This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The left and Jewish people
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 matt_himself  Matataland 10 Jun 16 9.11am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Asking for more context = taking the moral high ground? I'll let others decide. Now I'd hate for either of us to get a yellow card for boring the pants off of everyone with tit for tat nonsense. Plenty of evidence has been provided for you. Go back throughout this thread and there are plenty of links for you to review. You are running from this because your argument is weak, misinformed and biased. TTFN.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 10 Jun 16 9.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Plenty of evidence has been provided for you. Go back throughout this thread and there are plenty of links for you to review. TTFN. Thanks I've just won a fiver bet as I predicted this would be your response. Seems I am the Mystic mindreader today. I will toast you as I raise my pint of Harveys (not Bristol cream) and munch on a packet of peanuts that I will spend the winnings on. Have a nice day.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | npn Crowborough 10 Jun 16 9.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Thanks I've just won a fiver bet as I predicted this would be your response. Seems I am the Mystic mindreader today. I will toast you as I raise my pint of Harveys (not Bristol cream) and munch on a packet of peanuts that I will spend the winnings on. Have a nice day. Hang on, that's a Sussex beer - drink your own, surely Shepherd Neame would be more appropriate? Coming down here, drinking our beer...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 10 Jun 16 9.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
Hang on, that's a Sussex beer - drink your own, surely Shepherd Neame would be more appropriate? Coming down here, drinking our beer... Are you pushing for a (sus)sexit?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Bert the Head Epsom 11 Jun 16 12.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NickinOX
The existence of the sonderkommando and individual collaborators is not in dispute. What Loach's play was accused of was claiming that specific Jews used the Holocaust to further their Zionist agenda by selecting Jews to send to the death camps, and Zionists who were to be spared and sent to Palestine. That is speculation at best, and is a common accusation from holocaust deniers. Thus when people like Loach, or Corbyn's cronies such as Livingstone, make the accusation, or raise the question they are rightly questioned and there is nothing wrong with them being so. The fact that I have seen no main-stream academic, who is an expert on the topic, step forward to defend the argument speaks volumes. That the argument exists and is only treated seriously by the far right and far left, should tell you something. I find it interesting that you previously challenged me on this and I provided an explanation for why what was going on was racist, as well as pointing out my own experience as a shop steward. I note you agreed to one of my points and didn't challenge the other. That tells me you know there is a problem. Your political views, however, seem to be so dogmatic that you are wedded to ignoring or denying racism where it suits you. When you are arguing for the same thing as David Irving and his ilk, that should tell you something. I see no point in flogging a dead horse, so that's the last I will say on this. Edited by NickinOX (09 Jun 2016 11.57pm) "When you are arguing for the same thing as David Irving and his ilk, that should tell you something." Firstly neither Loach or Corbyn are holocaust deniers. Neither do they wish to deny the slaughter of thousands of Palestinians at the hands of the state of Israel, which is what really separates them from you, a denier of the Israeli genocidal attack on Palestinians Secondly, it would be helpful for the sake of honest debate if you could be specific on why you think suggesting there was collaboration between a minority of Zionists with the Nazis is denying the holocaust. I would argue that this is no more racist or anti Semitic than pointing out that a tiny minority of Muslims groomed children for sex in Rochdale is Islamaphobic. Regarding your point about main stream historians, there is no doubt that Churchill used gas on the Iraqis in the 1920s but pick up a main stream book on Churchill and it isn't mentioned. We live in a propaganda state and you have to dig a little deeper. To discover the truth about Israel you need a JCB.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
NickinOX  Sailing country. 11 Jun 16 2.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Bert the Head
"When you are arguing for the same thing as David Irving and his ilk, that should tell you something." Firstly neither Loach or Corbyn are holocaust deniers. Neither do they wish to deny the slaughter of thousands of Palestinians at the hands of the state of Israel, which is what really separates them from you, a denier of the Israeli genocidal attack on Palestinians Secondly, it would be helpful for the sake of honest debate if you could be specific on why you think suggesting there was collaboration between a minority of Zionists with the Nazis is denying the holocaust. I would argue that this is no more racist or anti Semitic than pointing out that a tiny minority of Muslims groomed children for sex in Rochdale is Islamaphobic. Regarding your point about main stream historians, there is no doubt that Churchill used gas on the Iraqis in the 1920s but pick up a main stream book on Churchill and it isn't mentioned. We live in a propaganda state and you have to dig a little deeper. To discover the truth about Israel you need a JCB.
