Holocaust and Tribulation Foreshadowed by Current Events
Robert Arvay
in the 1930's, the era in which Mussolini, Hirohito, Stalin and Hitler
were preparing the world stage for the horrors soon to follow (or in
some cases, already in progress).
As I peruse that book, I am impressed with how little things have, in
some respects, changed. Our near future, now like then, seems to be a
powderkeg for which a short fuse has already been lit. Are we too
blind to see it--- are we too indolent to stop it?
Then I came across this:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/pipes_2003_10_27.php3
In its attitudes toward Jews, the Muslim world today resembles Germany
of the 1930s — a time when insults, caricatures, conspiracy
theories, and sporadic violence prepared Germans for the mass murder
that followed.
The same might be happening today. Wild accusatory comments like
Mahathir's [pres of Malaysia] have become banal. Against Israelis,
violence has already reached a rate approaching one death per day over
the past three years. Outside Israel, violence against Jews is also
persistent: a Jewish building blown up in Argentina, Daniel Pearl's
murder in Pakistan, stabbings in France, the Brooklyn Bridge and LAX
killings in the United States.
These episodes, plus calling Jews "apes and pigs" could serve as the
psychological preparation that one day leads to assaulting Israel with
weapons of mass destruction. Armaments chemical, biological, and
nuclear would be the successors of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and Dachau.
Millions of Jews would perish in another Holocaust.
….
As in the 1930s, the world at large — including the U.S.
government — again seems not to note the deadliness of processes
now underway. Anti-Jewish rhetoric and violence are decried, to be
sure, but with little sense of urgency and even less of their
cumulative impact.
reli...@yahoo.com
And Christians also Robert. My imagination dares me to wonder what
would happen if Muslims tried this one here in Irish
schools?.....Errol
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7685746%255E663,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233095144.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233104009.html
Paul Hammond
> I have in my possession a high school social studies textbook printed
> in the 1930's, the era in which Mussolini, Hirohito, Stalin and Hitler
> were preparing the world stage for the horrors soon to follow (or in
> some cases, already in progress).
> As I peruse that book, I am impressed with how little things have, in
> some respects, changed. Our near future, now like then, seems to be a
> powderkeg for which a short fuse has already been lit. Are we too
> blind to see it--- are we too indolent to stop it?
> Then I came across this:
>
>
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/pipes_2003_10_27.php3
>
> In its attitudes toward Jews, the Muslim world today resembles Germany
> of the 1930s — a time when insults, caricatures, conspiracy
> theories, and sporadic violence prepared Germans for the mass murder
> that followed.
>
The difference being, that this time it is the Jews who are
playing the role of the Nazis and Fascists.
When is the US going to stop funding these people?
Paul
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> I have in my possession a high school social studies textbook printed
> in the 1930's, the era in which Mussolini, Hirohito, Stalin and Hitler
> were preparing the world stage for the horrors soon to follow (or in
> some cases, already in progress).
> As I peruse that book, I am impressed with how little things have, in
> some respects, changed. Our near future, now like then, seems to be a
> powderkeg for which a short fuse has already been lit. Are we too
> blind to see it--- are we too indolent to stop it?
> Then I came across this:
>
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/pipes_2003_10_27.php3
>
> In its attitudes toward Jews, the Muslim world today resembles Germany
> of the 1930s — a time when insults, caricatures, conspiracy
> theories, and sporadic violence prepared Germans for the mass murder
> that followed.
>
> The same might be happening today.
(snip)
These things are happening today, as Muslims overrun and crush Jewish
Jenin.
In Israel, any militant Muslim is allowed, even encouraged to own
automatic weapons, and they have been used to kill dozens of Jews in a
single attack at one holy site. One incedent, just a few years ago, is
celebrated today, and the mass murderer's grave is a place of pilgrammage
for the Jihadist Muslims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/685792.stm
21 years ago, the Muslims of Israel were slaughtering thousand of innocent
Jewish Palestinians, even women and children.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/16/palestinians.anniversary.reut/
Muslim prime minister Ariel Sharon, said he regretted the tragedy of Sabra
and Shatila, but asked if he would apologise he replied "To apologise for
what?"
-- F. Keane, in "The Accused", BBC-Panorama, 17/6/2001 --
It is not jokes; it is mass murder.
It is a pattern seen over 50 years ago; it seems to simply be a
continuation of the genocidal approach used by the Nazis. Slaughter a
crowd, and let a few survivors scatter, to warn their co-religionists to
flee.
http://www.torontoareamennonites.ca/danforth/dmc_notes/witmer5.html
How do you see the anti-Semitism of mischief making PMs, like Ariel
Sharon, as linking in with the BF?
Robert Arvay
>
> These things are happening today, as Muslims overrun and crush Jewish
> Jenin.
Here we go again with the so-called Jenin massacre.
The number of victims was placed at 500 with not a shred of evidence
to support that number. Apparently, the number has increased in the
thousands, with no increase in the evidence.
I have waited patiently for anything resembling a list of some of the
victims.
Only about 40 names have been recorded, and most of these were
miltants.
Those tragically caught in the crossfire, as certified by the UN
investigators, died because the terrorists deliberately install
themselves amid civilian populations for the express purpose of
causing civilian casualties which they can then blame on the Israelis.
>
> In Israel, any militant Muslim is allowed, even encouraged to own
> automatic weapons,
Sarcastic, but you make a point. The real fact is, however, that in
Israeli controlled territory, Palestinians are allowed civil liberties
which are denied them in ANY Arab country. Jordan massacred 20,000
Palestinians, Syria routinely subjugates Palestinians--- but Israel is
the bad guy.
In Haifa, Israel, the Baha'is enjoy their temple, and their world
headquarters.
When the PLO takes control of Haifa, how long will it take them to
raze the shrines of the infidel?
Eric Stetson
Huh? I hear people say stuff like this all the time. But it shows a
lack of understanding of the facts of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. The only reason Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza
Strip at all is because Jordan and Egypt aggressively attacked Israel
in an unprovoked war and Israel won and captured these territories.
So who are the Fascists and Nazis? I'd say it's Jordan and Egypt and
all other Arab countries that have tried over the years to wipe Israel
off the map using military force. That's not to say that Israel isn't
treating the Palestinian people like crap -- but what would you do if
it were your country and terrorists were blowing up your people every
day? Israel has tried to give back 95% of the territories to form a
Palestinian state under the Clinton peace proposals, but Arafat turned
it down. Too bad for his people; they will continue to suffer because
of the stupid actions of their own leaders in refusing to accept a
viable Palestinian state.
Best,
Eric
Eric Stetson
> It is not jokes; it is mass murder.
>
> It is a pattern seen over 50 years ago; it seems to simply be a
> continuation of the genocidal approach used by the Nazis.
[snip]
> the anti-Semitism of mischief making PMs, like Ariel
> Sharon
Pat, you take my breath away. I am truly shocked at your total lack
of understanding of the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and
your total misunderstanding of the meaning of anti-Semitism. The
anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli rhetoric you are spouting borders on hate
speech. Is this really what you believe? It actually nauseates me.
Eric Stetson
Best,
Eric
Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/pipes_2003_10_27.php3
Pat Kohli
Eric Stetson wrote:
> Pat Kohli wrote:
>
> > It is not jokes; it is mass murder.
> >
> > It is a pattern seen over 50 years ago; it seems to simply be a
> > continuation of the genocidal approach used by the Nazis.
> [snip]
>
> > the anti-Semitism of mischief making PMs, like Ariel
> > Sharon
>
> Pat, you take my breath away. I am truly shocked at your total lack
> of understanding of the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
Well, I realize that it is off-topic, but for the sake of my education,
please do draw my attention to the relevant facts. I had _thought_ that
the parties were motivated by fear, a fear which can be explained by a
long standing pattern of mass murders. If that is not the case, perhaps
Gen. Sharon's soldiers had sacrificed their lives protecting the
Palestinians they guarded in Sabra and Shatila, then, please do refer me
to an unbaised source (such as BBC, CNN, the Mennonites) to explain the
facts _to_me_.
However, during _your_ research into Baruch Goldstein's Purim
celebrations, and Gen. Sharon's guard duty on Sabra and Shatila, and the
IDF's equitable dealings at Deir Yassin, should you discover a few
massacres, please do consider that, perhaps you had not had such a
complete understanding of the conflict as you may have thought you did?
> and
> your total misunderstanding of the meaning of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism means a bias against Semites, of course. As you know, the
Palestinians are Semites, just like the Jews.
> The
> anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli rhetoric you are spouting borders on hate
> speech.
I admit that I was disappointed with Israel electing a hate-mongering mass
murderer for Prime Minister, but I have not intended to make any
statements which are anti-Jewish, beyond the extent of my own religious
disagreements with Judaism. Furthermore, I do concede Israel's right to
exist, so, my differences with prejudice, land-thieving, and militarism,
are likely attributable to my basic pacifism, and interest in Justice.
> Is this really what you believe?
I believe in justice. I am against the mass murder of women and children
who just happened to be in the wrong refugee camp at a given time.
> It actually nauseates me.
Those mass murders nauseate me; I guess it is just different strokes for
different folks, eh?
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F9DBD4F...@ameritel.net>...
> >
> > These things are happening today, as Muslims overrun and crush Jewish
> > Jenin.
>
> Here we go again with the so-called Jenin massacre.
No. I was referring to the pattern of mass-murders over the past decades since the Nazi's holocaust:
Deir Yassin, Baruch Goldstein?
>
> The number of victims was placed at 500 with not a shred of evidence
> to support that number. Apparently, the number has increased in the
> thousands, with no increase in the evidence.
> I have waited patiently for anything resembling a list of some of the
> victims.
Why? Do you know a lot of people from Deir Yassin, or Hebron, or Jenin?
>
> Only about 40 names have been recorded, and most of these were
> miltants.
If you would like to join the deniers, please read the accounts here, first.
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/
>
> Those tragically caught in the crossfire, as certified by the UN
> investigators, died because the terrorists deliberately install
> themselves amid civilian populations for the express purpose of
> causing civilian casualties which they can then blame on the Israelis.
That looks like a denial right out of the worst of the Zionist propaganda machine!
>
> >
> > In Israel, any militant Muslim is allowed, even encouraged to own
> > automatic weapons,
>
> Sarcastic, but you make a point. The real fact is, however, that in
> Israeli controlled territory, Palestinians are allowed civil liberties
The fact that the real Israeli Muslims have some rights is almost irrelevant to your scapegoatings of
Muslims. In Isreal, Muslims are still discriminating against, and can even be harassed out of the
Knesset. Ahmed Tibi, who spoke up for Palestinians who exercised their right to self defense, was
denounced by one Knesset member as a "collaborator with the enemy” who added the Knesset "should vomit
out such people from its midst."
The real fact is that any civil rights of Muslims in Israel, is bitterly resented by the Likud
government.
http://www.islam-online.net/english/News/2002-04/10/article21.shtml
>
> which are denied them in ANY Arab country.
Not so. In any Arab country, any parliament member can praise an Arab for defending his home from
Israeli aggression.
> Jordan massacred 20,000
> Palestinians,
What are the Palestinians doing in Jordan?
> Syria routinely subjugates Palestinians---
What are the Palestinians doing in Syria?
What are the Palestinians doing in Lebanon?
> but
Why don't they just go home, like everyone else?
> Israel is
> the bad guy.
>
Ah, yes; the Falestinians don't go home because Israel drove them off with the barrel of a gun.
>
> In Haifa, Israel, the Baha'is enjoy their temple, and their world
> headquarters.
>
> When the PLO takes control of Haifa, how long will it take them to
> raze the shrines of the infidel?
I have no idea. The Baha'is were there when it was controlled by Ottoman Turks, and when it was under
British mandate. We were infidels to them, just as we are infidels to the Jews. I don't expect much
difference from the Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
Paul Hammond
> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F9DBD4F...@ameritel.net>...
> > >
> > > These things are happening today, as Muslims overrun and crush Jewish
> > > Jenin.
> >
> > Here we go again with the so-called Jenin massacre.
>
> No. I was referring to the pattern of mass-murders over the past decades since the Nazi's holocaust:
> Deir Yassin, Baruch Goldstein?
>
Did you even bother to look at the references, Robert?
Deir Yassin and Shabra and Shatila were mentioned.
Some of the people who had experienced *that* terror
made mention of the horror of Jenin.
But, no, these are older massacres and bits of Jewish
terrorism that you'd prefer to ignore.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> > Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I have in my possession a high school social studies textbook printed
> > > in the 1930's, the era in which Mussolini, Hirohito, Stalin and Hitler
> > > were preparing the world stage for the horrors soon to follow (or in
> > > some cases, already in progress).
> > > As I peruse that book, I am impressed with how little things have, in
> > > some respects, changed. Our near future, now like then, seems to be a
> > > powderkeg for which a short fuse has already been lit. Are we too
> > > blind to see it--- are we too indolent to stop it?
> > > Then I came across this:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/pipes_2003_10_27.php3
> > >
> > > In its attitudes toward Jews, the Muslim world today resembles Germany
> > > of the 1930s — a time when insults, caricatures, conspiracy
> > > theories, and sporadic violence prepared Germans for the mass murder
> > > that followed.
> > >
> >
> > The difference being, that this time it is the Jews who are
> > playing the role of the Nazis and Fascists.
>
> Huh? I hear people say stuff like this all the time. But it shows a
> lack of understanding of the facts of the Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict.
Pat has just provided the references.
Unlike Robert, I am unwilling to believe biased sources,
or buy the lie that anyone the US supports cannot
possibly be bad.
I look at all sources to understand the problem.
What facts have I misunderstood?
Isreal was formed where the Palestinians had lived for
centuries. These people have been forced from their
homeland.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Bullshit, Eric.
A word of anti-semitism has never passed the lips of Pat.
Get a sense of perspective - there are Jews who oppose
the actions of Israel - are you going to try to shut them
up too by calling them anti-semites?
Being anti-Nazi is not the same thing as being anti-German.
Paul
Susan Maneck
>
>When the PLO takes control of Haifa, how long will it take them to
>raze the shrines of the infidel?
The PLO isn't the least bit interested in Haifa. They want Jerusalem.
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Robert Arvay
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F9F2928...@ameritel.net>...
Robert wrote:
> >
> > Those tragically caught in the crossfire, as certified by the UN
> > investigators, died because the terrorists deliberately install
> > themselves amid civilian populations for the express purpose of
> > causing civilian casualties which they can then blame on the Israelis.
>
> That looks like a denial right out of the worst of the Zionist propaganda machine!
The UN is hardly a Zionist organization.
> The fact that the real Israeli Muslims have some rights is almost irrelevant to your scapegoatings of
> Muslims. In Isreal, Muslims are still discriminating against, and can even be harassed out of the
> Knesset. Ahmed Tibi, who spoke up for Palestinians who exercised their right to self defense, was
> denounced by one Knesset member as a "collaborator with the enemy? who added the Knesset "should vomit
> out such people from its midst."
