Israeli embassy - Dublin

Gordon

I live next to the Israeli embassy in Dublin. Today there were firemen and another "health" type vehicle, I couldn't read the sign on the van. There was a blow up orange shower type thing outside also. Does anyone why? I am trying to find news on it and there is no news.

Could it have just been an Anthrax scare? (Should I worry about living next to the Israeli Embassy!)

I have also seen bomb disposal units rushing through Rathmines with police escorts today.

Is there something that Ireland is not telling Ireland?

Hobbes

The Orange shower thingy is a "Hazmat" team.

Basically they put up the tent at an exit and everyone is washed leaving and given new clothes. It allows medical people to treat the infected without causing spread of Anthrax.

These are set up even in cases of false alarms, or training exercises.

Anthrax is not easy to spread. So unless you came in contact with the stuff you should be fine.

Trojan

There's been quite a few alerts actually: there was one here in East-point this morning I think, over at one of the compaq buildings, and possibly another on Friday (either that or it was a fire: 6 fire brigades or so).

Trinners was also affected by a scare.

Al.

Doc

Originally posted by Gordon
(Should I worry about living next to the Israeli Embassy!)

Don't see why thay would (bomb/crash into/send antrax to) the Israeli Embassy.

b20uvkft6m5xwg

bcos the Al Kaeda(sp.?) Network is against the diaplacement of Arabs in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish State- ie. Israel

among other things....

Typedef

Damn.

I thought this was a troll post calling on people to protest outside the Israeli embassay at the supression of the people of Palestine.
Huh the mid-east kinda makes the north look like a tea-party no?

I had been thinking of organising a protest but, by Israeli standards that would make me a terrorist and a legitimate target.

Also if I threw stones at the embassay then the troops inside would have to defend themselves with m-60 machine guns and tanks.

hmm does anyone remember this tasty tidbit?




Oh by the way, best not say anything against Israel, because Ariel Sharon might accuse you of being a Nazi.

Xterminator

Typedef, .. all you said is true.

But you try living a 'normal' life when you cant go to a coffee shop for fear of suicide bombers killing you, youre children etc. because of you're religious belief.

Try to maintain a sense of perspective when war is waged againt you by enemies ready to die in order to obliterate you.

All this and a history of being the most persecuted nation in history.

I'm not a fan of Sharon's, and i wish Israel would pull out of Palestine, and start peace talks, return the Golan to Syria, and make peace etc.

But at least I see the Israeli perspective too. You're blinkered view is not of great help.

X

Evil Phil

Originally posted by Gordon


Is there something that Ireland is not telling Ireland?

This would explain why all those emergency vehicles where nee-nawing they were around Dublin yesterday.

Draco

Originally posted by Xterminator
All this and a history of being the most persecuted nation in history.

This does not give them the right to act like complete and utter b@stards.

joev

Originally posted by Xterminator
Typedef, .. all you said is true.

But you try living a 'normal' life when you cant go to a coffee shop for fear of suicide bombers killing you, youre children etc. because of you're religious belief.

I think, if you checked with most Palestinians, you'd find that their 'freedom fighters' carry out these attacks not out of religious persecution, but as attacks against an agressive opressor.

The Israelis are simply reaping what they've sown.

Or to put it another way, "try living a normal life when at any moment Israeli soldiers could shoot you, just for the hell of it (apparently)"

Try to maintain a sense of perspective when war is waged againt you by enemies ready to die in order to obliterate you.

I think, again, if you checked, the 'war' is not really a war as much as freedom fighting. I'd suggest that the Israeli's modifiy their perspective.

All this and a history of being the most persecuted nation in history.

a) This little cliche, trotted out frequently in relation to the nation of Israel, and the jews as a people, is such twaddle. One (admittedly horrifying) event does not make them the most persecuted.

b) Even if it were true, That does not give them the right to become one of the most opressive persecutors in turn.

End the cycle of opression and violence, don't continue it. You'd think the Jews, of anyone, would be up for that.

I'm not a fan of Sharon's, and i wish Israel would pull out of Palestine, and start peace talks, return the Golan to Syria, and make peace etc.

