So now you wish me dead. I can see tolerance runs deep in you.
But your behavior is typical. Anyway, it must be a real source of strength to you to know that no matter how contemptuous your behavior is, it will never translate into me wishing physical harm onto you.
Mark, don't worry; he IS a nutter. He's also a liar -- he wished me dead a while ago.
He also claimed I was New, that I didn't have my entire family save my granddad shot in a ditch (in Lithuania -- shit, I'm probably related to that sick fkcuer) and that I'm an 'imposter' in my own land.
Mark, don't worry; he IS a nutter. He's also a liar -- he wished me dead a while ago.
He also claimed I was New, that I didn't have my entire family save my granddad shot in a ditch (in Lithuania -- shit, I'm probably related to that sick fkcuer) and that I'm an 'imposter' in my own land.
He's a very sad, very ill man.
Harald, tx for the heads-up - but as you can probably tell from my increasingly agressive posts, I'd worked out that Mika has "issues".
BTW, Mika, if you read this, be warned: Now I know you exist, anytime you start to peddle your particular brand of bile on AI, I'm going to come after you, over and over. I don't like what you stand for, and I don't believe in freedom of expression if the expression is solely designed to foster hate, division, and inequality.
Anytime, you start acting up on a thread, I'm going to remind everyone what type of a person you are; anytime you start a thread that starts to drift into extremist views, I'm going to hijack it. By the paucity of your responses to my challenges, you've demonstrated that you are a bully who can't cope with intelligent opposition that acts persistently, so that's exactly what you're going to get on a 24/7 basis - welcome to the new world of aggressive liberalism!
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
.
.
You seek problems and I seek solutions, it's that simple.
.
.
That's a real strategy for peaceful co-existence
.
.
Mark, you?re wrong.
Mark, I?ve had these type of conversions a million times over. I?m sorry Mark. These things are pointless. It doesn?t matter how much evidence and what arguments I?ll bring to the table. There will always be a disconnect. These aren?t problems of rationality. That?s what you fail understand. These are problems of emotion in a zero sum game. The only question, is on which side your natural sympathy lies. And then the question is why?
Mark, don't worry; he IS a nutter. He's also a liar -- he wished me dead a while ago.
He also claimed I was New, that I didn't have my entire family save my granddad shot in a ditch (in Lithuania -- shit, I'm probably related to that sick fkcuer) and that I'm an 'imposter' in my own land.
He's a very sad, very ill man.
Speak a word of Yiddish, Harrald? No? I didn?t think so.
As I said before, your comment about every nation and culture having dirt under its fingernail is self-annulling. Even if were to take your grievances regards Sharon seriously, can you honestly tell me these grievances are asymmetric? So the question again becomes one of emotion. By your statements you implied that the ?rightful? place of these Arabs is in Israel, Judea if you wish. Yet what right do these people have to our land? Is it a right of conquest? It must be a right of conquest. You know, we never forsaked our claim to our land. And for 2000 years we suffered dearly because we never relinquished our identity and this birthright. So now comes the question, why stop the game of musical chairs just as it concerns Jews? Why is it acceptable to ethnically cleanse Jews from their ancestral homeland, or from neighboring Arab territory, yet not ok for Jews to retaliate in kind as regards Arabs? I?m sure if I called for the removal of the Arab settlements from Israel, you?d call me all sort of nasty names. Yet this is exactly the type of solution one hears from your government and your leftist media as ?the solution?.
Quote: 'I carry on drinking my coffee from a bowl every morning, eating Bangladeshi food on the Brick Lane, mint tea in the Moroccan caff, making my Sunday sandwich (pain a la semoule, Calabrian sausage and Emmenthal, sends me to sleep, lovely), from time to time drinking myself stupid with absinthe and putting butter on top of my rice like my mum does, digging lovely multicultural London, not giving a toss.
Hell, I love being a first generation European. I think I might stay and have kids.'
Thanks for reminding me why I am so in love with city life, glad you like it here too. I hope you do stay and have a lovely family.
As for Mika... 'I?ve had these type of conversions a million times over. No! Really, anyone else I'd have thought a million might be an exageration but I'm guessing you're being a little too modest.
I?m fairly certain that if members of your family in Lithuania were shot during the war, it was most likely carried out by the soviets - for being Nazi collaborators.
As I said before, your comment about every nation and culture having dirt under its fingernail is self-annulling. Even if were to take your grievances regards Sharon seriously, can you honestly tell me these grievances are asymmetric? So the question again becomes one of emotion. By your statements you implied that the ?rightful? place of these Arabs is in Israel, Judea if you wish. Yet what right do these people have to our land? Is it by right of conquest? It must be by right of conquest. You know, we never forsake our claim to our land. And for 2000 years we suffered dearly because we never relinquished our identity and our birthright. So now comes the question, why stop the game of musical chairs just as it concerns Jews? Why is it acceptable to ethnically cleanse Jews from their ancestral homeland, or from neighboring Arab territory, yet not ok for Jews to retaliate in kind as regards Arabs? I?m sure if I called for the removal of the Arab settlements from Israel, you?d call me all sort of nasty names. Yet this is exactly the type of solution one hears from your government and your leftist media as ?the solution?.
Mika,
In order:
Point One
======
Sharon was a politician at the time of Sabra and Shattila, not a soldier.
As a politician in a democracy, that is supposed to place him under an obligation to act with a duty of care on his remit; he was the effective chief of the armed forces, the armed forces were supposed to be protecting those camps and those within them, and they didn't. Either the buck stops with him, or it goes one up to whoever was the Prime Minister at the time. I don't care which it was, but I don't think Israel can honestly claim to be a mature democracy until someone has the guts to stand up and apologise unequivocally.
By the way, this isn't just a standard to which I want to hold Israel:
Here's just part of my roll call of shame: -
Austria (for suffering collective amnesia for its complicity with Nazi Germany generally, and part in the Holocaust specifically)
Switzerland (for obfuscating and delaying on the return of assets to the surviving families of Holocaust victims; sure, you eventually coughed up, but with less grace than an elephant on rollerblades)
Japan (Nearly 60 years, and still nothing approaching an unequivocal apology and compensation for the survivors of internment and POW camps in WWII, as well as the numerous women raped and degraded by Japanese troops)
The Vatican (still having difficulty facing up to its shameful behaviour in WWII, I know the Pope is supposedly infallible, but is that as a religious leader or a politician)
Point Two - Jew vs Moslem / Arab vs. Israeli
===========================
I'm not sure whether anyone can claim to have a "rightful" place in the Middle East, as the whole area is the result of a political contrivance designed by the French and the British, and then deliberately engineered to turn to crap as they withdrew.
