Rabbi Against Israel (Fox news interview)

12357

Comments

  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    What do you think motivated Hitler to act as he did "the face"?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    the face wrote:
    First of all its Himler. Not Himmel. What do you expect someone to say when there are people on this board espousing the Jews control the money crap. If that is not Nazi logic I don't know what is. I am sorry that word makes you uncomfortable. It should. It should make you uncomfortable that there are still people in this world who truly believe that Hitler did what he did because of Jewish control of finances. Scares the shit out of me man. It just seems to me we have not progressed much since 1939 otherwise the rest of you would recognize the clear anti semitism in those kinds of statements. But you don't. You defend that kind of talk which is even more frightening. Doesn't surprise me at all you are European.

    this is a fair point. what have we come to when we we are more uncomfortable about someone accusing others of being racist than about racism itself. And I understand that many of you truly do not feel that anything anti-semitic has been said on the train, but I think that is because you are all so well meaning that you do not want to accept the truth of it and so blind yourself to it when it's right in front of you.
  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    Ahnimus wrote:
    What do you think motivated Hitler to act as he did "the face"?

    Hitler, in my opinion, believed what he preached. I'm sure that Hitler truly believed that Jews controlled the world and were the enemies of Germany and so on. The point though is that the beliefs that motivated him were just that, beliefs. But that doesn't mean that what Hitler believed was true. He was motivated by his own hateful and paranoid fantasies.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    dayan wrote:
    Hitler, in my opinion, believed what he preached. I'm sure that Hitler truly believed that Jews controlled the world and were the enemies of Germany and so on. The point though is that the beliefs that motivated him were just that, beliefs. But that doesn't mean that what Hitler believed was true. He was motivated by his own hateful and paranoid fantasies.

    That was my only point.

    But Hitler wasn't the only one. He had many people within his "Nazi Party". It would seem there was enough evidence to convince not just Hitler but the entire Nazi party. Or did they have other motives?

    I understand the general population was persuaded into it by propaganda, but what of Hitler's closest allies? Surely they were not all paranoid and psychotic.

    Again, I'm not pointing any fingers. I'm just trying to understand the motivation.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Ahnimus wrote:
    That was my only point.

    But Hitler wasn't the only one. He had many people within his "Nazi Party". It would seem there was enough evidence to convince not just Hitler but the entire Nazi party. Or did they have other motives?

    I understand the general population was persuaded into it by propaganda, but what of Hitler's closest allies? Surely they were not all paranoid and psychotic.

    Again, I'm not pointing any fingers. I'm just trying to understand the motivation.


    power and greed
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • the face
    the face Posts: 192
    Ahnimus wrote:
    What do you think motivated Hitler to act as he did "the face"?
    Deserve no response. You can probably state the case for Hitler better than anyone. So go for it. Let's hear it.
  • the face
    the face Posts: 192
    Ahnimus wrote:
    That was my only point.

    But Hitler wasn't the only one. He had many people within his "Nazi Party". It would seem there was enough evidence to convince not just Hitler but the entire Nazi party. Or did they have other motives?

    I understand the general population was persuaded into it by propaganda, but what of Hitler's closest allies? Surely they were not all paranoid and psychotic.

    Again, I'm not pointing any fingers. I'm just trying to understand the motivation.
    Something other than Mein Kampf which apparently you have committed to memory. If you want to learn Ill be happy to present you with some reading material.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    El_Kabong wrote:
    power and greed

    Yea, I could see that. They just went along with using Jews as a scapegoat to achieve their greedy goals.

    I guess, I just have a hard time believing it actually happened that way. It seems that if it was that easy, it would happen everywhere, all the time. So then, I guess that implies that there is possibly a secret shadow world government.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    the cause of the conflict is that the arab world has never accepted Israel's right to exist. right of return, borders, water resources, etc, that's all details.

    Convenient way to disregard the 36 year illegal occupation.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    peace will only exist when the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world recognize Israel's right to exist.

    Why should anybody accept Israels right to exist whilst it continues to illegally occupy Palestinian land and flout international law.
    Why is the onus always, and only, on the Palestinians?
  • the face
    the face Posts: 192
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why should anybody accept Israels right to exist whilst it continues to illegally occupy Palestinian land and flout international law.
    Why is the onus always, and only, on the Palestinians?

    Show us something that shows the land you speak of to ever have belonged to Palestinians? A link to a map, anything, Bueller, Bueller. UN 242 calls for all the warring sides to recongize the State of Israel as a pre-condition to the return of lands. Read it. The Palis never signed on. The Egyptians did. They got their shit back right away. So shut it with this international law crap already. Your just wrong....The Palis could have had a state in 48 and they could have had it again under Clinton. Easy. They seemed to prefer war. So war is what they got. The arabs still can't understand how a billion muslims cant get it together to defeat a tiny little nation of jews. That's what this is really all about anyways...It's not about the tiny piece of land. It's about their pride.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    the face wrote:
    Especially, as you admit, your country participated in the crimes. So you are clearly not unbiased.

    Where does Kann say his/her country participated in 'the crimes'? What Kann said was "My country was deeply touched (and was involved unfortunately) by the nazi regime. France was occupied by the Nazis, of course they were deeply touched, of course they were 'involved' in the regime as they were 'governed' by them for a long time. Like in ANY occupied territory, there are collaborateurs either by greed or just trying to survive. But there are a majority of people fighting against the occupier - call them what you like: freedom fighters, partisans, maquis or even terrorists (depending if you see things from the occupier's or the oppressed people's point of view). I guess a French person will not be unbiaised about the nazis.. they had them in their country, it is a 'physical' part of their history.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    the face wrote:
    The arabs still can't understand how a billion muslims cant get it together to defeat a tiny little nation of jews.

