Islam allows rape & torture?

Del Boy:

As a descendant of people killed by said Nazis during World War II, I have absolutely no love for them or any of their supporters. But I think you're taking it too far. We are, really, turning a bit of a blind eye to what the Israelis are doing because we feel we owe it to them. Now, we definitely owe them something, and while I accept that there were Israeli settlers in Palestine before Britain's postwar reformation,

Fair comment TOG, but I am not 'taking it too far', I am putting forward the case for peace, even to the extent of posting the Islamic message to the world on my post 66.

Now please understand Jews in Palestine prior to Britain's post-war intervention were to a large degree NOT 'Israeli settlers', but Jews who had existed there in many cases longer than the Arabs.

there is the basic fact that the area had been majority Arab for almost a thousand years.

Again, fair comment. Except that the chronological history I post on the earlier thread shows where and why. Jews were continually removed by conquest throughout that time, and whilst they were a complete state and kingdom majority from 1273BC to AD70, the position in the 1000 years you mention was that the Jews often held the majority in the cities- the 4 biggest particularly, and the rural areas were held majorities of various groups. The Jews were obliged to gather together in the cities to protect themselves from attack, just like today in the region, in fact.

And, when a minority comes in and takes control of things, no matter how legally it's done, the locals are NOT going to be happy. I agree that there were much calmer and saner ways to approach things than the Arabs did, but can you at least understand their frustration?

We can not reverse the past, but we can learn from our mistakes. And right now in order to make up for the past we are trying to favor those that were wronged, which in turn is wronging others. It's getting us nowhere. Now, I can see where Israel may deserve its own state, but its establishment was dreadfully executed. The best thing we can do is move forward from this and try to learn from our past mistakes and unify the place, and that involves concessions to the Arabs.


What a good post. I agree, and of course the frustration of the Arabs is understood. I for one has never here suggested otherwise; that is why I promote peace and prosperity in the area, side by side the two groups could work wonders. I have merely tried to show the history of the Israeli case, facts only;not my opinions.

Of course this involves concessions to the Arabs, but in return for a guaranteed peace with secure borders. Egypt and Jordan example, peace for so many years.

Good post TOG. Feel free to hit me any time.:)
 
Last edited:
As the proposition is yours, perhaps you would care to comply with your own suggestion. After all, you have plenty of spare land, taken from the indiginous people in spite of no claim to the land whatsoever, using your own measure.

Not bloody likely I figure the English created the middle eastern mess you can clean it up, we are alreadying sorting the mess out you made here on our own thanks.

But in reality MontyB, my stance for peace is exactly that of President Obama, as it was at election time, has continued to be, and is now. He is a Christian of mixed race, I am a Christian of mixed race; how does the promotion of peace in the region make us racists?

And as for your last post, well, in fact Israel has returned vast areas of land taken in defensive conquest and held as defensible positions - the Sinai to Egypt, Southern Lebanon, Gaza, where they destroyed their own settlements - so much for only wishing to grab more and more. The objective of Israel obviously is to achieve a defensible situation against the problem after agreemnent has been reached, of being surrounded by hostile regimes.

Defensive conquest?

However you mean they returned the bits they didn't want to live on under intense international pressure to do so?

On this one, I reject your nuking solution in favour of the stand taken by President Obama, Bob Menedez, and myself; for peace.

If by chance I have failed to respond to any of your posts to me, I will return to cover them, as I find time.

Well hate to break it to you, Obama and all the "peace" team but Palestinians are not going to accept peace on Israels terms and Israel is not going to accept peace on Palestinian terms so in reality peace will not be achieved without a sufficient shift in power that either allows Israel to wipe out the Palestinians or vice versa.

No matter what you come up with you have two people fighting over a very small chunk of dirt that both believe they own and will not give up in a negotiation nor will either of them share.

Basically the only answer is for one of them to be wiped out and as I am an equal opportunities hater I suggest that the whole region become a dumping ground for excess nuclear weapons (preferably when there is a strong wind blowing toward Africa then we can take care of the worst bits of that continent at the same time) thus in one fowl swoop we will have almost eliminated hunger, disease, war and terrorism on the face of the earth.

There is nothing worth saving in the region other than a few ancient tourist attractions, the whole region is nothing more than a huge sink hole for the worlds financial aid and food hand outs.
 