The problem for the Palestinians is that they have effectively been turned into the Middle East equivalent of gypsies. No home, no borders, no economy of which to speak, no hope!
As for it being "our" land, that's more of a problem isn't it. Let's take this out of the Middle East and come to the UK.
Is England really English: our royal family is more German than anything else, the population is an anthropological nightmare - large enclaves of Viking genetics down the East Coast, Norman French in the South. The only real "English" people are the Celts and successive invasions have effectively pushed that ethnic group to the south-western margins of the country.
Israel as a modern nation-state was defined after WWII by the United Nations, with defined borders: Merely because Israel expanded those borders following unsuccesful attempts by Arab states to compromise Israel's right to exist does not give Israel the right to colonise that land, anymore than the Arab countries had any legal right to execute the original act of agression.
Israel (and Israelis) make a simple mistake, which is wholly understandable given the spiritual importance of the area: that the return to Israel in 1948 was simply a continuation - after a gap of two millenia - of the existence of a Jewish homeland.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a modern context: Israel (version whatever) is a new construct (in much the same way that modern Italy as a country is "only" 142 years old, and not the continuation of the Roman state of 1700 years ago), that should operate as a political nation-state first and a place of special spiritual significance for Jews, Moslems, Christians, et al second.
The sooner Israel (and its population and government) move to that model the better, for one simple reason: it removes emotional baggage from every diplomatic discussion you need to have with the countries with whom you need to co-exist. It also allows you to think creatively about how to deal with the issues of creating meaningful enfranchisement for the groups that were displaced as a result of the rather cack-handed way the state was created in the first place.
Point Three - Musical Chairs
=================
I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth (I'm more than capable of forming my own sentences).
My problem with the whole settlements question is the way they (and the motives for their construction) are perceived: they are perceived by the outside world as Jewish colonialism (for reasons which should be obvious) built by successive governments to create a "greater" Israel by stealth.
If there was even a modicum of bi-lateral sanity in your part of the world, and the various factions had not spent the last 50+ years either:
throwing rocks
shooting rubber bullets
invading each other
strapping quantities of C4 explosive onto the bodies of misguided brainwashed zealots
maybe they would have found a way to build multi-cultural communities in which the various traditions could co-exist
Of course, this isn't just a Middle Eastern problem - you only have to look at the zoo that is Northern Ireland, or the recent lunacy in the Balkans to realise it only takes a few idiots added to some religious or historical dogma to cause a lot of suffering.
Here's the thing, Mika:
I don't believe that division is inevitable, it only feels that way when there is no imagination or inclination to find a better way. I may be using too much rationality, but Israel is too small a country to want to lose more land than it needs to cemetaries.
That's why Arafat should slip quietly into retirement, Israel doesn't trust him (and, to be honest, neither do I) - he's tainted with the blood of too many people and the usage of terrorism as a political tool to be taken seriously as a statesman.
But the same is true of Sharon: rightly or wrongly, he is tainted by the events to which I referred and is seen as an opportunist who deliberately aggravated the Intifada for his own ends.
They should both go and write their memoirs, and leave the next phase of developments to fresh minds and fresh blood (preferably still contained within the original handy human-shaped container).
And, as the only "real" multi-party democracy in the area (let's not count Egypt, or I may laugh), it is beholden on Israel to make the first move, preferably without the USA or anyone else holding its hand - it is 50 years old now, it should be able to send invitations without a chaperone, and it makes the invitation look more commited than if someone else is twisting your arm behind your back.
No one *has* to move out of anywhere, but all sides need to find an acceptable way of letting people move around without the Old Testament or Koran being used as a set of property deeds. Great books (in places) for giving you guidance on how to live your life (not sure about the whole linen and wool thing), utter nonsense when telling you where to live.
?Sharon was a politician at the time of Sabra and Shattila, not a soldier?
Yeah that?s it. The IDF went into Beirut to protect Arabs from other Arabs. Why not fast-forward a decade and move in an Easterly direction some 400 clicks. I think you?re familiar with the area in question. What do you think, maybe we should bring James Baker and company for a visit to the Hague. In fact, why stop with the Americans. If I recall correctly, the coalition forces included the Dutch themselves, as well as Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudia, Senegal, Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, UAE, UK. They all stood and watched as Saddam had his way with the rebels for TWO WEEKS!!, and they did nothing. Now you can?t truthfully tell me they didn?t know what was going on. No you can?t. But I tell you on the other hand, the Israelis didn?t know what was going on in those camps. Yes, I know, I?m lacking symmetry.
Arab vs. Israeli:
?Israel (and Israelis) make a simple mistake, which is wholly understandable given the spiritual importance of the area: that the return to Israel in 1948 was simply a continuation - after a gap of two millenia - of the existence of a Jewish homeland.?
?Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a modern context: Israel (version whatever) is a new construct (in much the same way that modern Italy as a country is "only" 142 years old, and not the continuation of the Roman state of 1700 years ago), that should operate as a political nation-state first and a place of special spiritual significance for Jews, Moslems, Christians, et al second.?
Israel *is* a political nation state. Zionism does exactly that. It is the national movement of the Jewish people aimed at updating the Jewish nationality into modern terms. And it has very little to do with religion. Also, your argument implies that our lives started yesterday. Whether the Jews, the Greeks, the Italians, or others, cloak their national identity under the construct of the modern state apparatus or not, it is completely superfluous to the fact of them being a people, a nation. But let me turn your argument around on you. See next point.
Musical Chairs /Colonialism:
By your own argument Israeli national claims to the land predate the ?Palestinian? by some 50 years. So if anyone is making colonial claims to the land it is the ?Palestinians?. I?ll also remind you that Jordan has not so recently renounced any claims to the land and that no other sovereign state other than Israel lays claims to it. But legally, this land is considered a no-mans-land, due to Arab muscles in the UN. Therefore is not recognized as belonging to anyone. Furthermore, you might also try and look into the history of modern Arab settlement of the area. (Here?s a good source). You completely disregard the fact that modern Arab settlements in the area, are exactly contemporaneous with their Jewish counterparts. But while Jews already lived as Jews in the land of Israel for long centuries if not millennia, the word Arab has not even been coined.
BTW:
it is NOT beholden on Israel to do anything. That is a racist double standard. Also see Sharon point.
I?m fairly certain that if members of your family in Lithuania were shot during the war, it was most likely carried out by the soviets - for being Nazi collaborators.
As a troll this is as low as it gets.
There are witnesses. Einsatsgruppen came in and made the men and women take off their clothes. Then the men were made to dig a ditch. Then they were shot in front in front of the women. Then the women were shot on top. Then the Germans filled the ditch in.
