PDA

View Full Version : Bush's Draft



Ouden
29th June 04, 01:53 PM
Yay, a draft is coming up if Bush wins again, we can all go defend Israel's eastern flank -- sweet! I'll see all you guys over there. Now with added bonus features of women being drafted, no deferments, no conscientious-objector status, anyone 18-49 can be drafted, and no going to Canada as Bush has already signed a deal with Canada that they will not allow draft dodgers.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=212&letter_id=93387991
http://www.nodraft.info/
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040412-114403-9384r.htm

June 1, 2004

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

Phrost
29th June 04, 01:59 PM
Umm, last time I checked it was a Democratic congressman that sponsored draft legislation, not Bush.

Ouden
29th June 04, 02:15 PM
Actually it is a bipartisan effort, so even if Kerry wins we still might get it.

Retired Troops being called up as well-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040629/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_reserve_callup

WASHINGTON - The Army is preparing to notify about 5,600 retired and discharged soldiers who are not members of the National Guard or Reserve that they will be involuntarily recalled to active duty for possible service in Iraq (news - web sites) or Afghanistan (news - web sites), Army officials said Tuesday.

It marks the first time the Army has called on the Individual Ready Reserve, as this category of reservists is known, in substantial numbers since the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Several hundred of them have volunteered for active-duty service since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Those who are part of the involuntary call up are likely to be assigned to National Guard or Reserve units that have been mobilized for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to Army officials who discussed some details Tuesday on condition they not be identified because a public announcement was planned for Wednesday.

Members of Congress were being notified of the decision Tuesday, the officials said.

Unlike members of the National Guard and Reserve, the individual reservists do not perform regularly scheduled training. Any former enlisted soldier who did not serve at least eight years on active duty is in the Individual Ready Reserve pool, as are all officers who have not resigned their commission.

The Army has been reviewing its list of 118,000 eligible individual reservists for several weeks in search of qualified people in certain high-priority skill areas like civil affairs.

imported_Driz
29th June 04, 02:15 PM
Ouden,

Did you know that the draft is something that Democrats do not necessarily disagree with? As a whole, the draft is not a bad thing as seen by the Dems.

Take some time to check out the arguments raised by the Democratic party in the late 60s when the draft was being done away with. Check out the arguments for a draft that deal with the consequences of having an all volunteer army. Ask yourself this:

"Will the people charged with serving my countries military interests think critically about the orders they are given or will an all volunteer force be more apt to just follow orders?"

Sounds silly, but these are some of the arguments that were thrown around in the late 60s. And you know what? personally I feel all able bodied young men and women should be made to do a madatory stint in one oof the armed services following highschool.

Now thats just my opinion, but when I look at people I know who went in the service vs college right after high school; an overwhelming portion of those who went in the service are way ahead of those who went and wasted time and money in college because they were not matur enough to be there and apply themselves. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

-Driz
just some food for thought.

JustiNIC
29th June 04, 02:18 PM
Ugh.

I don't want to get drafted. I finally got the hang of this college thing.

Ouden
29th June 04, 02:22 PM
Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily have a problem with "a draft" in general, if it was needed to honestly defend this country. I do have a problem with a draft that boils down more to defending some shitty little hypocritical backstabbing pile of dirt than defending America.

Bukow
29th June 04, 02:23 PM
I do have a problem with a draft that boils down more to defending some shitty little hypocritical backstabbing pile of dirt than defending America.

Oh, you must mean every single Arab country.

joen00b
29th June 04, 02:48 PM
Bush is already talking about bringing 'Democracy' to every Middle East Country...

Of course you don't believe me (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=COCOL&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT), but the facts are there. He's going to want the draft to start a war with the entire Middle East for 'Democracy'... what a fucking farce!

deadcat
29th June 04, 02:51 PM
Defending the land you live in. What a foreign concept.

Ouden
29th June 04, 02:51 PM
The one example they use as "the only democracy in the Middle East" isn't even a democracy.

Bukow
29th June 04, 03:13 PM
The one example they use as "the only democracy in the Middle East" isn't even a democracy.

Even though all its citizens can vote? Even though there are Arabs in its parliament?

There's no other government even close to Israel's, in terms of democratic institutions, in that region of the world.

Nommis
29th June 04, 03:13 PM
I'm going to Mexico; maybe I will meet a hot chick too.

Riddeck
29th June 04, 03:14 PM
Bush is already talking about bringing 'Democracy' to every Middle East Country...

Of course you don't believe me (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=COCOL&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT), but the facts are there. He's going to want the draft to start a war with the entire Middle East for 'Democracy'... what a fucking farce!

What do you suppose Colin Powell is listening to in those headphones? Jay-Z? Nah, he is too white. I reckon he has some Berry Manilow...or if we are lucky, he has some Pantera playing...gettin ready for war and shit.

Ouden
29th June 04, 03:25 PM
Even though all its citizens can vote? Even though there are Arabs in its parliament?

There's no other government even close to Israel's, in terms of democratic institutions, in that region of the world.

Bzzt. Try again. Israel is essentially an apartheid state.

Bukow
29th June 04, 03:53 PM
Bzzt. Try again. Israel is essentially an apartheid state.

If I only read Palestinian propaganda, I suppose I would agree with you. Since I don't, however, I repeat:

1) All citizens of Israel have the right to vote;
2) Arabs can, and do, serve in Israel's Parliament.

And since these are both unassailable facts, I'll ask you: What kind of apartheid state allows 1 & 2?

Shriker
29th June 04, 04:08 PM
Eh damn not really all about haven to go to war after college, wouldnt be so bad if were defending the US but, fuck it if were out their fighting for some bullshit country :( . I could careless about what happens to Iraq, Israel, or the whole middle east.

Irbanoz
29th June 04, 04:49 PM
Screw a draft. I like my cushy government job in front of multiple computers more than getting shot at in some sandy-ass end of the earth.

joen00b
29th June 04, 04:51 PM
Time to pull a Rush Limbaugh and get a boil on my ass...

Sithray
29th June 04, 04:59 PM
The people who need to worry are people who served in the military less than 8 years and are under 36 years old. The people to get pulled first are always active reservists, then inactive reservists (IE signed as reservist but hasn't attended reservist training for whatever reason), then inactive military (IE not a reservist but served less than 8 years)

In any case if you didn't serve 8 years you can be recalled. It is in the fine print for ALL armed services branches (IE Airforce, Marines, Navy, Army etc) and you are elligable until you are 36.

Typically they drop you down a rank and start you off again, but if you completed college after you got out you can go to officer training school and if you were an e5 (or e6?) or higher you can start out as Captain instead of Lt. (Depending on how you do in school) If you were an E7/8 you are automatically a Captain when you complete the school.

People who never served have at least a few years before they need to start worrying. It will probably be 2k6-8 before compulsory military service kicks in. Just on time according to Titor...he actually predicted the draft too. That guy was a genious hoaxer

Sithray
29th June 04, 05:05 PM
Time to pull a Rush Limbaugh and get a boil on my ass...

That won't get you out of it this time. Treatable medical conditions will be taken care of prior to your basic. Also, going to Mexico or Canada will just get you shipped back to the US per an agreement between both countries. Also, full time students will be draftable unlike previous draft laws.

The only people safe now are state registered ministers...which I happen to be :) So if I do get a draft notice in a few years I can fight it. Of course people who are actually disabled will be clear as well.

And although you have to pass an IQ test to get in the military, if you fail it during a draft they just stick you on a front line somewhere or put you on kitchen duty. So purposly failing your test won't get you anywhere except in a shitty job.

Jacklenut
29th June 04, 05:38 PM
Who cares, fight for your country. If you die now, it doesn't matter, you were probably going to sit on your fat ass playing everquest your whole life anyway.

Phrost
29th June 04, 06:16 PM
Sithray's mostly right.

