Harpo accuses UN of anti-semitism.....

[fuji]

Here is you in 506 asserting that killing civilians is not murder:

Shooting at a judge in a civilian context has nothing to do with the discussion. Nor does the civilian charge of murder.

Hey what did they charge Semrau with again??? Oh yeah. Murder.

That WAS a war crimes trial dude. The international prosecutions kick in only when the host government fails to prosecute it. It doesn't suddenly become a war crime just because the host refuses to do so, it's a war crime from the get go, properly prosecuted as murder in that case. (Well properly other than he was properly acquitted.)

 

[luv2eatpussy]

Hey luv, you should change your terminology.
Criticism of zionism and the state of Israel is not anti-semitic or racist.
However, saying that you are anti-semitic says that you are a racist, which you say you are not.

So here you go:
Are you a racist anti-semitic type or just one non-racist cunt licker who is critical of the state of Israel?

I am gonna say I'm gonna walk that line of in between... cause in a sense I hate both. Maybe, I just really hate Zionist Jews.

BTW, some Jews (Zionists) are extremely critical. My old Jewish co-worker is a prime example of that... "his solution bomb all the Palestinians, they are good for nothing anyways"
And THIS WHAT MAKES ME HATE THEM SO MUCH..... their hate of someone who is not so different at all, at least racially, more likely religiously. I went to nightschool in area with a lot of jews around 2001, when all that shit was going on in Israel and Palestine. About 1/3 of the class was jewish... and pretty much all of them (except 1or 2 ppl) felt that the solution was let the palestinians suffer, they deserve it and we should bomb them etc etc. I am glad my teach was a sikh and he definitely discussed that topic far more in depth and brought more prospective on that topic. Is that what they REALLY teach, HATE?!?! Come on really..?!?

This is my generation...... late 20's. I've seen that majority of the Jews I've meet in my lifetime have fit this description of a Zionist Jew. I have met a few Jewish friends and the one thing we can all agree on, is PEACE in the MIDDLE EAST.

 

[rld]

Tell me what is the difference...... really?

Let us begin oh one with a strange degree from a unknown place:

1) one is secular, one is religious

2) one despises judaism, on exalts judaism

3) one has a racial hierarchy system and a plan for massive genocide that it implemented and one did not.

4) one is based on a democracy, one specifically rejected democracy.

5) one has an anti-intellectual philosophy and one does not

6) one nation attacked its neighbours without provocation, one nation was attacked by its neighbours without provocation.


I am not suggesting that zionism is right, or Israel is a model nation, but to compare the two is just kind of stupid and hurts your credibility out of the gate. They are about as different as communism and fascism.

Where was that history degree from again?

And you did use the term anti-semitic improperly...I hope. I blame your professors.

 

[rld]

Here is you in 506 asserting that killing civilians is not murder:

Shooting at a judge in a civilian context has nothing to do with the discussion. Nor does the civilian charge of murder.

Hey what did they charge Semrau with again??? Oh yeah. Murder.

That WAS a war crimes trial dude. The international prosecutions kick in only when the host government fails to prosecute it. It doesn't suddenly become a war crime just because the host refuses to do so, it's a war crime from the get go, properly prosecuted as murder in that case. (Well properly other than he was properly acquitted.)

Keep running chicken shit.

In a war crimes trial the prosecution must prove that the victim was the member of a protected class. Yes or no?

 

[fuji]

In a war crimes trial the prosecution must prove that the victim was the member of a protected class. Yes or no?

You missed the the word "intended". If you fail to kill your intended victim it becomes attempted murder, unless you actually killed someone else.

 

[rld]

Afraid to answer the question coward?

Find me a war crimes conviction, case or text that supports your bizarre approach. You can't because it is fantasy.

And if you look at my question there is no place or need for the word "intended". But nice try.

 

[fuji]

Find me a war crimes conviction, case or text that supports your bizarre approach. You can't because it is fantasy.

You mean other than the Semrau case, which I've mentioned repeatedly here?

 

[fuji]

And if you look at my question there is no place or need for the word "intended". But nice try.