My dead Jewish family. All gone save my grandfather. Not a unique story.
Mika, your comments are beyond the pale. I truly have no words to describe the man who could say what you said.
?Sharon was a politician at the time of Sabra and Shattila, not a soldier?
Yeah that?s it. The IDF went into Beirut to protect Arabs from other Arabs. Why not fast-forward a decade and move in an Easterly direction some 400 clicks. I think you?re familiar with the area in question. What do you think, maybe we should bring James Baker and company for a visit to the Hague. In fact, why stop with the Americans. If I recall correctly, the coalition forces included the Dutch themselves, as well as Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudia, Senegal, Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, UAE, UK. They all stood and watched as Saddam had his way with the rebels for TWO WEEKS!!, and they did nothing. Now you can?t truthfully tell me they didn?t know what was going on. No you can?t. But I tell you on the other hand, the Israelis didn?t know what was going on in those camps. Yes, I know, I?m lacking symmetry.
Arab vs. Israeli:
?Israel (and Israelis) make a simple mistake, which is wholly understandable given the spiritual importance of the area: that the return to Israel in 1948 was simply a continuation - after a gap of two millenia - of the existence of a Jewish homeland.?
?Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a modern context: Israel (version whatever) is a new construct (in much the same way that modern Italy as a country is "only" 142 years old, and not the continuation of the Roman state of 1700 years ago), that should operate as a political nation-state first and a place of special spiritual significance for Jews, Moslems, Christians, et al second.?
Israel *is* a political nation state. Zionism does exactly that. It is the national movement of the Jewish people aimed at updating the Jewish nationality into modern terms. And it has very little to do with religion. Also, your argument implies that our lives started yesterday. Whether the Jews, the Greeks, the Italians, or others, cloak their national identity under the construct of the modern state apparatus or not, it is completely superfluous to the fact of them being a people, a nation. But let me turn your argument around on you. See next point.
Musical Chairs /Colonialism:
By your own argument Israeli national claims to the land predate the ?Palestinian? by some 50 years. So if anyone is making colonial claims to the land it is the ?Palestinians?. I?ll also remind you that Jordan has not so recently renounced any claims to the land and that no other sovereign state other than Israel lays claims to it. But legally, this land is considered a no-mans-land, due to Arab muscles in the UN. Therefore is not recognized as belonging to anyone. Furthermore, you might also try and look into the history of modern Arab settlement of the area. (Here?s a good source). You completely disregard the fact that modern Arab settlements in the area, are exactly contemporaneous with their Jewish counterparts. But while Jews already lived as Jews in the land of Israel for long centuries if not millennia, the word Arab has not even been coined.
BTW:
it is NOT beholden on Israel to do anything. That is a racist double standard. Also see Sharon point.
Mika, tx for at least starting to argue in whole paragraphs.
I'm not certain that's the ONLY reason the IDF went into Beirut or Lebanon, anymore than I believe that the only reason we are now at war with Iraq is to dislodge Saddam.
The difference between the events in Southern Iraq at the end of GW1 and the events in Shatilla is complicity and the level of realistic control in the area. By the time, Saddam started his campaign against the marsh Arabs after GW1, the allies had largely withdrawn from Iraq having achieved their aims under the mandate of whatever the relevant UN resolutions were at the time.
Unfortunately, the IDF don't have that defence. You say they didn't know - and I say they didn't want to know. My point is that as they were in control of the area, they should have made it their business to know. The Israeli security services are amongst the most admired in the world, why did they not think it necessary to have human intelligence assets within the Falangist factions.
I think your case holds more credibility if you talk about closer analogies, such as the allegations of British Army complicity with loyalist paramilitaries in Ulster, the involvement of the Mugabe regime in the activities of so-called "war veterans" in Zimbabwe, or even the obvious relationship between Milosevic's regime and the activities of Bosnian Serbs like Karadzic.
Should those involved face the harsh light of investigation, and where applicable - and after due process - imprisonment? Yes, in every case!
Ah, and now on to Zionism.
The problem with your definition of Zionism, is that it demonstrates exactly what I'm arguing needs to be changed. Zionism is restrictive, it helps Jews (and only Jews) define their nationality, it doesn't help Israeli Arabs or does it?
You can still be Jewish and Italian; you can be Jewish and Greek; you can be Baptist/Methodist/Catholic/Presbyterian/Jewish/Moslem/Buddhist/Hindu/etc. ad infinitum and still be a fully fledged British subject (God, how I loathe that term, why can't I be citizen as I would be in nearly every modern country). But I would think its pretty hard to be an Palestinian Zionist.
As for the remainder of your post, I think you are trying to make an argument where there isn't one: much of the content of link to which you referred I knew or had heard of already, and indeed I edited sections out of my previous post that made reference to the disingenuous way in which "real" Arab states have used the Palestinian issues for their own interests.
As you rightly point out, no other nation-state now makes a claim on the land granted to Israel under the 1948 settlement. So that means our only argument is with the group that calls itself Palestinian because there is no other identity open to it.
It's a pretty well-recognised tactic in politics that if you want to slowly subjugate or destroy the morale of a people, a good way to start is to question the legitimate identity of that people. That's the point of view you are promoting, and its directly analogous to the way China deals with its illegal occupation of Tibet.
But this is all history, Mika, and my point is that history should not be used as a strait-jacket for the future of any culture, community or state. 300 after the Battle of The Boyne, you still have Protestant Orangeman marching in triumph through the streets of Ulster every summer, reminding the Catholic community of their subjugation. Is it any surprise that Ulster is a powder keg despite the fact that Eire has given up any territorial claims on the land of the province.
It is not racist to say that it is beholden on Israel to stand up and behave as a magnanimous mature democracy, it is simple practicality: Israel has all of the trappings of a modern nation-state, it has the ability to deliver a lasting peace and to help the Palestinians develop a secure identity of their own. I don't get this point of your argument at all.
On another point, I know plenty of Ashkenazi Jews of my generation who have no Yiddish, in the same way I know several people of Welsh extraction who have no Welsh. Doesn't mean a thing one way or the other.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist:
Quote:
Mika, tx for at least starting to argue in whole paragraphs.
Yeah, well, please quit forcing me to. I have better things to do - like beating up on pinko Liberals/Commies.
Quote:
The difference between the events in Southern Iraq at the end of GW1 and the events in Shatilla is complicity and the level of realistic control in the area. By the time, Saddam started his campaign against the marsh Arabs after GW1, the allies had largely withdrawn from Iraq having achieved their aims under the mandate of whatever the relevant UN resolutions were at the time.
