Or the ones set up by the British in south africa during the Boer War.
Your point?
...no YOURS .
Excuse me for not being more clear. What I meant was: “What is your
point in your attempts to equate Kitchener's South African
concentration camps for the Boers with the German concentration
camps?” The Brits established concentration camps on Cyprus, too: in
1947-48, for Jews. Neither is equivalent to the German concentration
camps, and certainly not to the death factories
YOU brought up concentration camps being based on earlier
examples. I just gave you the example of the British "concentration camp"
system. Invented by the British.
That British “invention” was ignored by the Germans; the latter based
their slave labor camps those created by the Spanish in the Americas
for Indians. Your “examples” are tantamount to arguing that because
an apple and a rubber ball are red, round, shiny and smooth, the one
is as good to eat as the other.
Others might also add
- pogroms by stalin
-Mao's Cultural revolution
-The Congo
Others might, but that's their choice.
.. i wouldnt. But "holocaust" is taken today to mean specifically only Jews
in WWII. Why?
As capitalized – the Holocaust – it refers to the deliberate
destruction of 75% of the Jews of Europe.
... Yes but other holocausts did happen.
I believe I stated as much in previous posts, as well as in the
The Final Solution had no political or economic justification; it was
an end in itself. Jews were the ONLY people slaughtered by the Nazis
for simply existing.
None of the non-Jewish groups who were murdered by the Nazis, to
which
you have alluded, were the focus of any "Final Solution". Only Jews
were targeted by the Nazis for utter annihiliation.
Exterminating Jews wasn't a PART of the German war effort -- it was
the same. No German resources which could have been used in the war
were ever diverted to slaughter gypsies, Slavs, gays, Jehovah's
Witnesses, political dissidents, etc. But they were diverted for the
slaughter of Jews. For example, a contributory factor to Rommel's
defeat by the British was lack of needed materiel; it was slow to
arrive, or failed to arrive in time, because necessary transport had
been diverted to transport Jews to the death camps. The same does not
hold for any of the other peoples murdered by the Nazis.
There are other examples fromn history but over the last five hundred
years
I would say the first three above probably qualify as "holocaust"
And it would be as incorrect as equating Ireland’s potato famine with
the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews.
... The destruction of Irish people was known and planned. In fact going
back to pre 1800 you have Lords in Parliamenbt like Bolton (now has a
street
in dublin named after him) who tried to introduce a law to Castrate
Catholic
Priests! It was voted down because it was silly.
So, the English planned the deliberate destruction of the Irish by a)
importing potatoes, so that the population increased dramatically;
then b) introducing a potato blight to starve that increased
population – despite the fact that that population comprised their
“economic base.” That so?
... The "potato famine" as you call it is a misnomer! It was not about the
failure of the potato crop. It was about economics and politics.
And the Nazi extermination of Europe's Jews was not about politics or
economics. Moreover, as the British never targeted the Irish for
utter
annihilation, as the Nazis did the Jews, your persiflage on the Irish
potato famine constitutes a false analogy, and utterly irrelevant.
You
would do better to bring up the Armenian Genocide, or the Khmer
Rouge,
or the Rwandan Genocides by way of comparisons.
Catholic Priests are meant
to be celebate anyway.
But weren't in the past, and aren't today.
[snip irrelevancy]
... The most damage done by Christians in the US was by Protestants.
Fundamentalists like the ones they have today!
Let's let that one go, except to point out that the obvious fact that
neither the US nor American Protestants are relevant to the laws
enacted by Spanish Catholics upon the Indian population of the
Americas – note the plural – nor to the functioning of the
Inquisition in the Americas.
The Spanishg Inquisition was a meaner and not Vatican led endeavour like the
much more placid Italian Inquisition which had a logical reason for being.
Galileo's views on the Roman Inquisition, along with those of the
Albigensians and the Knights Templar, probably differed.
...as you are making it a number game
Actually, you are the one making a “numbers game”, in addition to
your
semantic antics. I asked you several times what your point was. You
failed to respond, other than with some utter irrelevancy about some
alleged British Final Solution to the Irish Question.
ill ask you How many American natives
were killed by the Spanish Inquisition?
That is tantamount to my asking you if you've stopped beating your
spouse, and is, in any case, irrelevant.
In fact the failed Plantation of Munster and Leix/ Offaly Kings
county/Queens County witnessed about 1000 Catholic families dispossessed
Dispossession is not tantamount to a planned and deliberate genocide.
and
presued to the sea and hunted down like dogs! Their lands were then given
over to Protestant settlers. Thi is similar to the Nazi soultion. the Nazis
were happy to have the Jews as slaves and re settle Poland with "Germanic
people". but when they were losing the war they decided on the "final
solution" of extermination. although they may have planned it earlier.
This, too, doesn't quite make the apples-and-oranges grade.
...It does when you are talking about a quarter of the controlled country -
Yet again, you miss the point, and call into serious question any
knowledge of recent history you might possess. It's obvious you are
unaware that the Nazi Solution to the Jewish Question did not
envisage
any Germans being “happy to have the Jews as slaves”, or that the
third phase of the Final Solution was implemented when the Nazis were
at the height of their victories.
Again the numbers game does not apply here.
Except when you're the one playing it, yes?
[snip]
6. Only Palestine Arabs can claim western Palestine as "their land."
... on tyhis I would ask what you mean by "semitic".
It's difficult to see what the definition of “semitic” has to do with
the previous poster's implication that only Palestine Arabs can claim
western Palestine as “their land”.
Well when people are accused of being "anti semites" one has to ask what
"semite" means, no?
Not really, when one can look it up. “Semite” originated in the 18th
century to describe the various peoples of the Middle East, based on
the belief that they descended from Noah's son Shem. “Semitic” is used
by linguists and philologists with regard to language groups. “Anti-
Semitic”,coined in the 19th century, refers specifically to Jews.
... i was aware of the first bit but not of the latter. Thanks for that. Do
you not find it strange that "semitic" means people of a particular region
but "anti semitic" only applies to the Jews of that region?
“Antisemitic” NEVER applied “only” to “Jews of that region”. It was
coined in the 19th century to mean hatred of Jews, and nothing else.
[snip]
In the case of Islam, a phony religious significance, based solely
upon military-political oneupsmanship between rival khalifs during the
Second Islamic Civil War (c 680/683-685/692). After ibn Zubayr seized
Mecca, al-Malik prohibited all pilgrimages to Mecca, declared Har
Bayit the site of Muhammad's dream into as-samawat, and engaged
Byzantine architects to build the mosque of Umar in order to attract
pilgrims -- and their money, in order to deflect it from ibn Zubaydr.
but for
Jews it's our Washington DC. It's our ancient capital, and there is no
reason to give it up or redivide it. Yes, just as there are Jewish
neighborhoods, and Irish neighborhoods, and Italian neighborhoods, and
African American neighborhoods in DC, so Jerusalem has had many
Quarters. But it's the capital of the Jewish nation, and that is the
way it's going to stay.
Ironic, isn't it, that the first modern usage of "Palestinians"
referred to Jews, and now refers to the descendants of Muslim Arabs of
former British Palestine. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem has been
noted throughout the centuries. It's only recently that the connection
has come to be denigrated, due largely to Pseudostinians, their
propaganda, and the ignorant antisemites who support them.
... Well we are back to what "semities" are.
Were we there in the first place?
Yup ... note the phrase "ignorant antisemites "?
I apologize for the redundancy.
... You don't have to. But YOU WERE there in the first place.
I'm sorry the comment sailed over your head. Let me explain it: A
redundancy is a superfluity of words. Ergo, the phrase “ignorant
antisemites” is a redundancy because antisemites are generally
ignorant people.
Indded the jews have been in
the region for thousands of years. The Jewish and christian holy
Scriptures
record it. But so have the other semites - Arabs.
Semitic-speaking Arabs are relative newcomers to the Near East. Prior
to their recent arrival, the region was occupied for millennia by
other Semitic-language speakers, including Amorites, Babylonians,
Assyrians, Aramaeans, Ugarites, Phoenicians, and others.
Hint: “Semite” isn't an ethnic term; it refers rather loosely to
speakers of a Semitic language.
...and to the descendents of these cultures just as modern Jews are -
and some speak yiddish.
Nation States are a recent
concept of the last 200 years really. Though the nations may have existed
the internationally recognised territories didnt!
REcently the Arabs have mooted the Idea of a nation State of "Palestine."
But don't forget only 50 years ago the Jews mooted the same for "Israel".
Jews “mooted the same for Israel” well before only 50 years ago.
... But it was only validated by International UN mandate then!
There was never an UN mandate for Israel, nor any “validation” by the
UN for Israel.
... funny i could have sworn they vote in the general assembly
and have been on the Security council?
Israel's membership in the UN, and its vote in the General Assembly,
no more constitutes some “UN mandate for Israel” than America's
membership constitutes a “UN mandate for America”. Moreover, Israel
has never been a member of the Security Council.
How many other countries get voting rights but are
not recognised by the UN?
I have no idea how many non-member countries of the UN are given the
right to vote in the General Assembly. You tell me, and we'll both
know.
Following WWI, the League of Nations granted the
Mandate for Palestine to the British, as well as the Mandate for
Mesopotamia; France received the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, while
Japan, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries received
Mandates for other territories formerly belonging to the by-then
defunct Ottoman and German Empires. In 1923, Britain partitioned the
Mandate for Palestine and granted the bulk of territory to the
Abdallah son of Husayn, Sheriff of Mecca and Medina; at the same time,
Britain created Iraq from the Mandate for Mesopotamia and bestowed it
on Abdallah's older brother, the Emir Feisal. In 1947, the UN General
Assembly voted to partition the remaining fifth of Palestine into
another Arab state and a Jewish state. The Arabs immediately went on
the warpath to prevent the creation of a Jewish state in the remainder
of Palestine (and, incidentally, to prevent the creation of a second
Arab state in Palestine.)
...In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of
Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
Imagine that.
In
fact, Israel recently celebrated her 60th anniversary as a state.
...Sorry I apologice. I meant 60 not 50. I was thinking in terms of about a
half century.
But
Jews were mooting the esatablishment of a Jewish state in Syria (as
Palestine was previously known) in the first decades of the 19th
century, back when the only “Palestinians” around were the Jews of
Europe.
... Yup. And that was LESS THAN 200 years ago.
Correct, 1844 was LESS THAN 200 years ago.
...Which is what I claimed! Nation states are only about 200 years old at
most!
Wherever did you pick up that bit of fluff?
Look Im not saying the Nazi treatment of the Jews and slavs and gypsies was
the SAME as the British treatment of the Irish
You stated that it was “similar to the Nazi soultion,” which it was
not,
... Oh but it WAS. I showed you the similaraties.
You showed nothing, except that you need to educate yourself a bit
more on the subjects you're attempting to discuss. The British
treatment of the Irish in the 19th century nowhere approaches the
treatment of Jews by the Nazis.
and that “the Nazis
were happy to have the Jews as slaves,” which they were not.
... Oh but they were.
Oh but they were not. The purpose of the Final Solution was not to
elate Germans with Jewish slaves; it was to annihilate every Jewish
man, woman, and child, irrespective of any political or economic
justification. And that is one of the major factors that sets it
apart
from every other example you have touched upon.
You need to go back to the link you gave above –http://www.holocaust-history.org/
-- and reread it carefully.
Deborah
Mavisbeacon
2008-06-24 01:19:22 UTC
Permalink
"***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:209fda26-16c7-4cd2-bb9d-***@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
o>>>>>>You were stating that the “post Israeli state” invented the
Post by Mavisbeacon
“terminology 'jewish holocaust'”.
...No. I was NOT!
See your statement above: “The terminology "jewish holocaust" was a
post Israeli state invention”
Because something happened after something does not mean the first thing
caused the second or was responsibe for it.
Would you mind translating the foregoing into intelligible English,
then explaining its relevance to your statement that “The terminology
"jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”?
... The terminology was used AFTER the Israeli state came to be recognised
by UN nations.
That statement neither translates your comment above, nor does it
explain the relevance of that comment to your claim that “The
terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”.
yes it does - the term was used AFTER the Israeli State came to be is what
it means.
Would you mind translating that last into intelligible English?
Post by Mavisbeacon
And it is backed up by the references given with suggests
"holocaust" referring exclusively to Jews killed by Nazis
was a 1950s usage.
A bit later than 1950s usage, in case you hadn't noticed.

... I had. and I specifically referred to :
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861676474/holocaust.html
which states: " The specific application to the mass
murder of the Jews by the Nazis during World War II was introduced by
historians during the 1950s, ..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In any case,
you were given several references – several times – showing that the
word holocaust as referring exclusively to the killing of Jews was
used in a chronicle of 1192.

... No I waa not given several references! I was give ONE reference to this
1192 event as far as I am aware. And are you claiming that "holocaust" means
"referring exclusively to the killing of Jews"? Yes or no?


Apart from that, go and read the
“references” to which you refer on the Holocaust-History site you
referenced. Then let the dead horse drop.

... You seem not to be able to answer a straight question. Do you accept
"holocaust" refers to non jews or not?
Do you accept that about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust"
were non Jews?

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
What, exactly, are you trying to say here? That “WWII killing of Jews
didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it”? That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?
.no that the term for the WWII killing of jews "holocaust" used to
exclusively refer to killing of Jews during WWII became a general
interpretation of twhat "holocaust" means.
Do you need the dictionary definitions provided a third time, or can
you find them for yourself?

... Can you answer a straight question? Do you accept "holocaust" refers to
non jews or not?
Do you accept that about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust"
were non Jews?
I mean what the term as USED BY YOU means.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as I pointed out
1. Holocausts existed BEFORE WWII and were NOT exclusly to do with Jews.
2. The WWII holocaust was not ONLY of Jews.
1 + 2 = more apotheoses of the obvious.

...Do you accept "holocaust" refers to non jews or not?
Do you accept that about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust"
were non Jews?

Large-scale massacres
certainly existed BEFORE WWII, but few, if any, were referred to as
“the Holocaust”, with the exception of the reference to the 1189
massacres of Jews in England, which were referred to in a chronicle of
1192 as a “holocaust”.

You can stop the repetitious “the WWII holocaust was not ONLY of
Jews”. That is obvious, and has never been in dispute by anyone.

...so you accept "holocaust" refers to non Jews?
Do you accept that about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust"
were non Jews?


And now, would you mind explaining what you meant when you wrote that
the “WWII killing of Jews didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist
AFTER it”?


...I could easily suggest like you that you actually re read the passage but
snce you ask the quwestion I will do my best to honestly answer it.

..,I think you referred to anachronisms. Like Henry II owing a Rolls Royce.
The killing of Jews or anyone else in WWII could only hapopen IN WWII i.e.
when it happened. It refers to a sopecific time period. By definition that
"holocaust" could not happen either before or after WWII. But AFTER is
emphasised because directly after was 1945-1946. Above we note the term
becaum common use only in the early 1950s at the earliest. In fact above you
suggest it was later by stating " A bit later than 1950s usage, in case you
hadn't noticed." So YOUR claim is 1960s at the earliest, which is not
directly after WWII but 15 years after!
Post by Mavisbeacon
That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?
...yes . I restate it above.
Try to restate it more clearly.

...What is it about the restatement you are having problems with?

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
What “phony war”?
The term "phony war" was used by the allies to refer to the German invasion
of the low countries. People thought they wouldnt invade France.
Your pinballing from topic to irrelevancy makes it difficult to
understand what you're trying to get at. At to the Cold War, there is
no equivalent to the “phony war”, as Americans called the period in
the months following the September 1939 declaration of war.

... If you knew what "phony war" meant then why did you ask? And YOU brought
up "cold war" not me so don't accuse me of bringing up other phrases.



The term
was not used by the Allies to refer to the German invasion of the Low
Countries, which came *after* the phony war


... Yes I accept that correction. It was a period of dormancy before the
invasion of France. France of course was invaded when Holland and Belgium
were. Well in the days directly following anyway. I am happy to clarify
that. I meant the months following the outbreak of war in which no large
scale hostility happened.
[snip]

And
although you might regard that period as similar to the Cold War, it
was not.


It is a phrase like "cold war" . It does not mean it is the same as "cold
war" . but there are some similarities. DLack of large scale direct military
engagement; large scale behingd the lines manouvres; belief that a
catastrophic exchange would not happen because it would be just that. they
are similarities.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But when we discuss the "holocaust" people single out jews.
That is because the majority of people singled out by the Nazis were
Jews.
.apparently the largest single MINORITY according to the figures given.
No, the MAJORITY of the peoples slaughtered by the Nazis during the
Holocaust.

Well I wont get into a numbers game but it is still "about half".
Post by Mavisbeacon
which saiod I believe five to six million jews and six million OTHERS. But
so what. even if it was 80 percent Jews and 20 percent others e.g. slavs
surely it is also a holocaust of Savs?
75% of Europe's Slavic population was not annihilated by the Nazis.

... So if 75 percent of Jehovas Witnessess were ?

Do
you understand why the figures here are relevant, or do you require a
more simplistic explanation?


... I understand that Jews suffered horribly under Nazism. And that they
were the first major target. But non Jews suffered too. About as many of
them as Jews well killed.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact others also died and were targeted.
Apotheosis of the obvious.
...? YOU are the one asking me to restate about the terminology being a post
Isaeli state useage!
Correct. That is because your statement is ludicrous. The reason it is
ludicrous is because you haven't yet explained what you mean by the
phrase “post Israeli state”.

...Oh buit I have. I think I gave a date for the UN recognition of Israel
and also of the common useage being in the 1950s, which was POST Israeli
State.


Are you implying that the state of Israel
is defunct and has been succeeded by another?

...No Im implying that the term "holocaust" being associated with only Jews
is a 1950s use of the term which is AFTER the state of Israel came to exist.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I didnt reify any argument.
You didn't what any argument?

Reification, hypostatisation, concretism. YOU are the one referring to
"Apotheosis "
Post by Mavisbeacon
And other holocausts happened. this does not take away from
the holocaust against jews as an evil event but it was not unique in the way
the terminology suggests. Other holocausts happened . Indeed other massacres
of Jews happened.
Had you read the quotes you pasted from the site you referenced, as
well as the articles on that site, you would already know that the
20th century Holocaust as pertaining to Jews was, in fact, unique. You
DO read what you cite, don't you?
... ALL Holocausts are unique in some way! Otherwise if they were identical
how would we know the difference except by date? All world wars are also
unique. So?
So, you don't read what you cite. You ought to.

... I do . Don't you accept that all events are unique?
Post by Mavisbeacon
It also is not usually
associated with the coincident massacre of Slavs and Gypsies for example.
But I am fairly sure "holocaust" existed before the Nazis.
I am fairly sure I indicated in a previous post that the term
“holocaust” “existed before the Nazis”, and that it was used as early
as 1192 in relation to the massacres of English Jews instigated by
Richard I.
... Yes but other holocausts which were NOT of Jews happened.
I believe it has already been established that other mass murders have
occurred throughout the centuries.
... and that you would call then "holocausts"?
I used the phrase “medieval holocaust” in a college paper on the
massacres of 1349-1350.

... were these Massacres of NON Jews?


As to others, it would first be necessary to
review the circumstances attending each, since, as you state above,
“ALL Holocausts are unique in some way! Otherwise if they were
identical how would we know the difference except by date?”
Post by Mavisbeacon
You see if you only apply "Holocaust" to WWII jews
then who is reifying the argument?
Who is what the argument?

...what did you mean by ""Apotheosis " then? Elevating to a godlike state of
purity?
Post by Mavisbeacon
I suggest you read the holocaust-
history.org site you referenced earlier, and refrain from cherry-
picking fragments from the entirety.
... I suggest you acknowledge that i backed up the clarification for which
you asked.
You neither backed up any clarification, nor provided any. You merely
provided more muddle.

...Please point out what it is you think I did not backup with the
references I gave.
Care to list any of these references and point out how they have NOT
CLARIFIED the point made?
Post by Mavisbeacon
I note you seem like you don't want to criticise
holocaust-hoistory.org so you now take a different tack and try to assume
that I quote it out of context or don't understand it.
But you quoted it out of context,

...I didnt! I quoted something which stated about half Jews and half non
Jews were victims of the Nazis.

and you have clearly shown that you
don't understand it.

... What I understand is that about half Jews and half non Jews were victims
of the Nazis. What problem do you have with that?
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you suggest I "cherry picked" something from it then care to point out
how my action is as you claim "cherry picking" ? In fact I argue against
deification or cherrypicking of events as pertaining to just one subsection
of people don't I?
No.

... I do! I point out that non Jews also suffer and not ONLY one subsection
of victims i.e. Jews.


And I'm unaware of when, exactly, you presented an argument
against, or even mentioned, the deification of anyone.

...what did you mean by ""Apotheosis " then? You accused me of it didnt you?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also, you were re-stating, with
qualification, a previous poster's claim of “lots” of “other
holocausts”.
... No. I was't!
[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
... Yes! Which in the actual reply says SEVERAL not LOTS!
I stated SEVERAL and not lots!
I believe that has been established. Several times. Why are you so
defensive about it?


Because you emphasised it! YOU are the one who suggested I agreed with THIS
POINT. I point out I DIDNT agree. I immediately pointed out what I meant and
it depends on what they meant.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You then proceeded to point out, as examples of what “one could equate
the term "holocaust" with” a) - native Americans' b) - The Irish under
the English Rule; c) - the armenians; d) -the Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda; e)
- pogroms by stalin; f) -Mao's Cultural revolution; and g) -The Congo.
... I later added Pol Pot's Kymer Rouge.
If you say so.

... It is TRUE whether i say so or not1 anyone can check! It is not true
BECAUSE I say so! I do not argue from Authority. It is a checkable FACT.
Post by Mavisbeacon
While your scattershot hit a few targets, as scattershot is bound to
do, you were generally wrong.
... Look either "holocaust" applies only to Jews in WWII or it doesent!
Wrong again. The holocaust-history.org site you referenced previously
can tell you why.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If I
give 100 examples or suggestions and even if only one is an example
ADDITIONAL to Jews in WWII there is no suggestion of the other 99 being
generally wrong. If ONE other is right then the term "holocaust" does not
apply ONLY TO JEWS!
I believe it has been a long established fact that the Holocaust was
restricted only to Jews.

... The plan of the Nazis was NOT restricted to Jews. the first target was
Jews as was most of their planning. They would not have stopped there and
the FACT that they in fact killed as many or more non Jews proves it! As
does the FACT that neo nazis have particular hatred of Muslims and Turks.
This does not detract from the fact that the Nazis planned to wipe out all
the Jews they could.

The holocaust-history.org site you
referenced previously gives a detailed explanation of that, as does
the Jewish Virtual Library's Holocaust section on the victims (non-
Jewish) of the Nazis.

... the point I am making is that when people refer to the "holocaust" of
WWII they may think it resulted in the death of almost entirely jews when in
fact about half were non Jews. Also, because the Nazis had more plans
against Jews is completly meaningless (in terms of a holocaust) unless
they carried out these plans and Jews actually died. so the fact that large
numbers of people were killed IS relevant. but you then have to accept that
the numbers of non Jews were as l;arge as those of Jews and this is
relevant.



[snip]


You pointed it out several times. See the quote above. "There have
been other holocausts. Lots of them" Your response: “There have been.
Depends on what you mean but I would say "several" not "lots".

What is your problem in getting over this? Whatever it is, get over
it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
It depended on what "lots" was as used meant by him !
He's a Jew hater. That given, it's not difficult to see what he meant
by “lots” [of other holocausts].

... I dont know the guy so I have no idea of his attitude to Jews. I am
neutral. I deal with an issue as I see it. If he is indeed a Jew hater that
also does not mean I must never agree with him. I may agree with him or with
you on certain points. I will not be accused of guilt by association.
Post by Mavisbeacon
MY INTERPRETATION was "several". You then reposted what I stated but you
NEVER commented that I had stated "several" and that you accepted I stated
several until just above.
What would you like, a formal engraved acceptance?

... It is not necessary now since you HAVE accepted (for the fiorst time) I
stated "several" and not "lots" above.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You also comment that the several I mentioned
generally WERE NOT "holocausts" as you would accept them but were
"scattershot" applications of the word "holocaust" and in general "wrong"
i.e. they do not serve to fulfill you defoinition of "holocaust"
Wrong again. The examples of “holocausts” given by you were: a)
American Indians b) Irish under the English Rule; c) the Armenian
Genocide; d) the Rwandan Genocide; e) Stalin's pogroms; f) Mao's
Cultural Revolution; and g) The Congo.

... and h) the Khymer Rouge massacres.

AFAIK, the term “holocaust”
isn't generally applied by historians to any of them – note GENERALLY
– with the exception of Winston Churchill, who referred to the
Armenian Genocide as a holocaust.


... BUT THIS IS WHERE WE CAME INTO THIS!
the term "holocaust" existed in the last century and earlier. But
"holocaust" meaning ONLY OF JEWS is a post Israeli State useage i.e. it only
came to be used to refer exclusively to the WWII Jews in the 1950s at the
earliest!
Also one of the references I gave refers to "nuclear holocaust" as the main
useage. It also refers to other
The Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, 2nd ed.Oxford 1989, vol.VII
p.315 sect c.'complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a
great slaughter or massacre' citing examples from 1711, 1833, and 1883
onwards.

Now pay attention: the demise of 90% of the American Indian population
was due to disease, not to massacre.

... disease spread by settlers? sometimes intentionally? Natives allowed to
die. t wouldnt have been necessary for the Germans to round up anyone of
they were suseptable to particular diseases would it?

The demise of one million Irish
people was due (English culpability aside) to famine and the diseases
attendant thereupon, not to massacre,

... there was a MAJOR famine in 1845 but ther were several famines since the
early 1800s. also several Rebellions 1798, 1803 1842 these were put down BY
MILITARY FORCE. When you write "English culpability aside", you sidestep the
issue. One could just as easily state "the lowering of the numbers of Jews
in Europe was (Nazi culpability aside) due to emigration legal changes and
smaller families"

The Armenian, Rwandan, and Cambodian genocides can be termed
“holocausts”, but are generally known as Genocides.

... Why? Because "holocaust" refers only to WWII Jews?

e), f) and g)
above can be termed “holocausts”, but only by the ignorant, because
they are not. The holocaust-history.org site you referenced explains
why.

... really? where?
Post by Mavisbeacon
The only other example given by you not to do with WWII
was one of another group of Jews in history!
You asked a question on earlier usage of the word holocaust, you were
given an answer: holocaust, in the sense of a large-scale massacre,
was used in a chronicle of 1192. It happens that the reference was to
the 1189 massacres of English Jews. It wasn't used again in that
sense, AFAIK, until the 20th century.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You have not stated "holocausts have happened outside of
WWII and they have not been only of Jews"
And I'm not going to state it. It's an absurd remark.

Do you believe the term "holocaust" applies to non Jews outside of WWII?

[snip]


Suggesting that someone reread a source is an indirect, and politer,
way of saying you're wrong, then explaining why you're wrong.

...Where am I wrong?


Since it
goes over your head, I've abandoned it.

... Not much of an explanation of YOUR CLAIM of where I am wrong is it?


Read the holocaust-history.org
site you referenced.


...Show me where I am wrong as you claim.
Post by Mavisbeacon
in lieu if
wracking your mind for a better response, you had better be prepared
to receive the same regarding your own –
... I make frequent typos
Then it ill behooves you to harp on another's, especially as a
sidedodge of the subject at hand.

... I didnt harp on. YOU complained about my use of a source and that I
should read it and in doing so made a typo. I only pointed out if you
suggest I have reading problems then be carefull how you write such claims
since it does not bode well to complain about others reading problems while
writing the same claim incorrectly.
Post by Mavisbeacon
but I dont tell people that something is "obvious"
! I explain what I believe they have missed! If I have missed
something then care to show it to me?
I do. You keep missing it.

... that isnt an explaination. It is a restatement of YOUR claim that I am
wrong without pointing out
1) About what exactly you claim I am wrong ?
2) How the evidence given supports 1
Post by Mavisbeacon
and there are quite a many of
them. I suggest you also take your own advice and be “carefull” over
any accusations you might make – particularly over incidents which
never happened.
... Which incidents "never happened" ? You claim I MISSED
something in a quote! What do you claim I missed?
I didn't.

... You did! you claim I used a reference I didnt understand! You also
sugest I intentionally snipped part of the reference.


You wrote: “carefull when you try to say someone posted
words which mean something else.” If I made an attempt “to say someone
posted words which mean something else,” produce my statement. If not,
don't try to claim I said something which I did not.

My words: >NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"

Your reply :Apparently you missed the part of the quote above

...You
1)suggest it does not actuall mean "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
but that SOMETHING ELSE forom the same source actually contradicts that
2) You suggest I MISSED something.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I point to a word which has roots in Hebrew and which
IS TAKEN TO refer to mass slaughter in WWII.
Wrong again.

...AGAIN? where was i wrong before?

The root of the word holocaust, as previously indicated,
several times, is Greek, not Hebrew.

...The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the
Hebrew word olah as holokauston.
http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/
Journal of Genocide Research 2:1 (2000), 31-63.


... I pointed to a word which has roots in GREEK and which
IS TAKEN TO refer to mass slaughter in WWII. and It was ME who indicated
that!
Post by Mavisbeacon
But I also point out
1The slaughter was not only of Jews
2. In spite of similar and associated hebrew terminology of shoah the term
"holocaust" does not have to be only related to Jews.
You've pointed that out ad nauseum. Since it's already a given, and
has been so for over half a century, that the slaughter was not only
of Jews, and that the word “holocaust” is not, by usage, restricted to
Jews, your reiteration of the same is nothing more than an apotheosis
of the obvious, and a boring one at that.

...But this is the first time you actually stated "the word “holocaust” is
not, by usage, restricted to
Jews, ". That is all I asked you to do.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
... I re read it and it refers to a SPECIFIC application of a term
which suggests
1. It is not ONLY mass murder of jews
[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
... I did . I happen to have a similar position! Thats why I quoted it!
If you had read so many as several articles from the site, or at least
the entirety of the one from which you provided a few quotes, you
wouldn't be engaged in these repetitious and boring absurdities.

... You have a habit of suggestiong it says something without actually
supplying ANY QUOTE fromn it. I am the one providing the quotes from that
site. Not you! So if you claim it says something other than 1950s then care
to post where it says that?

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
...All holocausts are unique.
ROTFLOL


...YOU are the one who criticised me for what you claim is stating the
obvious!
Post by Mavisbeacon
I didn't denegrate Jews!
Are you worried you might have?
... I am concerned you seem to think I might.
It doesn't worry me a bit.

... Well I am concerned that anyone would think of me as hating anyone.
Post by Mavisbeacon
when did the term "Holocaust" refer to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews?
Previously, you seemed quite sure when it was used, and by whom it was
used -- “a post Israeli state invention” --
..."Introduced by historians in the 1950s" i.e. AFTER Israel was founded
no?
The phrase “Cold War” was also introduced AFTER the state of Israel
was founded, no?
I don't know! The term "cold war" however does not refer either to the
foundation of Israel or to the killing of Jews Slavs gypsies or others by
Nazis.
Another apotheosis of the obvious.
... Not when the term is clearly identified above as meaning relating to
JEWS in WWII and now you seem to acept that it is obvoius it does not relate
ONLY to Jews but also to slavs and Gypsies as well.
Then you misread me. I believe I made it clear that millions of non-
Jews were murdered in the death camps along with Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
this does not mean the significance of Jews dying is
taken away from but it also does not mean the
Jews are a special case.
But the Jews WERE a special case in this instance.

...But not to the extent that ther term "holocaust" means only a\pplying to
Jews at this time. As many non Jews were wiped out in this particular
holocaust.

You were given a
few of the reasons why. The holocaust-history.org site you reference
goes into greater detail.

... Yes but the fact that Nazis planned the execution of Jews does not take
away fromn the fact that thay killed as many non Jews nor that they would
have gotten around to killing more non Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Put it this way. If for example Poland had a mostly
black population or a gay or communist or whatever then the Nazis would have
killed all of them anyway.
You already put it “this way”, except you have now replaced Mongols
and Arabs with blacks, gays, and communists. And no, if Poland had
been filled with blacks, gays, and communists, the Nazis would not
have killed all of them.

... So you believe the Nazis only wanted to kill all the Jews in the World
and would stop at that? How is it then the neo Nazis hate Muslims and Turks?
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Jews didnt have anythig special which meant
the Nazis had to specifically get them. they just happened to be a large
minority grouping.
They just happened to be Jews. That is why the Nazis SPECIFICALLY
targeted them for extermination.

... and had another grouping had the same history the Nazis would have gone
after them?
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact Jews throughout Europe have experienced similar
scapegoating in jhistory.
Never to the extent as that perpetrated by the Nazis, though the
medieval holocaust comes close. And the worst excesses of that time,
as during WWII, occurred in Germany.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But so have Arabs, muslims, Catholics, Protestants
etc.
That is utter bollocks. Produce some evidence which shows that Arabs,
muslims, Catholics, Protestants, were herded into squalid
concentration camps, or gas chambers. The burning of Protestants by
Catholics, or of Catholics by Muslims doesn't count.

"black hole of Calcutta" Slave Labour under Cromwell. "To Hell or to
Connaguht" resettlement.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=hwz#2922
The upshot is that by the time of the execution of Charles I, in 1649,
Ireland is the stronghold of royalist resistance. Parliament, recognizing
this region as the prime source of danger, sends its best man to bring the
situation under control. Oliver Cromwell arrives in Dublin in August 1649 as
lord lieutenant and commander in chief.

An important body of royalist troops is sheltering in the fortified town of
Drogheda. Cromwell takes the town in September, killing the entire garrison
together with selected civilians and any priests he can find - a total of
about 2800 people. Wexford suffers a similarly violent fate a month later.
...
It is a further two years before the whole of Ireland is under control, but
by 1653 the situation is calm enough for the next attempt at plantation to
begin. The proposed method has an air of megalomaniac fantasy. It begins
with the assumption that any Irish who have not helped the parliamentary
cause are by definition guilty and should lose their property, if not their
life.



A judicial process is established to identify the guilty, distinguishing
them from a body of people who can be called the innocent Irish. The
innocent are to be allotted land in one quarter of the island - the western
province of Connaught. The rest of Ireland is to be an exclusively English
zone. Land within it will be distributed to the parliamentary army, in
payment for their services, and to other 'adventurers' who have contributed
funds under the terms of the act of 1642.

During 1654 and 1655 much effort is expended in trying to force the innocent
Irish to move into Connaught, with deportation to Barbados and even hanging
used in some cases as a punishment for refusal.

(you might recall this is the "move the Jews to Madagascar" type idea mooted
by Nazis). children were sold into Slavery in Central America.
Relatively few Irish move to Connaught, but land is nevertheless
appropriated elsewhere throughout Ireland and given to parliamentarians. By
1658 all the claims of both soldiers and adventurers have been met. Two
thirds of all Irish land is now owned or occupied by the English.

****
The English "herded people into concentration Camps" in the Boer War.
****
In Cambodia families were split up and people herded into Camps and
slaughtered by the Khymer Rouge.
Post by Mavisbeacon
the scale and organisation of the massacre of Jews gypsies and Slavs by
the nazis is what stands out,
What stands out is the utter virulence exhibited by the Nazis towards
Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
but the same technology, economic and social
Infrastracture, political conditions didn't exist at other times.
The Aztecs managed rather well in their large scale massacres without
benefit of modern technology – even of any metal-working technology.
The Nazis of the New World.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
...I believe you have stated only WWII and of ONE OTHER example
in hiostory which related only to Jews.
Wrong again. Your question related to usage of the word holocaust
“Before it was used to “refer to “to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews“? I stated that the word was used in an English chronicle
of 1192 and that it related to the 1189 massacres of English Jews. I
did NOT state that “only WWII and of ONE OTHER example in hiostory
which related only to Jews”

... You stated i.e. CITED only ONE other example from history and that other
example related only to Jews!