But at least I see the Israeli perspective too. You're blinkered view is not of great help.

X

Actually, I think perhaps you're a little blinkered. Your motive is laudable, trying to see both sides of the arguement, however, equip yourself with a little more indepth knowledge on the situation.

I have read, talked about, researched etc this topic a fair bit, an if the truth be told, I find it impossible to symapthise with the Israeli attitude.

Themselves, and the USA alike, have dealt with the Palestinians and the whole region very badly since WWII and now, lets face it, Reap the whirlwind...

Out of it's sense of Guilt at the Nazi's holocaust of the Jews, the 'west' carried out the singularly worst act in last century, and one that ultimately has had the most significant contribution the de-stabilisation of the middle east. Disposessing Arabs for the creation of the state of Israel.

Mind you, nothing new for the Yanks... remember the Native Americans.

joev.

TwoShedsJackson

The Holocaust was the climax of nearly 2000 years of persecution of Jews, not a single event. Jews have been discrimanted against, harrassed and killed throughout history in various different purges and pogroms by virtually all peoples & nations.

Even if the Holocaust was 'one event', 5 to 6 million people were exterminated during it because of their religion and heritage. I think that does actually make them the most persecuted group ever. Unless of course, you can name another group that have had it worse over the centuries?

joev

Originally posted by Castor Troy
The Holocaust was the climax of nearly 2000 years of persecution of Jews, not a single event. Jews have been discrimanted against, harrassed and killed throughout history in various different purges and pogroms by virtually all peoples & nations.

Even if the Holocaust was 'one event', 5 to 6 million people were exterminated during it because of their religion and heritage. I think that does actually make them the most persecuted group ever. Unless of course, you can name another group that have had it worse over the centuries?

Not worse, but many cultures have been massively 'cleansed' by others...

a simple example: Ireland. - The Famine. 5Million dead. (Oh! but we mustn't mention that! cos we're all friendly friendly with the british now... and they're not nasty like zee-germans...)

The US exterminated almost the entire indigenous population of Native Americans... there are no firm figures, but it would have to be in the millions...

The Dutch, French and British in Africa massacred millions and enslaved millions more...

All through history, people have been 'exterminated' by persecutors. Just because the Jewish people have more detailed account of their troubles over the centuries (i.e. the Bible) doesn't make them by any means unique, or even particularly hard done by.

joev.

Draco

Originally posted by joev
a simple example: Ireland. - The Famine. 5Million dead. (Oh! but we mustn't mention that! cos we're all friendly friendly with the british now... and they're not nasty like zee-germans...)

Eh, what? There was no where near that many dead. the population went from ~8 million down to ~6 million, and most of that can be put down to emmigration.

joev

Originally posted by Draco
Eh, what? There was no where near that many dead. the population went from ~8 million down to ~6 million, and most of that can be put down to emmigration.

Eh, What? Any history book I read put the numbers as 8million -> 3million.

Irelands *current* population isn't even 5 millon.

Besides... I'm not getting into *this* arguement... it was an illustration, not a hard, extensively researched figure.

joev.

[PS] Mind you, you're right.. "5 million dead..." I shoulda said 'dead or displaced' What *was* I dr^H^Hthinking

Gordon

I wonder how many Red Indians have been "moved" by the old American people.

And how many Aborigines have been "displaced" by the new Australians.

The Gopher

Castor Troy-Afraid i have to disagree again with you.Dont you measure the most persecuted ppl by the amount dead?6 million Jews died,but so did 30 million Soviets,about half civillians,and mostly non jews?Wouldnt this mean that the Russians were the most severely racially persecuted group?
And on another note,in my opinion the Jewish state of Israel has no right to exist.Think about it-there were practically no Jews in Israel for 2000 years,and all of a sudden after the war a pile of selfish colonials arrive from Europe,bomb the British peacekeepers out[who were there to PROTECT Jews mainly]and then murder their way through any Palestinians who refuse to leave the "Holy"land.These people were colonialising murderers,and in my opinion were as bad as Cromwell[think about it,they both massacred civillians,didnt give a toss about native people or religions,deported them from their rightful homes etc etc etc].And to add further insult,they chase Palestinians out of areas they went to after 1948 to escape Israel?Disgraceful that the UK/US supports these ppl but condemn the likes of China for their treatement of Tibetanms which wasnt half as bad.