As for example, your repeated erroneous anti-semitism definition claims;
Erroneous???... Mine???... Not at all Del Boy, it is not my definition. Ahhh,... Del Boy, you give me false credit, Oh, how I wish I could be so etymologically correct.

It is in fact, the definition as cut and pasted directly from Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I am sure that the staff at EB are just sitting around, waiting with bated breath to hear that you feel they are "erroneous" in their interpretation of the correct English language usage of this term:roll:.

I implore you, agaaaain, "Read what is posted" not what you wish to read or imagine is posted just because it suits your purposes. The source was posted with the original posting.

I think I would be reasonably safe in saying that Encyclopaedia Britannica is held by most as a somewhat more credible reference than your quote from Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
Tell us all how it is an "absurd" quote Del Boy.

Certainly Seno.

It is absurd because the Nazis and the death camps are inseparable.

The death camps are what defines the Nazis, how they are recognized. So when you label anyone a Nazi, that is what is laid upon them. And furthermore, as my post said but you didn't bother taking on board, you ignore all the other heinous horrors of tuhe Nazis, slave labour, concentration camps, awful medical experiments on women and children etc., etc., etc.

And you know that damn well.

I'd try to find where you drew my attention to this, only it would mean going through all of your totally unrelated "padding" that you have posted. I couldn't face that again.

You mean that you haven't read it - believe me, it's there on the record.

Show us some of my 'padding' - I think you mean facts which do not align with your opinion.


Here's an example of a similar condition:
"I usually like to debate matters of importance to me,... except with idiots, who don't read my answers or don't have any idea the meaning of what is being said".

Obviously those idiots comprehend a great deal more about Nazism and anti-semitism than yourself.
 
Last edited:
Certainly Seno.

It is absurd because the Nazis and the death camps are inseparable.
Would you care to give a source for this marvellous piece of self serving and incorrect information? But,.. knowing that they are often linked, (The Nazi Party were responsible for many other unrelated things) I qualified my statement by saying "With the exception of the Death camps,... etc." Not so absurd any more DB and never was, had you read what was posted.
You mean that you haven't read it - believe me, it's there on the record.

Show us some of my 'padding' - I think you mean facts which do not align with your opinion.
It is not important as to whether they align with my opinion, it is important that they are in line witn world opinion and the truth as it is shown by that opinion, such as the world news clips and UN Report, quoted in my answers to your quote below. I did say "again" which to most normal persons would indicate that it had been read once. Your comprehension of the English language is atrocious. I also noticed that you didn't find this information either. What?, are your own posts too boring and long winded to go back through? For padding: Things like this:
My good Christan logic tells me that you have become a supporter of the greatest Propaganda exercise ever mounted, passed down directly from the Nazis in order to claim the right to eliminate the Jews. As you say "just as the Nazis did".

The current land problems are a symptom of the Israelis attempts to defend themselves in the face of threatened annihilation. Yeah,... Just like the Germans, when being pushed back out of those lands illegally taken for Lebensraum. Another Nazi idea if I seem to remember correctly??? We all know that you cannot see the similarity between this and what is taking place in Israel even at this moment, but the rest of the world can.
:read:

For example, where is the Israeli version of Auschwitz? Where are the mobile gas units, the Israeli version of Babi Yar. Remember what I said, "With the exception of,... etc

Even the most heinous accusation that was claimed, namely the supposed massacre at Jenin, turned out to be untrue, according to the UN investigation, which excoriated the Hamas for using civilian women and children as human shields.
Israel refused to allow the UN to investigate the alleged massacre of civilians so the report was compiled from accounts supplied by the Israeli Army, the Palestinians and various agencies.
Firstly I urge you to read the UN report, your statement above will soon be shown to be a lie: http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/

Also From the ABC Australia's, Peter Cave.

Israel refused to allow the UN to investigate the alleged massacre of civilians
(Why I wonder) so the report was compiled from accounts supplied by the Israeli Army, the Palestinians and various agencies.

The report that has emerged is at best a compromise, criticising both sides for using innocent civilians as human shields.
Unlike the UN investigators, our Foreign Affairs Editor, Peter Cave, did get into Jenin while it was still besieged by the Israeli Army and he's been looking at the UN report for Correspondence Report.
PETER CAVE: Was there a massacre in Jenin? Well, yes there was.
Source:http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/s639418.htm

Other examples of Nazi behavior might be an Israeli version of starving of Arab people or depriving them of education, whereas it’s well known that the Arab citizens of Israeli are better fed and better educated than anywhere else in the Middle East.
A small snip from a large report on IPS News Service.