-- whatever that's supposed to mean. And
that, AFAIK, is the only reference, apart from Churchill's usage for
the Armenian genocide, where it refers to massacre.

... But you are aware and have been given references from before the 20th
century!
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861676474/holocaust.html
which states: " The specific application to the mass
murder of the Jews by the Nazis during World War II was introduced by
historians during the 1950s, ..."
The Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, 2nd ed.Oxford 1989, vol.VII
p.315 sect c.'complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a
great slaughter or massacre' citing examples from 1711, 1833, and 1883
onwards.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you actually believe it to be true why dont you state "holocaust applies
not only to jews"?
That should already have been obvious.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Have you got that?
...if you are saying holocaust means "sacrifice by fire" and not just
applying to jews then yes. Id that what you mean? "sacrifice by fire" but
not wholly reserved and applicable to any particular religion or ethnic
group?
<heavy sigh>
Did you read the Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary
entries for “holocaust” given previously?
The Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, 2nd ed.Oxford 1989, vol.VII
p.315 sect c.'complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a
great slaughter or massacre' citing examples from 1711, 1833, and 1883
onwards.
Post by Mavisbeacon
... I am asking what you mean by the term! do you accept
"holocaust" in your useage applies not only to Jews?
I accept the dictionary definitions.

The one of 1711, 1833,1883? when the term Existed and the Nazis didnt?
The Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, 2nd ed.Oxford 1989, vol.VII
p.315 sect c.'complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a
great slaughter or massacre' citing examples from 1711, 1833, and 1883
onwards.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Dictionary terms change dependent on useage.
Some don't. Certainly the definitions from 2006 and 2008 haven't had
time.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/oed-def.html


Her is an interesting PRE Israeli state reference
holocaust (1943) Hansard Lords 23 Mar. 826 `` The Nazis go on
killing..If this rule could be relaxed, some hundreds, and possibly a
few thousands, might be enabled to escape from this holocaust. ''
a.. The American Hebrew of October 31, 1919, refers to a "holocaust of human
life" in an article describing the fate of "six million men and women" Jews
said to be suffering at the hands of the Germans.15
a.. In a September 1939 Life magazine article on Adolf Hitler entitled "The
War World," author Bernard Lansing wrote: "His [Hitler's] eyes sparkling
with faith and decision, he has proved that he could summon the
holocaust."16
a.. In December 1942 the Jewish Telegraph Agency charged the Nazis with
cruelties toward Jews that included throwing victims into a "huge boiler
which was used for rendering hog fat" under which was built a fire. "Old
women as well as children perished in this holocaust," reported the JTA.17
M. H. Glynn, "The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!", The American Hebrew,
October 31, 1919. Reproduced in JHR vol. 15 no. 6 (November/December 1995),
p. 31. in
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/definition.html#pgfId-1907
Post by Mavisbeacon
... What do you mean by the term? Does "holocaust" IN
YOUR OPINION apply only to jews or to others as well?
I accept the dictionary definitions.

http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/definition.html

Although the current usage of the word "Holocaust" is due to the efforts of
enumerable Jewish writers and historians, not everyone is comfortable
associating what happened to the Jews during the Second World War with
Biblical stories of a fiery sacrifice to God, for the reason that in one
sense this implies that the Jews should have accepted their fate at the
hands of the Nazis, as did Isaac when God commanded Isaac's father, Abraham,
to sacrifice his first-born son.66 Furthermore, for such a sacrifice to take
place with the Jews serving as the offering to be burnt, the Nazis must then
be thought of as priests, doing God's work, and the Jews, as animals or
beasts, the traditional offerings in such a sacrifice.67

Following this analogy, proof of God's satisfaction with the Holocaust as a
sacrifice is the establishment of the state of Israel, a reward to surviving
Jews in exchange for the for millions of silent, unresisting Jewish victims.
This further implies that Jewish resistance was impertinent at best, and a
sacrilegious affront to God at worst.

Little wonder, then, that there is an effort among Jewish scholars to
instead use the word Shoah, which means destruction or ruin, with no
connotation of sacrifice.
Post by Mavisbeacon
This time, make sure you understand them.
It will save you the trouble of asking the same question over and over
again.
I hadent though so much about it or researched it before. I will have to
think about it. The histioragraphy site above suggests problems of
definition.
Post by Mavisbeacon
when you say "holocaust" do you accept that it does not only apply to Jews?
Third iteration: I accept the dictionary definitions. Here they are
again. Print them out so that you can refer to them as needed.

Merriam Webster
ho-lo-caust
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially
through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a
often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and
especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with
the b: a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE

American Heritage Dictionary
hol-o-caust
NOUN:
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life,
especially by fire.
2
a. Holocaust
The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War
II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to
that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy
annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.

...So what about the OED definition? Do you accept that?



http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/

"The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the
Hebrew word olah as holokauston. The Hebrew literally means that which is
offered up; it signifies a burnt offering offered whole unto the Lord. The
word itself softens and falsifies the event by giving it a religious
significance."
...
A major claim of this essay is that virtually all of the scholarly writings
before 2005 on the connotations and history of the word "H/holocaust" are
perniciously misleading or perniciously incorrect. Berenbaum (and others)
have stated that our conscious and unconscious understanding of the term
"H/holocaust" effects how we understand the Jewish catastrophe, or, in other
words, that the term "H/holocaust" is a subtly distorting lens through which
we view the tragedy.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip freedictionary Usage Panel debate]
[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
My impression was correct as far as I can see!
That may be part of your trouble.

...that is meant to be counter argument is it? If my impression is not
correct then post evidence showing it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you are so sure i was not
then QUOTE FROM THE SITE which you claim is so clear about it and don't
patronise others. You may as well say "it is in the Bible somewhere go and
read it" If YOU make a claim it is for YOU to support it! Since you claim
the answer it there then all you have to do is cite it!
I'm not the one making absurd claims, and running in circles from
them.

I claim the term existed PRE WWII and that the term "holocaust" has only
recently (since the 1950s) been taken to be related to WWII jews and that
there are possible problems with this definition.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Merriam Webster
[snip]
Re-read the Merriam-Webster definition slowly and carefully.
... I dont need a lecture from you!
That isn't a lecture. That is the answer to the question you keep
repeating.
... I didnt ask for a dictionary definition! I asked whether
when YOU use the term "holocaust" you accept it applies
to non Jews?
Fourth iteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.


Do you accept the LEADING academic journal in the field of Genocide?
"virtually all of the scholarly writings before 2005 on the connotations and
history of the word "H/holocaust" are perniciously misleading or
perniciously incorrect" http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/
"The secular word HOLOCAUST: scholarly myths, history, and 20th century
meanings" was published in Journal of Genocide Research 2:1 (2000), 31-63.
Post by Mavisbeacon
My comments stanbd up to scrutiny!
Scrutiny by whom?
By any reasonable people who scrutinise claims made by
those who reposting them!
Your comments and claims have been scrutinised, insofar as they're not
unintelligible, and they don't stand up to the scrutiny of anyone with
a modicum of factual knowledge of the period at issue.

"Holocaust scholars, when commenting on the word "H/holocaust," almost
invariably assert that the word carries Judeo-Christian religious /
sacrificial overtones, sometimes decry these supposed overtones, ignore
totally the word's pagan religious / sacrificial employments, and for the
most part leave the impression that "holocaust" had absolutely no secular
history before it became the principal American-English referent to the Nazi
mass murder of Jews."

"In the opinion of this writer, the implicit denial within the Holocaust
Studies community that "holocaust" had a significant secular history prior
to its employment as a referent to the Nazi Judeocide helps to support the
idea that "h/Holocaust" can only be legitimately applied to the Nazi
killings which, in turn, supports the pernicious ahistorical idea, that
since other massacres require a different vocabulary, other massacres are
totally incomparable to the Judeocide. And the repetition of the phantasm
that the word "holocaust" carries "deep religious Judeo-Christian
connotations" helps to mystify the destruction of European Jewry, subtly
supporting a pernicious intellectual climate in which a well regarded
Holocaust historian can wonder if "the Holocaust ... [is] an event whose
mysteries were ... meant to be understood.""


[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
It does ! Six is more than five!
Since you can count, tell me this: is one hundred thousand a greater
number, or a lesser, than six millions?

that would be six million Jews who were about Ahlf of the victims of the
Nazis would it?
2.8 million russians are not bigger than six million either - but that many
were killed in eight months by the Germans!
Don't you think that is significant?

"Despite the ardent and until then decisive ideological opposition to the
employment of Russian 'subhumans' within Germany — a purely ideological
stance that had lead the Germans to kill, mainly by starvation, 2.8 million
young, healthy Soviet POWs in less than eight months — the policy was
reversed during this period. In l942, owing to ever more pressing economic
need, the Germans stopped the decimation of Soviet POWs . . ." (Goldhagen's
Hitler's Willing Executioners p. 290)
Post by Mavisbeacon
– the reason, no doubt, for
your snippage. -- Your previous statement above, actually a quote you
“By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” The reason your
comment -- that "as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!”
-- does not stand up to scrutiny is as follows. I'll try to put it
simply for you.
Three million Poles killed by the Nazis in the six-year Nazi
occupation of Poland do not equate to “MORE others!”
... Are you saying that the guty who says “By the end of the
war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” was wrong?
Obviously not. Do you have a problem with reading in context?

No. I have no problem in seeing the jewish deaths were about half the total.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip numbers game]
than the six
million Jews killed by the Nazis, though the figure is about the same
as the three million Polish Jews killed by the Nazis.
Two million Soviet POWs killed by the Nazis do not equate to “MORE
others!” than the six million Jews killed by the Nazis.
The estimated 220,000 to 500,000 Gypsies killed by the Nazis do not
equate to “MORE others!” than the six million Jews killed by the
Nazis.
The estimated 80,000 to 200,000 Freemasons, and the 5,000 to 15,000
gays (men), and the 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses killed by the Nazis do
not, in the aggregate, equate to “MORE others!” than the six million
Jews killed by the Nazis
That is what is meant by the statement -- which you snipped,
apparently without reading -- that “the total number of any ONE of
these non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of itself, does not begin
to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis.”
... Yes. the jews were the largest minority grouping. No other
group was a big as the Jews.
“Minority grouping”, as pertains to the subject, is inaccurate, and
irrelevant. Jews were the largest group slaughtered by the Nazis.

... And came probably to just less than half the total number of people
killed by the Germans?

That, alone, should tell you something. As should the facts of the
numbers involved.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But they were still LESS than all the others put together!
Not in the aggregate they weren't. That, too, should tell you
something, as should the Nurnberg Laws.

The Nurnberg Laws were years before WWII!
Post by Mavisbeacon
This suggests that if about half were Jews it isnt really
correct to call it a holocaust ONLY of Jews doesn't it?
That statement, if possible, is an more absurd.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as I stated I
wont get into a revisionist numbers game with you!
You started playing your revisionist numbers games when you started
spouting numbers. Like your comments, they don't stand up to scrutiny.
... I quoted from a site! It is a WWII holocaust history site! It clearly
states that about half the people who dies were Jews! But when I say "I wont
get into a numbers game" I think it is a waste of time to say "six million"
and then "maybe 5 million2 or "possibly 3.5 million" . This is the waste of
time arguments revistionists get caught up in.
You got yourself caught up in it when you started spouting your
rubbish about five or six million gypsies, Slavs, Poles, communists,
gays, jehovah witnesses, etc etc etc being the same as six million
Jews killed.

Nope! I stated the numbers of non Jews ACCORDING TO THAT SOURCE were MORE
than the number of Jewish victims.
You dont seem to accept that more non Jews died than Jews.


Now read sloooooooowly: None of the previously mentioned groups
suffered the loss of 75% of its members.

... I would say Russian POWs probably did! The JW's?


Do you understand why that is most relevant, and NOT any “numbers
game”?
Post by Mavisbeacon
By the way I should state I
find nothing wrong with historical revisionism.
In fact it is a good thing.
If it is supported by facts.
Usually, historical revisionism is not supported by facts, and that is
why it's a perjorative term.


If it isnt supported it isnt revisionist. And it ISNT a pejorative! History
is not the past and requires revision!
Post by Mavisbeacon
But "holocaust revisionism" in the main to me really is usually just a front
for "holocaust denial" and it is a waste of time to rehearse such arguments
which have been soundly thrashed by the likes of the Nizkor Project for
example.
That's something we can agree upon.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I suppose the generl point here is that when you reify the Jews' suffering
and discount others (and I do not doubt for a second that Jews were targeted
throughout history) then you may have problems.
Where on earth did you get the weird notion that I discount the
suffering of the millions of non-Jews slaughtered by the Nazis? And
what is “reify”?

... Pardon me. I meant and should have stated "one" and not "you".
Post by Mavisbeacon
The point you have missed, above all, is that none of these people
would have been murdered had the Nazis not implemented their Final
Solution to the JEWISH Question.
...I didnt miss that point aty all!
Actually, you did, along with most others. I'm sorry you're having so
much trouble grasping them.
... If Poland was not half Jewish and was half black then the Nazis
would have wiped them out too!
No, they wouldn't.

...Oh but they would.

And Poland was not half Jewish. Before the war, it
had the largest Jewish population in Europe. But they were by no means
half the population of Poland.

... yeah about 3 million polish jews dead compared to???
Poles:
during the German occupation of Poland, it is estimated that between 1.6 and
2 million people were expelled from their homes during the 1939-1944 period.
This number does not include millions of slave workers or people arrested by
the Germans and sent to Nazi concentration camps.
And POw's - 2 million?
Post by Mavisbeacon
It does not make the death of non jews less significant.
Your comments imply that it did, even though this was never at issue.
My comment that "It does not make the death of non jews less significant."
does not make the death of non Jews less significant!
Reiterating that the number of non-Jews was MORE! than the number of
Jews killed by the Nazis does, in fact, serve to imply that the
slaughter of Europe's Jews was less significant than the slaughter of
non-Jews.

...No it does NOT! It isnt a numbers thing!
Post by Mavisbeacon
FYI, on Yom Ha-Shoah, modern Jewish liturgy has prayers for the souls
of the non-Jews murdered by the Nazis, as well as for Jews, and
special prayers for the Righteous Gentiles killed by the Nazis.
... As do CHRISTIANS!
Christians have an equivalent of Yom HaShoah, with a special liturgy
for the souls of the murdered? I had no idea. When is it observed?


http://www.hmd.org.uk/files/1194536800-182.pdf
The Holocaust: an annotated bibliography and resource guide
By David M. Szonyi, Section X

[sorry no time - snip the rest]
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-26 17:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Because something happened after something does not mean the first thing
caused the second or was responsibe for it.
Would you mind translating the foregoing into intelligible English,
then explaining its relevance to your statement that “The terminology
"jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”?
... The terminology was used AFTER the Israeli state came to be
recognised by UN nations.
That statement neither translates your comment above, nor does it
explain the relevance of that comment to your claim that “The
terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”.
yes it does - the term was used AFTER the Israeli State came to be is what
it means.
Would you mind translating that last into intelligible English?
No clarification?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
And it is backed up by the references given with suggests
"holocaust" referring exclusively to Jews killed by Nazis
was a 1950s usage.
A bit later than 1950s usage, in case you hadn't noticed.
... I had. and I specifically referred to :http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861676474/holocaust.html
which states: " The specific application to the mass
murder of the Jews by the Nazis during World War II was introduced by
historians during the 1950s, ..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below, you provided quotes from the from the historiography-
project.org site, showing use of the word holocaust as pertaining to
Jews prior to the 1950s—specifically, in 1919, 1942, and 1943. (More
about that site later.) Additionally, “Holocaust” was used by the New
York Times in its translation of Israel's Declaration of Independence:
“Survivors of the Nazi HOLOCAUST in Europe, as well as Jews from other
parts of the world, continued to migrate to the Land of Israel,
undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers...” The original
declaration, being in Hebrew, did not of course use the word
“holocaust”. The NY Times did. That was in May 1948, which was also
prior to the 1950s.
Post by ***@gmail.com
In any case, you were given several references – several
times – showing that the word holocaust as referring
exclusively to the killing of Jews was used in a chronicle
of 1192.
... No I waa not given several references! I was give ONE
reference to this 1192 event as far as I am aware.
You were given the ONE reference SEVERAL times, as it apparently
failed to sink in the first time. You yourself provided references
from 1919 and the 1940s below. Now you're denying that “holocaust” was
used before it was applied to the slaughter of Jews during WWII, and
that in the previous usages it also applied to the slaughter of Jews?
And are you claiming that "holocaust" means
"referring exclusively to the killing of Jews"? Yes or no?
I answered that in my previous post. I believe I repeated the answer
at least five times. At least. Is further iteration of the same answer
necessary?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Apart from that, go and read the
“references” to which you refer on the Holocaust-History site you
referenced. Then let the dead horse drop.
... You seem not to be able to answer a straight question. Do you accept
"holocaust" refers to non jews or not?
Do you require the repetition of the same answer a dozen times before
it sinks in?
Do you accept that about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust"
were non Jews?
Why the quotation marks and the lower case?
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
What, exactly, are you trying to say here? That “WWII killing of Jews
didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist AFTER it”? That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?
.no that the term for the WWII killing of jews "holocaust" used to
exclusively refer to killing of Jews during WWII became a general
interpretation of twhat "holocaust" means.
Do you need the dictionary definitions provided a third time, or can
you find them for yourself?
... Can you answer a straight question? Do you accept "holocaust" refers to
non jews or not?
Sixth reiteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
Do you accept that about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust"
were non Jews?
I mean what the term as USED BY YOU means.
Seventh reiteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as I pointed out
1. Holocausts existed BEFORE WWII and were NOT exclusly to do with Jews.
2. The WWII holocaust was not ONLY of Jews.
1 + 2 = more apotheoses of the obvious.
...Do you accept "holocaust" refers to non jews or not?
Eighth reiteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you accept that about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust"
were non Jews?
1) Explain your use of quotation marks and lower case.
2) Ninth reiteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by ***@gmail.com
You can stop the repetitious “the WWII holocaust was
not ONLY of Jews”. That is obvious, and has never
been in dispute by anyone.
...so you accept "holocaust" refers to non Jews?
Tenth reiteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
Do you accept that about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust"
were non Jews?
1) Explain your use of quotation marks and lower case.
2) Eleventh reiteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by ***@gmail.com
And now, would you mind explaining what you meant when you wrote that
the “WWII killing of Jews didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist
AFTER it”?
...I could easily suggest like you that you actually re read the passage but
snce you ask the quwestion I will do my best to honestly answer it.
..,I think you referred to anachronisms. Like Henry II owing a Rolls Royce.
<sigh> That was an ironic response to your comment: “Take for example
if I stated the term "Tory" did not exist in Middle Age”. I replied
that “It would be like stating that Henry II of England didn’t own a
Rolls.” If you require a more detailed explanation, I can give it.
The killing of Jews or anyone else in WWII could only hapopen IN WWII i.e.
when it happened. It refers to a sopecific time period. By definition that
"holocaust" could not happen either before or after WWII. But AFTER is
emphasised because directly after was 1945-1946.
That hardly serves to explain what you meant by your statement that
the “WWII killing of Jews didnt exist before WWII but it didnt exist
AFTER it”. It serves to indicate, however, that a request for
clarification is probably an exercise in futility.
Above we note the term
becaum common use only in the early 1950s at the earliest. In fact above you
suggest it was later by stating " A bit later than 1950s usage, in case you
hadn't noticed." So YOUR claim is 1960s at the earliest, which is not
directly after WWII but 15 years after!
Not at all. The comment follows your statement that use of the word
Holocaust as “referring exclusively to Jews killed by Nazis was a
1950s usage”. As indicated previously and following below, the word
was in use prior to the 1950s and is used as such today.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
That is obvious.
Do you even know what you're trying to say?
...yes . I restate it above.
Try to restate it more clearly.
...What is it about the restatement you are having problems with?
To put it simply, your restatements fail to clarify, that's the
problem. Never mind about it, and let it go.
[snip]
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The term "phony war" was used by the allies to refer to the German invasion
of the low countries. People thought they wouldnt invade France.
Your pinballing from topic to irrelevancy makes it difficult to
understand what you're trying to get at. At to the Cold War, there is
no equivalent to the “phony war”, as Americans called the period in
the months following the September 1939 declaration of war.
... If you knew what "phony war" meant then why did you ask?
I know what the “Phony War” was, and it was not used by the Allies to
refer to the German invasion of the Low Countries. It was an American
usage, and referred to the months following the British and French
declarations of war in September 1939. It's not equivalent to the Cold
War between the US and the USSR.
And YOU brought
up "cold war" not me so don't accuse me of bringing up other phrases.
I remarked that the phrase “Cold War”, like “Holocaust”, arose after
the establishment of the state of Israel, which was your claim. The
point is that a number of phrases arose after the establishment of the
state of Israel, but are not related thereto. The Cold War wasn't
introduced as a digressionary topic.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The term was not used by the Allies to refer to the German
invasion of the Low Countries, which came *after* the phony
war
... Yes I accept that correction. It was a period of dormancy before the
invasion of France. France of course was invaded when Holland and Belgium
were.
Hostilities were not dormant between September 1939 and April 1940;
they took place mostly at sea, with the exception of the German
occupation of Poland and the Soviet conquest and occupation of
Finland. Hence, the “Phony War,” “Twilight War”, “Sitzkrieg”, etc.
From April 1940 to May 1940, the Wehrmacht overran Denmark, Norway,
Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France, while their Soviet allies,
having finished the conquest of Finland, took Latvia, Lithuania, and
Estonia.
Well in the days directly following anyway. I am happy to clarify
that. I meant the months following the outbreak of war in which no large
scale hostility happened.
No large-scale hostilities, that is, unless you happened to be Polish
or Finnish.
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
And
although you might regard that period as similar to the Cold War, it
was not.
It is a phrase like "cold war" . It does not mean it is the same as "cold
war" . but there are some similarities. DLack of large scale direct military
engagement;
There were military engagements at sea, and in Finland and Poland.
large scale behingd the lines manouvres; belief that a
catastrophic exchange would not happen because it would be just that. they
are similarities.
The Allies knew the Germans were preparing for an invasion of France,
hence the strengthening of the Maginot Line. They didn't foresee that
the Germans would hit them as hard as they did. The surrender of the
Belgian army, on orders of the Belgian king, a Nazi collaborator, came
as a great shock, and was responsible for the deaths of 36,000 Allies,
as well as the evacuation from Dunkirk. But one may suppose the king
had his reasons – like the prospect of living the rich loafer's life
in a luxurious Bavarian chateau. The similarities to the Cold War, if
any exist, are minute.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
But when we discuss the "holocaust" people single out jews.
That is because the majority of people singled out by the Nazis were
Jews.
.apparently the largest single MINORITY according to the figures given.
No, the MAJORITY of the peoples slaughtered by the Nazis during the
Holocaust.
Well I wont get into a numbers game but it is still "about half".
You already got yourself into what you term a “numbers game” when you
started throwing in revisionist lines such as “still about half”, as
in “about half of the people killed in the WWII "holocaust" were non
Jews.” As you have been shown, but refuse to accept, this line is
absurd.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
which saiod I believe five to six million jews and six million OTHERS. But
so what. even if it was 80 percent Jews and 20 percent others e.g. slavs
surely it is also a holocaust of Savs?
75% of Europe's Slavic population was not annihilated by the Nazis.
... So if 75 percent of Jehovas Witnessess were ?
So if your grandmother had wheels.....? Note that 75% of JWs weren't
wiped out. 75% of Slavs weren't wiped out. 75% of Poles weren't wiped
out. Thus, no Nazi Holocaust of “WWII JWs” and no Nazi Holocaust of
“WWII Slavs” and no Nazi Holocaust of “WWII Poles.” They weren't
persecuted from 1933 onward, nor were they subjected to blood pogroms
following the war. Jews were.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you understand why the figures here are relevant,
or do you require a more simplistic explanation?
... I understand that Jews suffered horribly under Nazism. And that they
were the first major target.
Jews were the first target, the major target, and they remained the
major target throughout the war -- and following the war the survivors
were the targets of blood pogroms.
But non Jews suffered too. About as many of them as Jews well killed.
No one is denying that non-Jews suffered, or that millions of non-Jews
died. But they weren't massacred in pogroms after the war, and to say
that “about as many of them as Jews were killed” is bogus on several
counts. Do you understand why the figures here are relevant, or do you
require a more simplistic explanation, followed by repetitions of the
same?

60% of the Jewish communities of Russia, Byelorussia, Ukraine,
Belgium, Yugoslavia, and fully half the Jewish populations of Romania
and Norway, were massacred, destroyed, annihilated, wiped off the face
of the earth. As were 75% of the Jewish populations of Greece,
Holland, Hungary, and Slovakia, and 90% of the entire Jewish
populations of Poland, Germany, Austria, the Baltic countries,
Bohemia, and Moravia. Do you understand the significance of these
percentages? Figures of that magnitude are not some kind of “numbers
game,” unless you are a Holocaust denier, and it's simplistic nonsense
to parrot the Holocaust deniers' line “about as many non Jews as Jews
were killed.” Three-quarters of the non-Jewish population of Europe
wasn't wiped out. Three-quarters of the Jewish population was. Figure
it out.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact others also died and were targeted.
Apotheosis of the obvious.
...? YOU are the one asking me to restate about the terminology being a
post Isaeli state useage!
Correct. That is because your statement is ludicrous. The reason it is
ludicrous is because you haven't yet explained what you mean by the
phrase “post Israeli state”.
...Oh buit I have. I think I gave a date for the UN recognition of Israel
Whenever that “UN recognition of Israel” was dated, the phase “post
Israeli state” is jarring.
and also of the common useage being in the 1950s, which was POST Israeli
State.
So, it's “common usage” in the 1950s now, is it?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Are you implying that the state of Israel
is defunct and has been succeeded by another?
...No Im implying that the term "holocaust" being associated with only Jews
is a 1950s use of the term which is AFTER the state of Israel came to exist.
A lot of terms came into use “AFTER the state of Israel came to
exist.” Why is it of such relevance to you that holocaust was “common
usage” (or “introduced by historians”) in the 1950s? By the examples
given above and below, the term was used in the 1940s to refer to the
destruction of three-quarters of the European Jewish populations, and,
according to the encarta entry you provided, was used by historians in
the 1950s. By later extension, it came to mean those who perished in
the camps, and elsewhere, at the hands of the Nazis. Why is it a
matter of significance to you that these usages came about “AFTER the
state of Israel came to exist”, even though, as you have shown, they
did not?

Do you believe these usages would NOT have come about had the state of
Israel not “come to exist”? Do you take the Holocaust deniers' line
that the state of Israel was somehow responsible for these usages?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
And other holocausts happened. this does not take away from
the holocaust against jews as an evil event but it was not unique in the
way the terminology suggests. Other holocausts happened .
Indeed other massacres of Jews happened.
Had you read the quotes you pasted from the site you referenced, as
well as the articles on that site, you would already know that the
20th century Holocaust as pertaining to Jews was, in fact, unique. You
DO read what you cite, don't you?
... ALL Holocausts are unique in some way! Otherwise if they were identical
how would we know the difference except by date? All world wars are also
unique. So?
So, you don't read what you cite. You ought to.
... I do . Don't you accept that all events are unique?
If you do read what you cite, you seem to forget it rather quickly.
And if all events were unique, no one would have said that history
repeats itself -- or bother to study it, except as a lark.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It also is not usually
associated with the coincident massacre of Slavs and Gypsies for example.
But I am fairly sure "holocaust" existed before the Nazis.
I am fairly sure I indicated in a previous post that the term
“holocaust” “existed before the Nazis”, and that it was used as early
as 1192 in relation to the massacres of English Jews instigated by
Richard I.
... Yes but other holocausts which were NOT of Jews happened.
I believe it has already been established that other mass murders have
occurred throughout the centuries.
... and that you would call then "holocausts"?
I used the phrase “medieval holocaust” in a college paper on the
massacres of 1349-1350.
... were these Massacres of NON Jews?
I used the phrase Armenian Holocaust in another paper in reference to
the genocide of 1914-1915.
Post by ***@gmail.com
As to others, it would first be necessary to
review the circumstances attending each, since, as you state above,
“ALL Holocausts are unique in some way! Otherwise if they were
identical how would we know the difference except by date?”
Post by Mavisbeacon
You see if you only apply "Holocaust" to WWII jews
then who is reifying the argument?
Who is what the argument?
...what did you mean by ""Apotheosis " then? Elevating to a godlike state of
purity?
I use “apotheosis of the obvious” when someone places, or misplaces,
undue emphasis on something which is already obvious. Sorry the irony
escaped you.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
I suggest you read the holocaust-
history.org site you referenced earlier, and refrain from cherry-
picking fragments from the entirety.
... I suggest you acknowledge that i backed up the clarification for which
you asked.
You neither backed up any clarification, nor provided any.
You merely provided more muddle.
...Please point out what it is you think I did not backup with the
references I gave.
Already pointed out, along with a sense that a request for
clarification is probably an exercise in futility.
Care to list any of these references and point out how they have NOT
CLARIFIED the point made?
So far, if you've made any point at all, it remains obscure. The
references are clearer. AFAIR, you referred to an article from the
holocaust-history.org site, which states:
“The term "holocaust" was coined to describe the
UNIQUELY JEWISH aspect of the Final
Solution. It does not seek to negate the suffering
of the other victims.”
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/

What is it about that quote, and the article from which you took it,
that escapes your understanding?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
I note you seem like you don't want to criticise
holocaust-hoistory.org so you now take a different tack and try to assume
that I quote it out of context or don't understand it.
But you quoted it out of context,
...I didnt! I quoted something which stated about half Jews and half non
Jews were victims of the Nazis.
The quote – and it was out of context -- was: “By the end of the war,
as many as 6 million of these people [i.e., homosexuals, Gypsies,
prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's
Witnesses and others] had been killed, along with between 5 and 6
million Jews.”
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/

From that snippet, you proceeded to iterate and reiterate that x
number of non-Jews killed is the same as x number of Jews killed, and
therefore the application of Holocaust as pertaining to Jews should be
abandoned. That is not the conclusion reached by the article. But it
is that of holocaust deniers.
Post by ***@gmail.com
and you have clearly shown that you
don't understand it.
... What I understand is that about half Jews and half non Jews were victims
of the Nazis. What problem do you have with that?
What problem do you have with the statement that “In the 18th and 19th
centuries, the British Empire caused the deaths of about two million
people. About half irish, or less, and half non-irish were victims”?
And if your understanding is only that “about half Jews and half non
Jews were victims of the Nazis”, then your understanding needs
expansion.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you suggest I "cherry picked" something from it then care to point out
how my action is as you claim "cherry picking" ? In fact I argue against
deification or cherrypicking of events as pertaining to just one subsection
of people don't I?
No.
... I do! I point out that non Jews also suffer and not ONLY one subsection
of victims i.e. Jews.
That's cherry picking, not to mention stating the obvious. It
contradicts the site you referenced, and it gets very close to
holocaust revisionism. Jews were not “ONLY one subsection of victims”.
They were the MAIN victims. None of the other peoples victimized by
the Nazis were targeted from the beginning of the Reich. None of the
other peoples suffered the extermination of 75% of their entire
populations. Does that begin to sink in? Or do you prefer to argue
that 75% of a tangerine is no different than 5% of a watermelon? And
none of the other peoples targeted by the Nazis would have suffered,
had they not targeted Jews. This last is one of the points of the
article you referenced, which you seem to keep missing.
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
You then proceeded to point out, as examples of what “one could equate
the term "holocaust" with” a) - native Americans' b) - The Irish under
the English Rule; c) - the armenians; d) -the Hutu/Tutsi in Rwanda; e)
- pogroms by stalin; f) -Mao's Cultural revolution; and g) -The Congo.
... I later added Pol Pot's Kymer Rouge.
If you say so.
... It is TRUE whether i say so or not1 anyone can check!
It's a highly subjective application, therefore not entirely true.
It is not true BECAUSE I say so! I do not argue from Authority.
That is certain.
It is a checkable FACT.
It is not absolute FACT that the term “holocaust” is routinely applied
to demise of American Indians, the English treatment of the Irish,
Stalin's pogroms, and Mao's Cultural revolution, or that they may all
be termed as such.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
While your scattershot hit a few targets, as scattershot is bound to
do, you were generally wrong.
... Look either "holocaust" applies only to Jews in WWII or it doesent!
Wrong again. The holocaust-history.org site you referenced previously
can tell you why.
If you haven't checked the site you referenced by now, you should
start. That's not a lecture, it's simply advice.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
If I
give 100 examples or suggestions and even if only one is an example
ADDITIONAL to Jews in WWII there is no suggestion of the other 99 being
generally wrong. If ONE other is right then the term "holocaust" does not
apply ONLY TO JEWS!
I believe it has been a long established fact that the Holocaust was
restricted only to Jews.
... The plan of the Nazis was NOT restricted to Jews.
Oops. My mistake. That should have read that “it has been a long
established fact that the Holocaust was NOT restricted only to Jews.”
The “plan of the Nazis” may have encompassed other peoples, but the
title the Nazis gave that “plan” -- Die Endlösung der Judenfrage –
should indicate the intent.
the first target was
Post by ***@gmail.com
Jews as was most of their planning. They would not have stopped there and
the FACT that they in fact killed as many or more non Jews proves it!
Of the some two billion people in the world then, only seventeen
million were Jews. The FACT that the Nazis “killed as many or more non
Jews” proves nothing, except to holocaust revisionists.
As does the FACT that neo nazis have particular hatred of Muslims
and Turks.
Present-day neo-Nazis are irrelevant to the discussion. They hate
everybody anyway, and are no more representative of the German people
than the Muslims who massacred Sudanese Christians in Cairo several
years ago represent all Muslims. And none of them are relevant to this
thread.
This does not detract from the fact that the Nazis planned to wipe out all
the Jews they could.
They didn't plan “to wipe out all the Jews they could.” They planned
to exterminate Jews. Period. Heydrich's section had plans for museums
of Judaism, to be established when all Jews were dead and gone.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The holocaust-history.org site you
referenced previously gives a detailed explanation of that, as does
the Jewish Virtual Library's Holocaust section on the victims (non-
Jewish) of the Nazis.
... the point I am making is that when people refer to the "holocaust" of
WWII they may think it resulted in the death of almost entirely jews
when in fact about half were non Jews.
It resulted in the annihilation of almost the entire Jewish population
of Europe. Why do you have such a problem understanding this? As to
that holocaust denier line “about half were non-Jews,” I haven't
encountered anyone who didn't know that the Holocaust also encompassed
the deaths of millions of non-Jews.
Also, because the Nazis had more plans
against Jews is completly meaningless (in terms of a holocaust)
It is utterly relevant, and the point of the Holocaust. The Nazis
didn't have “more plans against Jews”. They had Die Endlösung der
Judenfrage, from which all others proceeed.
If you don't understand that, re-read the article you cited.
unless they carried out these plans and Jews actually died.
The Nazis did, in fact, carry out their plans – i.e., Die Endlösung
der Judenfrage, the Final Solution to the Jewish Question. Apparently
it's utterly irrelevant to you that three-quarters of the entire
Jewish population of Europe was annihilated. Would it help your
understanding of the significance to put it this way? “The Nazis wiped
out as many Irish as they did Poles; they killed 3 million Poles, from
a prewar population of 30 million, and about 3 million Irish, or 75%
percent of the Irish population of 4 million. Thus, in terms of
population destruction, Ireland and Poland suffered the same.” That
right?
so the fact that large
numbers of people were killed IS relevant. but you then have to accept that
the numbers of non Jews were as l;arge as those of Jews and this is
relevant.
This is the holocaust deniers' line.
[snip]
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
You also comment that the several I mentioned
generally WERE NOT "holocausts" as you would accept them but were
"scattershot" applications of the word "holocaust" and in general "wrong"
i.e. they do not serve to fulfill you defoinition of "holocaust"
Wrong again. The examples of “holocausts” given by you were: a)
American Indians b) Irish under the English Rule; c) the Armenian
Genocide; d) the Rwandan Genocide; e) Stalin's pogroms; f) Mao's
Cultural Revolution; and g) The Congo.
... and h) the Khymer Rouge massacres.
Post by ***@gmail.com
AFAIK, the term “holocaust”
isn't generally applied by historians to any of them – note GENERALLY
– with the exception of Winston Churchill, who referred to the
Armenian Genocide as a holocaust.
... BUT THIS IS WHERE WE CAME INTO THIS!
And so we've come back to it, here and above. So?
the term "holocaust" existed in the last century and earlier.
I believe that has been well established.
But
"holocaust" meaning ONLY OF JEWS is a post Israeli State useage
The quotes you supply indicate otherwise. See above. Moreover, once
again, your repetition of “post Israeli State” is jarring. What
possible relevance has it got to the usage of “holocaust”?
Particularly when the Israeli state did NOT use the term. The term
used was shoah.

