Rachel Corrie Killed Again. And Again.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Rachel Corrie Killed Again. And Again.

Postby AlicetheKurious » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:16 am

'Corrie' canceled in Canada
Play has potential to offend Jewish community


By RICHARD OUZOUNIAN

'My Name is Rachel Corrie' has been pulled from CanStage's 2007-08 season.

It's curtains for "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" in Canada.

CanStage, the country's largest not-for-profit theater, has reversed its earlier decision and opted not to present the show as part of its 2007-08 season.

Play, about the 23-year-old American activist who died under the wheels of an Israeli bulldozer in 2003, was originally produced at London's Royal Court Theater in 2005.

James Nicola programmed it this year for the New York Theater Workshop, but that production was canceled after resistance from board members and subscribers. Show was eventually produced Off Broadway, where it ran for two months.

"It didn't seem as powerful on the stage as it did on the page," said CanStage creative producer Martin Bragg after seeing the production at Gotham's Minetta Lane Theater.

But in a situation eerily similar to the one that faced Nicola, it appears that Bragg faced pressure from some of his board members not to alienate Toronto's Jewish community.

While admitting he has neither read nor seen the script, CanStage board member Jack Rose said, "My view was it would provoke a negative reaction in the Jewish community."

Philanthropist Bluma Appel, after whom CanStage's flagship theater is named, concurred. "I told them I would react very badly to a play that was offensive to Jews," she said.

Bragg denied he was lobbied by the board in any way and insisted, "I pick the plays. No one on our board has ever told me what we can and can't do."

CanStage posted a $700,000 loss in its most recent season and is facing a struggle as this year it produced 10 plays, none of which met with critical or audience approval.

On edit: sorry, here's the link:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111795 ... id=19&cs=1
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:49 am

I am well-named indeed, when humanizing the victims of cold-blooded murder is "offensive to Jews".

In the world on the other side of the Looking-Glass, what would be "offensive to Jews" would be that such crimes are committed in their name:

Killing children is no longer a big deal
By Gideon Levy

More than 30 Palestinian children were killed in the first two weeks of Operation Days of Penitence in the Gaza Strip. It's no wonder that many people term such wholesale killing of children "terror." Whereas in the overall count of all the victims of the intifada the ratio is three Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed, when it comes to children the ratio is 5:1. According to B'Tselem, the human rights organization, even before the current operation in Gaza, 557 Palestinian minors (below the age of 18 ) were killed, compared to 110 Israeli minors.

Palestinian human rights groups speak of even higher numbers: 598 Palestinian children killed (up to age 17), according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, and 828 killed (up to age 18 ) according to the Red Crescent. Take note of the ages, too. According to B'Tselem, whose data are updated until about a month ago, 42 of the children who have been killed were 10; 20 were seven; and eight were two years old when they died. The youngest victims are 13 newborn infants who died at checkpoints during birth.

With horrific statistics like this, the question of who is a terrorist should have long since become very burdensome for every Israeli. Yet it is not on the public agenda. Child killers are always the Palestinians, the soldiers always only defend us and themselves, and the hell with the statistics.

The plain fact, which must be stated clearly, is that the blood of hundreds of Palestinian children is on our hands. No tortuous explanation by the IDF Spokesman's Office or by the military correspondents about the dangers posed to soldiers by the children, and no dubious excuse by the public relations people in the Foreign Ministry about how the Palestinians are making use of children will change that fact. An army that kills so many children is an army with no restraints, an army that has lost its moral code.

As MK Ahmed Tibi (Hadash) said, in a particularly emotional speech in the Knesset, it is no longer possible to claim that all these children were killed by mistake. An army doesn't make more than 500 day-to-day mistakes of identity. No, this is not a mistake but the disastrous result of a policy driven mainly by an appallingly light trigger finger and by the dehumanization of the Palestinians. Shooting at everything that moves, including children, has become normative behavior. Even the momentary mini-furor that erupted over the "confirming of the killing" of a 13-year-old girl, Iman Alhamas, did not revolve around the true question. The scandal should have been generated by the very act of the killing itself, not only by what followed.

Iman was not the only one. Mohammed Aaraj was eating a sandwich in front of his house, the last house before the cemetery of the Balata refugee camp, in Nablus, when a soldier shot him to death at fairly close range. He was six at the time of his death. Kristen Saada was in her parents' car, on the way home from a family visit, when soldiers sprayed the car with bullets. She was 12 at the time of her death. The brothers Jamil and Ahmed Abu Aziz were riding their bicycles in full daylight, on their way to buy sweets, when they sustained a direct hit from a shell fired by an Israeli tank crew. Jamil was 13, Ahmed six, at the time of their deaths.

