Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
could have >debunked it yourself. > >And finally, thank you for your gracious invitation; next time I make it >to the Southern Hemisphere we can hoist a few and no doubt settle the >Middle East question in record time. > >Best regards, > >Mike Weaver > > > > > >Bob Molloy wrote: > > >Hi Mike, > >Greetings and felicitations from Godzone. Loved your Noel > >Coward piece. Wasn't he the bloke who also bracketed mad dogs and > >Englishmen? Hmmm, perhaps we're dealing with satire here. Not the best basis > >for clarity in any discussion. > > > >Re points 18-20 of Santomauro's article: they boil down to a single issue - > >that the word "holocaust" (originally meaning major destruction by fire) has > >been expropriated to serve a single meaning: the Shoah or mass murder of > >European Jewry by the Nazis (note: I didn't say the Germans) between 1936 > >and 1945. > >Hence mention of the Holocaust (note: I didn't use the correct word "Shoah" > >because it is meaningless to most people) evokes emotions of both sympathy > >and guilt in non-Jewish western communities. Such emotions can be, and are, > >focused for political purposes. > > > >Among them is the need by Zionists (note: I did not say Jews, there is a > >very clear difference) to cover their crimes and misdeeds in the Middle > >East, not least being the Nakba or genocide of Palistinians and > >expropriation of their property during and after the formation of the > >present State of Israel, and also the ongoing war of attrition in which > >thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese have lost their lives. > >Such crimes, if committed by any other nation, would bring major world > >condemnation if not actual military intervention as in the case of Serbia. > > > >Thus the holocaust is the notional hairshirt, the red herring if you like, > >which serves to keep the non-Jewish westerner in a state of unease and > >indecision when he or she dares to question Zionist politics or their > >criminally insane foreign policy. In brief: the Holocaust and criticism of > >Zionism are conflated into a single issue so that the emotions generated by > >the one serve to cover the crimes of the other. > >The second and perhaps most succesful part of this semantic sleight of hand > >is that criticism of Zionism is then seen as rejection of Judaism or > >anti-semitism. Of course, once you have released the anti-semitism beast > >into any debate all logical discussion comes to a halt. > > > >Recommended background reading: "My Israel Question" by Anthony Loewenstein, > >Melbourne University Press, 2006. Also - if you have a strong stomach - > >Google "Nakba" and read the first few entries. Then Google "B'Tselem", the > >Jewish (note, I didn't say Zionist) peace group located in Tel Aviv. That > >should keep you queasily reading for a least a month, after which we can > >talk about Noel Coward - a subject easier to digest. > > > >Alternately come and visit me here in the stunning Bay of Islands where if I > >turn off my computer, throw the telly out of the window, stop all the > >papers, toss a few rods and some beers into the boat, and raise sail I can > >truly believe we live in Paradise. > > > >Best wishes Mike, > >Bob. > > > > > > > >___ > >Biofuel mailing list > >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 > >messages): > >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > >What are theseWhen properly untries > >- Original Message - > >From: "Mike Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: > >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:31 AM > >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans > > > > > >Thanks, I thought so. > > > >These are 18-20 of Santomauro's piece.Which question(s) are you asking? > > > >18) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven > >countriesÖwhat other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the > >destruction of one's career to maintain itself. Should someone be sent > >to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim > >that they suffered thirty-five millio
Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
> I do believe, based on a fair amount of my own research, and discussions > with several WWII veterans, that there was systematic mass murder of > European Jewry by the Nazis. I do not believe it is an elaborate hoax, > that it did not happen, or that it was a few random instances. I think > the discussion of whether it was six million, four million or five and > half million is pointless. The key metric is million. but the nazis also killed an equal number of non-jews, as has been already stated here more than once. had the germans occupied the large areas of eastern europe, the balkans, etc. for a longer time, and not under the fluid and chaotic conditions of war, their treatment no doubt would have been no less sytematic or institutionalized. indeed, especially in the case of the gypsies, their fate was that much more tragic given their greater vulnerability as a group. yet these facts are conveniently forgotten. there was no clamor for granting a gypsy a homeland; or for recognizing gay rights; etc. > I believe the West, including the US, has plenty of blood on its hand > with regards to the mass murder of European Jewry. . . no doubt about that. but again, not just jews. >. . .It's not well known, > but Hitler