> The real fact is that any civil rights of Muslims in Israel, is bitterly resented by the Likud
> government.
Compared to say, the PLO, where anyone who does not support terrorism
can be murdered on the street by Arafat's thugs.
> Not so. In any Arab country, any parliament member can praise an Arab for defending his home from
> Israeli aggression.
Funny. What happens if they praise Israel?
>
> > Jordan massacred 20,000
> > Palestinians,
>
> What are the Palestinians doing in Jordan?
They were trying to overthrow the government there.
>
> > Syria routinely subjugates Palestinians---
>
> What are the Palestinians doing in Syria?>
> What are the Palestinians doing in Lebanon?
> Why don't they just go home, like everyone else?
For Lebanese Palestinians, it IS their home.
>
> > In Haifa, Israel, the Baha'is enjoy their temple, and their world
> > headquarters.
> >
> > When the PLO takes control of Haifa, how long will it take them to
> > raze the shrines of the infidel?
>
> I have no idea.
Sure you do. How about, as soon as the thought occurs to them?
> The Baha'is were there when it was controlled by Ottoman Turks, and when it was under
> British mandate. We were infidels to them, just as we are infidels to the Jews. I don't expect much
> difference from the Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
Baha'is are persecuted im Muslim countries, but not in Jewish and
Christian ones.
Susan Maneck
>> What are the Palestinians doing in Jordan?
>
Dear Pat,
Palestinians do belong in Jordan. Historically Jordan was considered a part of
Palestine.
Lebanon and Syria are another matter.
Robert wrote:
>Baha'is are persecuted im Muslim countries, but not in Jewish and
>Christian ones.
News flash! A considerable segment of the PLO is Christian.
>Compared to say, the PLO, where anyone who does not support terrorism
>can be murdered on the street by Arafat's thugs.
Funny. I recall Palestinians trying to murder Arafat for not being militant
enough!
warmest, Susan
Robert Arvay
Pat, your rationalization of Palestinian terrorism relies on the worst
examples of Israeli malfeasance. I have never defended these, and
while I cannot speak for Eric, I'm sure he will agree. I have
specifically mentioned the attack on the USS Liberty and the Jonathan
Pollard spy case which merit vigorous retaliation by the US. I do not
doubt that there are others.
But the bigger picture is that Israel, with all its many faults, is
stumbling along the right path and could, were it not for the
extremists and terrorists, establish a just peace with the
Palestinians.
The PLO is a vicious, corrupt organization which has no interest in
peace, which murders its own dissidents (however moderate they are),
and deliberately targets women, children and the elderly for murder in
as large numbers as they can achieve.
The PLO has, as many have noted, never missed a chance to miss a
chance for peace.
Its apologists will not bring about Israel's demise (for which they
ardently hope), but instead simply help to prolong the needless
suffering of both Israeli and Palestinian alike.
===========
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F9F2353...@ameritel.net>...
Eric Stetson
> Anti-Semitism means a bias against Semites, of course. As you know, the
> Palestinians are Semites, just like the Jews.
an·ti-Sem·i·tism
n.
1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Pat, I don't think you use the word "anti-Semitism" the way most
people do. If you want to talk about opposition to non-Jewish Middle
Easterners, the appropriate word would be "anti-Arab" would it not?
> > The
> > anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli rhetoric you are spouting borders on hate
> > speech.
>
> I admit that I was disappointed with Israel electing a hate-mongering mass
> murderer for Prime Minister, but I have not intended to make any
> statements which are anti-Jewish, beyond the extent of my own religious
> disagreements with Judaism.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It sounded to me like you were
equating Jews with Nazis, which is what disturbed me.
> Furthermore, I do concede Israel's right to
> exist, so, my differences with prejudice, land-thieving, and militarism,
> are likely attributable to my basic pacifism, and interest in Justice.
Okay. What do you recommend the Israeli people do now to try to
achieve peace? They have already tried offering Arafat a Palestinian
state on 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with part of Jerusalem
for its capital, but Arafat turned down this proposal. What more can
Israel do except unilaterally control the Palestinians if they refuse
to accept a state of their own on very reasonable terms?
> > It actually nauseates me.
>
> Those mass murders nauseate me; I guess it is just different strokes for
> different folks, eh?
I am also nauseated by some of the things the Israeli military has
done to the Palestinians. They have gone way overboard sometimes.
But I think it's important to look at cause and effect. Hypothetical
situation: I'm Israel and you're Palestine. Let's say you shoot me in
the chest, trying to kill me, but I don't die. Now I'm mad. Maybe I
beat you up with a baseball bat in response, severely injuring you.
Now you're mad. So you follow me everywhere I go and keep shooting at
me over and over again with a BB-gun, causing me to be afraid all the
time and enduring the constant sting of the BBs in my flesh. In
response, I go over and vandalize your house, making it difficult for
you to live there. The question is, who is responsible for this chain
of events? I would argue that you are, because you were the one who
first tried to shoot and kill me. That's why I argue the Palestinians
are ultimately responsible for everything they have suffered over the
decades since they rejected the UN Partition Plan and started a war
against Israel, trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. The
basic issue is that the Palestinians were the ones who started this
mess by refusing to accept the existence of Israel and to live in
peace.
Best,
Eric
Eric Stetson
> What facts have I misunderstood?
>
> Isreal was formed where the Palestinians had lived for
> centuries. These people have been forced from their
> homeland.
Correct. But you are either forgetting, or ignoring, the fact that
the Palestinians gained the land of Israel/Palestine by conquering it
militarily under the early Muslim caliphate. Before that, the Romans
took it from the Jews. The Jews had their _entire_ homeland (not just
half of it) ripped away from them and they were sent into exile, where
they have suffered persecution all over the world ever since. In
order to escape persecution, the Jews needed a state of their own, as
the Nazi holocaust proved. The logical place for such a state is the
land they originally owned. But because there were people living
there, the Palestinians, they were going to have to share it with them
according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. But the Palestinians wanted
all the land their ancestors had conquered, so here we are today.
As I see it, it is basically an issue of two peoples who have had
something taken away from them. The Jews had all of what they owned
taken away from them a long time ago and have been suffering
continuously ever since. The Palestinians had half of what they owned
taken away from them more recently, by the original owners of the
whole thing. The difference is that the Jews were content to get only
half of what they lost back, whereas the Palestinians were not content
to lose half of what they had previously taken from the Jews. Which
side sounds more reasonable?
Best,
Eric
Robert Arvay
paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> erics...@yahoo.com (Eric Stetson) wrote in message news:<f581312e.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Pat, you take my breath away. I am truly shocked at your total lack
> > of understanding of the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and
> > your total misunderstanding of the meaning of anti-Semitism. The
> > anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli rhetoric you are spouting borders on hate
> > speech. Is this really what you believe? It actually nauseates me.
>
> Bullxxxx, Eric.
>
> A word of anti-semitism has never passed the lips of Pat.
>
> Get a sense of perspective - there are Jews who oppose
> the actions of Israel - are you going to try to shut them
> up too by calling them anti-semites?
>
> Being anti-Nazi is not the same thing as being anti-German.
>
But hold on a second.
A sense of perspective needs to take into account the fact that in the
1930's to 40's, the Jews were the target of a trans-national effort to
exterminate them from the face of the earth. The vicious hatred that
manifested itself in that unspeakable horror did not arise overnight,
nor has it diminished far below the surface. All it needed in the
1930's was opportunity. That's all it needs now.
This, then, is not AT ALL comparable to saying that being anti-Nazi is
to be anti-German. There is no comparison.
You do have a valid point in separating the secular STATE Israel from
the religious identity of the Jews. That distinction, however, is
more likely to be made among Jews and moderate observers, than among
those who hate Jews.
There can be no doubt that much of the hatred of Israel is tied to a
hatred of Jews.
My personal belief is that Jew-hatred is a form of God-hatred.
I also believe that the current events in the mid-east conform to
Biblical prophecy, and that we are seeing the beginning of a
multi-national attack against Jerusalem which will unfold on the
battlefield Har Megiddo, that is, Armageddon.
Subsequent events will prove or disprove that.
But in the meantime, we should not assume that the hatred of Jews does
not underly much of the opposition to a peaceful, secure Israeli
state.
Paul Hammond
I don't hate Jews, I hate massacres.
This much, I feel, I have in common with Pat.
I would be surprised to find that you and the ADL made
fine bedfellows - but that is how things appear at the moment.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Many people (including me) would dispute that this is a
fact.
Paul
Paul Hammond
>
> > What facts have I misunderstood?
> >
> > Isreal was formed where the Palestinians had lived for
> > centuries. These people have been forced from their
> > homeland.
>
> Correct. But you are either forgetting, or ignoring, the fact that
> the Palestinians gained the land of Israel/Palestine by conquering it
> militarily under the early Muslim caliphate. Before that, the Romans
> took it from the Jews. The Jews had their _entire_ homeland (not just
> half of it) ripped away from them and they were sent into exile, where
> they have suffered persecution all over the world ever since.
If you are gonna go back *that* far, why not refer to
Joshua, for the story of how the Hebrews originally
won the land from the people who were there before them.
And then, I'll agree to vacate this land in favour of
the Gauls who were here before my ancestors.
In
> order to escape persecution, the Jews needed a state of their own, as
> the Nazi holocaust proved. The logical place for such a state is the
> land they originally owned. But because there were people living
> there, the Palestinians, they were going to have to share it with them
> according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. But the Palestinians wanted
> all the land their ancestors had conquered, so here we are today.
>
Shame no-one bothered to consult the Palestinians about what
they wanted at that time.
Really, Eric, your "blame the victims" strategy just will not
wash.
> As I see it, it is basically an issue of two peoples who have had
> something taken away from them. The Jews had all of what they owned
> taken away from them a long time ago and have been suffering
> continuously ever since. The Palestinians had half of what they owned
> taken away from them more recently, by the original owners of the
> whole thing. The difference is that the Jews were content to get only
> half of what they lost back, whereas the Palestinians were not content
> to lose half of what they had previously taken from the Jews. Which
> side sounds more reasonable?
>
D'you know what? We can't get the rights and wrongs of
this sorted out.
But, how about we agree *not* to unequivocally believe
every lie that emanates from Robert's biased sources, okay?
Paul
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.0310...@posting.google.com>...
> > erics...@yahoo.com (Eric Stetson) wrote in message news:<f581312e.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Pat, you take my breath away. I am truly shocked at your total lack
> > > of understanding of the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and
> > > your total misunderstanding of the meaning of anti-Semitism. The
> > > anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli rhetoric you are spouting borders on hate
> > > speech. Is this really what you believe? It actually nauseates me.
> >
> > Bullxxxx, Eric.
> >
> > A word of anti-semitism has never passed the lips of Pat.
> >
> > Get a sense of perspective - there are Jews who oppose
> > the actions of Israel - are you going to try to shut them
> > up too by calling them anti-semites?
> >
> > Being anti-Nazi is not the same thing as being anti-German.
> >
>
> But hold on a second.
> A sense of perspective needs to take into account the fact that in the
> 1930's to 40's, the Jews were the target of a trans-national effort to
> exterminate them from the face of the earth.
There is no "hold on a second" to it. That was the subject of the
thread. That was why I pointed out that this
pattern of mass murder had continued - it was not just hate speech.
> The vicious hatred that
> manifested itself in that unspeakable horror did not arise overnight,
> nor has it diminished far below the surface.
Yes! How many times will we quote Martin Luther for your benefit,
Robert?
> All it needed in the
> 1930's was opportunity. That's all it needs now.
It is going on, now!
>
> This, then, is not AT ALL comparable to saying that being anti-Nazi is
> to be anti-German. There is no comparison.
I have issues with the tacit Likud policy. If we go back in time, over
50 years, when Menachem Begin was young, we can see the same sort of
"Ethnic Cleansing" mentality which the Serbs had in Bosnia.
>
> You do have a valid point in separating the secular STATE Israel from
> the religious identity of the Jews. That distinction, however, is
> more likely to be made among Jews and moderate observers, than among
> those who hate Jews.
> There can be no doubt that much of the hatred of Israel is tied to a
> hatred of Jews.
There is no doubt in my mind that much of the violence against Jews is
due to a desire to resist invasion, and the Israelis who are getting
resisted happen to be Jewish.
>
> My personal belief is that Jew-hatred is a form of God-hatred.
I think you can speak authoritatively from your own experience. If
you feel that your hatred of Jews is due to your hatred of God,
then perhaps that is so. My deep suspicion is that much of the
violence in Israel and Palestine has as its roots, the pattern of
violence and suspicion in previous decades. Attempting to trace it
to Jacob stealing Esau's birthright, does not solve the current
problem. What can solve the problem, is an acknowledgement by both
sides of their respective roles in the problem. If you want to
advocate on behalf of the Zionists, against the Palestinians, I
will point out the pattern which the Palestinians see in Israel's
genocidal dealings with the Palestinians.
Sixty years ago is about as far back as we need to go. Anything
farther back is likely to be outside the experience realm of the
current players.
Sixty years ago, was the birth pangs of Israel, as the British
mandate was drawing to an end. There were roughly two kinds of
Zionists: those who respected the mandate - the "treaty Israelis"
and, those who did not respect the mandate - "the Revisionists",
like Herut, and its militia, Lehi. The political aims of the
Revisionists were Jewish statehood on both sides of the Jordan
River, a Jewish majority in Palestine, and more armed forces.
The Revisionists were like Eamon DeValera's Sinn Fein after
Ireland separated from Great Britain. In contrast, the Irish
had a bit of a civil war, between the treaty Irish, and the
extremists. In Israel, the mainstream militias interfered
with the Revisionists, but, they would not fight against them.
Suppose you were a Falestinian today, and you were to hear of
things 55 years ago. Your grandparents lived in a town called
Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin had a treaty with the mainstream
Zionist militias, like Hagannah, and/or Palmach. Even though
Deir Yassin had no strategic importance, a Revisionist gang,
like Lehi, advised Deir Yassin's Zionist allies that they
would attack Deir Yassin. In fact, the Zionist allies (Palmach
and Hagannah) of Deir Yassin would even visit the battle before
it was decided, to shell Deir Yassin, supporting the Revisionists,
and directly breaking the treaty. Suppose, after the battle, the
Revisionists had massacred hundreds of women, children, and old
men who had survived the battle.
This would be a signal as to how the Revisionists would pursue a Jewish
majority on Palestine: slaughter the gentiles to drive off the
survivors. With their Israel on both sides of the Jordan, the surviving
refugees would have to travel a bit farther, though.