Well, if we?re judging ?complicity and the level of realistic control in the area? then you win hands down. After all what?s an American F-16 FALCON compared to an Iraqi MIL MI-24 HIND. Of-course lets not judge complicity on actual knowledge of events. Why, that would be completely unfair.
Quote:
The problem with your definition of Zionism, is that it demonstrates exactly what I'm arguing needs to be changed. Zionism is restrictive, it helps Jews (and only Jews) define their nationality, it doesn't help Israeli Arabs or does it?
Why should it? The 22 Arab states that they carved for themselves are not enough to define their Arab nationality? Yes, I see the symmetry there. Well, tell you what, when the roles are reversed, I will also insist on transforming the one remaining Arab state so as to accommodate the 23rd Jewish nationality on the last sliver of land remaining.
Quote:
You can still be Jewish and Italian; you can be Jewish and Greek; you can be Baptist/Methodist/Catholic/Presbyterian/Jewish/Moslem/Buddhist/Hindu/etc. ad infinitum and still be a fully fledged British subject (God, how I loathe that term, why can't I be citizen as I would be in nearly every modern country).
And your point is? You can?t be a non-Jewish Israeli? Obviously not.
Quote:
But I would think its pretty hard to be an Palestinian Zionist.
As it would be hard for an Italian to be Greek. That?s why we have national borders.
Quote:
As you rightly point out, no other nation-state now makes a claim on the land granted to Israel under the 1948 settlement. So that means our only argument is with the group that calls itself Palestinian because there is no other identity open to it.
Hmm,..
Well maybe you can explain why that is? Other than the obvious reason that this is just a ploy for them to carve yet some more territory at our expense. I mean other than the different despot as head of state, what are the real distinguishing differences between them?
Quote:
It's a pretty well-recognised tactic in politics that if you want to slowly subjugate or destroy the morale of a people, a good way to start is to question the legitimate identity of that people. That's the point of view you are promoting, and its directly analogous to the way China deals with its illegal occupation of Tibet.
Yes, I see your point. It would be pretty hard for a ?Palestinian? to be Zionist. So let?s make the Israeli an Arab. Yes, now I see where you?re going with this.
Quote:
But this is all history, Mika, and my point is that history should not be used as a strait-jacket for the future of any culture, community or state.
Yes, a New World Order indeed!! But weren?t you ?aggressive liberals? protesting this? Something about America taking over the world..
Quote:
It is not racist to say that it is beholden on Israel to stand up and behave as a magnanimous mature democracy, it is simple practicality: Israel has all of the trappings of a modern nation-state, it has the ability to deliver a lasting peace and to help the Palestinians develop a secure identity of their own. I don't get this point of your argument at all.
I?ve yet to hear you say anything that wasn?t racist. Only, you?re very selective in its application. You have no problem with the ?Palestinians? developing a tribal identity at the expense of Jewish land. Yet, for you, Jewish identity in Israel must dissolve itself into something else, anything else, as long as it?s not Jewish.
It seems we?ve come full circle. It?s very obvious your selective arguments are primarily designed in antagonism to Jewish/Israeli identity. It is my assertion that this is primarily the cause of the influence you are subjected to. I argue a sizeable portion of this negative influence comes from the British/European media. This negative influence is further reinforced throughout the general society in which you reside - which has a long history of similar antagonism. The fact that you claim to be Jewish and are able to articulate these arguments as finely as you do, and the fact that you so completely fell pray to their malicious undercurrent only underscores my original argument regards the British/European media. The Arab propagandists do a good job ? let's give them full credit there.
As I said already, the problem is fundamentally an emotional one. We could go through this exercise ad nauseum, it will not make a difference. I?m sure I did not convince you, and I never will. The synapses have locked. I?m gonna call it a day. Hope to see you in Israel. (Must be that innate Jewish optimism).
No, your masquerade isn?t that unique. It?s just that the people to escape to Britain right after the War from Lithuania (or the other Baltic states) were NOT Jews, but their Nazi murders.
The first lucky Jews able to leave Lithuania after the War did so in 1958 via Poland. They were few. Some more followed, in ?68 to ?73. My grandpa almost survived fighting with the Soviets. But late in the war he was wounded and died from blood poisoning. Only my grandma and her brother survived. They managed that by WALKING to UZBEKISTAN!!
It?s a small world, and I happen to know a few Lithuanian Jews of my generation (30 +/- 5), both in Israel and abroad. They all speak or at least understand Yiddish. The ones that don?t were not originally from Lithuania. They were from other parts of the then Soviet Union and settled in Lithuania after their grandparent?s or parent?s completed military service in Lithuania. Such was the case with my grandpa.
Harrald, you?ve yet to explain how your anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, and anti-Jew (religion) rants are a valid cover for your masquerading as a Jew. Or are going to stick to that racist answer you gave us earlier ? you?re Jewish because you ?look Jewish?. Remind us how Jews ?look? again. Maybe we can later compare notes with Joseph Goebbels.
No, your masquerade isn?t that unique. It?s just that the people to escape to Britain right after the War from Lithuania (or the other Baltic states) were NOT Jews, but their Nazi murders.
The first lucky Jews able to leave Lithuania after the War did so in 1958 via Poland.
The point is that my grandfather was not in Lithuania during the war. That is why he survived.
Your knowledge knows know bounds. You know the personal history of every Jew in Lithuania, so you know my family were murderers.
My 'masquerade.'
Wanker.
I'm not anti-Jew or ani-Israel. I don't know how many time I have to condemn the murder of innocents or state the right of Israelis to security in their own land.
I also have to state that I recognise the tortology of a twisted mind, racism, hatred and bitterness when I see it. The twists and loops you have to go through to make bearable the humiliation and pain (and I don't for a second expect you to understand this) just miles away from your comfortable life and the dehumanising of a section of mankind mean you tend to come out with perverse fantasy and conspiratorial shit. It's so striking how similar you are to the worst of the 70's-80's South African scum in your casuistry, your self-righteousness and self-delusion.
The point is that my grandfather was not in Lithuania during the war. That is why he survived.
Grandpa was on a business trip abroad? Leaving you all to enjoy the company of the nice Germans?
Quote:
You know the personal history of every Jew in Lithuania
When you can count them on your fingers that?s not very hard to do.
Quote:
I also have to state that I recognise the tortology of a twisted mind, racism, hatred and bitterness when I see it. The twists and loops you have to go through to make bearable the humiliation and pain (and I don't for a second expect you to understand this) just miles away from your comfortable life and the dehumanising of a section of mankind mean you tend to come out with perverse fantasy and conspiratorial shit
Boo-hoo?hoo. And to think nirvana is just miles away from this uncomfortable life and the dehumanizing. It almost seems to be deliberately self-inflicted. Of-course this is just my perverse imagination with some conspiratorial droppings.