Draco

Originally posted by joev

Irelands *current* population isn't even 5 millon.

Between north and south it's about that figure. If I remeber correctly there is ~1.5 million in the north and ~3.5 million in the south.

Originally posted by joev

Besides... I'm not getting into *this* arguement... it was an illustration, not a hard, extensively researched figure.

If you're going to be banding about numbers when you're taking about genoicide and the like, being a little more accuracte might just help you case.

joev

Originally posted by Draco

Between north and south it's about that figure. If I remeber correctly there is ~1.5 million in the north and ~3.5 million in the south.


If you're going to be banding about numbers when you're taking about genoicide and the like, being a little more accuracte might just help you case.

I don't see why on this forum...

I tend to view online bbs discussions as just that, discussions, not serious platforms for debate. As such, I'm not going to expend that much effort on research.

And as I said... regardless of the NUMBER, the illustration stands... I'm not interested in a debate on "our people were more oppressed than yours" because essentially I don't think it's an issue for 'tit for tat' type discussion.

joev.

Draco

Originally posted by joev


I don't see why on this forum...

I tend to view online bbs discussions as just that, discussions, not serious platforms for debate. As such, I'm not going to expend that much effort on research.

Then don't expect people to take anything you say seriously.

joev

Originally posted by Draco
Then don't expect people to take anything you say seriously.

LOL.

That's f**kin funny...

No really!

I been viewing these forums for over a year, and I've yet to see anyone put effort into researching figures... well maybe a few do... but not many...

So I guess noone is serious. Call me a sheep. I'm just following suit.

Really.. you kill me.. I'm still laughing...



joev.

PS: Figures quoted are 1 million dead. 2 million emitated from articles in the national archive. So I stand corrected - my apologies. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong

Victor

I've seen the bomb squad van (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) at least 3 times in the last week. I had only ever seen one once before (actually frightening to see a f*** off van speeding towards you on the wrong side of the road). See "Three treated after (British) embassy anthrax scare". More importantly for motive see "US reveals contents of anthrax letters "

Living next to the Embassy (Chancellery) would be a neutral risk. While there is a marginally greater risk of a violent attack on an Embassy, there is a lesser risk of 'ordinary' crime (in fact a Garda detective shot someone trying to burgle an apartment next to the Israeli Embassy Residence).

I understand the Chancellery is on an upper floor, making it less prone to attack and therefore less likely to be attacked. Having seen the security in the South African Embassy (which is good, but not 'extreme'), I imagine the Israelis keep a fairly tight ship. The building is defendable and structurally safe from small explosive devices, I would consider it relatively safe from larger explosive devices (RC frame, mid-rise, suburban location, not directly on street). However, I would wonder about the car park.

Ultimately, if you see the EOD and fire brigade guys back, keep away from them and if possible stay indoors with windows closed. Anthrax is only a significant threat when in immediate proximity to the Anthrax agent, it’s risk is quite low outdoors or in neighbouring buildings, huge quantities would be needed to create an outdoors risk. However, if you hear gunfire when you are in your bedroom, it would probably be best to keep your head down.

---

As regards Irelands population and the famine, it is estimated 1m people died and 1m emigrated during the famine, several million more emigrated in the decades after the famine.

Approximate population
date	26 counties	whole island
1841			8,500,000
1851			6,500,000
1861	4,402,111 
1871	4,053,187 
1881	3,870,020 
1891	3,468,694 
1901	3,221,823 
1911	3,139,688
1926	2,971,992
1936	2,968,420
1946	2,955,107
1951	2,960,593
1961	2,818,341
1971	2,978,248
1981	3,443,405
1991	3,525,719
1996	3,626,087	5,175,000
2000	3,800,000	5,400,000

Clintons Cat

Originally posted by Castor Troy
The Holocaust was the climax of nearly 2000 years of persecution of Jews, not a single event. Jews have been discrimanted against, harrassed and killed throughout history in various different purges and pogroms by virtually all peoples & nations.