That's because your question is wrong. If you want to relate it back to an attempt to kill civilians (what we're discussing) you're going to need to put the word intended in there, and the charge will flip from murder to attempted murder.

 

[fuji]

You really can't be that thick? My bad, of course you can. The charge was wrong. It couldn't be proved to the satisfaction of the court/law.

He was found not guilty by reason of lack of evidence. What is relevant to the present discussion is not whether Semrau is guilty or innocent, but what sort of charge is brought in a war crimes case. In his case the charge brought was murder. Nobody contested that murder was the appropriate charge--what was contested was whether there was evidence enough to convict him of it. There wasn't.

(See I went easy on you because you tried to make a point this time.)

 

[luv2eatpussy]

Let us begin oh one with a strange degree from a unknown place:

1) one is secular, one is religious

2) one despises judaism, on exalts judaism

3) one has a racial hierarchy system and a plan for massive genocide that it implemented and one did not.

4) one is based on a democracy, one specifically rejected democracy.

5) one has an anti-intellectual philosophy and one does not

6) one nation attacked its neighbours without provocation, one nation was attacked by its neighbours without provocation.


I am not suggesting that zionism is right, or Israel is a model nation, but to compare the two is just kind of stupid and hurts your credibility out of the gate. They are about as different as communism and fascism.

Where was that history degree from again?

And you did use the term anti-semitic improperly...I hope. I blame your professors.

yes, I did kind-of term it incorrectly...there was an amendment to that...

Again you only pointing out the differences... there are many parallels as well.

Point 1 - entirely valid
Point 2 - entirely valid, although you are looking from the perspective of purely Judaism... lets fix to to be more bi-partisan.....
one exalts the arryan(German-based) state, one exalts judaism

Point 3 can not apply from that particular perspective, because technically you are talking past tense, as the era of zionist is not over yet. their actions are yet to be determined.

Part 4, breakdown everything about Nazism and Zionists, you find common themes of Nationalism, traditionalism, and more-importantly an enthicstate.....
You are looking strictly by "is it this or this"? Moreso, you mat want to investigate the common themes between. Democracy isn't even part of the conversation, you just bring it up an a possible difference between the two.

point 6 - i think the term you are looking for is "annexed"
Both the Nazi's and Israel annexed their rivals.

Let me add a point.... so about about the West Bank and Gaza..... are those not ghettos for Palestinians? Both Nazis and Zionists, push their victims into mass ghettos.....
The living standard may be slightly better, still similar situation....

Did not the Nazi's amass a large military force prior to attacking...?!?! What has Israel been doing since they even GOT a country.....?? Yes, I understand, they have to defend themselves, not saying identical reason, but similarily can be said about the Nazis.

Furthermore, you comparing direct policies like apples to apples, rather than the actions of the groups themselves and the actions of the people, all I said, they are similar..... I did not say there were huge differences... as there is.

And you totally, ignored the rest of my post.... hahaha

 

[blackrock13]

He was found not guilty by reason of lack of evidence. What is relevant to the present discussion is not whether Semrau is guilty or innocent, but what sort of charge is brought in a war crimes case. In his case the charge brought was murder. Nobody contested that murder was the appropriate charge--what was contested was whether there was evidence enough to convict him of it. There wasn't.

(See I went easy on you because you tried to make a point this time.)

A crystal clear example of Fuzzy Fuji Logic. Fuji you're a self absorb narcissistic gold plated a-hole. I have no doubt that if I'm wrong somebody, other than you, will claim I'm mistaken; we shall see.

 

[rld]

And you totally, ignored the rest of my post.... hahaha

Well the rest of your point was primarily personal observations...which is just that. Not much to discuss, you say you saw and heard x and y, and I believe you did. I wasn't there to dispute it.

I do totally agree with you that we need peace in the middle east. I do not think there is hope of achieving it until the current enemies of Israel accept the right of that nation to exist.

You make some good points about being backward looking and ethnically focussed, but you have logical gaps otherwise.

And I don't mean annexed. I mean attacked. Germany was an aggressor state that invaded a number of sovereign nations, while Israel was a state that was attacked by its neighbours. One was the aggressor and one was the target.

