Why do Jews make such good scapegoats?

[Roman]

Bush invaded another nation on pretense and lies for oil, killing tens of thousands of innocents in the process. Please justify.

 

[Zephyr]

People who the tendency to or a planned desire to commit the act of scapegoating may project their guilt. For example: tendency in mass media to stereotype European peoples as oppressive and bigoted monsters creates personal guilt. The creator additionally projects this guilt back at the target by adding European peoples as oppressive and bigoted monsters who like to create scapegoats.

I think there's far more tendency to portray the US as oppressive than the EU.

 

[wesmorris]

OMFG, it's bizarre to see duendy expulse the same tired lack of anything remotely substanative time after time after time after blah blah fucking time holy shit that person is fucking obsessed with "patriarchy". Not just tarded, but REtarded. That's multiple tards.

Uhm, the reason people need scapegoats is fucking dirt simple, and is exposed directly in the etymology provided by carcano. People don't like feeling guilty, so to ease their conscience and avoid the hard work of dealing with whatever issues caused their guilt, they blame somebody else.... I think it's a matter of what I think of as "conservation of will" - a type of energy, that makes the cost of blaming someone else SO much more inviting that the cost of dealing with your guilt. Of course it's a ruse, but people are awesome at bullshitting themselves.

You know... kind of like duendy's pathetically deluded ass.

Those manipulators of our species, smell this shit like food. They are attuned to it and utilize it to promote their power plays. They harness what is metamorphized into hate (which is actually self-loathing projected) by coming up with a scheme that explains why whoever they want to put the fuck on deserves to be blamed. Most people are more than willing to foregoe any critical analysis of such a scheme in a rush to satiate their ever-mounting self-loathing which again, comes out as hate to be directed by the will of the cunning power seeker.

 

[wesmorris]

Bush invaded another nation on pretense and lies for oil, killing tens of thousands of innocents in the process. Please justify.

pretense? how could you not have pretense going to war?

did he think they were lies? did he intentionally lie to the world, or was he convinced he was right?

seems to me he thought he was right. having been in the theatre some time back, I thought he was right too. I'm still not convinced he wasn't. the 2nd in command of the iraqi air force says for sure he was.

who do you believe?

refute.

 

[Nanonetics]

Bush invaded another nation on pretense and lies for oil, killing tens of thousands of innocents in the process. Please justify.

Bush did not invade another nation. He, as an agent of special interests authorized an invasion. Bush has not acted upon his own original ideas. Soldiers did the invading and the killing. Furthermore, the price of fuel has increased by 200%. This fact does not help to justify the war for oil view. If the US went to war in order to "steal oil", would oil prices dramatically increase? Iraq had long since been selling cheap oil under Saddam Hussein's reign. What indication do we have that the new reqime will be selling Iraq's oil for a lower price? The US went to war with Iraq because the administration wants to force mass liberal democracy on the world, killing all who would resist and also to exploit the people and resources of the planet for the profit of some ultrawealthy elite. George Bush has repeatedly publicly stated that protecting Israel is one of America's priorities. A million Iraqis were killed as a result of Israel's fear and its alien lobby in the US government. Oil? That's funny, but convenient to get the public to believe.

 

[wesmorris]

We hate Jews because they are different. Its as simple as that and perfectly normal. We are hardwired to seek similarity. When a bunch of foreigners insist on keeping to themselves and not adopting the ways of the nation gracious enough to be burdened with them, its only natural they will incur the wrath of the masses. Somebody has to be the target of hate and why not the money hording elitist always complaing Jews who are so stupid they don't even have a homeland.

I do not and will never recognise Israel as a nation. It is part of Palestine.

baaaaaaaaaah. bleet bleet.

your masters have directed your hate well. please whatever you do, don't look inward and wonder why you're such a hate-filled asshole. blame whoever is convenient. kill them. smite them. do your master's bidding.

baaaaaaaah. bleet bleet.

they treat you like I'm treating that goat, and you beg for more. anything is better than having to accept what a piece of shit you are, or for fuck's sake, trying to be a better person. NO!!!!!!!!! it's too hard. just hate bleet bleet. kill bleet bleet and fuck the world bleet bleet. baaaaaah.

your masters apparently then treat you as you should be treated. like an animal.

 

[mountainhare]

wes:

seems to me he thought he was right. having been in the theatre some time back, I thought he was right too. I'm still not convinced he wasn't. the 2nd in command of the iraqi air force says for sure he was.

who do you believe?

refute.

Did Saddam have stockpiles of WoMD? No.
Was Saddam an immediate threat to the U.S or his neighbours? No.
Did Saddam have any connection with the 9/11 attacks? No.

