MSA Student Would Prefer Second Holocaust

Now is the time on Sprockets when we pick up our dignity

Nope. I didn't rush to defend Lucy or whoever else it was you tagged besides Cheski either, and I've no idea what her religion is.

I...care? Or don't.

Been over it. Didn't see it. You'd started that train long before I decided to haul up 'species'.

Could have had a jab at being reasonable, I guess, or maybe having a sense of humor, Oberst.

Why would I take an insinuation that I'm a genocidal bigot personally? It's a mystery.

No: further back. And - again, sadly - if you think I'm using this as an excuse for Israel to oppress Palestinians...no. Just no.

No, the difference is that you don't care what makes them paranoid, or that the same impulses that people responded to a thousand years ago about them are the same ones they tap into today. Never again, my ass. You make a lot of learning something from the horrors of the 20th century, but you don't mind the attitudes that inform those horrors. And, on the last sentence, no again.

No, I don't find your experiences humorous in the least. I apologize if this was how it was taken: it was certainly not meant that way.

Well, I guess you support it with your silence. Or with your screaming fits about people who ask questions.

Link or don't. There is no try.

Well, evidently not. It's a binary solution set. Dragon voted yes. So it's clearly not moot.

And where's this?

This would be a falsehood. I specifically burst a vein about you using it on Cheski? Illustrate. In point of fact, when you used it on Cheski, I ignored it, as I've said several times and which you've acknowledged. I didn't say boo about anyone until now. Epic fail. Different thread? No idea. Seems as though I consider everyone you've labelled with that as...equal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Heh. So Cheski and Sam and Lucy I guess - oh, and me - are members of a different, reproductively isolated unit? Now you're just floundering.

I don't think I made any comment as to their legal protection. But you think they're different species? Explain.

Gosh, no. First you think it's a real, biological species, and now you mean it to be race or ethnicity.

No need to be embarrassed. Your secret is safe with me.

2-1 Geoff. I didn't hear the whistle; and anyway, Bells had the first shot. :shrug: Close the thread if you must.

Anyway, this has gone brutally off-topic. We've moved past the "Geoff loves the sweet taste of genocide" stage, and now is the time on Sprockets when we all pick up our dignity. (That I have more at the end should surprise no one, of course.) I've made my point, Bells has made a mess on the carpet in her excitement, and blah blah blah. It was a pretty simple exercise, and that the result resembles the attempts of the counting threads should surprise no one. I mean, it's hard enough to make someone understand the question as posed verbally, apparently.

Please to enjoy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So Cheski saying nothing about what you said is evidence that he was okay with the characterization? *sigh* And I thought you were a lawyer. Anyway show me one link from any of my posts where I come out and defend jews and while you are at it go and find all the posts where I have defended muslim posters, they exist. Your sudden desire to characterize me as someone who 'only defends jews' as well as your statement jews are a 'protected species' on this forum is equally ludicrous...and proves my point.

This link you provide where you go on a rant about what Sandy said etc, did I ever post in that thread? No. Didn't even look at it. Where was I when you referred to Sam as a 'protected species'? I don't recall such verbal stupidity on your part. So why do you keep going on and on like a mental patient saying I never once criticized its usage in that thread? I mean if you had made such a stupid comment as you continue to keep asserting I would have most definitely have said something. Now you seem to have changed position slightly and now have everyone in the category of 'special protected species': Sam, Sandy, Cheski. I thought it was only Jews, oh no that changed to mean 'white, israeli males' or was it 'white, jewish males'. Now its morphed into jews on sciforums and next it simply means any member you feel like tagging the term. Well done for overall stupidity.

By the way Bells what species do you belong to? No longer mammal maybe you belong to the squamata. Hardly a rare species

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The fact that you pretend to not know that I have actually defended muslims on this site, the fact that Sam and I are actually on good terms though the nit wits on this site think I hate her (being brown and muslim and all), though I don't know anything about Cheski and have never interacted with him on these forums you still continue not to see that he or Sam have nothing to do with my refusal to accept the term 'protected species' you use to describe jews. To then pretend its a 'personal attack' against Cheski himself is outrageous. Anyway Cheski didn't have to say anything, I took it up myself did I not?

