shooting at DC Holocaust museum

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby jingofever » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:25 pm

Some suspect conspiracy in Holocaust Museum case.

Ghost Troop is apparently a "cyber militia" and if I had to guess, a den of anti-semites. The last line of the article is funny.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby norton ash » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:37 pm

Wow, 16 pages here and tons of argumentative, super-dodgy bullshit on the webs, networks and airwaves.

Old racist nut with a gun WINS BIG!

And to think he could have just shot himself.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:42 pm

Because a fairly large number of people everywhere tend not to like Jews. Period. Which doesn't mean that it logically follows that Jews are therefore automatically entitled to a nation-state on land that's already occupied. Or anything else of a similarly over-dramatic, absurd, and insidious nature.

Yeah those uppity insidious Jews should know their place am i rite. Hmmm hay maybe JUST MAYBE there's a reason that a fairly large number of people everywhere tend not to like Jews period? HEY, WHUT?! I'm juuuussst aaaaaassskkkin' QUESTIONSSSS MAAAAAANNNNNN!

:roll:

--Where is the video evidence of this event?

Yeah come on guys; I mean the FBI keep me personally informed 24/7 with graphic death footage and up to the minute evidence from all ongoing murder investigations apart from THIS one!
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:45 pm

Normally we discuss such issues here in a forthright and honest manner, because that is why we come to this forum in the first place, but when something involves "the jews" suddenly you're an anti-semetic if you even bring up the funny smell arising from this weird weird act

Yeah those jews sure do smell funny.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Oy . . .

Postby justdrew » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:22 pm

jlaw172364 wrote:And I still love how people think that any existing nation is entitled, legally or otherwise, to its land, but not Israel. Is Germany entitled to any land? Maybe they should have put Israel where Germany is and let the Germans wander around the globe for a few millenia.


the people of Germany were not explicitly thrown out of Germany by their LORD God and told not to come back on penalty of death, unlike some other groups I'm sure you could name. but seriously maybe I'm confused... I will now stand for correction. Here's some thoughts on that... http://jewishexile.blogspot.com/2005/08/end-of-exile.html but of course, this is off topic. apologies.
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Postby Penguin » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:24 pm

professorpan wrote:
Question: how does a man get out of a car carrying a "22 caliber rifle" and walk unmolested right into the Holocaust Museum with it?


By doing it?


Around here, people attack armed freaks with bare hands as soon as they see them. Its called "sisu". You know, its not like innocent passersbys would be scared of getting a button in the forehead or sumthing.

But you americans are pussies anyway, so I doubt anyone without a gun (like a guard) would try to stop him. Maybe less gun control and free guns for everyone starting in kindergarten could have prevented this tragedy.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby starviego » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:28 pm

Came across this interesting note:


http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/11/ ... lain-guard
dated 6-11-09
The Washington Post in an editorial Thursday... called on authorities to "thoroughly investigate this incident to confirm that Mr. von Brunn acted alone, as was initially believed."

I wonder if they have information that something else happened..
starviego
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:35 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:53 pm

c2w said:
Because a fairly large number of people everywhere tend not to like Jews. Period.


That is so, so, so, so wrong. What's not to like? People are people. In most societies, there are those who exploit and profit from sectarian divisions; in the case of Jewish people, as with most religious minorities, those who built (and build) the walls were not always on the outside.

Such elements also tend, for various reasons, to extrapolate from certain unique historical circumstances that occurred within very specific times and places in order to paint a highly distorted and self-serving historical narrative that takes on a life of its own. That's not to minimize the real suffering of minorities who were victims of religious or ethnic hatred at certain times. But real "history", as opposed to "hysteria", is far more complicated than the simplistic version that too many of us accept without question, and frequently includes times and places when the roles were reversed.

As a member of a religious minority myself, I'm quite familiar with how that works. I have one relative who can hardly carry on a conversation (on condition there are no Muslims present) without ranting about how Copts are secretly hated and despised by all Muslims -- plus he can list from memory every episode of persecution, no matter how obscure, that occurred during the past 2 millenia, going back to Roman times. God forbid I should point out to this pitiful "victim" that he's a self-made multi-millionaire several times over, that he employs dozens of Muslims and Christians who get along perfectly well, and that his family and their Muslim neighbours are so often at each others' homes that it might as well be one big house.