Except if you didn't serve your full 8 years, and say served 7.5 (as was in my case), you can only be called back up to 8 years from the day when you first enlisted, as you've 'served' your time in the IRR (individual ready reserve).

Ouden
29th June 04, 06:29 PM
If I only read Palestinian propaganda, I suppose I would agree with you. Since I don't, however, I repeat:

1) All citizens of Israel have the right to vote;
2) Arabs can, and do, serve in Israel's Parliament.

And since these are both unassailable facts, I'll ask you: What kind of apartheid state allows 1 & 2?

Oh yeah, I "only read Palestinian propaganda."

Those Jews for Justice in the Middle East put out great Palestinian propaganda: http://www.cactus48.com/OriginMSW.pdf

a few excerpts-

Why doesn't Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East," have a constitution?
"The abstention from formulating a constitution was no accident. The massive
expropriation of lands and other properties from those Arabs who fled the country
as a result of the War of Independence and of those who remained but were declared
absent, as well as the confiscation of large tracts of land from Arab villages who
did not flee, and the laws passed to legalize those acts - all this would have
necessarily been declared unconstitutional, null and void, by the Supreme Court, being
expressly discriminatory against one part of the citizenry, whereas a democratic
constitution obliges the state to treal all of its citizens equally." Israeli author,
Boas Evron, "Jewish State or Israeli Nation?"

"The 1989 Israel High Court decision that any political party advocating full equality
between Arab and Jew can be barred from fielding candidates in an election...[means]
that the Israeli state is the state of the Jews...not their [the Arabs'] state."
Professor Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict."

There's a couple of video's one is called The People and the Land, the other is called The Other Israel. One is done by a media group, the other done by a fundamentalist Christian organization, both are well known for their Palestinian propaganda obviously.

The People and the Land by Tom Hayes (award-winning documentary) : http://www.humanitas-international.org/newstran/streaming-gallery.htm (top link)

The Other Israel : http://www.truthtellers.org/bookvideo.html (down the page, partial clip) -- I have the full video and will try to get it somewhere downloadable.

You can claim that "all citizens of Israel" are able to vote until your blue the face, Palestinians are considered citizens, albeit barely (and that's not counting the ones displaced by war who are not allowed to return). They don't vote under military occupation, in other words around 3.7 million people haven't had a chance to vote in 4 decades. That is coming up towards close to half of the ENTIRE population that can't vote. They are given citizenship cards that have no Israeli designation; only Arab. There are whole cities and settlements where it is illegal for Palestinians to live. There are segregated housing areas, schools, and recreational facilities where the Palestinians can't go. Palestinians can't serve in the military, and despite the fact that they make up 15 to 20 percent of the population, there has never been even one Palestinian in the Israeli cabinet. This is official government policy, and this is what was so bad in the South and in South Africa.

Sounds like a great democracy to me. Maybe you should try reading something other than pro-Israel biased information (see, what I've done here is claim to know what you have or haven't read, which is a very cool way to pretend that you know everything).

Traetick
29th June 04, 09:07 PM
lol if i was drafted i would shoot every single mother fucker in my path (americans, babys, etc. doesnt matter which.). i will fight for family, food, and if my home was invaded. that fucking prick waving oil war is not mine to fight.

Phleg
29th June 04, 10:29 PM
Thankfully, a draft is exceedingly unlikely. Without military's current focus on tight combat groups, they need skilled volunteers, not conscript chumps. Just about every developed nation realizes that to have a successful, powerful army, it has to be as volunteer as possible.

Irbanoz
29th June 04, 10:39 PM
That's why we have Counter-Strike.

Sithray
29th June 04, 10:50 PM
That's why we have Counter-Strike.

/agree

I could pretty much tell all the specs for military weapons and provide tactical overviews per my training in CS and DoD :)

I am worried about me being drafted as I was a civ with MI who has field training :( I look mighty edible...

Yiktin Voxbane
29th June 04, 11:19 PM
To avoid the draft.....

Listen to Arlo Guthries *Alices Restaraunt* (Signifigence of the pickle version)

Just keep chanting dead burnt bodies.

Xioxou
29th June 04, 11:43 PM
Meh, I'm moving to Ener's house.

Cybsled
30th June 04, 01:54 AM
Teh future iz now!!!

http://www.elementofdarkness.com/images/member/Cybsled/BUGZ.jpg

Pinchebuey
30th June 04, 02:11 AM
Screw a draft. I like my cushy government job in front of multiple computers more than getting shot at in some sandy-ass end of the earth.

As an active duty Soldier, I would like to ease your fears by letting you know that even "hooah" army types can have cushy jobs in sitting in front of computers all day.

imported_Blazer
30th June 04, 02:30 AM
heh, i'm going to mexico or jamaica. mostlikly not though, but i will be a medic or something. dont feel like killing anyone per se. they prolly wouldnt draft me anyways.

Eloco
30th June 04, 04:10 AM
Just to clarify.. you did not have to serve 8 years, you have to complete your 8 year obligation. Meaning if you served from 88 to 91, like me, your 8 year obligation was up in 1996 (3 years active, 5 years in the inactive reserves, for a total of 8 years). So even being under the age of 36 I can not be drafted. Now if we were invading Mexico or Canada, I would sign up in flash, then I could either meet a hot chick or kill some Candananians :)

The problem with the inactive reserves, one they had during the Gulf, is that people that are in the inactive reserves are often thoes that disliked the service and do not want to go back. Typically, if people liked it they joined the national guard or active reserves. So recalling a bunch of people that got out and were happy to do so, you are dealing with a bunch of extreme attitudes...

You have a better chance avoiding the draft by being fat than fleeing the country, so if you dont want to go, eat up !

Phrost
30th June 04, 10:09 AM
Heh, if only service were required for citizenship...

...we sure wouldn't have as many future generations filled with mealy-mouthed, Real World watching, instant gratification or bitch little punkasses.

I fucking love that idea.

Nommis
30th June 04, 11:02 AM
...Real World watching...
Fuck I missed the finale. What happened?

beck
30th June 04, 11:04 AM
The country is having a hard time equipping and training the military it has now, involuntarily conscripting thousands of people that don't want to be there would be disastrous. Plus you think people are sitting on the fence about the war now? Start making little Jane and Johnny march off to war in Iraq and the roar would be deafening. Offer better enlistment/re-enlistment incentives or education benefits. There are lots of other ways to get/keep quality people, they just don't want to spend the bucks. Rummy has a war to finance, we have been quietly downsizing the entire time. Now it's biting them in the ass, poor planning on their part has become an emergency for the nation.

Mesmer
30th June 04, 12:25 PM
Heh, if only service were required for citizenship...

...we sure wouldn't have as many future generations filled with mealy-mouthed, Real World watching, instant gratification or bitch little punkasses.

I fucking love that idea.

Or better yet, allow all those illegal aliens who currently reside in this country to obtain their citizenship in exchange for service in the military.

Mesmer
30th June 04, 12:26 PM
Fuck I missed the finale. What happened?

I didn't watch it either, but I imagine they all cried like the pussies they are, lamenting the end of their free, alcohol induced ride.

Phrost
30th June 04, 01:34 PM
Or better yet, allow all those illegal aliens who currently reside in this country to obtain their citizenship in exchange for service in the military.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. 4 Years military service + the normal citizenship reqs (test, oath, etc) should earn someone their citizenship.

And I have no idea what happened on that show. I mainly watch news and the history channel, and Stargate.

Titanax
30th June 04, 02:17 PM
id rather mow down some arabs and palestinians than fight for Bush's war

Bukow
30th June 04, 02:24 PM
Believe it or not, I agree with you. 4 Years military service + the normal citizenship reqs (test, oath, etc) should earn someone their citizenship.

Can't they already do something like that? I know foreign nationals can join the U.S. Military... I remember Bush handing out post-mortem citizenship to some who had sacrificed their lives in the present conflict.

beck
30th June 04, 02:25 PM
Can't they already do something like that? I know foreign nationals can join the U.S. Military... I remember Bush handing out post-mortem citizenship to some who had sacrificed their lives in the present conflict.