"The Israeli authorities deliberately drew up plans in the 1960s to ignore the Bedouin villages by rendering them illegal and therefore ineligible for basic services and building permits." Many of the homes were subsequently demolished for not having permits.

Higher unemployment amongst Israeli Arabs, in comparison to their Jewish counterparts, is a result of both job discrimination and an inequitable education system.
" Source: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44351

This accusation against Israel, which is commonly translated into "Zionism = Nazism", claims that Israel and the Jews are racist. But in fact Israel is one of the most multiracial societies in the world with its population ranging from the blondest of blond Ashkenazic Jews to the blackest of black Jews from Ethiopia and Yemen, including Jews of Iranian, Iraqi, Moroccan, Indian, Latino, and even Chinese origin.

It certainly is true that Israel intends to remain a Jewish homeland and that many Jews are not fond of Arabs after years of Arab terrorism, but is the Israeli attitude racist or simply nationalistic or chauvinistic at its worst? Where is the racism? Where is the Nazism?
Racism: This is answered in the Source quoted above: Another snip:
The Israel Education Ministry acknowledged that it spent less per Arab student in the Arab school system than per Jewish student in the Jewish school system. Differences were blamed on cultural factors, and promises were made to establish a fairer system.
Israeli-Arabs also face discrimination in buying land, with the Jewish National Fund controlling most of Israel's land and stipulating that only Jews can purchase it.
Israeli-Arabs are also unable to live in Israel with spouses from the occupied Palestinian territories, while Jewish spouses from abroad are automatically entitled to live in Israel and become citizens, says Israeli rights group B'Tselem.


Nazism: has already been shown in the number of video clips showing gratuitous murder, beatings, etc, etc.

Having shown now that the allegation is absurd, what is its purpose? Absurd?... Read the above Sources Your whole post was lies from one end to the other, I don't think I need go further

The answer is simple: to delegitimize the existence of Israel. The accusation makes the murder of Jews of Israel (and elsewhere) a positive and imperative and heroic action.

Where does the accusation originate historically? Tracing it back to the source, it was introduced by the Nazi advisors who left Germany after World War II and ended up in Egypt and worked for President Nasser (who later made his peace with Israel). Other Germans mass murderers like the infamous butcher Alois Brunner ended up in Damascus where he remains a great friend of the Syrian regime to this day. The Nazi religion of hate emanating from the Third Reich infected many Arabs of Palestine including their leader the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was a frequent guest of Hitler, and has influenced the leadership of the intifada to the present day. Now,.. That is what I call a piece of padding "in extremis". I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any credible connection to this guff, and the present conflicts in the middle east. I would venture to say that it is a lot more to do with the formation of the state of Israel on Palestinian land and the problems arising from that.

The lie that Israel behaves like Nazi Germany is presently massively financed by Saudi oil money. The fact that some sensible and normally sceptical peopls buy into this obscene b******t shows me that money can influence even the most educated. Sorry Del Boy, but what I stated was my opinion and no, i wasn't paid off by the Saudi's either. I have since posted a number of sources and video clips to demonstrate the validity of that statement, none of which have been shown to be false or even biased. The video cameras used in several cases having been supplied by the internationally recognised Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, because they do know what is going on. Even SHERMAN admitted that they were a credible source. Why would Saudi money be needed to finance what is easily seen by anyone with a connection to world news. Your "explanation" is worthy of The Great Conspiracy Theorist's Association., you were really grasping at straws when you thought that one up DB.

It is easy to understand viscerally how the Nazis were able to make REAL mass murder possible: through the same application of the big lie that the Palestinians and the Saudis and the Taliban are presently using so successfully using right now.
Having shown your answers to be all twisted, racist motivated crap I think we could regard all of this spurious post as no more than padding, as it provided no facts whatsoever. Most of your longer posts are similarly flawed. This is merely the first post that I found. Like I am not going to bother reading back through all this "Guff" neither am I going to bother Taking them apart piecemeal as they are all in a similar vein.