Muatez Amudi and Subah Subah were killed by a soldier who was standing in the village square in Burkin and fired every which way in the wake of stone-throwing. Radir Mohammed from Khan Yunis refugee camp was in a school classroom when soldiers shot her to death. She was 12 when she died. All of them were innocent of wrongdoing and were killed by soldiers acting in our name.

At least in some of these cases it was clear to the soldiers that they were shooting at children, but that didn't stop them. Palestinian children have no refuge: mortal danger lurks for them in their homes, in their schools and on their streets. Not one of the hundreds of children who have been killed deserved to die, and the responsibility for their killing cannot remain anonymous. Thus the message is conveyed to the soldiers: it's no tragedy to kill children and none of you is guilty.

Death is, of course, the most acute danger that confronts a Palestinian child, but it is not the only one. According to data of the Palestinian Ministry of Education, 3,409 schoolchildren have been wounded in the intifada, some of them crippled for life. The childhood of tens of thousands of Palestinian youngsters is being lived from one trauma to the next, from horror to horror. Their homes are demolished, their parents are humiliated in front of their eyes, soldiers storm into their homes brutally in the middle of the night, tanks open fire on their classrooms. And they don't have a psychological service. Have you ever heard of a Palestinian child who is a "victim of anxiety"?

The public indifference that accompanies this pageant of unrelieved suffering makes all Israelis accomplices to a crime. Even parents, who understand what anxiety for a child's fate means, turn away and don't want to hear about the anxiety harbored by the parent on the other side of the fence. Who would have believed that Israeli soldiers would kill hundreds of children and that the majority of Israelis would remain silent? Even the Palestinian children have become part of the dehumanization campaign: killing hundreds of them is no longer a big deal.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pa ... mNo=489479



No, wait! There was one incident that prompted an outcry. No child was killed in this particular instance (which is no big deal, anyway), but it shook Israelis to their very core:


Israel shocked by image of soldiers forcing violinist to play at roadblock


Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Monday November 29, 2004
The Guardian

Of all the revelations that have rocked the Israeli army over the past week, perhaps none disturbed the public so much as the video footage of soldiers forcing a Palestinian man to play his violin.

The incident was not as shocking as the recording of an Israeli officer pumping the body of a 13-year-old girl full of bullets and then saying he would have shot her even if she had been three years old.

Nor was it as nauseating as the pictures in an Israeli newspaper of ultra-orthodox soldiers mocking Palestinian corpses by impaling a man's head on a pole and sticking a cigarette in his mouth.


But the matter of the violin touched on something deeper about the way Israelis see themselves, and their conflict with the Palestinians.

The violinist, Wissam Tayem, was on his way to a music lesson near Nablus when he said an Israeli officer ordered him to "play something sad" while soldiers made fun of him. After several minutes, he was told he could pass.

It may be that the soldiers wanted Mr Tayem to prove he was indeed a musician walking to a lesson because, as a man under 30, he would not normally have been permitted through the checkpoint.

But after the incident was videotaped by Jewish women peace activists, it prompted revulsion among Israelis not normally perturbed about the treatment of Arabs.

The rightwing Army Radio commentator Uri Orbach found the incident disturbingly reminiscent of Jewish musicians forced to provide background music to mass murder. "What about Majdanek?" he asked, referring to the Nazi extermination camp.

The critics were not drawing a parallel between an Israeli roadblock and a Nazi camp. Their concern was that Jewish suffering had been diminished by the humiliation of Mr Tayem.

Yoram Kaniuk, author of a book about a Jewish violinist forced to play for a concentration camp commander, wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that the soldiers responsible should be put on trial "not for abusing Arabs but for disgracing the Holocaust".

"Of all the terrible things done at the roadblocks, this story is one which negates the very possibility of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If [the military] does not put these soldiers on trial we will have no moral right to speak of ourselves as a state that rose from the Holocaust," he wrote.

"If we allow Jewish soldiers to put an Arab violinist at a roadblock and laugh at him, we have succeeded in arriving at the lowest moral point possible. Our entire existence in this Arab region was justified, and is still justified, by our suffering; by Jewish violinists in the camps."

Others took a broader view by drawing a link between the routine dehumanising treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, the desecration of dead bodies and what looks very much like the murder of a terrified 13-year-old Palestinian girl by an army officer in Gaza.