Even if the Holocaust was 'one event', 5 to 6 million people were exterminated during it because of their religion and heritage. I think that does actually make them the most persecuted group ever. Unless of course, you can name another group that have had it worse over the centuries?

absolutely correct.
the Holocaust was not an isolated incident.Hitler didnt invent anti semitism,Bloody Pogroms against the jews and restrictions on their rights of movement and employment were the norm throughout all major european nations in the 19th century,Russia and France in particular carried out numerous purges on their jewish populations But anti semitism was endemic throughout europe.
Cite the "War Against The Jews" Published 1938
..............


That doesn't mean however Ariel Sharron should be above criticism for the policies of his government.Labbelling his opponents,both overseas and domestically (both palestinian and on the israelli left) "appeasers" is a dilliberate use of language emotionally charged with connotataions of the Nazi era. in an attempt to stiffle criticism of a government which far from delivering the security it promised upon election has seen one of the worst periods of civil unrest and killings of Israelli citizens in a decades.
Under the peace process the Palestinian Representatives had for the first time in history recognised the legitimacy of the state of Israel.Arafat had suceeded in clamping down on the activists from hezbollah and hamas.
It wasnt Palestinian Gunman that killed Yitzak Rabin,it was a member of the hebron settlers assosiation,no tanks rolled into hebron that night firing shells though the windows of six year old girls as retribution though.

Brian Hennessy

We can go into arguments about the past and how each group has been persecuted forever. While on a smaller scale, Northern Ireland was created as a protestant state for a protestant people and it didn't work. We eventually got peace instead of discrimination by including everyone in the running of the place, with compromise on all sides. The simple solution to the israel/palestine problem is the single state one, encompassing israel/west bank/gaza. It can be called israel/palestine, but must respect all it's citizens, therefore cannot be a jewish state.

I am not a holcaust denyer nor am I anti-semetic (i don't even know what that means).

GirlInterrupted

Brian Hennessy wrote: »

I am not a holcaust denyer nor am I anti-semetic (i don't even know what that means).

Anti-semitic - prejudiced against all semitic peoples, including Yemeni's, Bedouins, as well as Hebrew people and many other groups.

Judeophobic - Prejudiced against Jews.

brianthebard

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The Holocaust was the climax of nearly 2000 years of persecution of Jews, not a single event. Jews have been discrimanted against, harrassed and killed throughout history in various different purges and pogroms by virtually all peoples & nations.

Even if the Holocaust was 'one event', 5 to 6 million people were exterminated during it because of their religion and heritage. I think that does actually make them the most persecuted group ever. Unless of course, you can name another group that have had it worse over the centuries?

The total annihilation of Tazmanian aborigines and the near total extermination of a number of native populations in the Americas spring to mind here.

joev wrote: »

Eh, What? Any history book I read put the numbers as 8million -> 3million.

Irelands *current* population isn't even 5 millon.

Besides... I'm not getting into *this* arguement... it was an illustration, not a hard, extensively researched figure.

joev.

[PS] Mind you, you're right.. "5 million dead..." I shoulda said 'dead or displaced' What *was* I dr^H^Hthinking

I realise this is off topic but I can't leave this unchallenged, your figures are bull. The highest estimates put deaths during the famine at 1 million. Most of those deaths were due to disease, not actual starvation.

GirlInterrupted

brianthebard wrote: »

The total annihilation of Tazmanian aborigines and the near total extermination of a number of native populations in the Americas spring to mind here..

Tasmanian aborigines were reduced in numbers from highest estimates of around 5,500 to around 300, mostly by diseases introduced by white settlers, not by conflict. There is a surviving aboriginal population in Tazmania today.

Not total annihilation.

