Why America supports the Jews/Israel

[Fencer X and Y]

What a surpirse that a Brit wouldn't like the US governement. But let me ask you this why is it that we're the superpower and you're not? It wouldn't have anything to do with us having a more successful system that is more flexible and allows for more freedoms, both political and economic, then you guys, would it?

[fatfencer]

[quote=I_luv_saber;780208]Me personally, it's not the fact we should be cutting back across the board that I disagree with. It is A) the racist reasoning you use and B) the fact that we should only support those who we can use and should have no morality in the decision of who to support which bothers me.

Continuing to call me racist doesnt make me so. I hate just about everybody equally. There's something wrong with every culture and I enjoy pointing it out...like why is it white people still have control over every civilized country (but this one) when they were at the helm of every country crashing headlong into both world wars and the cold War? I hate the Nazis more than you do, for many reasons...I'm just flabbergasted that you think I should despise them MORE because jews died. That's just obtuse, stupid, asinine, ignorant AAAAAANNNNNDDDD .... racist!

Moreover, if it bothers you that we should only help those within the bounds of our self interest then tough titties. Money's tight and the jews know this more than any. That's why I supplied you with the quotes from pro-israeli press about American Jews cutting their support due to econ down turn. Keep up or blow me.

You are an anti-semite because you believe there is some mass Jewish lobby controlling America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...curity_Affairs
Its too long to post but short enough to peruse...please do so.
When you see this can you really continue to deny that which just moments before you read it was supposedly a 'racist stereotype'? You are a naive little twit...or perhaps you wish to deny what is true so you can hold onto your little pro-jew position. Though I am not anti-jew I am "anti" those who refuse to call a spade a spade. A lie by omission is still a lie my friend.

Colin Powell has stated according to Karen DeYoung's 2006 biography of Powell[2], stated that JINSA had influenced Vice President Richard Cheney[3] and others in the Bush administration to rid Israel of Palestinian Arabs' supporters and protect Israel's security by neutralizing Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Libya by invading and changing those regimes.

It is typical of people who want to hold a position permanently to deny its very existence. How then can one assault the position? jews and jew enablers(right wing christians) have been doing this since the holocaust despite many more dying in related instances. Only the jews(or perhaps just you ILS) would dare say something as asinine as 'our deaths were worth more than your deaths. They mean more because Hitler didnt like us'...despite the fact he was ethnically part jewish.

Stating the fact that it was 6 million and tragic doesnt make me an anti-semite. it makes me truthful. I'm much more saddened that 24 million russians died in the same war. I think that what scares the jews the most is that in just a few short years everyone will forget and they will lose what currency they have on the matter. You use that jewish created term: 'exaggerated event' as some sort of PC insult. Truth is, I'm merely recognizing the fact that many people are spending money on the jewish culture(except the jews lately), a culture that has constantly played the victim role and held their hand out. A victim role whose cause is exacerbated by their political clout.. while many people suffered more in WW2.

Incidentally I find it intellectually disingenuous on your part that you bothered none at all to collect any quotes. Most of mine were from pro-Israeli sites. You just state stuff is true. Whats ironic is that at least I held up a 'commonly held example' i.e. stereotype in place of 'evidence'... and now the evidence shows the stereotype to be correct. I knew that though.....

because you think that Jews don't give back to community, and because of similar racist statements. Don't go crying that you are being called a racist for arguing taxpayers should lobby for cutbacks when you know damned well that's not what people are seeing as racism and why you are being called a racist. This thread was not:
I think we should start cutting back on the massive amounts of money we are sending to Israel.
RAAAACIST!!!

Actually yes thats what it started out as, but jeff/hauptman asserted I was anti-jew because I refuse to capitalize the "jews"; invoking Freud even. I tend not to give my opponents what they wish. Note none of you *****ed when I didnt capitalize arab or muslim. Just doing it to piss y'all off cuz it does. Nothing wrong with off-balancing you is there?

Meanwhile, yes, anytime anyone supports cutting funds to the Land of Iz.. they will be labeled Holocaust lover, anti-jew, etc. That's standard rhetoric for people like you, ILS.

I simply stated the jews are not worth supporting in our hard econ times and that they aren't worth a damn to us geopolitically. Doesn't make me anti-jew. Just makes me anti financially supporting jews. Even the jews in the US are anti financially supporting jews during these hard times. Mayhaps that makes me a card-carrying jew?

Jew-in-spirit,

Fatfencer

PS: get some evidence you sad little masterdebater.