All of the initial justifications used by the Bush admin to curry favour for a war in Iraq have been conclusively demonstrated to be BS.

 

[wesmorris]

Not that this needs to be rehashed for the thousand gazillionth time, but...

wes:

Did Saddam have stockpiles of WoMD? No.

He definately did at some point. 2nd in command of his air force says he had them up until a few months before the invasion. Unless you don't believe him.

Was Saddam an immediate threat to the U.S or his neighbours? No.

Uh, the fact that he was sponsoring palestinian suicide bombers and allowing training camps and office space for al-quedas contradicts you... unless of course you don't think those to be facts. As far as some were convinced at the time, he had the capacity to put weapons in the hands of those who could hurt us, and he was in violation of x number of UN mandates and his surrender from the prior war. A loose cannon who probably has WMDs, has a grudge against us and connections (if nothing else, by virtue of geography) to all kinds of independent militants who hate us too and are crazy enough to follow through on their hate... well, he's just a tame little lamb? No threat there? How would you know if the threat were imminent or not? Would you bet your mothers life on the conviction of your guess? Would you bet the lives of your constituents, if you had them? Even 360,000,000 of them?

Did Saddam have any connection with the 9/11 attacks? No.

See above, unless you don't want to.

All of the initial justifications used by the Bush admin to curry favour for a war in Iraq have been conclusively demonstrated to be BS.

For you, apparently so. I disagree. IMO, there is reasonable support for each point. I'm not entirely sure of any of it however, since I have no firsthand knowledge of it. I'm impressed however, that you must have been highly involved to be able to demonstrate such "conclusive" evidence, as I'm sure you're capable. Impressive.

I've tried to listen to all sides of the debate. I was in the military in the first gulf war. Blah blah. To me, the evidence seems to at least loosely support the assertions you just claimed are necessarily flatly false. How do we reconcile? Must I just accept your evidence?

Do you have any comments about the actual topic?

 

[mountainhare]

wesmorris:

He definately did at some point.

Nobody is denying that. But did he have WoMD just prior to the invasion? If not, then why invade? Why base the invasion on the claim that Saddam possessed WoMD?

2nd in command of his air force says he had them up until a few months before the invasion.
Unless you don't believe him.

1. One dubious witness is no concrete proof. Thera are numerous individuals who claim that they have seen the ghost of Elvis. However, without evidence to support their claims, then they remain empty assertions. Anecdotal evidence is no conclusive proof. Try again.

2. It's fascinating how you're willing to accept the testimony of one lone soldier. What about the other officials and Iraqi soldiers who testified that Saddam destroyed his WoMD prior to the invasion?

3. If Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WoMD, why haven't they been found? You're going to have to do a lot better than anecdotal evidence, my friend.

Uh, the fact that he was sponsoring palestinian suicide bombers

False. He doesn't 'sponser' suicide bombers. He provides for their widowed wife, and their fatherless children. In my humble opinion, that's saintly.

Also, according to the latest edition of the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 - the alleged attempt against former President Bush.

and allowing training camps and office space for al-quedas

I trust you have evidence to support this claim.

As far as some were convinced at the time, he had the capacity to put weapons in the hands of those who could hurt us,

'Having the capacity' to perform an action, and whether one will actually perform the action, are two entirely different concepts. China and Russia also 'have the capacity' to arm the foes of the U.S. Will you attempt pre-emptive invasions on these countries as well?

. A loose cannon

Your labelling of Saddam as a 'loose cannon' is unsupported conjecture. Saddam managed to maintain stability over his country for decades. He prevent religious civil wars, was in favour of women's rights, and gave his citizens electricity, water, oil and basic medical care.
The U.S invasion changed all of this.

But hey, perhaps you might be able to justify how a dictator who maintained stability over a country for decades is a 'loose cannon'.

who probably has WMDs,

Unsupported conjecture on your behalf. You can't invade a country on the basis that they 'probably' have weapons.

has a grudge against us

Numerous countries and leaders have grudges against the U.S. Once again, this isn't a justification for war.

and connections

Connections? Do you mean when he met with Al-Qaeda operative, and they treated him with contempt and hostility due to his secular attidue? Do you mean Islamic fundamentalists, who would have loved for nothing more than Saddam's secular Baathist party to be overthrown?

(if nothing else, by virtue of geography)

The United Arab Emirates are also have the 'virtue of geography' when it comes to connections. Guess we need to invade them next.

to all kinds of independent militants who hate us too

Only since the U.S invaded. How many attacks were there against the U.S soldiers by Iraqi militias BEFORE the invasion of Iraq?

and are crazy enough to follow through on their hate.