Everyone is conversant with the story of native Americans, but again, ghastly as the story is, the numbers simply don't compare.

brianthebard

I don't think it should be reduced to a mere numbers game. Just because there were less Tazmanians than Native Americans doesn't make the situation any worse for instance. As for conflict with the Tazmanians, there was a certain amount, there definitely was no real attempt to stop the annhilation. We were told in class fairly recently that there were no native Tazmanians left by 1900, or some date close to that. I don't have a source for that though so will have to try and confirm it later. In any case the damage to the population and to the culture of the Aborgines must rank on a par or above that caused by the holocaust.
When you say the Native American situation doesn't compare are you including Canada and South America and the Caribbean? I doubt it or you would have to concede they do very much compare. Again the Caribbean situation especially the devastation of population and cultures was terrible and all consuming.

GirlInterrupted

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think it should be reduced to a mere numbers game. Just because there were less Tazmanians than Native Americans doesn't make the situation any worse for instance.

In any case the damage to the population and to the culture of the Aborgines must rank on a par or above that caused by the holocaust.


When you say the Native American situation doesn't compare are you including Canada and South America and the Caribbean? I doubt it or you would have to concede they do very much compare. Again the Caribbean situation especially the devastation of population and cultures was terrible and all consuming.

Are you serious when you say that the murder (and this is of course a ghastly atrocity, make no mistake) of approx 5,000 native Tazmanians is equal in devestation to the murder of six million Jews? Because I'm not surprised you don't want to make it a numbers game, if you truly believe those atrocities are on an equal scale.

I can't find a definitive number for the Native American dead, so I won't comment on that, but one thing I do find interesting is the assumption that Jewish culture:

A) Wasn't damaged, descimated and defiled by the murder of millions, and
That Jewish culture is homogenous amongst European Jewry, and consequently 'only' a narrow definition of culture is affected.

No atrocity is anything less than an atrocity, but as we all know from the current news stories, scale does matter.

brianthebard

I never suggested the Jewish culture wasn't harmed, or that it was homogenous. But neither was it totally annhilated. In terms of proportions, is the total destruction of 5,500 people not on a par with the Holocaust? Is the atrocities committed against the gypsies in the Holocaust not on a par with those committed against the Jewish people, simply because there were less gypsies killed? It was certainly a larger proportion of their population. And you are unlikely to find definitive numbers for the Native American losses for obvious reasons but I assure you that six million is a good starting figure, and we can work up from there.

Edit: wiki says 100million but I feel thats a bit high. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples

g5fd6ow0hseima

Castor Troy wrote: »

The Holocaust was the climax of nearly 2000 years of persecution of Jews, not a single event. Jews have been discrimanted against, harrassed and killed throughout history in various different purges and pogroms by virtually all peoples & nations.

Even if the Holocaust was 'one event', 5 to 6 million people were exterminated during it because of their religion and heritage. I think that does actually make them the most persecuted group ever. Unless of course, you can name another group that have had it worse over the centuries?

Well we could start the whole 800 years rant, and the famine being a genocide in disguise.
But this 6 million, wernt a good deal of them gypsies, homosexuals and slavic people, not just jews.

Sometimes I feel the Israelis use the whole holocaust as a banner under which they can have a free hand in their expansionism in the middle east.

As early as the late 1940s Golda Meir famously exclaimed 'There are no Palestineans' - quite rich coming from a Ukranian woman presiding over a nation built on theology thousands of miles from where she, along with its new inhabitants were actually from.

GirlInterrupted

brianthebard wrote: »

Is the atrocities committed against the gypsies in the Holocaust not on a par with those committed against the Jewish people, simply because there were less gypsies killed? It was certainly a larger proportion of their population. And you are unlikely to find definitive numbers for the Native American losses for obvious reasons but I assure you that six million is a good starting figure, and we can work up from there.

Again I'll need a timescale and numbers before I'd comment on the Native Americans.

Yes, the gypsies, gays, commumists, disabled, mentally ill and all the other groups murdered during the Nazi regime were devestated. And it was evil.

But to ignore numbers is ridiculous.

It is to ignore the very near extinction of an entire race of people. Its to ignore the absence of family members who should be born, but weren't, its to ignore the family albums full of pictures of people, not one of whom wasn't murdered.

Its to ignore the repercussions felt by all the groups targeted during any pogram, any atrocity, any war, its to ignore the very thing that defines us as civilised people, the basic human rights of each and every group and race of people to occupy their place in the world peacefully and secure in the knowledge that hatred won't kill them.