PPS: Evidence supports my notion that Jews tend to give within their own community and are essentially an insular culture. And yet you say that my noting of this makes me a jew-hater. You ****ing imbecile. Here's something from the ****ing JEWISH DAILY FORWARD!!! The whole article basically states that Jewish charitable giving doesnt much go outside its own community YET and "in this complex world" their faith demands of them what they have not yet done, bridge themselves to their local non-jew communities thru giving.

http://www.forward.com/articles/14545/
The Changing Nature of Jewish Philanthropy
By Marvin I. Schotland
Published November 13, 2008, issue of November 21, 2008.

A seminal study conducted by Yale University sociologists in the early 1960s found nearly 95% of all Jewish Americans married within the faith. The overwhelming majority of those observed strongly identified with Judaism and their families were affiliated with synagogues. The study concluded that Jewish identity — both religious and cultural distinctiveness — would remain strong and the risks of broad assimilation remote. Jewish Americans’ charitable giving largely reflected the times; relative to today, they gave to a limited number of organizations that addressed needs of a more narrowly defined community.

He further asserts though that although the underlying demographics are changing...jews marrying non-jews, jewish giving has yet to keep pace.

ILS is a moron.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by Fencer X and Y

What a surpirse that a Brit wouldn't like the US governement. But let me ask you this why is it that we're the superpower and you're not? It wouldn't have anything to do with us having a more successful system that is more flexible and allows for more freedoms, both political and economic, then you guys, would it?

No.

When China has eclipsed the US, will it have been because of their political and economic freedoms?

We have, like, a thousand times more people, and we're, like, a million times bigger then Britain. Like that's any sort of reasonable comparison to make.

[Fencer X and Y]

When China eclipses the US economically (if that will ever happen seeing how dependant they are on the US commmerce for their own economy) then we'll see what kind of a governement it has. Untill then I can still say that the US is a superpower because it allows money to rule.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

Continuing to call me racist doesnt make me so.

No, but your statements do .

I hate just about everybody equally. There's something wrong with every culture and I enjoy pointing it out...like why is it white people still have control over every civilized country (but this one) when they were at the helm of every country crashing headlong into both world wars and the cold War?

If you pre-judge a group of people based upon stereotypes, that is to me and others (obviously) racist. If you don't believe so, fine.

I hate the Nazis more than you do, for many reasons...I'm just flabbergasted that you think I should despise them MORE because jews died. That's just obtuse, stupid, asinine, ignorant AAAAAANNNNNDDDD .... racist!

Excuse me, but who the hell are you? Who the hell are you to tell me who I like and don't like and how much I do or don't? You don't know me or anything about me, so take this BS elsewhere.

I never said you should hate Nazis more because Jews died. I said there is an evil of another level to target people simply because they are part of a race. Alliegence you can control. Beliefs you can control. Race you cannot. If you don't want to believe it, that's OK, but others do.

Moreover, if it bothers you that we should only help those within the bounds of our self interest then tough titties.

Personally, I think it's quite stupid to ally with who the best bet is at the time. We'd have screwed ourselves long ago if that was the case. However, as I said before, these were not the points of your posts which I were mainly approaching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...curity_Affairs
Its too long to post but short enough to peruse...please do so.
When you see this can you really continue to deny that which just moments before you read it was supposedly a 'racist stereotype'? You are a naive little twit...or perhaps you wish to deny what is true so you can hold onto your little pro-jew position. Though I am not anti-jew I am "anti" those who refuse to call a spade a spade. A lie by omission is still a lie my friend.

Colin Powell has stated according to Karen DeYoung's 2006 biography of Powell[2], stated that JINSA had influenced Vice President Richard Cheney[3] and others in the Bush administration to rid Israel of Palestinian Arabs' supporters and protect Israel's security by neutralizing Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Libya by invading and changing those regimes.

You can continue to blather on with mindless and thoughtless insults if you wish... it only makes your position weaker (a thing I had not thought possible until you start typing again). I did not deny that there is (I'll emphasize it for you so you won't get confused) A JEWISH LOBBY. Every culture and interest has a lobby. But the tone of your post was "The reason we are supporting Israel = Jewish lobby". This is ridiculous. Did they have some influence? No doubt. Were they the sole reason, or even the main reason for it? Of course not. Not all Jews even support the cause! (Helpful Hint: referring to the "jewish lobbyists" as JINSA will earn you less racism points then "the jews are the problem"). There are other reasons (which have been gone over before hint, hint) for this that have been discused at length.

It is typical of people who want to hold a position permanently to deny its very existence. How then can one assault the position? jews and jew enablers(right wing christians) have been doing this since the holocaust despite many more dying in related instances. Only the jews(or perhaps just you ILS) would dare say something as asinine as 'our deaths were worth more than your deaths. They mean more because Hitler didnt like us'...despite the fact he was ethnically part jewish.