Once again -- why is it a matter of significance to you that these
usages came about “AFTER the state of Israel came to exist”, even
though, as you have shown, they did not? Do you believe these usages
would NOT have come about had the state of Israel never been? Do you
follow the Holocaust deniers' line that the state of Israel is
responsible for these usages?
i.e. it only came to be used to refer exclusively to the WWII
Jews in the 1950s at the earliest!
It was non-Israeli, non-Jewish historians began using “holocaust” in
the 1950s to refer to the massive slaughter of Jews and others at the
hands of the Nazis. Moreover, the quotes you provided show that it was
used in the 1940s in reference to the Hiterlites' massive slaughter of
European Jews.
Also one of the references I gave refers to "nuclear holocaust" as the main
useage.
That was one of the usages given in the Merriam Webster entry I
provided:
ho-lo-caust.....2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of
life especially
through fire <a nuclear holocaust>”. It was not given by the American
Heritage Dictionary.

Note that “nuclear holocaust” is another phrase that became common
usage after the state of Israel was established.
It also refers to other
The Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, 2nd ed.Oxford 1989, vol.VII
p.315 sect c.'complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a
great slaughter or massacre' citing examples from 1711, 1833, and 1883
onwards.
The examples the encarta entry previously given for those dates were:
1711: "Should general Flame this World consume ... An Holocaust for
Fontal
Sin..."
1833: A reference to Louis VII making "a holocaust of thirteen hundred
persons in a church."

I missed the later reference, but it doesn't matter.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Now pay attention: the demise of 90% of the American Indian population
was due to disease, not to massacre.
... disease spread by settlers? sometimes intentionally? Natives allowed to
die. t wouldnt have been necessary for the Germans to round up anyone of
they were suseptable to particular diseases would it?
None of it. The population of the Americas had no contact with
diseases commonplace to the rest of humanity, such as smallpox,
chicken pox, measles, influenza, and others. They were isolated from
the rest of the world shortly after their arrival in the Western
Hemisphere some 15,000 years ago, and therefore developed no
resistance to those diseases. Consequently, a case of flu, such as a
European or African might throw off, was fatal to an Indian. Most of
the Indians with whom the Spanish first came into contact died of
disease. Indian deaths in the labour camps imposed on them under
Spanish rule – chiefly by the Austrian Welzers – are another matter.
But the attrition rates in those camps, and even in the wars conducted
by the Spanish, didn't approach the loss of life from unfamiliar
diseases.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The demise of one million Irish
people was due (English culpability aside) to famine and the diseases
attendant thereupon, not to massacre,
... there was a MAJOR famine in 1845 but ther were several famines since the
early 1800s. also several Rebellions 1798, 1803 1842 these were put down BY
MILITARY FORCE. When you write "English culpability aside", you sidestep the
issue.
In this thread, it's a non-issue, except to say that, FYI, writing
“English culpability aside” is not sidestepping the issue, but merely
indicative that English culpability is a fact, and needs no further
elaboration. But since the British Empire may have been responsible
for demise of a million people elsewhere throughout the world, about
as many non-Irish as Irish died, and the sufferings of the Irish at
the hands of the English should not be elevated over the sufferings of
the non-Irish.
One could just as easily state "the lowering of the numbers of Jews
in Europe was (Nazi culpability aside) due to emigration legal changes
and smaller families"
One might, but it would be cowflop on a par with holocaust deniers'
claim that only
544,500 Jews died in “the alleged extermination camps”.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The Armenian, Rwandan, and Cambodian genocides can be termed
“holocausts”, but are generally known as Genocides.
... Why? Because "holocaust" refers only to WWII Jews?
Note that the phrase “WWII Jews” is as jarring and imprecise as “post
Israeli state”, as well as equally silly. I believe it's been
established that the word “holocaust” does not refer only to Jews
slaughtered during WWII. I don't know why the Armenian, Rwandan, and
Cambodian genocides are referred to as the Armenian Genocide, and the
Rwandan Genocide, and the Cambodian Genocide, but they are. Winston
Churchill used the phrase “Armenian Holocaust” prior to WWII, and I
used it in a paper years ago; but, despite our mutual efforts, the
phrase doesn't seem to have caught on.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The only other example given by you not to do with WWII
was one of another group of Jews in history!
You asked a question on earlier usage of the word holocaust, you were
given an answer: holocaust, in the sense of a large-scale massacre,
was used in a chronicle of 1192. It happens that the reference was to
the 1189 massacres of English Jews. It wasn't used again in that
sense, AFAIK, until the 20th century.
Did you get that, or do you need it repeated again?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
You have not stated "holocausts have happened outside of
WWII and they have not been only of Jews"
And I'm not going to state it. It's an absurd remark.
Do you believe the term "holocaust" applies to non Jews outside of WWII?
Twelfth reiteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Suggesting that someone reread a source is an indirect, and politer,
way of saying you're wrong, then explaining why you're wrong.
...Where am I wrong?
See above and following. Try rereading the article from the holocaust-
history.org site you referenced.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Since it
goes over your head, I've abandoned it.
... Not much of an explanation of YOUR CLAIM of where I am wrong is it?
See above and following. Also, try rereading the article from the
holocaust-history.org site you referenced.
...Show me where I am wrong as you claim.
See above and following. Also, try rereading the article from the
holocaust-history.org site you referenced.

[snip]
1) About what exactly you claim I am wrong ?
See above and following. Also, try rereading the article from the
holocaust-history.org site you referenced.
2) How the evidence given supports 1
The “evidence given” doesn't exactly support your claims.

[snip]
My words: >NOTE: "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
Your reply :Apparently you missed the part of the quote above
You did. And again you snipped it. Here it is:
“The specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II was introduced by historians during
the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Hebrew urban and
shoah "catastrophe" (used in the same sense).”
...You
1)suggest it does not actuall mean "Introduced by historians in the 1950s"
but that SOMETHING ELSE forom the same source actually contradicts that
2) You suggest I MISSED something.
1)a – Wrong
1)b – Correct
2) – Correct
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
I point to a word which has roots in Hebrew and which
IS TAKEN TO refer to mass slaughter in WWII.
Wrong again.
...AGAIN? where was i wrong before?
See above.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The root of the word holocaust, as previously indicated,
several times, is Greek, not Hebrew.
...The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the
Hebrew word olah as holokauston.http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/
Journal of Genocide Research 2:1 (2000), 31-63.
Ergo, the word is Greek.
... I pointed to a word which has roots in GREEK and which
IS TAKEN TO refer to mass slaughter in WWII. and It was ME who indicated
that!
See above, where you say you “point to a word which has roots in
Hebrew...” As you state above, that word “has roots in GREEK.”
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
But I also point out
1The slaughter was not only of Jews
2. In spite of similar and associated hebrew terminology of shoah the term
"holocaust" does not have to be only related to Jews.
You've pointed that out ad nauseum. Since it's already a given, and
has been so for over half a century, that the slaughter was not only
of Jews, and that the word “holocaust” is not, by usage, restricted to
Jews, your reiteration of the same is nothing more than an apotheosis
of the obvious, and a boring one at that.
...But this is the first time you actually stated "the word “holocaust” is
not, by usage, restricted to Jews, ". That is all I asked you to do.
I believe I mentioned quite a few times that I accept the dictionary
definitions.
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
... I re read it and it refers to a SPECIFIC application of a term
which suggests
1. It is not ONLY mass murder of jews
[snip]
... I did . I happen to have a similar position! Thats why I quoted it!
If you have a similar position to that of the article you cited, why
are you contradicting it?
Post by ***@gmail.com
If you had read so many as several articles from the site, or at least
the entirety of the one from which you provided a few quotes, you
wouldn't be engaged in these repetitious and boring absurdities.
... You have a habit of suggestiong it says something without actually
supplying ANY QUOTE fromn it. I am the one providing the quotes from that
site.
You provided a few quotes from one article. That hardly amounts to
“providing quotes from the site.” You need to read the article in its
entirety and place the quote in the context of that article. It would
help to read a bit further as well. It would also help if you ceased
trying to contradict the conclusions of that article, while claiming
you share the author's opinion

[snip]
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
...All holocausts are unique.
ROTFLOL
...YOU are the one who criticised me for what you claim is stating the
obvious!
That's neither here nor there. You need to return to the site from
which you provided quotes, and read what the authors had to say about
the uniqueness of the Holocaust as it pertains to the mass slaughter
of Jews.
“To minimize or trivialize the "Jewishness" of the
Final Solution is to seriously understate, if not,
unintentionally perhaps, deny its essence. This
does not mean that the suffering of other groups
is to be ignored; on the contrary, it was terrible.
But without the Holocaust, without the "Final
Solution of the Jewish Question", the others live.
The term "holocaust" was coined to describe the
UNIQUELY Jewish aspect of the Final Solution.”
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
I didn't denegrate Jews!
Are you worried you might have?
... I am concerned you seem to think I might.
It doesn't worry me a bit.
... Well I am concerned that anyone would think of me as hating anyone.
I didn't, and don't think that.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
when did the term "Holocaust" refer to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews?
Previously, you seemed quite sure when it was used, and by whom it was
used -- “a post Israeli state invention” --
..."Introduced by historians in the 1950s" i.e. AFTER Israel was founded
no?
The phrase “Cold War” was also introduced AFTER the state of Israel
was founded, no?
I don't know! The term "cold war" however does not refer either to the
foundation of Israel or to the killing of Jews Slavs gypsies or others by
Nazis.
Another apotheosis of the obvious.
... Not when the term is clearly identified above as meaning relating to
JEWS in WWII and now you seem to acept that it is obvoius it does not relate
ONLY to Jews but also to slavs and Gypsies as well.
Then you misread me. I believe I made it clear that millions of non-
Jews were murdered in the death camps along with Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
this does not mean the significance of Jews dying is
taken away from but it also does not mean the
Jews are a special case.
But the Jews WERE a special case in this instance.
...But not to the extent that ther term "holocaust" means only a\pplying to
Jews at this time. As many non Jews were wiped out in this particular
holocaust.
You are wrong. The Jews WERE a special case, regardless of what the
word holocaust encompasses or doesn't. And claiming that “as many Jews
were wiped out” as non-Jews is bogus, and the line holocaust-deniers'
take, for reasons given repeatedly, as well as in the article from
which you quoted. The Nazis were not targeting all non-Jews, per se.
They were targeting Jews, specifically, and several other disparate
groups. Lumping all non-Jews together falsely implies that non-Jews
were some homogenous ethnicity targeted by the Nazis. They were not.
Jews were.
Post by ***@gmail.com
You were given a
few of the reasons why. The holocaust-history.org site you reference
goes into greater detail.
... Yes but the fact that Nazis planned the execution of Jews does not take
away fromn the fact that thay killed as many non Jews
That is another absurd line routinely bleated by holocaust
revisionists.
nor that they would
have gotten around to killing more non Jews.
See the site you referenced:
“Without the Holocaust, without the "Final Solution of
the Jewish Question", THE OTHERS LIVE.”
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Put it this way. If for example Poland had a mostly
black population or a gay or communist or whatever then the Nazis would
have killed all of them anyway.
You already put it “this way”, except you have now replaced Mongols
and Arabs with blacks, gays, and communists. And no, if Poland had
been filled with blacks, gays, and communists, the Nazis would not
have killed all of them.
... So you believe the Nazis only wanted to kill all the Jews in the World
and would stop at that?
“Without the Holocaust, without the "Final Solution of
the Jewish Question", THE OTHERS LIVE.”
How is it then the neo Nazis hate Muslims and Turks?
This is the same question you asked above, and it's irrelevant. The
neo-Nazis of today are not the Nazis of the last century, and the
Muslims and Turks of today are certainly not in any position that
begins to approach that of the Jews who were rounded up and
exterminated by the Nazis.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Jews didnt have anythig special which meant
the Nazis had to specifically get them. they just happened to be a large
minority grouping.
They just happened to be Jews. That is why the Nazis
SPECIFICALLY targeted them for extermination.
... and had another grouping had the same history the Nazis would have gone
after them?
The only other “grouping” would would had the same history as the Jews
would have been Jews. Had they been Jews, yes, the Nazis would have
“gone after them”. The Wannsee Conference made that clear.
See:
Wannsee Conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Final Solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_solution_to_the_Jewish_question
The Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
Holocaust (disambiguation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_%28disambiguation%29
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact Jews throughout Europe have experienced similar
scapegoating in jhistory.
Never to the extent as that perpetrated by the Nazis, though the
medieval holocaust comes close. And the worst excesses of that time,
as during WWII, occurred in Germany.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But so have Arabs, muslims, Catholics, Protestants
etc.
That is utter bollocks. Produce some evidence which shows that Arabs,
muslims, Catholics, Protestants, were herded into squalid
concentration camps, or gas chambers. The burning of Protestants by
Catholics, or of Catholics by Muslims doesn't count.
"black hole of Calcutta"
“The Black Hole of Calcutta was a small dungeon where troops of the
Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, held British prisoners of war after
the capture of Fort William on June 20, 1756.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_of_Calcutta
Slave Labour under Cromwell. "To Hell or to
Connaguht" resettlement.http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphI...
[snip]
****
The English "herded people into concentration Camps" in the Boer War.
****'
Were 75% of the Boers or the Irish under Cromwell annihilated? Did
doctors use them as human guinea pigs for inhuman “medical”
experiments? Were they shoved into gas chambers or crematoria? Were
any gas chambers or crematoria built for them? A scattershot
pinballing into the Boer War or the British Raj or 17th century Irish
history is irrelevant to this thread, and are all off topic for
soc.culture.jewish/soc.culture.israel.

Unless you can show that Parliament intended to set up death factories
for the purpose of exterminating the entire Irish or Boer or Hindu
populations -- or, in fact, actually did set up extermination camps --
none of these have anything in common with Die Endlösung der
Judenfrage, and no relevance whatsover to this thread.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
the scale and organisation of the massacre of Jews gypsies and Slavs by
the nazis is what stands out,
What stands out is the utter virulence exhibited by the Nazis towards
Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
but the same technology, economic and social
Infrastracture, political conditions didn't exist at other times.
The Aztecs managed rather well in their large scale massacres without
benefit of modern technology – even of any metal-working technology.
The Nazis of the New World.
[snip]
Actually, in certain aspects, the Aztecs even managed to outdo the
Nazis in brutally. For example, the Nazis killed all Jewish children
under the age of six. They didn't, as the Aztecs did, torture infants
to death because the babies' tears, and those of their mothers, were
pleasing to their gods.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
...I believe you have stated only WWII and of ONE OTHER example
in hiostory which related only to Jews.
Wrong again. Your question related to usage of the word holocaust
“Before it was used to “refer to “to the Nazi wiping out of most of
Europs Jews“? I stated that the word was used in an English chronicle
of 1192 and that it related to the 1189 massacres of English Jews. I
did NOT provide “only WWII and of ONE OTHER example in hiostory
which related only to Jews”
... You stated i.e. CITED only ONE other example from history and that other
example related only to Jews!
I have already answered this – several times. Go back and read those
answers.
Post by ***@gmail.com
-- whatever that's supposed to mean. And
that, AFAIK, is the only reference, apart from Churchill's usage for
the Armenian genocide, where it refers to massacre.
... But you are aware and have been given references from before the 20th
century!
How many times do you plan to beat this dead horse?

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861676474/holocaust.html
which states: " The specific application to the mass
murder of the Jews by the Nazis during World War II was introduced by
historians during the 1950s, ..."
You gave that, and have referred to it ad nauseam. Below, you give
examples of the usage of “holocaust” prior to the 1950s, as pertaining
to “the specific application to the mass murder of the Jews by the
Nazis during World War II.” Are you aware that you're contradicting
yourself?
The Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, 2nd ed.Oxford 1989, vol.VII
p.315 sect c.'complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a
great slaughter or massacre' citing examples from 1711, 1833, and 1883
onwards.
Already given and answered.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you actually believe it to be true why dont you state "holocaust
applies not only to jews"?
That should already have been obvious.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Have you got that?
...if you are saying holocaust means "sacrifice by fire" and not just
applying to jews then yes. Id that what you mean? "sacrifice by fire" but
not wholly reserved and applicable to any particular religion or ethnic
group?
<heavy sigh>
Did you read the Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary
entries for “holocaust” given previously?
The Oxford English Dictionary,
You've already given these two or three times. Did you read the
Merriam Webster and American Heritage Dictionary definitions for
“holocaust”?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
... I am asking what you mean by the term! do you accept
"holocaust" in your useage applies not only to Jews?
I accept the dictionary definitions.
The one of 1711, 1833,1883? when the term Existed and the Nazis didnt?
Do you have a purpose for being deliberately obtuse?
The Oxford English Dictionary,
This is the fourth time you've quoted this. If you have a point to
make, make it.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Dictionary terms change dependent on useage.
Some don't. Certainly the definitions from 2006 and 2008 haven't had
time.
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/oed-def.html
Her is an interesting PRE Israeli state reference
What is your insistence on using the idiotic phrases “PRE Israeli
state” and “POST Israeli state”, and your focus on whether a term
existed before or after Israel was established? That's one of the foci
of holocaust deniers.
a.. The American Hebrew of October 31, 1919, refers to a "holocaust of human
life" in an article describing the fate of "six million men and women" Jews
said to be suffering at the hands of the Germans.15
If the date is correct, it's shockingly prophetic. You notice that it,
as well as the following cites, kinda put holes in your argument that
“holocaust”, as pertaining to Jews, didn't exist until the 1950s.”
a.. In December 1942 the Jewish Telegraph Agency charged the Nazis with
cruelties toward Jews that included throwing victims into a "huge boiler
which was used for rendering hog fat" under which was built a fire. "Old
women as well as children perished in this holocaust," reported the JTA.17
M. H. Glynn, "The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!", The American Hebrew,
October 31, 1919. Reproduced in JHR vol. 15 no. 6 (November/December 1995),
p. 31. in
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/definition.html#pgfId-1907
Apart from the foregoing, I'm not interested in the claims of a site
devoted to holocaust-denial, and find it surprising you would
reference one. Incidentally, the site also promulgates the views of
such Holocaust-deniers and antisemites such as David Irving, Ernest
Zundel, Robert Faurisson, and Michael Hoffman.

Do you also subscribe to this site's claims that only 544,500 Jews
died in what it calls “the alleged extermination camps”, and that the
rest is Jewish propaganda invented after the establishment of the
state of Israel?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
But "holocaust revisionism" in the main to me really is
usually just a front for "holocaust denial" and it is a
waste of time to rehearse such arguments which have
been soundly thrashed by the likes of the Nizkor Project
for example.
The Nizkor Project refers to Irving, Zundel, Hoffman, all of whom are
lauded by the historiography-project site which you reference above.
Here are the links:

David Irving
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/
Ernest Zundel
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/
Michael Hoffman
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hoffman-michael/

See, also, the following:
Antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
History of Antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism
Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-
Semitism, also rarely known as judeophobia) is prejudice and hostility
toward Jews as a group. The prejudice is usually characterized by a
combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. While
the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed
against all Semitic peoples, since its creation it has been used
exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews.
Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from
individual expressions of hatred and discrimination against individual
Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs or even state police or
military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Extreme instances of
persecution include the German Crusade of 1096, the expulsion from
England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in
1492, the expulsion from Portugal in 1497, various pogroms, and the
most infamous, the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
... What do you mean by the term? Does "holocaust" IN
YOUR OPINION apply only to jews or to others as well?
I accept the dictionary definitions.
http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/definition.html
Although the current usage of the word "Holocaust" is due to the efforts
Not interested in a site which claims that only 544,500 Jews died in
“alleged extermination camps”, and that those camps had such amenities
as cinemas and swimming pools to make the Jews' stay pleasant.

[flush]
[gurgle]
[gurgle]
[gurgle]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
This time, make sure you understand them.
It will save you the trouble of asking the same question over and over
again.
I hadent though so much about it or researched it before. I will have to
think about it. The histioragraphy site above suggests problems of
definition.
As noted above, the historiography site itself is a problem, unless
you subscribe to its claims that only 544,500 Jews died in the
Holocaust. You have an even bigger problem if you enjoy the site's
cartoons and jokes about the Holocaust and dead Jews.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
when you say "holocaust" do you accept that it does not only apply to Jews?
Third iteration: I accept the dictionary definitions. Here they are
again. Print them out so that you can refer to them as needed.
Merriam Webster
ho-lo-caust
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially
through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a
often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and
especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with
the b: a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
American Heritage Dictionary
hol-o-caust
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life,
especially by fire.
2
a. Holocaust
The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War
II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to
that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy
annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.
...So what about the OED definition? Do you accept that?
Not without seeing it in its entirety – especially after its
appearance on a holocaust denial site.
http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/
"The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the
Hebrew word olah as holokauston.
Definition already given.
A major claim of this essay is that virtually all of the scholarly writings
before 2005 on the connotations and history of the word "H/holocaust"
I'm not greatly interested in what someone's personal website has to
say about the Septuagint, unless that someone happens to be a
reputable scholar.
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
My impression was correct as far as I can see!
That may be part of your trouble.
...that is meant to be counter argument is it? If my impression is not
correct then post evidence showing it.
Already have.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you are so sure i was not
then QUOTE FROM THE SITE which you claim is so clear about it and don't
patronise others. You may as well say "it is in the Bible somewhere go and
read it" If YOU make a claim it is for YOU to support it! Since you claim
the answer it there then all you have to do is cite it!
I'm not the one making absurd claims, and running in circles from
them.
I claim the term existed PRE WWII and that the term "holocaust" has only
recently (since the 1950s) been taken to be related to WWII jews and that
there are possible problems with this definition.
1) It's already been established, chiefly by you, that the word
existed prior to WWII – as well as prior to the establishment of
Israel -- so you can stop beating that poor dead horse.
2) The examples you gave show that the word was used in September
1939, in December 1942, in March 1943, as pertaining to the massive
slaughter of Jews – and in October 1919 to describe the suffering of
“six million men and women (Jews)” -- so you can drop the claim that
“the term 'holocaust' has only recently (since the 1950s) been taken
to be related to WWII jews”.
3) The parenthetical comment “(since the 1950s)” is wrong. “Since the
1950s” implies that it came about in the 1960s, whereas the phrase
actually used – to quote your previous cite -- was “during the 1950s,
probably as an equivalent to Hebrew ?urban and shoah "catastrophe"”
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
Re-read the Merriam-Webster definition slowly and carefully.
... I dont need a lecture from you!
That isn't a lecture. That is the answer to the question you keep
repeating.
... I didnt ask for a dictionary definition! I asked whether
when YOU use the term "holocaust" you accept it applies
to non Jews?
Fourth iteration: I accept the dictionary definitions.
Do you accept the LEADING academic journal in the field of Genocide?
"virtually all of the scholarly writings before 2005 on the connotations and
history of the word "H/holocaust" are perniciously misleading or
perniciously incorrect"
http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/
Oh, please. “LEADING academic journal in the field of Genocide”?
Wherever did you get that rubbish? Do you, personally, know of any
journals – plural – in the “field of Genocide”? I don't. And if you
don't, you can't call somebody's personal website a LEADING journal in
that field.

The author of that site seems to claim a great deal for himself --
none of it is backed by outside reference. For my part, a person who
is capable of making so broad, arrogant, and unsubstantiated a claim
as “virtually all of the scholarly writings before 2005” on any topic
(when what he ought to have written, if he were honest, is “the
writings I've read on this topic”) isn't worth taking seriously.

Thirteenth (I think) – and final -- reiteration: I accept the
dictionary definitions for “holocaust”.

This does not mean that I accept personal opinions from someone's
personal website.

This does not mean that I accept an alleged OED definition as given on
someone's personal website.

This does not mean that I accept cowflops from sites devoted to
holocaust-denial.

This means that I accept the definitions given in Merriam Webster and
the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Is that clear enough for you, or do you require a fifteenth
reiteration of the same?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
My comments stanbd up to scrutiny!
Scrutiny by whom?
By any reasonable people who scrutinise claims made by
those who reposting them!
Your comments and claims have been scrutinised, insofar as they're not
unintelligible, and they don't stand up to the scrutiny of anyone with
a modicum of factual knowledge of the period at issue.
"Holocaust scholars, when commenting on the word "H/holocaust," almost
invariably assert that the word carries Judeo-Christian religious /
Not interested in this person's subjective and unqualified opinions. I
the Nazi Judeocide
[flush]
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It does ! Six is more than five!
Since you can count, tell me this: is one hundred thousand a greater
number, or a lesser, than six millions?
that would be six million Jews who were about Ahlf of the victims of the
Nazis would it?
Is one hundred thousand a greater number, or a lesser, than six
millions?
2.8 million russians are not bigger than six million either - but that many
were killed in eight months by the Germans!
That's 500,000 Soviet POWs killed in the camps, a number of whom were
Soviet Jews. Factor that into the total Soviet war dead of some 20
millions. That figure, too, is higher than six millions.
Don't you think that is significant?
As violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions, certainly. The
Soviets were as brutal with German POWs, and equally guilty of
violation of those Conventions. Were either German or Soviet mass
killings of POWs part of the Holocaust? No. Were the 20 million Soviet
nationals who died in the course of the war a part of the Holocaust?
No.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
– the reason, no doubt, for
your snippage. -- Your previous statement above, actually a quote you
“By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” The reason your
comment -- that "as many as 6" compared to "five" means MORE others!”
-- does not stand up to scrutiny is as follows. I'll try to put it
simply for you.
Three million Poles killed by the Nazis in the six-year Nazi
occupation of Poland do not equate to “MORE others!”
... Are you saying that the guty who says “By the end of the
war, as many as 6 million of these people had been
killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.” was wrong?
Obviously not. Do you have a problem with reading in context?
No. I have no problem in seeing the jewish deaths were about half the total.
In that case, you have a problem. So do the holocaust deniers on the
holocaust denial site you referenced.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip numbers game]
than the six
million Jews killed by the Nazis, though the figure is about the same
as the three million Polish Jews killed by the Nazis.
Two million Soviet POWs killed by the Nazis do not equate to “MORE
others!” than the six million Jews killed by the Nazis.
The estimated 220,000 to 500,000 Gypsies killed by the Nazis do not
equate to “MORE others!” than the six million Jews killed by the
Nazis.
The estimated 80,000 to 200,000 Freemasons, and the 5,000 to 15,000
gays (men), and the 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses killed by the Nazis do
not, in the aggregate, equate to “MORE others!” than the six million
Jews killed by the Nazis
That is what is meant by the statement -- which you snipped,
apparently without reading -- that “the total number of any ONE of
these non-Jewish groups of victims, in and of itself, does not begin
to approach the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis.”
... Yes. the jews were the largest minority grouping. No other
group was a big as the Jews.
“Minority grouping”, as pertains to the subject, is inaccurate, and
irrelevant. Jews were the largest group slaughtered by the Nazis.
... And came probably to just less than half the total number of people
killed by the Germans?
Does that include the 20 million Soviet citizens who died in the
course of the war?
Post by ***@gmail.com
That, alone, should tell you something. As should the facts of the
numbers involved.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But they were still LESS than all the others put together!
Not in the aggregate they weren't. That, too, should tell you
something, as should the Nurnberg Laws.
The Nurnberg Laws were years before WWII!
Four years -- not a terribly long time, unless you were the focus of
them, as Jews were. But the disenfranchisement of German Jews began
two months after the Nazis came to power, several years before the
Nurnberg Laws. Note: of German JEWS.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
This suggests that if about half were Jews it isnt really
correct to call it a holocaust ONLY of Jews doesn't it?
That statement, if possible, is an more absurd.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as I stated I
wont get into a revisionist numbers game with you!
You started playing your revisionist numbers games when you started
spouting numbers. Like your comments, they don't stand up to scrutiny.
... I quoted from a site! It is a WWII holocaust history site! It clearly
states that about half the people who dies were Jews! But when I say "I wont
get into a numbers game" I think it is a waste of time to say "six million"
and then "maybe 5 million2 or "possibly 3.5 million" . This is the waste of
time arguments revistionists get caught up in.
You got yourself caught up in it when you started spouting your
rubbish about five or six million gypsies, Slavs, Poles, communists,
gays, jehovah witnesses, etc etc etc being the same as six million
Jews killed.
Nope! I stated the numbers of non Jews ACCORDING TO THAT
SOURCE were MORE than the number of Jewish victims.
Wrong on several points. Now pay careful attention to what you quoted
ACCORDING TO THAT SOURCE:
“Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering
of
other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies,
prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's
Witnesses and
others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust
continued.
By the end of the war, AS MANY AS 6 million of these people had been
killed,
along with BETWEEN 5 and 6 million Jews.
“Does the focus on the Jewishness of the Holocaust take away from or
minimize
the suffering of the millions of non-Jews who were persecuted? Do the
Jews,
unintentionally perhaps, try to keep all the suffering for themselves?
No.
On the other hand, does the Holocaust have a particularly crucial and
central JEWISH ELEMENT, even though millions of others died? Simply
put, the
answer is YES. The Holocaust, from its conception to its
implementation had
a distinctly Jewish aspect to it and, arguably WITHOUT THIS JEWISH
ASPECT,
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO HOLOCAUST. Most of the non-Jewish people
would not have been killed because the killing machinery would not
have been put into
operation.”

The number of non-Jewish victims -- “ACCORDING TO THAT SOURCE” -- was
NOT more than the number of Jewish victims. “As many as 6 million” is
not MORE than “between 5 and 6 million”. “As many as six million” can
mean “between 5 and 6 million”, and, conversely, “between 5 and 6
million” can mean “as many as six million.”

The actual figures are unknown, and in all probability will remain
unknown. This insistence on “about half” or “less than half” is little
more than revisionist oneupsmanship.
You dont seem to accept that more non Jews died than Jews.
You need to work on clarity. The total deaths from WWII are estimated
– note: ESTIMATED – to have been between 55 million and 70 million.
The world Jewish population at the time was considerably less. This
means that more non-Jews than Jews died. How you managed to arrive at
the ridiculous assumption that I don't accept these facts is a
mystery.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Now read sloooooooowly: None of the previously mentioned groups
suffered the loss of 75% of its members.
... I would say Russian POWs probably did!
And you would be wrong. Soviet – note, SOVIET – POWs comprised several
ethnicities besides Russians. The death of 2.8 million Soviet POWs at
the hands of the German armed forces, as well as the excessive death
rate of German POWs at the hands of the Soviet armed forces, fell
under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Note that of those 2.8
million, it was 500,000 who died in the camps, a disproportionate
number were Soviet JEWS.
The JW's?
2,000. Not even half the totality.

To return to the others you snipped:

POLES: 3 million in the Nazi occupation of Poland – this in addition
to the 3 million Polish Jews murdered by the Nazis. -- Same question
as above: would the deaths of 3 million Poles have had the same impact
on the surviving 27 millions as the deaths of 3 million Irish on the
surviving one million? According to your rationale, it's all one and
the same.

GYPSIES: an estimated 220,000 to 500,000. Is that the same as the
500,000 Soviet POWs who died in the camps, or the 2.8 millions who
died in German POW camps?

FREEMASONS: 80,000 to 200,000, targeted as members of “the Jewish
Conspiracy”. Note the link to Jews.

DISABLED PEOPLE: 75,000 to 250,000 mentally and physically disabled
people – mostly non-Jewish German citizens – between 1939 and 1941.
Part of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question? Nope.

Homosexuals: 5,000 and 15,000

One of the points you continue to miss is that none of the above were
of the same ethnicity. They were not ALL Soviets, or ALL Poles, or ALL
Gypsies, gay men, Freemasons, or disabled people. Lumping them
together as non-Jews is a bogus tack of holocaust deniers.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you understand why that is most relevant, and NOT any “numbers
game”?
Evidently you don't, or won't.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
By the way I should state I
find nothing wrong with historical revisionism.
In fact it is a good thing.
If it is supported by facts.
Usually, historical revisionism is not supported by facts, and that is
why it's a perjorative term.
If it isnt supported it isnt revisionist. And it ISNT a pejorative! History
is not the past and requires revision!
I'm assuming that “History is not the past” is a typo. History
requires reinterpretation, from time to time – NEVER revision.
Revisionism is the game holocaust deniers love to play, and despite
what they claim, historical revisionism IS still a perjorative.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
But "holocaust revisionism" in the main to me really is usually just a front
for "holocaust denial" and it is a waste of time to rehearse such arguments
which have been soundly thrashed by the likes of the Nizkor Project for
example.
That's something we can agree upon.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I suppose the generl point here is that when you reify the Jews' suffering
and discount others (and I do not doubt for a second that Jews were
targeted throughout history) then you may have problems.
Where on earth did you get the weird notion that I discount the
suffering of the millions of non-Jews slaughtered by the Nazis? And
what is “reify”?
... Pardon me. I meant and should have stated "one" and not "you".
What do you mean by “reify”ing Jews' suffering? It was certainly not
an abstraction. It happened.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The point you have missed, above all, is that none of these people
would have been murdered had the Nazis not implemented their Final
Solution to the JEWISH Question.
...I didnt miss that point aty all!
Actually, you did, along with most others. I'm sorry you're having so
much trouble grasping them.
... If Poland was not half Jewish and was half black then the Nazis
would have wiped them out too!
No, they wouldn't.
...Oh but they would.
Oh, but they would not. Firstly, Poland was not “half Jewish”; Jews
comprised less than ten percent of the Polish population.

Secondly – and thirdly – and finally -- the Nazis never developed any
Final Solution to any Question other than the Jewish Question. Hitler,
in his final testament, said he started the war to rid the world of
Jews. Not of Poles, not of Gypsies, not of Russians, not of gays, not
of Freemasons, not of Jehovah's Witnesses, not of congenitally
disabled people. There was no Nazi Final Solution to Lots of People We
Don't Like. It was the Final Solution to the Jewish Question. And
“without the Final Solution of the Jewish Question, the others live.”
Post by ***@gmail.com
And Poland was not half Jewish. Before the war, it
had the largest Jewish population in Europe. But they
were by no means half the population of Poland.
... yeah about 3 million polish jews dead compared to???
90% of the Polish Jewish population. There is no comparison. Unless
you plan to join the ranks of Holocaust deniers, do not try to play
games that massive destruction like that has any equivalency.