It makes him positively apoplectic when someone de-rails his tale of woe. For him, anything can be grist for his mill. As one example, there's a current affairs show that specializes in criticizing the regime for its many, many failures and corruption. They don't cut anybody any slack, including the prime minister, the parliament, the Muslim Brotherhood, the minister of agriculture, the minister of industry, you name it. Egypt's finance minister happens to be a Copt, Yousef Boutros Ghali (nephew of the former UN Secretary-General). Ghali is so incompetent (and that's being charitable), he's a menace who's made hundreds of millions of dollars in public money 'disappear', some by gambling the pensions of millions of poor people in Egypt's notoriously volatile stock market; he's sold some of Egypt's most important national banks for prices well below their market value; he's treated striking workers in his own ministry who were asking for barely subsistence wages, with rude contempt. As his reward for helping to bring Egypt's economy to its knees, Ghali's been appointed to the board of governors of the IMF, a great honor for Egypt which is conditional on Ghali's staying on as Egypt's finance minister. Naturally, Ghali gets his own tiny share of criticism on this show.

But my relative insists that the real reason they 'pick on him' him is that he's a Copt. He accuses me of being naive. In vain do I point out that Ghali deserves far worse than the same or even less condemnation as the others get. I remark that the highly-competent minister of environment is also a Copt, and he's always referred to with respect, but my relative is ready with his response: the ministry of environment is not important, that's why they gave it to a Copt! So, I answer that they gave the Finance Ministry to a Copt. And round and round we go until, if we're at his house, his sons come in with their Muslim friends and flop down in front of the tv to watch a game, at which point he clams up.

Though he interprets everything through a sectarian lens, his own life is itself a refutation of what he so firmly believes. Unfortunately, he's not alone, though thank God only a small minority of Copts are like him. He gets his "news" from a dubious publication that appears to exist solely to exacerbate religious divisions (and which approvingly carries opinion pieces by the likes of Daniel Pipes). He regularly watches a mysteriously-funded satellite tv station based in Cyprus whose "star" is a de-frocked Coptic priest who, rather than preach Christ's message of love, uses his slick broadcasts to propagate the most malicious and hostile religious 'analysis' of Islam.

As a result, he does precisely what he accuses 'the Muslims' of doing -- harboring hatred in his heart while smiling in their unsuspecting faces. That's not to minimize the periods in history when Copts did indeed suffer from persecution, but the very worst in terms of terrorism and actual violence was the Roman period and the next worst was when the 'Christian' Byzantine Empire ruled Egypt, which ironically prompted the Copts to support the Muslim conquest of Egypt.

The ensuing centuries witnessed some good times and some bad times, depending on who ruled Egypt and what their agenda was. The worst period under Muslim rule for almost all Egyptians was probably the Mamluke period, from the 13th to the 16th century. But ask any Copt who the cruelest rulers were, from the Copts' point of view, and most will answer without hesitation, "the Fatimids". In the Coptic hysteriography, the Fatimids were the most vicious persecutors of Copts. But independent historians tell a very different story, that the Fatimids were characterized by their tolerance of other sects and religions, including Copts and Jews.

What explains this discrepancy? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that during the Fatimid period, a time of cultural and economic prosperity, marks the turning point when Copts began to be outnumbered by Egyptian converts to Islam.

The period of British rule was quite good for some Copts, at the expense of the Muslim majority, part of the British pattern of elevating elements from minorities in order to 'divide and rule'. Predictably, there are still Copts who look back with nostalgia to that time, though the nationalist revolts in the 1930s were strongly supported by most Copts and Muslims, who fought the British under the banner of the cross and crescent.

All this is to say that history is multi-faceted and complex enough that people can read into it what they are prepared to read, and there's plenty there to support claims of "eternal persecution" if that's what one is looking for, whether one is a Copt, a Jew, a Muslim, a Catholic, a Black person, or even a White person, for that matter. As a nod to the OP, whats-his-name almost certainly nurtured a long list of grievances committed against "his people". Not only are such litanies almost by definition dishonestly selective in the facts they choose to include or suppress, personally, I don't think such "hysteriagraphies" do anything increase our understanding of humanity's common history, still less our capacity to learn from our past and our differences or to promote equal rights for all human beings. All too often, they do the exact opposite, providing a rich store of confessional, ethnic or racial grievances and enemies by which to justify the persecution and oppression of others.