Did I say they were worth more? Could you quote me on that please? I said A) There is a certain evil behind targetting people due to race, and B) That the methods which were emplyed to kill them (and the sheer scale on whioch it was done) deserves it's own note.

And, psssst, btw, the world knows Hitler was part Jewish. Doesn't mean jack ****, my friend. In fact, one of the big theories is that Hitler's pursuit of wiping out Jews was a self-hate pathology. It's clear Hitler was a madman. None of what you posted refutes that this was a personal mission of his.

Stating the fact that it was 6 million and tragic doesnt make me an anti-semite. it makes me truthful. I'm much more saddened that 24 million russians died in the same war. I think that what scares the jews the most is that in just a few short years everyone will forget and they will lose what currency they have on the matter. You use that jewish created term: 'exaggerated event' as some sort of PC insult. Truth is, I'm merely recognizing the fact that many people are spending money on the jewish culture(except the jews lately), a culture that has constantly played the victim role and held their hand out. A victim role whose cause is exacerbated by their political clout.. while many people suffered more in WW2.

You continue to shed credibility. You come talking to me about people holding permanent positions? You obviously will not hear a word anyone else has to say. You believe what you wish to believe, I don't care.

Incidentally I find it intellectually disingenuous on your part that you bothered none at all to collect any quotes. Most of mine were from pro-Israeli sites. You just state stuff is true. Whats ironic is that at least I held up a 'commonly held example' i.e. stereotype in place of 'evidence'... and now the evidence shows the stereotype to be correct. I knew that though.....

No, your evidence doesn not show it to be correct. You've posted flimsy articles and radical news stories that don't even relate to the points I was making against you! You take it and blow it out of proportion and say "See, it supports my position!". When in fact, it doesn't! (Come on now, a Palestinian man is shot so Jews are barbarians? The fact you can't see the stupidity flying from your keyboard amazes me).

Actually yes thats what it started out as, but jeff/hauptman asserted I was anti-jew because I refuse to capitalize the "jews"; invoking Freud even. I tend not to give my opponents what they wish. Note none of you *****ed when I didnt capitalize arab or muslim. Just doing it to piss y'all off cuz it does. Nothing wrong with off-balancing you is there?

Actually it didn't really piss me off. I was simply pointing out it was kind of funny. Especially that you caps Korea and not israel. And, if it was that alone, you would not be called a racist either. It's that in conjunction with racist statement that do it. Fuel to the fire, if you will.

Meanwhile, yes, anytime anyone supports cutting funds to the Land of Iz.. they will be labeled Holocaust lover, anti-jew, etc. That's standard rhetoric for people like you, ILS.

Actually, I have no problem with you wanting to cut funding. I have a problem with the racist reasoning. had it been "We are spending too much money, cut spending" you wouldn't be in it. Don't play dumb, you know damned well that's not it. You are a troll who's purpose is to incite people and you do so in every way possible.

I simply stated the jews are not worth supporting in our hard econ times and that they aren't worth a damn to us geopolitically. Doesn't make me anti-jew. Just makes me anti financially supporting jews. Even the jews in the US are anti financially supporting jews during these hard times. Mayhaps that makes me a card-carrying jew?

That's not "simply what you said". May wanna re-read your posts in full.

PS: get some evidence you sad little masterdebater.

You should take some of your own advice. (hint, evidence pertaining to the points being made against you is more helpful).

PPS: Evidence supports my notion that Jews tend to give within their own community and are essentially an insular culture.

Missed that one. Sending money to support a cause does not = do not give back to the community. You make extreme statements then try to backpedal so it doesn't sound so bad. And you aren't even very good at it.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

http://www.forward.com/articles/14545/
The Changing Nature of Jewish Philanthropy
By Marvin I. Schotland
Published November 13, 2008, issue of November 21, 2008.

A seminal study conducted by Yale University sociologists in the early 1960s found nearly 95% of all Jewish Americans married within the faith. The overwhelming majority of those observed strongly identified with Judaism and their families were affiliated with synagogues. The study concluded that Jewish identity — both religious and cultural distinctiveness — would remain strong and the risks of broad assimilation remote. Jewish Americans’ charitable giving largely reflected the times; relative to today, they gave to a limited number of organizations that addressed needs of a more narrowly defined community.

Aside from the fact that study was done in the 60's, you forgot to quote the rest of the article. And while I do like the cop-out of the article being too long, I'll do it for you (what was that about lie of ommission?):

Jewish Americans’ charitable giving largely reflected the times; relative to today, they gave to a limited number of organizations that addressed needs of a more narrowly defined community.