See: Poland
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Poland.html#The%20Holocaust

See also: Jews in Occupied Countries – Poland
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/polandtoc.html
during the German occupation of Poland, it is estimated that between 1.6 and
2 million people were expelled from their homes during the 1939-1944 period.
This number does not include millions of slave workers or people arrested by
the Germans and sent to Nazi concentration camps.
And POw's - 2 million?
According to whom?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It does not make the death of non jews less significant.
Your comments imply that it did, even though this was never at issue.
My comment that "It does not make the death of non jews less significant."
does not make the death of non Jews less significant!
Reiterating that the number of non-Jews was MORE! than the number of
Jews killed by the Nazis does, in fact, serve to imply that the
slaughter of Europe's Jews was less significant than the slaughter of
non-Jews.
...No it does NOT! It isnt a numbers thing!
It is, in fact, quite a “numbers thing”, and you have been arguing it
all along, even to the point of quoting from a holocaust denial site.
[sorry no time - snip the rest]
That's quite a snippage. Take your time with the remainder – and I
don't mean that facetiously.-- Here is is, restored:

----------------------------------
Post by ***@gmail.com
Does that sound to you like Jews are trying to “make the death of non
jews less significant”?
... No but I still havent seen you connent that "the WWII holocaust was not
only of Jews and other non Jewish holocausts happened"
And you're not going to. As I stated above, the comment is absurd.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Does your religious liturgy contain prayers
for Jews murdered by the Nazis?
... Actually more than that! In addition to prayers for Jews and Muslims,
Christian teaching suggests the Nazis be forgiven! Most Christians cant live
up to this example!
Does your religious liturgy contain prayers for Jews murdered by the
Nazis? What is the Christian equivalent of Yom HaShoah, and the
special liturgy for the souls of murdered Jews? The link you gave
previously provides only for prayers to be said on Yom Hashoah; it
doesn't indicate that there is any equivalent Christian observance.
And that's merely begging the obvious, since I already know there is
no equivalent Christian observance.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
On the other hand, does the Holocaust have a particularly crucial and
central Jewish element, even though millions of others died? Simply put,
the
answer is yes. The Holocaust, from its conception to its implementation had
a distinctly Jewish aspect to it and, arguably without this Jewish aspect,
there would have been no Holocaust. Most of the non-Jewish people would not
have been killed because the killing machinery would not have been put into
operation.
You do read the quotes you paste, don't you?
...yes.
Re-read the quote from the site you referenced immediately above,
because you appear to have forgotten it.
... I don;t deny the WWII holocaust had a "distinctly Jewish aspect" .
You have been attempting that for several posts, statements to the
contrary notwithstanding.
About
half the dead were Jews mre than any other group. But my point is that if
half the dead were slavs would "holoocaust " mean "killing of slavs by
Nazis" ?
If six million Slavs, rather than six million Jews, had been murdered
by the Nazis, it would still not be a holocaust of Slavs, for the
reason that tens of millions of Slavs remained. 75% of the Slavic
population of Europe would not have been annihilated, as was the case
with 75% of the Jewish population of Europe. Do you understand the
implication of those figures?
Would the WWII holocaust be described as a "distinbctly slavic
aspect" of Nazi policy? would a "final solution to slavs" be a common usage
term?
“Final Solution” is common usage today because that is the term the
Nazis themselves used in relation to their “Jewish Question”. There
was never a “Slavic Question” to which a Final Solution was applied.
The Endlosung – Final Solution – never applied to any people other
than Jews.

Furthermore, immediately prior to the German invasion of Russia,
Heydrich transmitted an oral order to the Einsatsgruppe commanders to
kill all Jews in Soviet territory. Not Slavs—Jews. Heydrich's 2
July1941 letter to senior SS and police chiefs in the newly-conquered
Soviet territories ordered them to execute all Jews in party and state
positions, and to encourage the location populations to pogroms
against Jews. Jews, not Slavs. On 17 July 1941 all Russian Jewish POWs
were ordered summarily executed. Again, the targets were Jews, not
Slavs. One of the Einsatzgruppe A units reported in that in September
1941, they had killed 15, 104 men, 26,243 women, and 15,112 children –
all Jews. Note that that was only ONE unit of ONE Einsatzgruppe.
And let us not forget the slavs were a signicicant minority in any
case.
Slavs numbered in the tens of millions – hardly a “significant
minority”. While it's ghastly when a people numbering in the tens of
millions loses two millions to butchers, it quite hasn't the same
effect as when a people numbering less than nine millions loses six
millions.
Also if there were NO JEWS in Poland the Nazis would have rounded up whoever
they decided were "non Aryan" as they did to non Jews!
This is the third time you have said much the same thing, and for the
third time it's wrong. Jews were the Nazis' chief targets. They were
targeted less than three months after the Nazis came to power. The
term Final Solution, Endlosung, was never used in relation to any
peoples other than Jews. And Heydrich's orders to the Einsatzgruppe
commanders, mentioned above, were specific in their targets: kill
Jews.

As for Aryan, Nazis could be fluid with the term. Both the Japanese
and the Arabs were considered “honorary Aryans”.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
In this context, two points need to be examined: the particularly Jewish
aspect of the Holocaust and the fact that this neither minimizes nor
trivializes the suffering of others.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
Apparently you missed the following, as well, from the foregoing site
Jews were almost always the first group targeted in any initiative.
There is no doubt that they were the focal point from beginning to
end.
... where did I deny that?
Your question is ridiculous.
... above you state "you missed the following... they were a focal
point" So? WHERE DID I SAY THEY WERE NOT a focal
point? where did I deny Jews were a focus?
Every time you reiterate your “MORE non-Jews were killed”. That is
playing a numbers game, and, at best, it's disingenuous.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Germans set up an office on the "Jewish Question" under the
direction of Adolf Eichmann -- the infamous Bureau IV B 4. The name
used for the ultimate killing action was "the Final Solution of the
Jewish Question," Others were drawn in -- with horrific results -- but
the key object and common thread was always the Jews.
... So? This does not minimise non Jews or mean only Jews suffered.
Now where did *I* deny that?
Whether you deny it or not is not the issue.
Certainly it is, if you are going to imply rubbish such as restricting
the definitions of “holocaust” only to Jews, denying the sufferings of
non-Jews, and similar twaddle.
You claim the germans set up an office to focus on Jews.
No, I don't “claim” that, although that is in fact what they did. The
statement is from the site you said you read.
I point out that because they set up an office to
focus on Jews does not mean non jews didnt suffer!
That is a given, and not at issue. The fact that the Germans had NO
office for handling “the Slavic Question” or “Gypsy Question” -- and
that they had no Slavic or Gypsy Question to begin with – should be
suggestive to you.
I also suggest that oif there were no Jews the Germans would
set up offices to focus on some other minority!
And you are wrong.
In fact I don't know if they had an office for Slavic or Catholic
affairs. Maybe they did?
They didn't. Their Endlosung – Final Solution – concerned only the
Jews. What they had planned for non-Jewish non-”Aryans” was to either
Germanise them or enslave them.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
There are thousands of captured documents dealing with the killing
actions. Almost every one of them deals with the Jews and there are
almost no documents that deal with another target that do not also
address the Jews.
... there are also no orders to kill Jews existing signed by Hitler but i do
not doubt he ordered it!
Not at issue.
... The point is that actual orders by Hitler to kill Jews have
never been found!
And very likely won't be. Heydrich's order to kill all Jews in Soviet
territory was verbally transmitted, as were other similar orders, and
the decisions of the Wannasee Conference weren't published.
So what? I dont doubt for a moment he did order it! Do you? Likewise
I dont doubt for a moment he ordered the killing of slavs or gypsies! you
hawever do doubt that since you make a special case above for only Jews!
I'm not the one making a special case for Jews: the Nazis themselves
did that.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Einsatzgruppen reports almost always separate
out the Jews from the other people shot, going so far as to break down
the Jews by age and gender (http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-
einsatz).
... and you assert that makes the Jews "special" ? In what way?
You were the one who posted the link to the Holocaust History site.
Read it.
... I accept the Nazis focused on Jews. But this didnt mean that they
neglected others!
Others may well have wished they had, but that's beside the point.
Maybe Jews were an easy target. they were readily
idebntified by names businesses etc.
Maybe that's why the Catholic church was so virulently anti-Semitic
over the centuries: Jews were an easy target, and easily identifiable
by names and businesses.
when Hitler was finished with them he no doubt planned to
get rid of other groups as well. Disabled people, homosexuals
etc.
The Nazis were killing member of those groups while they were killing
Jews. In fact, they were moving against congenitally disabled people
several months after first moving against Jews. In one pre-war year
alone, some 56,000 non-Jewish German citizens were sterilised for no
other reason than that they were congenitally disabled. That means
that if you were a non-Jewish German boy born with a club foot, or a
non-Jewish German girl with a harelip, the Nazis cut off your balls or
hoicked out your ovaries so you couldn't breed, and, theoretically,
produce more club-footed, harelipped Aryans to demean the Master Race.
IIRC, the number of sterilised non-Jewish Aryan German citizens
reached a million before the end of the Nazi regime.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
I don't doubt they were targeted but so were others.
That was never at issue, except, it seems, in your mind. The fact
remains that none of the groups mentioned above were targeted to the
extent that Jews were targeted from the beginning.
... Yes. But as you pointed out Jews were the largest minority grouping!
Jews wre the largest grouping, period, and always the focal point.
And, as has been pointed out several times, the Final Solution refers
ONLY to the “Jewish Question”. There was never an equivalent
“Question” for any other group targeted by the Nazis.
That is another of
Post by ***@gmail.com
the several points you keep missing. It's also a point which is
clearly set out in the Holocaust History site you referenced.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If jews didnt live in Poland
and Mongols did or arabs I dod not doubt the Nazis would have
killed them instead. The Jews were a scapegoat.
If, as you state, the Jews were a scapegoat, then it follows that it
wouldn't have mattered if Jews lived in Poland or not. Had Mongols or
Arabs lived in Poland instead of Jews, the Nazis would not have killed
them, since they were not scapegoats, as Jews were;
... I dont accept that!
Then you don't accept historical fact. Mongols – or, at least, the
Japanese – and the Arabs were honorary Aryans.
The nazis wanted a land grab of Poland and wanted to
remove the Population to resettle it with their pown population.
They had no intention of removing the entire Polish population. Just
the “undesirable” elements. They planned to keep the remainder on as
slave labour for the Master Race.
this has happened elsewhere. The difference is the "success" of the Nazi plan!
There have been population transfers throughout history. The Khedive
of Egypt was quite successful in the 1830s, when he invaded and
occupied Palestine (southern Syria, has it was known then), drove out
or expelled much of the population, then replaced them with
Egyptians.
Any
"non Aryans" would have been targeted. If Poland had no Jews but other "non
Aryans" they would have wiped them out.
They wouldn't. As above, the Nazis could be quite fluid about who was
an Aryan and who was not. Beginning in 1933, “non-Aryan” was a
euphemism for Jews.
But unless one particular non aryan
group of these was about half the populatpoin one might not alss it a
"slavic" or "gypsy" holocaust. Maybe you have given me the answer in that!
I don't understand this.
Post by ***@gmail.com
the Arabs were the
Nazis' allies, and had been since 1937.
...so were the communists in Russia! So what?
They weren't. Communists were anathema to the Nazis, even after the
August 1939 pact between Russia and Germany.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Palestinian Arabs were active
in promulgating Nazi propaganda, and their leadership spent the war
years in Berlin, where they established, among other things, three all-
Muslim Waffen-SS legions. Syria and Lebanon were under Vichy rule, and
Arabs there fought the Allies. The Egyptian government provided
intelligence on British military movements in North Africa, and there
was a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq. So, no, the Nazis would not have gone for
the Arabs if they were in Poland. In fact, they escorted the Palestine
Arab leadership on a tour of the death camps, which they intended to
establish in Palestine, once the British were driven out.
... good point! but what iof the Jews were not in Poland and the Arabs were!
then the nazis would have non Aryan arab neighbous and hate them instead of
Jews.
Not at all. The Arabs would still have been anti-British, and
therefore honorary Aryans. Moreover, they would have kissed the Nazis'
collective ass, like they did all through WWII. They loved Hitler, and
they still love Hitler. He was their Abu Ali, and the Arabic language
translation of Mein Kampf remains a perennial bestseller amongst
Arabs.
One would also have to include Arabs instead of Jews in Germany in the
1920s and 1930s. Mind you isnt that like Germany today? They have all these
Turkish workers that came in over the last 50 years! And who are the people
that hates them the most in Germany? The National Front!
Turks aren't Arabs. German workers hate them because they feel they're
taking their jobs. The Dutch don't care for them either, as they
insist that the Netherlands abandon their traditions and embrace
Muslim traditions instead. A similar situation holds in Russia today
for Muslims from Central Asia.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip - sorry i have to go cant finish this now]
I'll just bet you're not.
... Well you would be betting wrong! Please don't question my integrity! I
am honestly answering you . If I have to do other things as well then I am
sorry if I cant continue. But If you suggest I am not sorry then you are
making a personal attack on my honesty.
In that case, I apologise for getting testy.

Actually, however testy either of us may get, this is still the only
interesting thread left in the NG.
Post by ***@gmail.com
When you feel up to addressing what you snipped – if you ever do --
here it is again. Per the advice you snipped, you might want to read a
few of the articles on that site. It might save you the trouble of
repeating the same questions ad nauseam.
... If you made another quip like that and suggest I am dishonest or
ignorant without actually putting forward what your point is then there is
no point in continuing! If you have something to say than SAY IT! Dont
suggest that "it is all on the site" like some fundamentalist Christian's
"it is all in the Bible" . cite chapter and verse and then explain the
quotation you use in your own words!
Quit the patronising "If you only knew..." comments!
What “If you only knew....” comments are those? Suggesting that you
read the site you referenced isn't the same as some dumb fundy tootle
about “it's all in the bible”. (Usually, when a fundy says that, you
can be sure it isn't.) But I do think you should read more of the
articles on the holocaust-history site.
Post by ***@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------
[snip restored]
And the Report 51, submitted by Himmler to Hitler in 1943,
breaks down the victims into a variety of categories (bandits,
partisans, etc.), but only lists the Jews as "Jews executed."
Finally, the Korherr Report is entitled "The Final Solution of the
European Jewish Question: A statistical report," and once again,
addresses virtually only the Jews.
... And that is significant ...because???
Are you joking?
Do you believe Hitler ordered the killing of Jews? = YES YOU DO!
DO you have ANy PAPER REFERENCE ? = no you dont!
Does that mean Hitler didnt order it? = NO IT DOES NOT!
So if there is no papers about non jews (which were not focused on as much
and there were lessof anyway)
Does that mean no such ideas, concepts, orders, reports etc ever existed? =
NO it doesnt!
What are you going on about now? Of course Hitler ordered the killing
of Jews. And of course he ordered the killings of non-Jews. It's
immaterial whether any “papers” exist or not showing that Shitler
personally ordered the killings of Jews -- it's inconceivable that it
would have taken place without his orders, or without his knowledge,
as some revisionists try to argue. The rant is ridiculous.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Hitler said before the outbreak of the war that if there were another
war, he would annihilate the Jews.
... Hitler in Mein Kampf refers also to the extermination of Marxism. In
fact while he links Jews and Marxism in palces, in others he specifically
refers to the threat of Marxism in trying to destroy "non jewish national
states" [ page 140]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3200921/-Adolf-Hitler-Mein-Kampf
Ergo, his chief targets were Jews. He believed Jews were responsible
for communism.
He also refers to Austrian slavs and how he reacted with glee to the death
of slavic habsburg rulers (Archduke ferdinand in Particular I believe).
The reference is more than likely the 28th June 1914 assassination of
Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria by the Serbian terrorist Gavrilo
Princep. You do know the significance of the Archduke's assassination,
don't you? Serbs were Slavs. Austrians, like Hitler, were not Slavs.
The Hapsburgs were a royal German house, not Slavic. If you have
information which contradicts any of this, please produce it.
Post by ***@gmail.com
He said during the war that he was
in the process of annihilating the Jews. And he said in his Testament
that he had done exactly what he had said he would do.
... I dont doubt jews were the main focus of Nazis because they were the
largest group even if they were a minority group.
You have been insinuating the opposite.
Let me put it this way.
sup[pose the US didnt enter the War and Germany killed all the Jews. do you
think the Nazis would stop then? dont you believe they would resettle Poland
and then move on to "rootingout" all the other "non aryans". Jews are
significant in this sence because they were FIRST! not BETTER just the FIRST
in line for execution! That doesnt mean the second in line ot the last was
any less unjustified or targeted!
Let me put it another way: until you've read more history, you're
better off leaving What-Might-Have-Been to writers like Gregory
Benford, Frederick Pohl, Harry Turtledove, Gregory Benford, Barry
Malzberg, Philip Dick, and the like. They do it superlatively.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The ultimate aim and the primary target never varied. Others were
murdered in the course of the Final Solution, e.g. Gypsies, Russian
POWs, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on, but the first and
constant target was always the Jews. The Final Solution was intended
for the Jews, was about the Jews and chiefly affected the Jews. There
is no denying that, without the Jews, there is no Final Solution.
... I dont accept that.
Then you don't accept historical fact.
I accept that the conditions arise out of centuries
which you can not change but if Hitler had succeeded and ther was only a few
Jews in the whole world and a neo Nazi group became powerful in germany
today they would probably mbe more interested in attacking Turks than Jews.
In fact, they would not.
In fact are not all the Russian Neo Nazis like this?
A question like that doesn't deserve a response.
Post by ***@gmail.com
To minimize or trivialize the "Jewishness" of the Final Solution is
to seriously understate,
...wher did I tirvialise Jewishness?
The “Jewishness of the Final Solution.” Read on, and try to keep it in
context with what you snipped.

[snip restored]
Post by ***@gmail.com
if not, unintentionally perhaps, deny its
essence. This does not mean that the suffering of other groups is to
be ignored; on the contrary, it was terrible. But without the
Holocaust, without the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", the
others live. The term "holocaust" was coined to describe the uniquely
Jewish aspect of the Final Solution. It does not seek to negate the
suffering of the other victims.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/
Note the final sentences:
THE TERM "HOLOCAUST" WAS COINED TO
DESCRIBE THE UNIQUELY JEWISH ASPECT
OF THE FINAL SOLUTION. IT DOES NOT SEEK
TO NEGATE THE SUFFERING OF THE OTHER
VICTIMS.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/

Read also the Jewish Virtual Library's section on the Holocaust, which
contains
sections on the Nazi massacres of non-Jews, the links to which were
previously provided you. See, for example, the sections on:
Gypsies
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gypsytoc.html
Homosexuals
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gay.html
Jehovah’s Witnesses
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jehovah.html
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Neither group was
wiped out, nor were either on the agenda of the Wanasee Conference, or
ever targeted to be wiped out.
...as many as 6 million of these people had been killed, along
with between 5 and 6 million Jews.
I read the quote you provided. Did you?
... yes. And I do nopt deny Jews wer the largest minority larger than any
other group of victims. But MORE non Jews were killed. And other holocausts
of non Jews have happened. And yet the term "holocaust" is usually only
associated with WWII Jews. Which is where we came into this.
It's where YOU came in. And it's where you're still stuck. You
yourself gave the reason why can't move past it, and the reason is
this: “My impression was correct as far as I can see!” You think YOUR
impression is correct as far as YOU can see. Try to see a bit farther
than that.
You see I dont
hear people say as I might "the WWII planned Nazi massacre of people such as
gypsies and slavs and of which the largest target by far (in fact about half
of the entire number of people killed) were Jews who, being the largest
minority and easliy identified were singled out for specific identifiation
by Nazi death squads and usually became the first people to be rounded up
for the death camps"
The reason you don't hear people saying this, and in all likelihood
probably won't, is that it's partly your unfounded and subjective
opinion, partly a muddle, but mostly it's absurd.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
This is not to say that the Nazis didn't have it out for certain non-
Jewish Europeans. They planned to exterminate the Poles, whom they
considered almost as subhuman as Jews; in addition to the three
million Polish Jews slaughtered by the Nazis, three million non-Jewish
Poles also perished. Slavs – specifically Russians - were also
considered less than human, and were so brutally treated in German POW
camps that an estimated two millions perished. For other “non-Aryan”
Europeans, IIRC, the general plan was to “Germanize” those they could,
and use those they could not as slave labour. But there was nothing on
the level of “the planned extermination and destruction of the Jewish
race.”
“Until 1940 the general policy within the section was to settle the
Jewish Question in Germany and in areas occupied by Germany by means
of a planned emigration. The second phase, after that date, was the
concentration of all Jews, in Poland and in other territories occupied
by Germany in the East, in ghettos. This period lasted approximately
until the beginning of 1942. The third period was the so-called "Final
Solution" of the Jewish question - that is, the planned extermination
and destruction of the Jewish race....I learned of such an order for
the first time from Eichmann in the summer of 1942.” Testimony of
Dieter Wisliceny, Nuremberg 1946
No comment?
... As you might say. I commented above. why dont you re read it?
Point it out. I can't keep track of all of them.
The "phase I" exclusion of Jews was I believe also accompanied
by the exclusion of others.
Then you believe wrongly, as shown by the testimony of Eichmann's
aide, that is: “Until 1940 the general policy within the section was
to settle THE JEWISH QUESTION in Germany and in areas occupied by
Germany by means of a planned emigration. That “planned emigration”
was the forced emigration of Jews. Less than than three months after
the Nazis came to power, a national boycott of all Jewish businesses
and professions waws instigated. Legislation followed a week later (7
April 1933) which removed Jewish officials of national, state, and
municipal government, along with Jewish notaries, teachers, and other
semi-public servants. Jewish businesses were liquidated, and Jewish
doctors and lawyers barred from practicing. The Nurnberg Laws of 1935
stripped all Jewish citizens – and all citizens with one Jewish
grandparent – of their citizenship, and prohibited non-Jews from
marrying Jews. After the aunschluss, the same laws were extended to
Austria.

That was the beginning of the “phase I exclusion of Jews”. Whatever
you may believe, it was not “accompanied by the exclusion of others.”
There was great pressure on Protestant and Catholic churches, which
the Vatican attempted to relieve by signing a concordant with the
German government whereby all diocesan appointments were to be made
only after consultation with the Reich, and Catholic clergy was
prohibited from taking part in politics. None of it was on a par with
the disabilities inflicted on German and Austrian Jews, and none of it
had a thing to do with Slavs, gypies, Poles, etc.
Look let me get a few things straight here.
You don't know me.
So please don't assume to lecture me.
Ill put you straight on a few things from my perspective.
I don't particularly like the Israeli government positon on many issues.
Neither do the Israelis who used to post here, and those who still
post here.
I am not a "yes man".
I don't go with what authotities say.
I believe peoippe should think for themselves according t logic and reason.
Logic and reason were sorely lacking in the period under discussion,
except in an extremely twisted manner. That is one of the points
you're not taking into consideration.
Now people will say "the jews control the media"
but taking the US as an example the Arabs have VAST media control. ( I can
cite examples from history if you want but suffice it to say that is a valid
opinion)
Before I agree with you – and at this point, I don't disagree with you
– I'd have to check into that. I haven't considered it before. But I
have a feeling you may be right.

I'm interested to know what brings you to the conclusion that Arabs
have vast media control? It wouldn't surprise me, though. The Saudi
royals, for example, are substantial stockholders in the Disney
corporation.
I am neutral.
I am not a holocaust denier.
I have had several exchanges with holocaust deniers on usenet pointing out
their weak arguments.
Good for you! I just ignore the turds.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
I think people believe the Nazis had and ideology and a philosophy which they
adhered to which entailed hating jews slavs etc. But have you considered
thet most Nazis didnt really care about any ideology as long as they got
rich and powerful? This is whay many of them so easily jumped over to
serving communists (who according to "ideology" were as vile as Jews ) or to
working for the Allied as spies. They were along for the ride.
You are grasping at straws. What, exactly, is your point?
... The point of a "final solution" or a plan. most Nazis werent
"indoctrinated"
[snip]
You just hit on something which is among the more astonishing aspects
of the Holocaust, and that is that most of the atrocities weren't
carried out by Nazi party members, or the German army, but by ordinary
citizens. No indoctrination was necessary. They went after Jews
because they hated Jews; once having tasted blood, so to speak, there
was no problem in going after other victims. Incredible, isn't it?

One of the more chilling aspects, at least to me, occurred when the
Hungarian government was in the process of rounding up Hungarian Jews
and shipping them to the death camps. Since they were required to pay
a part of the costs of transport, they argued for a special group
discount. They deserved one, they felt, since they were packing so
many Jews into the trains, well above the usual numbers that qualified
for group discounts. Therefore, they wanted a special group discount.
Can you imagine?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
“By this time the formula 'Final Solution for the Jewish Question' had
taken on a new meaning: liquidation. In this new sense we discussed it
at a special conference on January 20, 1942 in the Wanasee section of
Berlin...After the conference, as I recall, Heydrich, Muller and your
humble servant sat cozily around a fireplace...We all had drinks then.
We sang songs. After a while we got up on the chairs and drank a
toast, then on the table and then round and round--on the chairs and
on the table again.” Testimony of Adolf Eichmann, 1961
Eichmann, et al seemed to have had a good time planning the third
phase of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question.
...yes but net seething with rage like the usual portrayal of Hitler etc.
Do you actually think that matters?
... In the sense that Nazis acted on personal power grabs rather than an
ideology i think it is central to the issue.
The Wannasee Conference wasn't a personal power grab, and they were
definitely acting on an ideology. It was the ideology of Mein Kampf
and the Final Solution.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
But one could equate the term "holocaust" with
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
...Yes because it refers to the Latin translation of Jewish
sacrifices by making burnt offerings.
Again, you are grasping at straws.
... I dont think so. How?
I missed the previous references.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
I don't deny the term traces it origins to Jewish customs of making
offerings but that does not mean the offerings were PEOPLE!
Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston
I already gave the etymology. Do these semantic antics have a point?
Well I have not seen yo to this point state "holocaust" applies to non
jews.
Do you accept it does?
For the fifth, and final, time, I accept the dictionary definitions.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact,
however, the Armenian and Rwandan genocides are designated with the
Holocaust as three of the four instances of genocide in the 20th
century.
I missed the Kymer Rouge.
That's Khmer Rouge.
...thats an english translation for an Oriental name
So what? In English, it's Khmer Rouge.
you might also haard of Kahdaffi and Gadaffi and al queda and Khyda
but I think despire spelling falmes people knew what I meant
Thank you for the correction . I will try to use "Khymer" from now on.
And I hope if I type "holokost" you will know what I mean.
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
I may be wrong, but I don't recall that the English planned the
deliberate destruction of the Irish people,
..."Plantation" was the policy. It amounted to the same.
It didn't, and it's idiotic to suggest it did.
...Can you justify that remark by supporting it with evidence?
I might, if it were at issue, but it's not, and astronomically way off
topic for SCJ.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
or that they built
concentration camps and gas chambers to exterminate all the Irish.
...No they wouldnt have done that because they hadnt the territory or the
infrastructure.
They hadn't the desire either.
...Can you justify that remark by supporting it with evidence?
Since you are the one who stated that the Irish famine was the same as
the holocaust, it's up to you to produce some English doctrine
equivalent to the Endlosung. But post it to soc.culture.irish, as it's
off topic for soc.culture.jewish.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Another point you miss is that the Irish potato famine is neither at
issue nor relevant.
[snip]
...
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The
potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine didn't reduce
Ireland's then-population of 8.5 million to less than 2 million, as
the Nazi Final Solution did for the Jews of Europe, did it?
... No only to 3 million. the population continued to decline to about 3
million in 1970 from which time it has been growing.
Comparing "only two million" Irish to "6.5 million Jews" is a bit like
saying "not 6.5 million but more probably 5 million Jews". It is a pointless
discussion when millions were certainly involved.
When discussing the planned extermination of a people, it certainly
it. But if you are going to trot in a false analogy, like that of the
Irish potato famine to the Holocaust, the numbers do become relevant.
Once again: The potato blight which resulted in the Irish famine
claimed almost a million casualties over seven years; another 1.6
million emigrated, mostly to America. That is not comparable to the
deliberate slaughter of six millions.
Post by Mavisbeacon
And if the
English looked down on the Irish as “ignorant slave labour to support
their economic base,” it makes little sense for them to have
deliberately annihilated that economic base.
... Yeah. Like the Nazis should have kept Jewish slaves instead of kiling
them? The killing of the Jews was not sensible either but that doesn't
justify either killing them or slavery.
Again, you miss the point: the Nazis were not interested in Jews as
an
“ignorant slave labour to support their economic base”. They were
interested in annihilating every Jewish man, woman, and child.
[snip potato famine stuff]
[snip the rest as you snipped famine stuff]
Snippage of relevant facts restored, in case you care to face them and
address them.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
...Many jews were "driven out" in the 1930 just as Irish were in the 1830s.
But the poorer elements couldnt go.
Evidently the Jewish “poorer elements” who “couldn't go” were the
majority; only 25% of European Jews survived the Nazis. The comparison
with the Irish isn't even up on the the apples and oranges level.
... Im not getting into a revisionist numbers game.
Nevertheless, that's what you've been doing.
[snip more potato famine stuff]
Post by Mavisbeacon
They didn’t. They couldn't escape by emigrating
to Palestine either, after the British, at the behest of Nazi
Germany's Palestine Arab allies, barred them from doing so beginning
in 1939.
90% of Europe's Jews did not perish as a result of diseases to which
they had no immunity, as did “native Americans”, to use the current PC
phrase,
diseases like smallpox specifically spread for example by "donating"
blankets to native Indians which were infested with smallpox?
90% of the Indian population of the Americas died from disease-
infested blankets?
Again that is a numbers game.
It's the game you've initiated, along with your semantic antics.
Post by Mavisbeacon
whose estimated population at the time of Columbus's arrival,
in the entire Western Hemisphere, did not exceed 12 million, with the
bulk of the population being located in what became Latin America.
(There is no need, at this point, to go into the slave labor camps the
Spanish set up for the Indians, on which the Germans later based their
concentration camps.)
... Or the ones set up by the British in south africa during the Boer War.
Your point?
...no YOURS .
Excuse me for not being more clear. What I meant was: “What is your
point in your attempts to equate Kitchener's South African
concentration camps for the Boers with the German concentration
camps?” The Brits established concentration camps on Cyprus, too: in
1947-48, for Jews. Neither is equivalent to the German concentration
camps, and certainly not to the death factories
Post by Mavisbeacon
YOU brought up concentration camps being based on earlier
examples. I just gave you the example of the British "concentration camp"
system. Invented by the British.
That British “invention” was ignored by the Germans; the latter based
their slave labor camps those created by the Spanish in the Americas
for Indians. Your “examples” are tantamount to arguing that because
an apple and a rubber ball are red, round, shiny and smooth, the one
is as good to eat as the other.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Others might also add
- pogroms by stalin
-Mao's Cultural revolution
-The Congo
Others might, but that's their choice.
.. i wouldnt. But "holocaust" is taken today to mean specifically only Jews
in WWII. Why?
As capitalized – the Holocaust – it refers to the deliberate
destruction of 75% of the Jews of Europe.
... Yes but other holocausts did happen.
I believe I stated as much in previous posts, as well as in the
The Final Solution had no political or economic justification; it was
an end in itself. Jews were the ONLY people slaughtered by the Nazis
for simply existing.
None of the non-Jewish groups who were murdered by the Nazis, to
which
you have alluded, were the focus of any "Final Solution". Only Jews
were targeted by the Nazis for utter annihiliation.
Exterminating Jews wasn't a PART of the German war effort -- it was
the same. No German resources which could have been used in the war
were ever diverted to slaughter gypsies, Slavs, gays, Jehovah's
Witnesses, political dissidents, etc. But they were diverted for the
slaughter of Jews. For example, a contributory factor to Rommel's
defeat by the British was lack of needed materiel; it was slow to
arrive, or failed to arrive in time, because necessary transport had
been diverted to transport Jews to the death camps. The same does not
hold for any of the other peoples murdered by the Nazis.
Post by Mavisbeacon
There are other examples fromn history but over the last five hundred
years
I would say the first three above probably qualify as "holocaust"
And it would be as incorrect as equating Ireland’s potato famine with
the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews.
... The destruction of Irish people was known and planned. In fact going
back to pre 1800 you have Lords in Parliamenbt like Bolton (now has a
street
in dublin named after him) who tried to introduce a law to Castrate
Catholic
Priests! It was voted down because it was silly.
So, the English planned the deliberate destruction of the Irish by a)
importing potatoes, so that the population increased dramatically;
then b) introducing a potato blight to starve that increased
population – despite the fact that that population comprised their
“economic base.” That so?
... The "potato famine" as you call it is a misnomer! It was not about the
failure of the potato crop. It was about economics and politics.
And the Nazi extermination of Europe's Jews was not about politics or
economics. Moreover, as the British never targeted the Irish for
utter
annihilation, as the Nazis did the Jews, your persiflage on the Irish
potato famine constitutes a false analogy, and utterly irrelevant.
You
would do better to bring up the Armenian Genocide, or the Khmer
Rouge,
or the Rwandan Genocides by way of comparisons.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Catholic Priests are meant
to be celebate anyway.
But weren't in the past, and aren't today.
[snip irrelevancy]
Post by Mavisbeacon
... The most damage done by Christians in the US was by Protestants.
Fundamentalists like the ones they have today!
Let's let that one go, except to point out that the obvious fact that
neither the US nor American Protestants are relevant to the laws
enacted by Spanish Catholics upon the Indian population of the
Americas – note the plural – nor to the functioning of the
Inquisition in the Americas.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Spanishg Inquisition was a meaner and not Vatican led endeavour like the
much more placid Italian Inquisition which had a logical reason for being.
Galileo's views on the Roman Inquisition, along with those of the
Albigensians and the Knights Templar, probably differed.
Post by Mavisbeacon
...as you are making it a number game
Actually, you are the one making a “numbers game”, in addition to
your
semantic antics. I asked you several times what your point was. You
failed to respond, other than with some utter irrelevancy about some
alleged British Final Solution to the Irish Question.
Post by Mavisbeacon
ill ask you How many American natives
were killed by the Spanish Inquisition?
That is tantamount to my asking you if you've stopped beating your
spouse, and is, in any case, irrelevant.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact the failed Plantation of Munster and Leix/ Offaly Kings
county/Queens County witnessed about 1000 Catholic families dispossessed
Dispossession is not tantamount to a planned and deliberate genocide.
Post by Mavisbeacon
and
presued to the sea and hunted down like dogs! Their lands were then given
over to Protestant settlers. Thi is similar to the Nazi soultion. the Nazis
were happy to have the Jews as slaves and re settle Poland with "Germanic
people". but when they were losing the war they decided on the "final
solution" of extermination. although they may have planned it earlier.
This, too, doesn't quite make the apples-and-oranges grade.
...It does when you are talking about a quarter of the controlled country -
Yet again, you miss the point, and call into serious question any
knowledge of recent history you might possess. It's obvious you are
unaware that the Nazi Solution to the Jewish Question did not
envisage
any Germans being “happy to have the Jews as slaves”, or that the
third phase of the Final Solution was implemented when the Nazis were
at the height of their victories.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Again the numbers game does not apply here.
Except when you're the one playing it, yes?
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
6. Only Palestine Arabs can claim western Palestine as "their land."
... on tyhis I would ask what you mean by "semitic".
It's difficult to see what the definition of “semitic” has to do with
the previous poster's implication that only Palestine Arabs can claim
western Palestine as “their land”.
Well when people are accused of being "anti semites" one has to ask what
"semite" means, no?
Not really, when one can look it up. “Semite” originated in the 18th
century to describe the various peoples of the Middle East, based on
the belief that they descended from Noah's son Shem. “Semitic” is used
by linguists and philologists with regard to language groups. “Anti-
Semitic”,coined in the 19th century, refers specifically to Jews.
... i was aware of the first bit but not of the latter. Thanks for that. Do
you not find it strange that "semitic" means people of a particular region
but "anti semitic" only applies to the Jews of that region?
“Antisemitic” NEVER applied “only” to “Jews of that region”. It was
coined in the 19th century to mean hatred of Jews, and nothing else.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
In the case of Islam, a phony religious significance, based solely
upon military-political oneupsmanship between rival khalifs during the
Second Islamic Civil War (c 680/683-685/692). After ibn Zubayr seized
Mecca, al-Malik prohibited all pilgrimages to Mecca, declared Har
Bayit the site of Muhammad's dream into as-samawat, and engaged
Byzantine architects to build the mosque of Umar in order to attract
pilgrims -- and their money, in order to deflect it from ibn Zubaydr.
but for
Jews it's our Washington DC. It's our ancient capital, and there is no
reason to give it up or redivide it. Yes, just as there are Jewish
neighborhoods, and Irish neighborhoods, and Italian neighborhoods, and
African American neighborhoods in DC, so Jerusalem has had many
Quarters. But it's the capital of the Jewish nation, and that is the
way it's going to stay.
Ironic, isn't it, that the first modern usage of "Palestinians"
referred to Jews, and now refers to the descendants of Muslim Arabs of
former British Palestine. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem has been
noted throughout the centuries. It's only recently that the connection
has come to be denigrated, due largely to Pseudostinians, their
propaganda, and the ignorant antisemites who support them.
... Well we are back to what "semities" are.
Were we there in the first place?
Yup ... note the phrase "ignorant antisemites "?
I apologize for the redundancy.
... You don't have to. But YOU WERE there in the first place.
I'm sorry the comment sailed over your head. Let me explain it: A
redundancy is a superfluity of words. Ergo, the phrase “ignorant
antisemites” is a redundancy because antisemites are generally
ignorant people.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Indded the jews have been in
the region for thousands of years. The Jewish and christian holy
Scriptures
record it. But so have the other semites - Arabs.
Semitic-speaking Arabs are relative newcomers to the Near East. Prior
to their recent arrival, the region was occupied for millennia by
other Semitic-language speakers, including Amorites, Babylonians,
Assyrians, Aramaeans, Ugarites, Phoenicians, and others.
Hint: “Semite” isn't an ethnic term; it refers rather loosely to
speakers of a Semitic language.
...and to the descendents of these cultures just as modern Jews are -
and some speak yiddish.
Nation States are a recent
concept of the last 200 years really. Though the nations may have existed
the internationally recognised territories didnt!
REcently the Arabs have mooted the Idea of a nation State of "Palestine."
But don't forget only 50 years ago the Jews mooted the same for "Israel".
Jews “mooted the same for Israel” well before only 50 years ago.
... But it was only validated by International UN mandate then!
There was never an UN mandate for Israel, nor any “validation” by the
UN for Israel.
... funny i could have sworn they vote in the general assembly
and have been on the Security council?
Israel's membership in the UN, and its vote in the General Assembly,
no more constitutes some “UN mandate for Israel” than America's
membership constitutes a “UN mandate for America”. Moreover, Israel
has never been a member of the Security Council.
Post by Mavisbeacon
How many other countries get voting rights but are
not recognised by the UN?
I have no idea how many non-member countries of the UN are given the
right to vote in the General Assembly. You tell me, and we'll both
know.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Following WWI, the League of Nations granted the
Mandate for Palestine to the British, as well as the Mandate for
Mesopotamia; France received the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, while
Japan, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries received
Mandates for other territories formerly belonging to the by-then
defunct Ottoman and German Empires. In 1923, Britain partitioned the
Mandate for Palestine and granted the bulk of territory to the
Abdallah son of Husayn, Sheriff of Mecca and Medina; at the same time,
Britain created Iraq from the Mandate for Mesopotamia and bestowed it
on Abdallah's older brother, the Emir Feisal. In 1947, the UN General
Assembly voted to partition the remaining fifth of Palestine into
another Arab state and a Jewish state. The Arabs immediately went on
the warpath to prevent the creation of a Jewish state in the remainder
of Palestine (and, incidentally, to prevent the creation of a second
Arab state in Palestine.)
...In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of
Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
Imagine that.
Post by Mavisbeacon
In
fact, Israel recently celebrated her 60th anniversary as a state.
...Sorry I apologice. I meant 60 not 50. I was thinking in terms of about a
half century.
But
Jews were mooting the esatablishment of a Jewish state in Syria (as
Palestine was previously known) in the first decades of the 19th
century, back when the only “Palestinians” around were the Jews of
Europe.
... Yup. And that was LESS THAN 200 years ago.
Correct, 1844 was LESS THAN 200 years ago.
...Which is what I claimed! Nation states are only about 200 years old at
most!
Wherever did you pick up that bit of fluff?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Look Im not saying the Nazi treatment of the Jews and slavs and gypsies was
the SAME as the British treatment of the Irish
You stated that it was “similar to the Nazi soultion,” which it was
not,
... Oh but it WAS. I showed you the similaraties.
You showed nothing, except that you need to educate yourself a bit
more on the subjects you're attempting to discuss. The British
treatment of the Irish in the 19th century nowhere approaches the
treatment of Jews by the Nazis.
Post by Mavisbeacon
and that “the Nazis
were happy to have the Jews as slaves,” which they were not.
... Oh but they were.
Oh but they were not. The purpose of the Final Solution was not to
elate Germans with Jewish slaves; it was to annihilate every Jewish
man, woman, and child, irrespective of any political or economic
justification. And that is one of the major factors that sets it
apart
from every other example you have touched upon.
You need to go back to the link you gave above –http://www.holocaust-history.org/
-- and reread it carefully.
Deborah
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-26 20:34:45 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 26, 10:26 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).

# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:

Cider-Braised Jewish Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Kikes.

# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.

# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.

# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?

# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 26, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Deborah Sharavi should be re-named… Hannibal. I am certain her
favorite movie is “The Silence of the Lambs.”

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

____________________________________________________

Mirelle
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-28 21:02:24 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 26, 10:26 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).

# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:

Cider-Braised Jewish Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Kikes.

# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.

# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.

# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?

# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm
When they wanna see
How evil people could be
They’ll just remember
Deborah Sharavi’s “recipe”

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

____________________________________________________

Mirelle
Mavisbeacon
2008-07-02 16:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Because something happened after something does not mean the first thing
caused the second or was responsibe for it.
Would you mind translating the foregoing into intelligible English,
then explaining its relevance to your statement that “The terminology
"jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”?
... The terminology was used AFTER the Israeli state came to be
recognised by UN nations.
That statement neither translates your comment above, nor does it
explain the relevance of that comment to your claim that “The
terminology "jewish holocaust" was a post Israeli state invention”.
yes it does - the term was used AFTER the Israeli State came to be is what
it means.
Would you mind translating that last into intelligible English?
No clarification?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
And it is backed up by the references given with suggests
"holocaust" referring exclusively to Jews killed by Nazis
was a 1950s usage.
A bit later than 1950s usage, in case you hadn't noticed.
On Jun 23, 6:19 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <***@nospam.forme>>wrote:


[snip]

First I apologise for the oversight of referring to a holocaust denial site.
You may ignore the reference is you wish.

Let me clarify the main issue here.
This is what I was stating:

The word "holocaust" was used for centuries before WWII. It has origins in a
GREEK word which has origins in a Hebrew word referring to burnt offerings
by sacrifice. this GREEK work is found in the Greek Christian Scriptures. If
is unlikely that Protestants would know of this usage since they use the
King James Version of the Bible which does not have the word. Also Jews
would not be aware of this usage either. Nor would Anglican Catholics again
because of the KJV. Roman and Orthodox Catholics would be aware of it.

"Holocaust" was used right up to and after the WWII killing of Jews Gypsies
and slaves and others. It was used in a variety of usages. It was only AFTER
WWII that the usage became associated with the killing of Jews by the Nazis.
Not of NON JEWS but specifically of only Jews.!
The word "holocaust" has been used since the 18th century to refer to the
violent deaths of a large number of people
since the 1950s its use has been increasingly restricted, and it is now
mainly used to describe the Nazi Holocaust.

That can be easily seen by referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#cite_ref-9

Yes people referred to killing Jews before The current day Israel existed
but the common use was pushed as Petri points out by Yad Vashem.

Look particularly at footnote 5 which adheres to this definition with
multiple examples. But footnote 10 states: For an opposing view on the
allegedly offensive nature of the meaning of the word "Holocaust," see
Petrie, Jon. "The Secular Word 'HOLOCAUST': Scholarly Myths, History, and
Twentieth Century Meanings," Journal of Genocide Research 2, no. 1 (2000):
31-63.

You can find Petrie's paper here:

That is what "post WWII" and "Post Israel" use of the word "holocaust" as
used by me means.

http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/
"The secular word HOLOCAUST: scholarly myths, history, and 20th century
meanings" was published in Journal of Genocide Research 2:1 (2000), 31-63.

Petrie is not a holocaust denier. I am not a holocaust denier. Nor am I
denigrating Jews and I don't like you claiming I am no better than a
holocaust denier! I am quite simply pointing out the usage of the word
"holocaust" has been adopted by people who take offence if you do not use
the word only meaning referring only to Jews. Even Nazi hunters didn't use
the word in this way as Petri's points out. and it had NON RELIGIOUS secular
usages.
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-07-07 10:29:42 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
First I apologise for the oversight of referring to a holocaust denial site.
You may ignore the reference is you wish.
Already had. It was just a heads-up for you, since I don't think
you're the sort who would want to refer to such a site.
Let me clarify the main issue here.
The word "holocaust" was used for centuries
before WWII. It has origins in a
GREEK word which has origins in a Hebrew word referring to burnt offerings
by sacrifice
However, true it is, you've recited it so often it reads like the
label on a can of chicken noodle soup.
That can be easily seen by referring to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#cite_ref-
I've read the Wiki entry. Several of them. And provided links to them,
IIRC.

[snip]
Not interested in the etymological obsessions of a dilettante
That is what "post WWII" and "Post Israel" use of the word "holocaust" as
used by me means.
Post WWII is understandable. The other phrase you used was “post
Israeli state”, not “Post Israel”, although both are equally absurd,
for reasons previously explained.

“Holocaust is a biblical term for the offering on the altar that is
completely consumed by fire and goes up to heaven in smoke. I am not
comfortable with the notion of Hitler's victims as a sacrifice offered
to God. They were not sacrificed; they were murdered by brutal sadists
who cared not at all for the biblical God. Modern Hebrew uses the term
Shoah, the Calamity, to refer to the fate of European Jews under the
Nazis.”
Rabbi Harold S. Kurshner, To Life! A Celebration of Jewish Being and
Thinking, p 138

That sums up my opinion on the matter. IIRC, I noted previously that
the New York Times, in publishing Israel's Declaration of Independence
on 15th May 1948, used “holocaust” to translate “shoah” in describing
the “catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the
massacre of millions of Jews in Europe.” And here ends my involvement
in this particular etymological discussion, which I find distasteful.

Deborah
4PeaceMirelle
2008-07-07 15:37:54 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 7, 3:29 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).

# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:

Cider-Braised Jewish Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Kikes.

# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.

# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.

# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?

# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm
When they wanna see
How evil people could be
They’ll just remember
Deborah Sharavi’s “recipe”

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

____________________________________________________

Mirelle
Mavisbeacon
2008-06-23 01:07:48 UTC
Permalink
[snip much of - "that came later"]
Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm
I would say, again, that that comparison isn't even up to the apples
and oranges level.
[snip]
... I disagree. It is a fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade.
There were no democracies in that era.
... it was published in 1776
1776 is not at issue.

... It is if 1500 is when the Sapnish arrived and you claim MOST of the time
between then and now was Spainsh!


See your previous post, in which you wrote:
“Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm “

...yes 1500-2000 is 500 years . 1750 is MOST of the time in between!

Ergo, 1776 is not at issue. Once again, there were no democracies in
that era (i.e., 1600). What that means is that Adam Smith's 1776
“fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade”
is irrelevant.

... So ancient Greek comment on democracy is also irrelevant?
Israel like Holland has little in the way of natural
resources and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries
like Holland was with Spain France and England.
England in 1600 wasn't “fabulously wealthy”.
... The comparison made by Smith was holland and spain
Therefore, irrelevant.

England WAS wealthy by comparison. the fact that ONE comparison by Smith was
relevant does not make you denial relevant.
but England in the 1500s had looted the Monastries
Even more irrelevant.

No! It shows they were wealthy.
Egypt
$127.9 billion
... But this is NOT about GDP . smiths argument
If you're going to make the statement that a particular country's
neighbours are “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to that country, you
need to provide a factual base for stating such

...I did! Looting monastries the richest elements in europe! But yo called
that "irrelevant"

That base is the most
recent GDPs for the respective countries -- not a comparison of
Holland and Spain written in 1776.

...I justified Smiths comments as written. A plethora of publications in the
centuries since will support his comments,.
Ireland has about 4 million people
Ireland is irrelevant,

...that is YOUR OPINION.

except, perhaps, at a stretch, in relation to a
chief rabbi of Israel and a former president, both of whom were Irish
Jews.

... that is a slight on Irish people which those people would decry. You
don't know them you cheeky pup !
Egypt has how
many million people? the er are about 17 millions in Cairo I think. They
have the Nile Pyramids sphynx and a host of world saMOUS STUFF. aND THEIR
TOURIST TRADE IS ??? something like irelands in spite of having maybe
twenty
times the population!
So Egypt has heritage, water and the suez Canal.
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800. “Heritage” is irrelevant,
and water, as a major Egyptian resource, is a joke.


... you have much to learn. especially if you think heritage and resoursers
are not relevant.
Syria
$37.76 billion
Oil, water, Heritage.
Water, in a semiarid area? lol.

...yep
http://www.photius.com/countries/syria/economy/syria_economy_water_resources.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/water3.htm


Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500,
compared to not so “fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of
$25,800. Syria's putative “Heritage” is irrelevant.



...nope. how so?
Lebanon
$24.64 billion
Well, much like Israel for resources.
Lebanon's natural resources: limestone, iron ore, salt, water-surplus
state in a water-deficit region, arable land.
Israel's natural resources: timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas,
phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand.


... according to what? to your cut and paste from the CIA?



Plus a per capita GDP of $11,300 , for Lebanon, compared to not so
“fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.


...your point is?
Jordan
$16.01 billion
Agian tiny and like Israel.
Total sq km Jordan: 92,300
Total sq km Israel: 20,770

Plus a per capita GDP of $4,900, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.

mosly sand as far as I know. Not orange and olive groves. no oil. how much
araBLE LAND?
Israel
$161.9 billion
Per capita GDP: see above.
You missed Saudi Arabia, (huge oil production and reserves) Iraq (even
huger
oil reserves) Libya (oil) Greece (heritage agriculture ).
If you look at a map, you will notice that none of the above countries
Israel’s neighbors.

... theey dont BORDER Israel. But so what? does the US border Panama? does
England border Ireland? They are middle East!


Andyou need to look at current statistics, before
you suggest that Iraq's oil reserves are greater than Saudia's, or
that Greece is “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to Israel.

... wher did I. Beware I will back up ANYTHING I claim! Or retract it. so go
on ask me to retract!
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece,
... which you just ruled out of amn economic comparison?

is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.

... and NO other country has that?

It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours


– as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.

...you entiely MISS THE POINT
WHY DOES ISRAEL HAVE THIS HIGHER GDP?

You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East. It seems democracies,
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.

... and "democracies" didnt exist then!
Smiths point was about social mobility.
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-26 17:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip much of - "that came later"]
Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm
I would say, again, that that comparison isn't even up to the apples
and oranges level.
[snip]
... I disagree. It is a fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade.
There were no democracies in that era.
... it was published in 1776
1776 is not at issue.
... It is if 1500 is when the Sapnish arrived and you claim MOST of the time
between then and now was Spainsh!
Not at all.
Post by Mavisbeacon
“Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm“
...yes 1500-2000 is 500 years . 1750 is MOST of the time in between!
1750 is irrelevant as well.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Ergo, 1776 is not at issue. Once again, there were no democracies in
that era (i.e., 1600). What that means is that Adam Smith's 1776
“fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade”
is irrelevant.
... So ancient Greek comment on democracy is also irrelevant?
Certainly.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel like Holland has little in the way of natural
resources and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries
like Holland was with Spain France and England.
England in 1600 wasn't “fabulously wealthy”.
... The comparison made by Smith was holland and spain
Therefore, irrelevant.
England WAS wealthy by comparison.
Not in comparison to Spain in 1600 it wasn't.
Post by Mavisbeacon
the fact that ONE comparison by Smith was
relevant does not make you denial relevant.
Smith's commentary is irrelevant.
Post by Mavisbeacon
but England in the 1500s had looted the Monastries
Even more irrelevant.
No! It shows they were wealthy.
It doesn't. When Elizabeth succeeded in 1558, the country was
bankrupt.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Egypt
$127.9 billion
... But this is NOT about GDP . smiths argument
If you're going to make the statement that a particular country's
neighbours are “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to that country, you
need to provide a factual base for stating such
...I did! Looting monastries the richest elements in europe! But yo called
that "irrelevant"
Suppression of the monasteries between 1536 and 1539, and confiscation
of their properties, didn't make England wealthy for the rest of the
century. In 1564, pursuant to the Peace of Troyes, and for want of
money, Elizabeth sold England's claims to Calais to the French for
220,000 crowns.

In any case, this is irrelevant to Israel and her not so “fabulously
wealthy” neighbours in 2008.
Post by Mavisbeacon
That base is the most
recent GDPs for the respective countries -- not a comparison of
Holland and Spain written in 1776.
...I justified Smiths comments as written. A plethora of publications in the
centuries since will support his comments,.
That's nice. They don't pertain to Israel and her not so “fabulously
wealthy” neighbours in 2008.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Ireland has about 4 million people
Ireland is irrelevant,
...that is YOUR OPINION.
Unless Ireland is one of Israel's neighbours, it's irrelevant.
Post by Mavisbeacon
except, perhaps, at a stretch, in relation to a
chief rabbi of Israel and a former president, both of whom were Irish
Jews.
... that is a slight on Irish people which those people would decry. You
don't know them you cheeky pup !
Really? Are they antisemites, then? One would think they would be
proud that the reknowned and respected Jewish scholar who became
Israel's first chief rabbi was, prior thereto, the Chief Rabbi of
Ireland. Israel's best president was also Irish – as Sen. Daniel P.
Moynihan described him: “One of the great Irishmen of the twentieth
century.” When President Herzog died in 1997, the then-president of
Ireland said: “President Herzog's close family ties with Ireland were
a source of pride for many Irish people, and in particular he and his
family were held in special regard by the Jewish community of Ireland.
These ties found expression in a singular way when Chaim Herzog became
the first Israeli President to make a State Visit to Ireland in
1985.....His experience and wisdom will without doubt be sorely missed
by the people of Israel. On behalf of the Irish people, I express my
deepest condolences on his passing.”

A pity he's not around today, to kick some butts in the present
Israeli government.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Egypt has how
many million people? the er are about 17 millions in Cairo I think. They
have the Nile Pyramids sphynx and a host of world saMOUS STUFF. aND THEIR
TOURIST TRADE IS ??? something like irelands in spite of having maybe
twenty times the population!
So Egypt has heritage, water and the suez Canal.
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800. “Heritage” is irrelevant,
and water, as a major Egyptian resource, is a joke.
... you have much to learn. especially if you think heritage and resoursers
are not relevant.
When making comparisons as to whether or not a country is “fabulously
wealthy”, heritage is irrelevant. Egyptians are generally poor, and
their country is mostly desert.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Syria
$37.76 billion
Oil, water, Heritage.
Water, in a semiarid area? lol.
...yephttp://www.photius.com/countries/syria/economy/syria_economy_water_re...http://www.mideastweb.org/water3.htm
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500,
compared to not so “fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of
$25,800. Syria's putative “Heritage” is irrelevant.
...nope. how so?
What, exactly, is the present state of Syria's “heritage”? Militarism,
belligerency, and a lot of internal military coups.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Lebanon
$24.64 billion
Well, much like Israel for resources.
Lebanon's natural resources: limestone, iron ore, salt, water-surplus
state in a water-deficit region, arable land.
Israel's natural resources: timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas,
phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand.
... according to what? to your cut and paste from the CIA?
It's more accurate than some tossed-off remark about “heritage” and
“fabulously wealthy” countries.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Plus a per capita GDP of $11,300 , for Lebanon, compared to not so
“fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
...your point is?
Guess.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Jordan
$16.01 billion
Agian tiny and like Israel.
Total sq km Jordan: 92,300
Total sq km Israel: 20,770
Plus a per capita GDP of $4,900, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
mosly sand as far as I know. Not orange and olive groves. no oil. how much
araBLE LAND?
Less than Israel's, I believe.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel
$161.9 billion
Per capita GDP: see above.
Ergo, Israel's neighbours are hardly “fabulously wealthy” by
comparison.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You missed Saudi Arabia, (huge oil production and reserves) Iraq (even
huger
oil reserves) Libya (oil) Greece (heritage agriculture ).
If you look at a map, you will notice that none of the above countries
Israel’s neighbors.
... theey dont BORDER Israel. But so what? does the US border Panama? does
England border Ireland? They are middle East!
But not Israel's neighbours, any more than Panama is America's
neighbour.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Andyou need to look at current statistics, before
you suggest that Iraq's oil reserves are greater than Saudia's, or
that Greece is “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to Israel.
... wher did I. Beware I will back up ANYTHING I claim! Or retract it. so go
on ask me to retract!
“ISRAEL like Holland has little in the way of natural
and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries”
Post by Mavisbeacon
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece,
... which you just ruled out of amn economic comparison?
is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
... and NO other country has that?
A Muslim Arab country has generally a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
In the case of Muslim Arab countries like Saudia, they have ONLY
Muslim Arabs.
Post by Mavisbeacon
It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours
– as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.
This is true. Ergo, Israel's neighbours aren't as “fabulously wealthy”
as you thought.
Post by Mavisbeacon
...you entiely MISS THE POINT
WHY DOES ISRAEL HAVE THIS HIGHER GDP?
At a guess, I'd say that Israel and Ireland have higher per capita
GDPs because they're democracies and not Muslim Arab countries.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East. It seems democracies,
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.
... and "democracies" didnt exist then!
Neither did the state of Israel, or the state of Ireland.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Smiths point was about social mobility.
According to your previous post, Smith's 1776 publication was “a
fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade,”
and included a comparison of 27th century Holland and Spain. I doubt
social mobility was a much-bruited topic at that time.

Deborah
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-26 20:33:37 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 26, 10:25 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).

# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:

Cider-Braised Jewish Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Kikes.

# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.

# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.

# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?

# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 26, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Deborah Sharavi should be re-named… Hannibal. I am certain her
favorite movie is “The Silence of the Lambs.”

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

____________________________________________________

Mirelle
Mavisbeacon
2008-06-26 22:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip much of - "that came later"]
Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm
I would say, again, that that comparison isn't even up to the apples
and oranges level.
[snip]
... I disagree. It is a fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade.
There were no democracies in that era.
... it was published in 1776
1776 is not at issue.
... It is if 1500 is when the Sapnish arrived and you claim MOST of the time
between then and now was Spainsh!
Not at all.
Post by Mavisbeacon
“Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm“
...yes 1500-2000 is 500 years . 1750 is MOST of the time in between!
1750 is irrelevant as well.

... no it isnt 1750 is the dividing line between MOST OF THE TIME between
1500 and 2000. In fact 1754 is the half way line.
you claimed MOST of the time between then and now was Spainsh! You cant
back up your claim!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Ergo, 1776 is not at issue. Once again, there were no democracies in
that era (i.e., 1600). What that means is that Adam Smith's 1776
“fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade”
is irrelevant.
... So ancient Greek comment on democracy is also irrelevant?
Certainly.

...But "The Wealth of Nations" and the wealth of nations today is what we
were discussing. Particularly in the way Smith asks a question like "why is
Holland rich and Spain poor in comparison when spain has so many resources
compared to holland" and compare that to "why is Israel rich and
neighbouring countries poorer (btw- some of which ARE democracies) when
Israel has fewer natural resources compared to them?"
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel like Holland has little in the way of natural
resources and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries
like Holland was with Spain France and England.
England in 1600 wasn't “fabulously wealthy”.
... The comparison made by Smith was holland and spain
Therefore, irrelevant.
England WAS wealthy by comparison.
Not in comparison to Spain in 1600 it wasn't.

...The comparison was HOLLAND and England and Holland and Spain. The
publication of "Wealth of Nations" was 1776 and NOT 1600!
Post by Mavisbeacon
the fact that ONE comparison by Smith was
relevant does not make you denial relevant.
Smith's commentary is irrelevant.
Post by Mavisbeacon
but England in the 1500s had looted the Monastries
Even more irrelevant.
No! It shows they were wealthy.
It doesn't. When Elizabeth succeeded in 1558, the country was
bankrupt.


... 1558 and 1776 are DIFFERENT YEARS!

Holland became the cultural, political and economic centre of the United
Provinces in the 17th century Dutch Golden Age, the wealthiest nation in the
world. 1581-1795 . Why? Why was it richer than spain who had all the gold of
south america, warmer climate for agriculture, history and tradition etc. ?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Egypt
$127.9 billion
... But this is NOT about GDP . smiths argument
If you're going to make the statement that a particular country's
neighbours are “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to that country, you
need to provide a factual base for stating such
...I did! Looting monastries the richest elements in europe! But yo called
that "irrelevant"
Suppression of the monasteries between 1536 and 1539, and confiscation
of their properties, didn't make England wealthy for the rest of the
century. In 1564, pursuant to the Peace of Troyes, and for want of
money, Elizabeth sold England's claims to Calais to the French for
220,000 crowns.

In any case, this is irrelevant to Israel and her not so “fabulously
wealthy” neighbours in 2008.

... the ORIGINAL EXAMPLE of Holland and Spain isnt! Adam Smiths ideas from
1770s arent!
Post by Mavisbeacon
That base is the most
recent GDPs for the respective countries -- not a comparison of
Holland and Spain written in 1776.
...I justified Smiths comments as written. A plethora of publications in the
centuries since will support his comments,.
That's nice. They don't pertain to Israel and her not so “fabulously
wealthy” neighbours in 2008.


...Yes they do! Whay was holland wealthier than Spain? Smith suggests a
reason which can be seen as the SAME REASON that Israel is richer than it's
neighbours!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Ireland has about 4 million people
Ireland is irrelevant,
...that is YOUR OPINION.
Unless Ireland is one of Israel's neighbours, it's irrelevant.

...No it isnt! Smiths argument is about how nations are or become wealthy!
Ireland has much in common with Israel in how the reasons for wealth operate
today e.g. software. Whay is Israel wealthier than its neighbours. Why is
Ireland in the top five wealthiest nations in the world when thiorty years
ago it was one of the poorest countries in the EEC?
Post by Mavisbeacon
except, perhaps, at a stretch, in relation to a
chief rabbi of Israel and a former president, both of whom were Irish
Jews.
... that is a slight on Irish people which those people would decry. You
don't know them you cheeky pup !
Really? Are they antisemites, then?

...Thosew people being jews form Ireland one of whom became President of
Israel! He was a good Irishman and would decry you sayng "Ireland is
irrelevant"

One would think they would be
proud that the reknowned and respected Jewish scholar who became
Israel's first chief rabbi was, ... snip Hertzog biography

...The Irish are proud of this Dubliner. But you have a cheek to suggest he
was the ONLY achievment of Ireland and that "Ireland is irrelevant"


A pity he's not around today, to kick some butts in the present
Israeli government.

...At last we agree on something.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Egypt has how
many million people? the er are about 17 millions in Cairo I think. They
have the Nile Pyramids sphynx and a host of world saMOUS STUFF. aND THEIR
TOURIST TRADE IS ??? something like irelands in spite of having maybe
twenty times the population!
So Egypt has heritage, water and the suez Canal.
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800. “Heritage” is irrelevant,
and water, as a major Egyptian resource, is a joke.
... you have much to learn. especially if you think heritage and resoursers
are not relevant.
When making comparisons as to whether or not a country is “fabulously
wealthy”, heritage is irrelevant. Egyptians are generally poor, and
their country is mostly desert.

... They have a HUGE heritage potential! The whole history of Egypt for gods
sake! Again take Ireland. Look at what Irish heritage has earned. Tourism
Riverdance U2 a whole series of money making enterprises!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Syria
$37.76 billion
Oil, water, Heritage.
Water, in a semiarid area? lol.
...yephttp://www.photius.com/countries/syria/economy/syria_economy_water_re...http://www.mideastweb.org/water3.htm
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500,
compared to not so “fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of
$25,800. Syria's putative “Heritage” is irrelevant.
...nope. how so?
What, exactly, is the present state of Syria's “heritage”? Militarism,
belligerency, and a lot of internal military coups.

... there is noto such thing as "present state of heritage" in this sense.
Heritage is dependant on the past. syria has a load of hisroty relating the
the genesis of civilisation , as does Iraq. Babylon for example. More to the
point, to relate your question. why is Syria NOT benefiting form heritage?
Israel for example has a heritage which relates to Pilgrims from Christian
Muslim and Jewish religions. There has been much made of this over the
centuries in terms of trade. People have "cashed in" on pilgrims. Turkey ang
Greece have also big heritage industries. AS does Ireland and Britian. How
come Egypt of Syria have not such a scale?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Lebanon
$24.64 billion
Well, much like Israel for resources.
Lebanon's natural resources: limestone, iron ore, salt, water-surplus
state in a water-deficit region, arable land.
Israel's natural resources: timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas,
phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand.
... according to what? to your cut and paste from the CIA?
It's more accurate than some tossed-off remark about “heritage” and
“fabulously wealthy” countries.

... It isnt a "tossed off "remark! Adam Smiths "wealth of nations" asked
such a question. Spain HAD wealth and resourses and Gold compared to
Holland. so "how come Holland was richer" her asked. Similarly how come
Israel is richer than Turkey Egypt Greece Syria Iraq Saudi Arabia etc. ?
And At least I stated my source. If you are going to use figures and claims
about resources you should CITE the people who actually did the research!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Plus a per capita GDP of $11,300 , for Lebanon, compared to not so
“fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
...your point is?
Guess.

...YOU are the one making the point! It isnt for me to "guess". If you are
making a point make it! Lebanon has half the GDP of Israel. so? Lebanon has
also had decades of war!

Saudi Arabia has a GDP per capita of $23,200
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

But it has oil in abundance compared to Israel!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Jordan
$16.01 billion
Agian tiny and like Israel.
Total sq km Jordan: 92,300
Total sq km Israel: 20,770
Plus a per capita GDP of $4,900, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
mosly sand as far as I know. Not orange and olive groves. no oil. how much
araBLE LAND?
Less than Israel's, I believe.

...so the sq km does not count then! And again you miss the WHOLE POINT! The
question is WHY is Israels GDP per capita at $26k when countries around
Israel with MORE RESOURCES have lower GDP per capita?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel
$161.9 billion
Per capita GDP: see above.
Ergo, Israel's neighbours are hardly “fabulously wealthy” by
comparison.

... But they ARE! They have oil and other resources just like Spain had in
comparison to Holland. Holland however was a RICHER COUNTRY. Why?
Post by Mavisbeacon
You missed Saudi Arabia, (huge oil production and reserves) Iraq (even
huger
oil reserves) Libya (oil) Greece (heritage agriculture ).
If you look at a map, you will notice that none of the above countries
Israel’s neighbors.
... theey dont BORDER Israel. But so what? does the US border Panama? does
England border Ireland? They are middle East!
But not Israel's neighbours, any more than Panama is America's
neighbour.

... Panama is a neighbouring country of the Us. In fact it is a vassal State
of HUGE US interest. The point is that cpuntries with resources (like the
Suez or Panama canal, or oil or whatever ) should be making money but when
you look you see Israel is poorer in terms of resources but richer in terms
of GDP (per capita) .Why is that?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Andyou need to look at current statistics, before
you suggest that Iraq's oil reserves are greater than Saudia's, or
Iraq has the oil reserves of the entire continent of Africa, More than South
America and more than twice north america. Obnly Iran And Saudi arabia have
more reserves. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
The point is Iraq/Iran/Saudi/Syria etc. have oil and Israel doesnt!
SO how come Israel is wealthier?
Post by Mavisbeacon
that Greece is “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to Israel.
In terms of tourism and cashing in on heritige it probably is!
Post by Mavisbeacon
... wher did I. Beware I will back up ANYTHING I claim! Or retract it. so go
on ask me to retract!
“ISRAEL like Holland has little in the way of natural
and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries”

...Yes Israel is surrounded by wealthy countries in the terms that Adam
Smith compared Spain to Holland! Spain by the way is NOT bordering Holland!
These other countries have much more than Israels had in terms of resources.
But Israel is richer. Why? Holland today has the highest amount of
population packed into a small area. Why is Holland rich?
Post by Mavisbeacon
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece,
... which you just ruled out of amn economic comparison?
is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
... and NO other country has that?
A Muslim Arab country has generally a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
In the case of Muslim Arab countries like Saudia, they have ONLY
Muslim Arabs.

... But you are now suggesting Muslim Arab countries are poor because of
Muslim Arabs. But this cant be true since the Arabian peninsula was rich
before oil and it had Muslim and Arabs then. As was Arabic Spain. It cant be
just Islam or Arabs that cause relative poverty as you seem to claim.
Post by Mavisbeacon
It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours
– as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.
This is true. Ergo, Israel's neighbours aren't as “fabulously wealthy”
as you thought.

... You MISS the point! They ARE! they have resources! Just as Adam Smith
asked how "fabulous wealthy " countries like Spain were poorer than "no
resources at all" Holland!
Post by Mavisbeacon
...you entiely MISS THE POINT
WHY DOES ISRAEL HAVE THIS HIGHER GDP?
At a guess, I'd say that Israel and Ireland have higher per capita
GDPs because they're democracies and not Muslim Arab countries.

...Turkey and Greece are democracies both Muslim and non Muslim yet bith are
lower than Israel in GDP per capita I believe.
Neighbouring countries similar Climate and much more in terms of resources
than Israel. So why are they (democracies) poorer?
Post by Mavisbeacon
You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East.
... I though Iraq was meant to be a democracy? LOL! And Lebanon? And Egypt?

The Cold War made the United States and other western democracies look the
other way when it came to political oppression and allowed them to deal with
tyrants and dictators”.
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/ibrahim_interview.htm

It seems democracies,
Post by Mavisbeacon
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.
... and "democracies" didnt exist then!
Neither did the state of Israel, or the state of Ireland.

... But you brought up the point of modern democracy not being around when
"wealth of nations" was published!
Yes democracy has something to do with it but Nazi Germany for example was
wealthy and a dictatorship!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Smiths point was about social mobility.
According to your previous post, Smith's 1776 publication was “a
fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade,”
and included a comparison of 27th century Holland and Spain. I doubt
social mobility was a much-bruited topic at that time.


...oops 17th century!
... It is central to the issue! Smith believed that people should not be
cast into a role and should be able to do whatever trade they wished. They
should persue whatever career they wished. Social mobility. He went
further - the State (and we can see how democracies are more apt for this)
should support them and if necessary use force to see they can exercise this
freedom. thus the legal judicial legistative and military pillars are
focused on supporting individual freedoms.
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-29 09:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip much of - "that came later"]
Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm
I would say, again, that that comparison isn't even up to the apples
and oranges level.
[snip]
... I disagree. It is a fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade.
There were no democracies in that era.
... it was published in 1776
1776 is not at issue.
... It is if 1500 is when the Sapnish arrived and you claim MOST of the
time between then and now was Spainsh!
Not at all.
Post by Mavisbeacon
“Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the
sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French
Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm“
...yes 1500-2000 is 500 years . 1750 is MOST of the time in between!
1750 is irrelevant as well.
... no it isnt 1750 is the dividing line between MOST OF THE TIME between
1500 and 2000. In fact 1754 is the half way line.
So what?
Post by Mavisbeacon
you claimed MOST of the time between then and now was Spainsh! You cant
back up your claim!
What claim? In an aside, I asked Jack Garbuz the question:
“Don't you find it odd that the new PC term is to refer to some kind
of "European invasion" of the Americas, and gloss over the fact that
for the longest time, and in the greatest area, "European" invaders
were Spanish?”