You say he wasn't banned for calling for death and destruction, well no one banned Sam for referring to americans who died in 9/11 as just being 'toes' cut off of a psychopath and that americans were crying over their 'buildings' and not the deaths of its citizens. I didn't call you on your remark to say you should get banned Bells, I called you on it because you claim to be against bias attacks against members based on thier...dare I say it...'species' (LOL!) or to be more accurate, bias based on their beliefs, ethnicity, religion etc. But then you go and take away the humanity of jews by referring to them as a specific 'protected species', you attack Geoff because he's a christian or whatever religion he belongs to and then you support Sam's characterization that because there are pigs buried in Masada that Jews best know who they are and so must be 'pigs' as she put it 'who am I to argue'. Then you have the audacity to assume the position of someone who doesn't play the ethnicity game like others do. So yeah I do find you to be a hypocrite and a liar as you know PERSONALLY that I have defended muslims and not just jews on this site. Though if you can go and find these threads where I go around defending jews, Israel and jewish members please remind me and no one else please remind me.

So yes I find you to be a hypocrite and not a champion of the underdog or however else you would like to think of yourself. You could have said 'yeah well the description was a little off or even offensive' but no you insist on defending it like an old bone. Well fine. If that's the case then it doesn't matter what anyone says about any group on this site.

I have to call bullshit when I see it and you certainly seem to be full of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We may all be hypocrites but in the English speaking world hypocrites for Israel vastly outnumber hypocrites for Palestinians.

In the English speaking world being a hypocrite for Palestinians could cost you your job. Being a hypocrite for Israel is much safer and much more politically correct. The sides are not even at Sciforums but they are closer to being even here than in the American media.

If truth matters then hypocrites for Palestinians are lucky because the gap between their position and the truth is not as large as the gap between the hypocrites for Israel position and the truth. But truth matters less than I once thought it did.

 

And Tiassa, grannie. But Sam didn't mind when you called Cheski that. (Maybe you should let her know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Any casual review of my text will illustrate handily that the above is a total lie. So. What's the story, Bells? Is it that you're that startled at your own usage, and you're deflecting, or what?

Well, except that you seem on review to have used it in a racist kind of way. Cheski too: not that specific comment, mind.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Already told you this, but, as I've pointed out earlier, you don't read. This is the thing about you Bells - you tend to fly into hysterics at the drop of a hat; doubly so now since so much attention has been drawn to the kind of things you've been saying. And you talk about protected "species" and free passes! I didn't call you on it when you did it to Cheski - who is Jewish, by the way, which kind of gives the lie to your whole proposition. Further to that, I took the shit out of you about all the people you described that way. So, you're full of shit and mad as hell. What else have you got?

Why, because I have a special grief against you? Did you not understand what I wrote? Did I go after you when you attacked Cheski? And, to be honest, I guess from all this that I should have. It was a kind of racist thing to say, Bells.

This is too funny. You linked to a page on which I didn't even comment. But I knew! I must have known! Look, seriously: I've been pretty fair with you. But this is too much. You're that embarrassed about the "species" thing? Really? Is it that you think you've somehow compromised your stance, or your morals or something?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, yes: I'm so mean to poor Bells.

Once again - because either you just can't fathom it, or because you chose to ignore me - I only saw you blast Cheski. I did go back, though, when you started attacking me because I accidentally showed the world your Jew-hater tickly spot. I challenge to you support your libel.

Because I turn on people that I call my friends at the drop of a hat? Oh, right, right: you're helping me out like a real friend. By, well, slandering me. That makes sense, I guess, if you're completely insane. So kudos.

Bells, repeating yourself doesn't make your argument stronger. In case you forgot, the OP was about the MSA student. Your links to Cheski didn't show up until this thread.

Again...illustrate how I have made this connection. Go ahead. Put down your ragecookie and stop shrieking and point out how we get from point A to B on your chart. Then, stop and think. I would think it was obvious, but apparently not. It's worth noting that your grasp of the larger issues of the ME is limited to a surface scan; no depth to the investigation.