Fast forwarding to the present, we know the presumptions in the study proved far off the mark. The rate of intermarriage by Jews today runs in excess of half. Only 35% of Jewish Americans are synagogue members. These and other vast demographic shifts altered how Jews define themselves.

I don't need to post supporting evidence. You're doing it for me

The article even goes on to say Jews are giving back now more than ever before! It goes exactly against what you were saying! (Helpful Hint: read your "evidence" in full before posting. Avoids embarassments like this!)

He further asserts though that although the underlying demographics are changing...jews marrying non-jews, jewish giving has yet to keep pace.

I didn't read that anywhere. I read that he felt the studies previously showing Jews stereotypical proved off the mark, and that Jews not only were but are continuing to give back more to the community in more varied forms then it once was.

[I_luv_saber]

OK, look fatfencer. I have not heard one useful thing out of you. I've heard hateful insults, racist remarks, and mindless blather, but nothing useful. There is no more point in attempting intelligent debate with you as you will not listen to anything you do not believe. You take racial stereotypes as the truth, and are not only an idiot for doing so, but make it pointless to attempt any debate. Your actions on this thread have shown you to be a troll. I have no more desire to argue against that which cannot be argued against. You've made clear how you feel. You've made clear you cannot hold rational debate without resorting to name-calling and insulting (I'm guessing you get off on it).

Truthfully, you do not belong on the same board as so many upstanding people. As such, I'll be ignoring your posts from now on, since you have nothing good to contribute. Reply if you wish, I won't be replying back.

Have fun in your own little world. I wish you the best, and truly hope you can change as a person and find a way to live outside of the hate which has consumed you. I'm sorry for you. Truly I am.

-Jared

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Did I say they were worth more? Could you quote me on that please? I said A) There is a certain evil behind targetting people due to race, and B) That the methods which were emplyed to kill them (and the sheer scale on whioch it was done) deserves it's own note.

And, psssst, btw, the world knows Hitler was part Jewish. Doesn't mean jack ****, my friend. In fact, one of the big theories is that Hitler's pursuit of wiping out Jews was a self-hate pathology. It's clear Hitler was a madman. None of what you posted refutes that this was a personal mission of his.

I'm interested in the classification of extreme genocide here. I'm not trying to jump all over you as wet blanket of political correctness, this is a real question.

How would you classify the Holocaust compared to the Cossack genocide by Stalin? Worse, less? Same question for Saddam and the Kurds, Pol Pot and the Cham, or any genocide pushed by a dictator, and especially the various ethnic wars in Africa (I guess Darfur takes point right now).

I personally feel like nothing has ever happened quite like the Holocaust, but then again I might be succumbing to Eurocentrism and the fact that it was a big talking point in every high school history class. However, I can't really justify why I think it is worse than anything else of the sort.

[fatfencer]

The article says quite clearly that there is a shift in demographics and that giving is finally beginning to keep pace with said shift. However, his examples of 'giving back to the community' are really still the for jews, by jews and in favor of jews. For example he cites spending some money on Latino Pentacostal pastors and 'educating' them so they don't hate jews. How decidedly useful.
Moreover, the article was used to show that giving to the community around them was essentially non existant until quite recently. Hence the stereotype I used. The article was written November 2008!!!

I didn't read that anywhere. I read that he FF: (SNIP for stupidity)

Thats because you believe propaganda at face value and cannot read thoroughly. Like your last comment on the dissident voice article. you completely ignore the fact that its not some schmuck but a former Israeli officer talking about two current officers in the IDF tying up prisoners and shooting them. This is wrong even in your world right? Oh, maybe not...not unless its a jew thats dying.......here's the article

The Changing Nature of Jewish Philanthropy
By Marvin I. Schotland
Published November 13, 2008, issue of November 21, 2008.
FF: SNip for brevity. Its too long for the post

A seminal study conducted by Yale University sociologists in the early 1960s found nearly 95% of all Jewish Americans married within the faith. The overwhelming majority of those observed strongly identified with Judaism and their families were affiliated with synagogues. The study concluded that Jewish identity — both religious and cultural distinctiveness — would remain strong and the risks of broad assimilation remote. Jewish Americans’ charitable giving largely reflected the times; relative to today, they gave to a limited number of organizations that addressed needs of a more narrowly defined community.

Ok above's where they start saying that the jews were an insular culture.

Fast forwarding to the present, we know the presumptions in the study proved far off the mark. The rate of intermarriage by Jews today runs in excess of half. Only 35% of Jewish Americans are synagogue members. These and other vast demographic shifts altered how Jews define themselves.