Years later, Menachim Begin, the founder of Herut, who as at the
massacre, as part of the Revisionist Gang, Lehi, would be elected Prime
Minister, by the voters of Israel; his Older Herut party has merged with
other fringe parties to form Likud. How could you possibly imagine that
the Israelis wanted peace and security, when the voted for a terrorist
war criminal as PM?
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Politics/Herut.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/Revisionist_Zionism.html
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/dypail.htm
To this day, you find that many Israelis deny the massacre, just as
extreme anti-Semites deny the holocaust:
http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac17.htm
But your 'doubts' about Israel's intentions don't end there. The IDF
has thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon slaughtered. This was done
under the direction of Gen. Ariel Sharon, by a Christian militia. As
with Deir YAssin, again there is no question of any legitimate threat by
the Palestinians - they were a target of opportunity for someone who
simply wanted to exterminate the Falestinians.
Years later, this more modern war criminal picks a fight with
Falestinians as he runs for PM, for Likud, and, Israel elects him. How,
can you, as a Falestinian, for one moment, expect any sort of
consideration from these people who have shown a well established
pattern of not just mass murder, but of rewarding the mass murderers of
Falistinians with top leadership jobs?
>
> I also believe that the current events in the mid-east conform to
> Biblical prophecy, and that we are seeing the beginning of a
> multi-national attack against Jerusalem which will unfold on the
> battlefield Har Megiddo, that is, Armageddon.
Fascinating! 50 years ago, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and maybe one
or two that I missed, were at war with Israel. Today, Isreal's war is
the one they keep picking with the Falestinians. There are less nations
attacking Israel now, than at any other time in its modern existence,
but, you believe otherwise as some "Biblical prophecy".
> Subsequent events will prove or disprove that.
Current events have already registered for others.
> But in the meantime, we should not assume that the hatred of Jews does
> not underly much of the opposition to a peaceful, secure Israeli
> state.
I think that hatred for Falestinians is the principle obstacle to a
peaceful, secure Israel. So long as fights can be provoked, the IDF
gets billions of military aid from the USA.
Best wishes!
- Pat
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> Pat, your rationalization of Palestinian terrorism
Please name what instances of Palestinian terrorism that I have attempted to rationalize. I was
attempting to show that the violence in Israel, and the Occupied Territories, is not solely a matter of
hatred of Jews, but also hatred by Israelis of Muslims and Christians.
> relies on the worst
> examples of Israeli malfeasance.
Which parts of malfeasance might you be referring to: the actual massacres at Deir Yassin, and later
Sabra and Shatila, or the subsequent fact that Likud party members who were principals in these
massacres were subsequently elected Prime Minister of Israel? My thinking, just _my_ thinking of
course, is that if Israel elects these blood thirsty butchers who have instigated these massacres, some
Falestinians might suspect it says something about Likud's intentions for how to have a Jewish majority
in a state on both sides of the Jordan.
> I have never defended these,
I had the impression that you were not only unaware of these things, but that you preferred to suppose
that such things _never_ happened.
> and
> while I cannot speak for Eric, I'm sure he will agree. I have
> specifically mentioned the attack on the USS Liberty and the Jonathan
> Pollard spy case
These regretable acts of Israeli aggression and treachery are irrelevant to their violence against the
Falestinians, though.
> which merit vigorous retaliation by the US.
Would you advocate an actual punishment, or, would a a cessation of rewards be sufficient?
> I do not
> doubt that there are others.
Please do email me a copy of the letter you send your Congressman and Senator with the punishment you
propose of Israel's attack on the Liberty and spying on the US. I'm curious.
>
> But the bigger picture is that Israel, with all its many faults, is
> stumbling along the right path and could, were it not for the
> extremists and terrorists, establish a just peace with the
> Palestinians.
Of course, and their efforts would be better spent policing up their terrorists into jails, rather than
electing them to lead the Knesset, but that is just me.
>
> The PLO is a vicious, corrupt organization which has no interest in
> peace, which murders its own dissidents (however moderate they are),
> and deliberately targets women, children and the elderly for murder in
> as large numbers as they can achieve.
Possibly they are as bad as Likud, but I think that Israel has more influence over Israelis than it has
over Palestinians, just as I think that the Falestinians are in a better position to police their
extremists than the Israelis, who recruit and train the Falestinian extremists.
>
> The PLO has, as many have noted, never missed a chance to miss a
> chance for peace.
> Its apologists will not bring about Israel's demise (for which they
> ardently hope), but instead simply help to prolong the needless
> suffering of both Israeli and Palestinian alike.
I hope that Israel can abandon the Falestinians to their own devices, w/ or w/o Falestinian consent.
Pat Kohli
Eric Stetson wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F9F2353...@ameritel.net>...
>
> > Anti-Semitism means a bias against Semites, of course. As you know, the
> > Palestinians are Semites, just like the Jews.
>
> an·ti-Sem·i·tism
> n.
> 1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
> 2. Discrimination against Jews.
>
> Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
> Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
> Pat, I don't think you use the word "anti-Semitism" the way most
> people do.
If everyone else jumped off the water tower, I know where I would be. Where would you be?
> If you want to talk about opposition to non-Jewish Middle
> Easterners, the appropriate word would be "anti-Arab" would it not?
>
There are more people in the Middle East than just the Arabs and the Jews. The Turks, the Kurds and the
Persians are not Semites. The Arabs and the Jews are Semites. The Falestinians are even more closeley
related to the Jews than the typical Arab. Many of the Jews of 1970 some odd years ago, not a majority,
but a significant number, became religiously Christian. Off them, many of their descendants (not all),
would convert to Islam. That is why I believe that the Falestinians have just as much right to be in
Falestine, as the Jewish people do, they are both Semites. I don't think it helps to change the
meanings of words just to avoid the reality. "Semite" comes from the name of one of Noah's sons, Shem.
Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages.
>
> > > The
> > > anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli rhetoric you are spouting borders on hate
> > > speech.
> >
> > I admit that I was disappointed with Israel electing a hate-mongering mass
> > murderer for Prime Minister, but I have not intended to make any
> > statements which are anti-Jewish, beyond the extent of my own religious
> > disagreements with Judaism.
>
> Okay, thanks for the clarification. It sounded to me like you were
> equating Jews with Nazis, which is what disturbed me.
>
My issues would be with Likud extremists, as well as extremists on the other side. The Likud extremists
are like Nazis, even though they are Jewish.
>
> > Furthermore, I do concede Israel's right to
> > exist, so, my differences with prejudice, land-thieving, and militarism,
> > are likely attributable to my basic pacifism, and interest in Justice.
>
> Okay. What do you recommend the Israeli people do now to try to
> achieve peace?
A recognition of the facts of the conflict would be a useful start!
> They have already tried offering Arafat a Palestinian
> state on 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with part of Jerusalem
> for its capital, but Arafat turned down this proposal. What more can
> Israel do except unilaterally control the Palestinians if they refuse
> to accept a state of their own on very reasonable terms?
What Israel could do in the face of PLO intransigence, would be to unilaterally withdraw from the
Occupied Territories, and let the UN work with the PA to build a prosperous nation on the west bank.
Perhaps ceding a highway to Gaza could help.
>
>
> > > It actually nauseates me.
> >
> > Those mass murders nauseate me; I guess it is just different strokes for
> > different folks, eh?
>
> I am also nauseated by some of the things the Israeli military has
> done to the Palestinians. They have gone way overboard sometimes.
> But I think it's important to look at cause and effect. Hypothetical
> situation: I'm Israel and you're Palestine. Let's say you shoot me in
> the chest, trying to kill me, but I don't die.
Let's not say that. Let's say that you tried to shoot me in the chest. After all, I distinctly recall
you getting off the boat and moving to my neighborhood. Sure, we did not want you in the neighborhood,
but, you didn't have to shoot me, drag me out of my home, and leave me to die in the ditch!
> Now I'm mad.
No, I'm mad - you are afraid! It is not the same thing! You are afraid because you heard I did not die
in the ditch. You are afraid because I want my house back!
> Maybe I
> beat you up with a baseball bat in response, severely injuring you.
> Now you're mad.
I was mad. You are still afraid.
> So you follow me everywhere I go and keep shooting at
> me over and over again with a BB-gun, causing me to be afraid all the
> time and enduring the constant sting of the BBs in my flesh.
Now you might be mad like me.
> In
> response, I go over and vandalize your house,
You forget, you already live in my house. You just vandalize the garage where I am sleeping.
> making it difficult for
> you to live there. The question is, who is responsible for this chain
> of events?
No. That is not the question. The question is "How can we end it"? It is now too late for you to go
back to Rumania, because you are a Sabra, your parents are really the ones who came here from somewhere
else.
> I would argue that you are, because you were the one who
> first tried to shoot and kill me.
Okay. I see the problem. I asked you for the relevant facts in the previous post. I didn't ask for
some role playing game where you have misnamed the roles. I think I already did that, when I called
Ariel a Sharon a Muslim, or something. Read the links about Deir Yassin.
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/ All the links on the page, not just the one page. Also, read about
Sabra, Shatila and Ariel Sharon's role. Find your own links.
> That's why I argue the Palestinians
> are ultimately responsible for everything they have suffered over the
> decades since they rejected the UN Partition Plan and started a war
> against Israel, trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Israelis like Menachem Begin also rejected the partition plan, and they are the ones who have fomented
hatred against Israel.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/Revisionist_Zionism.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Politics/Herut.html
Begin was at Deir Yassin, w/ his Lehi militia. Ariel Sharon was in charge of the Sabra and Shatila
massacres. Both were elected Israeli PM for Likud.
> The
> basic issue is that the Palestinians were the ones who started this
> mess by refusing to accept the existence of Israel and to live in
> peace.
Best wishes!
Susan Maneck
>examples of Israeli malfeasance
<snip>
>k for Eric, I'm sure he will agree. I have
>specifically mentioned the attack on the USS Liberty and the Jonathan
>Pollard spy case which merit vigorous retaliation by the US.
Ahh, so whatever is done to the US, those are the worst examples of
malfeasance.
But what is done to Palestinians isn't nearly as important.
Susan Maneck
>Pat, I don't think you use the word "anti-Semitism" the way most
>people do.
Dear Eric,
That is certainly the way I use it. There is difference between the
anti-Judaism which existed prior to 19th century racial theories and
anti-Semitism. Those who were trying to prove that semites were instrinsically
inferior used Arabs as a primary example of this. Likewise when Reza Shah
embraced fascism during WWII he interpreted anti-semtism to mean that the Arabs
were inferior. But Jews served as generals in his army without any
discrimination.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>the Palestinians gained the land of Israel/Palestine by conquering it
>militarily under the early Muslim caliphate.
Not so. The Palestinians were there all along. The only thing that changed
after during the earlic Islamic caliphate is that they went from speaking
Aramaic to speaking Arabic.
And oh yeah, some converted from Christianity to Islam.
> Before that, the Romans
>took it from the Jews.
The Palestinians were there then too. They were known as Samaritans.
>The Jews had their _entire_ homeland (not just
>half of it) ripped away from them and they were sent into exile,
I see. And should we give everyone in the world title deeds going back two
thousand years?
> In
>order to escape persecution, the Jews needed a state of their own, as
>the Nazi holocaust proved.
Should have given them Germany. That would have been justice. Better yet, we
could have let them all come to the US which is what they preferred anyhow. We
didn't want them, which is why we supported the idea of giving them the
Palestinian's land.
>The logical place for such a state is the
>land they originally owned.
No, the logical place is the country which stole their lives away, namely
Germany, not somebody else's country that had nothing to do with what happened
to the Jews.
> But the Palestinians wanted
>all the land their ancestors had conquered,
Sorry, they never conquered it.
>As I see it, it is basically an issue of two peoples who have had
>something taken away from them.
Yep. The Jews had their lives taken away by the Germa's. The Palestinians had
their land taken away by the Jews. The Palestinians should not have been made
to pay for what the Germans did. The Germans should have paid for it.
>The Jews had all of what they owned
>taken away from them a long time ago and have been suffering
>continuously ever since.
Comeon, how much Abrahamic blood do you think an Ashkenazi Jew actually has? Do
you really think Jesus looked like an Eastern European Jew? No way, He looked
more like Arafat.
> The Palestinians had half of what they owned
>taken away from them more recently, by the original owners of the
>whole thing.
You keep believing that, Eric. Maybe someday we can test their DNA and see who
really has more Hebrew blood, the Isrealis or the Palestinians. I'll lay you
odds who will win.
The notion that present day Ashkenazi Jews are the descendents of those who
were killed out of Palestine two thousand years ago is a myth.
Susan Maneck
>> My personal belief is that Jew-hatred is a form of God-hatred.
>
Is that why there has been more anti-semitism in Christianity than any other
religion? Because they hate God more?
Randy Burns
there was a non-Semitic tribe in central Asia named the Khazars who
converted to Judaism in order to avoid converting to Islam. This tribe had
a great empire in Central Asia in the 8-9th centuries but eventually was
scattered into southern Russia and Eastern Europe.
Cheers, Randy
--
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031029232245...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Randy Burns
before he thinks.
--
Paul Hammond
> >
> >> My personal belief is that Jew-hatred is a form of God-hatred.
> >
>
> Is that why there has been more anti-semitism in Christianity than any other
> religion? Because they hate God more?
>
Hmm.
The Christian anti-semites have preferred to justify their
hatred by calling the Jews "God-murderers".
But then, these same Christians tended to hate women because
they blamed Eve for believing the serpent, and tempting
Adam to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge - yet,
for some reason, Adam's credulousness in trusting Eve
more than God escaped their condemnation. Maybe because
they were men themselves, and preferred finger-pointing
to honest self-examination?
I guess we are lucky that these days, most Christians
are more evolved than that, and that Jew-hating, like
racism, is considered beyond the pale by most people.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> Koestler wrote a book about this titled "The Thirteenth Tribe." Apparently
> there was a non-Semitic tribe in central Asia named the Khazars who
> converted to Judaism in order to avoid converting to Islam. This tribe had
> a great empire in Central Asia in the 8-9th centuries but eventually was
> scattered into southern Russia and Eastern Europe.
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
I'm not sure about the history of the Khazars, but there was
a book a few years ago, inspired by this story, called "The
Dictionary of the Khazars", by Milorad Pavic.
I bought a copy, but never got around to reading it.
An unusual book, it is written in the form of a dictionary,
you have to read the cross references in order to come up
with the story, and it comes in a Male and Female version,
(there is one sentence that is different between the
versions).
But, the idea is that three wise men - a Jew, a Muslim
and a Christian, come to visit the Khazars, and attempt
to persuade the chief that his people should join
their religion.
Randy, of course, has just given the ending away...
> --
>
> "Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031029232245...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>
> >
> > The notion that present day Ashkenazi Jews are the descendents of those
> who
> > were killed out of Palestine two thousand years ago is a myth.