was willing to let Jews leave, at least up until 1939/40, but > no country would take them, not even the pious USA. The US turned boats > back, and the refugees went back to their doom. FDR did this. The > State Department worked overtime to keep Jews out. this is one of the really interesting points which seems to be conveniently forgotten all too often in these discussions. the argument goes that the holocaust was a systematic genocide of the jews, yet for the first ten years or so of nazi rule, the nazis *weren't* rounding up jews and imprisoning them. they were in fact giving them the "out" of emigrating! but this option was *not* given to the german communists and socialists, the gays, the gypsies, etc. > With regards to the second, I think that it is relevant to recall that > the early notions of Zionism had its genesis as a reaction to pervasive > and deadly anti-Semitism in Europe. Proto-Zionism envisioned a return > of the Jews to their historic homeland as a means of escape. Early > Zionists, Herzl for instance, did not envision the Arab resistance to > the movement, however, by the turn of the century most Zionists began to > acknowledge this reality. because too many of the zionists were stabbing their arab hosts in the back! the arab/palestinian population basically welcomed the jews. what they didn't know at first was that the zionists' intent was to create a jewish state in palestine, essentially establishing a new israel. that this kind of behavior was a reaction to anti-semitism half a continent away is no excuse. (personally, i don't accept that argument. certainly, it's easier to get away with such behavior against such a backdrop, but such behavior is simply cruel and avaricious, plain and simple.) >Interestingly, until WWII, there was a great > deal of Jewish resistance to Zionism; after the Balfour declaration, > British Jewish member of parliament Edwin Montagu was completely opposed > to the notion of a Jewish state: he argued it would inflame the Arabs; > Jews had a right to live wherever they wanted; and this was caving in to > anti-Semites. (One can find Winston's Churchill's fingerprints here as > well). what? opposing a jewish state meant he was caving in to anti-semites?! you don't think it might have been due to the fact that the middle east and palestine had been arab and muslim for hundreds of years? they had not conquered and eventually expelled the jews. in fact, there was a continual, if relatively small, stream of jewish emigration to the middle east, and palestine in particular, since at least the middle ages. they were welcomed there and prospered. this fact was of no small consequence in the zionists' deciding on palestine as their target. > At the risk of over simplifying the subject, Zionism fractured and > morphed; it is not strictly true that the only meaning of Zionism is an > unyielding belief that Jews belong in Israel/Palestine, and that > Israel/Palestine belongs to them; however, for the purpose of debate let > us move forward with /this/ meaning. I would not argue that Zionism > really resolved anything; I categorically think that in its short > history the modern state of Israel has perpetuated a long list of > criminally indefensible actions; e.g., Ariel Sharon was implicitly > involved in aiding and abetting the massacre of Palestinian refugees by > Christian militias. I do not think that much of the Israeli > government's current actions with regards to Palestinians are moral, > legal or sensible. I can't see any instance where blowing up houses, > bulldozing olive groves and building ill-conceived settlements has made > Israel better or safer. In short, I do not condone Israeli acts of > violence ag
Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
ards to my own previous bloviations; you have my apologies for laying into you so harshly. Looking at the original post, I clearly made an error in assuming the line "Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Problems are My Holocaust Problems " was yours. I see now that it was the original author's. But I will say I didn't really see the point in posting the piece in the first place - you're clearly able to string words and thoughts together - a few minute's research and you could have debunked it yourself. And finally, thank you for your gracious invitation; next time I make it to the Southern Hemisphere we can hoist a few and no doubt settle the Middle East question in record time. Best regards, Mike Weaver Bob Molloy wrote: >Hi Mike, >Greetings and felicitations from Godzone. Loved your Noel >Coward piece. Wasn't he the bloke who also bracketed mad dogs and >Englishmen? Hmmm, perhaps we're dealing with satire here. Not the best basis >for clarity in any discussion. > >Re points 18-20 of Santomauro's article: they boil down to a single issue - >that the word "holocaust" (originally meaning major destruction by fire) has >been expropriated to serve a single meaning: the Shoah or mass murder of >European Jewry by the Nazis (note: I didn't say the Germans) between 1936 >and 1945. >Hence mention of the Holocaust (note: I didn't use the correct word "Shoah" >because it is meaningless to most people) evokes emotions of both sympathy >and guilt in non-Jewish western communities. Such emotions can be, and are, >focused for political purposes. > >Among them is the need by Zionists (note: I did not say Jews, there is