Above is where they claim theres a demographic shift that has been happening. Jews are intermarrying with the surroundign culture.

Broader world views characterize the members of the so-called Generations
X and Y, for example, the 20- and 30-somethings who are poised to assume the mantle of philanthropic leadership — even those steeped in the most traditional Jewish upbringings. To everyone’s great pride, this emergent generation of leaders has grown up largely free of, and possibly even oblivious to, the sting of antisemitism. As a result, there is a growing proliferation of organizations, causes and interest groups that address the needs and issues of today’s Jewish community.

Todays jews know little about anti-semitism and jewish orgs are popping up to address today's new jew.

Furthermore, today’s younger generation is much more attuned to supporting causes throughout the community at large — often causes focused on social justice — as compared to their parents and grandparents, who focused their giving primarily on Jewish institutional growth and causes in Israel.
IluveSaber, this is the assertion you read and apparently you decide to stop reading you petulant ****. Meanwhile the stereotype I listed earlier in the thread comes from the very next sentence. Notice the spin on 'giving to the community MORPHS into educating the community about 'social justice'

While I do not think younger Jews are more committed to social justice than previous generations, the causes are more numerous and awareness is perhaps greater, owing to the immediacy of media, the Internet and other factors. For these reasons alone, we need to think locally and act globally — in both the literal and figurative sense.

Today, more than ever, Jewish community foundations and other charitable institutions must embrace this change. They must encourage their donors to do the same and support causes that touch the broader community. This exemplifies the best ideals of tikkun olam, whether it is efforts to combat local poverty or gang violence or to eradicate mass genocide in Darfur. The complexities of a modern world, diminished funding for social services and the tenets of our faith demand nothing less.

SOUNDS GREAT...his faith requires him to help heal the world and bridge gaps between jews and the society around them. Note this is not the same as charitable giving. Charitable giving is giving without strings attached. All the giving youll read about in the article is giving that PROMOTES jews within the community!!!! how charitable.... why can't they just give money to a secular kids-who are-dying ranch or something?

Charitable giving already mirrors these broader societal and demographic shifts. Yet today’s landscape requires foresight to address the needs of the older generation, while being mindful of the philanthropic passions of the next. The Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles, which I head, has spent most of this decade formalizing processes and grant programs that attempt to bridge this generational divide. For example, we developed the Family Foundation Center, a resource to both our own donors and outside private family foundations, to assist philanthropists with engaging heirs in their charitable endeavors and clearly defining individual and collective goals.

Jews talking about giving to other jews

The Family Foundation Center is a catalyst for bridging these diverse perspectives, identifying core values and tapping motivational issues central to multigenerational giving and transition. There are other such successful efforts underway in other cities, notably the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies’ 21/64 consulting division in New York, which promotes dialogue and understanding of “generational personalities” that underpin charitable giving.

Jews talking about giving to other jews

We created the Cutting Edge Grants Initiative as a logical extension of our work bridging the divergent interests between multiple generations and the Jewish community’s evolving needs. These innovative grants provide multi-year funding of up to $250,000 for programming that has the potential to transform the local Jewish community. Now three years old, the Cutting Edge Grants program has already dispensed more than $4 million to organizations ranging from start-ups to such venerable institutions as the American Jewish Committee and Los Angeles’s Jewish Federation.Funding under the Cutting Edge Grants includes such inspired new ideas as JDub Music, Inc., for the Los Angeles replication of its celebrated effort that uses popular music and cultural events as the mechanisms for attracting a younger generation of unaffiliated Jews to the faith and offering them a sense of community.

Similarly, we provided seed funding under these same grants for 30 Years After, an organization of young Persian Jews — historically an insular group in Los Angeles that encourages their peers to actively engage in local civic and Jewish life. The blurring of how we define and identify being Jewish has accelerated, along with the myriad of causes seeking — and worthy of — financial support. A recurring theme to the grant-making, if there is one, is reaching out to unaffiliated, disaffected Jewish groups that are collectively embodying and defining the new “mainstream.”

A current initiative of the American Jewish Committee, the nation’s oldest human relations organization, underscores this shift. AJC’s Los Angeles office recently created Esencia de Judaismo (“The Essence of Judaism”), a program to promote cross-cultural understanding and tolerance among Latino Pentecostal pastors and to dispel the misperceptions necessary for building communities. (Fatfencer's Interjection: Does anyone else yet see the self-centeredness of their GIVING!!!!) The approach demonstrates how a respected, stalwart organization remains contemporary and reaches across a changing demography to a rapidly growing Latino population. After conceiving this groundbreaking effort, the AJC turned to our foundation and received funding under the Cutting Edge Grants.