Not the Israeli's, not the Palestinians, not the millions of victims of racial 'cleansing', or colonisation or the victims of disease or disaster or war.

The near extinction of European Jews happened within a few short years, and that counts too, the ugly truth is that five thousand, no matter how comparable the relative devestation, cannot compare with the determination and singlemindedness it took to murder six million in such a short time.

Landry Wet Mulberry wrote: »

But this 6 million, wernt a good deal of them gypsies, homosexuals and slavic people, not just jews.

.

Twelve million people were murdered by the Nazi's. Six million of them were Jewish.

brianthebard

So now its a time issue as well? Because there was better technology in the twentieth century rather than the sixteenth it was a greater atrocity? I'm not ignoring any of those things that you stated, I'm simply trying to show that if we are to work within a hierarchy of atrocities as a previous poster suggested, and by the way I do not endorse (but realise that others do and I must try and argue on their terms to show them why their argument is lacking) then we must look at the severity of those atrocities on the population, not simply pick out numbers and claim this one is worse or this one is less bad based on the size of the group. But if we go along with that logic then we arrive back at the Native American situation again. Or the gypsies, who as I pointed out suffered a larger loss proportionately, and by your argument must have been closer to extinction?

The suggestion that time x population equals level of atrocity is very very flawed.

GirlInterrupted

brianthebard wrote: »

So now its a time issue as well? Because there was better technology in the twentieth century rather than the sixteenth it was a greater atrocity? I'm not ignoring any of those things that you stated, I'm simply trying to show that if we are to work within a hierarchy of atrocities as a previous poster suggested, and by the way I do not endorse (but realise that others do and I must try and argue on their terms to show them why their argument is lacking) then we must look at the severity of those atrocities on the population, not simply pick out numbers and claim this one is worse or this one is less bad based on the size of the group. But if we go along with that logic then we arrive back at the Native American situation again. Or the gypsies, who as I pointed out suffered a larger loss proportionately, and by your argument must have been closer to extinction?

The suggestion that time x population equals level of atrocity is very very flawed.

Flawed by what standard?

Again, I did say that the comparable devestation was evil in its result as regards the other groups involved.

However, if, to use a current example, six million Palestinians were murdered over the next six years, a million a year, would the world not see that as being of more immediate import than if, again for example, six million Palestinians were murdered over one hundred years?

With atrocities, like most things, size matters.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

Flawed by what standard?

Again, I did say that the comparable devestation was evil in its result as regards the other groups involved.

However, if, to use a current example, six million Palestinians were murdered over the next six years, a million a year, would the world not see that as being of more immediate import than if, again for example, six million Palestinians were murdered over one hundred years?

With atrocities, like most things, size matters.

And if for example 80 million native Americans were slaughtered or died because of colonisation over a century, that would be less of an atrocity than the six million Palestinians? If the Armenian Genocide happened over a two year period and 1.5 million people were killed, does that make it more or less bad than your Palestinian example? If over the course of a century a group of people or peoples are harassed, murdered, pillaged and to all extents exterminated, with little or no calls for a change in those policies, is that not a greater, more intense and more damaging atrocity than the one that happens over six? That is the flaw.

GirlInterrupted

brianthebard wrote: »

And if for example 80 million native Americans were slaughtered or died because of colonisation over a century, that would be less of an atrocity than the six million Palestinians? If the Armenian Genocide happened over a two year period and 1.5 million people were killed, does that make it more or less bad than your Palestinian example? If over the course of a century a group of people or peoples are harassed, murdered, pillaged and to all extents exterminated, with little or no calls for a change in those policies, is that not a greater, more intense and more damaging atrocity than the one that happens over six? That is the flaw.

80 million? Again, the intent, the singlemindedness, and the evil involved are all factors, of course all these things are devestating, no one is arguing that, but you simply cannot ignore size, time and intent.

I don't think we can ever come to a consensus, since first you say that an atrocity consisting of the murder of five thousand is comparable to the murder of six million, and then call for comparisons of the slaughter of 80 million over six...