I suspect that the potential to view one's 'tribe' as a righteous victim across the ages is somehow hard-wired into our brains, just as the predilection to divide humanity into "us" and "them". If such 'cosmic victimologies' weren't so tempting, they wouldn't be so prevalent, or so dangerous. But they are.
Last edited by AlicetheKurious on Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:55 pm

Damn. My reply to "I'm ignordic-ing you" just disa-fucking-peared.

This was not about Israel until igNordic posted these gems:

The Israeli-can-do-no-wrong crowd is already starting to milk this for all it's worth.

Just made the mistake of cruising past CNN.

"Help! We're being oppressed!"

Yeah, you and a million other people. Oh, including the Palestinians, big time, by YOU.

I mean, it's a bad thing, but I hate to see a militant group use it to justify their own violence against others.


Which is clearly bullshit of the I'm-making-a-point-by-making-things-up variety. Of course, when I asked for clarifications -- for instance, where did he see/read Jews/Israelis "milking" the murder? Who was claiming to have been "oppressed" in relation to this shooting? -- he didn't answer.

But most importantly, where were Jews/Israelis using the incident to justify crimes/atrocities against the Palestinians?

Because my strong suspicion is -- they weren't doing any of the above, and for whatever reason (not necessarily anti-Semitism) you responded with a knee-jerk reaction based upon how you thought Israelis/Jews would respond.

And that, sir, is telling. I won't even go into your rant about Israel, which begs the question, again, of why Israeli policy was even brought into this discussion.

So go ahead and keep igNordicing me -- and allow others to decide why you won't defend your own words.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:02 pm

starviego wrote:Came across this interesting note:


http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/11/ ... lain-guard
dated 6-11-09
The Washington Post in an editorial Thursday... called on authorities to "thoroughly investigate this incident to confirm that Mr. von Brunn acted alone, as was initially believed."

I wonder if they have information that something else happened..


I think they just want to be thorough -- in part, to squash the already forming "Jews did it/Mossad false flag" bullshit. Also, it's possible that other neo-Nazis *knew* that von Brunn was planning something, which would constitute criminal involvement.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:02 pm

professorpan wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
I would argue that as much as Jewish people may express vocal disapproval for what Israel does (I do), in the backs of their minds, they are thankful that Israel exists. The Zionist gamble appears to have paid off and now their is a Jewish nation state that is not going anywhere anytime soon and which provides benefits to Jews.


You're a fool if you think that Israel (as a power) gives a flying fuck about the welfare of Jews or any other group of people qua a group of people. Also, it's a genocidal, war-mongering state. Please stop speaking for what people who use their minds have in the back of them.

The main reason that we have a big, showy holocaust museum in the nation's capital -- whereas we not only don't have a big, showy slavery museum anywhere, we blithely accept the numerous, beautifully historically preserved plantation estates that are open to the public all over the formerly confederate south as delightful tourist attractions -- is because big, showy holocaust museums help America feel good about getting involved in the kinds of wars in foreign lands that the military-industrial complex make lots and lots of money by waging. Exponentially more money by a factor of it's-not-calculable than even the enormous sums lavished on various influential figures in federal government by all the pro-Israeli lobbyists in DC put together.

I don't really how this can be a newsflash to anyone familiar with the culture, J-Lo: But please try to bear in mind that the United States, overall, doesn't adore the Jewish people any more than any other country in the Western world. Because a fairly large number of people everywhere tend not to like Jews. Period. Which doesn't mean that it logically follows that Jews are therefore automatically entitled to a nation-state on land that's already occupied. Or anything else of a similarly over-dramatic, absurd, and insidious nature.

In fact, the only reason I'm risking bringing it up is that while it would certainly be nice if you were implacably opposed to the slaughter, abuse, and devastation of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel just because you opposed slaughter, abuse and devastation, that's not apparently the case. So you might want to spend a little time meditating on whether it's possible that it's always been the policy of your little beneficial Jewish homeland to perpetuate a somewhat Jew-hostile status quo worldwise for self-interested reasons that have nothing to do with the Legendary and Historic Suffering of the Jewish People.