Over the last two generations, Jews have evolved from seeking a defined place in mainstream American life to a position today squarely in the firmament. Nowhere is that shift more evident than in philanthropy. With the complexities inherent to modern Jewish life, community foundations must embrace change, evolve and serve as a compass for the charitable. Community foundations will connect the coming generation of philanthropists to those causes and initiatives that inspire and motivate them — in both the Jewish community and beyond.

So his one example of 'beyond' is reaching out to Latino Pentacostals and educating them about 'dem jews' and not to hate them so much.

Marvin I. Schotland is the president and C.E.O. of the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles, which had total assets of nearly $800 million and dispensed $78 million in grants in 2007.


ILS, seriously, are you FLUNKING ENGLISH!!! Can't you read critically AT ALL? Or do you just read glib tag phrases and tell others they are wrong despite the evidence underneath.


Fatfencer

[Hauptman]

Wow... that was incredibly arrogant and rude; even compared with your other rants.

That article means nothing in the context you're using it. EVERY group was insular and self-centered back in the '60s; America was an incredibly segregated and insular society at the time.

And you think Christian charities don't have self-serving agendas? For them it's all about evangelism. Their concerns are bringing people to Christianity and/or their specific churches.

Why are you so hyper-focused on the Jews? It can't be racism. Why? Because you say so. And it's obvious to everyone how enlightened you are.

Ok... continue with your rant.

[telkanuru]

There is literally no one in this world I do not hate right now.

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Why are you so hyper-focused on the Jews? It can't be racism. Why? Because you say so. And it's obvious to everyone how enlightened you are.

Ok... continue with your rant.

I'm glad you asked. Its a good question. In the main I started this thread because I believe supporting the Jews is a strategic blunder of monstrous proportions.

I was born and raised here but I really have a more Asian philosophical outlook on things. I mean I look at things according to the texts I actually grew up with. 36 strategems, AoW, Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist texts and other Asian military classics. I didnt grow up feeling I needed to do more to help the Jews because I was a Christian. In my mind the Jews rejected Jesus. The rightwing Christians rightly point out that they are God's chosen according to our books but that doesn't make it my business. That business is between the Jews and God. I frankly, could care less about the Abrahamic covenant. It doesn't apply to me.

Moreover I believe quite strongly in not using taxpayer dollars to support religious ideologies, even my own, which is Christianity.

We have about 300 million people now. Our tax dollars have been stretched to unimaginable lengths for an agenda created by JINSA/AIPAC (seee Wikipedia) and frankly most of us really dont have any tangible benefit from the leanings of this small ethnic minority.

I'd say the same thing if it was the Koreans or any small ethnic group whose religious bent(Zionism) and geopolitical goals were put first before our own.

That's why I focus on the Jews. Incidentally I dont really like giving money to Egypt or any other Arab nation either. The whole of the Middle East is a cesspool, a catbox we need not be involved with.

However, I'm also absolutely incensed about the whole border problem. Many states are bankrupt due to the onslught of illegals from mexico. I hate those ****ers too. And the som*****es who enable them.

Instead of giving money to Israel we should be solving our own problems here at home. We don't need an 'ally' in the region when we have no oil concern there at all. We won't have an oil concern when we develop sound energy policy. Sometimes the best way to attack someone is to marginalize or destroy their food/money/source of living. No need to bomb them. Just leave them be and focus on making viable goods here in this country based on electric/solar/hydrogen.

The illegals need to be rounded up and escorted out of the country after a large "Wall of Mexico" is built to keep out the cockroaches. Then we need to employ our Border Patrol to protect our borders. We need to allow them to shoot people who would violate our boundaries.

That would solve a tremendous part of our budgetary problems.

FF

[fatfencer]

Hauptman;780603]Wow... that was incredibly arrogant and rude; even compared with your other rants.
That article means nothing in the context you're using it. EVERY group was insular and self-centered back in the '60s; America was an incredibly segregated and insular society at the time.

Sure it was, but the jews haven't changed as much as the rest of us. Article says so. It also supports in total my "stereotype" that jews are insular with their money EVEN today. They don't give back. True charity(without thought of getting something in return) is not in the domain of jewish living. Most generally, they give only to their own, for their own. America should learn something from the fact that even the Jews are cutting back funds to Israel.

And you think Christian charities don't have self-serving agendas? For them it's all about evangelism. Their concerns are bringing people to Christianity and/or their specific churches.