Israelis put great store in a belief that their army is "the most moral in the world" because it says it adheres to a code of "the purity of arms". There is rarely much public questioning of the army's routine explanation that Palestinian civilians who have been killed had been "caught in crossfire", or that children are shot because they are used as cover by fighters.

But the public's confidence has been shaken by the revelations of the past week. The audio recording of the shooting of the 13-year-old, Iman al-Hams, prompted much soul searching, although the revulsion appears to be as much at the Israeli officer firing a stream of bullets into her lifeless body as the killing itself. Some soldiers told Israeli papers that their mothers had sought assurances that they did not do that kind of thing.

One Israeli peace group, the Arik Institute, took out large newspaper adverts to plead for "Jewish patriots" to "open your eyes and look around" at the suffering of Palestinians.

The incidents prompted the army to call in all commanders from the rank of lieutenant-colonel to emphasise the importance of maintaining the "purity of arms" code.

The army's critics say the real problem is not the behaviour of soldiers on the ground but the climate of impunity that emanates from the top.

While the officer responsible for killing Iman al-Hams has been charged with relatively minor offences, and the soldiers who forced the violinist to play were ticked off for being "insensitive", the only troops who were swiftly punished for violating regulations last week were some who posed naked in the snow for a photograph. They were dismissed from their unit.

Last week the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem criticised what it described as a "culture of impunity" within the army. The group says at least 1,656 Palestinian non-combatants have been killed during the intifada, including 529 children.

"To date, one soldier has been convicted of causing the death of a Palestinian," it said.

"The combination of rules of engagement that encourage a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers together with the climate of impunity results in a clear and very troubling message about the value the Israeli military places on Palestinian life."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/ ... 55,00.html
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby darkbeforedawn » Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:53 pm

I just took the time to read the writings of this remarkable young woman. Such life and such intelligence. Even without the circumstances of her tragic murder/suicide she is well worth reading. I would go to a performance of this -- basicly a monologue contructed from her writing.
Her actual ban in this continent another instance of control and censorship we have come to expect from zionists. It's laughable when people still deny that our media is not controled by those pusing the zionists agenda...
darkbeforedawn
 

Postby Truth4Youth » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:17 pm

One thing I don't think I'll ever believe is the claims she was working with terrorists. I love how the neo-con[men] try to say that about her.
User avatar
Truth4Youth
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:27 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yesferatu » Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:18 pm

<<"not for abusing Arabs but for disgracing the Holocaust".>>

My question now is, would Hitler have targeted the Jews if they were not encroaching upon the living space of the Germans?
Would Israel be targeting Palestinians if they weren't being problematic...by being alive...within and around Israeli real estate?
I mean if the Jews were all living far outside Germany's borders, Hitler would not have bothered with genocide ...right?
yesferatu
 


Postby Sweejak » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:48 am

BBC2 "When Killing Is Easy"

BBC PROGRAM PROVES ISRAELI ARMY MURDERED RACHEL CORRIE
By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press

The BBC has released a remarkable film about the killing of three international peace activists by the Israeli army in the occupied Gaza Strip. Documentary evidence provided in the film strongly suggests that the American Rachel Corrie - and two British activists - were murdered.

Last spring, within a period of seven weeks, one British and one American peace activist were killed by the Israeli army in Rafah, a Palestinian town at the southern end of the occupied Gaza Strip. A second Briton was shot in the head leaving him brain-dead. In two of the cases the Israeli army is being blamed for murder; the third is considered attempted murder.

An Israeli military bulldozer crushed the 23-year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie, who was the first to die on March 16, as she tried to prevent it from demolishing a Palestinian doctor's home.

British photographer Tom Hurndall, 22, was left brain dead after being shot in the head by an Israeli soldier on April 11. British cameraman James Miller, 34, was shot by an Israeli sniper as he left a house with two other journalists on May 2.

A recently released 50-minute hard-hitting program produced by the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) investigated the three killings and provides crucial video evidence. 'That's murder', an Israeli soldier said after viewing footage from the film, 'When Killing is Easy.'

'When Killing is Easy' was shown 4 times to a worldwide audience on the commercial BBC World television network on November 22 and 23. Some cable television viewers in the United States would have been able to view the program.

The three international observers died, or nearly died, at the hands of the Israeli military between the middle of March and the first week of May. Hurndall was shot in the head as he took a Palestinian toddler, who had frozen under Israeli fire, into his arms. Today, Hurndall is brain-dead and is kept alive on life-support equipment.