In short: Even if you have no heart, just as a practical matter, please don't kid yourself. You're only making things more dangerous for everybody.


You're calling someone else heartless after that vicious, broad-brush, cynically absurd tirade? Funny.

Actually, not funny.

Yeah, the only reason there's a Holocaust museum is because of the military/industrial complex, not because of a human desire to honor the millions of humans killed by an militarized sociopathic cult bent on exterminating entire groups of undesirable people.

Why don't you go find a survivor of one of the camps and explain why the museum is such a farce?



why don't you get a real job instead of coming in here once a month to piss on people and vent your aggression?

why don't you jump on jlaw172364 for having the audacity to attempt to speak for "Jewish people" in such a generalised way?

frankly i already know camp survivors who are annoyed and depressed by the cynical AngloAmerican use of this tragedy to cast all their wars in a good light. i don't know about the museum itself, i'll have to ask, but i already know their opinion on the self-righteousness of Spielberg movies, etc.

...

also where do you get off treating everyone like suspects in some tawdry investigation?

i've only seen one person making links to rense in this thread.

if you go back and read some of your own nonsense insinuations and veiled accusations in this thread and you might realise you're in absolutely no position to claim any sort of moral high ground with regard to "cynically absurd tirades".

that might be too much to ask though.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

@ JustDrew

Postby jlaw172364 » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:05 pm

Your post seemed tongue-in-cheek, but I'll address it nonetheless.

People within any religious tradition will argue over the meaning of various passages and the Jews are no exception.

There were many differing opinions on whether the Jews should return to Israel. However, enough Jews returned in enough force to remain for 70 years, therefore this question is now more or less moot, barring some sort of reprisal of Biblical proportions, supernatural or otherwise.

Although Judaism, like many religions, may be based on premise many find questionable, that a people must heed the decrees of an invisible supernatural being who only communicates with a select group of individuals, there remains a concrete reality that Jews exist as a distinct people and have distinct allies and enemies. After the pogroms, the Jews began to realize that maybe it would be better to not just wait around for the messiah, but that it might be better to just set up their own nation to as a pragmatic strategy to avoid extinction. An interpretation of on small religious passage that would prevent this would be convenient ignored, as is often the case, i.e. Christians go to war ignoring religious proscriptions, while citing "I came to bring the sword!" line.

In any case, I love how people who sit in their nations that were founded on just as much blood, no wait, make that, much much more blood, given that said nations have been around longer, at that a nation, like any ancient god, requires a steady sacrifice of blood to sustain itself, anyway, I love how these people talk about Jews like they don't deserve to have a nation, like nations are just handed out as bounty when enough good deeds are done by some sort of Santa Claus figure, and not stolen by conquest.

@ Nordic

You keep calling Israel a war criminal state. Which states are honorable white-hat wearing policemen? The UK? The US? Europe?

People often confuse good with wealthy, conveniently neglecting the fact that wealth is often ill-gotten. People talk of the US/Europe as the Free World; even if this were true, one would still be confusing "free" with "good," but these nations just have lots of wealth left over from earlier periods of conquest. And I'm just picking out the most obvious examples of criminal nations. Do I really need to delve into every sordid third world country ruled by tin-pot dictators or corrupt oligarchies propped up by the free world? Or maybe I should talk about rogue states like North Korea, which are literal concentration camps.

The irony is, I'm sure if I went to some rabid wingnut neocon website, I'd find plenty of flowery screeds calling for the liberation of North Korea.
jlaw172364
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:10 pm

on edit, i can't believe I took the bait.



indeed.

final scores:



Old Nazi Douchebag: 1
Advocates for Justice Worldwide: 0
Jews: -1
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:13 pm

After the pogroms, the Jews began to realize that maybe it would be better to not just wait around for the messiah, but that it might be better to just set up their own nation to as a pragmatic strategy to avoid extinction.


there you go again.


who died and appointed you spokesperson for world Jewry?

[jesus?]
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:18 pm

Image
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 168 guests