Sure they do but by and large the funds go out into the community at large and not just the christians. Food Shelves, shelters, hospitals, etc. Jews don't do much philanthropy outside their own. Both the Catholics and the Protestants to metric-tons MORE than the jews in any community, for the community.

FF

[Hauptman]

Ahhh!!! .... the irony.... must look away.....

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

How would you classify the Holocaust compared to the Cossack genocide by Stalin? Worse, less?

Neither. Different. From what I've read about it, while it was technically genocide, it seemed to be more about affiliation with an organization or place rather than ones race. Again, I can't classify this as worse or less in my mind... nor should I. They are both tragic events that earn their own note in history.

Same question for Saddam and the Kurds, Pol Pot and the Cham, or any genocide pushed by a dictator, and especially the various ethnic wars in Africa (I guess Darfur takes point right now).

I think... each situation is different. Though, Saddam certainly draws some similarities.

I personally feel like nothing has ever happened quite like the Holocaust, but then again I might be succumbing to Eurocentrism and the fact that it was a big talking point in every high school history class. However, I can't really justify why I think it is worse than anything else of the sort.

I think one reason the Holocaust is more... "popular" than other genocides, is the fact it was so shocking. When the allies uncovered the camps... it affected so many people. Having to see that, and see what the Nazis were really up to... I don't think anyone expected that this was happening on the scale and in the way it was happening. And the Allies took that home with them (after all, how could you not). It's one of those things... thousands of people in a mass grave is very different from reading it in a book, and actually seeing it, or even talking with someone who saw it. It's personal.

These other events seem to have remained more regional and less personal. Not as many saw that horror and took it home with them (speaking from my perspective as an American).

However, again, I'm surely not one to judge what's worse and why. I think to compare them to each other is in a way dishonoring them anyway. They each are their own, tragic, horrific, events and each deserve their own mention.

$.02

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Ahhh!!! .... the irony.... must look away.....

The ignore list really de-clutters the screen.

[Fencer X and Y]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

I'm interested in the classification of extreme genocide here. I'm not trying to jump all over you as wet blanket of political correctness, this is a real question.

How would you classify the Holocaust compared to the Cossack genocide by Stalin? Worse, less? Same question for Saddam and the Kurds, Pol Pot and the Cham, or any genocide pushed by a dictator, and especially the various ethnic wars in Africa (I guess Darfur takes point right now).

I personally feel like nothing has ever happened quite like the Holocaust, but then again I might be succumbing to Eurocentrism and the fact that it was a big talking point in every high school history class. However, I can't really justify why I think it is worse than anything else of the sort.

First of all I have to preface this with the fact that I am jewish and I had family die in the Holocaust. (I did not know them of course but stories have been told to me from as ealy as I can remember about it) So I do have a personal bias. I also come from Ukraine and know the history of that pretty well. I think that the difference between the holocaust and Stalin's genocide of the Ukrainian people through the great famine is that:
a) it was done in secret and in a more subtle way. So much so, that even nowadays, when all the facts are more or less out in the open, there are still a very large amount of people that can deny that anything ever happened and
b) There was also a way to escape the starvation/genocide for some (join the party, Move to bigger cities to work in factories, join the army, etc...) I'm not by any means saying that that means that the people that did die were the people that were actively resisting the Russians but at least there were ways out for some.
Now with Hitler and the jews I think it's the systematic way that the Holocaust happened that shocked so many. I mean starving the people is one thing. Famines happen so there can still be a question of did Stalin actively take the food from the Ukrainian villages and destroy it or was there truly an economic/agricultural disaster that happened? But you really can't question gas chambers. Plus if you were jewish in most German occupied lands there was no getting out. It didn't matter if you converted. It didn't matter if you were a practicing jew or an atheist. It didn't even matter if you yourself didn't know that you were jewish. If there was a record of you being jewish then you were condemned to die. And there are actually accounts of jews supporting early Nazi movments because they didn't think of themselves as jews they thought of themselves as Germans. And it was this cleansing of people that were actually a part of their own community that I think is truly shocking and why the Holocaust is perhaps (wrongly) sometimes classified as greater genocide then others.

I do not know enough about the other examples you bring up to comment on those.

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by Fencer X and Y

I mean starving the people is one thing. Famines happen so there can still be a question of did Stalin actively take the food from the Ukrainian villages and destroy it or was there truly an economic/agricultural disaster that happened? But you really can't question gas chambers. Plus if you were jewish in most German occupied lands there was no getting out. It didn't matter if you converted. It didn't matter if you were a practicing jew or an atheist. It didn't even matter if you yourself didn't know that you were jewish. If there was a record of you being jewish then you were condemned to die. And there are actually accounts of jews supporting early Nazi movments because they didn't think of themselves as jews they thought of themselves as Germans. And it was this cleansing of people that were actually a part of their own community that I think is truly shocking and why the Holocaust is perhaps (wrongly) sometimes classified as greater genocide then others.