Quote:
It's so striking how similar you are to the worst of the 70's-80's South African scum in your casuistry, your self-righteousness and self-delusion.
I learnt a new word today: "Casuistry". I can just speculate how you came to learn it. Nice effort though in sliding that apartheid simile. A little more subtle than usual.
Comments
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Hmm,..
So now you wish me dead. I can see tolerance runs deep in you.
But your behavior is typical. Anyway, it must be a real source of strength to you to know that no matter how contemptuous your behavior is, it will never translate into me wishing physical harm onto you.
Mark, don't worry; he IS a nutter. He's also a liar -- he wished me dead a while ago.
He also claimed I was New, that I didn't have my entire family save my granddad shot in a ditch (in Lithuania -- shit, I'm probably related to that sick fkcuer) and that I'm an 'imposter' in my own land.
He's a very sad, very ill man.
Originally posted by Harald
Mark, don't worry; he IS a nutter. He's also a liar -- he wished me dead a while ago.
He also claimed I was New, that I didn't have my entire family save my granddad shot in a ditch (in Lithuania -- shit, I'm probably related to that sick fkcuer) and that I'm an 'imposter' in my own land.
He's a very sad, very ill man.
Harald, tx for the heads-up - but as you can probably tell from my increasingly agressive posts, I'd worked out that Mika has "issues".
BTW, Mika, if you read this, be warned: Now I know you exist, anytime you start to peddle your particular brand of bile on AI, I'm going to come after you, over and over. I don't like what you stand for, and I don't believe in freedom of expression if the expression is solely designed to foster hate, division, and inequality.
Anytime, you start acting up on a thread, I'm going to remind everyone what type of a person you are; anytime you start a thread that starts to drift into extremist views, I'm going to hijack it. By the paucity of your responses to my challenges, you've demonstrated that you are a bully who can't cope with intelligent opposition that acts persistently, so that's exactly what you're going to get on a 24/7 basis - welcome to the new world of aggressive liberalism!
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
.
.
You seek problems and I seek solutions, it's that simple.
.
.
That's a real strategy for peaceful co-existence
.
.
Mark, you?re wrong.
Mark, I?ve had these type of conversions a million times over. I?m sorry Mark. These things are pointless. It doesn?t matter how much evidence and what arguments I?ll bring to the table. There will always be a disconnect. These aren?t problems of rationality. That?s what you fail understand. These are problems of emotion in a zero sum game. The only question, is on which side your natural sympathy lies. And then the question is why?
Originally posted by Harald
Mark, don't worry; he IS a nutter. He's also a liar -- he wished me dead a while ago.
He also claimed I was New, that I didn't have my entire family save my granddad shot in a ditch (in Lithuania -- shit, I'm probably related to that sick fkcuer) and that I'm an 'imposter' in my own land.
He's a very sad, very ill man.
Speak a word of Yiddish, Harrald? No? I didn?t think so.
Hell, I love being a first generation European. I think I might stay and have kids.'
As for Mika... 'I?ve had these type of conversions a million times over.
I?m fairly certain that if members of your family in Lithuania were shot during the war, it was most likely carried out by the soviets - for being Nazi collaborators.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
As I said before, your comment about every nation and culture having dirt under its fingernail is self-annulling. Even if were to take your grievances regards Sharon seriously, can you honestly tell me these grievances are asymmetric? So the question again becomes one of emotion. By your statements you implied that the ?rightful? place of these Arabs is in Israel, Judea if you wish. Yet what right do these people have to our land? Is it by right of conquest? It must be by right of conquest. You know, we never forsake our claim to our land. And for 2000 years we suffered dearly because we never relinquished our identity and our birthright. So now comes the question, why stop the game of musical chairs just as it concerns Jews? Why is it acceptable to ethnically cleanse Jews from their ancestral homeland, or from neighboring Arab territory, yet not ok for Jews to retaliate in kind as regards Arabs? I?m sure if I called for the removal of the Arab settlements from Israel, you?d call me all sort of nasty names. Yet this is exactly the type of solution one hears from your government and your leftist media as ?the solution?.
Mika,
In order:
Point One
======
Sharon was a politician at the time of Sabra and Shattila, not a soldier.
As a politician in a democracy, that is supposed to place him under an obligation to act with a duty of care on his remit; he was the effective chief of the armed forces, the armed forces were supposed to be protecting those camps and those within them, and they didn't. Either the buck stops with him, or it goes one up to whoever was the Prime Minister at the time. I don't care which it was, but I don't think Israel can honestly claim to be a mature democracy until someone has the guts to stand up and apologise unequivocally.
By the way, this isn't just a standard to which I want to hold Israel:
Here's just part of my roll call of shame: -
Austria (for suffering collective amnesia for its complicity with Nazi Germany generally, and part in the Holocaust specifically)
Switzerland (for obfuscating and delaying on the return of assets to the surviving families of Holocaust victims; sure, you eventually coughed up, but with less grace than an elephant on rollerblades)
Japan (Nearly 60 years, and still nothing approaching an unequivocal apology and compensation for the survivors of internment and POW camps in WWII, as well as the numerous women raped and degraded by Japanese troops)
The Vatican (still having difficulty facing up to its shameful behaviour in WWII, I know the Pope is supposedly infallible, but is that as a religious leader or a politician)
Point Two - Jew vs Moslem / Arab vs. Israeli
===========================
I'm not sure whether anyone can claim to have a "rightful" place in the Middle East, as the whole area is the result of a political contrivance designed by the French and the British, and then deliberately engineered to turn to crap as they withdrew.
The problem for the Palestinians is that they have effectively been turned into the Middle East equivalent of gypsies. No home, no borders, no economy of which to speak, no hope!
As for it being "our" land, that's more of a problem isn't it. Let's take this out of the Middle East and come to the UK.
Is England really English: our royal family is more German than anything else, the population is an anthropological nightmare - large enclaves of Viking genetics down the East Coast, Norman French in the South. The only real "English" people are the Celts and successive invasions have effectively pushed that ethnic group to the south-western margins of the country.
Israel as a modern nation-state was defined after WWII by the United Nations, with defined borders: Merely because Israel expanded those borders following unsuccesful attempts by Arab states to compromise Israel's right to exist does not give Israel the right to colonise that land, anymore than the Arab countries had any legal right to execute the original act of agression.
Israel (and Israelis) make a simple mistake, which is wholly understandable given the spiritual importance of the area: that the return to Israel in 1948 was simply a continuation - after a gap of two millenia - of the existence of a Jewish homeland.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a modern context: Israel (version whatever) is a new construct (in much the same way that modern Italy as a country is "only" 142 years old, and not the continuation of the Roman state of 1700 years ago), that should operate as a political nation-state first and a place of special spiritual significance for Jews, Moslems, Christians, et al second.