You hurt your own credibility by comparing a nation whose actions are open to criticism, to one of the worst regimes in modern history. It is like saying some guy who slaps his girlfriend is as bad as Paul Bernardo. And the comparing to the Nazis thing is just so overdone...

 

[rld]

He was found not guilty by reason of lack of evidence. What is relevant to the present discussion is not whether Semrau is guilty or innocent, but what sort of charge is brought in a war crimes case. In his case the charge brought was murder. Nobody contested that murder was the appropriate charge--what was contested was whether there was evidence enough to convict him of it. There wasn't.

(See I went easy on you because you tried to make a point this time.)

You really know nothing Fuji. Perhaps less than nothing because you have to make things up to support your worldview.

We have no idea why he was found not guilty. None. In Canada we don't get to ask juries why they make findings. They just do.

 

[rld]

The victim in Samaru was a protected person. The crown led evidence to prove same. Sorry, try again.

 

[rld]

That's because your question is wrong. If you want to relate it back to an attempt to kill civilians (what we're discussing) you're going to need to put the word intended in there, and the charge will flip from murder to attempted murder.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

 

[basketcase]

Actually, no I don't see anti-semitism as problem. Its an overblown issue today, a lot of it stemming from the Holocaust. As I said, it is used an excuse to prove it exists today.
My anti-semitism stems from the way Jews in today's world see themselves. They funnel billions in weapons and military, claiming it to be aid to help build Israel. Branding people as terrorists, because a difference in belief/religion. The Zionist Jews, are no different from the Nazis. ...

Thank you for admitting your bias.

As for the second part of your statement, Palestinian militants have been branded terrorists because they have committed attacks on civilians, at shopping malls, at cafes, etc. Israel has also condemned a former Jewish political party as terrorists and banned them from politics.

Second, the Nazis were determined to eliminate the Jewish race. Israel is determined to continue to exist. German citizens who were Jewish were rounded up and sent to death camps. Israeli citizens who are Arab (Muslim or Christian) have complete legal protection and serve in all sorts of capacities including ministers in the government and supreme court judges. Since you have studied the Holocaust, you should be very familiar with the Nuremberg Laws and it would be quite simple for you to analyze which of Israeli Laws compare. You might even take the time to comment on the concentration camps where Israel holds and slaughters millions of Palestinians - oh wait, there is no such thing, just pathetic attempts at scoring propaganda points.

If you want to see Palestinians being treated like the Nazis treated Jews, take a look a little further north in the wonderful state of Lebanon where Palestinians are banned from owning land, banned from the education system, and banned from working in a wide variety of professions.

I don't think the problem is that the world doesn't care but the rather that some people have a very incomplete one sided information.

I AM NOT racist the average Jew... I have Jewish friends. I am more so against the Zionist state that Israel is and what it represents and I'm not afraid to voice that out.

Yet your comments are directed at Jews, not those who support the bad stuff Israel does.

p.s. your post even goes on to blame the "Jews and Israelis".


And for disclosure, I am a zionist non-Jew in that I support the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish Democratic state. At the same time I am pro-Palestinian because I support the existence of a democratic Palestinian state. Criticize Israel for the bad things that Israel does but don't just accept what the blogs you read say (it would also be bad to criticize the Palestinian state(s) for the bad things they do).

 

[basketcase]

I am gonna say I'm gonna walk that line of in between... cause in a sense I hate both. Maybe, I just really hate Zionist Jews.

BTW, some Jews (Zionists) are extremely critical. My old Jewish co-worker is a prime example of that... "his solution bomb all the Palestinians, they are good for nothing anyways"
And THIS WHAT MAKES ME HATE THEM SO MUCH.....

That is a fair opinion. Blame the idiots who advocate (or would accept) the slaughter of people. Of course, both sides of the conflict have plenty. Unfortunately, the Palestinians in Gaza are ruled by just such a group of people.

 

[basketcase]

...
Part 4, breakdown everything about Nazism and Zionists, you find common themes of Nationalism, traditionalism, and more-importantly an enthicstate.....
You are looking strictly by "is it this or this"? Moreso, you mat want to investigate the common themes between. Democracy isn't even part of the conversation, you just bring it up an a possible difference between the two. ...