Tom's father, Anthony, is a lawyer in the City of London. After six weeks of investigation, Hurndall has come to the conclusion that the shooting of his son by Israeli forces is 'a case of attempted murder. If Tom dies, and that is a likelihood, then it will be murder,' he said.

Jocelyn Hurndall wrote to The Guardian after an Israeli government check for about $12,000, sent to the Hurndall family to pay for 'a fraction of the expenses incurred,' bounced. When the check finally arrived after five months of negotiations with the Hurndall family, the Israeli government check was not 'honored' by the Bank of Israel, Hurndall wrote. Insufficient funds was the reason given.

According to evidence provided in Sweeney's film, the IDF report on the shooting of Hurndall is completely wrong about where he was, what he was wearing, and what he was doing when an Israeli soldier shot him in the head.

'It is a mind-numbing task to understand the morality and to use the logic of the Israeli government,' Hurndall wrote. 'What hope do Palestinians have when such profound disregard and disrespect is shown to humanity, collectively and individually?'

SILENCED WITNESSES

The BBC film was produced by John Sweeney, whose article on the killings, 'Silenced Witnesses,' was published in The Independent (UK) on Oct. 30.

'Making our film, When Killing is Easy, has been the most harrowing ordeal of my professional life,' Sweeney wrote. 'But it is vital that it is evidential - and that is really tough when the Israeli government and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) have refused to speak to us.'

Rachel Corrie, the first of the three to die, was using her body to defend the home of Dr. Samir Nasser Allah from an American-made bulldozer used by the Israeli army to demolish the homes of Palestinians. Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). ISM members stand between the Israeli bulldozers and the homes that the IDF wants to flatten.

Israeli bulldozers have razed thousands of Palestinian homes in the occupied Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The bulldozers are primarily made by the Illinois-based Caterpillar company.

Tom Dale, an ISM eyewitness, had a clear view of the incident: 'He [the driver] knew absolutely she was there. The bulldozer waited for a few seconds over her body and it then reversed, leaving its scoop down so that if she had been under the bulldozer, it would have crushed her a second time. Only later when it was much more clear of her body did it raise its scoop.'
'MY BACK IS BROKEN'

'My back is broken,' Rachel told Alice Coy, a fellow ISM activist who was with her.

An Israeli pathologist, Dr. Yehudah Hiss, noted that Rachel appeared to have been run over by the bulldozer, Sweeney wrote. Hiss found the cause of death to be 'pressure to the chest.' Her shoulder blades had been crushed; her spine was broken in five places and six ribs broken. Her face was apparently slashed by the bulldozer blade.

The IDF produced a report that says, 'Corrie was not run over by an engineering vehicle.' It added, 'for good measure' Sweeney says, that Corrie was 'hidden from view of the vehicle's operator.'

The footage seen in the BBC film proves these statements to be false. The family of Rachel Corrie believes the IDF report to 'be a blatant fabrication,' Sweeney wrote.

The British cameraman James Miller was shot dead by an Israeli sniper as he left a house in Rafah with two other journalists on the night of May 2. An Associated Press TV News (APTN) cameraman filmed the entire scene.

One of the three journalists held a white flag; Miller was shining a light on the flag and a third journalist held up her British passport. There was no shooting and the area was quiet as the audio track of the film clearly proves.

The three had walked about 60 feet toward an Israeli armed personnel carrier to request safe passage to leave the area when the first shot was fired. 'We are British journalists,'Saira Shah cried out into the darkness.

'Then comes the second shot, which killed James,' Sweeney wrote. 'He was shot in the front of his neck. The bullet was Israeli issue, fired, according to a forensic expert, from less than 200 meters '600 feet] away.'

The IDF maintains that Miller was shot during crossfire, although no shooting is heard on the APTN tape apart from the two shots fired from the Israeli military vehicle.

When the APTN tape was shown to an Israeli soldier, who is shown in the film, he said the television team did not look like Islamic terrorists and concluded: 'That's murder.'

Finis

"My back is broken."
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yesferatu » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:18 pm

yesferatu wrote:<<"not for abusing Arabs but for disgracing the Holocaust".>>

My question now is, would Hitler have targeted the Jews if they were not encroaching upon the living space of the Germans?
Would Israel be targeting Palestinians if they weren't being problematic...by being alive...within and around Israeli real estate?
I mean if the Jews were all living far outside Germany's borders, Hitler would not have bothered with genocide ...right?