    ... backed and unconditionally supported by the largest power in the world. It would have been interesting to see how things would have developed over the decades if they did not have this blind support.
  • the face
    the face Posts: 192
    redrock wrote:
    Where does Kann say his/her country participated in 'the crimes'? What Kann said was "My country was deeply touched (and was involved unfortunately) by the nazi regime. France was occupied by the Nazis, of course they were deeply touched, of course they were 'involved' in the regime as they were 'governed' by them for a long time. Like in ANY occupied territory, there are collaborateurs either by greed or just trying to survive. But there are a majority of people fighting against the occupier - call them what you like: freedom fighters, partisans, maquis or even terrorists (depending if you see things from the occupier's or the oppressed people's point of view). I guess a French person will not be unbiaised about the nazis.. they had them in their country, it is a 'physical' part of their history.

    Well that is really only partially true. The French were occupied largely in the northern half of their country before they flew the French hankie. The southern half was governed by a French government; the Vichy. AKA disgusting nazi collaborators. These lovely folks actually helped the Germans round up their jews. All 44,000 of them. You don't actually think the Germans handled that whole holocaust thing themselves do ya? They had lots of help...all over Europe. The Vichy French even engaged American and British troops in North Africa and Southeast Asia, desperate to hang on to their "empire" even if it meant collaborating with Nazis. So you see, it is not that simple. And it is not too hard to see why our "friends" in France are not really so friendly after all.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    the face wrote:
    Show us something that shows the land you speak of to ever have belonged to Palestinians? A link to a map, anything, Bueller, Bueller.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_Palestine.png

    Palestine was originally promised to the Arabs for helping overthrow the Ottomans. Then Britain decided to give it to the Jews as well. That is why the Arabs attacked Israel in what was called "The Six Day War" in 1967. It was then that Israel conquered all of Palestine, the Sheeba Farms in Syria and the Southern Part of Lebanon that gave rise to Hezbollah. Israel continued to occupy Lebanon until 2000 when Hezbollah drove Israel out, and Israel still occupies the Sheeba farms today.

    Oh, by the way. Israel is in violation of countless U.N. resolutions.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • the face
    the face Posts: 192
    redrock wrote:
    ... backed and unconditionally supported by the largest power in the world. It would have been interesting to see how things would have developed over the decades if they did not have this blind support.

    Read a book would ya. I can suggest one if you would like. The Americans, if that is who you are referring to, did not back Israel in any of it's wars until 1973. In fact, The United States was so entrenched in 1967 with Vietnam that LBJ was furious at the Israelis. He leant only meager help. In 1948 no one helped the Jews. Not the Americans, the British or the French. So just do us a favor. Read. The Arabs were defeated because of their arrogance, not because of anything the United States did.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    the face wrote:
    Read a book would ya. I can suggest one if you would like. The Americans, if that is who you are referring to, did not back Israel in any of it's wars until 1973. In fact, The United States was so entrenched in 1967 with Vietnam that LBJ was furious at the Israelis. He leant only meager help. In 1948 no one helped the Jews. Not the Americans, the British or the French. So just do us a favor. Read. The Arabs were defeated because of their arrogance, not because of anything the United States did.

    Or, maybe it was the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty...
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • the face
    the face Posts: 192
    Ahnimus wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_Palestine.png

    Palestine was originally promised to the Arabs for helping overthrow the Ottomans. Then Britain decided to give it to the Jews as well. That is why the Arabs attacked Israel in what was called "The Six Day War" in 1967. It was then that Israel conquered all of Palestine, the Sheeba Farms in Syria and the Southern Part of Lebanon that gave rise to Hezbollah. Israel continued to occupy Lebanon until 2000 when Hezbollah drove Israel out, and Israel still occupies the Sheeba farms today.

    Oh, by the way. Israel is in violation of countless U.N. resolutions.

    Do you only read one side of the book? You are partially right. The British, who are really the primary villain in all of this, promised states to both the Arabs and the Jews for their support in both wars. Who did this? Primarily our pal Churchill. At the time of the Ottomans the Jews were quite prominent in British society and therefore, were needed to fight the Germans. So the British promised both sides a state. They ultimately just turned and ran when the place got too hot for them. What IS accurate is that in 1948 their was a British Mandate in Palestine. The UN resolved this issue by setting up two states, one Jewish, and one Arab. The Jews accepted this decision and the Arabs did not and launched their first of many disastrous wars.

    And your Sheeba Farms argument holds no water. It is Syrian territory. Syria refusued to accept 242 and therefore there is no land for peace there. Sorry.
  • the face
    the face Posts: 192
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Or, maybe it was the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty...
    There must be an answer to you. First, Lebanon was not in any way involved in the 6 day war. And to be accurate, Israel actually shot first....I can recommend a book if youd like. Sorry no pictures
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    the face wrote:
    There must be an answer to you. First, Lebanon was not in any way involved in the 6 day war. And to be accurate, Israel actually shot first....I can recommend a book if youd like. Sorry no pictures

    Yea, that's what I said the "Israeli attack". I'm not interested in any of your books.

    By the way, here is a side-by-side of Israel's pre-1967 expansion beyond the 1947 UN borders.
    http://www.palestine-pmc.com/maps/19-5-1.jpg
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire

Categories