Nazism =German national socialism.
Zionism= Jewish National Socialism.
They are merely two sides of the same coin.

No, Del Boy it's not just me, here's a little more from Haaretz. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/835880.html
 
Last edited:
While all of the posts in this thread were entertaining, Islam is NOT the ONLY group that allowed rape and torture. Down through the ages, various groups looked the other way while rape (rapine) and torture was carried out by military forces .. while their leaders and governments looked the other way.

To hold up Islamic followers/leaders as some sort of animals for allowing rape or torture, is way too simplistic. When everyone else is considered to be lower class animals, this kind of action on the part of adherents/religious practitioners, is not out of reason (or slewed reason).
 
^^^ I certainly can't argue with that.^^^

The original post was little more than an exercise in sensationalist journalism.

The fact that these things happen is a sad reflection on man and shows how little some of us have advanced from being wild animals.
 
Erroneous???... Mine???... Not at all Del Boy, it is not my definition. Ahhh,... Del Boy, you give me false credit, Oh, how I wish I could be so etymologically correct.

It is in fact, the definition as cut and pasted directly from Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I am sure that the staff at EB are just sitting around, waiting with bated breath to hear that you feel they are "erroneous" in their interpretation of the correct English language usage of this term:roll:.

I implore you, agaaaain, "Read what is posted" not what you wish to read or imagine is posted just because it suits your purposes. The source was posted with the original posting.

I think I would be reasonably safe in saying that Encyclopaedia Britannica is held by most as a somewhat more credible reference than your quote from Wikipedia.


I implore YOU again, read what is posted.

You conveniently overlooked my response to your quoted erroneous post. Which included
the official up-to-date definitions of three major Dictionaries.


Originally Posted by senojekips quote:-

"I've already posted a quote from the Encyclopaedia Brit. which clearly shows your misunderstanding of the term "Anti semite", you are so eager to blame others, that you don't even recognise your own country's best encyclopaedia." quote.




WRONG AGAIN ELVIS I'm afraid. What year did you quote?


1. It is not my country's best. In fact it is not my country's. .

2. Since 1901 it has been American.

3. It has long had a poor reputation regarding inaccuracies, bias, unqualified contributors etc., etc. over the years.

4. It is now operated by Israelis.

5. I understand the meaning of anti-semitism much better than you and your anti-semetic chum, obviously.

6. Here we go then:-


Oxford Dictionary
anti-Semitism
noun - hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

— DERIVATIVES anti-Semite noun anti-Semitic adjective.


WEBSTER DICTIONARY:-
Hostility to or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group.

Theosaurus : the intense dislike or prejudice against Jewish people.

COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY:-
Discriminating against Jews.

****
And on top of that you now seek to dismiss my very detailed post 94, without any rebuttal of the content. I do not think you can expect to get away with that deceit. You will undoubtedly have noticed that according to official definitions you do in fact qualify as anti-semetic as recorded there.
 
Last edited:
thats why I stopped discussing with him, he (or his mind´s predudice) bends the contents to his liking/disliking, he cannot read what is written, discussion is simply non-exisiting.

Rattler
 
WRONG AGAIN ELVIS I'm afraid. What year did you quote?
Online EB 2009, released 14 Aug, 2009

1. It is not my country's best. In fact it is not my country's.
It is said to be as the most quoted English language reference work in the world and
regarded as the most up to date and scholarly work on the English language. So it may not be your country's best, but it is commonly acknowledged to be the world's best.
In 2005 it was awarded the Codie award for the best online consumer information service (Wikipedia)


2. Since 1901 it has been American.

3. It has long had a poor reputation regarding inaccuracies, bias, unqualified contributors etc., etc. over the years.
Well, if it is, as you say owned by a Jewish billionaire, the very fact that it states that the term anti Semite is a misnomer, would indicate that it is certainly not biased in this case. Unless of course he is,......... wait for it, wait for it,.... an Anti semite... ;-)

As for criticism: "It is sometimes criticised for being out of date due to the long forward time between compilation and printing of editions". I suppose it would also be fair to add that it is also sometimes criticised by those who for reasons of their own disagree with it.