I didn't ask Jack for a history of Spanish colonization and rule in
the Americas – although, as a teacher, with a degree in history Jack
is fully capable of responding – or for a digression on French, Dutch,
Portuguese, or English colonies in the America's, or on Adam Smith's
seminal work and his comparison of Holland and Spain in 1600. In view
of the fact that Spain was the first colonial power in the Americans,
and the last, I asked him if he found odd the new PC term “European
invasion and/or colonization”. Whether 1700 is halfway between 1500
and 2000, or 1754 is, has as much relation to the question as who
colonized Arrakis.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Ergo, 1776 is not at issue. Once again, there were no democracies in
that era (i.e., 1600). What that means is that Adam Smith's 1776
“fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade”
is irrelevant.
... So ancient Greek comment on democracy is also irrelevant?
Certainly.
...But "The Wealth of Nations" and the wealth of nations today is what we
were discussing.
YOU referred to it. I have no interest in discussing it, as it is
irrelevant to the original question regarding the PC substitution of
“European” for “Spanish” relative to the colonization of the
Americas.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Particularly in the way Smith asks a question like "why is
Holland rich and Spain poor in comparison when spain has so many resources
compared to holland" and compare that to "why is Israel rich and
neighbouring countries poorer (btw- some of which ARE democracies)
Which ones?
Post by Mavisbeacon
when
Israel has fewer natural resources compared to them?"
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel like Holland has little in the way of natural
resources and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries
like Holland was with Spain France and England.
England in 1600 wasn't “fabulously wealthy”.
... The comparison made by Smith was holland and spain
Therefore, irrelevant.
England WAS wealthy by comparison.
Not in comparison to Spain in 1600 it wasn't.
...The comparison was HOLLAND and England and Holland and Spain. The
publication of "Wealth of Nations" was 1776 and NOT 1600!
So what?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
the fact that ONE comparison by Smith was
relevant does not make you denial relevant.
Smith's commentary is irrelevant.
Post by Mavisbeacon
but England in the 1500s had looted the Monastries
Even more irrelevant.
No! It shows they were wealthy.
It doesn't. When Elizabeth succeeded in 1558, the country was
bankrupt.
... 1558 and 1776 are DIFFERENT YEARS!
So are 1600, 1754, and 2000.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Holland became the cultural, political and economic centre of the United
Provinces in the 17th century Dutch Golden Age, the wealthiest nation in the
world. 1581-1795 . Why? Why was it richer than spain who had all the gold of
south america, warmer climate for agriculture, history and tradition etc. ?
Ask Hillel, he knows the answers. I don't, and I'm not particularly
interested. They might be over on soc.culture.holland, though. FYI,
this is soc.culture.jewish/soc.culture.israel.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Egypt
$127.9 billion
... But this is NOT about GDP . smiths argument
If you're going to make the statement that a particular country's
neighbours are “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to that country, you
need to provide a factual base for stating such
...I did! Looting monastries the richest elements in europe! But yo called
that "irrelevant"
Suppression of the monasteries between 1536 and 1539, and confiscation
of their properties, didn't make England wealthy for the rest of the
century. In 1564, pursuant to the Peace of Troyes, and for want of
money, Elizabeth sold England's claims to Calais to the French for
220,000 crowns.
In any case, this is irrelevant to Israel and her not so “fabulously
wealthy” neighbours in 2008.
Then drop it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
That base is the most
recent GDPs for the respective countries -- not a comparison of
Holland and Spain written in 1776.
...I justified Smiths comments as written. A plethora of publications in the
centuries since will support his comments,.
That's nice. They don't pertain to Israel and her not so “fabulously
wealthy” neighbours in 2008.
...Yes they do! Whay was holland wealthier than Spain?
No idea, and I really don't give a rat's ass.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Ireland has about 4 million people
Ireland is irrelevant,
...that is YOUR OPINION.
Unless Ireland is one of Israel's neighbours, it's irrelevant.
...No it isnt! Smiths argument is about how nations are or become wealthy!
Good for him. He's been dead a long time.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
except, perhaps, at a stretch, in relation to a
chief rabbi of Israel and a former president, both of whom were Irish
Jews.
... that is a slight on Irish people which those people would decry. You
don't know them you cheeky pup !
Really? Are they antisemites, then?
...Thosew people being jews form Ireland one of whom became President of
Israel! He was a good Irishman and would decry you sayng "Ireland is
irrelevant"
That's quite a change in tone from your previous fuss over the
Jewishness and Irishness of a former president of Israel and a former
chief rabbi of Israel. One who took as “a slight on the Irish people”
the statement that a president of Israel was Irish is in NO position
to give a lecture about what Chaim Herzog would have said or would not
have said.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
One would think they would be
proud that the reknowned and respected Jewish scholar who became
Israel's first chief rabbi was,
... snip Hertzog biography
...The Irish are proud of this Dubliner.
Oh, really. That's quite a change from your kerfuffle that it's “a
slight on Irish people which those people would decry”.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But you have a cheek to suggest he
was the ONLY achievment of Ireland
Balls. Try reading a statement within the context of the thread,
instead of pinballing between several widely divergent and off topic
subjects, and interjecting your own thoughts as opposed to what one
actually wrote – as above..
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
A pity he's not around today, to kick some butts in the present
Israeli government.
...At last we agree on something.
That is certain. Chaim Herzog was, as Senator Daniel Moynihan once
said, “One of the great Irishmen of the twentieth century.” A pity he
didn't make it through the first decade of the 21st century. He had no
high opinion of fundamentals – Muslim fundamentals, Christian
fundamentals, or Jewish fundamentals. – and blamed them for the
problems between the religions. He also said, in effect, that the
difficulties he had being a Jew in Ireland weren't as great as those
he encountered as an Irishman in England.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Egypt has how
many million people? the er are about 17 millions in Cairo I think. They
have the Nile Pyramids sphynx and a host of world saMOUS STUFF. aND THEIR
TOURIST TRADE IS ??? something like irelands in spite of having maybe
twenty times the population!
So Egypt has heritage, water and the suez Canal.
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800. “Heritage” is irrelevant,
and water, as a major Egyptian resource, is a joke.
... you have much to learn. especially if you think heritage and resoursers
are not relevant.
When making comparisons as to whether or not a country is “fabulously
wealthy”, heritage is irrelevant. Egyptians are generally poor, and
their country is mostly desert.
... They have a HUGE heritage potential!
When making comparisons as to whether or not a country is “fabulously
wealthy”, heritage is irrelevant. At one time, the sun never set on
the British Empire. Well, it has now. Some wag will have to come up
with something new about sunsets when Scotland and Wales finally break
away.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Syria
$37.76 billion
Oil, water, Heritage.
Water, in a semiarid area? lol.
...yephttp://www.photius.com/countries/syria/economy/syria_economy_water_re...
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500,
compared to not so “fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of
$25,800. Syria's putative “Heritage” is irrelevant.
...nope. how so?
What, exactly, is the present state of Syria's “heritage”? Militarism,
belligerency, and a lot of internal military coups.
... there is noto such thing as "present state of heritage" in this sense.
Heritage is dependant on the past. syria has a load of hisroty relating the
the genesis of civilisation
Syria, as an independent state, didn't exist until 17 April 1946. What
you call Syria's “heritage” and “history” belongs to the anicent (and
not so ancient) empires of which the current state was never more than
part of a province or two.
Post by Mavisbeacon
, as does Iraq.
Same applies to Iraq.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Babylon for example.
Only the ruins of Babylon belong to the state of Iraq.
Post by Mavisbeacon
More to the
point, to relate your question. why is Syria NOT benefiting form heritage?
See above.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel for example has a heritage which relates to Pilgrims from Christian
Muslim and Jewish religions.
That's tourism, not heritage.
Post by Mavisbeacon
There has been much made of this over the
centuries in terms of trade. People have "cashed in" on pilgrims.
Do you know how poor the land of Israel was in the 19th century?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Turkey ang Greece have also big heritage industries. AS does
Ireland and Britian. How come Egypt of Syria have not such
a scale?
The Syrian Arab Republic is a military dictatorship, headed by the son
of HalfAss, the previous dictator. The Arab Republic of Egypt rakes in
three times more from tourism than Syria (but only $5,000,000 more
than Ireland). Come to think of it, why do Ireland and Israel both
rake in three times more from tourism than Syria?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Lebanon
$24.64 billion
Well, much like Israel for resources.
Lebanon's natural resources: limestone, iron ore, salt, water-surplus
state in a water-deficit region, arable land.
Israel's natural resources: timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas,
phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand.
... according to what? to your cut and paste from the CIA?
It's more accurate than some tossed-off remark about “heritage” and
“fabulously wealthy” countries.
... It isnt a "tossed off "remark! Adam Smiths "wealth of nations" asked
such a question. Spain HAD wealth and resourses and Gold compared to
Holland. so "how come Holland was richer" her asked.
Ask Hillel.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Similarly how come
Israel is richer than Turkey Egypt Greece Syria Iraq Saudi Arabia etc. ?
It's not richer than Saudi Arabia, that's for sure. If it were, we
wouldn't be tied up in Bush & Cheney's stupid war in Iraq, to appease
their Saudi oil patrons.
Post by Mavisbeacon
And At least I stated my source. If you are going to use figures and claims
about resources you should CITE the people who actually did the research!
The source of those stats is so obvious to everyone on these NGs
(soc.culture.jewish/soc.culture.israel) that a link is unnecessary.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Plus a per capita GDP of $11,300 , for Lebanon, compared to not so
“fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
...your point is?
Guess.
...YOU are the one making the point! It isnt for me to "guess". If you are
making a point make it! Lebanon has half the GDP of Israel. so? Lebanon has
also had decades of war!
Starting well before Syria's 1975 invasion. Syria has never recognized
Lebanon as an independent state, you know.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Saudi Arabia has a GDP per capita of >>$23,200
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
But it has oil in abundance compared to Israel!
And that's why we're still in Iraq. Bush & Cheney's Saudi oil patrons
tremble in their bedsheets at the prospect of another Shi'a government
on their northern border.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Jordan
$16.01 billion
Agian tiny and like Israel.
Total sq km Jordan: 92,300
Total sq km Israel: 20,770
Plus a per capita GDP of $4,900, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
mosly sand as far as I know. Not orange and olive groves. no oil. how much
araBLE LAND?
Less than Israel's, I believe.
...so the sq km does not count then! And again you miss the WHOLE POINT! The
question is WHY is Israels GDP per capita at $26k when countries around
Israel with MORE RESOURCES have lower GDP per capita?
Probably because they're Muslim Arab dictatorships.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel
$161.9 billion
Per capita GDP: see above.
Ergo, Israel's neighbours are hardly “fabulously wealthy” by
comparison.
... But they ARE! They have oil and other resources just like Spain had in
comparison to Holland. Holland however was a RICHER COUNTRY. Why?
Hillel told me, but I've forgotten.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
You missed Saudi Arabia, (huge oil production and reserves) Iraq (even
huger oil reserves) Libya (oil) Greece (heritage agriculture ).
If you look at a map, you will notice that none of the above countries
Israel’s neighbors.
... theey dont BORDER Israel. But so what? does the US border Panama? does
England border Ireland? They are middle East!
But not Israel's neighbours, any more than Panama is America's
neighbour.
... Panama is a neighbouring country of the Us.
Look at a map of the Americas. South of America is Mexico. On Mexico's
southern border are Guatemala and Belize. On Guatemala's southern and
southeastern borders are El Salvador and Honduras. South of Honduras
is Nicaragua. South of Nicaragua is Costa Rica. East of Costa Rica is
Panama. Directly north of Panama, about 500 miles distant, is Jamaica.
Between Jamaica and the southern tip of Florida is Cuba.

Still think Panama is a “neighbor”?
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact it is a vassal State of HUGE US interest.
Bollocks. Most Americans couldn't even find it on a map, and wouldn't
care if they did.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The point is that cpuntries with resources (like the
Suez or Panama canal, or oil or whatever ) should be making money but when
you look you see Israel is poorer in terms of resources but richer in terms
of GDP (per capita) .Why is that?
Jewish brains?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Andyou need to look at current statistics, before
you suggest that Iraq's oil reserves are greater than Saudia's, or
Iraq has the oil reserves of the entire continent of Africa,
It does? How did Iraq get the oil reserves of the entire continent of
Africa?
Post by Mavisbeacon
More than South
America and more than twice north america. Obnly Iran And Saudi arabia have
more reserves.http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
The point is Iraq/Iran/Saudi/Syria etc. have oil and Israel doesnt!
SO how come Israel is wealthier?
It isn't a Muslim Arab dictatorship.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
that Greece is “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to Israel.
In terms of tourism and cashing in on heritige it probably is!
Per capita GDP
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
... wher did I. Beware I will back up ANYTHING I claim! Or retract it. so go
on ask me to retract!
“ISRAEL like Holland has little in the way of natural
and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries”
...Yes Israel is surrounded by wealthy countries in the terms that Adam
Smith compared Spain to Holland!
Irrelevant. None of the countries bordering Israel are as wealthy as
Israel.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Spain by the way is NOT bordering Holland!
You've produced a fact. Good for you!
Post by Mavisbeacon
These other countries have much more than Israels had in terms of resources.
But Israel is richer. Why?
It's a democracy, not a Muslim Arab dictatorship.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Holland today has the highest amount of
population packed into a small area. Why is Holland
rich?
It's a democracy, not a Muslim Arab dictatorship.....yet.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece,
... which you just ruled out of amn economic comparison?
is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
... and NO other country has that?
A Muslim Arab country has generally a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
In the case of Muslim Arab countries like Saudia, they have ONLY
Muslim Arabs.
... But you are now suggesting Muslim Arab countries are poor because of
Muslim Arabs. But this cant be true since the Arabian peninsula was rich
before oil and it had Muslim and Arabs then.
The Arabian peninsula was never rich, not even before the expulsion of
Christian s and Jews.
Post by Mavisbeacon
As was Arabic Spain.
Spain was never entirely Arabic. At the height of its power, the
caliphate of Cordova comprised a third of the Spanish peninsula. The
remainder were Christian kingdoms.
Post by Mavisbeacon
It cant be just Islam or Arabs that cause relative poverty
as you seem to claim.
Then you tell me – why are Muslim countries the poorest in the world?
Why are Muslim Arab countries, despite all their resources, so very
much poorer than Christian democracies?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours
– as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.
This is true. Ergo, Israel's neighbours aren't as “fabulously wealthy”
as you thought.
... You MISS the point! They ARE! they have resources! Just as Adam Smith
asked how "fabulous wealthy " countries like Spain were poorer than "no
resources at all" Holland!
Honey, Adam Smith died several centuries ago – on the other side of
the Industrial Revolution, when the world was only just emerging from
the Little Ice Age.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
...you entiely MISS THE POINT
WHY DOES ISRAEL HAVE THIS HIGHER GDP?
At a guess, I'd say that Israel and Ireland have higher per capita
GDPs because they're democracies and not Muslim Arab countries.
...Turkey and Greece are democracies both Muslim and non Muslim yet bith are
lower than Israel in GDP per capita I believe.
Turkey is a Muslim country. Greece, which isn't, has a higher per
capita GDP ($29,200) than Israel.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Neighbouring countries similar Climate and much more in terms of resources
than Israel. So why are they (democracies) poorer?
Greece is richer than Israel. Turkey, which isn't, is a Muslim
country.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East.
... I though Iraq was meant to be a democracy? LOL!
Since when?
Post by Mavisbeacon
And Lebanon? And Egypt?
Lebanon is controlled from Damascus, and has been for the past three
decades.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Cold War made the United States and other western democracies look the
other way when it came to political oppression and allowed them to deal with
tyrants and dictators”.http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/ibrahim_interview.htm
What, the US and “other western democracies” are supposed to dry-nurse
Muslim Arab dictatorships which hate the West? Besides, they were most
of them getting assistance from their good friends, the Soviets.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It seems democracies,
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.
... and "democracies" didnt exist then!
Neither did the state of Israel, or the state of Ireland.
... But you brought up the point of modern democracy not being around when
"wealth of nations" was published!
It wasn't.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Yes democracy has something to do with it but Nazi Germany for example was
wealthy and a dictatorship!
It wasn't wealthy.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Smiths point was about social mobility.
According to your previous post, Smith's 1776 publication was “a
fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade,”
and included a comparison of 27th century Holland and Spain. I doubt
social mobility was a much-bruited topic at that time.
...oops 17th century!
Social mobility wasn't a much-bruited topic then, either.
Post by Mavisbeacon
... It is central to the issue! Smith believed that people should not be
cast into a role and should be able to do whatever trade they wished.
In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, Smith is
dead. So is the world he was talking about. And Jack still hasn't
answered the question as to whether he thinks it odd that the Spanish
colonization of the Americas has all of a sudden become the European
colonization of the Americas – as if every kingdom in Europe sent its
conquistadores in search of El Dorado and the Seven Cities of Cibola
with the Pope's blessing.

Deborah
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-29 16:52:41 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 29, 2:56 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).

# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:

Cider-Braised Jewish Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Kikes.

# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.

# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.

# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?

# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm
When they wanna see
How evil people could be
They’ll just remember
Deborah Sharavi’s “recipe”

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

____________________________________________________

Mirelle
Mavisbeacon
2008-07-03 10:20:16 UTC
Permalink
"***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:63587463-ece9-4a08-99ab-***@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
...yes 1500-2000 is 500 years . 1750 is MOST of the time in between!
1750 is irrelevant as well.
... no it isnt 1750 is the dividing line between MOST OF THE TIME between
1500 and 2000. In fact 1754 is the half way line.
So what?
Post by Mavisbeacon
you claimed MOST of the time between then and now was Spainsh! You cant
back up your claim!
What claim? In an aside, I asked Jack Garbuz the question:
“Don't you find it odd that the new PC term is to refer to some kind
of "European invasion" of the Americas, and gloss over the fact that
for the longest time, and in the greatest area, "European" invaders
were Spanish?”

I didn't ask Jack for a history of Spanish colonization and rule in
the Americas – although, as a teacher, with a degree in history Jack
is fully capable of responding – or for a digression on French, Dutch,
Portuguese, or English colonies in the America's, or on Adam Smith's
seminal work and his comparison of Holland and Spain in 1600. In view
of the fact that Spain was the first colonial power in the Americans,
and the last, I asked him if he found odd the new PC term “European
invasion and/or colonization”. Whether 1700 is halfway between 1500
and 2000, or 1754 is, has as much relation to the question as who
colonized Arrakis.


...You are talking about history and not about science fiction. MOST of the
Time between 1500 and today is about 1750! If the people in control of the
AmericaS FOR MOST OF THE TIME and for longer and broader than anyone else
were the Spanish then they would be in control of MOST of America
continuously until 1750. In fact MOST of america was not colonised until
about 1800. And by then Portugal England and France controlled most of it.
That is all Im saying. But you do make a good case about sapanish influence.
I would agree Most of South America has Spanish colonial heritage as does
central America and around Florida. But I would not have thought Spain
controlled most of the Americas then any other powers or over a longer
period over a larger area but you might well be right.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Ergo, 1776 is not at issue. Once again, there were no democracies in
that era (i.e., 1600). What that means is that Adam Smith's 1776
“fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade”
is irrelevant.
... So ancient Greek comment on democracy is also irrelevant?
Certainly.
...But "The Wealth of Nations" and the wealth of nations today is what we
were discussing.
YOU referred to it. I have no interest in discussing it, as it is
irrelevant to the original question regarding the PC substitution of
“European” for “Spanish” relative to the colonization of the
Americas.


...I referred to it in relation to Israel! For example why small conutries
with relatively few resources are rich in comparison to large resource
wealthy nations. eg. Holland and Spain at the time or Israel and Saudi
Arabia today.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Particularly in the way Smith asks a question like "why is
Holland rich and Spain poor in comparison when spain has so many resources
compared to holland" and compare that to "why is Israel rich and
neighbouring countries poorer (btw- some of which ARE democracies)
Which ones?

Lebanon was. Egypt sort of is. Turkey is.It is secular. Apparently Iraq is
according to the Americans. There are several others. many are seming
democracies e.g Kewait and Saudi Arabia who are big pa;ls of the US have
parliaments but are in reality run by a family.
Post by Mavisbeacon
when
Israel has fewer natural resources compared to them?"
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel like Holland has little in the way of natural
resources and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries
like Holland was with Spain France and England.
England in 1600 wasn't “fabulously wealthy”.
... The comparison made by Smith was holland and spain
Therefore, irrelevant.
England WAS wealthy by comparison.
Not in comparison to Spain in 1600 it wasn't.
...The comparison was HOLLAND and England and Holland and Spain. The
publication of "Wealth of Nations" was 1776 and NOT 1600!
So what?


So the comparison of a "poorer" country being richer is apt. And the
comparison made by wealth of nations could not have been made in 1600 since
the book was not written then.



[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Holland became the cultural, political and economic centre of the United
Provinces in the 17th century Dutch Golden Age, the wealthiest nation in the
world. 1581-1795 . Why? Why was it richer than spain who had all the gold of
south america, warmer climate for agriculture, history and tradition etc. ?
Ask Hillel, he knows the answers. I don't, and I'm not particularly
interested. They might be over on soc.culture.holland, though. FYI,
this is soc.culture.jewish/soc.culture.israel.

...YES. and soc.culture.iraq and iranian and greek
The comparison was a theory advanced by Smith. The comparison was a small
country withouyt resources compared to a wealthy larger one. Just like
Israel and other countries near Israel today. Holland was richer, so is
Israel. Why?


[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
In any case, this is irrelevant to Israel and her not so “fabulously
wealthy” neighbours in 2008.
Then drop it.

...You wrote that! not me! Mine begin "..."
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
That base is the most
recent GDPs for the respective countries -- not a comparison of
Holland and Spain written in 1776.
...I justified Smiths comments as written. A plethora of publications in the
centuries since will support his comments,.
That's nice. They don't pertain to Israel and her not so “fabulously
wealthy” neighbours in 2008.
...Yes they do! Whay was holland wealthier than Spain?
No idea, and I really don't give a rat's ass.


... the comparison is valid whether you care about it or not! And it is
possibly the reason that Israel has the economy it has. If you don't care
why Israel's economy performs as it does that is your own business but it
does not mean that it ceases to exist if you don't care about it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Ireland has about 4 million people
Ireland is irrelevant,
...that is YOUR OPINION.
Unless Ireland is one of Israel's neighbours, it's irrelevant.
...No it isnt! Smiths argument is about how nations are or become wealthy!
Good for him. He's been dead a long time.

...So has Christ and Mohammad and Moses abraham etc. . Just because they are
dead does not mean what they did or said is not relevant does it?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
except, perhaps, at a stretch, in relation to a
chief rabbi of Israel and a former president, both of whom were Irish
Jews.
... that is a slight on Irish people which those people would decry. You
don't know them you cheeky pup !
Really? Are they antisemites, then?
...Thosew people being jews form Ireland one of whom became President of
Israel! He was a good Irishman and would decry you sayng "Ireland is
irrelevant"
That's quite a change in tone from your previous fuss over the
Jewishness and Irishness of a former president of Israel and a former
chief rabbi of Israel.

... No it isn't!


One who took as “a slight on the Irish people”
the statement that a president of Israel was Irish is in NO position
to give a lecture about what Chaim Herzog would have said or would not
have said.

... go back and READ it! I didnt take it as a slight on the Irish people! I
pointed out that saying Irish people are irrelevant was a slight on the
Irish people and that Herzon (being Irish himself ) would agree with that!
Those people who were Irish and Jews as well would decry your comment that
the Irish people were irrelevant.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
One would think they would be
proud that the reknowned and respected Jewish scholar who became
Israel's first chief rabbi was,
... snip Hertzog biography
...The Irish are proud of this Dubliner.
Oh, really. That's quite a change from your kerfuffle that it's “a
slight on Irish people which those people would decry”.

...No it isnt! YOUR COMMENT that "Ireland is irrelevant" would be deemed a
slight on the Irish people by Hertzog.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But you have a cheek to suggest he
was the ONLY achievment of Ireland
Balls. Try reading a statement within the context of the thread,

...YOUR WORDS = "Ireland is irrelevant"

The context was in reference to Adam Smiths comparison of small countries
with fewer resources being wealthy. In todays world Ireland and Israel have
much in common economically . software exports are one example. I am asking
what is a "successful" economy by todays standards and whether much has
really changed since smith made a similar obswervation over 300 years ago.

snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
A pity he's not around today, to kick some butts in the present
Israeli government.
...At last we agree on something.
That is certain. Chaim Herzog was, as Senator Daniel Moynihan once
said, “One of the great Irishmen of the twentieth century.” A pity he
didn't make it through the first decade of the 21st century. He had no
high opinion of fundamentals – Muslim fundamentals, Christian
fundamentals, or Jewish fundamentals. – and blamed them for the
problems between the religions. He also said, in effect, that the
difficulties he had being a Jew in Ireland weren't as great as those
he encountered as an Irishman in England.


...I would agree with most of that too. Actually ALL of it.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
When making comparisons as to whether or not a country is “fabulously
wealthy”, heritage is irrelevant. Egyptians are generally poor, and
their country is mostly desert.
... They have a HUGE heritage potential!
When making comparisons as to whether or not a country is “fabulously
wealthy”, heritage is irrelevant.

... It isnt! Many countries have made big business out of heritage tourism.
Libya for example has great potential in this in the future.

At one time, the sun never set on
the British Empire. Well, it has now. Some wag will have to come up
with something new about sunsets when Scotland and Wales finally break
away.

... I really don't think they will but that ifs for them to decide. AS for
Northern Ireland and Souther Ireland. the dynamic is entirely different to
the US seccessionist movement which was not wholly to do with slavery as is
supposed and which caused the US Civil War.


[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
... there is noto such thing as "present state of heritage" in this sense.
Heritage is dependant on the past. syria has a load of hisroty relating the
the genesis of civilisation
Syria, as an independent state, didn't exist until 17 April 1946. What
you call Syria's “heritage” and “history” belongs to the anicent (and
not so ancient) empires of which the current state was never more than
part of a province or two.


...Nor did "Israel" as a State! so what? Israel has huge potential in
tourism too!
Post by Mavisbeacon
, as does Iraq.
Same applies to Iraq.

...As doesthe fact it could make money from heritage and tourism!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Babylon for example.
Only the ruins of Babylon belong to the state of Iraq.

...Only the largest city in the world and the cradel of civilisation. If old
things dont matrter why does the temple mount or the Ark of the covenant?
Post by Mavisbeacon
More to the
point, to relate your question. why is Syria NOT benefiting form heritage?
See above.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel for example has a heritage which relates to Pilgrims from Christian
Muslim and Jewish religions.
That's tourism, not heritage.

...Heritage tourism! As opposed to other forms of tourism such as climate
based tourism ("Sun Holoidays") . Again Ireland does not have the Sun like
Spain. spain is a big Sun Holiday destination., Ireland relies more on
heritage and social factors.
Post by Mavisbeacon
There has been much made of this over the
centuries in terms of trade. People have "cashed in" on pilgrims.
Do you know how poor the land of Israel was in the 19th century?

...No. Probably quite impoverished. I would assume the actual "Land" was not
poor it just wasnt worked or given a chance to be worked.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Turkey ang Greece have also big heritage industries. AS does
Ireland and Britian. How come Egypt of Syria have not such
a scale?
The Syrian Arab Republic is a military dictatorship, headed by the son
of HalfAss, the previous dictator.

...Aha! Well now we are coming to a possible REASON as to why the place is
piss poor!

The Arab Republic of Egypt rakes in
three times more from tourism than Syria (but only $5,000,000 more
than Ireland). Come to think of it, why do Ireland and Israel both
rake in three times more from tourism than Syria?

... See! It wasnt such a sill question after all was it? Egypt would be
known worldwide for certain heritage artefacts so that one is easy where
they are concerned. And Israel has several ancient world foci as well. Both
have hot climates. so what is Ireland doing?


[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
It's more accurate than some tossed-off remark about “heritage” and
“fabulously wealthy” countries.
... It isnt a "tossed off "remark! Adam Smiths "wealth of nations" asked
such a question. Spain HAD wealth and resourses and Gold compared to
Holland. so "how come Holland was richer" her asked.
Ask Hillel.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Similarly how come
Israel is richer than Turkey Egypt Greece Syria Iraq Saudi Arabia etc. ?
It's not richer than Saudi Arabia, that's for sure. If it were, we
wouldn't be tied up in Bush & Cheney's stupid war in Iraq, to appease
their Saudi oil patrons.


...Maybe Im wrong! Let us see.

CIA factbook Saudi Arabia GDP per Capita $23,200 (2007 est.)
Israel - $25,800 (2007 est.)

Israel IS RICHER!

Now you cant deny Saudi Arabia has VAST WEALTH! So how come Israel is
richer?

[snip]

The source of those stats is so obvious to everyone on these NGs
(soc.culture.jewish/soc.culture.israel) that a link is unnecessary.

...Groups I dont frequent. But you could have told me. Well you have now .
Id still prefer if you posted "already known" or "taken as a given" sources
As it turns out they are wrong! Israel is richer according to 2007 figures.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Plus a per capita GDP of $11,300 , for Lebanon, compared to not so
“fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
...your point is?
Guess.
...YOU are the one making the point! It isnt for me to "guess". If you are
making a point make it! Lebanon has half the GDP of Israel. so? Lebanon has
also had decades of war!
Starting well before Syria's 1975 invasion. Syria has never recognized
Lebanon as an independent state, you know.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Saudi Arabia has a GDP per capita of >>$23,200
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
But it has oil in abundance compared to Israel!
And that's why we're still in Iraq. Bush & Cheney's Saudi oil patrons
tremble in their bedsheets at the prospect of another Shi'a government
on their northern border.

...Under Saddam they didnt have a Shia government!


[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
...so the sq km does not count then! And again you miss the WHOLE POINT! The
question is WHY is Israels GDP per capita at $26k when countries around
Israel with MORE RESOURCES have lower GDP per capita?
Probably because they're Muslim Arab dictatorships.

...that is part of Smith's answer. But not all of it . and I don't claim hew
was 100 per cnet right.
As you seem interested I will suggest my view of Smiths answer.
Smith believed in "free trade". that any man could ply whatever trade or
learn any job. that social mobility should come from this and that the State
should defend the right of a person to do whatever job they wanted by force
of arms if necessary.
Now you try saying you want in to the Saudi Oil business or the construction
trade and see how far you get. Not alone that but the EU US Orientals ALL
put up barriers to free trade.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel
$161.9 billion
Per capita GDP: see above.
Ergo, Israel's neighbours are hardly “fabulously wealthy” by
comparison.
... But they ARE! They have oil and other resources just like Spain had in
comparison to Holland. Holland however was a RICHER COUNTRY. Why?
Hillel told me, but I've forgotten.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
You missed Saudi Arabia, (huge oil production and reserves) Iraq (even
huger oil reserves) Libya (oil) Greece (heritage agriculture ).
If you look at a map, you will notice that none of the above countries
Israel’s neighbors.
... theey dont BORDER Israel. But so what? does the US border Panama? does
England border Ireland? They are middle East!
[snip "neighbour " argument]
Post by Mavisbeacon
In fact it is a vassal State of HUGE US interest.
Bollocks. Most Americans couldn't even find it on a map, and wouldn't
care if they did.

...The Us invaDED pANAMA ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. mOST us PEOPLE COULDNT
PROBABLY FIND iSREAEL OR IRAQ ON A mAP . So what? Most dont know about
things further than 100 miles from them!
Post by Mavisbeacon
The point is that cpuntries with resources (like the
Suez or Panama canal, or oil or whatever ) should be making money but when
you look you see Israel is poorer in terms of resources but richer in terms
of GDP (per capita) .Why is that?
Jewish brains?

... that is another reason. But not just JEWISH. there are over a hundred
and fifty nationalities in Israel! Israel is a world leader in software
export. you don't need oil or gold to export electrons!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Andyou need to look at current statistics, before
you suggest that Iraq's oil reserves are greater than Saudia's, or
Iraq has the oil reserves of the entire continent of Africa,
It does? How did Iraq get the oil reserves of the entire continent of
Africa?

...LOL! the SIZE of the equivalent resources in Africa!
Post by Mavisbeacon
More than South
America and more than twice north america. Obnly Iran And Saudi arabia have
more reserves.http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
The point is Iraq/Iran/Saudi/Syria etc. have oil and Israel doesnt!
SO how come Israel is wealthier?
It isn't a Muslim Arab dictatorship.


Partly! But Iraq was much richer under Saddam. If he hadent continual war
with Iran it would probably have nbeen richer evenb than Israel. And that
was under a dictator. but you are right dictators usually dont bring wealth
for all.


[]snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
“ISRAEL like Holland has little in the way of natural
and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries”
...Yes Israel is surrounded by wealthy countries in the terms that Adam
Smith compared Spain to Holland!
Irrelevant. None of the countries bordering Israel are as wealthy as
Israel.

... Israel are involved in world internet trade! Geographic location is NOT
a prerequisite for such trade.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Spain by the way is NOT bordering Holland!
You've produced a fact. Good for you!

...The ORIGINAL comparison to which the modern comparison of Israel and
Ireland are been compared was NOT between countries whose borders touched
and GREECE had Cyprus which DOES border Israeli territoty does it not?
Post by Mavisbeacon
These other countries have much more than Israels had in terms of resources.
But Israel is richer. Why?
It's a democracy, not a Muslim Arab dictatorship.

... Partly . But turkey is Muslim if not Arabic. Arabs had a very long
history in trade so you cant rule out Arabic.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Holland today has the highest amount of
population packed into a small area. Why is Holland
rich?
It's a democracy, not a Muslim Arab dictatorship.....yet.

... It isnt only democracy but democracy is one of the pillars. Free trade
and social mobility are also factors.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece,
... which you just ruled out of amn economic comparison?
is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
... and NO other country has that?
A Muslim Arab country has generally a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
In the case of Muslim Arab countries like Saudia, they have ONLY
Muslim Arabs.
... But you are now suggesting Muslim Arab countries are poor because of
Muslim Arabs. But this cant be true since the Arabian peninsula was rich
before oil and it had Muslim and Arabs then.
The Arabian peninsula was never rich, not even before the expulsion of
Christian s and Jews.

...Babylon was the largest and richest cioty of the ancient world!
Post by Mavisbeacon
As was Arabic Spain.
Spain was never entirely Arabic.

...arabic Spain was . that was a large section of Spain. and it WAS rich!
Post by Mavisbeacon
It cant be just Islam or Arabs that cause relative poverty
as you seem to claim.
Then you tell me – why are Muslim countries the poorest in the world?

...They arent!
...The poorest ones as far as I know include East Timor, solomon Islands,
Cambodia, Bukino Faso and yes some muslim countries but many of which are
in war for decades e.g. congo were tens of millions seem to have disappeared
in a holocaust.

Why are Muslim Arab countries, despite all their resources, so very
much poorer than Christian democracies?