The sooner Israel (and its population and government) move to that model the better, for one simple reason: it removes emotional baggage from every diplomatic discussion you need to have with the countries with whom you need to co-exist. It also allows you to think creatively about how to deal with the issues of creating meaningful enfranchisement for the groups that were displaced as a result of the rather cack-handed way the state was created in the first place.
Point Three - Musical Chairs
=================
I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth (I'm more than capable of forming my own sentences).
My problem with the whole settlements question is the way they (and the motives for their construction) are perceived: they are perceived by the outside world as Jewish colonialism (for reasons which should be obvious) built by successive governments to create a "greater" Israel by stealth.
If there was even a modicum of bi-lateral sanity in your part of the world, and the various factions had not spent the last 50+ years either:
throwing rocks
shooting rubber bullets
invading each other
strapping quantities of C4 explosive onto the bodies of misguided brainwashed zealots
maybe they would have found a way to build multi-cultural communities in which the various traditions could co-exist
Of course, this isn't just a Middle Eastern problem - you only have to look at the zoo that is Northern Ireland, or the recent lunacy in the Balkans to realise it only takes a few idiots added to some religious or historical dogma to cause a lot of suffering.
Here's the thing, Mika:
I don't believe that division is inevitable, it only feels that way when there is no imagination or inclination to find a better way. I may be using too much rationality, but Israel is too small a country to want to lose more land than it needs to cemetaries.
That's why Arafat should slip quietly into retirement, Israel doesn't trust him (and, to be honest, neither do I) - he's tainted with the blood of too many people and the usage of terrorism as a political tool to be taken seriously as a statesman.
But the same is true of Sharon: rightly or wrongly, he is tainted by the events to which I referred and is seen as an opportunist who deliberately aggravated the Intifada for his own ends.
They should both go and write their memoirs, and leave the next phase of developments to fresh minds and fresh blood (preferably still contained within the original handy human-shaped container).
And, as the only "real" multi-party democracy in the area (let's not count Egypt, or I may laugh), it is beholden on Israel to make the first move, preferably without the USA or anyone else holding its hand - it is 50 years old now, it should be able to send invitations without a chaperone, and it makes the invitation look more commited than if someone else is twisting your arm behind your back.
No one *has* to move out of anywhere, but all sides need to find an acceptable way of letting people move around without the Old Testament or Koran being used as a set of property deeds. Great books (in places) for giving you guidance on how to live your life (not sure about the whole linen and wool thing), utter nonsense when telling you where to live.
?Sharon was a politician at the time of Sabra and Shattila, not a soldier?
Yeah that?s it. The IDF went into Beirut to protect Arabs from other Arabs. Why not fast-forward a decade and move in an Easterly direction some 400 clicks. I think you?re familiar with the area in question. What do you think, maybe we should bring James Baker and company for a visit to the Hague. In fact, why stop with the Americans. If I recall correctly, the coalition forces included the Dutch themselves, as well as Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudia, Senegal, Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, UAE, UK. They all stood and watched as Saddam had his way with the rebels for TWO WEEKS!!, and they did nothing. Now you can?t truthfully tell me they didn?t know what was going on. No you can?t. But I tell you on the other hand, the Israelis didn?t know what was going on in those camps. Yes, I know, I?m lacking symmetry.
Arab vs. Israeli:
?Israel (and Israelis) make a simple mistake, which is wholly understandable given the spiritual importance of the area: that the return to Israel in 1948 was simply a continuation - after a gap of two millenia - of the existence of a Jewish homeland.?
?Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a modern context: Israel (version whatever) is a new construct (in much the same way that modern Italy as a country is "only" 142 years old, and not the continuation of the Roman state of 1700 years ago), that should operate as a political nation-state first and a place of special spiritual significance for Jews, Moslems, Christians, et al second.?
Israel *is* a political nation state. Zionism does exactly that. It is the national movement of the Jewish people aimed at updating the Jewish nationality into modern terms. And it has very little to do with religion. Also, your argument implies that our lives started yesterday. Whether the Jews, the Greeks, the Italians, or others, cloak their national identity under the construct of the modern state apparatus or not, it is completely superfluous to the fact of them being a people, a nation. But let me turn your argument around on you. See next point.
Musical Chairs /Colonialism:
By your own argument Israeli national claims to the land predate the ?Palestinian? by some 50 years. So if anyone is making colonial claims to the land it is the ?Palestinians?. I?ll also remind you that Jordan has not so recently renounced any claims to the land and that no other sovereign state other than Israel lays claims to it. But legally, this land is considered a no-mans-land, due to Arab muscles in the UN. Therefore is not recognized as belonging to anyone. Furthermore, you might also try and look into the history of modern Arab settlement of the area. (Here?s a good source). You completely disregard the fact that modern Arab settlements in the area, are exactly contemporaneous with their Jewish counterparts. But while Jews already lived as Jews in the land of Israel for long centuries if not millennia, the word Arab has not even been coined.
BTW:
it is NOT beholden on Israel to do anything. That is a racist double standard. Also see Sharon point.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
And Harrald,
I?m fairly certain that if members of your family in Lithuania were shot during the war, it was most likely carried out by the soviets - for being Nazi collaborators.
As a troll this is as low as it gets.
There are witnesses. Einsatsgruppen came in and made the men and women take off their clothes. Then the men were made to dig a ditch. Then they were shot in front in front of the women. Then the women were shot on top. Then the Germans filled the ditch in.
My dead Jewish family. All gone save my grandfather. Not a unique story.
Mika, your comments are beyond the pale. I truly have no words to describe the man who could say what you said.
All of you calm down or this thread will be closed.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Sharon:
?Sharon was a politician at the time of Sabra and Shattila, not a soldier?
Yeah that?s it. The IDF went into Beirut to protect Arabs from other Arabs. Why not fast-forward a decade and move in an Easterly direction some 400 clicks. I think you?re familiar with the area in question. What do you think, maybe we should bring James Baker and company for a visit to the Hague. In fact, why stop with the Americans. If I recall correctly, the coalition forces included the Dutch themselves, as well as Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudia, Senegal, Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, UAE, UK. They all stood and watched as Saddam had his way with the rebels for TWO WEEKS!!, and they did nothing. Now you can?t truthfully tell me they didn?t know what was going on. No you can?t. But I tell you on the other hand, the Israelis didn?t know what was going on in those camps. Yes, I know, I?m lacking symmetry.