After 9/11 there was a program instituted by Bush to fast track citizenship for military personnel who wanted to become U.S. Citizens.

Bukow
30th June 04, 03:25 PM
Oh yeah, I "only read Palestinian propaganda."

Those Jews for Justice in the Middle East put out great Palestinian propaganda: http://www.cactus48.com/OriginMSW.pdf

a few excerpts-

Why doesn't Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East," have a constitution?

With a name like "Jews for Justice in the Middle East," I'm sure the group is a wealth of unbiased, agenda-free information.

That said, the absence of a constitution can of course be viewed as some sort of nefarious directive aimed at giving the Jews de facto and de jure absolute authority to trample Palestinian rights. It can alternately be judged to be a superfluous instrument for which a state, created for a specific purpose -- as a refuge for persecuted minorities -- has no need, as the character of the state is determined by not only by its formal laws, but by its overarching principles -- codified or not.

Regardless, Israel's progressive Supreme Court has recently been strongly upholding the rights of Palestinians, which is even more remarkable given the state-of-war context in which their decisions are rendered.




You can claim that "all citizens of Israel" are able to vote until your blue the face, Palestinians are considered citizens, albeit barely (and that's not counting the ones displaced by war who are not allowed to return).

That's incorrect -- The Palestinian authority has a right-of-return law.



They don't vote under military occupation, in other words around 3.7 million people haven't had a chance to vote in 4 decades. That is coming up towards close to half of the ENTIRE population that can't vote.


The people to whom you refer live in occupied terrorities, which Israel acquired during a defensive war! Secondly, the Palestinian Authority has repeatedly rejected Israel's (generous, in my view) attempts to create a Palestinian state. If the Palestinians in the occupied territories cannot vote, they have only themselves, their aggression, and their leaders to blame.



There are whole cities and settlements where it is illegal for Palestinians to live. There are segregated housing areas, schools, and recreational facilities where the Palestinians can't go.

Your information is out of date. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled, in 2002, that "...The principle of equality prohibits the state from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality... The principle also applies to the allocation of state land... The Jewish character of the state does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens." (<i>Qadan v. Israel Lands Administration</i>.)



Palestinians can't serve in the military

How many do you believe would take up arms against their fellow Arabs, when polls have shown that up to 1/3 of Palestinians think suicide-murder bombings are a perfectly acceptable tactic when applied against Jews?



and despite the fact that they make up 15 to 20 percent of the population, there has never been even one Palestinian in the Israeli cabinet.


Despite the fact that American blacks make up 10 to 15 percent of the population, it was not until relatively recently that one was a member of an American President's cabinet. Would you likewise argue, on the basis of this fact, that up until the 1970's (or 1980's) that the United States was not a democracy?

It's always amusing to listen to various sources cry their eyes out about the treatment of the Palestinians, when they don't give a rat's ass about the incomparably worse conditions in which almost the whole of the rest of the world's Arabs live.

Xioxou
30th June 04, 03:55 PM
id rather mow down some arabs and palestinians than fight for Bush's warWell, Mojo Jojo decided to join the conversation. Bully for you!

Ouden
30th June 04, 05:06 PM
With a name like "Jews for Justice in the Middle East," I'm sure the group is a wealth of unbiased, agenda-free information.

You said "Palestinian propaganda." I don't think a group named Jews for Justice in the Middle East would exactly be Palestinian propaganda. But hey, attack that strawman all you want.


That said, the absence of a constitution can of course be viewed as some sort of nefarious directive aimed at giving the Jews de facto and de jure absolute authority to trample Palestinian rights. It can alternately be judged to be a superfluous instrument for which a state, created for a specific purpose -- as a refuge for persecuted minorities -- has no need, as the character of the state is determined by not only by its formal laws, but by its overarching principles -- codified or not.

Blah, blah, persecuted minorities. The state was not set up for that purpose, it was initially to be TWO states, however the Arabs rejected it (rightly) because it would have been two states ruled by the Jews. If done rightly, there would be two separate states. And those "persecuted minorities" (who by the way just happen to get "persecuted" everywhere they go) went on a murdering and genocide campaign to run the majority population out of the nation. Sounds like something those "evil Nazis" might do, not something a "persecuted minority" would do.


Regardless, Israel's progressive Supreme Court has recently been strongly upholding the rights of Palestinians, which is even more remarkable given the state-of-war context in which their decisions are rendered.

That doesn't exactly mean jack shit if they're soldiers are still out shooting and bombing civilians. You're talking about a nation that has a proven war criminal as the national leader, and has multiple war criminals as the Prime Minister in the past. Don't feed me this garbage.

A Haifa University survey shows that 64% of Israeli Jews favored programs to force Palestinian inhabitants out of the Jewish State, with 55% calling Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship a threat to national security.


That's incorrect -- The Palestinian authority has a right-of-return law.

Sure. :rolleyes:


The people to whom you refer live in occupied terrorities, which Israel acquired during a defensive war! Secondly, the Palestinian Authority has repeatedly rejected Israel's (generous, in my view) attempts to create a Palestinian state. If the Palestinians in the occupied territories cannot vote, they have only themselves, their aggression, and their leaders to blame.

LoL, the PLO has rejected several attempts by Israel to make demands which no one in their right mind would accept. Why don't you read up on Sharon's list of 14 demands during the recent Roadmap to Peace? The Palestinian's aggression? Try reading up on the early massacres in which the Israelis did little more than committ genocide and run the Palestinians over the border: Deir Yassin, Sharafat Massacre, Kibya Massacre, Kafr Qasem Massacre, Al-Sammou Massacre, the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, Oyo Qara Massacre, Al-Aqsa Mosque Massacre, the Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre, the Jabalia Massacre, just to name a few. There hasn't been "their aggression" since the beginning, it has been more of a defensive fight. Feel free to stay in your little bubble of "proud little Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, fighting for their freedom, rah rah" bullshit.


Your information is out of date. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled, in 2002, that "...The principle of equality prohibits the state from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality... The principle also applies to the allocation of state land... The Jewish character of the state does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens." (<i>Qadan v. Israel Lands Administration</i>.)

And what has that ruling changed? Show me absolutely nothing! Bing!

Hell it wasn't until a Supreme court ruling in 2002 that they outlawed using Palestinians *AS HUMAN SHIELDS* Of course the border patrol still used one Arab boy as a human shield in May of 2004.


How many do you believe would take up arms against their fellow Arabs, when polls have shown that up to 1/3 of Palestinians think suicide-murder bombings are a perfectly acceptable tactic when applied against Jews?

One of the first mentions of a suicide bombing was in the aftermath of one of the Israeli massacres in which a man said "I would like to be made into a bomb and blow myself up amid the Israelis." A year and half or so after that quite a few Palestinians did in fact blow themselves up. Suicide-bombings are pure acts of desperation, because people like you turn a blind eye to what the Israelis have done and continue to do, because "they're the only democracy in the Middle East." But you're sure condemn the Palestinians for their acts of terror, when it isn't uncommon for "Collective Punishment" to be used by the Israeli's, in which they just lob some missiles into a crowded area of civilians to teach them a lesson. Or they'll just bulldoze a zoo and kill all the animals inside as they did recently, those zoo's sure are evil.

Some collective punishment of those darn terrorist infants for you to enjoy:
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/palestine/IsraelisAreNazis/qana003.jpg


Despite the fact that American blacks make up 10 to 15 percent of the population, it was not until relatively recently that one was a member of an American President's cabinet. Would you likewise argue, on the basis of this fact, that up until the 1970's (or 1980's) that the United States was not a democracy?

The situations are quite different, but sure. I have my doubts that America is even a democracy now.


It's always amusing to listen to various sources cry their eyes out about the treatment of the Palestinians, when they don't give a rat's ass about the incomparably worse conditions in which almost the whole of the rest of the world's Arabs live.