I do not know enough about the other examples you bring up to comment on those.

Sounds like a jew calling the Russian Holocaust an 'exaggerated event'. How charming. Maybe Stalin didnt really kill all 24 million people. Maybe it was mother nature. I wonder how well that sentiment would go over in Russia.

This is what I mean when i say jews put such a deep spin on things for self-promotion. They are far too afraid to say that other things have happened in the world and were worse.

Genocide is genocide. Evil is evil.

Fatfencer
PS: Zionism is Racism....

[Fencer X and Y]

After rereading my original post I feel like I need to elaborate on what I was talking about when I was refering to Stalin's genocide. I realized that some people reading this thread maybe teenagers or perhaps just people who are not familiar with modern history and the history of the USSR and therefore may not know about which particular genocide I was talking about. I of course was not talking about Stalin's great purges. Those were political killings and I feel do not necesserily apply to the term genocide. Some of those affected by it got what ws coming to them (Trotsky, Zinovyev and Kaminev, and of course the most ironic of all Yagoda and Yezhev). Others were tragedies, killed for being too smart or too rich. However that is of course not genocide since people of all nations and ethnicities were affected from Jews to Russians. What I was talking about was the genocide of the Ukrainian people. Same thing I assumed you guys were refering to when you mentioned Stalin's persecution of the Cossaks. To give just a very brief background. Ukraine was always a very major economic and even cultural part of both the Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. However many nationalist Ukrainians despised Russians (much more then they ever despised the Jews and that's saying something) and always saw them as oppressors. Stalin knew this very well and wanted to make sure that there would be no revolts or problems coming from that area. What happened in 1933 is still up for major debate. With the lack of information that remains today there is no conclusive evidence that Stalin directly engineered a famine that killed~5 million Ukrainians (the numbers reported vary but they are usually no lower then 2million and no higher then 12 million) however it is very likely that the intent was there. Holoodomor (the name of the famine in Ukrainian) was definetely caused by Stalins aggresive and forced industrialization combined with collectivisation, however it is most certainly not an accident of what followed and it is a fact that once the famine set in the government in Moscow not only did nothing to help but prevented help from reaching Ukraine by restricting travel information or any sort of aid coming into or out of all of Western and Southern Ukraine.

So I believe the original question was about qualification of genocide in general and why do we talk so much more about the Holocaust then any other genocide be it the Ukrainian genocide, the cultural revolution or the Armenian genocide. I don't think you could qualify one as worse then another. Is a million deaths worse then 6 million worse then 10 million? Are deaths in a gas chamber worse then death through hard labor and exhaustion? Who could answer questions like these? Honestly I don't think any jew would tell you "hey the Holocaust is more important." Like I said I think it is the systematic and efficient way that the Nazi's worked that really shocked some and the reason why we talk about it more then anyone else.

Sorry for the long post. I just didn't want to be misinterpereted

[Superscribe]

Ahem, rape of Nanking? Example of genocide? Shouldn't the numbers be part of the metric? If one hundred type a people were shot in the head, and one thousand type b people were shot in the head, isn't it worse for type b people? Unless you maintain that type a lives are worth mroe than type b lives, in which case the argument becomes much more difficult.

[Fencer X and Y]

Originally Posted by Superscribe

Ahem, rape of Nanking? Example of genocide? Shouldn't the numbers be part of the metric? If one hundred type a people were shot in the head, and one thousand type b people were shot in the head, isn't it worse for type b people? Unless you maintain that type a lives are worth mroe than type b lives, in which case the argument becomes much more difficult.

But that's what I'm trying to say. What kind of a metric can you even have for genocide?

I'm not sure what you're refering to when you say the rape of Nanking. If you mean that's one genocide that I left out I assure you that I was not trying to make a comprehensive list. Genocide is not an invention of the 20th century. It just became more efficient now. The bible talks about the Israelites destroying all of Amalik's people and many other nations. The Mongols slaughtered two million Chinese in the 1200's (not sure on the dates maybe somoeone can correct me if they're wrong). People have been trying to wipe out other nations since the begining of time and to try and make a complete list would take much more research then I'm willing to put into this.

Again the question was what kind of classification can you have. I'm trying to make a point there is no classification. Genocide is genocide be it of Ukrainians or Jews. Just because one is talked more about then the other does not mean one was more important,devastating, brutal or tragic then another. They should all be under one category: genocide. Hopefully that makes sense.