Again, conjecture on your behalf.

.. well, he's just a tame little lamb? No threat there?

Correct. The sanctions crippled Saddam. In was in no position to threaten his neighbours, let alone the U.S.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040...rtright/containing-iraq-sanctions-worked.html

Summary: The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has prompted much handwringing over the problems with prewar intelligence. Too little attention has been paid, however, to the flip slide of the picture: that the much-maligned UN-enforced sanctions regime actually worked. Contrary to what critics have said, we now know that containment helped destroy Saddam Hussein's war machine and his capacity to produce weapons.

How would you know if the threat were imminent or not?
Would you bet your mothers life on the conviction of your guess? Would you bet the lives of your constituents, if you had them? Even 360,000,000 of them?

Red herring argument. The fact still remains that Bush used the justification that Iraq was an 'imminent threat'. If he can't justify such a claim, then he shouldn't make it, correct?

See above, unless you don't want to.

You have yet to demonstrate that Saddam was connected to 9/11. Good luck with that, since even Bush has debunked this claim.

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/000445.html

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

 

[Roman]

did he think they were lies? did he intentionally lie to the world, or was he convinced he was right?

Both.

I'm going to say a bunch of stuff here which is pretty much by now common knowledge. Most of where I got this info was Newsweek and stuff I read in the AP. No direct quotes or links or anything, so if you challenge my data, I guess my argument will fall apart. Please don't do that.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq since forever. Since his first day in office. He looked for evidence for reasons to invade. We knew Iraq had wmd at some time; we gave them to him. So all Bush had to do was get evidence that Saddam still had them. His cabinet was so ready to believe the anything that said "Saddam pwns nubs," they believed anything that said that.

Then there was 9/11. America needed some shock and awe. America had to get back on her feet. And by God, America does that by kicking ass. So we went and kicked some Muslim ass. Iraq made a great target. Bush didn't like Saddam, their intelligence said he was dangerous, Saddam was sitting on a lot of oil, Iraq is close to Israel, Saddam was a cruel dictator that no one could sympathize with. All that with the added benefit that years of economic sanctions would allow American armor to roll through the entire country.

Iraq made a pretty great scapegoat. Too bad nobody really thought it through.

And one mustn't forget America's tie to Israel in the whole thing. Fundamentalist neo-cons want to see all the Jews back in Judea so Jeebus (pbuh) may return.

We knew N. Korea has nukes and methods of delivering them. Why don't we invade that shit? Well, they're pretty strong, they're not neighbors to Israel, no oil, and there aren't any Muslims.

 

[Zephyr]

And they're near China, who might not appreciate the American army playing nearby. (Suggested in the North Korea thread)

 

[wesmorris]

Well, I've had enough of the war topic, and spent my load on it long ago. I shouldn't have suckered into it here, but you brought it up you thread hijacking bastard. I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis... I just don't think it was founded on lies. Seems to me that at the time it seemed pretty sure he did have them. Maybe he really didn't. I choose to err on the side of good faith. Blah blah. I don't know if I'd say Iraq was a "scapegoat" exactly, because scapegoats are actually innocent. Obviously he wasn't exactly "innocent". We put his sorry ass there, and I'm glad we took him out. Seems to me we've owed the Iraqi people that since we first sponsored his maniacal ass. It's about time is all I can say. Meh. Fuck this.

What about the actual topic? Agree with my analysis above or what?

 

[Roman]

Yeah, the war topic is pretty burned out. I don't think Bush necessarily went to war full of bad intentions. He strikes me as an ok guy. He means well, I guess? He could actually be a devious mastermind, the good ole boy charm a clever facade. I doubt that, though. His administration, though, is full of bastards. I just feel that the reasons we went to war were not the right reason to go to war, his cabinet knew it, and so they misled the American people about why we were there. But when haven't we made up pretty flowery shit about killing people? But, ugh

Fuck this.

I think your analysis was spot on. Psychologically, individuals find it easier to lay blame elsewhere. Do you think that societal scapegoats are a quantitative difference of the individual level, or qualitative? Like, do you think societies are simply the sum of their individuals and their psychologies, or that when a bunch of people get together, stuff emerges that wouldn't be ther eotherwise?

You know that one guy at work who everyone can blame, and he takes it? Not the guy who's unlucky and actually messes up, but the one people blame because he's blameable. What makes that person blameable, and do those traits transfer to groups within societies?

 

[Nanonetics]

Taking personal responsibility is a clear indication of maturity. Scapegoating, if such a practice factually exists outside of an ad misericordiam fallacy, is a qualitative indication of character. In this context, the qualitative values of character fit into a larger overall quantitative scale of groups. Maybe this deserves some attention from professional types.