It's always amusing to listen to various sources cry their eyes out about the poor "persecuted minorities" and the "only democracy in the Middle East" while ignoring the easily verifiable facts.

Fun with News Links:

Israeli's open fire on British MPs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/20/wisr20.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/20/ixworld.html)
British Journalist that helped expose Israel's nuclear/biological program arrested in Israel (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3752043.stm)
More on Journalist after his release (http://www.rense.com/general53/releasedUKjournalist.htm)
Claims that Israel Dumps Toxic Waste in West Bank (http://maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=7810)
Israeli Sniper Kills Two Children (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250870992.html?oneclick=true)
Israel destroys Palestinian Zoo (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/22/1085176045893.html)
Israel destroys Palestinian Zoo #2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1222307,00.html)
Israeli's Fire on Children's March, Kill 10, Wound 50 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;?xml=/news/2004/05/20/wmid20.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/20/ixnewstop.html)
Arabs admit to Murder, later freed because false confession came about through torture (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040509-031744-9967r.htm)
Israeli minister wants Arabs expelled (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=1862)
Can't Speak Arabic at an Israeli McDonald's (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/680/re104.htm)
Israeli's raid banks, sieze money (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/20040226/ISRAEL26/TPTechInvestor/?mainhub=GT)
Israeli troops execute man, witnesses call it "cold-blooded murder (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1136426,00.html)
Israeli parliament member proposes "massive ethnic cleansing" as a final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9DCD41A2-E372-4732-8F1A-411EC28F603D.htm)
Israeli company tells foreign workers: no sex with Jewish women, no political activity (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8249434^13762,00.html)
Israeli universities move to reduce Arab students (http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=8760&TagID=2)

Surely these are just a few examples of what a great democracy that nation is. Of course, many of these things would be "racist" in any other nation, but it's okay since they're a "persecuted minority."

Bukow
30th June 04, 06:02 PM
You said "Palestinian propaganda." I don't think a group named Jews for Justice in the Middle East would exactly be Palestinian propaganda. But hey, attack that strawman all you want.

Speaking of strawmen...




Blah, blah, persecuted minorities. The state was not set up for that purpose, it was initially to be TWO states, however the Arabs rejected it (rightly) because it would have been two states ruled by the Jews. If done rightly, there would be two separate states.

Actually, for a long period, the Palestinians for the most part wished to be annexed by Syria -- always a bastion of human rights and respect for the individual.

Aside from that, the Arabs rejected statehood three times so far, instead responding each time with increased terrorism. A reasonable person, looking at the facts of each case (as each was different), might ask, "Why do these people, who never claimed statehood when ruled by Egypt or others, suddenly feel compelled to turn down an offer for what is supposedly their most essential demand?"

It's also quite a generous concession that Israel would even offer them statehood at all, considering that the Palestinians supported the losing sides in both world wars, even continuing the trend by supporting Saddam in the first Gulf War. Sounds like the model for a healthy state that I'd want living next door.



And those "persecuted minorities" (who by the way just happen to get "persecuted" everywhere they go) went on a murdering and genocide campaign to run the majority population out of the nation. Sounds like something those "evil Nazis" might do, not something a "persecuted minority" would do.

Jews get persecuted everywhere they go? I'm sure that's an interesting fact that American Jews aren't aware of. They faced some discrimination in America, as do most ethnicities upon arrival, but no country has ever been totally clean when it comes to such issues. However -- persecuted <i>everywhere</i>? I think not.

However, persecution was and remains an issue in many places -- particularly in the Arab world. Jordanian Jews cannot become citizens. Jews are not allowed to emigrate to Saudi Arabia. Iran detained Britain's ambassador because they <i>thought</i> he was a Jew. There is no place in the Arab world where a Jew has as much freedom as an Israeli Arab -- so why does the idea of Jewish persecution seem false to you? And why the selective moralism?

Last, I liked the "evil Nazis" in scare quotes. If you don't think gas chambers, enslavement, and such were evil, then it's laughable that you consider the Israelis, who engage in no such behavior, as bad.



That doesn't exactly mean jack shit if they're soldiers are still out shooting and bombing civilians.

Oh yeah, because wars are pretty and no civilians ever get killed, do they?

The difference is Israel is forced to fight in civilian areas, against insurgents who purposively blend in with the civilian population, and guess what -- civilians die as a result! Israel, like the US -- even more than the US, actually -- is a model for minimizing civlian casualties in urban combat. Compare their tactics to those used by the Russians in Chechnya, for instance.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, <i>target</i> civilians. Old women, teenagers in a nightclub, passengers on a bus, nursery school children -- all the same to them. Why no condemnation from you about that?



A Haifa University survey shows that 64% of Israeli Jews favored programs to force Palestinian inhabitants out of the Jewish State, with 55% calling Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship a threat to national security.

You're surprised by the fact that two populations in conflict for decades don't like each other?

Okay, then how about this: A poll among Palestinians at Najah University found that "87% of Palestinians were in favor of continuing attacks," even if the occupied territories were vacated by Israeli forces.



LoL, the PLO has rejected several attempts by Israel to make demands which no one in their right mind would accept. Why don't you read up on Sharon's list of 14 demands during the recent Roadmap to Peace? The Palestinian's aggression?

I have read up on it. And everyone, including the Saudi's, encouraged Arafat to take the offer.



Try reading up on the early massacres in which the Israelis did little more than committ genocide and run the Palestinians over the border: Deir Yassin, Sharafat Massacre, Kibya Massacre, Kafr Qasem Massacre, Al-Sammou Massacre, the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, Oyo Qara Massacre, Al-Aqsa Mosque Massacre, the Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre, the Jabalia Massacre, just to name a few. There hasn't been "their aggression" since the beginning, it has been more of a defensive fight. Feel free to stay in your little bubble of "proud little Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, fighting for their freedom, rah rah" bullshit.

More one sidedness. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish state, there were individual acts of terrorism from both sides. As soon as Israel became a state, however, Ben-Gurion disarmed Jewish terrorist groups by force.

After 1948, however, Palestinians, with the periodic backing of various Arab governments, continued the attacks, intentionally targeting civilians. This continues to the present, and would be even more rampant, had the Jews not asserted themselves militarily and quashed the invading Arabs in a series of wars (wherein, by the way, the various Arab armies intentionally targeted civilians as a matter of policy.)

Moreover, when a Jewish doctor in 1994 machine gunned a number of Palestinians, he was thoroughly denounced by both the government and members of the Israeli public. I'm still waiting for a condemnation of similar tactics from any Arab government.


Suicide-bombings are pure acts of desperation, because people like you turn a blind eye to what the Israelis have done and continue to do, because "they're the only democracy in the Middle East."

Pure propaganda. In every single study I've read about on terrorists, they are never the truly poor, uneducated, disinfranchised members of society. They are almost always educated and (relative to their societies) well-off. Suicide bombers in this case are no exception, although in this case people are often willing to use children toward their ghastly ends.



It's always amusing to listen to various sources cry their eyes out about the poor "persecuted minorities" and the "only democracy in the Middle East" while ignoring the easily verifiable facts.

I'm not ignoring any facts. I make no pretense that Israel is perfect. Nevertheless, it is an act of moral cowardice to equate the actions of a state engaged in its own defense, trying to observe a code of conduct which places a premium on human life, with a band of terrorists who have no qualms about targeting civilians.



Fun with News Links:


I can also assemble a parade of horribles that comes out of any country at war. It's not hard to do. The difficult part comes when you choose to assess the facts, instead of parrot the line handed to you by the likes of Arafat and the various despots who support his would-be dictatorship.



Surely these are just a few examples of what a great democracy that nation is. Of course, many of these things would be "racist" in any other nation, but it's okay since they're a "persecuted minority."

It's only racist if you choose to apply the morality selectively toward Jews, and not to anyone else, which is what you are doing here, I think.