I could go on, but why bother? Bells, let me make this absolutely clear: you haven't the faintest grasp on what this thread was about. You simply don't. It's like arguing evolution with IceAgeCiv or something, or stature with Happeh. You've fixated on the present conflict. I've offered my condemnations (which any moral person would do in this situation, so they're not terribly special in that regard) and even a solution, which - again - you've ignored. (I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just missed it, but apparently that's not the in thing these days.) So, I conclude that you simply don't care, and that you're taking the time to harass someone that you hate, or that has some sympathy for the history of another group of people that you hate, or that you're still embarrassed about the "species" thing and you're looking for a scapegoat: the last is the least likely, but I think it does colour your present dialogue. Which is too bad, really. I'd thought you a thoughtful person, and a moral one, within the confines of your abilities.

Bubble popped. Anything else?

 

Thanks for a good post, Nirakar. Yes: in the English speaking world, hypocrites for Israel (or just supporters, if we don't want to go that far) vastly outnumber hypocrites for Palestinians (again, same proviso). And the reverse is true everywhere east of the River. And in that world, being a hypocrite for Israel could cost you your life. That is another curious form of dialogue - not of political correctness, but of societal conformity. Both these things are fundamental to the Arab-Israeli conflict; this is a point almost never picked up on, so far as I can see, but absolutely crucial to ending the conflict permanently. You can see some of the true feelings of people above. It's time to be honest about some of the motivations for the entire conflict.

 

BTW: reluctant as I am to allow Bells another screaming space, but if you want me to examine Cheski's comments in context and detail, you'll have to link the thread rather than the posts. My gifts are in oratory, not internet trackbacks.

 

I am happy to explore this. (if you feel it is on topic?) What is your take?

 

Ack! Not my central thesis! Now I have to think and stuff.

My central perspective is that there's this constant anti-Semitic vein of thought, societal and otherwise, East and West. It's never really gone, is it? The Holocaust came and went, and it's still here. Before that it was pogroms - Budapest, Vienna, Baghdad, Bahrain, etc etc, ad infinitum - and one after another ridiculous restrictions on Jewish people. Because they're "impure", or "corrupt", or because they...for fuck's sake..."killed Jeeezus".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I mean, really now.

But whatever the reason, there's always been a "reason". If they seem isolated from society, small wonder. 2000 years of persecution will do that to you; and this is what people don't understand, because they've never experienced it, and neither have I. There's those that pretend they do: "Oh, my people were suppressed by so-and-so, so I 'get it'" and so on. For 2000 years they were oppressed? It's not something we could understand, or I hope to God we never have to. (Apologies for the lecture, Straw: being Jewish yourself, you may agree or your view may differ entirely. I'm merely proposing my position, and I don't mean to preach to you about your own society/religion. The same goes for the rest of you.) I expect you might have heard the old running gag: "Good for the Jews?" In this, every event is semi-humorously re-interpreted on a new scale of acceptability relative to how good it's theoretically been for Jewish people.

It's not for nothing that this exists. Both our societies have been, variably off and on, tremendously neutral or tremendously horrible for Jewish people. This is my feeling on Israel and the nucleus of its foundation: hey, we can't trust anyone else. And too right, unless I missed that chapter of history where Christians and Muslims created "Happy Go Judaism Land" where they handed out cotton candy to Jewish people instead of extorting the hell out of them. Israel is - and this is obvious - the final refuge of the Jewish people. Now, you and I and Tiassa and Sam and the rest might well sit around and say "Well, I'm not going to attack Jewish people," and we'd be telling the truth. But it's not for us that the refuge exists. It's against those living in all corners of the world who want the Jews to gather in Israel exactly "to save the trouble of hunting them down". These people and their meme exist, and they existed long ago. They haven't changed, except to become more technologically and politically savvy. Israel exists as a bulwark against them. This doesn't nullify the atrocities Israel has undertaken against Palestinians at all; and this is what a lot of people misunderstand about the issue, or pretend to. But if you're asking for reasons why Israel was created, maybe we should look to ourselves, too.

There's more to this, obviously - but you're the first ever to ask me what my position actually is, for which I thank you. I can't write a whole thesis on it - I don't have time - but I'll drop by the thread now and then to dig it out of the mire, maybe, and shine it up special. Thanks again, Straw.

