lol, I had a fan club for a whole on this forum , ,the fans consists of bunch uneducated , clueless , children who pretend like they have a PHD on Middle Eastern history .
Darfur was another example I was gong to point out . Every ethnic group , religious group , minorities has had injustice , some of these injustices are worse then others but they are all injustices , but only the important ones stand out , and for Jews the only injustices which is worth mentioning and remembering is the Jewish holocaust , after all it only benefit’s the Jews when someone talks about the holocaust. And lastly , I rather call the Armenian injustice a Armenian holocaust rather then a genocide , you on the other hand only name it genocide , holocaust isn’t just related to Jews, unfortunately Jews have changed the meaning of the holocaust , most people today associate the holocaust with the Jewish holocaust not the Armenian and ect.. Holocausts.
I am sorry that you have interpreted my use of the word 'geoncide' as an attempt to reduce the suffering of the Armenian people. This is not my meaning. Both words have similar meanings- genocide: A systematic attempt to annihilate a racial group or nation. The word was first used in 1944. holocaust: The word, holocaust, derives from Greek words, meaning complete destruction, usually by fire. The word came to mean a great slaughter or massacre. You are correct that the Holocaust (when capitalised) is used to mean the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews. Right then. Let me be clear that I understand you. The killings in the concentration camps are significant. The pogroms in Russia, the attacks that started the Zionist movement, are not significant. All the other persecutions that have been suffered by the Jews are not significant. Why not? What is it about the other events that means they are not significant? Let me be absolutely clear - I do not understand your point of view. Please explain why these other events are not important.
Is that better or worse than any other kind of stalker? Why was it necessary to use the word Jewish in front of stalker?
The creation of the Zionist movement is significant in terms of history , but the holocaust is significant because it was a absolute injustice and it was a mass murder , a great deal number of people died and a lot more died fighting a war those days , so that’s why its significant . All the other injustices to Jews may have a significant meaning to a few people but the world will remember the Jewish holocaust . There has been injustices throughout history , and people should remember all the injustices , such as when the world was supporting Saddam Hussian to kill Iranians , and how no country condemned his use of chemical weapons at the time , that’s a injustice to me because I am Iranian, you might not consider that a injustice , but since it has a significant meaning to me I will always remember that as injustice , but when it comes to Jews I will only consider the holocaust a injustice because it had a significant meaning to the world .
OK - I think I understand your points. The fact that the Holocaust was so massive and relatively recent means it is of more importance to you. I believe that you are arguing (and correct me if I have misunderstood) that the timescale is a significant factor in your scale of importance for events. Secondly, you are making the point that other sects, religions, races and countries have suffered greatly in recent times. I think that your argument is that the Jewish suffering overhadows the others and people ignore or undervalue other events as a result. Thank you for your explanation, and I am able to see you point, although I don't realy agree with you. On the subject of Saddam Hussein, I don't know anyone who would argue that he did not use chemical weapons against Iran. I also know that the west supported him during the Iran-Iraq war. I can clearly recall the way the conflict was portrayed to me through the TV. The Ayatollah (Khomeni) was shown as a mad mullah, who hated the west, was repressing his people and supporting terrorists. There was no mention that Saddam Hussein was exactly like that, at least not until 1990. The press in the west was concerned by the Islamic revolution. The hostage crisis in 1979 did little to improve western opinion of the new regime. The reporting in the area was (in my memory) was anti-Iranian (or more likely pro-Shah). We can only base our opinions on what we know. This is why I feel it is important to understand history.
Good point. I am sure you also disapprove of using the adjective 'muslim' in front of 'terrorist'. So much political incorrectness out there, it makes me sad. On an unrelated note, how did you get that 'Big Soccer Premium Member' thingy down there? It looks really cool, you know. I wish I had one as well.
That's cool. But why are you the only one who gets the right to display such a cool sig? You are lucky aren't ya.
They put it on their automatically. I just never bothered to take it off. But nice attempt at teasing. What are you...11 years old or something? If you are going to try and put me down, come up with something a little more...you know....intelligent.
Ah no, I wouldn't try to put you down. I was sincerely interested. Thanks for answering. PS It's "there".
