History of the Holocaust

You know, I'm not sure what I find more threatening; a german accent, or the phrase
"I jus wanna aks u summin innit....."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well lets see. Kuh is Persian for mountain. Hindu Kuh is Persian for Indian mountain, because Hindu is the word used by everyone west of the Indus for Indians, before the British formally partitioned the country into Muslims, Christians and Hindoos [i.e. other unidentifiable stuff that they are not familiar with] around 1829

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hindu

Ibn Batuta's travels is the Moroccan Marco Polo who wrote colourful tales of his travels and decided that the Hindu Kush means Hindu Killer, because Indian slaves died there in the cold during transport. His is the only reference that uses this etymology. Not sure how Kush = killer [edit: acc to wiki, apparently old Persian kush = killer, will need to check that]


There is plenty of disinformation in the rest of the saffronised history.

After the Mongols started their trail of destruction in 1205 in China, they progressively moved all the way from both sides through Siberia, Manchuria, Europe, Persia, Mesopotamia, Japan, Vietnam, Java, finally converging in India and meeting up with the Turkic dynasties ruling India at the time [in the form of four successive Delhi sultanates]. Somewhere along the line, probably in Persia, they adopted Islam [at various other times they were Buddhists, Christians and Tengriks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

The battles were fought between the Mongols and the Mamluks [the Mamluks were descended from Afghan Ghorids "Indian slaves" who became kings], The Mongols and the Khiljis [also an Afghan dynasty], the Mongols and the Tughlaqs [the Tughlaqs were Turkic in origin but allied with the Afghans], which was the war that Timur fought.

Timur weakened the Delhi Sultanate and deputised the Sayyeds in Delhi. The Sayyeds claimed to be descended from the Prophet [they still do, in India]. They hung around for a few decades, then abdicated in favour of the Lodhis the final Delhi Sultanate and a Pashtun dynasty.

The Lodhis were finally defeated by Babur who then established himself in India as the first emperor of the Mongol dynasty that was to rule India for the next 800 years. He was the grandfather of Akbar, the Great. By that time the Mongols had become Persianised and Turkicised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

Thats the Hindu holocaust. Muslims fighting Muslims.

Keep in mind that the greatest casualties of the Mongol wars were on the Muslim world. The worst sufferer was Baghdad where every soldier was told to return with two heads and all of them were laid in the center of the city. 20,000 Baghdadis [from the city alone] were massacred. I guess the Iraqis are just lucky like that.

No idea where the other figures in Ulti's link come from, will have to check.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uggh.

I used to get "tha knaws" from one of my uncles. No joke.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of?

Well, hard to say. Would you believe anything that didn't come with paperwork? When I discuss, for example, the massacre of Hindus by Sufis in Southern Asia, do you agree with me about the numerical evidence? Which of yours should I accept? I have to judge these things as best one can from what's available.

The Red Cross and UN might be a good start. It ultimately depends on the methodology too, as you've alluded to.

This, and the succeeding, were frankly insulting and absurd. I have no doubt that many innocent people were killed and are being killed in these needless invasions. But to call it a genocide is not presently determined. Why should anyone need to produce numbers for anything? Why is your morality about declaring a genocide accessible only for certain cases depending on your prejudices?

Haven't the foggiest to what you're referring. When debating me, perhaps it would be better to use my own statements and opinions, rather than those you collect from elsewhere.

Frankly, I'm not completely certain now.

[as the popularity of genocide would seem to indicate], wouldn't we be better off asking ourselves why it required a magic number for mass murder to become morally illegitimate?[/QUOTE]

Without a significant density of numbers, is it "mass murder"? Should we abandon the terms altogether and simply report numbers? Or is your approach designed to reduce the claim of genocide to meaninglessness? Without an ethical argument proposed by you, I cannot honestly say.

 

Whats the critical mass at which the Holocaust would be a genocide to you? What is the number below which you would consider it "meaningless"?