Eloco
30th June 04, 09:51 PM
You two are cute when you fight, just please dont post pics of the make up sex!

Yiktin Voxbane
30th June 04, 10:07 PM
That pic made me :( Ouden

But reality often is saddening and unpleasant, that picture clearly demonstrates the insane nature of war of ANY kind.

Ouden
30th June 04, 10:53 PM
Speaking of strawmen...

If you say so.


Aside from that, the Arabs rejected statehood three times so far, instead responding each time with increased terrorism. A reasonable person, looking at the facts of each case (as each was different), might ask, "Why do these people, who never claimed statehood when ruled by Egypt or others, suddenly feel compelled to turn down an offer for what is supposedly their most essential demand?"

Again, look into the demands being placed on them for their "statehood." There is much that goes on in Israel that no media is allowed to even document, because every single piece of film is supposed to pass through Israel's approval: Including citizens being murdered and having bombs planted next to them, Israeli's taunting Palestinians in cars with flags flying, etc. Occassionally the stories for these items do leak out. There has never once been any real intent on the part of the Israeli's to create any Palestinian nation.


It's also quite a generous concession that Israel would even offer them statehood at all, considering that the Palestinians supported the losing sides in both world wars, even continuing the trend by supporting Saddam in the first Gulf War. Sounds like the model for a healthy state that I'd want living next door.

Supporting "losing sides" doesn't necessarily mean supporting the "right side." Israel supports Communist nations quite a lot, spies on America, and attacks American interests, and even sells American technology to Communist China against our wishes. Sounds like a nation I'd like to call my greatest ally.


Jews get persecuted everywhere they go? I'm sure that's an interesting fact that American Jews aren't aware of. They faced some discrimination in America, as do most ethnicities upon arrival, but no country has ever been totally clean when it comes to such issues. However -- persecuted <i>everywhere</i>? I think not.

Do some more reading. If a group of people winds up getting discriminated against or persecuted in every single country they arrive in and stay in long periods of time, is it truly always the fault of the persecuter? Maybe that group of people should look into just what they're doing to cause such responses.


However, persecution was and remains an issue in many places -- particularly in the Arab world. Jordanian Jews cannot become citizens. Jews are not allowed to emigrate to Saudi Arabia. Iran detained Britain's ambassador because they <i>thought</i> he was a Jew. There is no place in the Arab world where a Jew has as much freedom as an Israeli Arab -- so why does the idea of Jewish persecution seem false to you? And why the selective moralism?

Arabs didn't have many problems with Jews until the whole Israel thing. Again, seems it was that groups ACTIONS that caused a BACKLASH. Odd that.


Last, I liked the "evil Nazis" in scare quotes. If you don't think gas chambers, enslavement, and such were evil, then it's laughable that you consider the Israelis, who engage in no such behavior, as bad.

It has been proved that the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated, and there were no gas chambers (other than those used to clean clothing). Hell there weren't even 6 million Jews in all of Europe. There were concentration camps, but that hardly qualifies someone as evil, considering every single country at one time or another has used them.

I used the scare quotes as you called them because since the Jews were supposedly persecuted (for no reason whatsoever as always) by the "evil Nazis" as they call them, you'd think they wouldn't then turn around and ACT like the very thing they were supposedly persecuted by.


Oh yeah, because wars are pretty and no civilians ever get killed, do they?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.


The difference is Israel is forced to fight in civilian areas, against insurgents who purposively blend in with the civilian population, and guess what -- civilians die as a result! Israel, like the US -- even more than the US, actually -- is a model for minimizing civlian casualties in urban combat. Compare their tactics to those used by the Russians in Chechnya, for instance.

Wow, civilians die when fighting in civilian areas? Thanks for the hot tip. There have been MULTIPLE cases of the Israelis doing everything they could to inflict maximum civilian casualties, even using outlawed artillery shells that spray razor blades all over a wide area (flechetta I believe it's called). Of course, when you stomp in a pregnant woman's stomach, or slice her open and remove the fetus, as the Israeli's have done in quite a few massacres, that's probably a good model of minimizing civilian casualties. Keep those pom pom's going.

It's nice of them to bulldoze those civilian's homes as well. At least they're homeless and not dead, sure they lose everything they ever owned. But those Israelis went out of their way to avoid those casualties.


The Palestinians, on the other hand, <i>target</i> civilians. Old women, teenagers in a nightclub, passengers on a bus, nursery school children -- all the same to them. Why no condemnation from you about that?

Massacres of civilian Palestinians on the other hand obviously don't target civilians though. I never once said I liked suicide bombers that target civilians. I said it was an act of desperation, which it is. There's my condemnation! Oh no! Still doesn't change the fact that you are flat wrong that Israel tries their best not to inflict extra casualties on civilians.


You're surprised by the fact that two populations in conflict for decades don't like each other?

Okay, then how about this: A poll among Palestinians at Najah University found that "87% of Palestinians were in favor of continuing attacks," even if the occupied territories were vacated by Israeli forces.

You're suprised that a population dispossed of their land (over 90% of all the land in Israel was owned by Palestinians before the late 1940's), that has genocide committed against it, is expelled from it's own homeland of over 2,000 years for a people that make a religious claim to the land (and who the majority of came from Asia, not the original Israelites) is angry? I guess they should what? Be happy? Pass out flowers? Because they were lucky enough to be pushed aside and murdered for the Chosen?

Ultimately it is those two group's fight, and whoever wins, wins. But, I'm not going to sit on a high horse and pretend that one side is some great bastion of freedom and ethics when the truth shows otherwise. And I'm not going to support my tax dollars going to buy bulldozers and bullets that destroy the homes of civilians and kill children, or a draft that will, as an Israeli called "Israel's eastern flank." They can fight it out all they want, but leave America out of it.


I have read up on it. And everyone, including the Saudi's, encouraged Arafat to take the offer.

Have you read the list? Not "everyone including the Saudi's encouraged Arafat to take the offer", but the list? http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/israeli-resolution-roadmap.html It's on there.

Basically, fully submit and we'll work with you. That's bullshit, no one in their right mind would accept that.


More one sidedness. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish state, there were individual acts of terrorism from both sides. As soon as Israel became a state, however, Ben-Gurion disarmed Jewish terrorist groups by force.

After 1948, however, Palestinians, with the periodic backing of various Arab governments, continued the attacks, intentionally targeting civilians. This continues to the present, and would be even more rampant, had the Jews not asserted themselves militarily and quashed the invading Arabs in a series of wars (wherein, by the way, the various Arab armies intentionally targeted civilians as a matter of policy.)

Talk about one sidedness. Before the establishment of the Jewish state the majority of the individual acts of terrorism were Jewish in nature, starting against the British (King David hotel, letter bombs, murder of British soldiers, etc.) and then when the British left starting on the Palestinians. There were of course some Palestinian terrorists, however for the most part they were unarmed. It's amusing that you try to put Ben-Gurion in a positive light for his "disarming Jewish terrorist groups" when he was one of those terrorists and war criminals himself. Ben-Gurion participated in the terror and assassination campaign against the British. He also praised Menachem Begin for the massacre at Deir Yassin, indeed praising him for being of the "Hitlerian type." Not to mention he was involved in stirring up the Lebanese civil war. What a swell guy, truly the type to be respected. Of course let's not forget that Ben-Gurion's group, led by himself, The Haganah, blew up a British ship full of Jewish refugee's from Europe. He blew it up on Christmas day, 1940, killing 252 jews along with the British crew. Truly a man for you to hold in high esteem.

It's funny how the Nazi war criminals are hunted to the ends of the earth to their dying days, but Israeli war criminals get to be the Prime Minister and wine and dine with the heads of state all over the world. Yep, no double standard there. Rah, rah, Israel boom bah.

So after 1948, in which the Jews had used massacring civilians as a major tactic, the Palestinians responded by targetting civilians, and so did Arab armies?....hmm, I'm really shocked on that one. Of course, you'll call me onesided while you act onesided yourself.