Comments like these make me not respect what you say. I attended a talk by Lord Ashdown recently where he made a few comments on the incorrect use of language which adds to the problem. The obvious ones were Bush's use of the word "crusade" and "Islamo-fascist" which have been labeled as simply ignorant. Similarly, the phrase Islamic terrorism is wrong and a political term. Terrorism is by implication an extreme view; why is it important to label is as Islmic? He similarly disagreed with Irish terrorism label used for the acts of the IRA. Terrorism is terrorism despite the misguided notions that are behind it. Another phrase was the concept of "Western values" used for certain liberalist views. These are not Western values; they were in fact lost in the West and were kept in Arabic countries. I mocked this earlier in this same thread I believe, but the irony was lost on the person questioning my views; the concept of Human Rights arises from the Persian Empire and Darius the Great. By creating the label of "Western values", it helps to politically push an agenda; these terrorists hate our freedoms...Islam is against our views and liberalism and helps to create the boogyman. This boogyman is required in an atmosphere of fear to make people believe and do all that is asked of them; even giving up the freedoms they want to protect! It worked during the Cold War and now the new boogyman is Islamic terrorism (note the use of Islamic before terrorism). Note to Paddy, you can be sure that worse atrocities than those committed against the Jews have occured in history. Entire groups of minorities have been wiped out before such actions were frowned upon so much. The notion of national integrity and borders are relatively new and crimes against humanity still more so. As an example, look at the history of China as a more widely known act of genocide. When someone was explaining to me how Mandarin came to be the dominant language in China, it was somewhat surprising to say the least. The Holocaust is far more widely publicised than any of the others. While I do not particularly agree with much of what valanjak has said, it cannot be denied that the Holocaust is probably the only one of such atrocities which has been used to such profiteering (and that is not by no mean financial only). It is perhaps because it is the most recent, perhaps because it was during a war which involved much of Europe and other parts as well, it might be because of the guilty conscience of the world (and again not just the Germans) or perhaps because of cleverness/shrewdness of the Jews (and I do mean that in a positive way). I leave that decision to you, but while the Jews have suffered historically, they are not the only ones and at least they are still around to tell the tale unlike many other unlucky minorities.
Just because peoples throughout ages have not been able to wipe Jews off this planet, does not mean they did not try. Just because some minorities were wiped off and Jews were not does not mean Jews suffered less, that means they were stronger, smarter, luckier or all of the above. I am completely unhappy about Armenians not doing more to show the world the genocide they suffered at the hands of Turks, but just because Jews were better at demonstrating this does not imply they profited from it. Otherwise it sounds like Holocaust was a good thing.
I don't know about you but I think the billions of dollars taken from the Germans government as well as various banks and other institutions that benefited from Jewish slaves/allowed various activities to go on would count as profit. (PS this is money that was supposed to be paid to the survivors of the various atrocities; and money which the clever Jews screwed those people they were supposed to be protecting over and helped in part to strengthen the State of Israel - read up on this because it was actually quite interesting). Again, you might disagree but the State of Israel in my view would not have been established (at least when it was) had it not been for the Holocaust. Also, while a bit more cynical, the Anti-Semitism League (or whatever it is called) has been established which takes strong action to anyone saying anything negative against Jews by labelling it anti-Semitism. I would consider much of that the benefits Jews managed to get following the Holocaust. You are Jewish and hence it is more emotional for you and I do understand that. I'll try to put it as simply as I can; the Holocaust was wrong but following the Holocaust, Jews did benefit. I'm not saying the benefits they received were a bad thing or too opportunistic, nor that Jews should be happy that an atrocity happened to their people for the benefits to ensue. I am simply saying a wrong act was committed, and Jews did even use that to their advantage. While I disagree with much of what was done by Jews using this, I do actually admire them for their resolve and cleverness. If Arabs were anything like that, they could have influenced various American institutions much better than the Jews. So don't see my comment at profits received by Jews because of the Holocaust as a negative thing; it is a positive comment (albeit perhaps somewhat cynical or twisted reasoning).