Arab vs. Israeli:
?Israel (and Israelis) make a simple mistake, which is wholly understandable given the spiritual importance of the area: that the return to Israel in 1948 was simply a continuation - after a gap of two millenia - of the existence of a Jewish homeland.?
?Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a modern context: Israel (version whatever) is a new construct (in much the same way that modern Italy as a country is "only" 142 years old, and not the continuation of the Roman state of 1700 years ago), that should operate as a political nation-state first and a place of special spiritual significance for Jews, Moslems, Christians, et al second.?
Israel *is* a political nation state. Zionism does exactly that. It is the national movement of the Jewish people aimed at updating the Jewish nationality into modern terms. And it has very little to do with religion. Also, your argument implies that our lives started yesterday. Whether the Jews, the Greeks, the Italians, or others, cloak their national identity under the construct of the modern state apparatus or not, it is completely superfluous to the fact of them being a people, a nation. But let me turn your argument around on you. See next point.
Musical Chairs /Colonialism:
By your own argument Israeli national claims to the land predate the ?Palestinian? by some 50 years. So if anyone is making colonial claims to the land it is the ?Palestinians?. I?ll also remind you that Jordan has not so recently renounced any claims to the land and that no other sovereign state other than Israel lays claims to it. But legally, this land is considered a no-mans-land, due to Arab muscles in the UN. Therefore is not recognized as belonging to anyone. Furthermore, you might also try and look into the history of modern Arab settlement of the area. (Here?s a good source). You completely disregard the fact that modern Arab settlements in the area, are exactly contemporaneous with their Jewish counterparts. But while Jews already lived as Jews in the land of Israel for long centuries if not millennia, the word Arab has not even been coined.
BTW:
it is NOT beholden on Israel to do anything. That is a racist double standard. Also see Sharon point.
Mika, tx for at least starting to argue in whole paragraphs.
I'm not certain that's the ONLY reason the IDF went into Beirut or Lebanon, anymore than I believe that the only reason we are now at war with Iraq is to dislodge Saddam.
The difference between the events in Southern Iraq at the end of GW1 and the events in Shatilla is complicity and the level of realistic control in the area. By the time, Saddam started his campaign against the marsh Arabs after GW1, the allies had largely withdrawn from Iraq having achieved their aims under the mandate of whatever the relevant UN resolutions were at the time.
Unfortunately, the IDF don't have that defence. You say they didn't know - and I say they didn't want to know. My point is that as they were in control of the area, they should have made it their business to know. The Israeli security services are amongst the most admired in the world, why did they not think it necessary to have human intelligence assets within the Falangist factions.
I think your case holds more credibility if you talk about closer analogies, such as the allegations of British Army complicity with loyalist paramilitaries in Ulster, the involvement of the Mugabe regime in the activities of so-called "war veterans" in Zimbabwe, or even the obvious relationship between Milosevic's regime and the activities of Bosnian Serbs like Karadzic.
Should those involved face the harsh light of investigation, and where applicable - and after due process - imprisonment? Yes, in every case!
Ah, and now on to Zionism.
The problem with your definition of Zionism, is that it demonstrates exactly what I'm arguing needs to be changed. Zionism is restrictive, it helps Jews (and only Jews) define their nationality, it doesn't help Israeli Arabs or does it?
You can still be Jewish and Italian; you can be Jewish and Greek; you can be Baptist/Methodist/Catholic/Presbyterian/Jewish/Moslem/Buddhist/Hindu/etc. ad infinitum and still be a fully fledged British subject (God, how I loathe that term, why can't I be citizen as I would be in nearly every modern country). But I would think its pretty hard to be an Palestinian Zionist.
As for the remainder of your post, I think you are trying to make an argument where there isn't one: much of the content of link to which you referred I knew or had heard of already, and indeed I edited sections out of my previous post that made reference to the disingenuous way in which "real" Arab states have used the Palestinian issues for their own interests.
As you rightly point out, no other nation-state now makes a claim on the land granted to Israel under the 1948 settlement. So that means our only argument is with the group that calls itself Palestinian because there is no other identity open to it.
It's a pretty well-recognised tactic in politics that if you want to slowly subjugate or destroy the morale of a people, a good way to start is to question the legitimate identity of that people. That's the point of view you are promoting, and its directly analogous to the way China deals with its illegal occupation of Tibet.
But this is all history, Mika, and my point is that history should not be used as a strait-jacket for the future of any culture, community or state. 300 after the Battle of The Boyne, you still have Protestant Orangeman marching in triumph through the streets of Ulster every summer, reminding the Catholic community of their subjugation. Is it any surprise that Ulster is a powder keg despite the fact that Eire has given up any territorial claims on the land of the province.
It is not racist to say that it is beholden on Israel to stand up and behave as a magnanimous mature democracy, it is simple practicality: Israel has all of the trappings of a modern nation-state, it has the ability to deliver a lasting peace and to help the Palestinians develop a secure identity of their own. I don't get this point of your argument at all.
On another point, I know plenty of Ashkenazi Jews of my generation who have no Yiddish, in the same way I know several people of Welsh extraction who have no Welsh. Doesn't mean a thing one way or the other.
Mika, tx for at least starting to argue in whole paragraphs.
Yeah, well, please quit forcing me to. I have better things to do - like beating up on pinko Liberals/Commies.
The difference between the events in Southern Iraq at the end of GW1 and the events in Shatilla is complicity and the level of realistic control in the area. By the time, Saddam started his campaign against the marsh Arabs after GW1, the allies had largely withdrawn from Iraq having achieved their aims under the mandate of whatever the relevant UN resolutions were at the time.
Well, if we?re judging ?complicity and the level of realistic control in the area? then you win hands down. After all what?s an American F-16 FALCON compared to an Iraqi MIL MI-24 HIND. Of-course lets not judge complicity on actual knowledge of events. Why, that would be completely unfair.
The problem with your definition of Zionism, is that it demonstrates exactly what I'm arguing needs to be changed. Zionism is restrictive, it helps Jews (and only Jews) define their nationality, it doesn't help Israeli Arabs or does it?
Why should it? The 22 Arab states that they carved for themselves are not enough to define their Arab nationality? Yes, I see the symmetry there. Well, tell you what, when the roles are reversed, I will also insist on transforming the one remaining Arab state so as to accommodate the 23rd Jewish nationality on the last sliver of land remaining.
You can still be Jewish and Italian; you can be Jewish and Greek; you can be Baptist/Methodist/Catholic/Presbyterian/Jewish/Moslem/Buddhist/Hindu/etc. ad infinitum and still be a fully fledged British subject (God, how I loathe that term, why can't I be citizen as I would be in nearly every modern country).
And your point is? You can?t be a non-Jewish Israeli? Obviously not.