Moreover, when a Jewish doctor in 1994 machine gunned a number of Palestinians, he was thoroughly denounced by both the government and members of the Israeli public. I'm still waiting for a condemnation of similar tactics from any Arab government.

That would be Dr. Baruch Goldstein who killed 24 Palestinians as they were praying in a Mosque. He was condemned by the government, but has since become kind of a folk hero in Israel. And the Arabs condemn terror tactics all the time, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la" when it's not the glorious, democratic, super-duper, Israelis talking?


Pure propaganda. In every single study I've read about on terrorists, they are never the truly poor, uneducated, disinfranchised members of society. They are almost always educated and (relative to their societies) well-off. Suicide bombers in this case are no exception, although in this case people are often willing to use children toward their ghastly ends.

I'd say you need to do some more reading on terrorists. While that is the case sometimes, it is far from "almost always." Suicide bombers are typically people that have lost loved-ones and want to get some revenge, or people that are just sick and tired of seeing Israel get away with whatever they want while everyone condemns the Palestinians as terrorists.


I'm not ignoring any facts. I make no pretense that Israel is perfect. Nevertheless, it is an act of moral cowardice to equate the actions of a state engaged in its own defense, trying to observe a code of conduct which places a premium on human life, with a band of terrorists who have no qualms about targeting civilians.

Again, do some reading up on the massacres committed and the still to this day many times that they fire into crowds of children or peaceful protestors (and of course they also fire into the more violent protestors). That is not obersving a code of conduct which places a premium on human life, but you're pretending they're trying to be saints, which is a flat-out lie. Both sides are committing atrocities against civilians, but you're sitting here trying to refuse that Israel does it and that they have some higher moral code, when they don't.


I can also assemble a parade of horribles that comes out of any country at war. It's not hard to do. The difficult part comes when you choose to assess the facts, instead of parrot the line handed to you by the likes of Arafat and the various despots who support his would-be dictatorship.

You're the one parroting the line that Israel is super duper and upholds an excellent code of moral conduct, and the only mistakes are because they are defending themselves. Ooh, those poor persecuted people fighting for their freedom. You're being hypocritical as hell, maybe two-three of the links I assembled were even from Arab sources. And those were just a SMALL sample of the things your bastion of human rights, Israel, has done. YOU are the one parroting out a stream of mouth diarrhea while brushing off the facts that don't fit your story.


It's only racist if you choose to apply the morality selectively toward Jews, and not to anyone else, which is what you are doing here, I think.

Do some more thinking on that. The inference was that many of the things the Israelis were doing would be considered racist for someone else to do it. But since we're dealing with the Chosen, they are above such criticism.

Ouden
30th June 04, 10:56 PM
Typo's suck when you can't edit them out to look super cool.

Diggler McFeely
30th June 04, 11:13 PM
I lost track. What's the subject of this argument again?

Tetsou
30th June 04, 11:15 PM
I lost track. What's the subject of this argument again?

They're talking about beers on tap.

Diggler McFeely
30th June 04, 11:22 PM
Finally! A worthwhile subject!

Bukow
30th June 04, 11:52 PM
I could once again disassemble your argument, as you show a willfull disregard for the facts of history in almost every instance you cite, and respond with corrections (as I did in my previous posts.)

However, your statements


Do some more reading. If a group of people winds up getting discriminated against or persecuted in every single country they arrive in and stay in long periods of time, is it truly always the fault of the persecuter? Maybe that group of people should look into just what they're doing to cause such responses.

and:



...there were no gas chambers (other than those used to clean clothing)....

and it becomes clear that you're not interested in a rational debate, but rather an anti-Semite who's not nearly as concerned with the facts as you are with your insecurity about Jews.

p.s. Seek counseling if Ben Stiller and/or Jerry Seinfeld scare you.

Kumbukk
1st July 04, 12:12 AM
I agree with Ouden

Ouden
1st July 04, 12:32 AM
I could once again disassemble your argument, as you show both a willfull disregard for the facts of history in almost every instance you cite, and respond with corrections (as I did in my previous posts.)

Or in the real world you would continue to ignore things that don't fit your pro-Israeli stories (or in other words, just about everything I wrote) while claiming I am only listening to pro-Palestinian items. There's a word for that, but I'm sure you know what it is.


and it becomes clear that you're not interested in a rational debate, but rather an anti-Semite who's not nearly as concerned with the facts as you are with your insecurity about Jews.

p.s. Seek counseling if Ben Stiller and/or Jerry Seinfeld scare you.

I find both of them to be pretty funny actually.

There's a ton of information out there on the Holocaust, but of course, since that upsets your worldview, you would rather go for the buzzword than dare look into it. Indeed I've gone over that topic pretty well on these forums in the past. If you're somehow an anti-Semite for reexamining history (which is really what all history is) and then citing the information from that, I don't think that speaks highly of the "established" history. Since the curator of the Auschwitz camp admitted that the gas chambers there were built after the war by the Communists, does that make him an anti-Semite? Since Auschwitz lowered the death count from 4 million to 1.5 million, does that make them anti-Semites? Since they have admitted that no "death camps" existed inside Germany's borders does that make them anti-Semites?

How dare you study the British Empire, that makes you an anti-Britite. Who are you to study the Spanish Inquisition? That makes you an anti-Christian.

Cybsled
1st July 04, 07:20 AM
The Nazis killed a shitload of other people, most notably Russians. Partisans attacked a Nazi supply camp? They'd goto a random Russian village and gun down 100 random people per German soldier killed.

Hitler ordered the execution of any commando type units, which included a very broad category of people including ANY French caught fighting vs. Axis forces. This made Rommel go apeshit during the North African campaign since he was very old school, and fortunately for many of the people he captured he had alot of clout with Hitler.

And the name escapes me, but some high ranking Nazi official was assassinated in Yugoslavia I believe. The SS went to a town suspected of being the home of at least one of the assassins. They took the babies and put them in homes to be raised as Lil' Nazis. They then killed everyone in the town, blew up the buildings, then PLOWED the town into nothing. They literally erased it from the earth.

But you know, they were "evil" not evil.

beck
1st July 04, 08:27 AM
no gas chambers...hehe..funny.

Ouden
1st July 04, 11:37 AM
The Nazis killed a shitload of other people, most notably Russians.

But you know, they were "evil" not evil.

I don't believe I ever said no one died in the war. If you can find where I said "The Germans killed absolutely no one ever." I'd appreciate the source on it.

But see, it's the hypocritical nature of the onesidedness (Bukow will appreciate this aspect, since he loves being onesided himself) in that the Germans were the "bad guys." You see we don't mention things like the Soviets murdering 23,000 Polish soldiers and civilians in Katyn Forest, we don't mention the British and American firebombing of Dresden in which more civilians were killed than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and also far more people died there than in all of the Battle of Britain. Hell that "experiment" as they called it probably cost more Allied lives than anything, because it just made the Germans fight that much harder because Dresden was a non-military city, it didn't even have much in the way of air defense. It was a city for refugee's. We also don't mention the thousands upon thousands of German soldiers that we Americans purposely starved to death after the war in camps. We don't mention the organized campaign of genocide and rape the Soviets waged on the German civilians throughout the East. I could go on.

You see those kind of things don't fit the "good guy/bad guy" cheerleader propaganda. That's why they don't make that much of the fact that while we were fighting "for the freedom of Europe" we allied with the most oppressive regime in the history of the world, and let them rule half of Europe for about 50 years. Not to mention the other ally that was at that time the biggest Empire in the world and not a free nation. Hell supposedly the war started to save Poland, but at the end of the war who was ruling Poland? Doesn't look like they saved anything.


no gas chambers...hehe..funny.