a >very clear difference) to cover their crimes and misdeeds in the Middle >East, not least being the Nakba or genocide of Palistinians and >expropriation of their property during and after the formation of the >present State of Israel, and also the ongoing war of attrition in which >thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese have lost their lives. >Such crimes, if committed by any other nation, would bring major world >condemnation if not actual military intervention as in the case of Serbia. > >Thus the holocaust is the notional hairshirt, the red herring if you like, >which serves to keep the non-Jewish westerner in a state of unease and >indecision when he or she dares to question Zionist politics or their >criminally insane foreign policy. In brief: the Holocaust and criticism of >Zionism are conflated into a single issue so that the emotions generated by >the one serve to cover the crimes of the other. >The second and perhaps most succesful part of this semantic sleight of hand >is that criticism of Zionism is then seen as rejection of Judaism or >anti-semitism. Of course, once you have released the anti-semitism beast >into any debate all logical discussion comes to a halt. > >Recommended background reading: "My Israel Question" by Anthony Loewenstein, >Melbourne University Press, 2006. Also - if you have a strong stomach - >Google "Nakba" and read the first few entries. Then Google "B'Tselem", the >Jewish (note, I didn't say Zionist) peace group located in Tel Aviv. That >should keep you queasily reading for a least a month, after which we can >talk about Noel Coward - a subject easier to digest. > >Alternately come and visit me here in the stunning Bay of Islands where if I >turn off my computer, throw the telly out of the window, stop all the >papers, toss a few rods and some beers into the boat, and raise sail I can >truly believe we live in Paradise. > >Best wishes Mike, >Bob. > > > >___ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 >messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > >What are theseWhen properly untries >- Original Message - >From: "Mike Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:31 AM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans > > >Thanks, I thought so. > >These are 18-20 of Santomauro's piece.Which question(s) are you asking? > >18) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven >countries…what other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the >destruction of one's career to maintain itself. Should someone be sent >to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim >that they suffere
Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
Hello Mike >Thanks, I thought so. I didn't. >These are 18-20 of Santomauro's piece.Which question(s) are you asking? This is the question that was asked: > >>This is the nub of the matter. Why is this subject banned from >discussion in > >>11 countries (with a 12th about to come on line i.e. the recent American > >>"hate speech" law which sailed through Congress) and why do otherwise > >>apparently sane and intelligent people suddenly go la-la when asked to > >>contemplate the anomalies? What's the excuse for this taboo? Such things didn't go amiss four centuries ago when the Earth stood still and the sun moved around it because that's what it says in the Bible and to question that meant being sent to Gitmo, um, the Inquisition, but we're supposed to have grown out of that kind of stuff by now. Except for this one case. Why is that? Is it something that we should accept? The further question was whether the taboo is used as a cover to stifle criticism of something just as heinous, Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians. There's no doubt that it is so used. That Israel can do no wrong because of the Holocaust is simply untenable, but that's the way it is - question Israel and kiss your career goodbye, question the official Holocaust dogma and risk being jailed. Let's get this straight please: I'm not saying and haven't said that the official version isn't true, I haven't questioned it. You're not allowed to question it, which makes it dogma whether it's true or not. That's what I'm questioning, because of all the victims - not just the Palestinians, much has been written recently on Israel's role in the Iraq disaster, and in the downright terrifying push for an encore in Iran, along with an endless stream of more "minor" atrocities such as this: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/15/4541/ Published on Monday, October 15, 2007 by Inter Press Service What 'Safe' Cluster Bombs Do In Lebanon Jenin, Sabra, Shatila... All very much enabled by the Holocaust taboo. It's about the most dangerous thing in the world, there's no excuse for it. Bob also said "sane and intelligent people suddenly go la-la" over this subject, indeed they do. Hakan said this yesterday in a reply to Peter: >It is a very worrying discussion line, from denial to how the >Israelis have used it as alibi for their own >war crimes. It is however very important that all will be a part of >the future history in a correct way, >but as it is said "it takes 100 years to write history". Concerning >WWI we are almost there and >it is not far to WWII. But then he says this: >... I have no reason >to express doubts as you do. I even have the right and experiences to >be upset about what you >are