 

ok
you might even wanna go back further in time

 

How far back? To where the Afghans and the Turkics were Buddhists and fought in the same region?

Before the Delhi Sultanates, there were just minor border skirmishes, basically due to the shared border with Persia

Mahmaud Ghaznavi, a Ghorid Turkic, was probably the first "Islamic" invader

 

It's not a number, it's a proportion and a significance.

The US did not set out to kill all the members of any particular group of related people in Anbar, or the population as a whole. The US did not adopt effective means to accomplish such a goal, nor did the US actually - as collateral damage or anything else - make any significant progress toward such a goal. There is no large area of Anbar province in which no Iraqis of a kind numerous in 2002 can be found now, as a consequence of US actions.

Contrast this with the operations of the Holocaust, in which over large areas of Europe all Jews were eliminated on purpose, using effective means and deliberate planning and focused effort. Contrast this with Rwanda's dark times, in which over large areas all Tutsis or all Hutus were eliminated on purpose, using effective means and deliberate planning and focused efforts. Contrast this with areas of the Americas (N, S, and C), in which over large areas all Reds were eliminated on purpose, using effective means and deliberate planning and focused efforts.

Genocide is not a synonym for very evil, or very large. There are more evils in this world than the one.

 

How did you assess motive ie what they "set out to do"? Whats it based on?

The Anbar has been cleared of its Shia population and is now effectively in the hands of the Awakening, the US allies who also happened to be members of the Baathist group i.e. the local Judenrat.

Again how did you decipher motive? Does the lack of written documentation make it unnecessary to recognise that its only Muslims being killed? Who would they "seperate out" in these places?

 

One way is to observe the declarations of motive by the planners and enacters, record that they matched action to declaration, and label the consequences. That's fairly easy to do in the case of the Armenian genocide,the Rwandan genocide, the Holocaust, and so forth. No "deciphering" is necessary.

And which were themselves the targets of significant US violence, during this same conflict.

Is there any estimate of the comparative death total of Shia and Sunni in Anbar Province, at the means of the Americans? Are the cleared Shia "eliminated", en masse, using effective and focused means, at the direction and behest of the Americans?

Are you claiming that the Sunni in Anbar - the erstwhile "insurgents" and "terrorists" and "Al Qaida in Iraq" - are the beneficiaries of an American genocide of the Shia?

 

Census before, census after.

 

So if the Germans employed the Judenrat to do the dirty work [and note that the ghetto police and the camp workers were all Jews or taken from the population], are the Germans really culpable for the Holocaust?

 

Yes, total culpability. The Nazis were the policy makers and enforcers.

 

Excuse me: "Meaningless?"

 

I'm attempting to deconstruct "reduce the claim of genocide to meaninglessness? "

I assume there is a critical mass of Jews below which the imputation of genocide is meaningless.

How many?

 

Quit making assumptions like that.

Yes.

The word "genocide" has a meaning of its own. It is not the same as massacre, murder, evil, slaughter, atrocity, and so forth. You do not need to "deconstruct" anything, merely look things up in a good dictionary (one with usage advice), examine the parts and roots of the word, or attend to the posts here.

 

Ah, I see. I was referring to making the term meaningless rather than considering genocide meaningless, which is what your post seemed to imply. As for a number, I would assume it would have to be a significant part of the whole group. Moreover, it would have to be undertaken with the intent of obliterating that group.

 

So whats the number? How many would you consider a significant part of the whole group?

Also what is your position when say 300,000 of them are killed, not with the intention of obliteraating the group, but as a demonstration of power? Or because they could?

How do you classify that?

What if it had been just 300 who had been lined up and shot in the back of the head?

 

I have no doubts on that score. I'm simply comparing it to the Allied forces employing their own Judenrats under similar circumstances and then attempting to deflect responsibility.

Does Australia have a holocaust center for Aboriginals? Or Tasmanians?