I hope the point I made is clear to the Palestinian genocide deniers. Those who are so verbose and vigilant to constantly reply in great length to any who re-visit the holocaust with very simple questions which do not seek to revise history or deny the holocaust, but simply ask certain things, these vigilant defenders are then, in contradistinction, COMPLETELY silent to the Palestinian genocide.
They will not reply to the most appalling facts of this ONGOING human atrocity, such as this story about Rachel Corrie or the tens of thousands of other stories which shine the light on the State policy of genocide by the zionist regime. And by silence is the loudest denial. More so than asking questions about the official story. Rather than the denial by silence, I would be fine with a zionist wanting to question the validity of the hundreds of thousands of surviving Palestinians who have reported the outright human rights crimes against them and their families. At least it is merely questions...not denial, not revision.
But I think we see the mind-set of what is important to the zionists. They care very little how imitative of the nazis they have become. They are silent on that matter. Why should they defend their nazi behavior when they can point to their victimhood by other nazis? What mind-bending rationale they use!! Indeed, any anger they manage to display is "not for abusing Arabs but for disgracing the Holocaust". The rest of the time, they are silent. Genocide deniers. Like the "good German" was, until the "good German" was force-marched thru the death camps by allied commanders after the fall of Hitler, who felt it would do them some good to SEE. At least I saw some of these Germans crying on the films where it shows they were forced to witness the atrocity they allowed. I doubt if a zionist was forced to SEE what the rest of the sane world sees in palestine, that there would be a tear shed. I think they feel Palestinans are problematic ....by being alive. Just as the jews were problematic to Hitler by being alive. That is what murder is all about....one person being a continuing problem to another person by being alive. In both the nazi and zionist regimes, the matter is simple: the murdered are NOT killed because of WHAT they are, but because they are occupying "space" that belongs to the murderer. And if the palestinians are not going to pack up and go elsewhere, well then, genocide. It becomes "logical" to the murderer.
The ordinary citizen is made to hate, while the State enforces the hatred thru official genocidal policies. Many Germans were not nazis. Many Jews are not zionists. But only zionists remain silent about the palestinan matter, when confronted with facts.
yesferatu
 

Postby Jeff » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:04 pm

yesferatu wrote:My question now is, would Hitler have targeted the Jews if they were not encroaching upon the living space of the Germans?
Would Israel be targeting Palestinians if they weren't being problematic...by being alive...within and around Israeli real estate?
I mean if the Jews were all living far outside Germany's borders, Hitler would not have bothered with genocide ...right?


You can't be serious. Can you? What did borders mean to Hitler? Why do you need to go such absurd lengths to blame the victim?

The Nazis understood living space for Germans to encompass all of Europe and Germany's former African colonies at minimum. Slavs would be decimated and their survivors turned to slaves, and Jews would be eradicated.

I've been an absentee admin lately, and it makes me sick to see that's been a license to excuse genocide. That isn't the purpose of this board, and it's not what I'm going to allow it to become.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yesferatu » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:18 pm

Jeff wrote:
yesferatu wrote:My question now is, would Hitler have targeted the Jews if they were not encroaching upon the living space of the Germans?
Would Israel be targeting Palestinians if they weren't being problematic...by being alive...within and around Israeli real estate?
I mean if the Jews were all living far outside Germany's borders, Hitler would not have bothered with genocide ...right?


You can't be serious. Can you? What did borders mean to Hitler? Why do you need to go such absurd lengths to blame the victim?

The Nazis understood living space for Germans to encompass all of Europe and Germany's former African colonies at minimum. Slavs would be decimated and their survivors turned to slaves, and Jews would be eradicated.

I've been an absentee admin lately, and it makes me sick to see that's been a license to excuse genocide. That isn't the purpose of this board, and it's not what I'm going to allow it become.