saying and consider you as a dangerous person. How are we to arrive at the future history in a correct way if expressing doubts makes you a dangerous person? Surely the truth can withstand doubts and questions, if it requires this kind of protection then it's to be doubted that it's the truth. Which is just what happens. Otherwise, to use your examples, why don't we start jailing global warming deniers, or Iraq war dissenters? (Oh sorry, we're already doing that last one.) Hence Santomauro's points 18 to 20. Questioning the Holocaust dogma dishonors the victims and belittles their sufferings we're told. But it's difficult to imagine a worse abuse of the victims and their sufferings than the ongoing atrocities conducted under cover of this taboo. It's those who defend it who're in denial. But "Israel has the right to exist" - further denial: Israel has the right to co-exist, and if it can't learn to do that then it has no rights. Same as the white South Africans (another of your examples). Anyone who's thinking of jerking their knee my way because of this should please read this first: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg35355.html Re: [biofuel] Re: Oil and Israel - Keith 3 Jun 2004 Best Keith >18) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven >countriesÖwhat other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the >destruction of one's career to maintain itself. Should someone be sent >to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim >that they suffered thirty-five million dead in World War II. > >19) Why do the court historians insist that "denying the Holocaust" is >like denying slavery or saying the earth is flat when it is nothing of >the sort. The leading Revisionists are first rate scholars who hold >advanced degrees from the world's leading universities. Is there anyone >comparable among those who say the world is flat or that slavery never >existed? > >20) Promoters of the Holocaust have expressed concerns about the >remembering the Holocaust once the last survivors die. Why haven't Civil >War historians expressed similar concerns since the last survivor of >that conflict died in 1959? > > > > > >Keith Addison wrote: >
Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
Hi Mike, Greetings and felicitations from Godzone. Loved your Noel Coward piece. Wasn't he the bloke who also bracketed mad dogs and Englishmen? Hmmm, perhaps we're dealing with satire here. Not the best basis for clarity in any discussion. Re points 18-20 of Santomauro's article: they boil down to a single issue - that the word "holocaust" (originally meaning major destruction by fire) has been expropriated to serve a single meaning: the Shoah or mass murder of European Jewry by the Nazis (note: I didn't say the Germans) between 1936 and 1945. Hence mention of the Holocaust (note: I didn't use the correct word "Shoah" because it is meaningless to most people) evokes emotions of both sympathy and guilt in non-Jewish western communities. Such emotions can be, and are, focused for political purposes. Among them is the need by Zionists (note: I did not say Jews, there is a very clear difference) to cover their crimes and misdeeds in the Middle East, not least being the Nakba or genocide of Palistinians and expropriation of their property during and after the formation of the present State of Israel, and also the ongoing war of attrition in which thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese have lost their lives. Such crimes, if committed by any other nation, would bring major world condemnation if not actual military intervention as in the case of Serbia. Thus the holocaust is the notional hairshirt, the red herring if you like, which serves to keep the non-Jewish westerner in a state of unease and indecision when he or she dares to question Zionist politics or their criminally insane foreign policy. In brief: the Holocaust and criticism of Zionism are conflated into a single issue so that the emotions generated by the one serve to cover the crimes of the other. The second and perhaps most succesful part of this semantic sleight of hand is that criticism of Zionism is then seen as rejection of Judaism or anti-semitism. Of course, once you have released the anti-semitism beast into any debate all logical discussion comes to a halt. Recommended background reading: "My Israel Question" by Anthony Loewenstein, Melbourne University Press, 2006. Also - if you have a strong stomach - Google "Nakba" and read the first few entries. Then Google "B'Tselem", the Jewish (note, I didn't say Zionist) peace group located in Tel Aviv. That should keep you queasily reading for a least a month, after which we can talk about Noel Coward - a subject easier to digest. Alternately come and visit me here in the stunning Bay of Islands where if I turn off my computer, throw the telly out of the window, stop all the papers, toss a few rods and some beers into the boat, and raise sail I can truly believe we live in Paradise. Best wishes Mike, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ What are theseWhen properly untries - Original Message - From: "Mike Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans Thanks, I thought so. These are 18-20 of Santomauro's piece.Which question(s) are you asking? 18) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven countries…what other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the destruction of one's career to maintain itself. Should someone be sent to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim that they suffered thirty-five million dead in World War II. 19) Why do the court historians insist that "denying the Holocaust" is like denying slavery or saying the earth is flat when it is nothing of the sort. The leading Revisionists are first rate scholars who hold advanced degrees from the world's leading universities. Is there anyone comparable among those who say the world is flat or that slavery never existed? 20) Promoters of the Holocaust have expressed concerns about the remembering the Holocaust once the last survivors die. Why haven't Civil War historians expressed similar concerns since the last survivor of that conflict died in 1959? Keith Addison wrote: >Hello Mike > >Nice bit bit of ol' wartime jingoism you dragged up there eh? That'll >help a lot. > >What it doesn't help do though is hide the fact that for all this >flailing about you still haven't answered the question, since it was >you Bob put it to in the first place. So I'll ask it again, right >here at the top: > > > >>>>... But i
Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
Thanks, I thought so. These are 18-20 of Santomauro's piece.Which question(s) are you asking? 18) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven countries…what other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the destruction of one's career to maintain itself. Should someone be sent to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim that they suffered thirty-five million dead in World War II. 19) Why do the court historians insist that "denying the Holocaust" is like denying slavery or saying the earth is flat when it is nothing of the sort. The leading Revisionists are first rate scholars who hold advanced degrees from the world's leading universities. Is there anyone comparable among those who say the world is flat or that slavery never existed? 20) Promoters of the Holocaust have expressed concerns about the remembering the Holocaust once the last survivors die. Why haven't Civil War historians expressed similar concerns since the last survivor of that conflict died in 1959? Keith Addison wrote: >Hello Mike > >Nice bit bit of ol' wartime jingoism you dragged up there eh? That'll >help a lot. > >What it doesn't help do though is hide the fact that for all this >flailing about you still haven't answered the question, since it was >you Bob put it to in the first place. So I'll ask it again, right >here at the top: > > > ... But in fact it begs the question, posed in items 18-20 of Santomauro's piece. This is the nub of the matter. Why is this subject banned from >>discussion in >> >> 11 countries (with a 12th about to come on line i.e. the recent American "hate speech" law which sailed through Congress) and why do otherwise apparently sane and intelligent people suddenly go la-la when asked to contemplate the anomalies? ... Over the years I have come to wonder if perhaps the Holocaust story has been used to weave a political hair shirt to keep likely dissenters in >>line while >> >> another holocaust - an ever-increasing obscenity of more than 50 years standing - is pursued with even more inhuman zeal than ever fascism could summon to its cause. > >Last time you said this: > > > >>What's next? A cut and paste proof >>that global warming is a hoax? The war in Iraq is about liberation? >>Apartheid didn't happen? >> >> > >This time: > > > >>Next up: Clearing the record on slavery, Stalin, Belgium in the >>Congo, war in Iraq, and heck, why not Darfur? >> >> > >Why not Palestine? > >Whether begged or raised, why not drop all the obfuscation and just >answer the question? > >Best > >Keith > > > > > >>What I can't stand is when someone says "begs the question" when they >>mean "raise the question." Begging the question describes a logical >>fallacy. >> >>As for "political hair shirt" - that's too obtuse for comment. >> >>"Having survived the Allied firebombing of his native >>city of Pforzheim as a child, Zundel was well familiar >>with the war crimes of the hypocritical Allies and he >>made it his life's work to clear the name of his own >>people. For this commendable enterprise," >> >>Clearing Germany of culpability for the deaths of jews, Gypsies, >>homosexuals and other "undesirables" is indeed commendable. >> >>Next up: Clearing the record on slavery, Stalin, Belgium in the >>Congo, war in Iraq, and heck, why not Darfur? >> >>Besides, Noel Coward is way ahead of you on Germany: >> >>*Don't Let's Be Beastly To The Germans - Noel Coward* >> >>Verse 1 >> >>We must be kind >>And with an open mind >>We must endeavour to find >>A way- >>To let the Germans know that when the war is over >>They are not the ones who'll have to pay. >>We must be sweet- >>And tactful and discreet >>And when they've suffered defeat >>We mustn't let >>Them feel upset >>Or ever get >>The feeling that we're cross with them or hate them, >>Our future policy must be to reinstate them. >> >>Refrain 1 >> >>Don't let's be beastly to the Germans >>When our victory is ultimately won, >>It was just those nasty Nazis who persuaded them to fight >>And their Beethoven and Bach are really far worse than their bite >>Let's be meek to them- >>And turn the other cheek to them >>And try to bring out their latent sense of fun. >>Let's give them full air parity- >>And treat the rats with charity, >>But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. >> >>Verse 2 >> >>We must be just- >>And win their love and trust >>And in additon we must >>Be wise >>And ask the conquered lands to join our hands to aid them. >>That would be a wonderful surprise. >>For many years- >>They've been in floods of tears >>Because the poor little dears >>Have been so wronged and only longed >>To cheat the world, >>Deplete the world >>And beat >>The world to blazes. >>This is the moment when we ought to sing their praises. >> >>Refrain 2 >> >>Don't let's be beastly to the Germans >>When we