 

Not to disagree with you as such, but it's worth noting that no special history of persecution seems required to convince nations that they need a state as a homeland and guarantor of their national interests. That is pretty much how world politics is organized, at the macroscopic level, and by now most people on the face of the Earth take the basic premises for granted. This system is so deeply engrained that many people don't even seem cognizant that it's ever been any other way, or that it could be.

And it is likewise not a coincidence that the Holocaust and founding of Israel occurred in the context of massive, total war waged to settle what the system of nation-states was going to look like.

It's not really a matter of trust or justification: when the rest of the world takes an unequivocal stand that national interests are to be protected via states dedicated to those ends (or not at all), then it is left to nations to secure states for themselves. And if that occurs at the expense of some other nations, well, those are the rules of the game, and they weren't made by the small players.

The kicker is that nobody seems prepared to address these systemic aspects. And that goes a long way towards explaining why the criticism so frequently falls on deaf ears when it reaches Israel: the critics all seem content enough to impose dire human costs on others to erect and maintain their national homelands, so why should Israel behave any differently? It's not really a matter of failure to sufficiently identify with historical Jewish suffering - it's a failure to recognize the same nationalist impulse in oneself and one's history, and so a failure of consistency. So much so that after a while it looks like a defense mechanism designed to avoid dealing with the messy aspects of the critics' own nation-states by villifying someone else - which would hardly be a novel role for the Jews to be cast in, note.

 

He he.

Yes, I would concur that there is a palpable historic undercurrent.

No doubt, Jews have faced persecution, as have many other religious and ethnic groups, past and present. (if you have seen Mel Gibson`s movie, then you know we killed Jebus.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Keep in mind, and to balance proportion, no one Jew has experienced 2000 years of persecution, so there can be no actual cumulative effect per se. But yes, essentially, there has been an undeniable pattern of disenfranchisement and abuse, and understandably, the pursuit of the security that a homeland presents, is more than reasonable.

Well said, simplistically, and IMO, its an utterly embedded (hardwired) sense of "differentness", that creates a unique sense of community or identity and protectiveness in Jews regardless of exactly where they are from, that is hard for an outsider to understand. Sadly this same sense of self and group preservation, that can be defined as "specialness/Übermensch" has and can lead to tragedy.

No fear friend GeoffP, good on you for voicing your understanding. This is how we learn tolerance and unravel distortions.

Indeed.

Yes, valid observation. Final refuge, or lasting refuge, that is the question. :m:

I would argue, that in the modern age, and given the (more than) adequate IDF, this meme is no longer realistic. But, yes, existential threats are a reality of the Jewish psyche, and perhaps rightly so.

In essence perhaps some truth, but in the real world, I think the threat is exaggerated for various purposes.

Sadly, one would hope to find a surplus of compassion in those that have know great suffering. Thus my sometimes gross frustration and radicalism. In short, I am gravely embarrassed.

Yes, there is much room for retrospection and reflection.

Good on you friend GeoffP. Further exploration if and when you have the time.

 

There's nothing inherently unique about Jewish nationalism - nor do you do yourself any favors by equating such with Naziism (or, I suppose, abusing Nietzche, on the off chance that's what you were referring to). Nationalism shouldn't be a difficult phenomenon for a resident of the modern world to understand - and the insistence that the Jewish instance of it is somehow innately exceptional and dangerous is a delusion with political implications that are both nefarious and obvious.

There is no shortage of bodies in the foundations of pretty much every other nation-state on Earth. If addressing the fallout of a particular national project is what you want to do, well, that's fine enough. But I don't see how you advance that cause by Othering of the Jews. On the other hand, I do see how you advance various other, more suspect, causes with that sort of rhetoric.

More generally: the fact that Israel has some wrongs to address doesn't imply that everyone who opposes Israel is out for justice and peace. Some of them are batting for nefarious causes, and exploiting the situation to paint themselves as moral and innocuous. The way you can tell the difference is through the rhetoric: the hallmarks of the nasty sorts are themes of xenophobia and retribution.