> >
The serious point - Eric, along with the Zionists and many
other right-wing Christians expects us to take these
myths as a serious argument to justify Zionist ethnic
cleansing, just because these myths, as opposed to the
many others that were around 6,000 years back, happen
to have been preserved in the Christian OT, and the
Jewish Torah.
It's not really a strong basis for international law.
Deciding the destiny of Makedonia on the basis of competing
nationalist myths would be another area where such troubles
could occur. In fact, probably most places have such
difficulties - the former Yugoslavia springs to mind - and
of course the troubles between Serbs and Croatians were
exacerbated by the fact that the Croatians had a home-grown
Nazi party that had free rein during WWII.
This isn't an excuse for extreme Serbian nationalism, but
it is a root for it.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> > But you are either forgetting, or ignoring, the fact that
> >the Palestinians gained the land of Israel/Palestine by conquering it
> >militarily under the early Muslim caliphate.
>
> Not so. The Palestinians were there all along. The only thing that changed
> after during the earlic Islamic caliphate is that they went from speaking
> Aramaic to speaking Arabic.
> And oh yeah, some converted from Christianity to Islam.
>
> > Before that, the Romans
> >took it from the Jews.
>
> The Palestinians were there then too. They were known as Samaritans.
>
> >The Jews had their _entire_ homeland (not just
> >half of it) ripped away from them and they were sent into exile,
>
> I see. And should we give everyone in the world title deeds going back two
> thousand years?
>
Of course, this is probably even more problematic for
modern day America than it is for Britain. At least, my
ancestors go back in many ways to the Romans. Yours were
only there for about the last 500 years.
Will all Americans be wanting a right of return to the
European or African areas their ancestors originated
from? What happens if the Europeans themselves
have to leave these areas, to make way for the cultures
before them? Will Breton, Welsh and Gaelic become
the only official languages of the new EU under this
regime? Where do Americans or Britons of mixed ancestry
go? Do we allow everyone a choice between their Ghanean and
English, German and French ancestry, or how will
people be assigned to "where they come from"?
Can Libya become part of the new Rome?
Who will be Emperor?
Paul
(Jerry - *this* is reductio ad absurdum)
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20031029084720...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> >
> >> What are the Palestinians doing in Jordan?
> Dear Pat,
>
> Palestinians do belong in Jordan. Historically Jordan was considered a part of
> Palestine.
>
> Lebanon and Syria are another matter.
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> >Baha'is are persecuted im Muslim countries, but not in Jewish and
> >Christian ones.
>
> News flash! A considerable segment of the PLO is Christian.
But the PLO is not a Christian organization. Tariq Aziz (formerly of
Saddam Hussein's Iraq) is a so-called Christian, too.
>
> >Compared to say, the PLO, where anyone who does not support terrorism
> >can be murdered on the street by Arafat's thugs.
>
> Funny. I recall Palestinians trying to murder Arafat for not being militant
> enough!
Just as Anwar Sadat was murdered by Egyptian extremists. But what are
we going to do? To say that it's okay for Arafat to murder people in
the streets because, after all, if he wants to be president, that's
the price?
Robert Arvay
paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.03102...@posting.google.com>...
>
> I don't hate Jews, I hate massacres.
I accept that.
Nor do I hate Palestinians, nor Arabs nor Moslems.
Nor anyone.
I do despise terrorism, and murder, however.
>
> This much, I feel, I have in common with Pat.
> I would be surprised to find that you and the ADL made
> fine bedfellows - but that is how things appear at the moment.
>
I don't know much about the ADL.
I support the continuance of the nation of Israel as a sovereign
democracy secure from attack by its neighbors, and free from
terrorism.
Only then can be addressed the grievances of the Palestinians in a
manner that can lead to a practical settlement of the issues, and
without establishing yet one more dictatorship in the region.
But for terrorist obstructionism, the injustices could long ago have
been remedied.
Susan Maneck
Jews descended from them. My guess is, not much. The Khazars were Turkish
peoples. Ashkenazi Jews don't look much like Central Asian Turks. Of course,
neither do the Turks of Turkey who are mostly of Greek origin.
Let's face it, we are all mixed up!
That is one of the things that makes 2000 year old land deeds so ridiculous.
Susan Maneck
>modern day America than it is for Britain. At least, my
>ancestors go back in many ways to the Romans. Yours were
>only there for about the last 500 years.
Yeah, we have to pay reperations. But only for lands taken since the founding
the US. There usually has to be a broken treaty involved.
Still, no one is particularly interested in giving them back half the US.
>Who will be Emperor?
I'm sure Nima would take the job, but he hasn't been around lately.
Susan Maneck
>I guess we are lucky that these days, most Christians
>are more evolved than that, and that Jew-hating, like
>racism, is considered beyond the pale by most people.
Dear Paul,
Unfortunately, that isn't true where I live. I've had students become very
upset with me when I said Jesus was a Jew.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>But the PLO is not a Christian organization.
The PLO is conglomeration of organizations, some of which are Christian.
Foremost among the Christian groups is the Front for the Liberation of
Palestine.
Jerry Joplin
> Will all Americans be wanting a right of return to the
> European or African areas their ancestors originated
> from?
Last I remember, Ireland already has a right of return for anyone who
can prove one of their grandparents was born in Ireland. Since my
grandmother is from Ireland, I may take them up on it one day if things
get too militant here in the good ol' US of A.
> (Jerry - *this* is reductio ad absurdum)
Yes, well done Paul!
Jerry
Randy Burns
the purpose was. I guess it was a bit of an elaborate joke or something? I
had been hoping it was an actual dictionary but it wasn't.
Cheers, Randy
--
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03103...@posting.google.com...
Randy Burns
just happen accidentally nor did it happen as a result of the holocaust,
rather it happened because the Jews organized and worked very hard to make
it stop. The Christians had and have no desire to stop the hatred, rather
they were forced to do so by Jewish groups.
Cheers, Randy
--
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03103...@posting.google.com...
>
Eric Stetson
> The serious point - Eric, along with the Zionists and many
> other right-wing Christians
I'm actually not right-wing. My political views are a combination of
libertarian on domestic issues and isolationist on foreign affairs --
very different from President Bush and most of the people dominating
the conservative wing of the Republican Party in America. Also very
different from the liberal Democrats. Basically, I find myself in
significant disagreement with both sides of the American political
spectrum.
> expects us to take these
> myths as a serious argument to justify Zionist ethnic
> cleansing,
Absolutely not! I am completely opposed to ethnic cleansing of any
kind! I support the right of the Palestinian people to have a state
and I oppose Israeli building of settlements deep in the West Bank.
However, I really don't think the term "ethnic cleansing" can
accurately be used to describe what Israel has done, however
troublesome and oppressive some of their actions have been.
> just because these myths, as opposed to the
> many others that were around 6,000 years back, happen
> to have been preserved in the Christian OT, and the
> Jewish Torah.
Well, I happen to believe that the Jews are in fact the chosen people
of God, and that the God of Israel, YHWH, is the only God, and all
other gods are false gods. That's a belief. Other people have had,
and continue to have, different beliefs. And beliefs are always in
conflict so long as this age continues.
> It's not really a strong basis for international law.
Actually, it is historical fact that the Jews owned the land of
Palestine 2000 years ago. This is not based on myths. Historians
know it to be true. They had a sovereign state in the Holy Land, a
Jewish state. When the British owned Palestine in the 1900s, they
decided to promise some of it to the Jews to re-establish their Jewish
state that had been destroyed many centuries earlier. I don't see
what's wrong with that.
The Native Americans owned America before it was stolen away from them
by European settlers. If the Native Americans started a movement to
set up Oklahoma as a sovereign nation (as this territory was
originally promised to them by the U.S. Government), I would support
it, and I would agree that the residents of Oklahoma should either
agree to live under Native American rule or else leave. The fact is,
the Native Americans are the original owners of that land. Similarly,
the Jews are the original owners of Palestine. The fact that
Palestinians now live there complicates matters, and of course the
Palestinians also have a right to the land today because they have
established their residency over many generations, just like the
Europeans have a right to continue to live in America.
Best,
Eric
Paul Hammond
> >
> >I guess we are lucky that these days, most Christians
> >are more evolved than that, and that Jew-hating, like
> >racism, is considered beyond the pale by most people.
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> Unfortunately, that isn't true where I live. I've had students become very
> upset with me when I said Jesus was a Jew.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
I did say "most Christians". I'm sure your students who
can't recognise what is clearly written in the bible
(where did his parents find him when he went missing?)
are a minority amongst Christians, even if they
are not a minority in your classes.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.03103...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The serious point - Eric, along with the Zionists and many
> > other right-wing Christians
>
> I'm actually not right-wing. My political views are a combination of
> libertarian on domestic issues and isolationist on foreign affairs --
> very different from President Bush and most of the people dominating
> the conservative wing of the Republican Party in America. Also very
> different from the liberal Democrats. Basically, I find myself in
> significant disagreement with both sides of the American political
> spectrum.
>
> > expects us to take these
> > myths as a serious argument to justify Zionist ethnic
> > cleansing,
>
> Absolutely not! I am completely opposed to ethnic cleansing of any
> kind! I support the right of the Palestinian people to have a state
> and I oppose Israeli building of settlements deep in the West Bank.
> However, I really don't think the term "ethnic cleansing" can
> accurately be used to describe what Israel has done, however
> troublesome and oppressive some of their actions have been.
>
How bout the term "massacre"?
> > just because these myths, as opposed to the
> > many others that were around 6,000 years back, happen
> > to have been preserved in the Christian OT, and the
> > Jewish Torah.
>
> Well, I happen to believe that the Jews are in fact the chosen people
> of God, and that the God of Israel, YHWH, is the only God, and all
> other gods are false gods. That's a belief. Other people have had,
> and continue to have, different beliefs. And beliefs are always in
> conflict so long as this age continues.
>
> > It's not really a strong basis for international law.
>
> Actually, it is historical fact that the Jews owned the land of
> Palestine 2000 years ago. This is not based on myths. Historians
> know it to be true. They had a sovereign state in the Holy Land, a
> Jewish state.
There were many other states there too, and as the historians
around here have just informed us, the idea that the current
Jews are the direct descendents of the Ancient Judeans is
a myth, and the people now called Palestinians have been
there for just as long.
You can believe what you like, but fairy stories are no
basis to rob someone of their homeland. Like I say,
different people have different fairy stories, and
oddly enough, different people's fairy stories usually
serve their own selfish interests - I believe I gave
several examples in the last post.
The question is, why should *your* storybook take precedence
over natural justice, however strong your belief in your
stories is?
> When the British owned Palestine in the 1900s, they
> decided to promise some of it to the Jews to re-establish their Jewish
> state that had been destroyed many centuries earlier. I don't see
> what's wrong with that.
>
It appears, the extremist Zionists broke the treaties that
had been made with the original residents, the moderate
Zionists and the British winked at this reneging on
the treaty, and a history of war in the region was opened.
> The Native Americans owned America before it was stolen away from them
> by European settlers. If the Native Americans started a movement to
> set up Oklahoma as a sovereign nation (as this territory was
> originally promised to them by the U.S. Government), I would support
> it, and I would agree that the residents of Oklahoma should either
> agree to live under Native American rule or else leave.
Eric, why should the Native Americans be confined to Oklahoma?
Weren't they originally confined to that area, because it was
one of the parts the whites couldn't imagine ever needing?
What if the Native Americans should decide that the right
thing to do would be to drive the invaders into the sea,
and start blowing up Americans to make their point?
The fact is,
> the Native Americans are the original owners of that land. Similarly,
> the Jews are the original owners of Palestine.
People appear to dispute that fact.
> The fact that
> Palestinians now live there complicates matters,
And yet, you accuse people who speak up for them
of being "anti-semites"??
That sounds simple enough to me!
Paul
Paul Hammond
> The Khazars did convert to Judaism. The question is to what extent are European
> Jews descended from them. My guess is, not much. The Khazars were Turkish
> peoples. Ashkenazi Jews don't look much like Central Asian Turks. Of course,
> neither do the Turks of Turkey who are mostly of Greek origin.
>
> Let's face it, we are all mixed up!
>
Certainly true over here! I've made the suggestion of everyone
in Europe being made to speak Gallic languages - but the traditional
story of "original inhabtants being pushed to the Celtic
fringes" is an oversimplification anyway.
White people here are a mixture of Gauls, Romans, Germanic
Angles and Saxons, Norsemen, before the more recent waves
of immigration to these islands - so that whole "go back
where you came from" idea becomes ludicrous after a couple
of generations anyway.
> That is one of the things that makes 2000 year old land deeds so ridiculous.
>
Eric still doesn't seem to think they are ridiculous - apparently,
an "Oklahoma homeland for Indians" would win his vote.
I wonder, why Oklahoma, though? Why not Boston and LA?
Paul
Paul Hammond
> I've seen that book Paul, didn't buy it because I couldn't figure out what
> the purpose was. I guess it was a bit of an elaborate joke or something? I
> had been hoping it was an actual dictionary but it wasn't.
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
Elaborate literature - Nabokov did it much better
in "Pale Fire". If I ever get around to spending any time with
it, I'll let you know what stories I manage to find in it.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> Jews descended from them. My guess is, not much. The Khazars were Turkish
> peoples. Ashkenazi Jews don't look much like Central Asian Turks. Of course,
> neither do the Turks of Turkey who are mostly of Greek origin.
>
> Let's face it, we are all mixed up!
>
Well - recent surveys have proved that there is much more
interbreeding between Jews and the surrounding population
than the propaganda would have you believe - so that is *one*
of the reasons why European Jews look more European than Arabic.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> >
> > This much, I feel, I have in common with Pat.
> > I would be surprised to find that you and the ADL made
> > fine bedfellows - but that is how things appear at the moment.
> >
> I don't know much about the ADL.
The Anti Defamation League shout "anti-semitic" at the
drop of a hat.
They are big on promoting political correctness of
the worst kind within speech.
I didn't know that was something you were in favour of.
> I support the continuance of the nation of Israel as a sovereign
> democracy secure from attack by its neighbors, and free from
> terrorism.
> Only then can be addressed the grievances of the Palestinians in a
> manner that can lead to a practical settlement of the issues, and
> without establishing yet one more dictatorship in the region.
> But for terrorist obstructionism, the injustices could long ago have
> been remedied.
I agree with your aims, but your "only then" makes them
impossible to achieve.
The grievances of the Palestinians are the motor for
terrorism.
Had the British government taken an "only then" approach
to brokering peace in Northern Ireland, the IRA would
still be exploding bombs in London, rather than agreeing
to destroy them but arguing about letting someone know
exactly how many they destroyed.
Paul
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> erics...@yahoo.com (Eric Stetson) wrote in message news:<f581312e.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > Pat Kohli wrote:
> >
> > > It is not jokes; it is mass murder.