It's not like you would even be able to think rationally on the matter anyway. I've provided many source materials before, and that was only a small amount of what is available. I could even mention that never once has there been found a corpse that was killed by gas, only disease and hunger. I could mention that tons of Jews continued to die even after the war was over and the Americans held the camps from disease and hunger, but it would go in one ear and out the other. There's a lot of things I could mention, but since you are, as Bukow said, part "persecuted minority" you won't be able to think rationally on the subject.

edit- And that is not an attack on your heritage, more just a statement of fact. Although there have been Jewish people that have looked into the Holocaust as well, and have in fact provided some excellent information such as David Cole who did the video documentary where the Auschwitz curator admitted that the gas chambers there were built after the war.

Phrost
1st July 04, 11:44 AM
I have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

So here's an utterly tasteless, a-politically derrived picture:

beck
1st July 04, 11:54 AM
uh, I'm not Jewish.

Ouden
1st July 04, 11:55 AM
No way! Two can play! (That's right, a Transformers the Movie reference to rock your world)

Ouden
1st July 04, 11:56 AM
uh, I'm not Jewish.

I could have sworn at one time a long while back you said you were part?

Phrost
1st July 04, 11:59 AM
Wasn't that part played by Weird Al?

Anyway, I'd come up with a "Tomahowned" but a.) I'm too lazy to google for a pic of an apache shooting a missle at a car in the west bank, and b.) 'tomahowned' is a bit of a stretch.

Ouden
1st July 04, 12:13 PM
Don't think Weird Al played any parts, at least IMDB says he didn't, although his Dare to be Stupid was rocking during the Junkicons fight.

Phrost
1st July 04, 12:18 PM
Yeah.

Ultimate Rocky-esque/Hulk Hogan (or sublimated Jesus' resurrection myth) moment of the eighties:

Hot Rod opens the Matrix, becomes Rodimus Prime, and kicks the crap out of Galvitron.

Ouden
1st July 04, 12:42 PM
You've got the touch......... You've got the power......!

Bukow
1st July 04, 03:37 PM
But see, it's the hypocritical nature of the onesidedness (Bukow will appreciate this aspect, since he loves being onesided himself)


True. I love to be on the right side.



in that the Germans were the "bad guys." You see we don't mention things like the Soviets murdering 23,000 Polish soldiers and civilians in Katyn Forest,


It is certainly mentioned, and is a well documented fact that everyone recognizes at this point. It's standard fare for any university's "Eastern European History" class. (I know it, because that's where I first read about it.)



we don't mention the British and American firebombing of Dresden in which more civilians were killed than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and also far more people died there than in all of the Battle of Britain.


Weird that it's never mentioned, since there was both a book out on the subject last year, and a multi-page write up on it in <i>Liberty</i> magazine. Everyone who knows anything about the Dresden campaign admits it was very much a terroristic action, and a war crime.



We don't mention the organized campaign of genocide and rape the Soviets waged on the German civilians throughout the East. I could go on.

Oh come on. The Soviets were demonized (rightly, I might add) for nearly half a century. Our alliance with them was one of convenience, forged in the need to defeat a common foe. Only the "useful idiots" and apologists for Moscow, and their agents and fellow-travellers abroad, thought the Soviets were a force for good. Everyone else -- everyone who cared, anyway -- saw them as at least as bad as the Germans.



You see those kind of things don't fit the "good guy/bad guy" cheerleader propaganda. That's why they don't make that much of the fact that while we were fighting "for the freedom of Europe" we allied with the most oppressive regime in the history of the world, and let them rule half of Europe for about 50 years.


Yet we stopped them from ruling the other half of Europe for those same 50 years. We opposed them all over the globe. You talk like there never was a Cold War. Just as one example, contrast the attitude you're portraying with Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?



Not to mention the other ally that was at that time the biggest Empire in the world and not a free nation.


The U.K. was an empire, certainly. But unfree? It was not unfree at home. This is not to whitewash the evils of colonialism, but Britian was essentially as free a place as anywhere at that time.



It's not like you would even be able to think rationally on the matter anyway...
There's a lot of things I could mention, but since you are, as Bukow said, part "persecuted minority" you won't be able to think rationally on the subject....
edit- And that is not an attack on your heritage, more just a statement of fact.


I'm very comforted by your assertions that this is not an anti-Semitic remark.



I've provided many source materials before, and that was only a small amount of what is available. I could even mention that never once has there been found a corpse that was killed by gas, only disease and hunger, but it would go in one ear and out the other.

Here are some source materials that, like the thousands of eyewitness accounts, a staggering amount of historical research, and the mass graves littering Eastern Europe, rebut your argument:

Aronsfeld, C. C. "A Propos of a British 'Historical Review': Facts of the Holocaust." Patterns of Prejudice 8 (July/Aug. 1974): 11-16.

________. "Debauchers of the Truth: How the Facts of the Holocaust are Being Distorted." Jewish Frontier 45 (June/July 1978): 9-13.

Bullock, Alan. "The Schicklgruber Story." New York Review of Books 24 (26 May 1977): 10-15.

Conway, John S. "History, Hitler, and the Holocaust." International History Review 7 (1985): 441-451.

Greene, Wallace. "The Holocaust Hoax: A Rejoinder." Jewish Social Studies 46 (1984): 263-276.

Huttenbach, Henry R. Review of The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, by Walter N. Sanning. Martyrdom and Resistance 11 (Sept.-Oct. 1984): 2, 12.

Jones, Mitchell. The Leuchter Report: A Dissection. Cedar Park, TX: 21st Century Logic, 1992.

Klarsfeld, Serge, ed. The Holocaust and the Neo-Nazi Mythomania. Trans. Barbara Rucci. New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1978.

Kulka, Erich. The Holocaust is Being Denied! The Answer of Auschwitz Survivors. Trans. Lilli Kopecky. Tel-Aviv: The Committee of Auschwitz Camps Survivors in Israel, 1977.

Laqueur, Walter. "Springtime for Hitler." New York Times Book Review, 3 April 1977, pp. 13, 47.

Pressac, Jean-Claude. Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989.

Rosenthal, Ludwig. "The Final Solution to the Jewish Question": Mass-Murder or Hoax? An Evaluation of the Evidence in the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. From November 14, 1945, to October 1, 1946. Trans. Regina Lackner. Berkeley, CA: Western Jewish History Center, Judah L. Magnes Memorial Museum, 1984.

Sereny, Gitta. "The Men Who Whitewash Hitler." New Statesman 98 (2 Nov. 1979): 670-673.

Shapiro, Shelly, ed. Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial. The End of "The Leuchter Report." New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, and Albany: Holocaust Survivors & Friends in Pursuit of Justice, 1990.

Smith, Bradley F. "Two Alibies [sic] for the Inhumanities: A. R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and David Irving, Hitler's War." German Studies Review 1 (1978): 327-335.

Suzman, Arthur. The Holocaust: The Falsehoods and the Facts. Johannesburg: South African Jewish Board of Deputies, 1980.

Suzman, Arthur, and Denis Diamond. Six Million Did Die: The Truth Shall Prevail. Johannesburg: South African Jewish Board of Deputies, 1977.

Sydnor, Charles W., Jr. "The Selling of Adolf Hitler: David Irving's Hitler's War." Central European History 12 (1979): 169-199.

Waite, Robert G. L. "The Hitler Whitewash." Jewish Digest 23 (Oct. 1977): 5-8.

________. "The Perpetrator: Hitler and the Holocaust." In Human Responses to the Holocaust: Perpetrators and Victims, Bystanders and Resisters. Ed. Michael D. Ryan. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1981, 15-31.

Mesmer
1st July 04, 04:03 PM
Yawn.

Merauk
1st July 04, 05:05 PM
And the name escapes me, but some high ranking Nazi official was assassinated in Yugoslavia I believe. The SS went to a town suspected of being the home of at least one of the assassins. They took the babies and put them in homes to be raised as Lil' Nazis. They then killed everyone in the town, blew up the buildings, then PLOWED the town into nothing. They literally erased it from the earth.