I think you do agree with me really. Size does matter.

brianthebard

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

80 million? Again, the intent, the singlemindedness, and the evil involved are all factors, of course all these things are devestating, no one is arguing that, but you simply cannot ignore size, time and intent.

I don't think we can ever come to a consensus, since first you say that an atrocity consisting of the murder of five thousand is comparable to the murder of six million, and then call for comparisons of the slaughter of 80 million over six...

I think you do agree with me really. Size does matter.

Wiki said the native american population was between 8.4 million and 112.5 in 1492, I picked 80 as a possible middle ground. I don't agree with you at all I'm sorry to say, I rank the slaughter of 5000, 6,000,000 and 80,000,000 on a par with one another. There is no question of the intent Pizzaro held when he destroyed the Inca empire.

metrovelvet

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

Again I'll need a timescale and numbers before I'd comment on the Native Americans.

Yes, the gypsies, gays, commumists, disabled, mentally ill and all the other groups murdered during the Nazi regime were devestated. And it was evil.

But to ignore numbers is ridiculous.

It is to ignore the very near extinction of an entire race of people. Its to ignore the absence of family members who should be born, but weren't, its to ignore the family albums full of pictures of people, not one of whom wasn't murdered.

Its to ignore the repercussions felt by all the groups targeted during any pogram, any atrocity, any war, its to ignore the very thing that defines us as civilised people, the basic human rights of each and every group and race of people to occupy their place in the world peacefully and secure in the knowledge that hatred won't kill them.

Not the Israeli's, not the Palestinians, not the millions of victims of racial 'cleansing', or colonisation or the victims of disease or disaster or war.

The near extinction of European Jews happened within a few short years, and that counts too, the ugly truth is that five thousand, no matter how comparable the relative devestation, cannot compare with the determination and singlemindedness it took to murder six million in such a short time.




Twelve million people were murdered by the Nazi's. Six million of them were Jewish.

I am no history expert so can someone please explain to me, since we are talking about the importance of numbers, why 23 million Soviets were killed in WW2, five and a half million Polish were killed in WW2, and many many others, but the Jews have the monopoly on remembrence and dominate the public conciousness when it comes to the victims of WW2? Please someone explain this to me if numbers are so important.

GirlInterrupted

metrovelvet wrote: »

I am no history expert so can someone please explain to me, since we are talking about the importance of numbers, why 23 million Soviets were killed in WW2, five and a half million Polish were killed in WW2, and many many others, but the Jews have the monopoly on remembrence and dominate the public conciousness when it comes to the victims of WW2? Please someone explain this to me if numbers are so important.

The Soviets were war victims. They shouldn't have been, it was murderous, it was catastrophic, but that happens in ugly wars. The Poles were also bombed and slaughtered.

The Jews...Hmmm. Well some very powerful men decided that a single race of people controlled the finanacial and commercial institutions, and consequently were responsible for all the economic and social ills of the time. These same people decided to set up factories to murder this race of people in the most effecient way possible.

They didn't bomb them, first they encouraged the population to harass them, to make their lives miserable and to take their property,

Then the herded them into trains/truck/ghettos and took them to extermination camps, shaved their heads to make pillows from their hair, pulled their gold teeth to make jewellry, took their goods for themselves, and then they either worked them to death, or, they marched them naked to pits and shot them in the back of the head, and buried them, whether or not they were still alive.

Or, alternatively, they marched them to gas chambers and let loose poison on the men, women, children and babies. And they did it to so many of them that a race of people came very close to extinction.

Murder factories and policies and hatred and all aimed at a race of people who were peaceful citizens, contributing to society.

Thats why some of us consider it worth remembering.

Not because nothing else is, but because the evil involved was singular.

metrovelvet

Ok so what distinguises their genocide from everyone else's are

1. They are Jewish

2. The methods used

You refer to the jews as a "race of people," the same mistake the Nazi's made. Judaism is not a race, it is a religion.

brianthebard

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

Not because nothing else is, but because the evil involved was singular.

Except you acknowledged the same thing happened to communists, homosexuals, freemasons, political dissidents and gypsies? Which would make it more than singular?

metrovelvet

^ Because they are Jews.

psicic

Oh, GI, you are a great troll, or else someone very indoctrinated in the worst type of Zionist (not Jewish) sophistry.