 

[Zephyr]

Scapegoating, if such a practice factually exists outside of an ad misericordiam fallacy, is a qualitative indication of character.

It certainly exists, and it certainly is. E.g: witch hunts. Someone in the village gets sick? That old lady with the squint who knows about herbs, she must've done it! Burn her! Hey, it might not cure your sickness but at least you know you've done something!

In other words, it gives people something to do when they can't actually change the situation. Or in a more general case, when changing the situation would be too much work.

Blame someone; feel better.

 

[mountainhare]

Nano:

Taking personal responsibility is a clear indication of maturity.

A rather ironical, yet appropriate statement.

The European Jews have been exiled/despised/murdered in country after country. England, Ukraine, Russia, Germany, Turkey, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Palestine, and even Poland (they were tolerated, but not loved, by the non-Polish Jews.)

What I find amazing is that Jews and Jew lovers will use the countries which treated the Jews poorly as a scapegoat. If you are so hated by so many people, perhaps at least some of the blame rests with YOU, and your attitude? The Jews are like that dorky kid from school who bitches about everyone being idiots because they exclude him from their friendship groups. OBVIOUSLY the other people are to blame, and not the dorky kid's lack of social skill, manners, or understanding of human nature.

Why are people on this board so scared to point this out? Why are we continually resting all of the blame on various countries, when obviously at least part of the blame rests with the Jews. Perhaps the elitist, segregatory attitude held by the Jews fueled racial/ethnic tension, which led to hostility, and then exile/riots/murder? This even happens today, amongst some of the Muslims and Hispanics. It happened in the 1940's with the Greeks and Italians.
They believed that they were 'too good' for the people in their adopted homeland, they refused to assimilate and respect the ways of the native culture, and hence were treated with hostility.

If the Jewish population acts as 'superiors', despite being visitors in their host's country, doesn't it surprise you that people would despise them, and treat them as a scapegoat? I'm not saying that exile/murder is justified, but to not even think of placing a proportion of the blame on the 'poor innocent Jews' is naive and politically correct in the extreme.

 

[Carcano]

They believed that they were 'too good' for the people in their adopted homeland, they refused to assimilate and respect the ways of the native culture, and hence were treated with hostility.

Well naturally...if they had 'assimilated' they would have ceased to exist.

 

[Carcano]

If the Jewish population acts as 'superiors', despite being visitors in their host's country, doesn't it surprise you that people would despise them, and treat them as a scapegoat?

Almost every cultural group has mythologies of superiority. The notion of being the 'chosen people', blessed by God and superior to other 'gentile' nations is built right in to their source texts.

The Japanese traditionally have similair notions of being the 'first race' created by the Gods because Japan was closest to the rising sun.

 

[mountainhare]

Carcano:

Well naturally...if they had 'assimilated' they would have ceased to exist.

Not necessarily. Only partial assimilation was required. Only that they mix with the natives, and respect their culture. Instead, the Jews segregated themselves. 'Do not mix with the Goyim'.
What sort of attitude would that foster amongst the 'Goyim' community?

Note: Zephyr (I think it was her) has pointed out that there were some Jews late in the 1800's where they encouraged Jews to mix with the Goyim. However, from what I understand, that consisted of a minority of Jews, and did not represent the general attitude amongst the Jewish community as a whole. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that not all Jews were elitist jerks. But a noticable TREND amongst the Jewish population is arrogance and elitism.

Almost every cultural group has mythologies of superiority.

But some more than others. And the Jews were up the top when it come to arrogance and elitism.

The notion of being the 'chosen people', blessed by God and superior to other 'gentile' nations is built right in to their source texts.

Correct... I wonder why the 'gentiles' felt resentful and hostile towards the self-crowned 'Chosen Ones'?

The Japanese traditionally have similair notions of being the 'first race' created by the Gods because Japan was closest to the rising sun.

Which is why they have been the only nation ever to be nuked...

 

[Carcano]

Only partial assimilation was required. Only that they mix with the natives, and respect their culture. Instead, the Jews segregated themselves. 'Do not mix with the Goyim'.

I'm sure the segragation in Europe had as much to do with gentiles as with the Jews. I recall reading that there were laws throughout european history preventing the Jews from military service, certain kinds of land ownership and any kind of political power.

On another note, I believe that some cultures ARE in fact superior to others. Aristotle for example, counseled a young Alexander the Great not to compel mixed marriages among his armies with the conquered peoples of the Persian empire - which is exactly what he eventually did, causing a mutiny among his officers.