4. It is now operated by Israelis.
Although the company is owned by Jacob Safra, it is based in Luxembourg, and it is compiled by over 100 full time editors and over 4000 peer reviewed English language experts. (Nearly all of whom are somewhat smarter than Del Boy)

5. I understand the meaning of anti-semitism much better than you and your anti-semetic chum, obviously.
Obviously not, and certainly not more than the editorial staff of EB. (regardless of who owns it) ;-)

You don't even know the difference between an Anti Semite and an Anti Zionist. Of which I am the latter, but of course we all realise that for you to admit the truth, it would knock the remainder of the stuffing out of your already failed argument.

Even if I were an Anti Semite, it would not alter the truth of the evidence posted supporting my case. But just for the record,... I'm not,... sorry Del Boy you are on your "duff" again.... still.

And while we are on the subject of Zionist behaviour being similar to that of the Nazis, you might like to check some of the Israeli organisations that agree with me, at:

http://www.israelversusjudaism.org/comparison/index6.cfm
A nice little photo journal showing the excesses of the Zionists being perpetrated against Orthodox Jews, who are also making the all too obvious Nazi comparison. I guess that they must be anti Semites too DB? Well, they would seem to be, by your reckoning anyway.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

I have lots more, but I'll save then as little reminders of the stupidity of your argument, to be bought out as we progress.
thats why I stopped discussing with him, he (or his mind´s predudice) bends the contents to his liking/disliking, he cannot read what is written, discussion is simply non-exisiting.

Rattler
That would be all well and good Rattler if it had just the slightest truth to it. The fact is, that you were just backed into an untenable corner, not being able to deny the video evidence. Which ironically was filmed on cameras provided by Jewish humanitarian organisations just for those who consistently deny the obvious visible truth like yourself. Those phographic comparisons are still there if you want them. I would be most pleased to hear your explanation of how they don't show the similarities between the behaviour of the Zionists and the Nazis, especially the ones submitted by an Orthodox Jewish organisation in Israel supporting my claim.

A small quote for you to mull over in the meantime,
Having spent over half a century justifying Zionism, Israel and their treatment of the Palestinians, there has been a spluttering of outrage about making comparisons between Zionism and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. It is apparently ‘anti-Semitic’ when anti-Zionists make such comparisons, even if they are Jewish. But of course it is completely justified when Matan Vilnai, Israel’s deputy Defence Minister, promised ‘a bigger shoah’ (Holocaust) for the Palestinians of Gaza. Source: http://www.jewdas.org/2009/08/banning-comparisons-between-nazism-and-zionism/
Yet you claim there is no comparison with Nazi ideology, eh??? Well I'm afraid that even the Zionists seem to disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
-snip- The fact is that you were just backed into an untenable corner, not being able to deny the video evidence. Which ironically was filmed on cameras provided by Jewish humanitarian organisations just for those who consistently deny the obvious visible truth like yourself. Those phographic comparisons are still there if you want them. I would be most pleased to hear your explanation of how they don't show the similarities between the behaviour of the Zionists and the Nazis, especially the ones submitted by an Orthodox Jewish organisation in Israel supporting my claim.
Gosh.

Seriously, you are starting to make a fool out of yourself as you now even seem to be confusing contributions/contributors to this thread.

Please do me the favor and answer all following or be never taken serious by me again (as I am starting to believe you have either not read or not understood what I posted):

1. Where in this thread did I deny any video evidence?
2. Where in this thread did I acknowledge the metioned evidence as factually correct?
3. Where in this thread did I explain why the evidence does not show "similarities" of Zionist and Nazi behaviour
4. Where in this thread did I acknowledge that the evidence does show "similarities" of Zionist and Nazi behaviour
5. What element was I critizising in your equiparating Zionism and Nazism in this thread?

Thank you

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB


Not bloody likely I figure the English created the middle eastern mess you can clean it up, we are alreadying sorting the mess out you made here on our own thanks.


Let me gently point out that when you made the unsolicited target of me your proposition involved those 5,000,000 NON-Jews annihilated by the Nazis, and their descendants, and NOT the

” middle eastern mess” at all.


Furthermore, please let me gently point out that , unlike me, you cannot dodge the responsibility you loaded onto me; because I was born an Englishman, but you volunteered and opted IN by taking dual-nationality, according to yourself. So, let us be fair - YOU clear it up, by inviting them onto land stolen in your country, to which you have no claim, by your own measure.