> > >
> > > It is a pattern seen over 50 years ago; it seems to simply be a
> > > continuation of the genocidal approach used by the Nazis.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > the anti-Semitism of mischief making PMs, like Ariel
> > > Sharon
> >
> > Pat, you take my breath away. I am truly shocked at your total lack
> > of understanding of the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and
> > your total misunderstanding of the meaning of anti-Semitism. The
> > anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli rhetoric you are spouting borders on hate
> > speech. Is this really what you believe? It actually nauseates me.
>
> Bullshit, Eric.
>
> A word of anti-semitism has never passed the lips of Pat.
>
Thanks for your confidence. Some speculate that I may have some Jewish ancestry in my hay mow, too; but I've never
felt anti-Semitic. Maybe Eric wanted to tug my chain; I've certainly tugged his.
>
> Get a sense of perspective - there are Jews who oppose
> the actions of Israel - are you going to try to shut them
> up too by calling them anti-semites?
>
> Being anti-Nazi is not the same thing as being anti-German.
>
I should hope so. Naziism was the idea of some Austrian.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> erics...@yahoo.com (Eric Stetson) wrote in message news:<f581312e.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> (snip)
> >
> > Okay. What do you recommend the Israeli people do now to try to
> > achieve peace? They have already tried offering Arafat a Palestinian
> > state on 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with part of Jerusalem
> > for its capital, but Arafat turned down this proposal.
>
> Many people (including me) would dispute that this is a
> fact.
I think it is more propaganda. The Holy Land Alternatives web site reports:
"Why did Yasir Arafat turn down the "generous offer" made in July 2000 at Camp David?
At the time, each side blamed the other and the most vocal rhetoric included the idea that Mr. Arafat turned down a
generous offer. Subsequently the fact-finding committee led by Senator George J. Mitchell did not find either side
responsible for the violence that followed the breakdown of negotiations. Lost in the conflict that ensued in
September 2000, were a number of facts about Camp David:
1. There had been prior peace meetings and negotiations that spring and this was not a one-time meeting;
2. Mr. Arafat had been reluctant to engage in a major summit meeting at that time before he had chance to deal
with other internal issues but President Clinton insisted. Mr. Arafat, in stating his reluctance, received
President Clinton's promise not to blame him if the negotiations were unsuccessful, but Mr. Clinton broke that
promise.
3. The exact dimensions of the "generous offer" were not disclosed at the time but have been since. The offer
would have left Palestine with a non-contiguous state on significantly less than 22% of mandated Palestine, along
with Israeli control over the internal borders and water supplies. (The Palestinians had already conceded that they
were dealing only with the 22% of mandated Palestine in the Oslo Accords.) Settlement blocs, to be controlled by
Israel, would incorporate Palestinian villages with about 90,000 inhabitants and much of the West Bank's fertile
land. Mr. Arafat did not see this as a generous offer.
In the summer of 2001 a number of articles were published by respected people about the 2000 meeting at Camp
David. Included are the July 26th front page story in the New York Times and the August 9th New York Review of
Books article on Camp David: Tragedy of Errors by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley. These articles brought to the
fore a broader consensus on the Camp David failure and indicated that all parties, not just Mr. Arafat, were to
blame."
xxxxxx End of quotation from Holy Land Alternatives web site xxxxx
http://www.holylandalternatives.net/peace.html
Pat Kohli
Eric Stetson wrote:
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.03102...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > What facts have I misunderstood?
> >
> > Isreal was formed where the Palestinians had lived for
> > centuries. These people have been forced from their
> > homeland.
>
> Correct. But you are either forgetting, or ignoring, the fact that
> the Palestinians gained the land of Israel/Palestine by conquering it
> militarily under the early Muslim caliphate.
You are profoundly misinformed. The Falestinians first gained control at a time when the 12 tribes were in Egypt.
Remember the tales of Saul and David consolidating the Jewish nation by slaughtering Philistines? Those are the
early Falestinians. The Philistines had displaced the Canaanites. Over time, they merged with the Israelis, while
the Israelis fractured into Judea and Israel. Israel was drawn off into the Babylonian captivity many years before
the Judeans. Those from Israel who remained, their descendants would become the Samaritans.
> Before that, the Romans
> took it from the Jews.
The Judeans lived in Judea in Roman days, Palestine was larger than simply Judea. The Galilians lived in Galilee,
the Samaritans in Samaria, etc.
> The Jews had their _entire_ homeland (not just
> half of it) ripped away from them and they were sent into exile, where
> they have suffered persecution all over the world ever since.
Oh goodness! The Indo Europeans were driven out of somewhere in Asia thousands of years ago. That is not about
solving the current problem; that is just a statement of the times back then.
> In
> order to escape persecution, the Jews needed a state of their own, as
> the Nazi holocaust proved. The logical place for such a state is the
> land they originally owned.
Ur of the Chaldees, since Abram was from there? Or, perhaps, just the region near Jerusalem, since that is the
region which was given to the tribe of Judah in the Law of Moses?
> But because there were people living
> there, the Palestinians, they were going to have to share it with them
> according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. But the Palestinians wanted
> all the land their ancestors had conquered, so here we are today.
>
But, many Zionists also claimed too much, not just the mandate area, but Transjordan as well.
>
> As I see it, it is basically an issue of two peoples who have had
> something taken away from them. The Jews had all of what they owned
> taken away from them a long time ago and have been suffering
> continuously ever since. The Palestinians had half of what they owned
> taken away from them more recently, by the original owners of the
> whole thing. The difference is that the Jews were content to get only
> half of what they lost back, whereas the Palestinians were not content
> to lose half of what they had previously taken from the Jews. Which
> side sounds more reasonable?
I think you are overlooking the recent efforts to draw Jews from far quarters of the world, places like Russia, just
to squat in the Occupied Territories, on places where living Palestinians had had their homes - that is to say, the
thieving goes on even today, right before our eyes. As long is Isreal allows Jews to settle in the Occupied
Territories, the Palestinians will see that the Israelis want to steal it all by taking two thirds, just as they did
with the madate area in the 1940s. In the next generation, they will take another fraction of the Palestinian
remainder, and so on.
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F9F2928...@ameritel.net>...
>
> Robert wrote:
> > >
> > > Those tragically caught in the crossfire, as certified by the UN
> > > investigators, died because the terrorists deliberately install
> > > themselves amid civilian populations for the express purpose of
> > > causing civilian casualties which they can then blame on the Israelis.
> >
> > That looks like a denial right out of the worst of the Zionist propaganda machine!
>
> The UN is hardly a Zionist organization.
I agree. Has the UN made some statement about the Falestinian casualties at Deir Yassin? I've seen a Red
Cross statement. Would you consider the Red Cross to be a Zionist organization?
"I made again, for the 10th time, an inquiry about the wounded and coldly the head officer responded: "We
have not yet cleaned up all the village houses but I can assure you that there does not remain nor will
remain a single Arab alive here."
...
"In the third room of one house it appeared that something stirred and I discovered a little girl about ten
years old, frightfully wounded, comatose but alive, who had not received any care for at least 24 hours
despite the presence in the village of the troop doctor who was at my side. I was at great pains to overcome
the Irgun’s resistance and I had to forcibly place the wounded child in our ambulance."
...
"At the same time, I returned to the Jewish Agency and expressed the ICRC’s position in this affair to the
various leading responsible authorities (Mr. Leo Cohn). The Jewish Agency, insofar as it represents the
Jewish community in Palestine, is severely to blame for the events of Deir Yassin, which are a manifest
violation of the spirit and letter of the Geneva Conventions which on 4-4-48 they assured the ICRC that they
would absolutely respect."
"In the name of the ICRC, I addressed to the Jewish Agency an official protest. I asked the Agency if it had
any objection to my announcing to the Arab authorities that at least 200 persons, men, women, and children,
have been killed at Deir Yassin by the Irgun, according to their [the Irgun's] own admission. A complete
report would be made to the ICRC specifying that no care whatsoever had been given to the wounded. The
Jewish Agency, shocked, declared that they accepted my request absolutely, sincerely regretted what
happened, but unfortunately lacked any power over the Irgun, extremists acting on their own initiative. I
repeated that this does not diminish in any way the Agency’s responsibility. The same evening (4-11), at
9:30 p.m., Jerusalem radio broadcast the Arab Higher Committee’s declaration making reference to my oral
report and condemning this, at its own initiative, as a Jewish crime.
[He also says in his memoirs that the request from the Irgun at some point included a threat of personal
harm if he did not sign a statement giving their version. He related that he then told them that he had
already sent out a report to Geneva saying differently so it was too late to say anything different. The
above would be that report.]
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/redcross.htm
>
>
> > The fact that the real Israeli Muslims have some rights is almost irrelevant to your scapegoatings of
> > Muslims. In Isreal, Muslims are still discriminating against, and can even be harassed out of the
> > Knesset. Ahmed Tibi, who spoke up for Palestinians who exercised their right to self defense, was
> > denounced by one Knesset member as a "collaborator with the enemy? who added the Knesset "should vomit
> > out such people from its midst."
> > The real fact is that any civil rights of Muslims in Israel, is bitterly resented by the Likud
> > government.
>
> Compared to say, the PLO, where anyone who does not support terrorism
> can be murdered on the street by Arafat's thugs.
>
Are you saying that everyone in the PLO supports terrorism? The PLO is an umbrella organization of various
Falestinian nationalist movements. The thing they have in common is that they are all Palestinian. Are you
saying that to be Falestinian, or to espouse Falestinian nationalism is terrorism? Or, are you saying that
everyone in the PLO is coincidentally a terrorist? If the later, please describe what acts of terror the
Christian, Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO member, had performed during her years with the PLO?
http://www.muslimedia.com/ARCHIVES/book98/hanan.htm
>
> > Not so. In any Arab country, any parliament member can praise an Arab for defending his home from
> > Israeli aggression.
>
> Funny. What happens if they praise Israel?
What for?
>
> >
> > > Jordan massacred 20,000
> > > Palestinians,
> >
> > What are the Palestinians doing in Jordan?
>
> They were trying to overthrow the government there.
Robert, Robert, Robert, the Falestinians did not just wake up one fine day in 1970, and announce, "let us
leave the homes of our fathers on the sedentary west bank, for it is meet for us to make war in Jordan".
They were in Jordan because they were chased out of their homes by the Israelis.
>
> >
> > > Syria routinely subjugates Palestinians---
> >
> > What are the Palestinians doing in Syria?>
> > What are the Palestinians doing in Lebanon?
> > Why don't they just go home, like everyone else?
>
> For Lebanese Palestinians, it IS their home.
Palestine is the home of the Palestinians, or "Falestine" if we go for Arabic phonics.
>
> >
> > > In Haifa, Israel, the Baha'is enjoy their temple, and their world
> > > headquarters.
> > >
> > > When the PLO takes control of Haifa, how long will it take them to
> > > raze the shrines of the infidel?
> >
> > I have no idea.
>
> Sure you do. How about, as soon as the thought occurs to them?
I still have no idea when they will think of that. At this point, I'm guessing it is long after you have.
>
>
> > The Baha'is were there when it was controlled by Ottoman Turks, and when it was under
> > British mandate. We were infidels to them, just as we are infidels to the Jews. I don't expect much
> > difference from the Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
>
> Baha'is are persecuted im Muslim countries, but not in Jewish and
> Christian ones.
How does Israel treat Israeli Baha'is?
I had the impression that Russia, a predminately Christian nation, puts (or has put) restrictions on smaller
religions.
xxxxxxxxxxx
"...The situation in Russia is not as dire, but the decline of religious freedom may have regional
ramifications, the commission said. A 1997 religion law restricts minority religious groups by requiring
them to undergo an "onerous and intrusive registration process," the report says. Tens of thousands of
groups missed a December 1999 registration deadline, which has been extended to December 2000. A
presidential decree states that groups not registered by then will be liquidated."
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-93281/frfljda3.htm
xxxxxx
As far as specific instances where Christians have discriminated against Baha'i due to religion, there have
not been the depth and breadth of problems which have been experienced in Iran, but some place always will
be worst. Recent statements of Gen Boykin, and the warmth with which these remarks were recieved by
Christians right here, are indicative of how many Christians see those of other religions.
Best wishes!
- Pat
Susan Maneck
>Remember the tales of Saul and David consolidating the Jewish nation by
>slaughtering Philistines? Those are the
>early Falestinians. The Philistines had displaced the Canaanites.
Dear Pat,
Same word, but probably not the same people. It is usually thought that the
Philistines of the Bible were probably Phoenicans.
>Those from Israel who remained, their descendants would become the
>Samaritans.
Yes, more likely. Though the Samaritans are thought to be a combination of
Israelis and those people that the Babylonians transported *to* Israel during
this period.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>can't recognise what is clearly written in the bible
>(where did his parents find him when he went missing?)
>are a minority amongst Christians, even if they
>are not a minority in your classes.
Dear Paul,
There are apparently not a minority in their churches either. That's where they
are getting this stuff. In fact I've made it a point to include stuff on
anti-semitism in my curriculum because of this.
Susan Maneck
>I wonder, why Oklahoma, though? Why not Boston and LA?
Naah, I think we should give them back Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, etc.
You know, the stuff we took from them in 'exchange' for Oklahoma.
You wouldn't mind throwing in your home, would you Eric?
Maybe just half of it?
Randy Burns
Federal Government of the United States. After they were dispossessed of
their land for the second time they were given the worst possible land that
could be found anywhere in the US of A. A number of years later oil was
discovered on that land and those Indians all drive Cadillac's now. I doubt
that they would be willing to exchange anything for anything.
Cheers, Randy
--
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031030215333...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >Egypt.
> >Remember the tales of Saul and David consolidating the Jewish nation by
> >slaughtering Philistines? Those are the
> >early Falestinians. The Philistines had displaced the Canaanites.
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> Same word, but probably not the same people. It is usually thought that the
> Philistines of the Bible were probably Phoenicans.
>
Those Phoenicians may be the earlier Canaanites.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03569b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12021c.htm
>
> >Those from Israel who remained, their descendants would become the
> >Samaritans.
>
> Yes, more likely. Though the Samaritans are thought to be a combination of
> Israelis and those people that the Babylonians transported *to* Israel during
> this period.
Best wishes!
Susan Maneck
>Those Phoenicians may be the earlier Canaanites.
Dear Pat,
Actually, I think they both were. The Philistines mostly lived around Lebanon
at the time while the Canaanites were in Israel itself. Most historians think
the Biblical descriptions of them all being massacred were rather exaggerated.
But we do know that the Phoenicians sacrificed their babies as the Bible
reports the Canaanites doing. They have found burial grounds full of them in
Carthage where the Phoenicians went after the Assyrians pushed them out of the
Levant area.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>that they would be willing to exchange anything for anything.