1. Read what was written. I never claimed that Loach, et al, was a Holocaust denier. I said that his argument is a stretch (at best), and the same one used by Holocause deniers. 2. What has Israels killing of Palestinians got to do with whether someone is making anti-Semitic comments. Where have I claimed that Israel hasn't killed Palestinians? That's just you lying to make a point and it's also just a strawman argument, and a sloppy one at that. 3. If you don't agree with what I wrote, counter it with evidence rather than yet another strawman argument. 4. Wrong again. The use of gas was discussed regarding Iraq in the 1920s, as well as in the Russian Civil War, and on the North-West Frontier. The discussion is also mentioned in several biographies of Churchill and histories of the British Empire (which tells me you should actually read the stuff you claim to be citing). Yet there is no evidence that gas was used in Iraq in the 1920s, despite Churchill being in favor, or on the NW Frontier, or by the British in the Russian Civil War. That being said, so what? What has Churchill's favorable opinion on the utility of poison gas, 100 years ago, got to do with whether someone is being anti-Semitic today? Or is that just another poor attempt at a strawman argument? Essentially, your, and Nick's, argument boils down to the opinion that Israel is bad, so no comments made by Israel's opponent can be anti-Semitic. That's not just fallacious, that's downright silly. Thus, to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli seems appropriate: "what you are arguing is so wrong, it's not even wrong." And, as with Nick Gusset, I will leave this matter there for the same reasons.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 11 Jun 16 7.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Gusset - the link to your tome has been taken down. Therefore I cannot comment on it.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 Jun 16 9.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Gusset - the link to your tome has been taken down. Therefore I cannot comment on it. Fair enough, but I did post quite a lengthy extract of the hearing earlier in the thread that among other things claims, with citations, that instead of all possible children that Coul go to england only half went. The other half went to Palestine in order to help set up a Jewish state. Those that were sent to england were not treated favourably by several factions of Jewish people's. This could render them essentially to be anti semitic. It also shows how the Labour defendants tweets were reported in the press out of context missing out the whole twitter conversation. Matthew, I'm not saying the lady who posted the Hitler tweet is guilty nor innocent, just that I'd like to know inwhat context the tweets were sent. Then I feel I can make a better judgement. In the two of the Labour anti-Semitic cases reported that we are discussing, large parts of the evidence against them have been omitted by the media. this is I believe that it was indeed a smear campaign carried out for electoral purposes. Especially in light of the fact the stories seemed to be unimportant right after the election.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 11 Jun 16 9.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Fair enough, but I did post quite a lengthy extract of the hearing earlier in the thread that among other things claims, with citations, that instead of all possible children that Coul go to england only half went. The other half went to Palestine in order to help set up a Jewish state. Those that were sent to england were not treated favourably by several factions of Jewish people's. This could render them essentially to be anti semitic. It also shows how the Labour defendants tweets were reported in the press out of context missing out the whole twitter conversation. Matthew, I'm not saying the lady who posted the Hitler tweet is guilty nor innocent, just that I'd like to know inwhat context the tweets were sent. Then I feel I can make a better judgement. In the two of the Labour anti-Semitic cases reported that we are discussing, large parts of the evidence against them have been omitted by the media. this is I believe that it was indeed a smear campaign carried out for electoral purposes. Especially in light of the fact the stories seemed to be unimportant right after the election. To me it looks like that you are trying to excuse your kith and kin. There have been a significant number of incidents of outright anti semitism, not criticism of the Israeli state. You continue to deny this through the flimsy retort of 'context'. Yet you seem very keen to label Boris Johnson as a racist, not question the context of his comments. Which brings me to the conclusion - that you are selling out your deeply held political beliefs in order to further the political cause of Labour. If this racism was rife in another party or another part of society, you would be up in arms.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 Jun 16 9.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
To me it looks like that you are trying to excuse your kith and kin. There have been a significant number of incidents of outright anti semitism, not criticism of the Israeli state. You continue to deny this through the flimsy retort of 'context'. Yet you seem very keen to label Boris Johnson as a racist, not question the context of his comments. Which brings me to the conclusion - that you are selling out your deeply held political beliefs in order to further the political cause of Labour. If this racism was rife in another party or another part of society, you would be up in arms. 1Firstly that is your opinion which is your right. I don't happen to agree with it which is my right. But as usual your rebuttal is what you think of me rather than arguing against the points I make. 2. to imply the context of someone's actions or a situation is not important a flimsy argument does you no favours as you are obviously quite an intelligent chap. 3 Boris apologised for his comments which implies being guilty of the charge against him. Edited by nickgusset (11 Jun 2016 9.53am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 11 Jun 16 9.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
1Firstly that is your opinion which is your right. I don't happen to agree with it which is my right. But as usual your rebuttal is what you think of me rather than arguing against the points I make. 2. to imply the context of someone's actions or a situation is not important a flimsy argument does you no favours as you are obviously quite an intelligent chap. 3 Boris apologised for his comments which implies being guilty of the charge against him. Edited by nickgusset (11 Jun 2016 9.53am) Gusset, you are as transparent as a window. It is so easy to understand your motives, it is ridiculous. You are determined to portray this as many things but what it actually is, a problem for Labour. Taking the moral high ground is a tactic you employ regularly. It's dull and unimaginative.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 Jun 16 10.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
A great simile, but you could try and use different ones.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.