I agree that Holocaust sped up the establishment of the State of Israel, however, I would be willing to bet that most Jews would have been happier with Israel if it was established 20 or 30 years later but with 6 more million of them living there. Anti-Defamation League speak out against most racism, not just anti-semitism and they are way too useless most of the times anyways. There will always be people who would profit from their mother's death, but I don't see how the Holocaust was meant to do that. Of course, right now much of the world is aware of that and many countries have in one way or another given money to Jewish organizations because of the Holocaust, but it's mostly out of guilt and I applaud many Jews for speaking about Holocaust so loudly, more than other people about their sufferings and maybe because of that the chance of that happening again has been reduced by a lot if not totally eliminated. As for your other topic about Islamo-fascism and not tying Islam to terrorism - it's very difficult to distingish the two when suicide bombers scream Allah's name, or when people chant to Allah when they cut people's heads off or when AQ plans to establish Caliphate all over the world or when Koran is help up next to AK-47 at Hamas, Hezbollah, AQ or any other islamic radical group gathering. When people kill INFIDELS because the BOOK tells them to or when imams preach to kill from a mosque from the BOOK, how do you distinguish the two without combining them? As for IRA, they were terrorists, but not based on religion, even though one could argue about Protestants and Catholics, they had a political goal in Northern Ireland. Today's terrorists, except for ETA, all committ terrorism in the name of a God, so there lies the issue.
You obviously didn't understand my point. When a Jewish settler kills Palestinians, if you were to call him a terrorist, despite his reasons you would not call him a Jewish terrorist. This isn't because he is not Jewish, nor that his reasons were not tied to his religion. However, because one or more people have an extreme view of their religion/nationality/whatever other reason, you should not link that to terrorism to give the terrorists a definition. A terrorist is a terrorist despite his reasons; whether it is for Irish national reasons to push the English out, whether it is because of a miguided notion of Islam or Judaism. These people are terrorists. Simple as that; linking them to where they derive their extreme views from will not help anything. To go a step beyond that, it would have 2 negative impacts; first that it would be grouping Muslims along with terrorism. The same way that the Irish were deemed as terrorist because of the acts of the IRA. If enough Jewish people took an extreme view of Judaism (and believe me, if it was Jews who were left with little other choice and the situations were reversed, then many settlers would be blowing themselves up), then Judaism would be associated with terrorism despite how most others might have felt about it. Grouping say Muslims along with terrorist would alienate the Muslim community and create animosity against them. This we have already seen happen. Secondly, (and this is rather technical), if you associate the reason, then it would be difficult to distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Terrorism is an action despite the intentions (as the General Assembly tried to agree upon but failed).
A couple of things: The IRA are still in existance and still carry out operations within Ulster and Ireland. So do the UDF and the other sectarian organisations. There might be a ceasefire, but there is not a ceasation of activity. The IRA were, are and always will be a sectarian organisation. There are many terror organisations which are not religiously motivated. The PKK, Shining Path, Tamil Tigers, N17, ALiR, Jammu Kahmir Liberation Front and the Ku Klux Klan. (Just cos they can't do lynchings doesn't mean theyr'e not active and very scary). Also, !Bob - I'm sure you have misunderstood me. I have been challenging Valanjak over his argument that only the holocaust is significant in Jewish history. I have not suggested that Jews are the only ones to suffer, which seems to be the point you are making. I don't want to be funny but could you also explain what you mean when you said: I'm sure that I'm reading those comments wrongly, because the rest of your arguments all made sense to me.
That's why I did state that I didn't agree with valanjak's view, but I did want to emphasise that Jews have not been the only group of people who have suffered. I did agree with most of what you had posted and my comments were not intended as a challenge. What I meant was that while many such atrocities have happened, I cannot think of an instance where the people who were persecuted managed to use what had happened to them to their advantage (and as a result come out stronger on the other side). I have already highlighted the benefits it has had for Jews in another post, which explains my meaning of profiteering. I understand that can be misinterpreted and hence my extended post explaining that (and my bracketed explanation that profiteering is meant in a positive way and not some unscrupolous act of money making; although it has been that too by some individuals). I hope that answers your question.
But you have to agree that there are different lines of reasoning which cause the different acts of terrorism. Although you can label the acts of both the IRA and of Hamas, terrorism - the fact is that it doesn't cover the very different lines of reasoning which cause the different groups to act. You must differentiate with the use of "Irish Terrorism" or "Islamic Terrorism". The differences are very obvious and so I won't insult anybody by listing them.