Is it anti-semetic....

Post Reply New Topic

It's interesting to discover that Enrico Fermi and a few of the other important scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were Jewish.[/quote]

Aryan (actually a misuse of the term, which actually was meant to encompass the Indo-European invaders of India and Iran) not only meant Germans according to the Nazis. It included Germanic peoples like the English, many French, and many Americans. Actually, the Slavs, who Hitler considered to be sub-humans, were perhaps the most Indo-European population in Europe, according to DNA studies. So technically, yes, if you want to use the Nazis racist terms, it was Aryan vs Aryan.
I still defend my original point - most people in Dresden, and other places in Germany, would have been innocent victims of atomic bombardment, not just the Nazis. That's like Osama Bin Laden defending the attack on civilians on 9/11, because average Americans support their government, with its Middle Eastern policy.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

There are the innocent Germans (possibly 23 of them), little children. They are Collateral Damage. Of the rest, none of them were innocent unless they were working actively to overthrow or sabotage the Nazi Regime. Read -Hitler's Willing Executioners- by Jonah Goldhagen. In Dresden they had troops and flack canons. In Dresden they made ceramic spark plugs for Nazi engines. Dresden was a legitimate target. My only regret is that The Bomb was not ready in time to expunge Dresden.

ruveyn

"Collateral damage" is a term used by murderers to permit them to kill anybody convenient on the odd chance of killing someone worth killing. Suicide bombers, strangely, are not permitted to use the term although it applies to them as equally as to the US military that has murdered masses of people in Pakistan with drones, 90% of whom were totally innocent. If a bank robber who killed a bunch of bystanders in robbing a bank claimed collateral damage and thereby claimed innocence because of collateral damage he would be told otherwise rather forcefully.

Thank you, Sand. I couldn't have said it much better.
As for ruveyn - Just because people make munitions or wear their country's uniform doesn't make them monsters. And I'd hardly consider "Daniel" Goldhagen an unbiased historian. Many scholars feel he is far too emotionally invested to draw an unprejudiced picture. Goldhagen even went as far as saying that Claus Von Staffenberg and the other anit-nazi bomb plotters who had attempted to kill Hitler would have continued nazi racial policies - simply because of a statement made by "one" of the plotters. In fact, Goldhagen was wrong. The German anti-nazi underground felt they had to act because of what they knew was going on in the concentration camps - a point supported by virtually every other legitimate historian.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The people who run Israel are not descendants from people there, they're descendants of the Khazars.

Being Jewish is not a matter of biological heredity. Look a Ruth, the Grandmother of David. She was a Midianite, not an Israelite by birth, but she was a convert. The people who govern Israel are Jewish (for the most part) regardless of their actual descent from Abraham. The Khazari converted to Judaism, so that made them Jews.

ruveyn

See http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... ds-1.75273

That is actually a discredited theory. Sure, the Khazars had converted to Judaism during the Middle Ages. But once the Mongols destroyed their kingdom, they were scattered, and for the most part converted to Islam. DNA studies reveal that most modern day Jews have Middle Eastern genes which are virtually indistinguishable from Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That was indeed an interesting read. I never even considered a connection between Jews and Kurds.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The fission chain reaction which is the basis of both nuclear weapons and useful energy generators was patented by Leo Szillard, a Jungarian Hew.

ruveyn[/quote]

No matter who patented the chain reaction the basic discovery of atomic fission of uranium was discovered by Otto Hahn, a German. See http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/d ... ission.htm

No matter who patented the chain reaction the basic discovery of atomic fission of uranium was discovered by Otto Hahn, a German. See http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/d ... ission.htm[/quote]

Hahn blundered onto it. Lisa Meitner explained to Otto Hahn what he really found. Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch worked out the math and concluded that a nucleus had split. Hahn initially had no idea that was happening. Hahn was a competent chemist and he thought his experimental material had become contaminated with berrylium and thorium. Meitner was Hahn's auxillary brain. Meitner was a good sport about it and helped Hahn regardless of who got the credit.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner

ruveyn

Hahn blundered onto it. Lisa Meitner explained to Otto Hahn what he really found. Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch worked out the math and concluded that a nucleus had split. Hahn initially had no idea that was happening. Hahn was a competent chemist and he thought his experimental material had become contaminated with berrylium and thorium. Meitner was Hahn's auxillary brain. Meitner was a good sport about it and helped Hahn regardless of who got the credit.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner

ruveyn[/quote]


By the way, the reason the U.S. and Britain got the A-Bomb before Germany, despite a two year head start in Germany was that our Jewish physicists were better than their Jewish physicists - oops, that's right. They didn't have any.

Werner Heisenberg who lead the German A-bomb effort got in trouble with the Gestapo for quoting Jewish Physicists (like Albert Einstein) too much. Is it any wonder that the Germans failed. They let their racial theories interfere with the real scientific work.

Truth is truth no matter who discovers it.

ruveyn

Pardon me for starting one of my favorite rants:

I went to a Jewish school, which claimed to be Zionist. However, it never gave us a definition of Zionism. Then there's Antizionism. Is that anything that's not Zionism, (whatever that is?) or is that the polar opposite of Zionism? These questions will go unanswered for a while.

Now for some facts and my own opinions on the matter.

1. It is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-semitic. Proof: There was almost no anti-semitism in the Muslim world prior to the return of Jews to the land soon to be called Israel. Thus, anti-Zionism started without anti-semitism.

2. In many cases, anti-semitism leads to anti-zionism. Proof: Examine the European reaction to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They speak out against Israel's questionable activities, but ignore the far worse human rights violations of Hamas. There is no explanation for this other than some bias against Israel. The only possible source of this bias is anti-Semitism.

3. Many Jews feel, (I use the term "feel," not "think," as I do not believe they are doing any thinking, when they say this,) that any policy that makes Israel stronger is right. They label any opinions against such a policy as "anti-semitic." Needless to say, this opinion is garbage.

4. Many Muslims have the polar opposite opinion, which is equally stupid.

5. It doesn't matter whether or not it's anti-semitic. Blindly supporting or opposing any entity without examining the individual event is just stupid and wrong. Don't label me as pro-Israel or anti-Israel. (I have been labeled as both.) I support Israel's right to exist, as it was voted on by the UN, and it would be unjust to the millions of Israelis. I recognize the Palestinians' right to be their own entity, as they do not want to be under Israeli rule, and I believe in the idea of consent of the governed. I agree that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, blocking weapons only, but I do not believe that they are doing it properly. I do not support the expansion of settlements, as I believe that a peaceful solution involves turning the West Bank and Gaza into their own states (possibly two states, possibly one,) and that the presence of settlement makes this more difficult to achieve. If Israel were to enter Egypt to destroy the illegal smuggling tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, I would support them. I think that there is a great injustice in the de facto class system that exists within Israel. However, I do not believe that this is grounds for the overthrow of the Israeli government, and I believe that if it were overthrown, the replacement government would be worse.

There's one big difference. There was never a body of world leaders that voted for the creation of the United States. The UN voted in favor of Israel's formation. Granted, I'm not anti-American, but I'm bringing up this difference.