The point was made to you that a culture was nearly wiped out, extinguished, decimated. Because that culture wasn't large enough, important enough or modern enough for you, it doesn't equate.

Almost like you're setting a cut-off point for the importance of a culture and when it deserves to be protected. Like some cultures are superior to others.

Do you see where your empty argument leads? Where it has always lead and why many decent people can't support Israel despite the arguments in its favour?

Or should I get crayons out and draw a large picture for you?

(+1 kudos for the oldest thread resurrection I've seen recently... Brian Hennessy I'm looking at you)

tallaght01

psicic wrote: »

Oh, GI, you are a great troll, or else someone very indoctrinated in the worst type of Zionist (not Jewish) sophistry.

What are you on about?????

You may not agree with the point, but arguing that the murder of 6 million jews in an act of genocide doesn't "equate" to the murder of a smaller amount of people (some in acts of genocide, others not) isn't trolling!!!!

Scale IS important to people.

psicic

tallaght01 wrote: »

What are you on about?????

You may not agree with the point, but arguing that the murder of 6 million jews in an act of genocide doesn't "equate" to the murder of a smaller amount of people (some in acts of genocide, others not) isn't trolling!!!!

Scale IS important to people.

What I'm on about is that the argument hasn't been countered by GI. The argument has been ignored. That is the essence of a troll or a zealot.

And scale may be important. However - if you accept the premise of GI's argument - how are you defining scale? Percentage of total population of a culture or simple numbers? If an atrocity doesn't kill enough people, or meet some Orwellian accounting principle, then it doesn't matter - or where do the limits lie? Is the Holocaust going to be a 'get out of jail free' card for Israel for the rest of eternity? And why should I share in this idea of a 'collective guilt' for a holocaust that had nothing to do with myself and, dare I say it, my forebears?

Simply put, this argument is not thought through - in my opinion, of course - and one which GI has failed to be persuasive on or counter the opposition to.

allabouteve

psicic wrote: »

If an atrocity doesn't kill enough people, or meet some Orwellian accounting principle, then it doesn't matter - or where do the limits lie? Is the Holocaust going to be a 'get out of jail free' card for Israel for the rest of eternity? And why should I share in this idea of a 'collective guilt' for a holocaust that had nothing to do with myself and, dare I say it, my forebears?

.

She didn't say any of that.

psicic

allabouteve wrote: »

She didn't say any of that.

Hmmm... maybe I took the wrong interpretation from what GI was saying and extrapolated too far - I do note that the last post they made was referring to intent, methodology and, quite obviously, the public perception of the uniqueness of this methodology.

I'll climb off my high-horse, admit I most likely picked up the wrong thrust of what GI was saying and ended up arguing a point with myself.

I'll continue to read in a state of mild embarrassment having realised that, by my own standards, I must either have been a troll or a zealot.

tallaght01

psicic wrote: »

Hmmm... maybe I took the wrong interpretation from what GI was saying and extrapolated too far - I do note that the last post they made was referring to intent, methodology and, quite obviously, the public perception of the uniqueness of this methodology.

I'll climb off my high-horse, admit I most likely picked up the wrong thrust of what GI was saying and ended up arguing a point with myself.

I'll continue to read in a state of mild embarrassment having realised that, by my own standards, I must either have been a troll or a zealot.

I'm friends with GI in real life, dude, which is a bit off topic. But she would never minimise suffering. She's one of those "sensitive" types

But she's mental for going off on one herself when someone pushes her buttons, so don't let her give you a hard time about it when she reads this :P

johnnyskeleton

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

+1

At the risk of backseat modding, why on earth hasn't someone closed this thread?

brianthebard

Its still a good conversation and has the issue has again been brought to people's attention with the latest acts?

johnnyskeleton

brianthebard wrote: »

Its still a good conversation and has the issue has again been brought to people's attention with the latest acts?

Which issue? The OP's issue of there being fire engines outside the Israeli embassy, the issue of whether the holocaust can be equated to other atrocities, or the more subtle issue of "Israel - don't you think they're bad"?