Defensive conquest? [ /quote]



I assumed you knew this. It is of course what happens when three countries spring a surprise attack and descend upon a single neighbour with a view to eliminating it, and find themselves pushed back to borders which that neighbour considers defensible. ie. Suez canal, Golan heights, Jordan river. Defensive conquest? They attack, Israelis win - let's eat.




However you mean they returned the bits they didn't want to live on under intense international pressure to do so?




No such pressure in the case of Sinai, and Gazas a case of all risk and no gain, for the sake of peace. Of course they wasted their time tearing down the Israeli settlements to do so.


But you tell us the same Israelis are land grabbers for expansion !!.





Well hate to break it to you, Obama and all the "peace" team but Palestinians are not going to accept peace on Israels terms and Israel is not going to accept peace on Palestinian terms so in reality peace will not be achieved without a sufficient shift in power that either allows Israel to wipe out the Palestinians or vice versa.


No matter what you come up with you have two people fighting over a very small chunk of dirt that both believe they own and will not give up in a negotiation nor will either of them share.

Basically the only answer is for one of them to be wiped out and as I am an equal opportunities hater I suggest that the whole region become a dumping ground for excess nuclear weapons (preferably when there is a strong wind blowing toward Africa then we can take care of the worst bits of that continent at the same time) thus in one fowl swoop we will have almost eliminated hunger, disease, war and terrorism on the face of the earth.


There is nothing worth saving in the region other than a few ancient tourist attractions, the whole region is nothing more than a huge sink hole for the worlds financial aid and food hand outs.



I won't comment on that except to say that it seems a little ambitious, and that there may be danger of getting one or two back, into your own small chunk of dirt! My support remains with President Obama on this one.




__________________


I'm from Missouri too.
 
Last edited:
Gosh.

Seriously, you are starting to make a fool out of yourself as you now even seem to be confusing contributions/contributors to this thread. With all due respect, I think you may find that your statement depends very much on whose side you are looking at it from.

Please do me the favor and answer all following or be never taken serious by me again (as I am starting to believe you have either not read or not understood what I posted): I have certainly read all of your posts, but the fact that I may have misinterpreted some parts is not impossible. I must admit that at times I do have difficulty in understanding exactly what you are getting at, and in view of your questions below i feel that you are also having similar problems

I am only stating the above out of good manners, as I do not particularly care whether you take me seriously or not. I already have the evidence i need to support my point, and I don't take implied threats very seriously.

1. Where in this thread did I deny any video evidence?
I implied that it was my opinion that you backed away because you could not logically deny the evidence that I provided and that B'Tselem provided cameras for persons who like yourself denied the evidence. If you state my assumption is incorrect, it would be reasonable to say that you must deny the evidence supporting it.

2. Where in this thread did I acknowledge the metioned evidence as factually correct? You did not, and I did not imply that you did. In fact, i would say the reverse.

3. Where in this thread did I explain why the evidence does not show "similarities" of Zionist and Nazi behaviour. This is a logical assumption, as I stated that there was a great similarity, and you have disagreed with me starting at Post 77
Comparing some of Israels moves with socia control/suppressive moves of Nazi Germany is fine (but this also goes for other states), stating that they violate every human right law written down in the last 80 years might be correct, but calling them "Nazis" (or implying so saying they are acting like them) is way off the mark, and severly off the mark. If you actually care to go back over the posts, you will find that I have never stated that the Zionists ARE Nazis, merely that they are acting like them. I think you will find that my first real use of the comparison was in Post 61 where I said "I have already shown the similarities (my bold lettering) between the Nazi treatment of the Jews in Europe,and the Zionist's treatment of the Palestinians".

Rattler

4. Where in this thread did I acknowledge that the evidence does show "similarities" of Zionist and Nazi behaviour. You did not, and I did not imply that you did. That is why I am disputing the point with you.

5. What element was I critizising in your equiparating Zionism and Nazism in this thread? You stated in Post 81 that I was incorrect and that there was a only a qualitative difference.

Thank you

Rattler
From my perspective, you seem to have completely missed the irony of the fact that what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians, is precisely what the Nazis started out doing to the Jews in Germany. Dispossession, Social segregation, Murders and beatings based on religious or ethnic persuasion, Harassment of civilians and children, denial of timely medical aid,... the list goes on and on and on.

This is particularly pertinent in this debate when we consider how we now view the behaviour of the Nazis and their previous treatment of the Jewish people.