Here's your first flaw. Israel has a significant Arab minority (20%) with complete legal protection.

Your second is that Israel never annexed the West Bank.

The third is that West Bank can not be described as a ghetto (It has an economy that is quickly growing and a government committed to building more civilian infrastructure). Beyond that, Gaza was not blockaded until Hamas started using it as a base to attack Israeli civilians. Before that the border with Israel was open. Even still, thousands of tons of food and aid enter Gaza every week and dozens or even hundreds of people are allowed into Israel for medical and other reasons.

Fourth, your time line is a bit off. Jews had been under significant attack in the area since 1920 and were invaded the instant that their country was officially formed (which was also preceded by attacks from within Palestine). Since they were under attack from the instant the UN announced partition, it makes sense for them to have an army. Otherwise those Jews wouldn't be bothering you about this since all Israeli Jews would have been slaughtered.

Fifth, if you have to fall back on having some similarities, your argument is completely flawed (it would be the same for me to argue that you are the same as a maggot since you have some things in common).


Although I have argued against rld, I agree with him in questioning the value of your history degree.

 

[toguy5252]

yes, I did kind-of term it incorrectly...there was an amendment to that...

Again you only pointing out the differences... there are many parallels as well.

Point 1 - entirely valid
Point 2 - entirely valid, although you are looking from the perspective of purely Judaism... lets fix to to be more bi-partisan.....
one exalts the arryan(German-based) state, one exalts judaism

Point 3 can not apply from that particular perspective, because technically you are talking past tense, as the era of zionist is not over yet. their actions are yet to be determined.

Part 4, breakdown everything about Nazism and Zionists, you find common themes of Nationalism, traditionalism, and more-importantly an enthicstate.....
You are looking strictly by "is it this or this"? Moreso, you mat want to investigate the common themes between. Democracy isn't even part of the conversation, you just bring it up an a possible difference between the two.

point 6 - i think the term you are looking for is "annexed"
Both the Nazi's and Israel annexed their rivals.

Let me add a point.... so about about the West Bank and Gaza..... are those not ghettos for Palestinians? Both Nazis and Zionists, push their victims into mass ghettos.....
The living standard may be slightly better, still similar situation....

Did not the Nazi's amass a large military force prior to attacking...?!?! What has Israel been doing since they even GOT a country.....?? Yes, I understand, they have to defend themselves, not saying identical reason, but similarily can be said about the Nazis.

Furthermore, you comparing direct policies like apples to apples, rather than the actions of the groups themselves and the actions of the people, all I said, they are similar..... I did not say there were huge differences... as there is.

And you totally, ignored the rest of my post.... hahaha

LOL. Having read your posts and responses I can say without fear of any meaningful contradiction, perhaps other than from you, that you are either a racist or an idiot of more likely both.

 

[blackrock13]

LOL. Having read your posts and responses I can say without fear of any meaningful contradiction, perhaps other than from you, that you are either a racist or an idiot of more likely both.

I'll vote for idiot.

Ghettos have been around since the dawn of civilization, not new and oddly enough the Jews have lived in many of them the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, Medieval Europe, Renaissance Europe, the Reformation period, Napoleonic times and Victorian times, and then 20th century. There were many factions in society that have been put in a similar situation, the tanners come to mind, but I can't think of any faction/culture that has been so for such a long 2500 year period, having specific laws laid out targeting them by almost every major country in the known world.

Oddly enough, the one major exception was during the time of Islamic Spain. The Muslims granted Jews and Christians exemption from military service, the right to their own courts of law, and a guarantee of the safety of their property. Islamic territory included present day Iran, Iraq, Turkey, western Russia, the Saudi Arabian peninsula, northern Africa, and, in Europe, Spain, Sicily, and Sardinia. Jews experienced a Golden Age. Jewish poets, scholars, scientists, statesmen, philosophers flourished within and were an integral part of the Arab civilization. For hundreds of years, Jews and Arabs lived together in peace and with mutual respect.

Boy how times have changed.