But I would think its pretty hard to be an Palestinian Zionist.
As it would be hard for an Italian to be Greek. That?s why we have national borders.
As you rightly point out, no other nation-state now makes a claim on the land granted to Israel under the 1948 settlement. So that means our only argument is with the group that calls itself Palestinian because there is no other identity open to it.
Hmm,..
Well maybe you can explain why that is? Other than the obvious reason that this is just a ploy for them to carve yet some more territory at our expense. I mean other than the different despot as head of state, what are the real distinguishing differences between them?
It's a pretty well-recognised tactic in politics that if you want to slowly subjugate or destroy the morale of a people, a good way to start is to question the legitimate identity of that people. That's the point of view you are promoting, and its directly analogous to the way China deals with its illegal occupation of Tibet.
Yes, I see your point. It would be pretty hard for a ?Palestinian? to be Zionist. So let?s make the Israeli an Arab. Yes, now I see where you?re going with this.
But this is all history, Mika, and my point is that history should not be used as a strait-jacket for the future of any culture, community or state.
Yes, a New World Order indeed!! But weren?t you ?aggressive liberals? protesting this? Something about America taking over the world..
It is not racist to say that it is beholden on Israel to stand up and behave as a magnanimous mature democracy, it is simple practicality: Israel has all of the trappings of a modern nation-state, it has the ability to deliver a lasting peace and to help the Palestinians develop a secure identity of their own. I don't get this point of your argument at all.
I?ve yet to hear you say anything that wasn?t racist. Only, you?re very selective in its application. You have no problem with the ?Palestinians? developing a tribal identity at the expense of Jewish land. Yet, for you, Jewish identity in Israel must dissolve itself into something else, anything else, as long as it?s not Jewish.
It seems we?ve come full circle. It?s very obvious your selective arguments are primarily designed in antagonism to Jewish/Israeli identity. It is my assertion that this is primarily the cause of the influence you are subjected to. I argue a sizeable portion of this negative influence comes from the British/European media. This negative influence is further reinforced throughout the general society in which you reside - which has a long history of similar antagonism. The fact that you claim to be Jewish and are able to articulate these arguments as finely as you do, and the fact that you so completely fell pray to their malicious undercurrent only underscores my original argument regards the British/European media. The Arab propagandists do a good job ? let's give them full credit there.
As I said already, the problem is fundamentally an emotional one. We could go through this exercise ad nauseum, it will not make a difference. I?m sure I did not convince you, and I never will. The synapses have locked. I?m gonna call it a day. Hope to see you in Israel. (Must be that innate Jewish optimism).
Not a unique story.
No, your masquerade isn?t that unique. It?s just that the people to escape to Britain right after the War from Lithuania (or the other Baltic states) were NOT Jews, but their Nazi murders.
The first lucky Jews able to leave Lithuania after the War did so in 1958 via Poland. They were few. Some more followed, in ?68 to ?73. My grandpa almost survived fighting with the Soviets. But late in the war he was wounded and died from blood poisoning. Only my grandma and her brother survived. They managed that by WALKING to UZBEKISTAN!!
It?s a small world, and I happen to know a few Lithuanian Jews of my generation (30 +/- 5), both in Israel and abroad. They all speak or at least understand Yiddish. The ones that don?t were not originally from Lithuania. They were from other parts of the then Soviet Union and settled in Lithuania after their grandparent?s or parent?s completed military service in Lithuania. Such was the case with my grandpa.
Harrald, you?ve yet to explain how your anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, and anti-Jew (religion) rants are a valid cover for your masquerading as a Jew. Or are going to stick to that racist answer you gave us earlier ? you?re Jewish because you ?look Jewish?. Remind us how Jews ?look? again. Maybe we can later compare notes with Joseph Goebbels.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Originally posted by Harald:
No, your masquerade isn?t that unique. It?s just that the people to escape to Britain right after the War from Lithuania (or the other Baltic states) were NOT Jews, but their Nazi murders.
The first lucky Jews able to leave Lithuania after the War did so in 1958 via Poland.
The point is that my grandfather was not in Lithuania during the war. That is why he survived.
Your knowledge knows know bounds. You know the personal history of every Jew in Lithuania, so you know my family were murderers.
My 'masquerade.'
Wanker.
I'm not anti-Jew or ani-Israel. I don't know how many time I have to condemn the murder of innocents or state the right of Israelis to security in their own land.
I also have to state that I recognise the tortology of a twisted mind, racism, hatred and bitterness when I see it. The twists and loops you have to go through to make bearable the humiliation and pain (and I don't for a second expect you to understand this) just miles away from your comfortable life and the dehumanising of a section of mankind mean you tend to come out with perverse fantasy and conspiratorial shit. It's so striking how similar you are to the worst of the 70's-80's South African scum in your casuistry, your self-righteousness and self-delusion.
The point is that my grandfather was not in Lithuania during the war. That is why he survived.
Grandpa was on a business trip abroad? Leaving you all to enjoy the company of the nice Germans?
You know the personal history of every Jew in Lithuania
When you can count them on your fingers that?s not very hard to do.
I also have to state that I recognise the tortology of a twisted mind, racism, hatred and bitterness when I see it. The twists and loops you have to go through to make bearable the humiliation and pain (and I don't for a second expect you to understand this) just miles away from your comfortable life and the dehumanising of a section of mankind mean you tend to come out with perverse fantasy and conspiratorial shit
Boo-hoo?hoo. And to think nirvana is just miles away from this uncomfortable life and the dehumanizing. It almost seems to be deliberately self-inflicted. Of-course this is just my perverse imagination with some conspiratorial droppings.
It's so striking how similar you are to the worst of the 70's-80's South African scum in your casuistry, your self-righteousness and self-delusion.
I learnt a new word today: "Casuistry". I can just speculate how you came to learn it.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Originally posted by Harald:
Grandpa was on a business trip abroad? Leaving you all to enjoy the company of the nice Germans?
Edit: removed obscenity that this comment justified.
What kind of a man makes a joke about the murder of someone's family by the Nazis?
Originally posted by Harald
Mother****er.
Yeah, now I believe your story.
Lock this thread. It's descended into the sickest thread I can ever recall.
Originally posted by Harald
Edit: removed obscenity that this comment justified.
What kind of a man makes a joke about the murder of someone's family by the Nazis?
Mods
===
And this is why Mika's membership should be removed.
Beyond help and beyond pity.
Harald,
As a Sephardi Jew whose roots are the Calcutta community, I have no idea what your family, or Mika's, went through.
But I applaud the fact that, despite all of the baggage you could choose to carry around, you manage to see another side of the argument.
Take care.
M