I am starting to feel that there is something serious being lost in translation here.
.
 
Last edited:
Let me gently point out that when you made the unsolicited target of me your proposition involved those 5,000,000 NON-Jews annihilated by the Nazis, and their descendants, and NOT the

” middle eastern mess” at all.{/quote]

Yeah ok, yada yada blah blah, I am not going to get drawn into a long winded 28 page series of "yes he did", "no he didn't" posts with you on this so I am going to point to the following post...

While all of the posts in this thread were entertaining, Islam is NOT the ONLY group that allowed rape and torture. Down through the ages, various groups looked the other way while rape (rapine) and torture was carried out by military forces .. while their leaders and governments looked the other way.

To hold up Islamic followers/leaders as some sort of animals for allowing rape or torture, is way too simplistic. When everyone else is considered to be lower class animals, this kind of action on the part of adherents/religious practitioners, is not out of reason (or slewed reason).

and say this this is where I stand on the topic at hand.
 
Realizing that I am not as educated on this subject nor have the training and experience you gentlemen have, my question is why should we blame a group (as it appears to me is happening) for the actions of a few?
 
Realizing that I am not as educated on this subject nor have the training and experience you gentlemen have, my question is why should we blame a group (as it appears to me is happening) for the actions of a few?
Isn't it always the way? I mean seriously....
No, it's not right, but it is one of the most common human failings, I guess that we all do it at some time or another to one degree or another.

That's why it's good when someone like yourself reminds us all.:D
 
Your last answer to my questions makes it quite clear why I find discussion with you almost impossible (all emphasis in quotes added by me for clarity):

1. Where in this thread did I deny any video evidence?
Correct answer: Nowhere (in fact I did not even discuss the video evidence except for one sentence mentioned in answer 2 below).

Your answer:
I implied that it was my opinion that you backed away because you could not logically deny the evidence that I provided and that B'Tselem provided cameras for persons who like yourself denied the evidence. If you state my assumption is incorrect, it would be reasonable to say that you must deny the evidence supporting it.
"Implying", "opinating", "assuming" and making "reasonable" guesses about what I have said when I haven´t said anything... Really quite interesting, but would you seriously dub that *discussing* if I had done it?

2. Where in this thread did I acknowledge the metioned evidence as factually correct?
Correct answer: Post 92, where I write (and this is the only time I in this thread commented anything about your evidence at all): "I never doubted the incident (in fact I was one of the first to report on it on another forum) and I find it abhorrent, so, no discussion about facts there."

Your answer:
You did not, and I did not imply that you did. In fact, i would say the reverse.
Wow! Negating that I wrote what I wrote and even saying I wrote the opposite, nice fundament to base your next argument on in the discussion...

3. Where in this thread did I explain why the evidence does not show "similarities" of Zionist and Nazi behaviour
Correct answer: Nowhere (in fact I even in the quotation you use to prove the opposite I acknowledge there are "similarities").

Your answer:
This is a logical assumption, as I stated that there was a great similarity, and you have disagreed with me starting at Post 77
Same procedure again: You make a "logical assumption" (the claimed logic behind it remains hidden to me) and then reacting argumentatively on the assumption, even quoting me stating that there are similarities (!), that is fairly hardcore if you want to discuss seriously. Or is it that you do not understand the word "similarities" and use it as synonym for "being equal to"? Then again, that is not a good base for discussion, words have a significant meaning, and only one, in discourse.

4. Where in this thread did I acknowledge that the evidence does show "similarities" of Zionist and Nazi behaviour
Correct answer: Several times and repeatedly throughout the thread, examples:

- post 77
Comparing some of Israels moves with social control/suppressive moves of Nazi Germany is fine (but this also goes for other states), stating that they violate every human right law written down in the last 80 years might be correct
- post 83:
While some things coincide with the Nazi methods of persecuting jews, they also coincide with the methods Mobuto employed to persecute the Lumumba follwers, or with what the Chinese do in Tibet, or what the serbs did in Kosovo, Bosnia etc. (Srebrenizca?!), just to name a few
Your answer:
You did not, and I did not imply that you did. That is why I am disputing the point with you.
Wow! again! You simply deny that I wrote what I wrote and then dispute with me the opposite of what I wrote. Great discussion style, Goebbels could do not better!

