Guest Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Brandishing the anti-semite label, while ignoring the issues which underpin the debate only makes you seem like a modern day McCarthyist. Read Sid Walker's post again Mark and you will find that what you have just posted is utter crap. No one is attempting to stifle debate on issues such as Israeli foreign policy. However I will confront and expose racially motivated claptrap from the like of Collins Piper and any other neo Nazi who wanders onto the forum with every fibre in my body. I am very glad to see that there are a few others on this forum willing to do likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Brandishing the anti-semite label, while ignoring the issues which underpin the debate only makes you seem like a modern day McCarthyist. Read Sid Walker's post again Mark and you will find that what you have just posted is utter crap. No one is attempting to stifle debate on issues such as Israeli foreign policy. However I will confront and expose racially motivated claptrap from the like of Collins Piper and any other neo Nazi who wanders onto the forum with every fibre in my body. I am very glad to see that there are a few others on this forum willing to do likewise. Yes, I have read that post in its entirety. I've read the whole thread. Some of the posts were from me. Do I now regard my previous post as utter crap? No. Do I still think you're behaving like a modern day McCarthyist? Yes. I don't believe Piper is a neo-nazi either. When he briefly appeared here he was shouted down by you and others in what was a tasteless display of intolerance. Don't bother saving me from exposure to neo Nazis with every fibre in your body. Your definition and mine obviously differ and I'm quite capable of determining what is dangerous extremism for myself. Despite the somewhat inquisatorial nature of the thread, the debate has thus far been civil despite your tiresome name calling from the sidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 (edited) The issue of whether Piper is technically a "neo-Nazi" may not be established. However, I think that the fact that he denied the Holocaust using phony BS arguments and didn't own up to it says something about his character. Couple that with his tendency to see Jews (or "Zionists") as being behind everything. Taking these two factors into account, I think it can be quite safely said that he is an anti-Semite. I think the idea that the Mossad is behind the assassination is a reasonable position to hold, although I am far from convinced of it. That is not what I (and I assume Len, and John Dolva, and Andy) took issue with. You appear to be taking the opposite extreme of certain Zionist arguments that criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic. Not only is criticism of Israel not anti-Semitic, it can't be anti-Semitic. If someone criticizes Israel, they get a free pass. Edited July 20, 2006 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 The issue of whether Piper is technically a "neo-Nazi" may not be established. However, I think that the fact that he denied the Holocaust using phony BS arguments and didn't own up to it says something about his character. Couple that with his tendency to see Jews (or "Zionists") as being behind everything. Taking these two factors into account, I think it can be quite safely said that he is an anti-Semite.I think the idea that the Mossad is behind the assassination is a reasonable position to hold, although I am far from convinced of it. That is not what I (and I assume Len, and John Dolva, and Andy) took issue with. You appear to be taking the opposite extreme of certain Zionist arguments that criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic. Not only is criticism of Israel not anti-Semitic, it can't be anti-Semitic. If someone criticizes Israel, they get a free pass. I disagree about Piper being a neo nazi. But that's not what the thread is about is it? Why do you feel that someone needs a 'free pass' in order to criticise Israel and escape the anti-semite canard? Should protection from all criticism be bestowed upon Israel? If I criticise America am I anti-American? If I criticise Norway am I anti-Norwegian? If I criticise you am I anti-Owen Parsons? It's the instant attaching of the label 'anti-Semite' which I find irritating. Does Israel have some explaining to do concerning the current conflict in Lebanon? Damn right they do. Will I be criticising Israel long and loud about this and other policies, the same way I have been critical of Governments here and in America? For sure. I'll be criticising them and I won't need a free pass. Anyone protesting that such a view is anti-Semitic can go to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) I disagree about Piper being a neo nazi. But that's not what the thread is about is it? You are correct, this thread is about Walker's dubious views, not Piper's. However, the subjects are related and we're already here, so... Why do you feel that someone needs a 'free pass' in order to criticise Israel and escape the anti-semite canard? Should protection from all criticism be bestowed upon Israel? I think you misunderstand me. I said you are allowing certain people who criticize Israel to get a free pass on the separate issue of their anti-Semitism. Apparently the Zionist propagandists have been so successful in their attempts to link anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel that you have accepted their definition. Let me be clear: Criticism of Israel's racist policies and anti-Jewish racism are separate things. No one here is actually taking issue with criticism of Israel. We are taking issue with anti-Semitism, a trait that Piper possesses and probably Walker. You haven't ever addressed (to my knowledge) Piper's Holocaust denial. You just ignore it. Using your standards, there might as well be no such thing as anti-Semitism. If I criticise America am I anti-American? No. If I criticise Norway am I anti-Norwegian? No. If I criticise you am I anti-Owen Parsons? No. It's the instant attaching of the label 'anti-Semite' which I find irritating. Does Israel have some explaining to do concerning the current conflict in Lebanon? Damn right they do. Will I be criticising Israel long and loud about this and other policies, the same way I have been critical of Governments here and in America? For sure. I'll be criticising them and I won't need a free pass. Anyone protesting that such a view is anti-Semitic can go to hell. I'm not "protesting that such a view is anti-Semitic." I agree that Israel is way out of line. This is not what is at issue. Edited July 21, 2006 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) Len,I agree. But it is becoming almost impossible these days to talk about Israel without being labelled. This is being done deliberately to stifle debate, and more importantly, criticism of Israel. I'm not sure this is intentional; many Jewish people really see extreme criticism of Israel as being due to anti-Semitism. In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't "I am a true believer in free speech. No subject is off limits." So if someone showed up here saying that African Americans are genetically predisposed to violent crime and thus should segregated from the rest of the population or that the Nazi were right to have tried to exterminate the Jews and Roma or that men have the right to have sex with the woman of their choosing and have the right to use violence or kill her if she resists that would be OK with you? "If Sid believes something he should be able to say so and suffer the slings and arrows of his detractors, but aimed at his ideas not at him." I for one have criticized his ideas rather than him. Andy attacked him but I don't know if that was necessarily wrong. How, on a forum at least, can we separate a person from his of her ideas? People who expound right-wing ideas or Socialism are presumptively right-wingers or Socialists. If some one promotes odious ideas can't we presume them to be odious? Would you object if some one criticized the proponent of the ideas I suggested above? Ann Coulter wrote: Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?" Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that "what's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power. Yes, if the Democrats were running things, our cities would be ash heaps and the state of Israel would have been wiped off the map by now. […] But liberals can never abandon the idea that we must soothe savage beasts with appeasement -- whether they're dealing with murderers like Willie Horton or Islamic terrorists. Then the beast eats you. There are only two choices with savages: Fight or run. Democrats always want to run, but they dress it up in meaningless catchphrases like "diplomacy," "detente," "engagement," "multilateral engagement," "multilateral diplomacy," "containment" and "going to the U.N." So if she or one of her ideological clones showed up here and posted stuff like that are you sure you'd only criticize the ideas and not the proponent? Would you object if some else did? Len Colby started this thread by cherry picking a quote from a Sid Walker posting on another thread. Actually I thought the thesis he pushed in the other posting offensive as well, that was the one where he argued that the only rational explanation for Chomsky and I.F. Stone showing disdain for JFK assassination theories was that Michael Collins Piper was right about Israeli/Jewish involvement and they were deep cover Mossad agents covering for Israel. I asked him why a Jewish leftist who felt that way had to have a hidden agenda (to protect Israeli) but non-Jewish leftists who took the same position didn't and never gave me a straight answer. I asked him in that thread to justify the sentence in question and he failed to do so. Since on the 9/11 thread he once again seemed to be pushing a "the Jews did it" theory I felt it was time he finally explained exactly what he meant. I think he dug himself deeper in hole with his answer and 3 other members indicated they feel the same way. "It's an attempt to portray Sid as a fanatic and exclude him from the wider debate." No, it was an attempt to get him to justify an apparently bigoted statement. He seems to be doing a pretty good job of portraying himself as a fanatic, all I did was quote him (with a link back to the original post) and ask him to justify his own words. I guess your right that was blatantly unfair and underhanded. It is not my intention to exclude him from participation in this forum. If he can satisfactorily explain his position there is no reason for him to feel out of place here. Craig Lamson, Brendan Slattery and Tim Gratz don't (didn't) let the unpopularity of their views intimidate them from being outspoken on this forum. "This tactic was recently used to great effect to silence Michael Collins Piper." Haven't we been over this before? From my perspective he never really made an effort to present his thesis and intentionally provoked outrage bringing up additional Jewish conspiracy theories and making asinine remarks. "Len regularly appoints himself chief inquisitor, dissecting posts and demanding evidence in support of each claim made in the posting. Nothing wrong with that, except that Len often fails to back his own claims with reason, logic and evidence." How ironic you say I "often fail to back my own claims with reason, logic and evidence" but you fail to back your claim with any evidence. "Len can't seem to accept that this is an issue that should be debated." Balderdash if by the "issue" your are referring to is the power of the "Jewish lobby" to protect Israel as I have already said I wouldn't have objected to that, Sid's comments went beyond that. "If it has no foundation then it will quickly fade into irrelevance." Unfortunately that isn't the way things work in the real world, if you aren't familiar with American politics look up 'Willie Horton' and 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' on Google or Wikipedia, racial prejudice in general and anti-Semitism in particular have around for centuries probably even millennia and there is no sign of them 'quickly fading into irrelevance' the idea that baseless nonsense quickly loses currency is itself baseless nonsense. "Brandishing the anti-semite label, while ignoring the issues which underpin the debate only makes you seem like a modern day McCarthyist." I haven't seen this many stawmen in one place since I watched "The Wizard of Oz" on 'acid' back in my youth. I don't object to people saying Jews use their political, financial and media "might" unduly to back Israel, I object to people promoting theories like "Jewish (and specifically Zionist) conspiratorial networks are increasingly winning out over - or swallowing up - their competitors." and then justifying them the ways Sid did. As Owen pointed out you seem to be an apologist for anti-Semitism as long as it is dressed up as being anti-Zionism (Owen if I read too much into your words my apologies). The issue of whether Piper is technically a "neo-Nazi" may not be established. However, I think that the fact that he denied the Holocaust using phony BS arguments and didn't own up to it says something about his character. Couple that with his tendency to see Jews (or "Zionists") as being behind everything. Taking these two factors into account, I think it can be quite safely said that he is an anti-Semite. Add to the above the fact that he has spent his entire career working for Willis Carto. For those of you fortunate enough not to be aware of who is take a look at Jack's "Real or Fake?" thread. I disagree about Piper being a neo nazi. But that's not what the thread is about is it? Come'on Mark YOU are the one who brought up the subject, and as Owen noted the issues are related, your dogged defense of him and Sid's remarks is instructional. Why do you feel that someone needs a 'free pass' in order to criticise Israel and escape the anti-semite canard? Should protection from all criticism be bestowed upon Israel? I think you misunderstand me. I said you are allowing certain people who criticize Israel to get a free pass on the separate issue of their anti-Semitism. Apparently the Zionist propagandists have been so successful in their attempts to link anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel that you have accepted their definition. Mark's misunderstanding seems almost to be willful blindness. His last post was made up entirely of stawmen. For the umpteenth time Mark, no one is saying criticizing Israel is anti-Semitic or that claiming that Jews in the US and elsewhere use their influence to further Israeli objectives is anti-Semitic. Edited July 21, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Owen writes: [i think you misunderstand me. I said you are allowing certain people who criticize Israel to get a free pass on the separate issue of their anti-Semitism. Apparently the Zionist propagandists have been so successful in their attempts to link anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel that you have accepted their definition. Let me be clear: Criticism of Israel's racist policies and anti-Jewish racism are [u]separate[/u] things. No one here is actually taking issue with criticism of Israel. We are taking issue with anti-Semitism, a trait that Piper possesses and probably Walker. You haven't ever addressed (to my knowledge) Piper's Holocaust denial. You just ignore it. Using your standards, there might as well be no such thing as anti-Semitism. [/color]I see what you mean, Owen. Point is, I don't think Sid's assertion that some kind of global conspiracy exists necessarily makes him anti-Semitic. He may have arrived at this conclusion after much research. He's not getting much chance to state his case due to accusations of anti-semitism from all quarters. Merely identifying that he believes a global phenomenon has occurred doesn't mean he's harboring deep antipathy towards Jews. You've yet to show me such a link. As for Piper's holocaust denial, I'm unaware of this. I thought he disputed the numbers, but not the basic facts. If he denies the holocaust occurred, then he's sadly mistaken. How's that? I tend to concern myself more with what people say, rather than spending my time determining if their background and beliefs are acceptable, as Len Colby does. If someone has a meaningful contribution to make regarding an issue like the assassination, then they can be a chicken strangler for all I care. Let them talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 How about the Vatican? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Actually, I find myself in quite good company being branded with this most dreaded of slurs (it's the modern equivalent of being branded a leper). I'd sooner find myself alongside Tam Dalyell, George Galloway and Cynthia McKinney than others whom you doubtless believe are quite beyond reproach in this regard - upstanding righteous ones such as George Bush 2, Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice. Great a fan of Galloway friend of Uday Hussein http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/25...uday/index.html It's not like there is no middle ground. Incidentally, Andy, and for the record, I found your treatment of Michael Collins Piper during his brief sojourn on this Forum quite remarkable for its vitriol and bias. I have yet to observe another issue that gets you quite so worked up. Lebanon can be taken apart, Gaza smashed, Tsunamis come and go, millions starve each year and England gets knocked out of the World Cup - but none of these topics seem to excite your angst quite as much as the sheer horror of encountering someone on this Forum who is prepared to criticize what Walt and Mearsheimer call the 'Israel Lobby'. Funny that. I think that Andy objects to bigotry rather that criticism of the "Israel Lobby" I don't remember him posting on Owen's "The US favors the PLO" thread. My apologies to those on other threads waiting for replies from me. I especially have Stephen and his 9-11 theories thread in mind. I'll aim to do so later in the day. Actually, I've got some time for George Galloway. I've heard some of his speeches concerning the Middle East. And if you want to damn people by association, have a look at Don Rumsfeld, as special envoy to President Reagen, shaking hands with good buddy Saddam Hussein (I think it's Uday looking on): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Let them talk We do and more's the point we let others respond. The latter is of course what you mostly object to. If you feel this is not the case please indentify one instance of someone being censored for their political views on this forum. If you can't do this then grow up and argue your case for what its worth... I will be fascinated to learn about a theory which promulgates 'some kind of global jewish conspiracy' and at the same time 'isn't anti semitic' Some members here seem to be confused about the notion of freedom of speech. Members are free to post what they like. This does not imply that the rest of us have to pretend that racially motivated spurious hogwash such as "holocaust denial" constitutes a legitimate other side of a rational debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rymer Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Ok, I've removed the 'peurile' commetary and wish to re-submit my original post. Would anyone like to comment on this. On the subject of influence:Bush addresses AIPAC. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040518-1.html Interesting first line. Finally, AIPAC elected a President I can kiss Cheney addresses AIPAC. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060307-1.html Condoleeza Rice addresses AIPAC. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/46625.htm John Bolton addresses AIPAC. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=J...icle%2FShowFull and US vetos of UN resolutions critical of Isreal: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...,552607,00.html The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate.-- Senator Fullbright, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee: 10/07/1973 on CBS' "Face the Nation". . I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews..... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen .... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country" -----Sec. of State John Foster Dulles quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff "...don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it - Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres(Kol Yisrael Radio) 3 October, 2001 and it is not restricted to US politics. Tony Blair: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../worldviews.DTL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/ixportal.html Thatcher: http://www.shinesforall.com/archives/2005/...her_the_je.html Merkel: Chancellor Angela Merkel met with President Bush in January, and now she's coming back for a rather brief visit; she'll be speaking to the American Jewish Committee in Washington[CFR website] Merkel's track record on Jewish issues is "excellent," said Michael Wolffsohn, a history professor at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich."She has always been in touch with the Central Council and the Israeli Embassy," Wolffsohn said in an e-mail comment. "Jewish-Israeli matters are close to her heart," as they are for the leadership of her party in general.[Jewish News] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) As for Piper's holocaust denial, I'm unaware of this. I thought he disputed the numbers, but not the basic facts. During the fray over whether or not he was a Holocaust denier he stated "Israel was founded on a lie" or something to that effect, I and others understood that the "lie" he was referring to was the Holocaust. Holocaust deniers/revisionists say Jews hoaxed the Holocaust in order to justify the founding of Israel I am also still waiting for Mr. Walker's ...clarification of his recent comments about the Jewish "preferred historical narrative." With respect, Sir Max, is it accurate to say the Germans murdered Irène Némirovsky? She died of typhus, according to this reference. Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing. Are you suggesting she was infected deliberately? One could argue that by deporting her from France and sending her to a camp, she was ''effectively' murdered - but on that basis any of the 'enemy aliens' detained by the allies were also ''murdered', if they died while in custody. I should add that in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds. If we've learned nothing else from the bloody 20th century, I believe we should have absorbed that simple lesson. […] Nazi occupation of Britain is extremely hypothetical. We now know, I understand, there was no such invasion plan. Less hypothetical is the current Iraq war. If Iraq ever regains its sovereignty and independence, how would the many collaborators with US / British occupation forces then be viewed by their peers? Would it be held by the then victorious resistance forces, that as Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France) and as Iraq was pulverized by enemy bombing and tortured by cruel economic sanctions for over a decade preceding the eventual invasion (unlike France), collaboration with occupying forces should be a greater source of opprobrium than French collaboration during World War Two? Sid Walker seems to play words.In the nazi propaganda, deportes and Jews died naturally. Do you, in "a normal society", live in the nazi way of treating those they wanted to kill ? in this page (in French), see Robert Antelme 's la soupe, or Raphael Esrail 's account http://clioweb.free.fr/camps/deportes.htm#t%E9moignages Sid Walker is indeed playing with words, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that if someone died in a death camp due the subhuman conditions there, that those who sent the victim to the camp and responsible for running are guilty that particular victim's murder but also guilty of murder of all those who died in such camps independent of the nominal cause of death. Under the law of most countries a person responsible for subjecting a victim to condition which brings about a persons death due to "depraved indifference" even if they didn't have the specific intent to kill is guilty of negligent homicide. Under US law (and that of many other countries) this lesser charge of murder would only apply when there was no intention to harm the victim. In this situation (where there was intention to harm the victim) or any other situation in which a victim dies during the commission of another felony during which death is 'foreseeable event'. In order to not hijack this thread I will respond further to Walker's (expletive deleted by author) comments on the thread where he euphemistically referred to the Nazi's murder of 10 – 12 million victims (including 5 – 6 million Jews) as the Jews "preferred historical narrative" [ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=7460&st=0 ]. I suggest that Walker or anybody else who wants to comment on this do so there. I started that thread to deal with his theory that "Jewish (and specifically Zionist) conspiratorial networks are increasingly winning out over - or swallowing up - their competitors." Just before I go I'll point out that: -alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,' -claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder, -calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war', -comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps and -suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"] are all common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'. I never heard it alleged before even by "revisionist" "historians" that the Germans didn't intend to invade Britain once the USSR had been defeated. And not that I'm a fan of Bush or the invasion of Iraq but his apparent belief that America and Britain's occupation is a greater crime that was the Nazi's occupation of France is perhaps indicative of his overall biases. Len http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6655 see posts 4, 10 & 14Perhaps if Walker ever shows up here again he could reply to following points in addition to the ones raised above: "Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing. Are you suggesting she was infected deliberately?" As I mentioned on the other thread this kind of talk is straight out of Holocaust revisionism. The Nazi's did indeed install 'delousing showers' in many (most / all ?) concentration camps. By all accounts I've seen they were extremely ineffective (if effective at all). There main function probably was to fool victims who were sent to near identical gas chambers. Perhaps Walker can cite a recognized historian who backs his claim that the Nazis "expended" "considerable effort … on delousing" in order to combat typhus . "One could argue that by deporting her from France and sending her to a camp, she was ''effectively' murdered - but on that basis any of the 'enemy aliens' detained by the allies were also ''murdered', if they died while in custody." Walker deserves a special award for the amount of fallacies he can fit into a single sentence. His analogy fails on some rather obvious points: -The Axis forces detained by the Allies were POW's legally detained under the Geneva Conventions; Irène Némirovsky was detained solely due to her ethnicity. -Némirovsky died in a camp set up with specific intent to commit murder, indeed the extermination of her race, I have seen no credible evidence that the Allies set up camps with the intent to kill anyone (except convicted war criminals). -The Nazi's of course were responsible for crating the subhuman conditions in the camps which led to the prevalence of typhus and similar diseases; does Walker have any evidence that Axis prisoners died do to inhuman treatment? -Walker might be referring to civilians detained by the Allies in that case does he have any 'innocent civilians' (i.e. not collaborators etc.). Len Edited July 21, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) Well, that pretty much settles it. I move that Mr. Walker be deported off the Education Forum. (EDIT: For a second there I forgot that I believe in free speech. ) Is he enough of a "fanatic" now, Mark? P.S.: Rymer, your fourth quote (Ariel Sharon, Kol Yisrael Radio etc.) is a hoax. Your presentation would be much improved by getting rid of it. Just a heads up. Edited July 21, 2006 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) Owen, Daniel, Len, Andy, Steve et al, Very interesting posts all round. Time prevents me from replying individually (maybe later) but I just want to place a few comments on the record: 1. On the question of Sid: It's not my business to speak for another member but Sid's post which created additional controversy here was: Which network of individuals.....is so powerful and aggressive that it has enforced its PREFERRED HISTORICAL NARRATIVE in numerous jurisdictions on pain of imprisonment I see this as simply stating that some jurisdictions have imprisoned holocaust deniers. It doesn't specifically state the holocaust never happened. Maybe Sid can clarify. The morality of jailing holocaust deniers can be debated ad nauseum. When analysing another's post, one should try not to display small parts from a sentence when the remainder lends meaningful context to the author's intent. This occurs too often on the Forum, IMO. On the remainder of Sid's points from post #2 on this thread: Well, there's a lot of big claims there. They are interesting claims but, while I have a feeling that the Israel lobby may be a little more pervasive on a global level than many would have us believe, I'm far from convinced that a global conspiracy exists on the scale alluded to by Sid. 2. Re Piper: The issue for me is that if you look at the threads to which he contributed, you'll see that he was constantly assailed by members demanding to know his views on the holocaust and regularly attacked for his association with other groups or individuals. The basis for his theory on the assassination was rarely discussed. Against that, it should be noted that he did have the opportunity to address specific questions afforded to him by John Simkin, Jeff Dahlstrom, Pat Speer and myself, among others. His failure in this regard was disappointing. His sense of being the subject of unfair treatment may have caused this. I agree with Daniel that his anti-Semitic reputation diminishes his credibility on the assassination. I should also note that I have not researched his background to any great extent. This is not due to indifference towards the Jewish plight on my part. It's just that this is a topic which history has comprehensively and accurately dealt with and my interest is in areas where the official history is, IMO, plainly wrong. And we all know where that is. I would also add that while Piper's anti-Semitic reputation has a negative effect on his credibility, it could be argued that anyone who states that the Israeli Govt/Mossad had a role in the assassination is likely to be branded anti-Semitic from the start. I'm not referring to our more tolerant group here but rather the mainstream media, who maintain a policy of blissful ignorance and react with hostlity to anyone disturbing their blissful slumber. Daniel, I think your post is one of the best I've read since joining the Forum. Many good points, well made. I'd like to comment on some of the points in the next few days, when time permits. (I've got a little story about the South African intelligence agency. A spook told me. Whether this lends it credibility is, of course, open to debate.) It's probably not a good time for me to be discussing Israel. I live in an area with a very high middle eastern population. Many Lebanese, both Christian and Muslim. Some of the nicest people you could ever meet, IMO. Anyway, tensions are pretty high at the moment and it's hard not to sympathise. A rally of over 20,000 is scheduled for downtown Sydney tomorrow. Edited July 21, 2006 by Mark Stapleton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rymer Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Owen, Thanks for the heads up. I will try and check the quote or find others... Unfortunately, CAMERA are not really the org to convince me. They are as pro-israeli as AIPAC. Do you have other sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now