The person in question was Reinhard Heydrich who organized the meeting where the final solution was devised. After his success in putting forth this plan he was put in charge of Bohemia and Monrovia. He was assassinated in Prague and in response the town of Lidice was burned, dynamited, and then bulldozed to remove all traces of existence.

Ouden
1st July 04, 05:49 PM
True. I love to be on the right side.

Yeah, me too. Why I'm always so cheerful. And damn you for derailing Phrack's derailment of your and mine's previous derailment.


It is certainly mentioned, and is a well documented fact that everyone recognizes at this point. It's standard fare for any university's "Eastern European History" class. (I know it, because that's where I first read about it.)

I am referring to 'mainstream' history. You'd possibly be surprised how many people have never heard of it, or how many people believe the Germans were responsible for it, being as that was the war-time propaganda about the Katyn Forest. It's not something that gets mentioned every week on the "Hitler" Channel.


Weird that it's never mentioned, since there was both a book out on the subject last year, and a multi-page write up on it in <i>Liberty</i> magazine. Everyone who knows anything about the Dresden campaign admits it was very much a terroristic action, and a war crime.

One book and one article in one year, wow? There's been what, 23208358023503205230572350283750238509238509823509 8239058209853098359823095820938 books on the Holocaust itself. Again, it's another thing that most people don't know about, and if they do they don't know many of the details. Of course many people acknowledge it was a war crime, but that doesn't mean that the man that ordered it didn't get honored. In fact the Germans were protesting just recently when he was being honored.


Oh come on. The Soviets were demonized (rightly, I might add) for nearly half a century. Our alliance with them was one of convenience, forged in the need to defeat a common foe. Only the "useful idiots" and apologists for Moscow, and their agents and fellow-travellers abroad, thought the Soviets were a force for good. Everyone else -- everyone who cared, anyway -- saw them as at least as bad as the Germans.

Yet we stopped them from ruling the other half of Europe for those same 50 years. We opposed them all over the globe. You talk like there never was a Cold War. Just as one example, contrast the attitude you're portraying with Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Yes they were demonized for nearly half a century, alliance of convenience or not, it was still hypocritical. And it is still hypocritical today when we say that we "freed" Europe by beating the Nazi's when we assuredly did not. Although we might have if Patton had been allowed to attack the Soviets as he wanted to.

Where did I say there was no Cold War? I'm pointing out that the American-centric history we get here often glosses over things with the good guy-bad guy simple explanation, which simply isn't true, and while it is a good way to end a book or a movie, real life isn't that simple. I'm pointing out that we did not in fact liberate Europe, and you're using the half of Europe and standoffs around the globe to debunk that, when that doesn't really have anything to do with the bottomline statement that I made.


The U.K. was an empire, certainly. But unfree? It was not unfree at home. This is not to whitewash the evils of colonialism, but Britian was essentially as free a place as anywhere at that time.

I was referring to the Empire, not the British Isles. I'm sure the Japanese felt fairly "free" at home as well, but we fought them because they were trying to become a bigger Empire. Again, shades of gray, not "good-guy/bad-guy"


I'm very comforted by your assertions that this is not an anti-Semitic remark.

Thanks snookums.


Here are some source materials that, like the thousands of eyewitness accounts, a staggering amount of historical research, and the mass graves littering Eastern Europe, rebut your argument:

The eyewitnesses also claimed that the Germans were using methods of execution that were scientifically impossible at that time, and still are scientificially impossible today (such as a room that filled with water, electrified all of the victims, and then the floor turned so hot that it turned all of them into ash within seconds, and then the floor rose and dumped the ash in waiting trucks) Some also falsely identified a person as being "Ivan the Terrible" and were 100% sure that it was the same person, but of course it turned out not to be him. Unfortunately there are more holes in the story than Swiss cheese, and until it isn't anti-Semitic to examine the Holocaust those holes will still be there.

Another thing that should be noted is that the Holocaust didn't even become an issue until 1960 or so. Before that it was mostly a footnote of the war, then suddenly it became more important than the war itself. That's kind of strange, but I wouldn't want to suggest that it could be being used for political leverage or anything like that.

Here's a few resources for you:

Truth Behind the Gates of Auschwitz: David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper (video)

The Holocaust Industry - Professor Norman G. Finkelstein

My Banned Holocaust Interview - Mattogno

Stalin's War of Extermination - Joachim Hoffman

Dachau: Hour of the Avenger - Colonel Howard A. Buechner

Execution by Hunger: the Hidden Holocaust - Miron Dolot

Hitler's War - David Irving

Did Six Million Really Die? - Richard Harwood

Destruction of Dresden - David Irving

The Leuchter Report: Auschwitz : The End of the Line : The First Forensic Examination of Auschwitz - Freda Leuchter

Innocent at Dachau - Joseph Halow

The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses - Paul Rassinier

The Myth of the Six Million - David Hoggan

Did Six Million Really Die? - Kulaszka

The Man Who Invented 'Genocide' - James J. Martin

Origins of the Second World War - A.J.P. Taylor

A Terrible Revenge: Ethnic Cleansing of East European Germans, 1944-1950 - Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism - Ben Weintraub

The First Holocaust - Don Heddesheimer

An Eye for an Eye - John Sack

The Great Holocaust Trial - Gustave (video)

Germany Must Perish - Theodore N. Kaufman

The Auschwitz Lie - Christophersen

The Jewish War of Survival - Leese


Yawn.

I agree actually.

Cybsled
1st July 04, 10:06 PM
Ah yes, thats it...thanks Merauk.

Merauk
2nd July 04, 11:31 AM
Another thing that should be noted is that the Holocaust didn't even become an issue until 1960 or so. Before that it was mostly a footnote of the war, then suddenly it became more important than the war itself.

The Holocaust had nothing to do with why the war was fought, I wouldn't call it a footnote of the war though. Eisenhower specifically made soldiers march through the camps and film taken so that history would record what was done. The Holocaust and WWII wasn't about the suffering of just the Jewish people, they did suffer disproportionally to the rest of the worlds population when you compare percentages. 3-4% of the Russian population was savaged, in some cases 100% of the Jewish population in an area was eliminated.

Ouden
2nd July 04, 12:05 PM
The Holocaust had nothing to do with why the war was fought, I wouldn't call it a footnote of the war though. Eisenhower specifically made soldiers march through the camps and film taken so that history would record what was done. The Holocaust and WWII wasn't about the suffering of just the Jewish people, they did suffer disproportionally to the rest of the worlds population when you compare percentages. 3-4% of the Russian population was savaged, in some cases 100% of the Jewish population in an area was eliminated.

Footnote was probably the wrong wording, what I meant was before that time it was not the major (and possibly main) focus that it is now. For example before that time encyclopedia's usually had very short entries on it, that often didn't even mention gas chambers. The history recorded by the troops is the history of what happened in the last few months of the war, not necessarily what happened during the entire war. Of course they found horrible scenes of starvation and disease (I've never denied that), those scenes were also playing themselves out in the German civilian population, but I do imagine they were worse in a compacted area like a camp.

I think saying they suffered more than other groups is incorrect (if you are talking about deaths alone - because according to almanac information their world population barely changed, but that's another of those things you aren't supposed to mention). If you mean overall in being moved into labor camps for later emigration out of the nation, along with all of the disease and starvation, probably yeah.

The Russian populations suffered just as much under the Bolsheviks in the gulags, but we don't have thousands upon thousands of books, movies, and articles popping out every few years about them. The Chinese suffered pretty heavily under the Japanese, but we don't see the same amount of everything either.

Even if the Holocaust is not the least bit exaggerated, and everything ever said is 100% true (which obviously it isn't), it still wouldn't mean that their suffering is more important than any other and we should only hear about theirs while practically ignoring all other's.

Kela
3rd July 04, 10:48 AM
You're gonna have a few couch crashers in Mexico Shortee!