Genocide of Jews and genocide of Palestinans is disgusting.
I do not excuse any genocide. I like to believe in the brotherhood of man.
Are you saying though, that Hitler would have blamed Jews living in Spain (or pick any country), and would have sought to invade such country, were there no Jews living in Germany?
I mean to provoke discussion about the palestinians being slaughtered. I would like a pro-zionist to tell me why there is silence from them about this. But now I see there will be no such discusion.
I am fine with respecting your wishes.
It's your world. I'm just a squirrel gathering nuts.
Note to M.O. Be pleased and smug in your victory. Enjoy.
Last edited by yesferatu on Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
yesferatu
 

not so fast with a dismissal for Yesterfu

Postby darkbeforedawn » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:20 pm

They care very little how imitative of the nazis they have become. They are silent on that matter. Why should they defend their nazi behavior when they can point to their victimhood by other nazis? What mind-bending rationale they use!! Indeed, any anger they manage to display is "not for abusing Arabs but for disgracing the Holocaust". The rest of the time, they are silent. Genocide deniers. Like the "good German" was, until the "good German" was force-marched thru the death camps by allied commanders after the fall of Hitler, who felt it would do them some good to SEE. At least I saw some of these Germans crying on the films where it shows they were forced to witness the atrocity they allowed. I doubt if a zionist was forced to SEE what the rest of the sane world sees in palestine, that there would be a tear shed. I think they feel Palestinans are problematic ....by being alive. Just as the jews were problematic to Hitler by being alive. That is what murder is all about....one person being a continuing problem to another person by being alive. In both the nazi and zionist regimes, the matter is simple: the murdered are NOT killed because of WHAT they are, but because they are occupying "space" that belongs to the murderer. And if the palestinians are not going to pack up and go elsewhere, well then, genocide. It becomes "logical" to the murderer.
The ordinary citizen is made to hate, while the State enforces the hatred thru official genocidal policies. Many Germans were not nazis. Many Jews are not zionists. But only zionists remain silent about the palestinan matter, when confronted with facts.

I think Yesterfu's response was more modulated than what you have quoted Jeff. He does at some level "blame the victim" but he also goes on to be very critical of the zionist's "blindness" to the Palistinians.
An important distinction might between these two fascists needs to be made. Hitler didn't dehumanize jews just to get their "lebensraum", he did it to begin the legitimization of torture, enslavement, and debasement necessary to run the type of "empire" they were building.
Is this also true of zionists? I doubt it. I think they just want the land, but I could be wrong...just asking.
darkbeforedawn
 

Postby Jeff » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:29 pm

yesferatu wrote:
Jeff wrote:
yesferatu wrote:
Are you saying though, that Hitler would have blamed Jews living in Spain, and would have sought to invade Spain, were there no Jews living in Germany?


The assumption of your hypothetical is that the German Jews were to blame for provoking Hitler into extinguishing them.

Why did Nazis deport the Jews of occupied territories to their extermination if Hitler had issues only with those within Germany's borders?
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yesferatu » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:05 pm

Jeff wrote:
yesferatu wrote:
Jeff wrote:
yesferatu wrote:
Are you saying though, that Hitler would have blamed Jews living in Spain, and would have sought to invade Spain, were there no Jews living in Germany?


The assumption of your hypothetical is that the German Jews were to blame for provoking Hitler into extinguishing them.

Why did Nazis deport the Jews of occupied territories to their extermination if Hitler had issues only with those within Germany's borders?


Jews were not to blame for Hitlers hatred and extermination of them. But Hitler wanted a pure "Fatherland". And living space. Jews were in the way of Hitler's vision of Germany, they weren't leaving, and thus Dachau and all the rest.
I am not saying zionists are as bat-shit crazy as Hitler. I am saying dead is dead. If you kill people because your head is so totally f***ed up like Hitlers was, or you kill people in the simple, cold logic that your victims are "in the way" since they are not going to go away voluntarily, dead is dead.
But never mind. My reputation has been smeared as being unjustly labeled an anti-semite, you seem to have bought that, and so there it is.
I will not add my voice to the palestinian issue on this board. For I cannot discuss the palestinian issue without noting the similarities, ethically speaking, between nazis and zionists. By doing so, I run the risk of people inferring that zionist = jew. So it becomes racial, when I have no racial image in my mind when I speak of the modern zionist. Many are jews. Many are not. Many are Texans. Why am I not labelled anti-Texans? Because that has no political ramifications. When I say "political" in this context, I mean simply what the word means: wielding power. And so you have people drawn like a moth to a flame where they see they can come and wield power. We have seen that played out here.
It is what it is.
yesferatu
 

Postby Jeff » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:22 pm

yesferatu wrote:I will not add my voice to the palestinian issue on this board. For I cannot discuss the palestinian issue without noting the similarities, ethically speaking, between nazis and zionists.


That's not an issue for me, and I don't mean to inhibit conversation on Palestine. My problem is with attempts to rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazis either by denying history or by insinuating their victims had it coming.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:45 pm

I think Palestinian genocide has a lot in common with Native American genocide.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6607
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 148 guests