5. What element was I critizising in your equiparating Zionism and Nazism in this thread?
Correct answer: The element I was critizising was your equiparation per se: Despite all the exisiting similarities I claim there is a fundamental (qualititative) difference between the two behaviours that prohibits equiparation. I know you keep re-iterating "Except the Death Camps", but that is like saying "oranges are peaches" because of the similarities they share (like being fruit, round and of reddish color) and ignoring the "except the stone in the middle of the peach" which makes a qualitative and fundamental difference.

Your answer:
You stated in Post 81 that I was incorrect and that there was a only a qualitative difference.
At least here it only shows you did not (or do not want to) understand what I said.

Frankly, I have the feeling you use the "Nazi" equiparatioin because it sounds good from you POV, and better than "like the Serbs" or "like the Chinese" (who are as "similar" but not so fundamentally different and hence would actually much better describe what you want to say).

I can even understand the temptation to use the "like the Nazis" term, as it transports the implication of a historical connection with today´s behaviour of Israel, but if used just because of this and against the facts, then this is simply demagogic use.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
This is getting too long for my hunt and peck typing skills, so, One at a time.

Question 1.
MY Correct Answer: If you deny that I am correct in my assumption, made on the evidence that I have posted to support that assumption, you have effectively denied that evidence. (The videos)

It is completely illogical that you agree with the evidence, yet deny the point made on the basis of that evidence.

Example: I say that the Zionists are using the policies and practices Of the Nazis, you disagree, I post a video of a farmer working in his fields being shot by the Israeli army. You have stated that you do not disbelieve it and find it abhorrent, yet you still say that my statement regarding similarities with the Nazis is wrong ?????

What is your position on the Israeli soldiers using large stones to break the arms of Palestinian civilian, Is this also unlike the type of behaviour we could have expected of the nazis? I'm keen to get this stupidity cleared up.

israel_murders_children.jpg


To perhaps allow me to answer future questions to your satisfaction, please let me know where you stand in relation to the other videos I posted, as your point of view seems somewhat rubbery.

Either the actions shown here, and in other photos and videos, are similar to that of the Nazis, or they are not. I want to know what you think without having to repeat myself as I did regarding your constant references to the holocaust, and your attempts at name tagging, because I dared to question your statements.

Remember, after all,... it was not I who bought up this bit about the Holocaust.
Quote:
As for Senojekips, who cannot grasp the scale of Holocaust and the Nazis,- 'except for the death camps' he says !!!; -snip- His stance may suit the Arabs at the moment, but at an awful price.
I had previously made no mention of the Holocaust yet you attributed it to me. Yes,.. I did mention similarities in behaviour to the Nazis, but the Nazis did a lot more than formulate and carry out "The final Solution" which never became policy until April 1941, by which time the Jews had been treated as the Palestinians now are, for many years. The segregation, murders, beatings, etc.
 
Last edited:
Yeah ok, yada yada blah blah, I am not going to get drawn into a long winded 28 page series of "yes he did", "no he didn't" posts with you on this ....​

IN WHICH CASE - kindly do not drag me into your off-topic idiocy without any provocation from me whatsoever, in future; and don't start what you can't finish. I am not some soft target for your misplaced ridicule.

Right, as you have requested, back to the topic at hand here; but I do not have the necessary informed opinion on the subject to pass judgement.
 
Last edited:
As I said, seems you are confusing contributors, I sure never wrote what you are attributing as quote (!) and my stated opinion to me.

Again, pure ideologically blinded demagogics that now even straightforward falsificates the thread for the purpose of having an argument (or why else did you delete the author to attribute this quote wrongly to me)?

And, just for the record, if you mentioned death camps, you *had* mentioned the Holocaust.

Rattler

Remember, after all,... it was not I who brought up this bit about the Holocaust.

Quote:
As for Senojekips, who cannot grasp the scale of Holocaust and the Nazis,- 'except for the death camps' he says !!!; -snip- His stance may suit the Arabs at the moment, but at an awful price.
I had previously made no mention of the Holocaust yet you attributed it to me. Yes,.. I did mention similarities in behaviour to the Nazis, but the Nazis did a lot more than formulate and carry out "The final Solution" which never became policy until April 1941, by which time the Jews had been treated as the Palestinians now are, for many years. The segregation, murders, beatings, etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top