Re: [Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
Hello Mike Nice bit bit of ol' wartime jingoism you dragged up there eh? That'll help a lot. What it doesn't help do though is hide the fact that for all this flailing about you still haven't answered the question, since it was you Bob put it to in the first place. So I'll ask it again, right here at the top: > >>... But in fact it begs the question, > >>posed in items 18-20 of Santomauro's piece. > >>This is the nub of the matter. Why is this subject banned from >discussion in > >>11 countries (with a 12th about to come on line i.e. the recent American > >>"hate speech" law which sailed through Congress) and why do otherwise > >>apparently sane and intelligent people suddenly go la-la when asked to > >>contemplate the anomalies? > >>... Over the years I have come to wonder if perhaps the Holocaust > >>story has been > >>used to weave a political hair shirt to keep likely dissenters in >line while > >>another holocaust - an ever-increasing obscenity of more than 50 years > >>standing - is pursued with even more inhuman zeal than ever fascism could > >>summon to its cause. Last time you said this: >What's next? A cut and paste proof >that global warming is a hoax? The war in Iraq is about liberation? >Apartheid didn't happen? This time: >Next up: Clearing the record on slavery, Stalin, Belgium in the >Congo, war in Iraq, and heck, why not Darfur? Why not Palestine? Whether begged or raised, why not drop all the obfuscation and just answer the question? Best Keith >What I can't stand is when someone says "begs the question" when they >mean "raise the question." Begging the question describes a logical >fallacy. > >As for "political hair shirt" - that's too obtuse for comment. > >"Having survived the Allied firebombing of his native >city of Pforzheim as a child, Zundel was well familiar >with the war crimes of the hypocritical Allies and he >made it his life's work to clear the name of his own >people. For this commendable enterprise," > >Clearing Germany of culpability for the deaths of jews, Gypsies, >homosexuals and other "undesirables" is indeed commendable. > >Next up: Clearing the record on slavery, Stalin, Belgium in the >Congo, war in Iraq, and heck, why not Darfur? > >Besides, Noel Coward is way ahead of you on Germany: > >*Don't Let's Be Beastly To The Germans - Noel Coward* > >Verse 1 > >We must be kind >And with an open mind >We must endeavour to find >A way- >To let the Germans know that when the war is over >They are not the ones who'll have to pay. >We must be sweet- >And tactful and discreet >And when they've suffered defeat >We mustn't let >Them feel upset >Or ever get >The feeling that we're cross with them or hate them, >Our future policy must be to reinstate them. > >Refrain 1 > >Don't let's be beastly to the Germans >When our victory is ultimately won, >It was just those nasty Nazis who persuaded them to fight >And their Beethoven and Bach are really far worse than their bite >Let's be meek to them- >And turn the other cheek to them >And try to bring out their latent sense of fun. >Let's give them full air parity- >And treat the rats with charity, >But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. > >Verse 2 > >We must be just- >And win their love and trust >And in additon we must >Be wise >And ask the conquered lands to join our hands to aid them. >That would be a wonderful surprise. >For many years- >They've been in floods of tears >Because the poor little dears >Have been so wronged and only longed >To cheat the world, >Deplete the world >And beat >The world to blazes. >This is the moment when we ought to sing their praises. > >Refrain 2 > >Don't let's be beastly to the Germans >When we've definately got them on the run- >Let us treat them very kindly as we would a valued friend >We might send them out some Bishops as a form of lease and lend, >Let's be sweet to them- >And day by day repeat to them >That 'sterilization' simply isn't done. >Let's help the dirty swine again- >To occupy the Rhine again, >But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. > >Refrain 3 > >Don't let's be beastly to the Germans >When the age of peace and plenty has begun. >We must send them steel and oil and coal and everything they need >For their peaceable intentions can be always guaranteed. >Let's employ with them a sort of 'strength through joy' with them, >They're better than us at honest manly fun. >Let's let them feel they're swell again and bomb us all to hell again, >But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. > >Refrain 4 > >Don't let's be beastly to the Germans >For you can't deprive a ganster of his gun >Though they've been a little naughty to the Czechs and Poles and Dutch >But I don't suppose those countries really minded very much >Let's be free with them and share the B.B.C. with them. >We mustn't prevent them basking in the sun. >Let's soften their defeat again-and build their bloody fleet again, >But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. > > > >Keith Addison wrote: > > >Hi Peter > > > >I