LOL
But if we hadn't take their land they would have been driving Cadillacs long
before this. At the time Andrew Jackson took their land the Cherokees were
better educated and more well-to-do than the white settlers who replaced them.
They even operated cotton plantations manned by slaves.
warmest, Susan
Robert Arvay
You seem to be attempting to characterize the PLO as a multicultural
group in which Christians have any real say over policy. Perhaps this
is to diffuse blame away from the dominant Muslim element which
promotes violence.
Regardless, my earlier point remains: in predominantly
Christian-ruled nations, there is far more religious and political
tolerance than that practiced by the Arab League or by the PLO. Under
Israeli rule, the prospects for justice and tolerance are immensely
better than under rule by Arafat.
Despotic nations are a danger to all the world because they remain in
power by diverting the anger and frustration of their oppressed,
impoverished people to external peoples, thereby loading the guns of
terrorism and lighting its fuses.
If we cannot bring about the democratization of these countries, if we
cannot instill in them a respect for life, liberty and law, then we
are sitting passively upon history's most unstable fault line, and we
will all suffer for it.
=========
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20031030105317...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
Susan Maneck
>group in which Christians have any real say over policy.
Dear Robert,
I'm saying it is an umbrella organization of lots of different groups some of
which are Christian. As far as setting policy goes, each organization within
the PLO pretty much sets its own policy. In the case of the FLP, the Christian
wing, they not only utilized terrorism but favored communism as well. For
instance they were responsible for making South Yemen into a communist state
for awhile.
>Regardless, my earlier point remains: in predominantly
>Christian-ruled nations, there is far more religious and political
>tolerance than that practiced by the Arab League or by the PLO.
The PLO has no problems with religious tolerance, it isn't even an issue.
Muslims and Christians not only get along, they intermarry, just as Arafat has
a Christian wife and attends church on Christmas and Easter, at least when he
is allowed to.
warmest, Susan
Robert Arvay
Your description of Arafat and the PLO are absurdly euphemistic.
Arafat is a terrorist who has squandered billions of dollars in
international aid that could have long ago benefitted his people with
a solid economic foundation, and empowered them to address their
grievances from a position of strength, peace, and credibility. But
that result would have made Arafat less wealthy and less powerful. So
instead he keeps his Christian wife and child in Paris, instead of
asking them to strap bombs to themselves. This, he leaves to the
children of the wretched whom he has impoverished.
He is a shrewd and convenient middleman for more powerful forces who
benefit from preventing a secure democratic Israel from enjoying
peace.
One day, he will cease to be convenient to them, and not all the
shrewdness in the world will be enough to save him from the fate of
the willing pawn.
Again, freedom and human rights are respected by Arab governments to a
far less degree than in the western-style democracies. No amount of
euphemism can change that fact.
============
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20031031151359...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
Susan Maneck
>Again, freedom and human rights are respected by Arab governments to a
>far less degree than in the western-style democracies.
You remind me of what I use to hear as a kid about orientals; that they didn't
value life the same way we did. I'm sure that made it much more comforting to
kill them in Southeast Asia.
Paul Hammond
> >
> >Again, freedom and human rights are respected by Arab governments to a
> >far less degree than in the western-style democracies.
>
> You remind me of what I use to hear as a kid about orientals; that they didn't
> value life the same way we did. I'm sure that made it much more comforting to
> kill them in Southeast Asia.
>
Susan,
However much you explain the facts to this guy, all he is going to
do is repeat his mindless mantra: "Arafat is a terrorist, Arafat
is a terrorist, Arafat is a terrorist".
Robert is too wedded to his idea of "Arab bad, Israel good" to pay
any real attention to the evidence you might put in front of him.
Paul
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20031103003953...@mb-m12.aol.com>...
> >
> You remind me of what I use to hear as a kid about orientals; that they didn't
> value life the same way we did. I'm sure that made it much more comforting to
> kill them in Southeast Asia.
>
That borders on a personal attack.
The context of my remarks does not warrant such a reply.
First, we are speaking of demonstrable fact, not opinion.
Subjects of nearly all Arab League governments do not have the ability
to form opposition parties, to promote candidates, and to replace
their leaders through elections.
I've never advocated using force or violence against those governments
(except as a defensive measure should we be attacked or meaningfully
threatened).
I do advocate spreading democracy through peaceful means, including
coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions.
One of the propaganda weapons Arab-Islamic governments have against us
is our moral debauchery as a culture. Unfortunately, we not only do
little to take this argument away from them, we seem to be getting
even worse. TV sitcoms, movies, even bulletin boards along the
highway are giving social conservatives few places to "look away" as
we are admonished to do whenever we object.
Arabs who object to burkhas, object even more to the prospect of their
daughters growing up in a society where they are expected to dress
provocatively (by their standards).
I sympathize with that. We need to clean up our own cultural act, or
face a thousand years war against terrorists,
============
Robert Arvay
perpetrated it.
I used the 2 examples because they show that the interests of the US
and Israel are not always the same, and I am loyal to the US, not to
Israel.
Israel has in fact prosecuted its own citizens when it was shown that
they had committed crimes against Palestinians. Israelis have
demonstrated in the street in support of Palestinians (and sometimes
marching with them).
I know of no comparable examples of PLO justice within the areas under
its control. On the contrary, moderate Palestinians flee for their
lives to the US. And of those who return, some women have been
publicly murdered for having become "too westernized."
=======
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20031029230519...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> >worst
> >examples of Israeli malfeasance
> <snip>
> >k for Eric, I'm sure he will agree. I have
> >specifically mentioned the attack on the USS Liberty and the Jonathan
> >Pollard spy case which merit vigorous retaliation by the US.
>
> Ahh, so whatever is done to the US, those are the worst examples of
> malfeasance.
> But what is done to Palestinians isn't nearly as important.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Robert Arvay" <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e247d7b6.03102...@posting.google.com...
> I also believe that the current events in the mid-east conform to
> Biblical prophecy, and that we are seeing the beginning of a
> multi-national attack against Jerusalem which will unfold on the
> battlefield Har Megiddo, that is, Armageddon.
> Subsequent events will prove or disprove that.
> But in the meantime, we should not assume that the hatred of Jews does
> not underly much of the opposition to a peaceful, secure Israeli
> state.
I dug out my old copy of Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" the other night
and had a good giggle reading it again. That was bought by me way back in
1980. It explains your hatred of Europe and your tarring of European
governments with the ultimate sin of socialism. The European Union will be
the seat of the Anti-Christ and be the ten nation confederacy of Daniel.
So I presume the rupture will not be long in coming. Of course as there are
so few real Christians in the world, will anybody actually realise it has
happened?
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> One of the propaganda weapons Arab-Islamic governments have against us
> is our moral debauchery as a culture.
This is your argument not theirs!
> Unfortunately, we not only do
> little to take this argument away from them, we seem to be getting
> even worse. TV sitcoms, movies, even bulletin boards along the
> highway are giving social conservatives few places to "look away" as
> we are admonished to do whenever we object.
Like I said this is your argument.
> Arabs who object to burkhas, object even more to the prospect of their
> daughters growing up in a society where they are expected to dress
> provocatively (by their standards).
But they are not expected to dress "provocatively". They can dress anyway
they want to.
> I sympathize with that. We need to clean up our own cultural act, or
> face a thousand years war against terrorists,
Christian terrorists!?! Declaring war on the prevailing culture? Seeking
to impose a minority morality on the majority? Close the pubs, cinemas and
chain up the swings in the children's play areas on a Sunday? That's the
Christian terrorism I grew up with here - a load of sanctimonious,
hypocritical, Sabbatarian old farts and bigots who sought to and did impose
their agenda to bring the world to Jesus ... well, their interpretation of
him, at any rate. .. whether it wanted him or not.
BTW it didn't work! They got the heave-ho! Halleluia!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
news:vq2ddnd...@corp.supernews.com...
> Paul Hammond wrote:
> > Will all Americans be wanting a right of return to the
> > European or African areas their ancestors originated
> > from?
>
> Last I remember, Ireland already has a right of return for anyone who
> can prove one of their grandparents was born in Ireland.
It has just been repealed - pressures of European law and all that. In any
case it only ever applied to Catholics ... or Protestants but nobody else.
> Since my
> grandmother is from Ireland, I may take them up on it one day if things
> get too militant here in the good ol' US of A.
I'll bet she has disowned you, Janis dear, for all your antics here and
possibly elsewhere. In any case you wouldn't like it here in Ireland - far
too militant. We've all gone crazy - buying up arms like mad in accord with
Robbie Myway's dictum that all good citizens should have the right to bear
arms. I've got two and I've bared them as well.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> >I'm sure your students who
> >can't recognise what is clearly written in the bible
> >(where did his parents find him when he went missing?)
> >are a minority amongst Christians, even if they
> >are not a minority in your classes.
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> There are apparently not a minority in their churches either. That's where
they
> are getting this stuff. In fact I've made it a point to include stuff on
> anti-semitism in my curriculum because of this.
As I've said elsewhere - without hatred, no religion can hope to grow.
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> Your description of Arafat and the PLO are absurdly euphemistic.
Your description of the PLO looks patently anti-semitic. You wrote, and I quote,
<<< Compared to say, the PLO, where anyone who does not
<<< support terrorism can be murdered on the street by Arafat's thugs.
Please explain this. For instance, Hanan Ashrawi was a prominent member of the PLO for several years. Are
you saying that she really supported terrorism all these years?
If you don't have specific knowledge about all of the PLO's leadership, and I doubt you do, what justifies
you suggesting such a thing?
Please do explain yourself.
You post your off-topic crap, and act like it is your free-speech is at stake, but when you post blatantly
anti-semitic material here, where will the line be drawn? Is everyone entitled to post their hate speech
here, against any and all religions and ethnicities? At least when Darrick posts his bigotry, he tries to
attribute it to 'Abdu'l Baha, and, though he is wrong, he is on topic.
>
> Arafat is a terrorist who has squandered billions of dollars in
> international aid that could have long ago benefitted his people with
> a solid economic foundation, and empowered them to address their
> grievances from a position of strength, peace, and credibility.
You are entitled to your opinion. doubtless it is important for you to vent this opinion, while you keep
mute about _indicted_ mass murdering terrorist, Ariel Sharon, who really does squander billions of dollars,
of _our_ tax money!!!
> But
> that result would have made Arafat less wealthy and less powerful. So
> instead he keeps his Christian wife and child in Paris, instead of
> asking them to strap bombs to themselves.
This is an odd way of accusing Soha Arafat of apostasy, which, for Muslims, can be a serious charge. I
suggest you pause before creating more controversy. You are so far over your head, I don't think you know
if the depth reading is feet or meters.
> This, he leaves to the
More nonsense snipped.
Susan Maneck
>do is repeat his mindless mantra: "Arafat is a terrorist, Arafat
>is a terrorist, Arafat is a terrorist".
So we can always say, "Sharon is a terrorist, Sharon is a terrorist."
That is just as true!
Susan Maneck
>I've never advocated using force or violence against those governments
Then why is it relevant what kind of governments they have?
Robert Arvay
"Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bo6rf3$8fs$2...@titan.btinternet.com>...
>
> Like I said this is your argument.
>
> > Arabs who object to burkhas, object even more to the prospect of their
> > daughters growing up in a society where they are expected to dress
> > provocatively (by their standards).
>
> But they are not expected to dress "provocatively". They can dress anyway
> they want to.
Indeed. But I was referring to cultural expectations and influences.
Arabs are known to kill their own daughters rather than allow them to
exhibit adaptations to secular western culture.
>
> > ...We need to clean up our own cultural act, or
> > face a thousand years war against terrorists,
>
> Christian terrorists!?! Declaring war on the prevailing culture? Seeking
> to impose a minority morality on the majority? Close the pubs, cinemas and
> chain up the swings in the children's play areas on a Sunday? That's the
> Christian terrorism I grew up with here - a load of sanctimonious,
> hypocritical, Sabbatarian old farts and bigots who sought to and did impose
> their agenda to bring the world to Jesus ... well, their interpretation of
> him, at any rate. .. whether it wanted him or not.
> BTW it didn't work! They got the heave-ho! Halleluia!
You're reading something very different than what I wrote.
I am not advocating use of force to impose Christian values on anyone.
It never worked on me, and I don't expect it will work on others.
Even if it did, the gain would be lost in the resentment.
We need to clean up our cultural act, this much is obvious. A culture
in which som 25% of all childbirth is out of wedlock, where the
fathers are absent, where children are taught more about abortion than
about civics, (and I could list a long litany of social woes plaguing
us) is not equipped to survive very long into the 21st Century as a
free nation.
Without some degree of moral authority, our power will not sustain us.
Robert Arvay
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3FA6FA23...@ameritel.net>...
> Your description of the PLO looks patently anti-semitic. You wrote, and I quote,
>
> <<< Compared to say, the PLO, where anyone who does not
> <<< support terrorism can be murdered on the street by Arafat's thugs.
>
> Please explain this. For instance, Hanan Ashrawi was a prominent member of the PLO for several years. Are
> you saying that she really supported terrorism all these years?
News footage of Palestinians murdered by Arafat's al-Aqsa brigades
have been broadcast internationally.
>
> ...Is everyone entitled to post their hate speech
> here, against any and all religions and ethnicities?
Hate speech = anything liberals disagree with.
Instead, let's just address the issues raised.
> >
> > Arafat is a terrorist who has squandered billions of dollars in
> > international aid that could have long ago benefitted his people with
> > a solid economic foundation, and empowered them to address their
> > grievances from a position of strength, peace, and credibility.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion.
This is not opinion. The PLO has been given billions--- that's
billions of dollars. That's enough to have built thousands of
schools, factories, houses, banks, hospitals, and all the vital
institutions needed to lift Palestinians from the wretched poverty in
which they languish.
Where are those schools and factories? Where?
Ask Yasser Arafat.
> ...Ariel Sharon, who really does squander billions of dollars,
> of _our_ tax money!!!
But Israel has those social institutions.
>
> > But
> > that result would have made Arafat less wealthy and less powerful. So
> > instead he keeps his Christian wife and child in Paris, instead of
> > asking them to strap bombs to themselves.
>
> This is an odd way of accusing Soha Arafat of apostasy, which, for Muslims, can be a serious charge. I
> suggest you pause before creating more controversy. You are so far over your head, I don't think you know
> if the depth reading is feet or meters.
>
So then tell me, where do Arafat's family live?
How many more impoverished Palestinians will be encouraged to detonate
themselves before Arafat or his family practice what they preach?
Michel Boucher
> Hate speech = anything liberals disagree with.
Be careful who you call a "liberal". Around here that's a dirty word
for a very much right wing partei. I'm far to the left of any
liberals I know and therefore surely of any liberals you know (if you
actually know any real liberals).