Comoros is a republic though it is Muslim, Solomon Islands are a christian
democracy. Bith are of the poorest in the world.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours
– as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.
This is true. Ergo, Israel's neighbours aren't as “fabulously wealthy”
as you thought.
... You MISS the point! They ARE! they have resources! Just as Adam Smith
asked how "fabulous wealthy " countries like Spain were poorer than "no
resources at all" Holland!
Honey, Adam Smith died several centuries ago – on the other side of
the Industrial Revolution, when the world was only just emerging from
the Little Ice Age.

...Moses Jesus and Abraham also died millennia ago! Your point is?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
...you entiely MISS THE POINT
WHY DOES ISRAEL HAVE THIS HIGHER GDP?
At a guess, I'd say that Israel and Ireland have higher per capita
GDPs because they're democracies and not Muslim Arab countries.
...Turkey and Greece are democracies both Muslim and non Muslim yet bith are
lower than Israel in GDP per capita I believe.
Turkey is a Muslim country. Greece, which isn't, has a higher per
capita GDP ($29,200) than Israel.


...sorry I stand corrected!
Post by Mavisbeacon
Neighbouring countries similar Climate and much more in terms of resources
than Israel. So why are they (democracies) poorer?
Greece is richer than Israel. Turkey, which isn't, is a Muslim
country.


...Nor ARE THE SOLOMON iSLANDS. It isnt just democracy or being Muslim but
authoritarianism is a factor I would think.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East.
... I though Iraq was meant to be a democracy? LOL!
Since when?

since the US said so!
Post by Mavisbeacon
And Lebanon? And Egypt?
Lebanon is controlled from Damascus, and has been for the past three
decades.

... It was a democracy of a sort for a while there wasnt it? Until they
decided to blow it to pieces.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Cold War made the United States and other western democracies look the
other way when it came to political oppression and allowed them to deal with
tyrants and dictators”.http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/ibrahim_interview.htm
What, the US and “other western democracies” are supposed to dry-nurse
Muslim Arab dictatorships which hate the West?

...What "west" the "west" that says "for US or against us"?

Besides, they were most
of them getting assistance from their good friends, the Soviets.

...Hence the cold wasr reference.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It seems democracies,
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.
... and "democracies" didnt exist then!
Neither did the state of Israel, or the state of Ireland.
... But you brought up the point of modern democracy not being around when
"wealth of nations" was published!
It wasn't.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Yes democracy has something to do with it but Nazi Germany for example was
wealthy and a dictatorship!
It wasn't wealthy.

...Ah it was! It was the most "progressed" industrial economy in Europe and
maybe in the world apart from Japan.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Smiths point was about social mobility.
According to your previous post, Smith's 1776 publication was “a
fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade,”
and included a comparison of 27th century Holland and Spain. I doubt
social mobility was a much-bruited topic at that time.
...oops 17th century!
Social mobility wasn't a much-bruited topic then, either.

...yepo. which is why he was so revolitionary!
Post by Mavisbeacon
... It is central to the issue! Smith believed that people should not be
cast into a role and should be able to do whatever trade they wished.
In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, Smith is
dead. So is the world he was talking about.


...As is Moses and Jesus and Mahammad and Ghandi. aAlexander the Great
socrates etc. do you think we should forget good ideas when people die?

And Jack still hasn't
answered the question as to whether he thinks it odd that the Spanish
colonization of the Americas has all of a sudden become the European
colonization of the Americas – as if every kingdom in Europe sent its
conquistadores in search of El Dorado and the Seven Cities of Cibola
with the Pope's blessing.

...The Pope was in Rome Italy and the Patriarch in Constantinople/Byzanthium
not in Spain.
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-07-07 10:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
you claimed MOST of the time between then and now was Spainsh! You cant
back up your claim!
“Don't you find it odd that the new PC term is to refer to some kind
of "European invasion" of the Americas, and gloss over the fact that
for the longest time, and in the greatest area, "European" invaders
were Spanish?”
I didn't ask Jack for a history of Spanish colonization and rule in
the Americas – although, as a teacher, with a degree in history Jack
is fully capable of responding – or for a digression on French, Dutch,
Portuguese, or English colonies in the America's, or on Adam Smith's
seminal work and his comparison of Holland and Spain in 1600. In view
of the fact that Spain was the first colonial power in the Americans,
and the last, I asked him if he found odd the new PC term “European
invasion and/or colonization”. Whether 1700 is halfway between 1500
and 2000, or 1754 is, has as much relation to the question as who
colonized Arrakis.
...You are talking about history and not about science fiction. MOST of the
Time between 1500 and today is about 1750! If the people in control of the
AmericaS FOR MOST OF THE TIME and for longer and broader than anyone else
were the Spanish then they would be in control of MOST of America
continuously until 1750. In fact MOST of america was not colonised until
about 1800. And by then Portugal England and France controlled most of it.
In fact, Spain was in control of most of the Americas in 1750, and
remained so until the next century. By the Treaty of Paris of February
1763, France ceded to Britain claim to Acadia, Canada, Cape Breton,
and all French territory east of the Mississippi, except the Ile
d'Orleans. Britain restored various Caribbean islands to the French
and Havana to Spain, while Spain ceded Florida to Britain. By earlier
arrangement, France ceded to Spain all French territory west of the
Mississippi, plus the Ile d'Orleans.

Spain still held most of the territory in the Americas.
Post by Mavisbeacon
That is all Im saying. But you do make a good case about sapanish influence.
I would agree Most of South America has Spanish colonial heritage as does
central America and around Florida. But I would not have thought Spain
controlled most of the Americas then any other powers or over a longer
Post by ***@gmail.com
period over a larger area but you might well be right.
The Spanish colonies declared independence from Spain on the following
dates:
1811, 5 July – Venezuela
1811, 14 August – Paraguay
1811, 11 November – Great Colombia (United Provinces of New Granada)
1818, 12 February – Chile (Bernardo O'Higgins named Supreme Director)
1819, 9 July – United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (roughly,
Argentina)
1821, February 24 – New Spain (Mexico)
1821, 28 July – Peru
1822, 11 September – Brazil (from Portugal)
1823, July 1 – United Provinces of Central America (from Mexico)

In most cases, years of fighting preceded, and followed, the
declarations of independence. Cuba and Puerto Rico, loyal to Spain,
were military bases for Spanish forces. Once Spanish forces were
completely withdrawn, the new countries launched wars against each
other, which went on for decades.

Enough about that.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
...But "The Wealth of Nations" and the wealth of nations today is what we
were discussing.
YOU referred to it. I have no interest in discussing it, as it is
irrelevant to the original question regarding the PC substitution of
“European” for “Spanish” relative to the colonization of the
Americas.
...I referred to it in relation to Israel!
And irrelevant.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
"why is Israel rich and
neighbouring countries poorer (btw- some of which ARE democracies)
Which ones?
Lebanon was. Egypt sort of is. Turkey is.It is secular. Apparently Iraq is
according to the Americans. There are several others. many are seming
democracies e.g Kewait and Saudi Arabia who are big pa;ls of the US have
parliaments but are in reality run by a family.
Saudia is an Islamic monarchy, with one of the worse human rights
records in the world; their overprivileged royals are big pals of
Bush, Cheney, international oil conglomerates, and no one else. Kuwait
is another Islamic monarchy. Iraq is just a mess, thanks to Bush,
Cheney, and the 17% of Americans, who are either very rich or very
retarded, or both, who still support them. Egypt's head of state has
been in office since 1981, and you should ask gay Egyptian how
democratic they think their country is. Turkey is run by the Turkish
military. Lebanon may have been a some kind of democracy decades ago,
when it was still predominantly Christian, but for the past three
decades it has been run by the military dictatorship in Damascus.

Where are the “several other democracies” among Israel's neighbours?
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Holland became the cultural, political and economic centre of the United
Provinces in the 17th century Dutch Golden Age, the wealthiest nation in the
world. 1581-1795 . Why? Why was it richer than spain who had all the gold of
south america, warmer climate for agriculture, history and tradition etc. ?
Ask Hillel, he knows the answers. I don't, and I'm not particularly
interested. They might be over on soc.culture.holland, though. FYI,
this is soc.culture.jewish/soc.culture.israel.
...YES. and soc.culture.iraq and iranian and greek
Trebly irrelevant, in that case.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Whay was holland wealthier than Spain?
No idea, and I really don't give a rat's ass.
... the comparison is valid whether you care about it or not!
And it is
possibly the reason that Israel has the economy it has.
Because post-industrial Israel in the 21st C is like pre-industrial
Holland in the 17thC? Get over it.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If you don't care
why Israel's economy performs as it does that is your own business but it
does not mean that it ceases to exist if you don't care about it.
I already know why Israel's economy performs better than those of the
Arab states around it. Israel is a democracy with an educated
populace, and the Arab states aren't. Moreover, Israel doesn't inflict
a subservient state on the half its population which isn't male.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
One would think they would be
proud that the reknowned and respected Jewish scholar who became
Israel's first chief rabbi was,
... snip Hertzog biography
...The Irish are proud of this Dubliner.
Oh, really. That's quite a change from your kerfuffle that it's “a
slight on Irish people which those people would decry”.
...No it isnt! YOUR COMMENT that "Ireland is irrelevant" would be deemed a
slight on the Irish people by Hertzog.
Once again, until you have read anything about Herzog, father or son,
you are in no position to make any declaration on what Herzog would or
would not do, say, believe, since that is merely your opinion. Try
reading his autobiography, Living History. (His father was a renowned
scholar, Ireland's first Chief Rabbi; before independence, he got
himself on the British hit list for declaring that it was the duty of
every Irish Jew to fight for freedom.)
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
But you have a cheek to suggest he
was the ONLY achievment of Ireland
Balls. Try reading a statement within the context of the thread,
...YOUR WORDS = "Ireland is irrelevant"
Read it in the context in which it was made.
Post by Mavisbeacon
The context was in reference to Adam Smiths comparison of small countries
with fewer resources being wealthy. In todays world Ireland and Israel have
much in common economically . software exports are one example. I am asking
what is a "successful" economy by todays standards and whether much has
really changed since smith made a similar obswervation over 300 years ago.
Certainly much has changed. Smith was comparing two states in pre-
industrial Christian Europe. Israel and the surrounding Muslim Arab
states aren't pre-industrial countries, and they're certainly not
Christian or European. Apples and oranges, as I said. A comparison of
modern Israel and modern Ireland is not, however, irrelevant.

It's certainly not irrelevant as regards the US, and probably not as
regards Israel. One of Israel's first tank commanders was actually an
Irishman. (After Israel's first war, he converted to Judaism, married
a Jewish girl, and went to live on a collective, raising cotton.)

[ASIDE: According to the most recent census, more Americans descend
from the Irish than from any other ethnicity/nationality. FWIW, the
top ten:
23.3% Irish
15.6% German
13.1% English
8.6% African-American
5.9% Italian
4.7% Mexican
4.1% French
3.8% Polish
3.5% American Indian
2.5% Dutch

There are 33 ranking ethnicities/nationalities altogether, consisting
of 1,000,000 and more. Another FWIW: Scotch-Irish and Scotch are #s 11
and 12, Welsh #17, and “British” generally #28. Maybe the current
mania for signs and notices in English and Spanish should be scrapped
for signs and notices in English and Irish Gaelic. <g>
END ASIDE]
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
A pity he's not around today, to kick some butts in the present
Israeli government.
...At last we agree on something.
That is certain. Chaim Herzog was, as Senator Daniel Moynihan once
said, “One of the great Irishmen of the twentieth century.” A pity he
didn't make it through the first decade of the 21st century. He had no
high opinion of fundamentals – Muslim fundamentals, Christian
fundamentals, or Jewish fundamentals. – and blamed them for the
problems between the religions. He also said, in effect, that the
difficulties he had being a Jew in Ireland weren't as great as those
he encountered as an Irishman in England.
...I would agree with most of that too. Actually ALL of it.
I'll have to take his word about a Jew in Ireland vis a vis an
Irishman in England, though I certainly DON'T doubt it. He's spot on
about fundies, though.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
When making comparisons as to whether or not a country is “fabulously
wealthy”, heritage is irrelevant. Egyptians are generally poor, and
their country is mostly desert.
... They have a HUGE heritage potential!
When making comparisons as to whether or not a country is “fabulously
wealthy”, heritage is irrelevant.
... It isnt! Many countries have made big business out of heritage tourism.
Libya for example has great potential in this in the future.
What “heritage tourism” can the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Mass-
State make use of?
Tourism is negligible, when set beside more profitable industries
(profitable to stockholders, that is).
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
At one time, the sun never set on
the British Empire. Well, it has now. Some wag will have to come up
with something new about sunsets when Scotland and Wales finally break
away.
... I really don't think they will but that ifs for them to decide. AS for
Northern Ireland and Souther Ireland. the dynamic is entirely different to
the US seccessionist movement which was not wholly to do with slavery as is
supposed and which caused the US Civil War.
The Civil War was about states' rights v. Federal control. The
Emancipation Proclamation elevated it into a moral struggle.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Heritage is dependant on the past. syria has a load of hisroty relating the
the genesis of civilisation
Syria, as an independent state, didn't exist until 17 April 1946. What
you call Syria's “heritage” and “history” belongs to the anicent (and
not so ancient) empires of which the current state was never more than
part of a province or two.
...Nor did "Israel" as a State! so what?
The Land of Israel is the heritage of the Jewish people. Moreover,
Israel was an independent state for centuries, while Syria was a
regional designation, and has nothing to do with the present Syrian
dictatorship.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel has huge potential in tourism too!
I think they have that one figured out already.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
, as does Iraq.
Same applies to Iraq.
...As doesthe fact it could make money from heritage and tourism!
The Iraqi state, per se, has no heritage; like Syria, it was a part of
ancient and not so ancient empires, and was only created as a state by
the British in the 1930s. Morever, they seem to have little interest
in that “heritage”, as it has little to do with Islam or Arabs,
Baghdad excepted.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Babylon for example.
Only the ruins of Babylon belong to the state of Iraq.
...Only the largest city in the world and the cradel of civilisation.
Babylon may have been among the largest of ancient Mesopotamian sites,
but it's been nothing more than a pile of rubble for centuries,
chiefly of interest to archaeologists, and it was the cradle of
civilisation. That lay to the east, in ancient Sumer, and to the
south, in the Two Lands of Egypt.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If old things dont matrter why does the temple mount or
the Ark of the covenant?
The Ark hasn't been seen in 26 centuries. Temple Mount has been
Judaism's holiest site for 3,000 years, and is important to Jews – and
to the Muslim Arabs who now control it, and won't allow any
archaeological excavations on or near it, because they are bent on
destroying all traces of the ancient and continuous Jewish presence
there. Ditto traces of the Christian presence there as well.

Jerusalem was never “holy” to Islam, and isn't even mentioned in the
Quran. It became “holy” merely as a political ploy in the 8th century
between warring caliphs.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
More to the
point, to relate your question. why is Syria NOT benefiting form heritage?
See above.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel for example has a heritage which relates to Pilgrims from Christian
Muslim and Jewish religions.
That's tourism, not heritage.
...Heritage tourism! As opposed to other forms of tourism such as climate
based tourism ("Sun Holoidays"). Again Ireland does not have the Sun like
Spain.
Who cares? If you want sun, go to the beach, or the desert. Nobody
goes to Ireland for sun. They go for a lot of reasons.
Post by Mavisbeacon
spain is a big Sun Holiday destination., Ireland relies more on
heritage and social factors.
You forgot scenery, plus the fact that one can travel to Ireland and
not come away with any intestinal disorders from drinking the water.
But look at the revenues from tourism. This is only 1998, but the same
probably holds today:
Ireland
– exports - $60.9 billion
- tourism - $3.31 billion

Similar situation with Israel (again, from 1998):
- exports - $22.1 billion
- tourism - $3.10 billion

Compare to Spain:
exports - $111.1 billion
tourism - $32.9 billion

But the per capita GDPs for Ireland and Israel are higher than
Spain's.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
There has been much made of this over the
centuries in terms of trade. People have "cashed in" on pilgrims.
Do you know how poor the land of Israel was in the 19th century?
...No. Probably quite impoverished.
In the 19thC, it was the poorest region in the Ottoman Empire. Not
only did it suffer through several droughts, massive earthquakes,
pestilence, it was also invaded and occupied by the Khedive of Egypt,
in the course of his war with the Empire; during the occupation,
Egyptian forces forcibly expelled thousands of the natives, and
replaced them with Egyptians. Fex, Jaffa, the only port, became
“entirely Egyptian”, as did a number of Jordan valley towns.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I would assume the actual "Land" was not
poor it just wasnt worked or given a chance to be worked.
Most of the land was the Sultan's property (i.e., state-owned land).
What privately-owned land existed was largely owned by a handful of
Arab families, most of whom lived in Beirut or Cairo. Fex, the
Jezre'el valley was largely owned by ONE Beiruti family. The land was
“worked” and “given a chance to be worked,” but the methods were
primitive, and Ottoman land laws were designed to extract the maximum
amount of rents from the sharecroppers who worked the land, without
giving them much, if any, opportunity to acquire ownership. They were
serfs, mostly illiterate, without any Western traditions such as the
intrinsic worth of the individual, or of peasants' revolts. Islamic
fatalism may have something to do with, it as well: everything is pre-
ordained by Allah, and free will is a miraj.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
How come Egypt of Syria have not such a scale?
The Syrian Arab Republic is a military dictatorship, headed by the son
of HalfAss, the previous dictator.
...Aha! Well now we are coming to a possible REASON as to why the place is
piss poor!
Hardly piss poor, if you happen to be a member of the privileged
minority. But a country which experienced something like 18 violent
military coups in less than two decades isn't likely to rank high on a
list of top tourist destinations.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
The Arab Republic of Egypt rakes in
three times more from tourism than Syria (but only $5,000,000 more
than Ireland). Come to think of it, why do Ireland and Israel both
rake in three times more from tourism than Syria?
... See! It wasnt such a sill question after all was it?
As relates to relative economies, it is. Both may rake in three times
as much in tourism than Syria, but tourism isn't the chief source of
revenue for either. Both are modern democracies, with modern
industries, and both have highly educated populations – of both sexes,
one might add.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Egypt would be
known worldwide for certain heritage artefacts so that one is easy where
they are concerned.
Egypt IS known for its ancient sites, and has been for centuries. Fex,
graffiti left on the pyramids span millennia, from the soldiers of
Alexander and Caesar, to WWII, plus all the tourists who visited them
in between (and all of it about the same: “I was here”).

But what are the world's top tourist destinations? 1) France, 2)
Spain, 3) America, 4) Italy, 5) UK and Ireland, 6) Germany, 7) China,
8) Australia, 9) Canada, 10) Greece.

Compare to where the bulk of tourists TO America come from: 1) Canada,
2) Mexico, 3) Japan, 4) UK & Ireland, 5) Germany, 6) France, 7)
Brazil, 8) Italy, 9) Venezuela, 10) Netherlands.
Post by Mavisbeacon
And Israel has several ancient world foci as well.
Both have hot climates.
Israel has probably been more extensively excavated by archaeologists
than any other area in the world.
Post by Mavisbeacon
so what is Ireland doing?
Pretty well, I understand, for a country which was once ranked amongst
Europe's poorest, and is now among the richest (and whose individual
citizens are wealthier than those of Spain, Poland, Greece, Portugal,
what have you). So much for hot climates.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Similarly how come
Israel is richer than Turkey Egypt Greece Syria Iraq Saudi Arabia etc. ?
It's not richer than Saudi Arabia, that's for sure. If it were, we
wouldn't be tied up in Bush & Cheney's stupid war in Iraq, to appease
their Saudi oil patrons.
...Maybe Im wrong! Let us see.
CIA factbook Saudi Arabia GDP per Capita $23,200 (2007 est.)
Israel - $25,800 (2007 est.)
Israel IS RICHER!
Not by much.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Now you cant deny Saudi Arabia has VAST WEALTH! So how come Israel is
richer?
Look at the overall GDPs for both, as well as the budgets. In any
cause, Saudia is extremely well off, compared to most Muslim Arab
states—at least as regards Muslim Arab males who are citizens. I
wouldn't want to live in a country where it's against the law to put
up a Christmas tree, or drive a car if you're a woman, would you?
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel is richer according to 2007 figures.
Not richer than the Saudis. If it were, Bush & Co. would be sucking up
to the Israelis, instead of kissing Arab oil sheikh ass.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Saudi Arabia has a GDP per capita of $23,200
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
But it has oil in abundance compared to Israel!
And that's why we're still in Iraq. Bush & Cheney's Saudi oil patrons
tremble in their bedsheets at the prospect of another Shi'a government
on their northern border.
...Under Saddam they didnt have a Shia government!
They had a brutal military dictatorship which killed millions in its
war with Iran, invaded oil-rich Kuwait and dubbed it an Iraqi
province, and threatened the Saudi royals' monopoly, apart from
murdering thousands of Iraqi Kurds, and brutalizing its own people.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The
question is WHY is Israels GDP per capita at $26k when countries around
Israel with MORE RESOURCES have lower GDP per capita?
Probably because they're Muslim Arab dictatorships.
...that is part of Smith's answer.
It's highly unlikely there were Muslim Arab dictatorships in his time.
In any case, he was writing of pre-industrial Europe.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The point is that cpuntries with resources (like the
Suez or Panama canal, or oil or whatever ) should be making money but when
you look you see Israel is poorer in terms of resources but richer in terms
of GDP (per capita) .Why is that?
Jewish brains?
... that is another reason. But not just JEWISH. there are over a hundred
and fifty nationalities in Israel!
Most of them Jewish.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Israel is a world leader in software
export. you don't need oil or gold to export electrons!
You need education to organize them. What courses of study do Muslim
Arab institutions of higher learning offer? Usually Islamic
literature, selective versions of Islamic history, and the like.
Moreover, Muslim Arab countries don't usually have more than one ISP,
and like all TV stations, it's government-controlled.

[snip]
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The point is Iraq/Iran/Saudi/Syria etc. have oil and Israel doesnt!
SO how come Israel is wealthier?
It isn't a Muslim Arab dictatorship.
Partly! But Iraq was much richer under Saddam. If he hadent continual war
with Iran it would probably have nbeen richer evenb than Israel. And that
was under a dictator. but you are right dictators usually dont bring wealth
for all.
Some do, most do not.
Post by Mavisbeacon
[]snip]
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
“ISRAEL like Holland has little in the way of natural
and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries”
...Yes Israel is surrounded by wealthy countries in the terms that Adam
Smith compared Spain to Holland!
Irrelevant. None of the countries bordering Israel are as wealthy as
Israel.
... Israel are involved in world internet trade! Geographic location is NOT
a prerequisite for such trade.
See above. Israel has several ISPs, none of them government
controlled, as opposed to those in Muslim Arab countries, all of which
are government controlled. Thus, Israelis can say what they like about
their government, or anything else such as religion, and not have to
worry about getting imprisoned or shot for treason, or having a fatwa
issued against them.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Spain by the way is NOT bordering Holland!
You've produced a fact. Good for you!
...The ORIGINAL comparison to which the modern comparison of Israel and
Ireland are been compared was NOT between countries whose borders touched
and GREECE had Cyprus which DOES border Israeli territoty does it not?
Cyprus is an island, with two countries, one independent and
predominantly Greek, the other Turkish and not generally recognized,
except by Muslim countries. As an island off the Turkish coast, it
doesn't border anything.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
These other countries have much more than Israels had in terms of resources.
But Israel is richer. Why?
It's a democracy, not a Muslim Arab dictatorship.
... Partly . But turkey is Muslim if not Arabic. Arabs had a very long
history in trade so you cant rule out Arabic.
Arabs had a far longer history in the African slave trade than Europe.
So?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece,
... which you just ruled out of amn economic comparison?
is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
... and NO other country has that?
A Muslim Arab country has generally a preponderance of Muslim Arabs.
In the case of Muslim Arab countries like Saudia, they have ONLY
Muslim Arabs.
... But you are now suggesting Muslim Arab countries are poor because of
Muslim Arabs. But this cant be true since the Arabian peninsula was rich
before oil and it had Muslim and Arabs then.
The Arabian peninsula was never rich, not even before the expulsion of
Christian s and Jews.
...Babylon was the largest and richest cioty of the ancient world!
Operative phrase: “Babyon was.” What it was not was a Muslim Arab
city, nor was the Babylonian Empire Muslim or Arab, and the city's
status as the world's largest and richest was long gone by the time of
the Roman Empire, by which time it was largely ruins.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
As was Arabic Spain.
Spain was never entirely Arabic.
..arabic Spain was . that was a large section of Spain. and it WAS rich!
Spain, or rather the Iberian peninsula, was never more than one-third
Muslim, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, and the majority
of Muslims were not Arabs. In fact, that was a great bone of
contention between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims. It rose to pre-
eminence, and contained the world's largest and wealthiest city, for a
brief period under the Umayyad caliphs. That prosperity was due more
to the fact that, for its time, it was a melting pot for Muslims,
Christians, and Jews, as well as Arabs, Persians, Europeans,
Egyptians, Africans, you name it. The greatest of the caliphs was,
through his grandmother, a Navarrese princess, related to most of the
Christian kings of “the Spains”. As with all good things, the
prosperity didn't last, and was destroyed in a series of power
struggles, which led to its fragmentation into a number of petty
taifas, their conquest by Islamic fanatics, and, ultimately, by the
Christian rulers of Spain. But, for a time, the caliphate of Cordoba
was the most civilized realm on the planet.

Irony regarding the surrender of Abdallah, last sultan of Granada, to
Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain: they were cousins – several times
removed, to be sure, but still descended from the same mixture of
Arabs, various non-Arab Muslims, French, English, Visigoths, Avars,
Suevi, Normans, Basques, Visigoths, Romans, who knows what else.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It cant be just Islam or Arabs that cause relative poverty
as you seem to claim.
Then you tell me – why are Muslim countries the poorest in the world?
...They arent!
They're not exactly swimming in riches, are they?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Why are Muslim Arab countries, despite all their resources, so very
much poorer than Christian democracies?
Comoros is a republic though it is Muslim, Solomon Islands are a christian
democracy. Bith are of the poorest in the world.
The Solomon Islands are an archipelago in the middle of the western
Pacific Ocean, without much impetus to develop any exportable
commodities, and no real need. The Comoros islands have had successive
military coups, except the two islands who voted to remain French.
Neither serve as examples in opposition to the fact that the world's
poorest countries are generally Muslim, or, let us say, Muslim
countries tend to be amongst the poorest in the world, rather than up
there with the wealthiest, excepting only a very few.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours
– as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.
This is true. Ergo, Israel's neighbours aren't as “fabulously wealthy”
as you thought.
... You MISS the point! They ARE! they have resources! Just as Adam Smith
asked how "fabulous wealthy " countries like Spain were poorer than "no
resources at all" Holland!
Honey, Adam Smith died several centuries ago – on the other side of
the Industrial Revolution, when the world was only just emerging from
the Little Ice Age.
...Moses Jesus and Abraham also died millennia ago! Your point is?
Same as I have been reiterating: Adam Smith's take on pre-industrial
European states of several centuries ago is irrelevant to a comparison
of modern post-industrial Middle Eastern states.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
WHY DOES ISRAEL HAVE THIS HIGHER GDP?
At a guess, I'd say that Israel and Ireland have higher per capita
GDPs because they're democracies and not Muslim Arab countries.
...Turkey and Greece are democracies both Muslim and non Muslim yet bith
are lower than Israel in GDP per capita I believe.
Turkey is a Muslim country. Greece, which isn't, has a higher per
capita GDP ($29,200) than Israel.
...sorry I stand corrected!
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Neighbouring countries similar Climate and much more in terms of resources
than Israel. So why are they (democracies) poorer?
Greece is richer than Israel. Turkey, which isn't, is a Muslim
country.
...Nor ARE THE SOLOMON iSLANDS. It isnt just democracy or being Muslim but
authoritarianism is a factor I would think.
That's one factor. See above for the Solomons, which are in the middle
of nowhere.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East.
... I though Iraq was meant to be a democracy? LOL!
Since when?
since the US said so!
You mean since Bush & Co said so. Only 17% of Americans support Bush,
and the rest of us don't, and never did, support his “bringing
democracy to Iraq” bullshit, or whatever his latest excuse is.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
And Lebanon? And Egypt?
Lebanon is controlled from Damascus, and has been for the past three
decades.
... It was a democracy of a sort for a while there wasnt it? Until they
decided to blow it to pieces.
Civil war between Muslims and Christians began in 1919, and never
stopped.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
The Cold War made the United States and other western democracies look the
other way when it came to political oppression and allowed them to deal
with tyrants and dictators”.
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/ibrahim_interview.htm
What, the US and “other western democracies” are supposed to dry-nurse
Muslim Arab dictatorships which hate the West?
...What "west" the "west" that says "for US or against us"?
That's just Bushshit. Are the US and “other western democracies”
supposed to dry-nurse
Muslim Arab dictatorships which hate the West?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Besides, they were most
of them getting assistance from their good friends, the Soviets.
...Hence the cold wasr reference.
They hated the Soviets as much as the hate the West. Instead of
meeting their bullshit with more bullshit, they should be told that
most people don't give a rat's ass for anything except their oil, and
leave it at that. Of course, they won't believe it. As few years ago
(2003 or 2004, I think) the Saudis ran a series of commercial on
American TV, whose theme was : “America and Arabia, Partners in Peace
for 60 Years.” The commercials ran a few weeks, then disappeared –
presumably, they were laughed off the airwaves.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
It seems democracies,
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.
... and "democracies" didnt exist then!
Neither did the state of Israel, or the state of Ireland.
... But you brought up the point of modern democracy not being around when
"wealth of nations" was published!
It wasn't.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Yes democracy has something to do with it but Nazi Germany for example was
wealthy and a dictatorship!
It wasn't wealthy.
...Ah it was! It was the most "progressed" industrial economy in
Europe and maybe in the world apart from Japan.
It pulled itself out of the worldwide economic depression faster than
any other state, largely by creating a huge war machine. Postwar
photos of ruined German cities show the ultimate results of that
economic enterprise.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
According to your previous post, Smith's 1776 publication was “a
fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade,”
and included a comparison of 27th century Holland and Spain. I doubt
social mobility was a much-bruited topic at that time.
...oops 17th century!
Thanks. Come to think of it, though, a comparison of states in the
27th (two-seven) century would be kind of cool.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Social mobility wasn't a much-bruited topic then, either.
...yepo. which is why he was so revolitionary!
It happened earlier. Once in power, however, the elite didn't want
their ranks sullied with people like their former low and vulgar
selves.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Mavisbeacon
... It is central to the issue! Smith believed that people should not be
cast into a role and should be able to do whatever trade they wished.
In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, Smith is
dead. So is the world he was talking about.
...As is Moses and Jesus and Mahammad and Ghandi. aAlexander the Great
socrates etc. do you think we should forget good ideas when people die?
Promotion according to merit and ability wasn't original with Smith,
and still isn't a universal concept.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by ***@gmail.com
And Jack still hasn't
answered the question as to whether he thinks it odd that the Spanish
colonization of the Americas has all of a sudden become the European
colonization of the Americas – as if every kingdom in Europe sent its
conquistadores in search of El Dorado and the Seven Cities of Cibola
with the Pope's blessing.
...The Pope was in Rome Italy and the Patriarch in Constantinople/Byzanthium
not in Spain.
Speaking of science fiction, did you ever read Greg Bear's Hardfought?
One of the best anti-war novellas I've ever read.

Deborah
4PeaceMirelle
2008-07-07 15:38:41 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 7, 3:30 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).

# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:

Cider-Braised Jewish Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Kikes.

# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.

# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.

# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?

# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm
When they wanna see
How evil people could be
They’ll just remember
Deborah Sharavi’s “recipe”

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

____________________________________________________

Mirelle

4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-28 21:01:05 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 26, 10:25 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
________________________________
# 25 Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

# 54 David Goodman Says:
June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter-
racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the
cases involve muslim fundamentalists.
OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy
minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not
call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom
profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians
and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the
leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and
aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do.
Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what
he should and shouldn’t do.
P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by
the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).

# 55 That's Insane Says:
June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am
David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:

Cider-Braised Jewish Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Kikes.

# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am
Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means
goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie.
Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT
THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.

# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be
forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is
something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat
people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this?
It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal
recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell.
Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America
treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.

# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am
Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?

# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm
When they wanna see
How evil people could be
They’ll just remember
Deborah Sharavi’s “recipe”

http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

____________________________________________________

Mirelle
Mavisbeacon
2008-06-23 01:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip much of - "that came later"]
Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm
I would say, again, that that comparison isn't even up to the apples
and oranges level.
[snip]
... I disagree. It is a fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade.
There were no democracies in that era.
... it was published in 1776
“Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm“
Ergo, 1776 is not at issue. Once again, there were no democracies in
that era (i.e., 1600). What that means is that Adam Smith's 1776
“fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade”
is irrelevant.
Israel like Holland has little in the way of natural
resources and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries
like Holland was with Spain France and England.
England in 1600 wasn't “fabulously wealthy”.
... The comparison made by Smith was holland and spain
Therefore, irrelevant.
but England in the 1500s had looted the Monastries
Even more irrelevant.
Egypt
$127.9 billion
... But this is NOT about GDP . smiths argument
If you're going to make the statement that a particular country's
neighbours are “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to that country, you
need to provide a factual base for stating such. That base is the most
recent GDPs for the respective countries -- not a comparison of
Holland and Spain written in 1776.
Ireland has about 4 million people
Ireland is irrelevant, except, perhaps, at a stretch, in relation to a
chief rabbi of Israel and a former president, both of whom were Irish
Jews.
Egypt has how
many million people? the er are about 17 millions in Cairo I think. They
have the Nile Pyramids sphynx and a host of world saMOUS STUFF. aND THEIR
TOURIST TRADE IS ??? something like irelands in spite of having maybe twenty
times the population!
So Egypt has heritage, water and the suez Canal.
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800. “Heritage” is irrelevant,
and water, as a major Egyptian resource, is a joke.
Syria
$37.76 billion
Oil, water, Heritage.
Water, in a semiarid area? lol. Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500,
compared to not so “fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of
$25,800. Syria's putative “Heritage” is irrelevant.
Lebanon
$24.64 billion
Well, much like Israel for resources.
Lebanon's natural resources: limestone, iron ore, salt, water-surplus
state in a water-deficit region, arable land.
Israel's natural resources: timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas,
phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand.
Plus a per capita GDP of $11,300 , for Lebanon, compared to not so
“fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
Jordan
$16.01 billion
Agian tiny and like Israel.
Total sq km Jordan: 92,300
Total sq km Israel: 20,770
Plus a per capita GDP of $4,900, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
Israel
$161.9 billion
Per capita GDP: see above.
You missed Saudi Arabia, (huge oil production and reserves) Iraq (even huger
oil reserves) Libya (oil) Greece (heritage agriculture ).
If you look at a map, you will notice that none of the above countries
Israel’s neighbors. Andyou need to look at current statistics, before
you suggest that Iraq's oil reserves are greater than Saudia's, or
that Greece is “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to Israel.
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece, is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs. It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours – as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.
You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East. It seems democracies,
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.
LOL..... It is funny watching you deal with toddlers....


David...

... if you have a point to make make it
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-23 01:40:37 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 22, 1:19 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi
Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)

58 Responses to “Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe””

Celeste Sinclair Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:26 am
Vile, intolerable, despicable, evil…

Norah Jensen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:30 am
HORRIFYING!

Jerry Edwards Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:39 am
Forgive her Father, she knows not what she does.
Protect the dear children form people like Deborah Sharavi, precious
Lord.

Tom Cooper Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:42 am
A monster like this, I have not come across before.

Fred Konklin Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:49 am
Rage against such inhumanity!

Gertrude Verman Says:
June 5, 2008 at 4:26 am
Barren, morally degenerate.

Nancy McDougal Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:22 am
This Deborah Sharavi is not human.