[Biofuel] Don't let's be beastly to the Germans
What I can't stand is when someone says "begs the question" when they mean "raise the question." Begging the question describes a logical fallacy. As for "political hair shirt" - that's too obtuse for comment. "Having survived the Allied firebombing of his native city of Pforzheim as a child, Zundel was well familiar with the war crimes of the hypocritical Allies and he made it his life's work to clear the name of his own people. For this commendable enterprise," Clearing Germany of culpability for the deaths of jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other "undesirables" is indeed commendable. Next up: Clearing the record on slavery, Stalin, Belgium in the Congo, war in Iraq, and heck, why not Darfur? Besides, Noel Coward is way ahead of you on Germany: *Don't Let's Be Beastly To The Germans - Noel Coward* Verse 1 We must be kind And with an open mind We must endeavour to find A way- To let the Germans know that when the war is over They are not the ones who'll have to pay. We must be sweet- And tactful and discreet And when they've suffered defeat We mustn't let Them feel upset Or ever get The feeling that we're cross with them or hate them, Our future policy must be to reinstate them. Refrain 1 Don't let's be beastly to the Germans When our victory is ultimately won, It was just those nasty Nazis who persuaded them to fight And their Beethoven and Bach are really far worse than their bite Let's be meek to them- And turn the other cheek to them And try to bring out their latent sense of fun. Let's give them full air parity- And treat the rats with charity, But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. Verse 2 We must be just- And win their love and trust And in additon we must Be wise And ask the conquered lands to join our hands to aid them. That would be a wonderful surprise. For many years- They've been in floods of tears Because the poor little dears Have been so wronged and only longed To cheat the world, Deplete the world And beat The world to blazes. This is the moment when we ought to sing their praises. Refrain 2 Don't let's be beastly to the Germans When we've definately got them on the run- Let us treat them very kindly as we would a valued friend We might send them out some Bishops as a form of lease and lend, Let's be sweet to them- And day by day repeat to them That 'sterilization' simply isn't done. Let's help the dirty swine again- To occupy the Rhine again, But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. Refrain 3 Don't let's be beastly to the Germans When the age of peace and plenty has begun. We must send them steel and oil and coal and everything they need For their peaceable intentions can be always guaranteed. Let's employ with them a sort of 'strength through joy' with them, They're better than us at honest manly fun. Let's let them feel they're swell again and bomb us all to hell again, But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. Refrain 4 Don't let's be beastly to the Germans For you can't deprive a ganster of his gun Though they've been a little naughty to the Czechs and Poles and Dutch But I don't suppose those countries really minded very much Let's be free with them and share the B.B.C. with them. We mustn't prevent them basking in the sun. Let's soften their defeat again-and build their bloody fleet again, But don't let's be beastly to the Hun. Keith Addison wrote: >Hi Peter > >I think Hoffman's a bit of a nutcase, or so swathed in conspiracy >theories he might as well be one. > >Anyway, IMHO, what's interesting isn't the questions themselves so >much as the fact that it's forbidden to ask them. It's the 21st >Century after all, not the Middle Ages anymore. > >As Bob said last time around: > > > >>... But in fact it begs the question, >>posed in items 18-20 of Santomauro's piece. >>This is the nub of the matter. Why is this subject banned from discussion in >>11 countries (with a 12th about to come on line i.e. the recent American >>"hate speech" law which sailed through Congress) and why do otherwise >>apparently sane and intelligent people suddenly go la-la when asked to >>contemplate the anomalies? >>... Over the years I have come to wonder if perhaps the Holocaust >>story has been >>used to weave a political hair shirt to keep likely dissenters in line while >>another holocaust - an ever-increasing obscenity of more than 50 years >>standing - is pursued with even more inhuman zeal than ever fascism could >>summon to its cause. >> >> > >That was about this: > > > >>Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Problems are My Holocaust Problems >>Michael Santomauro - ReportersNoteBook Sept 27, 2007 >> >> >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg71100.html > >Indeed, if you question Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, Bob's >"another holocaust", something similar happens, the "Israel lobby" >gets you, in the US at least, with much the same tactics, kiss your >reputation goodbye and probably your career too. > >Because of this taboo, it's difficult or