You USAians sure abuse language beyond its meaning with no regard for
the sensibilities of others. When I see someone accuse me of being a
liberal, I think of the line in Fearless Vampire Killers when the
girl holds up a cross to a Hassidic jew turned vampire and he says:
"Boy, have you got the wrong vampire!"
You seem to think the term liberal applies universally to a concept
you have in your tiny mind, but it doesn't. If you mean something,
say it. Don't use parochial shortcuts that are meaningless outside
your 7% of humanity.
> Instead, let's just address the issues raised.
So, do you think Hate Speech is ok *if* "liberals" disagree with it?
--
Il faudrait que tout le monde réclame
Auprès des autorités
Une loi contre toute notre indifférence
Que personne ne soit oublié.
Carla Bruni, «Tout le monde»
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bo6rf3$8fs$2...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> >
> > Like I said this is your argument.
> >
> > > Arabs who object to burkhas, object even more to the prospect of their
> > > daughters growing up in a society where they are expected to dress
> > > provocatively (by their standards).
> >
> > But they are not expected to dress "provocatively". They can dress
anyway
> > they want to.
>
> Indeed. But I was referring to cultural expectations and influences.
> Arabs are known to kill their own daughters rather than allow them to
> exhibit adaptations to secular western culture.
That's their problem. There's an old adage about doing as the Romans do
when they are in Rome. Ergo if Arabs come to the West they must expect that
they cannot impose their cultural expectations here. If they want their
daughters to perform according to their expectations they should leave them
at home. After all if an Occidental goes to the Orient he is expected to
conform to Oriental customs.
> You're reading something very different than what I wrote.
> I am not advocating use of force to impose Christian values on anyone.
> It never worked on me, and I don't expect it will work on others.
> Even if it did, the gain would be lost in the resentment.
>
> We need to clean up our cultural act, this much is obvious. A culture
> in which som 25% of all childbirth is out of wedlock, where the
> fathers are absent, where children are taught more about abortion than
> about civics, (and I could list a long litany of social woes plaguing
> us) is not equipped to survive very long into the 21st Century as a
> free nation.
Once again there are those old Christian values that you feel have to be
imposed if we are to survive. You want to ban abortion because you abhor it
and think nobody should have the right to do anything you don't agree with.
You equate parenthood with wedlock and would, I suspect, dearly love to
outlaw single parenthood.
Society has moved away from an era in which bastards were stigmatised.
Granted the balance has significantly swung the other way and I would not
deny that as a general rule the nuclear family is the best environment for
children. But I know a number of single parents who have done a better job
of rearing their kids than many traditional nuclear families. Indeed when I
think of some of the local tearaways, they all have emerged from ....
traditional families and not single parents. Let's also not forget that
some at least of these kids are actually born into family groupings that are
complete but for the presence of a marriage certificate.
'Tis the propensity of the old always and everywhere to bemoan the morals
and achievements of the young.
> Without some degree of moral authority, our power will not sustain us.
It's a different moral authority that rules today but a sight better in many
respects than what you lament the loss of. I keep asking you why you
advocate the US so called healthcare system based on private insurance and
decry that social system prevalent in Europe. Specifically I have asked you
where, in your system, I could get medical insurance for my autistic and
epileptic daughter and you keep dodging the question. The morality you
advocate fails to supply an answer but the morality that reigns in Europe
does. And I'll take it any day compared to your Christian and American
values.
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3FA6FA23...@ameritel.net>...
>
> > Your description of the PLO looks patently anti-semitic. You wrote, and I quote,
> >
> > <<< Compared to say, the PLO, where anyone who does not
> > <<< support terrorism can be murdered on the street by Arafat's thugs.
> >
> > Please explain this. For instance, Hanan Ashrawi was a prominent member of the PLO for several years. Are
> > you saying that she really supported terrorism all these years?
>
> News footage of Palestinians murdered by Arafat's al-Aqsa brigades
> have been broadcast internationally.
The fact of dead Palestinians does not prove that the PLO murders those who do not support terrorism. Hanan
Ashrawi, unless you can link her to terrorism, proves you wrong. The other explanation for your statement -
assuming you can not prove that all PLO folks have been advocates of terrorism, is simply racism on your part,
equating nationalist Palestinians with terrorists.
>
> >
> > ...Is everyone entitled to post their hate speech
> > here, against any and all religions and ethnicities?
>
> Hate speech = anything liberals disagree with.
That bit of smoke is not hate speech, it is simply wrong. Hate speech is something to incite, or justify
violence against someone else, or, in your case, their family, because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or
beliefs, etc.
I should give you credit for fessing up to hate speech in that message, not just being anti-semitic, but actually
inciting violence. But you know, for what you've down, your pride in your work, to the extent you subconsciously
want to claim it as hate-speech, is just not that admirable in the scheme of trying to incite violence against a
mother with minor children.
In your recent, and most sordid case, you incite violence against a women whom you say isn't even living in the
middle east. You incite vilence against this woman, apparently simply for being married to someone you don't
like.
You've been very proud of your own religious bigotry against lesbians, and you've been very proud of how Arabs
and others can express their own bigotries which are different from yours. You want to exploit the prejudices of
others? Well, you will be held accountable!
>
> Instead, let's just address the issues raised.
Robert, how often have you raised the issue of anti-Semitism?
Now, address your anti-Semitism!
(smoke snipped)
Robert Arvay
"Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bo9gi6$7tk$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> ...if Arabs come to the West they must expect that
> they cannot impose their cultural expectations here. If they want their
> daughters to perform according to their expectations they should leave them
> at home. After all if an Occidental goes to the Orient he is expected to
> conform to Oriental customs.
But they DO expect to impose their cultural expectations here. Don't
ask me to explain the logic of it--- I can't. But I live in a
community where there are large numbers of Hispanics; sometimes I am
asked why I don't study their language. Moslem immigrants in Europe
are having a dramatic effect on the culture there (esp France), and
are quite outspoken about their rights (which are denied them in their
own country), and often intolerant of other peoples' rights (esp
concerning Jews).>
>
> >
> > We need to clean up our cultural act, this much is obvious. A culture
> > in which som 25% of all childbirth is out of wedlock, [etc]
> Once again there are those old Christian values that you feel have to be
> imposed if we are to survive. You want to ban abortion because you abhor it
> and think nobody should have the right to do anything you don't agree with.
That's nonsense. I earnestly support the right of people to listen to
country music, which I personally abhor. Killing babies is not on the
level of mere disapproval.
> You equate parenthood with wedlock and would, I suspect, dearly love to
> outlaw single parenthood.
You suspect wrong. I'm a conservative-minded libertarian, and I
believe the government should only intrude on the most limited basis
required to prevent collapse of the society.
> Society has moved away from an era in which bastards were stigmatised.
Wrong. Their stigma now is that they tend to grow up fatherless and
in poverty.
> ...But I know a number of single parents who have done a better job
> of rearing their kids than many traditional nuclear families.
There's always an exceptional anecdote, but I agree with you that the
traditional nuclear family is the best.
>
> > Without some degree of moral authority, our power will not sustain us.
>
> It's a different moral authority that rules today but a sight better in many
> respects than what you lament the loss of. I keep asking you why you
> advocate the US so called healthcare system based on private insurance and
> decry that social system prevalent in Europe. Specifically I have asked you
> where, in your system, I could get medical insurance for my autistic and
> epileptic daughter and you keep dodging the question. The morality you
> advocate fails to supply an answer but the morality that reigns in Europe
> does. And I'll take it any day compared to your Christian and American
> values.
Socialized medicine provides valuable services to people who otherwise
could not get them. But it provides this benefit at the loss of a
greater good. An analogy, perhaps unfair, is that in the Depression
of the 1930s, Al Capone funded soup kitchens in Chicago, feeding the
hungry. He gained great support for himself in doing this, but the
cost was measured in murders and corruption.
If we tried to explain this to a hungry man who was being fed by Al
Capone, we would be utterly unconvincing. To him, the immediate need
was being fulfilled, the terrible cost was hidden from him, and he
would not hear of any "better" system of feeding him.
The analogy is not 100 percent, but the point is that socialism relies
upon confiscation of one person's produce to benefit another. In the
short-run, this will produce benefits which the recipients, perceiving
as free (to themselves), will applaud.
In the end, however, the better system is to empower individuals to
establish their own medical care plans, intervening only on behalf of
the truly indigent. It is much easier, however, to explain the
concept of "giving a man a fish," than to explain the more complex
principle of "teaching a man to fish." Therefore, the socialists tend
to win the sound-byte debate hands down.
Susan Maneck
>But they DO expect to impose their cultural expectations here. Don't
>ask me to explain the logic of it--- I can't. But I live in a
>community where there are large numbers of Hispanics; sometimes I am
>asked why I don't study their language.
Dear Robert,
Hispanics most definitely *do* have the right to expect this. And it is a
matter of law, not logic. The Treaty of Guadelupe by which the US acquired
legal title to the terrirtories of the Southwest which they one in the
Mexican-American War guaranteed the rights of Hispanics living in the US to
retain their own language and culture. If we want English Only laws we can have
them, just so long as we are prepared to give the California and the Southwest
back to Mexico. ;-}
> Moslem immigrants in Europe
>are having a dramatic effect on the culture there (esp France), and
>are quite outspoken about their rights (which are denied them in their
>own country),
Last I heard Muslim girls had the right to wear head scarfs to school in
Algeria (which most of the Muslims living in France are from.)
>and often intolerant of other peoples' rights (esp
>concerning Jews)
And how are Jew's rights violated in Algeria ?
>The analogy is not 100 percent, but the point is that socialism relies
>upon confiscation of one person's produce to benefit another.
So does government in general.
>In the end, however, the better system is to empower individuals to
>establish their own medical care plans, intervening only on behalf of
>the truly indigent.
It is not better in terms of the life-expectancy of the overall population,
including the infants you want so much to protect. Our own infant mortality
rate is 30% higher than that of Cuba, and I think that is shameful.
Even John Locke spoke of natural rights as consisting of 'life, liberty and
property.' Property came third. Governments who deny their citzenry adequate
medical care deny them life. The property rights of the wealthy are not enough
to justify this.
warmest, Susan
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20031105124034...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> Hispanics most definitely *do* have the right to expect this.
> ....to retain their own language and culture. If we want English Only laws we can have
> them, just so long as we are prepared to give the California and the Southwest
> back to Mexico. ;-}
I most definitely agree. My grandparents spoke Hungarian (as I did
until about age 5). My wife speaks Korean. I speak Cracker. But we
do not require anyone else to learn our languages. OTOH, I have
absorbed quite a bit of Spanish over the past few years (my Korean
inlaws speak Mexican Spanish quite well!). When in non-English
speaking countries, I carry and English-Local phrase book. Yet I meet
Spanish speaking people who not only speak hardly a word of English,
but who have so little interest in learning that they can't be
bothered to carry a phrase book. That's their right, and while I
deplore their choice, I propose nothing to change it.
> > Moslem immigrants in Europe
> >are having a dramatic effect on the culture there (esp France), and
> >are quite outspoken about their rights (which are denied them in their
> >own country),
>
> Last I heard Muslim girls had the right to wear head scarfs to school in
> Algeria (which most of the Muslims living in France are from.)
Cute. But they don't have the rights of free speech, petition for
redress of grievances, nor the ability to lobby for a change in
government.
>
> >and often intolerant of other peoples' rights (esp
> >concerning Jews)
>
> And how are Jew's rights violated in Algeria ?
I was referring to the lack of respect Moslems in France have for the
rights of Jews in France. I quoted a brief chronicle of that on TRB
not too many weeks ago.
>
> >The analogy is not 100 percent, but the point is that socialism relies
> >upon confiscation of one person's produce to benefit another.
>
> So does government in general.
Consider the degree.
>
> >In the end, however, the better system is to empower individuals to
> >establish their own medical care plans, intervening only on behalf of
> >the truly indigent.
>
> It is not better in terms of the life-expectancy of the overall population,
> including the infants you want so much to protect. Our own infant mortality
> rate is 30% higher than that of Cuba, and I think that is shameful.
So do I. And the program which can remedy this is resisted by the
liberal establishment, which will hear nothing about making
individuals more free from dependency on government services.
>
> Even John Locke spoke of natural rights as consisting of 'life, liberty and
> property.' Property came third. Governments who deny their citzenry adequate
> medical care deny them life. The property rights of the wealthy are not enough
> to justify this.
>
Under liberalism and socialism, property rights barely make the list
at all. I think you're allowed to keep your own toothbrush, although
that's very conditional.
Property rights are not first on the list of rights, but they are
still very important to the functioning of a free economy that can
produce enough goods and services to meet everyone's basic needs.
Government is a powerful tool of remedy for social ills. But it is
its very power that, like fire, makes a good servant, but a cruel
master.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> at all. I think you're allowed to keep your own toothbrush, although
> that's very conditional.
This is absolute balderdash. You have previously labelled European
governments as socialist even though Europeans have told you that they are
not socialist or oppressive. You seem not to be able to grasp the concept
that European society is based on "community" rather than the stereotype of
the rugged individual. Within that community human rights are preserved and
are sacrosanct, including the right to own property and manage one's own
life. But the concept of community necessarily entails the view that the
well being of all is the concern of all. It benefits the society, the
community and the individual that hunger, poverty and distress are relieved.
It is to the good of society that ALL children receive adequate and proper
healthcare and education irrespective of the ability of the parent to
provide.
You are so obsessed with the so called rights of the individual that you
don't seem to give a damn about the price paid to preserve them. Thousands
of your fellow citizens die from firearms every year yet you refuse to
consider anyting that would limit the availability of firearms. It's not
just criminals who are killing your fellow citizens - those kids at
Columbine weren't criminals; they were law abiding citizens until they used
lawfully held firearms to blast their fellow students to death. You don't
seem to be at all annoyed by the fact that infant mortality in the US is
worse than in Cuba. Can you comprehend why this is? Might it have
something to do with the fact that healthcare is free in Cuba and therefore
accessible to everybody?
Tax rates in Europe are higher than in the US and maybe that's your main
grouch - you don't like and you don't trust government whereas we do as we
elect it and periodically change it. So our governments are both
accountable and responsive to the public mood. Sure we pay an annual fee of
about $160 to own a television but, in return, we do get two network
channels that are free of inane advertising plus a number of radio stations,
also free of advertising. They are run by the BBC which is not under the
thumb of government. We also pay high fuel prices but we have no toll
roads. Nobody profits from health insurance and the drug company profits
are limited - they are controlled and not permitted to exploit a monopoly
market. We cannot own unlicensed firearms which means that deaths from such
weapons are few. But our kids are healthy and ALL of them receive their
vaccinations. Education is free up to the age of 18; after that any student
who qualifies to attend University gets a guaranteed low interest loan from
Government which only has to be repaid as and when he earns over a
reasonable salary. We are free to criticise Government; free to speak our
minds as and when we wish.