Terry Bidak Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:50 am
This “recipe” is not much different from what Israel is doing to
Palestinians in Gaza. Killing Palestinians slowly by starving them to
death.

Moss Hollinger Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:03 am
This woman is a danger to herself and others. Someone should lock her
up.

Lisa Bergen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:15 am
When a people view themselves as being “chosen people”, by a decree
from God, this is the outcome.

Josh Smith Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:32 am
zionazi criminal.

Anne Collins Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:43 am
Reminds me of the Nazis making soap and lampshades from Jews.

Becky Polestar Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:51 am
So sad. I have lost all faith in humans. What happened to live and let
live?

Rocky Dempster Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am
Zionists=Nazis.

Dr. Carolyn DeMarco Says:
June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Distressing.

Ted McTavish Says:
June 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Man, this is one psycho bitch.

Madeline Nekoya Says:
June 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Imagine the outrage if someone were to post a cannibalistic “recipe”
about a Jewish child.

Brodie Drombolis Says:
June 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Deborah Sharavi needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities
for hate crimes.

Korina Zack Says:
June 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Zionist baby killer.

Gill Radcliff Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:43 am
It’s disappointing that Ariel Sharon is in a coma and can’t be tried —
and found guilty for crimes against humanity.

Jennifer Theissen Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
I feel sick to my stomach.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Unite against the attack on Iran! Israel will soon have no choice but
to withdraw from the occupied territories. Stand up, Americans!

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 10, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Indeed, Hunter Watson. Not only must Americans stand up against an
attack on Iran, so must all people. I live in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez,
has stated that if Iran is attacked, there will be no more oil sold
from Venezuela to America. This will destroy the economy in America.
Venezuela supplies about 1.5 million barrels per day of crude oil and
refined petroleum products to the U.S. market, according to the EIA.
Venezuelan oil comprises about 11 percent of U.S. crude oil imports.
Venezuela and Iran made agreements in August 2006 to build joint oil
refineries in Indonesia, Syria, and Venezuela. In addition, Iran’s
state-owned oil company Petropars has begun to invest in oil
exploration and development in the Orinoco belt in Venezuela.

Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 10, 2008 at 6:45 pm
My parents remember the horror of when Japan was bombed twice with
nuclear weapons. If Iran is attacked it will be a nuclear winter.

Ida Fletcher Says:
June 10, 2008 at 7:28 pm
The USA is already so far under water with the wars it is involved in,
an attack on Iran would be financial suicide.

Junko Takahashi Says:
June 10, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Bush has said… “I am not finished yet.” An attack on Iran appears
immanent. Make your voices heard!

Lila Baker Says:
June 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm
America, a once great nation, now, subservient to Israel. Surely, this
dangerous alliance will not last.

Andrés Espéndola Says:
June 10, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Is not good Israel want America go to war in Iran. Stupid Yankees pay
attention. Who benefits? Who pays?

Marsha Spicer Says:
June 11, 2008 at 4:41 am
Malicious, deceitful, false, smacking of every sin that has a name,
this filthy, vile “‘Recipe.” Only a fiend could write such utter
depravity.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Thank you Mr. Valenzuela (#25). Of course, the problem America and
Israel represent in the Middle East is global. It’s ironic that a
Venezuelan reminds me of it. Venezuela has been the subject of a great
deal of American meddling, especially since Mr. Chavez came to power.
We Americans are not accustomed to this. We DO the meddling and almost
never experience it, with one cardinal exception: tiny Israel through
it’s domestic American lobby has now so corrupted our Congress that it
writes the legislation relating to Israel itself. Our legislators so
fear these people that all but a few have completely lost their
independence.

Your Mr. Chavez is doing both America and Israel a favor for deterring
a new war.

Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

Hannah Steffield Says:
June 12, 2008 at 2:02 am
A zionazi apologist, you — franklin brown.

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 12, 2008 at 2:24 am
Hunter Watson, did you know that Hugo Chavez stopped permitting
Israelis to obtain visas to visit Venezuela? Also, Venezuela no longer
does any trade with Israel and boycotts all Israeli products. Viva
Chavez!

Hunter Watson Says:
June 12, 2008 at 4:22 am
Mr. Valenzuela,

I did not know that. It is encouraging to hear it. Other countries are
now working on boycotts. The Israelis are very stubborn but will
eventually have to change the underlying policy of aggression and
annexation. They are international pariahs. It isn’t caused by anti-
semitism. It’s caused by their behavior. Viva Chavez y viva Venezuela!

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 12, 2008 at 8:14 am
Indeed, it is not anti-semitic to denounce the probability of an
attack upon Iran.
The same play-book once used to cajole us into the Iraq debacle has
been taken out of the closet, wiped free of dust, and implemented
throughout the neocon world. They will resort to their nests in think
tanks and lobbying offices, along with their vast power in the
corporatist media, to sell, convince, connive and foment a war between
Iran and the conjoined twins– America and Israel.
Boycotts, protests, petitions, blogging and using the internet to by-
pass the Zionist media may make the difference between war in Iran or
no war there — as well as a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
When Hugo Chavez was arrested, the people of Venezuela shut down the
country and came out into the streets with knives, guns, even pieces
of glass demanding he be released — and he was. One of the first
things he did was throw out the Zionists. There were plane loads of
them who left for Miami. He has no problems with Jews, it is the
Zionists that are the problem, so, he had them leave peacefully, going
so far as to provide the planes to fly them to Miami — one way
tickets! The Jews who stayed are part of the diverse and colorful
culture here.

Lorne Thorp Says:
June 12, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I don’t believe in God, but since I came across the person who wrote
this “Recipe”, I believe in the Devil.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 13, 2008 at 3:04 am
Mr. Valenzuela,

WIthout question the alternative media is having a great impact. But
most of us still read the compromised “mainstream” media too even
though we no longer trust it.

Going elsewhere puts a great burden on those who search for the truth.
There are many, many scams and many incompetent poseurs. One simply
must read as widely as possible and use his own judgment.

Diverse and colorful I know it is, from reading and a fertile
imagination. I long to travel South America. Soon, perhaps.

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 13, 2008 at 6:11 am
Agreed, Mr. Watson. Whatever the source of news, one must use
discernment. Within the alternative media there are as many scams and
incompetent babblers with no content whatsoever, as there are in the
mainstream news. My point was that the internet has the possibility of
networking for change and passing of information that is not possible
in the stranglehold of the Zionist run media. Of course this is not
the case in Venezuela, where we have our own television network that
is broadcast throughout South America. I travel in my work as an
attorney and writer so I am exposed to the mainstream Western media
frequently. Discernment, is a knee jerk reaction I have in my work and
with information obtained via various news sources. I have attempted
to bottom line the situation in the Middle East to a couple of
paragraphs. (This is not something I do frequently, since it is
extremely complex).

Control of the Middle East, while signifying control of its resources,
also means control of the spigot, of the pipelines feeding and fueling
economies, of access to these same resources by other nations, as well
as control of the waterways granting passage to tankers headed to all
corners of the globe. Control the Middle East’s oil fields and you
control the world. Controlling the Middle East, especially having a
firm grip on those lands where oil and gas abound, virtually
guarantees that the oil and gas companies, today gorging on the
profits that war, insecurity and control engender, will assume major
investments in, and the enormous profits from, extracting, refining,
transporting and selling the Middle East’s resources. It guarantees
the continued plunder of the Middle East’s oil by Zionist and American
energy giants.

With a government saturated with corporate executives, lawyers and
lobbyists, many from the energy and defense industries, and a
revolving door of opportunity between the halls of power and the halls
of profit that never seems to stop and in fact only continues to gain
momentum, it is easy to see why America’s foreign policy in many ways
mirrors the interests of Israel, especially those of the energy-
industrial complex. It is easy, too, to foresee where Israel and
America will be focusing their muscles and might in the near future,
for one simply needs to follow the trail of black gold, the trail of
greed and money.

Kane Says:
June 14, 2008 at 12:24 am
If those two biggest international terrorists, mass murdering,
warmongering, pariah rogue states known as america and israel
(terrorists always stick together) try another one of their war crimes
(on Iran), it will spell the end of both of those evil tumors of
earth.

Amen.

Rise Again Says:
June 14, 2008 at 2:26 am
Blood-thirsty God who wants first born, boy-children killed, and
demands sexual mutilation/circumcision as a show of “Love” for “Him”,
it therefore comes as no surprise to see cannibalism as the result of
worshiping a blood-thirsty God.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 15, 2008 at 1:45 am
Mr. Valenzuela,

A slightly contrarian view:

I agree about the importance of the internet given the power of the
mainstream media, but I worry about internet freedom. Corporate
interests with allies in the current administration have begun efforts
to gain control over it. There was a struggle recently in the Congress
over legislation which would have provided immunity for communications
companies cooperating with warrantless illegal wire taps and would
have given them control over search priorities on the net. I think it
was defeated, but it will come back.

Oil is certainly a factor in American Middle East policy. It is,
however, a fungible product with a global market. Even a bin Laden
regime would eventually sell it. It’s true that in the short run an
attack on Iran would devastate the American economy. Not only because
of Venezuela’s promise but also because the flow through the Straits
of Hormuz would be cut off.

Nevertheless, Mearsheimer & Walt went over the question of whether Big
Oil had been lobbying for war against Iraq. After a careful review of
the sources they concluded that it had not been doing so. Of course we
have two oil men in office now, but the corporate people though that
war in the region would be harmful to the industry and were mystified
by the stupidity of the idea.

Professor Mearsheimer was in Israel last week. In a speech at an
Israeli University he pointed out that only one country is lobbying
intensively for an American attack on Iran, Israel. I might add that
the only serious pressure from Americans is coming from the Israel
Lobby broadly defined.

During the lead-up to the Iraq War Mr. Sharon’s office was funneling
misleading and provocative “intelligence” into the DoD which bypassed
our intelligence community (illegally) and went directly to the White
House for use in selling the war. That has been condemned by a
Department of Defense report by its Inspector General.

And finally, Mearsheimer & Walt have disclosed that in the lead-up to
the war the internal conversations were mostly about improving the
strategic security of Israel.

They mislead us into the War in Iraq. It was a criminal conspiracy to
do so. Representative Kucinich of Ohio spent four hours reading a 35
Count Articles of Impeachment into the record in the House of
Representatives last week. I doubt the leadership permit it to get to
the floor but the list of crimes is stunning. It’s available on the
net.

Best,

Hunter Watson

PS: Is your writing Journalism? Is it in English?

Brenda Collier Says:
June 18, 2008 at 3:00 am
What does Deborah Sharavi do with the bones from the murdered
Palestinian child?
Make soup stock for chicken soup with matza balls?

Jesse Says:
June 18, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I am so glad that I am not alone in my assessment of the Zionist run
Israel and the Israelis Lobby.
I am in Canada and was stunned when our right wing Prime Minister
backed Israel 100%. About five years ago a was speaking to Chuck
Strahl on the telephone and he brought up the need for security
because of the terrorist, I angrily replied “that the only true
terrorists were the US government and Israel” he gasped.(litteraly)
My family thinks that I am anti american and are offened by my
comments, I give them all kinds of sites to visit and do their own
research but they just won’t. So I am very glad that more voices are
speaking out!

La Voz De Aztlan Says:
June 18, 2008 at 1:38 pm
One of the primary causes of modern day Anti-Semitism is the brutal
occupation by Zionists of Palestine. There is today a growing number
of people of the Jewish faith that recognize that Zionism is in fact
counter to the fundamental tenets of the Torah, genuine Judaism and
against the principles stated by the ancient Hebrew named Moses.

Tony DeRossa Says:
June 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Shut your trap Franklin Brown. Kid means child. Not “baby goat.”

Paul Margolis Says:
June 19, 2008 at 3:46 am
I read this a few days ago. It keeps bothering me. The question is,
why should any one care about the Holocaust after over 60 years when
people who are Jewish act like this? I went and bought a book by David
Irving to see if there is any truth to the ever growing revisionist
examination of the Holocaust.

Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 20, 2008 at 1:34 am
A “recipe” concocted by a sewer brain.

Fiona Norlan Says:
June 20, 2008 at 8:39 am
Explanation of where the delusion of “chosen people” comes from, also,
the associated delusion that those who are not “chosen people”,
meaning Jews, are “sub-human”. Naturally, this doctrine initiates and
perpetuates violence and slaughter against non-Jews.

The Babylonian Talmud (Soncino)

Passages censored in previous editions of the Talmud were restored,
and the translators amplified the text with extensive footnotes that
form a running commentary. The publication was completed as a 35-
volume set in 1952, and republished in 18 volumes in 1961. Each
tractate was accompanied by a glossary, a table of abbreviations, an
index of Biblical references, and a general subject index. In 1952,
Soncino published a comprehensive Index volume collating the indices
from all tractates, and included an index to the statements of each of
the Sages. The Jew’s College/Soncino English translation of the
Babylonian Talmud has remained the gold standard of English Talmuds
for six decades.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/

Jason Paldern Says:
June 20, 2008 at 9:10 am
Thanks, Fiona. I have been looking for a place to read the filthy,
racist Talmud.
Another reason for Jewish, “chosen people”, supremacist, racist,
imperialist thinking, is contained in: THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED
ELDERS OF ZION:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm#Table%20of%20Contents

Fiona Norlan Says:
June 20, 2008 at 10:00 am
I heard about The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion. Zionists
say it is a forgery. Other people say even if it is, things are going
exactly as planned in the Protocols, so how could it be a forgery when
it is so accurate?
I just noticed I made a mistake in what I wrote. I meant to say:
Explanation of where the delusion of “chosen people”, meaning Jews,
comes from, also, the associated delusion that those who are not
“chosen people” are “sub-human”. Naturally, this doctrine initiates
and perpetuates violence and slaughter against non-Jews.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/

Shannon Says:
June 20, 2008 at 10:56 am
As a mother of six children I find this cannibalistic recipe extremely
disturbing.

Lyle Christensen Says:
June 20, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Great going! This does more to show the violence of Zionism than any
long winded books and discussions.

Nahida The Exiled Palestinian Says:
June 21, 2008 at 6:44 am
zionazi criminal.

End The Occupation Says:
June 21, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Israel is a blight unto all nations.
Zionists are a blight unto all nations.
Deborah Sharavi is an example of that.
Her “recipe” is the evidence.

Henry Ford's Ghost Says:
June 22, 2008 at 5:36 am
“Is it surprising that whichever way you turn to trace the harmful
streams of influence that flow through society, you come upon a group
of Jews? In baseball corruption — a group of Jews. In exploitative
finance — a group of Jews. In theatrical degeneracy — a group of Jews.
In liquor propaganda — a group of Jews. In control of national war
policies — a group of Jews. In control of the Press through business
and financial pressure — a group of Jews. War profiteers, 80 per cent
of them — Jews. Organizers of active opposition to Christian laws and
customs — Jews.”

Free eBook: The International Jew, by Henry Ford Sr.
http://www.globusz.com/cat_nonfiction.asp

David Goodman Says:
June 22, 2008 at 7:50 am
Outrageous! Anti-Semitism is NOT freedom of speech!
Henry Ford funded the Nazis!

Can Do Too Says:
June 22, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Zionists are from the: SINagogue of Satan.
This “recipe” was concocted in the: SINagogue of Satan.
Zionists are Baby Killers!
FREE PALESTINE!

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss Says:
June 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Zionists = Nazis.
4PeaceMirelle
2008-06-23 01:41:45 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 22, 1:24 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://aliyaallzionists.wordpress.com/zionist-cannibalistic-recipe-2/

Deborah Sharavi
Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200, “Heinrich”
As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their palestinian
prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian
numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid

8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped

Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.

In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.

Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the
flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an
hour.

Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil,
add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2
hours.

Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the
vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.

Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the
juices and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.

Serves lots of Pallies.

Deborah

http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)

58 Responses to “Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe””

Celeste Sinclair Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:26 am
Vile, intolerable, despicable, evil…

Norah Jensen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:30 am
HORRIFYING!

Jerry Edwards Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:39 am
Forgive her Father, she knows not what she does.
Protect the dear children form people like Deborah Sharavi, precious
Lord.

Tom Cooper Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:42 am
A monster like this, I have not come across before.

Fred Konklin Says:
June 5, 2008 at 3:49 am
Rage against such inhumanity!

Gertrude Verman Says:
June 5, 2008 at 4:26 am
Barren, morally degenerate.

Nancy McDougal Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:22 am
This Deborah Sharavi is not human.

Terry Bidak Says:
June 5, 2008 at 5:50 am
This “recipe” is not much different from what Israel is doing to
Palestinians in Gaza. Killing Palestinians slowly by starving them to
death.

Moss Hollinger Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:03 am
This woman is a danger to herself and others. Someone should lock her
up.

Lisa Bergen Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:15 am
When a people view themselves as being “chosen people”, by a decree
from God, this is the outcome.

Josh Smith Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:32 am
zionazi criminal.

Anne Collins Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:43 am
Reminds me of the Nazis making soap and lampshades from Jews.

Becky Polestar Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:51 am
So sad. I have lost all faith in humans. What happened to live and let
live?

Rocky Dempster Says:
June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am
Zionists=Nazis.

Dr. Carolyn DeMarco Says:
June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Distressing.

Ted McTavish Says:
June 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Man, this is one psycho bitch.

Madeline Nekoya Says:
June 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Imagine the outrage if someone were to post a cannibalistic “recipe”
about a Jewish child.

Brodie Drombolis Says:
June 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Deborah Sharavi needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities
for hate crimes.

Korina Zack Says:
June 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Zionist baby killer.

Gill Radcliff Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:43 am
It’s disappointing that Ariel Sharon is in a coma and can’t be tried —
and found guilty for crimes against humanity.

Jennifer Theissen Says:
June 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
I feel sick to my stomach.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Unite against the attack on Iran! Israel will soon have no choice but
to withdraw from the occupied territories. Stand up, Americans!

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 10, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Indeed, Hunter Watson. Not only must Americans stand up against an
attack on Iran, so must all people. I live in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez,
has stated that if Iran is attacked, there will be no more oil sold
from Venezuela to America. This will destroy the economy in America.
Venezuela supplies about 1.5 million barrels per day of crude oil and
refined petroleum products to the U.S. market, according to the EIA.
Venezuelan oil comprises about 11 percent of U.S. crude oil imports.
Venezuela and Iran made agreements in August 2006 to build joint oil
refineries in Indonesia, Syria, and Venezuela. In addition, Iran’s
state-owned oil company Petropars has begun to invest in oil
exploration and development in the Orinoco belt in Venezuela.

Mieko Fujimoto Says:
June 10, 2008 at 6:45 pm
My parents remember the horror of when Japan was bombed twice with
nuclear weapons. If Iran is attacked it will be a nuclear winter.

Ida Fletcher Says:
June 10, 2008 at 7:28 pm
The USA is already so far under water with the wars it is involved in,
an attack on Iran would be financial suicide.

Junko Takahashi Says:
June 10, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Bush has said… “I am not finished yet.” An attack on Iran appears
immanent. Make your voices heard!

Lila Baker Says:
June 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm
America, a once great nation, now, subservient to Israel. Surely, this
dangerous alliance will not last.

Andrés Espéndola Says:
June 10, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Is not good Israel want America go to war in Iran. Stupid Yankees pay
attention. Who benefits? Who pays?

Marsha Spicer Says:
June 11, 2008 at 4:41 am
Malicious, deceitful, false, smacking of every sin that has a name,
this filthy, vile “‘Recipe.” Only a fiend could write such utter
depravity.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Thank you Mr. Valenzuela (#25). Of course, the problem America and
Israel represent in the Middle East is global. It’s ironic that a
Venezuelan reminds me of it. Venezuela has been the subject of a great
deal of American meddling, especially since Mr. Chavez came to power.
We Americans are not accustomed to this. We DO the meddling and almost
never experience it, with one cardinal exception: tiny Israel through
it’s domestic American lobby has now so corrupted our Congress that it
writes the legislation relating to Israel itself. Our legislators so
fear these people that all but a few have completely lost their
independence.

Your Mr. Chavez is doing both America and Israel a favor for deterring
a new war.

Franklin Brown Says:
June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am
What nonsense!

The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli
or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.

Why you people have to twist every single thing into something
sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists,
nothing more, nothing less.

Hannah Steffield Says:
June 12, 2008 at 2:02 am
A zionazi apologist, you — franklin brown.

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 12, 2008 at 2:24 am
Hunter Watson, did you know that Hugo Chavez stopped permitting
Israelis to obtain visas to visit Venezuela? Also, Venezuela no longer
does any trade with Israel and boycotts all Israeli products. Viva
Chavez!

Hunter Watson Says:
June 12, 2008 at 4:22 am
Mr. Valenzuela,

I did not know that. It is encouraging to hear it. Other countries are
now working on boycotts. The Israelis are very stubborn but will
eventually have to change the underlying policy of aggression and
annexation. They are international pariahs. It isn’t caused by anti-
semitism. It’s caused by their behavior. Viva Chavez y viva Venezuela!

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 12, 2008 at 8:14 am
Indeed, it is not anti-semitic to denounce the probability of an
attack upon Iran.
The same play-book once used to cajole us into the Iraq debacle has
been taken out of the closet, wiped free of dust, and implemented
throughout the neocon world. They will resort to their nests in think
tanks and lobbying offices, along with their vast power in the
corporatist media, to sell, convince, connive and foment a war between
Iran and the conjoined twins– America and Israel.
Boycotts, protests, petitions, blogging and using the internet to by-
pass the Zionist media may make the difference between war in Iran or
no war there — as well as a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
When Hugo Chavez was arrested, the people of Venezuela shut down the
country and came out into the streets with knives, guns, even pieces
of glass demanding he be released — and he was. One of the first
things he did was throw out the Zionists. There were plane loads of
them who left for Miami. He has no problems with Jews, it is the
Zionists that are the problem, so, he had them leave peacefully, going
so far as to provide the planes to fly them to Miami — one way
tickets! The Jews who stayed are part of the diverse and colorful
culture here.

Lorne Thorp Says:
June 12, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I don’t believe in God, but since I came across the person who wrote
this “Recipe”, I believe in the Devil.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 13, 2008 at 3:04 am
Mr. Valenzuela,

WIthout question the alternative media is having a great impact. But
most of us still read the compromised “mainstream” media too even
though we no longer trust it.

Going elsewhere puts a great burden on those who search for the truth.
There are many, many scams and many incompetent poseurs. One simply
must read as widely as possible and use his own judgment.

Diverse and colorful I know it is, from reading and a fertile
imagination. I long to travel South America. Soon, perhaps.

Manuel Valenzuela Says:
June 13, 2008 at 6:11 am
Agreed, Mr. Watson. Whatever the source of news, one must use
discernment. Within the alternative media there are as many scams and
incompetent babblers with no content whatsoever, as there are in the
mainstream news. My point was that the internet has the possibility of
networking for change and passing of information that is not possible
in the stranglehold of the Zionist run media. Of course this is not
the case in Venezuela, where we have our own television network that
is broadcast throughout South America. I travel in my work as an
attorney and writer so I am exposed to the mainstream Western media
frequently. Discernment, is a knee jerk reaction I have in my work and
with information obtained via various news sources. I have attempted
to bottom line the situation in the Middle East to a couple of
paragraphs. (This is not something I do frequently, since it is
extremely complex).

Control of the Middle East, while signifying control of its resources,
also means control of the spigot, of the pipelines feeding and fueling
economies, of access to these same resources by other nations, as well
as control of the waterways granting passage to tankers headed to all
corners of the globe. Control the Middle East’s oil fields and you
control the world. Controlling the Middle East, especially having a
firm grip on those lands where oil and gas abound, virtually
guarantees that the oil and gas companies, today gorging on the
profits that war, insecurity and control engender, will assume major
investments in, and the enormous profits from, extracting, refining,
transporting and selling the Middle East’s resources. It guarantees
the continued plunder of the Middle East’s oil by Zionist and American
energy giants.

With a government saturated with corporate executives, lawyers and
lobbyists, many from the energy and defense industries, and a
revolving door of opportunity between the halls of power and the halls
of profit that never seems to stop and in fact only continues to gain
momentum, it is easy to see why America’s foreign policy in many ways
mirrors the interests of Israel, especially those of the energy-
industrial complex. It is easy, too, to foresee where Israel and
America will be focusing their muscles and might in the near future,
for one simply needs to follow the trail of black gold, the trail of
greed and money.

Kane Says:
June 14, 2008 at 12:24 am
If those two biggest international terrorists, mass murdering,
warmongering, pariah rogue states known as america and israel
(terrorists always stick together) try another one of their war crimes
(on Iran), it will spell the end of both of those evil tumors of
earth.

Amen.

Rise Again Says:
June 14, 2008 at 2:26 am
Blood-thirsty God who wants first born, boy-children killed, and
demands sexual mutilation/circumcision as a show of “Love” for “Him”,
it therefore comes as no surprise to see cannibalism as the result of
worshiping a blood-thirsty God.

Hunter Watson Says:
June 15, 2008 at 1:45 am
Mr. Valenzuela,

A slightly contrarian view:

I agree about the importance of the internet given the power of the
mainstream media, but I worry about internet freedom. Corporate
interests with allies in the current administration have begun efforts
to gain control over it. There was a struggle recently in the Congress
over legislation which would have provided immunity for communications
companies cooperating with warrantless illegal wire taps and would
have given them control over search priorities on the net. I think it
was defeated, but it will come back.

Oil is certainly a factor in American Middle East policy. It is,
however, a fungible product with a global market. Even a bin Laden
regime would eventually sell it. It’s true that in the short run an
attack on Iran would devastate the American economy. Not only because
of Venezuela’s promise but also because the flow through the Straits
of Hormuz would be cut off.

Nevertheless, Mearsheimer & Walt went over the question of whether Big
Oil had been lobbying for war against Iraq. After a careful review of
the sources they concluded that it had not been doing so. Of course we
have two oil men in office now, but the corporate people though that
war in the region would be harmful to the industry and were mystified
by the stupidity of the idea.

Professor Mearsheimer was in Israel last week. In a speech at an
Israeli University he pointed out that only one country is lobbying
intensively for an American attack on Iran, Israel. I might add that
the only serious pressure from Americans is coming from the Israel
Lobby broadly defined.

During the lead-up to the Iraq War Mr. Sharon’s office was funneling
misleading and provocative “intelligence” into the DoD which bypassed
our intelligence community (illegally) and went directly to the White
House for use in selling the war. That has been condemned by a
Department of Defense report by its Inspector General.

And finally, Mearsheimer & Walt have disclosed that in the lead-up to
the war the internal conversations were mostly about improving the
strategic security of Israel.

They mislead us into the War in Iraq. It was a criminal conspiracy to
do so. Representative Kucinich of Ohio spent four hours reading a 35
Count Articles of Impeachment into the record in the House of
Representatives last week. I doubt the leadership permit it to get to
the floor but the list of crimes is stunning. It’s available on the
net.

Best,

Hunter Watson

PS: Is your writing Journalism? Is it in English?

Brenda Collier Says:
June 18, 2008 at 3:00 am
What does Deborah Sharavi do with the bones from the murdered
Palestinian child?
Make soup stock for chicken soup with matza balls?

Jesse Says:
June 18, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I am so glad that I am not alone in my assessment of the Zionist run
Israel and the Israelis Lobby.
I am in Canada and was stunned when our right wing Prime Minister
backed Israel 100%. About five years ago a was speaking to Chuck
Strahl on the telephone and he brought up the need for security
because of the terrorist, I angrily replied “that the only true
terrorists were the US government and Israel” he gasped.(litteraly)
My family thinks that I am anti american and are offened by my
comments, I give them all kinds of sites to visit and do their own
research but they just won’t. So I am very glad that more voices are
speaking out!

La Voz De Aztlan Says:
June 18, 2008 at 1:38 pm
One of the primary causes of modern day Anti-Semitism is the brutal
occupation by Zionists of Palestine. There is today a growing number
of people of the Jewish faith that recognize that Zionism is in fact
counter to the fundamental tenets of the Torah, genuine Judaism and
against the principles stated by the ancient Hebrew named Moses.

Tony DeRossa Says:
June 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Shut your trap Franklin Brown. Kid means child. Not “baby goat.”

Paul Margolis Says:
June 19, 2008 at 3:46 am
I read this a few days ago. It keeps bothering me. The question is,
why should any one care about the Holocaust after over 60 years when
people who are Jewish act like this? I went and bought a book by David
Irving to see if there is any truth to the ever growing revisionist
examination of the Holocaust.

Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says:
June 20, 2008 at 1:34 am
A “recipe” concocted by a sewer brain.

Fiona Norlan Says:
June 20, 2008 at 8:39 am
Explanation of where the delusion of “chosen people” comes from, also,
the associated delusion that those who are not “chosen people”,
meaning Jews, are “sub-human”. Naturally, this doctrine initiates and
perpetuates violence and slaughter against non-Jews.

The Babylonian Talmud (Soncino)

Passages censored in previous editions of the Talmud were restored,
and the translators amplified the text with extensive footnotes that
form a running commentary. The publication was completed as a 35-
volume set in 1952, and republished in 18 volumes in 1961. Each
tractate was accompanied by a glossary, a table of abbreviations, an
index of Biblical references, and a general subject index. In 1952,
Soncino published a comprehensive Index volume collating the indices
from all tractates, and included an index to the statements of each of
the Sages. The Jew’s College/Soncino English translation of the
Babylonian Talmud has remained the gold standard of English Talmuds
for six decades.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/

Jason Paldern Says:
June 20, 2008 at 9:10 am
Thanks, Fiona. I have been looking for a place to read the filthy,
racist Talmud.
Another reason for Jewish, “chosen people”, supremacist, racist,
imperialist thinking, is contained in: THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED
ELDERS OF ZION:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm#Table%20of%20Contents

Fiona Norlan Says:
June 20, 2008 at 10:00 am
I heard about The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion. Zionists
say it is a forgery. Other people say even if it is, things are going
exactly as planned in the Protocols, so how could it be a forgery when
it is so accurate?
I just noticed I made a mistake in what I wrote. I meant to say:
Explanation of where the delusion of “chosen people”, meaning Jews,
comes from, also, the associated delusion that those who are not
“chosen people” are “sub-human”. Naturally, this doctrine initiates
and perpetuates violence and slaughter against non-Jews.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/

Shannon Says:
June 20, 2008 at 10:56 am
As a mother of six children I find this cannibalistic recipe extremely
disturbing.

Lyle Christensen Says:
June 20, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Great going! This does more to show the violence of Zionism than any
long winded books and discussions.

Nahida The Exiled Palestinian Says:
June 21, 2008 at 6:44 am
zionazi criminal.

End The Occupation Says:
June 21, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Israel is a blight unto all nations.
Zionists are a blight unto all nations.
Deborah Sharavi is an example of that.
Her “recipe” is the evidence.

Henry Ford's Ghost Says:
June 22, 2008 at 5:36 am
“Is it surprising that whichever way you turn to trace the harmful
streams of influence that flow through society, you come upon a group
of Jews? In baseball corruption — a group of Jews. In exploitative
finance — a group of Jews. In theatrical degeneracy — a group of Jews.
In liquor propaganda — a group of Jews. In control of national war
policies — a group of Jews. In control of the Press through business
and financial pressure — a group of Jews. War profiteers, 80 per cent
of them — Jews. Organizers of active opposition to Christian laws and
customs — Jews.”

Free eBook: The International Jew, by Henry Ford Sr.
http://www.globusz.com/cat_nonfiction.asp

David Goodman Says:
June 22, 2008 at 7:50 am
Outrageous! Anti-Semitism is NOT freedom of speech!
Henry Ford funded the Nazis!

Can Do Too Says:
June 22, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Zionists are from the: SINagogue of Satan.
This “recipe” was concocted in the: SINagogue of Satan.
Zionists are Baby Killers!
FREE PALESTINE!

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss Says:
June 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Zionists = Nazis.
dsharavi@gmail.com
2008-06-23 20:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DoD
[snip much of - "that came later"]
Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea >>>>>power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm
I would say, again, that that comparison isn't even up to the apples
and oranges level.
[snip]
... I disagree. It is a fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade.
There were no democracies in that era.
... it was published in 1776
“Assuming the spanish came in 1500 or thereabouts . It is now 2000 or
thereabouts. Justy how much later so you have to get before the sdpanish
cease to be longest time and greatest area. You dismiss the French Dutch
Portugese and Engish. But by 1600 the English dominated Spainsh sea
power.http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/english_exploration.htm“
Ergo, 1776 is not at issue. Once again, there were no democracies in
that era (i.e., 1600). What that means is that Adam Smith's 1776
“fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers economics and trade”
is irrelevant.
Israel like Holland has little in the way of natural
resources and is surrounded by fabulously wealthy countries
like Holland was with Spain France and England.
England in 1600 wasn't “fabulously wealthy”.
... The comparison made by Smith was holland and spain
Therefore, irrelevant.
but England in the 1500s had looted the Monastries
Even more irrelevant.
Egypt
$127.9 billion
... But this is NOT about GDP . smiths argument
If you're going to make the statement that a particular country's
neighbours are “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to that country, you
need to provide a factual base for stating such. That base is the most
recent GDPs for the respective countries -- not a comparison of
Holland and Spain written in 1776.
Ireland has about 4 million people
Ireland is irrelevant, except, perhaps, at a stretch, in relation to a
chief rabbi of Israel and a former president, both of whom were Irish
Jews.
Egypt has how
many million people? the er are about 17 millions in Cairo I think. They
have the Nile Pyramids sphynx and a host of world saMOUS STUFF. aND THEIR
TOURIST TRADE IS ??? something like irelands in spite of having maybe twenty
times the population!
 >So Egypt has heritage, water and the suez Canal.
Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800. “Heritage” is irrelevant,
and water, as a major Egyptian resource, is a joke.
Syria
$37.76 billion
Oil, water, Heritage.
Water, in a semiarid area? lol. Plus a per capita GDP of $5,500,
compared to not so “fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of
$25,800. Syria's putative “Heritage” is irrelevant.
Lebanon
$24.64 billion
Well, much like Israel for resources.
Lebanon's natural resources:  limestone, iron ore, salt, water-surplus
state in a water-deficit region, arable land.
Israel's natural resources:  timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas,
phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand.
Plus a per capita GDP of $11,300 , for Lebanon, compared to not so
“fabulously wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
Jordan
$16.01 billion
Agian tiny and like Israel.
Total sq km Jordan: 92,300
Total sq km Israel:   20,770
Plus a per capita GDP of $4,900, compared to not so “fabulously
wealthy” Israel's per capita GDP of $25,800.
Israel
$161.9 billion
Per capita GDP: see above.
You missed Saudi Arabia, (huge oil production and reserves) Iraq (even huger
oil reserves) Libya (oil) Greece (heritage agriculture ).
If you look at a map, you will notice that none of the above countries
Israel’s neighbors. Andyou need to look at current statistics, before
you suggest that Iraq's oil reserves are greater than Saudia's, or
that Greece is “fabulously wealthy” in comparison to Israel.
What has Israel got apart from its people? Not much really.
What Israel doesn’t have, that the others do, with the exception of
Greece, is a preponderance of Muslim Arabs. It has its per capita GDP
of $25,800, which is higher than those of its “fabulously wealthy”
neighbours – as well as higher than those of the countries you
mentioned which are NOT Israel's neighbours.
You mentioned a “fundamental analysis of how democracy empowers
economics and trade”? Note that Israel, like Ireland, is also a
democracy -- the only one in the Middle East. It seems democracies,
unlike Arab dictatorships, do empower economics and trade. After their
respective peoples have thrown off centuries of oppression, that is.
LOL..... It is funny watching you deal with toddlers....
David...
It beats dealing with a collection of Borg asswipes like Alex,
Benzonah, the phoney Rev, the Moaning One.....

Deborah
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...