Not that I think you're a malicious ideologue yourself. On the contrary, I find you to be rather earnest. But I worry that you are not sufficiently discriminating in which pieces of the panoply of anti-Israel rhetoric out there that you pick up on and advance. And, as should be pretty clear by now, I consider such discrimination on the part of such advocates to be crucial to the prospect of a good outcome here.

 

Straw: thanks. I'll try to drop more about it in future. The problem is that it's a huge issue, beyond any mere thread. The prospect is terrifying.

Bells: I scanned your response and noted a lot of the words "pander" and "delusion", which I ignored, as they spring from ignorance of myself, my family and my friends and contacts.

As for your sexual assault: I apologize, again, for making light of it in any way. I'd assumed you were proud of your actions and that it was not a source of pain for you: clearly, I was wrong, and I stand in your judgement for that. In retrospect, it was extraordinarily foolish and callous of me, and I hope you will forgive me for that eventually.

As for our ongoing debate about genocide: I'm sorry, but I cannot rest when someone accuses me of tacit support of genocide - a charge I have illustrated several times is simply not the case. It is the worse when it is someone claiming to be a friend, who then throws off all attempts to resolve the situation gently and fairly. I've explained the situation several times, but you prefer your version of events for reasons that I think I fathom, unfortunately. Thus, I strike back. You attack me for the supposed crime of no context: yet, I have provided it, and amply. In contrast, you exert no context in anything I say except the one you prefer. It is thus ironic that you should claim to feel sorry for me.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

On the face of, I understand your rationale. Delusion? Perhaps. Nefarious and dangerous? Undoubtedly. However, as I stated, IMO, the (my) sense of Jewishness, as a thing that is special/exceptional beyond all else, is utterly tangible, unmistakable and pervasive. How do I explain this sense to a non Jew? I have no idea. :m:

I am attempting to vocalize the ineffable. However, I absolutely and utterly reject the notion that the ineffable, is an excuse for the perpetration of grave human rights abuses.

Yes. Given the many ways to skin a cat.

I ingest and digest discussions on this forum, and where I see an opportunity to revise a position or sentiment in honesty, I attempt such. Perhaps, at times, I become distracted by emotion. :m:

 

there is a distinct difference in that while other places nationalism took place where they resided for the jewish people it involved a very real attempt to take a place where they didn't reside and to usurp and replace another people without any effort to work with those people for a peaceful mutually beneficial end. While there want for a safe haven is easily understood their desire to dispossess and replace another people is not understandable and inexcusable.

 

Nobody denies that assembling a nation-state out of a diaspora is a rare undertaking.

But I can think of plenty of other places where a nation was drawn from elsewhere, to the point of displacing and suppressing the locals. You probably live in one of them, given that you appear to be a native speaker of English.

And I can think of plenty of national movements that stuck close to home but still perpetrated grave abuses against those who stood in their way. Heck, I have a hard time thinking of national movements that haven't done that (at least amongst those who've managed to erect states).

Excusable or not, I don't find it to be beyond comprehension. Just about every nationality you can name got where it is by dispossessing and replacing others at some point or another - the only question is exactly when.

Again, I can't help but suspect that the insistence that Israeli behavior is totally beyond the pale is really about refusal to recognize the dark side of nationalisms one is more committed to.

 

it nothing of the sort it has more to do with when Israel was created e had moved beyond such barbarity.




also your doing the same thing that pisses me off about Geoff your using standards of behavior in a anachronistic fashion( though in reverse from the way he does).

 

Israel was created amidst the single largest spasm of nationalist brutality in human history - we wiped out more human lives than the entire population of Israel and Palestine several time over the in the course of just a few years. There were individual attacks that killed more people than Israel ever has. More Jews than currently reside in Israel were systematically butchered, much larger populations than all of Palestine were forcibly relocated, and tracts of land that dwarf Israel/Palestine were forcibly annexed. That was the name of the game in the 1940s, and well beyond.

None of which is by any stretch of the imagination outside of common knowledge - these are probably the most famous events in modern history - and so you can see where the insistence that Israel is somehow in a class entirely of its own raises eyebrows.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

And the Arabs returned the world back to such barbarity, if we had truly ever left it.

:scratchin: :shrug: