tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post5708965470747258220..comments2024-03-29T02:19:32.860+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: Nazi Propaganda: "Who Should Die - Germans or Jews?"Nicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-32254398421750163802017-05-10T21:17:35.346+01:002017-05-10T21:17:35.346+01:00Hey Tesla, this guy owns you. You're looking r...Hey Tesla, this guy owns you. You're looking ridiculous.Con Safos the Mad Bomberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04329282427958101590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-83808288552937052612014-09-21T13:37:23.167+01:002014-09-21T13:37:23.167+01:00«"And how exactly are these convoluted hyster...«"And how exactly are these convoluted hysterics supposed to affect the fact that Tesla didn't understand (or was trying to obfuscate) my point, which was that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection?"<br /><br />These "convoluted hysterics" explained how our friend attempted to obfuscate the facts with his silly word games and pretension to not understand simple English phrases. Now, however, our friend seems to simply take the position that he does not understand, which would indicate that he does, in fact, understand, but pretends not to, since understanding in this case would lead to embarrassment.» <br /><br />More convoluted hysterics, and still no results. Yawn … <br /><br />«"And he does seem to like Oscar Wilde, doesn’t he?"<br /><br />He is indeed a big fan, not of Oscar Wilde, but of one of his more famous prodigies.»<br /><br />I didn’t know Adolf Hitler was a prodigy of Oscar Wilde. Or do you mean Dr. Joseph Goebbels?Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-83301166126329879872014-09-09T22:29:33.381+01:002014-09-09T22:29:33.381+01:00"And how exactly are these convoluted hysteri..."And how exactly are these convoluted hysterics supposed to affect the fact that Tesla didn't understand (or was trying to obfuscate) my point, which was that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection?"<br /><br />These "convoluted hysterics" explained how our friend attempted to obfuscate the facts with his silly word games and pretension to not understand simple English phrases. Now, however, our friend seems to simply take the position that he does not understand, which would indicate that he does, in fact, understand, but pretends not to, since understanding in this case would lead to embarrassment.<br /><br />"And he does seem to like Oscar Wilde, doesn’t he?"<br /><br />He is indeed a big fan, not of Oscar Wilde, but of one of his more famous prodigies.<br /><br />[/Oscar Wilde Mode]<br />Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-76945119476771688312014-09-08T13:58:49.443+01:002014-09-08T13:58:49.443+01:00«"Tesla didn't understand (or is trying t...«"Tesla didn't understand (or is trying to obfuscate) my point, which is that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection."<br /><br />Quite clearly it is my "interlocutor" who is trying to obfuscate the facts here, in that he seems to "forget" that he appended his rejection with the partial modifying sentence "something to that effect". Looking the phrase "to that effect" up at dictionary.com we see that it has the following meaning: "With that basic or general meaning". "Something to that effect" therefore, must refer to, not the accurate meaning of that 'something', but rather to something which is similar to it, while still sharing its basic and general characteristics. I find it hard to believe that our friend does not actually know the meaning of such ordinary English phrases, and so it seems more likely that our friend yet again engages in his silly little word games - this time apparently because he felt embarrassed by me pointing out how "canned", scripted and predictable his "retorts" are. In any case, it is a point that is hardly worth bickering about, as our friend surely cannot help his simple-mindedness and is sure to continue with such simple attacks in the future, thus illustrating my initial argument finely.»<br /><br />And how exactly are these convoluted hysterics supposed to affect the fact that Tesla didn't understand (or was trying to obfuscate) my point, which was that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed <i>all</i> of his remarks/reactions to projection?<br /> <br />«"Projection arguments in response to certain accusations or insinuations do not signal an "obsession", actually. My opponent's hammering the "Freudian" thing is a stronger indicator in that direction."<br /><br />Let us see then, if our dear friend can lay his silly word games to rest, or if he continues to obsess about them.» <br /><br />If any of our readers understood what "silly word games" my interlocutor is babbling about, an explanation would be appreciated. <br /><br />«[/Oscar Wilde Mode»<br /><br />And he does seem to like Oscar Wilde, doesn’t he?Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-15720741766490354192014-09-01T23:33:32.932+01:002014-09-01T23:33:32.932+01:00"Tesla didn't understand (or is trying to..."Tesla didn't understand (or is trying to obfuscate) my point, which is that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection."<br /><br />Quite clearly it is my "interlocutor" who is trying to obfuscate the facts here, in that he seems to "forget" that he appended his rejection with the partial modifying sentence "something to that effect". Looking the phrase "to that effect" up at dictionary.com we see that it has the following meaning: "With that basic or general meaning". "Something to that effect" therefore, must refer to, not the accurate meaning of that 'something', but rather to something which is similar to it, while still sharing its basic and general characteristics. I find it hard to believe that our friend does not actually know the meaning of such ordinary English phrases, and so it seems more likely that our friend yet again engages in his silly little word games - this time apparently because he felt embarrassed by me pointing out how "canned", scripted and predictable his "retorts" are. In any case, it is a point that is hardly worth bickering about, as our friend surely cannot help his simple-mindedness and is sure to continue with such simple attacks in the future, thus illustrating my initial argument finely.<br /><br />"Projection arguments in response to certain accusations or insinuations do not signal an "obsession", actually. My opponent's hammering the "Freudian" thing is a stronger indicator in that direction."<br /><br />Let us see then, if our dear friend can lay his silly word games to rest, or if he continues to obsess about them.<br /><br />[/Oscar Wilde Mode]Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-37975401632033146092014-08-30T16:57:41.198+01:002014-08-30T16:57:41.198+01:00«And why didn't my "interlocutor" em...«And why didn't my "interlocutor" emphasize "something to that effect", which indicated that my "interlocutor" denied his Freudian obsessions not only in part, but at least to such a degree that his interlocutor's argument was not entirely without merit? Shall I, perhaps, as my "interlocutor" has been fond of doing in the past for the slightest of mishaps, accuse my "interlocutor" of "quote mining" and thus being a liar?»<br /><br />Tesla didn't understand (or is trying to obfuscate) my point, which is that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection. <br /><br />«And certainly none of this is relevant all the time my "interlocutor"'s obsession with Freudian references remains an integral part of his repertoire (as shown by his repeated, probably subconscious use of such references) and is certain to remain as such in the foreseeable future?» <br /><br />Projection arguments in response to certain accusations or insinuations do not signal an "obsession", actually. My opponent's hammering the "Freudian" thing is a stronger indicator in that direction.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-23149029479495451992014-08-28T05:19:27.422+01:002014-08-28T05:19:27.422+01:00you guys are both fucking moronsyou guys are both fucking moronsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-79706712769927547642014-08-26T17:08:22.135+01:002014-08-26T17:08:22.135+01:00And why didn't my "interlocutor" emp...And why didn't my "interlocutor" emphasize "something to that effect", which indicated that my "interlocutor" denied his Freudian obsessions not only in part, but at least to such a degree that his interlocutor's argument was not entirely without merit? Shall I, perhaps, as my "interlocutor" has been fond of doing in the past for the slightest of mishaps, accuse my "interlocutor" of "quote mining" and thus being a liar?<br /><br />And certainly none of this is relevant all the time my "interlocutor"'s obsession with Freudian references remains an integral part of his repertoire (as shown by his repeated, probably subconscious use of such references) and is certain to remain as such in the foreseeable future?<br /><br />Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-40845057641809798652014-08-24T12:08:16.216+01:002014-08-24T12:08:16.216+01:00«"IIRC that was meant to be a reference to th...«"IIRC that was meant to be a reference to that author’s wit, which my interlocutor turned into a reference to that author’s homosexuality – for reasons presumably related to certain wishes, tendencies or obsessions of his own."<br /><br />Again these odd, Freudian projection theories which you denied just a post ago.»<br /><br />My intelocutor cannot read, or then he belongs to the dumber variety of liars. What I wrote "just a post ago" was the following: <br /><br />"I don’t think <b>every one</b> of my opponent's reactions is a result of projection, and I neither remember having said something to that effect."<br /><br />(Emphasis added so my interlocutor doesn't misread my statement again). <br /><br />Now, what, if not some sort of self-projection, is one supposed to see in my interlocutor's uncalled-for references to Oscar Wilde's homosexuality, which suggest a certain obsession with the subject? My opponent is welcome to provide his explanation for this rubbish. <br /> <br />«"As usual, what my interlocutor accuses me of is an obvious and accurate self-description. This one wasn’t even necessary, but thanks for it anyway."<br /><br />And again! My "interlocutor" apparently does not understand a word of what he is writing.» <br /><br />Mr. "Tesla" seems to have run out of arguments and be reduced to hollow quips he hopes may be mistaken for an argument.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-11647855470500146522014-08-23T17:16:40.178+01:002014-08-23T17:16:40.178+01:00"IIRC that was meant to be a reference to tha..."IIRC that was meant to be a reference to that author’s wit, which my interlocutor turned into a reference to that author’s homosexuality – for reasons presumably related to certain wishes, tendencies or obsessions of his own."<br /><br />Again these odd, Freudian projection theories which you denied just a post ago.<br /><br />"As usual, what my interlocutor accuses me of is an obvious and accurate self-description. This one wasn’t even necessary, but thanks for it anyway."<br /><br />And again! My "interlocutor" apparently does not understand a word of what he is writing. Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-19149182935932627552014-08-20T20:52:51.026+01:002014-08-20T20:52:51.026+01:00«"So what's the poet trying to tell us he...«"So what's the poet trying to tell us here?"<br />Just exposing you as what you are - that is a Jewish supremacist.» <br /><br />Outside my interlocutor's cloud-cuckoo-land, I'm not even Jewish, actually. <br /><br />«And according to your cheerleaders, it's you who are supposedly Oscar Wilde, btw.»<br /><br />IIRC that was meant to be a reference to that author’s wit, which my interlocutor turned into a reference to that author’s homosexuality – for reasons presumably related to certain wishes, tendencies or obsessions of his own.<br /> <br />«"So now I’m a lowly character because I express my contempt for my opponent's amply demonstrated lowly character? That's a funny idea."<br />No, you are a lowly character because you are a hypocrite,» <br /><br />How so? <br /><br />«and because you are so obviously full of hatred while accusing others of being hateful.» <br /><br />What's supposed to make my supposed "hatred" so "obvious"? <br /><br />«"I'm not alluding to psychiatry at all, actually. Terms like "crackpot" or "nut" don't designate someone who has a clinical psychiatric problem, just someone whose holds weird convictions. I dare say that most crackpots are mentally healthy, actually."<br /><br />"I don’t think every one of my opponent's reactions is a result of projection, and I neither remember having said something to that effect."<br /><br />This is why explaining something to, or indeed having any kind of rational debate with you, is pointless. You are not an honest individual, nor will you ever have any desire to be.» <br /><br />As usual, what my interlocutor accuses me of is an obvious and accurate self-description. This one wasn’t even necessary, but thanks for it anyway.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-11556480494307345142014-08-15T22:56:13.748+01:002014-08-15T22:56:13.748+01:00"So what's the poet trying to tell us her..."So what's the poet trying to tell us here?"<br /><br />Just exposing you as what you are - that is a Jewish supremacist. And according to your cheerleaders, it's you who are supposedly Oscar Wilde, btw.<br /><br />"So now I’m a lowly character because I express my contempt for my opponent's amply demonstrated lowly character? That's a funny idea."<br /><br />No, you are a lowly character because you are a hypocrite, and because you are so obviously full of hatred while accusing others of being hateful.<br /><br />"I'm not alluding to psychiatry at all, actually. Terms like "crackpot" or "nut" don't designate someone who has a clinical psychiatric problem, just someone whose holds weird convictions. I dare say that most crackpots are mentally healthy, actually."<br /><br />"I don’t think every one of my opponent's reactions is a result of projection, and I neither remember having said something to that effect."<br /><br />This is why explaining something to, or indeed having any kind of rational debate with you, is pointless. You are not an honest individual, nor will you ever have any desire to be.<br />Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-38943614834072022542014-08-15T19:12:58.834+01:002014-08-15T19:12:58.834+01:00«"But why should this mean that Israel has no...«"But why should this mean that Israel has no right to exist? Many a great nation, including Great Britain and the United States, committed major crimes as part of their [- *snip* further apologetic nonsense -]" <br /><br />Thanks for finally answering me with the answer we all knew was there.»<br /><br />So what's the poet trying to tell us here? That states whose founding history includes mass crimes have no right to exist on account of such crimes? Such standards would deprive many a state of its right to exist. And who gets to set such standards? Little Tesla, perhaps? <br /><br />«"Actually they are just manifestations of contempt for the flawed character and lowly specimen that my opponent has amply shown to be"<br /><br />Yes of course they are. Never denied that - I'm just saying it shows what a lowly character *you* are.»<br /><br />So now I’m a lowly character because I express my contempt for my opponent's amply demonstrated lowly character? That's a funny idea. <br /><br />«This must be the fifth time you use a biological term to characterize me, but keep on hatin', Roberto.» <br /><br />I wouldn’t consider my opponent worth hating even if I had his inclinations. He's too deplorable a specimen for that (sixth time I use a "biological term", go figure). <br /><br />«"Same as before, and the "nut" seems to have hit a raw nerve. :-)"<br /><br />It might have if I didn't know that alluding to psychiatry was your modus operandi whomever it is you "debate" with.» <br /><br />I'm not alluding to psychiatry at all, actually. Terms like "crackpot" or "nut" don't designate someone who has a clinical psychiatric problem, just someone whose holds weird convictions. I dare say that most crackpots are mentally healthy, actually. <br /><br />«"My next remark you partially quoted shows your "playing the victim" accusation to be no more than wishful thinking. You obviously forgot to read it before hitting the keyboard. "<br /><br />Not at all. It only shows that you're pretending not to be hurt while at the same time trying to play the victim card.»<br /><br />No, I'm not pretending. It's a fact that your lowly behavior bothers me as little as, say, the squealing of a pig. <br /><br />«Very typical of you that you never can keep your lies straight.»<br /><br />Why, now the poor fellow is pulling the "lies" card, which is what his kind usually does when they are desperate. Maybe he will even try to explain what I’m supposed to have "lied" about, stay tuned. <br /><br />«"Where exactly is the illogical part in my assessment? Please point it out and explain."<br /><br />I'm sorry, but that assertion was so firmly in the 'non sequitur' category that I doubt an explanation from me will make things any clearer for you.» <br /><br />As we’re talking for the benefit of an audience here, my opponent’s attempt to cover up his lack of an explanation is as unconvincing as can be. <br /><br />«You apparently think every reaction in me is a result of projection, which probably means you have either read too much Freud or you really are that simple of a person.» <br /><br />I don’t think every one of my opponent's reactions is a result of projection, and I neither remember having said something to that effect. Some of my opponent's reactions are just expressions of the somewhat-less-than-commendable individual (or shall we say "specimen", to up the count of "biological terms" to seven?) he cannot help being.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-38593759927533634112014-08-12T06:02:42.277+01:002014-08-12T06:02:42.277+01:00"But why should this mean that Israel has no ..."But why should this mean that Israel has no right to exist? Many a great nation, including Great Britain and the United States, committed major crimes as part of their [- *snip* further apologetic nonsense -]" <br /><br />Thanks for finally answering me with the answer we all knew was there.<br /><br />"Actually they are just manifestations of contempt for the flawed character and lowly specimen that my opponent has amply shown to be"<br /><br />Yes of course they are. Never denied that - I'm just saying it shows what a lowly character *you* are. This must be the fifth time you use a biological term to characterize me, but keep on hatin', Roberto.<br /><br />"Same as before, and the "nut" seems to have hit a raw nerve. :-)"<br /><br />It might have if I didn't know that alluding to psychiatry was your modus operandi whomever it is you "debate" with. <br /><br />"My next remark you partially quoted shows your "playing the victim" accusation to be no more than wishful thinking. You obviously forgot to read it before hitting the keyboard. "<br /><br />Not at all. It only shows that you're pretending not to be hurt while at the same time trying to play the victim card. Very typical of you that you never can keep your lies straight.<br /><br />"Where exactly is the illogical part in my assessment? Please point it out and explain."<br /><br />I'm sorry, but that assertion was so firmly in the 'non sequitur' category that I doubt an explanation from me will make things any clearer for you. You apparently think every reaction in me is a result of projection, which probably means you have either read too much Freud or you really are that simple of a person.Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1053986367970715622014-08-10T13:07:22.952+01:002014-08-10T13:07:22.952+01:00«"I can understand that you don't like my...«"I can understand that you don't like my "attacks""<br /><br />Oh, I don't mind. Your constant ad-hominem attacks just show how you are, in your own vitriolic words, such a "flawed character" and "lowly specimen".»<br /><br />Actually they are just manifestations of contempt for the flawed character and lowly specimen that my opponent has amply shown to be, and he seems to be taking these characterizations to heart. Which is a good thing, for it might lead to his improving a little. <br /><br />«"any more than someone with an ugly face likes to see it in a mirror"<br /><br />That was sort of my point, Roberto. I am holding up the mirror for you.»<br /><br />A rather lame "no, you bad" retort. Got nothing better? <br /><br />«"Actually I consider such nuts to be a minority in a generally reasonable society."<br /><br />Clearly, you are the nut here, and we even have your own word for it! »<br /><br />Same as before, and the "nut" seems to have hit a raw nerve. :-)<br /><br />«"Trying to get even for my "attacks" by again bringing up my medical history (moreover as if it were some sort of personal defect - he might as well hold it against a person that such persons suffers or has suffered from diabetes, cancer or heart disease) is further evidence that my interlocutor has a seriously flawed character. Thanks for again showing what lowly specimens tend to subscribe to ideological beliefs such as yours."<br /><br />Yes, try to get sympathy by whining some more and playing the victim - that is the modus operandi of your kind.»<br /><br />My next remark you partially quoted shows your "playing the victim" accusation to be no more than wishful thinking. You obviously forgot to read it before hitting the keyboard. <br /><br />«"My interlocutor apparently thinks he hurt me with his remarks, which suggests that a) he felt hurt (poor child) by mine"<br /><br />Your capacity for logic is not very great either.»<br /><br />Where exactly is the illogical part in my assessment? Please point it out and explain.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-71587426298240082212014-08-09T23:47:09.475+01:002014-08-09T23:47:09.475+01:00"I can understand that you don't like my ..."I can understand that you don't like my "attacks""<br /><br />Oh, I don't mind. Your constant ad-hominem attacks just show how you are, in your own vitriolic words, such a "flawed character" and "lowly specimen".<br /><br />"any more than someone with an ugly face likes to see it in a mirror"<br /><br />That was sort of my point, Roberto. I am holding up the mirror for you.<br /><br />"Actually I consider such nuts to be a minority in a generally reasonable society."<br /><br />Clearly, you are the nut here, and we even have your own word for it!<br /><br />"Trying to get even for my "attacks" by again bringing up my medical history (moreover as if it were some sort of personal defect - he might as well hold it against a person that such persons suffers or has suffered from diabetes, cancer or heart disease) is further evidence that my interlocutor has a seriously flawed character. Thanks for again showing what lowly specimens tend to subscribe to ideological beliefs such as yours."<br /><br />Yes, try to get sympathy by whining some more and playing the victim - that is the modus operandi of your kind.<br /><br />"My interlocutor apparently thinks he hurt me with his remarks, which suggests that a) he felt hurt (poor child) by mine"<br /><br />Your capacity for logic is not very great either.Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-71554742636650353772014-08-09T13:31:26.094+01:002014-08-09T13:31:26.094+01:00«To the "mantra" part: if I seem repetit...«To the "mantra" part: if I seem repetitive, then it is only because I am extremely patient with you and answer most of your repeated arguments and attacks against me, the most repeated one being the one where I am either a "hysteric" or suffer from paranoia.»<br /><br />I can understand that you don't like my "attacks" any more than someone with an ugly face likes to see it in a mirror, but they happen to result from my observation of your utterances and general behavior. Maybe you should try to improve on that instead of lashing out against your critics. <br /><br />«Quite funny coming from a person who sees "White Supremacists", "fascists", "Neo-Nazis" and a bunch of other ghosts around every corner.»<br /><br />Actually I consider such nuts to be a minority in a generally reasonable society. It just happens that your utterances and general behavior suggest your being part of that deplorable minority. <br /><br />«I guess this more accurately falls in the category of paranoia, rather than hysteria - say, that "recurrent agitated depression" wouldn't happen to be recurring again, would it?»<br /><br />Trying to get even for my "attacks" by again bringing up my medical history (moreover as if it were some sort of personal defect - he might as well hold it against a person that such persons suffers or has suffered from diabetes, cancer or heart disease) is further evidence that my interlocutor has a seriously flawed character. Thanks for again showing what lowly specimens tend to subscribe to ideological beliefs such as yours. <br /><br />«An eye for an eye, Roberto.»<br /><br />My interlocutor apparently thinks he hurt me with his remarks, which suggests that a) he felt hurt (poor child) by mine, b) he felt compelled to retaliate, and c) he has deluded ideas about his capacity to do so.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-6735392766630511272014-08-09T13:22:41.542+01:002014-08-09T13:22:41.542+01:00«Don't know what "nakba" is, but if ...«Don't know what "nakba" is, but if it only means "catastrophe", then it isn't very specific.»<br /><br />Curious ignorance for a self-appointed champion of the Palestinian cause, but let's explain to this champion what the term "Nakba" refers to: <br /><br /><i>«The Nakba, or catastrophe, refers to fighting which saw an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from or fled their homes in fighting that would lead to the establishment of the state of Israel.»</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=386989" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br /><i>«The 1948 Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, al-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[2] The term nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949, and is synonymous in that sense with what is known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut, a term which covers those two events).»</i> <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br /><br />«If this isn't a big deal for you, then why don't you simply say that you don't think Israel has the right to exist? That is the core of the problem we are discussing, and which you again dodge like a slipperly eel.»<br /><br />Another of your instructive self-descriptions is appreciated. As to the "problem we are discussing", it is true that a major crime (the Nakba) was instrumental to the creation of the Israeli state. But why should this mean that Israel has no right to exist? Many a great nation, including Great Britain and the United States, committed major crimes as part of their constitution and expansion - just think of the enormous famines in India under British rule and the gradual expulsion, decimation or extincion of Native American tribes. Does this mean that the nations built over so much death and suffering have no right to exist?Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-8029767908692006032014-08-08T20:17:53.395+01:002014-08-08T20:17:53.395+01:00Don't know what "nakba" is, but if i...Don't know what "nakba" is, but if it only means "catastrophe", then it isn't very specific. If this isn't a big deal for you, then why don't you simply say that you don't think Israel has the right to exist? That is the core of the problem we are discussing, and which you again dodge like a slipperly eel.<br /><br />To the "mantra" part: if I seem repetitive, then it is only because I am extremely patient with you and answer most of your repeated arguments and attacks against me, the most repeated one being the one where I am either a "hysteric" or suffer from paranoia. Quite funny coming from a person who sees "White Supremacists", "fascists", "Neo-Nazis" and a bunch of other ghosts around every corner. I guess this more accurately falls in the category of paranoia, rather than hysteria - say, that "recurrent agitated depression" wouldn't happen to be recurring again, would it?<br /><br />An eye for an eye, Roberto.Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-21155708388991075502014-08-07T18:17:37.239+01:002014-08-07T18:17:37.239+01:00«Don't understand or pretend you don't und...«Don't understand or pretend you don't understand? This is the second time you dodge now, but let me put it even clearer for you: do you think the criminal erection of the state of Israel was right or was it wrong? In other words, was your reference regarding "criminal acts" simply a reference to smaller territorial takeovers, which is the usual tactic your kind uses to dodge this issue? You see, this is an important point, because unless the obviously unlawful and aggressive takeover of that territory - the whole territory - is admitted, there will never be peace there. And so the people who are acting as pro-Palestinians are actually the ones who prolong the war. My guess is that I will now get some sort of explanation that "Israel has the right to...bla bla bla...because the U.N bla bla bla".»<br /><br />Why, just look at the good old "dodging" and "your kind" mantras, which are so characteristic of hysterical fanatics like our friend Tesla (and especially amusing as I have no idea what exactly I'm supposed to have "dodged"). <br /><br />To make it very clear, I consider all of what Palestinians call the <i>Nakba</i>, or catastrophe, a criminal undertaking by Israel. <br /><br />I also consider the current Israeli operations against Gaza a crime. Israel, as pointed out in an article you may read <a href="http://avidanofront.blogspot.de/2014/07/ofensiva-israelense-sobre-gaza.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, has again shown that it is a militarist, expansionist and criminal state. The picture of Israeli schoolgirls writing "love" messages on Gaza-bound ammunition I consider particularly shocking. <br /><br />Which means that it's time for even a blockhead like Tesla to understand that accepting as fact and condemning the genocide of Europe's Jews by Tesla's Nazi heroes does not imply endorsing or defending Israel's policies. <br /><br />«You ignore the fact that the genocide definition requires intent do bring about the circumstances mentioned. So the definition is quite clear that the Palestine situation is genocide, given that that intent is present.» <br /><br />Intent to bring about what circumstances exactly? Conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, that's what the definition requires. There's no evidence that Israel ever brought about or intended to bring about such conditions on the Palestinians, unless you want every disenfranchisement of a population group to be called genocide (see my previous post). Treating a population like shit doesn't necessarily imply wanting to wholly or partially destroy that population, however stubbornly you refuse to understand that. <br /><br />«Incidentally, the definition was created after lobbying by a Jew who also coined the<br />word "genocide". Quite ironic.» <br /><br />Quite understandable, actually, after that Jew's people had undergone a procedure that fits the definition like few other events have.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-74497151191273178842014-08-07T05:44:21.743+01:002014-08-07T05:44:21.743+01:00Don't understand or pretend you don't unde...Don't understand or pretend you don't understand? This is the second time you dodge now, but let me put it even clearer for you: do you think the criminal erection of the state of Israel was right or was it wrong? In other words, was your reference regarding "criminal acts" simply a reference to smaller territorial takeovers, which is the usual tactic your kind uses to dodge this issue? You see, this is an important point, because unless the obviously unlawful and aggressive takeover of that territory - the whole territory - is admitted, there will never be peace there. And so the people who are acting as pro-Palestinians are actually the ones who prolong the war. My guess is that I will now get some sort of explanation that "Israel has the right to...bla bla bla...because the U.N bla bla bla".<br /><br />You ignore the fact that the genocide definition requires intent do bring about the circumstances mentioned. So the definition is quite clear that the Palestine situation is genocide, given that that intent is present. Incidentally, the definition was created after lobbying by a Jew who also coined the word "genocide". Quite ironic.Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-82361393179570591132014-08-05T12:47:49.974+01:002014-08-05T12:47:49.974+01:00«"Taking over of their country, agree."
...«"Taking over of their country, agree."<br /><br />And does this include the immoral overtaking of that area by Jews as a whole, or is it the usual tactic of limiting oneself to a select few "occupied areas as stated by the UN" while the main issue is forgotten about? I'm going to take a wild guess that it is the latter, but feel free to surprise me.<br /><br />http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/14/08/images/20140731_obama.jpg»<br /><br />Don't understand what you're talking about. Kicking people out of their homes to take them over is a criminal act, whatever the context. <br /><br />«"As to "genocidal policies in general", this would make the supposed "genocide" the most inefficient in history, if one considers the comparatively low number of Palestinian casualties of war, and that the Palestinian population grew 8-fold since 1948. "<br /><br />Again, according to the U.N 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', Article 2, genocide is defined as follows:<br /><br />"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:<br />(a) Killing members of the group;<br />(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;<br />(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;<br />(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;<br />(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.<br />"<br />Note in particular point C.<br /><br />Now, you may say that the Palestinian population has multiplied, as has most other Middle-Eastern and African groups after they received the benefits of modern medicine and food-production, and so eradicating them physically has proven quite a challenge for the Jews. But the *intent* seems nonetheless very clear to me.» <br /><br />This would make every ethnic cleansing operation a genocide, and every marginalizing and disenfranchising of a population (including violent repression of any form of resistance against such marginalizing and disenfranchising) a genocidal endeavor as well. Which is hardly what the convention had in mind. And I also doubt that only «the benefits of modern medicine and food-production» (which a genocide-minded Israel would have done its utmost to withhold from the poor Palestinians) are the main reason for their population having surged instead of going down. Mind that countries with fast population growth are usually not those where «the benefits of modern medicine and food production» are enjoyed to a sufficient extent by most inhabitants. <br /><br />«"Funny to see a dishonest propagandist like Tesla lecture about honesty, by the way"<br /><br />Still putting your money on that age-old projection, eh?» <br /><br />"Age-old" projection still hits the nail on the head when it comes to the likes of Tesla. One might also call his lectures hypocritical, though.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-13777906404551248772014-08-04T19:22:14.024+01:002014-08-04T19:22:14.024+01:00"Taking over of their country, agree."
..."Taking over of their country, agree."<br /><br />And does this include the immoral overtaking of that area by Jews as a whole, or is it the usual tactic of limiting oneself to a select few "occupied areas as stated by the UN" while the main issue is forgotten about? I'm going to take a wild guess that it is the latter, but feel free to surprise me.<br /><br />http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/14/08/images/20140731_obama.jpg<br /><br />"As to "genocidal policies in general", this would make the supposed "genocide" the most inefficient in history, if one considers the comparatively low number of Palestinian casualties of war, and that the Palestinian population grew 8-fold since 1948. "<br /><br />Again, according to the U.N 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', Article 2, genocide is defined as follows:<br /><br />"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:<br />(a) Killing members of the group;<br />(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;<br />(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;<br />(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;<br />(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.<br />"<br />Note in particular point C.<br /><br />Now, you may say that the Palestinian population has multiplied, as has most other Middle-Eastern and African groups after they received the benefits of modern medicine and food-production, and so eradicating them physically has proven quite a challenge for the Jews. But the *intent* seems nonetheless very clear to me.<br /><br />"Funny to see a dishonest propagandist like Tesla lecture about honesty, by the way"<br /><br />Still putting your money on that age-old projection, eh?Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-30997619005275232652014-07-12T13:54:53.028+01:002014-07-12T13:54:53.028+01:00«"No, I have no such problem at all. Jews hav...«"No, I have no such problem at all. Jews have been both victims and perpetrators throughout history. The latter to a much lesser extent than the former, but that doesn't excuse crimes like those committed by Israel over the past decades against Palestinians and other Arabs."<br /><br />You mean the taking over of their country, deportations, apartheid and genocidal politics in general? Or is it that your stance is the conventional "Israel has the right to exist and defend itself, but we do not condone..."? You don't have to be honest simply because you admit some truth, you know.»<br /><br />Taking over of their country, agree. <br />Deportations and apartheid, also agree. <br />As to "genocidal policies in general", this would make the supposed "genocide" the most inefficient in history, if one considers the comparatively low number of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_war" rel="nofollow"> Palestinian casualties of war</a>, and that the Palestinian population <a href="http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=386989" rel="nofollow">grew 8-fold since 1948</a>. <br /> <br />Of course Israel has a right to defend itself. But procedures like dropping 400 tons of bombs on Gaza in exchange for a number of inaccurate rockets fired from the other side, as happened these days, far exceed the limits of self-defense. <br /><br />Funny to see a dishonest propagandist like Tesla lecture about honesty, by the way. <br /><br />«"Apparently this poor soul thinks that accepting as factual Nazi mass crimes against Jews and others implies endorsing the use of phosphorous bombs and other crimes committed by Israel. What a sorry little jerk."<br /><br />I think you are smart enough to know that endorsing that would mean the end of your credibility as a holocaust promoter. Let's leave it at that.»<br /><br />Thanks for letting our readers know what your reasoning would be if your position where what you believe mine to be. It would surely fit what you have shown of your "character" so far. But you shouldn't project it only your opponent.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-50387342665048769962014-07-07T21:39:19.032+01:002014-07-07T21:39:19.032+01:00"No, I have no such problem at all. Jews have..."No, I have no such problem at all. Jews have been both victims and perpetrators throughout history. The latter to a much lesser extent than the former, but that doesn't excuse crimes like those committed by Israel over the past decades against Palestinians and other Arabs."<br /><br />You mean the taking over of their country, deportations, apartheid and genocidal politics in general? Or is it that your stance is the conventional "Israel has the right to exist and defend itself, but we do not condone..."? You don't have to be honest simply because you admit some truth, you know.<br /><br />"Apparently this poor soul thinks that accepting as factual Nazi mass crimes against Jews and others implies endorsing the use of phosphorous bombs and other crimes committed by Israel. What a sorry little jerk."<br /><br />I think you are smart enough to know that endorsing that would mean the end of your credibility as a holocaust promoter. Let's leave it at that.Teslahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09110816723966005713noreply@blogger.com