Many things are regulated in our societies - public utilities; the standards
of decency on television and in the press; the placing of billboards,
especially on roads where they might prove a distraction to safe driving;
constructional standards in homes, factories, offices and other areas to
which people have access; the dumping of waste and many other things too
numerous to mention. But these things are all done by public consent to
improve the standard of living of all the people and to prevent exploitation
of the weak by the strong. Of course Government is strong but it is also
weak when put to the electoral test.
Now you tell me why your society with 40 million people unable to afford
healthcare and infant mortality rates higher than in your poor neighbour,
Cuba, is better in any way.
> Property rights are not first on the list of rights, but they are
> still very important to the functioning of a free economy that can
> produce enough goods and services to meet everyone's basic needs.
We do that in Europe.
>
> Government is a powerful tool of remedy for social ills. But it is
> its very power that, like fire, makes a good servant, but a cruel
> master.
So use it to remedy your social ills and vote it out of office when or if it
becomes cruel. You'll never do it because greed and selfishness is at the
very core of your American values.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> could not get them.
Precisely!
> But it provides this benefit at the loss of a
> greater good.
The profits of those who have exploited the poor to the extent they cannot
afford to live. An extreme statement perhaps but one that was true in
Europe and is true in the US.
> An analogy, perhaps unfair, is that in the Depression
> of the 1930s, Al Capone funded soup kitchens in Chicago, feeding the
> hungry. He gained great support for himself in doing this, but the
> cost was measured in murders and corruption.
No it wasn't! Capone did most of his murders before the Great Depression.
He was caused by an outburst of public morality which failed to recognise
the essential principle of government that an unpopular law cannot be
enforced. At the time of his soup kitchens he was coming under severe
pressure from the IRS and was trying to build up his public image.
> If we tried to explain this to a hungry man who was being fed by Al
> Capone, we would be utterly unconvincing. To him, the immediate need
> was being fulfilled, the terrible cost was hidden from him, and he
> would not hear of any "better" system of feeding him.
Of course he would hear of a better system. You think that most people
don't want to work and reap the benefits thereof? The fact is that there
was no work - the capitalist economy had failed and it was a dose of
European Kenesian Government intervention, socialism in your eyes, that
eventually redressed the balance.
> The analogy is not 100 percent, but the point is that socialism relies
> upon confiscation of one person's produce to benefit another. In the
> short-run, this will produce benefits which the recipients, perceiving
> as free (to themselves), will applaud.
Social democracy flourishes because it baances two apparently conflicting
ends - the need to protect the poor and vulnerable coupled with the need to
encourage industry to produce the necessary goods and services.
> In the end, however, the better system is to empower individuals to
> establish their own medical care plans, intervening only on behalf of
> the truly indigent.
It has never happened and it will never happen. There are always people in
the lower income brackets who are caught in a poverty trap and cannot make
that necessary incremental upward climb away from poverty to allow of their
having income to devote to health care plans. How, for example, would you
get a single parent back into emplyment?
> It is much easier, however, to explain the
> concept of "giving a man a fish," than to explain the more complex
> principle of "teaching a man to fish." Therefore, the socialists tend
> to win the sound-byte debate hands down.
You're obviously unfamiliar with the programmes in the UK, for example,
designed to get people back to work or the fact that unemployment rates in
the UK are at a 20 year low, if I recollect the statistics correctly. You
need to get away from the extreme idea you have that our economies are
"socialist" for they aren't. They are classified as "mixed economies" -
partly state controlled but for the most part a regulated market led economy
in which entrepreneurship is encouraged and assisted. Part of that
assistance is socially driven - government actively and generously aids
business that sets itself up in areas of high unemployment and social
deprivation thus bringing otherwise idle resources into production and
reducing social welfare costs. This is a highly profitable activity judged
by all criteria. It brings the fish to where they are needed and teaches
people how to catch them.
Robert Arvay
"Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<boc2c3$cgs$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
> Social democracy flourishes because it baances two apparently conflicting
> ends - the need to protect the poor and vulnerable coupled with the need to
> encourage industry to produce the necessary goods and services.
But there is a much better way to do that.
Milton Friedman, the nobel prize-winning economist, makes a convincing
case (he persuaded me) that a minimally regulated economy allows for
not only the highest and best use of all resources, but does so with
the least social cost and with the greatest political freedom.
While I have no firsthand experience with the European (and British)
systems, I do remember the fiasco of the US social welfare programs
which for many years were the pride of our liberal establishments. As
this system evolved and grew. it rewarded women for having children
out of wedlock, punished them if they got married, or found
employment, or practiced frugality--- all of these being among the
primary virtues which free people from poverty.
I corresponded for a few weeks with a lady in New Zealand who informed
me that a similar situation holds there, and is wreaking havoc among
the native Maori. She also informed me that American liberals are, by
NZ standards, hopelessly right-wing.
European "social democracy" (as you call it) has enough virtues to
sustain it for a few more years, but its fundamental flaws will undo
it in the not-too-distant future. Already we see a tendency for
Europe's innovators to emigrate, many coming to the USA, where freed
from the bureaucratic and ideological shackles of the old countries,
they flourish here. A particularly amusing (albeit sad) case is that
of a French woman who was commissioned by her government to design a
mechanism which allows handicapped people to drive. Even though she
had a government mandate for the project, she was stymied by the
endless bureaucracy, and was utterly frustrated in her attempt to
complete the work. Coming to the US, she quickly completed the
project, engineered and produced the device, and now EXPORTS it to
France.
If it is that difficult to be entrepreneurial under government
mandate, imagine the difficulty of innovating something which has no
government support!
My take is that Europe is not so much socialist as it is feudal, with
the landed gentry funding bread and circus to prevent upstart
entrepreneurs from unseating them.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<boc2c3$cgs$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> >
> > Social democracy flourishes because it baances two apparently
conflicting
> > ends - the need to protect the poor and vulnerable coupled with the need
to
> > encourage industry to produce the necessary goods and services.
>
> But there is a much better way to do that.
>
> Milton Friedman, the nobel prize-winning economist, makes a convincing
> case (he persuaded me) that a minimally regulated economy allows for
> not only the highest and best use of all resources, but does so with
> the least social cost and with the greatest political freedom.
Friedman was Thatcher's guru in matters economic. Unemployment, high
interest rates and massive under-inestment in infrastrucure followed in the
wake of that coupled with a "loadsa money" culture. The rich got richer and
the poor got poorer and the "boom and bust" cycle remained fully operative.
The concept of "negative equity" emerged in the housing market resulting in
bankruptcies as that market collapsed under the strain of huge interest
rates.
> While I have no firsthand experience with the European (and British)
> systems, I do remember the fiasco of the US social welfare programs
> which for many years were the pride of our liberal establishments. As
> this system evolved and grew. it rewarded women for having children
> out of wedlock, punished them if they got married, or found
> employment, or practiced frugality--- all of these being among the
> primary virtues which free people from poverty.
You're talking about the "poverty trap" which inevitably results if you have
inflexible thresholds at which welfare payments cease. It still exists here
although much effort has been and is still being put into eliminating it.
For example, if a person has been long term unemployed and gets a job where
he will not be paid for a month, that effectively prevents his taking the
job as he will have no money to live on. Here his social welfare payments
continue until he gets paid at work thus removing a barrier to taking the
job. After that he's independent.
The big difference, of course, is in emphasis. We talk of a system which
helps people like single parents. Take for example a person I know, a
single mother with a daughter. The mother remained at home with the child
(and received welfare payments) until school age. She then took a part time
job (and continued to receive welfare payments albeit reduced). Now the
child is at University and the mother has retrained and gone into full time
employment. Now I recollect hearing of a case in the US where because of
doctrinaire "Workfare" regulations, a single mother was bussed to work at 5
in the morning leaving her kids untended. One of them got his hands on a
legally held firearm and went on a rampage killing people.
> I corresponded for a few weeks with a lady in New Zealand who informed
> me that a similar situation holds there, and is wreaking havoc among
> the native Maori. She also informed me that American liberals are, by
> NZ standards, hopelessly right-wing.
I would pass no comment on New Zealand as I am unfamiliar with conditions
there. But you can betcher ass that lady was correct about American
liberals - by our standards they're to the right of Thatcherites who are
about as "conservative" as you can get here. Of course we have different
values - we work to live and do not live to work.
> European "social democracy" (as you call it) has enough virtues to
> sustain it for a few more years, but its fundamental flaws will undo
> it in the not-too-distant future. Already we see a tendency for
> Europe's innovators to emigrate, many coming to the USA, where freed
> from the bureaucratic and ideological shackles of the old countries,
> they flourish here. A particularly amusing (albeit sad) case is that
> of a French woman who was commissioned by her government to design a
> mechanism which allows handicapped people to drive. Even though she
> had a government mandate for the project, she was stymied by the
> endless bureaucracy, and was utterly frustrated in her attempt to
> complete the work. Coming to the US, she quickly completed the
> project, engineered and produced the device, and now EXPORTS it to
> France.
Ah so! You have no innovators of your own and have to come to Europe to
find any. Understandable, as your education system is crap compared to
here. Without all those Germans you'd never have made it to the Moon and
back. And without the Brits you wouldn't have those great big aircraft
carriers or the tanks not to mention the hovercraft, the telephone, the
pneumatic tyre, radio and television. And as the European Union expands it
is sure going to cause you a lot of problems on top of those you already
have. Airbus looks set to give Boeing a run for its money.
BTW systems that allow disabled people to drive cars have been available
here for years.
But I would agree with you on one thing - American values pander to those
who suffer from insatiable greed.
> If it is that difficult to be entrepreneurial under government
> mandate, imagine the difficulty of innovating something which has no
> government support!
Like the Dyson?
> My take is that Europe is not so much socialist as it is feudal, with
> the landed gentry funding bread and circus to prevent upstart
> entrepreneurs from unseating them.
Your take is quite wrong and uninformed as you have yourself admitted a lack
of knowledge of Europe.
Paul Hammond
> "Robert Arvay" <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:e247d7b6.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > Greetings;
> >
> > "Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:<boc2c3$cgs$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > >
> > > Social democracy flourishes because it baances two apparently
> conflicting
> > > ends - the need to protect the poor and vulnerable coupled with the need
> to
> > > encourage industry to produce the necessary goods and services.
> >
> > But there is a much better way to do that.
> >
> > Milton Friedman, the nobel prize-winning economist, makes a convincing
> > case (he persuaded me) that a minimally regulated economy allows for
> > not only the highest and best use of all resources, but does so with
> > the least social cost and with the greatest political freedom.
>
> Friedman was Thatcher's guru in matters economic. Unemployment, high
> interest rates and massive under-inestment in infrastrucure followed in the
> wake of that coupled with a "loadsa money" culture. The rich got richer and
> the poor got poorer and the "boom and bust" cycle remained fully operative.
> The concept of "negative equity" emerged in the housing market resulting in
> bankruptcies as that market collapsed under the strain of huge interest
> rates.
Friedman fiddled his figures, too.
Monetarism might well work for business and industry, but
it is a very bad way to run your schools and hospitals.
>
> > My take is that Europe is not so much socialist as it is feudal, with
> > the landed gentry funding bread and circus to prevent upstart
> > entrepreneurs from unseating them.
>
> Your take is quite wrong and uninformed as you have yourself admitted a lack
> of knowledge of Europe.
Arvay appears to have mixed up the middle ages with the Romans
here (it was Roman Emperors who were said to govern by
"bread and circuses", reaching a climax in Nero's innovation
to use Christians and Lions as his entertainment, after
blaming the atheists for burning down Rome).
Such ignorance of Europe reminds me of nothing so much as
my brother telling me the story of the American kid he met
when he was working at Summer camp, who
asked whether we still drove horses and carriages around
in Britain, since the only time he had ever seen Europeans
on the TV screen was in period dramas.
Paul
Susan Maneck
>Monetarism might well work for business and industry, but
>it is a very bad way to run your schools and hospitals.
>
Exactly. And we would do well to look at socialist and even communist countries
and see what worked and didn't work. Cuba ended up with the best system of
education and medical care in Latin America. It didn't do so well when it came
to developing industry. (Of course, given the economic embargo it was operating
under this is no surprise.) But I think there is enough evidence to indicate
that industry works better when it is privatized. Medicine does not.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03110...@posting.google.com...
>
> Friedman fiddled his figures, too.
He had to. Modern economies are far too sophisticated and globalised for
one simple theory to manage them. Of course the greatest weakness of
monetarism is that when it works it does so at horrendous social cost.
> Monetarism might well work for business and industry, but
> it is a very bad way to run your schools and hospitals.
A sound fical policy is required for that linked to simple management
techniques that concentrate on what is important.
> Arvay appears to have mixed up the middle ages with the Romans
> here (it was Roman Emperors who were said to govern by
> "bread and circuses", reaching a climax in Nero's innovation
> to use Christians and Lions as his entertainment, after
> blaming the atheists for burning down Rome).
>
> Such ignorance of Europe reminds me of nothing so much as
> my brother telling me the story of the American kid he met
> when he was working at Summer camp, who
> asked whether we still drove horses and carriages around
> in Britain, since the only time he had ever seen Europeans
> on the TV screen was in period dramas.
Yeh! Pigs in the parlour and chickens in the kitchen is the image that some
of his fellow countrymen still have of Ireland - I've met some of them in
the past. They are the types who supplied money and arms to the IRA here -
romantic notions of the old land and total ignorance of the modern reality.
>
> Paul
Paul Hammond
> >
> >Monetarism might well work for business and industry, but
> >it is a very bad way to run your schools and hospitals.
> >
>
> Exactly. And we would do well to look at socialist and even communist countries
> and see what worked and didn't work. Cuba ended up with the best system of
> education and medical care in Latin America. It didn't do so well when it came
> to developing industry. (Of course, given the economic embargo it was operating
> under this is no surprise.) But I think there is enough evidence to indicate
> that industry works better when it is privatized. Medicine does not.
>
Something else that you, me and Dermod can agree on, I see.
Paul
Susan Maneck
>Something else that you, me and Dermod can agree on, I see.
Oh, oh. This is getting dangerous. ;-}
Jerry Joplin
> sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
>>
>>Exactly. And we would do well to look at socialist and even communist countries
>>and see what worked and didn't work. Cuba ended up with the best system of
>>education and medical care in Latin America. It didn't do so well when it came
>>to developing industry. (Of course, given the economic embargo it was operating
>>under this is no surprise.) But I think there is enough evidence to indicate
>>that industry works better when it is privatized. Medicine does not.
>
> Something else that you, me and Dermod can agree on, I see.
And don't forget baseball! Cuba has the best baseball players per
capita than any country on earth.
And another area where most everyone agrees exclusive privatization
isn't a good idea, is the social security system.
Jerry